California Dying

A couple of years before Thomas Thompson died from cancer, I visited him at his house in the Hollywood Hills to talk about the craft of writing. Thompson was well known for having written Blood and Money, Serpentine, and Celebrity, and he told me that every time the Hillside Strangler or Zodiac knocked off a new victim he'd get a call from a New York publisher asking him to write another book. Thompson would patiently explain that you couldn't just write a book about simply any murder at all. There had to be some significance to the crime. It had to mean something.

Then Thompson made me an offer. "Would you like a good book idea? Here's one free of charge. Why is it that here in California where the sun always shines, where there's fruit on the trees, where living is easy, and you've got the ocean at your back, do so many people go around killing each other six, eight and ten at a time?" Thompson said he didn't know the answer himself, but the writer who figured it out, he said, would have a best seller.

And Now, A Word From Our Russian Friends

It was embarrassing when James Huberty killed 22 people in a McDonald's down in San Ysidro in 1984, because up to that time everyone knew the real reason the Soviets weren't coming to the Olympics was because they were afraid their athletes might defect. But after San Ysidro, Pravda could trumpet to the Soviet people that the authorities were right after all. Not only couldn't we guarantee the safety of Soviet athletes, we couldn't even protect our own citizens.

Resume For Murder
Anything, Our Applicant Is Over-Qualified


SITUATION: On Wednesday, July 18th, at 4 p.m., a 41 year old adult white male wearing camouflage pants and armed with an Israeli submachine gun, 12 gage shotgun and 9 mm Browning automatic pistol entered a McDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro and methodically began shooting the people there. In order to listen to news about himself, he carried an AM-FM radio. Until a police sniper finally shot him at 5:17 p.m., he killed a total of 22 people, including an eight month old infant, a small boy trying to flee on a bicycle, and a motorist on nearby Interstate 5.

PERSPECTIVE: It was the worst single massacre in US history, the previous one-day record being Charles Whitman's slaughter of 16 people from the University of Texas Tower in August, 1966.

PROFILE: The killer was James Oliver Huberty, 41, 185 pounds, 6'1". Born in Florida. Grew up on an Ohio farm. His mother was a Quaker missionary who kneeled and prayed on street corners. She divorced Huberty's father when Huberty was nine. A lonely child, he amused himself playing with machine guns (his great uncle invented an early type of one). As an adult, he kept guns in every room. After he was laid off from work, he became more and more s strange. He began to have automobile accidents. He developed a tremor in his hands. He heard voices. He tried to kill himself with a small silver pistol. He sold his house and moved his family from Ohio to Tijuana in October of last year, but he couldn't stand the litter there.

FAMILY: Married with two daughters aged 12 and 14. They lived in a small house near the San Ysidro McDonald's. His wife was a spotless housekeeper. In matters of home decor, their tastes ran to purple shag rugs and black velour wallpaper.

EMPLOYMENT: Studied embalming at the Pittsburgh School of Mortuary Science. Although good technically, he was too introverted to make a good mortician. Became a welder with Babcock and Wilcox. Lost his job when the plant closed. Subsequently became a security guard, but was fired for unexplained reasons, whereupon he became a rabid anti-capitalist. Applied for another guard job but the interviewer turned him down, writing "NO" across his application in red letters four inches high.

SCENARIO: The morning of the massacre he went to court to answer charges of illegally crossing a double yellow line. After the judge routinely suspended the ticket, the family ate lunch in a nearby McDonald's and then went to the zoo. When they got home, Huberty's wife and daughter went shopping while Huberty got his gun and went to McDonald’s.

PREMONITIONS: During the massacre, his daughter had a psychic experience: "Mummy, I keep seeing McDonald's. I see ambulances. Something is wrong."

FATE: Due to rush-hour traffic, the SWAT team didn't arrive for 35 minutes. As soon as the on-scene commander grasped the situation, he gave orders to kill Huberty, but his order was countermanded by the SWAT team commander stuck in heavy traffic three miles away, not that the police snipers could see to shoot anyway. The gray smoked glass windows had so many bullet fractures it was impossible to see inside. Hovering TV news helicopters made it impossible to hear. When they at last shot Huberty and were able to go inside, the carnage was so appalling that veteran cops and reporters threw up their lunches.

AUTOPSY: No tattoos, no brain lesions. Negative tests for alcohol, PCP, morphine, amphetamines, barbiturates or cocaine.

DISPOSITION: His body was cremated and the ashes flown to Ohio. His brain was preserved for future study.

DEPARTMENT OF EARLY WARNING: Once when Huberty's dog scratched the paint on his landlord's car, he took it in the back yard and shot it on the spot. He nailed a "No Trespassing" sign to the front door, and then would sit just inside the entrance way with a shotgun in his lap. The bumper sticker on his car read: "I'm not deaf. I'm just ignoring you."


The Biological Imperative
It's Bleaker Than You Think


Bill is a biologist, college professor, and a profound pessimist about the nature of man. He dismisses at a stroke the supposed major insight of the sixties counterculture, namely that we'd been so oppressed and repressed by greed, guilt and rampant materialism, that our pure and sweet inner natures had never had a chance to flower. The truth of the matter, he says, is that "most males have a program to kill. Most of us don't call it up except in times of stress or war. But the potential is in the genes ready to go on line."

As for Californians, Bill says our problem is we've never learned to deal with frustrations. As children, no one ever told us no. Then the first time we come up against walls as adults, we rage at the unjustness of it all.


Cops On Crime
They Don't Know Either


I call Lt. Cooke at the LAPD public information office and ask if I can talk to the head of the SWAT team on the subject of murder.

Cooke is immediately suspicious. "What do you want to talk to the TAC Squad for?"

Well, I say, it seems to me that someone who has literally been on the firing line might have a few insights not readily apparent to the rest of us.

"Look," says Cooke. This is no time to be talking to the Tac Squad. "It was one of their men who planted the bomb (on the Turkish athlete's bus during the Olympics). And they're real touchy right now." Besides, cops don't know anything about murder. "We just arrest the guys." As for why they do it, that's a job for a psychologist.


On The Banality Of Murder
Death Is Never Boring, But Murderers Are


Rex Beaber is a forensic psychologist for the Los Angeles County Courts. His office is in the sub-basement of the UCLA medical center, underneath the parking garage. It's small and bare, the only decoration being multiple diplomas and some abstract art. An electric typewriter is bolted to his desk. There's a pink plastic model of a brain in his bookcase and, pinned to his bulletin board, a $.01 check from UCLA. Beaber has a curly brown beard, the self-confidence of an experienced lecturer (he teaches at the medical school) and the no-nonsense manner of a seasoned cop.

Beaber interviews about one murderer a week, most often on a weekend night, usually within three or four hours of the crime itself. "I don't get called out on your usual murder," he explained, "just one in which the district attorney suspects the defense might try and plead insanity." For the most part, these are multiple murders, bizarre situations or instances in which the murderer tortured his victim too. "I'm interested in getting there quick." Otherwise, the suspect talks to his lawyer, clams up and "the con game begins."

Since half the suspects don't even remember killing anyone, Beaber starts them off slowly, not so much interrogating them as asking them to tell him the story of their life. Then when he gets to the day of the crime, he starts at dawn. What did the suspect eat for breakfast? What did he do then? Beaber moves so slowly toward the crime itself it's almost like hypnosis. In one case where a man had killed a six month old baby, Beaber was able to get the suspect to remember what he was thinking in between the cracking of each of the child's ribs.

"I operate on the assumption that everybody's life makes sense if you know what happened the day before the murder and the day before that." But if you start with the crime itself --"Okay, Willie, why did you do it?-- all you get is rationalizations, abstractions and bad clichés.

One of the most striking things Beaber has discovered, he said, is just how ordinary most murderers are. "As a psychologist, I went in lusting for the bizarre, viewing this as a place where I was going to get the deep dark material that we were taught lurks in most people's minds. And what is most surprising is that there are no surprises. In fact, this is the reason why psychologists and psychiatrists have such a terrible track record in predicting whether a person will kill again or not --murderers are indistinguishable from the rest of us with one proviso --unlike the rest of us, the wild beast in them "has not been successfully squelched."

This is also the reason that capital punishment doesn't deter much crime. Because most murderers act out of passion, they don't generally give a thought either to the death penalty or to the thought of being captured. If they did, said Beaber, they did, they wouldn't murder "in such an inept and foolish fashion" in the first place.

In some respects, said Beaber, murder is a very predictable crime. Generally it takes place on a Saturday or Sunday night. The victim is a husband or wife. The location is the kitchen or bedroom. The weapon is either a gun or a knife. And the motive is usually quite straightforward --"he hates the other guy's guts."

None of this is to suggest that it would be a simple matter to trim the murder rate. Like my friend, the biologist, Beaber takes a rather pessimistic view of the human heart. If we weren't all wild beasts at heart, said Beaber, we wouldn't be so ready to kill the first time someone cuts us off on the Harbor Freeway. "We often ask 'Why do people kill?' because we think killing is the exception. And I would like to suggest that a more pertinent question is, "Why don't people kill more often?"


On The Nature Of Rage An Informal Inquiry

Freud said when you want to know anything about human nature, first you look to the poets. So I called a Venice poet named Linda to see if she was willing to speculate a little on the human heart. Like all good poets, she instinctively told me a story.

When she was a student at UCLA 10 years ago, she and a group of her friends pooled their student loan money and bought themselves a house in Venice. It was not the best part of town. Her VW has been broken into five times. People have come into her house so often it's a joke.

The last time it happened, she was upstairs asleep in the middle of the afternoon when this guy shows up. He was nice looking, actually, like a young Belefonte. "He asked for someone named Carl," says Linda. "They all say the same thing. They all must go to the same school. 'There is no one here named Carl,' I told him. 'And now you'll have to leave.'" Linda followed him downstairs because there was a room full of musical instruments on the ground floor and she wanted to be sure he didn't help himself to a couple of guitars on the way out. That was her first mistake. At the doorway, he turned around and suddenly began to punch her in the face. "He was so full of rage I thought I was going to die," says Linda. She screamed and the intruder ran. But before he did, he grabbed her arm and wrenched it until it broke.

Linda is one of those people who tend to see metaphors all around us. "Orchids," she says, "grow better when they are touching, when their stems are all intertwined." And it seems to her that that lack of touching is exactly the problem with so many men. They never had enough nurturing as children. What they really want is to be stroked and held and taken care of like little children, from their fathers even more than their mothers. And deep inside they have this boundless infinite rage because it's something they never had.


What Your Parents Never Told You
(Because They Never Knew Themselves)


Bob Stuckey looks like your typical social welfare bureaucrat, which is to say he's got a middle aged spread, wears short sleeved blue shirts with a necktie and talks in a slow tentative way. But unlike most bureaucrats, he has something to say. For 18 years, he worked for the county in probation, family therapy and child abuse, including two years as director of McClaren Hall, the county's temporary care facility for abused children.

It is Stuckey's contention that we're breeding ourselves a nation of little tow-headed Charlie Mansons and James Hubertys. The reason, he says, is that since most parents never learned dependence and trust themselves, they can't bring up their own children in a loving and unconditional way. "People just don't see the cost," says Stuckey. "They don't understand it's serious until the kid is big enough to get pregnant, punch his dad, take the car keys or steal from the purse."

Instead, parents try to satisfy their own emotional needs through their children. It's the parents with the weak egos, for instance, who can't accept failure in their children. These are the people you see at Little League baseball games yelling at their children with the veins in their neck standing out.

The problem is the parents' values are so scrambled, says Stuckey, they spend all their time chasing BMW's, and they're not available to their kids. So if somebody steals their kid's dirt bike, big deal. So he didn't lock it. It's easier to spend another $1200 and keep the kid quiet. Or send him up to Vail. "Or otherwise you might have to talk about the quality of life."

A good healthy family, says Stuckey, is like training wheels on a bike -- they hold you up until you can manage on your own. "The problem is we've taken away the nuclear family and left nothing in it's place."

In the meantime, there are mothers who leave their infants locked in a car outside a bar all night while they go home with someone they just met. Or four year old kids left alone in motel rooms for two-and-a-half weeks at a time. The kids are so deprived and needy they equate affection with sex. "You don't want a blowjob??? But you're the only one who ever was nice to me." The parents are to blame, of course, but the problem is, they were victims too.

You can't produce a generation of emotionally healthy kids, says Stuckey, when the parents "aren't tightly wrapped themselves." We learn most of the important things in life by age five and too many parents never learned dependency, trust and love --"You can't give what you never got." Instead, says Stuckey, you get these men who pride themselves on their never needing anyone's help. --"I got my own jumper cables. I don't ask anyone for shit." They think they're teaching their kids to deal with a tough world, whereas in fact they're only turning them into emotional cripples. The kids discover very quickly that it's not very smart to be needy. They never learn to ask for help and they deal with it by pretending they don't care. They act cocky or indifferent whereas in truth, they're filled with rage. They can't risk being laughed at. They can't deal with frustration. They neither have self-esteem or faith in the future. They want what they want and they want it right now. But then when they get it, they can't enjoy it anyway. "There are millions of little Mansons and Hubertys growing up out there," says Stuckey. And it's getting worse each year.


