The affliction that is social media is a Trojan horse of shameful behaviors. It debases the nation’s culture, inviting scalawags of all stripes to anonymously or pseudonymously air their idiocy and nastiness. It finances its devilishly masked intrusion into the personal lives of Americans by marketing what it learns about each of us and peddling this information inventory of habits and interests to businesses. It overruns and impoverishes the legacy press, whose rights and responsibilities were enshrined by the nation’s founders as crucial to our individual liberty. And, it does all this by assuming the protected costume of the publisher, while dispensing with the foundational obligations that come with the title.
Early in my life in newspapers, when ink, not electric impulses, delivered the news and features, when typewriters and linotype machines were the technology, and before comments from readers became inflamed fixtures appended to each news or feature column, folks wrote letters to admire or complain. They signed their names, and we checked to see if they were who they said they were. We published most of the letters, but not all. We ruled out the unruly, the sneering, the nonsensical, and the merely provocative because it was, after all, the publisher’s paper and the editor’s pages, and it was run according to their lights.
In those long gone days, most reactions, from friends, strangers, and acquaintances met over the lamb chops at the market or at the post office were warmly encouraging. But not always. A reporter or editor might have noticed someone glaring from the vicinity of the organic kale and scuttled away. Or a reader might march into the editor’s office to deliver a strenuous criticism face to face. When newspapers began inviting and hosting comments on all the material they published, a whole new set of readers showed up to knock the gilt off the rose. And they did it with boots on. What seemed like a good idea at the time has come to be not a good idea at all.
Then, reporters and editors, like their readers, were more similar than different. In small towns and cities the newspaper folk lived with, and naturally enough, knew the people they reported on and to. The best of them were modest, driven, sympathetic, and even jolly a lot of the time. Today, the reporters and editors are one with the big-wheel politicians, the fundraisers, the celebrities, the Hollywood stars, and the apparatchiks who serve in the federal bureaucracy. That is, they graduate from the same colleges, they intermarry with the politicians or cable news network anchors, and they enroll their young children to the same private grammar schools as the exalted pols. Consequently unconcerned at the companionable hand-in-glove coverage of the neighbors, these members of the governing class sail miles high back and forth across the nation, offering money for this federal benefit or that one, as if the money were theirs. It’s a racket, and the racketeers and their watchdogs are too often in cahoots.
Or, these journalists admire and report on the self-made, astoundingly inventive and now astonishingly wealthy masters and mistresses of Alphabet, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Uber, Lyft, et al, who touch down in Silicon Valley or Manhattan or Washington to be feted, courted, or occasionally bedeviled, but only timidly and mostly for the theater of it.
What’s an everyday you and me to do about it?
It’s up to us.
The constant news and information artillery will ravage anyone exposed to it, and of course everyone is. But taken indiscriminately the assault is a goulash of smart, dumb, thoughtful, informed, merely informational, calculating, meretricious, promotional, and appalling, certainly a challenge to the reasonable person looking for something worth thinking about.
So, we targets must be cautious and discriminating. Most important, none of it is as important as what your neighbor told you this morning when you chatted, what the checkout person at the grocery store told you about the house fire last night, what your daughter told you last evening on the phone about her new boyfriend. Some perspective and serenity will help. We need to sample widely, spurn most of what we come across, and always read more, from varied sources. After all, the decisions one makes will value some news and some opinions and disdain others. It’s up to us, and if we read carefully, the smartest thinking will leave a mark.
Every newspaper, news site, and social platform is a publisher and should be treated as one. That means each is free to cover, discuss, and host what appeals to its owners, and to host opinions and comments that may please me but irritate you, It’s up to us, the citizens, – never the government – to decide what information is useful, truthful, inspiring for good or evil, or tasteful (if taste matters any more), and what is not. Each outlet’s business success and financial lifespan depends on the choices the readers or listeners or Facebookers or Insta users make.
Thankfully, the government cannot pick and choose by regulation what is freely what is posted, aired or written. But, consumers, by their deliberate patronage or disregard, can.
Whether the news, information, or social exchanges hire writers or analysts or gather all of their content from volunteers, foreign interlopers, political interest groups (even hateful ones), politicians, even presidents, legacy news organizations, or algorithms, they are publishers, and they can and must be sued for libel, defamation, invasions of privacy, or violations of anti-discrimination laws when they misbehave. They may shelter under the First Amendment, that’s what it’s there for, but they are not protected from your disregard.
For me, it is a matter of professional research, and I begin with the word patootie. As in sweet patootie. Patootie is a word you may have heard, or even used, though you probably heard it first that Christmas when the estranged husband of your aunt Mildred turned up unexpected at Thanksgiving when you were nine. It also may have been the first time you heard the word philanderer. It turned up in my childhood in a somewhat similar context, and for some reason I heard it the other day in my memory.
Generally, the context was, “You bet your sweet patootie.” As I remember it, the speaker was likely an uncle animated by spirits, perhaps at the gathering after a wake, having in mind a tippled aunt giving herself up to joyful song in the garden at the reception following a wedding.
