Spark and char in Harvard Yard

Well the next three sections of this pamphlet is Mather going on and on and ON because he is majorly butthurt about the Ungodly Men who are all like suck it God, Jesus died for my sins, so I don't have to be good and now I can drink and go to orgies and smoke Indian weed (which is what they called tobacco) and do all kinds of nasty-ass shit. 

I mentioned yesterday that Mather wrote a tract called "The Wonders of the Invisible World." Well Robert Calef published a response to that, called "More Wonders of the Invisible World." More Wonders is a collection of testimonies of people involved in the Salem witch trials, which functions as a defense for the accused, as well as reporting on the tortures used to get confessions out of the "witches" and their families. 

Predictably Mather (and his father Increase Mather) strenuously objected to the book. As Wikipedia reports:

Because of the powerful influence of the Mathers, Boston publishers declined to publish the book, and it was first printed in England in 1700.Rev. Increase Mather, father of Cotton, publicly burned the book in Harvard Yard. 

In 1701, Mather responded with Some Few Remarks upon a Scandalous Book written in the plural with co-signers, but occasionally lapsing into first person. The opening lines suggest that Calef's book had been well received by the masses in New England, despite his inability to have it published there: 

"...that Scandalous Book... has made our worthy Pastors Obnoxious...among an unguided multitude." 

Mather does not directly dispute the particulars of Calef's book but cries injured, accuses Calef of being a follower of Satan, and selects quotes from the Bible intended to put the merchant Calef in his place: "Exodus 22:28 Thou Shalt Not Speak Evil of the Ruler of Thy People."

 Anyways, here's more of "Grace defended..." 

I read Cotton Mather so you don't have to.

3. Can they be any other than Ungodly men, who from the Readiness of the Divine Mercy or the Pardoning of Sin, Encourage themselves to be the Reader in the Commiting of Sin, Lord, Thou art READY TO PARDON! Who can hear such a Word, and the Grace of it not melt the Heart of Stone within him? The Grace of God, in Pardoning of Sin, 'tis Wonderful, 'Tis Wonderful! When we are Justified, it is, Freely by His Grace. It is the Name of our God, Exod XXXIV 6.7 The Lord, the Lord God, Merciful and Gracious, and abundant in Goodness, Forgiving Iniquity and Transgression, and Sin. For Monsters of Wickedness, to be made Monuments of Pardoning Mercy; For Monstrous Menassahs and Mary Magdalenes, to be received into the Favour of God, and be favoured by a Reconciled God as much as if they had never Sinned against Him! For all manner of Sin and Blasphemy to be forgiven unto men, and a Fountain set open, to which the most abominable Creatures in the Worlds, are invited, there to Wash and be Clean. What but Infinite Grace can do such a thing! You shall now, but Oh! do it not without Horror! See what Improvement Ungodly Men will make of such Grace. An Improvement which one would wonder that any but a Devil should presume upon! They will Venture to Sin, in Hope of a Pardon. Perhaps, they will be so Senseless and Sottish and Exceeding Sinful, as to flatter themselves, that a, God forgive me, or a, Lord, Have Mercy upon me, will at any time obtain a Pardon for them. This Emboldens them to Sin, with a Prodigious Obstinancy; to be Stouthearted, and for from Righteousness: They stick at no Abominations There is a God that will have Mercy, and will abundantly Pardon. So they will hold on Sinning, and Sin abundantly. 

And because there have been Some called, at the Eleventh Hour, and then found Mercy with God, therefore they will Sin on, Sin with Many Transgressions and Mighty Sins, and put off till the Last Hour, the necessary Adresses to Heaven for Mercy. They Persist in Enmity and Rebellion against the Glorious God all their Days, they Presume 'tis only to Ask and Have a Pardon at the Last. Hideous Ungodliness! We read, Psal. CXXXIV 4 O Lord, There is Forgiveness with thee, that though mayst be feared But now, to say; There is Forgiveness with God therefore I will cast off His Fear, and Go on without His Fear, O Vile Perversion! To Sin from the View of a Pardon, one would think, it should be very near, very near! Sinning beyond the Reach of a Pardon.

4.  Will not all Heaven Pronounce those Ungodly Men, who because they take themselves delivered from the Condemning Power of the Law, Encourage themselves to shake off the Commanding Power of the Law? The Grace of God, has Delivered us from the Curse of the Law. It is a sweet Advice brought unto us, Gall III. 13 CHRIST has Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us. The Punishment, which by the Law of God belonged unto us for our Sin, has been inflicted on our Saviour. Our Blessed Surety has Paid our Debt, by Suffering for us, the Curse which belonged unto us. The Law of God has now no Demand upon the Believer, that the Divine Justice may be Satisfyed: Our Surety has given Satisfaction. O Grace of incomparable Sweetness! How Sweet, how Sweet, the Words of it unto the Taste of Piety! But now, the Poison, which Ungodly Men will Suck out of this Grace! The suppose themselves rescued from the Curse of the Law. They make it an Advantage for their Escape also from the Rule of the Law. Silly Ones; An Escape, that is to say, into Chains of Darkenss, into most rueful Captivity in the World. This Law, Man; 'tis the Law of Liberty! 'Tis an Enlarged Soul, that is effectually in the Bonds and Wayes of this Law! But the Slaves of Sin They will indulge themselves in gross Violations of the Law; but still their Inward Peace not Violated. No Breaches of the Law, will break the Peace into which they have dozed their Minds. They will flatter themselvers into a Great Peace tho' they do not Love the Law. Why, say the Hardened Wretches; We are not under the Law. We must not fetch our Peace from the Law, Christ has answered the Law for us. What an Affront this, unto the Grace of God? We read: Rom. VI 14.15 Sin Shall not have Dominion over you for you are not under the Law, but under Grace. What then? Shall we Sin, because we are not under the Law but under Grace? God forbid. Still You are not yet under Grace, but under the Law if you can be content, that Sin should still have Dominion over you. If you Sin, because you are not under the Law, it is very sure, you are still under it, in the worse sense of being so; The Law does Condemn you, if you won't let it Command you. If you shake off that Everlasting Rite of Living to God, which His Law Prescribes, Unholy and Unthankful ones, you shall still have the Thunder of its Wrath Cursing of you.

