“I was a troublesome model,” said Karen Ilvedson, who is now mostly retired from the business. “There’d be shoots where I just said, ‘I have to go.’” She was, however, quietly gracious during our Rake Appeal shoot (see page 53), even as the photographer asked her to pose in increasingly complex, contorted positions; even as a gaggle of stylists, assistants, and staffers, plus assorted construction workers, trained their gazes intently on her. What she was thinking, staring back at us?
A lot, it turns out. Ilvedson enjoys thinking so much that, while modeling, she was also earning a degree in philosophy with a focus on metaphysics from the University of Minnesota. “People in New York would make jokes about me, the ‘model philosopher.’ They think the two don’t go together, but they do! Through modeling, I learned that so many things are illusion. I went from being a student to being a model in a matter of days. And so how do you define reality? When you’re traveling around the world, you start to wonder, is reality in my head, or in this physical place I’m at?”
It’s understandable to question reality when stylists are dressing you in see-through plastic shorts with strategically situated fur patches, or when Yohji Yamamoto is using you as a muse for his new season. It’s also easy to understand how someone with so many passions of her own might resist serving the whims of other people’s creative endeavors. Ilvedson grew up shooting Super-8 movies and is now preparing to remake The Theory of Distractions, her thirty-minute, “tongue in cheek” film about how to “see beyond illusion, beyond the veil of reality.” (Who says philosophers can’t be funny?) She is a certified scuba diver and, more recently, a serious tea aficionado, inspired by the wealth of opportunity at the
St. Anthony shop TeaSource. And in between practice sessions with her band, Ildved, she’s patiently reworking a two-hundred page “Faustian tale,” whose manuscript cover bears a picture of legendary ex-Pink Floyd member Syd Barrett. “It might be decades before the time is right to publish it,” she said.
Since moving to Northeast Minneapolis a year ago, Ilvedson has been drawn to a sprawling, gnarled tree on a vacant lot near her home. It gives off “a weird kind of energy,” she said. Having had her fill of Western philosophy—“the newer philosophy of the mind focuses soley on science; it’s too cold and rational,” she said—she is delving into the often misunderstood Hegel and older traditions that include a holistic, mystical, or more feminine dimension. The kinds of philosophy, in other words, that allow for sitting in a tree, taking in its energy.—Julie Caniglia
Year: 2005
-
The Model Philosopher
-
What It Said; What It Meant
The letters on the sign above the bakery were as willful as inanimate objects could be. Hugo and Loretta kept an attentive eye out in case the force behind the mischief chose to make itself known. It never did. They had never had any trouble with the “E” until last week. The “G” was another story altogether, having annoyed them for years like a misbehaving child with its tendency to lean slightly out of line of the other letters. It often drooped, or swung with the wind; twice it had mysteriously turned backwards in the night.
The first time it fell off entirely (the first of what was to be four instances in the thirteen-year history of HUGE DOUGHNUTS) the gravity of the slightly convex cube that was the “G” collided with the forward movement of a red Chevy van which was at that moment swinging into a parking space in front of the shop. Its blue and white plastic crunched and splintered onto the hood, leaving a mess of shards in the entry way, an insurance settlement to be paid, and a revision of the identity of the bakery. At night the gap in the letters was less noticeable as the newly transformed HU E DOUGHNUTS shone through the neighborhood with the promise, not of size, but of light.
Loretta and Hugo Huge did not, in fact, embody the bulk that their name suggested. Slight people of birdlike intensity, successful in both metabolism and business, they were able to eat many of the pastries they produced (which were larger than usual—a slogan and a selling point) day after day without gaining the usual pounds and peevishness associated with their product. Thirteen years ago, when Hugo had asked for Loretta’s hand simultaneously in marriage and in store partnership (the name of which he had decided on in Loretta’s company at the Saturday night Scrabble competition), he had proposed simply.
Loretta had just finished arranging her tiles into a vertical exclamation, transforming the monotonous “chant” into the charming “enchantment.” Hugo took advantage of the fire in her eye, the call of his heart, and the magic in the room to ask, “How do you like HUGE DOUGHNUTS?”
Loretta instantly intuited his meaning. “I think I say I dough,” she replied.
They were the sort of people who liked puns and puzzles, odd hours, and controlled, hands-on labor. They took life’s surprises—tremendous financial success, bad luck with pedigree dachshunds, and childlessness—in stride and mostly with good humor.
Loretta liked the way her last name made an ironic comment on her size and gave a good chuckle to customers when they discovered that it meant more than the radius of the chocolate glazes. And, she had to admit, she especially liked those times when the “G,” acting up or falling down, reinvented the shop as HU E DOUGHNUTS. It was, well … colorful. She felt, in her new identity, not like someone who was missing a letter, or a sound, or a part of life, but like a person who had gained something: perspective, or even a separate and brilliant spectrum. She felt her banter with customers lighten; she felt her aura, or her spirit (her imagination, Hugo said) brighten with clarity.
When the trouble with the “E” began and eventually left them as HUG DOUGHNUTS, Loretta’s spirit did not soar. She felt as if she had landed in a hippie commune of pastries, where everyone was expected to touch all the time. It was sticky. “Hug a tree” or “Have you hugged your child (éclair?) today?” paraded through her mind. She and Hugo discussed the options for restoring the sign. They agreed on when (as soon as possible; neither could fathom operating under that moniker for long), but not about how.
What had happened was this: over a week’s time the blue lettering of the “E” on its plastic white cube (was the blue coloring paint? Ink? Dye? Loretta had never had an occasion to ponder it) faded until it completely disappeared. There was no explanation, and no other letter was affected. Whereas the “G”’s antics had perhaps been the work of an irritating but familiar poltergeist, the “E” seemed to have developed quickly and ominously into a black hole, imploding upon itself and achieving invisibility. Loretta secretly worried that the land on which the shop rested had become a time warp, or had always been haunted. One thing was clear: Loretta needed a change. “It’s a sign.”
“Yes,” replied Hugo, “and it needs to be repaired.” He was already defensive, anticipating her direction.
“I was thinking,” she said, “that it needs to be replaced.”
A pause.
“With what?”
“Well, I’m not sure. I mean, there are all kinds of names we could come up with. Something kooky, something lively, or … ”
“Different?”“Yes, Hugo, different. We’ve projected our own name from a marquee for a good long time. Why not change? Especially now with the “E”; it’s providential.” She took his hands. “I feel that the sign is telling us something.”
A sigh.
“Honey, try to understand. I am the shop, you know? I am—we are … HUGE, each of us. A name, our name, doesn’t it say something? Identity, heritage, dreams, future? I’m not sure I’d know who I was if I saw another word up there in front of DOUGHNUTS. It’s like looking in a mirror.”
