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

Re: Curious

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
      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 2 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
        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 3 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
          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 4 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
            --- 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 5 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
              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 6 of 14 , Oct 1 12:40 PM
                --- 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.