Series Review: “Fool Me Once”

* * * B

Fool Me Once is a Netflix mystery series. When Maya (Michelle Keegan)’s husband is murdered, she takes it upon herself to investigate. Policeman Sami Kierce (Adeel Ahktar) knocks heads with her, while wrestling with a mysterious illness that gives him blackouts and paralysis. Maya’s brother in law (Daniel Burt) must deal with her, the death of his wife, and the revelation that his children have a step brother.

The mystery is full of twists and turns, and jumps back and forth between Maya and Kierce, who are both solid characters. The villainess, Maya’s mother in law (Joanna Lumley) is suitably horrible. The weakest bits are the side plots involving Maya’s niece and nephew and Kierce’s upcoming wedding.

Without spoiling it, the ending was surprising, as were several of the plot twists leading up to it. This was a very fun mystery series, well acted and well written, with only a modicum of British political correctness. If you like mysteries at all, I recommend it.

Posted in series | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review: “The Beekeeper”

* * * B

When his neighbour (Phylicia “Mrs. Cosby” Rashad) commits suicide after being scammed for millions of dollars, ‘beekeeper’ Adam Clay (Jason Statham) comes out of retirement to take down the criminal organization responsible. Meanwhile, the neighbour’s daughter and FBI agent, Verona (Emmy Raver-Lampman), must wrestle with the morality of his extralegal vigilantism.

Statham is ruthless, though a bit unbelievable in his untouchability, and there are some great action sequences. Verona’s side kick is well played by Bobby Naderi. Jeremy Irons is solid as the man behind the villain, an immoral former head of the CIA, and Josh “Pita” Hutcherson, despite his likeable charisma, is the rotten core of the film.

A mixture of John Wick and The Kingsmen, The Beekeeper delivers a larger than life hero who manages to remain heroic despite leaving a massive trail of bodies in his wake. The FBI agent’s subplot is somewhat dull, though lifted up by Naderi’s performance. All in all, a low brow blast of an action film.

Posted in movies | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Year in Movies: 2023

My interest in cinema has waned as the quality and originality of films on offer seems to have fallen to an all time low. Here’s my guide to the films of 2023 that I bothered to see. Hope you all had a good year.

Black Panther: Wakanda Forever *

This was an incredibly dull sequel to an overrated but decent original. Letitia “Shuri” Wright fails to fill the late Chadwick Boseman’s shoes. The villain, Marvel’s answer to Aquaman, Namor, though potentially interesting, is poorly acted by Tenoch Huerta. Worst is the introduction of Tony Stark replacement Iron Heart (Dominique Thorn), a young black girl who not only duplicates the Iron Man suit, she’s also responsible for the Vibranium detector, a maguffin that drives the plot. The murky action sequences complete the films failure to land.

Ant-man and the Wasp: Quantumania *

Another disappointing Marvel film. The premise is lame. Jonathon Majors (who has now been fired from the role) is solid as the villain Kang the Conqueror. The Quatum Realm is one huge CGI fest. Bill Murray is wasted. Michel Pfieffer’s Janet Van Dyne is as insufferable as the grown up Cassie Lang (Catherine Newton). Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) is relegated to comedic relief and Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is not the main character.

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves * *

Chris “Kirk 2” Pine is a bard who leads a fairly weak cast of generally poorly developed characters in a fairly fun fantasy adventure set in the world of D&D. Michelle Rodriguez plays her usual overblown girl boss. Daisy Head is creepy as the villainous Sophina. A good time pop corn flick, but not particularly memorable, though I did see this one in the cinema.

Shazam! Fury of the Gods *

Zach “Chuck” Levy is back as the boy hero, this time going up against three ancient women from whom the wizard (Djimon Hounsou) stole Shazam’s powers. Helen Mirren is wasted, Lucy Liu is forgettable. Of the villains, Rachel Zegler (Anthea) is actually the standout. Shazam is an idiot, and keeps prattling on about family and the Fast and the Furious. The dumb fun of the first film is lost.

John Wick Chapter 4 * *

A solid finish to the Keanu Reeves action series. While I vastly preferred the first film, and the third was better than this one, it was fun. As usual, there were some great fight sequences.

The Pope’s Exorcist *

Russel “Maximus” Crowe plays an exorcist who reports directly to the pope in a story loosely based on the truth. The actual horror film is very stock exorcism material, and only Crowes performance brings anything new to it.

Renfield * *

Nicholas “Young Beast” Holt is great as Dracula’s abused familiar who gains superhuman strength and speed whenever he eats bugs. Nick “Wicker Man” Cage is fantastic as Dracula. This would have been a good (or possibly great) film if it didn’t also spend far too much time on Awkwafina, who is a boring “one good cop” in a corrupt police force.

Sisu * *

An aging Finnish soldier (Jorma Tommila) strikes gold only to have it stolen by Nazis. He kills them all. Lot’s of very gory action sequences. A fun ride.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 * * *

Finally a good super hero film. In their third outing, the Guardians are joined by talking dog Cosmo, dogged by Adam Warlock (Will Poulter), and must go up against Rocket’s evil creator, The High Evolutionary (Chukwudi Iwuji). I found this film far superior to volume 2. Sadly, this will be James Gunn’s last outing with the Guardians, as he has moved on to reboot the DC comics universe.

The Mother * *

Jennifer Lopez is a bad ass assassin who has a particular set of skills. Nothing new here, but a fun ride. Netflix continues their run of entertaining but forgettable action films.

Extraction II * * *

Chris “Thor” Hemsworth returns as Tyler Rake in a good sequel that escapes the Netflix curse. This one is of course full of more great action sequences, but it’s elevated by good supporting cast and the magic of the Russo brothers. Really fun.

The Flash * *

Ezra Miller gets his own solo film. There were some great moments, rivalling the Quicksilver sequences in the Fox X-men films, but also far too much cringe from Miller. I enjoyed the return of Michael Keaton’s Batman and General Zod (Michael Shannon). The ending was overblown, and killed most of the goodwill I had for this one. Not a bad film, but disappointing. Hopefully, after this and Ant Man, the moldyverse concept can be put to bed for a while.

To Catch a Killer *

Shailene “Tris” Woodley and Ben “Krennic” Mendlesohn star in a serial killer movie that has little to separate it from the pack. Woodly’s troubled character Eleanor and the politics of the FBI are given focus at the expense of an interesting who dunnit. Watchable but dull.

Heart of Stone *

Gal “Diana” Gadot is a superspy in this Netflix action film. The film goes for James Bond, but delivers Agent Cody Banks. Gadot is less than stellar, and is supported by an unmemorable cast. Not one of Netflix’s better efforts.

Blue Beetle *

Xolo Maridueña plays a third tier DC hero (Latino Iron Man) who fights a geriatric unpowered boss bitch (Susan “Janet” Sarandon). Included are the same dumb family tropes that hurt Shazam. Somehow, DC on film is able to sink to a new low. This one should have been called Dung Beetle.

The Creator * * *

From the creator of Rogue One, and original science fiction film where the antitechnology west is at war with the AI friendly east. John David Washington (Joshua) is sent back to the east to take out their new superweapon, only to discover its a simulant (hybrid robot/human) in the form of a small child. The film has its flaws, but is shot through by moments of brilliance.

The Equalizer 3 * * *

Denzel Washington returns as retired CIA agent Robert McCall. This time, he’s in Sicily. After being shot and nursed by to health in Sicily, he goes up against the Mafia to save a small town. Some great action, excellent acting from Denzel, and solid support from Dakota “Jane” Fanning. A fun watch, and an improvement over the second (unmemorable) film in the series. 

Reptile * *

A police drama starring Benicio “Sicario” del Toro as he searches for the killer of Justin Timberlake’s girlfriend. Lots of twists and turns and some interesting character development, but otherwise, a fairly run of the mill crime drama.

Five Nights at Freddy’s * * *

Josh “Peeta” Hutchison stars as a security guard with a terrible past who takes a job as night watchman at a haunted kids restaurant/arcade reminiscent of Chucky Cheese. Not particularly scary, but it does a good job blending the lore of the video games it’s based on with some fairly creepy back story for Hutchison’s “Mike”.

The Killer * *

Michael “Young Magneto” Fassbender is a hired killer. When he botches a job, his own agency decides to take him out, but he has other ideas.

Fast Charlie * *

Pierce “Bond” Brosnan is an aging hitman who seeks revenge when a rival boss move in on his bosses turf. Surprisingly good. Morena “Inara” Baccaran plays his love interest. James Caan has a cute side part.

Rebel Moon – Part 1: A Child of Fire * *

Zack Snyder’s science fiction epic, based on a failed Star Wars project, suffers from poor characters and a clunky “pick up the next member of the team” plot. Sofia “Mummy” Boutella is the badass girl boss who picks a fight with the evil minions of the Motherworld. She and her loser companion Gunnar (Michiel Huisman) collect their team and, in a final conflict with the evil Atticus Noble (Ed “Ajax” Skrein), destroy their enemy… or did they?

Posted in movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Men are Struggling, Women Most Affected

Anna Louie Sussman writes in the Atlantic Why Are Women Freezing Their Eggs? Look to the Men.

In Motherhood on Ice: The Mating Gap and Why Women Freeze Their Eggs, Marcia C. Inhorn, a medical anthropologist at Yale, tells this side of the story. Beginning in 2014, she conducted interviews with 150 American women who had frozen their eggs—most of them heterosexual women who wanted a partner they could have and raise children with. She concluded that, contrary to the commonly held notion that most professional women were freezing their eggs so they could lean into their jobs, “Egg freezing was not about their careers. It was about being single or in very unstable relationships with men who were unwilling to commit to them.”

And they chose to be single or to be with men who were unwilling to commit to them.

Earlier in her career, Inhorn spent more than three decades researching assisted reproductive technologies and gender relations in the Middle East. She was struck by how many young Arab men valued and looked forward to fatherhood—a sharp contrast with what she heard from young American women, who shared story after story of men “who were simply unready or unwilling to commit.”

Islamic countries don’t typically have no fault divorce, and Arab women are less masculine and promiscuous. Is it any wonder Arab men look forward to marriage more than Americans?

Inhorn notes… Her generation of women… were the first to enter higher-educational institutions en masse. She writes about how many women in her cohort of female doctoral students, faced with men intimidated by their achievements, remained single or “‘settled’ for suboptimal relationships that subsequently ended.”

Men are not intimidated by women’s achievements. They simply aren’t interested in masculine women who will compete with them. Men do not want to be settled for or have their assets and children taken from them when the relationship subsequently ends in a divorce initiated by their wife.