Loretta stared. “Sweetheart, sometimes a person needs more to look at than that.”
Though tired from arguing, Hugo rose earlier than usual the next morning and took the Scrabble game from the closet. After a quarrel, whoever had been more at fault, more unyielding, or was more willing to apologize would leave a message for the other. Hugo certainly did not think he was at fault in any way, but he sensed that Loretta felt forlorn and confused about many things, and so he took the lead. The message consisted of the words tend, dewy, travel, lovely, and lucky, spelled with intersecting Scrabble tiles.
Although they hadn’t spoken much in the shop, there was a friendly compatibility between them as they baked. Before he gathered his list, notebook, and satchel, as he did every Tuesday, to go have lunch and do errands downtown, Loretta smiled and said, “What do you mean by ‘travel’?”
“Who knows?” sparkled Hugo. “Perhaps there’s a spaceship waiting for us right now, out back by the apple tree. Perhaps I’ve learned to travel through time, and I’ll bring you back a spice from the future that hasn’t been grown yet. Perhaps … an unknown destination awaits you.”
In BOB’S, the café on the sixth floor of the Roberts Building, Hugo ate his usual mushroom omelette. For a moment, he mused on the name Bob, a strong, direct sign of confidence, and a palindrome, at that! Was his own name somehow lacking in energy, in chivalry? He thought of Loretta’s imagination, her maturing and wiry body, her tearful confession of boredom. Yes, he felt change in the air today; he felt change in his body like a butterfly flapping against his skin. Although they had finally compromised that the sign would remain HUGE DOUGHNUTS for another year, he was disturbed at Loretta’s restlessness, the claustrophobia about her. He would take her on an exotic trip, he had decided, somewhere tropical, balmy, un-city-like. Romantic.
Hugo paused in the lobby as he waited for the elevator. He would go up to the sixteenth floor from here and order a new “E” cube for the sign, talking first with John at the desk about dachshunds. Later, he would buy guidebooks at the bookstore before stopping at the market for groceries. He couldn’t wait to present Loretta with his surprise.
In the elevator, doors closed, Hugo, the sole passenger, pressed the button marked “16.” He searched for the one word he could utter to Loretta to indicate his vacation idea before he realized that no number had illuminated and the car remained still. He pressed “16” again, then “15,” “14,” “13.” Nothing. His mind settled on “Bismarck,” the sea or the islands, as his one-word clue for exotic adventure, as well as for his commitment to his and Loretta’s continuing endeavor in the bakery. His skin tingled. The cubicle jolted and the “Emergency” button lit up. Hugo wondered about the meaning of this as he rose to an anonymous floor. Or, as he thought to himself, shifting uncomfortably from foot to foot, how did he know he was really going up at all?
-
Boy Trouble
My five-year-old son, Peter, is standing in the middle of the practice rink at Parade Ice Garden in Minneapolis. The other children, coached for this moment by their parents, can push off their skate edges in a wobbly glide. Peter hasn’t made the connection that skating is an entirely different motion from walking. He marches across the ice, arms akimbo, his blades tick, tick, ticking where they should carve and slide.
My stomach turns queasy. I feel as though my husband, Walter, and I have sent Peter off to kindergarten without teaching him how to spell his name. A tiny boy flails into Peter and knocks him down.
“He checked him,” I yell, grabbing Walter’s arm.
Walter winces, too, but because his role in our marriage is to play calm to my storm, he takes a more benign point of view. “I think the kid just didn’t know how to stop,” he says.
“But Peter can’t skate,” I say. “This is torture.”
“It’s torture for you,” Walter answers. “But he’s hanging in there. At least he’s not crying.”
A hockey player from a family of hockey players, Walter is confident that, given time, Peter will catch on. I share neither his confidence nor his enthusiasm. As I watch Peter struggle to keep his balance, I think back on a dinner party we went to when I was pregnant. I was in a crisis because the baby growing inside me wasn’t the girl I’d always envisioned. I think that the shock—or was it denial?—that I was having a boy was what made me announce that no son of mine would ever play hockey.
The hosts, parents of two girls and two boys, rolled their eyes. “Why not?” the wife asked. “It’s a meathead sport,” I answered. “And I don’t want to raise that kind of boy.” That my husband is anything but a meathead was beside the point, I explained. Then I launched into a diatribe about how the macho locker-room culture was what made Walter decide to quit after tenth grade. Hockey, as I saw it, was aggressive and overly competitive. It developed the kind of brutish instincts that I didn’t think should be encouraged in boys.
The wife had known me since junior high and reminded me that we used to play soft-puck hockey in our figure skates. “Don’t you remember how much fun that was?” she asked. “Well,” I answered, “if I have a daughter and she wants to play, I think I’d be okay with that.” As I saw it, harnessing aggression could be empowering for girls. But for boys it was the beginning of a trajectory that inevitably ended in violence. My friend retreated to the kitchen to get the dessert and her husband reached for the wine.
Pregnant with her first baby in 1955, Adrienne Rich, as she would later write, “set my heart on a son.” Her reasons ironically stemmed from a desire for self-identification. “I wanted to give birth, at twenty-five, to my unborn self,” she explained in Of Woman Born, “the self that our father-centered family had suppressed in me, someone independent, actively willing, original—those possibilities I had felt in myself in flashes as a young student and writer, and from which, during pregnancy, I was to close myself off. If I wanted to give birth to myself as a male, it was because males seemed to inherit those qualities by right of gender.”
Thirty years after those words were published, few Americans need to have boys to harvest the crops or take over the family law firm. Those women who have benefited most from feminism’s advances into the mainstream––namely the educated, career-oriented American women who populate my slice of the world––don’t need sons to live out our unrealized dreams. Why would we? Daughters, who are a closer approximation to us, can do it instead.
I understood when I got pregnant that it was possible Walter and I could conceive a boy. But I didn’t believe it. Part of my blind spot, I’m sure, stemmed from experience. I was the oldest of four sisters and went to an all-girls school until I was in fifth grade. None of my childhood friends were boys. Girlhood was the only world I knew.
My education encouraged this viewpoint. In 1986, while attending Barnard College, I was handpicked by my favorite English professor to join a campus feminist literary magazine called Eve’s Rib. When a Columbia student, whom I’ll call Josh, asked to join our cozy, all-woman collective, we debated the consequences of opening up the membership. Josh told us that he had been deeply influenced by the feminist theory he had learned in his courses and that he wanted men to also benefit from the movement’s insistence that both sexes are wronged by the patriarchy. We wondered aloud if his earnestness was really a ploy to sleep with one of us, but agreed that we shouldn’t discriminate against him because he happened to be a guy.
