Showing posts with label Non-Fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Non-Fiction. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

The Massey Murder

The Massey Murder: A Maid, Her Master and the Trial that Shocked a Country by Charlotte Gray (HarperCollins, 2013) 308 pages

Few murders galvanized Torontonians in the last century like the murder of Charles Albert Massey, grandson of the industrialist and philanthropist Hart Massey, by his eighteen year old maid Carrie Davies. Here indeed was a clear and disturbing demarcation of the only two perceived classes that existed in Canada at the time: "the Masseys and the masses" quipped B.K. SandwellSaturday Night editor.

Charlotte Gray, a respected historian of Canadian figures, attempts to link the historical climate - specifically the turmoil of World War I in 1915 - and the murder of C.A. Massey. I'm not sure if she succeeds here even though the historical data collected about wartime Toronto is fascinating. 

Carrie Davies

Carrie shot her employer on the steps of his Walmer Rd. home with his own gun because Massey had, in her words "ruined her" (more on that anon). She had been instructed on its use by the man's own unsuspecting son. Carrie was an unsophisticated British immigrant from an impoverished family residing in a gritty English railway town. She financially supported her widowed mother and three younger siblings with wages sent back to England. She had been forced into domestic service at thirteen due to the family's financial circumstances and her mother's poor health and had moved to Toronto to join her married sister to search for work.

Charles Albert Massey (known more commonly as "Bert") was the son of Charles Albert Massey Sr., the once favourite son of Hart Massey. With the untimely demise of Charles Albert Sr. at an early age and Hart Massey's unsuccessful attempts to have Bert and his younger sister Bessie live with their grandparents in their Jarvis St. mansion, Hart Massey turned against his daughter-in-law Jessie Massey, wife of Charles Albert Sr., and her children once she re-married.

Euclid Hall, the one time home of Hart Massey, 
Charles Albert Massey's grandfather

The wealthier Masseys, such as Hart Massey and his unmarried daughter Lillian Massey, lived at Euclid Hall on Jarvis Street (shown above). I have been fascinated with this house and its former residents for some time and have written about it here

Charles Albert's own more successful older brother Arthur Massey lived at the more upscale 165 Admiral Rd. in the Annex but Charles Albert, a modestly successful automobile salesman for York Motors, lived at 169 Walmer Rd. (shown below).

169 Walmer Rd, the scene of the murder

Gray paints a vivid and lurid picture of early 20th c. Toronto - a city exploding with newly arrived immigrants and customs largely distrusted by the Anglo majority (85% of whom claimed British ancestry) and particularly concentrated in "The Ward" (also knonw as St John's Ward) - a neighbourhood bordered by College, Yonge, Queen and University streets and described as "notorious" with overcrowded rooming houses, rife with diseases such as tuberculosis and typhoid as well as crime ...

The depictions of the two principals involved in the murder were extreme and sharply drawn in the newspapers who took opposing views of the crime.

Charles Albert was portrayed by Davies' lawyer and a portion of the media as a slightly debauched seducer of the virginal Carrie who, even though she claimed had been suggestively approached by Massey and offered a ring as a gift the day before, waited a day and a half to stop his expected advances on the steps of his own home. Carrie was depicted as a virtuous, naive maid in conflict with a victimizing, lecherous employer making the most of his American wife Rhoda's absence from home.

By other sources, Carrie's reputation - there were allegations that she was mad or ill with epilepsy - was pitted against that of a scion of the Massey legacy. She was initially portrayed as a mentally unstable "foreigner" given to unexplained fits who over-reacted to a alleged advance by her unsuspecting and kindly master of good breeding and pedigree. 

The trial and the acquittal of Carrie Davies marked a remarkable shift in societal attitudes towards the affluent Masseys and the Anglo upper crust who ruled both the judicial system and politics. And perhaps the war did have a hand in the demystification of the upper classes as many young men of all classes and ranks met the same fate during WWI - death, disfigurement, loss of employment due to crippling wounds. Few families could claim that they were untouched by the war nor had contributed to the war effort.

Carrie's vindication represented a dramatic shift within Toronto society. It was not a given that an affluent (or in this case semi-affluent) citizen necessarily would triumph in the criminal justice system or in public opinion.

Carrie fades from the public memory after the trial and eventually she marries and settles on a farm north of Toronto and appeared to live a hard scrabble existence there. So traumatized by the defining event of her youth, she never spoke of it to her daughter Margaret Grainger who only learned of her history from the resourceful Toronto Star reporter Frank Jones who dug up the historical record in the 1980s and wrote his own book on the subject Master and Maid: The Charles Massey Murder.

Still living when Gray finished her own account, daughter Margaret, then in her 80s, was too unnerved to speak of it to Gray. Some wounds are too raw, even a century later, the authour notes. 