5. Is it possible for any but Ungodly Men from Gods Delayes in Striking of them, to Encourage themselves to Delay their seeking to Him, their Serving of Him. The Grace of God is very Bright, in His Patience towards the Provoking Children of Wickedness The Psalmist observes, [VII 1.1] God is a Righteous Judge, and is Provoked every Day, and has bent His Bow, and made it Ready. Yet such is His Grace, that He does not presently let fly His Arrows, Deserved Arrows, and Oh! how Destroying Ones! how torturous and worse than Lightning, to the Spirits, which they Light upon! A Patient God spares wicked men. He does not Strike them Dead; tho' they daily challenge Thunderbolts. O Peerless Grace! Of a Provoked, a Righteous, an Almighty God; yet Waiting to be Gracious. But now, the use that Ungodly and Ungrateful men make of this Grace. What can be more Malicious, what more Venemous, than that which you read! Eccl. VIII. 1.1 Because Sentence against an Evil Work, is not Executed Speedily; therfore the heart of the Sons of Men is fully set in them to do Evil. Horrible Stupidity! Because the Threatened Judgements of God, have not yet come upon them, for their Crimes, they fancy, they'l never come; the threatned folks, have stil a long while to Live. Because they don't yet feel the Evil that is Pursuing of Sinners, they comfort themselves that such Evil will never overtake them. They Live, Yea, they Thrive. God Wounds them not, For that very cause they grow Secure, they grow Hardy, they go on still in their Trespasses. God has not yet Cut them down for the Ill Fruits they bear, He Lengthens out their Time. They bear the more Ill Fruits for that; and the wicked men wax worse and worse. God gives them a Space to Repent; They do, for that very cause Delay to Repent, and make it a Space to act more Wickedness, and with more of Greediness. But O ye Brutish among the People, What are you doing? Shake before that awful Thunderclap. Rom II. 4.5. Despiseth though the Riches of His Goodness, and Forbearance, and Long Suffering; not knowing that the Goodness of the God Leads thee to Repentance? But after thy Hardness and Impertinent Heart, treasurest up unto thy self Wrath against the Day of Wrath? Impenitents; Know you not, That Abused Patience will at Length be turned into Terrible Fury? And that, according to Speech usual in the Church of God, the Justice which has Leaden Feet, will at length find Iron Hands, to do its Executions? Oh! Turn to God in this Day of His Patience! Oh! Let the Long Suffering of God, but make you Stay no longer from accepting his offered Salvation. Because God seems to Keep Silence, Do you think, He is even Such an One as your selves, and approves your Doings? You will find it otherwise, when He shall come to Set your Sins in order before you; to tear you in Pieces, and there shall be none to deliver you.

100% Cotton

Now who's sorry she said she was going to commit this entire Cotton Mather pamphlet to the Internet. Ye gods he is tedious!

And the worst part is he doesn't even get to directly trashing Christmas until the end of this thing. So it's going to take me a few more days.

Of interest in this section is Mather's defending the concept of predestination - something I blogged about a couple of years ago. And which inspired me to write a play about a crack ho vs. a Calvinist.

Mather addresses the inevitable helplessness that comes from the doctrine of predestination. In item 1, below, he explains that although God has chosen who will get to go to heaven "before the Foundation of the World" that still doesn't mean you can be a sinner even if you're predestined for heaven.

To those who might question why God would pick who gets salvation even before they are born Mather says:

Why are Some Taken, to be Redeemed, Converted, Saved, when Others are not so! Tis, because, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, saith the Infinite GOD, who gives none Account of His Matters. 

In other words, because God says so and he doesn't have to explain himself. So shut up.

And in item 2 he addresses the very logical point raised, that if Jesus died on the cross to redeem Mankind, why do we have to worry about sin? What was the point of redeeming us if we could end up in Hell anyway?

To which Mather replies, basically, you should be so grateful to Jesus for dying for you that you will want to avoid sin.

The doctrine of predestination, especially, ruins the social function of religion to make people behave well through the usual carrot and the stick. But Mather wants to have it both ways - you get chosen and you still have to be good anyway. Or else.

Mainly though Mather just screams Grace! Grace! to get through to you sinful morons. 

It must be remembered that this is the Cotton Mather who fully supported the Salem witch trials, and even wrote a tract justifying his actions. That tract has the fantastically hallucinogenic title of "The Wonders of the Invisible World" and unlike the tract I am currently transcribing, has already been committed to the Internet. 

And speaking of currently transcribing... to take up from yesterday's post...

But you must now attend unto a DOCTRINE, that calls for a very Serious Attention with you. 

To turn the Grace of God into Wantoness, and Wantonly to Abuse the Grace of God, is the Common Custome, and the Certain Symptom, of Ungodliness. 

There is a great Number of Criminals, who are to Stand this day Indited before the Bar of the Glorious GOD. I shall have Time to do little more, than just call over their Names, and let them know, That they have not the Fear of God before our Eyes. 

I am now to Enquire, 

Who are the Ungodly Ones, by whom the Grace of God is turned into Wantoness? 

In brief, All they that are not by the Favour of God, brought the more to Love so Gracious a God, by whom they are so favourably dealt withal. In Sum, All they that are the Worse because they have so Good a God for to deal withal: These are they, to every One of whom it may be said, Thou art the Man! 