A Short Informal Inquiry
The Author Takes A Crack


I sometimes think that most of us would have been happier in the Middle Ages than we are today. At least in the Middle Ages, you were pretty much born into your station in life. There was no worry about trying to better yourself, because no matter what you couldn't change things anyway. So instead, you concentrated on being the best carpenter or stone mason possible, and the result was soaring cathedrals and people who spent their entire life building a set of stairs. But nowadays it's wide open. There really are people who started out building computers in their garage and now are worth a quarter of a billion bucks. And it's not just limited to a few genius nerds. Books become best sellers and movies become big hits. There are stocks that split and sales that soar. And the truth of the matter is, if you haven't made it, there's no one else to blame but you.

And that's our modern dilemma. When everything is possible, no one is satisfied with anything. As Lewis Lapham has written, the "wandering Bedouin of the America desert migrate to California in hopes of satisfying their heart's desire." But something goes wrong. There's a pervasive feeling that somewhere someone is having a party and their names aren't on the list. It's just like Ohio, but worse, because this time they're all alone in the middle of six million people. There's no help and no support and each morning, you wake up feeling you have to "invent the wheel and re-discover the uses of fire."

As the poet Gary Snyder has said, there comes a point when you have to stick your spear in the ground, commit yourself to a single place and build yourself a life there. Our problem here in California is that we have too much mindless mobility. The original thirteen colonies were settled by people who weren't happy in Europe and California was first settled by people who weren't happy on the East coast. When it comes to discontent, we're the creme de la creme. In Los Angeles, people thinking nothing of driving 40 miles for a dinner party. But they don't know the people next door.

The result is, in big cities there's no more social controls. If you grew up in a small town in Ohio and all of a sudden you dyed your hair purple and began roller skating in your swimming suit, the first thing that would happen is you'd run into your former teacher from the third grade who would tell you to go home and grown up. In the meantime, your uncle, the deputy sheriff, would take you aside and explain that you're embarrassing the whole family. But here in Los Angeles, these informal controls don't exist. People get farther and farther out, until they end up cutting someone head's off, or walking into a McDonald's and shooting 22 people dead.

Freedom begets creativity. And the result is a wider variation in lifestyles, and more interesting theater, literature and art. On the other hand, points out Rex Beaber, the anonymity of a big city is a two-edged sword, and we pay through the nose for our freedom "with more dead bodies and more bizarre crimes."

 

Eric's Acting Class

Okay all you non-entities, we know who you are. Why do you think no one
ever returns your phone calls or can ever remember your name? Do you think
it's an accident that no one accepts your invitations or asks you over for
dinner? Surely you don't think it's a merely coincidence that every time you go
to a party you end up in a corner by yourself? The fact is, you're boring.
You're principal colors are dreck and dull. Well, don't just sit there. Life is
not a dress rehearsal. Do something about it. Join an acting class!



It's half past nine on a warm Thursday night in June and upstairs at Eric
Morris's La Brea Avenue acting studio, some 20 students are sitting in the
battered theater seats which line the room on three sides. Eight floodlights
in the ceiling turn the carpet a rich deep blue, while over in the corner Eric
is conducting class from his customary chair.

Eric is tall, thin and surprisingly emotional. It's not always apparent
in normal conversation but let him get excited and something creeps into his
voice like the thin high cry of migrating waterfowl. He wears a thick short
beard and has a thatch of fading red hair which gives him the faint air of an
English explorer who's spent too much time in the tropical sun. Stroking his
mustache with his little finger, Eric asks a new student named Lynda to do her
first exercise ever--relating to Eric in a "socially unacceptable way." She
can do whatever she wants, explains Eric, except actually touch him.

"Oh God," laugh Linda, holding her head in her hands. She's in her
middle-twenties, 10 pounds overweight, with straight teeth and a wide nervous
smile. "Let's see," she says, looking for something to criticize. This is very
hard for her. Everything she says is mild, pleasant, even complimentary. After
a couple of minutes Eric stops her and pointedly asks what she thinks she's
doing.

"Being anti-social," she says?

"Then do it," says Eric, "don't stand around like some fat assed bitch."

Lynda looks stunned. Then realizing that Eric is merely trying to spur
her on to anti-social behavior, she responds by calling him a "dork."

"A dork? Oh my God, no!" Eric says if she isn't willing to do the
exercise right she ought to go home and talk to her cat.

"I don't have a cat. It's my sister's cat."

"I don't want to hear about your cat, you stupid bitch."

Lynda's eyes flare. "Fuck off, asshole." But then she can't help pulling
her own punch by allowing her voice to drop off meekly.

Eric tries another tack. "What do you do for a living?"

"I teach people."

"What kind of people?"

"Stupid people who slobber down their chins." Her voice is petulant. She
looks as if she's about to cry.

"I believe it . . . "

"I don't care what you believe."

" . . . that's the kind of job they'd give a retardo like you."

"Fuck off, asshole." This time she means it and she walks in circles,
clenching her fists.

"You said that already."

"I don't care."

Eric holds out his arm and sticks up his thumb. "Here, sit on this and
rotate, honey."

Lynda is so flabbergasted that she wanders off into the dark at the far
end of the studio, out where the sofa and refrigerator are. "Hey, come back,"
Eric says gently.

Lynda raises her arms in exasperation, then, letting them drop again, she
reluctantly returns to the center of the floodlights, looking angry and
embarrassed at the same time.

"How do you feel?" asks Eric.

"Shaky," she says in a tremulous voice.

Eric nods in understanding. "Welcome to the class."


For the most part, Eric's classes are at least as interesting as most
equity waiver plays with his exercises running the gauntlet from silly to
sublime. Eric, in fact, has a soft spot in his heart for silliness, contending
that it isn't until a student totally humiliates himself that he can at last
forget his foolish pride, drop the facade and get on with the important
business of learning how to act. If a woman feels weak or powerless, Eric
makes her jump in the air, fling our her arms and shout, "I am
SUPERWOMAN! I can do ANYTHING!"

To encourage people to feel more irreverence in their monologues, Eric
distracts them with everything from speculating about their
sex lives to sticking a pencil up his nose. When people have trouble
expressing their anger, Eric has them run around the room, screaming at their
enemies and beating the floor with foam rubber batons. If people feel
depressed, he makes them count their blessings. If they suffer from marginal
self-images, he makes them tell the class what they like about their bodies.

Tears and angry outbursts are common in class, as are intimate revelations. I
once saw a sensitive young man surprise himself by blurting out that he'd just
discovered he was gay. On another occasion, a 47 year old newly single
grandmother convulsed the class by describing how she brought home a guy she
met in a bar, made love on the living room floor, and then screamed so loud
when she came that she broke a blood vessel in her lungs.

I have come to Eric's class for several reasons, the first of which is
that I want to write a story. The heart of any story is conflict and Eric's
class is certainly full of that. The other reason is a more complex one and
has to do with a longtime feeling that in some fundamental sense my life isn't
working very well. All around me I see friends, relatives or former classmates
leading productive and apparently quite happy lives while I feel stuck in a
rut, marginally productive, often unhappy and curiously indecisive. Most of
the time I feel as if I'm only hitting on two cylinders. In social settings,
instead of coming across as the forceful man of action I believe myself to be,
I appear as some sort of bearded Ozzie Nelson--soft, fumbling and incapable
of surprise. I know I've always felt ineffective in organized groups. My voice
becomes high and thin. There's not a hint of what I consider to be my normal
warmth, wit and color and I stumble around forgetting my point and coming to
some lame conclusion, if I don't get cut off first.

Lots of people have these problems, I know, but I don't consider myself just
nyone and it's humiliating to find them happening to me. I don't know what,
if anything, Eric's class can do for me, but he does spend a lot of time on the
freeing of emotions. Week after week, I've seen him put his students on the
spot to express attraction, affection, hostility, anger, love. It is often a very
affecting experience. And on some evenings, there is enough sexual energy
in the room to arc-weld boiler plate.


Eric is delighted when I tell him I want to take his class (Up
till now I've merely been watching from the back row). He says I'll get a lot
out of the class since, in his opinion, I am "emotionally conservative,"
"articulate but enigmatic," and "emotionally uncomfortable" with "complex
undercurrents." I don't appear to be terribly happy. I'm vulnerable, but
terrified of expressing it. I've been "stifled" a lot. And he will have a
field day getting me to open up.

On this Thursday night, Eric starts the class with what he calls "a
getting ready to get ready to act" exercise. Everyone is to pair off, sit on
the floor and work to achieve some kind of "intimacy." "Now, I don't mean who
you've been fucking --I mean, you can talk about that if you want to-- but
what I really mean is your feelings, your jobs, your frustrations --what's
really going on inside. Most people are afraid of intimacy. They can't stand
not being in control. Or they think being intimate is going to open up a can
of peas. I want you to go all out. Go for the emotional jugular vein."

While most of the class does the exercise, Eric idly chats with a late
arrival about his cream colored Italian shoes. At the end of the group
workout, Eric begins the individual sessions by asking Judy to take the floor.
Judy works as a computer programmer during the day and takes both acting and
dancing lessons at night. She has small shoulders and small breasts but big
hips and heavy thighs. She is wearing pink plastic-rimmed eyeglasses and a
black and white striped shirt that makes her look like a basketball referee.
The deceptively simple sounding exercise which Eric has her to do is to
describe how she feels "on a moment to moment basis." Judy makes a valiant
stab at it, but after a few minutes she breaks if off completely. "Eric, I
have achieved a state of total non-being."

"I know," says Eric. "Your problem is you have theatrical expectations.
You want to have great things to say, wonderfully poignant and entertaining.
You've got to say what you feel."

"Yeah, but it might be boring."

"That's a risk you've got to run." Eric goes on to explain one of his
many theories, namely that reality is never boring, unless one interferes with
it. "This doesn't mean that everything that comes out of your mouth will be an
earthquake, but it won't be dull."

"But I go for earthquakes."

"I know, and that's your problem--you should be going for reality.

Eric is a method actor, which is another way of saying he believes the
best acting isn't acting at all and that in truly transcendental moments on
stage, the actors aren't so much simulating emotions as merely expressing what
they truly feel. Because Eric's exercises sometimes ruthlessly probe his
students' true feelings, he is occasional accused of being too tough--"Old
whips and chains Morris," he's "vicious," he's "crazy," his students run
screaming from his class.

Eric is more than a little hurt by such charges. While some of his methods
may seem harsh to outsiders, he says, their purpose is to help students break
through barriers and inhibitions which may have been stifling them their
entire lives. The problem is that many people don't understand what he's
trying to do. Even a psychiatrist friend he brought to class took him to task
for being too hard on a student.

"You don't understand," Eric told his friend. "I have their permission. This
isn't therapy. It's an acting class."

All an actor has to offer is his own unique self. If he's too emotionally constipated
to let his true feelings show, he might as well take up accounting or TV
repair. "I don't enjoy making people feel bad," says Eric, "but we're dealing
with an art form." How could Elizabeth Taylor ever do "Virginia Wolfe" if she
couldn't bear to shout at Richard Burton? Besides, says Eric, it's a bit
ironic to attack him now for being too tough when the truth is he was far
"saltier and more volatile" in his younger days. Now that he's older and more
secure he's actually rather "mellow."

Because Eric believes that to be a good actor you must first feel good
about yourself, many of his exercises attempt to deal with self-esteem, as
when he tells Patty for her exercise one night to "get in touch with all her
wonderful qualities," make it "really big," and take "lots of chances."

Patty is a slim Irish girl with small white teeth, seductive green eyes
and bushy red hair. In any exercise where the guys in the class are asked to
express their physical attraction, she's one girl whom everyone always names.

As Eric expected, Patty initially has trouble naming any wonderful
qualities. "Shit," she announces. "I feel on the spot."

"Yes, and that's the problem," says Eric. "You may say good things about
yourself, but on some level deep down you don't believe them." Patty tries
again, this time mentioning her "freshness" and her "pride."

"Do you like the way you look?" asks Eric.

"I love the way I look.

"Do you like your face?"

"Yes."

"Do you like your body?"

"I like my breasts. They're just . . . perfect. I like the way they stand
up. They're just the right size." Surprised and embarrassed by her own
admission, Patty hides her face in her hands. "This is hard."

