First by HR Van Dongen
Next a cover by Virgil Finlay (I believe) for A. Merritt’s Seven Footprints to Satan.
One of Frank Paul’s science fiction covers.
Robert Stanley provides the cover for a paperback by Raymond F. Jones. Based on a description of the book, the power is that the Genetics Bureau decides who can mate and with whom so it’s less lurid than it appears.
And I’ll wrap up with one by Charles Schneeman
All rights to images remain with current holders.
As you may have heard, Marko Elez, one of the Muskrats Elon turned loose on the treasury, has bragged online that he was racist before it was cool (spoiler: it’s not cool and never was), that he wants to normalize bigotry against Indians and that he wants to kill the Civil Rights Act. He was briefly dismissed from his post, then rehired after snowflake JD Vance whined it was unfair: ““I cannot overstate how much I loathe this emotional blackmail pretending to be concern. My kids, god willing, will be risk takers. They won’t think constantly about whether a flippant comment or a wrong viewpoint will follow them around for the rest of their lives.”
Marko Elez is 25 years old. That’s not a kid. And if he’s so immature his views shouldn’t be held against him, why are we trusting him on a major government project? And how is describing his views accurately “emotional blackmail”? It isn’t — it’s that Vance doesn’t think his viewpoints are wrong or not so wrong they should affect his career. Which is a common view on the right — it’s their right to be racist shits, but nobody has the right to criticize them for it. Free speech flows one way. Vance has no problem with people being hounded or harassed for being “too woke” — his compassion is for those who are too racist. Because they’re his allies.
Nobody in the Trump camp has any compassion for LGBTQ people. The VA is canceling suicide prevention training because it includes a focus on LGBTQ suicide. “The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) was told this week by DOJ that they’d lose their funding if the org didn’t remove any mentions of LGBTQIA+ issues from their public materials, I’ve learned. Staff were told they need to deadname trans kids in their reports to comply.”
Of course lots of people, even in the Republican camp, might feel slightly uncomfortable about such cruelty. Isn’t that the opposite of what Christ taught us? Vance’s solution is to lie: Jesus, he claims, taught us to “love your family and then you love your neighbor and then you love your community and then you love your fellow citizens and your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.” As noted at the link, that’s completely wrong.
Right-wing Christian pundit Megan Basham takes the same stance, arguing the point of the Good Samaritan parable isn’t that we should help people, it’s that we can’t possibly live up to the Samaritan’s standard so we should just turn to Jesus and find salvation. Which is close to the antinomian heresy — that if we’re not saved by works don’t matter. Though I’m less troubled by that than by the implication we might just as well shrug and pass the beaten Jewish merchant by and then ask Jesus to forgive us. If we find someone beating by the side of the road, the thing to do is help them — not because it’s important to our souls but because they need help! I’m quite sure Basham would expect that if she were the victim — but she’s not paid to be nice to other people. Or to tell the truth.
Compassion for others does not benefit Republicans. Therefore they have to kill it.
At Slacktivist Fred Clark discusses the importance of distinguishing between the system of oppression and the people serving the system. Yes, they’re complicit in the system’s evil; no, they will not want to admit it; the system hurts them too; and we shouldn’t forget they’re still human and try to reach them, even if they don’t extend that grace to others. In the words of Andrea Dworkin, writing about rape: “Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It’s not because there’s a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence.”
Looking at misogyny and patriarchy it’s easy to see the logic of this. As The Mask You Live In says, trying to conform to stereotypical masculine standards is brutal for many men: never show emotion, never be soft, never cry, etc. (Don McPherson makes similar points in You Throw Like a Girl). Trying to be a Real Man can strangle someone’s soul and cut them off from stuff they’d really like to do (i.e., anything that would be considered too girly or wimpy). Participating in torture and war crimes can warp people’s moral perspective and gut them from the inside out.
One can also look at the countless “ex gays” who’ve come out as “no, I never stopped being gay” but put on a show to conform to their religion. Or the people who “never imagined the leopard would eat their face.”