Saturday, January 1, 2011

19th c. Teenage Dreams...

Let's go all the way tonight
No regrets, just love
We can dance until we die
You and I, we'll be young forever
Teenage Dream, Katy Perry  

Young Romantics: The Tangled Lives of English Poetry's Greatest Generation by Daisy Hay (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2010) 384 pages

"Tangled" is such an understatement for the personal and literary relations between these charismatic, irresponsible, sometimes beautiful, impossible people.

What was the Romantic movement? Very very briefly, it was an artistic and political movement which "validated strong emotion as an authentic source of the aesthetic experience". It prized "intuition and emotion over Enlightenment rationalism".

There was a time when the antics of the Romantic poets and political radicals of early 19th c. England would have sent me into a rapture of historical and intellectual envy. Lord Byron (1788-1824), Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822), Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (1797-1851), John Keats (1795-1821), Leigh Hunt (1784-1859)... Groundbreaking social and political theories, amorous, complicated adventures with multiples partners.

It is inevitable folks, once you have kids, and they become teenagers and could potentially engage in all this free lovin', free thinkin' stuff - you start to reassess the feasibility of it all, the implications and consequences, which I grant you, is much less fun than embracing all that free lovin' and free thinkin'. This is so much more than the onset of middle age and middle spread but a re-evaluation of a way of thinking for me.

The academic Daisy Hay vividly recreates the lives of the amorous and political activities of these revolutionaries of England's Romantic period. We see not only their passions and sometimes bold and adventurous designs for living in a new age but the consequences of their rule breaking mores. Hay's writing represents the best of academic writing - it is lively, informative and not larded with dense academic jargon. She captures their foibles and passions compassionately.

Percy Bysshe Shelley
Consider the English Romantic poet/aristocrat Shelley (radical advocate of free love, atheism, Christianity, and - ahem - vegetarianism) who, leaving behind Harriet Westbrook, a pregnant wife with a child, runs off to France with the teenage Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (herself the spawn of the radicals Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin), and her step-sister Jane Clairmont in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars in 1814.

You make me
Feel like I'm living a
Teenage dream
The way you turn me on
I can't sleep
Let's run away and
Don't ever look back
Don't ever look back

With no money and nowhere to go, Shelley must resort to begging for funds, even from his wife Harriet who understandably is reluctant to supplement his newly liberated lifestyle with the two sisters. In despair, Harriet, who had been constantly beseeching him to come home, drowns herself two years later.

The threesome are so poor and so disorganized that they often travel by uncovered boat or walk great distances to achieve their destinations and eventually return to England but the girls are disowned by that other great radical thinker William Godwin (the father of Mary) who refuses to recognize the legitimacy of their unusual arrangement and take back his step-daughter Jane.

Shelley was described by an admirer as one who "dared to threaten the world with the horrid and diabolical progress of telling mankind to open its eye". Shelley attempted to persuade Mary (now pregnant with his child) to engage in a sexual relationship with Thomas Jefferson Hogg, one of Shelley's best friends with whom he co-wrote The Necessity of Atheism at Oxford University College and for which he was expelled.

Mary Shelley (nee Wollstonecraft Godwin)
Mary, lonely, confined to her bed with a problematic pregnancy and fearful of the fate that her own mother faced when she died in childbirth, flirts timidly with the idea. Although it appears that what she most wanted was more attention from Shelley who was gallivanting about the country appeasing creditors and promoting his own literary works with the assistance of Mary's step-sister Jane.

Did this suggestion from Shelley free Shelley up for further attention towards step-sister Jane (now renaming herself the more romantic name "Claire"?) or was he "merely" aggressively promulgating his notions of free love - spreading the love so to speak?

Periodically he falls in love with another muse in his circle: not only his sister-in-law Claire, but the teenage Emilia Viviani for whom he wrote Epipsychidion; and Jane Williams - the unattainable common-law wife of Edward Williams, a colleague.

Leigh Hunt, editor of The Examiner, achieved fame (or notoriety) when he was imprisoned for two years for an attack on the Prince Regent's behavior in his newspaper. He became a hero amongst the radicals and the Romantic poets of his time. Rumors of inappropriate relations dogged Leigh Hunt upon his release from prison. While married to Marianne, his sister-in-law Bess Kent came to hold a special place in his life often acting as an agent with publishers and an intimate companion at literary affairs.

The publication of The Story of Rimini, which details the "close" relations between brother-in-law Paulo and sister-in-law Francesca seemed to seal his fate and he was attacked for lightly cloaking his own alleged relationship with Bess which he vehemently denied. This forced Bess to separate from the Hunts and live in different lodgings to stifle the rumors.

