Author: Jennifer Vogel

  • Brow Beating

    The only woman I ever knew who was truly serious about plucking her eyebrows—or at least would admit it—was a long-ago girlfriend of my dad’s. This was the 1970s. She plucked and pulled with persistence, until there wasn’t much hair left. Then she’d take an eyebrow pencil, heat it with a match, and sketch on the tiny curves she was entitled to. Eventually, her eyebrow roots quit spitting out new hairs and now she’s stuck drawing them on herself every day. When she feels lazy, she goes without. God help her in senility.

    Dad’s girlfriend was aiming for a classical seventies kind of sexy, and back then, the options for achieving this look were limited. The average person didn’t have access to plastic surgery. Secretaries didn’t get lip implants. You had hair dye, lipstick, tweezers, and whatever God gave you. Oh, and Jane Fonda and Faye Dunaway.

    Generally speaking, unless you’re Groucho Marx, eyebrows are not supposed to attract a lot of attention. They exist, in a practical sense, to keep sweat from rolling into our eyes, but how many of us perspire from our skulls with enough regularity to make them worthwhile for that purpose? Of course, eyebrows are also essential when it comes to expressing ourselves. They get knitted together in frustration, they draw down in anger, leap skyward in surprise, quiver with sadness, and arch (just one, on an especially cool eyebrow owner) when regarding something ironic or suspicious. Watching somebody’s eyebrows as they tell a good story is like witnessing a tiny gymnastics routine. If eyes are the windows to one’s soul, then eyebrows are the window treatments: the billowing sheers, the velvet drapes, the puckered valances, or, in some cases, the bamboo shades from Pier 1.

    Since eyebrows are so adept at sending messages, we have become obsessed with the idea of controlling the message. If these furry punctuators insist on jumping around on our foreheads, we want them to look elegant while doing so. It’s part of our impulse to tame nature, to say, I am not an ape—I manage my facial hair! And once you start looking, it’s impossible not to notice that everyone seems to be plucking. (As a non-plucker, I find it frustrating to hear perfectly decent natural brows described as “thick,” “unwieldy,” or “unsightly.”) A spa just opened in Minneapolis, for example, that claims to be the first in the area primarily devoted to creating the “perfect brow shape.”

    Whether tended to by an expert in a salon or simply abused before the bathroom mirror, eyebrows are carved and curved, fashioned into forms that we believe to be emblematic of our characters (or at least what we would have others believe our characters to be). There are types: the vixen with her arch and downward taper; the girl next door, brows as plain and round as jump ropes; the gamine with her thick, straight dashes; and the goofball, whose eyebrows often resemble the loopy side of a Velcro strip (backcombing may be involved). To spot a natural eyebrow, it seems you have to go all the way back to the suffragettes. Even then, don’t be too sure.

    Women have done a lot of messing with their brows over the centuries. Greeks cultivated the unibrow. The Chinese of old valued small eyes, so eyebrows were plucked to nubs. In the Middle Ages, European women harvested all the hairs from their brows and, with the addition of powder, succeeded in making their faces resemble perfect eggs. Later, when Queen Elizabeth I decided that England would be her eternal suitor, she removed her brows altogether in order to eliminate this vestige of womanhood, of humanness. At the opposite extreme were women who glued on heavy, mouse-fur eyebrow toupees. As Jonathan Swift joked in “A Beautiful Young Nymph Going to Bed,” written in 1731: “Her eye-brows from a mouse’s hide/Stuck on with art on either side/Pulls off with care, and first displays ’em/Then in a play-book smoothly lays ’em.” Late Victorian women went dramatic, darkening their brows with coal and other substances, including many that were toxic, forsaking a look of cool detachment for one of sadness and mystery.

    With the twentieth century came a slew of new forces shaping the female brow, among them over-the-counter cosmetics, do-it-yourself fashion magazines, and, most influentially, the movies. With cameras zooming in for extended close-ups displayed on twenty-foot screens, actors’ eyes, and their eyebrows, became extremely prominent. This was especially apparent in silent films, where eyebrows delivered entire paragraphs of dialogue, but also in talking films. And of course, women were sitting there in the theater seats, enraptured but also observant, ready to pick up the tweezers and get to work.

    Thin, thick, thin, thick. Each decade brought a new trend. In the twenties, Clara Bow looked more tortured than sexy with her weird razor-line brows. As the first true film vamp (short for vampire, meaning a woman who sucks blood from hapless men), Theda Bara wore her brows heavy and curved downward. They made her look dangerous, untrustworthy. She stood in contrast to the good girls of the day; the Mary Pickfords with their peppy, upturned swooshes like Scandinavian lilts at the ends of sentences. And then there were the ice queens. Greta Garbo plucked her brows into arches so perfect they revealed nothing, giving birth to what is known as the imperious brow. There was Joan Crawford’s bossy brow, Audrey Hepburn’s girl-lost-in-the-woods brow, and Candice Bergen’s smart brow—slightly arched, but tapering off before diving downward into vixen territory. On screen, eyebrows created stereotypes and nurtured them. They sent signals about how to interpret characters, like black hats and white hats in westerns.

    If one were to give a lifetime achievement award to a particularly enduring brow, it would have to be the diva arch. It even {Fashion, p. 89}
    {Fashion, from p. 87} survived the shaggy nineteen-sixties as the ultimate statement of feminine perfection. Lauren Bacall has it. So does Sharon Stone. And also Teri Hatcher, whom I mention only because she is the poster girl for the power of plucking. Compare her Nancy Drew look on TV’s Lois & Clark to her femme fetal persona in James Bond’s Tomorrow Never Dies (and now on Desperate Housewives). I’m telling you, it’s all in the brows.

    As I write this, we’re in the thick of Oscar season, and I find myself interpreting all the hooey as one big battle of the brow. Who will have won out in the supporting actress category, for example: the softened, playful curves of Kate Winslet’s diva brows, as worn in Finding Neverland, or Cate Blanchett’s eyebrows channeling Katharine Hepburn in The Aviator? If you think I’m overstating the importance of the eyebrow, consider the transformation Charlize Theron went through to portray Aileen Wuornos in Monster, which won her an Oscar. According to makeup artist Toni G (who apparently has no last name), “Charlize’s eyebrows needed to be completely changed to frame her face differently, so I took off all the outside part of her eyebrows, and also bleached them. Eyebrows are an amazing representation of what people go through in their lives. You can see an angry person, a happy person, a gentle person, all through the eyebrows. Aileen’s eyebrows had a tendency to angle upward towards her forehead, which created an angry expression.”

    Mad, sad, perplexed, surprised, happy—eyebrows tell all. They’re more important than ever with the increasing use of Botox, since they convey those emotions even when the rest of someone’s face doesn’t. They are a bit of a trick, really. (By the way, it’s not only women engaging in this subtle manipulation: Regular guys can model their brows after those of Tom Cruise, Sean Connery, and Denzel Washington, using special kits that include stencils, tweezers, and powder.)

