Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

New Midwestern Documentary – Kankakee Marsh

Friday, January 25th, 2013

If you enjoy the outdoors and its wildlife, visit state parks, canoe rivers and lakes, hike forests and hills, dance in prairies, take pleasure in learning your surroundings, and are facinated with the beatiful culture and history of the Midwest- then this DVD is a must see. It is an excellent one-hour educational documentary that explains the story behind the Kankakee Marsh located in Northwestern Indiana and part of Illinois by depicting individual and societal perceptions, historical, political, and economical facts, ecological and environmenatal altercations, conservation, degradation, and restoration. The Kankakee has always been a jem that I have treasured and one that I will forever continue too value.

I give an enormous kudos to those who diligently worked endlessly during the creation of this vital piece that will undoubtedly be used as educational material and hold its own in Midwestern history. I would also like to thank those who donated to the project, as I am sure it would not have been possible if they had not spare their generosity.

DVD: Everglade of the North- The Story of the Grand Kankakee Marsh

Producer-Writer: Jeff Manes, Producer-Camera-editor: Brian Kallies, Producer-camera-editor: Tom Desh, Executive Producer-camera: Pat Wisniewski. Presented by Lakeshoreo public television 2012 For Goodness Sake Productions, LLD

ISBN# 8450183563

For more information visit: kankakeemarsh.comhttp://www.nwiwusa.com/eon.html

 

 

Villisca Axe Murder House

Tuesday, January 8th, 2013

Address: 508 E. Second Street, Villisca, Iowa 50864

June 9, 1912 is often referred to as the darkest night in Villisca’s history. While the murderer’s identity remains a mystery, so do the paranormal entities that continue to haunt the scene of this gruesome tragedy.

Villisca is a city in Montgomery County, Iowa, United States. It is a small, rural community nestled in the hills of southwest Iowa, boasting approximately 1,300 people today. In the early 1900’s, the town boasted about 2,500 people.

In the early 1900’s, more than two dozen passenger and freight trains stopped at the depot each day. Villisca boasted several hotels, restaurants, stores, theaters, and manufacturers. Josiah B. Moore was a prominent businessman in the Villisca community. The owner and operator of the Moore Implement Company (a John Deere Company franchise), Moore was a solid competitor with other area businesses. Josiah Moore married Sarah Montgomery at the home of her parents. Josiah and Sarah had four children: Herman, Katherine, Boyd, and Paul.

Both Josiah and Sarah were well known and well-liked in Villisca. On June 9, 1912, Katherine Moore (10) invited Ina (8) and Lena (12) Stillinger to spend the night at the Moore residence. That evening, the visiting girls and the Moore family attended the Presbyterian Church where they participated in the Children’s Day Program. The Moore’s were active members of the Presbyterian Church, and, in fact, Sarah Moore had coordinated the Children’s Day Program. After the program, the Moores and Stillinger sisters walked to the Moore’s home, arriving between 9:45 and 10:00 p.m.

The next morning, the Moore’s neighbor, Mary Peckham, noticed that the Moores hadn’t begun their usual morning chores outside the home. Further, she noticed that their house was unusually still. Between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m., she knocked on the door, but received no answer. Peckham let the Moore’s chickens out and then called Ross Moore, Josiah Moore’s brother. Like Peckham, Moore attempted to raise someone inside the home, knocking loudly and shouting. He tried to look through the windows, but found that the curtains were drawn. He withdrew his keys and entered the home. While Peckham stood on the porche, Moore went into the parlor and opened the guest bedroom door. There, he found Ina and Len Stillinger’s bodies on the bed. Moore immediately told Peckham to call Hank Horton, Villisca’s primary peace officer, who arrived shortly thereafter.

The entire Josiah Moore family had been murdered – all bludgeoned with an axe while they slept. In the upstairs master bedroom lay 43 year-old Josiah Moore, who had received more blows from the axe than any other victim, his face so cut that his eyes were missing, and 39 year-old Sarah Moore, both bludgeoned in the head, their bed linens stained heavily with blood. In the adjacent upstairs bedrooms were the Moore children, 11 year-old Herman, 10 year-old Katherine, 7 year-old Boyd, and 5 year-old Paul, who had also been bludgeoned in the head while they slept. The Stillinger sisters were also found dead, killed in the same manner as the family.

Investigators believe that little Lena Stillinger tried to fight back. She was found with lying crosswise on the bed, and a defensive wound was discovered on her arm. Furthermore and sickeningly, Lena was found with her nightgown pushed up to her waist and no undergarments on, leading to speculation that the killer(s) sexually molested her or attempted to do so. For the other victims, the attacks were so vicious and brutal that the ceilings of the parents’ and children’s’ bedrooms showed gouge marks apparently made by the upswing of the axe.

News of the gruesome event spread like wildfire. Hank Horton arrived quickly, soon followed by other officers. Law enforcement officials soon lost control of the crime scene. Prior to the Villisca National Guard cordoning off the home, it is believed that as many as a hundred morbidly interested gawkers traipsed through the home.

The murder weapon – an axe owned by Josiah Moore – was found in the guest bedroom, indicating that the Stillinger girls were the last to be killed. Though it was bloody, there were signs than an attempt had been made to wipe it off. All of the curtains in the home had been drawn, and two windows of the home that were without curtains had been covered with clothing.

All of the victims faces were covered with linens or clothing after they were killed. A pan of bloody water and a plate of uneaten food was also discovered on the kitchen table of the home.

Several investigative teams were immediately disbanded on horseback and by automobile, expecting to find the killer lurking in an alley, or barn, or shed, or outhouse in the vicinity. Each party returned empty handed, and no one in Villisca could imagine who would commit such a heinous act.

Over time, many possible suspects emerged, including Reverend George Kelly. Kelly was a traveling minister who happened to be teaching the Children’s Day services at the Presbyterian Church, organized by the late Katherine Moore and attended by the Moores on June 9, 2012. The small-framed, bird-like preacher had a reputation as being unbalanced and perhaps a pedophile. He left Villisca in the early morning hours of June 10 with his wife. Despite these oddities, these character traits were not what drew him to the investigation.

Rather, it was his obsession with the murders that caught the eye of law enforcement officials. In his obsession, Kelly penned a series of long, rambling letters to state and local government officials, private detectives and relatives of the victims.

Two weeks after the crime, Kelly returned to Villisca for another preaching visit. Kelly also paid a visit to the murder house. Within a month, officials began investigating claims that Kelly was seen peeking into a woman’s bedroom just days before the murder. Kelly had also been observed prowling the streets at night, and had made requests of women to pose nude for him on at least three occasions. Finally and likely most damningly, the week after the murder, he sent a bloody shirt to be laundered.

Kelly was taken into custody in April, 1917. After a long evening of interrogation, Kelly dictated a confession on August 31, 1917. In his confession, Kelly dictated that he had had trouble sleeping on the night of the murder and so went for a walk. He spied the Stillinger girls getting ready for bed through the window of the Moore’s home. He then went on to write that he heard the Lord’s voice commanding him to “suffer the children come unto me.”

At the time of the trial, a majority of Montgomery County citizens believed Kelly was being framed as part of a conspiracy by Frank Jones; it is believed that Jones tried to use his money and influence to pack the jury. During his life, Josiah Moore had taken away business from Frank Jones, resulting in this vendetta. As a result, Kelly was acquitted of all charges in November, 1917 after being deadlocked and dismissed on September 28, 1917.

Another murder suspect was Henry Lee Moore, no relation to the slain family. Henry Lee Moore was convicted of the murder of his mother and grandmother several months prior to the murders in Villisca, his weapon of choice being an axe. The similarities in Henry Lee Moore’s committed murders and the fashion in which the Moore family and the Stillinger girls were murdered were striking. However, none of these similarities lead to proven facts.

Another theory was that Senator Frank Jones hired William “Blackie” Mansfield to murder the Moore family. Mansfield was believed to be a serial killer; he murdered his wife, his infant child, his father- and mother-in-law with an axe two years after the Villisca murders. He was also suspected of committing axe murders in Paola, Kansas, four days before the Villisca crimes; and committed the double homicide of Jennie Peterson and Jennie Miller in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The locale for these murders was accessible by train; Villisca is a known railroad town. However, his alibi checked out and Mansfield was released after a special Grand Jury of Montgomery County.

According to an investigation by Detective James Newton Wilkerson, all of the murders were committed in precisely the same manner indicating that the same man committed the murders. In each murder, the victims were hacked to death with an axe and the mirrors in the homes were covered. A burning lamp with the chimney off was left at the foot of the bed and a basin in which the murderer washed was found in the kitchen. In all instances, the murderer avoided leaving fingerprints by wearing gloves, which Wilkerson believed was strong evidence that the man was Mansfield – his fingerprints were on file at the federal military prison at Leavenworth, Kansas.

A Grand Jury was opened to investigate Mansfield in 1916; Mansfield was arrested and brought to Montgomery County from Kansas City. Payroll records provided an alibi that placed Mansfield in Illinois at the time of the Villisca murders. He was release for lack of evidence.

In the end, the police and investigators ceased their search in 1917. The murders remain unsolved and the killer unpunished. The remains of those murdered lie in the Villisca Cemetery, and the “Murder House” continues to stand.

The “Murder House” was originally built in 1868. The Moore family purchased the home in 1903. After their deaths, the home went through a series of eight owners, before it was purchase by Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Linn in 1994.

The Linns restored the home to its original glory. In 1998, the “Murder House” was added to the National Register of Historic Places. Today, it is open for tours and overnight sleepovers. It has consistently rated as one of the top ten most haunted places in America.

Since the Villisca Axe Murders, the home has had a formidable reputation of paranormal happenings within. Previous tenants said they have spied a shadowy man with an axe standing at the food of their bed, images of bloody shoes, closet doors that open of their own accord, the sounds of children crying, and clothing taken from dressers and closets strewn about the room.

A man once reported that, while sharpening a knife, it suddenly turned around and stabbed him in the thumb. He went on to explain that it felt as though someone had gripped his wrist. One family reportedly ran screaming from the home in the middle of the night, never to return.

Other who have toured the “Murder House” report hearing the sound of phantom children’s voices when there are no children, whispers, banging sounds, falling lamps, and objects moving on their own. An evil presence is felt lingering in the attic, where it is thought the murderer hid while waiting for the family to fall asleep. One story alleges that an individual tried to enter the attic, but an unknown force prevented her from doing so.

A number of paranormal investigations have been hosted at the “Murder House.” These investigations have allegedly produced audio, video, and photographic proof of lingering spirits. When the house was investigated by Ghost Adventures, a recording of a man was captured saying, “I killed six kids.”

Past tenants and owners of the home argue that the home is not haunted; having lived there and not experienced any mysterious or strange occurrences. However, once again the home is open for tours and any overnight guests who wish to quell their curiosity.

Rialto Square Theatre

Tuesday, January 8th, 2013

Address: 102 North Chicago Street, Joliet, Illinois 60432

While the historic Rialto Square Theatre not only hosts hundreds of patrons and entertainment acts each year, it is also the home of several eternal guests.

In 1926, the Rialto Square Theatre began its life as a vaudeville movie palace; the six Rubens brothers formed the Royal Theatre Company and wanted to build a “palace for the people”, and so formed to guarantee the two million dollar project. C.W. and George L. Rapp, founders of the Chicago firm of Rapp & Rapp Architects in 1906, designed opulent theatre. The building boasts Italian Renaissance, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Rococo, Venetian, and Baroque architecture.

Kaiser-Ducett, the main contractor for the Rialto Square Theatre, was also the main contractor for many exhibits at Chicago’s 1933 World’s Fair. The firm was sold in 1968. The wonderful European architecture is the signature work of the late Eugene Romano, a Sicilian immigrant who settled in Park Ridge, Illinois. Other buildings bearing his work include the Board of Trade, Chicago Daily News Building, Soldier Field, Merchandise Mart, Blackstone Theatre, Wrigley Building and the Joliet Township High School Auditorium.