Byron
My heart stops
When you look at me
Just one touch
Now baby I believe
This is real
So take a chance
And don't ever look back
Don't ever look back.

Claire had followed Byron to Geneva and then Italy; the Shelleys, anxious to know Byron, followed suit. There ensued a fruitful period of literary productivity for all - most notably the third canto of Lord Byron's Childe Harold's Pilgrimage and the conception of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

The Funeral of Shelley by Louis Edouard Fournier (1889);
pictured in the centre are, from left,
Edward John Trelawny, Leigh Hunt and Byron.
Mary Shelley is pictured to the extreme left of the frame, kneeling
Byron eventually laid claim to the child Alba (then renamed Allegra by Byron) and insisted that the child be brought to live with him and his mistress, the aristocratic Teresa. He soon placed the child in a convent, refusing to allow her mother to see Allegra who eventually died of typhus at the age of five.

In a few short years the band of idealists exiled to Italy are soon wrecked by tragedy and misfortune. Mary goes on to lose three of four children before they reach the age of five. Shelley drowns in a sailing mishap with Edward Williams and Mary must struggle with Shelley's father for financial assistance and is forced to leave Italy; Byron succumbs to a fever in Greece and his death is likely hastened by doses of purgatives and laudanum by inept doctors. Leigh Hunt faces both poverty, the illness of his wife Marianne and a growing brood of unsupervised children shuffled from one city to the next in search of stability and subject to the reluctant largess of wealthier friends like Byron.

They are young, in some instance wealthy or supported by wealthy friends and they are free of the prejudices of the day. Fueled by idealism, hormones (remember Mary was sixteen and Shelley was twenty one) and radical politics, they rebelled against a hypocritical and repressive society.

Claire Clairmont
But it is the women, not surprisingly, who bear the brunt of the tragedies which result from the liberal sexual and marital arrangements. Monogamy and fidelity to one's partner may seem like a ridiculously impossible ideal, and possibly it is, but what are the alternatives - moral anarchy and chaos? As Hay reports:
All three women [Mary Shelley, Mary's stepsister Claire Clairmont and Bess Kent, Leigh Hunt's sister-in-law] had learned the reality of free love in the 1810s when their unorthodox living arrangements, and the ideals of Shelley and Hunt, had variously exposed their public scrutiny and, in the case of Mary and Claire, their bodies to illegitimate pregnancy...Now that the men of the group were dead, or living abroad, the women were left behind to count the cost of youthful idealism: damaged reputations, limited earning capacity and exclusion from polite society. 
Claire, one of the very few of the circle to reach old age was very aware of the repercussions and had spoken frequently of producing a personal memoir. She never did complete it but did record snippets of her thoughts about that time both in her diaries and in conversations she had with Edward Silsbee, a retired sea captain who venerated Shelley and which he recorded for her in notebooks (now preserved in the New York Public Library). In these peregrinations she came to believe that:
If I commit this sad tale to paper and finally to the public, it is with the intention of demonstrating from actual facts, what evil passion free love assured, what tenderness it dissolves; how it abused affections that should be the solace and balm of life, into a destroying scourge...the worshippers of free love not only preyed upon one another, but preyed equally upon their own individual selves turning their existence into a perfect hell. 
For unrestricted sexual conduct without responsibility is the fantasy of youth, of teenage fantasy. Coupled with great wealth (as with Byron) and/or radical political philosophy (Shelley, Leigh Hunt) there is always a price to pay and it's usually the female who pays the bill.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

The ultimate wound

As a soldier, the thing you were most scared of was failing your brothers when they needed you, and compared to that, dying was easy. Dying was over with. Cowardice lingered forever.
War by Sebastian Junger (HarperCollins Publishers Ltd., 2010) 287 pages

The construction of the mask of masculinity is thought provoking. My theory is that we all wear masks regarding our gender which are built from our personal histories, cultural and social environment and genetics. My interest in this book wasn't so much about the Americans' involvement in the war in Afghanistan where this book is set but how men behave in war and how they use the war to define their masculinity (which I believe the author was also trying to determine).

I urge you to pick up the book. I won't get into too many of the specific instances that Junger cites because I can't recount them as well as he can and my interest in the lives of these men lies elsewhere - not in the specifics of war but why men behave how they behave in these circumstances.

Personally, I don't believe that men have more personal courage than women in these situations - I do believe that men have a larger reservoir of personal shame at being perceived as cowardly or unmanly. When I am about to do something risky or dangerous I always ask myself - what would happen to my kid if I mess this up - if I was killed or incapacitated? Or even...would these actions shame her? I think that is the leash that reins in women not fear.

