Monday, October 05, 2026

On Having Turned 80

 


It seemed odd, even to me, that after posts (or, let's face it, essays) on major and not so major birthdays for the past 20 years, I let turning 80 go by without a word.  The reason is that despite recognizing that this was a big deal, I had nothing in particular to say.  At my 79th birthday, I seemed to be searching for models of how to be 80.  But there are no models of how to be 80 now, for my generation.  We are it.  I think my reticence came from feeling that models were irrelevant.  I am myself at 80.  I have choices within that, but this is simply the reality I am living.  

I turned 80 in June.  Margaret turned 80 in September.  She is my partner in this reality we are living.  My friend Mike turned 80 in August.  He came out here to California from Pennsylvania for a week, returning on my birthday. We did my annual walk up Trinidad Head together. We'd been together around major birthdays since our 60th.  We're still here.  Everybody isn't.  Mike and I were also friends with Clayton, who died last year. We'd known each other since high school (I'd known Clayton since 3rd grade), and the three of us had played together in a musical group for a few years.  Mike and I sang some of our old songs, including some that Clayton and I wrote together.  

In September, someone from our high school class contacted Mike and invited him to a kind of group birthday party for members of our class who also turned 80.  It was in Greensburg, where our high school was and is.  He couldn't make it but afterwards she sent him photos.  He didn't recognize anyone.  She then sent him names, and matched some to the photos.  He forwarded them all to me.

 I recognized many of the names.  There was Carol C. who I saw a lot at the  Mountain View Hotel swimming pool one summer when my mother got me a membership.  There was Linda P. who I used to call up for awhile and talk to, the first step to dating.  I never took the next step.  I probably didn't know what it was.  I remember Mary Ann H. who provoked our English teacher Sister C. to flee the classroom when she quoted John Lennon in her oral presentation: "Women should be obscene and not heard."  And there were some guys there I knew as casual friends.  I have more or less fond memories of all of them, and it's interesting that there are at least this many of us still around.

But I didn't recognize any of them in the pictures either, and I tried.  Not even with their names.  We all just look like old people.  I also felt, staring at these pictures, that I wouldn't have fit in at this party, just as I barely fit in while in high school.  I was back in Greensburg for nearly ten years from the late 70s to the 80s, and all of them presumably were around, but I never saw any of them.  Except Carol D., the hostess of the party.  I was there when my book was published, and I had a couple of reasonably publicized book signings--an event admittedly alien to anyone in Greensburg then.  None of them showed up, nor did anyone else from high school.  Mostly friends of my mother (though they didn't go so far as to buy a book.)  But I did see Carol D. walk by me at one, without a glance in my direction. Kind of like high school.

But even so, I was more social in high school than I am now. And I was for most of my life, at least before moving here.  A lot of that was at least slightly forced, out of loneliness and longing.  But much of it was just human interaction and shared activities. Then when I came out here I stopped going to bars, first because of the smoking and then because I wasn't drinking.  Here my social time got taken up with transactional events and relationships as part of or derived from work, as often happens.  Then retirement, the pandemic, and the masks.  

It's kind of usual for relationships to drop away as we get old.  Friends and family members die, or are far away.  Transactional relationships end when the reasons for the transactions end, which is usually the job.  To younger people we become what we look like-- just anonymous old people, of no individual interest.  It's not entirely that we're treated as having the bad taste to not have died by now, but it's something like that.

Fortunately for me, I've always cultivated inner resources.  I'm an introvert, so becoming something of a hermit just means more peace and quiet.  I've recently replaced my flip-phone with a so-called smart phone, but I don't get any more calls or texts from real people than I did before.  The phone mostly stays in the drawer, or in a pocket when I go out.  I am very wary of what reliance on them has done to attention spans--I never would have believed it, but all the evidence and experience confirms it is true.  I want to keep reading long books, and slow poems.  


I am also very fortunate in that I still have a good memory for the past.  I've explored my past for years, so most of my memories are of memories I've already had, and in many cases written down.  But I occasionally get a new one, as when on a visit back to Greensburg my friend Joyce (from high school and many years after) told me one of her memories of me--of how I went out in a snowstorm to pick up medicine for her young daughter when she was sick.  This was in the 1980s.  I did not immediately remember it, but one day I just recalled it--her phone call, my walk through the beautiful falling snow in the night, down to Paul's Pharmacy and over to Joyce's house, because the roads were just too bad to drive and I knew I would love the walk anyway.  

It was the last thing Joyce said to me, face to face.  She died a few years later. But I have memories of her and many others as part of my everyday life. 