More particularly,

1. Ungodly Men they are, who from the Decree of God, Encourage themselves in the Neglect of their Duty to GOD. WE believe a, Predestination to Life, wherein God with an Everlasting Purpose, has decreed by His Counsel, to bring those whom he hath Chosen in Christ out of Mankind, unto Everlasting Salvation. We can Subscribe this Article, [The Seventeenth of the Church of Englands famous XXXIX,] because we find the Sacred Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians, Expressly affirming it, And when we have Subscribed it, we shall not then Deny it, then Decry it, then Oppose it; We should Look on it, as a very Scandalous Treachery to do so. This Election of Some to Everlasting Life, which unavoidably implies a Rejection of Others, 'tis called, Rom. XI. 5 The Election of Grace. Oh! Sovereign Grace! Why has our God, Chosen us in Christ before the Foundation of the World, and predestinated us unto the Adoption of Children! The Praise of the Glory of His Grace, is design'd in it; is display'd in it. Why are Some Taken, to be Redeemed, Converted, Saved, when Others are not so! Tis, because, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, saith the Infinite GOD, who gives none Account of His Matters. Tis all from Unaccountable Grace. Tis, Even so, Father, because it pleases thee. Now, See what Ungodly Men will do! They will be at No Pains to Turn unto God, No Pains to get the Chains of Death Knock'd off their Souls; No Pains to lay hold on Eternal Life. Why so? Why, - Si Salvabor, Salvabor, If it be Decreed that I shall be saved, say they, I shall be so, Let me do nothing at all about it, I shall yet be Saved, if it be Decreed, I Shall. And so they'l do nothing! Thus they turn the Grace of God into Wantoness, and Idleness, These Idle Words, a Severe Account must be given of them in the Judgement of God. But, O though Slothful and Wicked Servant, It is Untrue what thou sayest. Thou shalt not be Saved, if thou dost not Work about thy own Salvation. We are directed 2. Pet. I. 101 to Give all Diligence to make you, calling your election sure. God has Decreed the End and the Means together. One Decreed for Life, will strive to enter the Strait Gate, and be in Agony lest he fall short of Entering into Life, the Man who will not give all Diligence to make his Calling Sure, and in that way his Election so, can not Inherit Eternal Life. There is no Decree of God, that will carry Such an One into His Kingdom. Oh! Do not go on in a sleepy Impertinence, Lest you be found foreordained unto - What is to be trembled at - A Damnation that Slumbers not.
2. Who but Ungodly Men are they, who from the Contrivance of their Salvation, Encourage themselves, as if it gave them an Allowance for their Sinfulness. That we have Such a SAVIOUR as our IMMANUEL, Oh! the Riches of Grace discovered in it! Oh! the the Unspeakable Gift! We may and must cry out, God SO Loved the World, and he has been So gracious to us! The Motto to be written upon all that is done for us, in and by our Saviour, is in those golden Letters, Eph 11 5 By GRACE YE ARE SAVED. But what is the Use that Some do make of this Grace Because there was a Saviour, I will Venture to be a Sinner, This is the Language, how foaming, and how Shameful! of Ungodliness! The New Covenant is a Covenant of Grace. There is a shout of, Grace! Grace! to be made upon every stroke But you shall see how this Grace is plaid upon. In this Covenant, we Merit nothing by doing any thing. Then sayes the Sluggard, I will do nothing. Self is to be Annihilated in this Covenant, the Perpetual Projection of it is, CHRIST is All! CHRIST is All. Then sayes the Sluggard, I have myself nothing to do. Tis not by our Own Works that we attain to Righteousness, but in our Saviour we have our Fortifying Righteousness.  Then sayes the Sluggish Sinner, Tis no Matter, tho' I be careless about the works of Reighteouseness. We can do nothing to any Good Purpose, except our Saviour do Quicken us, do Assist us, do Strengthen us Then, sayes the Door upon its Hinges, I will stand still, I will never try to stir, Tis to no purpose at all for me to do any thing. Our Faithful Saviour, who is Able to keep us from Falling has engaged for the Preservation of the Saints, that they shall be Kept by His Mighty Power; that None Shall Pluck them out of His Hand. Then sayes one of them that would be at Ease in Zion, Let me fold my Hands to Sleep - what need I to keep a Strong Guard, and a Strict Watch upon my self? Ungodly Men, You stand in the way of a dreadful Thunderbolt, It comes down upon you, from, Rom VI 1, 2. What Shall we say then? Shall we continue in Sin, that Grace may abound? GOD FORBID. At this Rebuke, O Else from your Slothfulness, At the Voice of this Thunder, O Haste away from your Ungodliness. Let the Spirit of the New Covenant come upon you, and then Your Habitual, Your continual Inclination will be this, A Glorious CHRIST is He who does all for me. Oh! Let me then Love Him, and Seek him, and Glorify Him unto the Uttermost, and he always afraid of disobliging Him.

Your source for primary sources

Primary sources are, as Wikipedia says,

 In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. 

And I got 'em.

As part of my research towards writing the full-length version of my Ben Franklin play, I've gotten hold of a pamphlet by Cotton Mather entitled 

Grace defended. A censure on the ungodliness, by which the glorious grace of God, is too commonly abused. A sermon preached on the twenty fifth day of December, 1712.

It's a long screed against Christmas - the Puritans hated Christmas - which is why it was preached December 25.

Now since it was published in 1712 it was in the public domain before there was a US Copyright Office, but even so, I had to pay $12 to get a copy printed on dead trees because it was not transcribed online anywhere.

Until now.

I will start to transcribe this pamphlet so that it will now be completely accessible to anybody for free. You won't even have to have a library card.