The day before the grand premier, the Joliet Sunday Herald News printed:

“When the doors of the new Rialto open tomorrow, Joliet will have one of the finest theaters in the United States, as experts say there is nothing to compare with it in any city of similar size, and it stands on even terms with the modern motion picture palaces of Chicago and New York.”

The Royal Theatre Company leased the operation of the theater to the Great States Theatre, Inc. The property remained under the control and direction of the Ruben brother.

After two years of construction, the theater opened on May 24, 1926. On its opening night, theatre patrons paid fifty cents to see the silent film, “Mademoiselle Modiste.” The interior of the Rialto was, indeed, a Palace for the People.

The esplanade, or inner lobby, is designed after the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles near Paris, France. The arch between the esplanade and rotunda area had been carefully copied from the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. In the center of is the head of the goddess Athena.

To the upper right of the arch is a symbolic bas-relief, in the form of a dragon, entitled “Labor Fighting the Evils of Today.” On the left side is “Man’s Labor,” showing the harvesting of wheat. The elegant rotunda is surrounded by 18 Corinthian-style columns, and surmounted by a dome very similar to the Pantheon in Rome. The suspended eight-arm crystal chandelier, named the “Duchess,” is a bronze giant of some 200 fixtures, is twenty feet long with 250 lights. It is one of the largest hand-cut crystal chandeliers in the country; the large prisms are of the Marie Therese cut which was popular during the Rococo period.

Draperies throughout the theater were of the early Dufour period. Encircling the rotunda in full view, is the Goddess of the Eastern Star. A glimpse into the theater itself reveals a view of the proscenium arch with the grand drape. Organ chambers are bordered by ornate balconies on either side, with pipes masked by glittering floral grills of Byzantine influence.

The theater was fully air-conditioned, and often displayed numerous sculptures, art, elaborate draperies, and furnishing. The theatre opened to grand applause and entertained the public with vaudeville, stage productions, musical and comedic entertainers, ballet and opera, and was a “movie house” during the Golden Age of films. Over the years, the Rialto has hosted such names as Andy William, Mitzi Gaynor, the Chicago Pops Orchestra, Victor Borge, Red Skelton, and Liberace to name a few of hundreds.

Time and weather took its toll on the grand theater. Dorothy Mavrich, president of the Cultural Arts Council of the Joliet Area, formerly known as the Rialto Square Arts Association, initiated a campaign to “Save the Rialto” for future generations as a performing arts center. The vaudeville movie palace became a “performing arts center” on November 27, 1981. However, restoration had begun in April of 1980, an effort that involved the entire community. Funds were sought from the city, state and federal officials.

The Will County Metropolitan Exposition and Auditorium Authority, a unit of local government, was created in 1978 to own and operate the Rialto Square Theatre complex and surrounding properties. The Rialto Square Theatre is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and is considered one of the top ten theatres in the country. Today, it hosts the Rialto School of the Arts in addition to numerous events and meetings as a rental space. The Rialto Square Theatre Foundation is a non-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization and accepts donative support.

The Jewel of Joliet not only hosts hundreds of customers, it is also home to a few resident ghosts. The most often sighted is a nameless, spectral woman. She is thought to have been an actress who performed at the theatre many years ago. Those who have seen her have described her as being in her twenties, very pretty, sometimes surrounded by hazy light, and thought to have been a well-known performer of her time. She has been reported floating around the theatre seen by members of staff, patrons, and workmen, becoming particularly active during the period of time that the Rialto was closed to the public. Many believe that she loved performing that she is simply not ready to move on from this world.

Two more spirits, a male and female, are sometimes seen in the auditorium’s balcony. Legend states that the pair fell to their deaths from the balcony. Like many other ghosts who have died tragic deaths, they just won’t move on.

Other reports include patches of icy coldness within the theatre, strange noises, objects that seem to move of their own accord, and the unexplained feelings of being “jabbed” by an invisible, phantom finger.

“Killing of Strangers” as a Hard-boiled Mystery

Wednesday, December 12th, 2012

Though already an accomplished playwright, Jerry Holt’s first published novel, The Killing of Strangers, introduces readers to Sam Haggard, a down on his luck ex-policeman whose cynical views, loner ways, and witty comments serve to inaugurate him into the club of classic hard-boiled mystery detectives. The novel has all the trappings for a proper mystery novel with suspense, action, and intrigue abounding throughout. A twist is thrown in with the fusing together of fact and fiction to make the novel even more compelling.

As a piece of hard-boiled detective fiction, A Killing of Strangers, follows the rules set out by classics such as Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, and Ross Macdonald. The three are hailed as “the holy trinity of American crime writers.” The latter two, in this case, have strong influences on Holt as a writer. Sam Haggard, like the iconic Spade, Marlowe and Archer, lives day to day on a small paycheck that barely passes the poverty line. He maintains a small housing unit that is bare of not much more than the essentials; in Haggard’s case this includes a massive collection of tunes ranging from the blues to classic rock and roll. Haggard has no concern for the luxury wealth entails, only for whether or not he can pay his rent the next month when he loses his job as a security guard at the local college. He is a loner, with an ex-wife who doesn’t like that her son from another marriage enjoys Haggard’s company over the new man in her life. The son, Lincoln, is one of the few close relationships Haggard maintains. The other is his longtime pothead of a friend, Mac, who owns the used book store across the street from Haggard’s place. Mac, an invalid who is wheelchair bound, doesn’t let much stop him and refuses to put a filter on his mouth, shooting off cynical quips in friendly banter with Haggard. The only instance in which the reader sees the possible problems in their relationship is when Mac’s wife berates Haggard for ditching her husband to deal with the police alone after he has shot one of the villains to protect Haggard.

According the the website Crimeculture, there is another prerequisite for proper hard-boiled mysteries in that “the relationships that matter most are those between the detective and the femme-fatale (or other women present) and also the city in which the detective lives.” Holt focuses his writings on the relationship between the forty-six year old Haggard and the twenty-eight year old Corrie Blake as a way to contrast the young, callous generation with the older, weary yet idealistic Haggard. The rapport seen between Haggard and Mac, a friendship that will probably last until death, is important to the work as a whole for character development of Haggard and comedic relief for the audience, yet it is not over done and only mention in a couple chapters. The same could be said for every other relationship in the novel outside of Haggard and Corrie’s.

The relationship between man and place is established in all the details the author uses when discussing places and events. Having been based on the Kent State Shootings, Haggard spends a lot of time driving through Columbus, Kent, and other surrounding areas. Roads and scenery from Ohio are detailed as well as the campus of Kent State, which had to have made an appearance in the book. Midwestern tones are also seen in the weather that plagues Ohio as set up in the opening line of the mystery, “The morning of the day Lucifer Jones came back from the dead, it snowed like hell,” Delmore “Lucifer” Jones being the fictional character suspected of the real life arson crime at Kent State, the burning of the ROTC building.

All in all, Holt’s first attempt at a hard-boiled mystery novel is a success. He has created a character that faces intimidation by those in an organized crime circuit and temptation with young Corrie to fully define his idea of both justice and morality. Holt’s use of gritty and graphic language further demonstrates his ability to make a presence in the world of hard-boiled fiction.

Susan Glaspell’s “Trifles” Based on Iowan Murder?

Wednesday, December 12th, 2012

A lot of criticism and controversy has surrounded Susan Glaspell’s Trifles. The question of whether or not the main character should have been convicted of murder seems to lead a large number of discussions. Perhaps this is why the play is still well-known amongst literature majors today. Yet, another question is vitally important in any interpretation of the piece. The inquiry into why the woman murdered her husband should be tantamount in discussions. By looking at the actual event of the Hossack murder in 1900, it can be discerned that Glaspell wrote her piece as an explanation for why a woman may murder her husband. In her attempt to explain, Glaspell created a character, Minnie Wright, who is oppressed by her husband to the extreme. To fully free herself, Minnie escapes by way of strangling her husband to death, thus giving the audience an explication for why a murder was committed.

In Glaspell’s Trifles, Minnie is married to a man by the name of John Wright. The one-act play opens with the local sheriff and county attorney investigating the death of Mr. Wright. Minnie, sitting at the jail, is never introduced into the play, yet her character is given to the audience through the eyes of Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale, who are in attendance during the investigation. Hale, being a neighbor and childhood friend of Minnie, converses over trifling matters with Peters, wife of the sheriff, while the men attempt to prove Minnie strangled her husband. The two work their way through Minnie’s household endeavors, such as her kitchen and her sewing baskets, all the while discussing who Minnie was and how she has changed over the years. The play concludes with the women finding and keeping to themselves evidence that will convict Minnie of the murder.

In the year 1900, Glaspell was working as a reporter for the Des Moines Daily News in Iowa. A woman in her mid-twenties, Glaspell was not yet the fiction writer she was soon to become. One of her last assignments as a reporter was to cover the Hossack case. On trial for the murder of her husband, Margaret Hossack was said to have abhorred the man so much that she “beat his brains out as he slept” (Schechter 179). The woman was convicted and served one year before her conviction was overturned on an appeal. In the second trial, Hossack was released due to a hung jury and her husband’s murder goes on to be unsolved today (179).

Numerous similarities in the Hossack case and the story of Minnie Foster Wright can be plainly seen by the audience. Harold Schechter, author of True Crime: An American Anthology, makes the claim that “… Glaspell created her one-act play Trifles, [as] a thinly veiled take on the Hossack case with a decidedly feminist slant” (179). Three notable similarities include the apparent personality of the husbands, the testament of their guilt through the means of claiming to have slept beside their husbands without waking as the murders took place, and the fact that both women displayed a lack of emotion throughout their respective ordeals. Though not all incidents remain exact, it can be said that Trifles is a play loosely based on the real life Hossack murder.

In discussing the attitude, or personality, of John Wright, it is important to note that what the audience is privileged to know about him is through the eyes of Hale and Peters. The man who discovered Mr. Wright and contacted local authorities, tries to give a brief insight into Wright’s character, but is stopped by the county attorney. Though he gets so far as to announce that he “didn’t know as what his wife wanted made much difference to John,” he is abruptly cut off mid sentence (Glaspell 982). It is Hale who admits to avoiding the place over the years due directly to Wright creating an unpleasant atmosphere. She claims that “I don’t think a place’d be any cheerfuller for John Wright’s being in it” (984). Obviously, John Wright not only disrespected his wife and her opinions, but also was blunt, if not completely unkind, in his doings around the farm, which led to the cheerless environment Hale spoke of.

Beyond having a grumpy demeanor, it is also suggested that Wright was a hard man. Peters brings up the fact that everyone in town looks at Wright as being a good man. He is not an alcoholic and apparently keeps his word (987). This is congruent with the testimony of Mr. Hossack in the murder Glaspell covered. The author historically reported in the newspaper that “the developments since the murder that the members of the Hossack family were not on pleasant relations with each other is a complete surprise, as Hossack was not supposed to have an enemy in the world” (Schechter 182). Though the Iowan community saw Mr. Hossack as a pleasant and agreeable man, it was learned that at home he was a somewhat different individual. In the same manner, Glaspell’s fictional character, Mr. Wright, was also seen by his community as a good man, yet as Hale reports in the very next line, “But he was a hard man, Mrs. Peters. Just to pass the time of day with him– (shivers.) Like a raw wind that gets to the bone” (Glaspell 987). Thus, as Mr. Hossack was found to be a different, perhaps colder man behind closed doors, Mr. Wright was likewise.

It appears that Glaspell intended to create Wright’s character as realistically as possible. In a book on Glaspell, Arthur E. Waterman makes the statement that “we [the audience] expect men like John Wright to live on the prairie, women like Minnie Foster to marry him; and the sudden violence after twenty years of repression seems inevitable in that bleak Iowan homestead” (69). The latter part of that statement may be how Glaspell personally interpreted the reasoning behind the Hossack case, or how she imagined it would have been had Mr. Hossack treated Margret the way her character Wright treated Minnie. Throughout the play it is revealed that Wright strangled the spirit out of his wife. Before she married the man, Minnie, maiden-named Foster, is described by Hale as being sociable and lively. The woman, however, eventually became withdrawn and even gloomy after years of marriage to her husband (Glaspell 985). Thus, according to Waterman, it is the popular assumption that the rural family from that era is stereotyped as consisting of a controlling man who marries a socially active woman, and privately oppresses the poor girl.