The argument isn’t new — I covered similar ground in a post back in 2017. And I agree with Clark that the big problem is few people working the gears of the machine — patriarchy, white supremacy, fascism — think of themselves as prisoners or cogs in a wheel. They identify with the system because it gives them something. Slave-owners saw themselves as benefiting from the system they supported, something that made them proud to be white, superior to the black lower orders. Patriarchy limits men’s choices and makes them stupider, but it still offers them a good deal, at least theory: a woman to clean up after men, raise the kids, provide men with sex. And if women don’t like the way they’re treated, big whoop — success and approval in patriarchy are more likely to come from other men.
And at some point, worrying about redeeming the oppressor is less important than stopping the oppression (I don’t think Clark would disagree). It’s something I’ve blogged about before, the assumption that it’s women’s responsibility, particularly feminists to show men a better path. As Dworkin says, “We do not want to do the work of helping you to believe in your humanity. We cannot do it anymore. We have always tried. We have been repaid with systematic exploitation and systematic abuse. You are going to have to do this yourselves from now on and you know it.”
The wife in this gushing WaPo profile feels very much like someone trapped in an oppressive system of values — she and her husband want 10 children and Mom declares herself happy to die in labor shooting for that endgame (I do support her right to make that choice, of course). The writer assures us these Trumpers “don’t glorify “traditional” gender roles, nor do they think immigration, pro-family policies or cash will reverse a dwindling population.” No, we need a cultural shift to American women having more babies! They’re totally not anti-trans, they just think schools are turning kids trans!
The couple come from private equity which makes it a lot easier to afford their large batch of kids. Do they have a way to make it affordable for other parents? Of course not! Providing more money or housing is “unrealistic” and offering better parental leave or day care may not encourage more births, so why bother? I’m guessing they’re not crazy about spending money to lower the maternal death rate
It’s true, even nations with much more support for parents and moms are seeing low birth rates but their solution isn’t to offer any sort of help it’s “bestowing military honors upon women who have a lot of babies,” an idea out of the USSR. I’ve got to say, I don’t see many women jumping on the 10-kids bandwagon because they got a medal but no other support. Their idea of help is deregulation: no regulations on daycare, ending car seat mandates (they claim, falsely, that kids have to sit in car seat until they’re sixteen).
And despite their disavowal of traditional gender roles (no, she likes being the one to do cleaning, laundry and cooking her husband meat even though she’s vegetarian and grossed out!) having lots of kids makes it a lot harder for most women to get a life outside the home, if she wants one. Without more help, mass breeding will indeed reinforce traditional gender roles. To be fair, they do support birth control and a right to abortion in the first trimester but I doubt they’d vote against Republicans who oppose both those things.
This is, of course, a mass of undead sexist cliches. That women have to breed babies to save America. Or the argument that if liberal women don’t have babies the conservatives and misogynists will outbreed them and force them to stay home.
This was, indeed, the idea of the Quiverfull movement, that by outbreeding the heretics and heathens they can take over. Which only works if the children follow in your moral footsteps; Libby Anne (the blogger at the link) was supposed to do that but like many other quiver kids she rebelled. It’s very hard to make your kids into clones (I’m sure some of y’all have found that out from either the parent or child perspective).
Nor do the couple deal with the fact Trump’s administration and Republicans are working to purge women’s choices now. The couple seem much more concerned with trolling liberals (which they admit to) than right-wingers like Darren Beattie, who thinks “competent white men must be in charge if we want things to work.” Instead we’re “coddling the feelings” of women and minorities, presumably by pretending they’re as good as Beattie is. Don’t worry about it dude, most women are smarter and tougher than you.
For more of me venting about misogyny, check out Undead Sexist Cliches in paperback or ebook. You can also order it straight from me from the Behold the Book page.
Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches
Following the Silver John short stories collected in JOHN THE BALLADEER, Manly Wade Wellman wrote several novels featuring the wandering folk singer. Having decided to reread them, I figured I’d start off by rereading the collection and it holds up well (it’s been more than a decade since I last read it).
John — no last name — is a Korean War veteran wandering the Appalachian South (I’m guessing as Wellman lived in North Carolina, that’s the heart of it) to learn more folk songs, playing for anyone who’ll put him up for the night. Invariably wherever he wanders there’s someone vicious, often getting their way with magic. John’s no sorcerer but he’s brave, pure-hearted and the silver strings on his guitar are poison to evil magic. While there’s a degree of formula, the stories are so vivid, eerie and absorbing I don’t care.