There are words we hear today that have a flavorful ring to them and that we understand in their modern context. Booty, for example, which long ago meant pirates’ plunder and brought to mind Jim Hawkins, now lowlights the current frenzi for junk in the trunk. Captain Flint would never have used the word. Or, mosh, which today has to do with frenetic dancing that originated in the 1960s, as apparently almost everything else we endure today did. It may have sprung from Yiddish as mish-mash or mish-mosh, meaning a mess.
This isn’t to say that our boring, backward looking elders never trifled with the language. They certainly did. For instance there was a sort of uncle by marriage who was forever calling young women tomatoes. “She’s a nice little tomato,” he’d say in my ear, with a nudge. To be fair, he was a teetotaler and did not garden. Sometimes the tomato was a tamale, without further explanation.
Uncle’s tomato (or tamale) would probably be my Irish grandmother’s bold little thing. My grandmother, who often found her voice when that warbling sister of hers encouraged her, did not regard bold girls as admirable examples of liberated ambition. She thought they were dangerous, and she could spot one a mile off. They were inclined to make whoopee, she thought, which could get you into trouble. A flibbertigibbet could do the same thing, she believed.
She also knew frou-frou when she saw it. There is a word whose possibilities are staggering. I’ve heard, and if you are of a certain vintage, you may have heard “frou-frouing femininity,” first found in the 1905 edition of the English magazine Truth. Frou-frouing is everything my grandmother feared. It should not have been. It’s a perfectly innocent word that, like so many others, we ‘ve adapted as necessary, willy nilly, without consulting the linguisticians. We hear a sound, say, the rustling noise a girl’s dress makes when she walks, we make it a word that defines the sound so that we can tell someone else about it, and then we attach motive and sly ambition to it, and my grandmother adopts it as her own. That’s slanging words around.
“Slang,” John Moore wrote, “is a prodigal use of language; its bright baubles effervesce out of man’s invention, they take our fancy with their shimmer and sheen, but they are unstable, and very soon the changeable winds of fashion blow them away. The prigs and pedants who from time to time deplore some current piece of slang are wasting their breath; it is odds on any given word being forgotten in a season. But should a slang word by chance escape the common fate, then woe betide the pedant, for it will live to mock his memory.”
Have you ever encountered golldurnit? That was big in my youth, as in “Golldurnit, where did that dent in the car come from.” I began to hear it around my own house, out of the mouths of kids. “Golldurnit, not broccoli again.” The most prominent memory I have of that word employed in extremis was on the occasion of my sinking the family’s eight-foot pram by stumbling into it and onto my father while he sat in the stern seat. “Golldurnit boy,” he said as he sank slowly beneath the surface. “Look what you’ve done now.”
He had a fondness for nincompoop too, and that may have been employed on the same sort of occasion, or when you came home way later than you were suppose to, and crawling up the stairs you slowly became aware that someone was standing at the top. You began to explain, when you heard: “Stop the mumbo-jumbo, you nincompoop, I’ll talk to you in the morning.” Mumbo-jumbo, now that’s a word that ought to be in everyday use today.
And, there are so many more. You will remember mugwump, kowtow, kibosh, frabjous, gruntle, tomcatting, hanky-panky, harum-scarum, and hocus-pocus.
Most wonderful of all, there is huggle. This is a word for fathers, mothers, but especially lovers, who ought to be using daily. It is also a word which serves, in a variety of disguises, many functions. At heart, it is about affection. One is huggling when one is “imparadised in one another’s arms,” according to Milton. That’s a condition which my grandmother would have taken note of, and not quietly, you may be sure. “A-huggling they were, bold as brass,” one 16th century commentator wrote. Probably some earlier incarnation of granny.
Which leads me finally to hugger-mugger, one of the best old words I’ve come across. It is useful enough to deserve a prominent place in anyone’s everyday vocabulary. It means disorder or confusion, a natural outcome when one is huggling too often or too indiscriminately.
The idea behind this column is that Cape Codders, and Falmouth folk in particular, might like to get to know their Vineyard neighbors. It works the other way too, of course, but my half century on the Vineyard and in the newspaper business has narrowed my outlook. Certainly, we are not exactly what you may think we are. Not merely the self-absorbed hosts of the rich and famous. Not exactly the plaguey Steamship Authority travelers clogging the roads and at the same time complaining that the roads are clogged. Not exactly the island tribe that adores the Cape Cod Mall but doesn’t want a mall on its own turf and feeling rather pleased with themselves for holding that line.
So, an introduction.
Right off the bat, you must know that we are not today what we were years ago, and an election story of uncertain origin will help explain the way things have changed. Voters use to be predictable, no matter which of the six island towns you lived in. Nearly everyone voted Republican. The characteristic story that proves the rule recalls the Gay Head (now called Aquinnah) town clerk who was asked by a reporter late in the evening of election day for the vote count in the presidential election. Well, she said, consulting her tally sheet, it was Dewey 47, Truman 1. There was a pause, the flustered town officer appeared confused, then irritated. That can’t be right, she managed, it must be Dewey 48. Today, Dewey would not have a prayer of success.