It's going to take a few installments - the copy I have is basically photocopies of the original, which means it has to be translated from all the screwy English colonialisms and vagaries of type-setting, like the way they used the letter f instead of the lower-case s quite often. Here's what the original cover looked like:

The primary reason for my interest in this is because James Franklin (brother of Ben) printed a defense of Christmas in the New England Courant on Christmas Day 1722, most likely just to tweak Mather. And this conflict is going into my play.

I am also trying to get my hands on every single existing issue of the New England Courant - for, stunningly, it seems as though for the past 300 years, give or take, nobody has considered it a worthwhile endeavor to gather all issues into a single publication or even library collection, as far as I can tell. I emailed the Franklin Institute today to see if they have any further information. I will post their response here of course.

Cotton Mather - his name makes me think of a snake, like the cottonmouth. But I digress.

And so without further ado...

Grace Defended. 

A CENSURE

ON THE

Ungodliness,

By which the Glorious

GRACE OF GOD,

is too commonly Abused.

A SERMON Preached on the

Twenty fifth Day of December, 1712

Containing Some SEASONABLE

Admonitions of Piety.

And Concluded, with a brief DISSERTATION

on that CASE, Whether the Penitent Thief on

the Cross, be an Example of one Repenting as the

LAST HOUR, and on such a Repentance

received unto Mercy?

---

By Cotton Mather, D. D.

---

(unreadable text) I Cry aloud Spare not

---

BOSTON Printed by B Green for Samuel Gerrish
at his shop in Marlborough Street. 1712

---

Grace Defended.

On the Twenty-fifth of December, 1712. BOSTON-Lecture.

---

JUDE 4. 

Ungodly Men, turning the Grace of our God into Wantonness. 

What? And so Early, such Unhappy Men and Things Creep into the Churches of God! It seems Christian Churches cannot Easily be too much cautioned against Sly Adversaries, and Swift-Apostates OURS, I am sure, are Old enough to be so, In Age gone beyond those who were now immediately Written to. And it is to be done, as with a mighty Thunder from a flaming Mountain. 

I take the Writer of this Epistle, to be, not that Jude the Apostle, who was in the Syriack Dialect called Thaddaeus, and from the Place to which he belong'd, Lebbaeus, but the Jude, who was one of the Four, that are called, The Brethren of our Lord: The Sons of His Mother, from whom He Suffered the Grievous Humiliation of being treated as an [can't make out this word] till probably His Resurrection from the Dead brought them into the Number of Believers of Him. He now presumes not on such a Style, as that of, A Brother, but he takes one, than which the Highest Archangel in Heaven knows none more Glorious, A Servant of JESUS CHRIST Behold him now doing a Service, very proper for, very worthy of, such an One.  Behold him Warning and Arming the People of God, against the Errors which began betimes to infest the Churches of the Lord.  

The Annanomians (?) made a very Early Appearance, I see, among the Depravers and Subverters of the  Earth once delivered unto the Saints. There are indeed very few New Errors broached in our Later-Dayes, the most of them, which now disturb the Churches of the Faithful, are only from I scarce know what Enchantments, raising the Ghosts of such as were Dead and Damn'd many Ages ago. 

The Impious, and Mischievous Men, against whom the Inspired Writer is now Engaged, have their Impiety here declared. First, The Ungodly Men stand charged with Filthiness. They were that I may use the most agreeable Term, which the French Translation Leads me to, A very Dissolute Generation I take notice by the way, that the Greek Term, here used for, Lasciviousness or Wantonness, is derived fro the Name of the Town Selga, a Place infamous for such Disssolute Practices. It makes me wish, that no Town of ours, may in our Dayes, have any Vice abounding in it, so as with a lasty Infamy to derive Name unto it. I am lothe here to Explain myself too particularly!  I go on with my Remarks, and say That I would not be so unaquainted with Church-History, as to think, the Gnosticks to be the Ungodly Men peculiarly intended here, tho' a well known Interpreter, with an Oddity not unlike many more in him, with which he has most shamefully injured the Sacred Scriptures, ridiculously enough every where upon it. There were Other and Older Hereticks, which this Iniquity might be charged upon. And indeed, it is well know, and from Authority much better than Epiphanius, that the Hereticks of those Days were noted for Indulged Impurities. But then, Secondly; To our Astonishment, we find, what it was, the Ungodly men made the Encouragement of their Filthiness. Astonishing! It was the Grace of God, which they turned into Wantonness. By the Grace of God, is meant, the Revelation which is in the Gospel brought unto us; what we have, in [Act. XX 24] The Gospel of the Grace of God. A Revelation wherein Grace! Grace! the Glorious Grace of God shines in its Meridian Glory, and with an amazing Splendor on the Children of Men When it is said, They Turned it, there is a Word used, that signifies, they Wrested it, they Wronged it, they Transferred it from the right use of it, they horribly Abused it. I am stop'd a little. Whole Grace? We are told The Grace of OUR God. Sirs, if we have any Sense of an Interest in GOD, and we rejoyce in Him as OUR God, we shall have a Zeal for Holiness boiling in our Souls.  If we care not whether Holiness flourish or no, we want a Good Mark, that the Holy God is OURS. Ah, Lord, if thou be OUR God, we shall be lothe to see thy Gospel abused with any Unholy Practices.

---

More on why Christmas is evil soon...

Free Fire Zone

As I expected, I'm really enjoying Theresa Rebeck's "Free Fire Zone" - admittedly in part because we think alike. She feels the same as I about post-modernism in the theatre:

...On one side of that line you have people who think post-modernism is a good idea, and on the other people who think that post-modernism is a load of nonsense perpetrated on the story-telling community by protofascists from Italy...

