Category: Article

  • House of Anything You Wish

    I came here to lose. But the wheel won’t let me.

    Once again I pile all of my chips on three. People gasp. What are the odds for winning eight straight-ups in a row?

    Fools! Don’t they know wheels do not hold memory? That math and luck never go together? With roulette, every spin is new. Probability is as whimsical as life. Who would believe three is not even my lucky number?

    You’d sneer at me, Mei. Superstitious, you’d say. But how can I not think that way? On March third, you walked out on me with our three-year-old son. Three years ago, you enrolled in Queens College to study English and computer science, and things began to go downhill.

    Nonsense, you’d say. It has nothing to do with school.

    But it does. How else could I explain your change of heart? I’m still the same Tiger Fan you loved seventeen years ago. Your mother threatened to disown you for going out with a guard soldier from the countryside. Your father pointed his gun at us when he caught me in your room. But nothing could stop you from loving me. You left your mansion without looking back and took the train with me all the way to the Pearl River. On the bank, we looked through the mist at Hong Kong on the other side. If we swam across, we’d be free. It would have taken only four hours. You shook your head, said you sank like a rock in water. But I knew you couldn’t bear bringing your family down further. Once you crossed over, you’d be an enemy of China. Even if your father denounced you, his military career would be over. At the border town, you slid a Swiss watch into the registrar’s sleeve and got our marriage certificate stamped. You sealed the red paper into a plastic bag and zipped it into my pocket, together with sixty U.S. dollars. How you got the money is still a mystery to me. If you make it, Tiger, you cried, hugging my neck, if we meet again, we’ll never part, dead or alive.

    Seventeen years later, you laid quietly on your side of the bed in our Chinatown home. So quiet I couldn’t hear you breathe.

    “Do you remember, Mei,” I asked in the dark, “do you remember?”

    “I was young, a foolish sixteen-year-old,” you finally mumbled.

    I don’t believe it. How can you forget? The scars are there, on your belly, chest, limbs, scars you burnt through the skin to keep me in your heart. Twelve years you waited, though no mail or phone could reach you from Hong Kong. Your family forced you to move on. Tiger Fan is long dead, your father announced. He’s married another woman and has children, your mother said. They brought you a troop of bachelors with great prospects for the future. But you faked insanity and checked yourself into a mental hospital.

    And you couldn’t possibly forget the day we met at JFK! The tears we shed without shame, the joy over our first condo on Bayard Street, our first car, my store on Broadway, your green card …

    Remember the birth of Jia?

    But your ears shut down as soon as I started telling you how I almost drowned in the Pearl River, starved on the streets of Hong Kong, my spirit shattered from working sixteen hours a day, seven days a week in restaurants and antique stores until I saved enough for New York. Useless to point out how I burnt my bridges applying for a green card as a political refugee so that you could come legally, as my wife.

    “Sorry, I no longer speak Chinese.” This is all I could get out of you after I spilled my guts.

    The wheel shudders, stops at three. The dealer clears the chips from the losers, then stacks them up next to my bets. Thirty-five to one. How much have I won? Do I even care? Such dead silence around the table—all eyes wish me dead. I wish myself dead. I came to forget, but everything in this room—its Chinese name, Chinese customers, Chinese managers, and the damn Ping’s Noodle in the corner—stirs up memories. Even the dealer looks like your twin sister. How her almond eyes glow like embers!

    Those ember eyes of yours, Mei. They used to melt me with each blink. Now they spew hate and hunger. How did that happen? What made you start speaking English at home? First with our son, then with me, even when I laughed, mocked and begged you to stop. I can humor every whim of yours, but not this, not at home. After twelve hours of twisting my tongue to please tourists in my store, I need to feel like a person again. Is it too much to ask? Aren’t we still Chinese?

    “We’re New Yorkers now,” you said. “Let’s speak like New Yorkers, our first step to success. Look around, Tiger. Do any of your friends live in this ghetto? No! I’m not saying we should live in SoHo like Master Yao and his artist friends. But even Yingying and Bunny Song live somewhere else, although they can barely afford a meal in a cheap restaurant!”

    I’m successful, too, just like everyone else, I almost shouted. I built my antique store from scratch in the heart of Chinatown. Do you know that every square inch of land here is worth more than gold, and our condo on Bayard Street is just as valuable as the loft in SoHo? Do you know Master Yao spent more time in my little store on Broadway than in his own grand studio? But the smirk on your lips stopped me cold. Since when did you pick up that white man’s look? I wish I could smack it off your face, once and for all.

    “Dump that bitch, fast,” my friends say. “She’s your ill star, bringing you nothing but misfortune since you met her. She’s not even pretty, jaw too square, cheeks too high, signs of a man-killer. You’re still young, only thirty-five. With your looks and money, you can pick the most beautiful girls from Chinatown or Flushing.”

    It’s true that women flock to my bed like moths to a light. Singles, divorcees, married women with husbands on the mainland, all beautiful and young, eager to please. They scream and writhe in my bed. They call me a true tiger and make me feel like a man. But as soon they’re out my door, I get sick to my stomach. I don’t know what they’re after, my money or my American passport. Probably both.

    Ah, here comes another spin. My tablemates move their bets around as the ball leaps and rolls over the slot. Some pinch their chips between their fingers, waiting for me to make a move. I count out thirty-five chips and place them carefully on thirty-three.

    Yesterday was your birthday. I made six dishes—three vegetarian and three seafood, your favorites—and a chocolate cake for our son Jia. I thought the little banquet might cheer you up. You often get depressed on your own birthdays. I dialed the number for your apartment in Sunset Park. It still blows me up whenever I think that you rented this tiny one-bedroom behind my back when we were still living together. Say whatever you want, but I just don’t believe that a normal person can find happiness in a rat hole. For a long time, you wouldn’t give me your phone number or address. Need to be alone for a while to clear your mind, you said. Clear my ass. Haven’t you figured out you can’t live without me? Don’t you know it isn’t that hard to find out where someone lives? Still so naïve, after all these years.

    I listened to the ring with a clear conscience. It was your birthday, for heaven’s sake. I was inviting my wife to her birthday dinner. I wanted to hear you laugh, tell you that thirty-three was an auspicious number, like cuddling lovers, the symbol of “double happiness” on the door of the newly-wed. The phone rang and rang. Finally you picked it up, but you sounded nervous, anxious to hang up. Then I heard him, reading a story to my son behind a closed door. It was deep, muffled, a voice that didn’t need to shout to claim authority, a white man’s voice.

    “Come back home, Mei. Now!” I screamed.

    You waited till I lost my steam, then said, “Tiger, I just want a normal life. I want Jia to grow up good, not a hoodlum.”

    You hung up and unplugged the phone.

    I dumped the dinner into the garbage can.

    You think I’m a tong, bitch! But how can I blame you? All the movies and TV shows you watch, the rumors behind doors, the bullets flying around the dark streets. Yes, there are tongs everywhere. But that’s only half of the truth. You never gave me a chance to tell my story.

    The day I opened my shop, they drifted into the door like ghosts. Through their sunglasses, they looked at me without a word. I knew what they wanted. But instead of giving them the envelope with cash, I shouted, “Welcome to my store. Please have some candy and peanuts.”

    They couldn’t believe their ears. You should see how their mouths dropped open like dead fish. The next day they came back and smashed a few plates and vases. They picked the biggest and shiniest ones, not knowing everything on display was imitation. The real stuff was locked in the safe. I opened the cash register.

    “Look, it’s empty. I haven’t made a penny yet. If you loiter around my store every day, how can I get any customers? If I can’t do business, how can I make money to pay you guys?”

    They looked at me as if I were nuts. I bet nobody had ever talked to them like that. Two days later, they came and placed a little black box on my counter. I opened it. It was an ear, dried and shriveled like an autumn leaf. I looked at it, looked at the two young thugs, who had no idea what tough meat tasted like.

    “O.K.,” I said. “Tell your boss to meet me tonight, nine sharp, in the back room of Seafood Palace on Center Street.”
    I took out my gun for Russian roulette. It was the first thing I’d bought after I made my pledge to Uncle Sam. It had taken me six years and forty thousand bucks to become an alien in this Yankee town. A perfect gift for the celebration. I’d played it in Beijing and Hong Kong. Not my choice at first. But it was the only way I could fend off the soldiers and thugs. The only way to show them I could play, and play hard, despite my pale skin and my girly face. I’m good, real good. Know when to stop. It’d be the first time I’d use it on American soil, and I hoped it’d be the last.

    I got there at eight-thirty, ordered an eighteen-dish banquet, poured two glasses of white grain spirit, and waited. The boss arrived, a scrawny little guy, guarded by his seven brothers. I stood up, showed him my full glass, bottomed it, then pushed his glass over. He stared in disbelief. His bodyguards lifted their shirts, showing off the knives that dangled on their belts. I laughed, pulled out my gun, put a bullet in, twirled the cylinder, and put it against my temple. I pulled the trigger.

    They all went pale.