Josh’s first job was to design a cover using an inkblot illustration that we felt was both abstract and sophisticated enough for our endeavor. His finished product, however, was not what we had hoped for. Josh had, we decided, phallocentrically set all the type thrusting into the inkblot’s blank spaces. “This is what happens when you let the patriarchy in,” one of my colleagues announced. Josh had to go.
If I tell this story with the same bemusement I use to recount my children’s learning experiences, I want to make it clear that I’m not recanting my feminist education. Feminism, as it was taught in the 1980s, wasn’t a share-your-feelings detour away from rigorous thinking. Rather, it was a disciplined, intellectually engaging philosophy that showed young women like me how to critique the world around us. It taught me not only how to challenge male privilege—no inconsequential realization when you consider that twenty years later men still earn more than women and hold the overwhelming majority of government positions—but to question my own lofty position as a rich white kid.
What feminism didn’t teach me was that mother love messes with ideology. Today when I think about Josh, I wonder not only about what all of us in the collective missed by not trying to work out a solution with him, but also whether Josh talked to his mother about his expulsion from our garden. Did she see it as a kind of historical corrective and valuable learning experience? Or did she imagine her almost-grown son as a vulnerable boy standing in the middle of a skating rink?
When I got pregnant, most of my friends had daughters. I had watched them raise their girls, my mental notebook filling with ideas for when my time came. I was enchanted by the attention they paid to encouraging their girls’ uniqueness. One wrote books about body image and classroom self-esteem for junior high school girls, and she and her husband put her research into practice at home with their two daughters. Their living room was stacked with library books portraying spunky female characters like Pippi Longstocking and Reckless Ruby, an aspiring firefighter who cringes when her mother calls her “precious.” My friend bought (or sewed) only clothes the girls could stain or rip when jumping off the highest rung of the monkey bars or calibrating the liquid to dirt ratio of a mud hole. When the older daughter got her period, the entire family celebrated with an all-red dinner: spaghetti with tomato sauce and heart-shaped meatballs, sliced bell peppers, and cran-raspberry juice.
This was how I imagined I’d raise my daughters, too. I assumed mothering a girl would come naturally to me because she would possess more of the qualities that I valued: She would be less physical, more creative, more connected to her parents when she became an adult.
At our week nineteen ultrasound, the doctor pointed a pen at a skinny triangle sticking out from between the baby’s legs. “So you tell me,” he said. “What do you think we have here?”
I stared at the screen. At first I couldn’t make out anything, but I forced my eyes to focus on what looked to me like a crescent moon with a blob in the middle. The doctor explained it was the baby’s butt and the bottom sides of the thighs. The moon wiggled. I squinted to get a closer focus. And then I saw it. That triangle, that blob. It was the baby’s labia.
I couldn’t believe it was so obvious.
“A girl?” I whispered.
Walter raised his eyebrows at the doctor. Then he put his hand on my shoulder. “Honey,” he said. “That’s a penis.”
That I was disappointed by the news was deeply troubling. Our baby was, after all, healthy. But what was equally disturbing—and perhaps more surprising—was the tepid response I got from a lot of other women. “Well, at least you’ll raise him to be a good man,” they said. “We need more women like you to have boys.”
Before I got pregnant, I would have agreed with them. Before I got pregnant, I also said this to friends who were expecting boys. The promise of feminism as I learned it (but obviously wasn’t ready to put into play when it came to Josh) lay in the liberation of both sexes from rigid gender roles. Women gain access to the upper reaches of institutional power and change them to not be so hierarchical, and men are finally allowed to enjoy an emotional world our culture previously denied them. A feminist education tells boys they can be vulnerable, that they are worth more than the thickness of their wallets. A feminist education instructs boys and men that the search for an authentic self is a birthright. It challenges the callous assumption that men’s lives can be disposed of for national defense.
All of these convictions didn’t matter in the face of my ignorance and fear of boys. I wondered how it could be that I—a woman with massive ambivalence about her child’s gender—could be the right kind of woman to have a son. To me, boys were not individuals, but rather a gang of sports-crazy thugs. If they were not part of a pack, they were anti-social future engineers who shunned sunlight in favor of an afternoon fiddling with an erector set or working a computer keyboard. I made exceptions, of course: My husband, my brother-in-law, all the men I was lucky enough to call friends. But these were men. With the exception of my adored nephew, who was less than one year old, I didn’t know any boys intimately well.
If a man with a similarly negative view of girlhood was to have a daughter, I know what my friends and I would have called it: A tragedy. Why then, was it good that I might (might) influence my son to be less “like a man”? Was it because I had noble opinions about what could, in an ideal world, make a man? Or because I wanted to raise a man who would have enlightened ideas about women? If the job of a parent is to encourage a child to grow into their own unique self, it was clear that I was in trouble.Worried that I would be a complete failure as a mother, I called my only close friend who had a son and tearfully admitted that I was terrified of having a boy. “Loving a child has nothing to do with gender,” she assured me. “This little boy will steal your heart.”
My friend was right, of course. Now that I am the mother of two boys—our younger, Henrik, is two years old—I’m so steeped in the marvelous complexities of boyhood that it’s almost impossible for me to relate to that pregnant woman sobbing into the phone. Like all parents, I believe that my boys—as well as the daughter my husband and I are adopting—are the children I was meant to have. But more than that, I believe that my sons were the children I needed to have.
In Sexual Personae, Camille Paglia writes, “When I cross the George Washington Bridge or any of America’s great bridges, I think—men have done this. Construction is a sublime male poetry.” Ten years ago, I would have tried to dismantle her praise by pointing out that at the time the George Washington Bridge was built, people didn’t believe women could physically handle the rigors of manual labor—not to mention engineering. Now, I am moved by the fact of the accomplishment and Paglia’s determination to claim it as such. I still hope that today’s bridge builders and designers are both men and women and that my sons can grow up to choose to be stay-at-home dads, if that’s what they want (or, more important in today’s realities, can afford).
Because of my sons, I look at people as individuals rather than representations. Boys are not monsters. Nor are girls naturally kinder and gentler. That’s not to say that even this more nuanced idealism goes untested. In my short parenting career, I have steered Peter away from a Southern belle Halloween costume and talked him out of a pair of pink-feathered mules. Sure, I bought him a purse and the Barbie he begged for, but if I’m honest with myself I’ll admit that it was because I knew he wouldn’t take them out of the house. Or at least not beyond the backyard, which is where I last spotted the doll, naked and face down in a clump of damp leaves. The fact that I will gladly let my daughter parade around as Spiderman or cart a convoy of trucks to the playground strikes me as one of the greater inconsistencies in my philosophy. Partly, this censoring comes from an understanding that the world we live in is still suspicious of and frightened by boys who walk outside prescribed guy boundaries, and I don’t want my sons to be emotionally taunted or physically harmed. But I worry that by going along with these rules, I’m reinforcing the notion that they can’t express everything they are in public. By indulging my protective instinct, I’m foregoing efforts to make America, or at least my corner of it, a better place for boys of any stripe.
