Toni Buckley-Dockter – Founder; Publisher; Editor-in-Chief; Distribution Manager; Intrepid Reporter; IT Guy; Coffee Girl
email: fwepub@aol.com
MOTTO: When telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
All editorial All social commentary All for the common good
Issue Number 26 – January 2020
********************************
A few years ago I joined a national organization called the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship (SOF)–a group dedicated to the theory that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, is the real author of the Shakespeare plays and sonnets (not the guy from Stratford-upon-Avon). After digesting lots of info, it made sense to me. I became a dutiful member.
All was well until it wasn’t–when I started to feel like Marie Yovanovitch at a Mar-a-Lago cocktail party–with Rudy Colludy glaring from the next table.
I don’t get on well with a non-democratic, fuddy-duddy, good-ol-boys power structure–a bro culture that protects its own to the detriment of others. Here’s why I deliberately stepped out of line.
I had a big problem with SOF endorsing/sponsoring two books:
A Question of Will, by Lynne Kositsky, former Trustee of Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship. (Fiction – originally published in 2000 and reprinted in 2019.)
Summer Storm: A Novel of Ideas, by James Warren, former Trustee of Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship. (Fiction – published in 2016.)
The narratives of these books may support the Earl of Oxford authorship theory but other content harms something infinitely more important than who wrote Shakespeare: the well-being of women and children.
Promoting the authorship question should not come at the expense of messing up society more than it already is. And I don’t want to be hoodwinked into donating $1000 to pay for a booth at a conference contributes to the messing up part.
[How was I hoodwinked? At the National Council of Teachers of English Conference (November 2019), members of SOF were supposed to have distributed Mark Twain’s book, Is Shakespeare Dead?–not A Question of Will.]A Question of Will (a Young Adult book aimed at teenagers) contains two scenes of sexual predation against the main character, a teenage girl named Willow.
In one scene Willow is told by her naked boss and roommate to hop into bed with him to sleep–and she complies. The other scene involves Willow getting knocked to the ground in some kind of assault.
The author does not warn readers that these situations could cause serious consequences, thus normalizing predatory behavior. Teenage readers could think that it’s OK for them to be in a similar situation like Willow.
When did the welfare of children become less important than the need of an organization to promote itself? Oh right, the Trump Administration.
For me the second book, Summer Storm: A Novel of Ideas by James Warren, is a trainwreck from start to finish–running off the rails of basic storytelling and basic morality. I loathed the main character–his voice of intellectual superiority; the bashing of his wife; his attempt to justify adultery.
The book is pitched as a story about a professor teaching a Shakespeare class (at a fictitious college in South Carolina) and his introduction of the authorship question. I think it’s a story about a married college professor having an affair with his female student while his wife is in Taiwan caring for her ailing father.
A glowing review of this book appeared in a 2017 SOF Newsletter. At the time I made a mental note to some day check it out. When the author was slated to appear as the keynote speaker at the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship Annual Conference in 2019, I decided to read the book.
Boy oh boy did I have a bad reaction to that experience!
The reviewer failed to mention the large portion of text devoted to the extra-marital affair. Likewise, the reviewer did not mention that a professor initiating a sexual relationship with a student is sexual harassment–which is never appropriate. No matter if the student is older than the average college student. No matter what country she comes from. No matter what her sexual history is. No matter that she is divorced. No matter how willing she is.
There’s a power differential that contaminates any consensual aspect.
If the female student weren’t willing to go on a date, would there be retaliation? Does she think she might end up with a bad grade that could cause her to lose her Fulbright Scholarship? Does she think this might cause her to get deported back to Vietnam?
The reviewer thought the author was successful in advancing the authorship question. I think a main character who deceives and cheats (and blackmails a colleague to save his job) has no credibility to convince readers about anything.
If you’re trying to persuade readers to buy into a new concept–that flies in the face of traditional academic teachings–wouldn’t you want the main character tasked with presenting the argument to be more like Tom Hanks in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood than Tom Hanks in Charlie Wilson’s War? (BTW, at least the Wilson character had charm. Prof. Fernwood exhibited no charminess. Just smarminess.)