The audience is dutifully clued in to Minnie’s oppression by use of the symbolic canary. To establish that the song bird is a representation of Minnie, Glaspell alludes to similarities between the woman and the bird before plainly stating a connection. In discussing how Minnie Foster was transformed socially, Hale exposes that the young girl used to sing in the church choir before she married Wright (985). Upon the discovery of an empty birdcage, Glaspell has Hale reiterate the information (986). Through repetition ,Glaspell appears to be attempting to lead the audience to the conclusion that Minnie is metaphorically the trapped bird who was destroyed at the hands of Mr. Wright (the latter being one assumption alluded to in the book and discussed in succeeding paragraphs).

Continuing on, Glaspell gives her oppressed feminine character a unique characteristic. Peters is the one to share the information that Minnie was scared of cats (987). Author of the article “Silent Justice in a Different Key: Glaspell’s Trifles,” Suzy Clarkson Holstein, suggests that “perhaps Mrs. Hale’s remark is an oblique reference to the women’s silence, as in the old question ‘has the cat got your tongue?’ ” This would be a feminist literary technique fitting in with the time period that Glaspell wrote her play in. However, Holstein also suggests that another interpretation can be made through the connection between Minnie and how she symbolically represents a caged bird. Cats are a known nemesis of birds, considering the science of how felines prey on birds. In this respect, Minnie as a bird would be afraid of cats, who would be resembled by a tormenter. Being oppressed by her husband, it can be concluded that Wright was meant to be the cat of whom was tormenting, oppressing, and killing Minnie.

If the symbolism is not clear enough to the audience after the three instances mentioned above, Glaspell puts her idea right onto their faces. She has Hale make the ultimate connection during her conversation with Peters wherein the two spoke of how harsh Wright could be. Hale surmises, “She– come to think of it, she was kind of like a bird herself– real sweet and pretty, but kind of timid and– fluttery. How– she– did– change” (Glaspell 987). The audience is bluntly told that Minnie’s character directly resembles the canary she kept. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the characteristics of the bird, including the fact that birds are terrified of cats, were symbolically meant to represent the oppressed woman.

The symbolism and oppression is further connected in the detailing of who wanted the bird in the house. Hale claims that she saw reason for Minnie to desire the bird (987). After some thought, she goes on to conclude that Wright would not have wanted the creature: “No, Wright wouldn’t like the bird– a thing that sang. [Minnie] used to sing. He killed that, too” (988). By suggesting that Wright didn’t like Minnie to sing, she also suggests that he oppressed Minnie to the point of killing her desire to do so. Also, by bluntly stating that “he killed that, too” in reference to stifling Minnie’s spirit, Hale makes the statement that, in her opinion, Wright killed the canary, a fact that latter comes into play in the proof condemning Minnie as Wright’s murderer.

Minnie’s personal oppression can be seen in the unfortunate way she was confined to her Midwestern farmhouse. Bob Batchelor, author of American Popular Culture Through History: The 1900′s, gives valuable insight into the lives of women. In his book, Batchelor states, “Many women worked in the years they spent between school and marriage. Wives, on the other hand, were confined to the home– they had fewer opportunities for outside work, although these opportunities increased as the decade progressed” (79). This follows a statement made on the same page outlining how the United States was “transition[ing] from a rural to an urban nation.” Thus, it stands to reason that living on a farmhouse in the 1900′s, Minnie, being a married woman, did not have much choice other than to be a homemaker confined to the house.

Minnie Foster Wright, unfortunately, could not break through the bonds that kept her confined in the farmhouse. It is proclaimed by Hale that Minnie “didn’t even belong to the Ladies Aid,” a local woman’s organization (Glaspell 985). There are a couple of reasons that Hale suggests to be the cause of this antisocial behavior. The first is is when she begins her talk with saying “Wright was close. I think maybe that’s why she kept so much to herself” (985). Those three simple words, Wright was close, holds an awful lot of impact. Being close at hand, it can only be assumed that Wright continually kept an eye on Minnie. Watching her, spying on her, would cause the woman to stress out over every small thing. He most likely had an opinion on everything she did, more often than not through criticism. This could be why, as Hale suggests, Minnie did not venture out of the house to live her life socially. Glaspell may be insinuating that Wright was a man who controlled his woman by means of keeping her confined in the home, as Batchelor was previously quoted in claiming was the norm for wives during the 1900s. However, she may also be subtly referring back to the symbolism of the bird. It can be imagined that Minnie the bird is kept in the cage as the predator cat, represented by Wright, continually watches for the moment she gets too close to the cage walls, and he is able to pounce on her.

A second rationalization on Hale’s part is that Minnie did not feel she could hold her own at the get together. After closely examining a skirt that Peters planned to bring to the jail for Minnie, Hale is heard making the comment, “I suppose she felt she couldn’t do her part, and then you don’t enjoy things when you feel shabby” (985). It seems that Hale is directly commenting on the shabby stitch work Minnie did in making her skirt. It is understandable that the woman would not want to go to the Ladies Aid, a sewing function for local women, when she could not sew on a respectable scale. However, it stands to reason that Hale’s first comment was directed towards why Minnie kept to herself while the second inference is meant solely regarding why the woman never attended the Ladies Aid functions. The first comment may also explain why Minnie never went to the get togethers, yet it goes further in explaining more about how the woman lived.

The changes in Minnie’s personality are a telling point on how bad the oppression was in her household. Hale proclaims that Minnie “used to wear pretty clothes and be lively, when she was Minnie Foster, one of the town girls singing in the choir. But that– oh, that was thirty years ago” (985). It is a point used to show how Minnie is symbolically represented by the canary, yet it also shows the extreme change in the woman. She went from being full of life and caring about her appearance to avoiding social gatherings and wearing drab, or at least not properly sewed, clothing. Brian Sutton, author of the article “A Different Kind of the Same Thing: Marie de France’s Laustic and Glaspell’s Trifles,” writes that “in Trifles, the correlation between songbird and wife is even clearer: Glaspell painstakingly establishes that the canary symbolizes Mrs. Wright, particularly the cheerful side of Mrs. Wright destroyed by the oppressive marriage.” His suggestion directly applies to the idea that with Wright so close by, continually keeping Minnie in a confined environment, he was able to destroy the person she once was.

In keeping her play as close to reality as possible, Glaspell drew not only from Mr. Hossack’s attitude towards his wife, but also in how the guilt came to fall upon the wife. During the case, Glaspell reported, “The most suspicious circumstance in connection with the crime is the testimony of Mrs. Hossack that she lay in bed by the side of her husband while his skull was crushed in two places, and was not awakened in time to see anyone leave the house” (181-182). In her very first report, the claim is made that it was believed burglars had come into the house and murdered the man in his bed (180). In creating the plot for her play, Glaspell places Minnie in bed next to Wright when he is killed. The man who first came upon the scene of the crime asks Minnie, “Weren’t you sleepin’ in the bed with him?” to which the woman replies with an affirmative answer (982). The proponent in the case that practically shouted out Margaret’s guilt, according to Glaspell’s report, is the same instance used in her play.

To build upon this, Glaspell has Hale express her unrelenting belief that Wright killed the canary. “She used to sing. He killed that, too,” Hale muses to Peters, insisting that Wright not only stifled Minnie’s spirit, but also physically wrung the neck of her bird. Peters, the voice of reason, points out that it is not known for sure who killed the bird, but Hale puts it simply with “I knew John Wright,” to infer that there is no doubt that the man broke the canary’s neck (989). Connecting the death of the bird to the death of Wright himself, Glaspell has Peters inject, “It was an awful thing was done in the house that night, Mrs. Hale. Killing a man while he slept, slipping a rope around his neck that choked the life out of him,” to which Hales responds, “His neck. Choked the life out of him” as her “hand goes out and rests on the birdcage” (989). By speaking of how Wright’s life was extinguished while putting a hand on the cage of a bird who died the same way, Glaspell has her characters connect the two events for the audience. It is damning for Minnie that her husband kills her bird and then dies in the same way whilst she lay in bed next to him at night.

Though Glaspell leads the audience to the conclusion that Minnie killed Wright as a revenge for killing her bird, it does remain questionable why one would take a human life in exchange for the life of an animal. Confinement to the home played a large part in the reasoning behind the murder of the man. In the San Francisco Gate, Katherine Seligman compiled information from research studies into one article on social isolation. Entitled, “Social Isolation a Significant Health Issue,” the story focuses on the psychological damage that occurs when a person is isolated from others on a social level. In one statement, Seligman refers to comments made by University of Chicago psychologist John Cacioppo: “But humans are not wired to live alone, researchers say. The impulse for social connection– though it is stronger in some people than others– is rooted in the basic urge to survive. The need is so great, says Cacioppo, that it is reflected in our neural wiring.” Seligman goes on to prove Cacioppo’s response by saying, “With the help of high-tech tools, neuroscientists now can examine how isolation affects the brain. Functional MRI’s– those that allow a view of the live brain in action– show that lonely people have different neural responses to viewing positive images of other people.” Basically, it all ties in together to insist upon the fact that people who are isolated from the outside world, people who are lonely, have a neurological imbalance. Considering psychology is a study on how neurological differences affect the behavior of people, this may explain why Minnie, being confined to her farmhouse without any visitors or friends, acted the way she did in some respects.

In fact, there was something wrong with Minnie’s behavior. Though the stitches in her quilt were shown to testify that the woman was nervous about something, it is her behavior the morning after the murder that is most indicative of her psychological state (Glaspell 986 and 982). The man who was the first outsider to discover Wright dead upstairs, also found Minnie downstairs in a unique state. When asked if he could see Wright, Minnie responded nonchalantly that he was dead, “not getting a bit excited, but rocking back and forth” (982). This picture of an unemotional woman is the same one that Glaspell painted of Margaret when she covered the Hossack case. Of the arrest, Glaspell reported that Margaret “manifested no emotion, took her arrest calmly and absolutely declined to make any statement concerning her guilt or innocence” (Schechter 182). The women, fictional and legitimate, obviously showed signs of psychological disturbance.

For Minnie, the problems are more translucent. The same scene where the audience is shown Minnie’s undeniable lack of emotion, they hear the woman claim to be sleeping next to her husband while he was murdered in a very peculiar way. She uses the phrase, “I was on the inside” (982). This appears to be making a reference to Minnie’s psychological state. It suggests a retreat into the self, which in itself is a sign of psychological distress calling for one to be so depressed about his/her life being lived that he/she must leave that world and retreat inwards possibly loosing control of the body and its actions.

Loneliness, or social isolation, could quite possibly have led to a depression so deep that Minnie felt the need to retreat into herself. Seligman claims that “loneliness can add to depression and decrease motivation to make connections.” It was shown that Minnie avoided social gatherings like the Ladies Aid. Perhaps the reasoning, as not given by Hale, was a depression that consumed Minnie. Suzy Holstein discussed how Peters and Hale conversed about Minnie in order to show how the woman had transformed into a quiet, lifeless wife. She claims that Peters “contemplates the stillness of her old homestead after her first baby dies and compares it to Minnie’s solitude. This evocation of memories compels the woman to see Minnie Wright not as an abstract murderer, but as a fully developed, complex victim who at least retaliated against the source of her pain.” Thus, Holstein seems to make the connection between the social isolation of Minnie when she was confined to her farmhouse to the behavior that led to Wrights murder.

