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

Re: [aloha-donblanding] Re: Curious

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.