- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "keith2draw"
>and we are all busy
> 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,
> piecing together his life from obscure newspaper accounts, magazinearticles, long lost
> interviews and ebay ephemera. Blanding was after all born 114 yearsago and has been
> gone for half a century. We do not have the luxury of havingpreviously written and
> researched volumes of details on his life, such as you would alreadyhave 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 deadthemselves. There
> are some old-timers that knew him in his later years...but obviouslyno-one alive who
> shared his early, developmental years.work that Don left behind.
> To us, the thrill of the hunt is as enjoyable as the actual body of
> So when one of us discovers a new clue (however small), and posts iton this board, it's the
> detective in us gloating about finding a long-lost detail of hislife. 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].
>2000) have discussed
> Those of us who have been on this board from the beginning (Jan.
> 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 dialogueand assume everything is
> trivial on the board. I urge all newcomers to go back and read someof our older posts for
> more detailed talks that have already transpired.his feelings, dreams,
> The bottom line is that to try and get to the "meat" of Don's life,
> inclinations and quirks, we have to sort out all the finer detailslike where he lived, who he
> knew, and who he wrote to. That's all we have to go on for themoment. 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 athim...well then there we
> have our proof!that if Don was
> I think most of us are mature, open-minded adults and I for one feel
> gay..."so what!" It wouldn't tarnish his image at all...it wouldjust add to the interest. Most
> of us have expressed that opinion here. It's not disinterest thatkeeps us from discussing it
> (and as I said, we have talked about it in the past ad naseum) it'sjust that until we know
> for sure, one way or the other, it would just be conjecture. If hewas gay, it would have had
> a huge impact on how he lived his life, who he trusted, how heseparated his public
> personna of a big, strapping ladies-man poet who was respected bymen as well, from his
> private, gentle, secluded life when not on the lecture circuit. Butuntil we get the "smoking
> gun" letter or diary entry which reveals his sexual preference....weplug away on the
> research and try to build a profile of Don that is honest, sincereand 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.
> 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.....