At the same time, I’ve told Peter that he isn’t allowed to wear camouflage and that Santa doesn’t make plastic rifles. When Peter got to check out his first books from the school library, his choices were The Navy: At War and The Air Force: At War. While I wished that he had chosen the sled dog picture book that the girl in our car pool clasped in her hands, I knew this was more about his newfound ability to figure out what he thinks without his parents’ stage management. So we went home and read both books cover to cover. Two weeks later he told me: “I don’t like killing and I am for peace. But I still think looking at guns and weapons is interesting.” The next book he checked out was about skeletons and skin.
Today my home life is a blur of crayons, clay, and blocks, not to mention a fleet of construction vehicles and toilet paper rolls turned into weapons—often pointed in my direction. I’ve given up trying to stop the shooting, mostly because I’m too overwhelmed to spend my entire day playing peace cop—and I figure that if they are happily engaged I’ll get a chance to read the paper—but also because I trust that they won’t grow into men who believe that killing people is a sport. I hope to have accomplished at least this much as a mother. If I didn’t have sons, all the paper cannon-building would horrify me. But because I understand the tender hearts of both these boys in particular, I feel that it’s healthier for them to work out their aggression than to suppress it. (Who knows, maybe the mothers of playground bullies think the same way.)
That doesn’t mean that I’ve reconciled myself to the militaristic expectations our culture has for its boys. In 1976, in the shadow of the Vietnam War, Adrienne Rich wrote that under patriarchy, all mothers of sons worked for the army. Today, even with American forces stretched to their limits in Iraq, there is no draft. But the deeper truth of Rich’s statement still stings. Whenever I go to Target, I’m struck by how somber and boring the boys’ cargo pants and striped T-shirts are compared to the glittery oranges and pinks and purples across the aisle. And don’t get me started on the rows and rows of fighter jets (which my sons adore) and Legos that turn into endless variations on the grim reaper. Even though I find these norms dispiriting, I dress my sons in the standard American boy uniform and cut their hair short. And when the top item on Peter’s Christmas list was an aircraft carrier, I decided not to be too hard-core about my conscientious objections.
The other day I overheard Peter humming a tune from Mary Poppins. “We’re clearly soldiers in petticoats/And dauntless crusaders for women’s votes/Though we adore men individually/We agree that as a group they’re rather stupid.” I could tell by the way he was mumbling the words that it was the tune that mattered to him and that he hadn’t processed the song’s meaning. But listening to him did make me wonder how I’ll talk to him about the personal revolution his birth set in motion for me. While I hope that what my boys feel most powerfully is my unyielding love for them, I suspect that one day we will all have to reckon with the complicated emotions I brought into our family-making.
When Walter and I decided to have a third child, we agreed to adopt. Part of the reason was because we wanted to choose our baby’s gender, to parent a girl. Though I deeply love my boys, I still wish to put all those girl power philosophies into play. The desire is like a phantom limb. I wonder, though, about the crown of expectations I’ve made for my daughter. I’ll have to remember that she’s not a mini me. I’ll have to be supportive and bite my tongue, even if she wants to wear pink dresses and bake pies for the rest of her life.
Two weeks after that wretched first hockey practice, Peter learned that by pushing off the edge of his blade, he could travel farther than if he just walked across the ice. To glide and keep his balance was a thrill for him. Not to mention a revelation for me. A hockey player, I suddenly realized, must not only master the difficulties of skating, but combine that skill with quick reflexes and hand-eye coordination. In the glow of Peter’s newfound enthusiasm, nothing about hockey—except perhaps those infamous 5:30 a.m. ice times—repulsed me. When Peter scored a goal during a scrimmage, I was so excited that I called my mother from the rink.
Last week during practice, I wandered over to the vending machines near the main rink where members of a junior high team were being put through their drills. It wasn’t until I got closer that I was able to make out the ponytails falling down their padded backs. Before Peter was born, this would have been the only game at Parade Ice Garden that I cared about. Today it’s the icing on the cake. For as much as I would love to stay and cheer these girls on, I leave. My son is learning how to stickhandle. And I want to be there to see it.
-
Spit Hits the Fan
Minnesotans have every reason to be proud of the numerous smoking bans on the way for bars and restaurants in municipalities throughout the state. After all, the clean-air initiatives associate us with such enlightened populations as the city of New York, the state of California, and even the entire country of Ireland, where the average pub once trapped air as thick as a good stout. The ashtray may go the way of the spittoon.
Or maybe not. Once the peculiar vice of baseball players, ranchers, and unruly teenage boys, chewing tobacco is now being positioned as the cigarette substitute of choice for urban hipsters. (Yes, for women, too.)
One highly sissified, minty-flavored “smokeless tobacco” has been advertising energetically in alternative weekly newspapers here and elsewhere. These ads have typically been two-page campaigns where a dilemma is identified on the first page. For example, Metrosexual Joe watches the Big Game at the local sports bar with his buddies. He is galled because he must either skip his nicotine fix or miss the action as he and his cigarettes decamp to the parking lot. But turn the page and—voila—a fat dip of Skoal is the answer to his prayers. Now he doesn’t have to miss a single play or dose. It’s like TiVo for your bloodstream.
Of course, Skoal also gives metrosexuals increased exposure to oral cancer and cardiovascular disease, along with decreased exposure to members of the opposite sex, who will surely look askance at that black wad in a petitioner’s teeth as he tries to score a phone number. It is no improvement in the breath category, either.
Joni Jensen, a project manager at the University of Minnesota’s Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center, said chew is a trend we should hope to avoid. “Smokeless tobacco in and of itself is less harmful than cigarettes, but it’s still not risk-free,” she said. “If it’s being advertised to be used not as a substitute to cigarettes but in addition to cigarettes, you’re actually increasing your risk. If people who might have quit because of the smoking bans are instead marketed into using a smokeless tobacco product, it’s going to have a negative public health effect.”
Jensen noted that smokeless tobacco is actually more addictive, because it gives the brain a steady buzz of nicotine rather than the quick spike and slow letdown provided by a cigarette, and the new “starter flavors” (apple, berry, vanilla) clearly indicate a product trying to appeal to a new market segment.