The structure of this book bugged me because the purpose of a novel is to tell a story–not be a vehicle to dump enormous amounts of scholarly research, scientific studies, Shakespeare quotes, and cultural references.
The reviewer claimed that the giant data dumpage was “incorporated smoothly” into the story. I think it clogged up the pipes that keeps the story flowing. Quick–call Joe the Plumber!
How large was the dump?
– 122 Shakespeare passages quoted or discussed.
– 295 other sources mentioned/quoted.
– 11 entries from a fictional newspaper column–a subplot about a reporter trying to prove climate change–which are presented as titled essays (two to four pages long).
– 59 tidbits about books, movies, and music mentioned in conversations between characters.
Note: The reason I know the exact number of data/sources used in this book is because the author provides a list of everything in an index. For instance, there’s Goethe; Isaac Asminov; Bambi; Mark Twain; Jesus; Doris Day and Rock Hudson in Pillow Talk; Socrates; Puccini, Einstein; Aristotle; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn; Lord Kelvin; W.C. Heuper of the National Cancer Institute; Henry Morton (President of the Stevens Institute of Technology in 1880); Gandhi, Walter Lippmann’s A Preface to Morals book; Jane Austen; The Sound of Music; Fred Astaire, IPCC GCMs (International Climate Change Panel General Circulation Models); Man’s Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy by Viktor Frankl; Freud; Fiddler on the Roof; John Galsworthy; German physicist Alfred Wegener’s 19th century theory on continental drift, etc.
The extraneous material adds up to 1.3 pieces of information (not storytelling) per page. I found that really annoying. Which is the opposite of what the reviewer said:
“Warren has a way with words. There is something memorable on just about every page.”
An example of annoying:
The main character (Professor Alan Fernwood) and his student (Amelia) are listening to Nina Simone. He “excitedly” says: “That is the most astonishing arrangement of that song I have ever heard! Do you hear that? Every note is set in advance, contrapuntally, like a Bach fugue. The effect builds and builds, like Bolero. It’s like Ravel mixed with Bach in a jazz setting. It’s amazing.”
Memorable or just plain insufferable?
After eighteen days of clandestine hookups/public displays of dating described in hilarious sentences/lines of dialogue* that aren’t supposed to be funny, Fernwood concludes he is in love with Amelia. He plans to ditch his wife of twenty-something years via a phone call. Fernwood tells Amelia:
“We belong together. The question is how to get from here to there. Scientific paradigms change only when the reigning paradigm clashes with a new one in a moment of crisis. Maybe that is the best way for love paradigms to change, too. I’m trying to see how I might generate a crisis that could lead to a change…”
He also tells her:
“It’s almost like I am the female version of you and you are the male version of me.”
So falling in love with her is really falling in love with himself? Quick–call Dr. Freud!
Example of a hilarious sentence that isn’t supposed to be funny:
Amelia remained silent, still looking into his eyes, drinking in his words as small crabs on the rocks drink in the returning tide.
Crabs as a compliment?
Example of Fernwood’s personality which I also found annoying and weird: He says to Amelia:
“My love of literature and books sets me apart from other Americans. By one estimate, only three percent of people have an active life of the mind. So perhaps I am a bit unusual.”
Another example:
Alan walked into the lobby of the Harvest Hotel exactly at seven. He was dressed smart casual, wearing a long sleeve shirt and a jacket, but no tie, to match the refined but still comfortable ambiance of the hotel.
He dresses himself to match the interior decor of a hotel?! Quick–call Dr. Phil!
Another example when Fernwood sees Amelia wearing a dress:
She looked so lovely, and he wished other women would follow her example of making an effort to look nice in public, rather than wearing old jeans and a T shirt…It’s a shame the way our culture has become so degraded…My mother always wore summer dresses…”
First of all, distressed-looking jeans have been popular since the 1990s. And secondly, this guy wants women to look like his mother? Calling Dr. Phil!