The series originally ended with “Nine Yards of Other Cloth,” in which John saves a woman, Evadare, falls for her, but runs away — how can he ask her to live his wandering life? Of course, Evadare has a few thoughts on that … Then in 1979, Wellman takes up their tale right after the end of that story, marrying the couple off in “Trill Coster’s Burden.” Several more short stories followed but Evadare up and disappears from the series; I don’t know why Wellman didn’t set them before she met John, which would make more sense (they’re clearly set after). Still, this is a wonderful collection, probably Wellman’s best work and definitely what he’s best known for.
FAMILY BRITAIN: A Thicker Cut by David Kynaston follows Certainties of Place, taking England into the middle of the 1950s. It opens as the influx of black immigrants from the Caribbean is raising hackles among British whites, one of many resemblances to America in that era. There’s also rock-and-roll taking off, the birth of commercial TV as competition for the BBC and debates over a woman’s place (and just how much housework was required to meet the standard of “a good wife”) and worries about just how many homosexuals were lurking. Other matters are distinctively British: the end of rationing, the end of Britain’s standing as a Great Power, absolute opposition to joining that European Union that got started on the continent. There are also multiple references to people who’d be famous down the road, from Margaret Thatcher to Christine Keeler (her affair with cabinet minister John Profumo would be a major scandal in the early 1960s), though as usual Kynaston doesn’t explain who these people will be in the future. I look forward to reading more of this series.
I’ve heard many people say the British strip CHARLEY’S WAR by Pat Mills and Joe Colquhon is one of the great war comics. After reading V1, I’m in agreement. The story starts out with Charley Bourne enlisting at 16; the recruiting office pegs him as too young but hey, they need men …
Once in France, Charley gets to experience group loyalty, danger from poison gas and snipers, more danger from officious, incompetent superiors, and the German horror when Britain introduces a new weapon of mass destruction — a rolling armored nightmare machine called a “tank.” I’m not a war comics fan but this was amazing stuff. A shame my library doesn’t have the rest of the series, as it’ll take longer if I have to buy it.
All rights to image remain with current holders.
Filed under Reading
I first saw 1944’s TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT in college. I’d left a party early, gone down to the common room and discovered it on the late show. The intensely sexy Lauren Bacall, the sexual chemistry of her and Humphrey Bogart, the crackling dialogue, and the drama of a WW II romance directed by Howard Hawks and released by Warner Brothers—wow.
TYG and I watched it for a date movie a couple of weeks back and it didn’t blow me away as much—but I did still enjoy it (so did she).
It’s 1940 in Martinique, where Harry Morgan (Bogart) runs a charter boat with the help of his friend Eddie (Walter Brennan), an addled alcoholic (“Was you ever bit by a dead bee?”). He meets Slim (Bacall), a pretty vagabond and occasional thief and sparks and snappy dialog start flying; after she kisses him for the first time Slim quips that “It’s even better when you help.” A local resistance cell wants Harry’s help getting a prisoner off Devil’s Island; he’s uninterested in helping them but ultimately he likes them better than the local Vichy authorities (French Nazi-friendly government) so he gets drawn in.
This is very obviously modeled on Casablanca, right down to having Hoagy Carmichael as a local pianist, analogous to Dooley Wilson in the earlier film. Romantic Comedy argues it’s almost refuting the earlier film: Bogart’s Harry is a nobody compared to Rick (when a customer stiffs Harry, it takes Slim picking the guy’s pocket to settle the score) and his picking sides isn’t about big principles but about who he likes best. However it doesn’t work anywhere near as well as Casablanca, with several weak scenes (there was no point to having Bacall sing several numbers, especially as she can’t sing). There’s some truth to the critique in The Films of Howard Hawks that it works because of the two stars and the dialogue more than anything else.
It does show Hawks’ fondness for lively scenes over plot and narrative because the plot isn’t focused — most of the time it works but in some spots in drags (which I never feel about Casablanca). Bacall would go on to marry Bogart; her role here is modeled on Hawks’ own wife (also nicknamed “Slim”). Her character has a lot in common with Jean Arthur’s Bonnie in Only Angels Have Wings — a drifter who stumbles into a relationship with a guy who’s not into relationships. Hawks has said Bacall gave him what he wanted, Arthur didn’t, but I think both characters work. . “Why don’t you put him on a goldfish bowl in the center of the table and be done with it?”