    The funny thing is that eyebrows are nearly unnoticeable, and they are supposed to be—except when it comes to the brow notables. Tha
    t’s a group that seems to include a significant number of geniuses, people like Marie Curie, Frida Kahlo, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Eleanor Roosevelt, Albert Einstein, and Martin Scorsese (The Aviator notwithstanding). These people cultivate, through distraction, absolute forests of meaning from the hairs hovering above their eyes. They say, I’m too concerned with important matters to pluck. Perhaps I give a twirl with thumb and forefinger, but only when contemplating a formula. One has to wonder, if Einstein were busy in the bathroom trying to tame his wiry brows, would he have conjured the theory of relativity? Or would he instead have invented the curling iron?

  • Under the Pleasure Dome

    Lakewood Cemetery, situated between Lake Calhoun and Lake Harriet in South Minneapolis, is a place of big lawns and grand monuments. It is one of the city’s fanciest and most meticulously maintained community spaces. Indeed, it holds the graves of some of our state’s most prestigious former citizens, including Hubert Horatio Humphrey, Paul and Sheila Wellstone, Les Kouba, and Tiny Tim, among a whole lot of Washburns, Pillsburys, and others.

    But it’s also the site of a little-known though equally inspiring local treasure: the domed and tiled Lakewood Memorial Chapel. Completed in 1910, it is described by some as the “most perfect example of Byzantine mosaic art in the United States.”

    Now, a person can’t just trot up the steps and sashay inside. That would be rather too casual for Lakewood. Instead, visitors must stop by the office near the cemetery’s front gates and ask permission. A member of the staff, friendlier and more obliging than you might expect, then calls over to the crematory, located beneath the chapel, and somebody trudges up the stairs to unlock the door and flip on the lights. And there you are, alone in one of the most gorgeous interiors in Minneapolis.

    The walls and ceilings appear to be made of light and color. Every square inch of them. And they are, in fact, adorned with more than ten million fingernail-sized tesserae: shards of marble, colored stone, and glass fused with gold and silver. This is the kind of place that once made people fall to their knees, mistaking beauty for God. Except that here, the symbolism is more earthy and less partisan than you’d find in a church, synagogue, or mosque. Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed make no appearances.

    One alcove features a row of olive trees, known for their legendary healing properties; differently hued leaves represent the various stages of life. In each corner of the chapel’s largest room, female figures represent each of the four virtues—Love, Hope, Faith, and Memory. Even the shadows of their flowing robes are intricately rendered in tiles, as are their mood-appropriate expressions; Love looks straight ahead, Hope gazes upward, Faith looks off to the side, and Memory peers downward, hand to cheek. She seems a bit forlorn, as Memory should.

    The chapel was planned at the turn of the century by Minnesota architect Harry Wild Jones and New York designer Charles R. Lamb, in order that Lakewood, founded in 1871, should have a suitable site for funerals. The exterior is modeled on the Haghia Sophia, the domed church built in the sixth century by Emperor Justinian in what is now Istanbul. The interior is inspired by Venice’s ornate San Marco Cathedral. In fact, when it came time to create the mosaics, Lamb traveled to Rome and hired six of Italy’s finest tile artists—they’d just completed a project in the Vatican. In Venice, they crafted the tesserae by hand, attached them to gummed cloth, and shipped them to Minneapolis. Then, in 1909, the artists arrived in person to assemble the chapel’s interior mosaics.

    As you sit on one of the dozen or so wooden benches, your eye is drawn upward, into the dome. Here, your deepest and most churlish thoughts are captured by the butterfly wings of twelve gilded angels who wear brilliantly colored garlands, gowns, and halos. The intricacy of the ceiling makes it seem infinite; it reminds me of trying to count stars on a black country night. Encircling the dome are twenty-four stained-glass windows, which throw a soft glow on the angels. They also serve as a sundial, telling astute observers not only the time, but also the time of year.

    It is a remarkable feat, an ingenious creation that mingles layers of meaning with stunning visual appeal. It leaves one feeling both contemplative and inspired, but not the least bit oppressed. Yet, strangely, sadly, hardly anybody ever sees this chapel, except at funerals for the city’s favored sons and daughters. “If this chapel were somewhere in Europe, thousands of Americans would visit it each year,” wrote a rhapsodic journalist in 1931. “Never have we seen anything to equal it in this country.”—Jennifer Vogel

  • Can the Public Library (and Democracy) Survive?

    On the third floor of the temporary library in downtown Minneapolis—a retrofitted office building that once housed the Federal Reserve Bank—a skinny man with a shock of white hair paced hurriedly up and down the aisles carrying a bouquet of roses wrapped in a wad of shredded newspaper. He looked disheveled, a little like Sam Shepard on a bad day or, maybe, Hume Cronyn on a good day. Though I hadn’t set foot inside the main library for years, I recognized the man immediately as one of the usual cast of unusual characters that inhabit the downtown branch.

    What the man was doing with the roses was a source of speculation, as was his reason for walking back and forth, over and over, past the same aisles of books. And then, finally, he darted right and disappeared. The man, it turned out, had been waiting for an open seat along the floor’s west wall, where large windows overlook Cancer Survivors Park, with its pathways and small grove of birch trees. Along the wall, apparently cherished among library regulars, there is a row of tables and chairs where mostly men sit and read newspapers or books about collecting baseball cards or negotiating real estate contracts. Everyone with their passions and projects and secret missions. Two mustachioed friends, maybe brothers, spoke Spanish over a vocabulary book. At another station, a would-be professor with white paint splattered on his jeans worked feverishly on a series of handwritten documents, a dense manifesto. Beside a stack of yellow legal pads, there were a packet of Kleenex, a driver’s license, and a Social Security card aligned perfectly with the edge of the table. A few places down, the man with the roses sat erect and gazed outside, flowers in hand. He watched as working men lowered windows from the roof of the new Cesar Pelli-designed main library across the park, just a block away. He leaned in slightly for a sniff.

    As I looked down the line, at the faces gazing out the window or nosing through books, it struck me that none of these people would have been sitting here, would never have enjoyed such a pleasant view, when the temporary library was still the Federal Reserve Bank. The opportunity to gaze down at birch trees, to watch myriad passersby, would have been reserved for managers and executives. Higher-ups. Bureaucrats. But at the library, things are more democratic.

    In fact, the library is the ultimate democratic institution. A person, with or without a library card, can hang around all day long, assuming her beverage has a lid on it, without buying anything or being subjected to a single ad. There are no greeters at the door to acknowledge and assess incoming patrons. On the contrary, library staffers understand that this is your place as much as it is theirs, and you may go about your business fully ignored, which ought to be every person’s right. Unless, of course, you need assistance in finding a book about kite-building, or the ownership tentacles of General Electric. Then, you will have at your disposal a dozen experts, better versed than Google in locating what you need from an enormous store of books, magazines, newspapers, DVDs, videos, CDs, pictures, government documents, pamphlets, websites, and even microfiche. If you don’t remember microfiche, it’s the silent film of information technology, crooked photographs of documents that existed before electronic databases and must be viewed through a special, old-timey machine. There is no keyword search in a microfiche document, no clicking down. Just a reel that sends the pages scrolling by at various speeds.