I usually have a book that I can associate with a particular birthday but I didn't have one for 80 until recently.  Once again (as it was for my 72nd) it is a book by Dorion Sagan (son of one of the most important scientists of the 20th century, Lynn Margulis, and the definition of a scientist icon, Carl Sagan.)  It's his deceptively dull-titled Notes From The Holocene published in 2008.  In terms of the breadth of its ideas, I see it further along the continuum of books like Ed Yong's An Immense World and James Bridle's Ways of Being (which I wrote about here), as well as the earlier work of James Lovelock and both his parents.

Yong and Bridle showed that we know very little about how animals and plants experience and influence the world, and Sagan takes that further to the level of microorganisms and chemicals, but back up to the idea of a living organism we call Earth.  Apart from expanding my purview, it reinforces the sense I got from those other books: a mandatory humility.  Here is Sagan:

"The vast complexity of Earth's environment, like the ultimate nature of the universe, eludes simple human minds; perhaps our cognitive lack, our finally coming up short, in trying to find the grand design or story, is a structural necessity.  We are only a miniscule part of the vast colossus we examine. To even begin to comprehend that which contains us, and so much more, we caricature, simplify, and distort."

Hubris is so human, and so silly. And yet, I am reminded in this regard as in so many others in my daily life, of something my grandmother often said in her 80s: "We do the best we can."  

Another book I'm reading (or actually re-reading) now is one in a series of police procedurals set in Venice starring Commissario Guido Brunetti and written by Donna Leon, that in the past few years have become my favorite comfort reading.   In A Sea of Troubles, Leon uncharacteristically steps back for a moment to sum up Brunetti's character.  "Incapable by both nature and inclination of worshipping at the altar of the bitch goddess, Success, Brunetti had more modest desires.  He was a man of short views, interested in the here, the now, the concrete.  He left larger goals and desires to others, contenting himself with smaller ones: a happy family, a decent life, the attempt to do his job as well as he could.  It seemed to him little enough to ask of life, and he settled for those hopes."

That's pretty much where I find myself.  I've written in earlier birthday accounts of my fixation on the future, and how frustrating that's become.  I maintain an interest, and I keep listening to people like Kim Stanley Robinson talk about it in practical terms (these days he's defining Utopia as getting to the end of this century without fully plunging into a mass extinction event.)  But I feel in concert with my age, for the future belongs to others, and though I offer what I can, it's up to them to consider it. What's left to me is a deeper present.  Even though my present has within it my memories, which emerge whether I want them to or not (Paul McCartney calls this "the ever-present past") and my concerns and imaginings for the future, including the lost futures of my youth, I feel more comfortable--and more appropriate-- foregrounding the here and now.

 "Life is what you do everyday," Jim Harrison wrote, and I find myself living more in that everyday.  I don't need a conceptual context in which to experience it.  I simply am living it.  Maybe a little more consciously, and a little more fully.  For instance, I am more aware of how much I like the feel of wool, and corduroy. I value in every way the moments I sit on our comfortable old leather couch next to Margaret, with our dog Howdy between us. 

We have our age-related problems, and spend more time and resources than we'd like in the bizarre corridors of the healthcare complex; and our days include news of people we know in deeper trouble, and falling away.  Of course we worry, we fret, we sadly see our devolving society, and I miss the birds that have already disappeared.  But we have a lot of good moments.  And we do the best we can. 

Sunday, March 08, 2026

Singing It Now

 


Come on all of you big strong men

Uncle Sam needs your help again

He's got himself in a terrible jam

Way down yonder in I-ran

So put down your books, pick up a gun--

Gonna have a whole lot of fun!

Well it's one-two-three what are we fightin' for?

Don't ask me I don't give a damn

Next stop is I-ran

And it's 5-6-7-8 open up the pearly gates--

Ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee

we're all gonna die



Well come on generals, let's move fast

Your big chance has come at last

Gotta go out and get them ragheads

Cause the only good heathen is one that's dead

You know that end times have just begun

When we've blown them all to kingdom come!



Well come on Wall Street--don't move slow

This is war a go-go

There's plenty of money to be made

By supplying the army with the tools of the trade

Just hope and pray when they drop the bomb

They know who the hell they're droppin it on



So come on mothers throughout the land

Pack your kids off to I-ran

Come on fathers don't hesitate

Send them off before it's too late--

Be the first one on your block

To have your kid come home in a box!


Yes, it's 1-2-3-, what are we fightin for?

Don't ask me I don't give a damn--

Next stop is I-ran

Now it's 5-6-7-8 open up the pearly gates--

Ain't no time to wonder why--

Whoopee--we're all gonna die


R.I.P. Country Joe McDonald.  I altered your song but I did it from memory.