The plight of educated women such as Inhorn and her interlocutors is one that has long been confronted by women in communities where economic challenges, such as the loss of factory jobs, led to widespread male unemployment—surely a factor in their hesitation to commit to a partner or start a family.

Men unemployed–women most affected.

But egg freezing adds a new twist, at least for those with the means to access it: Today, women can spend thousands of dollars to theoretically extend their reproductive life span while continuing to search for a person who would make shared parenthood possible. Egg freezing still does not reliably lead to successful live births. But if the technology advances to the point where it does,… women, like men, could more easily have biologically related children well past their 30s, though, of course, the health risks associated with pregnancy still increase with age.

Are they really looking for a good man, or are they merely riding the hookup carousel? Will a man who makes enough money for her to want him wants to start a family with an older woman who may or may not be able to successfully deliver after a geriatric pregnancy, or would such a man look for a younger more traditional woman?

In 2012, … female college graduates outnumbered male graduates by 34 percent; today, … nearly 3 million more women than men hold college degrees among Americans ages 22 to 39. Barring a dramatic reversal, this gap will only grow—in the past four years, estimated national undergraduate enrollment has included roughly 3 million more women than men. According to Inhorn, these numbers explain why, today, educated women who want a male partner to parent with are hard-pressed to find someone displaying the characteristics she calls “the three e’s—eligible, educated, and equal” (and, I would add, “eager” to commit) as they seek “the three p’s of partnership, pregnancy, and parenthood.”

And by equal, she means making as much money as. Even this is untrue. Most women look for men who make significantly more than they do. If there are fewer men than women earning high pay, this means that not all high earning women will be able to get what they want. By adding higher education as a requirement, women eliminate entrepreneurs and men who are successful in the trades.

In the U.S., [egg freezing]—which is starting to more commonly, though not predominantly, be covered by employer insurance plans—can cost anywhere from $7,500 to $18,000 per cycle, depending on the city and the clinic, plus annual storage fees of $500 to $1,000 a year. Some patients, especially older ones, undergo multiple cycles in order to bank the recommended 15 to 20 eggs that clinicians generally advise for a reasonable chance of a live birth.

And this inflates the cost of insurance plans, which leads to employers cutting corners, and employees having to pay higher percentages of their medical costs, which hurts families.

About 20 percent of the women Inhorn interviewed froze their eggs for medical
reasons, such as before beginning cancer treatment that could potentially harm their
reproductive capacity.

This seems like a very legitimate reason to do so.

Kayla, a professional with an Ivy League MBA, had frozen her eggs at 38 while dating Matt, until she finally realized after a year and a half that he was “never going to commit.” Lily, a curator whose long-term partner Jack ran down her reproductive clock over nearly a decade, dangling the prospect of marriage and children but never following through, … froze her eggs at the late age of 43. Tiffany, a woman with engineering and MBA degrees living in Washington, D.C., after dating men from all educational backgrounds, still hadn’t found a partner and put two egg-freezing cycles on a zero-interest credit card.

Waiting until your late thirties to try to find a man interested in starting a family is foolish. Most men don’t want to start a family with a woman who’s that old. Letting a man string you along for 10 years until you’re 43 is beyond foolish. Racking up $36000 dollars of credit card debt because you are too picky to find a man means that, if you do find one, now he will have 36000 more reasons to not commit to you.

Based on these patterns, Inhorn categorizes this army of the “unready or unwilling” into 10 archetypes the women claim are responsible for their dating misery, among them “feminist men” who “claim they are feminist but do not pitch in, pay, or help out, all in the name of gender equality”.

Feminist men are simps. Men who don’t pay in the name of gender equality are simply using your ideology to even things up.

“Peter Pans,” are prolonging adolescence “sometimes well into their forties and beyond, with no immediate plans for marriage”.

Men don’t need to get married before they turn forty. A man can have a family when he’s in his forties. Most women can’t.

“Younger men no longer believe in dating and don’t know how to do it.”

It’s not that they don’t know how to do it. If a man knows a woman has been hooking up with men she’s attracted to but expects him to date her, why would he? The juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

In sociological research, education level is strongly correlated with household income, and together these factors can be a proxy for whether a person is an “eligible” partner.

Women care about money. Men do not. To a man, an eligible partner is one who is easygoing, reasonably fit, and young enough to bear healthy children.

The growing chasm between college-educated men and women is going to
leave some women partnerless.

By choice, since they could choose to date a man who is not college educated. This will be difficult, since men don’t want women who feel superior to them, nor do they want to marry a woman saddled with debt.

Are these fewer educated men realizing that the numbers are in their favor, and with a limitless supply of women served up on dating apps, they don’t feel the need to commit?

Yes. Since women only swipe right on a small percentage of men, they have options, and can hook up without commitment.

Are the women in the book still single because they are stuck dating the “dregs” of the male species, as one woman put it to Inhorn, until a wave of divorces will “release some decent men so [she] can have a turn”?

If a woman waits until she is in her thirties before looking for a partner, she limits her options, but she still has access to many more men than the average man has access to women. But she considers average men the “dregs”. When men are divorced (in most cases, by women), they are unlikely to want to marry again.

Is part of the problem that “decent” is often code for “college-educated,” when, of course, genuine decency and a tertiary education are hardly correlated? Is the problem that women are—stop me if you’ve been hearing this one since at least the 1980s—too “picky”?

Yes and yes. Since more women than men get degrees, not every degreed woman will get a man with a degree. Take away the chad playboys, the men who make less than she does, the men who are too short, or unattractive, and the men who aren’t interested in marrying after seeing fathers, uncles, brothers, and friends divorce raped, and she has reduced her choices to near zero.


Is it that finding love and connection has always been hard, and is even harder today for straight women because something is amiss with a not-insignificant share of American men?

Most women don’t marry for love. There is nothing amiss with most men, they just aren’t interested in amassing debt that for many no longer assures success, or marrying women who are settling for them and will later turn around and divorce them.

Between the quantitative gap in college attendance and the qualitative gap in dating experiences between men and women lies dicey causal terrain.

The quality of dating experience is much worse for the average man than it is for the average woman.

Unlike the egg freezers, women in [Black and working class] communities typically do not defer childbearing until their late 30s, but instead have children at earlier ages and raise them on their own.

With, on average, far worse outcomes for their children.

This may grow to be the path forward for egg freezers too. If they can’t have the “three p’s” of partnership, pregnancy, and parenthood, would they settle for just the latter two, the ones that are within their control? It would require new support systems and communities, more expansive models of family-making, and better accommodations for working moms. This wouldn’t bridge the mating gap, but for some women, it might at least offer an alternative to what can feel like an endless and fruitless search.

Who will pay for these new support systems and accomodations? Men? If men are unable to marry because women are opting to be single mothers, those men will walk away from society, taking their tax contributions with them. Doesn’t it make more sense to solve the problems that are preventing men from wanting to marry, like unfair admission standards for universities and the horrendously unfair family court system? As usual, when men have problems, the media claims women are most affected.

Posted in philosophy | 1 Comment

Women Don’t Need Men Until They Do

Jason Okundave, writing in the Guardian, opines “A bleated ‘maaate’ is no answer to misogyny – and not just because it’s unstoppably cringe“. He’s referring to a campaign by London’s mayor to fight sexism. I thought women were strong and independent and didn’t need men.

Research from the mayor of London’s office suggests that there is a latent desire among a majority of men to intervene when they witness misogynistic behaviour. Two in three men wish to step in but do not feel that they have the language or tools to take action, according to the study. That there are some men who would welcome an opportunity to develop best practice around intervention is worth taking in good faith – addressing a lack of accountability among male social groups should certainly figure within broader strategies to prevent violence against women and girls.

Men are not accountable for the actions of other men.

The repeated failure of men who genuinely abhor misogyny to speak up and intervene, whether when overhearing casual sexist comments or witnessing sexual harassment, can be attributed to many things: herd mentality, discomfort, fear of backlash or ostracisation, or simply not knowing what to say. It is not necessarily a complex issue – you’d be forgiven for having zero patience for men who are bystanders – but it is one that requires careful engagement and a strategy that poses serious cultural challenges to male socialisation. Does the mayor of London truly believe that “Maaate” is that challenge, or a sufficient solution?

Men are punished for talking to women. Why should they intervene for them? Why should they care if you don’t have patience for them?

Maaate” is proposed as the word men should use following the mayor’s Have a Word campaign to encourage men to intervene when a friend’s behaviour towards women goes “too far”. The campaign is described as taking a “public health approach” to the issue of male misogyny, which is certainly the right one – it recognises the collective responsibility of men to address misogynistic behaviour and advocates for responses rooted in community. But that it has culminated in a “call to action” with the jokey register of an Oatly or Innocent smoothie ad means that the campaign is struggling to find enthusiastic support even among those who take the issue of misogyny seriously.

What does “too far” mean? In my youth, one of my friends asked a hooker how much she would pay him to piss on her. While not a pleasant insult, it was mere words, and she chose to put herself in the situation where men were able to insult her with impunity. So no, I didn’t and wouldn’t object to his behavior, though I wouldn’t do the same thing myself.

Much of the online consensus is that the campaign is “cringe” but I don’t think this is necessarily the problem – a campaign can be cringey but effective so long as it is memorable and its messaging and takeaways are clear enough. The problem is that in setting such a low expectation on intervention strategies the campaign becomes counterproductive. “Maaate” is supposed to draw on the existing language of male friendship, a way to socially nudge your friend “without making things awkward, ruining the moment or putting your friendship at risk”. This doesn’t feel like a realistic forecast for how things will play out in real time. Why not lean in to the fact that such confrontations can and will be “awkward”, they may indeed “ruin the moment” and that a breakdown in friendship is a very real social consequence for misogynistic behaviour? Are we to believe that resolving misogyny is a matter of low stakes, conflict-free nudges entirely devoid of discomfort, tension or consequence?

If someone you’re friends with is doing something truly egregious, you don’t need a dumb saying, you just tell them not to be such a dick. Men talk straight to each other all the time.

The mayor’s research suggests that shame is not an effective strategy for tackling misogynistic behaviour, but does that mean the answer is coddling language and protecting feelings first? Surely there is space to express the embarrassment, anger and disappointment that a friend’s misogyny can cause without this being shied away from or reduced to shaming. Calling out misogynistic behaviour will probably lead to conflict and pushback no matter how friendly the terms it is couched in, so where is the guidance for conflict resolution or how to stand your ground if the problem is a broader group rather than one individual? Are we to have faith in these make-believe scenarios where one man’s sexism is cured by a quick word and a fist bump? And can we really expect the same matey register of response to be applied to a man who, say, makes a joke about “women drivers” or one who is physically sexually harassing a woman?