    Libraries are the face of government as it existed before we started hating government and, therefore, ourselves. It is munificent in the way public agencies simply aren’t anymore. A librarian isn’t going to arrest you. Nor is she or he going to tell you, thumb driving back like an umpire’s, two years and you’re off welfare! There is no punitive or moralistic aspect to the library, only trust and goodwill. The library says, Here, please take any of our millions of volumes for free. We trust you to make good use of them. We trust you to bring them back. All you need is an ID and maybe a phone bill and you’re in.

    These are places for people who want to know; libraries nationwide have seen a steady increase in patronage since at least 1990. They hold a special and sentimental place in the minds of the citizenry and are widely regarded as institutions where browsing and borrowing lead to meaningful knowledge. According to a 2003 study from the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, ninety-four percent of Americans rate their local public library as “very valuable” or “valuable.” The majority even said they’d pay more taxes to support libraries—an average of forty-nine dollars more per year. Currently, taxpayers spend around twenty-five dollars per person, the approximate cost of one new, hardcover book.

    Despite that kind of passionate support, libraries everywhere are falling on hard times. The American Library Association (co-founded back in 1876 by Melville Dewey, namesake of the venerable Dewey decimal system) reports budget cuts of up to fifty percent in at least forty-one states. That means reduced staff and operating hours, and fewer new books on the shelves. In John Steinbeck’s hometown of Salinas, California, the city’s three libraries will soon close their doors altogether. Minnesota, long a state that prioritized education and literacy, has hardly taken an enlightened view. Across the state, libraries are paring back essential services, thanks to reductions in state funds to cities and counties.

    In 2003, Governor Tim Pawlenty dramatically reduced local government aid in response to a projected state budget deficit. This, rather than violate a no-new-taxes promise he made during his gubernatorial campaign. Those cuts directly impacted libraries, in some cases brutally. When local governments are forced to cut services, libraries seem like an easy target; people get a lot more exercised about police and firefighters and schools. It’s a pattern in nearly all fifty states, and throughout Minnesota. St. Paul, to secure future funding, created a library board and a dedicated city property tax. Ramsey County closed its North St. Paul branch and, in 2003, saw a forty percent reduction in its book budget. Hennepin County, until recently, kept six of its libraries closed on Fridays.

    Minneapolis was hit especially hard. Because the city’s library board operates independently of the City Council, its budget is less flexible than, say, that of the Public Works Department. Up until the cuts, more than forty percent of the library system’s $20 million budget came from local government aid. Now, some branches are open only three days a week. Money for new books was reduced dramatically: from $2.6 million in 2000 to $1.9 million in 2004. Minneapolis must now rely more heavily on less predictable private funding sources, along with the determined efforts of Friends of the Library organizations.

    “I think libraries are very invisible,” said Minneapolis Library Director Kit Hadley. “I think they have been taken for granted. There have been people who support libraries, but it’s nobody’s big cause.” Yet, she continued, sounding more ardent than your stereotypical librarian, “Libraries are fundamental institutions in a democracy. We talk about the value and importance of libraries in promoting the information necessary to active self-governance, the notion that this kind of availability and discourse is necessary for democracy to be alive. And all of us on the staff feel very strongly about that.”

    It’s easy to be discouraged by the notion that nobody seems to read anymore. There is a distinctly anti-intellectual atmosphere circulating in a country that has a tradition of skepticism toward high-minded ideas. These days, more than ever, being American means making decisions with our guts, not our heads. It has culminated in a president who brags about not reading newspapers and is referred to in international circles as the “Texas twit.” In 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts produced a study that showed a dramatic decline in the reading of literature, with fewer than half of American adults bothering to pick up a novel. NEA Chairman Dana Gioia, sounding a little like Kit Hadley, said, “This report documents a national crisis. Reading develops a capacity for focused attention and imaginative growth that enriches both private and public life. As more Americans lose this capability, our nation becomes less informed, active, and independent minded.”

    No doubt there is a relationship between the decline in reading and the increase in societal fear and jingoism. As a person learns more about the rest of the world, enlightenment and tolerance tend to follow. Higher levels of education mitigate prejudice and increase the support for civil liberties. “These are not qualities that a free, innovative, or productive society can afford to lose,” said Gioia.

  • The Killer Deal

    The house stands on a barren corner lot, across from a vacant, industrial patch of Northeast Minneapolis. Nearby, the tracks of the Burlington Northern cut a swath to the Mississippi. And in the other direction, just around the corner, there is a busy grocery and liquor mart called Sentyrz, which one neighbor calls “the store of hard white people.” For its location in a dense, urban neighborhood, the smallish stucco house looks oddly isolated and vulnerable, on the way to all kinds of potentially terrible places.

    Since April 15, 2003, the house has been empty. That’s when a young man named Jonathan Carpenter broke in through the back door window and murdered its occupants—an eighty-eight-year-old man and his fifty-year-old disabled daughter. Carpenter, who said he’d been up for twenty days straight snorting crystal meth, was in search of easy money. His father lived in the area, so it’s possible that he knew there was jewelry inside the house and thousands of dollars hidden in a filing cabinet. Or maybe he just happened to be passing by.

    While the man and his daughter lay bleeding on the living room floor, their throats slit, Carpenter swept through the house gathering valuables. Then he summoned his accomplice, a man named Christopher Earl, who helped complete the robbery. With the money, the two bought a Ford Crown Victoria. Then they went on to kill another family, in Long Prairie, and got caught. Carpenter hanged himself in his cell. Earl went to prison.

    Now, with the human drama largely concluded, what is left behind, the remnant of that awful night, is the house. The place where it happened. Sometimes, if a crime is bad enough, the home can’t overcome tragic events and is demolished—as was Jeffrey Dahmer’s Milwaukee apartment building. In other cases, such as the 1997 Heaven’s Gate mass suicide in Rancho Santa Fe, California, the street name is changed. Anything to give the illusion of a fresh start, to make people forget or at least allow them to feel a little distance.

    Inside the lonely house in Northeast, the hardwood floors and linoleum and countertops have been replaced. The walls are freshly painted surgical white. Upstairs, there is new, plush carpeting. But the place still feels creepy. And I feel ghoulish for wanting to see it. (The Century 21 agent in charge of showings, who asked not to be identified or quoted, watches me with muted disgust.) I can’t help but imagine the brutal murder. I picture the murderers themselves, rummaging through drawers in the dark. As humans, we want to believe that the universe smiles down on us. At the very least, we don’t want to contemplate death. Yet there are echoes inside the house—or inside my head—whispering, this is where Carpenter put his arm through the window, this is where he dragged the old man from his recliner.