"I know," says Eric, who then goes on to explain that an actor can't very
well expect other people to like him if he doesn't like himself. Patty
masquerades as having a big ego. But in fact her ego has been "eroded,
corroded and chopped down. A big part of you says, 'I'm talented, but others
are better.' A big part says, 'I'm beautiful, but others are more beautiful.'
A big part says, 'I'm intelligent, but so what? --that and 64 will get you a
cup of coffee at Schwabs."

One night Judy is standing on the stage preparing to do her monolog when
Eric begins to chat with someone else. Since she's supposed to be playing an
abrasive character anyway, she tells Eric to go fuck himself. "Hey," says
Eric. "I'm really hurt."

Realizing that fuck you is hardly a damning retort in a class where some
people manage to work it into practically every sentence, Judy tries a more
subtle attack, saying that what she really meant to say was that Eric would
like to "fuck everyone in here."

"That's not true," says Eric smugly. "I'm totally monogamous."

Judy points an accusatory finger in his direction. "You'd like everyone
to want to fuck you."

Eric springs delightedly out of his chair. "Well now," he says, pointing a
finger back at her. "That's a totally different story."

For someone so apparently at ease with himself and other people, there is
a surprising naivete about Eric. His wife has only to tell him there is
marijuana in the brownies and his powers of self-suggestion are so strong that
a few minutes later he's beginning to feel high. Eric's anger appears so
suddenly, it's hard to believe it's real. I once saw him storm out of a class
because the students were taking too long to find their seats (he was back in
10 minutes, fully composed and sipping a cup of coffee). Eric's wife, Jesse,
says they have an unusually passionate relationship which is not diminished by
the fact that they fight over everything from what color to paint the living
room to whether or not the dog sleeps in their bed at night. Eric likes
expensive machinery (he drives a Turbo Porsche and a Cadillac Seville). And he
is successful enough at what he does to have a house in the Hollywood Hills
and another one at Lake Arrowhead. Despite his formidable collection of
firearms (which he keeps locked in a big steel safe with an eagle on the
door), his wife says his disposition is rather gentle and rather than kill a
bumble bee he'll spend l0 minutes shooing it out of the house.

Unlike intellectuals, who tend to learn by reading, Eric says he doesn't
really understand something until he hears himself explain it out loud (most
often on the freeway). In class he intersperses his instruction with jokes,
puns and good-natured innuendo. Articulate to a fault, he tosses opinions,
observations and instant aphorisms the way a Golden Retriever shakes itself
dry. I once heard him tell a student that his voice was so syrupy, Eric got
cavities just from hearing him talk. If he needs a word that doesn't exist,
he'll make up one on the spot, as when he tells his students to do their
exercises "bigglier," meaning bigger, more expansive and a whole lot more
expressive.

For his own part, Eric tends to project so well in public places that sometimes
his wife will ask him if he really wants "the waitresses to hear the conversation?
The cooks too?"

In fact, Eric makes a strong case for arrogance, which he considers a virtue and
he likes to tell a story about the time Dick Cavett introduced a distinguished
guest by saying "Everyone says that you are a genius." And the man answered,
"That's right, I am."

It's another Thursday night in Eric's class and Carol is sitting on the
carpet preparing to do a monolog to an imaginary boyfriend. Carol is 19, looks
24 and acts about 12. On this occasion, she's wearing a purple shirt and black
pants. Her eyes are big and round and she has a little girl Lolita style
which, in small doses, is actually rather sexy. At the moment she is trying to
get herself in the mood to do an affecting monolog to her lover, but for some
reason, she's bored, the class is bored and nothing much is happening. "I'm
sorry," she says, breaking if off. "It's not working."

"Okay," says Eric, sweeping his gaze around the room while he gathers his
thoughts. "Do you have a boyfriend?"

"Yes," says Carol, earnestly nodding like a little girl.

Eric thoughtfully strokes his mustache with the tip of his little finger.
"Do you love him?"

"Oh yes, very much."

"Your boyfriend is dead."

Carol is startled.

"He's lying right there in front of you." Eric points to the floor. "And
he's dead."

Carol looks ready to cry.

"Say, 'Please don't be dead,'" says Eric.

"Please don't be dead," repeats Carol.

"Say, 'I love you. I don't want you to be dead.'"

"I love you. I don't want you to be dead." Her voice cracks and tears
roll down her cheeks. It's a very poignant moment and sitting in the gallery
at the back of the room, I find myself blinking back tears.


One afternoon when I drop by the studio, Eric demonstrates Sense Memory
to me. In this preparatory technique, the actor asks specific questions of his
senses in order to conjure up familiar objects such as a steaming cup of
coffee. With practice, the actor can experience any object any time he wants
to, and more importantly, the specific emotions associated with it.

Eric says that when he first discovered Sense Memory he became obsessed
with it, practicing "five, six, seven and ten hours a day" for three years
straight. He got so good all he had to do was work for a poison berry and he
would break out in hives. Another time he worked for heart palpitations, which
he thought was a great trick until he discovered that they wouldn't go away.
"I was saying, 'Okay guys, the party's over.'" After two increasingly alarming
weeks, he went to his doctor who cured him with tranquilizers. Now he says he
won't use Sense Memory on anything having to do with heartbeat or respiration.

"Would you like to see an example," he asks, explaining that he's going
to work for a block of ice and its associated physiological reaction. Pulling
up his shirt sleeves, Eric holds up his forearm. "Come closer," he says. "It
takes about three our four seconds."

Eric closes his eyes and grits his teeth. His arm shakes and his voice
strains. "I can't do it too long --it makes my teeth hurt." Suddenly there are
hundreds of goose bumps covering Eric's arm. It's just as if his bare forearm
were resting on a block of ice, which is, he explains, the image he was
working for. Eric seems to be under a great strain. "Oh Jesus." He furiously
rubs his hands and arms as if he's dying of a chill. "It goes through me like a
fucking knife."

When he recovers, he explains that he can also cause his palm to blister
by picturing it over a candle flame. "But that takes about ten minutes."

Eric asks if I would like to see the goose bumps again. "No, that's okay."
But Eric is already so deep into it he doesn't hear my reply. His eyes are
closed. He's holding his breath. "See it?" he gasps. "It's all over my body."
Suddenly, he flies out of his seat. "Oh God! I can't do that too long. The
cold goes right down my spine." Furiously rubbing his arms and sides he
finally takes a seat. "Well," he says, looking at me expectantly, "what did
you think?"

I'm a little taken back by the whole spectacle. "Gee," I offer, "that's
bizarre."

"No," he says. "It's craftsmanship."


In their more effusive moments, Eric's students describe him as a genius,
but as a child he was an exceedingly late bloomer. He found it so hard to
compete with his older brothers he never even tried. His schoolteachers thought
he was so stupid, they wouldn't allow him to graduate from grammar school until
he first promised to learn a trade. After taking machine shop and general
science in high school, Eric got a job at a phonograph record company running
the punch press and glue machine. In those days he had so little direction and
thrust that his father sent him to a psychiatrist. To his surprise, the tests
showed that Eric had a higher IQ than the psychiatrist did himself. Eventually
Eric enrolled in college to avoid the Korean War. There he saw a production of
Finian's Rainbow that completely changed his life. "I was 18 or 19 at the
time," says Eric. "I've never done anything since."

In 35 years of acting, Eric has appeared in some 150 equity plays, 50 TV
shows, a TV series ("The New Phil Silvers Show") and 120 feature films, the
most recent of which is "Wavelength," a low budget science fiction thriller in
which Eric plays the part of a naval officer surgeon who operates on extra-
terrestrials who land in Laurel Canyon.

Eric first began to teach acting in 1961. At the time he had been taking
method acting classes from Marty Landau. Landau had studied under Lee
Strasberg, who in turn had studied in Russia under Stanislavsky himself. Under
Landau's coaching, Eric's talent rapidly flowered. He had a couple of acting
jobs every month and was earning at the time what was a respectable $6,000 a
year. But the 1961 actor's strike broke his momentum. Afterward, not only did
he find it harder to get work, but Marty Landau, who also preferred acting to
teaching, left teaching for a year to work on "Cleopatra."

Eric was so devastated he didn't know which way to turn until a friend and
fellow actor suggested that, if he cared to teach an acting class himself, she
for one would be more than willing to work with him. For Eric, teaching was a
real revelation. He was 30 at the time and had not yet discovered his place in
life. Suddenly his life was changing. Not only did he discover that he had an
"innovative mind," he was able to use it to bridge what he now was beginning
to see as serious gaps in The Method. According to Eric, the main problem with
The Method is, as Stanislavsky himself admitted, only 3% of all actors are
fully able to make use of it. Eric's contribution has been to extend,
systematize and clarify The Method, inventing dozens of new approaches,
exercises and strategies with the result, says Eric, that The Method is now
accessible to anyone --"I could take the first 10 people walking down
Hollywood Boulevard and make actors out of nine of them." (I remind him of
this figure sometime later. "Not nine," he says, taken back a bit by his own
audacity. "Maybe six.")

Roselyn may be among the 40% that Eric can't help. She's a middle-aged
woman with varicose veins, bright orange hair (the sale color as her
Corvette), green eye shadow, and numerous bracelets and rings. Whenever Eric
criticizes her, she coyly stamps her feet in girlish indignation. Despite all
the time she's spent in class, she doesn't understand Eric's most fundamental
principle, namely that the best acting isn't acting at all, but merely
expressing what you truly feel. Instead she invests her monologs with sweeping
gestures and melodramatic shifts in intonation and pitch. She unconsciously
but continually drives Eric crazy by asking him for special consideration, as
she does on this occasion when, before starting her exercise, she asks to
leave at the l0 o'clock break because her shoulder and leg are sore from
playing tennis. "Do you get sympathy when you injure yourself?" asks Eric.
"Anyone who injures himself as much as you do must get something out of it."

"I really apologize," says Roselyn, who is wearing a white pants suit with a
jade figurine. "I have to get up at five thirty."

"Don't apologize," says Eric wearily. "It only takes more time."

After her monolog, a highly theatrical version of the character Medea,
Roselyn composes herself and asks Eric if he thought it "worked."

"Well," says Eric, "to some degree," though she didn't really surrender
to her sub-personality and there was an unfortunate overlay of leadership and
manipulation. Suddenly he stops and stares at Roselyn. "Are you listening?"

"Yes."

" . . . Or are you just thinking about what you're going to say? Because
if you think about what you're going to say, you miss fifty percent."

Roselyn tries to explain but she gets confused and Eric cuts her off.
"See," he tells her. "You don't listen. I'm champing at the bit to help you. I
want to help you. But you don't listen.


For the last six weeks I've attended Eric's class as an observer, but this
evening is the first time I've ever been a member of the class. All week
I've been so nervous my stomach feels like a bowl of minnows. As it is
Eric's contention that you overcome fear by acknowledging it (Eric calls
it "dealing with demons"), every few minutes while I'm waiting for my
turn I find myself saying "my stomach a bowl of minnows." Surprisingly,
it works --for about five minutes. Then you have to do it all over again.

Because I've observed enough of Eric's classes to know that he always
starts out beginners by having them talk about themselves, I have loosely
rehearsed lots of interesting things that I might say. Instead, when Eric
calls my name I find myself saying the most banal things about growing
up In Pennsylvania, going to school in New York, chasing submarines in
the Navy and learning to write by working as a local reporter for Time.

"I feel a little embarrassed," I tell Eric at one point. "As a writer I
feel I ought to have lots of interesting things to day. Instead, I find myself
saying pretty much the same things as everyone else."

"How do you feel?" asks Eric. "I feel like there's a bowl of minnows in
my stomach."

Eric brushes his mustache with the tip of his little finger. "Where is
your father?"

"Pennsylvania."

"Do you love him?"

"Yeah."

"What do you call your father? Do you call him daddy?"

"Not since I was six."

"Say, 'Daddy, I love you.'"

"Daddy, I love you."

"'I've always loved you.'"

"I've always loved you." I'm suddenly ware of my fingers, which are
overlapped and intertwined like those of little girls when they're dealing
with difficult and embarrassing questions of life and love.

"I want you to try something," says Eric. "I want you to suppose and
imagine that your father has died. And you've flown back and you're standing
in front of his coffin --you and he alone. And I want you to accept and
imagine that he's truly dead. And I want you to tell him all the things you
never got a chance to tell him when he was alive."

Despite Eric's instructions I begin to talk to him as if he's still alive. I mention
a mathematical calculation I sometimes make. "you're 65 years
old. I only see you once or twice a year. If you live another six years, then
at best I'll only see you 12 more times." I then go on to say I was sorry that
I wasn't around as he got older and he needed someone to lean on a bit, keep
him company and drive the truck.

Eric gently suggests some dialogue. "'I love you daddy.'"

"I love you, daddy."

"'I wish you weren't dead.'"

"I wish you weren't dead."