Lupita Nyong’o voices THE WILD ROBOT (2024), a droid who wakes up in a wilderness with no clue to why she’s there or what her assignment is. Fortunately after she accidentally kills some geese she winds up with their newly-hatched gosling (Kit Connor) imprinting on her. Now she has a task, to raise him into a goose, but even with the sharp-eyed fox Fink (Pedro Pascal) to help, parenting is more complicated than expected. Very charming; with Bill Nighy as an old goose and Marc Hamill as a dour bear. “We talked about this — dead things don’t have to explain why they’re dead.”
As I’m giving a Mensa presentation on Monty Python’s Flying Circus next month, it seemed a good time to rewatch THE LIFE OF PYTHON (1990), a documentary looking at how the six-man comedy team cut its teeth on British comedy such as David Frost and Do Not Adjust Your Set before launching their show in the summer of 1969. Very informative about their creative process (Graham Chapman didn’t write skits but his beta-reading suggestions were always spot on), their conflicts, and the path to Holy Grail and Life of Brian. Well worth watching if you’re a fan. “Who was Monty Python? What was he? And is he contagious?”
All rights to images remain with current holder.
And not as productive as I’d hoped. Partly because I had an awful night of sleep Monday which left me zonked the next day and in poor shape for creative thought. Partly distractions from the increasing insanity of politics (here’s a sample).
Snowdrop, however, is not a problem, except in being one more demand on my attention. And sometimes scarfing up Wisp’s food with her probiotics in it — not that it’s harmful but we want them inside Wisp to avoid her tummy troubles recurring. Though as you can see above, Plushie’s not sure what to make of him.
And I had to take Trixie in Monday for a checkup due to her rubbing her butt on the floor all the time. As I half-suspected, the problem is allergies so she got a shot and now she seems fine.
Monday, knowing my schedule was tight, I rewrote another 6,000 words of Impossible Takes a Little Longer and the same for Let No Man Put Asunder. At this point it’s mostly tightening and tinkering. The real challenge will come further out where the story needs more work. Still, I’m pleased with the work.
I got one article in at The Local Reporter about a new rails-to-trails project. Over at Atomic Junk Shop I looked at a cool page of Gene Colan Daredevil art (partial view above), why Big Event tie-in comics remind me of Grease, and a look at some comic-book firsts: first Hulk cure, first person besides Cap to get the super-soldier formula (technically just a reverse-engineered attempt to recreate it), first eco-terrorist (I’ve been pondering how almost all environmentalist characters are bad guys). Below a Sal Buscema splash page from one of the stories.
And we got a look at some of the items in Abebooks’ weird books room.
The rest of the time was spent working on the cover for Southern Discomfort. My cover artist sent some possible mockups as idea generators (like the 1970s paperback cover to the left); it got really hard narrowing down which ones I liked and how I thought she could adapt them to fit the book better. It’s not the kind of creative work I do best but Sam is patient. Today I finally sent back my responses.
Next week, Monday will probably be shot but things should pick up after that. Wish me luck. And I hope we all have a good weekend.
All rights to images remain with current holders.
While Snowdrop is increasingly hanging out with TYG, me and our other pets, he still likes his bolt-holes. Here’s one he discovered last week.
Here’s another shot from back when he was an outdoor cat.
Despite being much more a tree cat than Wisp, he so far hasn’t climbed anywhere that causes problems. I hope that keeps up.
Filed under Personal, The Dog Ate My Homework
“We have to talk about how fucking DIFFICULT existence is in the US. Everything is broken – banking, labor, housing, health care. Administrative systems are horrifyingly inept and inefficient. The one thing Trump keeps saying is “We’re gonna make it easier.” He’s lying, but he keeps saying it.” — from a thread by Fuck Theory on Bluesky
From the same thread: “You cannot understand the mental state of the average USian without understanding the sheer amount of energy and frustration demanded by the most mundane daily life tasks. The amount of time and effort required to schedule a doctor’s appointment, correct a billing error with the electric company, cancel a subscription to something, get a canceled flight refunded: these things drain people’s souls.”