Although she doesn't name Mac Wellman as the leading perpetrator, like I do. She puts the blame on Gertrude Stein:

...Obviously not all writing is character-centric. If you're interested in writing nihilistic postapocalyptic pseudo-Gertrude Stein verse drama, you can toss everything I said out the window. The same perhaps can be said if you want to write action movies, where the most complicated emotional moment will be someone yelling "Get in the truck!"

And I thought this was an especially good explanation of what went wrong in the theater:

"...The propagation and worship of bad theater, particularly in America, has come about through a series of worthy historical events that collided in a way that wasn't as useful as it could have been. The achievement of theatrical titans such as Eugene Ionesco, Edward Albee and Samuel Beckett cast a wide shadow at a time when the audience for theater began to dwindle. The heyday of post-modern achievement consequently presents itself as the model of theatrical storytelling in opposition to more realistic models adopted in television and film. Subsequent generations of writers, struggling for an identity concluded that, because their heroes did it, tossing out narrative altogether is automatically art. Unfortunately abandoning forward motion in an art form that exists in time is not such a good idea. Audience expectations that they are on a ride with a beginning, middle and end that will get them to a destination are undermined. Consequently, theater increasingly becomes a kind of elitist event one attends because "it's good for you" - like opera or going to the dentist... 

If she didn't have Mac Wellman in mind when she wrote that passage, she might as well have. Wellman said: 

The failure of a lot of theater is that it’s Aristotelian, it has a beginning, a middle, and an end: 

He thinks that meeting audience expectations is failure. And I think it's truly because he has this elitist idea that he, the artiste, knows what's good for the audience, and they're a bunch of banality-mongering losers for preferring stories that have a forward motion in time. 

Rebeck also has a good theory on the rise of the importance of the director in theater,  which jibes with my belief that part of the problem is that since directors can do whatever the hell they want with Shakespeare's scripts, they certainly don't hesitate to do anything they want to anybody else's scripts:

My theory is that as theater has become increasingly problematic to produce, producers have turned to classics and revivals as a way of protecting themselves. But these plays require vital new interpreters - you can't just stage them, that's been done already - hence the rise of the star director... 

...One director I know directs alot of Shakespeare, and he seemingly convinced himself that by being an expert at interpreting Shakespeare, he can also "become" Shakespeare - he seriously thinks that he is a genius because he's good at staging Shakespeare, and Shakespeare was a genius. Consequently, all living playwrights (who are not Shakespeare) are beneath him...

And she also puts in a plug for playwrights directing their own work:

...writers still have no reason to suspect their own authenticity. We know that we know how to tell stories because we create them out of whole cloth every day. That aspect of our psyche is unusually (in this business) secure. We know how to tell stories, and a lot of directors, some of whom are wildly overhyped, really don't know how to tell a story, at least not from scratch. So... I say go ahead and direct. What are you waiting for?

Nice. I think I will quote that on the NYCPlaywrights web site.

More gems from this indispensable book soon.

my Schopenhauer hubris

I thought my reference to Schopenhauer in JULIA AND BUDDY could be the first ever on the New York stage. Not even close.

And I had to find out from John Simon of all people. Simon has a blog and he says:

"even the fancy stripper in Pal Joey thinks of Schopenhauer while she works"

PAL JOEY - a musical yet, originally produced in 1940. Made into a movie with Frank Sinatra. Here's Rita Hayworth doing the song that mentions Schopenhauer:

"I was reading Schopenhauer last night, and I think Schopenhauer was right."

Of course I still hang onto the hope that my play will be the first time that Schopenhauer appears as a character on stage.

I did another Xtranormal animation - this one is an enactment of scene 6,  the fever-dream sequence with Schopenhauer in JULIA AND BUDDY. They now give you a German accent voice to work with. Of course the character looks more like Freud than Schopenhauer, but that's the closest I could get. Also they had no dog-barking sound effects, so Atma sounds like a crow. Oh well, you can't have everything.

And there was a happy accident - sometimes Xtranormal can't properly reproduce some words - even worse than some of them in this animation - the word "philosopher" is pretty hit-and-miss. The line originally said: "That fool Hegel! That anybody should still read his inane twaddle - it is beyond belief." But Xtranormal could not say "inane twaddle" within a country mile, so I decided to make it easy and have him speak a German word - which the voice algorithm is set for anyway - so now he says "That anybody should still read his scheisse" - and I think enough people know what that word means that it will get a laugh. And that's important for a romantic comedy. JULIA AND BUDDY has plenty of romance, I always feel like I need to punch up the comedy. It's slowly getting funnier.



And here is JULIA AND BUDDY scene 4 animation I did a year and a half ago. This scene always gets laughs.

These are the only scenes from the play that I will do Xtranormal animations for. Two scenes is enough.

Why Mark Twain, John Lennon, Yoko Ono and Nancy McClernan are not racists

I grew up among Philistines. My parents never had any interest in any form of culture, ever. My mother always bragged how she was able to pass English literature class tests by reading the Classic Comics versions of famous novels.

They aren't bad people (my father died in 2004), really, in spite of their tendency to vote Republican, and their devotion to the Catholic Church. But they just didn't see the point of reading anything except the local daily newspaper, the occasional self-help magazine, and the church bulletin. They had no interest in movies as art - to this day my mother refuses to see any movie that doesn't have a G rating. They had no interest in going to a museum, and they didn't care for rock and roll, let alone classical music - and they both came of age during the heyday of Elvis. Neither of them ever saw a play that wasn't a relative's production - usually a school production, except MAN OF LA MANCHA, which I took them to see; and my mother saw my JANE EYRE.  She thought Jane should go off and become a missionary with St. John Rivers.