"'Please daddy don't be dead.'"

"Please daddy don't be dead." I find to my surprise that a strange quiver
has entered by voice.

"Say it again."

"Please daddy don't be dead."

Eric stops the exercise. "Take a deep breath. Okay, how do you feel?"

"Like crying a little bit."

"There's vulnerability there, isn't there?"

"Yes." Eric offers me his evaluation, which is that I "did very well for
a first exercise." I expressed a lot of emotions. I showed surprising
vulnerability and affectability. As I get better at embracing my emotions and
being vulnerable and expressing everything I feel, he says, my life will
change so dramatically that if someone ran into me on the street without
having seen me in a year they'd be hard pressed to recognize me. These
exercises, he goes on, will "enrich your writing. It will enrich your personal
relationships. It will change your view of the world beyond what I could
possibly describe."

Sitting in my seat after the exercise, I'm disappointed that I didn't
find anything more profound or affecting to say. Despite Eric's kind words, I
feel as if I've disappointed him and the rest of the class (I wanted to dazzle
them). As a result I am astonished when a long time student and part-time
belly dancer by the name of Anne comes up at the end of class to say how much
I moved her and even more surprised when Steven later remarks that my talking
about my father brought tears to his eyes.


It's another Thursday night and Linda is doing her monolog. Linda may be
the most talented and intelligent student in class. She's certainly the most
skittish and high-strung. She has such frizzy curly hair I half suspect she
combs it with a salad fork. She dresses in ways that are striking if not
totally bizarre. She looks as if she bought all her clothes at a flea market,
carried them home in a paper bag and didn't have time to iron them yet.
Sometimes she wears woolly red socks with big red plastic earrings or a long
dress with basketball sneakers. I don't think I've ever seen her in the same
outfit twice. Linda talks the way she dresses, which is to say, arrestingly
and well, if slightly off center. She's always interesting to watch, even when
she's simply standing there chatting about her life. She's honest, smart and
emotional to the point where you worry about her well-being.

On this occasion, Linda finishes her monolog and then looks to Eric for
his evaluation. Instead, Eric just sits there. "I'm waiting," laughs Linda.
Then anxiously. "Aren't you going to say anything?"

Not only does Eric not answer, his manner suggests grave disappointment.
If's as if he's saying, "We worked so hard and I expected so much and this is
what you give me?"

I'm astounded at Eric. I thought Linda was terrific. There were times
when I've disagreed with him in the past but never so dramatically as this.
Linda is getting angry. "Are you going to say anything?"

Eric makes a kind of ambiguous half-shrug.

"Okay," says Linda. "I'll sit down." She goes to the rear of the room,
takes out a Kleenex and blows her nose.

At this point, Eric finally turns in his chair and asks her how she
feels. Linda's voice is shaky and upset. "I don't want to talk about it."

"The reason I did that . . . "

Linda angrily cuts him off. "I don't want to talk, okay?" Then she bursts
into tears.

Eric watches for a second and then calmly turns back to the class and
calls the name of another student to begin the next exercise, whereupon Linda
grabs her purse and runs sobbing down the stairs. At first Eric continues as
if nothing has happened, but then realizing perhaps that he owes us an
explanation, he explains that what he did to Linda was an "experiment." Her
work this evening was the best he'd ever seen. "It had more color, more depth,
more unpredictability than anything I'd ever seen her do before." Linda's
problem was she had no confidence in her own opinion. Eric was merely trying
to teach her to trust her own judgement more and not depend so much on his
approval.

Eric's administrative assistant, Anne, goes downstairs and brings back
Linda, whereupon Eric explains what he was doing and why. Although Linda
accepts it all graciously, I feel somewhat offended, as if this time Eric has
gone too far.


One day in class Eric surprises me by casually mentioning that he has
been feeling depressed lately because his agent just sent him a letter saying
he didn't want to represent him anymore. "So I went out and got myself two new
agents," says Eric. "I didn't play Hal Humble with them. I just went in and
told them how terrific and fantastic I was and they bought it."

Eric's confession, I find, makes me feel embarrassed for him. Despite his
cheery demeanor, it has to be a major humiliation for someone with so much
experience to find he has no better luck with agents than some rawboned
amateur. When I later ask him what happened, he explains that he had just
come back York and found this letter waiting. His agent was as nice about it
as he could possibly be but the fact was he couldn't find work for Eric and he
didn't want to represent him anymore. Television, the agent wrote, was made up
of handsome young men, lovely young ladies and heavies. Eric wasn't right for
a heavy. And as for the other roles, more established actors got them. It had
gotten so bad that the agent didn't even think of Eric for roles anymore. It
wasn't fair to Eric and it wasn't fair to the agent. Besides, wondered the
agent, what did Eric want to be an actor for anyway? He was known and
respected as a coach. People spoke his name with reverence. He did a lot of
good. Why did he still want to act?

"And that really hurt me," says Eric. "I called him up and said, 'Harry,
I'm an actor. Do you just stop being an actor when that's your whole life?'"

This isn't to say, says Eric, that he's in any way ashamed of being an
acting coach. Teaching is a gift from God, the top rung in the ladder of
endowments. Eric loves to teach so much he'll be driving down the street and
he'll see someone mowing the grass and it's all he can do not to stop the car
and show him a better way. "My wife says, 'Maybe they don't want your help.'
But I can't help myself.

"I'm inspired when I teach. It's the biggest part of my life. It's done
so much for me. I feel privileged to do what I do." But the fact remains that
teaching is his second love and not his first. Acting is what he lives for.
Let a good role come along and he'll drop everything in a second --"My bags
are packed. Everyone knows that."

It's another Thursday night and Roselyn is working herself up into the
appropriate mood for her monolog by describing her neighbor who she says
drives her so crazy sometimes she just wants to pull out his mustache one hair
at a time.

"Do you really hate him?" asks Eric.

"Yes."

"I don't believe it."

Roselyn starts to explain but Eric interrupts to ask if he can ask a
personal question."

"How old are you?"

For Roselyn, this is a touchy and traumatic area. "I'm just as old as you
are," she says defiantly.

"How is your marriage?"

"Okay."

"And how is your sex life?"

"Okay." Her voice is very small now.

"Do you ever get frustrated, get the feeling that life is passing you by?
You're 51. You've lived a lot longer than you've got to live." Eric is really
rolling now. "Do you ever look at other men? Do you ever get bored with your
husband? Do you ever get up in the morning and feel terrified? Do you ever
feel that you've sold out?"

Roselyn slowly nods her head yes. "Well, then," thunders Eric, "you've
got to stop fiddlefucking around with your neighbor's mustache! You have
programmed yourself right of your feelings. If I'm going to pay $36 for a seat
in the Broadway theater, I want to see someone's guts hanging out. If you put
your ass on the line, I'm willing to watch. But I'm going to rub your nose in
all the sell-outs and cop-outs and all the treaties you made and all the
compromises. And when you're really willing to believe, come in and we'll do
the piece. Roselyn's face contorts in tears. For once she doesn't have an
answer and for once she doesn't try to explain. Instead she looks like a
mature woman, suffering and full of grief. Eric is strangely touched. "Now you
look more compelling." He turns to the other students. "See her face at the
end of the exercise? Now that was worth paying for."


My next couple of exercises in Eric's class go quite well. In the first
he asks me to conduct an imaginary monolog with someone I'm very angry with.
Just two weeks previously, I'd had a confrontation with some Manhattan Beach
playboy over seating at volleyball court. At the time, I considered it beneath
my dignity even to respond to him but afterward I began to feel bad, as if
I'd let one more arrogant bastard with a Coppertone tan and a Tom Selleck
mustache get the best of me. So when Eric asks me to confront that person in
class, I suddenly find myself accusing him of driving a Porsche and thinking
he owned the sand. "You don't own the sand," I scream. "I didn't like you
before I met you and now that I've met you I like you even less."

It felt as if I were falling off a cliff. I was so angry I was almost hysterical.
It not only frightened me, I could see some of the other students wincing
in their chairs. Eric, of course, was very pleased and some of the other
students later told me they were stunned by my "power."

The following week for my exercise Eric tells me to be totally and
completely silly. "Do you want a demonstration?" he asks. "No," I tell him
confidently. "Okay," he says, but with rising inflection, as if to say, it's
your funeral.

I've never had any trouble being silly. I pull my hair, I jump up and
down like a hyperventilating ape. I scream like a banshee. I grab my crotch
and jump across the room like a 200 pound toad. I remember hopping with my
finger in my ear and one foot in the air when Eric calls a halt, telling me
how surprised and pleased he is and explaining that when he first gave me the
exercise he thought it would be like "pulling teeth."

At this point, I'm beginning to be very pleased with myself. Three
exercises in three weeks and each one better than the one before.

For the fourth week, Eric asks me to try "scary feedback," by which he
means go around the room and ask the other students questions which will
elicit answers I might not really care to hear.

I start out with Jennifer. Her hair style gives her a forties's look. She
always sits in the same seat and brews hot tea in a thermos bottle during
class.

"Do you find me physically attractive?" I ask.

"No."

"How come?"

"You're overweight."

Although I've never been attracted to Jennifer, I find her answer leaves
my angry and hurt. Furthermore, I think she's unfair. For her to call me fat, I
feel, is like the stove calling the pot black.

Next I try Robert, a with-it sort of guy with an attractive non-nonsense
style. "How would you rate me on a scale of one to ten," I ask, "with one
being a non-entity and ten being Mr. Charisma?"

Robert thinks about this for a second. "About a four," he tells me.

Feeling disappointed but not knowing what else to ask him I move on to
Denise. Unlike most of the students in the class, Denise is actually a working
actress. Personally she is a big woman with a booming voice and a friendly but
outspoken style. "If you had any advice for me," I say, "what would it be?"

Well, she answers, it irks her that a big broad-chested guy like me has
such a small squeaky voice.

A small squeaky voice??? What the hell is she talking about?

Finally, I stop at Linda's chair. Good old Linda with the frizzy hair
piled high on her head and shoes that look like some of leather french rolls.

"What," I ask her, "do you think of my personality?"

Linda, as it turns out, doesn't think much of it it at all. She holds her
thumb and forefinger about a quarter-inch apart to show how much personality I
have. Furthermore, she adds, when I sit in my chair watching other people do
their exercises, my manner is "condescending."

Eric stops the exercise at this point to ask me if I have learned
anything.

"Yes," I say. The truth is I'm stunned. "I was surprised by how negative
the comments were. I thought people had a higher opinion of me."

"What hurt you the most?"

"Linda's comment that I had no personality."

"I thought so."

I've always liked Linda. I liked her from the first time I met her. And it hurts
to hear her tell me I have no personality and my manner is condescending.
AlthoughEric assures me that he for one doesn't agree with Linda. But despite his
reassurances, that night when I leave class I'm still angry and hurt.
"Actually, I ought to be glad," I tell myself bitterly. "I always wanted to get
to the point where I didn't care what other people thought of me. And now
after this evening's class that's exactly how I feel--they can all go to hell
and take their scary feedback with them."

Eric must have realized that the exercise hurt me for the following week
he asks me to talk about it some more.

I'm fine, I tell him. I'm not even mad anymore. It was my own fault for
getting delusions of grandeur. "I'd done so well the first three weeks and
people had said they were real impressed and how much they liked my work that
I was beginning to think, well maybe I was this natural actor with vast
reservoirs of emotion and power.

"You do have vast reservoirs of emotion and power," says Eric. "And so
does everybody else." The problem is they are so protected and insulated it's
not easy to get at them. In any case, Eric wasn't worried. "It took you 30
years to build up your defenses. You can't expect to break them down
overnight."


It's another Thursday night and Eric is having a new student named Jim do an
anti-social exercise. Jim is a nice looking blond fellow with a quiet voice
and a deferential manner. The idea of being anti-social frankly leaves him
petrified.

"Would you like some help?" asks Eric.

"Yes," says Jim, nervously.

"Okay, I'll give you an example." Eric leans forward in his chair and
looks down the row at Linda.

"Linda," he tells her derisively, "if your nose was filled with nickels,
you'd never have to work again. Where did you get the idea you can act?
The only acting job you'll ever get is the bride of Frankenstein."

The class laughs. Linda rolls her eyes toward the ceiling, and
Eric turns back to Jim.

"See," he says, "there's nothing to it."


 

Freaked Out By Technology, a student of the sixties takes a look at what moved the New Left

Reason magazine, 1978, by Paul Ciotti

By the end of the sixties, I was getting really tired of two words. One was obscene. In those days, anything you didn't approve of was obscene, from Wall Street to required courses to the capitalist war machine. The other was idealistic—as in our idealistic youth."