Who gives a shit if someone makes a joke about women drivers? On the other hand, if a friend of mine were physically sexually harassing a woman, he wouldn’t be my friend for long.

The patronising nature of this campaign is indicative of broader problems with popular public discourse around men – that they are often addressed as if they lack any sophisticated interiority and can only respond if spoken to like helpless children in need of gentle instruction. Caitlin Moran’s new book What About Men? is in this vein, with its claims that men forgo the “rough yet necessary grassland of sadness, worry and disclosure” in preference for the shallow but “delightful” “male chat”.

Another reason why most men will look the other way. If you abuse men, why do you expect them to intervene when you are being abused?

I wonder which kind of stereotyped man such an approach targets and which kind of man it misses. Indeed, there is a stock masculinity character assumption inherent in the language of “Maaate”: you imagine a group of lads who might be down the pub, or playing video games, or working on a building site; perhaps they are catcalling or making misogynistic jokes. The author Rachel Connolly tells me that the focus on “lewd behaviour” in such campaigns overlooks the more casual ways women are degraded and dehumanised, particularly within professional networks. The prevalence of workplace sexual harassment further throws into relief how much this campaign oversimplifies the reality of intervention and the power dynamics often present between men. If you witness a senior colleague, or your boss, behaving in a misogynistic way towards women, can the workplace culture confidently be addressed with “Maaate”?

Most men are masculine. Most men don’t catcall. Making jokes is not misogyny unless you are directing them hatefully at women. Casual ways that women are degraded can be ignored. Men ignore being degraded by women all the time. Women can easily complain about anything they don’t like in the workplace, and don’t need men to help them.

Some seem to take a view of extremes – that men will either completely ignore each other’s bad behaviour, or go too far the other way and physically fight each other – but the middle ground is not only found through soft nudging. There is of course no uniform approach to intervening when you witness a man, friend, colleague or otherwise exhibiting misogynistic behaviour – but the reality is that it is rarely going to be possible to smooth over the issue with a simple “Maaate”, and that sometimes a more full-throated and bold confrontation will be necessary. Surely, in the fight against misogyny, experiencing some discomfort is the least that can be asked of us.

Few men will fight for women who are not their wives and daughters today; fighting brings the risks of injury and assault charges. Unless a man is my friend, I’m unlikely to want to experience discomfort and potential danger by confronting him. Women don’t need men, remember?

Posted in philosophy | 4 Comments

Shitting on Men is not a Good Election Strategy

According to Politico, Democrats Have a Man Problem. They say that the Experts Have Ideas for Fixing It. What do these ‘experts’ say?

How can Democrats counter GOP messaging on masculinity? Should they even want to? A roundtable with Democratic party insiders and experts.

So not experts then.

It’s hard to deny that Democrats have a masculinity problem. Attitudes toward masculinity have been an important predictor of votes for Donald Trump. And while Black and Latino voters still overwhelmingly lean Democratic, men in those communities are turning to Republicans at higher rates than women. Republicans seem all too happy to capitalize on the gun-toting, fist-pumping tropes of stereotypical manhood. GOP presidential candidates are bragging about their athletic prowess.

So is Robert F Kennedy Jr., a democratic candidate. Most men admire athletic prowess, and women are attracted to it, so this seems like a good tactic.

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley’s recent book, Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs, joins a body of let-men-be-real-men work that includes the preachings of Jordan Peterson, the postings of Andrew Tate and the writings of a popular online guru who goes by “Bronze Age Pervert” — all of whom cast liberals and progressives as the enemy of masculinity.

Progressive are the enemies of masculinity. Classical liberals are a dying breed.

As they approach elections with razor-thin margins, what are Democrats to do? Recruit candidates who fit traditional stereotypes of manhood? Confront Republican arguments head-on with alternative takes on crime, guns, transgender rights and a vision of masculinity that intersects with all of these issues? Or just do nothing and hope voters are turned off by GOP rhetoric that they see as toxic or discriminatory?

A combination of the first two seems advisable.

Joanna Weiss: Jackson, give us some context. It’s not new that candidates have characterized Democrats as feminine and Republicans as masculine, right? It’s the Democrats-as-nurturing-mom, Republicans-as-authoritative-dad metaphor: social safety on the left, and defense and fiscal austerity on the right.

A surprisingly good metaphor.

Jackson Katz: If we have any hope of creating majority coalitions, or supermajority coalitions, to pass progressive legislation, we have to figure out a way to peel back the overwhelming advantages that the Republicans have had among male voters, especially white male voters.

Makes sense. If you have less than 60% support (a supermajority), you shouldn’t be allowed to steam roller the opposition.

Ted Johnson: Since about 1964, 90 percent of Black folks are voting for the Democratic candidate in presidential and congressional elections. For the 10 percent of Black folks that have voted for Republicans, that’s usually 6, 7 percent of Black women and 15 or so percent of Black men. So masculinity does factor in.

What’s surprising is that the percentage is so low.

The part of conservatism that is most attractive to Black men is usually the ideas of individualism, self-sufficiency, self-determination. It’s very consonant with the Black power and Black pride movements in the ’60s and ’70s: This idea that if left to our own devices, we will be just fine if the government would just get out of the way. That hearkens back to some of the Reagan Republicanism.

These are libertarian principles.

Chuck Rocha: The average age of a Latino in America is around 27. They’re just a younger demographic. They’re consuming things differently. This narrative that GOP appeal to Latinos is about machismo is mostly a false narrative. It’s more about this economic pressure on Latino men to provide.

I.e. traditional family values.

Joshua Ulibarri: The books and the folks we were talking about — Jordan Peterson and Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, the “dominance” language, the fists-in-the-air conversations — are very different kinds of conversations than I know we’re having in people-of-color communities. I think the number one issue for us is, as Chuck mentioned, “Can we provide?”

Jordan Peterson’s message is absolutely not one of fist-in-the-air dominance. He is very much a traditional conservative, with a heavy classical liberal leaning, probably due to his work as a clinical psychologist. If these pundits are right that the number one issue for latin men is the economic ability to provide for a family, this would indeed tend to favour voting for fiscal conservatives. Is providing for a family more important to black men, or is freedom?

The way men in our community see the leadership of these two parties is quite different in that they do not believe that Democrats reward hard work the way Republicans do. Democrats tax. We regulate, we take away, or we give away what other people worked so hard to gain. And so, when we have so much pressure in our Latino community for men to provide and lead, and then we see a Democratic Party taxing and taking away, that eats away at the ability for our party to win the Latino men’s vote.

Why not stop spending on things that do not benefit Americans, like the Ukraine war?

Lis Smith: I think when we look at these appeals that Josh Hawley and other people are making to masculinity, we should see them for what they are, which is not really just an appeal to men, frankly. This is much more part of a conservative cultural outreach than a gender outreach. And it is something that is very, very limited in its appeal, and that I don’t think is going to appeal to swing voters.

The right message will appeal to some swing voters. In a close race, that could make a difference.

In some of the races in 2022, you saw different paradigms of masculinity. A great example was the gubernatorial race in Pennsylvania. On one side you had Republican candidate Doug Mastriano dressing up as a Confederate Civil War soldier, going to D.C. on January 6th, touting what you might think of as traditional, in-your-face masculinity. But he significantly underperformed with male voters.

Sounds like an idiot.

Then you see Josh Shapiro, who won, presenting a very different paradigm and a very different view of masculinity. In his ads, he talked about faith, he talked about family, he talked about opportunity, he talked about how when he was a county legislator, he cut taxes and kept taxes low. He talked about how as attorney general, he worked to combat crime. He always talked about being a dad and going home to his kids, and how he’d married his high school sweetheart.

His fiscal message is appealing, but as long as the party leaders don’t agree, it probably won’t bear a lot of weight. His traditionally conservative social message might appeal to conservative men, but most of them will vote Republican if not confronted by a clown like Mastriano.

Joanna Weiss: There are a few Democratic candidates right now who are trying to present a traditional masculine image. In Josh Hawley’s upcoming Senate race, one of his Democratic challengers is a guy named Lucas Kunce. He’s got a very deep voice and a very square jaw. And he’s got these ads that are basically accusing Hawley of being a weenie. He’s leaning into that almost performative, caricature version of a manly man. Joan, how will that play with voters?

Because he’s a Democrat, it probably won’t play well with most men. They will smell the performative nature of his appeal.

Joan Williams: There’s one measure on gender called hostile sexism. It’s kind of Men should be men, women should be women and it is actually more powerful than anything other than political orientation at predicting Trump voting.

Calling support for traditional gender roles hostile and sexist would certainly induce me to vote against you, no matter who the alternative was.

And there are really cool experiments where they threaten men’s masculinity in subtle or not-so-subtle ways, and they find that a man whose masculinity has been threatened has higher support for war, more homophobic attitudes and is more interested in buying an SUV. Precarious masculinity was incredibly predictive of voting for Trump in 2016 and voting for Republicans in 2018.

Ha ha, really “cool”. You are demented.

What Republicans have done is taken this threatened masculinity, and taken masculine anxieties, and forged them into a weapon for the far right. And what Democrats have done in response is pretty much nothing, mostly. But the move for people who are anti-Trump — and the only group in my view that’s really understood this is the Lincoln Project — is to push back.

Pushing back against masculinity guarantees that you will turn men against you.

There are really two abiding themes in masculinity: The macho man — Trump’s got that covered — and the good man. And what Democrats need to do, and Josh Shapiro did this, Lis, to a certain extent, is enact the good man, the decent man, the “It’s a Wonderful Life” man. The only people I see articulating that are other Republicans, which makes me a little sad as a Democrat.

Republicans appeal to traditional men. There is a large portion of men who are not traditional but who are masculine. These men mainly want to be left alone. Because Democrats call them hostile sexists, a lot of them will probably vote Republican.

Joanna Weiss: You’re talking about adopting a kind of working-class white male perspective. This right-wing critique of the Democratic Party as out of touch and feminized and elitist and arugula-eating and in the ivory tower — how much of it is really just a proxy for class warfare?

Appealing to masculinity has nothing to do with race. All men are (to some degree or other) masculine, regardless of race. The Democrats have become the party of the elites.

Jackson Katz: One of the things that Trump does in speech after speech … he name-checks working-class male professions all the time. He’ll say things like, “We love our truckers, we love our cops, we love our firefighters, we love our military.” It’s brilliant because what they feel is a sense of cultural recognition. Nixon figured this out back in the early ’70s: “They are the ones who built this country — they, meaning the white working-class male who was providing for his family. And those people — meaning multiculturalist, feminist Democrats — hate you. They detest you.”