    I placed my blue beauty next to his glass, still untouched.

    He stared at it like a zombie.

    I slid a red envelope to the scrawny shrimp. It was swollen with fifty twenty-dollar bills. “Believe it or not, you’re the first people who stepped in my store. According to the custom of my trade, you get a present from me, as a lucky omen. Tomorrow I’ll receive my regular clients. One of them is the head of the police station on Elizabeth Street, known as Hawk. I’m sure you’re well acquainted with him. But I bet you don’t know he’s a fanatic antique collector. If you have a chance to visit his home, you’ll see his collection. Perhaps you guys should drop by my store also, have a chat with him. He’s not as ferocious as he looks, if you get to know him.”

    If you had seen the way they ran, Mei, you’d know they’d never show their pimpled faces in my store again. I sat down, alone, ate the eighteen-course dinner, drank the whole bottle of liquor. It’s a shame to waste food, under any circumstance.

    I wish you would believe that I run my business clean in Chinatown.

    The wheel is slowing down. The dealer gives me a look, clears her throat. She seems to wait for me to change my mind before she calls out “No more bets.” Thirty-three is just a column. It pays only two to one, far less exciting than straight-ups or splits. But what do I care? I didn’t come here to win in the first place. Besides, once I make up my mind, I stand firm. I’m pigheaded like you. We have twin spirits.

    The first night of our reunion, you wouldn’t let me keep the light on. I thought you were just being shy. As I buried my face between your breasts, I felt the scars. I switched on the light. Your torso was covered, some perfectly round, like cigarette burns, some with perforated edges like a poppy pod.

    “Who did that to you?” I screamed in horror. “Tell me who did it. I swear I’ll get them, one by one.”

    “Shh,” you hushed, sealing my lips with your slender fingers. “I did it to myself, just to prove I was mad, a real huachi who lost her mind for love, no longer fit for marriage.”

    I bawled into your belly. How could I ever pay back such love in this life?

    “Tiger, Tiger, look at me.” You cradled my face and cooed like a pigeon at my ear. “It wasn’t painful, not at all, not compared to the pain of longing for you, for not knowing where you were, how you were doing. I knew you were alive, no matter what they told me. I knew you were alive because I was still hanging on. Tiger, my sweetheart and lover, look at me, look at my belly. What do you see? It’s your face, your profile, if you link the dots together. Here’s the forehead, the nose, the lips, and chin. Here, here, feel them.” You grabbed my finger to trace the scars that formed a constellation.

    And I remembered the first time I met you, outside your father’s mansion. You were reading on the front steps, the breeze blowing the fuzzy hair of your nape this way and that, like the waves of a golden harvest. I felt dizzy, weightless, a buoy in space. I have been floating in your universe ever since.

    But it all disappeared when you exploded without a warning. No, not true. There were signs. First the change from Mei to May, then the abandonment of Chinese, your hatred for Chinatown, and the constant nagging about me being a gangster. I shouldn’t have laughed it off. I should have paid more attention.

    I tried everything I could to clear my name. But you just yelled, despair in your eyes, “How could you survive in this town otherwise? Those damn tourists stare at me like a whore. They even have the nerve to ask why I don’t wear the sexy gown that split at my thighs.”

    “All right,” I said finally. “Give me a year to sell out. We’ll move wherever you want, SoHo, Flushing, Brooklyn, White Plains, even New Jersey.”

    I thought you’d jump with joy.

    “Doesn’t matter where you live,” you screamed. “You are Chinatown.”

    Bitch!

    But you’re right. I am Chinatown. I live there, buy and sell stuff robbed from tombs hundreds, thousands of years old. I wear my watermelon hat and silk robe, just like a Chinaman in a movie, to amuse tourists. I even smell like Chinatown—the stink of fish, garlic, and soy sauce. Is it a crime? I do whatever it takes to support my family. But are you grateful? Jia wouldn’t even say hello when he came home from school. He chatted only with you, in English. The other day, I told him to speak Chinese like a good son, like a human being. Guess what he said after making a horrific face?

    “Can you talk like a grown-up?”

    I spanked him, for the first time. He’s only five, already he acts like a little devil. What will he be like when he reaches fifteen, twenty-five? I might as well strangle him right now, to save trouble for the future.

    I guess it pushed you over the edge.

    Fine. We live in America. Spanking is not hip. I speak Chinglish. My clothes smell of rice and old graves. But do you have to get a white devil into your bed and have my son call him “father?”

    I pulled out my gun. The cold metal soothed my throbbing temple.

    The ball drops. I won again. Two to one. No big deal. But the message is clear. I’m not yet finished, not yet.

    I’m tired of being out. I want to be in the game, before it’s too late, you said.

    Translated: you’re bored as a merchant’s wife in Chinatown. You want to be pampered by some white man.

    With your China eyes and yellow skin? With your permanently accented English? Your job behind a receptionist desk in the Seagram Building and your rat-infested one-bedroom apartment in Brooklyn? You forget this is America, not Beijing. General’s daughter or not, white men don’t give a shit about your past.

    I want to be in, too. Why do you think I swam through the night to cross the river? Why I cut off my ties with China and applied for citizenship as a refugee? Do you know how I felt when I stood on the harbor of Hong Kong, gazing at the mainland’s shadow poking through the mist? For sixteen years I haven’t returned home. Sixteen years. I want to see my mother one more time before she goes. She’s blind, ready to join her husband, the father I’ve never met. Her coffin is made and varnished, her name chiseled on the stone. But she can’t go without me, her only son, at her bedside, to guide her soul into heaven with my cry.

    “What are you afraid of?” Mom asks whenever I call. “You’re a foreigner now, a rich foreigner. Nobody can touch you.”

    “Yes, nothing to be afraid of.” You tell me the same thing, when you see the pinched look on my face, knowing I’m homesick. “Now that you have an American passport, the old man won’t dare harm you.”

    I laugh. What do you know about your father’s other side? He can toast to his enemies at a banquet and have them eliminated before they have a chance to burp the gas out of their stomachs. He was so furious when he found out I married his only daughter that he instantly put me on the list of top spy suspects. He won’t give a shit that I’m a “foreigner” with an American passport. As soon as my name appears on the computer screen at customs, he’ll have me dragged to his cell. My only hope is to wait till he retires or dies.

    Not a totally bad end, perhaps? At least he treats me as if I were still Chinese, not a “foreign devil.” Even my own mother calls me a “foreigner.” Being my mother, she doesn’t say the word devil, but I can hear it in the awkward silence, the way she bites her tongue to stop it from slipping out of her mouth. Foreign devil, foreign ghost. Once you cross that bridge, once you turn your back to your mother, you become a ghost, a ghost without a grave, without a country.

    “Nonsense,” you said when I tried to tell you my morbid thoughts, your voice loud and shrill as if you were trying to scare away ghosts. “America is your home now. You belong here. We all do, dead or alive.”

    I looked past your shoulder, at the antique vase on the nightstand. It captured the scene of a slender maiden chasing a butterfly in the garden and a young man peeking at her from the wall, his eyes full of lust. It’s the kind of vase that would have sold quickly, if not for the crack at the bottom. So I drilled a hole and turned it into a lamp. Tourists love Chinese antiques. Americans. Europeans. They come into my store. “I’m looking for a vase or plate with Chinese faces like you and her.” They point their fat, hairy fingers at me, at my young assistant from Shanghai. When they get what they want, they pat me on my shoulder. “Hsie hsie, China Fan.” Their thanks come out like “shit shit.”

    I gaze into their eyes: blue, hazel, brown, gray. Will they ever look at me and say: Perhaps he’s an American too, just like us?

    Do you know, Mei, that you’re a walking Chinatown yourself?

    But no matter. Nothing stops you. The stubborn dreamer.

    Somewhere far away, slot machines sing in many voices: a Christmas bell, an alarm, a combat song. They remind me of those sleepless nights in Beijing, under my cotton quilt, my ear pressed against the old plastic radio for the static sound from the Voice of America. Turn to the dealer, now. Do not weep. Must not weep. Not here.

    She returns my glare with a smile and turns the wheel.

    Let’s play then, Mei, you from your rat hole in Sunset Park, me from this Chinese casino room in Atlantic City. Ruyilou—House of Anything You Wish. See how I pile everything on the big red one? It stands tall, quivering, a pickax hacking into the belly of the game.

    Wang Ping’s latest collection of short stories, The Last Communist Virgin, will be available from Coffee House Press April 1. Her photo and video installation, “Behind the Gate: China in Flux After the Flood of the Three Gorges Dam,” is on exhibit at Macalester Art Gallery March 3–27. Born in Shanghai, she now lives in St. Paul.

  • Learning to Speak

    It’s a bit foggy aboard the Queen Mary 2 on our second day out of New York. The sky merges seamlessly with the ocean, obliterating the horizon in mushy blue-grayness. But deep inside this massive vessel—the newest, largest, fastest, and most luxurious ocean liner in the world—and behind the doors of the Illuminations auditorium, the stage lights are so bright that I can’t see anyone beyond the second row. What I know (and sense acutely) is that there are 150 people in the room, and that their attention, in just a moment, will be trained on me. For the first time I feel nervous, my self-assurance fading into a maritime cloudbank along with the afternoon sun. I start to worry: Have I combed my hair? Did I get my tie on straight? Am I going to stammer?