The student left was by definition idealistic. I don't know where they got all this idealism. Perhaps it came in their registration packets, along with a campus map and library card. For a while it got so bad you could turn on the TV practically any night and there would be someone like David Susskind interviewing a Columbia student. "Look," the host would say, leaning over his director's chair to touch his guest on the arm. "I understand your idealism, but the end doesn't justify the means. How can idealism ever serve as a pretext for violence?"

"Yes, it's true," the student would answer, adjusting his trouser leg and checking to see which camera was on. "We are a very idealistic generation. That's why for us, racism and war are the ultimate obscenities."

Tossing his head as if to say "hey, you got me—good point!" the host would pause for a station break, after which they'd spend the next 30 minutes talking about corporate greed, social injustice, and the pressing need to restructure the nation's universities (the majority of which, they readily agreed, treated their students like dock workers on a banana boat). But they never got back to the matter of student radicals' alleged idealism. That was a given--like income taxes, or Lake Erie.

In fact, the only group that really ever questioned the notion that student radicals were oppressed idealists was the American working class. Despite their lack of education, American workers never had any trouble figuring out that it was they--not the radicals--who got up every morning to labor in factories, fields, and construction sites. Intellectuals, on the other hand, couldn't admire the youthful radicals enough. Yale psychologist Kenneth Keniston in his 1968 book, Young Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth, practically ran out of complimentary adjectives, describing the New Left as "sensitive," "trusting," "spontaneous," "independent," "self-actualized," and "emotionally free."

But this only confirmed what working-class Americans had long suspected about academic intellectuals-they were either willfully self-destructive or inexplicably dense. And the governor of California, Ronald Reagan, plaintively asked, where were all the conservative sociologists and political scientists?

It was not an unreasonable question. On political issues, sociologists almost always tilted left—which was perhaps no great surprise to anyone but Ronald Reagan, sociology from its inception having taken as its purview the social consequences of capitalism. And from the sociological point of view, capitalism had a lot to answer for—not the least of which was the way the capitalist market economy discounts intellectuals.

Unlike socialist societies, where intellectuals were routinely courted, even honored, for their expertise, intelligence, and broad-based skills-under capitalism, '60's intellectuals complained, they were demeaned and devalued, if not totally ignored. Technology' was a great engine, but, as they saw it, nobody was at the controls. Public policy matters went unaddressed. Social planning was a joke.

In any humanistic society, intellectuals argued, there would have been a role for them in the power structure, a niche from which they could help set government policy on the one hand and oversee the technocrats on the other. Instead, there was this enormous, gaping void. Decisions or, what was more often the case, non-decisions with far-reaching consequences were being made by mere technicians, people who couldn't tell Herbert Spencer from Herbert Marcuse and had never heard of either one.

The result, intellectuals protested, was every wicked thing you might have expected--a competitive, rapacious, alienated society, bereft of spiritual values, a slave to mere efficiency, blithely unaware of any obligation to the planet, and totally unconcerned with humanity at large.

This was hardly a new refrain. The Old Left had made similar charges and dreamed similar dreams throughout the previous 30 years: The intellectuals would raise the revolutionary consciousness of the oppressed workers. Then, outraged by the revealed internal contradictions of capitalism, the workers would rise up and seize the means of production, whereupon the intellectuals would step in and declare a workers' paradise.

The knotty problem, as the Old Left saw it, was American proletarians' inability to stage a revolution—they were too busy watching football, rototilling their flower beds, or painting racing stripes on their snowmobiles.

By the sixties, the Old Left was sowing the seeds of revolution on increasingly barren ground. Their propaganda was 30 years out of date. Their vision of the future looked like a tractor repair manuals from the first five-year plan. The way they talked, one would think the working class still spent its days in textile mills, coal mines, and cast iron foundries. But in truth, the United States had become a service economy in the post-war years. The percentage of US workers belonging to labor unions peaked in 1954 and then fell continually over the next 30 years (to 20 percent today.) By the mid-sixties, Americans had entered the first stage of the post-industrial society. Increasingly, American workers weren't so much wearing coveralls and steel-toed work boots as Adidas sneakers and designer jeans.

Although privately disappointed by the American worker's failure to recognize his own oppression, activist intellectuals were nothing if not flexible. And in the spring of 1960, the late Columbia Marxian sociologist C. Wright Mills announced a startling conceptual break-through—he had discovered the long missing American proletariat. Citing the success of student activists in challenging repressive regimes in Turkey, South Korea, Cuba, and Japan, Mills asked: "Who is it that is thinking and acting in radical ways? All over the world--in the bloc, outside the bloc, and in between—the answer's the same: it is the young intelligentsia."

For the New Left this was the political equivalent of Isaac Newton's apple. Tom Hayden, founding father of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), incorporated it into his New Left manifesto, the Port Huron Statement of 1961, from which it spread like dandelions over college campuses across the land. No longer would the revolution have to dance in attendance to the beer-sotted masses, most of whom were reactionary Steeler fans anyway—student activists were now their own oppressed class! Thus the origin of the phenomenon that so astonished blue-collar workers—the student-as-nigger theme and the startling intellectual back flips by which New Leftists transformed poor vacillating college deans into academic storm troopers and steely-eyed bureaucrats for the new Amerikan Reich.

The strangest aspect of this transformation was that the worst complaints weren't coming from poor kids working their way through a state teachers college. It was the most privileged students from the best colleges who apparently felt the most oppressed. At Harvard, for example, the editors of the Harvard Crimson unblushingly referred to themselves as "the oppressed student class."

This so astonished former Harvard student Steven Kelman that in his 1970 book on the Harvard strike, When Push Comes to Shove, he set aside an entire chapter to point out the obvious—not only were his classmates not victims, they were actually quite highly privileged members of an elite leisure class. They lived in a mahogany-paneled universe. The bathrooms in their campus suites were larger than most dormitory rooms at less-favored schools. They didn't even feel particularly anxious about the future, rightly or wrongly assuming that in merely having been admitted to Harvard their futures were assured. And yet, like students at Berkeley and Columbia before them, in the spring of 1969, following months of feverish SDS activity, the Harvard student body seized a building, and then went out on strike for nearly two thrilling weeks.
Students and more students:
the rise of a new intelligentsia
With the sixties so far behind us now it's sometimes hard to recall that the original campus protests had little to do with the war in Vietnam. The Berkeley Free Speech Movement, which was the archetype for sixties-style student protests, flared to life in September 1964, some 10 months before President Johnson announced the Vietnam troop build-up. There were, to be sure, American advisors in Vietnam at the time. But the issue had not yet become a major campus issue, let alone a nightly staple of the TV news.

Furthermore, as Bruno Bettelheim pointed out at the time, if the student protests really were a principled reaction to university complicity in racism and war, why did similar protests take place in France, Germany, Italy, and Japan? Even if one could construct a plausible case for the complicity of American universities in our racial problems and military adventures, by what stretch of ideological imagination could that complicity be extended to a university in France or Japan? Or for that matter, did anyone, including the SDS, seriously believe that American universities were really the cause of the Vietnam war?

In the 1969 Harvard strike, the logic by which students indicted Harvard of a crime against humanity was so tortured that even the SDS was half-embarrassed to advance it. At Columbia, the SDS justification for taking over the university in 1968 was that Columbia supported the war through its Institute for Defense Analysis and that its proposed gym in Morningside Heights Park "exploited" blacks and Puerto Ricans. Yet as Columbia SDS leader Mark Rudd would later admit cheerfully, the SDS "manufactured the issues. The institute is nothing at Columbia. It doesn't mean anything to anybody, just three professors. I had never been near the gym site. Before the demonstration began, I didn't even know how to get there."

Marshall McLuhan once remarked, in another context, that we only see our environment as it rushes away from us, through a rear-view mirror. In the future, historians might very well conclude that the most significant fact of the sixties wasn't that so many students were rioting, but simply that there were so many students, period. Just prior to World War II, the number of college students in this country was approximately equal to the total number of coal-mining and railroad workers--about 1.4 million. Thirty years later, the number of college students had increased 400 percent, to 7 million. Students, in fact, had become a brand-new social class, out-numbering miners 50 to 1, railway workers 9 to 1, and farmers 3 to 1. Whereas a college education had once been almost the exclusive preserve of the upper classes, following World War II it was open to virtually anyone. (By the early eighties, two-thirds of all California high-school students were going on to college.)

The ostensible explanation of all this education was that students needed it to cope with our infamous technological society. In fact, the problem was less a matter of our society's much-touted complexity than its growing inability to provide enough jobs. Universal higher education seemed like a simple yet elegant solution--it was both stimulating and instructive and it held down the unemployment rate.

Unfortunately, as H. L. Mencken once observed, for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong. What was wrong with keeping so many of the nation's young people out of the productive labor force was that it deprived them of what Freud said was essential to the development of an identity-the opportunity to work.

Young and restless: the angst of obsolescence
The concept of adolescence, which seems so obvious to us now, is actually a rather recent invention. In earlier times it was not considered cruel or oppressive that teenagers should have to bear adult responsibilities. Alexander the Great became king of Macedonia at age 19. Joan of Arc was still a teenager when she broke the siege of Orleans. In medieval times it was considered quite ordinary that monarchs would assume the throne while still in their middle teens. Only in our urban technological society can a willfully self-destructive student of 27 be tolerantly patronized as someone trying to "find himself."

By the mid-sixties, what had formerly been only the inchoate angst of a James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause or a Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront was rapidly becoming the common experience of an entire generation. Some intellectuals--perhaps not understanding what young people meant when they complained of feelings of powerlessness, rage, and lack of identity--jumped to the conclusion that such alienation was the inevitable result of being the first generation to come of age under the looming threat of the atom bomb. Nobel Laureate Wald won a standing ovation for this explanation from a group of students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology' in the late sixties. And sociologist Kenneth Keniston used it to explain why the SDS generation was so "sensitive" to the issue of violence. (Keniston was writing before the SDS became the Weather Underground and began blowing up buildings, including, by accident, its own bomb factory.)

For psychologist Bruno Bettelheim, the bomb hypothesis was a little too facile. In a 1970 monograph called Obsolete Youth, Bettelheim pointed out that students' indignation toward the threat of nuclear Armageddon tended to be highly selective, generally excoriating the United States while only gently chiding the Soviet Union--that is, if the Soviets were blamed at all. And yet the Soviets relied just as much on their missiles as we did on ours. Furthermore, they had a larger army and, ever since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, a faster-growing navy as well. So why was it, asked Bettelheim, that all through the sixties, whenever there was a student protest in Germany, France, Italy, or Japan, censure was always heaped upon the United States but never the Soviet Union?

It was Bettelheim's contention that the indignation and alienation of student protesters in the sixties was not so much a reaction to the atom bomb or the Vietnam war as it was the implicit conviction that "they didn't have a future"—not because anyone was going to vaporize them with ballistic missiles but simply because, in Bettelheim's words, "modern technology' has made them obsolete." The United States always bore the brunt of students' protests because, compared to it, the Soviets were a backward society whose technology' was mostly limited to its military forces. American civilian technology, on the other hand, pervaded entire cultures clear around the globe. And that, says Bettelheim, was what the student protests were really about--not the war machine but the machine itself and how it seemed to affect humans in a technological age.

It was perhaps no mere rhetorical coincidence that Mario Savio, a student leader of the Free Speech Movement at the University of California at Berkeley, phrased his famous 1964 attack on the multiversity in a technological metaphor--he urged the students to throw their bodies on the "gears" and "levers" of the "machine." That was a time when just the study of computer science was seen as a kind of moral and political degeneracy. "Even accounting," remembers Santa Monica community activist Derek Shearer, "was seen as a capitalist plot."

In those days, the relationship between student unrest and our technological society was not widely appreciated. President Johnson was forever leaning on FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to produce proof that Moscow was orchestrating and funding the antiwar effort. He never could, for the New Left's main connection with the Soviet Union was simply its penchant for talking in a kind of politburo agitprop. In any case, one hardly needed to invoke Soviet agents to explain the New Leftists' loathing of corporate capitalism--that was a consequence of their fearful feelings about technology' and how they would cope in a technological society.

Fear and Loathing in the New American Technocracy

Despite the left's theoretical concern for the working man, during the sixties the New Left’s leadership—the overwhelming majority of whom, studies showed, came from the educated urban upper-middle class—actually felt more than a little contempt for working men. Southern workers were demeaned as "rednecks," those in the construction trades as "hardhats." In one very popular movie of that era, Easy Rider, white working-class men were portrayed as redneck thugs. Such attitudes were perhaps not surprising. The radical student left never had any contact with blue-collar Americans. At Harvard, the aver-age family income of SDS members was 35 percent higher than that of the college body as a whole and three times as high as that of the average American family. In the sixties, the majority of engineering students came from working-class families, while the New Left, true to its upper-middle-class origins, regarded engineering the same way nineteenth-century English aristocrats regarded "trade"--they thought it was undoubtedly very satisfying for the lower classes but hardly the sort of thing they'd ever choose themselves. Instead, student radicals largely majored in political science, sociology', psychology, and all the other less-exact studies, with an occasional nod to the biological sciences and theoretical math.