    In Minnesota, real estate agents are required to disclose “physical conditions … that could adversely and significantly affect an ordinary buyer’s use or enjoyment of the property.” And the house, thus far, hasn’t sold. It’s been on the market since July in a neighborhood that’s considered hot in real estate circles, though not as hot as it was a year ago. Even the “price reduced” sign out front hasn’t drawn a buyer.

    “Houses don’t have memories,” promised George Lutz to his wife in the film The Amityville Horror. And then his eyes turned red and the house itself—in a hoarse, angry voice—started yelling at priests to “GET OUT!” Houses do have memories. Or, certainly, we concoct memories for them. Even rational people will admit that some places feel good and some places feel bad. Homes are psychologically momentous. They protect us and keep us warm, exoskeletons made of brick and wood. When we lock the front door at night, it’s as much a symbolic as a practical gesture. I’m inside now, inside my world. So, when a house fails us or, in the worst case, becomes a vessel for burning evil, the best recourse is to move out, calmed by the knowledge that the house can’t pick up its foundation like a skirt and chase after us.

    There is a little-known science to valuing these tainted houses, to calculating the cost of a breach in psychic comfort. Randall Bell, who calls himself a “real estate damage economist,” is known nationally as the “Master of Disaster.” Based in Laguna Beach, California, he measures in real dollars the intangible impact of violent tragedy. He was involved in selling the JonBenet Ramsey house, the Heaven’s Gate mansion, and Nicole Brown Simpson’s Brentwood condo, which languished on the market for more than two years before selling cheap. According to Bell, who says he got into the business to battle “junk science,” properties are rated on a salability scale of one to ten, ten being hopeless. Hopeless properties include the bombed-out Oklahoma City federal building and the San Ysidro McDonald’s where a gunman killed twenty-one people in 1984.

    Depending on where the property falls on the “Bell Chart,” the stigma of a crime can linger for up to ten years. Owners who sell too soon, warns Bell, can expect to lose between ten and twenty-five percent of current market value. “Generally speaking,” he says, “you are not going to see any market activity for two to three years. It could sell, but at the biggest discount. If you wait, things will gradually get better.”

    Bell is a font of practical advice. He recommends taking a renter for a while before putting a murder house on the market. “It’s more difficult to sell a house like this when it’s vacant,” he says. “There is a better sense of comfort when they are occupied, instead of that eerie empty feeling.” Bell handled the home where Charles Manson’s followers killed Sharon Tate in 1969. “Sharon Tate was a renter,” he says. “The owner moved back in and lived there for years. It was a smart move because he sold it for full value in 1990.”

    For impatient, motivated sellers, there are two options. One is to renovate. Besides working to make the inside “spotless,” Bell recommends changing the home’s façade, so it doesn’t look the same as it did on the six o’clock news. That may mean painting the garage, planting trees, or maybe cutting trees down. At his suggestion, for example, before the Brown Simpson condo was listed, the landscaping out front was radically altered and a new retaining wall was built. “I’ve seen tourists take pictures of the house next door,” he says with pride.

    The other strategy is to cut the price to the point of irresistibility. It’s an equation that sets practicality against superstition. In November, the price for the Northeast house dropped more than ten thousand dollars, from $235,000 to $224,900. But that still may be too high. Fair market value doesn’t mean much when it comes to houses like this one, because the others in the neighborhood haven’t been similarly “stigmatized.” In the end, even the grand Amityville Horror estate had to hit the astonishingly low price of $80,000—a quarter of its estimated value—before the Lutz family pushed aside their fears and moved in.
    —Jennifer Vogel

  • The Twelve Months of Christmas

    In State Center, Iowa, a town of barely a thousand people that, in fact, occupies the state’s center, there’s a small white house whose owners deck the halls with an extravagance that verges on the fantastic. From the beginning of October to the week after New Year’s, the home of Dwayne and Janet Pundt (they like to be called “Old Man Pundt” and “Old Lady Pundt”) is a carnival of lights, choo-choos, and smiling, waving Santas. Passersby are sadly oblivious, however, because the Pundts, unlike their flashier neighbors, keep all the decorations inside their home. Standing on the front stoop, stomping away slivers of boot snow, visitors glimpse not a single light. The shades are drawn tight to prevent the leakage of even the tiniest twinkle or gleam.

    It’s an approach that both builds curiosity and maximizes impact, explains Old Lady Pundt, who’s standing in her kitchen, a mélange of Christmas melodies pinging away in the background. Keeping their sizeable yard empty and sign-free (tours are by invitation only) also serves to force people inside, where jocund smiles and a keg of beer awaits. “When you walk in, it’s instant Christmas! I like to see their eyes brighten.” She sees that look—of surprise, of wonder, of complete shock—a lot. Regular visitors include school kids, members of the ladies’ club, and gawkers from nearby towns. “One time, a gal wanted to bring a whole busload of people,” recalls Old Man Pundt. “That was a bit too much.” The Pundts’ own family of two kids, a handful of grandchildren, and one great-grandchild celebrates the holiday each year smack in the middle of this spinning, blinking wonderland.

    The effect is nearly impossible to describe. Every wall is covered with gauze and lights and hand-painted mountain peaks. Every surface is populated by angels and light-up miniature houses and reindeer. There are more than three hundred and fifty elves alone. Things move. Lights sparkle. Music plays. It’s like a carousel that has spun off its base.

    The project started modestly, twenty-five years ago, when the couple simply hung up some crepe paper. Now they’ve built a wing dedicated exclusively to Coca-Cola-related Christmas items. “We started looking at things in the stores,” says Old Lady Pundt. “We started building.” Her husband chimes in, “We bought a Santa Claus, a Danbury, a solid, not a porcelain. From there, every year we got something else and something else.” The wife interrupts (they talk like this, one after the other, back and forth, adding here and there, just as they decorate their home): “And we’d get stuff for Christmas from our kids. We don’t like clothes or anything. We like toys.” Most of it comes from Menards and Lowe’s, she says—“Anyplace that sells Christmas.”

    A visitor might wonder how the two, who are now reaching their seventies, manage to live in a fully transformed Christmas House three months out of the year with only a bed, a dining table, a couple of easy chairs, and a big-screen TV as remnants of a more routine, non-Christmas life. But for the Pundts, the season really begins in August, while it’s still hot and green outside. That’s when they start pulling down boxes and stringing lights. And because some of the Christmas trees are too giant to stash away, they sit year-round in various corners, wrapped in plastic. “It’s just ordinary to us,” says Old Lady Pundt. “It’s just common.” Adds the Mr., “Everybody, our friends who come, the big question is, when we go in the bedroom: ‘You sleep in here?’”

    Old Lady Pundt confesses that she was the driving force behind the emergence of the Christmas House. The couple met in high school, on a bus in Iowa Falls. They became sweethearts, married, and moved to State Center, where they owned a Jack & Jill grocery store for thirty-four years. “This started as a hobby to get us away from the store’s problems,” she says.

    “At the start, I was a humbug,” says Old Man Pundt.

    His wife explains. “After he got in to start helping me, then he got to be more Christmassy.”

    “I had to,” he adds.