    Dr. David Vaisey, a silver-haired Oxford professor and a luminary in the world of English academia, takes the lectern to introduce me. It was never the icebergs of the North Atlantic I feared. It’s these spotlights.

    Months earlier, checking my morning email, I noticed one that stood out from the deluge of spam that usually arrives overnight. It was addressed: “From Oxford University for William Gurstelle.” Yes, that storied institution of higher learning. And they had a business proposition for me: Oxford runs the Discovery Series, a continuing-education program offered on the Cunard Line’s Queen Mary 2, and they wanted me to present a series of lectures on my particular area of expertise: catapults, Tesla coils, rockets, coil guns, flamethrowers, and other technology-with-an-edge stuff. I’ve carved out a niche in this area, authored books, and developed an overall reputation as the go-to guy for the facts on things that go whoosh, boom, and splat.

    In return for four presentations on these topics, Oxford offered a stipend, along with airfare and accommodations for me and a guest aboard the Queen Mary 2. In an attempt to avoid appearing overly eager, I waited two days before accepting. Then, promptly, I began to feel pangs of apprehension. I’ve given quite a few talks before, and typically they involve a fair amount of nervous anticipation. I’m more a writer than a speaker. Still, I figured I would know more about my strange little area of expertise than any of the ship’s other passengers, and wasn’t an all-expenses-paid trip on a legendary ocean liner worth some anxiety?

    All of that rationalizing seems a million years ago as I mount the stage and stand at the lectern. I take a gulp of water and look down at my notes. It’s my turn in the spotlight.

    Historians tell us that public speaking—the art of oratory—was crucial to the culture of ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. In Rhetoric, Aristotle explained his method for effective and persuasive speaking. A public speaker must master three things, he said: ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos comes from a speaker’s credibility; pathos from his emotion; and logos from his logic. These simple ideas have influenced speaking traditions throughout Western civilizations in the 2,400 years since Rhetoric was published.

    Public speaking has been an important part of life in America since before the Revolution. Whether you wanted to win an election, supporters for your cause, or converts for your congregation, the ability to deliver crowd-pleasing speeches was necessary. Candidates for office debated. Ministers preached. And—most relevant to the task in front of me—guest speakers at the local lyceums and other organizations such as Chautauquas and Rotary Clubs provided education and entertainment for people of all classes in cities and small towns across America.

    Even with the advent of electronic information exchange—from radio and television to blogs, email, and online chats—the tradition of public speaking remains vital. Still, a great many of us are loathe to stand up and talk in front of our peers. People fear public speaking for one of two reasons. A minority of people are truly phobic, and probably no amount of practice or coaching will help them to overcome their fear. The rest of us simply realize, consciously or unconsciously, that we are unskilled public speakers. We don’t know how to use this activity to help us accomplish goals, and that makes us nervous. I do rather like to talk, publicly and privately; what I suffered from was an antipathy to the idea of exhibiting myself, in public, as mediocre. The way to avoid that was to prepare for my engagement very, very well.

    I figured that reciting my talk in front of a mirror would yield minimal results, and be quite boring, to boot. So I embarked on a different sort of training program, something I called my Audible Spring, built around the observation of speakers speaking. I resolved to see every major speaker coming to the Twin Cities that I possibly could in the four months preceding my summer voyage on the Queen Mary 2. I might or might not enjoy these people or be moved by them—but I would learn from them. Stutter, strut, sweat, or swear, it wasn’t what these orators were saying, it was how they said it that mattered.

    Once I became attuned to looking, I found the number and quality of lecturers coming to the Twin Cities nearly overwhelming. Another not-insignificant benefit of my self-improvement program was the food that is frequently offered after lectures. In fact, these free buffets were often superb: exotic pastries, aged cheeses, and, occasionally, the ne plus ultra of the hors d’oeuvres table, jumbo shrimp. One’s overall impression of even the driest, most obtuse lecture can always be improved by the ingestion of high-quality canapés and finger foods immediately afterward.

    After attending nearly three dozen lectures, I devised a framework for understanding the world of public speaking, dividing it into a series of patterns and formats. Most speaking engagements, I noticed, fall into one of three categories: inspirational, informative, or persuasive. While some speakers may fall outside this taxonomy, it usually holds up well.

    Those of the inspirational ilk are usually billed as “motivational speakers”; characters who have made it their job to tell people to reach higher, to try harder, to be more creative, or to think outside the box. For such speakers, their credibility—Aristotle’s ethos—might lie with their unparalleled ability to throw out base runners at second base (Johnny Bench) or endure astronaut training (Buzz Aldrin), but in many cases, it’s a matter of self-proclamation: The speaker is a successful motivator by dint of being a successful motivator (Tony Robbins).

    Persuaders distinguish themselves with a cause or a calling. They preach, rant, and cajole, warning against the monoculture of corn farming (Michael Pollan) or plead for higher levels of journalistic integrity (Seth Mnookin). Like the motivators, they often employ a formula: Launch with a startling story, fill the middle with facts and statistics, and bring things to a close with a stentorian call to action.

    The third group, the informers, seeks to explain things to people, not change them. Usually less dynamic than the other types of talkers, they make use of graphics-heavy presentations and are prone to reading from notes; they lecture about science, politics, and the seldom-heard stories behind well-known events. My own talks fall largely into this category. Certainly, I love my subject matter and I hope my enthusiasm for it comes through. But you can’t please everyone. I feared coming across as stodgy or pedantic, cringing visibly if my auditors were to check their watches, or worse, leave early.

    The length of a typical lecture runs fifty minutes, give or take ten minutes. But fifty minutes spent simply informing, persuading, or motivating always seems too long. The speakers I like best merge these genres. If they’re good, they spend some time in two areas, and if they’re great, they hit all three. Both Dan Pink, a journalist and Washington insider of some repute, and the Guthrie Theater’s Joe Dowling were stellar, mixing all three modalities seamlessly and effectively. When inspiration, information, and persuasion are expertly combined in one neat package, as happened with these speakers, a lecture can be as amazing for the audience as any other, perhaps more artistically oriented, cultural experience.

    Still, the personal and more intimate nature of a lecture distinguishes it from other forms of public entertainment, such as a play or a concert. As much as we would like to ask Osmo Vänskä or Joe Dowling why they interpreted Beethoven or Tennessee Williams in a particular way, the opportunity to query them personally doesn’t often happen—except in a lecture. Thanks to the virtually mandatory Q&A session afterward, audience members have a rare chance to connect directly with those people at the center of attention. It’s that personal connection between speaker and listener that can make a lecture a profound experience, one with immediate impact. Using their own words directly and passionately, speakers can transform an audience: The audience may become more informed, more enthusiastic, or more partisan. The fact is, they go away different from when they arrived. Add a buffet and it can’t be beat.

    So it was that last spring I found myself gobbling up every lecture I could find (and quite often, the food offered afterward), in many cases attending more than one a day. My improvement program began with Salman Rushdie at the Thursday noontime Westminster Town Hall Forum in downtown Minneapolis. The novelist exuded bravado and confidence, traits not unexpected from someone with a Powerball-sized fatwa on his head (and no bodyguards, either, at least not in sight).

    Still, while Rushdie was persuasive and motivating, he was also opinionated, facile, and glib. “Do not start me on The DaVinci Code,” he sneered. “A novel so bad that it gives bad novels a bad name.” The audience nodded and snickered knowingly, though no doubt more than half of these people had read and enjoyed the book.

    Later that week, Paul Sereno, a University of Chicago paleontologist, visited the State Theater in downtown Minneapolis. Uncharacteristically for a lecture, the sponsor, National Geographic Magazine, created a bit of advance hype with promotional materials that gushed about him being “a real-life Indiana Jones” and “one of People magazine’s 50 Most Beautiful People.” But while Sereno was an adequate informer, he was but a so-so persuader and no motivator at all. Sadly, there was no bullwhip and no lost ark; nor was there much excitement. And while his talk was heavy on facts and photos, basically (and ironically, for a paleontologist) it had no bones. Despite all the talk of dinosaurs, fossils, and grueling, sweating African expeditions through the desert, I left more exhausted than exhilarated.

    After these initial forays, the local lecture scene heated up. My calendar grew clogged with opportunities for intellectual enlightenment. Simon Singh, a Cambridge-educated cosmologist, best-selling science writer, and BBC television host, visited Minneapolis Community and Technical College, where he made a strong case for the importance of science education. While he is a persuader of some talent, Singh is primarily known for his ability to inform, having made his mark as perhaps the foremost explainer of the Big Bang Theory (the subject of his latest book). Singh was also quite entertaining, sprinkling in clever gimmicks and telling some pretty good jokes. In all, even if I found it hard to fathom his explanations of what happened in the first ten-billionth of a second after the universe began, he managed to make even string theory and twelve-dimensional space-time sound rather user friendly.