Again, why do you bring race into this? And yes, multiculturalist, feminist Democrats do hate working men.

Joshua Ulibarri: I’m really struggling with this conversation. Because in one way we’re lifting up Trump as the epitome of this great communicator who really zeroed in on working-class men and brought this conversation home. And we’re talking about a candidate who lost a popular vote twice — who last cycle in 2020, lost three additional states he had won in 2016. There was no red wave. Democrats held the Senate. We only lost the House by six seats when predictions in the summer said we were going to lose 40 or 60 seats.

The popular vote is meaningless in a system like the electoral college. Trump won in 2016, and lost in 2020.

If we think that the way to react to this white male aggression in politics is to have Democrats turn that aggression back on Republicans, that is not going to happen. That’s not the kind of masculinity, or male leadership, that our candidates and our party and our voters are going to respond to.

Why not try listening to men (of all races)? It natural to be aggressive to people who shit on you and don’t listen to you.

If we think that that’s what has to happen for us to compete with Josh Hawley, that’s just not going to work out for us. It needs to be a different conversation than “We need to be as brutal as they are,” because we will never be as brutal as they are. We’ll never win an election, we’ll never get the women. Our vote is based on the women’s vote.

And it shows.

Joan Williams: I wasn’t saying that Democrats should counter hypermasculinity with hypermasculinity. I was saying that Democrats should counter hypermasculinity of the far right with an alternative image of masculinity. That’s not just a professional elite image but is also a working-class masculinity of the sort that Chuck was standing up for. Democrats have to connect with that.

Progressives hate all forms of masculinity. Can Democrats moderate their approach? Biden is certainly not much better than Clinton.

Lis Smith: I agree with a lot of what Joshua said. I don’t think that trying to Xerox what Donald Trump is doing is somehow going win Democrats male voters. I also would strongly contest the idea that the Lincoln Project’s ads have been successful in winning over voters. There’s no proof of that. They’re good at getting people on MSNBC, on Twitter to, like, clap along, but they don’t show really any movement with voters. I do think that the model that people do respond more to is, as Joshua and Joan said, the model of the good man.

What is the Democrat model of the good man? If it is a traditional man, the Republicans have got that covered. Is there another model of “good man” that actually appeals to men?

Joanna Weiss: Most Democratic voters want to move the needle on guns and persuade traditional Republican voters to come over to that side. How do they do that, in the context of masculinity?

Any man who opposes government control will not come over to that side.

Jackson Katz: So much of the gun debate is about white men’s sense of themselves as protectors. Men feel they’ve lost their jobs as providers because of macroeconomic shifts [that have depleted certain industries] and the ascendance of women and people of color. The thing that they still have is their ability to be a protector.

Bullshit. Outside of Democrat run cities, guns are needed to prevent predators, pests, and invasive species from destroying livestock, crops, and property. You are in a bubble.

If we don’t talk about the gendered subtext of the gun debate, we’re just going to be running, which we have been, from one mass shooting or gun violence statistic to the next without really talking about the underlying dynamic. The gun debate is all about masculinity.

The gun debate is about freedom from government control. Framing it as a man vs. women issue will turn more men against you.

Ted Johnson: That message needs to be tailored to the community. And one of the fastest-growing demographics of gun owners is actually Black women who are looking to protect themselves because Black men have been taken away by the government or disenfranchised, or whatever it may be. So even the gun debate isn’t nice and clean in the Black community. Philando Castile, who has a gun, gets killed by police. He has a permit. He’s done everything correct and gets shot in his car. Where was the NRA? Where were the gun rights folks looking out for Philando Castile’s rights?

A lot of black men are thrown out by black women. Castile’s death was sad. Guns are dangerous.

So the gun debate, the class debate, the working class piece … all of these things mean different things in different communities. But we often take the national message, which is really controlled for white working-class men, and drop it on the rest of the country, as if those messages will resonate in the same way.

I.e. your message is racist.

Joshua Ulibarri: And that’s the complexity of having the conversation in progressive and Democratic politics. In Republican politics, you can have that conversation, and it’s just about protecting my home, keeping what’s mine, owning this plot of land.

A message that appeals to all men.

But it is also understanding Ted’s conversation about how Black men protect other Black people in their lives; how 19-year-old Latinos raise children without mothers in their households. That’s the complexity in our masculinity conversation, but it misses the boat when we apply a framework of Josh Hawley and Jordan Peterson being the directors of what it means to be men, because that’s just not the base.

Jordan does not direct what it means to be a man. He knows what it means, because he is a clinical psychologist.

Jackson Katz: Critiquing the ways in which the Republicans have been successful at getting huge percentages of the white male vote does not mean mimicking them. It means understanding what they’re doing and the dynamics that they’re tapping into. You look at the percentage of white men with no higher than a high school education who voted for Trump. By the way, that’s an imperfect proxy for “working class.” A lot of men who have higher incomes don’t have a college education.

But most high income men without college education probably vote Republican as well.

If you can peel back a small percentage of white men from voting Republican by talking to them in a language that they can understand, by assertively saying that their economic interests are better served by what we’re trying to do here, then you’re going to have supermajorities to pass progressive legislation.

How will you do that? They can look and see that you don’t serve their economic interests.

Lis Smith: A big issue for a lot of swing male voters is a sense that there isn’t enough economic opportunity and that, even if they have a job, they’re not being paid well enough. That’s why Biden goes out and talks about how he’s bringing manufacturing jobs back to the country. Has it penetrated yet? Not really. And that’s something I think that Democrats do have to continue to work on.

Talk is cheap.

There was a conversation recently that happened around my old boss, Pete Buttigieg, about paternity leave. You had people like Tucker Carlson essentially saying, “You’re not a real man if you’re taking paternity leave.” And there were some people who thought: “OK, well, this is an appeal to masculinity. This is an appeal to male voters.”

A lot of men do not take paternity leave. They don’t want to take themselves out of their careers and miss promotion opportunities. It’s probably not a great way to appeal to men.

We should be talking about how it is really important for more men to have an active role in their families, and when you diminish the importance of paternity leave, you’re taking a swipe at men having economic security. You are taking a swipe at men who are trying to be more involved in their households, and that is something, too, that puts more pressure on women. We shouldn’t divorce women from this conversation, because when you say “Oh, parental paternity leave isn’t important,” that means that you’re putting all the burden for child-rearing on women.

In the words of a wise monkey, “women have the babies”. Turning this into a women’s issue is the opposite of appealing to men.

Joshua Ulibarri: People see Republicans and Democrats as strong at different things when it comes to jobs and economic security. If you’re hungry and in need of a job, people think Republicans are better, that Republicans create more jobs, whether that’s true or not. That they lower regulations. They bring in jobs. But once you have the job, people really respond to Democrats and think Democrats can make that job better by fighting for more health care, by fighting for more earned leave, by fighting for better wages. As we’re trying to have this conversation about what helps men provide, we should be more aggressive about that.

More healthcare means higher taxes. Men are better at fighting for better wages than governments. The best way to help men provide is to reduce the amount of money you take from them.

Lis Smith: In Michigan in 2022, and Republicans obsessively focused on issues of gender identity and ran all these ads about transgender girls playing girls’ sports, and they just got absolutely creamed in the election. Voters saw them talking about all these [transgender] issues, but not talking about the economy, not talking about education, not talking about how we get back from Covid. So I think one effective way to talk about this is to point out that the reason they’re picking on these marginalized communities is because they don’t want to offer any solutions on other things.

Good point here.

Ted Johnson: When it comes to race and crime, folks essentially say, “It’s concentrated in these areas, and those just so happen to be filled with people of color. And so we’ve got to get those areas policed, get those people put in check so that we can have a safe country.” The crime discussion has always been a biased, prejudiced one for folks in Black America, because the system has never really worked to our benefit. We’ve always been the target.

Criminals should be targets.

But there’s not much of a difference between races and ethnicities. We all want safe neighborhoods. We all want crime to be low. The issue is the system that enforces law often does so in a way that is prejudiced against people of color, against poor people, and that is what people are rejecting.

But turning around and allowing theft to go unpunished to the point where businesses leave will also make people reject you.

Joan Williams: On the masculinity and policing point, one idea that I played around with is, it takes a lot of courage to be a police officer. And part of that courage is not reaching for your gun and shooting someone before you have enough information to know whether this is a dangerous situation. In other countries, police don’t do that. In the United States we should expect the same level of courage from our police. That is a classic example of fighting an incredibly unhealthy and racist practice of masculinity with a different vision of masculinity.

Other countries don’t have as many people carrying guns. I would not want to be a cop in the US. Then again, I would not want to be a cop.

Jackson Katz: One thing that’s certainly connected to the crime discourse is the growing acceptance of guns in public spaces, and it’s not just “open carry” on the streets. There are these mostly white men literally showing up at statehouses with AR-15s, using violence to suppress other people’s speech. People are afraid of coming out and afraid of expressing their opinion, including women in particular who are feminist and challenge traditional gender norms and more likely to be the target of harassment.

Demonizing men will not help win their votes.

That’s one of the things that men who are involved in political discourse, across the class and race spectrum, need to be speaking up about and denouncing. One of the missing voices in that discourse has been men who are saying, “Listen. This is not OK, and I as a man, I’m not going to be silent in the face of your assertion of a certain kind of retro manhood that you’re invoking in the service of this performance. Because it’s destroying our democracy.”

How does being masculine destroy democracy? Masculine men built democracy.

Joan Williams: When we start telling CEOs that they should become school librarians, we can start telling blue-collar guys that they should be nurses’ aides. You have a situation where part of what’s driving American politics is precarious masculinity, the sense that you have been deprived of what is rightfully yours, and telling a man to take dead-end, low-paid, traditionally feminine, pink-collar jobs is just one of the many gifts that the left gives to the right.

Why would a tradesman want to be a nurse’s aide> Tradesmen typically make good money. Telling men to take these jobs is a fools errand.

Ted Johnson: There’s another part of this, too, and it’s society’s perception of the role of men. There’s a lack of day care workers, a lack of nurses, a lack of teachers, but if there were a day care center staffed with all men, how popular do you think that establishment will be relative to one staffed by mostly women? And it’s because society has a perception of men that they’re not caregivers. That they’re not going to be the ones to take the best care of my child or to teach my child.

Correct.

The pink-collar jobs conversation isn’t just about diversifying the types of people in particular jobs, but also about readjusting society’s perceptions of the types of people who should be in particular jobs. And I think once both of those things happen, along with the pay piece of it, then we can develop policies that would encourage the gender diversification of some of these industries, but some of it is Americans just don’t want certain kinds of people providing certain types of services — some of that’s racism, some of that’s sexism. But it’s not just about the appeal of the job itself.