Men's visions appear both larger and more magnificent but also more foolish - as in I will climb that mountain to save my comrade (even though it is likely I will end up dead on the hillside because I have failed as many others have failed). Perhaps that is why they are predominantly, but not exclusively, the inventors, the explorers, the thrill seekers and the ones that end up killed.

"Manly valor" needn't be dirty words. The thing is we need individuals of this type, both male and female - to dare going into a burning building to save someone, to protect someone who is weaker and more vulnerable than you are, to risk it all to achieve something great. And chances are, as society stands today, these individuals will be men.

I have admired the modest Junger trying to explain during interviews for the book that these men were not merely "adrenaline junkies" seeking highs - (although one solider does describe combat as being akin to crack) - these are boys and men who are trying to define who they are through their actions in the military and their relationships with the other men.

War begins with a thirty man platoon, the 2nd battalion of the U.S. Army, stationed in the Korengal Valley in Eastern Afghanistan in the foothills of the Hindu Kush mountains where Junger is serving as an embedded journalist in two cycles during June 2007 and June 2008. Life at Restrepo where he is based (and which he chronicled in a documentary made at the same time):

The men sleep as late as they can and come shuffling out of their fly-infested hooches scratching and farting. By midmorning it's over a hundred degrees and the heat has a kind of buzzing slowness to it that alone almost feels capable of overrunning Restrepo. It's a miraculous kind of antiparadise up here: heat and dust and tarantulas and flies and no women and no running water and no cooked food and nothing to do but kill and wait. It's so hot that the men wander around in flip flops and underwear, unshaved and foul.

For Junger, the soldier Brendan O'Byrne seems to epitomize the troop that he is stationed with. Just an average kid, albeit from a troubled, violent background in Pennsylvania, who casually mentions in conversation that he was once shot by his father and doesn't blame him as he (O'Byrne) was such a badass. His personal story is interwoven throughout the narrative. O'Byrne seems typical of the average soldier there: not wealthy, somewhat rootless, sometimes with a troubled history, eager to break the boredom of everyday life, fearful of returning to normalcy when his tour is over.

While reading the book, I kept picturing the character of Sergeant First Class William James in the film The Hurt Locker aimlessly examining the supermarket goods when he returns from a tour in Iraq and then almost immediately afterward we see that he has re-enlisted for another tour (done so with a big happy grin on his face).

The overwhelming sense of what the experience of war is appears to be mind numbing boredom broken with terrific firefights (as many as four or five a day for these particular men). This area saw one fifth of all the combat in Afghanistan at the time. The men are often so bored they would pray for combat or invoke weird rituals which were said to bring on combat (such as eating a certain kind of candy). At rest, they play guitar, beat on each other just for fun, read Harry Potter and surfing magazines, listen to music on their laptops.

The biggest motivator to behaving bravely in this situation appears to be not letting your fellow soldiers down through your own personal cowardice which is epitomized by the statement that one soldier named Jones makes that, "There ain't no bitch in me." This fear that one will make an error resulting in casualties is overwhelmingly important and, I think, tied to an innate sense of what is masculinity. This means mastering one's fear. There appears to be no shame in fear but it cannot, must not, affect the soldiers' ability to act in a crisis. 

O'Byrne tells Junger, "There are guys in the platoon who straight up hate each other. But they would also die for each other." Clearly, they must possess the "X factor" to surmount their fear - a factor so labeled by the British and American militaries during WWII which was trying to determine what made men conquer their fear.

Junger mentions the unspoken agreement among the men that the men stick together no matter what. It is the "reassurance that you will never be abandoned [which] seems to help men in ways that serve the whole unit rather than just themselves." But sometimes this might just result in a suicide pact.

I think that there is something else at the heart of this commitment to each other. I would venture to say it is also the fear of being perceived a "bitch" if one disappoints his comrades. It appears that to be a man, most distinctly means not behaving like a "woman", being cowardly, not putting the whole of the unit before your own needs.

Junger seems most disturbed as a journalist when he learns of an enemy combatant, an Afghani man who, firstly, loses a leg while struck by firepower on a hillside, then gets blown to smithereens as he scrambles for cover. This elicits cheers from the Americans in the troop and from Junger horror. He struggles to understand. Relief he can comprehend from the soldiers but cheers? A soldier explains: this means there is one less man out there trying to kill you - hence the "happiness" the kill elicits.

Periodically, the men have what Junger describes as a "pisstube moment", this from O'Byrne:
I went out to use the pisstubes one night ... and I was like 'What am I doing in Afghanistan?' I mean literally, 'What am I doing here?' I'm trying to kill people and they're trying to kill me. It's crazy..."