    Old Man Pundt’s darling project, the thing that cemented his interest in the red and green, is an expansive light-up village, complete with gas stations, country stores, farms, and even a firehouse. The installation expresses his love of fire engines and also his passion for building things. With a MIDI version of “Jingle Bells” backing him up, he describes the town’s support structure. It is, he says, anchored by an old wooden buffet and a glass showcase. He reaches in, a little stiffly, to straighten a miniature streetlight, noting that burned-out bulbs drive him crazy. “We check all the light bulbs before we put them up,” he says. “We check them after. We go by layers. We start at the top and work our way down and we check as we go.”

    Both agree that Old Lady Pundt is the motivator in the family, while Old Man Pundt is the perfectionist, the detail man. As a team, they repair, restore, build, and create—those snow-capped mountains, palm trees for manger scenes, shelves and pedestals, night skies that can be put away whole, which is something to consider with so many elaborate displays. “She gets herself in trouble once in a while,” he says. To which she responds, “He thinks everything out. I suppose that’s good in a way. We don’t let things sit. We buy something and we fix it and we put it up or put it away. We don’t leave things goofy.”
    Old Lady Pundt breaks into a grin. “He couldn’t do it without me and I couldn’t do it without him.”

    “And I wouldn’t,” he says, with feigned exasperation.

    In the bedroom corner, next to the bathroom with the Christmas wallpaper and furry Santa toilet-seat cover, a truly unique facet of the Pundt style emerges. A lit-up nativity scene with tiny sheep and homemade palm trees sits on a table. Above it, as if in heaven, if heaven were a shelf, Santa and Mrs. Claus keep watch. Beneficently, they look down on Mother Mary, who mechanically swings the baby Jesus in her arms to the tune of “Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree,” which plays on an endless loop. “We try to make scenes out of things,” says Old Man Pundt, fiddling with an electric socket. His wife adds,

    “It would be boring if you just set them down. It just wouldn’t be pretty.”

    Her favorite items are a pair of moving statues that are dressed in white and hold candles. They are Father Christmas and the Ice Queen. “I have one hundred and fifty animateds,” she says. “I like them. But if they quit, I don’t care. They become stationaries, like this guy here.” Old Lady Pundt strokes the hair of an elegant, white-cloaked Santa. “He don’t move, he just lights up. He’s one of my newer pieces and I think he’s just beautiful.” Nor does the couple get startled at night, searching the darkness for a glass of water, by an army of animateds looming silently, eyes open. “We don’t leave it on all the time,” says Old Man Pundt. “We run it when people are here and then we shut it off.” Says the Mrs., “It’s just as pretty one way as the other.”

    At the Pundt house, Santas outnumber Jesuses by a wide margin. (“We’re not big religious people,” she says, “but I still believe.”) And Coke products outnumber those from Pepsi, which are relegated to a small basement display. This was installed after the couple’s grandson took a job with the company. The Coca-Cola room, as it has come to be known, is bedecked with a shiny black-and-white checkered floor, a five-foot-tall Santa and Mrs. Claus, antique gas pumps, a series of enormous Christmas trees, and a human-scale but non-functional soda fountain that Old Man Pundt built himself. “I always kind of collected Coca-Cola,” says Old Lady Pundt. “I’m a red person. I like bright things that give me a lift. I hate dark things that don’t give you a lift. But I always had my Coke stuff all boxed u
    p. And then we hired a contractor.”

    “Because we used to have a deck out here,” interjects Old Man Pundt.

    “I hated that deck,” says his wife.

    She also has no use for windows. The Coca-Cola room has just one, to suit fire codes. “It’s covered up over there,” she points. “The contractor said we needed it in case I had to jump out of it in a fire. I don’t need no windows. They just take up my space.”

    Because the house is brimming over, the Pundts are considering a Morton outbuilding for the yard, where they could arrange an additional display of gas-station memorabilia and also a whole new roomful of Christmas toys. “Collecting keeps your mind active,” says Old Lady Pundt. “You think of one thing and it gives you another idea and another idea and pretty soon you’re”—she makes the sound of a jet roaring off. “It’s a mission.” Christmas, she adds, is the ideal focus for a curious mind and a mirthful heart. “Christmas makes you all…it’s something inside you. You can’t explain it. It’s, I suppose, love. Love of people. It just makes you want to bubble all over.”

  • The Eternal Optimist

    The last time anybody heard from Eric Utne, it was the year 2000 and he had just walked away from the magazine he’d founded and run for almost fifteen years. The Utne Reader was faltering. It had published a “Y2K Citizen’s Action Guide,” which predicted a radical reorganization of society that never happened. Circulation and ad revenue were down, so down, in fact, that it looked as if Minneapolis’s most prestigious national publication might fold.

    There was personal turmoil, too. A few years earlier, in a stinging public undressing, Utne, who has made his living and reputation championing a New Age brand of liberalism, was taken to task by his employees. They described him to a local reporter as maniacal, controlling, and, worst of all, a hypocrite. They said they’d repeatedly had sex on the couch in his office in secret rebellion. They said they’d placed a giant zucchini in his chair and pretended to worship it.

    Utne wasn’t running a sweatshop. Nor was he pushing crystal meth on the side. His biggest crime, it seems, was espousing high ideals and not quite living up to them. His second biggest crime was blindness to how others perceived him. When an idealistic reader discovered that Eric and his wife Nina Rothschild Utne had four kids—not exactly in line with the magazine’s philosophy of environmental conservation—Utne responded in embarrassingly guileless fashion, explaining to readers that he’d asked certain friends to refrain from reproducing, to balance things out. He described himself and Nina as “designated breeders in a tribal or extended family.”

    Statements like that chafe in a place like Minnesota, whose citizens pride themselves on reasonableness. And when Utne started discussing walkabouts and fasts, during which he said he’d talked to rocks, trees, the wind, and a pigeon, well, even the man’s robust national reputation couldn’t save him.

    But if a person earns any points at all for effort, it’s worth noting that Utne truly believed, and still believes, in the power of nature and the power of community. He may be flawed and grandiose, but it seems that he earnestly wishes to be a force for good, to be part of some grand cosmic solution, even if it is from a palatial Linden Hills home with a Volvo and Prius in the garage. Utne is quite aware that on certain points his philosophies and actual life haven’t matched up. (At the magazine, for example, he subsidized bus passes for Utne staffers, while he continued to drive his car to work.) That’s why, five years ago, he fired himself and walked away from his empire in order to embark on a tortured stretch of soul searching. He found some of what he was looking for, apparently. Today, the once deadly earnest Utne cracks wise about his formerly “inflated ego.” And when friends describe him, they use adjectives like mellow, charming, and delightful.

    Given Utne’s almost Candide-like optimism, it’s not exactly a surprise that in November he published a new project, Cosmo Doogood’s Urban Almanac: Celebrating Nature & Her Rhythms in the City. “I never expected to be publishing again,” says the fifty-eight-year-old Utne from a corner seat at the Zumbro Café, just blocks from his house. He speaks quietly, almost nervously at first, but as the conversation progresses, he loosens up. “I thought I was done with that. But I’ve always loved almanacs. The Farmer’s Almanac always seemed interesting to me, but maybe written for somebody else.”