It’s mostly the appeal of the job. Changing adult diapers or laying drywall? Not a hard call for most men.

Ted Johnson: When Will Smith smacked Chris Rock on national TV, the generational differences in the response that I was seeing, particularly among Black folks, was incredible. Generation X, which is my generation, and above … most of those people pretty much understood why Will Smith did what he did. Like, this person talked about your woman? It’s on national TV, and you sat there and did nothing? It’s unheard of, and so they understood it.

A lot of men think Smith is a thin skinned cuck. Rock’s joke was fairly harmless.

But that younger Black folks and younger Black men in particular understood the amount of manhood and masculinity it took for Chris Rock to not retaliate and saw that as a sign of strength, not as a sign of weakness, which is different from how my generation grew up, for sure. And so I do think that Generation Z, maybe the latter half of millennials, have a more nuanced idea of what masculinity of manhood could look like. Whether politicians can figure that out and use that to their advantage to increase turnout and electoral support remains to be seen.

A lot of men think Rock handled it well, not just younger Black men.

Joshua Ulibarri: Younger … men … may not vote for Republicans because of race and racism, but they will punish Democrats by staying home altogether because we don’t stand up for them, and we don’t deliver for them. Convincing the Black man and brown men and younger men to stay progressive as they age up — that is going to be an ongoing challenge for us.

Progressives hate men. When men realize this, they won’t stay progressive.

Joan Williams: I think younger men are more traditional than we like to think. Those “protector and provider” scripts that older men have, younger men also have, especially the provider script. One thing that has really changed is that a lot of young men now see being a good father as being involved with the daily care of your children. That is a very big shift.

A lot of men are ignored by women in their youth, and see fathers, uncles, and brothers destroyed in the divorce courts. They then discard the provider script. If you want to be involved with your children, but you’ve seen other men have their children taken from them by the courts, this makes you less likely to want to be a father.

Jackson Katz: I hear Democratic Party and progressive strategists saying, “We’re sick of talking about white men. White men are the cause of all the problems. Why are you going to spend more time on this?” And I think a lot of young white men hear this, and they hear disdain. Go to the comment sections on Breitbart: They basically say, “The left and the Democratic party hates white men.”

And that is one reason why Trump won in 2016. Hillary Clinton was toxic to most men.

My plea here is that there is a way to speak to those young white men and young men of color that is inclusive, that is challenging, that is positive. It’s not that we have to replicate the aggressive traditional masculinity to appeal to them. It’s just that we have to take them seriously. When someone like Jordan Peterson sells out 10,000 people in an arena, when people like these are getting 20 million views … they’re tapping into something real. How can we tap into it in a way that gives them actual solutions? If we can do that, we have the potential for creating multiracial, mixed-gender coalitions that can actually put in place the legislation and the policy that will help everybody. I don’t think that’s naive. I just think we have to do a better job.

Yes. It will be incredibly difficult to do this–essentially moving back to big tent liberalism–without having the feminists and anti-white racists leave the tent. Then again, it’s unclear whether the Republicans will be able to create a large enough coalition of traditional conservatives, evangelical Christians, Trump supporters, and center right independents and libertarians, or if they will blow it in 2024 like Trump did in 2020.

In Canada, we have long had the dominant Liberal party cleave to the center, often being more fiscally conservative than the so called Conservatives. But in recent years, like the Democrats, they have veered off to the left. It remains to be seen whether they can recover from this, or whether the Conservatives will successfully move over and become a big tent party of the center right. I guess we will see soon enough in 2025.

Posted in philosophy | 1 Comment

Should Dating Apps be Banned?

David Hookstead writes in OutKick that Dating Apps Are Destroying Young Men And Should Be Banned. Let see what he has to say.

Dating apps aren’t a positive for society and should be crushed like any other enemy we face.

Dating apps aren’t an enemy. Enemy’s should not be crushed.

A study from Sexes medical journal found people on dating apps experience symptoms of depression and sex addiction/hyper-sexuality, according to Cosmo. The same study found a “high prevalence of major depression, anxiety and general distress in young people using dating apps.”

Since using these apps is voluntary, there’s a simple solution: don’t use them.

Furthermore, the apps can be addicting. A study done by Match.com found one in six singles felt addicted to dating apps and men are 97% more likely to feel addicted. Stop and think about that for a second. The apps are causing depression and mental health issue, and people are still addicted to them. It’s like a drug that can’t be kicked.

I call bullshit. Most men who try dating apps find them useless, unless they are in the top 20% that women match with for hookups. If you are getting to hook up for sex, I’d hardly call this an addiction to the apps; more like an addiction to 304s.

What we’ve done in society is given people the protection of a screen they could never have in reality. Fortunately, dating apps only really became a thing my last semester of college at Wisconsin. I had to do what young men today couldn’t envision: Spot a woman in class, at a party or at the bar and walk up to her to initiate a conversation.

Young men can envision this perfectly. It’s the outcome of initiating a conversation that’s changed.

That simply doesn’t happen anymore. Now, young men and women can hide on their phones, say egregious things they wouldn’t ever say in person and swipe away if it goes poorly. There’s no consequences, shame or embarrassment. It’s say something stupid and swipe onto the next one.

Wrong. Men don’t approach women because if they do, they risk being ridiculed on the internet as creepy. This has led to viral videos where women are ignored at the gym by men who have seen others lambasted as creeps in other videos. The average man doesn’t get enough matches to be choosy on a dating app. Not being shamed or embarrassed is a good thing.

This seems to be the most damaging for young men. As a man, I can tell you from firsthand experience there’s nothing more exhilarating in life than walking up to a complete stranger at a bar shooting your shot and hoping for the best.

Either you are an idiot or a masochist. Most men do not like being rejected, which is what happens 99% of the time if you cold approach and are not a man in the top 10%, AKA a ‘Chad’.

No, but you never know until you swing. Even if it fails 99% of the time, you just need that 1% to feel like you’ve accomplished something. Young men crave adventure and difficult tasks to complete….or at least, they used to.

Most men won’t play a game that you can only win 1% of the time unless the rewards are great. They used to, but now many are concluding that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

How are you supposed to learn what works and what doesn’t if you can hide behind your phone? You can’t. How do you learn to change tactics in a gunfight? You lose one.

Bad analogy here. Losing a gun fight will typically put you underground.

Young people, especially young men, are being robbed of that development because hiding behind a phone lobbing hail Mary attempts is easier and less embarrassing if things go south.

If the rewards aren’t worth the rejection, why not avoid it? Seems logical.

Or you can sit and play Madden all day and think it’s the same thing as actually suiting up. Does playing “Call of Duty” make you a war hero? No, and hiding behind your phone messing around on Tinder doesn’t make you Casanova.

The 10% of men who can actually get hook ups are Casanovas. Why would a Casanova waste his time with a woman who wants something serious when he doesn’t?

One of my favorite things to do is ask women I know what their experiences are. Virtually none are positive. The amount of sexual aggression and disgusting messages is unreal. The messages I have been shown from women are nothing short of appalling. Hell, there are Instagram and Twitter accounts dedicated to women sharing screenshots to what men say over these apps.

People get mean messages on the internet. What a revelation!

Instead of having to walk up to a good looking woman and offer to buy her a drink, young men now have the freedom to sexually proposition complete strangers without any risks. Even if a woman says yes and they meet up for a quick one-night stand, is that a positive? That’s nothing more than a sexual transaction that treats both people as a cog in a machine that will quickly be discarded and replaced.

It’s up to the participants to decide whether it’s a positive. If they decide that it isn’t, they can stop doing it.

Young men having access to easy sex with the press of a button might sound fun, but these dating apps are doing an incredible amount of damage. It’s weakened people, crushed the ability to communicate with the opposite sex and is leading to multiple issues. For all those reasons and more, dating apps should be viewed as the enemy and treated as any other enemy: Destroyed without mercy.

Dating apps are not the problem. They are merely exposing it. The roots of the problem are the welfare state, no fault divorce, and female bias in the family court system. In the past, women knew that they needed a husband to provide for their family. Now, the government will subsidize them with money taken from others. In the past, if you left a marriage without a good reason, you got nothing. Now, a woman can divorce on a whim and the government will take her man’s money and give it to her.

I believe in a minarchy, where contributing to welfare is voluntary (i.e. charitable). I believe that marriage should be a binding contract, and that if one party wants to dissolve that contract, the outcome should be decided fairly, as it would when business partners split. As long as the current systems remain in place, women are incentivized to hook up with bad boys when they are young, then marry, have children, divorce their man, and return to the hookup culture. Meanwhile, men will continue to walk away.

Banning dating apps won’t solve this problem. As Taylor the Fiend is fond of pointing out, Instagram is a dating app. Any platform that allows you to post pictures and receive direct messages can be used as one. Would you ban Facebook? Good luck with that.

Posted in philosophy | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

More HP Lovecraft: The Curse of Yig

I just published another modern English adaptation of an HP Lovecraft story that is no longer copyrighted. This time its The Curse of Yig. You can read it here: The Curse of Yig in Modern English.

Posted in philosophy | Leave a comment

Call of Cthulhu is Out of Copyright

Among HP Lovecraft’s most famous stories is The Call of Cthulhu. The tale has inspired countless imitators and movies, and Cthulhu itself has become part of the culture. As of 2023, the story is no longer under copyright. I’ve just published a modern English adaptation, which you can read here: The Call of Cthulu in Modern English.

Posted in philosophy | Leave a comment

The King in Yellow: The Yellow Sign

The Yellow Sign is the fourth story in Robert W. Chambers 1895 book The King in Yellow. Once again, I’m modernizing the language to make it easy to read:

Let the red dawn surmise
What we shall do,
When this blue starlight dies
And all is through.”

Chapter I

There are so many things that are impossible to explain! Why do certain musical chords make me think of the brown and golden tints of autumn foliage? Why does the Mass of Sainte Cécile send my thoughts wandering among caverns whose walls blaze with ragged masses of virgin silver? What was it in the roar and turmoil of Broadway at six o’clock that flashed before my eyes the picture of a still Breton forest where sunlight filtered through spring foliage and Sylvia bent, half curiously, half tenderly, over a small green lizard, murmuring: “To think that this is also a little ward of God!”

When I first saw the watchman, his back was toward me. I looked at him indifferently until he went into the church. I paid no more attention to him than I had to any other man who lounged across Washington Square that morning, and when I shut my window and turned back into my studio, I had forgotten him. The day being warm, late in the afternoon I raised the window again and leaned out to get a breath of air. A man was standing in the courtyard of the church, and I noticed him again with as little interest as I had that morning. I looked across the square to where the fountain was playing and then, with my mind filled with vague impressions of trees, asphalt drives, and the moving groups of nannies and holiday makers, I started to walk back to my easel.