Mother Jones makes a similar argument: the Biden/Harris campaign emphasized preserving the system when many Americans think the system needs massive renovation. Trump promised to make Americans’ lives better — well, if they were white, male, straight, cis, etc. — and that was enough.
Then there’s the AOC/Trump split tickets who see both of them as challenging the status quo.
I think there’s some truth to all that. As Mother Jones notes, Harris/Walz weren’t out to shock the system. No questioning the electoral college or the excessive money in politics. No dropping the filibuster. Way too conservative on immigration. The Dems called Trump a threat to democracy before the election, since then they’ve largely treated the transfer of power as routine, nothing to make a fuss about.
On the other hand, a lot of the policies they proposed or enacted did (or would have) made a difference. Allowing Medicare to cover in-home care would be a huge game-changer for a lot of families dealing with older parents (and for people of any age who need in-home care) and a radical change in how we tackle such things. Biden lowered Medicaid and Medicare drug costs; Trump reversed him. But (as Mother Jones notes) the administration didn’t promote them and I don’t think the media played them up as much as they deserved.
Which may reflect that a lot of government reporters find that sort of thing boring; I’ve read columns (one by Maureen Dowd, one by David Broder) where the writer rolls their eyes at a candidate proposing health-care reforms or how to fix global warming — jeez, how tedious! And sometimes expressing bafflement that the audience was fascinated — what, they actually care about healthcare policy?
It’s possible that Trump, promising to smash the system, appealed to people. Maybe what people wanted wasn’t a technical fix, where you simply turn to the right expert, but something radically new (as Rabbi Danya Rutenberg puts it about the current political environment). And as I’ve mentioned before, they somehow hand-waved all the promises he made to do things they didn’t want, perhaps because smashing the system meant that much to them.
On the other hand, a lot of his cries for reform were about punching down at trans people, POC, women. Kicking trans soldiers out of the military. Blocking DOD celebration or acknowledgement of Juneteenth, MLK Day, etc. Appointing unqualified people while he and his surrogates scream that anything — like last week’s plane crash — can be blamed on hiring POC, LGBTQ or women. For a lot of voters, that’s the system they want him to break, the non-existent system where blacks, women and gay people have seized control and women have too much power.
Should the Dems have fought harder and called out that bullshit more? Definitely (though I think Biden and Harris were less conciliatory than Obama or Clinton). I don’t know it would have helped. I don’t know the media would have covered it fairly: there’s a lot more resistance to radical reform from the left than from the right (no specific examples) and the right-wing media would have whipped it up into an outrage of the day. Still the right thing to do, though, just as speaking up for trans, gay, women, POC, etc. is important now.
Like I said, no conclusions, just thoughts.
With some random SF covers thrown in.
In an age where AI and pay-to-play are screwing up online searches, Wikipedia looks like a much more reliable data source.
Paul Schrader, however, thinks AI writes better than people. I’d be more impressed if he’d offered examples of these brilliant script ideas he claims AI gave him. And of course, jumping from “that computer program writes better than me” to “that program writes better than anyone” is an old fallacy.
Oh, and UCLA is having AI create courses.
Trump supposedly wants us out of the World Health Organization because it’s controlled by China. His decision is bad for us, good for China.
We learned from the pandemic that handwashing can save lives. It’s a simple act that can make a huge difference.
Why “RFK has some good points about public health” is a bad argument. Especially when RFK makes money off being anti-vax.
The debate over fluoride in drinking water, for instance, is way more complex than we’re going to get out of Kennedy, who just wants to ban it.
Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s nominee to head the National Institute of Health, predicted 5,000 deaths tops from covid before herd immunity saved us. His supporters are portraying him as (what else) a daring visionary who saw what orthodox medicine did not — but that’s a lie.
The kids are alright: a middle school student has stumbled upon a cancer-fighting compound in goose poop, and two black girls in New Orleans have made a mathematics breakthrough.
Art top to bottom by Gil Kane, Murphy Anderson (x2), Jack Kirby and Kane again. All rights to images remain with current holders.
Filed under Miscellanea, Politics
As Maria, my protagonist, is Italian-American, I read AN OFFER WE CAN’T REFUSE: The Mafia in the Mind of America by George de Stefano. It looks at the history of Italian-Americans and bias against them, particularly the stereotype that they’re all mobbed up (as opposed to a reality in which lots of ethnicities have been involved in organized crime). That in turn leads to a look at The Godfather and The Sopranos, which was ongoing at the time the book came out.