Monday, January 19, 2026

Starting With Stoppard



Tom Stoppard died in November 2025.  From his first success in the late 1960s--Rosencrantz and Gildenstern Are Dead-- to now, I followed his career and his work longer and more consistently than I have of any other playwright. (One bit of evidence: most of my copies of his plays are first edition paperbacks.) 

So beginning in December I have embarked on a reading (and viewing) project, exploring his life, thoughts and work.  I did something similar starting at the end of 2024 when I learned of the death of the writer known as K.C. Constantine--too obscure to make the Notable Deaths lists but known to me and self-selected enthusiasts for his unique police procedurals, which happened to be situated in a somewhat fictional version of my hometown of Greensburg, PA.  This resulted in two essays posted on my books blog.

This time I'm likely to spread this project over more time, and it involves not only reading plays but seeing as many as I can that have been filmed (for example, the BBC version of Every Good Boy Deserves Favor) or were originally TV plays (for example, Professional Foul), and seeing as well as reading appropriate interviews.  My procedure so far has been to start re-reading Hermione Lee's fine biography of Stoppard, and stopping at the points where a play is discussed, to read that play first.

Already I've had the luxury of simply dipping into my own library for some associated material.  For example, when Lee mentions Kenneth Tynan's profile of Stoppard for the New Yorker, I pulled down my copy of one of three Tynan profile collections, including the one with Stoppard in it, called Show People.  When Lee writes about Stoppard meeting Vaclev Havel, the playwright and essayist who would eventually become the president of the Czech Republic, I found the Havel essays she refers to in my copy of his collection  Living In Truth.


From the first I knew Tom Stoppard was a writer after my own heart. I was in college then, and experiencing real theatre for the first time.  I came to admire other dramatists of my time (Arthur Miller for example was still alive and writing) but I always suspected that if I had become a successful playwright, my work would be most in sympathy with the work of Tom Stoppard. 

I felt a certain stream in common in those first plays: the word play, the ongoing comic exploration of language philosophy so prominent at Cambridge and Oxford, and its relationship with the satire of the 60s--Beyond the Fringe, That Was The Week That Was, the Goon Show and Peter Sellers, Richard Lester and the Beatles, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, and later Monty Python and Douglas Adams.  These were exciting me and my writing in the 60s as well, but I knew them only from their artifacts.  Tom Stoppard knew many of the people involved--he even wrote for a magazine run by Peter Cook. (Of course they all had further roots in English Music Hall (or American vaudeville), the Marx Brothers, and Laurel and Hardy (and the appropriate British double acts.)  These influences show up in Stoppard's work as well.)

 Even the collision of Shakespeare and Samuel Beckett in R&G Are Dead was also familiar--in a way, that describes much of my college experience. 


Later plays continued the elegance of language, the high and low humor, the unapologetic focus on ideas in philosophy, science, literature and history, with increasing inventiveness if in quieter ways. And it wasn't all fun and games--for instance, he returned several times, from an early play to one of his last, to the question of what is the nature of the good.

Especially in those early years, what I was reading or had read showed up in his work, along with less familiar stuff, like Lenin's writings.  We seemed to have similar literary tastes.  That we may not have agreed on political questions in the Reagan/Thatcher era, and we might not agree on some larger subjects, not only didn't bother me, it didn't occur to me.  These were beside the point.  (Besides, the whole left/right thing was more extreme in the UK than the US at the time.) Then by the time his work overtly took sides in favor of free expression in Eastern Europe, we were on the same page.

 From the first also, there were always stories of people and relationships, including love stories, that were sometimes overlooked--even by the playwright.  Plays are a narrative art, Stoppard insisted.

Our lives have been quite different, of course. But that unbeknownst to me, it appears he was also a left-handed and right-eared Cancerian night owl, with even less digital tech than I have, is now a little eerie.


Over the years I valued Stoppard's musings in and outside his plays, especially as a writer.  Like his very helpful description of the art in writing as controlling the flow of information.  He was a realist with a deep sense of vocation, who said "One's duty is to write as well as you possibly can, and to write whatever it is that you are now in a fit state to write."  That's a kind of classical conception that seems increasingly fragile.

A few years ago as he was giving a tour of his home library to a guest and his film crew, he remarked: "I'm deeply romantic about literature as a devotion."  I identify with that as well, though it also seems a fading feeling in following generations.


Stoppard often insisted that reading his plays was fairly fruitless, not only because the published plays are notorious for having been changed already by the publication date, but because of the nature of them as "description of a future event."  That event is the production, the performance.  It's a complicated subject.  There are playwrights, like Shakespeare and especially Chekov, that provide a full reading experience with their texts alone, which performance sometimes does not match.  A good deal of Stoppard does repay reading, but it's also true a lot can be missed.  Not just the many sight gags (they can be at least imagined) but nuances and even narrative moments that are hard to pick up or to be given their proper weight by reading only.