Whether the sacrifices made, the lives lost, psyches destroyed during this war are worthwhile I leave to finer minds than mine. I found it difficult to understand the purpose of the mission, the purpose of this war. I guess that would be my "pisstube moment" in contemplating the war in Afghanistan.

When you learn of O'Byrne's troubled fate once he is released from duty (many of his psychological wounds are self-inflicted) you wonder if Junger is not right when he states: Maybe the ultimate wound is the one that makes you miss the war you got it in.

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Or ... Down and Out in Hamilton and Toronto

Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell (First published 1933; republished by Penguin Books, 1940) 190 pages

This book, George Orwell's first full-length work, re-ignited an internal debate I have about how to write about the poor and downtrodden. This has become a persistent theme for me as I try and puzzle out the character of Billy in my new yet to be published novel. In Vita's Prospects, Billy is an aboriginal man who is mentally ill, homeless, violent and misogynistic ... oh yes, and gay. Talk about asking for trouble as a writer in these politically sensitive times. And yet he haunts me, the way a dead relation or lover might.

How to make Billy real? How to make him - not sympathetic exactly - but written in such a manner that he is seen compassionately and have the reader understand why he is what he is? I have no interest in being politically correct but I do want an honest representation of his life. His life, as depicted in my novel, is as important to me as the fate of some of the dearest people in my life. What he suffers and endures in the book I feel acutely.

So I turn to Orwell, a hero of mine, who had more than a little experience with living in the rough and amongst the poor.

As Orwell makes his way through Paris and London he assumes various guises. His observations are uncensored and keen and even bigoted at times - castigating the perceived parsimony of Jewish vendors in anti-Semitic slurs or the unsavory aspects of a particularly unpleasant unfortunate he meets in his travels. Of Paris' slum inhabitants he concludes that poverty "frees them from the ordinary standards of behavior" and he cites fairly odd and unconscionable behavior. Orwell is unsentimental and sharp-eyed about the poor. He does not elevate the poor to sainthood but keenly seems to feels the destitution of their day to day existence because he actually lived it for years at a time.

In Paris, he passes the majority of his time with Boris, a former Russian military man disenfranchised by the Russian Revolution of 1917 and now reduced to waiting (as in being a waiter) in some of the most forlorn cafes and restaurants in Paris. They sell their clothes, and every material possession they own, to buy bread and drink to tide them over from day to day. They go days without eating or eating only a scrap of bread. They wander from one eating establishment to another searching for employment. Boris is lame and unlikely to find work. Orwell is a foreigner, although being English in Paris does have a bit of a cachet for some it seems. Both suffer rejection upon rejection for weeks on end living hand to mouth in utter destitution as Boris chases down one hair-brained scheme after another which lead to nothing. One plan involves petitioning former mistresses for financial aid.

When Orwell finds work it is in a vast hotel with hundreds of employees, simply labeled Hotel X in the book, as a plongeur, a position considered to be the lowest of the low among hotel workers and as Orwell puts it "a slave of the modern world...he is no freer than if he were bought and sold."  Washing dishes, clearing the waste, cutting up vegetables, making coffee and tea, working horrendously long hours without breaks or food or a place to sit down for a rest, cursed and vilified by chefs, waiters, managers - anyone with status above him. The cellars of this vast institution are dark, dirty, chaotic and even sometimes violent as tempers flare between overworked and exploited workers scrambling to complete their given tasks. All those stereotypes about working in a restaurant under a tyrannous and abusive chef are magnified tenfold.

Of these abuses after a hundred pages or so Orwell concludes that the job is useless and should be eliminated. If the richer populace did not decide to visit "smart" restaurants and hotels, a "useless luxury", there would be no need for the plongeurs to suffer so. A fanciful thought - may as well wish for the moon, I thought as I read this, as expect the rich and affluent to live without luxuries. Where there is money, there will be a host of services, some essential, some frivolous, to cater to them.

But at least he and Boris are able to make a living wage, that is, until Orwell decides he wants to leave for England where he is promised a job caring for an "imbecile". This job appears like a heavenly reprieve from the suffering he endured in Paris. Once he arrives in London, the job does not come about as quickly as he had hoped so he is cast adrift scrambling to find food and accommodations - quickly devolving from working poor (plongeur) to tramp in the space of days.

He finds himself looking for shelter in "spikes" also known as casual wards, our equivalent of homeless shelters. However, the law stipulates that he may only stay in one spike one day per month so he is forced to tramp all over the city from spike to spike seeking shelter and food every day, traveling miles and miles with Paddy, a displaced Irishman with a penchant for collecting discarded cigarette butts for the miniscule amount of tobacco they yield. If he tries to violate this law he will be thrown in jail.