Then there’s the problem of secondhand saliva. Chewing tobacco waned in popularity in the early 1900s when it was banned in public due to fear of exacerbating a tuberculosis outbreak. And besides, it’s just gross. “Anybody who’s ever picked up a Coke can that somebody’s been spitting into and thought it was theirs would complain about the exposure to secondhand saliva,” Jensen said.
But Jon Schwartz, an enthusiastic spokesman for U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company, said the days of spit-filled bottles at bars will soon be a thing of the past, thanks to something called Revel. It is a new smokeless tobacco product that’s being test-marketed in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Dallas, Texas.
“Revel is a blend of premium, one hundred percent American tobacco that comes in mint and wintergreen,” said Schwartz, apparently reading directly from the company’s website. “It’s a small, discreet white packet, smaller than a piece of gum, and adult consumers can place it anywhere in their mouth where it’s comfortable and quickly enjoy tobacco satisfaction.” (Yes, he really talks like this.) “And many adult consumers who use it don’t feel the need to expectorate—or spit. That makes it a little more attractive to use.”
But is it any safer to use than Skoal? Or cigarettes? “Oh, we don’t make health claims,” Schwartz nervously pointed out. “That’s not something that we do as a company. Our objective as a company is to expand our category. There are millions of adult smokers in the U.S., and that universe of adult tobacco users is an opportunity to reach a new audience.” As anyone knows, it will not be identified as a serious new trend until Ikea starts stocking polyethylene spittoons.
—Patrick Donnelly
-
The Iowa Death Zone
Unless you happen to be as rugged as I am—which is, I realize, highly unlikely—you probably aren’t familiar with the Peakbaggers, a loose-knit but increasingly large group of highly motivated self-starters determined to scale the highest points of all fifty states (and, for the true completists among us, the District of Columbia).
The Peakbaggers also have an official sub-club, the Highpointers, who publish several fine guidebooks to help climbers in their quest. Peak bagging is, as you might imagine, an arduous, expensive, and frequently lonely hobby. Many of the high points are very high indeed (Alaska’s Mount McKinley is 20,320 feet), and require the sort of courage and mountaineering skill I haven’t yet mustered. I’m working my way up, though, and have already tackled Florida’s Britton Hill (345 feet), Mississippi’s Woodall Mountain (806 feet), Illinois’s Charles Mound (1,235 feet), and Minnesota’s own Eagle Mountain (2,301 feet). If my records are correct, I’ve so far bagged six or seven high points, and last year, in perhaps my most memorable and challenging summit experience to date, I managed to scale Hawkeye Point, the highest elevation in Iowa.
I started my trek to Hawkeye Point from Bigelow, Minnesota, which is, according to the sign just outside of town, the “Home of Swampy Days.” On the border with Iowa, southwest of Worthington, Bigelow is two miles north of Hawkeye Point. It is the launch site for most expeditions to Iowa’s summit. Folks in Bigelow have grown up in the shadow of the fabled Point, and the town’s guides and outfitters do a modest business. There is also a large ranch just outside of town where llamas can presumably be rented to haul gear from the base camp to the peak, and there is no shortage of stout local lads who are willing to provide this service as well.
I, however, was determined to make the climb solo, entirely unassisted, and without supplemental oxygen. I set out from Bigelow early in the morning under a bright and cloudless sky. According to conventional wisdom, there is a ten-week optimal window of opportunity for tackling Hawkeye Point—generally from late March through early June, after the threat of winter storms has passed and before the oppressive humidity of mid-summer in Iowa sets in. While I had a support vehicle along for my ascent, I had vowed to make the trip from Bigelow on foot, and sent my companions ahead to establish a base camp and begin emergency readiness preparations. After a relatively easy two-hour hike I arrived at the Donna and Merrill Sterler farm. The Sterlers are corn and soybean farmers, and Hawkeye Point is located in the north-central corner of their 187-acre tract. There are very few high points in the United States that are situated on private property, and the Sterlers were entirely ignorant of the fact that they were living on the roof of Iowa until Merrill encountered surveyors nosing around his farm in 1970.
These men were members of an official state topographical expedition assigned the arduous task of locating Iowa’s high point. Months of difficult work came to a startling conclusion that day on the Sterler farm, as the surveyors, trudging through the fierce winds that have foiled many subsequent expeditions to Hawkeye Point, planted their flag on the summit and pronounced themselves satisfied that they had reached their goal. Their findings, however, would not be official until 1972, when Hawkeye Point—at 1,670 feet—received formal acknowledgement as the highest elevation in all of Iowa.
After stopping briefly to chat with Mrs. Sterler, who was preparing lunch and has lived on the property virtually all of her life (her parents moved to town in 1946, she says, but six years later Donna and her husband, then recently married, settled back in at the old family home and resumed farming), I set out for Hawkeye Point. The trek ended at the summit, three hundred yards from the back door, and took me across grassy terrain that required navigating around a few rocks and patches of spring mud. I had to pause just below the Point to catch my breath, and there was one brief, harrowing moment when I lost radio contact with my support staff (which was hunkered down in a Subaru station wagon on a gravel road one-eighth of a mile from the summit).
I had no sooner reached the U.S. geological survey marker that officially signals the highest point in Iowa when dark clouds began to roll in and the wind began to pick up, carrying sharp granules of dirt and the whiff of ammonium fertilizer. The always-temperamental Point allowed me one brief but unforgettable vista of fields stretching away far into the distance.
Before I began my hurried descent I took time to sign the official logbook, and noted (with considerable and—if I dare say—justifiable pride) that each year fewer people successfully attempt Hawkeye Point than climb Mount Everest.
—Brad Zellar
-
A Higher Power
In America today, Jesus is pop culture’s King of Kings, a force in politics, film, music, and books. In the world of contemporary art, though, his presence is less established. While modern curators always seems to make room for dung-smeared Madonnas and crucifixes in urine, where are the works of genuine, unironic reverence? Not in Manhattan’s most influential galleries. Not in Artforum.
But one Sunday last fall, at least, one such work made the cover of the New York Times Magazine. To illustrate a story about religion in the workplace, it featured an Alec Soth photo of an office in Riverview Community Bank, the Christ-centered financial institution in Otsego, Minnesota. The photo showed a curvilinear desk, a burgundy armchair, and—most prominently—a spectacular painting hanging on the plain white wall.
The Senior Partner depicts a stately downtown office, where two clean-cut executives confer with Jesus over a laptop. Dressed in business casual robes, the Good Shepherd looks completely at home in this environment: confident, resolved, a rainmaker, ready to close the deal in enthusiastically ethical fashion. It is twilight in the picture, and the lights from nearby skyscrapers pour through a picture window to bathe him in a golden halo of big-city commerce.