    A few weeks later, St. Louis Park’s own Tom Friedman visited Macalester College. The New York Times columnist was earnest and smooth, as he’d better be at a reputed thirty-five thousand dollars per lecture (a fee that might explain why there was no post-lecture buffet on this occasion). Friedman, a Macalester staffer told me, does use a formula for his speeches—one that I thought worked quite well. A fine informer and a superior persuader, Friedman began with a joke and moved adroitly through a presentation of the gist of his book, The World is Flat, via a bullet-point summary of world politics as shaped by the economic rise of India and China. He made one well-articulated point after another, finished up a scant hour later—and voilà, he was thirty-five grand richer.

    Soon after Friedman’s talk, I went to the Minnesota History Center in St. Paul, expecting to listen to David Horowitz, the well-known conservative ideologue. I found to my dismay that I was there to hear David Horowitz, the Portland State University professor and not-so-well-known social scientist.

    “Let’s welcome the real David Horowitz!” enthused the scholarly colleague who introduced him. As if to make himself more real to the audience, this Horowitz spent the first half-hour reading his own biography, wherein he offered copious details of his professional relationships with various faculty members from the University of Minnesota’s history department. Beyond that, however, he actually offered interesting notions about the effect of American popular culture on literature, the performing arts, painting, and comedy. And the buffet afterward was outstanding: several mixed-fruit tarts, a properly rich tiramisu, and some unbelievably flaky mille-feuilles.

    As it turned out, Friedman was just the opener for a season of big-name speakers: My schedule soon filled up with dates to hear former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, NPR reporter Don Gonyea, explorer Anne Bancroft, and writers T. Coraghessan Boyle, Tracy Kidder, Sebastian Junger, and David Halberstam, to name a few. I learned something from just about every one of them, too. Sandra Day O’Connor, for example, was a surprising master of body language. Gesturing vigorously and to great effect, her hands amplified and emphasized her speaking points in a way that words and voice could not. In his speaking, as in his millions-selling series of books, Jack “Chicken Soup for the Soul” Canfield had a real knack for taking trivial-sounding principles and puffing them up to sound important. Plus, the snack buffet after his talk was heartier than most, a plain but filling spread of fresh fruit, miniature bagels, and various non-gourmet cheeses (Gouda or Stilton would be a bit pretentious for a guy like Canfield).

    No land-based buffet, free or otherwise, compares to the Queen Mary 2’s four-room extravaganza. On average there are five world cuisines represented, and the fish selection alone ran from sushi, to finnan haddie, to deep-fried haddock. But then everything on this liner was beyond beyond. (When big Mary was first launched in 2003, she was the longest, widest, tallest, and heaviest passenger ship ever built. She lost that last distinction to Norwegian Cruise Line’s Freedom of the Seas last year, but the QM2 is still the largest ocean liner—as opposed to cruise ship—ever built, and she remains the tallest and longest passenger vessel.) Besides the couple dozen restaurants and bars, there are five swimming pools, several art galleries, a fitness center, a spa, a library, a casino, two theaters, a ballroom, five classrooms, and a planetarium. I spent hours anticipating my trip, studying the brochures, choosing the right books to read while stretched out on a padded teak deck chair, and learning how to tie a bow tie for the formal nights.

    Once my girlfriend and I finally flew to New York and boarded the ship in Brooklyn, my first order of business was meeting with the continuing-education staff from Oxford University and the three other speakers booked for the trip. They were all Oxford professors, it turned out: David Vaisey, a venerated historian and the retired head of the Oxford Bodleian Library, probably the most important scholastic library in the world; Hans-Joachim Hahn, a renowned professor of contemporary German culture; and the delightfully named Harry Sidebottom, an Oxford don with a wry sense of humor who specializes in Greek and Roman history. I was selected for this voyage to provide a non-academic counterpoint to these distinguished scholars—and also, not insignificantly, the people at Cunard felt my subject matter would appeal to younger passengers.

    The other lecturers were invaluable as the time for my first presentation drew near. Vaisey in particular was a veteran cruise-ship lecturer. “It’s an older crowd,” he pointed out. “Most of these passengers are here because they’re interested in what you have to say. But these are really comfortable seats. As soon as the lights go down, a few will go to sleep. They can’t help it. Don’t let the snoring break your concentration.”

    The house lights GO down and the spotlight comes up—on me. For fifty minutes, I take my listeners through the history, science, and social significance of various contraptions that were the most powerful, most complex, and most expensive machines on earth for nearly two millennia. I move from Alexander the Great’s arrow-shooting ballistas to the great counterweighted hurling machines of England’s Angevin kings, to catapults, trebuchets, and mangonels—but soon I leave my notes behind. I move into what is known as “Csikszentmihalyian flow,” a state in which words come to the speaker easily and quickly. I have to remind myself to keep the pace down to a fast walk.

    While I had given dozens of lectures, doing so aboard a luxury liner, and with the Oxford imprimatur, gives me added incentive to excel. I soon find that my months of preparation were worthwhile. I bring nearly every technique, every tip that I collected to bear. People respond favorably to my sprinklings of alliterative and onomatopoeic phrases. My pauses for dramatic affect come off, well, dramatically, and not, as I had feared, like I have simply lost my place. And the visual aids—slides ranging from Telsa coils to Ottoman sultans, and video clips featuring lively demonstrations of various machines and devices—make a profound difference in getting my material across, as well as giving people something to look at besides me.

    Afterward, I was told that I could review a video of my lecture—and that, in fact, this video would be cablecast on a continuous loop via the ship’s close-circuit television system. If you think hearing your own recorded voice is strange, try watching a video of yourself speaking. It is far worse. But “you’re always your own worst critic,” Vaisey and Sidebottom said. After a few replays, I did indeed cut myself some slack. I had crossed the North Atlantic without hitting an iceberg.

  • Peddling Pleasure

    Smitten Kitten, the South Minneapolis sex boutique, recently launched its own version of the in-home sex-toy party, at which such wares as lubricants and vibrators are passed around for taste-testing, manhandling, discussion, and, of course, purchase. These “Pussy Parties” are geared to have a more urban, less hetero bent than, say, “Passion Parties,” which is what the industry leader calls its gatherings. Lindsey, a roaming sex educator employed by Smitten Kitten, presided over a dozen randy partygoers a few weeks ago. The hostesses were college students, Jessie and Jacqueline, who had booked the party in honor of their soon-to-be-married friend Liz. For the occasion, they’d wallpapered their Southeast Minneapolis living room with pornographic images—cutouts of naked men taken from Slurp and other similarly tasteful 80s-era publications. Seasoned pro that she is, Lindsey didn’t bat an eye. During a lecture on male anatomy, in fact, she pointed to one of the photographs of a gentleman in full recline and said, “This guy, there’s his taint!”
    Suited up as if to assert an authoritative air, the twenty-six-year-old Lindsey wore a short red skirt, black tights, and a pair of tall, calf-hugging black boots. She’d applied a light dusting of makeup to her baby face, and her closely cropped auburn hair was wispy and spiked. Providing a hint of what was to come, she announced, “I’ve got the Cock Box,” and opened a vintage trunk to reveal a fantastic display of satin and hard plastics. Lubricants were stowed in satchels and side pouches, while vibrators were belted down by what looked to be a series of frilly garter belts. “I’d like you to know that my mom helped me make this box,” Lindsey said.
    In the next hour or so, she would educate (“Semen comes out at twenty-eight miles per hour”), boggle (“You don’t have to worry about losing things in your vagina—your butt, now that’s a different story”), and pitch with equal zeal. She waxed poetic on the virtues of such products as Rocket Balm (“sort of like a hot, sexy Bengay”) and O’My Clitoral Stimulating Gel. As guests passed around the Fukuoku Finger Vibe, Lindsey suggested this inconspicuous massager would pack well for travel. It isn’t likely to bring its owner unwanted attention from airport security agents, although such a scenario didn’t seem much of a concern for Lindsey. “When I travel I put a big dildo on top of my suitcase,” she said. “I think it’s funny and I want them to check it.”
    Among a batch of scary-looking toys, many of which bore a vague resemblance to weapons of torture, Lindsey introduced the Sea Goddess, an aquamarine, cactus-shaped contraption. This two-headed creature, she said, both pulses and “does a Ricki Lake-like neck twist.” An imposing doodad called the Echo resembled a chocolate soft-serve ice cream cone and had the all-important flared base. “You can put this in a harness or in a butt,” Lindsey said. “You can also put this in the dishwasher.”
    She was also more than candid regarding her own sexual practices. For example, as a motivational reward to herself, she said, she inserts something called Smartballs every time she does housework. “It makes you shake your butt a little more while you’re vacuuming,” she said. More shocking still was her claim of having convinced men (yes, more than one) to insert things up their backsides; because of the opportune placement of their prostates, or P-spots, they’d all thanked her for it later, she said.
    Shortly after bowling over the room with this last statement, Lindsey packed up the Cock Box and carried it upstairs, making herself available in one of the home’s private bedrooms so that partygoers could discreetly place orders and ask questions. Having spent the past sixty minutes under Lindsey’ erotic spell, no one in the living room seemed quite certain of how to proceed in her absence. One woman sighed. Another stretched her arms as she looked around. A few had their heads buried in their order forms, presumably pondering purchases of Body Wax Candles and Kama Sutra Honey Dust. Finally, a Pussy Party attendee named Alison spoke up. “I feel like I’m ordering Girl Scout Cookies,” she said.

  • Spinning "Climate Change"

    Aquatennial and Winter Carnival to merge.

    More Speedo time!

    Northwest Passage soon to be completed.

    Global Warming: Beats the hell out of an ice age.

    It’s treatable! Sort of like a meteorlogical bi-polar disorder.

    Won’t that hole in the ozone be a handy escape hatch when the planet blows up?

  • Murder by Numbers

    Viewed through the prism of memory, some years take on a character, a distinctive tone. In 2006, crime reclaimed its place on the front pages of newspapers across the United States, including the Star Tribune. And in this year of murder, Courtney Brown and Trevor Marsh were like twin poles on a violent globe. Brown died on a Saturday night in September, while walking with friends near the intersection of Lyndale Avenue North and Dowling Avenue. He had been playing basketball. The young man who shot him wanted Brown’s basketball shoes and jersey, a replica of an old Morgan State University uniform. Brown was about to start his sophomore year at Edison High.

     

    Minneapolis had been recording homicides at a rate not seen here in a decade, but Brown’s killing, which occurred on the fringes of Minneapolis’ most troubled neighborhood, struck a chord. Spurred by media attention and aided by cooperative citizens, the police quickly arrested several suspects, including the alleged shooter. He was seventeen. Charges have since been dropped.

    Trevor Marsh’s murder occurred nine miles away, bringing a half-dozen squad cars and police barricades to a quiet, middle-class neighborhood. A student at South High, he was shot in the woods near the Mississippi River, below the intersection of Thirty-second Street and West River Parkway. It was October 26. Another South High student had been murdered just three weeks earlier.

    Police said little about the circumstances of Marsh’s killing, but rumors swirled at the school and throughout the Longfellow neighborhood, where violent crime is rare. Marsh had been in trouble. He was shot execution style. The killers had taken his shoes, a sign of gang involvement. In late December, Minneapolis police charged two alleged gang members, one of them only sixteen, with Marsh’s murder. According to the criminal complaint, Raine C. Neiss shot Marsh at close range near the left ear because he had lied about being a member of the Gangster Disciples. An eyewitness allegedly told investigators that Neiss was playing Russian roulette with a pistol that Marsh brought to the meeting.

    Along the river, a memorial grew and morphed, withered and was revived. A framed photograph in a wicker basket, flowers, balloons. Saints candles. Briefly, a blue bandanna. In December, a Christmas wreath with handwritten notes.

    These murders made for two sharply contrasting tales: One victim black, the other white. One lived north, one south. One was the epitome of innocence on the fringes of a troubled neighborhood; the other, apparently living what Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak indelicately called a “high-risk lifestyle,” albeit in a supposedly safe part of the city. And yet each death created the same anguish, confusion, and even rage.

     

    By year’s end, Minneapolis had recorded sixty homicides, thirteen more than in 2005 and the highest number since 1996, when eighty-eight people died violently in the city. Twenty-nine—nearly half—of last year’s killings occurred in a six-square-mile area of North Minneapolis, from Glenwood Avenue north to Dowling, and from the city’s western border to the Mississippi River on the east (minus the North Loop neighborhood in the southeastern corner). According to the 2000 Census, 49,405 people live here, which equates to roughly fifty-four homicides per hundred thousand residents. Were North Minneapolis a separate city, that murder rate would put it just behind such municipalities as Compton, California, and Gary, Indiana. If Longfellow neighborhood had the same homicide rate, there would have been fifteen homicides there in 2006, instead of three; in southwest Minneapolis, there would have been thirty-four instead of the single case—the shooting of graduate student Michael Zebuhr in Uptown—that caused such an uproar last March.

    Granted, last year’s total was far below the 1995 record of ninety-nine homicides, which earned the city mention as “Murderapolis” in the New York Times. And, in fact, experts routinely caution against extrapolating from homicide data for a single year, since the numbers involved are relatively small and can be influenced by many factors, including luck. But the Minneapolis-based Center for Homicide Research has used police data and other sources to locate all seven-hundred-odd homicides in Minnesota between 1996 and 2000. Zooming in on Minneapolis shows that nothing substantial has changed between those years and 2006—there are just more dots. “Homicide doesn’t occur randomly,” pointed out Dallas Drake, the center’s principal researcher. “It clusters. It clusters in space and time.”

    Minneapolis is not alone. From Orlando to Oakland, Philadelphia to Indianapolis, to Milwaukee, to Little Rock, violent crime, particularly murder, was big news in 2006. Oakland, the San Francisco Chronicle reported last October, “has hit a 10-year high for homicides.” A headline in the Houston Chronicle proclaimed that same month: “Homicide rate on track to be worst in a decade.” Wrote the Orlando Sentinel on November 3: “Death brings murder count to record 44.” In August, the Philadelphia Daily News reported that “blood is spilling at a record rate this year—not only on the streets of Philly—but in supposedly friendlier locales …”

    These figures in many cases rose for the second year in a row. “Among violent crimes,” the Washington Post reported, “the biggest rise in 2005 came in the number of homicides, which leapt 4.8 percent, to nearly 17,000. Some of the hardest-hit cities included Milwaukee (up 40 percent), Cleveland (38 percent), Houston (23 percent), and Phoenix (9 percent).” According to recently released FBI figures, violent crime rates accelerated four percent in the first half of 2006. This follows a 2.5 percent increase in 2005, which was the largest increase in a decade.

     

    No matter how it’s broken down statistically, murder is ultimately just a surrogate for the broader perceptions about security and danger that profoundly shape our lives. We focus on homicides, in part, because they can be measured with relative accuracy. Few go unreported; the demarcation between life and death is clear. In legal terms, too, it makes a huge difference: When a man was shot at a downtown Minneapolis bus stop in late November, the fact that he survived meant that the shooter could not be charged with murder. Knowing that the victim survived, however, does not make those who witnessed the shooting, or who wait at that bus stop every day, feel measurably safer.

    Among themselves, criminologists often speak of homicide as merely one type of aggravated assault, in which numerous factors—the shooter’s skill, proximity to advanced trauma care, and sheer luck—influence the fate of the victim. A half-inch difference in where a bullet hits can mean the difference between life and death. Researchers at Harvard University and the University of Massachusetts have estimated that the U.S. murder rate would be roughly three times higher without the advances in emergency-room medicine that have occurred since 1960. And so Minneapolis’ overall homicide rate is surely reduced by the proximity of two Level I trauma centers, at Hennepin County and North Memorial Medical Centers.

    But trauma surgeons saving the lives of gunshot victims masks the true dimensions of the problem, which is not so much murder as it is violence in general. A better measure of that violence might be a tally of those who are intentionally shot, or shot at, in the city; however, such figures are unfortunately only “semi-accurate,” said Minneapolis police Lieutenant Greg Reinhardt. “You don’t see a gang member saying, ‘I want to make a report that I was shot at.’ They’re going to take care of it themselves.”

    Still, even the number of reported shootings in 2006 rose twelve percent over 2005, according to police figures. Aggravated assaults, which include shootings, were up sixteen percent in the same period, and weapons-related arrests were up fourteen percent. Nearly three-quarters of Minneapolis’ homicide victims in 2006 were killed with handguns; a decade earlier, when the city had eighty-eight homicides, handguns were used in about half of them. One logical response to violent crime, then, might be to take away guns from those with a propensity for violence. Police in Kansas City, Missouri, for example, cut gun crimes nearly in half when they dramatically increased enforcement in “gun crime hot spots” of laws that prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. They took away sixty-five percent more guns than in the previous year. Researchers have reported similar results in other cities, but the methods used to seize those guns have often proved controversial, with frequent charges that police rely on racial profiling to decide whom to search.

    At universities and think tanks across the United States, a small cottage industry of researchers has tried to understand why and how murder occurs, and by extension how to curb it. There is even a peer-reviewed journal, Homicide Studies. (From its November 2006 issue: “The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill.”) Like law-enforcement officials, those researchers routinely classify homicides in a variety of ways: by the relationship between victim and killer, say, or by looking at whether illegal drugs or gang membership were involved.

    If the goal is to reduce the number of murders, those distinctions make sense. Preventing the death of a young child at the hands of a caregiver (No. 13, three-year-old Ethan Hamilton) or of an intimate partner (No. 43, Martell Delaney) requires a different strategy from, say, stopping drive-by shootings (No. 50, South High student Gennaro Knox ), violent robberies (No. 12, Michael Zebuhr), or drug-related murders (No. 16, Garey Hannah). Likewise, this analysis helps us gauge risk and protect ourselves.

    But these distinctions have negative consequences, as well. They inherently place at least part of the blame for murder on the victim. One was buying illegal drugs, a second argued with a gang member, another chose to live with a violent partner. In this crude calculus, it is the random act of violence that haunts urban America. Thus, as the Star Tribune reported in the wake of that November bus-stop murder: “The downtown shooting wasn’t random … The boy was shot by another person who … knew the parties involved.” The subtext: You, dear reader, are safe.

    These distinctions create a sort of economy of homicide, in which some lives are more valuable than others. And in this economy, daily news coverage becomes a rough measure of value. Only a handful of the city’s murders in 2006 made front-page news, and those often had a ready-made nickname (the Block E shooting, the Uptown murder), or at least a shocking detail (killed for a basketball jersey). The killing of Michael Zebuhr merited 7,500 words. Including the trial and its aftermath, the death of Alan Reitter, near Block E, generated more than 11,000 words. Michael Eide, shot near Twenty-ninth and Morgan Avenues North, was worth 313. Erman Edmonds, shot on the 3700 block of Columbus Avenue South, warranted 105.

    At the very nadir of this process, the act of living in or even visiting a neighborhood plagued by violence tacitly becomes equated with risk. Murder, Drake says, “becomes normal. ‘That’s just a bad neighborhood.’ It becomes acceptable—expected—that homicide will occur there.”

    In recent years, researchers in the field of public health have become involved in this discussion of homicide. From their perspective, murder might be seen as a disease that disproportionately afflicts men: In Minneapolis, the murder rate for men (27.9 per hundred thousand residents) is nearly eight times higher than it is for women (3.6). Homicide disproportionately affects African Americans, especially men: Their murder rate in Minneapolis (eighty-seven per hundred thousand) is about fifteen times that of white men (5.6). Homicide rates for black male teenagers (202 per hundred thousand) and black men aged twenty to twenty-nine (244 per hundred thousand) are staggeringly high. (The rates for whites are fifteen and eleven, respectively.) As with the maps plotting out murder locations in Minneapolis, these figures remain fundamentally consistent, year after year, decade after decade, both here and in many American cities.

    Not that plenty of people aren’t trying to reduce the violence, using myriad strategies, both obvious (a police juvenile-crime apprehension unit, gun buy-back programs, increased patrols in hot spots, the new “Shotspotter” technology) and not so obvious (nonprofit organizations that rehabilitate problem properties).

    We also talk good. Last August, Mayor Rybak spoke of public safety as a “civil right.” Quoting the mayor, the Strib wrote an impassioned editorial, pointing out how angry we would be if armed thugs terrorized the streets of Edina. Governor Pawlenty called the violence in Minneapolis “a statewide concern.” We write this article.

    But lacking a coherent, systematic plan to address violence, all of the above amounts to tinkering. Some years see more cops added to the police force, or more dollars budgeted for overtime. But by leaving the problem to the cops (as though a thousand more officers might alone solve the problem), we forget that our safety depends most on voluntary adherence to law. As a city and state, we make a cost-benefit analysis, essentially deciding that a certain number of lives are expendable.

    By contrast, Boston radically reduced its youth homicide rate in the 1990s with a comprehensive, multidisciplinary effort that has been dubbed the “Boston Miracle.” According to figures published in Murder Is No Accident, by Doctors Deborah Prothrow-Stith and Howard Spivak, fourteen children aged sixteen and under were killed by handguns there in 1988. By 1996, the city had in place more than a dozen antiviolence programs that involved numerous organizations, including community groups, the police, and hospitals. Schools, for example, taught an antiviolence curriculum. Hospitals assessed victims of violence to determine whether they were at risk of additional attacks; doctors, social workers and nurses attempted to prevent them much as they might try to prevent asthma attacks. Community groups sought to give young people alternatives to joining gangs. The police department instituted community policing and worked with probation officers to hold youth offenders accountable. The result: Between 1996 and 1998, Prothrow-Stith and Spivak report, not one child sixteen and under was killed with a handgun in Boston. Over an eight-year period, the city averaged just one such killing a year, compared with an average of seven per year in the preceeding eight years.

    Many of these same programs have been implemented in cities all over the U.S., including Minneapolis. So what made Boston special? Even the authors of Murder Is No Accident, who were themselves primary architects of the Boston Violence Prevention Project, say they “don’t know exactly what happened.” While politicians and police chiefs are often quick to claim credit for reductions in crime, criminologists admit in moments of candor how little we truly know. “It’s a Crime What We Don’t Know About Crime,” the Washington Post titled one essay last July.

    In this context, Courtney Brown’s death in September was, paradoxically, both random and predictable. There was no way to know that this “innocent” and “sweet” boy (as then-Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar described him) would die a “senseless” death, any more than we can know exactly who will die from secondhand smoke, and when. But the circumstances were volatile in Courtney Brown’s neighborhood. Similar killings outraged the city in the Murderapolis years. A similar killing will likely happen this year, too.

    “When the [homicide] rates are going down, we feel relieved,” said Drake, “but there’s never a sense that we can eliminate homicide altogether. We expect a certain number. That’s a sick way of thinking. Not all countries have the homicide rate that we have.” By implication, the invocation of public health tells us something else important: Murder is preventable. So says a sign on the wall of Drake’s office.

  • LSD Goes to College

    In 1967 an article with the headline, “Mentally Ill Take LSD at U” appeared on the front page of the Minnesota Daily. The story recounted the experiences of “William,” a patient in the University of Minnesota’s psychiatric ward who was administered LSD by Amadeo Marrazzi, a professor of pharmacology, as a “clinical yardstick” to determine how the nervous system handles impulses in mentally ill patients. According to the reporter, “William sat in front of the room, put on some goggles, and was instructed to rotate a bar on the far wall, by means of a dial, until it was parallel with the floor. He did so. But after a minute, the floor was no longer parallel to the bar; it now inclined downward to the right.” William had been set up in an eight-foot-high, windowless room with three walls. His goggles were fitted with special lenses that distorted the shape of the room.
    Marrazzi had already discovered that rats tripping on large amounts of LSD showed indifference to their surroundings, a phenomenon he labeled “behavioral dissociation.” In a 1966 speech to students at the university titled “LSD and Man’s Search for Understanding,” he described how one human user of the drug lost all sense of time, to the point where fifteen minutes seemed like three hundred years. This work was carried out with the help of Sandoz Laboratories, which at the time was supplying LSD to any scientist interested in conducting experiments, as well as with funding from the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Marrazzi’s findings led him to report that the use of mescaline and DMPEA (a chemical similar to LSD) “might, indeed, be a factor in the causation of some types of cerebral and mental illness.” Fortunately for patients who received heavy doses, he also discovered that “the effects of both mescaline and DMPEA can be offset by a tranquilizer drug.”
    Meanwhile, the recreational use of LSD was also being promoted to the U’s student body at large. In 1966, hippie godfather and drug pioneer Timothy Leary had hooked up via an early conference call—thanks to the advice of “media is the message” visionary Marshall McLuhan—to speak to a crowd of six hundred students gathered at Coffman Union. As they took in a psychedelic light show, Leary advised them to join an estimated three million other Americans in taking LSD. “Are you going to sit back and take canned positions to life?” he asked. “When you take LSD, you talk directly to yourself.” LSD was not a drug, he argued, but a chemical that opened up the cellular level to the point where a person “goes beyond his own body.” Humans, Leary said, were caught up in “an endless round of self-deception and routine behavior,” and LSD could expand their consciousness.
    Leary’s pupil, Andrew Weil, “an expert in the field of mind-altering drugs” (and current medical guru), spoke to students at the Mayo Memorial Auditorium in 1971 and pronounced that humans had an innate need to get “high.” Weil claimed to have viewed drugs from “every angle,” beginning when he was a Harvard freshman in 1960. That was when, under the tutelage of Leary, he took his first mescaline. He wrote about his psychedelic experiences in a newspaper, and said his articles were instrumental in getting Leary fired from Harvard.
    Though LSD experiments at the U of M were initially publicized, today the medical records of psych patients dropping legal acid are strangely unavailable. After much investigation, I received a note in early 2006 from Jim Rothenberger, a professor at the U. He said that sometime around 1971 he had heard about the mysterious psychotropic experiments at the university from Dr. Gordon Heistad. “Gordon was then head of a unit called Psychiatry Research, which was housed in Diehl Hall. I remember that as we were talking he opened up an unlocked desk drawer and showed me that it was full of Sandoz LSD.”
    Now that the paper trail for the university’s LSD experiments has conveniently disappeared, the only readily available information regarding the experiments is found in newspaper articles in the Minnesota Daily from the time.
    From the 1950s through the 70s, during the height of the Cold War, the CIA conducted LSD experiments under the code name MK-ULTRA, in hopes of controlling social engineering and finding a truth serum for more effective interrogation techniques. MI6, the British spy agency, also tested LSD on patients who were told that the purpose of the experiment was to find a cure for the common cold. Perhaps the documents pertaining to the U of M experiments were removed when, sometime in the 70s, the CIA ordered that all such records from the period be destroyed.
    Just a few years later, however, the drug experiments—and the open championing of drugs by counterculture gurus—had become little more than a strange and unreliable flashback. By 1976, for instance, Dr. Joseph Westermeyer had conducted a study at the U on sixty-one drug-addicted patients, from which he concluded that “drugs substitute for religion … A person may adopt a drug habit as a substitute focus for social interaction if he or she has stopped going to church.” Or as Marshall McLuhan told Timothy Leary, “Wave reassuringly. Radiate courage … You must be known for your smile.”

  • The Last Picture Show-er

    Local 219 of the International Union of Showbiz and Theater Entertainers was recently called to order over breakfast at the Edina Perkins. Bob Anderson, at seventy-nine still an imposing presence with broad shoulders and a strong handshake, pushed his omelet aside, pulled out some notes, and addressed his audience—myself and a waiter. “There are about eight remaining union projectionists,” he explained. “Only a few of us are still working, and I’m the one with the most seniority …” He cleared his throat. “Which means I’ll probably be the next to go.”
    It used to be that if you owned a movie theater, you relied on union labor to show the picture. Once upon a time, in fact, a person could make a decent living doing the work—in Fritz Lang’s Clash by Night, one of the characters earns his wages looping film late into the evening. This is in stark contrast with today’s reality, where teenagers get your blockbuster rolling with little more than the push of a button.
    Anderson got his start as an apprentice projectionist back in 1947, and, before the rise of the multiplex, worked in literally every theater in the Twin Cities. He was on the staff at the opening of the Riverview, got the arc lights burning when the drive-in was king, and has had a hand in each of the twenty-four Minneapolis-St. Paul International Film Festivals. From his perch in the booth, he’s watched the cinema’s transition from primarily black-and-white affairs to Technicolor and 70mm; he sat through the auteur movement of the 1970s, treaded Hollywood’s shallow waters of the 80s and 90s, and weathered the assaults of television, videotape, and DVD.
    As a young boy, Anderson’s curiosity was piqued when he was given a toy projector with a Felix the Cat cartoon one Christmas. This was a simple, hand-cranked number with a light bulb, but he was instantly entranced. “Since then, whenever I see a movie I have to turn and admire the silver light from above,” he said. “I can’t help it.” His passion grew over time, and throughout junior high, high school, and college, Anderson played the part of resident audio/visual geek. “You could find me hauling the projector and cans of educational films between classes. That was a lot of work.”
    After graduation, Bob entered the nine-to-five world, working for a local advertising firm and settling down with his wife and kids. But the bug never left him, so he would steal away to the local movie houses each night, determined to break into the insular world of Union projectionists.
    It was a tight-knit community: You couldn’t just walk in and become a certified Union projectionist. There weren’t a lot of jobs to go around, and projectionists were famously reluctant to retire, so it was difficult to get a foot in the door to the booth. After a few months, however, Anderson was finally accepted into the union as a registered apprentice, shuttling between theaters. A projectionist had to know every machine, from the military green and imposing Simplex projector to the sleek, silver Philips Norelco. Back then, the nitrate film was tricky and dangerous stuff, highly flammable. “The projection booths were like an Alcatraz jail cell,” Anderson explains, and it was his job to get the hell out if the thing caught fire—the booth, with its reinforced concrete, was designed to contain the blaze and keep the theater from burning down, at considerable risk to the poor souls inside.
    While the story was unfolding on the screen, Anderson would be wrapped up in his work, cleaning and splicing the celluloid or maintaining the machines. In the early years, he found himself in the projection booths of dozens of different theaters, filling in for a sick or vacationing colleague. He finally landed a regular gig at the Lucky Twin drive-in, where he remained until the theater was closed and slated for demolition. “People didn’t pay too much attention to the feature there,” Anderson admits. “It was necking heaven.” Once, a wiseacre rearranged the wording on the marquee’s traction board to read, “START YOUR FAMILY AT THE LUCKY TWIN!”
    Watching Anderson work today is a clinic in professionalism—he handles his machine like a man who knows what he’s doing and has flexed this knowledge on an almost-daily basis. With a seasoned hand, he threads film, carefully oils his machine, and listens to the rhythm of the movie rattling through the reels for any odd sound indicating trouble. Recently, at the Bell, where he had been hired to screen a preview of an already-forgotten movie, Anderson seemed at ease in the overheated projectionist’s booth, which had the damp, dusty aroma of an old radiator. This was clearly the refuge of an organized man, with its oil-stained toothbrushes, film cutters, screwdrivers, and tools all neatly in place. I couldn’t help but imagine all the masterpieces Anderson had brought to moviegoers over his career—fifty years is a lot of film history. When I mentioned all the time he’s spent in the projection booth, he nodded and said, “God, have I ever. See, there’s two of me—the guy with the nine-to-five job and the wife and family, and the projectionist. Everyone leads a double life—mine just happens to be up here.”

  • “No, man, you cannot divide by zero!”

    Many years ago, someone scratched these words on the metal divider of a men’s room stall in a pizza joint near Hamline University in St. Paul: “Anonymous dialogue is a means of sanity.” The self-reflective statement could hold many meanings. It might look inward to the author’s motives—one can almost hear the sigh of mental relief—or to the motives of all graffitists. If not a means, is graffiti at least a measure of social sanity? Unfiltered and anonymous, it might be even more than a measure: a glimpse beneath the accepted veneer, a push to the boundaries of the collective conscious.
    Or it might just be dirty doodling.
    Garvin Davenport, the recently retired dean of Hamline University’s undergraduate school, and former chairman of Hamline’s English department, asserted that graffiti is secure text, emboldened by anonymity. “The writer can express … [with] no accountability or liability,” said Davenport.
    Numerous studies of the subject trace “latrinalia,” as researcher Alan Dundes dubbed it in 1966, back to ancient times and across many cultures. In some cases, the content was remarkably similar to modern graffiti, like this message found in the ruins of Pompeii: “If you want to make love, ask for Attice. The price is 16 asses.”
    A relatively recent survey of more than thirty local lavatories produced a fair sample of stall scrawl. The majority of the restrooms are now graffiti-free, thanks either to fresh coats of paint or ink-resistant walls, as at the Red Dragon on Lyndale Avenue in Minneapolis, where this macabre proverb once appeared: “Build a man a fire, and he’ll stay warm for the night. Set a man on fire and he’ll stay warm for the rest of his life.”
    Much of the graffiti was of the classic, unprintable variety: F-bombs and sexual boasts or invitations, explicit come-ons and vicious threats, ugly racial insults and attacks on sexual preference. Some restrooms feature a mess of florid, unreadable tags that express little more than “I was here.”
    Of the printable graffiti, there was a lot of talk about God and religion. Politics and September 11th were discussed, and even the pure language of mathematics proved controversial, with corrections to a hypothetical equation and this scolding: “No, man, you cannot divide by zero!” Among the more rarified offerings were posthumous quotations of Dorothy Parker, James Dean, Baudelaire (in French, no less), and even the occult-/Wiccan-/pagan-goddess figure Babalon: “But to love me is better than all things.”
    Perhaps the most thought-provoking—and chilling—example was a message at the Hard Times Café: “I lost my love and now I can’t make it anymore. So I’m going home. And I’m ending my sorry life. P.S. I had fun here, live for me.” The note inspired a rare signed response, this reassurance from a well-known regular whose girlfriend had recently died: “I didn’t write this.”
    Here is a sample of other notable finds, organized by topic. “(R):” denotes the responses.
    Religion: There is no God. (R): Is that your final answer? (R): Let him in your heart.
    (R): Heaven is true. Satan will eat science alive.
    Inspiration: Things may suck, but we can fight against apathy and make ’em better!
    The optimist is the person who’s really in revolt.
    Politics: No war but the class war.
    Terrorism: 911 was your fault anyhow, honky. (R): If it were me, I’d 911 your punk ass next. This plane is a tower bomb.
    Comments on the graffiti or its author: Unthinking redneck. (R): Overthinking hipster activist college student. (R): Over analytical tough guy with almost no teeth left. (R): People with too much time on their hands.
    Hip-Hop and metaphysics: High North Hip Hop celebrate the culture of intelligent life by respectin’ the conscious said-rappahz of the past, present and future 2 elevate the said-culture of hip hop to its rightful place both mentally and musically. Long live the re-evolution of man space & time.
    Sex: Toussaintt’s hot PS I did him PSS Really multiple times PSSS And I kissed him and his name is on my shirt—biotch!
    Bad poetry (men’s room): I do not know what I may appear to the world/ but I myself I have seem to be/ like a boy playing on the shore/ and diverting myself in now and then/ finding a prettier shell
    Bad poetry (women’s room): I want to make your ego bleed … Let it sting so you’ll never forget/ The past pain/ Through midnight rain/ Insecurities pool on the/ Grimy floor … (R): Don’t quit your day job.
    Health: The superior doctor treats when there is no illness.
    Rehabilitation: Harry was here! Finally recovered from drug and alcohol addiction, Oct. 2006 (R): Thank God! Keep up the good work, Harry. Congrats! (R:) God isn’t real.
    Reformation: I will only write nice things now.