    The idea behind the Urban Almanac—conceived during one of Utne’s legendary personal vision quests—is to alert urban dwellers to the surrounding environment, to get them in tune with “living time.”

    “Eight or nine years ago I had an experience in the desert where I connected with nature in a way that I never had,” Utne recalls. “And especially the full moon on the last night. And then a month later, I was in the heart of Manhattan and a little breeze came up and I turned into it and here was the full moon again. I felt a connection with it as I had in the desert, and I realized we are always in nature wherever we are. I’m usually pretty much oblivious to it. And I wondered, what would it take to be connected to nature even in the city?”

    It’s a simple enough notion. It’s also the kind of notion that infuriates Utne’s detractors. Here it is, 2004, and the country is embroiled in the wrong war at the wrong time. The future of abortion and other civil liberties is at stake. And Eric Utne, the one-time digester of the nation’s alternative press, arrives with a book about stargazing in the city. Its publication date, the day after the presidential election, was chosen deliberately, Utne explains. “Wasn’t it Thoreau who once said, ‘Read not the times, read the eternities’? I think we should be doing both. But if we are only caught up in the turbulence and chaos of current events, we just get swept and buffeted back and forth. This is a way to kind of ground people so that we can participate without being jostled by every urgent piece of news.”

    Eric Utne was born in St. Paul, the second of four children, to Norwegian parents. His father was vice president of an insurance company, his mother a homemaker. They divorced when Utne was thirteen. He attended the University of Minnesota casually, off and on, through a seven-year period, and majored in architecture before dropping out. “I was a good designer,” he once told Time magazine, “but I couldn’t pass mechanics and materials.” His wife added with a snap, “He could build them, but they wouldn’t stay up.” Later, in 1969, Utne began studying Eastern cosmology and macrobiotics in Massachusetts with a guru named Michio Kushi. The fascination ran deep. The man offered tangible answers and a formula for living. With what Utne describes as “missionary zeal,” he managed Kushi’s natural foods store and sold ads for his East West Journal. When, in the mid-seventies, Utne began to question the narrowness of Kushi’s philosophies, he and a handful of other devotees jumped ship and formed the New Age Journal. That effort, too, devolved into acrimony, so he switched gears and, for a time, worked as a Manhattan literary agent.

    It was while living in New York that Utne met Nina Rothschild, with her wild curly hair and piercing blue eyes. She still remembers the details. “That was twenty-five years ago,” she says. “I had had a greeting-card business with a friend. She kept having religious conversion experiences and it was tough on the business. I was trying to figure out what to do next.”

    Rothschild—not of the legendary banking Rothschilds, but of the lesser-known department store Rothschilds—was at an entrepreneurs’ conference. She was sitting at a table when Utne walked in. “People made assumptions that we were together,” she recalls. “I had been in this relationship that was basically over. I was making a statement for myself and to myself and by myself. And I didn’t want people to lump me in with somebody else. I got more and more flustered. I was blushing more and more. He leaned over and kissed me on the mouth in the middle of dinner. And I didn’t even know his name.” Eric invited Nina to Minnesota to meet his family. “We came out here in May of 1980 and the lilacs were in bloom,” she says. “It was seduction by lilac. We never left.” The two, each having been married and divorced before, were wed the following May.

    Four years later, while Nina raised the children and acted as loose consigliere to her husband, Eric started the Utne Reader, a compendium of “the best of the alternative press.” First housed above a food co-op, the publication gained renown and moved on up to tonier but still suitably Bohemian headquarters on the edge of Loring Park, where it remains today. The business grew and grew and grew. From 1987 to 1992, circulation quadrupled to almost three hundred thousand paid subscribers, making it the fastest growing magazine in the country, according to the Detroit Free Press. Utne was optimistic about the magazine that Bill Moyers had labeled an “underground railroad of ideas.” Said Utne at the time, “We think we’re going to reach five hundred thousand in circulation by the year 2000.”

    Unfortunately, by the mid-nineties, subscriptions had leveled off and begun to decline. Onlookers, barely able to conceal their schadenfreude, pointed to a variety of factors. Some felt the magazine had sold out and forsaken its mission of directing readers to fringe perspectives. Others suspected that with the Internet, people no longer needed to be directed. Still others surmised that formerly radical ideas had been co-opted by the mainstream, making the fringe less fringy. Perhaps the magazine’s privileged readership (subscribers are consistently well-to-do and well-educated) was tiring of the publication’s increasingly spirituality oriented outlook. Bill Babcock, at the time a U of M journalism professor, surmised that the Utne was in the “throes of its midlife crisis” and that the publication had run its course. “Eric hit on a wonderful gold mine,” he said back in 1995. “That was giving yuppie baby boomers the opportunity to feel they are part of the counterculture while still driving their Saabs and Volvos.”

    It was downhill from there. Utne launched an expensive and quickly aborted foray into web publishing (“We were distinguished by how much we lost on the Internet,” says Nina Rothschild Utne) and a failed attempt to sell the business. There was a staff downsizing and mounting ill will around the office, and, in November of 1995, that damning cover story in the now-defunct Twin Cities Reader.

    The article seemed to take unbridled glee in popping Utne’s warm bubble of privilege. By the Reader’s estimation, he was guilty of both frivolity and hypocrisy. These were serious transgressions in the world of advocacy journalism, and he was committing them on the newspaper’s own lefty turf. Utne, who’d spent a decade digesting the alternative press, suddenly found himself being chewed up and digested by the alternative press. It was especially galling to the story’s author, Jon Tevlin, now a reporter for the StarTribune, that the magazine editor had refused to be interviewed. Designating him a “hypocritical flake” and the “self-appointed guru to the questing hip-oisie,” the Reader’s cover text asked, “Has the global village idiot gone off the deep end?” It was a brutal rebuke.

    Utne was, no doubt, a juicy target. During the early nineties, he recalls, “there was a few-month span in which People magazine did a profile. Time magazine did a piece. CBS launched a show opposite Nightline hosted by Charles Kuralt and Lesley Stahl. And they gave me a minute or two a month to talk about whatever I wanted. That was very inflationary to my ego. I thought I must be really hot stuff. And then I learned that I wasn’t.”

    Utne jokes about it now, but at the time, the revelation was painful. “Praise is very hard for me to take,” he says. “I’m much more alert to criticism. And it lands much more deeply.” So, when faced with the vitriolic Reader article, he was devastated. “That was terrible,” he says. “It was the innuendo that was so insubstantial that was really awful. But you know, I have not sought out [Tevlin], but I’m very grateful that it happened. Because, while it wasn’t the only factor, it made me take stock of myself.”

    Rothschild Utne adds, “There was something about Eric that made people want to take him down a peg. And, perhaps, rightly so. Eric was really riding for a fall. The story wouldn’t have been complete without it.”

