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

Re: [aloha-donblanding] Re: Curious

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 14 , Sep 14, 2007
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 14 , Oct 1, 2007
            View Source
            • 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.