Unfortunately, I've seen only a few of his plays performed: I did manage to see The Real Thing in its original Broadway production (directed by Mike Nichols), regional theatre productions of The Invention of Love and On the Razzle, as well as college productions of Arcadia, The Real Inspector Hound and R&G (and I've seen Stoppard's award-winning movie based on that play several times.) 

But he also has work preserved in the movies: for example, his contributions to the hallucinatory Brazil,  the Spielberg production of Empire of the Sun, and  his voice in the Indiana Jones film with Sean Connery as Indy's father. (Stoppard also wrote the screenplay for John Le Carre's The Russia House, starring Connery.)  Of course he is most famous for his Oscar-winning Shakespeare in Love, which despite co-writer credit is mostly his work.


Perhaps his most sustained work for television was the British miniseries based on the related Ford Maddox Ford novels collected under the title Parade's End.  I admire both the script and the novels greatly.

Besides some TV plays and even a few radio plays done early in his career on YouTube, and more available from the BBC,  there's a late radio play on YouTube called Darkside, a remarkably short play that incorporates all of Pink Floyd's classic album, Dark Side of the Moon. (This play also concerns the struggle to define the good.)  For those curious about Stoppard, this is not a bad place to start.

Stoppard wrote outrageous comedies and quieter if equally unusual dramas, often incorporating history and playing with concepts of time.  But all his plays had laughs.  The laugh, he told an actor in one of them, "is the sound of comprehension."  


He loved the process of theatre, working with producers, directors, actors, designers, all through rehearsals in major productions, often rewriting on request. That meant the play was still alive. He wrote for small casts and large ones, in one-acts, and in a trilogy (The Coast of Utopia) that took nearly nine hours to perform. In New York, it was the hottest ticket in town.  What was its sensational subject? Mid-nineteenth century intellectuals of pre-revolutionary Czarist Russia. Each of those plays ran separately and consecutively during the week, but all three were performed back to back on Saturdays.  I was in New York briefly during the run and heard the buzz, but the tickets--especially for Saturdays--were sold out far in advance, even if I could somehow afford to buy one. 

Before I started my chronological exploration this month I watched a lot of interviews from recent years, particularly about his last play, Leopoldstadt, a summary work in more ways than one, reflecting aspects of his own life and its previously unknown context--namely that many older members of his Czech Jewish family died in the Holocaust.  The play follows a similar family from the turn of the 20th century to the 1950s.   Performances left people in tears, including on more than one occasion, Stoppard himself.  He was 83 when it was first staged in London, 85 when it came to New York. In interviews he expressed an eagerness to be writing another play, but also admitted that after this play, it was hard to know where to go after that crowning work.

Stoppard died in November, at the age of 88.  "Death is not anything," Guildenstern says towards the end of R&G. "It's the absence of presence, nothing more...the endless time of never coming back..."  He was by all accounts a very sociable man (his large annual parties were legendary), who (he admitted) felt most comfortable alone.  He was a loving husband and father and friend, known for his kindness--and he owned that the kindness was deliberate, a commitment.  A lot of people are missing him.  He's not coming back.  Throughout his life Stoppard quoted another playwright's line to the effect that the obscure current underlying all of life is grief.


His work lives on, and so in this way he lives for me. Stoppard realized his plays would be produced and read for an indeterminant time after his death, but beyond that he felt such speculation was idle. Who knows what will survive and speak, if anything, especially in the increasingly uncertain future. 

Stoppard was committed to writing for the theatre, which of all writing is most obviously experienced in somebody's present. But his reservations duly noted, the same is true of reading his plays, his words.  The writing that is read is also experienced in the present, whenever (and wherever) that present happens to be.


Stoppard's verbal eloquence wasn't restricted to jokes, ironies and epigrams.  In particular I think of the profound and profoundly moving eloquence that appears at the end of play Shipwrecked, the middle play of his Coast of Utopia trilogy.  To me it is as enduring as any lines of any playwright in my lifetime. 

 Alexander Herzen has just suffered the sudden death of his young son.  Michael Bakunin attempts to comfort his by saying, "Little Kolya, his life cut so short! Who is this Moloch...?"  Herzen replies:

 "No, no, not at all! His life was what it was. Because children grow up, we think a child’s purpose is to grow up. But a child’s purpose is to be a child. Nature doesn’t disdain what lives only for a day. It pours the whole of itself into the each moment. We don’t value the lily less for not being made of flint and built to last. Life’s bounty is in its flow, later is too late. Where is the song when it’s been sung? The dance when it’s been danced?...   Was the child happy while he lived? That is a proper question, the only question."