And where’s Fernwood’s equal-opportunity criticism of the way men dress? Been to the mall lately? Don’t see any GQ influence there. (Seriously, who even cares?) If Fernwood doesn’t like the way women dress he should hand them his Nordies card and tell them to go on a shopping spree.
In an email to SOFers, I included my own satirical review of Summer Storm–by an organization called PERV–Putzes Espousing Raunchy Views.
It went something like this:
The group was founded by Jeffrey Epstein and Roger Ailes as an “old white guys gone wild” book club. After they kicked the bucket, Prince Randy Andy took over hosting duties (which is the real reason he doesn’t have time to perform royal duties).
Over the years participants have included Matt Lauer, Brett Kavanaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Anthony Weiner, Les Moonves, Bill Clinton, Larry Nassar, Charlie Rose, Placido Domingo, Humbert Humbert, priests, Boy Scout troop leaders, etc.–and of course, Harvey (who never reads the books but pretends he will make movies based on them with hot young actresses).
Even Comrade Bone Spurs stopped by for locker room camaraderie. He confessed that Melania had demanded he improve his I.Q.–like try to read a book.
The PERVs raved about Summer Storm!
They enjoyed the main character’s name: Alan Fernwood. One member, a botanist, noted that ferns are 360 million years old and in their native habitat (like a college campus?) they are an invasive species.
Another PERV noted that according to the Urban Dictionary, “wood” is slang for a trouser snake.
Placido Domingo said Fernwood reminded him of Moby Dick, an ancient white whale menacing others. He said he oughta know.
Woody Allen attended with his wife as she has him on a short leash. She thought the part about Amelia having “to think like an Asian” was racist. And she said she should know.
The PERVs approved of the professor’s justification for adultery and reasons to end his marriage. They liked the no-empathy approach to blowing up his family and the lack of concern about the impact on anyone except himself.
The PERVs’ favorite Fernwood complaints about his wife:
1. The professor has a library containing over 8,000 books which he has read and he says his wife hasn’t read one of them.[Maybe they are all boring books. Besides, who counts their books?]
2. One time the prof was listening to a “marvelous recording of Beethoven’s Spring Sonata” and his wife tried to show him pictures of scarves on Facebook–which offended him greatly.[If the recording had not been so “marvelous” and maybe just mediocre, would the wife still be relegated to divorce court? Who doesn’t have a minute or two to respond to his wife?]
3. When the wife comes home from work she starts doing housework, instead of what the prof does: “Going straight to the most important intellectual activities.” Then when the wife is finished cleaning, “she didn’t move to the life-of-the-mind activities that he lived for.”[Are the professor’s arms painted on?]4. The wife was “unable to recognize nuances.”The PERVs had no idea what that meant but said any excuse to hop into the sack with a younger “most beautiful woman” was good enough for them.[I have no idea what that means either.]5. Fernwood said his wife “could not understand the horror of the situation” of his previous relationship with a woman who was bi-polar.He tells Amelia, “She was not a normal person and it is to my deep regret that I ever met her…I was ready to do anything, even kill myself to get away from her.”PERV comment: “All women are hysterical.”[Maybe the wife’s lack of response was due to her own horror of realizing the type of man she is married to?]
The PERVs thought it totally acceptable for Fernwood to have sex with a student, even though the prof knew it was a fireable offense by his employer, the university. And termination would have left the prof unable to pay his kids’ college tuition bills.
The PERVs’ favorite parts:
1. The sex scene in the shower and the wanton use of soap. One PERV thought the “ballet performance” sounded too Baryshnikov-ish to be real. The rest thought they could duplicate the moves.
2. This scene:
“They both needed the comfort of the physical release of making love. This time it was pure animal rutting. No talk of his being an android, or the shape of her shadow on the bed. Just him pounding into her again and again and again, giving them both the release from the tension…”
I wondered if all the pounding was because Fernwood had carpenter issues or if it was a metaphor for the hammering of women by society in general.