    Beginning in early 1996, Utne took a couple of years off, during which (as he later wrote to Utne readers) he went on a walkabout to “find, feel, and follow my heart.” Along the way, he “learned to meditate, did lots of therapy and ‘inner work,’ took singing lessons and joined a gospel choir, enjoyed lots of leisurely conversations for the first time in years, and volunteered at a local health crisis resources center.” He returned to the magazine in 1998 with bright eyes and big plans to expand into book publishing, radio, television, and the organizing of events and cruises. But this new energy quickly fizzled. In a fundamental and irreversible sense, Utne was burned out. In 1999, he turned the reins over to his wife.

    “I said I’d do it, but it had to be for real, not window dressing,” recalls Rothschild Utne. “He gave me half the company. We ran it together for six months. It became clear that he didn’t want to do it anymore. His heart wasn’t in it. He was making messes everywhere. At that point, he turned all the ownership over to me.”

    Rothschild Utne was—and had been for years—the magazine’s primary investor, and she was concerned for the family finances. “At some point I had guaranteed a credit line,” she explains, sipping water in her comfortable, sky-blue Loring Park office “And then the company didn’t expand and wasn’t sold. Nobody was paying attention to the fact that it was hemorrhaging money. I had a lot at stake and so I said, ‘I want to try to turn this around.’ In order to be effective in that way, I had to be able to call the shots.” Though at the time Rothschild Utne had zero publishing experience (she was a Harvard English major), she says, “I have some fairly sturdy business genes.”

    These days, she counts her efforts, which have included a redesign, trimming the name simply to Utne, and landing a handful of additional investors, a resounding success. “We’re not profitable, but we are close,” she declares, while her assistant approaches with packets of supporting documentation. “With the anniversary issue, we had our best ad-sales issue since 1996.” Most importantly, Rothschild Utne adds, the magazine is getting back to its original mission-cum-mantra: Focus on what’s breaking through, not what’s breaking down.

    That’s all good news, of course. But without the magazine to run—in fact, watching his namesake fare better without him—Utne was left directionless and missionless, not an entirely comfortable position for him, one suspects. He hung around home, trying to be a better husband and father, shopping and cooking, taking care of the boys, rebuilding himself. And then he crossed paths with Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philosopher who believed in spiritual evolution and in 1919 founded the Waldorf Schools movement. “I tried to read Steiner thirty-five years ago,” says Utne, munching the last of his bacon while REM’s “Everybody Hurts” drones from the Zumbro’s speakers. “I found him absolutely impenetrable. And then after leaving the magazine, I was reading widely, and doing some of the stuff we’d been publishing about but never really doing—like learning how to meditate—and I encountered some of his ideas. I picked up my old copy of the book I had tried to read before and it was moldy and musty and this time it just leapt off the page. It spoke right to my soul.”

    The Waldorf schools, described in broad strokes, espouse age-appropriate education. Children learn the various disciplines, like reading, when they are ready to learn them. Creativity is nurtured and handcrafts are required. Exposure to television and other forms of mass media is discouraged. As it happened, back in 1988 Rothschild Utne had co-founded the City of Lakes Waldorf School, now located on Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis (which seems to draw the children of every thirty-something artist and musician in town). Because Utne believes that some things are fated, when he was asked to teach seventh and eighth grade at the school, he said no and then yes. “I have four boys and they’ve all been in Waldorf, preschool through at least eighth grade,” he says. “They’re really good guys and they’re really interested in life and the world, as are many of their classmates. I’m quite impressed with the curriculum. I’ve always said we teach what we need to learn. I got a real liberal arts education by teaching these kids.”

    And because Utne is always looking into things, searching for some deep hidden meaning, he says his education went beyond the topics he instructed, which included Renaissance history, creative writing, meteorology, astronomy, geography, and algebra. “I’ve always considered myself unemployable,” he offers with a chuckle. “I’ve often been in situations where I’ve been the entrepreneur. So working with a group of colleagues at the school was a great thing for me. I got a yearbook at the end of the year signed by all my colleagues telling me—I know this is going to end up in the article—saying how much they loved working with me and what a great time we had. I found myself bringing it home and showing it to Nina and saying, ‘Look, I can work with other people. I just have to not be the boss.’”

    The Urban Almanac is a modern, citified, lefty version of Ben Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanac. Its motto (Utne is undeniably fond of mottos) is: Look up, look out, look in. Toward these goals, the book contains a varied collection of information, a reflection of Utne’s eclectic mind, including a piece on naked-eye astronomy, another on how to predict the weather, and a primer on the life of Franklin himself. There are also poems, recipes, lyrics to Elvis and Prince songs, quotes from Goethe, a yearlong date book, and airy inspirational passages like, “The soul shines in the darkness and gives it form.” The book, which Utne hopes to publish annually, is at its best when paying tribute to “essential places” and “living urban treasures” such as Minneapolis’ Eloise Butler Wildflower Garden, Domino Park in Miami, authors Studs Terkel and Jane Jacobs, and L.A. peace activist Aqueela Sherrills.

    During his time at the Utne Reader, Utne was deemed a glory hog, partly because he’d plastered his own name across the cover of the magazine, a move he now calls a mistake. “It’s really a team of people doing it,” he says. Where the self-published Almanac is concerned, he’s eager to share the credit, albeit in his own grand, cosmic way. Of designer Margaret Bossen, he says, “I met her and she had shown up with an armload of almanacs and other stuff that was clearly just exactly the sensibility I wanted for this almanac. And I got the feeling when I was interviewing her that this was her project to do. Almost like she was born to do it and I was facilitating her destiny.”

    He’s equally effusive about managing editor Martha Coventry, whom he calls a “dear friend.” Coventry, who worked with Utne at the magazine and has known him for twenty-two years, offered this assessment in return: “Eric has become a really wonderfully mature man.”

    The stated goal of the Almanac is to draw people to nature, but the larger (and largely unarticulated) aim is to connect people to each other. Utne has long been entranced by the idea that cooperation creates power, which leads to change. In 1991, the Utne Reader published a story titled, “Salons: How to Revive the Endangered Art of Conversation and Start a Revolution in Your Living Room.” The piece drew national attention and, in fact, did start a bit of a revolution, with the New York Times discussing the revival of conversation and the L.A. Times publishing an instructive how-to called “Bringing Together Your Own Salon.” Both pieces credited Utne for instigating this new chattiness: At the time, more than eight thousand Utne readers had signed up to participate in some five hundred klatches nationwide. It was the perfect salve, a culturally positive trend that also served as a brilliant marketing tool for the magazine.

    The movement itself turned out to be short-lived, but Utne claims he was not disappointed. The effects live on, he says. “People meet each other and they develop a relationship or start a business or a school or a co-housing project. They forget about this magazine in Minneapolis. We couldn’t figure out how to maintain a connection to it. But we were like this catalyst. Mostly I think salons lead to things. I don’t think they are an end unto themselves.”