In conclusion, though not exact to the Hossack case, the similarities between the two cannot be denied. Glaspell seems to have taken the historical event and imagined a dramatization that would explain why a woman in an Iowan farmhouse would resort to taking the life of her husband. With a decidedly “feminine slant,” she created a play in which her character was oppressively confined to the home, as a vast number of women in that time were, murdering her husband as an escape. Her only way to freedom was the removal of the cat, her tormentor and oppressor, John Wright. Thus, having been pushed over the edge when Wright strangles her canary, Minnie psychologically retreats into her self while exacting a punishment on the man that directly resembles the way the bird was murdered.

Sources

Batchelor, Bob. American Popular Culture Through History: The 1900′s. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 2002. Print.

Glaspell, Susan. Trifles. The Longman Anthology of Women’s Literature. Ed. Mary K. DeShazer.New York: Longman, 2001. 981-990. Print.

Holstein, Suzy Clarkson. “Silent Justice in a Different Key: Glaspell’s Trifles.” The Midwest Quarterly 44.3 (2003): 282-90). OmniFile Full Text Mega. Web. 22 Nov. 2010.

Russell, Judith Kay. “Glaspell’s Trifles.” The Explicator 55 (1997): 88-90. OmniFile Full Text Mega. Web. 22 Nov. 2010.

Schechter, Harold. True Crime: An American Anthology. New York: The Library of America, 2008. Print.

Seligman, Katherine. “Social Isolation a Significant Health Issue.” San Francisco Gate. Hearst Communications, Inc., 2 Mar. 2009. Web. 29 Nov. 2010.

Sutton, Bruan. “A Different Kind of the Same Thing: Marie de France’s Laustic and Glaspell’s Trifles.”

The Explicator 66.3 (2008): 170-4. OmniFile Full Text Mega. Web. 22 Nov. 2010.

Waterman, Arthur E. Susan Glaspell. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc. , 1966. Print.

Biography of Author Jerry Holt

Wednesday, December 12th, 2012

George Holt was a man of science, holding a degree in engineering. His wife, Eunice, earned a degree in Spanish and held certification to teach, though she never did. These two bright minds would help form the young life of their son, novelist and playwright, Jerry Holt. Growing up in an educated household, where the head of the family was a man of science, it was noticed early on that Jerry was not meant to follow in his father’s footsteps. With a creative spirit and a love of the arts, young Holt carved out his own path in life.

This is not to say that Jerry struggled or fought with his family for acceptance. It took a while for George to respect his son’s decision not to pursue a life as a scientist, but he and Eunice were nurturing parents, and they made a point to support Jerry’s chosen life path. This supporting nature his parents had meant a great deal to young Jerry. One of the pivotal moments of his life, one of his greatest memories, is in an instance of actualization of his parents’ support. A child of the sixties, young Holt was still at a very impressionable age during the Vietnam War. In an effort of anti-violence, his older brother became a conscientious objector during the time of the draft. George, a political conservative, would have been a proponent of sending young American males off to defend the country. However, accepting his eldest son’s decision, George stood behind the young man completely. A trial followed in which the son had to prove he was not just a draft dodger. George supported his son enough to plunk down the funds to hire a good lawyer to defend him. This episode had a great impact on Jerry, who would find himself in a similar position only a few years later.

Jerry was born in Tulsa, Oklahoma on April 6, 1942. At the age of ten, his father accepted a new job and shuffled the family to Oklahoma City, where Jerry stayed until he was of college age. With his parents so faithfully behind him, Jerry enrolled in the Bachelor of Arts program at Oklahoma State. There, he received a degree in English in 1964. He went on to complete a masters program in English at the University of Oklahoma in 1968, and remained in the area teaching at a small campus which housed the Oklahoma College of Liberal Arts. After years of teaching American Literature, Jerry returned to the University of Oklahoma to work on his doctorate, which focused on literature and film. He was granted his Ph.D. in 1983 upon the completion of his dissertation on filmmaker Sam Peckinpah.

In 1990, major changes were on the horizon for Holt. He started out on a new adventure and left Oklahoma for Ohio. He began living near a river for the first time in his life. He transitioned from a college professor into an administrator, working as the Dean of Arts and Sciences at Shawnee State University. He began to write seriously, utilizing the background of Ohio and important Ohio figures in his plays. It was a new beginning, new scenery, new faces, and new careers for Holt.

When he was ready to retire, Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio offered him a position. The hotbed for activism in the sixties, Antioch seemed to be a flashback to Holt’s impressionable years. Instead of retiring, he made the transition. His excitement was soon abated when he learned the college was dying. However, it still held the Antioch Writers’ Workshop. An avid mystery reader and accomplished playwright at the time, Holt had begun attending night sessions to learn about writing in the genre of fictional detective stories. It was at this time that he melded one of the numerous mysteries surrounding the Kent State Murders into a fictional plot line. A fervent researcher, Holt scoured the archives in the Kent May 4 Center, perused books written on the catastrophic day, and interviewed numerous people who were there when the guardsmen opened fire.

Famed mystery writer, Sue Grafton, was a guest speaker at the Antioch Writers’ Workshop the night Holt was asked to read the piece he had been working on, what is now chapter four of his novel The Killing of Strangers. Grafton enjoyed the reading immensely, and granted Holt with a few words of wisdom that were to set him on yet another new path. “It’s got juice kid,” she said. “Go with it.” Holt took the words to heart, stating “It’s like God telling me to write the book, and I went home and wrote it.” He took to seriously focusing on the novel in 1996 and began marketing the completed three years later.

In 2008, Holt made another drastic change in his life. Having retired from teaching and administrative work, he came to the realization that he not only felt the absence of teaching, his great love in life, but also missed the interaction with the younger generation as a way of staying connected and in a perpetual learning mode. He packed up and moved to Indiana where he had accepted a position as a visiting professor at Purdue University North Central. Within a year Holt was asked to stay on as a permanent employee, and in 2010 was made Interim Chair of the Department of English and Modern Languages. Today, he remains heading the department at Purdue University North Central while teaching a variety of courses focusing on American Literature and film studies. He has just finished a collection of short stories entitled, Friday Nights in the Big Town, and is working with his publisher to get it on the market. Holt also has a sequel to his mystery novel in the works, featuring another adventure with hard-boiled detective Sam Haggard. The upcoming novel, The Big Forever, will focus on the dangers of nuclear facilities.

 

The Kent State Shootings

Wednesday, December 12th, 2012

On Tuesday, May 5, 1970, the New York Times featured a picture of fourteen-year old Mary Vecchio kneeling down before shooting victim, Jeffery Miller, and traumatically crying out for help. Newspapers around the nation picked up this picture, taken by photographer John Filo, to run alongside their own informative articles detailing the horrible incident that took place at Kent State on May 4. Vecchio was a runaway from Florida who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. She was only visiting the campus, trying to find her next ride and place to stay for a while, when she joined the protest with some people she had met up with. At fourteen, the minor’s image was used as the symbolic victim of the senseless crime, the young and innocent.

The story actually begins on April 30, 1970. On this date in history, President Richard Nixon announced to the nation that the United States would be heading into Cambodia as a way to end the Vietnam War and finally be at peace. However, he was issuing the presidential order to send troops to war in Cambodia without Congress declaring war there. With the entirety of the Vietnam War being a point of protest, anti-war activists were enraged at this announcement. Student protesters at Kent State gathered the next afternoon to display their unrest. Friday’s protest was a peaceful protest with violence only demonstrated in the act of burning a copy of the constitution as a way to symbolize the unconstitutional decree Nixon declared. A future plan was also spread that day; one which states there would be another protest demonstration for the cause on Monday, May 4.

However, it was that evening that events went awry. Radical activists in downtown Kent, gathered in the bars located on the Strip, went into the streets and began a violent protest of the War. Windows were broken in local establishments, bottles were thrown at police cars as they drove by, bonfires were built in the streets, and traffic through downtown was stopped. These riots are said to be the cause of the appointment of the Ohio National Guard on the Kent State campus.

The next day, Saturday, a small fire started in the ROTC building on campus. Fire fighters were called out, but the cheering protesters reportedly attacked the firefighters and cut the fire hoses to allow the building to burn. This has caused much speculation, leading many to believe that the radical activists purposely set fire to the building as an act of protest. However, some see it from a different light. Author Laurel Krause (sister to one of the unfortunate victims) recently collaborated with editor Mickey Huff in his work to publish a book entitled, Censored 2013:The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-12. It is a piece of nonfiction in which a great deal of the information and conspiracies surrounding Kent State have been compiled into one section of the extensive book. According to the two, an eye witness stepped forth claiming to have been at the ROTC building the day it caught fire. Dr. Elaine Wellin insists she saw an non-uniformed person in everyday clothes near the building and heard said person speaking into a walkie talkie. The words she supposedly overheard were an order to keep the fire trucks back because the fire had not started yet. From this, they suggest that an undercover law enforcement agent the person responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building. Arrests were never made, and no definitive answer was ever given as to whether it was an activist or a government provocateur who committed the arson.

Conspirators use the idea that the government had planted people who initiated the acts of violence at the protest amongst the activists in order to make an example out of Kent State, thereby validating the excessive force used by the National Guard. Similar protests were raging across the nation and many student activists were starting fires that would burn down ROTC buildings on their own campuses. Yet, at Kent State, where the Ohio National Guard was already in residence due to the violent protests the night before, confusion abounded during the fast movement of events. At a press conference, the governor of Ohio announced his intentions to file for a court order that would allow him to call a state of emergency, enforcing martial law. Both the National Guard and university officials at Kent State erroneously believed martial law was in effect and set out to control the activists using forceful measures.

On Sunday night, May 3, a crowd of students began to gather at 8 p.m. Believing they had the constitutional right, the National Guard declared a curfew and demanded students return to their dormitories. By 9 p.m., students were still refusing to back down and the Ohio Riot Act was read. Immediately following, helicopters flew over the area where protesters were gathered and dropped tear gas. The angry students ran from the gas, but did not return to their rooms. Instead, they collectively began a peaceful walk from the university towards the downtown. The National Guard made another attempt to stop their advance, and the protesters responded by staging a spontaneous sit in, right in the middle of the road. The activists, enraged over the imposed curfew, demanded that the president of the university and the mayor of the town come out and hear their voices. Leaders of the National Guard promised the two officials would attend the protest and hear the students on the sole condition that the overly large group cease the sit in and return to the campus to continue their demonstrations.

The National Guard’s ruse was made known once the student protesters had reached campus grounds. Helicopters once more flew overhead dropping tear gas on the crowd to force a mass retreat into their dorms. Guardsmen on the ground used bayonets and clubs to beat activists who continued to fight the curfew. Once all students were under lockdown, the helicopters continued to circle the campus all night long, shining spot lights over the ground. The students, protesters and non, were officially under the unauthorized rule of the Ohio National Guard.

The next morning just before noon, May 4, students once again began to rally together to stage a demonstration. This time, though they were still anti-war and protesting Vietnam, the main concentration of the rally was to protest the presence of the National Guard at Kent State. There were approximately 3,000 people in attendance, including protestors and spectators. The National Guard, in an attempt to keep their control over the students, announced a decree that no demonstrations, or large gatherings of any kind, were to be allowed. All rallies on campus grounds had been banned. Freedom of speech was being taken away from the young Americans. Students recognized this unconstitutional move and refused to disperse. Many activists jeered and threw items such as stones and the empty canisters of tear gas that had been flung at them. Members of the National Guard retaliated by throwing stones of their own at protesters. Chants of “Pigs off campus” rained down on the guardsmen.

After making the announcement that activists must desist, and being met with refusal, the National Guard began to move in on the students. With the violent actions taken by the guardsmen the night before still fresh in the protesters minds, the crowd steadily backed away from the guardsmen’s advance. At least one protester lagging behind the crowd is documented as having been violently stuck by some of the guardsmen. The students collectively moved to the peak of Blanket Hill and down the side into Prentice Hill parking lot before the National Guard stopped. Holding their place for ten minutes, some guardsmen kneeled and kept their guns aimed at the protesters who continued to vocally abuse them from the parking lot area. Stones flew from both sides, protesters and guards alike, though most ended up in the grass due to the vast distance spanning the two parties.