Even reprinted in godless fish wrap, The Senior Partner is instantly memorable. Remarkably, the Times didn’t even bother to mention the artist’s name. It was an oversight that might have driven a lesser man to despair, but Nathan Greene, the artist who painted The Senior Partner, doesn’t seem particularly interested in personal glory. Instead, the forty-four-year-old Seventh Day Adventist, who lives with his wife and children in rural Michigan, is mostly focused on spreading his vision of Christ as a compassionate, accessible presence in people’s everyday lives.
Besides, Greene’s vision is becoming increasingly popular even without the acknowledgement of the Times. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, the Tennessee Republican, has a lithograph of a Greene painting in his office. So does the Senate’s chaplain, Barry Black. The evangelical television show, It Is Written, uses a Greene portrait of Jesus in its opening credits.
For years, Greene painted in the basement of his house, but recently he bought thirteen acres of land and built a seventeen-hundred-square-foot artist’s studio on it. Today, a Greene original goes for $25,000 to $50,000, and there’s a two-year waiting list to get one. Greene is a painstaking craftsman. While composing The Introduction, which shows Jesus playing matchmaker to Adam and Eve, Greene painted and repainted Jesus’ face eight times. “He’s just passionate about every little detail,” said his agent, Dan Houghton. “In that particular case, he could not have the face of his creator less perfect than his creations.”
Typically, Greene finishes only four or five new paintings each year. To make his work available to all who want it, Houghton runs a publishing venture called Hart Classic Editions, which reproduces selected paintings as lithographs. Sometimes, Greene depicts Jesus in traditional biblical scenes, but the definitive works in his oeuvre are those like The Senior Partner, in which Jesus appears in contemporary settings: offices, operating rooms, suburban homes.
In depicting Jesus this way, Greene continues the tradition of one of his artistic heroes, Harry Anderson, a fellow Seventh Day Adventist and a popular mid-century artist whose illustrations used to appear in magazines like Colliers and the Saturday Evening Post. In 1945, an art director asked Anderson to paint something that showed Jesus in the contemporary world. He responded with What Happened to Your Hand?, which showed Jesus explaining his stigmata to a trio of curious, forties-era kids. Some found it blasphemous to portray Christ in this modern manner. Others reacted more favorably, and Anderson went on to create paintings like The Consultation (Jesus provides a second opinion at a patient’s bedside) and Christ in the City (a spectral, Godzilla-size Jesus hovers outside the U.N. Building in Manhattan).
In 1977, while Greene was in high school, his art teacher introduced him to Anderson; the art teacher thought Greene would make a good assistant to the older painter. The apprenticeship never materialized, but in 1990, when an Adventist hospital asked the retired Anderson to create two portraits of Christ in contemporary settings, Anderson encouraged it to commission Greene instead. A freelance illustrator at the time, Greene jumped at the chance to create work of a more permanent nature.
The first painting he completed, Chief of the Medical Staff, is one of his signature canvases. In a dramatic, tightly cropped composition that evokes the luminescent palette of Maxfield Parrish, Christ steadies a surgeon’s hand as he makes his initial incision. “We’ve taken that image and printed it on business cards and bookmarks,” said Todd Chobotar, director of mission development at Florida Hospital, where the original hangs in the main lobby. “We give one to every patient who goes through a procedure here. When they go into the operating room and are put under by the anesthesiologist, many are still holding their cards.”
Greene’s work has obvious populist appeal, but is it truly important art? Or just evangelical kitsch, a technically superior version of those cheap plastic figurines of the Son of God playing football with schoolkids? “I really want to avoid anything that could be perceived as corny when I depict Christ,” Greene said. And even at its most sentimental, his work is never mere décor: While millions of Americans profess to have a close personal relationship with Jesus now, few artists working in any medium have documented this phenomenon as tellingly as Greene has.
Also, Greene perfectly conjures the upbeat, have-it-all ethos of today’s evangelicals. Consider one of his most striking works, The Introduction, which depicts Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Chaperoned by Jesus, the pair stare at each other like lovers on the cover of a romance novel. The surprisingly metrosexual Adam wears razor-cut sideburns, and bares a smoothly waxed chest. Eve has the serious, no-nonsense beauty of a female contestant on The Apprentice; she may be wearing just a touch of lipstick.
Like many artists, Greene paints from live models (or more specifically, he takes photos of live models, then refers to those photos throughout the many months it takes him to finish a canvas). In real life, Adam is a fashion model from Miami, Eve a model from New York. So it’s possible the anachronistic facets are accidental. But whatever Greene’s intent, the end result is a brilliant synthesis of reverence and pop culture. Indeed, compare The Introduction to Michelangelo’s Temptation and Fall. In the latter, Adam and Eve are being chased out of Paradise by an angel with a sword, their faces contorted with fear and shame. In Greene’s painting, Eden looks like a fun, sexy place to spend eternity. There’s no serpent in sight, and no forbidden fruit, either. A placid tiger and a curious giraffe observe history’s first blind date. In the distance, there are leafy green palm trees, cascading waterfalls, a couple of flamingos. It looks like Hawaii, if Hawaii were a casino in Las Vegas.—Greg Beato
-
Plan of Action
According to hundreds of billboards, bus sides, and direct mailings: Do.
Of course, you are already doing something. You are reading a billboard. As you do, you learn this is not enough in the doing department. You should “groove your body for ten minutes three times a day.” Grooving includes such agreeable activities as dog walking, skipping, and snowman building. It does not include reading. (Reading about the Do campaign in a magazine is, one hopes, a sort of awareness-building limbo.)
On the other hand, if this all sounds pretty unambitious to you, you’re probably not in the target market. Even as the Surgeon General is recommending sixty minutes of physical activity per American adult each day, it is Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota that is taking this more direct approach. It is aiming to get the most sedentary—and expensive—Minnesotans on their feet.
“Do is directed at people who aren’t physically active,” said Dr. Marc Manley. He is the director of Blue Cross’s Center for Tobacco Reduction and Health Improvement. That is the rather flat-sounding name of the organization responsible for these upbeat ads. “We’re trying to get them on something that’s manageable. We’re trying to help them understand that moving’s fun.” The campaign’s most guerilla feature is something Manley calls “decision prompts”—strategically placed ads that guilt-trip you into, say, taking the stairs instead of the escalator.
Some people are confused by the bite-sized exercise tips, which are communicated via billboards, television and newspaper ads, bus wraps, and “spectaculars” (that’s ad lingo for 3-D installations, most notably the mirror ball hanging above Block E). There is no indication on the billboards as to who is worried about their health. Blue Cross’s name does not appear anywhere on the billboards, although its logo does show up in newspaper and television versions, alongside its co-sponsor, the American Heart Association. Manley said, “We didn’t want to clutter it up.” As a result, many Do admirers assume it is a state-sponsored public service campaign.