4. This scene:
“He had no more thoughts as his body responded to the quickening movements of the woman above him with movements of his own, leading both of them to that moment when the clouds collided and the thunder and lightning burst forth over both of them simultaneously.”
5. This scene:
Amelia suddenly stood up. “My brain is tired from so much talking. You know I am a very physical person. I need some movement…”“Let’s go swim some laps,” Alan suggested.“No, I have a better idea,” she said, taking his hand and leading him toward the bedroom. “You have said you love me. I want you to prove it, physically.”
Even PERVs know that any female of junior high school age or older is well aware that a guy jumping her bones is not proof of love. It isn’t even proof of like. It isn’t even proof the female will ever hear from him again.
Note to guys: If you want to prove your love physically, take out the trash or push a vacuum cleaner around.
The PERVs did not mention my least favorite scene, which was when Amelia says to Fernwood:
“You know that I do not like to take medicine…do not like to take drugs…But for you I have done something that I have never done for anyone else before. I am now taking birth control pills because I know how much you do not like other methods.““Amelia” he managed to whisper, “that is the most wonderful thing anybody has ever done for me.”
Contrastingly the wife gave birth twice–and I’m guessing here–was most likely in charge of all the non-“life-of-the-mind” tasks such as changing diapers, feeding, cooking, washing, shopping, carpooling, housekeeping, and a million other chores that add up to “wonderfulness.” Not someone taking birth control pills.
To sum up Summer Storm–spoiler alert ahead:
Amelia dumps Fernwood through a Dear John letter–71 days after they first met in his class.
One day before the professor had planned to call his wife to give her the heave ho, he gets fired from his job–not because of the affair but because Shakespeare as a subject was being eliminated from the college curriculum.
When Fernwood is being terminated by the department head, he complains how unfair it is because now he can’t pay for his kids’ college tuition. He whines about the lack of loyalty shown him when he had brought prestige to the university with his conferences.
Later Amelia orchestrates a scheme to get the department head to hop in the sack with her so Fernwood would have blackmail material to ensure a good buy-out package and/or keep a position on staff. (Not clear in the book.)
When the bloom is off the rose, Fernwood thinks to himself that Amelia wasn’t that great looking after all. He scoffs wondering if she even knows how to spell a particular word–thinking she wasn’t that smart after all? (She was a Fulbright Scholar. Pretty sure she can spell.)
I wondered if the post-Amelia Fernwood thought differently of a previous comment she had made about Shakespeare which he had highly praised her for:
“Shakespeare…did not quite realize that the will is not one thing, that it is composed of multiple components…If he had understood that he might have presented his characters’ motives and understanding of themselves a bit differently.”
Takes balls to criticize Shakespeare’s writing!
The book ends with the professor driving to the airport to fetch his “no nuance” wife, humming a tune in the car: Sinatra’s “I Got the World on a String.”
After the end of the book there is an “Afterward”–which takes place four and a half months later. At a mall Fernwood and his wife run into two of his former students. They update Fernwood about their other classmates–including Amelia. Fernwood learns she may be living in Texas–possibly with Doug, another student from the class. Fernwood’s internal dialogue is negative toward Amelia about having a relationship with Doug.
But more telling, Fernwood does not introduce his wife to the students. No one speaks to her. She has no dialogue.
Novels are supposed to have a character arc: “The transformation or inner journey of a character who begins as one sort of person and gradually changes or grows in response to story developments.”
Fernwood undergoes zero change.
Zero self-awareness.
Zero recognition he has no moral compass.
Zero responsibility for his actions.
Zero understanding of his demeaning views and disrespecting actions toward women.
Zero acknowledgment he is still in the same “sleep walking” marriage he found so “suffocating” he desperately wanted out of a short time ago.
Fernwood may believe he has “the world on a string” and is “sitting on a rainbow.” But the reader won’t.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. For me the essence of this book is about a guy having an adulterous affair. The reviewer’s opinion is it’s a novel about ideas. She found quality in the book. I did not. She thought Fernwood was a quality character. I did not.