Members of Troop G were part of the National Guard who were aiming their riffles as they held their position waiting for students to disperse. Some of the troop were seen releasing their hold to briefly huddle together as if discussing how to proceed. When they returned to their positions with the rest of the guardsmen, the National Guard began to retreat. They turned away from the protesters and marched back up Blanket Hill. As the enforcers reached the top of the hill, over a dozen members of Troop G, including those who were documented on video as having huddled together before the retreat, spun around and opened fire on the protesters. Shock rippled through the air as many ran from the gunshots. Others, however, believed the guards were only shooting blanks and remained in place for a time. In the short span of thirteen seconds, between 61-67 shots were fired off. Some guardsmen aimed riffles at the ground of high in the air, yet a few shot straight at the student protesters.

Conspiracies asserting the idea that the shootings at Kent State served as a military means of subverting similar demonstrations and protests across the nation, a governmental attempt to stop activists from speaking out against the expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia. Questions arose, and remain unanswered today, as to who shot the first bullet and whether it was a planned shooting. Terry Norman, a law enforcement major, is preserved on video handing over his gun to local officials right after guardsmen had opened fire. The police officer, as documented on video, accepted the weapon from Norman casually as if he had expected it. Initially, the officer made the statement that he checked the firearm to ensure it had not been shot, noting the amount of ammunition it held and sniffing the signs that it had been fired, yet retracted his statement when video evidence proved he had done no such thing. It has been publicly stated by the government that the sound of sniper fire believed to have come from enraged demonstrators was what triggered certain members of Troop G to turn and fire on the activists. Norman has been accused of using his .38-caliber Smith & Wesson for the purpose of scaring off the protesters, though he always denied firing any shot.

In 2010, one of the wounded victims, Alan Canfora, and researcher Bob Johnson uncovered the audio tape used in the civil court hearings of the mid seventies in which the victims sued over the events on May 4. On the day in question, student Terry Strubbe had set up a microphone attached to a recording device and taped the sounds of the protests from his dormitory window. Caught on said tape was the entire proceedings of the Kent State Shootings. Dubbed the Strubbe Tape, the audio recording was taken by authorities. In a release in 2012, the Department of Justice made the statement that after the civil settlement had been reached, the Federal Bureau of Investigations destroyed the original recording. However, a copy of the tape had been made and did find its way into the Kent State Collection of the Yale University Library, where Canfora and Johnson found it buried in the archives. The two unearthed the recording and attempted to bring it to the public’s attention.

Stuart Allen, a forensic evidence expert specializing in auditory recordings, analyzed the copy of the Strubbe Tape found at the Yale Library. He claimed that not only was there a command to fire by one of the National Guards, but that there was also a shot that could be identified as the supposed sniper fire. The sound of the shot that was made apparently coincides with the sound made when a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson is fired. Canfora and Johnson believe that Allen’s analysis is proof that Norman took the first shot to instigate the shootings by the National Guard. A couple years after the shootings at Kent State, in 1972, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, J. Edgar Hoover, passed away. Clarence Kelley took over as the new director. One year later, during the civil rights lawsuit of the victims from Kent State, Kelley was forced to admit that Norman had been on the Bureau’s payroll. Though Kelley denied allegations that the department paid Norman to take the shot on May 4, thus provoking the murder shots of the guardsmen, he stated that Norman had been hired to infiltrate a a meeting of white power supporters in June of 1970. Norman’s work on campus was simply as an informant to local authorities with duties such as photographing leading activists. Theorists, however, speculate that Norman was paid by the government to fire his weapon at the demonstration giving the guardsmen due cause to turn and open fire on unarmed protesters.

All of the weapons used on May 4 have either been destroyed or displaced. The riffles used during the thirteen seconds of gunfire were all dismantled and destroyed. The unfired guns held by the remaining guardsmen were given to NATO to be distributed to authorities in Europe. Norman’s weapon, supposedly secure in an evidence locker at the local police station was officially marked as being displaced.

All of the unanswered questions that still surround events of the Kent State Shootings give rise to much guess work being declared as truths and inaccurate information being taught in history classes from bias perspectives. Who set fire to the ROTC building? Was it members of the protest or provocateurs hired by the government? Who fired the first shot on May 4? Was the incident calculated murders by the government or nothing more than an unfortunate incident to befall innocent victim protesting the Vietnam War? Just as the the plot behind the assassination of JFK, the mysteries of Kent State will remain unanswered.

Many were victims that day, but the thirteen that were shot in the thirteen seconds of fire, all students at Kent State, are the names that are remembered most. Jeffery Miller was involved with the protests and was witnessed as being one of the many whose only weapon was a picked up tear gas canister he pitched at the guardsmen. He was on an access road near Prentice Hill parking lot when he was shot in the mouth.

Allison Krause, an honor student, was another unarmed protester. She was shot in the left side of her body while standing in the parking lot.

William Schroeder had received two academic achievement scholarships and was carrying his textbook in his hand as he crossed Prentice Hill parking lot to get to his next class. The young man, who was not a protester of the War, died from a bullet wound after being shot in the back on his left side.

Sandra Scheuer was also an honor student at Kent State, and like Schroeder she was not a protester. She, too, was on her way to class when the bullets flew and one struck her in the left side of her neck.

The other nine victims were wounded but lived, one having been paralyzed for life. Those victims were: Joseph Lewis, Thomas Grace, John Cleary, Alan Canfora, Dean Kahler, Douglas Wrentmore, James Russell, Robert Stamps, and Donald Macenzie.

In 1979, there was finally an out of court settlement reached in order to financially compensate the victims of May 4. Author Scott Bills, in his book printed by the Kent State University Press, states that a total of $675,000 was paid to the victims by the State of Ohio. In a breakdown of how the sum was allocated, Bills showed that $350,000 went to Dean Kahler, the student who was paralyzed as a result from his gunshot wound. The rest was dispersed in differing sums with only $15,000 going to each families of the four murdered victims.

 

 

Sources

Krause, Laurel and Mickey Huff (2012). “Kent State: Was It about Civil Rights or ?Murdering Student Protesters?” Project Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-12. New York: Seven Stories Press pp. 297-312.

Lewis, Jerry M. and Thomas R. Hensley (1998). The May 4 Shootings at Kent State University: The Search for Historical Accuracy. The Ohio Council for the Social Studies Review, Vol. 34, No. 1.

May 4 Task Force (2005). <http://dept.kent.edu/may4/chrono.html>

 

 

 

“The Distinctiveness of the American Midwest”

Wednesday, December 12th, 2012

An original prose: an early cinema newsreel

We turn now to the heartland of America, the Midwest. Just glancing at this relatively “plain” region does not do justice to the depth of intrigue it has to offer. From its rich historical beginnings of persecution in pretense, to its wild upbringing as a locus of rural explosion, to the grimy “teenage” years of urban excitement and automobiles, the Midwest has anchored America with its genuine values of perseverance, family, and diversity. What makes the region great is the same thing that makes it ignorable: it stands for something larger than itself, a country with an ideal vision. Yet that does not deprive it of its own distinctiveness. The Midwest played host to the largest gathering of humankind, the World Columbian Exposition, which had a profound effect on architecture, art, Chicago’s self-image, and American industrial optimism. It has the richest farmland in the world; more corn is produced in the Midwest than in any other region—they’re always willing to lend an “ear!” Like Twinkies? Of course you do, it’s the American way. Well the Midwest brings them to you by the box full.

The people of the Midwest are tirelessly content, humble, and homely. But at the same time, they are energized and driven. Just look at the Hoosier state— nowhere else will you find such dedication to an orange sphere and boys wearing short-shorts! And move over Red Sox, those cursed Cubs’ll give you a run for your money! The Midwest also provided the setting for some of the most beloved shows, ripe with wholesome American situations and values: Happy Days, Good Times, The Bob Newhart Show, Family Matters, Roseanne, Home Improvement, That 70’s Show, the list goes on!

 It’s time to experience America’s bread basket as the real deal in the U.S.A. It’s time to experience seasons. It’s time to shake hands with Neil Armstrong, Johnny Carson, Walt Disney, Ronald Reagan, Madonna, and Tom Brokaw. Time to skip stones in the Great Lakes and drop stones from the St. Louis arch. Time to visit the home of Abe Lincoln then pick his nose at Mount Rushmore. It’s time for corn! So get tickets to visit “the dark fields of the republic” and be mystified by the region that hasn’t really taken the time to define itself. Go see…the MIDWEST! You won’t think you’re not in Kansas anymore…

 

Superman: American Icon, Midwestern Character

Wednesday, December 12th, 2012

As promised, from a non-fan to a new fan, a look at the Midwestern-ness of Big Blue himself. It’s a long one but I hope worthwhile.