Such an attitude perhaps made sense in a less technological era, when the purpose of higher education was to give the offspring of the upper classes the breadth and polish that would one day allow them to assume their proper roles as society's elite. But in an era when virtually anyone could go to college, the upper classes' education wasn't so elite anymore. Not only didn't it prepare them to be society's leaders--in a technological society, it didn't prepare them to be much of anything at all.

Contrary to what so many liberal commentators have suggested, the New Left's' problem wasn't that leftists went overboard in their infatuation with Marx but that they hadn't really understood Marx at all. In the sixties, the main source of the New Left's considerable influence with liberal legislators, media, and intellectuals was its largely unchallenged assertion that those in the movement, despite their occasional excesses of zeal, were motivated mainly by their own high principles. Their admittedly self-righteous rage, they claimed, was wholly defensible as an understandable reaction to the horror of racism, repression, injustice, and war.

Marx, on the other hand, had always maintained that when the chips were down, what really motivated people wasn't so much an abstract devotion to social justice as a practical concern for the welfare of their own social class. In the sixties, the newest and most vibrant social class was that composed of students, especially those affluent, ur-ban, upper-middle-class students whose education, upbringing, and leftist politics had left them unprepared to cope in a technological society.
Richard Nixon must have laughed until his jowls shook at the way New Leftists, in opposing the Vietnam war, wrapped themselves in the mantle of idealism, but as soon as he introduced the lottery in 1971 and abandoned the draft entirely in early 1973, the campus riots of the sixties and early seventies vanished like a bad dream in the night. A Berkeley professor I recently talked to remembers the difference in his students as absolutely phenomenal. All through the spring quarter of 1971, they spent the class attacking him as a tool of the capitalist war machine. There was a three-month summer vacation. And when they came back, it was suddenly a 1950s' rerun with the students suddenly meek, mild, and trusting.

It was perhaps true that radical leftists of the sixties, coming as they did from the privileged upper-middle class, felt sincere concern, compassion, and guilt for this nation's oppressed and deprived. But it was equally true that the major beneficiaries of the projected increases in social spending they demanded on behalf of the poor were people like themselves--people who wanted and needed jobs administering such programs and who were either unwilling or unable to endure what they saw as the crass reality of life in the private sector. And how better to justify the increased taxes the private sector would have to provide for such programs and jobs than to blame the private sector for all the country's ills. Thus, in the sixties, attacking corporate greed became a major national pastime.

I once asked Deirdre English, editor of Mother Jones, why so many of its articles concerned the alleged need to bring businesses under some sort of public control. Her answer, I remember, was practically a wail: "But they've got all the science and technology'." Of course, she was absolutely right. And this, I think, was the real complaint of leftist radicals in the sixties. Contrary to everything they'd ever been taught to hold or revere, the future didn't so much belong to them anymore as it did to all these neo-barbaric technocrats. And yet because these people knew about such things as impedance and capacitance, silicon chips and computer architecture, it was they--and not the liberally educated radicals--who were receiving the lion's share of our technological bounty.

It is not sheer coincidence that in this country engineers and leftists have always been at opposite ends of the political scale. Engineers, by and large, are people who are in some degree gifted in spatial relations, math, and (oftentimes) manual dexterity. Working as they do on our society's cutting edge, they are neither diminished by machines nor terrified of technology. But such talents exact their toll. Despite the ease with which engineers manipulate the physical universe, they are as a group much less gifted in manipulating other people--they do not rank conspicuously high in social skills.

The personal skills of socialists, on the other hand, seem almost exactly the opposite. They have no technological skills themselves, but they have superb social skills, especially those involved in argument and exposition. They then use these skills to advance their heartfelt thesis that the world is out of control. The socialist worldview is that we are all particles of dust, buffeted and scattered by the universal cyclone and our only hope--if we have a hope--is to join hands with our comrades and thereby temporarily hold the howling cosmic winds at bay.

Socialists' real problem is that they can't cope and they know they can't cope. Their only hope of survival is to inject politics into every corner of human activity, thereby securing for themselves through the political process those goods and services they couldn't produce on their own. For true socialists, the ideal world would be one in which people such, as themselves set forth the agenda and lesser folks, like engineers and technicians, carry out the program. To put it another way, socialism isn't so much an altruistic economic system as a subtle insurance policy for the technologically inept.

The sixties ended so quickly, it took us another five years to realize they were fully gone. One moment, college students across the country had risen up against the Cambodia invasion and the next minute it seemed like half the left had traded in their revolutionary rhetoric for bean sprouts, mysticism, and a tepee in Mendocino County--where, to their everlasting chagrin, their kids grew up demanding skateboards and electric trains, just like everyone else's.

As for technology' itself, many of us had long bought into the idea that computers (to use the quintessential example) were some kind of neo-fascist intelligence housed in a machine the size of a small bungalow. For years we'd been dragged, kicking and screaming, to the computer room. But when we finally walked in of our own accord, sat down at a terminal, and punched the button marked "enter," we found to our surprise and joy it didn't hurt at all.

 

The Peculiar Practice of John Ronald Brown

alon.com review by Jenn Shreve of Paul Ciotti's "Why Did He Cut That Man's Leg Off?" L.A. Weekly, Dec. 17-23, 1999

Here's journalistic voyeurism at its best. This story serves no better purpose than to entertain you with sick examples of depraved humanity, and it does so very, very well. Paul Ciotti takes us into the world of John Ronald Brown, a former unlicensed sex-change surgeon now serving time for murder. His victim? A 79-year-old man who, as one of Ciotti's sources puts it, "just wanted his leg cut off so he could get a hard-on." Brown serviced the senior's fetish, but the wound developed gangrene and the amputated man died. Murder, amputation fetishes, tales of botched sex-change surgeries with unimaginable results, blood-spurting penises ... Does it get any better, or worse (depending on your perspective), than this?


 

letter to the editor

Patricia Rosales on "Why Did He Cut That Man's Leg Off?"

Paul Ciotti's untitled cover story about Dr. Brown and his patients blew me away. Not since Geek Love had I been so sickened and delighted and thrilled and appalled. I have alerted everyone I know to check it out, because I think such material, its content as well as its craftsmanship, makes people better, just for reading it.

 

Love in Venice

LA Weekly, 1982

Even Bob Greenfield's best friends never tried to defend him on the grounds that he wasn't a madman—he had wild, electric-blue eyes, a satyr's visage, a habit at parties of going up to women and asking them "Let's fuck."

And yet, desperate as he was for the company of women, he had little luck—he was too needy and intense. He'd gone years without sexual intercourse. He didn't understand the ordinary social conventions. He hit on women in front of their boyfriends. He dashed off erotic poems and handed them to strangers. Once in a restaurant, he saw two waitresses being hugged and patted on their backsides by old friends and then couldn't understand why they took such offense when he tried to pat their backsides too.

In defense of Greenfield, his friends rather tried to emphasize his positive side—his quick wit, gentle nature and quite considerable gifts as a poet. In the early '70s, before his romantic aspirations got so out of hand, he appeared regularly in local literary magazines and gave well- received readings at the Fig Tree Cafe and Beyond Baroque. Impressively well-read, he once taught remedial writing to deficient graduate students at Long Beach State. As a poet, he was friendly with some of Venice's best known writers and it was his offhand remark about mythology and drugs which suggested to Kate Braverman the title for her book—Lithium For Medea. At the Venice Poetry Workshop (which he attended mainly to try to pick up women), he was well-regarded as a critic, with a sound sense of the authentic and a sharp ear for cant.

In fact, it was just this element of authenticity that made Greenfield such an original friend. In an era of Jordached dilettantes and intellectual impostors, he was the genuine article, a tormented artist, a passionate even obsessive man, heroically faithful to his own different drummer and pathetically vulnerable to every tremor in the psychic air. A desperately lonely man, he was so starved for affection that, as he would later write from Module 4400 of the LA County Jail, his days ran together with a "groaning melancholy."

By Greenfield's own account, he first began to act on his sometimes erroneous perceptions as far back as the late '60s. He smoked so much grass it made him paranoid. He damned LA Police Chief Ed Davis and ranted over Richard Nixon. During one period when he didn't have any other place to say, he slept in a lounge at UCLA (he had once been a doctoral candidate in English there). But he was arrested and sent to Camarillo after a vague attempt to kiss a married woman student in an English Department classroom. In a second, more bizarre incident, he was found naked in the Theater Arts Department restroom ("I thought someone was trying to shoot me from Ralph Bunche Hall," he would later explain. "And also I was horny.")

Greenfield's friends never really knew the source of his obsession, variously attributing it to his strict Calvinist upbringing on a small Wisconsin farm, a sense of unfulfilled potential, a latent homosexuality, a failed love affair, alienation, over-stimulation, an unresolved Oedipal complex and a deficiency of Vitamin B-1.

Certainly the problem was well underway by what Greenfield now describes from his cell in County Jail as "the thrilling autumn of 1975." In those days, Greenfield, then 37, was good friends with a painter named Michael Tracy, who lived at the St. Charles Hotel on Windward Avenue a quarter-block from Venice Beach. Rents at the St. Charles were very cheap then ($85 for a room without an ocean view). The landlord went out of his way to rent to poets, writers and artists of all descriptions. Despite the broken wine bottles and belligerent drunks that lined the curb outside, inside the St. Charles the atmosphere was friendly and communal. The residents painted the hallways, decorated their doors. One room served as a recycling depot. The manager of the St. Charles, Wendy Reeves, would later observe that she never even had to buy a Sunday paper. In fact, she rarely had to buy anything, practically furnishing her entire apartment with castaways—a blender, dishes, dulcimer, ashtrays, plants and jeans.

In the fall of 1975, when Greenfield first came by the St. Charles to apply for a vacancy, he felt himself to be under such pressure that he was smoking three packs of cigarettes a day, and consuming vast quantities of beer, wine and vodka. Wendy Reeves happened not to be on duty at the time and her assistant gave him the tour. Greenfield was shocked. The other women residents didn't so much introduce themselves to him as "present their bodies." Greenfield went away believing that the St. Charles was a Mafia-run brothel. Not that the assistant manager had said as much, but for someone of Greenfield's sensitivities, it was simple enough to read between the lines.

Reeves knew none of this when Bob Greenfield came to see her in her office to ask about a room. He'd been highly recommended by Michael Tracy, who said he was a good poet, a good friend and a potential asset to the building. Reeves let him fill out an application and told him that she was moving him up to "sixth on my list."

For Reeves, the meeting with Greenfield was a minor matter, but for Greenfield it was the "palpitating introduction" to the greatest adventure of his entire life. As he would later "rhapsodize" over Reeves in a thousand- monotonous conversations with his friends, her "body was a perfect grammar." She had "soft ears," a "fragile chin," "honey dark eyes," "cherry black eyes," "radiant unsullied eyes," "surprising, almost stunning eyes," and a "beauty so archaic that I was surprised to find her contemporary." Greenfield hated so much to leave her office, he says, that he returned a second time just to listen to her voice, which, to him, was deeply "provocative" and "deliciously tender." Despite her intellectual superiority, God had blessed her with the "gift" of not knowing it. He drank in her words like a man dying of thirst. He loved her from the second they met. This was the woman with whom he'd spend the rest of his life. She alone understood the secret of his soul.

At first Greenfield's friends were amused by such hyperbolic praise. It wasn't that they didn't consider Reeves nice or even pretty. But Greenfield saw her as some sort of white-limbed virgin temptress reclining on a velvet sofa, while to them she was simply the hard-working and conscientious building manager who left them polite but firm notes reminding them of overdue rents or stopped them in the halls to chat about insulation.

Greenfield stumbled down the stairs after the first meeting with Wendy with, as he says, a "terrific song in my heart." Just before he walked out the door, Reeves had said to him, "Don't give up," meaning that if he'd just be a little patient he'd certainly get a room.

Not that giving up had ever entered Greenfield's mind. He'd just met the most "stunningly beautiful woman" who had ever walked the planet. The only dark cloud, as he replayed the scene in his mind, had been his inability to confess the magnetic attraction he'd felt in his loins. Over the next weeks and months, Greenfield returned repeatedly to her office, asking her to dinner and, on one occasion, trying unsuccessfully to kiss her. One time, says Greenfield, he thought it was going to happen—"our lips were moving together"—but to Greenfield's chagrin, Reeves walked right past him, leaving Greenfield banging his head on the hallway wall.