As I turned, my listless glance caught the same man below in the churchyard. He faced toward me now, and with a perfectly involuntary movement, I bent to look at him. At the same moment, he raised his head and looked at me. Instantly, I thought of a coffin-worm. What it was about the man that repelled me I did not know, but the impression of a plump white grave-worm was so intense and nauseating that I must have shown it in my expression, because he turned his puffy face away with a movement that made me think of a disturbed grub in a chestnut.

I went back to my easel and motioned my model to resume her pose. After working a while, I was satisfied that I was spoiling what I had done as rapidly as possible, and I took up a palette knife and scraped the colour off again. The flesh tones were sallow and unhealthy, and I did not understand how I could have painted such sickly colour into a study which before that had glowed with healthy tones.

I looked at Tessie. She had not changed, and the clear flush of health dyed her neck and cheeks as I frowned.

“Is it something I’ve done?” she said.

“No, I’ve made a mess of this arm, and for the life of me I can’t see how I came to paint such mud as that into the canvas,” I replied.

“Don’t I pose well?” she insisted.

“Of course, perfectly.”

“Then it’s not my fault?”

“No. It’s mine.”

“I am very sorry,” she said.

I told her she could rest while I applied rag and turpentine to the plague spot on my canvas, and she went off to smoke a cigarette and look over the illustrations in the Courrier Français.

I didn’t know whether it was something in the turpentine or a defect in the canvas, but the more I scrubbed the more that gangrene seemed to spread. I worked like a beaver to get it out, and yet the disease appeared to creep from limb to limb of the study before me. Alarmed, I strove to arrest it, but now the colour on the breast changed and the whole figure seemed to absorb the infection as a sponge soaks up water. Vigorously I plied palette knife, turpentine, and scraper, thinking all the time what a séance I would hold with Duval who had sold me the canvas. I soon realized that it was not the canvas that was defective nor the colours.

“It must be the turpentine,” I thought angrily, “or else my eyes have become so blurred and confused by the afternoon light that I can’t see straight.”

I called Tessie, the model. She came and leaned over my chair, blowing rings of smoke into the air.

“What have you been doing?” she exclaimed

“Nothing,” I growled, “it must be this turpentine!”

“What a horrible colour it is now,” she continued. “Do you think my skin looks like green cheese?”

“No, I don’t,” I said angrily. “Did you ever know me to paint like this before?”

“No, indeed!”

“Well, then!”

“It must be the turpentine, or something,” she admitted.

She slipped on a Japanese robe and walked to the window. I scraped and rubbed until I was tired, and finally picked up my brushes and hurled them through the canvas with a forcible expletive, the tone alone of which reached Tessie’s ears.

“That’s it!” she said. “Swear and act silly and ruin your brushes! You’ve spent three weeks on that and now look! What’s the good of ripping the canvas? What creatures artists are!”

I felt about as ashamed as I usually did after such an outburst, and I turned the ruined canvas to the wall. Tessie helped me clean my brushes, and then danced away to dress. From behind the screen, she regaled me with bits of advice concerning a whole or partial loss of temper, until, perhaps thinking I had been tormented sufficiently, she came out to implore me to button her dress where she could not reach it on the shoulder.

“Everything went wrong from the time you came back from the window and talked about that horrid looking man you saw in the churchyard,” she said.

“Yes, he probably bewitched the picture,” I said, yawning.

I looked at my watch.

“It’s after six, I know,” said Tessie.

She adjusted her hat in front of the mirror.

“Yes,” I replied, “I didn’t mean to keep you so long.”

I leaned out of the window but recoiled with disgust, for the young man with the pasty face still stood below in the churchyard. Tessie saw my gesture of disapproval and leaned out.

“Is that the man you don’t like?” she whispered.

I nodded.

“I can’t see his face, but he does look fat and soft. Someway or other,” she continued, turning to look at me, “he reminds me of a dream, an awful dream I once had. Or was it a dream after all?”

“How should I know?” I smiled.

Tessie smiled in reply.

“You were in it,” she said, “so perhaps you might know something about it.”

“Tessie! Tessie!” I protested, “don’t you dare flatter by saying that you dream about me!”

“But I did,” she insisted; “shall I tell you about it?”

“Go ahead,” I replied, lighting a cigarette.

Tessie leaned back on the open window sill and began very seriously.

“One night last winter I was lying in bed thinking about nothing at all in particular. I had been posing for you and I was tired, yet it seemed impossible to get to sleep. I heard the bells in the city ring ten, eleven, and midnight. I must have fallen asleep around midnight because I don’t remember hearing the bells after that. It seemed to me that I had scarcely closed my eyes when I dreamed that something impelled me to go to the window. I rose and, raising the sash, leaned out. Twenty-fifth Street was deserted as far as I could see. I began to be afraid. Everything outside seemed so—so black and uncomfortable. Then I heard the sound of wheels in the distance, and it seemed as though that was what I must wait for. Very slowly, the wheels approached, and, finally, I could make out a vehicle moving along the street. It came nearer and nearer, and when it passed beneath my window I saw it was a hearse. Then, as I trembled with fear, the driver turned and looked straight at me. When I awoke I was standing by the open window shivering with cold, and the black plumed hearse and its driver were gone. I dreamed this dream again in March, and again awoke beside the open window. Last night, the dream came again. You remember how it was raining? When I awoke, standing at the open window, my night-dress was soaked.”

“But where did I come into the dream?” I asked.

“You—you were in the coffin, but you were not dead.”

“In the coffin?”

“Yes.”

“How did you know? Could you see me?”

“No. I only knew you were there.”

“Had you been eating Welsh rarebits, or lobster salad?” I began, laughing.

The girl interrupted me with a frightened cry.

“Hello! What’s up?” I said.

She shrank into the bay of the window.

“The—the man below in the churchyard. He drove the hearse.”

“Nonsense,” I said.

Tessie’s eyes were wide with terror. I went to the window and looked out. The man was gone.

“Come on, Tessie,” I urged, “don’t be foolish. You have posed too long. You’re nervous.”

“Do you think I could forget that face?” she murmured. “Three times, I saw the hearse pass below my window, and every time the driver turned and looked up at me. Oh, his face was so white and—and soft? It looked dead—it looked as if it had been dead a long time.”

I convinced her to sit down and drink a glass of wine. I sat down beside her, and tried to give her some advice.

“Look here, Tessie,” I said, “you should go to the country for a week or two, and you’ll have no more dreams about hearses. You pose all day, and when night comes your nerves are upset. You can’t keep this up. Instead of going to bed when your day’s work is done, you run off to picnics at Sulzer’s Park, or go to the Eldorado or Coney Island, and when you come here next morning you’re tired out. There was no real hearse. It was a dream.”

She smiled faintly.

“What about the man in the churchyard?”

“Oh, he’s only an ordinary unhealthy, everyday creature.”

“As true as my name is Tessie Reardon, I swear to you, Mr. Scott, that the face of the man below in the churchyard is the face of the man who drove the hearse!”

“What of it?” I said. “It’s an honest trade.”

“Then you think I did see the hearse?”

“Oh,” I said diplomatically, “if you really did, it might not be unlikely that the man below drove it. There is nothing in that.”

Tessie rose, unrolled her scented handkerchief, and taking a bit of gum from a knot in the hem, placed it in her mouth. Then drawing on her gloves she offered me her hand.

“Good-night, Mr. Scott,” she said, and walked out.

Chapter II

The next morning, Thomas, the bell-boy, brought me the Herald and a bit of news. The church next door had been sold. I thanked Heaven for it, not that being a Catholic I had any repugnance for the congregation next door, but because my nerves were shattered by a blatant exhorter, whose every word echoed through the aisle of the church as if it had been my own rooms, and who insisted on his r’s with a nasal persistence which revolted my every instinct. Then, too, there was a fiend in human shape, an organist, who reeled off some of the grand old hymns with an interpretation of his own, and I longed for the blood of a creature who could play the doxology with an amendment of minor chords which one hears only in a quartet of very young undergraduates. I believe the minister was a good man, but when he bellowed: “And the Lorrrrd said unto Moses, the Lorrrd is a man of war; the Lorrrd is his name. My wrath shall wax hot and I will kill you with the sworrrrd!” I wondered how many centuries of purgatory it would take to atone for such a sin.

“Who bought the property?” I asked Thomas.

“Nobody that I knows, sir. They do say the gent what owns this ‘ere ‘Amilton flats was lookin’ at it. ‘E might be a buildin’ more studios.”

I walked to the window. The young man with the unhealthy face stood by the churchyard gate, and at the mere sight of him the same overwhelming repugnance took possession of me.

“By the way, Thomas,” I said, “who is that fellow down there?”

Thomas sniffed. “That there worm, sir? ‘Es night-watchman of the church, sir. ‘E makes me tired sittin’ out all night on them steps and lookin’ at you insultin’ like. I’d ‘ave punched ‘is ‘ead, sir—beg pardon, sir.”

“Go on, Thomas.”

“One night comin’ ‘ome with ‘Arry, I see ‘im sittin’ there on them steps. We ‘ad Molly and Jen with us, sir, the two girls on the tray service, an’ ‘e looks so insultin’ at us that I up and says ‘What you looking at, you fat slug?’ Beg pardon, sir, but that’s ‘ow I says, sir. Then ‘e don’t say nothin’ and I says ‘Come out and I’ll punch that puddin’ ‘ed.’ Then I opens the gate an’ goes in, but ‘e don’t say nothin’, only looks insultin’. Then I ‘its ‘im one, but, ugh! ‘is ‘ead was that cold and mushy it’d sicken you to touch ‘im.”

“What did he do then?” I asked curiously.

“‘im? Nothin’.”

“And you, Thomas?”

The young fellow flushed with embarrassment and smiled uneasily.

“Mr. Scott, sir, I ain’t no coward, an’ I can’t make out at all why I run. I was in the 5th Lancers, sir, bugler at Tel-el-Kebir, an’ was shot by the wells.”

“You don’t mean to say you ran away?”

“Yes, sir. I run.”

“Why?”

“That’s just what I want to know, sir. I grabbed Molly an’ run, an’ the rest was as frightened as I.”

“But what were they frightened of?”

Thomas refused to answer for a while, but my curiosity was aroused about the repulsive young man below and I pressed him. Three years’ sojourn in America had not only modified Thomas’ cockney dialect but had given him the American’s fear of ridicule.

“You won’t believe me, Mr. Scott, sir.”