Misogyny is the oldest prejudice in Earth’s history. In the U.S. negative perceptions of women are reinforced everyday through social media and what we watch/read/listen to. An article in USA Today (1/16/2020) said “survey after survey shows the majority of women are disturbed by the treatment of women in U.S. society.”
Even though Summer Storm has every right to exist, it’s the kind of book that contributes to this problem. The Zeitgeist winds for female equality and status are blasting through America. This book blows hard in the opposite direction.
From Lindy West, author of Shrill: Notes from a Loud Woman and NY Times opinion writer:
“Art didn’t invent oppressive gender roles, racial stereotyping, or rape culture, but it reflects, polishes, and sells them back to us every moment of our waking lives. We make art and it makes us, simultaneously. Shouldn’t it follow, then, that we can change ourselves by changing what we make?”
I don’t separate the art from the artist. As such I don’t think the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship should esteem any author whose work adds to the FUBAR condition of the world today. #ForTheChildren and #RespectWomen are more important than #SOF.
2020 is the 100th anniversary of the publishing of Looney’s Shakespeare Identified–a “revolutionary book” that SOF will be commemorating later this year–with more lectures by someone I would rather not be lectured by.
2020 is also the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 14th Amendment: The Women’s Right to Vote. Now there’s something to celebrate!
I’m the only one who thinks the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship club needs to get woke into the current millennium. But eventually the old guard will fade away and a new generation will pop up–as the Pre-Boomer crowd falls by the wayside and TikTok’er types take over the show. How will SOF’s current mindset appeal to these new peeps to attract new members? How will SOF perpetuate itself with outdated thinking?
That’s why I think Thinking Different is a good thing. Group Think is not. Different voices are what keep a club from becoming a cult. Like the GOP Senate.
In 1872 Susan B. Anthony said:
“No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.”
I will continue to be a voice that speaks up–loud and clear–which will not win a popularity contest. Learn to duck!
As the Boston Red Sox owner said to the Brad Pitt character in Moneyball about his effort to introduce a new way of thinking into managing the game of baseball:
“I know you are taking it in the teeth, but the first guy through the wall… he always gets bloody… always. This is threatening not just a way of doing business… but in their minds, it’s threatening the game…It’s threatening the way they do things…and every time that happens, whether it’s the government…whatever, the people who are holding the reins–they have their hands on the switch–they go batshit crazy.”
Speaking of baseball, last month the San Francisco Giants hired MLB’s first female, full-time coach. Talk about a dent into the formidable wall protecting this good-ol-boys’ club. The times are not a-changin’. They’ve already changed.
A female speaking up is not welcome by a large swath of our society–including just as many women as men. The expectation is for women to remain silent. I don’t see the value in silence. Blind loyalty to groups–in order to get along you have to suck up, dumb up, and shut up–makes you compliant and complicit.
Feminist writer Rebecca Solnit said in her book Call Them By Their True Names:
“Calling things by their true names cuts through the lies that excuse, buffer, muddle, disguise, avoid, or encourage inaction, indifference, obliviousness. It’s not all there is to changing the world, but it’s a key step…a key to changing the world is changing the story.
Bottom Line: Calling people out for their behavior does not victimize them. The purpose is to stand up for yourself or others–a good thing.
Summing up:
Embarrassment I was a member of Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship. No one held a gun to my head and made me join this group. (Still an Oxfordian. No longer an SOF’er.)
Mortified that my money provided booth space where a problematic children’s book was given away.
Angry at myself for wasting my own time and for not asking questions about how this group is run. [Like why there are no voting rights or budgetary info for members.]
Thankful for the knowledge of why I was put on this planet–which isn’t to devote my life to trivial matters in the Universe.
All’s well even if it doesn’t end well. That’s life. (“Riding high in April…shot down in May…”)
So step out of line when necessary. For yourself. For others. For the greater good.
You will survive. Like Alex Borstein’s grandmother.
###