In his article “Midwestern Distinctiveness,” R. Douglas Hurt calls Midwesterners “the quintessential…archetypal Americans”—the Midwest is “a cultural symbol” of American character. On the surface, that statement seems to come from nowhere. The Midwest includes only eleven or twelve states and does not list the powerhouse states so easily referenced in America: Texas, New York, California, and maybe Pennsylvania if one happens to be attending a history lecture. The statement just begs the question, what about America does the Midwest harbor that other regions do not? And how is it fair to claim other regions do not represent some genuine American vision— they are part of America after all! Hurt gives a fair list of Midwestern qualities that resonate with Americanism, such as diversity in public persona, culture, and opinion, a homely charm, preservation of family, perseverance and adaptability, and of course the legacy of the proud American land. There is no argument that any of these truly characterize the Midwest. Neither does their representation of the ideals of America come under controversy. Rather, support backing the claim that the Midwest in particular radiates with what America stands for—what comes to mind immediately when one thinks of America—still remains undetermined. A solid argument that America stands for glitz and glam, characteristics of the Hollywood scene, is easily extrapolated when considering the “cultural symbol” of America. Likewise, attendance to America as the land of opportunity brings up images of Lady Liberty, not the Great Lakes or the Sears Tower. Certainly, there is a dense history pointing to a time when the Midwest was a locus of Americana, but the same could be said of any region in its historical hay-days. So, again, why does the Midwest earn the title of American-iest region? How would anyone begin to judge the matter?
The simple answer, which becomes increasingly complicated the more one considers it, is to examine an American icon, break down its symbolic nature for the American “pieces,” and determine if they indeed stem from a Midwestern heritage. The idea is that if something is raised in the Midwestern bosom and somehow genuinely expresses quintessential American values, ideas, customs, etc., then Hurt’s claim could be more or less justified. The icon should be something that: (1) originates in America and (2) has amassed a legacy in the American nation as well as around the world—since a quintessential piece of America should be readily recognized outside of its borders—and (3) is not restricted to any particular historical period of America. While there are plenty of icons that shout “America!” around the world today, choosing one that resonates with American values on its surface is sorely difficult. For instance, while the American flag is an obvious choice, it is not really an icon that immediately screams the values of America—maybe its history or marker of pride, but any flag does that. Neither does the bald eagle, the Model-T Ford, apple pie, Disney, or Starbucks emanate a distinctive plethora of American values and imagery. But there is one icon which, while perhaps not an immediate go-to for American symbols, nonetheless expresses American ideals in myriad ways. Across the globe, whenever anyone sees the big red S hung in a golden shield, people know…Superman stands for America. But what about Superman’s link to the Midwest? After determining Superman’s American credentials, the test of his Midwestern heritage will provide strong evidence in favor of Hurt’s claim that the Midwest is “the essence of the United States.”
It is not too difficult to conceive of Superman as an American icon. The easiest allusions are on the face of Superman iconography, like his primary colors (not a perfect match to the red, white, and blue flag, like with say Captain America but the image is not too far off) and the Superman motto: fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. The trick really is to first establish an “American” value or trait which can range in any number of ways, then look to Superman for an image. For example, the very broad representation of America as a powerhouse, a strong national entity, matches perfectly with the, arguably, most powerful superhero to date. Digging deeper, the potential sources of American strength are also invested in the man of steel. The diverse population that brings the cultural diversity and enhanced adaptability to the nation crosses over to Superman’s myriad abilities—flight, super strength, laser and x-ray vision, ice breath, and rapid healing—all of which he must call on to win his bouts. Another way to look at American strength might come from its industriousness, at least at one time. Much of present day systems in America, such as education, are still grounded in industrial visions of the nation. Industriousness sets the foundation for the American value of progress. Looking to Superman, even though his own powers make him virtually indestructible, his Fortress of Solitude warehouses some of the most genius inventions and gadgetry for the 21st Century supervillain fighter. For example, the entire fortress is staffed by a crew of highly sophisticated robots, constructed by Superman. There is an ominous Warsuit in the fortress, granting him enhanced strength in a battle-hardy cocoon of armor wired directly into his brain, complete with panels blocking kryptonite radiation. Superman also devised a selective amnesia-inducer to erase his secret identity from the minds of Batman and Robin. More to the point of industriousness is Superman’s willingness to collaborate and call upon the brilliance of others like John Henry Irons a.k.a. the superhero Steel who helped design the Phantom Zone Projector, allowing Superman to see the history of Krypton without unleashing anything. And S.T.A.R. Labs is a primary trove for Superman gadgetry, including his spacesuit (back when he needed it).
Superman’s iconic Americanism also fits in with some socio-cultural elements of the nation. From the very beginning of Superman, there was a keen sense of chauvinism albeit with a focus on defending women. Unlike the tamer quality of the Superman in the past decade, the first Superman did not shy away from beating down bad guys, who were then just a string of average human thugs, all for the sake of rescuing a woman in distress or peril. Men were depicted as ravaging slime balls while women were depicted as helpless, all except for Lois Lane. But even she needed saving, prompting the manly Superman to unnecessarily use all his brawn to save her. The earliest glimpses of Superman pay tribute to the dominating male-ocracy that plagued and continues to infiltrate society today. But Superman is more than a picture of man, he also contributes to the interest of American diversity as a culture and the hope of America as a new home to immigrants. Superman after all is an alien, one who assimilates to the culture of humanity, American culture in particular. He then comes to respect and believe in American values and fights to preserve them. Superman is in a way an American son despite his Kryptonian blood.
The image of Superman also serves to bolster the American perception of itself as a kind of “number one” in the world. Sure, there is plenty of evidence to decry that perception along with an argument that any debate around which country is best is pointless. But the imagery of America as a leading force in the world, not necessarily by power as discussed above, but perhaps by celebrity figures into the Superman icon. He was the first to have his own title in comics after starting out in Action Comics! But a stronger image comes from looking at the Justice League of America. Take any piece of concept art, any major storyline that comes out of the Justice League franchise, one will find Superman has the central position. He is one of the “big three” next to Batman and Wonder Woman, but he always seems to have that primary focal position—front and center, most protruding, first in line, highest—flanked by the other more prominent figures including Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, the Flash, etc. In a sense, there is no Justice League without Superman. The same could be said of Batman or Wonder Woman true, but that is likely not the first character to be scouted in an image of the Justice League. In the same perception, American pride in itself could be said to stream from Superman’s perception in the Justice League and its numerous adaptations.
The final two reference points for highlighting Superman’s credit as an American icon are the opposing characteristics the nation seems to fight within itself consistently. First is the stance on justice and freedom as a binding force for all, and the second is the frightening threat of the detrimental power that freedom grants. Now, justice and freedom for all is certainly not perfectly seated in American history or culture in any institution or conception. Yet within the conflicting notions of what justice and freedom for all means to Americans, there is at least the driving principle that the most American thing to do is treat people with respect and that all people have a sense of dignity unless he or she has somehow defiled it on his or her own—the attempt to tread lightly here complicates the point. Superman, however, seems to offer a picture of what the American way, the call for justice and freedom for all, means. The best examples of Superman’s judicious nature stream forth when he encounters beings comparable in power to him who believe their power gives them authority and dominion over others who are powerless to stop them (this accounts for nearly all major Superman nemeses!). For example, Lex Luthor’s extremely advanced intellect which he has refined to deadly precision gives him power in a very real sense, and combined with his egomania, he plots often to claim rule over the world, sometimes under the delusion that he has a duty to do so. Other villains like the three Kryptonians sent into exile before the planet’s destruction and who eventually land on Earth— Mala, Kizo, and U-Ban—immediately seek to enslave humanity with a hypnotizing machine. When these villains confront Superman, calling him naïve and cowardly for not usurping power over humanity since he so easily could, the villains get a lesson in what the preciousness of humanity is: that they are endowed dignity and he (Superman) has no right to lord over them simply because he can. The obvious relation to Americanism needs no further description.
The villains in the previous scenarios do have a point though: Superman could take over the world instantly, which raises the last characteristic quality of the American icon in Superman: he is a potential threat to peace. America boasts a lot of good qualities, but it certainly cannot overlook its many instances of menace to the global community. America harbors a tremendous consumer culture and partakes of a very shallow attitude toward environmentalism. The nation also stands fully prepared for nuclear holocaust, and it maintains a very impressive military. Should the nation’s block to conceptions of dominance, diversity relations in and out of the country, ever fail, then America may wreak a lot of havoc. In the same way, Superman is Earth’s mightiest hero, but not because he has to be. It is by will alone and the belief in the spirit of humanity mentioned above that he plays the role of the protector. Even in fulfilling that role, he attracts a lot of unwanted attention for his super-prowess and causes a lot of damage in fulfilling his role as protector of the innocent, not unlike military actions in the Middle East. In a way, Superman also prevents progress to a certain degree by constantly saving people, fighting battles for others. Compare this characteristic to government bail outs and intervention in nations who could certainly use saving but who are nonetheless rendered ineffective at dealing with their own problems when America steps in to rid the world of heinous dictators. And harking back to Superman’s Fortress of Solitude with its massive armory, the comparison to the capitalistic culture and patents system prevents faster advancements by allowing monetary gain to take precedence over humanitarian gain—not that Superman is holding out for the highest bid on his gravity gun, but he has not shared the insights of such technology either. Since Superman does have such a weighty potential for harm, it is important that he maintain his relationship with humanity through Lois Lane and other humans, just like America has to have its domestic and foreign relations council stay abreast of concerns. One might even say the need for a good friend like Batman, armed with a potent piece of Kryptonite, is important as well just like America needs countries with similar lordship over its weaknesses: oil and other consumer goods!
It seems safe to assume Superman is an appropriate American icon given the many values and characteristic American qualities encapsulated in his persona and story. The task now involves abstracting from this American icon its Midwestern heritage and the Midwestern elements of his character. It is important to note the characteristics mentioned thus far are not specific to the Midwest, though they must necessarily be in the region to make sense of Hurt’s claim. Rather, the Midwestern heritage and character of Superman must serve as a filter in the expression of the American characteristics, whether directly or indirectly. And as serendipity would have it, the greatest Midwestern influence on Superman comes from the creator: a Clevelander from Ohio named Jerry Siegel.
Siegel and the co-creator of Superman Joe Shuster began writing together in Glenville High School in Cleveland, OH. Before they were thirty, they originally created a supervillian with vast intellect which they dubbed “The Superman” in the aftermath of the Great Depression. Later, they reconceived the character as a good guy with the familiar back story. The idea was to present a “Champion of the Oppressed” in a time when so many Americans were beleaguered by the crisis in America, which also included the horrible dust bowl wrecking the overworked Great Plains and sending farmers and their families to sit alongside the broke and unemployed. The Golden Age of Comics, sparked by Superman as the first to gain its own title, provided a much needed escape from the dreary reality to a world where larger-than-life heroes right the wrongs with little effort. However, the heroic nature of Siegel and Shuster’s character does not personify the Midwest as much as his alter ego Clark Kent. The concept of a mild-mannered reporter living a double life was very exciting to the two creators, and much of their design for Clark Kent comes from looking at themselves. For example, Kent’s glasses are iconic to the alter ego; Siegel and Shuster both note how they wore glasses and sort of gave them a boyish look not unlike the then popular silent film comedian Harold Lloyd (the persona for the mild-mannered Clark Kent according to Shuster). Not particularly a Midwest feature, but it is a start! Most important was the backstory of the famed superhero which sets the stage for what makes Superman a Midwestern character.
The co-creators could not have simply dropped their hero into any setting when he crash-landed on Earth. As with the irony of their own story—a world famous character originating from the humble abode of two Jewish Ohioans—Superman starts out in a rural setting, found by two passing motorists, who would be developed more in the Superboy franchise, the Kents. They run a farm in Kansas. As stories have progressed with each succeeding age in comic book history, more writers have paid increasing attention to the humble origins of Superman. Even the most recent adaptation, a feature film set to release in 2013 titled Man of Steel, promises to explore the real nature of Superman from his early years as the theatrical trailer whizzes through shots of gray, rainy settings, large open fields, and the small, lonely rural home of a playful boy. Overhead, the voice assumed to be Jonathan Kent, Superman’s adoptive father, waxes poetic about the moral burden his gifted son will face in the future.
You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be.
Whoever that character is—¬good character or bad—he’s gonna
change the world.
Even though Siegel and Shuster are not responsible for carrying the origin story as far as it has gone—including the very successful ten season run of Smallville on cable television devoted to presenting the early years of Clark Kent coming into his role as a super-powered savior (which stars Newburgh, Indiana native Michael Rosenbaum as Lex Luthor)—they provided a foundation in rural upbringing which allowed the different ages of Superman to retain the sense of Midwesternness through writers from in and out of the Midwestern perspective, such as Edmond Hamilton from Youngstown, Ohio, David S. Goyer and Kurt Johnstead (co-screenwriters for the upcoming Man of Steel) from Michigan and Wisconsin respectively, Cary Bates from Pennsylvania, Grant Morrison from Scotland, and Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (writers and producers of Smallville) from Maryland and England respectively. Siegel and Shuster laid the groundwork for the central tenets of Superman’s Midwestern character.
Hurt’s article on “Midwestern Distinctiveness” sets out the defining features of Midwestern character and personality. He quotes Booth Tarkington’s description of Midwesterners as “‘pleasant people’ who were ‘easy-going, yet not happy-go-lucky; possessing energy without rush, and gaiety without extravagance.’” Midwesterners are also a hospitable people “‘without exertion’” better known as friendly, interested in cultivating a comfortable or homely atmosphere. They are a moral people more interested in the common good than committing to social idealism, even though the two intercede in some regards. They have a tendency to occupy the middle ground on political and social issues of the day, though the characteristic has plenty of aberrations. The Midwestern identity plays to both rural and urban lives; in a sense there are two Midwests, the rural and the urban. And of course there is the distinctive diversity of culture found in the Midwest. In short, Hurt’s analysis of the Midwest suggests an identity marked by contentedness and concern for others. Sounds enough like Superman, and the key to understanding how deep the Midwestern character runs in Superman is arguably in his relationships: from the whole of Earth to his closest kin, from his loving bond with Lois Lane to his tempered distrust of Lex Luthor. Examining these relationships in detail will offer the greatest glimpse at the Midwestern character in an American icon.