Experiences vary but generally in order to receive food and shelter the men are subjected to enforced exposure to religious instruction, prayer or hymn singing - literally performing for one's bread in order to survive. The worst examples cited appear to be those spikes run by the Salvation Army which try and instill a military like precision to the running of the spikes. Dirty beds are infested with bugs. Food (usually bread and margarine, thin soup) is inedible, tea undrinkable, treatment is harsh. Overcrowding, violence, sometimes homosexual overtures upon the unwilling, he details all. Even those who travel the tramp circuit despise each other for their misfortunes.

In one vivid scene, he recounts the group of homeless men becoming raucous and disrespectful during a church service that they are forced to attend. Largely, the men are docile and cowed by their circumstances when facing authority - here, in this scene, they are rebellious and rude and on the edge of revolution it seems.

As a natural born reformer, Orwell cites remedies to aid these men which seem possibly workable and sensible. The men seek employment, he argues. Their lack of employment degrades them and they feel it keenly. If these shelters were set up with proper kitchens and gardens the men could work in exchange for accommodations and stay for extended periods instead of being turfed out after one night.

Orwell was an idealist, not a foolish one, but one who tried to offer practical, concrete suggestions about how to improve the plight of the poor. He assumes that most would agree with the logic of his sensible arguments. The truth is, now and likely almost eighty years ago when this was written in the early 30s, people have little interest in situations in which they cannot imagine themselves. They may have sympathy but little inclination to change what they perceive as something that is not their problem.


The origins of the character Billy in Vita's Prospects:
Many years ago, when I lived in the downtown core in the first home that I shared with my husband, my sister and I were strolling near our condo close to the St. Lawrence Market. We passed this young Indian man who was crouched beside a building, obviously in pain, who was begging for money. He was youngish with long sandy coloured hair, a mustache, likely bi-racial, and he did not look like he had been on the streets for very long. He had on a decent looking carmel coloured jacket and some sort of dark stoned necklace around his neck. I couldn't tell if he was ill or suffering from withdrawal - he had trouble speaking or didn't want to talk to us (that could have been it too).

For me it was bit of shock as he resembled, quite a bit, a boy named R who I had known when I was seventeen and who had lead a pretty dicey life in Hamilton where I grew up - short term in prison for various ill fated criminal ventures, getting involved in violent altercations on the street, stealing merchandise, womanizing - and then R eventually died of a drug overdose, likely accidental, under mysterious circumstances at a friend's house. But it struck me, what if R had lived, would he have ended up like this man on the street?

My sister and I felt at a loss as to how to help. We went to the nearest supermarket a few doors away and bought him a drink and some food. Then we kept walking - we thought what can we do? We walked right past the Fred Victor Mission on Jarvis St. which was near my home and stopped inside and spoke to a man there. He was a little condescending when we explained the situation; no doubt he had other more pressing concerns. He said something to the effect that: "It's very nice that you girls are concerned about this guy but there is really nothing you can do and neither can I."

Frustrated, we left and walked back to where we had last seen this young man and he was gone. And I never saw him again. Vita's Prospects is an imagined continuation of what this man's life would be like on the streets set in the course of one June day as encountered by Vita.  

More on Billy and Vita anon ...

Thursday, May 7, 2009

My Mafia, Myself

"You carry on, do what you have to do - the rest is worthless. Because the threat isn't always a bullet between the eyes ... They take you slowly, one layer at a time, till you find yourself naked and alone and you start believing you're fighting something that does not exist ..."
Gomorrah
by Roberto Saviano (Picador, 2008) 301 pages

This book was made into a gritty, very compelling film which premiered at TIFF last year. Forget the cinematic glamor of The Godfather film or the pulpy juiciness of the novel or the profane wittiness of Goodfellas, this is the real deal – the true sordidness of organized crime in southern Italy and Europe, the so-called “ghetto of Europe”. One reading should pretty well eradicate the mafia-groupie in all of us.

There is a not so secret society amongst Italians of those who are obsessed with stories about the mafia. We are mesmerized whenever we see The Godfather on TV and probably own the DVD. We have seen it innumerable times. We've even sat through Godfather III. We are hooked on The Sopranos and actually suffered a sort of withdrawal when the series ended. We have seen all the films on crime families and criminals: Goodfellas (1990), Scarface (1983), History of Violence (2005), Casino (1995), On the Waterfront (1954), Reservoir Dogs (1992), Road to Perdition (2002), The Untouchables (1987). I am a member of such a society.

So, suffice it to say, I was immediately interested in this book. The title is a brilliant play on the words Camorra (a mafia-like society in the region of Naples) and Gomorrah (as in the biblical city in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah). Saviano is mesmerizing as he takes us into a inferno like pit of murder, drug trafficking, political assassinations, black market manufacturing, torture and criminal activity in Naples and its environs. The Camorra has killed more people than the Sicilian Mafia, the 'Ndrangheta, the Russian Mafia ... more than the IRA in Ireland, the Red Brigades in Italy, the ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) in Spain.