On another occasion, Greenfield found her sitting in her office talking on the telephone. But when he tried to put his arms around her, she jumped out of her chair and, to his shock and horror, ordered him from the room. Such incidents frightened and confused Greenfield. As he saw it, she was giving him "unmistakable love looks—deep and affectionate." And once, he says, she was moved to observe that perhaps they'd met in "a previous lifetime." But still, as he could not help but notice, she never once invited him to her room and despite what Greenfield felt was their "excellent rapport," she had the distressing habit of "walking away if I met her unexpectedly in the street."

Reeves, for her part, was at first annoyed by Greenfield and later alarmed. It wasn't that she was unreasonably timid. She was a tall woman, commandingly articulate and formidably self-assured. But Greenfield's attentions, she would later say, were "an obscene phone call that never stopped." In addition, other women residents had begun to complain about Greenfield to her, saying he was a "pervert" and a psychopath and if she rented him a room, they were moving out.

Over the winter of 1976, Greenfield became increasingly persistent, calling on the telephone, buzzing on the intercom, waiting in the street until someone came out the front door and then before the door closed, dashing up to her office, her room, lurking in the hallways, standing outside her door. He began to send her love letters, even a Valentine.

Four days after Valentine's Day, Greenfield, in the company of two other women, ran into Reeves sitting alone in a booth at the Meatless Marathon Restaurant. Greenfield forgot about the other women he was with and ran up to Reeves. "I've been thinking about you day and night," he told her. "Did you get my Valentine?" Yes, said Reeves. Had it made her happy? No. Greenfield thought perhaps she was being "ironic," though when he tried to talk with her she gave him no "encouragement." What he really wanted, he says, was to take her to her room and make love but he was to shy to push it. After all, it was her room and she should be the one, he thought, to make an invitation to him. Reeves was angry when she left the restaurant, slamming the door on Greenfield's two women companions and saying "Goodbye!" to him.

Greenfield walked home in a cold blue funk. "When," he thought, "is this torture going to end?" Reeves, for her part, couldn't believe this was happening to her. To her mind, she'd never given Greenfield the slightest encouragement beyond ordinary good manners (and sometimes not even that). But the way Greenfield acted, you'd think they had a mutual understanding.

Years later, Reeves would write a copyrighted article for the "Venice Beachhead" (a small monthly paper put out by a local collective) discussing in part these early days (the spring and summer of 1976) and describing how Greenfield repeatedly called her office, speaking in a low urgent voice half-choked with lust, emotion, it wasn't clear what. Once, he bluffed his way into the building, saying he was Wendy's friend, took a seat in her office and refused her requests to leave. He had a "defiant" manner and a "belligerent" tone. He gave the impression of "terrific energy barely under control." In "bullying tones," he repeated his one and only theme: he loved her, he wanted to sleep with her, her eyes told him she wasn't happy, her current boyfriend wasn't "right."

Reeves tried to explain, she wrote, that it was impossible for him to love her, seeing as how he didn't even know her, but Greenfield merely got more "aggressive and insistent." Reeves lost her temper. They started to shout. And she ordered him to leave. Greenfield's face was red and sweaty. "You can't cut me off like this. You can't deny this feeling. You can't . . . "

It was now plain to Reeves that something was seriously amiss. Greenfield wasn't so much courting her as "stalking" her. He begged for dates on the telephone, the intercom; he banged on her door and went into his spiel—"I love you, Wendy. Let's spend the night together." Once he showed up wearing a suit, carrying a flower bouquet and gazing longingly at the door. Reeve's boyfriend had promised to give Greenfield a "good dose of pain," she says, the next time he showed up. But Greenfield looked so pathetic he didn't have the heart.

Reeves had asked the police to arrest Greenfield, but to her shock she found that such behavior was not then a crime and unless he violently attacked her in the presence of witnesses, the most they could do was briefly detain him for trespassing or disturbing the peace and only then if they caught him in the act. "Our hands are tied," the police said. Instead, she says, they told her to have her boyfriend "punch him out."

In August of 1976, Reeves obtained a civil injunction against Greenfield, enjoining and restraining him "from engaging in, committing or performing, directly or indirectly, or by any means whatsoever, any of the following acts: "Threatening, harassing, contacting, telephoning and annoying the Plaintiff herein in any manner at any time whatsoever." The day of the hearing, Greenfield went to the wrong courtroom and Reeves won by default.

This presented Reeves with a dilemma. She didn't want to see Greenfield in jail, especially since he might not even realize that his neck was on the block. The next time he called, therefore, she spent 40 minutes on the phone with him, explaining as clearly as she could the consequences of his interminable attempts to see her. "Listen to me, Bob." His attentions were driving her crazy. She couldn't walk out the door for fear he might be there. Her inability to concentrate was interfering with her college degree. He obviously had a lot of energy, and people had told her he had talent. Why didn't he just concentrate on his poetry and leave her alone? His hopes were totally unrealistic. She already had a boyfriend. Didn't he realize what could happen? Did he want to go to jail?

Greenfield was deeply appreciative. He drank it all in. He made Reeves feel as if she were really getting through. "Oh, thank you so much," he told her. "I never understood your point of view. If you'd only talk to me once in a while like this, I'm sure I could get over it." "Okay," said Reeves. "If you don't come to my room or office, don't bother me in any way, you can call me in a week." Reeves went to bed that night thinking she'd made a terrific deal, a blessed week of peace in exchange for a single call. But early the next morning her phone rang again. "Let's fuck," said Greenfield in a lewd, sleazy tone. Reeves would later remember that 40-minute conversation as the worst mistake she'd ever made—five years later, Greenfield was still referring back to that call as the time Reeves "encouraged him," gave him "permission" to call and promised him that "together" they'd work his problems out.

Greenfield had equally strong feelings about that phone conversation, though his account of it only tangentially resembled hers. As he fondly remembers the day, Wendy was her feminine "voluble" Gemini self. She said she was glad he called. She stressed how much she wanted his attention. She mentioned that she had finally had a chance (in court) to read all the notes and letters he'd sent her, and she was pleasantly surprised to find, says Greenfield, that he was a "better writer than Henry Miller." For the first time, says Greenfield, she said she felt she could "trust him." If he wanted, she make Xerox copies of his letters and send them back to him.

Greenfield was so stunned and overwhelmed by his total and unexpected success he was almost afraid to say anything for fear she might hang up. He couldn't believe how friendly she'd become. She invited him to write her whenever he wanted. And if he couldn't come by in person, to phone her every week. But it was the end of the conversation that fired Greenfield's passion to a white-hot pitch. The last thing he'd heard before the line went dead was an "ooh" or an "aaah," a melancholy sign of pain, anguish and yearning, as if she too wanted "Greenie" as much as he wanted her, but she was too shy- -couldn't he see?—and trapped by dark and terrible forces he couldn't comprehend.

Greenfield spent a sleepless, feverish night, drinking beer and pining in his heart for Reeves. Then at first light, knowing how anxious she must also be, he called to reassure her of his eternal devotion and love. But he was too nervous and too overwrought and what he had intended to be a tender expression of his deepest yearnings came out as a crude, cracked call to sex.

Reeves never did succeed in keeping Greenfield out of the St. Charles Hotel. Between Reeves's boyfriend, various hotel residents and even Greenfield's own (increasingly exasperated) friends, he was over the next five years throttled, drenched, derided, decked and threatened with a two by four. Still he returned, standing outside her door, running through what was becoming an increasingly explicit litany—he loved Wendy, he wanted to "go down on her," he wanted to "feel her teeth on his cock," he wanted to press his lips into the crevices of her cunt."

Reeves had by now learned that although the cops wouldn't come out on a civil injunction (which rendered her court order meaningless), they would be happy to assist her if she made a citizen's arrest on her own. Over the next few years, Reeves made so many arrests she developed a capsule history to rattle off to the cops: "This guy is a certified crazy. He lives on mental disability insurance. He has a past record of institutionalization. I never went out with him, not so much as for a cup of coffee. I've had my own boyfriend throw him out any number of times."

The irksome thing to her, says Reeves, was that the cops still tended to act dubious until she got to the part about her own boyfriend throwing him out. That was what gave her credibility, she discovered—the fact that she had a man of her own and therefore couldn't be dismissed as another crazy female venting her own sexual frustrations on the first poor dodo who came schlepping down the street.

Between 1976 and 1981, Greenfield was arrested more than a dozen times for trespassing, disturbing the peace, and repeatedly violating the orders of various municipal and superior court judges to leave Reeves alone. Not that these had any great deterrent effect on Greenfield. Greenfield would plead guilty to the charge, beg the judge's forgiveness, say he never meant to frighten Wendy, he hadn't realized how upsetting it was and he'd never do it again. The judge would set the bail at a low $100 or so (later it went higher) and Greenfield, who had been receiving disability assistance ever since those UCLA incidents in the early seventies, would post bond out of own pocket and an hour later, says Reeves, there he was again, muttering through her door—"I love you. I want to eat you."

Several of Greenfield's friends from Beyond Baroque or the poetry workshop used to take Greenfield aside, reasoning with him walking up and down the beach for hours, explaining over and over again that the Mafia had nothing to do with Wendy, the St. Charles was not a brothel, Wendy didn't love him and unless he wanted to spend the rest of his life in jail, he better leave her alone.

Eventually concluding that Greenfield's obsession was impervious to ordinary reason, Michael Tracy and his brother Scott in November 1977 devised a plan to put Greenfield on a plane to Chicago (where Greenfield's brother lived) just before an upcoming court appearance, reasoning that if he missed the hearing the judge would issue a felony warrant and Greenfield could never come back to California without risking prison. Instead, Greenfield spent the entire trip writing passionate letters to Reeves and then borrowed airfare to fly back in time for the court date. (How could he miss it? Wendy would be there.)

On another occasion, Michael Tracy decided it might take Greenfield's mind off Reeves if he could just get him properly laid. Through a friend of a friend, Tracy linked him up with a long-haired, baby-faced hooker (she had once done a spread for Penthouse, says Tracy) who would accommodate Greenfield for the discount rate of $75. Greenfield was all for it until he heard the price. In those days, Greenfield was heavily into numerology and seven, he felt, was a bad number. Hey, no problem, said Tracy, they'd pay her $100 instead. But the damage was already done and Greenfield turned it down. It wasn't only numbers that had a special meaning for Greenfield. If he saw a Safeway truck in the street, says friend and fellow poet Jim Krusoe, it was a sign that he'd been too timid with Wendy, always taking "the safe way." A Tip Top Bread sign, on the other hand, meant it was an unusually opportune time to phone her, a "tip top" time in fact.

There was one occasion when Greenfield was talking to Krusoe on the telephone when Reeves walked by. Thereafter, Greenfield repeatedly called Krusoe, not because he wanted to talk to him, but rather in the hopes that Reeves would reappear.

For some time Greenfield had a sense that there was more going on around him than he readily perceived. For some reason, he thought that he controlled newspaper headlines and television news. Strangers in the street, he felt, were sending him messages. He tried his best not to think lustful thoughts about women other than Reeves for fear it would cause her to get pregnant or, even worse, be raped. For the longest time, he labored under the delusion that Reeves had been forced to have a baby against her will.

As for Reeves, she had given up any effort to reason with Greenfield a long time before. No matter what she said or did, he could always twist it around to prove when all was said and done that Wendy really loved him as much as he did her. Once Reeves unexpectedly met him on the stairs and called him a "worm." He really didn't blame her. She'd been dying for a kiss from him and he'd just stood there like a telephone booth.

In another instance (this was shortly after they first met), she told him to stay away from the other women in the St. Charles. Reeves had only meant that he should stop bothering them, but what Greenfield rather heard was "stay away from other women because you belong to me." Greenfield had always thought that Reeves had always wanted him to be more manly, more aggressive, more willing to take risks and openly declare his love.

There was one occasion in the fall of 1977 when she walked out of her room carrying a guitar and tape recorder on her way to a music lesson. Waiting silently in the hall was Greenfield, who seized her in his arms and tried to give her a kiss. When she resisted, they fell together on the floor, breaking the guitar and bruising her shins. Reeves tried to nail him for attempted rape after that attack but, as the police pointed out, because he hadn't tried to take off either her clothes or his, all they could really charge him with was misdemeanor battery. Greenfield was indignant that anyone would think that he wanted to rape Wendy. He was trying to kiss her so she'd sleep with him and, if she slept with him, she'd love him and then, once she loved him, he'd be happy the rest of his life.