Superman’s relationship with Earth is striking from the get go, literally! He begins life really with no knowledge of his home on Krypton and so perfectly assimilates to Earth life and culture in America. His relationship to humanity is reflected in his desire to be like one of the people, in his alter ego Clark Kent. Contrary to the Tarantino-ed version of what Clark represents—a criticism of human weakness, per the words of Bill in Kill Bill, Vol. 2—Clark is Superman’s summation of what is worth protecting in life. Clark’s Midwestern upbringing figures into the preciousness of humanity: hard-working, friendly, reserved, middle-of-the-road, and a moral center. He is an outgoing member of the Daily Planet staff albeit a mild-mannered one. While Kent appears less than Superman in most if not all Superman media, he is an important link to Earth as is his human relationship with Lois Lane, discussed later on. In one story arc, Clark Kent is presumed dead, and Superman admits his frustration with having to be Superman all the time. And major problems arise when Superman loses sight of his Kent identity. The boy raised in rural America and the morality learned there all but disappears and he begins to terrorize Earth in anger. Fortunately, a gift from Wonder Woman, a pair of glasses, helps him see what he loses without Kent, so he resumes the life of awkwardly trying to fit in. Superman needs Clark Kent in as much as Clark Kent, a figure of humanity, needs Superman.
From Clark Kent, the next turn should lead to his parents. As discussed above, the Kents are responsible for bringing about the Superman cherished in superhero comics around the world. While the story has sometimes changed in varying degrees as to how they received Superman into their home, the modern version has remained the most popular, where Jonathan and Martha Kent remain a major part of Superman’s life well into Superman’s adulthood. This version shows prominently how Superman is able to return home, showing his great interest in maintaining close ties with his Earth family despite knowing he is a Kryptonian. While Hurt does not expressly mention it in “Midwestern Distinctiveness,” concern for family and family relations is a well-considered trait of the Midwest and gives rise to the homely and friendly demeanor of its people. The family ties are so great that Martha, in the famed story arc “Death of Superman,” spots the difference between Luthor’s cloned Superman and her boy just by looking at the clone’s disgruntled face on television. Only Martha and Lois, who had become Superman’s secret girlfriend prior to his death, were hesitant when the clone shows up to the shock of everyone who witnessed him die only weeks prior. Not to say that all or only Midwestern mothers can tell their own progeny apart from clones, but the situation says something of the relationship Superman developed to his Midwestern parents and the traits he gained from them that a mere clone will not do.
The importance of the family relationship is also seen in the third version of the Kents in which there is a rift between Jonathan and Superman (also a major theme in Smallville). As Superman becomes more interested in his Kryptonian origins, Jonathan feels estranged and more concerned that Superman use his powers for the good of all mankind, even though he feels isolated from his adopted son and therefore has no major role in shaping Superman’s identity. The dutiful mother maintains family relations and advises Clark, as she always calls him, through encrypted emails as Superman travels across the globe. Truth, justice, and the American way are certainly attitudes Superman receives from his humble childhood in Smallville but so is the friendly mannerism and interest in maintaining a quiet, contented relationship with his parents—a characteristic that greatly influences his intimacy with Lois Lane.
The extension of the Superman family is another reason the Kents are a calling card of Midwesternism. When Superman encounters two other notable figures in comic book history, Supergirl and Superboy or Kara and Conner, he endeavors to assimilate them as he was so they might know the love present in humanity and so be willing to one day protect it. The Kents happily take them in to raise as their own children, befitting their Midwestern character toward strangers. And Superman’s concern for his blood relatives in many instances: not wanting to give up his wardship of Kara so she may be trained by Wonder Woman, his acceptance of Conner, a cloned version of himself, as a member of his Superfamily, attempting a rescue of Kara from Darkseid on Apokolips, etc. The stories surrounding the Kents and the Superman family is an enduring part of the Superman mythos, essential for demonstrating Superman as a friendly and concerned character as well as for establishing his orientation toward human family as characterized by his Midwestern upbringing.
The Kents are not Superman’s only relationship displaying his Midwestern character. Since the introduction of World’s Finest Comics and later the series devoted specifically to them, the friendship between Superman and Batman has become as well-known as the dynamic duo itself (in the comic book universe anyway!). Of course, most of the storylines for these series are consumed by the two heroes confronting a common menace—more like menaces because any storyline involving the need for both requires an unholy amount of bad situations and evildoers. But in between action sequences, both the banter between the two characters as well as the novel device of dual narration—a technique introduced in Superman/Batman to present the characters’ thoughts about their counterparts and deliberations over how the other will likely behave—demonstrates the intricate nature of Superman’s homely Midwestern upbringing played against the tragic, antihero of Batman. Even though they share the same basic set of morals, their personalities are very distinct. On the one hand is Superman with an optimistic outlook and trust for mankind. On the other hand sits the Dark Knight who breathes righteous vengeance, virtuous hatred, and does not trust anyone fully, not even Superman. During a scene where Superman has a Kryptonite bullet lodged dangerously near his heart, he asks Batman, who is performing microsurgery on Big Blue, to use his fortune to buy a sense of humor. In a time of crisis, Superman does not lose his humble charm or friendly demeanor. Batman just grunts.
Even though Superman knows Batman does not play fair, as he contemplates when the two plan to rescue Supergirl from Darkseid—indeed the Dark Knight was ready to nuke the entire planet of Apokolips to retrieve Supergirl—he believes in the good of the dark hero. Superman believes that underneath all of the fear-inducing methods of crime fighting and the calculated ruthlessness there is supreme goodness in Batman. At times, Superman is unnerved by Batman’s lack of trust. He is irritated when Batman does not side with him as to whether or not Supergirl should remain under his care instead of living with Wonder Woman to train to be a hero—family is family. Still, Superman’s trustworthy nature follows from his humble and friendly Midwestern character. And that sense of trust runs so deep that Superman gives a ring of kryptonite to Batman, believing that should Superman ever go rogue (as he does a number of times) Batman will ensure goodness will prevail. As one of his closest friends, Batman will be able to preserve the common good of humanity, a Midwestern ideal.
One last interesting vantage point from the Dark Knight toward Superman is how non-Midwestern characters see Midwestern characters. Batman concedes that deep down Clark Kent, the name he uses when thinking about Superman, is a good person, and that he himself is not. Batman does not envy Superman’s ‘goodness’ but instead finds it frustratingly naïve. He is also irked by Superman’s interest in having a life beyond the cape. He is perplexed why someone with such power and responsibility for that power wastes the time on trying to build a life with Lois Lane and keeping ties with the Kents and his friends at the Daily Planet. He even pulls the old vanishing routine on Superman when he asks the Dark Knight to join him and Lois for a quiet dinner at home. Homeliness just seems a lost cause and a trivial way to live for those who were not raised in a Midwestern setting. To be fair, Superman cannot fully understand what drives his brooding friend to hate so much. But Batman respects Superman’s ability to use strategy and be the kind of hero who uses brain instead of brawn, like when he uses the art of deceit to bring down the powerhouse team The Elite: Superman tricks the team into believing he will kill them to send a message to Earth about the mercy of real heroes—Batman does that all the time! While they share many differences, especially in temperament and attitude toward the world, the contrasts between the two characters make them an ultimate team for good, and that works out to the advantage of all who need protection.
Finally, while the relationship between Superman and Lois Lane has come up numerous times already, how the intimate relationship reflects Superman’s Midwestern character deserves fuller attention. Now of course their relationship is not to say anything about the distinctiveness of Midwestern love; it would likely be hard to make the argument that such a thing exists. Rather, Lois Lane provides a new point of perspective to the Superman character not yet discussed, that is the idea that there are two Midwests: the rural, from the farm boy Clark Kent, and the urban, sassy Lois Lane. Superman’s interaction with the story-driven reporter bring home the point that the Midwest is comfortable with, even attracted to, the urban life as much as it holds a fond place for the rural.
Superman’s move to Metropolis is rarely considered when discussing the Man of Steel, but it raises a very interesting question: why would he move? That question resonates in the Midwest: why would anyone come here? Midwesterners themselves are especially prone to ask that question, doubly so if talking about a small rural area, because they do not feel their region is captivating to non-residents. This line of thinking slips a bit since Metropolis does not necessarily have to be set in the Midwest, although the people of Metropolis, Illinois—a real city proclaiming they serve as the home to Superman and have landmarks celebrating it—would be very upset were someone to assert otherwise! Nevertheless, the move from rural to urban and the lasting relationship between the two are grounded in Midwestern history. But it is not as though Clark Kent suddenly turns urban.
Other than the suggestion that Superman moves to Metropolis to be where he could be of most use with his talents, the prime account for why Clark leaves Smallville is to attend college, set in the story arc where the Kents die soon after Clark’s high school graduation. He bereaves the loss of his parents and aims to do right by his father in becoming a protector of the people. It would help to understand where Metropolis is in relation to Smallville. Smallville and the second generation of Superman comics seem to suggest it is within a relatively short driving distance from Metropolis. Other accounts suggest it is hundreds of miles away. Either way, the move to the port city of Metropolis marks a major turning point for Superman as he relates to his environment. Sure, there was no shortage of weird happenings in Smallville requiring the attention of the young Superman, but the move to a big city provides a whole new perspective for Superman as far as the breadth of crime: organized gangs, corrupt city officials, new supervillains, and no shortage of Earthly catastrophes that seem more devastating in the steel and cement haven of Metropolis. Urban life is also a drastically new social setting for the small town Clark Kent, and one person in particular would more or less break him into life in the big city: Lois Lane.
Even conceding the story where Clark attends college at Metropolis university (thereby suggesting he would have become enculturated to some degree with city life through his school years), making an everyday living in the city submerges Superman in the thick of where he will perform the lot of his superheroism as well as where he will establish his adult life as Clark Kent. Lois Lane greatly influences this transition as a career rival and as an intimate partner. One account of Lois reveals she too grew up on a farm but that city life was her dream, aiming to become a “courageous girl reporter,” “a competent reporter who’s always on the job,” “one of Metropolis’ smartest reporters,” the “star girl reporter for the Daily Planet,” the “audacious girl reporter of the Daily Planet,” “the prettiest girl reporter in Metropolis,” a “well-known newspaperwoman,” and a “famous reporter.” She is also very much interested in advancing the equality of women in the workplace. The career-driven woman is very much a distinct character from the strong rural woman since the former is motivated by the personal while the latter more likely works for a greater good—these lines are of course subject to blur and the comic book world certainly pays tribute to blurriness but for the sake of argument the distinctions help to demonstrate the two worlds which round out the Midwestern character of Superman.
Lois Lane initially pays little attention to “Smallville” as she likes to call him. He seems little threat to her prowess as a reporter until he lands a big story on the new hero in town, Superman. She begins to track the hero herself, but Clark continues to steal the scoops from her for obvious reasons, claiming he has an ‘in’ with Superman. Because Lois tails Superman often as well as seeks big stories to oust her new competition at the Daily Planet, she almost unavoidably runs into trouble, prompting Superman to interact with her to a greater degree than most other civilians he saves. Slight traces of attraction between Lois and her savior begin to develop and that is arguably the point where Superman begins to encompass his urban side—he cannot very well portray himself similarly as Clark Kent yet he does not develop a completely distinct identity. Much like a Peter Parker/Spiderman dynamic, Superman emits a kind of edginess that the mild-mannered farm boy simply does not. Superman is quick with a joke to calm Lois down upon rescuing her whereas the quiet, reserved Clark Kent would rarely if ever approach her so boldly. Superman also displays more brilliantly his charm while the awkward Kent behaves in a clumsy manner around his counterpart in the office (which works to his advantage when he needs to make a quick escape to change into Superman). It is to be expected that Lois should fall for Superman over Clark Kent which builds the irony whenever she throws good-natured insults at Clark for missing out on the action. The reconciling of Superman and Clark Kent through Lois develops through their growing intimacy.
It would be a failure in this discussion not to reference Lois’s obsession with learning Superman’s identity and her clever attempts to prove it is Clark Kent. When it comes to disproving Lois’s claims, Clark has to call on some quick-witted responses not necessarily characteristic of his rural side; thus, one might argue Superman, the urban entity, is responsible for keeping Lois in the dark. In the acclaimed story of Superman’s death though, the grieving Lois Lane is drawn to realize the truth, not to expose it but rather to come to grips with the dynamic individual with whom she has shared her days. She visits the home of the widow Martha Kent looking for comfort that no one in the city can offer her. Lois feels the sense of homeliness she never really paid attention to growing up and connects with the side of Superman she had up to then been teasing. In the same story, she recognizes almost as immediately as Martha that the cloned Superman is not the one she loves. And in The Elites storyline, Lois becomes frantic when Superman begins to behave as though he would kill the tyrannical foursome known as ‘The Elites,’ an act completely inconcsistent with his good-natured rural character, despite the note he leaves her asking her to “believe always believe.” As her love for Superman grows, she becomes enamored more by the humble values of Clark and slowly erodes any distinguishing thoughts she has between the two. Instead, she takes up the mantle of protecting Superman’s identity as a calling of her own, realizing that because of the love they share, his humanity must be protected as much as anyone else’s. Despite Superman’s godliness, Lois becomes one of the few on Earth who sees Superman as a complete character drawn from his rural roots as well as his urban life. Superman’s Midwestern character is reflected in the unity Lois brings to the rural and urban images of the Midwestern identity.
Hurt recognizes at the beginning of his article that for Midwesterners “‘nothing is as good as it used to be, but things are getting better all the time’” and “it is a matter of cultural faith.” There is a familiar tone of naivety in that suggestion, one which may not resonate with all or even the majority of Americans who likely spin their attitudes toward the dry, post-modern cynicism of The Daily Show or overreaching outrage from Fox News. So the shock of calling the attitude expressed by this belief the most American weighs heavily against the frame of reference conceived by America at large. Yet when examining an American cultural icon like Superman, the assertion that naivety and optimism mark the quintessential American perspective does not seem so foolish. Superman stands for truth, justice, and the American way. He is a world known figurehead of Americana who represents key American values and features. Underlying that iconic image though is a very prominent Midwestern character cultivated from a homely couple in rural Kansas. Superman’s relationships with family, friends, coworkers, love interest, and humanity in general demonstrate a friendly, trusting, middle of the road, demeanor spearheaded by optimism and concern for the greater good. Indeed Superman would not be Superman without these qualities. Since his role as an American icon depends so much on his Midwestern character, Hurt’s claim about the distinctive American-ness of the Midwest is conceivable and well-supported.