The word Mafia is not used here in this context … in the area of Naples it is know as La Camorra and members are referred to as Camorristi, also known as clan members. Saviano details many aspects of the clans’ power and influence in various aspects of Italian society: the black market luxury garment industry, the drug trade, the purchase of weapons (primarily the Kalashnikov rifle and the "cult" like reverence it inspires), the role of women (many are much more active participants than you think); the role of “submarines” in paying off Camorrista family members.

Roberto Saviano is from Casal di Principe which he describes as "the capital of criminal entrepreneurial power" with some intriguing combination of shame or pride depending on the situation he finds himself in. He says that compared to his hometown Corleone is Disneyland.

Saviano explains in detail how the clans work: for instance, the drug trade of the Paolo Di Lauro clan employs thousands who have no idea whom they truly work for aside from the general name of the clan. Each clan members’ knowledge is limited so even if questioned by police or foe they do not know the hierarchy or how the flow chart of power is structured.

Some scenarios he relates: Pasquale, a skilled tailor labours in a Camorra controlled black market garment factory creating knock off luxury garments. One day, he sees on TV that a particularly beautiful garment prepared for a famous couture fashion house is being worn by Angelina Jolie at the Oscars. This both angers and excites him because even though he crafted the garment he will never be acknowledged for the creation. Pasquale is eventually driven from the industry (because he dared to share his skills with a Chinese-born competitor working in his region for a fee and threatening the Camorra's hold on the market) and instead becomes a truck driver to save his neck.

When the clans (what we would think of as Mafia families) want to test a new batch of heroin to determine how good it is and whether it will kill anyone they test them on "Visitors". These are hard core heroin addicts who are willing to risk death for a free hit. Saviano tells an absolutely horrifying story of witnessing one such trial on the streets where the dealer and everyone else around the addict fear that the heroin has killed him. The man is revived by his weeping addict girlfriend in a most unusual manner which I will leave to you to discover.

He details the logic of retribution of the clans against perceived wrongs and how all are vulnerable:
"... the map of an individual is drawn through his acquaintances, relatives, even his possessions. A map on which messages can be written. The most terrible messages. Punishment is necessary. if someone goes unpunished, it might legitimize new betrayals or schisms."

The clans' tentacles are long and pervasive. "Submarines", such as the cited Don Ciro, are low level money men who pay monthly allowances to clan affiliates who have been loyal and have relations in prison. These usually go to wives or girlfriends with children by Camorristi, but some men as well - always paid to the men's mothers to avoid humiliation of and abuse from the men.

The nicknames of the Camorristi will amuse and/or puzzle: Perhaps the Camorrista resembles a movie star who plays a role on TV (Zorro) or the movies (Rambo) or the son of a Libyan dictator (Ghaddafi). Perhaps he has attributes like a certain animal: lione (lion), 'o lupo (wolf) or i capitoni (the eels) or certain physical or mental attributes: 'o milionario (the millionaire), bello (beautiful one), 'o pazzo (the crazy one), capelli bianchi (white hair), 'o nano (the dwarf) and then there are the more bizarre untranslatable names: scipp scipp, quaglia quaglia, zig zag.

And forget about the myth that organized crime does not harm women or children. Saviano details scenario after scenario in which women are shot in the face, tortured for information on rival clans, corpses dumped and burned in their cars, for real or perceived transgressions. They might be active participants in the clan, suspected girlfriends of Camorristi, or merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. Young boys are enlisted as assassins, as drug mules, as couriers of information, as decoys meant to lure out real targets, as horrifyingly graphic examples of how not to challenge the clans’ authority. This is a world where priests like Don Peppino are shot in the face for their defiance of the clans.

For many women marrying a Camorrista is like "receiving a loan or acquiring capital". You have connected with a winner, someone ambitious and aggressive and able to make money for you. In the twisted logic of this scenario, this is someone who is not a failure.

In Gomorrah, Saviano consciously emulates the filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini who, on November 14, 1974, lashed out against the Democratic-Christian political regime in Italy and was asking questions on the front page of Italy’s most influential newspaper, Corriere della Sera about organized crime, political protection and the government's collusion. The article began, "Io so (I know)..." and Pasolini listed all he suspected but could not prove.

In the chapter "Cement", Saviano makes a lonely pilgrimage to Pasolini's grave in Casarsa and murmurs aloud his own 21st c. version of "I know" before his tomb. He sees the corruption and rot of the Camorra's involvement in the construction industry and cannot look at a building without imagining the work and blood that went into it:
"I know how economics originate and where their smells come from ... the proofs are irrefutable because they are partial, recorded with my eyes ... And so I tell. About these truths."