So what’s in it for Blue Cross? Put simply, because fat people contract cancer and heart disease almost as often as smokers, the state’s largest health insurer claims to pay out the nose to treat the inactivity-related illnesses of an increasingly corpulent populace. It would seem, then, that Blue Cross’s strategy is to save money by spending; the company said it expects to save two dollars on health spending for every dollar spent on Do—with the fringe benefit of possibly improving the health of some people whom it does not insure. (By contrast, United Health Care—the Minnesota-based insurer that pays CEO William McGuire around $100 million per year—is apparently too hard-pressed to care about the public’s laziness.)
Dr. Manley’s office is, in fact, now the de facto public health arm of Blue Cross of Minnesota. It was founded in 1999 after the company, which was then preoccupied with smoking, successfully sued a group of tobacco companies. Blue Cross’s very public, very lucrative payout in that lawsuit compelled it to launch the center, which is wholly devoted to spreading good health across Minnesota.
As the center gained momentum over its first five years, a survey of the public-health situation revealed a landscape in which love handles are more pervasive than smoker’s cough. This inspired Do. The $6.7 million campaign—Blue Cross’s biggest initiative ever—buys a lot of billboards and bus shelters. It seems like an earnest effort rather than a perfunctory public-relations campaign, especially since all $460 million of Blue Cross’s tobacco settlement is still tangled up in litigation.
Manley won’t venture a guess as to when the tobacco settlement dollars will be available, but in the meantime, he said, the center won’t be twiddling its thumbs. “We’re going ahead as best as we can with health improvement programs, but not at the level we will once we can use those dollars,” he said. In other words, those commands to “groove your body,” as widespread as they seem, are just the beginning of what may be a permanent ad campaign nagging you to get off your duff. That huffing sound you now hear is the result of a sort of corporate body-groove: It is local ad agencies and media companies hyperventilating.—Christy DeSmith
-
Shack Style
Some people find great pleasure in a roomful of antiques. Others wonder, not without their own selfish pleasure, who gets to do the dusting. In either case, ever since “Famous” Dave Anderson piled stoneware crocks, license plates, mounted deer heads, and loads of other vintage goods from his personal collection into his Linden Hills BBQ joint, the customers have been delighted—a crucial factor in the restaurant’s success.
Now, of course, Famous Dave’s is a publicly traded company (Nasdaq: DAVE) with more than a hundred restaurants across the country. (It has grown even more quickly than another homegrown chain, Buca, which makes liberal use of Italian kitsch in its décor.) Each one is bedecked as profusely with old-timey goods as the original restaurant. With still more franchises opening all the time, it would be perfectly reasonable to wonder: Where does all of this stuff—hundreds of enameled coffee pots; Paul Bunyan decanters by the dozen; seven-foot chainsaw-sculpture bears; heaps of snowshoes, fishing jackets, tobacco tins—come from?
The simple answer is Famous Dave’s headquarters in Eden Prairie. At the back of its corporate offices, past all of the gray-flannel cubicles, is a door leading to a massive, state-of-the-art warehouse. Thousands of square feet are filled with twenty-foot-high industrial shelves, which shelves are laden with umpteen carefully categorized and inventoried objects, which objects are destined to generate admiration, surprise, nostalgia, wonder, and other generally warm feelings in diners from Smithtown, Long Island, to Tempe, Arizona.
“A lot of people who come back to the restaurant want to sit in a different room each time, so that they can take in everything,” Dave Leach told a visitor the other day. He should know. As head of the décor and design department, Leach presides over Famous Dave’s warehouse of wonders, and has had a hand in decorating quite a few of those hundred-plus restaurants. (Business got brisk enough that he now has a partner, Greg Bartholomew, a former antiques dealer.) Leach is a man of few words, but after talking with him for a while it becomes apparent that he takes great pride in his work, and he’s aware that he has a brand of dream job.
When Leach gets word of a new Famous Dave’s, he first notes which model it will be: roadhouse shack, northwoods lodge, or the just-developed smokehouse design. Then he begins pulling items from the warehouse inventory, creating what he calls “vignettes” for the various restaurant spaces that evoke a farmhouse kitchen, a bait shop, an old-timer’s garage, a hunting shack or fish house, and so on. “It’s not just a display,” Leach said. “There’s a reason for everything to be where it is.” And a reason to stay there. To foil sticky fingers, each item on a shelf or in a cabinet gets glued down, from a Baby Ben alarm clock to a pickle jar of puzzle pieces. “Someone once ripped a decoy off a shelf,” said Leach. “They pulled so hard they took part of the shelf with it.” Once assembled, every last component, from a curio cabinet to salvaged church pews for the waiting area, gets shipped out from the warehouse.
The original Famous Dave’s décor has largely been translated to a series of formulas and templates, such that Leach can note offhand that twenty to twenty-four coffee pots get sent to each restaurant. But he and Bartholomew have leeway to add custom touches, such as Southwestern pottery for restaurants in Arizona, or Big Red memorabilia for those in Nebraska. (And if a sentimental franchisee wants to display a few of his own antiques, well, they’ll diplomatically integrate them.)
Leach maintains the inventory, every last item of which is tagged and registered in a database, with the help of a network of dealers and collectors in Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and elsewhere. Once a dealer has accumulated a sizable pile of stuff, someone from corporate retrieves it with a truck. Leach also attends the bigger circuit sales himself, most every weekend from March through October. “I still like to beat the bushes to find something unique that can really help make a restaurant,” he said. But there’s another secret to creating atmosphere at a Famous Dave’s restaurant. Not everything is real.
Leach takes what looks like a can of motor oil from a warehouse shelf. It is actually a carved block of wood that has been meticulously painted, right down to the intricate stipples of black and brown amid silver and red that evoke years of accumulated grease and dust. There are also “Aladdin Angler” prop Thermoses (real ones can fetch sixty dollars) whose lids, Leach says, are grocery-store takeout containers painted a shiny enamel red. The artists and craftsmen who create these fakes are world-class counterfeiters, but Leach is tight-lipped about them. Company secrets. In fact, he’s about as willing to reveal that information as he is eager to hear from people who want to sell their old stuff. In other words, don’t ring him up about the decoys you inherited from Grandpa. He’s got plenty, thank you.—Julie Caniglia
-
Getting Current
If you were a Minneapolis bohemian ten years ago, you might have found yourself packed into a downtown nightclub for what was then one of the city’s most popular bands, the Beatifics. Back then, the band was promoting its first album, How I Learned to Stop Worrying, a collection of gloomy love’s-lost lyrics and power-pop melodies. The now-legendary radio station Rev 105 was giving it a regular spin right up until the day Rev died, in 1996. As a result, track one—“Almost Something There,” a swell bubblegum anthem—had become a local hit with crusty hipsters and high school cheerleaders alike.