“Yes, I will.”

“You’ll laugh at me, sir.”

“Nonsense!”

He hesitated.

“Well, sir, it’s God’s truth that when I hit ‘im, he grabbed my wrists, sir, and when I twisted ‘is soft, mushy fist, one of ‘is fingers come off in my ‘and.”

The utter loathing and horror of Thomas’s face must have been reflected in my own.

“It’s awful, and now when I see ‘im I just go the other away,” he added. “‘e makes me ill.”

When Thomas had gone, I went to the window. The man stood beside the church railing with both hands on the gate, but I hastily retreated to my easel again, sickened and horrified, for I saw that the middle finger of his right hand was missing.

At nine o’clock Tessie appeared and vanished behind the screen.

“Good morning, Mr. Scott,” she said merrily.

When she had reappeared and taken her pose upon the model stand, I started a new canvas, much to her delight. She remained silent as long as I was drawing, but as soon as the scrape of the charcoal ceased and I took up my fixative, she began to chatter.

“Oh, I had such a lovely time last night. We went to Tony Pastor’s.”

“Who are ‘we’?” I asked.

“Oh, Maggie, you know, Mr. Whyte’s model, and Pinkie McCormick—we call her Pinkie because she’s got that beautiful red hair you artists like so much—and Lizzie Burke.”

I sent a shower of spray from the fixative over the canvas.

“Go on,” I said.

“We saw Kelly and Baby Barnes the skirt dancer and—and all the rest. I have a crush.”

“Then you have gone back on me, Tessie?”

She laughed and shook her head.

“He’s Lizzie Burke’s brother, Ed. He’s a perfect gentleman.”

I felt constrained to give her some parental advice concerning crushing, which she took with a bright smile.

“Oh, I can take care of a strange crush,” she said, examining her chewing gum, “but Ed is different. Lizzie is my best friend.”

Then she related how Ed had come back from the stocking mill in Lowell, Massachusetts, to find her and Lizzie grown up, and what an accomplished young man he was, and how he thought nothing of squandering half a dollar for ice cream and oysters to celebrate his entry as clerk in the woollens department of Macy’s. Before she finished I began to paint, and she resumed her pose, smiling and chattering like a sparrow. By noon I had the study fairly well rubbed in and Tessie came to look at it.

“That’s better,” she said.

I thought so too, and ate my lunch with a satisfied feeling that all was going well. Tessie spread her lunch on a drawing table opposite me and we drank claret from the same bottle and lit our cigarettes from the same match. I was very much attached to Tessie. I had watched her shoot up into a slender but exquisitely formed woman from a frail, awkward child. She had posed for me for the last three years, and of all my models, she was my favourite. It would have troubled me very much indeed had she become hard or jaded, but I never noticed any deterioration of her manner, and felt at heart that she was all right.

She and I had never discussed morals at all, and I had no intention of doing so, partly because I had none myself, and partly because I knew she would do what she liked in spite of me. Still, I did hope she would steer clear of complications, because I wished her well, and I also had a selfish desire to retain the best model I had. I knew that crushing, as she termed it, had no significance with girls like Tessie, and that such things in America did not resemble in the least the same things in Paris. Yet, having lived with my eyes open, I also knew that somebody would take Tessie away some day, in one way or another, and though I told myself that marriage was nonsense, I sincerely hoped that, in this case, there would be a priest at the end of her story.

I am a Catholic. When I listen to high mass, when I sign myself, I feel that everything, including myself, is more cheerful, and when I confess, it does me good. A man who lives alone as much as I do must confess to somebody. Then, again, Sylvia was Catholic, and it was reason enough for me. But I was thinking of Tessie, which was very different. Tessie also was Catholic, and much more devout than I, so all in all, I had little fear for my pretty model until she fell in love. But then I knew that fate alone would decide her future for her, and I prayed inwardly that fate would keep her away from men like me and throw into her path nothing but Ed Burkes and Jimmy McCormicks, bless her sweet face!

Tessie sat blowing smoke rings up to the ceiling and tinkling the ice in her tumbler.

“Do you know that I also had a dream last night?” I observed.

“Not about that man?” she laughed.

“Exactly. A dream similar to yours, only much worse.”

It was foolish and thoughtless of me to say this, but you know how little tact the average painter has.

“I must have fallen asleep about ten o’clock,” I continued, “and after a while I dreamt that I awoke. So plainly did I hear the midnight bells, the wind in the tree branches, and the whistle of steamers from the bay, that even now I can barely believe I was not awake. I seemed to be lying in a box which had a glass cover. Dimly, I saw the street lamps as I passed, for I must tell you, Tessie, the box in which I lay appeared to lie in a cushioned wagon that jolted me over stony pavement. After a while I became impatient and tried to move, but the box was too narrow. My hands were crossed on my chest, so I could not raise them to help myself. I listened and then tried to call out. My voice was gone. I could hear the tramp of the horses attached to the wagon, and even the breathing of the driver. Then another sound broke upon my ears like the raising of a window sash. I managed to turn my head a little, and found I could look, not only through the glass cover of my box, but also through the glass panes in the side of the covered vehicle. I saw houses, empty and silent, with neither light nor life about any of them except one. In that house, a window was open on the first floor, and a figure all in white stood looking down into the street. It was you.”

Tessie had turned her face away from me and leaned on the table with her elbow.

“I could see your face,” I resumed, “and it seemed to be full of sorrow. Then we passed on and turned into a narrow black lane. Presently the horses stopped. I waited and waited, closing my eyes with fear and impatience, but all was silent as the grave. After what seemed to me hours, I began to feel uncomfortable. A sense that somebody was close to me made me open my eyes. Then I saw the white face of the hearse driver looking at me through the coffin lid——”

A sob from Tessie interrupted me. She was trembling like a leaf. I saw I had made an ass of myself and attempted to repair the damage.

“Why, Tess,” I said, “I only told you this to show you what influence your story might have on another person’s dreams. You don’t suppose I really lay in a coffin, do you? What are you trembling for? Don’t you see that your dream and my unreasonable dislike for that inoffensive watchman of the church simply set my brain working as soon as I fell asleep?”

She laid her head between her arms, and sobbed as if her heart would break. What a precious triple ass I had made of myself! But I was about to break my record. I went over and put my arm about her.

“Tessie dear, forgive me,” I said. “I had no business to frighten you with such nonsense. You are too sensible a girl, too good a Catholic to believe in dreams.”

Her hand tightened on mine and her head fell back upon my shoulder, but she still trembled and I petted her and comforted her.

“Come, Tess, open your eyes and smile.”

Her eyes opened with a slow languid movement and met mine, but their expression was so queer that I hastened to reassure her again.

“It’s all nonsense, Tessie. Surely you’re not afraid that any harm will come to you because of that?”

“No,” she said, but her scarlet lips quivered.

“Then, what’s the matter? Are you afraid?”

“Yes. Not for myself.”

“For me, then?” I demanded gaily.

“For you,” she murmured in a voice almost inaudible. “I—I care for you.”

At first I started to laugh, but when I understood her, a shock passed through me, and I sat like one turned to stone. This was the crowning bit of idiocy I had committed. During the moment which elapsed between her reply and my answer I thought of a thousand responses to that innocent confession. I could pass it by with a laugh, I could misunderstand her and assure her of my health, I could simply point out that it was impossible she could love me. But my reply was quicker than my thoughts, and I might think and think now when it was too late, for I had kissed her on the mouth.

That evening I took my usual walk in Washington Park, pondering over the occurrences of the day. I was thoroughly committed. There was no backing out now, and I stared the future straight in the face. I was not good, not even scrupulous, but I had no idea of deceiving either myself or Tessie. The one passion of my life lay buried in the sunlit forests of Brittany. Was it buried for ever? Hope cried “No!” For three years I had been listening to the voice of Hope, and for three years I had waited for a footstep on my threshold. Had Sylvia forgotten? “No!” cried Hope.

I said that I was no good. That is true, but still I was not exactly a comic opera villain. I had led an easy-going reckless life, taking what pleasure invited me, deploring and sometimes bitterly regretting consequences. In one thing alone, except my painting, was I serious, and that was something which lay hidden, if not lost, in the Breton forests.

It was too late for me to regret what had happened during the day. Whatever it had been, pity, a sudden tenderness for sorrow, or the more brutal instinct of gratified vanity, it was all the same now, and unless I wished to bruise an innocent heart, my path lay marked before me. The fire and strength, the depth of passion of a love which I had never even suspected, with all my imagined experience in the world, left me no alternative but to respond or send her away. Whether because I am so cowardly about giving pain to others, or whether it was that I have little of the gloomy Puritan in me, I do not know, but I shrank from disclaiming responsibility for that thoughtless kiss, and in fact had no time to do so before the gates of her heart opened and the flood poured forth. One who habitually did his duty and found a sullen satisfaction in making himself and everyone else unhappy, might have withstood it. I did not. I dared not.

After the storm had abated, I did tell her that she would have been better to love Ed Burke and wear a plain gold ring, but she would not hear of it. I thought perhaps as long as she had decided to love somebody she could not marry, it had better be me. I, at least, could treat her with an intelligent affection, and whenever she became tired of her infatuation, she could go none the worse for it. For I was decided on that point, although I knew how hard it would be. I remembered the usual termination of Platonic liaisons, and thought how disgusted I had been whenever I heard of one. I knew I was undertaking a great deal for so unscrupulous a man as I was, and I dreamed the future, but never for one moment did I doubt that she was safe with me.

Had it been anybody but Tessie I should not have bothered my head about scruples. It did not occur to me to sacrifice Tessie as I would have sacrificed a woman of the world. I looked the future squarely in the face and saw the several probable endings to the affair. She would either tire of the whole thing, or become so unhappy that I would have either to marry her or go away. If I married her we would be unhappy. I with a wife unsuitable to me, and she with a husband unsuitable for any woman. For my past life could scarcely entitle me to marry.

If I left, she might either fall ill, recover, and marry someone like Eddie Burke, or she might recklessly or deliberately go and do something foolish. On the other hand, if she tired of me, then her whole life would be before her with beautiful vistas of Eddie Burkes and marriage rings and twins and Harlem flats and Heaven knows what. As I strolled along through the trees by the Washington Arch, I decided that she would find a substantial friend in me, anyway, and the future could take care of itself. Then I went into the house and put on my evening dress, for the little faintly-perfumed note on my dresser said, “Have a cab at the stage door at eleven,” and the note was signed “Edith Carmichel, Metropolitan Theatre.”