When I was young, I knew I would be someone different when I grew up. I would leave home and make a new life for myself. A new start, a second chance. When I first went to Metropolis, it was filled with people who’d done the same thing. People from all over America—from all over the world—who went to the city to live the lives they wanted, to be the people they wanted to be. That’s the idea that America was founded on, but it’s not just for people born here. It’s for everyone. —Superman #711 “Grounded, Part Nine” (2011)

Bibliography

All-Star Superman. Dir. Sam Liu. 2011. DVD. Warner Home Video.

All-Star Superman. Writ. Grant Morrison. Pen. Frank Quitely. Ink. Jamie Grant. DC Comics.
2006-2008.

Batman and Superman: Public Enemies. Dir. Sam Liu. 2009. DVD. Warner Home Video.

Batmitey, dir. “Superman—The Comic Strip Hero (parts 1 through 5).” YouTube. 15 Dec. 2007.
.

Bytwerk, Randall. “The SS and Superman.” German Propaganda Archives. Randall Bytwerk,
Calvin College. 1998. .

Fleischer, Michael L. and Janet E. Lincoln. The Great Superman Book: The Encyclopedia of the Folk Hero of America, Vol. 3. New York: Warner, 1978.
• “Clark Kent”
• “Jonathan and Martha Kent”
• “Lois Lane”
• “Smallville”
• “Superboy”
• “Supergirl”

Gradert, Kenyon. “Superman of Kansas and Krypton and Cleveland.” The Art of the Rural. Pub.
Art of the Rural. Blog. 7 Sept. 2012. .

Hurt, R. Douglas. “Midwestern Distinctiveness.” pp. 160-179 [Handout]

Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths. Dir. Lauren Montgomery and Sam Liu. 2010. DVD.
Warner Home Video.

Justice League/Justice League Unlimited. Dir. Paul Dini and Bruce Timm. 2001-2004. Cartoon Network.

Mahedo, Kevin. “5.2 Reasons Superman is a Threat.” DC Comics. DC Comics. Blog. 2012.
.

Malloy, Daniel P. “World’s Finest…Friends? Batman, Superman, and the Nature of Friendship.”
Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul. Ed. Robert Arp and Mark D.
White. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2008. pp. 239-253.

Smallville. Dev. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. Tollin/Robbins Productions, Warner Bros. Television, and DC Comics. 2001-2011. The WB Television Network;
The CW Television Network.

Superman: The Animated Series. Dev. Alan Burnett, Paul Dini, and Bruce Timm. 1996-2000.
The WB Television Network; The Hub.

Superman/Batman: Apocalypse. Dir. Lauren Montgomery. 2010. DVD. Warner Home Video.

Superman: The Death of Superman! Writ. Dan Jurgens, Louise Simonson, and Roger Stern. Pen.
Jon Bogdanove, Tom Grummet, Jackson Guice, and Dan Jurgens. Ink. Brett Breeding,
Doug Hazelwood, Dennis Janke, and Denis Rodier. DC Comics. 1992-1993, over three arcs.

Superman: Doomsday. Dir. Lauren Montgomery and Bruce Timm. 2007. DVD. Warner Home
Video.

Superman Homepage. Steven Younis. Fanpage. 1994-2012.
• “Comic Book Articles—Superman: Truth Justice and the American Way (Josh Grayson, 2001); Superman: Truth, Justice, and Other Stuff (Sertan Saral, 2003); The True Inspiration for Lois Lane (Joanne Siegel, 2006); Truth Justice and the American Way: Using Action Comics #1 as a Historic Source (Darren R. Reid, 2012)”
• “Comic Book FAQs and Information—Superman Comic Book History”
• “Creator Profiles—Jerry Siegel; Joe Shuster
• “Other Micellaneous Superman Stuff—Articles—The Ever-Evolving Superman (Steve Younis, 2006)”

Superman Super Site, The. SupermanSuperSite.com. Fanpage. 1998-2012.
• “Comic Book Information—Enemies and Villains; Timeline”
• “Real World—Metropolis, Illinois; Hall of Heroes Superhero Museum”
• “Smallville—Background Info”

Superman vs. The Elite. Dir. Michael Chang. 2012. DVD. Warner Home Video.

a review of Gran Torino

Tuesday, December 11th, 2012

 

I really like the film very much. it shows how a person changes his view to others. These changes of the relationship between Walt Kowalski and Thao Vang Lor seem to be a main line of the story. From the beginning to the end, the story describes how a stubborn elder and an introverted boy, or the family, deal with their neighbor ship. As the main character, Walt Kowalski’s view to the Hmong boy guides the story towards different results. In the film, his view changes, from prejudice to friendly, therefore, their relationship was getting better and better. For instance, Walt teaches Thao how to use several tools to repair or fix something, or how to explain his ideas and views as a man, also pays for some necessary tools to Thao and help him to find a appropriate job. At the ending of the film, Walt fight for Thao’s family to against with the gang, provide freedom and safety to the family by exchanging his life. In the case, audience can find how and why Walt’s inner world changes. Thao is sincere but immature, he needs Walt to represent his educating values; Thao’s older sister Sue is kind and brave, but these characters also make Walt to worry about her. In addition, Thao family makes Walt feel warm and belonging; all of these elements compose what Walt needs after the funeral, rather than those worries and physical support from Walt’s son and daughter.

In the case of the family values, as an elder who lives alone, Walt Kowalski is lacking for warmth of a family. At the beginning, his wife has died, and his family is holding the funeral; this makes Walt quite sad. What is more, he finds that his family seems not to be respect to it. His wife is the one who makes him feel belonging than any others; therefore, this would be quite a blow to Walt. Yet, his family cannot find his sadness from him; Walt still looks fine, even though he finds that he is getting ill. Actually, the film also shows that sometimes Walt feel lonely. When he is making a phone call to his son, audience can learn that how he want to talk about his illness to his son! But it still failed; he used to be a veteran in Korean War, and his personality cannot allow him to do that. Therefore, the phone call still ends up with silence, rather than any words. Comparing with Walt’s children, Thao is much closer than what he need. He discourages Thao’s stealing, and begins to interact with the family. When he discourages the gang’s trouble first time, their interactions makes Walt to find something that support his inner sustenance. They teach Thao to be a useful man, or participate in Hmong’s party and festival, and talk with Sue about some topics. From the film, audience also can find that Walt’s son also provide his family values to Walt. His son persuade him to move into a home, which particular works for old people. Children often cannot understand what is the most important to their parents.

The film leaves a question to audience: how can we choose the way to face the conflicts? For the ending of the film, different audience may keep different views. When Walt faces the gang, he chooses to sacrifice his life. This is also a change in Walt’s inner world. From several pervious conflicts, he is used to threaten others with his gun. As a veteran, a gun is the most important items to him; also it may be the most dependable. Yet, each time he uses his threat, it always causes react, and it seems to be more and more serious. Overall, the film describes four ways to solve the conflicts with something vicious. The first one, Thao, he is used to be conforming; he is asked to steal the Gran Torino. The second one, Walt, solve the conflicts by using threaten, also a kind of violence. The third one, Thao find that to be conforming is not allowed himself, than decide to be evasive. After that, Walt finds that the violence always cause another violence; it will never appeasable; he chooses to use the law to protect those who he high valued. Walt goes to the gang’s house; members of the gang feel afraid and draw their weapons on Walt. He talks loudly, both towards on those members and their neighbors: he wants to make them attention, as an evidence. Then he puts a cigarette in his mouth and asks for a light. After that, he shows his habit, gestured as a gun and puts his hand in his jacket and provocatively pulls it out as if it is a gun. This action incites those members to shoot and kill him. As he falls to the ground, his hand opens to reveal an army lighter: he was unarmed. He protects Thao’s family in a legal way, rather than violence.

After watching the film, the main character, Walt Kowalski makes me shocked, even though I have considered a similar ending before watching. Unlike other American films, he is not a hero. A hero usually owns some perfect characters: friendly, polite or gentle. Obviously, Walt is portrayed as a “failed” hero: he is violent, obstinate and unfriendly. Yet, he is still a hero to Thao’s family. Sue, the older sister of Thao, finds that what Walt looks like is simulate, he need family, also the warmth from family. Walt has a common habit in the film, which impresses me a lot: he often gestured as a gun. When he says “Get off my lawn”, “I blow a hole in your face and sleep like a baby,” it looks like a tone of threat and give audience a strong impression, while there is another scene that he sit in front of the house alone with his dog: it makes me realized that no matter how strong or powerful he shows, Walt is still a normal elder, which need someone to worry about him or live together with.

For the title, Gran Torino, is a classical type in Ford, and many characters in the film want to get the car for different purpose, including Walt’s granddaughter, the gang, also Thao. In my own view, Gran Torino is a quite old car at that time, but there still have so many people want it. That means, the car is valuable, rather than eliminated. As the title, the main character Walt is also valued as the “Gran Torino”: he is still needed by the society, rather than to be eliminated with the time passed. Death is not the ending, in the last scene of the film, Thao drive the Gran Torino around the region, just like he go along with Walt. Gran Torino is not only a classical type, or a sign with stand for a value, but also the spirit of what Walt owns, and it will be spread by Thao, also with the Gran Torino.

Beside of the theme, the film also relates a racial discrimination. One hand, Asians live in a different life style with natives. On the other hand, Walt in the film was portrayed as a veteran who has participated in the Korean War, and most of the Asians look like from a same region. That means, Walt consider his neighbor as enemies. The situation of racial discrimination is usually held by natives more or less. During that time, racial discrimination is held among by everyone. Audience can find few white people in that region expect Walt Kowalski: the region is full of immigrations, and they usually ignore the native life styles. For example, natives will focus on fix their house and yard, in order to make it comfortable. From the film audience can learn that those immigrations pay less attention on this area. When Walt want Thao to live as a native, he teaches him to use those tools and tell him how to do with the roof and yard.

In addition to the main story, the settings of the film also represent a scene of life in Midwest. Different from large cities, side-by-side houses and small roads are also a character of Midwest. In the case, there has no similar structure in China; it provides a similar section with my apartment out of the university. With the experience of living in Midwest, the film also give a impression that close to real life here, rather than other films that process a story in a large city.