Since the demise of Rev 105, and thus of most programming of local music during waking hours, the Beatifics suffered a fall from radio grace. Their 2002 album, The Way We Never Were, fell on deaf ears at Drive 105 and Cities 97, the surviving corporate FM stations that feign devotion to local music. (The Beatifics remained darlings of the AM dial at the low-powered, student-run Radio K, God bless them.)
Their luck changed in late January when Minnesota Public Radio launched its new station, the Current. Beatifics frontman Chris Dorn and his friends report that the new station, staffed by some of the same Rev 105 personalities who championed his band’s first album, plays a song from How I Learned to Stop Worrying almost daily. (They don’t yet have Dorn’s second album in rotation. “I’ve been meaning to drop it by,” he said.)
Suddenly, Dorn’s music is being blasted again across the prairie on high-powered FM radio. This represents an opportunity to him and many other earnest musicians who wouldn’t otherwise be heard. In its early days, the Current aggressively worked to build a representative library of local music, one that reached beyond the Replacements and Soul Asylum (bands that somehow suffice to define the Minnesota sound farther down the dial). MPR staffers brought in their personal music collections, much of which was residual from Rev 105 days. They also called bands. They called promoters. They called distributors. They went shopping. Mary Lucia email-strafed all the musicians in her address book—all in a blanket effort to invite more local CDs. ’Twas certainly a fertile moment for musicians with stars in their eyes.
“The Current could make celebrities out of some local rockers,” said radio maven Jerry Steller, who owns a St. Paul-based promotion company that helps unsigned and indie bands get airplay. (Now that must be a long row to hoe.) Steller said there are a handful of stations like the Current in cities like Seattle, Santa Monica, and Philadelphia. Depending on their wattage and marketing might, these stations are freed from corporate playlists and can cultivate healthy music communities in their midst—replete with income-earning, recognized-by-fans-on-the-street musicians. In Steller’s estimation, the ninety-eight-thousand-watt Current has that potential, especially under the able watch of Minnesota Public Radio. “It’ll affect CD sales of local artists,” he predicted. “And a lot more people will go to shows.”
The Current is exhuming many other Rev 105 superstars, too, including Matt Wilson, Lifter Puller, and Dan Israel, who got misty about it when he appeared on Local Music with Chris Roberts, a recently added weekend show. At the same time, the station is fortifying post-Rev acts like Valet, the Olympic Hopefuls, and Atmosphere—a group so popular with concertgoers it surpassed the Replacements’ 1985 five-show-feat when it packed the Seventh Street Entry for seven days straight in January (but still hadn’t been played on a local commercial radio station). For flavor, the station also tosses in the occasional unlikely track from local jazz vocalist Prudence Johnson or folksinger Ann Reed. (This may be a consequence of forcing the square-pegged Morning Show with Dale Connelly and Jim Ed Poole into the station’s otherwise hip aesthetic. But it seems to work in the Current’s oddly felicitous iPod-on-shuffle way.)
Although Dorn is happy to be in the company of bands getting airplay, he’s sheepish about revealing his pipe dreams. When pressed, he conceded, “Yeah, it’s nice to have someone saying ‘We like your stuff. We wish you made more of it!’ And when a radio station plays your music five times a day and is constantly telling its listeners you have a show and then parks its van out in front of that show, you tend to bring in more people,” he said, pondering his Rev 105-induced stardom. “I wonder if MPR will get a van.”—Christy DeSmith
-
One Hundred Rakish Years!
Dear Reader, in an effort to clear our accounts and our desks each March, we lay before you our laurels and our brickbats. (We noticed from the account books that we have gone through quite a few brickbats, without really knowing what a brickbat is, or where one might be obtained at a reasonable cost.)
We are proud of our many achievements over the years. You know, no government or private institution has ever been looted, thanks to our vigorous editorial policy. The availability of Chicago-style hot dogs is assured and sustainable. Ever notice how everyone stops courteously when a traffic light is on the fritz? This is the power of a pointed editorial during troubled times! We have also been staggeringly effective, we don’t mind saying, in keeping Whippy Dip stores in Iowa, where they belong.
Contrary to popular opinion derived from this astonishing record, though, The Rake’s influence is not unlimited. Here, in all modesty, we need to clear the air: We did not teach Fran Tarkenton how to scramble, although we certainly did not discourage him from doing it. We would have done everything within our power to stop the great disaster of the Third Avenue Bridge, but we were in traffic court when the City of Minneapolis built it. And despite expending great editorial resources on the matter, we have so far not succeeded in having Spoonbridge and Cherry moved to the city impound lot. (That garish yellow seventies sculpture, however—the one deposited at the farthest possible corner on the grounds of the Federal Reserve Bank? That was us.) We also wish now that we hadn’t cooperated in burning that last Minneapolis streetcar. (We were printed on highly flammable, uncoated paper at the time. Nostra maxima culpa!) We do say, though, that the recent troubling incursion of Asian attack carp has nothing to do with a small boat we keep moored in Northeast, nor the broken aquarium in the closet.
Never mind all that. Let’s try to focus on the good, people. With varying degrees of success, we have applied the full measure of our energy to the popularity of ice hockey, the proper care of Red Wing boots, the Brothers’ pastrami on rye, and that huge Long Island iced tea they used to serve at the Nankin. We have owned a secondhand purple blazer with Denny Hecker’s name embroidered in it.
One certainly cannot assess the success of a publication these days without mention of its “business operations,” and in this respect, we have far exceeded our modest editorial achievements. Our resistance to the “Best of the Twin Cities” issues, not to mention our refusal to print hundreds of alloy medallions and affix them to expensive sheets of congratulatory vellum, signed by our editor—well, there are signs that our efforts have slowly starved that particular illness. It has also saved our handwriting. The fever breaks, the sun rises, and all feel equal under the kind gaze of The Rake.
In other advertising news, we were still trying to land the Sliced Bread contract when it became the most popular campaign in memory—all on the rumor of a single quarter page sometime in the fiscal year! So powerful and relentless is our marketing muscle that the mere suggestion of an ad buy was enough to set off a panic in bakeries throughout the land. It was deemed unnecessary to go through the motions of actually printing that ad. Alas, the check was not tendered, either. The price one pays for being a pioneer!
People understandably want to know how we do it. Here is how: Paper, not plastic. Chocolate. Clarinets and tambourines. Rolling stops. Magic Markers. Big hair. AAA batteries. Yellow. Running in place. And of course, you, Constant Reader.