I took supper that night, or rather we took supper, Miss Carmichel and I, at Solari’s, and the dawn was just beginning to gild the cross on the Memorial Church as I entered Washington Square after leaving Edith at the Brunswick. There was not a soul in the park as I passed along the trees and took the walk which leads from the Garibaldi statue to the Hamilton Apartment House, but as I passed the churchyard I saw a figure sitting on the stone steps. In spite of myself a chill crept over me at the sight of the white puffy face, and I hastened to pass. Then he said something which might have been addressed to me or might merely have been a mutter to himself, but a sudden furious anger flamed up within me that such a creature should address me. For an instant I felt like wheeling about and smashing my stick over his head, but I walked on, and entering the Hamilton went to my apartment.

For some time I tossed about the bed trying to get the sound of his voice out of my ears, but could not. It filled my head, that muttering sound, like thick oily smoke from a fat-rendering vat or an odour of noisome decay. As I lay and tossed about, the voice in my ears seemed more distinct, and I began to understand the words he had muttered. They came to me slowly as if I had forgotten them, and at last I could make some sense out of the sounds. It was this:

“Have you found the Yellow Sign?”

“Have you found the Yellow Sign?”

“Have you found the Yellow Sign?”

I was furious. What did he mean by that? Then with a curse upon him and his I rolled over and went to sleep, but when I awoke later I looked pale and haggard, for I had dreamed same the dream from the night before, and it troubled me more than I cared to think.

I dressed and went down into my studio. Tessie sat by the window, but as I came in she rose and put both arms around my neck for an innocent kiss. She looked so sweet and dainty that I kissed her again and then sat down before the easel.

“Hello! Where’s the study I began yesterday?” I asked.

Tessie looked conscious, but did not answer. I began to hunt among the piles of canvases, saying, “Hurry up, Tess, and get ready; we must take advantage of the morning light.”

When at last I gave up the search among the other canvases and turned to look around the room for the missing study I noticed Tessie standing by the screen with her clothes still on.

“What’s the matter,” I asked, “don’t you feel well?”

“Yes.”

“Then hurry.”

“Do you want me to pose as—as I have always posed?”

Then I understood. Here was a new complication. I had lost, of course, the best nude model I had ever seen. I looked at Tessie. Her face was scarlet. Alas! Alas! We had eaten of the tree of knowledge, and Eden and native innocence were dreams of the past—I mean for her. I suppose she noticed the disappointment on my face.

“I will pose if you wish,” she said. “The study is behind the screen here where I put it.”

“No,” I said, “we will begin something new.”

I went into my wardrobe and picked out a Moorish costume which fairly blazed with tinsel. It was a genuine costume, and Tessie retired to the screen with it enchanted. When she came out again, I was astonished. Her long black hair was bound above her forehead with a circlet of turquoises, and the ends curled about her glittering girdle. Her feet were encased in embroidered pointed slippers and the skirt of her costume, curiously wrought with arabesques in silver, fell to her ankles. The deep metallic blue vest embroidered with silver and the short Mauresque jacket spangled and sewn with turquoises suited her wonderfully. She came up to me and held up her face smiling. I slipped my hand into my pocket, and drawing out a gold chain with a cross attached, dropped it over her head.

“It’s yours, Tessie.”

“Mine?” she faltered.

“Yours. Now go and pose.”

With a radiant smile she ran behind the screen and presently reappeared with a little box on which was written my name.

“I had intended to give it to you when I went home tonight,” she said, “but I can’t wait now.”

I opened the box. On the pink cotton inside lay a clasp of black onyx, on which was inlaid a curious symbol or letter in gold. It was neither Arabic nor Chinese, nor, as I found afterwards, did it belong to any human script.

“It’s all I had to give you for a keepsake,” she said timidly.

I was annoyed, but I told her how much I should prize it, and promised to wear it always. She fastened it on my coat beneath the lapel.

“How foolish, Tess, to go and buy me such a beautiful thing as this,” I said.

“I did not buy it,” she laughed.

“Where did you get it?”

Then she told me how she had found it one day while coming from the Aquarium in the Battery, how she had advertised it and watched the papers, but at last gave up all hopes of finding the owner.

“That was last winter,” she said, “the very day I had the first horrid dream about the hearse.”

I remembered my dream of the previous night but said nothing, and presently my charcoal was flying over a new canvas, and Tessie stood motionless on the model-stand.

Chapter III

The day following was disastrous for me. While moving a framed canvas from one easel to another, my foot slipped on the polished floor, and I fell heavily on both wrists. They were so badly sprained that it was useless to attempt to hold a brush, and I was obliged to wander about the studio, glaring at unfinished drawings and sketches, until despair seized me and I sat down to smoke and twiddle my thumbs with rage. The rain blew against the windows and rattled on the roof of the church, driving me into a nervous fit with its interminable patter.

Tessie sat sewing by the window, and every now and then raised her head and looked at me with such innocent compassion that I began to feel ashamed of my irritation and looked about for something to occupy me. I had read all the papers and all the books in the library, but for the sake of something to do I went to the bookcases and shoved them open with my elbow. I knew every volume by its colour and examined them all, passing slowly around the library and whistling to keep up my spirits. I was turning to go into the dining-room when my eye fell upon a book bound in serpent skin, standing in a corner of the top shelf of the last bookcase. I did not remember it, and from the floor could not decipher the pale lettering on the back, so I went to the smoking-room and called Tessie. She came in from the studio and climbed up to reach the book.

“What is it?” I asked.

The King in Yellow.

I was dumfounded. Who had placed it there? How did it come to be in my rooms? I had long ago decided that I would never open that book, and nothing on earth could have persuaded me to buy it. Fearful that curiosity might tempt me to open it, I had never even looked at it in book stores. If I ever had had any curiosity to read it, the awful tragedy of young Castaigne, whom I knew, prevented me from exploring its wicked pages. I had always refused to listen to any description of it, and indeed, nobody ever ventured to discuss the second part aloud, so I had absolutely no knowledge of what those leaves might reveal. I stared at the poisonous mottled binding as I would at a snake.

“Don’t touch it, Tessie,” I said. “Come down.”

My admonition was enough to arouse her curiosity, and before I could stop her, she took the book and, laughing, danced off into the studio with it. I called to her, but she slipped away with a tormenting smile at my helpless hands, and I followed her with some impatience.

“Tessie!” I cried, entering the library, “listen, I am serious. Put that book away. I do not want you to open it!”

The library was empty. I went into both drawing-rooms, then into the bedrooms, laundry, kitchen, and finally returned to the library and began a systematic search. She had hidden herself so well that it was half-an-hour later when I discovered her crouching white and silent by the latticed window in the store-room above. At the first glance I saw she had been punished for her foolishness. The King in Yellow lay at her feet, but the book was open at the second part. I looked at Tessie and saw it was too late. She had opened The King in Yellow. Then I took her by the hand and led her into the studio. She seemed dazed, and when I told her to lie down on the sofa she obeyed me without a word. After a while she closed her eyes and her breathing became regular and deep, but I could not determine whether or not she slept.

For a long while I sat silently beside her, but she neither stirred nor spoke, and at last I rose, and, entering the unused store-room, took the book in my least injured hand. It seemed heavy as lead, but I carried it into the studio again, and sitting down on the rug beside the sofa, opened it and read it through from beginning to end. When, faint with excess of my emotions, I dropped the volume and leaned wearily back against the sofa, Tessie opened her eyes and looked at me….

We had been speaking for some time in a dull monotonous strain before I realized that we were discussing The King in Yellow. The sin of writing such words, which were clear as crystal, limpid and musical as bubbling springs, which sparkled and glowed like the poisoned diamonds of the Medicis! Oh the wickedness, the hopeless damnation of a soul who could fascinate and paralyze human creatures with such words, words understood by the ignorant and wise alike, words which are more precious than jewels, more soothing than music, more awful than death!

We talked on, unmindful of the gathering shadows, and she begged me to throw away the clasp of black onyx quaintly inlaid with what we now knew to be the Yellow Sign. I’ll never know why I refused, though even at this hour, here in my bedroom as I write this confession, I would be glad to know what it was that prevented me from tearing the Yellow Sign from my breast and casting it into the fire. I am sure I wanted to, and yet Tessie pleaded with me in vain. Night fell and the hours dragged on, but we still murmured to each other of the King and the Pallid Mask, and twelve bells of midnight sounded from the misty spires in the fog wrapped city. We spoke of Hastur and of Cassilda, while outside the fog rolled against the blank window panes as the cloud waves roll and break on the shores of Hali.

The house was very silent, and not a sound came from the misty streets. Tessie lay among the cushions, her face a grey blot in the gloom, but her hands were clasped in mine, and I knew that she knew and read my thoughts as I read hers, for we had understood the mystery of the Hyades and the Phantom of Truth was laid. Then, as we answered each other, swiftly, silently, thought on thought, the shadows stirred in the gloom about us, and far away in the distant streets we heard a sound. It came nearer and nearer, the dull crunching of wheels, nearer and yet nearer, and outside, before the door it stopped, and I dragged myself to the window and saw a black-plumed hearse.

The gate below opened and shut, and I crept, shaking, to my door and bolted it, but I knew no bolts, no locks, could keep out that creature who was coming for the Yellow Sign. I heard him moving very softly along the hall. Then he was at the door, and the bolts rotted at his touch. He entered. With eyes starting from my head I peered into the darkness, but when he came into the room I did not see him. It was only when I felt him envelope me in his cold soft grasp that I cried out and struggled with deadly fury, but my hands were useless and he tore the onyx clasp from my coat and struck me full in the face. Then, as I fell, I heard Tessie’s soft cry and her spirit fled her. Even while falling, I longed to follow her, for I knew that the King in Yellow had opened his tattered mantle and there was only God to cry to now.

I could tell more, but I cannot see what help it will be to the world. As for me, I am past human help or hope. As I lie here, writing, careless even whether or not I die before I finish, I can see the doctor gathering up his powders and phials with a vague gesture to the good priest beside me, which I understand.

They will be very curious to know the tragedy—those of the outside world who write books and print millions of newspapers—but I shall write no more, and the priest will seal my last words with the seal of sanctity when his holy office is done. Those of the outside world may send their creatures into wrecked homes and death smitten firesides, and their newspapers will batten on blood and tears, but with me their spies must halt before the confessional. They know that Tessie is dead and that I am dying. They know how the people in the house, aroused by an infernal scream, rushed into my room and found one living and two dead, but they do not know what I shall tell them now; they do not know that the doctor said as he pointed to a horrible decomposed heap on the floor—the livid corpse of the watchman from the church: “I have no theory, no explanation. That man must have been dead for months!”

I think I am dying. I wish the priest would—

Posted in writing | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment