Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [aloha-donblanding] Re: Curious

Expand Messages
  • Linda Allred
    I, personally, don t see that it matters and wouldn t want to spend the time trying to figure it out. What he s given to the world says enough as to what kind
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I, personally, don't see that it matters and wouldn't want to spend the time trying to figure it out. What he's given to the world says enough as to what kind of man he was. Linda


      ----- Original Message ----
      From: keith2draw <keith2draw@...>
      To: aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 10:41:53 PM
      Subject: [aloha-donblanding] Re: Curious

      Michael,

      This board has had conversations on this subject many times over the past 7-8 years, and
      the conclusion that we have reached is that we just don't know. He had a very public
      personna, but he was in fact a very private person. His close friends were very protective
      of his privacy and he lived in a time where sexual preferences were not openly talked
      about.

      He definately had girlfriends and was engaged to be married on at least three
      occasions... and did get married once, which ended in divorce after only a few years.

      He had male companions too, for lengths of time, which seem to be more intimate than
      would be normal for a mere friendship. They too didn't last very long though.

      So the feeling is that he was probably bi-sexual, but that he was not able to committ to
      relationships for more than a year or two.

      I have been researching Don personally for almost a decade now, and I have read
      hundereds of letters to and from him; read hundreds of articles and dozens of interviews;
      met and talked to people who knew him; and I can honestly say I have never seen any
      evidence that would point one way or another as to his sexual orientation.

      And the consensus amoung us is that it doesn't really matter one way or another anyway.
      He is defined by his verse, his art, and his many creative pursuits...and not by his love life,
      or lack thereof.

      Keith Emmons

      --- In aloha-donblanding@ yahoogroups. com, "canoeist35" <canoeist35@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > I'm surprised to see that no one replied to my previous post
      > (below). Is there really nothing known by the DB aficionados in
      > this forum on such a fundamental aspect of his life? Or is this
      > possibly another case of people not wanting to discuss the subject?
      > That would seem the ultimate disrespect to DB, though, so I'm at a
      > loss on the silence here. Not one person had a reply to make on
      > this?
      >
      > Michael
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In aloha-donblanding@ yahoogroups. com, "canoeist35"
      > <canoeist35@ > wrote:
      > >
      > > This forum was suggested to me when I raised this general question
      > > during some discussions of Don Blanding's Vernonware designs on
      > > another board. I am curious about what, if anything, is known
      > about
      > > his broken engagement with Ruth Norton, and his divorce from the
      > > Binney woman (whose full name I forget right now). Reading
      > through
      > > the biographical material I've been able to find, including the
      > > timeline with all its details--plus a dozen or so of the poems--I
      > > did get occasional impressions of elements that were sometimes
      > parts
      > > of a closeted life. Is there anything definite known about Don
      > > Blanding's intimate relationships? He wrote so eloquently of
      > Hawaii
      > > not merely for its beauty, but also for its value as a refuge from
      > > the harsher world he had known. If someone were either homosexual
      > > or sexually ambivalent, the change from Oklahoma, say, to the
      > > tolerance and relaxed atmosphere he described in Hawaii would
      > > certainly have seemed that much more like paradise. Are there any
      > > known facts that would establish an answer to that issue quite
      > > plainly, one way or the other? It would certainly seem like there
      > > must be such facts on record somewhere. Yet the overall
      > impression
      > > I've received (to date) is one of pure mystery.
      > >
      > > Michael
      > >
      >




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mike Gothard
      Hi all, This has been a most intriguing dialogue, though seemingly one-sided until now. It s interesting that we discuss the minutest of minutia regarding Don
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi all,

        This has been a most intriguing dialogue, though seemingly one-sided until
        now. It's interesting that we discuss the minutest of minutia regarding
        Don - his life, his art, his habits, his history - and then we feign
        disinterest in this one area of his life as though a discussion would in
        some way tarnish his image. We spend time trying to figure out what he ate
        for breakfast on a trip to California on a specific day of the year; seems
        something as pervasive as his sexual orientation would not just be as
        important but even more so given the fact that it shaped him far more than
        whether he ate bran or blueberry muffins on Thursday, April 3, 1924. I
        agree that in the big scheme of things it really doesn't matter. But
        neither does so much else of what we speculate and research about his life.
        We all respect his work or we probably wouldn't ponder, diagogue, and lurk
        here searching for answers and points of interest if we were apt to pass
        judgment.

        With that said, thanks, Michael, for continuing to probe with academic
        integrity. And thanks, Keith, for shedding light on this and so many other
        facets of Mr. Blanding's life.

        Have a great weekend all,
        Mike


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Linda Allred" <linall9@...>
        To: <aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:16 AM
        Subject: Re: [aloha-donblanding] Re: Curious


        > I, personally, don't see that it matters and wouldn't want to spend the
        > time trying to figure it out. What he's given to the world says enough as
        > to what kind of man he was. Linda
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message ----
        > From: keith2draw <keith2draw@...>
        > To: aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 10:41:53 PM
        > Subject: [aloha-donblanding] Re: Curious
        >
        > Michael,
        >
        > This board has had conversations on this subject many times over the past
        > 7-8 years, and
        > the conclusion that we have reached is that we just don't know. He had a
        > very public
        > personna, but he was in fact a very private person. His close friends were
        > very protective
        > of his privacy and he lived in a time where sexual preferences were not
        > openly talked
        > about.
        >
        > He definately had girlfriends and was engaged to be married on at least
        > three
        > occasions... and did get married once, which ended in divorce after only a
        > few years.
        >
        > He had male companions too, for lengths of time, which seem to be more
        > intimate than
        > would be normal for a mere friendship. They too didn't last very long
        > though.
        >
        > So the feeling is that he was probably bi-sexual, but that he was not able
        > to committ to
        > relationships for more than a year or two.
        >
        > I have been researching Don personally for almost a decade now, and I have
        > read
        > hundereds of letters to and from him; read hundreds of articles and dozens
        > of interviews;
        > met and talked to people who knew him; and I can honestly say I have never
        > seen any
        > evidence that would point one way or another as to his sexual orientation.
        >
        > And the consensus amoung us is that it doesn't really matter one way or
        > another anyway.
        > He is defined by his verse, his art, and his many creative pursuits...and
        > not by his love life,
        > or lack thereof.
        >
        > Keith Emmons
        >
        > --- In aloha-donblanding@ yahoogroups. com, "canoeist35" <canoeist35@ ...>
        > wrote:
        >>
        >> I'm surprised to see that no one replied to my previous post
        >> (below). Is there really nothing known by the DB aficionados in
        >> this forum on such a fundamental aspect of his life? Or is this
        >> possibly another case of people not wanting to discuss the subject?
        >> That would seem the ultimate disrespect to DB, though, so I'm at a
        >> loss on the silence here. Not one person had a reply to make on
        >> this?
        >>
        >> Michael
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> --- In aloha-donblanding@ yahoogroups. com, "canoeist35"
        >> <canoeist35@ > wrote:
        >> >
        >> > This forum was suggested to me when I raised this general question
        >> > during some discussions of Don Blanding's Vernonware designs on
        >> > another board. I am curious about what, if anything, is known
        >> about
        >> > his broken engagement with Ruth Norton, and his divorce from the
        >> > Binney woman (whose full name I forget right now). Reading
        >> through
        >> > the biographical material I've been able to find, including the
        >> > timeline with all its details--plus a dozen or so of the poems--I
        >> > did get occasional impressions of elements that were sometimes
        >> parts
        >> > of a closeted life. Is there anything definite known about Don
        >> > Blanding's intimate relationships? He wrote so eloquently of
        >> Hawaii
        >> > not merely for its beauty, but also for its value as a refuge from
        >> > the harsher world he had known. If someone were either homosexual
        >> > or sexually ambivalent, the change from Oklahoma, say, to the
        >> > tolerance and relaxed atmosphere he described in Hawaii would
        >> > certainly have seemed that much more like paradise. Are there any
        >> > known facts that would establish an answer to that issue quite
        >> > plainly, one way or the other? It would certainly seem like there
        >> > must be such facts on record somewhere. Yet the overall
        >> impression
        >> > I've received (to date) is one of pure mystery.
        >> >
        >> > Michael
        >> >
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > To Post a message, send it to: aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        > aloha-donblanding-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • Bev Leinbach
        Mahalo, Well done Keith! Bev. _____ From: aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com [mailto:aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of keith2draw Sent: Thursday,
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Mahalo,



          Well done Keith!



          Bev.

          _____

          From: aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of keith2draw
          Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:42 PM
          To: aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [aloha-donblanding] Re: Curious



          Michael,

          This board has had conversations on this subject many times over the past
          7-8 years, and
          the conclusion that we have reached is that we just don't know. He had a
          very public
          personna, but he was in fact a very private person. His close friends were
          very protective
          of his privacy and he lived in a time where sexual preferences were not
          openly talked
          about.

          He definately had girlfriends and was engaged to be married on at least
          three
          occasions...and did get married once, which ended in divorce after only a
          few years.

          He had male companions too, for lengths of time, which seem to be more
          intimate than
          would be normal for a mere friendship. They too didn't last very long
          though.

          So the feeling is that he was probably bi-sexual, but that he was not able
          to committ to
          relationships for more than a year or two.

          I have been researching Don personally for almost a decade now, and I have
          read
          hundereds of letters to and from him; read hundreds of articles and dozens
          of interviews;
          met and talked to people who knew him; and I can honestly say I have never
          seen any
          evidence that would point one way or another as to his sexual orientation.

          And the consensus amoung us is that it doesn't really matter one way or
          another anyway.
          He is defined by his verse, his art, and his many creative pursuits...and
          not by his love life,
          or lack thereof.

          Keith Emmons

          --- In aloha-donblanding@ <mailto:aloha-donblanding%40yahoogroups.com>
          yahoogroups.com, "canoeist35" <canoeist35@...> wrote:
          >
          > I'm surprised to see that no one replied to my previous post
          > (below). Is there really nothing known by the DB aficionados in
          > this forum on such a fundamental aspect of his life? Or is this
          > possibly another case of people not wanting to discuss the subject?
          > That would seem the ultimate disrespect to DB, though, so I'm at a
          > loss on the silence here. Not one person had a reply to make on
          > this?
          >
          > Michael
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In aloha-donblanding@ <mailto:aloha-donblanding%40yahoogroups.com>
          yahoogroups.com, "canoeist35"
          > <canoeist35@> wrote:
          > >
          > > This forum was suggested to me when I raised this general question
          > > during some discussions of Don Blanding's Vernonware designs on
          > > another board. I am curious about what, if anything, is known
          > about
          > > his broken engagement with Ruth Norton, and his divorce from the
          > > Binney woman (whose full name I forget right now). Reading
          > through
          > > the biographical material I've been able to find, including the
          > > timeline with all its details--plus a dozen or so of the poems--I
          > > did get occasional impressions of elements that were sometimes
          > parts
          > > of a closeted life. Is there anything definite known about Don
          > > Blanding's intimate relationships? He wrote so eloquently of
          > Hawaii
          > > not merely for its beauty, but also for its value as a refuge from
          > > the harsher world he had known. If someone were either homosexual
          > > or sexually ambivalent, the change from Oklahoma, say, to the
          > > tolerance and relaxed atmosphere he described in Hawaii would
          > > certainly have seemed that much more like paradise. Are there any
          > > known facts that would establish an answer to that issue quite
          > > plainly, one way or the other? It would certainly seem like there
          > > must be such facts on record somewhere. Yet the overall
          > impression
          > > I've received (to date) is one of pure mystery.
          > >
          > > Michael
          > >
          >





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • keith2draw
          Aloha Mike & Michael, You ve made good points, and they are all well taken. There are about 4-5 Blanding researchers who frequent this board, and we are all
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Aloha Mike & Michael,

            You've made good points, and they are all well taken.

            There are about 4-5 Blanding researchers who frequent this board, and we are all busy
            piecing together his life from obscure newspaper accounts, magazine articles, long lost
            interviews and ebay ephemera. Blanding was after all born 114 years ago and has been
            gone for half a century. We do not have the luxury of having previously written and
            researched volumes of details on his life, such as you would already have for say someone
            like Thomas Edison, Edgar Allen Poe or Gertrude Stein (because, frankly, he wasn't as
            important as these folks). The people who knew Don well are now dead themselves. There
            are some old-timers that knew him in his later years...but obviously no-one alive who
            shared his early, developmental years.

            To us, the thrill of the hunt is as enjoyable as the actual body of work that Don left behind.
            So when one of us discovers a new clue (however small), and posts it on this board, it's the
            detective in us gloating about finding a long-lost detail of his life. We in no way mean to
            infer any importance to the clues (in the grand scheme of things) ...it's just fun to see little
            slices of his life from a distance through the binoculars of time [sorry, horrible cliche].

            Those of us who have been on this board from the beginning (Jan. 2000) have discussed
            many complex aspects of Don's life in-depth (such as his sexuality) ...but folks who have
            joined us in the last year or two will only see the lighter dialogue and assume everything is
            trivial on the board. I urge all newcomers to go back and read some of our older posts for
            more detailed talks that have already transpired.

            The bottom line is that to try and get to the "meat" of Don's life, his feelings, dreams,
            inclinations and quirks, we have to sort out all the finer details like where he lived, who he
            knew, and who he wrote to. That's all we have to go on for the moment. And if discovering
            that he had a bran muffin with Edgar Cayce on Thursday, April 3, 1924 leads to finding an
            entry in Edgar Cayce's diary that states Don made a sexual pass at him...well then there we
            have our proof!

            I think most of us are mature, open-minded adults and I for one feel that if Don was
            gay..."so what!" It wouldn't tarnish his image at all...it would just add to the interest. Most
            of us have expressed that opinion here. It's not disinterest that keeps us from discussing it
            (and as I said, we have talked about it in the past ad naseum) it's just that until we know
            for sure, one way or the other, it would just be conjecture. If he was gay, it would have had
            a huge impact on how he lived his life, who he trusted, how he separated his public
            personna of a big, strapping ladies-man poet who was respected by men as well, from his
            private, gentle, secluded life when not on the lecture circuit. But until we get the "smoking
            gun" letter or diary entry which reveals his sexual preference....we plug away on the
            research and try to build a profile of Don that is honest, sincere and revealing. It just takes
            time. Most of us have either 9-to-5 jobs, kids, grandkids, etc... which takes up the bulk of
            our time, and research has to wait for rare free time.

            I will say, this is the best dialogue we've had in a long time.

            Keith
          • Mike Gothard
            Hi Keith, Exactly! Thanks for the perspective. You re so right in that many of us have not been in on the discussions from years ago, even though we avail
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Keith,

              Exactly! Thanks for the perspective. You're so right in that many of us
              have not been in on the discussions from years ago, even though we avail
              ourselves of the past posts. I dabble in restoring/collecting/using vintage
              fountain pens and feel the same frustration that I'm sure many of you
              experience when us "newbies" question or try to put two-and-two together for
              the first time. We forget the "cloud of witnesses" that have gone before us
              :)

              Actually, one of the reasons I lurk here (yes, I'm afraid I am a lurker as I
              fit squarely into your description of already having too many irons in too
              many fires) is because of the minutia and the passion with which you guys
              continue to search...it's facinating! I do the same in the world of
              fountain pens as well.

              Anyway, thanks, Keith, for your gracious response and thanks to all for
              allowing us dabblers to dabble here. This is a great group and I consider
              it a privilege to be part of the ongoing dialogue.

              Have a great weekend,
              Mike


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "keith2draw" <keith2draw@...>
              To: <aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 10:17 AM
              Subject: [aloha-donblanding] Re: Curious


              > Aloha Mike & Michael,
              >
              > You've made good points, and they are all well taken.
              >
              > There are about 4-5 Blanding researchers who frequent this board, and we
              > are all busy
              > piecing together his life from obscure newspaper accounts, magazine
              > articles, long lost
              > interviews and ebay ephemera. Blanding was after all born 114 years ago
              > and has been
              > gone for half a century. We do not have the luxury of having previously
              > written and
              > researched volumes of details on his life, such as you would already have
              > for say someone
              > like Thomas Edison, Edgar Allen Poe or Gertrude Stein (because, frankly,
              > he wasn't as
              > important as these folks). The people who knew Don well are now dead
              > themselves. There
              > are some old-timers that knew him in his later years...but obviously
              > no-one alive who
              > shared his early, developmental years.
              >
              > To us, the thrill of the hunt is as enjoyable as the actual body of work
              > that Don left behind.
              > So when one of us discovers a new clue (however small), and posts it on
              > this board, it's the
              > detective in us gloating about finding a long-lost detail of his life. We
              > in no way mean to
              > infer any importance to the clues (in the grand scheme of things) ...it's
              > just fun to see little
              > slices of his life from a distance through the binoculars of time [sorry,
              > horrible cliche].
              >
              > Those of us who have been on this board from the beginning (Jan. 2000)
              > have discussed
              > many complex aspects of Don's life in-depth (such as his sexuality) ...but
              > folks who have
              > joined us in the last year or two will only see the lighter dialogue and
              > assume everything is
              > trivial on the board. I urge all newcomers to go back and read some of our
              > older posts for
              > more detailed talks that have already transpired.
              >
              > The bottom line is that to try and get to the "meat" of Don's life, his
              > feelings, dreams,
              > inclinations and quirks, we have to sort out all the finer details like
              > where he lived, who he
              > knew, and who he wrote to. That's all we have to go on for the moment. And
              > if discovering
              > that he had a bran muffin with Edgar Cayce on Thursday, April 3, 1924
              > leads to finding an
              > entry in Edgar Cayce's diary that states Don made a sexual pass at
              > him...well then there we
              > have our proof!
              >
              > I think most of us are mature, open-minded adults and I for one feel that
              > if Don was
              > gay..."so what!" It wouldn't tarnish his image at all...it would just add
              > to the interest. Most
              > of us have expressed that opinion here. It's not disinterest that keeps us
              > from discussing it
              > (and as I said, we have talked about it in the past ad naseum) it's just
              > that until we know
              > for sure, one way or the other, it would just be conjecture. If he was
              > gay, it would have had
              > a huge impact on how he lived his life, who he trusted, how he separated
              > his public
              > personna of a big, strapping ladies-man poet who was respected by men as
              > well, from his
              > private, gentle, secluded life when not on the lecture circuit. But until
              > we get the "smoking
              > gun" letter or diary entry which reveals his sexual preference....we plug
              > away on the
              > research and try to build a profile of Don that is honest, sincere and
              > revealing. It just takes
              > time. Most of us have either 9-to-5 jobs, kids, grandkids, etc... which
              > takes up the bulk of
              > our time, and research has to wait for rare free time.
              >
              > I will say, this is the best dialogue we've had in a long time.
              >
              > Keith
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > To Post a message, send it to: aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              > aloha-donblanding-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
            • canoeist35
              Keith, I appreciated your first reply and this additional post. I had read the timeline on your website line-by-line before I ever asked any questions about
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Keith, I appreciated your first reply and this additional post. I
                had read the timeline on your website line-by-line before I ever
                asked any questions about Don. Parts of the timeline seemed to fit
                the classic "closeted" life--unfortunately for DB. So did some
                aspects of the poems I read, plus some of the photos--just in my
                opinion, of course. I am a little dubious about even the bi-sexual
                aspect, personally, but I am a newbie on all this. I don't think
                any of this diminishes or demeans Don Blanding in any way--if
                anything, it only adds to the complexity and interest his life
                presents, IMO. It may affect how some of the poetry needs to be
                read, though. If I can venture one more thought, it seems worth
                recollecting that he began as an ad man who knew how to craft an
                image. Maybe he continued to feel he had to do that with some of
                his poetry? In any event, his tenderness, humor, and decency come
                pouring out of most of the poems and articles I have read. And,
                later, his sadness, too. I get the impression DB's was far from a
                simple story. My two cents here.

                Michael



                --- In aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com, "keith2draw"
                <keith2draw@...> wrote:
                >
                > Aloha Mike & Michael,
                >
                > You've made good points, and they are all well taken.
                >
                > There are about 4-5 Blanding researchers who frequent this board,
                and we are all busy
                > piecing together his life from obscure newspaper accounts,
                magazine articles, long lost
                > interviews and ebay ephemera. Blanding was after all born 114
                years ago and has been
                > gone for half a century. We do not have the luxury of having
                previously written and
                > researched volumes of details on his life, such as you would
                already have for say someone
                > like Thomas Edison, Edgar Allen Poe or Gertrude Stein (because,
                frankly, he wasn't as
                > important as these folks). The people who knew Don well are now
                dead themselves. There
                > are some old-timers that knew him in his later years...but
                obviously no-one alive who
                > shared his early, developmental years.
                >
                > To us, the thrill of the hunt is as enjoyable as the actual body
                of work that Don left behind.
                > So when one of us discovers a new clue (however small), and posts
                it on this board, it's the
                > detective in us gloating about finding a long-lost detail of his
                life. We in no way mean to
                > infer any importance to the clues (in the grand scheme of
                things) ...it's just fun to see little
                > slices of his life from a distance through the binoculars of time
                [sorry, horrible cliche].
                >
                > Those of us who have been on this board from the beginning (Jan.
                2000) have discussed
                > many complex aspects of Don's life in-depth (such as his
                sexuality) ...but folks who have
                > joined us in the last year or two will only see the lighter
                dialogue and assume everything is
                > trivial on the board. I urge all newcomers to go back and read
                some of our older posts for
                > more detailed talks that have already transpired.
                >
                > The bottom line is that to try and get to the "meat" of Don's
                life, his feelings, dreams,
                > inclinations and quirks, we have to sort out all the finer details
                like where he lived, who he
                > knew, and who he wrote to. That's all we have to go on for the
                moment. And if discovering
                > that he had a bran muffin with Edgar Cayce on Thursday, April 3,
                1924 leads to finding an
                > entry in Edgar Cayce's diary that states Don made a sexual pass at
                him...well then there we
                > have our proof!
                >
                > I think most of us are mature, open-minded adults and I for one
                feel that if Don was
                > gay..."so what!" It wouldn't tarnish his image at all...it would
                just add to the interest. Most
                > of us have expressed that opinion here. It's not disinterest that
                keeps us from discussing it
                > (and as I said, we have talked about it in the past ad naseum)
                it's just that until we know
                > for sure, one way or the other, it would just be conjecture. If he
                was gay, it would have had
                > a huge impact on how he lived his life, who he trusted, how he
                separated his public
                > personna of a big, strapping ladies-man poet who was respected by
                men as well, from his
                > private, gentle, secluded life when not on the lecture circuit.
                But until we get the "smoking
                > gun" letter or diary entry which reveals his sexual
                preference....we plug away on the
                > research and try to build a profile of Don that is honest, sincere
                and revealing. It just takes
                > time. Most of us have either 9-to-5 jobs, kids, grandkids, etc...
                which takes up the bulk of
                > our time, and research has to wait for rare free time.
                >
                > I will say, this is the best dialogue we've had in a long time.
                >
                > Keith
                >
              • canoeist35
                ... and lurk ... pass ... Exactly. Well said, Mike. Gaining knowledge of more of the facts of his life is not to judge Don Blanding in some negative way. It
                Message 7 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Gothard"
                  <75vette@...> wrote:
                  > We all respect his work or we probably wouldn't ponder, dialogue,
                  and lurk
                  > here searching for answers and points of interest if we were apt to
                  pass
                  > judgment.

                  Exactly. Well said, Mike. Gaining knowledge of more of the facts of
                  his life is not to judge Don Blanding in some negative way. It is to
                  understand better. I don't think there is anything to fear from
                  knowing the truth--at least not in the case of DB! And I'm going to
                  do one of those no-no's, and maintain that Don Blanding would agree
                  with that sentiment. I appreciated reading your post.

                  Michael
                • THOMAS MARKLE
                  Boy did I miss a lot of discussion.....I have 20 minutes on this computer, so......I liked Keith s response and others as well. Don s sexual persuasion is not
                  Message 8 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Boy did I miss a lot of discussion.....I have 20 minutes on this computer, so......I liked Keith's response and others as well. Don's sexual persuasion is not the important piece we are researching. It is there and known but so what. I've interviewed several people in their 80's who said, "Oh, Don Blanding that gay boy from Waikiki, he was so well liked by everyone that no one cares what he is". That's a pretty accurate quote. He was a personality, wordsmith, artist and mooch. He was loved most anywhere he went. As researchers we uncover little bits of information that sometimes lead to other finds that lead to newer finds, so on and so forth. That's research. I met an antique dealer on Kauai that had some DB pottery and we got to talking and now she's interested in our site. She didn't know we were researching him and was really excited about it. What Cadia and the rest of us have done in 7 years is amazing as far as I'm concerned. Aloha to all...tj

                    keith2draw <keith2draw@...> wrote: Aloha Mike & Michael,

                    You've made good points, and they are all well taken.

                    There are about 4-5 Blanding researchers who frequent this board, and we are all busy
                    piecing together his life from obscure newspaper accounts, magazine articles, long lost
                    interviews and ebay ephemera. Blanding was after all born 114 years ago and has been
                    gone for half a century. We do not have the luxury of having previously written and
                    researched volumes of details on his life, such as you would already have for say someone
                    like Thomas Edison, Edgar Allen Poe or Gertrude Stein (because, frankly, he wasn't as
                    important as these folks). The people who knew Don well are now dead themselves. There
                    are some old-timers that knew him in his later years...but obviously no-one alive who
                    shared his early, developmental years.

                    To us, the thrill of the hunt is as enjoyable as the actual body of work that Don left behind.
                    So when one of us discovers a new clue (however small), and posts it on this board, it's the
                    detective in us gloating about finding a long-lost detail of his life. We in no way mean to
                    infer any importance to the clues (in the grand scheme of things) ...it's just fun to see little
                    slices of his life from a distance through the binoculars of time [sorry, horrible cliche].

                    Those of us who have been on this board from the beginning (Jan. 2000) have discussed
                    many complex aspects of Don's life in-depth (such as his sexuality) ...but folks who have
                    joined us in the last year or two will only see the lighter dialogue and assume everything is
                    trivial on the board. I urge all newcomers to go back and read some of our older posts for
                    more detailed talks that have already transpired.

                    The bottom line is that to try and get to the "meat" of Don's life, his feelings, dreams,
                    inclinations and quirks, we have to sort out all the finer details like where he lived, who he
                    knew, and who he wrote to. That's all we have to go on for the moment. And if discovering
                    that he had a bran muffin with Edgar Cayce on Thursday, April 3, 1924 leads to finding an
                    entry in Edgar Cayce's diary that states Don made a sexual pass at him...well then there we
                    have our proof!

                    I think most of us are mature, open-minded adults and I for one feel that if Don was
                    gay..."so what!" It wouldn't tarnish his image at all...it would just add to the interest. Most
                    of us have expressed that opinion here. It's not disinterest that keeps us from discussing it
                    (and as I said, we have talked about it in the past ad naseum) it's just that until we know
                    for sure, one way or the other, it would just be conjecture. If he was gay, it would have had
                    a huge impact on how he lived his life, who he trusted, how he separated his public
                    personna of a big, strapping ladies-man poet who was respected by men as well, from his
                    private, gentle, secluded life when not on the lecture circuit. But until we get the "smoking
                    gun" letter or diary entry which reveals his sexual preference....we plug away on the
                    research and try to build a profile of Don that is honest, sincere and revealing. It just takes
                    time. Most of us have either 9-to-5 jobs, kids, grandkids, etc... which takes up the bulk of
                    our time, and research has to wait for rare free time.

                    I will say, this is the best dialogue we've had in a long time.

                    Keith






                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • kathysip3
                    ... and we are all busy ... articles, long lost ... ago and has been ... previously written and ... have for say someone ... frankly, he wasn t as ...
                    Message 9 of 14 , Oct 1, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In aloha-donblanding@yahoogroups.com, "keith2draw"
                      <keith2draw@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Aloha Mike & Michael,
                      >
                      > You've made good points, and they are all well taken.
                      >
                      > There are about 4-5 Blanding researchers who frequent this board,
                      and we are all busy
                      > piecing together his life from obscure newspaper accounts, magazine
                      articles, long lost
                      > interviews and ebay ephemera. Blanding was after all born 114 years
                      ago and has been
                      > gone for half a century. We do not have the luxury of having
                      previously written and
                      > researched volumes of details on his life, such as you would already
                      have for say someone
                      > like Thomas Edison, Edgar Allen Poe or Gertrude Stein (because,
                      frankly, he wasn't as
                      > important as these folks). The people who knew Don well are now dead
                      themselves. There
                      > are some old-timers that knew him in his later years...but obviously
                      no-one alive who
                      > shared his early, developmental years.
                      >
                      > To us, the thrill of the hunt is as enjoyable as the actual body of
                      work that Don left behind.
                      > So when one of us discovers a new clue (however small), and posts it
                      on this board, it's the
                      > detective in us gloating about finding a long-lost detail of his
                      life. We in no way mean to
                      > infer any importance to the clues (in the grand scheme of things)
                      ...it's just fun to see little
                      > slices of his life from a distance through the binoculars of time
                      [sorry, horrible cliche].
                      >
                      > Those of us who have been on this board from the beginning (Jan.
                      2000) have discussed
                      > many complex aspects of Don's life in-depth (such as his sexuality)
                      ...but folks who have
                      > joined us in the last year or two will only see the lighter dialogue
                      and assume everything is
                      > trivial on the board. I urge all newcomers to go back and read some
                      of our older posts for
                      > more detailed talks that have already transpired.
                      >
                      > The bottom line is that to try and get to the "meat" of Don's life,
                      his feelings, dreams,
                      > inclinations and quirks, we have to sort out all the finer details
                      like where he lived, who he
                      > knew, and who he wrote to. That's all we have to go on for the
                      moment. And if discovering
                      > that he had a bran muffin with Edgar Cayce on Thursday, April 3,
                      1924 leads to finding an
                      > entry in Edgar Cayce's diary that states Don made a sexual pass at
                      him...well then there we
                      > have our proof!
                      >
                      > I think most of us are mature, open-minded adults and I for one feel
                      that if Don was
                      > gay..."so what!" It wouldn't tarnish his image at all...it would
                      just add to the interest. Most
                      > of us have expressed that opinion here. It's not disinterest that
                      keeps us from discussing it
                      > (and as I said, we have talked about it in the past ad naseum) it's
                      just that until we know
                      > for sure, one way or the other, it would just be conjecture. If he
                      was gay, it would have had
                      > a huge impact on how he lived his life, who he trusted, how he
                      separated his public
                      > personna of a big, strapping ladies-man poet who was respected by
                      men as well, from his
                      > private, gentle, secluded life when not on the lecture circuit. But
                      until we get the "smoking
                      > gun" letter or diary entry which reveals his sexual preference....we
                      plug away on the
                      > research and try to build a profile of Don that is honest, sincere
                      and revealing. It just takes
                      > time. Most of us have either 9-to-5 jobs, kids, grandkids, etc...
                      which takes up the bulk of
                      > our time, and research has to wait for rare free time.
                      >
                      > I will say, this is the best dialogue we've had in a long time.
                      >
                      > Keith
                      >
                      > I have to agree with everyone else, great dialogue, by far the most
                      >interesting of discussions I have read in along time. Thanks to all.
                      > I still love his work, be he a, a, or whatever.....

                      > Kathy
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.