  • The Happy Executioner

    The first time my father drove past the original Ax-Man Surplus location on University Avenue in St. Paul, he pulled over immediately. This was some thirty years ago, but he still becomes radiant when recounting the momentous occasion of his first visit: “I was overcome—I didn’t know where to look. Finally, I calmed down, got a hold of myself, and started looking.”
    More than a surplus store and not quite a dollar store (though a dollar will go a long way), Ax-Man is a sort of curiosity shop with a bit of an art-gallery vibe. On any given day, Ax-Man’s extensive, eclectic stock includes marbles, vacuum tubes, wading boots, and crime-scene tape … and French mess kits, hazmat suits, and plastic bottles of every shape and size. That’s just for starters; put simply, you haven’t known stuff until you’ve visited Ax-Man.
    That may well be because “no one needs [Ax-Man’s] stuff,” as owner Jim Segal admits. And that may explain why Ax-Man is so mesmerizing, luring artists, tinkerers, inventors, do-it-yourselfers, handymen, hobbyists, and the curious to its three metro locations on a regular basis. They are all looking for something just so.
    Like many Ax-Man disciples, my father is part craftsman, part artist, mostly do-it-yourselfer. On a recent visit, the two of us pawed through barrels and bins and crates and boxes of gemstones, wheels, bowling pins, magnets, gas masks, leather scraps, home-alarm key pads, and doll limbs of various skin tones. The giant phone is not for sale, but plastic brains were, for $19.95. There were Beetle Bailey lunch pails, wrapping paper, and bullets in various stages of rusting. Pop poked at stuff, bounced small objects in his palm, and examined everything through his bifocals. “Usually I don’t even know what I’m looking for,” he said. “But if I see what I’m looking for, I’ll know it.”
    Sometimes even Segal isn’t quite sure about the stuff he has for sale, but that’s no matter: “The customer comes up with how it should be used,” he says. Many items are broken down, their various components sold individually. “I love seeing the creative process at work with the customers, when they don’t rely on preconceived notions about what a thing should be used for.”
    Segal, who has a business degree from the University of St. Thomas, doesn’t consider himself particularly creative. “But I like the idea of creativity,” he says. That’s why he lets the staff create the signs for the merchandise—a small perk, he admits, in an otherwise routine retail job. This artfully executed signage usually consists of sassy dialogue pasted onto photos from old magazines. Shelves displaying various mugs and glasses, for instance, feature the iconographic photo taken at the conference of Yalta, with speech balloons emerging from the mouths of Franklin D. Roosevelt—“Can you believe Churchill showed up hammered again?”—and Joseph Stalin: “Da, da.”
    Segal, who bought the business in 2001 and is its third owner, is circumspect about where Ax-Man gets its inventory. “Sure, I could tell you,” he says, “but then I’d have to kill you.” This much he’ll say: It comes from basements, warehouses, manufacturers with leftover parts, and trade shows. “We want to give things a second chance,” he says.
    Things like flashcubes. Segal describes discovering a pallet of those little glass cubes for old Instamatics at a car-parts distributorship. Ax-Man now has a lifetime supply. Caught up in the spirit of the place, I suggest over-enthusiastically, “Christmas tree ornaments! Earrings! Pretend ice cubes!”
    My dad and I left, however, not with flashcubes, but with armfuls of small wheels that my father will use on toy trucks he makes for the grandchildren. His favorite purchase ever was an oversized porcelain hand-and-forearm, perhaps once a glove display in a department store, which stands upright in a graceful twist. “My vision was to use it for a display for your mother’s jewelry,” he grumbled. Mother, however, was disturbed by the shiny disembodied hand emerging from the dresser like the scene at the end of Carrie, so my father’s great find is now used to hang wet rags and gloves in his workshop.
    Arriving home from our Ax-Man visit, my father remained in a trance. Thumbs hooked on his tool belt, he had a faraway look in his eyes, perhaps imagining some distant past where he himself might have lorded over all that stuff. “It’s a young man’s game, I guess, but that would have been a fun business,” he said. “I would have loved digging through all that crap every damn day.”

  • Transportation in the Round

    One recent Sunday afternoon, upon sighting a candy-apple red contraption maneuvering the chilly streets of downtown Minneapolis, a shopper called out from the sidewalk, “What is that?” It’s a question Paul Selcke finds himself answering frequently. “It’s a conference bike,” he said, dinging his bell for emphasis. Monday through Thursday, Selcke makes his living teaching ESL at the Mall of America, but on weekends he’s the entrepreneur behind Cycle Seven, the first conference-bike-tour company in the Midwest. The bike, which essentially looks like an overgrown tricycle built to accommodate seven riders, is available by the hour to business groups, family parties, tourists, and whoever else—it’s even been used by speed-daters. Riders benefit twofold, from the exercise and an innovative design concept that inspires conversation among the participants; hence, the “conference” in the appellation. Selcke originally planned to start a pedicab company, but online research led him to the conference bike, and he became smitten with its efficiency and unique design.
    A frigid afternoon in December may seem an unlikely time for a leisurely bike ride, but the jovial Selcke insists that, like any other winter sport in Minnesota, the key to comfortable conference biking is to dress for the weather. Clad in Sorels, a green, puffy jacket, and woolen hat, Selcke, who officially took Cycle Seven to the streets in the fall of 2005, leads by example. He likens the level of activity to cross-country skiing, and even suggests a family jaunt on the conference bike as “the modern alternative to the sleigh ride.” Though Cycle Seven operates year round, business in the winter months is, predictably, slow: Selcke books an average of two to three hours a week, compared with the ten to twelve weekly hours he has the bike out and about in more inviting weather.
    The conference bike is equal parts form and function. The circular frame creates a round-table environment in which all passengers face one another—a set-up that facilitates conversation and, according to the inventor’s website, “lowers inhibitions.” While riding the conference bike, one person steers and operates the brakes, leaving the remaining six passengers free to pedal, or not, depending on respective energy levels and inclinations. Currently, riders must be at least twelve years old, but Selcke says that a new seat is in the works to allow kiddies in on the fun.
    The creation of Eric Staller, an American living in Amsterdam (ground zero for global bike culture), the conference bike was designed as a part of his ongoing public artwork series Urban UFOs. The first in this succession of mobile, socially interactive art pieces was a Volkswagen Beetle covered in more than 1,600 computerized lights, appropriately dubbed the “Lightmobile.” The conference bike first appeared in 1991 as the Octos: an eight-seater tricycle with a circular frame. The bike as it now exists emerged in 1996.
    At four hundred pounds, the conference bike is by no means lightweight, and the mechanics are correspondingly sturdy. In fact, the contraption is a marvel designed by automobile engineers, who borrowed here and there from the bike’s motorized counterparts: The steering is made by Porsche. The frame is crafted from powder-coated steel and outfitted with motorcycle wheels and hydraulic brakes. Over flat terrain, its average speed falls between ten and twelve miles per hour, but the hills of St. Paul are another story entirely. “With seven passengers, it’s gone as fast as thirty to thirty-five [miles per hour] down Kellogg and Wabasha,” boasts Selcke.
    Perched on the bike, one feels rather like a pageant princess, returning the smiles and waves that are the almost-universal reaction generated by the appearance of this innovative transport. (Visibility has proven to be Cycle Seven’s best advertising: Selcke cruises populated areas of the Cities, giving free rides to drum up business.) Cars honk their horns in appreciation. On one recent trip, an SUV pulled over to better allow all four of its college-aged occupants to hang out the windows and yell, “You guys are awesome!” According to Selcke, this kind of thing happens all the time. He’s had a few negative experiences as well—run-ins with drunks and rude or inattentive drivers (as frequently happens with riders on run-of-the-mill bicycles), but overall, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. As one conference bike rider put it, “I don’t know when I’ve ever seen my fellow citizens being so friendly!”
    While Cycle Seven may be a part-time endeavor at the moment, Selcke has big plans for the future. “This is a back-up now,” Selcke, his glasses fogged from the cold, admits. “Eventually I’d like to do it for a living.” Ideally, he says, access to the bikes could be free and underwritten by sponsors, which would be a perfect fit at public events and around shopping malls. He’d also like to have more bikes stationed around the city so he could retire the trailer he now uses to transport the bike, thus rendering the operation entirely fossil fuel free. This environmental consciousness is an integral part of Selcke’s philosophy, and part of the reason why he thinks he can be successful. “There have to be alternative ways to get people around. This is efficient transport,” he says. “Look around. All of these cars are emitting carbon. We’re leaving no footprints.”