    It was the impulse to facilitate a larger conversation, to be a catalyst (Utne describes himself as a “proselytizer and a pamphleteer”), that led to the Almanac, which he hopes will be popular among a wide range of people, including students. “We get our news now from TV, newspapers, and the radio rather than from each other,” he laments. “The media tends to separate us from each other. So a big part of the Almanac is to connect us. That’s sort of buried in it. We have things like the citizen wisdom councils and community-supported agriculture, farmers markets, poetry slams. There are all kinds of aspects encouraging people to connect with other human beings. People are craving connection.”

    That is probably true. It’s a bit of cultural analysis that Utne has always gotten right. But people are connecting, just not necessarily along the lines he would prefer. The Republican Party has never been more solidified or zealous. Religious fervor is on the upswing. People are bound together and stratified by fear—fear of terrorism, fear of our nation’s perceived moral weakness. Back in 1989, Utne told USA Today, “We are convinced the country’s values are changing in the direction we have been articulating in our pages.” Alas, quite obviously, the tide didn’t turn that way. Thus far, the twenty-first century has been decidedly grim and non-green.

    After the September 11th attacks, New Age leaders suggested that the movement had to change. Mainly, it needed to be more macro and less micro, less concerned with small, internal matters. In October 2001, astrologer Walter Mercado declared, “The New Age, the way we have defined it in the past, is passing now. Everything was how to, how to, how to. Everything was me, me, me. But being egocentric is over. Even the astrology of the individual has changed. September 11th was a very violent shock to the way we saw the world. Now people are less interested in what the stars have in store for them and more interested in what they have in store for the universe.”

    Is there room in the post twin-towers era for somebody like Eric Utne, for stargazing and flower sniffing? Even Voltaire’s Candide finally had to conclude that “regrettable things happen in this world of ours,” that the fundamental aim in life is not happiness, but merely survival.

    “I think the last line of Candide is about tending your garden,” says Utne, decidedly upbeat. “We become better citizens and more responsible citizens when we are more grounded and more connected, not just to nature, but to each other. Even in warrior cultures, for example the Samurai, in order to know what they were protecting, they became masters of the arts. The Samurai were the guys who did the tea ceremony or flower arranging or brush painting. They had to develop their inner being. I think, related to 9/11, that for us to really know what we are trying to protect and take care of, it might be good for us to become intimate with it. We’re pretty clueless these days.”

    Certainly, Utne’s sights have lowered from the days when he was leading the Utne Reader and igniting a national salon movement, or, as with the Y2K guide, proposing a radical, new way to operate society. His idealism has been seared by hard truths. Asked whether, at this point, he considers himself an optimist, he says, “I would have said that in the past. But I don’t know anymore.”

    That’s just real life talking.

  • Weed Whacked

    I hadn’t smoked pot in more than a year, but why not? I’d just packed up and dragged everything I own 1,700 miles from Minneapolis to Seattle. Quite a daring move. I was feeling like Lewis and Clark in one, Amelia Earhart, a pirate even. A little marijuana? Peee-shaw. I huffed a huge drag. Unfortunately for me, the dope in Seattle is nothing like the dope in Minneapolis. I found myself embarking upon one of those harrowing journeys of acute self-examination.

    Seattle sits just two hours from the border of British Columbia, where some of the most potent marijuana in the world is grown indoors with wicked scientific precision. “B.C. Bud,” as it’s known in these parts, shimmers with purple resin crystals and boasts a punch twice as lethal as that of competing varieties from northern California and Oregon, six times that of common Colombian and Mexican imports. The pot from our unassuming, aw-shucks neighbors to the north contains 30 percent THC, while bud from Mexico contains somewhere around 5. It’s like a revenge or something.

    Penalties in Canada are low. Enforcement is laughable. One unit of the B.C. drug squad drives around in a recycled van with duct tape over whatever logo was once on its side. And despite America’s most hearty efforts, smuggling across the border (where price and demand immediately skyrocket) is pretty easy. This part of the world has too much water, too many islands, miles of undeveloped wilderness. The stuff comes across in duffel bags, trucks, car trunks, on snowmobiles and dog sleds, by boat, sea kayak, and jet ski.

    The buzz felt great for the first half hour. Real jokey. I noted sharp ironies, fielded puns of modest hilarity, all the while looking into everything. Music sounded extra melodic. Apples with peanut butter tasted like ambrosia. This is so much better than drinking, I thought. On pot you just sit around munching and contemplating beauty. You don’t hang out the car window whacking mailboxes with a broom handle. I flipped through my CDs and came up with the Replacements’ Pleased to Meet Me.

    The music from home played. “Alex Chilton,” “Shooting Dirty Pool,” “Skyway.” I perched on a plaid, garage-sale rocker and stared out the window. It had rained the day before. The sky was gray, streaked with hopeful wisps of almost–blue. I considered Seattle’s soggy climate, its long darknesses and lush, overgrown greenery. Moss clumps stuck to roofing like cheese. Frogs croaking in the fog. The culture here is centrifugal, remote, the best effort from the last outpost. Ideas don’t escape, they only spin round and round beneath thick cloud cover. People here don’t have children. They don’t go to church. They don’t protest injustice. They read books, drink espresso, make art, cut their bangs too short, and smoke super-bionic pot. Craziness like seeds in fertile ground.

    What am I doing here? Suddenly, with broiling romanticism, I longed for Leinenkugel’s, Liquor Lyle’s, and Dulano’s Pizza. Unironic institutions. How many people did I know in Seattle anyway? Three? Four? I was severely out of context. I’d abandoned friends I’d known since high school. With a hearty laugh, I’d gone. Off to find a new life. Now I felt like a woman lost. I thought, maybe who you are isn’t really up to your head and heart, but the collection of people, places, and things that surround you. The liquor store where you first bought beer underage. The girlfriend who fell off the dock in her lawnchair, who comforted while you bawled over some lousy guy. And what about mom? She was getting on in years. Smoked like a chimney. I hadn’t spent enough quality time with her. I pictured myself touching down at Minneapolis-St. Paul International just as the undertaker arranged roses around her casket. My eyes stung, urging tears. I’d be the stranger with all the regrets.

    Then I heard it, the deep timbre of a boat horn wafting up the hill from the Sound. It shook my insides like a passionate kiss. You know, I thought, there is a charm to this place. I began to laugh. The creeping, tentacled psychosis withdrew. The black veil flipped up like a window shade. Back to Lewis and Clark and all that.

    Recently, I attended a Paul Westerberg in-store performance at a Seattle record store, his first show in six years. I stood with 600 or so other fans as he played songs from his new album, Stereo. “No day is safe from thoughts of you leaving. Marriage License. I can’t help thinking. It’s all for nothing. You’re so unholy. Up in the stars now, she’s getting lonely.” It sounded like the old stuff. Paul looked handsome. He felt like home. I peered about the room, picking out the Minnesotans by their unconcerned demeanors. By their bangs of normal length. Rugged individualists. Smokers of mild pot.