Often Philistinism is associated with religious extremism, which makes sense. Religious extremists want solid, simple answers to the meaning of life. And if you don't agree with those simple answers you are most likely doomed to an eternity of torment, or even worse, you could be in league with the Devil yourself. And the fact that artists sometimes portray ugly evil things make them suspects - why would you want to write about ugly evil things unless you approved of such things? That's how Philistines think.

Religious extremist Philistines - evangelicals and the Catholic hierarchy - were responsible for opposition to the Harry Potter books. Harry Potter even inspired a response in a Chick tract.

A hallmark of Philistines is ignorance. They are proud to be ignorant and they don't need to gather information before leaping to a conclusion - information only impedes quick and simple conclusions. 

And so the great irony is that Harry Potter turns out to be a huge Christian allegory. 

Philistines aren't just religious extremists though. Every now and then "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is banned by people who don't want children to read the word "nigger." 

Part of the problem is that Huck Finn really isn't a children's book. "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" is a children's book, and Huck Finn is a sequel to Sawyer, so you can understand why people would be confused. But Huck Finn deals with much more adult topics than Tom Sawyer. Kids really don't get a lot of Huck Finn - it should be reserved for high school curricula.

And I'm not saying that Twain was perfect. He basically ruined the last third of Huck by forgetting about Jim's goal to rescue his family from slavery - as I argue here.

But only a Philistine could believe that Mark Twain includes the word "nigger" because he was a racist. Twain uses that offensive word because that is what the people at the time used to refer to slaves. And to remove the "N" word - as someone tried to do - only whitewashes history. 

But Philistines don't want to hear about such fine points as "history" and "irony" - a bad word is a bad word, period and anybody who uses that word - in any context - is bad.

It is this kind of thinking that caused a mob of Philistines to claim that John Lennon and Yoko Ono are racists for writing a song called "Woman is the Nigger of the World." If you don't know about this song, you can read about it on Wikipedia.

But if you'd rather just assume they are racists because they used the word "nigger" you are probably a Philistine.

Now the people who claim that Lennon and Ono are racists don't disagree - I think - with the idea being expressed by the song - which is that no matter what group of people is being oppressed, the female members of that group are even more oppressed. Women have the double trouble of being part of the oppressed group and then being oppressed as a female.

Lennon/Ono are making a feminist point - and the people who are accusing them of racism seem to fancy themselves feminists.

I suppose Lennon/Ono could have entitled the song:

"Women as a group are more oppressed than any other in the world, even more oppressed than black people, a group which is understood to be the most oppressed at the present time."

But the title they did choose is more succinct. And also the word "nigger" is more extreme and shocking. That's what they were after - that's what artists do, try to get an emotional/intellectual response.

But you simply cannot reason with Philistines on this kind of thing. They flat-out don't get it. Lennon/Ono used the word "nigger" and that's all they want to know.

Lennon and Ono certainly didn't need to be told how ugly racism is. Yoko was subjected to plenty of racist slurs after she and Lennon became a couple. You only have to watch cartoonist Al Capp confronting John and Yoko when they did their "bed in for peace" in 1969 to understand the kind of responses Yoko provoked. Capp was a proud Philistine.

Philistines don't understand art, but they do understand the politics of personal destruction and thanks to the confluence of Tumblr and Google, they have the power to brand anybody a racist. Even someone like me who is a life-long anti-racist and is on the record as such.

Thanks to Tumblr, it's Philistine mob rule, all the way.

ABG - latest episode!

The latest episode of Adventures of Awkward Black Girl is finally out.

women in Pakistan begin to say no to forced marriages - AKA sexual slavery

The NYTimes has a story today about women in Pakistan who are risking death at the hands of their families because they refuse to be sold in "marriage" to the highest bidder. 

The image on the left is an "Affidavit of Free Will" signed by a woman and the man she chose for herself to be her husband. In spite of this document, the woman's family is still trying to claim that she was kidnapped by her husband.

You see, "Ms. Mochi had been promised since birth to her father’s cousin, 15 years her senior. Her family refused to end the engagement."

The fact that this kind of legal slavery is allowed to exist, without any international sanctions whatsoever demonstrates that although it isn't as unquestioned as it once was, Patriarchy still reigns supreme in the world. Under Patriarchy, slavery is OK as long as the slaves are female.

The fact the Nusrat Mochi could be treated as a possession to be bought and sold is clear from the deal her father tried to make:

"Ms. Mochi’s father soon began harassing Mr. Bhatti’s father for the return of his daughter or some monetary compensation. "


Women are treated like animals in many parts of the world. And nobody calls it what it is - slavery.

One of the most laughable aspects of "evolutionary psychology" - and there are so many as this excellent article in this week's New Yorker describes - is the claim that women throughout the history of the world have a "natural" sexual preference for older men. And the fact that selling your daughter to the highest bidder was an even more commonplace practice in former times is ignored, utterly.

Men have treated women like animals. Of course they had the luxury of choosing women based on youth and beauty while women did not have that luxury - men were the consumers, women were the merchandise.

And the evolutionary psychologists will always interpret this system of male dominance as female sexual preference. And they will never stop with this interpretation because it is the very basis of evolutionary psychology itself. 

No surprise that a hard-core misogynist like Richard Dawkins is one of the most prominent promoters of evolutionary psychology. Meanwhile Dawkins' rabid fan-boys continue their campaign against women in skeptical circles who speak out against misogyny. (It wasn't enough to attack Jen at BlagHag - they also harrassed her father.)

I am disappointed in Tony Kushner

By way of Parabasis recently I discovered that originally there were no female characters in ANGELS IN AMERICA. According to Oskar Eustis, interviewed by Anne Bogart in her book "Conversations with Anne":

We sort of created a company around the development of ANGELS IN AMERICA that went on for six years. It had lots of firings, including my own, and that was part of it. But it, nonetheless, was a continuous process of work among a group of artists for six years, and that is absolutely at the heart of why it's a great play Tony had three women in ANGELS who would not have been in that play. I can't tell you how many times Tony would whine to me, "Why do I have to have these women in the show? This is a play about gay men. I don't know what to do with them. Abigail, this mother. Okay, we'll make her Joe Pitt's mother, but I don't know what the mother's going to do in the play." Well he had to have these three women in the play because we had these three women in the company. If those three female characters hadn't been written in the play, I don't think we could be sitting here talking about ANGELS IN AMERICA. It's absolutely part of what stretched that play to have the reach that it ended up having.

Boy is he right about that.  I can't imagine AIA without Mother Pitt, or Harper or the Angel. And I thought Tony Kushner was such a big feminist that he just naturally included women in his plays. Well there goes that illusion.

Speaking of theater books, I finally ordered my copy of Teresa Rebeck's Free Fire Zone: A Playwright's Adventures on the Creative Battlefields of Film, TV, and Theater. I've been jonesing for this book for months. I'm sure I will have plenty to say about it once I read it.

Google Analytics interface - designed by a team of sadists and software developers FOR smug software developers

Here's something I really hate - software developers designing user interfaces. And it happens ALL THE TIME. I really wonder how Jakob Nielsen makes a living selling all his usability seminars because I've yet to work for a company that does usability testing or gives a rat's ass about user-friendly interfaces. I think that Amazon probably has a usability team since the Amazon interface is very intuitive. But Amazon is the rare exception to the rule. 

The rule is that companies let the software developers create the user interface, as a by-product of creating the code. It's strictly an afterthought. And then they hire technical writers like me to explain their stupid user-hostile interfaces instead of spending money on designing an intuitive interface that doesn't require a manual to understand.

And Google, which has no excuse, clearly followed that rule. Because the new Google Analytics interface is obviously designed by a team of software developers and sadists. The sadists are responsible for telling you how cool all the features like Events and Goals are, and the software developers created the user interface for using these features that require you to be a software developer yourself to use them.

It's NOT USABLE. Unless you are a software developer. Don't believe me? Here's the Goal setup interface.

All I want to do is track when a link in one of my blog's HTML/Javascript widgets is clicked. You'd think they would already make that statistic available but no. You have to set up some torturous Event/Goal mechanism. The only reason I had ANY idea what "category" "action"  and "label" were is because I found some random guy on the Internet talking about it. It was here that I learned that I had to insert a piece of code into my A tag in order to create an "event." Here's the example the guy gave:

a href="http://www.webanalyticsblueprint.com/" onclick="_gaq.push(['_trackEvent', 'Ads', 'Sidebar', 'WAB']);"

Nowhere in the Google Analytics help section did I come across a heads-up that you have to use this  "_trackEvent" code. I mean, if nothing tells you that you will need to use code, you won't even be looking for it. 

I was able to glean some information because random Internet guy used an example. But his example doesn't include a value and his explanation of a value is 

"this element helps you specify a value for you event that can be used when you setup a goal for your event."

That's what is known as a tautology. It tells you that a value is a value. That's no help at all. But of course he's a software developer - he doesn't need to express himself clearly in English.

And to add insult to injury if you do an online search to try to find people to commiserate with about the fiendishly confusing Analytics interface, instead you get this:

Google Analytics already has one of the most usable interfaces in the Web Analytics world. 

 If Google Analytics "has one of the most usable interfaces in the Web Analytics world" what that tells you is that the entire Web Analytics world is composed of software developers and sadists.

People who look at web analytics are not software developers. They are people who want to make money from their web site. A web site that is not about software development. If they WERE developers they could create their own analytic tools. 

Now we've already seen that you have to have some level of comfort with code, but here's the best part of all: you have to learn something called "regular expressions." 

As another random Internet person says: Regular Expressions – Don’t Use Google Analytics Without Them.

Would you like to see an example of a regular expression? Here you go:

$string1 =~ m/(H..).(o..)/)

Now as it happens, I have some minor experience with regular expressions due to some database text verification work. I've also had experience with Javascript and SQL and PHP. I actually created a PHP page to track out clicks by sending the out click information to my SQL database on my ISP - but it took too long to process database insert so I tried to use Google Analytics instead. I almost ripped my own head off.

I can't imagine what someone with no code experience at all makes of the Google Analytics interface.

So anybody out there who is looking for someone else to commiserate with over the sadistic Google Analytics interface - you are not alone.

Theatre Essay: In defense of Act I Scene 1 of HAMLET

I saw two very different productions of HAMLET in the last two weeks. Almost the only thing they both had in common was that they excised Act I Scene 1.

I object.

I have no problem with trimming the play. Everybody does it and with good reason. Avon Bill never used one word when he could use ten, and it's hard enough for modern audiences to interpret the language. And in spite of what some people would have you believe, it is not finally the language that is the most important aspect of Shakespeare's work, impressive though his language is - it's the plot and the emotions.

Here is the scene as written:

ACT I

         SCENE I. Elsinore. A platform before the castle.

            FRANCISCO at his post. Enter to him BERNARDO

        BERNARDO

            Who's there?

        FRANCISCO

            Nay, answer me: stand, and unfold yourself.

        BERNARDO

            Long live the king!

        FRANCISCO

            Bernardo?

        BERNARDO

            He.

        FRANCISCO

            You come most carefully upon your hour.

        BERNARDO

            'Tis now struck twelve; get thee to bed, Francisco.

        FRANCISCO

            For this relief much thanks: 'tis bitter cold,
            And I am sick at heart.

        BERNARDO

            Have you had quiet guard?

        FRANCISCO

            Not a mouse stirring.

        BERNARDO

            Well, good night.
            If you do meet Horatio and Marcellus,
            The rivals of my watch, bid them make haste.

        FRANCISCO

            I think I hear them. Stand, ho! Who's there?

            Enter HORATIO and MARCELLUS

        HORATIO

            Friends to this ground.

        MARCELLUS

            And liegemen to the Dane.

        FRANCISCO

            Give you good night.

        MARCELLUS

            O, farewell, honest soldier:
            Who hath relieved you?

        FRANCISCO

            Bernardo has my place.
            Give you good night.

            Exit

        MARCELLUS

            Holla! Bernardo!

        BERNARDO

            Say, What, is Horatio there?

        HORATIO

            A piece of him.

        BERNARDO

            Welcome, Horatio: welcome, good Marcellus.

        MARCELLUS

            What, has this thing appear'd again to-night?

        BERNARDO

            I have seen nothing.

        MARCELLUS

            Horatio says 'tis but our fantasy,
            And will not let belief take hold of him
            Touching this dreaded sight, twice seen of us:
            Therefore I have entreated him along
            With us to watch the minutes of this night;
            That if again this apparition come,
            He may approve our eyes and speak to it.

        HORATIO

            Tush, tush, 'twill not appear.

        BERNARDO

            Sit down awhile;
            And let us once again assail your ears,
            That are so fortified against our story
            What we have two nights seen.

        HORATIO

            Well, sit we down,
            And let us hear Bernardo speak of this.

        BERNARDO

            Last night of all,
            When yond same star that's westward from the pole
            Had made his course to illume that part of heaven
            Where now it burns, Marcellus and myself,
            The bell then beating one,--

            Enter Ghost

        MARCELLUS

            Peace, break thee off; look, where it comes again!

        BERNARDO

            In the same figure, like the king that's dead.

        MARCELLUS

            Thou art a scholar; speak to it, Horatio.

        BERNARDO

            Looks it not like the king? mark it, Horatio.

        HORATIO

            Most like: it harrows me with fear and wonder.

        BERNARDO

            It would be spoke to.

        MARCELLUS

            Question it, Horatio.

        HORATIO

            What art thou that usurp'st this time of night,
            Together with that fair and warlike form
            In which the majesty of buried Denmark
            Did sometimes march? by heaven I charge thee, speak!

        MARCELLUS

            It is offended.

        BERNARDO

            See, it stalks away!

        HORATIO

            Stay! speak, speak! I charge thee, speak!

            Exit Ghost

        MARCELLUS

            'Tis gone, and will not answer.

        BERNARDO

            How now, Horatio! you tremble and look pale:
            Is not this something more than fantasy?
            What think you on't?

        HORATIO

            Before my God, I might not this believe
            Without the sensible and true avouch
            Of mine own eyes.

        MARCELLUS

            Is it not like the king?

        HORATIO

            As thou art to thyself:
            Such was the very armour he had on
            When he the ambitious Norway combated;
            So frown'd he once, when, in an angry parle,
            He smote the sledded Polacks on the ice.
            'Tis strange.

        MARCELLUS

            Thus twice before, and jump at this dead hour,
            With martial stalk hath he gone by our watch.

        HORATIO

            In what particular thought to work I know not;
            But in the gross and scope of my opinion,
            This bodes some strange eruption to our state.

        MARCELLUS

            Good now, sit down, and tell me, he that knows,
            Why this same strict and most observant watch
            So nightly toils the subject of the land,
            And why such daily cast of brazen cannon,
            And foreign mart for implements of war;
            Why such impress of shipwrights, whose sore task
            Does not divide the Sunday from the week;
            What might be toward, that this sweaty haste
            Doth make the night joint-labourer with the day:
            Who is't that can inform me?

        HORATIO

            That can I;
            At least, the whisper goes so. Our last king,
            Whose image even but now appear'd to us,
            Was, as you know, by Fortinbras of Norway,
            Thereto prick'd on by a most emulate pride,
            Dared to the combat; in which our valiant Hamlet--
            For so this side of our known world esteem'd him--
            Did slay this Fortinbras; who by a seal'd compact,
            Well ratified by law and heraldry,
            Did forfeit, with his life, all those his lands
            Which he stood seized of, to the conqueror:
            Against the which, a moiety competent
            Was gaged by our king; which had return'd
            To the inheritance of Fortinbras,
            Had he been vanquisher; as, by the same covenant,
            And carriage of the article design'd,
            His fell to Hamlet. Now, sir, young Fortinbras,
            Of unimproved mettle hot and full,
            Hath in the skirts of Norway here and there
            Shark'd up a list of lawless resolutes,
            For food and diet, to some enterprise
            That hath a stomach in't; which is no other--
            As it doth well appear unto our state--
            But to recover of us, by strong hand
            And terms compulsatory, those foresaid lands
            So by his father lost: and this, I take it,
            Is the main motive of our preparations,
            The source of this our watch and the chief head
            Of this post-haste and romage in the land.

        BERNARDO

            I think it be no other but e'en so:
            Well may it sort that this portentous figure
            Comes armed through our watch; so like the king
           That was and is the question of these wars.

        HORATIO

            A mote it is to trouble the mind's eye.
            In the most high and palmy state of Rome,
            A little ere the mightiest Julius fell,
            The graves stood tenantless and the sheeted dead
            Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets:
            As stars with trains of fire and dews of blood,
            Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
            Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands
            Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse:
            And even the like precurse of fierce events,
            As harbingers preceding still the fates
            And prologue to the omen coming on,
            Have heaven and earth together demonstrated
            Unto our climatures and countrymen.--
            But soft, behold! lo, where it comes again!