Greenfield tried everything he could think of to get Reeves to sleep with him. He offered $100 to anyone who could get him into her room. He mailed her a blank check and an invitation to make love. (The Mafia, he thought, would never let her turn the money down). He sent her perhaps 500 letters and poems, all dealing with his love for her ("beautiful tender vulnerable sensuous screams from the heart," he called them). Some were tediously repetitive. (In Patton they medicated him with Thorazine and his protestations of love took on a flat mechanical tone.) But others (Reeves reprinted a few in her 1979 Beachhead article) were vividly specific: What I want is a mistress to keep her hands on my throttle. Who shines my spear, uses her teeth to rub rust off my engine. Maybe a bitch sometimes who throws kerosene on the ebbing flames late at night when it's dark and shivering. I want a large red house with an egg-shaped room. A virgin whore who talks bawdy, says fuck me in the cunt, you wild red fucker."

Between 1976 and 1981, Greenfield had so many encounters with the judicial system that they now seemed like a thick album of "traumatic scenes." He was first arrested (for trespassing) in September 1976 for telling Reeves through her door that he wanted to "go down" on her. In December of that year, Greenfield was arrested again, he says, "for trying to embrace Wendy outside the St. Charles Hotel." Reeves ended up bumping her head on the plate glass window and Greenfield was given three weeks in Brotman Memorial Hospital.

Most of 1977 remains an indefinite blur to Greenfield. He was arrested "seven or eight" times, he says, and sent to jail and/or Camarillo perhaps three times. In February, 1978, he appeared in court to answer charges resulting from the broken guitar-misdemeanor incident of the previous November (as well as another abortive, confused embrace when Reeves was practicing Tai Chi on the lawn). Courtrooms always left Greenfield frightened and overwrought. And when he saw Reeves, he blurted out: "I love you. Take me to your loft." The deputies dragged Greenfield from the courtroom and when the court resumed, the judge sentenced him to two consecutive six-month sentences in jail and Patton Psychiatric Hospital. With one-third time off for good behavior, Greenfield was released the following September.

Jail was a powerful deterrent to Greenfield. After that he stayed away from Reeves for nearly five months. But then slowly, inexorably, he found himself drawn back to her door. On one occasion, Greenfield showed up just after Reeves finished a meditation course in Zen Karate. At the time, Reeves says, she was feeling unusually "centered" and "unattached" and she spoke to Greenfield through the door. "Bob, nobody is interested in this anymore. You're boring. Nobody cares. I don't care. Scott doesn't care. You're just ruining your life for no reason. Go away. Just go away." And to her surprise, Greenfield went away. "Gawd," she said to herself. "Is that all there is? Just speak to him with no fear and show him that I don't care."

On this occasion, Greenfield was even farther out on the edge than usual. His father had just died and rather than go to his funeral he'd gone over to Wendy's room to tell her about it first. Instead, as he sobbed to his friend, Scott Tracy, Wendy had told him through the door that she'd never loved him. "I said, 'I think about you every day,'" explained Greenfield. Scott Tracy had spent so much time with Greenfield he had virtually become a lay therapist. "What did she say?" he asked. "She seemed to think it was ridiculous." She used other words too— tedious, boring and to top it off she laughed at him.

"What are you going to do?" asked Tracy.

Greenfield adopted an air of mock bravado. "Get laid."

"That's good."

Greenfield seemed hurt that Tracy would take such a statement at face value, that after all this he would just go out and get himself laid? "Why not?" asked Tracy. "Because I don't want to." "What do you want to do?" "I want to go to bed with Wendy."

In February, 1979, Greenfield was arrested outside Reeves's door again and given 90 days. In October, he was given 30 days for propositioning her through the door. In December, 1979, he was arrested outside the home of Reeves's parents and was given 30 days. By the end of of 1979, Reeves felt she couldn't take it anymore. She'd already been in therapy once, she says, in large part due to Greenfield's attentions. She'd had to change her phone number and get an answering service to screen her calls. Greenfield had driven her out of two consecutive jobs with his attentions—manager of the St. Charles (and several other buildings as well) and copy editor of an equal opportunity journal. The one thing Greenfield had always wanted more than any other was to make himself the center of her life. And in a sense he had succeeded—she couldn't have spent more time thinking about him than if they'd actually been lovers. For four long years, she and Greenfield had been engaged in a contest of wills and now, she had to admit, his was frankly stronger.

The only solution was to leave Venice, move to another town and hope that Greenfield would never find her. Still, it irked her that Greenfield could force her to leave her friends, her job, her "rent controlled apartment" with "cathedral windows" and an "ocean view."

The last thing she did was write a long bitter article (and series of subsequent letters) for the "Venice Beachhead" describing the previous four years, describing her unwanted relationship with Greenfield, the deficiencies of the legal system for dealing with such behavior, and the thorny problem of sexual harassment in general. She offered to sell the rights to her story for a future docu-drama. And she invited other women with similar problems to join her in a campaign for effective anti-harassment legislation.

Reaction to her story was both far better than she expected, and worse. Many people offered their support and sympathy and even sent money. Several other harassment victims came forth. Greenfield was banned from two local restaurants—the Meatless Marathon and the Lafayette Cafe. A television producer optioned her story for $1,000 (the movie fell through). And she appeared at a press conference to talk about sexual harassment with Congressman Mel Levine.

At the same time, there were other people who thought she was making a federal case out of matters that never should have gotten into the court system in the first place. Venice had a long tolerant history for eccentric behavior. Greenfield, they said, had never been a violent person. He was bright, intense and, at least before his obsession started, one of the better local poets. ("Of course, he's intense," Wendy would later snap. "He's a psychotic.")

Wendy was especially irked by the claim that Greenfield was not a violent person. It may have been true that around men he tended to crumple to the ground at the slightest show of force (Wendy called this his "hurt dog" routine), but around her he was amazingly strong and quick. More than once, he'd pinioned her arms against her side, bumped her head or knocked her down. (She tried to spray Mace on him once and the wind blew it back on her). Just because she hadn't yet been hurt didn't prove anything. Psychotics, she argued, were not predictable people. She'd heard about one case where a man, after following a woman for many years, suddenly turned on her one day and blinded her with acid. Or what about John Hinkley? He'd gone up to Yale to see Jodie Foster and, then when nothing came of it, he shot Ronald Reagan.

Greenfield saw Wendy's article while waiting for his breakfast in a Venice cafe. He was so shocked he left his meal untouched, stumbled outside and bought himself a quart of Miller High Life. He searched frantically for a rationalization, variously telling friends that she'd done it to publicize his poetry or document how much he truly cared. But in his heart he was "crushed" by her apparent desire to see him in jail. ("It was his sanity or mine," Reeves would later say, "and his was already lost.")

Despite the article, Greenfield couldn't stop wanting to see her. He stood outside the St. Charles and called up to Room 24, even though she didn't live there anymore. He paid $10 for information on her whereabouts (it was false). He went back to her old high school, looked up her yearbook and was touched to discover that she'd been voted the "Most Artistic Woman" in her class. He paid $145 for a key to the St. Charles Hotel, though when he tried to use it, he says, "a crude looking philistine" took it away.

Greenfield spent the first six months of 1980 in jail and Camarillo for probation violations. (Under a new state law, Reeves had obtained an anti- harassment injunction the previous June forbidding him to contact her in any way, approach within 15 yards of her or come within one block of the St. Charles.) While he was in jail, Greenfield wrote Reeves what he estimates were 70 poems and letters, expressing his love, his passion and asking for her assistance in getting out of jail. Reeves took eight of these to the city attorney and, after a three-day trial in June 1980, Greenfield was sentenced to an additional 18 months in jail on seven counts of contempt of court. (One letter was thrown out for having an illegible postmark.)

Greenfield was shocked by the sentence ("a titanic misunderstanding," he called it), but the "real heartsmasher," he says was the fact that Wendy "lied" during the trial and denied that she had ever given Greenfield permission to write or phone her. After the trial, says Greenfield, he stood in a corner of the holding tank and sobbed at the distasteful way Wendy had handled his letters in court.

In Reeves opinion, Greenfield's court appointed lawyer was out to make a name for himself. First he set Reeves up by asking if she had read any of Greenfield's letters. Reeves hated to give Greenfield the "satisfaction" of knowing that she'd read his letters, and she answered that she'd only read a few of them. Well then, asked Greenfield's attorney, how did Reeves considered herself "harassed" by letters she hadn't even read?

Greenfield's attorney won that round, but on the key point of whether or not she had ever given Greenfield permission to contact her, he made a devastating but unconscious mistake, confusing the anti-harassment injunction of the previous June with the civil injunction of 1976. "He phrased it wrong," says Reeves. He asked if it was not true that she had given Greenfield permission to contact her after she obtained the anti-harassment injunction. "Actually," says Reeves, "it was after I got the civil injunction years before." And therefore, Reeves was able to truthfully answer the lawyer's question by saying it was "not true, absolutely not true."

Greenfield never showed up for his sentencing that June. He'd been released on bail and rather than face another long jail term he went into hiding. Up to this time, Greenfield had always had a place to live. They weren't much, bare stark rooms, linoleum floors, a single table (with his beloved Hermes Rocket typewriter) and a mattress on the floor covered with a satin sheet (in case Wendy ever accepted one of his dinner invitations and actually came by). But having been in and out of jail so many times, he lost his apartment, his typewriter and all the poems he'd written to Wendy. Instead, he started sleeping in "wino tunnel," a culvert under South Venice Boulevard where it crosses the Grand Canal.

In October, Greenfield was captured while yelling up to what was formerly Wendy's room in the St. Charles Hotel. He was sent to Camarillo to begin serving his 18 month sentence, but after two months he walked away and took a bus back to Venice. Between Thanksgiving and Christmas, he lived as a fugitive, sleeping under the Santa Monica pier. Then that January, he sent yet another letter to Reeves, inviting her to have dinner with him and giving his address at a local motel. The sheriff picked him up instead and carted him off to the County Jail, where he has remained ever since.

Few County Jail inmates, perhaps, have ever been so eloquent as Greenfield on their hatred of jail and the criminal justice system. He has served nearly three of the last six years in either mental hospitals or jail, a situation which he calls a "traumatic nightmare" resulting from a "bloodthirsty vindictive judgment." Most days he spends up to 22 hours in a six-by-eight-foot cell with three other men. There's no natural light. The air, he says, is "half CO2." Since January, he's had a total of six visitors and a mere handful of letters.

Jail seems to have had a dimming effect on Greenfield's once bright eyes and formerly intense tone. Now, when visitors come, he frequently holds his forehead between the thumb and forefinger of one hand. He jogs in place two hours every day and spends five or more hours writing letters. (He's written 600, he estimates in the last nine months, though none of them to Reeves.) The rest of the time he sleeps or reads, having worked his way though such books as The Life of Henry James, Bullfinch's Mythology, Ezra Pound's The River Merchant's Wife, Edna St. Vincent Millay's Dirge Without Music and Vladimir Nabokov's Bend Sinister. On weekends, he reads "all 548 pages" of the Sunday "Los Angeles Times".

Greenfield has little in common with the other inmates, who he says, talk mainly about "perverted sex and money." And the kinds of things the other inmates laugh at, he says, are enough to turn his guts. Because Greenfield is not a big man, he also lives in a constant state of tension and fear. He's been slugged three times (once in a candy robbery and twice for refusing to give blow jobs). He yearns, he says, "from the tips of his toes to the outer edges of his brain" to see a play, have dinner in a Westwood restaurant, or just plain walk the streets of Los Angeles ("this great dazzling summer city I love more than any other").

Greenfield is perhaps most eloquent on the unjustness of his "maniacal" sentence, complaining that his three cellmates are in for "murder," while he's in jail "for writing love letters." He has a breathtaking contempt for his attorneys, whom he calls "shabby, stuttering lawyers" whose alleged defense of his constitutional rights was "the sorriest job of attorneyship I've ever been a party to." His lawyers put his "cock on the block" and it was cut off by a "murky city attorney" and a "finicky pinky-fingered judge." Greenfield is also more than a little tired, he says, of all the people who so blithely called him "obsessed" over the last six years—"Greenie is obsessed with Wendy Reeves." In his opinion, such people are constitutionally "incapable of feeling the intensity of passion and devotion for one woman that I am capable of and hence they must make up for their tepidity of heart by inventing a disease for my capacity to love."

As for Reeves, Greenfield's feelings are still rather mixed. Her conduct over the last four years, he says, has at best been "mediocre." She wrote a "meretricious" article about him for the "Venice Beachhead." She "lied" about him in court. She hasn't made any effort whatsoever to interrupt this "judicial travesty." And after nine months, she hasn't come forth with a "single word of sympathy."

And yet, despite the mountain of evidence that she doesn't love him, has never loved him and would dearly love never to have to think of him again, he still wakes up with "Wendy on my mind." Something still hungers for a "sudden unexpected outpouring of love from her." He felt this way six years ago, and he feels the same way now—"I still want to make love to Wendy in Room 24 of the St. Charles Hotel."
Voxcrock

Archives

May 2004   March 2005   April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   December 2005   January 2006   July 2013   June 2014   July 2014   August 2014   September 2019  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?