While de Stefano dislikes the stereotype, he actually loves the Godfather films for how awash they are in Italian culture, and The Sopranos for updating the stereotypes (suburban gangsters who are conscious they’re not playing at the Corleone level). While sympathetic to the anti-defamation groups that condemn Mafia fiction, de Stefano dismisses the arguments that Italian Americans get it worse than anyone else (“We’re not pulled over for driving while Italian.”) and accuses some of the critics of rejecting their roots (i.e., they’re upscale enough to be embarrassed at the Corleone’s Old World ways). Interesting
ARE ITALIANS WHITE?: How Race Is Made in America is a collection of essays edited by Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno that concludes the answer is yes. While Italians were often considered an inferior race to Real Americans there were no serious attempts to class them as colored, so they could gain citizenship, voting rights and other benefits black Americans were denied. The essays discuss the broad and diverse approach of Italians to the race question (from radicals who opposed all forms of racism to people who cemented their claim to be white by dumping on blacks) to individual profiles such as Giancarlo Esposito and his roles in Spike Lee’s films (he argues that Lee actually does a better job capturing Italian-American life than he does black). Useful in developing some of Maria’s family backstory, also a reminder that yes, race in America does have a subjective element.
As my setting of Pharisee, Georgia is predominantly Irish-ancestry, I looked at their history too. According to HOW THE IRISH BECAME WHITE by Noel Ignatiev, the early Irish immigrants were seen the lowest of the low, little better than blacks, and considered by Protestant America the ones most likely to “amalgamate” with blacks. This attitude had its roots in England, which began looking down its nose at the Irish after conquering it, plus many Irish supported abolishing slaver. Others saw supporting abolition as too risky: they wanted American support for Irish independence and didn’t want to alienate slaveholders. Many Irish embraced the bullshit that the life of a slave, with guaranteed shelter and food, was easy compared to that of the real slaves, the white working men (Frederick Douglass pointed out that if they really believed that, his running away had left a slave position vacant). Beyond that, racism against free blacks became common, both before and after the Civil War. Free blacks doing the same job as whites was seen as lowering white workers to their level. The Irish, like most whites, wanted to establish they were well above that level, which meant as much segregation as possible.
WHITE FLIGHT: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism by Kevin M. Kruse looks at how Atlanta, known as “the city too busy to hate” for its moderate desegregation efforts (in contrast to other parts of the South that defended the color line at all costs), actually did quite a bit of hating from the post-WW II years through the 1970s. While the civic and business leaders were willing to work with black Atlanta — allowing blacks to buy homes in white neighborhoods, desegregating some public parks, minimally desegregating schools — the working-class saw this as a sell-out by rich people whose private schools and private parks wouldn’t be affected.
For some the solution was neo-Nazi groups or the KKK, but over time they adopted more euphemistic approaches, such as their right to “freedom of association” — which in their eyes meant a)they should be free not to associate with blacks; b)therefore segregation so blacks were kept away from them, even in public spaces; c)if segregation fell, then whites simply abandoned facilities to Those People and over time fled to segregated suburbs. Kruse argues that the roots of modern conservative attitudes were born here: a conviction white taxes went to support black moochers, enthusiasm for privatizing public facilities (in the hopes they could then deny blacks the right to use them), opposition to spending on public projects or infrastructure (when Those People would use it) and so on. While Kruse didn’t tell me anything about racism I didn’t already know, it’s gut-wrenching to read 250 pages about so much hate.
This book definitely got me thinking about how I handle racism in Pharisee, and how desegregation came to the town. And also about the makeup of the white newcomers from Atlanta; obviously if they’re moving to a town that isn’t all-white, they probably aren’t the die-hard segregationists. Not necessarily liberal on racial issues, but more moderate than other parts of Georgia. It also gives me some insight into the generational divide for Pharisee’s blacks (the older go-slow generation and younger more aggressive activists).
None of this reading guarantees I got race and race relations in my book right; any errors are my fault, not those of my sources. White Flight cover image from the Calvin Fred Craig papers at Emory University. All rights to images reside with current holders.
Filed under Reading, Southern Discomfort, Writing