“The islander refuses to be hobbled by the values of the Protestant ethic: thrift, piety, work for work’s sake. He is willing to earn less as the price of freedom. He shows little interest in the unionization that would increase his wages, because he fears it would limit the range of his occupation and curtail his free time.” This is not casual talk, not puffery. These are the findings in a book length study of Vineyarders, People and Predicaments, the only one ever of its comprehensive kind. It was researched and written by Dr. Milton Mazer, a Vineyard resident and the founder of Martha’s Vineyard Community Services, successor to Martha’s Vineyard health center. His research was published by the Harvard University Press in 1976.
“When the deer season comes, [the islander] expects to be able to take the week off because he is often paid only when he works. If he cannot afford to, he expects to be able to have his gun at hand if the job is out of doors and near a wood.”
Gun toting, union shunning, freedom loving, and impious islanders carve their own path, Dr. Mazer discovered. And today, his findings hold true for the year-round population that has grown from about 6,000 in 1970 to nearly 17,000 today. Despite the growth and the wealth, the house carpenter in Chilmark charging $600 a square foot to build an architect designed 5,000 foot house will not hesitate to put his hammer down, pick up his shotgun and plug a deer browsing across the spacious lawn in front of the mahogany deck he is framing.
“If he has inherited land,” Dr. Mazer wrote, “he values it more than the things its sale might permit him to have, for the possession of land gives him prestige and deference from his neighbors, and its sale is felt as a betrayal of the past.”
Well, yes and no. On this point, things have changed over the years. Pneumatic land values and withering estate taxes have made cash king for old time islanders with large family holdings.
“Many islanders who are rich in land live quite poorly, selling bits of land in crises when illness strikes or when a child wants to go to college. The term ‘land poor,’ though archaic in many places, has real meaning on the island,” Dr. Mazer reported. “Planning for the future is of no great concern; the now seems more important than the morrow.”
But, once again, time and change inspired islanders to acknowledge the value of adjusting their net worth upward. They recognized the wisdom of well timed divestitures of property and the pleasures of well funded retirement in Florida.
“Planning and zoning were until recently [the mid-1970s] troublesome words, dangerous to use in public meetings,” Dr. Mazer wrote, “The islander’s primary interest is in what he will do today and, after that, his recollections about the past. Until recently, when the very nature of his life was threatened by the unrestrained plans of ‘land developers’ and speculators, he rarely concerned himself with might be; he was more interested in what is and what had been.”
The press of new people, part-time people, and lots of them have led to layers of subdivision and development rules almost none of which existed when Dr. Mazer did his research. When the Black Dog Tavern was built in the Vineyard Haven beach sand in 1972, the only permit needed was for a cesspool. Of course, you were expected to build it on land you owned, which the Black Dog nearly did, although a corner of the building was discovered to encroach on Steamship Authority property, a problem that was adjusted with relative ease in those less fractious times.
“The islander’s view of human nature departs from the generally optimistic, liberal belief that man is innately good and is corrupted by the evil in society,” Dr. Mazer found. “Human nature is usually seen by the island as innately evil, in comparison to his middle class summer visitors who see it as a mixture of good and evil.”
The puzzle, Dr. Mazer decided was that “The implications of these finding for mental health or mental disorder are governed by the fact that islanders are composed of two groups, those who were born and have lived on the island all of their lives and those who have come to the island. Whether the in-migrants possess the dominant values of contemporary American culture to a greater degree than do the natives, or whether their choice of a community represents a deviance from those values, is not certain.”
An islander today, new or old, would answer the question this way. “These wash-ashores come to the island because of what they love about it, and the first thing they want to do is change it.” Newcomers need only a few years in residence to develop a native islander’s well nursed hostility to the wash-ashores he barely preceded.
In this 21st Century world, data driven and interconnected to beat the band, People and Predicaments is the fruit of analog not digital research. Dr. Mazer’s subjects were also his neighbors, friends and patients. His goal was not just to count them, but to know them.
“This book,” he wrote, “is based on my clinical work. It owes much to the subtle intimations that came to me day by day as I became more and more a part of the community, joining its everydayness. For, in addition to my job as director of the Martha’s Vineyard Mental Health Center, I have for nine years been moderator of the West Tisbury town meeting. I have come to believe that the second job is of equal importance to and complements the first.”
(The Falmouth Enterprise published a version of this essay on its website.)
“Now I’ve heard everything. ”Every one of us has said it.”
Some of us have used the same phrase several times, casually emptying it of whatever meaning it may once have had.
Actually of course, none of us has ever “heard everything,” or even most of everything. It is really a way of expressing astonishment,“Yowzer.” Or perhaps a kind of withered cynicism.
But, Sandy Lippens may be one of a small cell of people – including perhaps mainly bill collectors – who might very well say that indeed she has heard it all. The evidence of her authority in this regard is documented on the inside of the doorway to the shed where the varied, well used, and perfectly useful inventory of rentable tools live at Tilton Rentall, at the Roundabout in Oak Bluffs. If you haven’t been there, then your Martha’s Vineyard neighbor, or your brother, your contractor or carpenter or painter, your floor sander or your gardener certainly has – or will. Or someone has been married in a tent and with other ceremonial equipment rented by Tilton Rentall.
Some of Sandy’s customers have left her notes about their adventures tackling the projects they rented tools to complete and about their failures to comply with the company’s rental rules. Others have delivered their complaints, evasions, and tall tales in person or over the phone. All of these, Sandy has transcribed and added to the doors on which she has memorialized a decades long trail of poor excuses.
Here is one example, perhaps an Oscar winner in this genre.
“I’d like to pay you, but I know this check will bounce.”
Obviously, there is an exquisite clarity embedded in this one, and it makes a warped sort of sense, which makes it a standout. Sandy took note.
I visited Tilton Rentall the other day to rent a floor sander. Sandy threw the doors of the shed open for me to load the machine. She delivered the instructions, explained the cost of the sander and the sandpaper, told me the tricks to operating it and filled out the invoice while I lifted the creature into the back of my Jeep. Waiting for the invoice, I saw that the shed doors were decorated with an artist’s bittersweet collage of scarred bits of trashed machinery, broken promises, and downright scams.
“I just woke up. Do I have to pay for a 2nd day?”
You have to have the goods back to Sandy twenty-four hours after you take them.
M. Thurston “Tebby” Tilton, a builder, began Tilton Rentall in 1974. He had accumulated a collection of construction equipment that he had begun to rent to others as he turned his attention to fishing. Sandy, a massage therapist, moved to the Vineyard in 1980, and before long, as Tebby took to fishing she took to the rental business and expanded it. She’s been at it now for nearly four decades.
“May I take these now – will be by to pay for them later – much later.”
Some of Sandy’s customers know themselves very well, and they like to leave clues for others to follow.
Sandy is businesslike dealing with customers, many of whom are not especially skilled at working with the equipment they rent, and some who take an Island-time approach to the rent-and-return schedule. But despite the peculiar customers and the complicated tools, most of which Sandy has never operated herself, she has a wry attachment to her customers and their ways. So, she smiles resignedly, charges them what each owes and not a penny less, and records the transaction in her books, and on the doors.
“I would have had it back yesterday, but the blues are biting.”
Her equipment takes the beatings, Sandy records the explanations.
“You mean the blade will loosen if it hits rocks?
Of course, the renters have their problems too.
‘I just woke up. I have a sore throat. Do I have to pay a full 2nd day.”
Or, three days late, “Yes, but I didn’t use it. It didn’t work.”
Some items she just doesn’t have in stock.
“Do you rent breast pumps?”
Often, the problem has been unreliable friends.
“I gave it to Joe. Didn’t he bring it back?”
There’s always an explanation for damage.
“I had the shampoo hose in the driveway, and the UPS driver ran over it.”
None of which should suggest that rental customers do not have real problems that they willingly share with Sandy.
“Do you have a Phillips screwdriver so I can tighten the sheetrock screws in the soles of my shoes,” one asked.
Or, the venerable undependable teenager excuse: “I was off-island and my son didn’t return the chairs, which got rained on and mud splashed, which I then had to wash.”
After solving the problems for so many folks in need of the right tool, and after listening and cataloging the sad stories and magical yarns of hundreds of islanders, it may be that Sandy Lippens has not heard it all. It may be that the Martha’s Vineyard community, endlessly inventive and possessed of tall-tale-telling DNA, may have more to give, and Sandy may have much more to record.
The following hardly qualifies as a health care data point. I’m sure the wizards who carpenter the algorithms that model health care access and costs have not have included a weighted value for the news, appalling to me, that Dr. Henry Nieder will retire this month. Not that my particular distress has a claim on the endless scheming that is the better health care political wrestling match.
No one in his right mind would imagine that if you liked your doctor you could keep him, at least not without hedging for mortality or any particular physician’s choice to make a new plan after 31 years in the business. But, I did, twice. In the seventies, Russ Hoxsie, a good and decent man who was also a doctor, did his best to stanch the relentless decline in my apparent good health. Our get togethers were not appointments, they were visits, occasions for me to spend time with someone charming, knowledgeable, and humane. We talked, he inquired, he poked (in places no one ever had before), he recommended, he warned, and I listened, and sometimes forgot.
Russ’s retirement should not have poleaxed me the way it did. After all, he had had a long, distinguished career, and there were medical issues that plagued him. Apparently, the conversations I had so enjoyed when we visited were not as medically helpful to him as his had been to me. It may be that I was experiencing early onset regressive tendencies, honing my stubborn resistance to change. Over time I have come to think that landing at Martha’s Vineyard was a sort of homecoming for someone who preferred things as is, not susceptible to scaling up over time. What was a 6,000-person island when I arrived was the perfect hideout for such a congenital regressive. After all, in 1970, the actual steamship Nantucket sailed to both the Vineyard and Nantucket; the lovely, venerable Nobska spent the winters at the old Vineyard Haven steamship wharf with its huge, cool shed where you went to rummage through the freight to find what you had ordered. There were no subdivision control rules or zoning rules in most of the towns, no Martha’s Vineyard Commission overseeing us all. It ultimately took nearly four decades of perennial debate for Tisbury to decide to reroute traffic from the Steamship Authority up the 100 yard Union Street hill to Main Street to relieve traffic at Five Corners; almost as long to change the Barnes Road/Vineyard Haven-Edgartown Road intersection from blinker to roundabout. And, back then presidents went elsewhere in August. For a dedicated foot dragger, it was the place to be.
Russ, the physician, endured but as the humanist he was. At the Martha’s Vineyard Times, I published his Let’s Walk, Lilly columns and later a book of those columns. They were therapeutic meditations on places and people, diseases and healthy practices. Lilly, a springer spaniel, was his traveling companion and sometimes muse. As he had been when he practiced for all those years at the Vineyard hospital, so his writing was – observant, compassionate, benevolent, and often amused.
Then this. Henry Nieder wrote to all of his communicants, “My work taking care of all of you these many years has been a great pleasure and very rewarding. At times the work of a family doctor is challenging. It is always fulfilling. I thank you for being my patients.”
Although I missed the letter, at a semi-annual visit we had a few weeks ago, he told me of his plans. He had joined, then taken over Russ Hoxsie’s practice in 1988, the way Dr. Amar Luzic will take over from Henry in September. Henry says Dr. Luzic will be terrific, and of course he will. Russ Hoxsie made a brilliant choice, selecting Henry. He was confident, I’m sure, that here was a young man cut from familiar cloth, a stayer who would one day thank his patients for their custom and trust and conversation – and mean it.
By now, Henry has looked after my wife, my father, my children when they graduated from Dr. Michael Goldfein’s pediatric practice, and me. He is a listener, cautious in diagnosis and conservative about treatment. My mother, who lived to 87, outlasting my father by several years, was a grumpy patient, rarely pleased by something she didn’t want to hear, namely, that she was okay. Perhaps she hoped that her worst fears would be realized at last. She might then be seriously ill, sure, but she would also be right. She just knew she suffered from a grave illness located, she said, “down there,” and she thought that Dr. Nieder was missing it. She told him so, but, unlike so many others of her acquaintance, he was not intimidated. “No, Charlotte,” he said, “you’re just getting older.” Infuriated, she died of pneumonia a couple of years later.
Henry and I chatted, after he had approved of my weight, my cholesterol, and my beating heart. I chided him for throwing in the towel. I didn’t want to learn a new family doctor, didn’t want to explain things again, didn’t want any of this humane medical relationship of three decades to evaporate. He said there were things, important to him, that he wanted to be about. Who could reasonably complain over that? Apparently I could, a bit, and did.
Before our visit ended, he took my numbers and plugged them into a new algorithmic model based on a huge population of other doctors’ patients, some of whose numbers were better than mine, some worse. Of course, there was no value included to measure the effect on the faithful of the retirement from practice of this kind, patient and skilled physician, who had served the members of his flock nearly as long as each one needed him.
But the algo designers had placed some bets. If this, then that. If you have these numbers, you have a 24 percent chance of having a heart attack in the next 10 years. Was that bad? Or so-so? I found the algo online and ran it myself, making slight adjustments here and there to see if I might change, or hoodwink, the odds. I also found another model, a European edition all the rage in the G-Seven, whose constituents treat themselves so generously, and it returned a 16 percent probability. And, I comforted myself, these were the outcomes for the population whose data the algo munched, not for any individual contestant in life’s race, not especially for me. In his good-natured, amused way, Henry did not herald the model as more than it was, namely, a well built conjecture. He proposed a plan. I demurred. I said I’ll think about it and have a decision the next time I see you.
This essay was first published in the Martha’s Vineyard Times of September 6, 2018.
In June of 1961, National Geographic published an article by William P. E. Graves, then a summer resident of Chilmark and a member of the magazine’s editorial staff. The article with pictures was entitled “Old Whaling Days Still Flavor Life on Sea-swept Martha’s Vineyard.
Read today, Mr. Graves’s relaxed and wide ranging exploration of the prelapsarian Vineyard is plainly heartbreaking. June 1961 was, at least in memory, a halcyon moment nationally. The Korean War was over, an attractive young president had won a tough election, defeating a man who reminded voters of difficult decades they were eager to forget. There wasn’t a hint of the turmoil that lay ahead. On the Vineyard, the perfect tranquility and free, bright pleasures of summer reflected the happy mood of the country at large and magnified it.
In 2018, the Vineyard of 1961 is barely remembered, although some attitudes, common then, persist, but attenuated by time passing and by deaths.
Mr. Graves told the story of a fifth grade student in an island school who had written a summary examination of the life of Julius Caesar. “In the first place,” the child wrote, “Julius Caesar was an off-islander.” Perhaps taking his lead from the young essayist, Mr. Graves explained what was required to be a Vineyarder: You must be “a fisherman, a carpenter, or a boat builder; but a lighthouse keeper, a stonemason, or a wharfinger would do very well. So would a schoolteacher, an oceanographer, an editor, or a doctor with a talent for separating fish hooks from fingers.”
All these rules have been repealed in the nearly six decades since the National Geographic published its critical analysis of us. They were probably at great risk even then.
“Above all,” Mr. Graves wrote, “you must never admit that neighboring Cape Cod or Nantucket Island can compare with Martha’s Vineyard – only an off-islander would believe that.”
Funnily, as the Vineyard of 1961, simply itself, grew and was smothered and irredeemably complicated as the years passed, we liked to exalt its new, raucous self as an updated summer retreat, and we called it “special.” But, it has become not so “special,” not essentially different from the Cape or Nantucket, so we have trotted out “precious,” ignoring the word’s historic implications, to hype Vineyard amenities so attractive to visitors who happily add themselves to the growing crowds they have become.
Photographs accompany Mr. Graves’s article. State Beach on a hazy summer afternoon, but there are no Keep Off signs, no snow fencing, no rope barriers, and just a few bathers. The Gay Head cliffs and the beaches below attracted amateur anthropologists. Nude clay bathers gathered at the cliffs then, but alas, no more. Summer visitors bowled on Ocean Park, raced their Wianno Seniors (apparently a forgivable import from the Crosby boatyard in Osterville) off Edgartown, cooked over driftwood fires on the beaches, tended small dairy and beef herds that sustained ordinary islanders, and hankered after a glimpse of the actress Katharine Cornell, the “first lady of off-islanders” and the Vineyard’s celebrity-in-chief at the time.
She is gone now, a “precious” memory, as are Donald Poole the lobsterman, Wampanoag harpooner Amos Smalley, Vineyard Gazette editors Henry and Betty Hough, and fence viewer Oscar Flanders of Chilmark who reported “nary a call” for his conflict resolution services in his forty-three year tenure. Images of each of these were featured in Mr. Graves’s article. Their Vineyard lives seemed so modest and secure. And, it appears that Mr. Graves thought no effort at all, certainly nothing urgent, would be required to safeguard this favored realm. There was not a word to suggest that overwhelming change loomed, and that one day the summer idyll of 1961 would be all but unremembered.
Mr. Graves visited Donald Poole, the lobsterman and father of Everett Poole, Menemsha seafood baron and Chilmark town moderator. Donald Poole stood surrounded by lobster pots and buoys, which would keep him busy fixing up during the coming winter.
“Good luck in America,” Poole said, “Have to get over there sometime myself and see what the place is like.”
But, really, there would be no need to make the voyage. A few years later, America came to visit, liked what it saw, and stayed.
The workshop that is the Old Sculpin Gallery today has attracted and inspired artistry for decades, first as the workshop of the gifted boatbuilder Manuel Swartz Roberts (1881-1963) and today as a workshop, training, and display space for Martha’s Vineyard artists, young and old.
Roberts’ craftsmanship, his wise and earnest hospitality, and his fine sense of what was beautiful and useful in the fishing catboats he designed, modeled, and built stirred an aesthetic impulse among his daily visitors and made a starting place for their own artwork.
Bailey Norton, whose waterfront boathouse is across the street, describes in his memoir My Long Journey Home, the scene in Roberts’ shop:
“Whether morning or afternoon, upwards of half-a-dozen local men and visitors could be found at Manuel‘s engaged in lively discussions on virtually any topic. While these friendly debates were going on, Manuel toiled in the background single-handedly building a catboat while everyone in the shop would whittle away at a piece of pine scrap picked up off the floor.”
From 1904 to 1954, Roberts, nicknamed Old Sculpin after a fish common in groundfish catches, built catboats and other small craft. He also maintained the schooners and sloops that fished seasonally from Edgartown for flounder, halibut, and cod, and for swordfish in summer. His catboats, handy, shoal, and capacious, were designed with shellfishermen who worked the island ponds in mind. One of Roberts’ cats, the Edwina B, sits at the dock behind the Norton Boat House. What is now Memorial Wharf and nearby docks and buildings such as the boat house, were the home bases for the Vineyard fleet. Now a recreational harbor, Edgartown was in Roberts’ day a busy, working waterfront serving fishermen from across the island.
Perhaps there was a karmic affinity between the the boat shop and the Martha’s Vineyard Art Association, begun informally in 1934 by Ruth Appledorn Mead in a shack on the harbor across Dock Street. Roberts’ built his artfully conceived and executed cats on one side of the road, while the Art Association’s members toiled at their easels on the other, and when the boatbuilder retired, the artists moved into the shop. Today, the Old Sculpin Gallery does for painters and sculptors what Roberts did for the daily audience that watched him work. As it was then it is now, not only a place to find inspiration but a place to learn, to work, and ultimately to present the results to others for their judgments.
What’s now the Old Sculpin Gallery has had many lives – a sail loft, a flour mill, a whale oil factory, and a grain warehouse. Roberts’ boat shop succeeded the warehouse, and the gallery succeeded and extended Roberts’ link to the life of the town’s busy commercial waterfront.
The Martha’s Vineyard Preservation Trust, which has owned the building since 2005 and restored it for use by the gallery, has memorialized this inventive space that Manuel Swartz Roberts created a hundred years ago.
This is adapted from a sketch I wrote for the Old Sculpin Gallery, as part of its August 2 celebration, called On the Waterfront, The gallery and the Vineyard Trust (formerly the Martha’s Vineyard Preservation Trust), which owns the gallery building on Dock Street in Edgartown, jointly hosted the event.
Plumbelly By Gary S. Maynard. Flat Hammock Press. 2018. Hardcover. 218pp. $24.95.
As a child, the ocean sailor, boat builder, and home builder Gary S. Maynard of West Tisbury sailed around the world with his parents aboard a wooden boat his father built. All grown up, he and his wife Kristi and their two children left Vineyard Haven to roam the Caribbean and the Pacific aboard the wooden 45-foot, ketch rigged Scottish Zulu fishing vessel Violet, which he had converted into a family yacht.
Now, Gary has built a coming of age novel set at sea in the South Pacific, where the dramatic ingredients include racial hostility, paternal abusers, molestation, shipwreck, three deaths, one a murder, and teenage heartbreak. At least some of all this refashions experiences with which Gary is familiar. It is not a memoir although it may have begun as one.
“It’s not a memoir, but my own experience certainly informs it,” Gary said in a telephone conversation this week about Plumbelly, his first fiction. “The vast majority is fictional. Gabe’s character is more of an alter-ego of me, someone looking back on himself. I didn’t have a storyline, I didn’t have an outline, so the characters developed as the story emerged and took its own direction. They tell the story.”
Fifteen year old Gabe is the narrator. His own family sailing voyage ended in Tongu Harbor. Gabe’s father bullied and abused him mile after nautical mile on their journey. His mother is meek and does not protect him. The Polynesian natives of Tongu harassed him. The head of the island’s mixed race school keeps children in line with a cricket bat. Gabe’s best friend Lloyd is beaten mercilessly with his minister father’s belt. And, Tanya, blond, free spirited, wise beyond her 16 years, is oppressed by her Irish Catholic father.
Plumbelly is the name and the description of a plump, round bilged, double ended, wooden sloop that becomes the essential metaphor for the novel’s journey. She found her way to Tongu, as Gabe and his family had. She has already killed Ohio Dave, her solo sailing owner, in an explosion and fire. And, eventually salvaged by Gabe and Lloyd, Plumbelly becomes the inspiration and the vehicle for the three friends to escape.
Tanya set her sights on Gabe who, though shy at first, knows a good thing when she finds him, and he joins up fiercely before very long. Young, lovely, and independent, she is the emotional leader and the adhesive among the three friends. She moves the love making along, stiffens Gabe’s sometimes wavering self-confidence, and makes hard decisions that Gabe without her might avoid. She is a more potent character than her billing as a supporting cast member suggests. The night they slipped away, Gabe snuck around to Tanya’s house, to tell her that he and Lloyd could wait no longer to flee.
She was wearing an oversized t-shirt and she stretched it down over her knees.
“We have to leave tonight.”
She stared at me.
“It’s not safe here anymore for Lloyd,” I said. “Or me.”
“What are you talking about?”
It hit me how ridiculous I was, a skinny kid in worn out clothes looking in the window of a beautiful girl on a dark night and asking her to sail away in the deep Pacific on a tired old boat with no money, no plan, no way home. I listened to my heartbeat and our breathing and turned away and looked up at the dark hillside.
“I understand if you can’t come,” I said.
“Don’t be an ass,” she said. “Give me a sec. I need to pack.”
Much of Gabe’s story is told in dialogue among the fleeing sailors. Speaking to one another they sound like teenagers in flight from problems at home and excited at the adventurous nature of their escape. Their raillery sounds familiar, juvenile, but lively and affectionate. Their commitment to one another is conclusive. In these conversations, 15-year-old Gabe’s voice is often petulant, pleading, confused, and timid. But, speaking directly to the reader, Gabe’s voice is different. He is grown up and sailorly. He sounds more like his creator, in command and at peace as his vessel, in perfect sympathy with the ocean, the wind, and her master, presses upwind and farther from home.
I held the tiller in both hands, feeling the boat tugging hard as she pitched into the head sea. I sensed the rush of water under her lee bow and the lift as it passed under the turn of the bilge, felt the smooth flow of current tucking into the hollow of her stern and over her rudder blade. Plumbelly navigated the interface of two worlds, her mast and sails reaching up to grasp the winds of one, her hull gripped in the deep currents of the other. I eased the mainsheet a fathom or two and hardened up the jib, and the force on the tiller lessened and the boat steadied out on her course.
Unlike the boats or the houses he has built, Plumbelly was a decade in the making. “I wrote nonfiction, for Wooden Boat magazine a bunch of times, but this was my first foray into fiction. I intended it as a seagoing novel that would appeal to people who were not sailors.” He added that the story and the characters changed as draft followed draft.
This is not Riddle of the Sands, a small boat sailing espionage adventure set under the loom of war. Riddle, widely considered the capstone of small boat sailing literature, is written for sailors for whom the navigation, the seamanship, the mastery of currents and tides, and the political strategizing is compelling, not mystifying. Plumbelly is not Master and Commander, with colossal naval battles, broadsides, grappling hooks, and Gilbert and Sullivan uniforms. It is not Sailing Alone Around the World, one extraordinary sailor’s smuggish ocean sailing travelogue. And, importantly, it’s not a soft-serve teen soap opera.
If these are the available categories, Plumbelly doesn’t fit. It’s less technical than Riddle, less histrionic than Master and Commander, less global than Sailing Alone, and grimmer than a soap. Gary’s is a story of young people finding an unusual way through a thicket of problems and opportunities, and learning the heartbreaking truths of life, love, loss, and making a break for it.
This review was published on July 3, 2018 in the Martha’s Vineyard Times.
Probably when you and your friends gather around the campfire, warm your hands over the Buffalo wings, and slake your your thirst with a cold Ballantine Ale, the talk is not about punctuation. That’s all right. You’re fine. Whatever you want to argue over is up to you.
In the circles in which I revolve, my crowd has spent many an evening in hot dispute over the use of exclamation points. I’m not proud of it, but it’s true. Or, it might be semi-colons, even commas.
Daily, one confronts the prose composition eccentricities of the many-headed. Over the years these have included not only language, grammar, punctuation, vulgarities (especially common these days), and topic anomalies, but even excursions that aren’t prose at all. Among the weirdest of these is the devotion to the most self-effacing kind of expression, which does not use capitalization to signal the beginning of a new sentence, or to distinguish proper nouns. They are grammatically modest, to a confusing degree. For these, I is i, and God (or god) forbid a reader might conclude that the writer’s opinion of himself is exalted. Strangely, the use of that un-capped i in sentence after sentence may infiltrate some ambiguity into the reader’s assessment of the writer’s apparent humility, but each of us is free to make up her own mind about that.
For reasons that I think are wholly unrelated to the no I in i impulse, other writers omit periods at the ends of sentences, preferring the mark for ellipses instead. Thus “john visited judy this evening … they watched some tv then ate some ice cream … then … “
The sentence pretends to explain what john and judy did, but what did they do, really, especially after the ice cream? Inquiring minds want to know. The three dots don’t indicate the end of a sentence, as some letter writers imagine that they do. The period, acting alone, does that. The three dots can indicate an elision or omission, something left out, and not by accident. It may also suggest that the writer merely lost the thread and, instead of searching for it, set down an unwritten “what the hell” and went on.
Oh, and then there is the absence of periods altogether. Some writers compose one long utterly unpunctuated sentence. Their view, I think, is that the reader deserves a challenge and will somehow make sense out of what they are trying to say.
Or there is the apparently irresistible urge some writers, commenters, tweeters, and others have to add some pop to their message. They bring out the all-caps big guns, figuring that they will give whatever they had in mind to disparage a sound beating. “THAT STUPID BASTARD GOT THE THUMPING HE DESERVED,” as if being called a no-caps ‘stupid bastard’ who got a ‘thumping’ wouldn’t sting.
For all these compositional miscreants, semi-colons, capitalization, and even commas are the least of their failings. And, I won’t torment you with spelling.
Turning to semi-colons, I’m not a fan. Of course, they have a job to do in written expression more formal than tweets. But in everyday communication commas, on the other hand, are useful, and they enhance expression by adding clarity – if clarity is what the writer is after. Sometimes, obviously, it is not meaning or clarity he is after but clamor. Commas don’t lay there on the page being merely grammatical, even puzzlingly so. Their job is to say, “Pause a beat, take a breath, here’s a supplementary idea, now go on.” They are especially useful to brighten a complicated but murky idea, particularly when it began for the writer as a treasured thought but was on its way to being a jumble.
Anyhow, what are really on my mind are exclamation points. I hate them. The problems are duplication and excess. When someone writes “Wow,” the word is an exclamation. Adding !!! doesn’t add a thing, except perhaps the suggestion that the writer is feigning an enthusiasm and disguising insincerity. After all, no one is really three exclamation points worth of eager, and if someone is, do we want have written communication with such a demented soul?
If one writes “Thanks,” or even “Thanks a lot,” will the addition of a ! or even three !!! enlarge one’s gratitude or make it more heartfelt. If it was not heartfelt when it was represented by by the word alone, how can it be made so with a punctuation mark?
My theory – and you may conclude that it derives from my view that everything was better years ago, although that is not exactly or completely my view – is that when we moved from typewriters to computer keyboards, writers embraced the license to clutter one’s prose with exclamation points, and now (the horror) emoji. In the days of the Underwood, you could bang on the keys all you wanted, but you couldn’t find one labeled exclamation point. There were commas, apostrophes that could double as quotation marks, even semi-colons, but no exclamation points. Writers kept their enthusiasms in check. They committed more modest prose. If you wanted to inflate your emotion with an exclamation point, you had to type the period, then backspace, then type the shift-apostrophe. It was a nuisance, so writers restrained themselves. If they wanted to fly their emotional freak flag, they had to find the words.