He knows that before these construction magnates turned themselves into managers, financial sharks, newspaper owners "before all this and under all this lies cement, subcontractors ... vans crammed with men who work all night and disappear in the morning, rotten scaffolding and bogus insurance".

For me the most painful story is that of his father's fate. A trained doctor, as a youth he rode with paramedics in ambulances and encountered many victims of the Camorristi when called to emergencies. The unofficial medical policy was not to intervene if one encountered a still living casualty because chances were that the Camorristi would hijack the ambulance and finish off the job, usually with the paramedics and doctors aboard, often killing them as well. On one such encounter he came across an eighteen year shot in the chest - his nursing colleagues begged him not to intervene but he could not watch the boy die so he assisted him and he survived. That night, Camorristi broke into the doctor's home and beat him so badly he was not able to resurface for two months.

Unfortunately, his father learned his lesson - when he had his own son Roberto (the author of this book), this educated man taught the boy to shoot with the following piece of wisdom:
"Robbe' what do you call a man who has a pistol and no college degree?"
"A shit with a pistol."
"Good. What do you call a man with a college degree and no pistol?"
"A shit with a degree."
"Good. What do you call a man with a degree and a pistol?"
"A man, Papa."

An extraordinary book by an extraordinary man.

Thursday, August 2, 2007

When the Astors Were Asses

When the Astors Owned New York: Blue Bloods and Grand Hotels in a Gilded Age (Penguin Group, 2006) 196 pp.

Bluebloods and luxury hotels? I had no idea how closely linked the Astors were with the creation of many of the luxury hotels in New York city: the New Netherland Hotel (1892), the Waldorf (1893), the Astoria Hotel (1897), the Waldorf-Astoria (1897), Hotel Astor (1904) and the St. Regis (1904) ... Interesting to note that so many of these hotels arose from a very unfriendly rivalry between two Astor first cousins John Jacob Astor IV (1864 - 1912) and William Waldorf Astor (1848 - 1919).

Hotels do hold a certain mystique for me. Oh hell, why not admit it? The most interesting sections of the book are the gossip.

I begin as Kaplan does ... John Jacob Astor IV died on the Titanic allegedly after handing his teenage bride into a lifeboat. Hitherto, John Jacob Astor IV had been unceremoniously and consistently referred to as Jack Ass for the multitude of idiotic mischief he was involved in. This seems a bit harsh in light of some of his life accomplishments: he was an avid inventor, financier of U.S. wars (perhaps a dubious achievement but certainly not seen as such at the time) and personally created some of the best luxury hotels in New York.

William Waldorf Astoria, his cousin and a notorious reactionary and Astor heir who renounced his American roots in his quest for a peerage (sound familiar Conrad Black?), was the lover of British writer and one time lover of Virgina Woolf Vita Sackville-West in his old age. She rejected him for an even older suitor much to his dismay. So did a great deal of the British upper crust for no matter how many millions he possessed, an American he was and he was someone who, they felt, spent his monies in a vulgar and ostentatious manner. Judge for yourself ...

His sumptuous estate, Cliveden in Buckinghamshire, England, would eventually serve as the site of two important events in British history. It was the meeting place of the "Cliveden set", a pro-fascist group of wealthy Britons who supported Hitler during WWII. They were immortalized in Kazuo Ishiguro's 1989 novel The Remains of the Day.

It is also the setting for the beginning of the Profumo Affair where the ever-up-for-it Christine Keeler danced naked by the pool entrancing both John Profumo, Harold MacMillan's Minister for War, and Captain Eugene Ivanov, a Soviet intelligence agent in the 1960s. Apparently, the British public was shocked, shocked, to learn that highly placed politicians had paid sex with call girls who had little interest in Cold War hostilities.

Caroline Astor (nee Schermerhorn) married the III in the line and was so socially dominant that she was acknowledged to be the "Queen of the Four Hundred" in the late 19th c. by Ward McAllister, a "bon vivant", who said that "there were only about 400 people in fashionable New York" and apparently Caroline knew them all.

John Jacob Astor (1763- 1848) the grand old patriarch, who came before they started adding numerals to their surnames, was an uncouth, avaricious son of a German butcher who had the foresight to purchase vast quantities of Manhattan real estate thereby ensuring the prosperity of his descendants for the next 200 years.

One need only read up on the current plight of Brooke Astor who was married to Vincent Astor (1891 -1959), son of the unfortunate JJA IV who died on the Titanic (but not mentioned in the book), to know that the highborn continue to indulge in avaricious tricks and perfidy when their wealth is threatened.