Book Review: Twinka Thiebaud's "What Doncha Know? About Henry Miller"

212 pages

Henry Miller was seventy-one years old when the teenage Twinka Thiebaud met him.  Of course, Miller had not only long been famous as one of the Century's greatest novelists: He had also long been famous as one of the Century's greatest pornographers and dirty old men.

The labels of "pornographer" and "dirty old man" came courtesy of the American press, which had (inevitably) discovered itself scandalized by the raw sex scenes in Miller's novels (Naturally, we Americans are not actually happy about raw sex scenes unless we feel scandalized by them -- and the more scandalized, the happier).

Miller's novels had been at first banned in the US, which caused them to be smuggled into the country as contraband.  The bans were eventually overturned in an historic 1964 Supreme Court decision.  Yet, though the Court ruled Miller's books "literature", that did not stop the press from casting Miller as a lecherous old man. And Thiebaud was quite aware of Miller's nasty reputation the day she met him.

Thiebaud describes herself on that day as an "seventeen year-old virgin" swamped by "intense anxiety" at the prospect of meeting the "salacious beast" Henry Miller. The very last thing she expected to find was a charming old grandfatherly man who showed no signs of wanting to seduce her, and who instead took simple delight in her company. But that is exactly what she found.

A few years after their first meeting Thiebaud moved into Miller's home as his cook and housekeeper.  She describes her rapport with Miller (pp. 17):

"Henry was one of the most open people I have ever known.  I knew what was going on in his head as well as his heart nearly all the time.  He did not keep many secrets and, like me, his emotions were written all over his face."

I get the impression that when Thiebaud walks into a room, the first things she notices are the people.  After that, she notices the art on the wall, then the furnishings, and then the diamond sparking on the table.

Moreover, I could be wrong about this, but I get the impression her interest in people often dominates and restrains her natural human inclination to judge people. That is, she simply takes folks as they are without trying to change them because she is so gawd awful interested in them.

If any of that is true, then it seems significant to me because Thiebaud has written a book.  A book that demands and requires its author to be a keen observer of people.  And namely, a keen observer of Henry Miller.  As well as of herself.  

Miller had a gift of gab and loved to entertain his household and his guests over supper.  At some point, Thiebaud took to keeping a journal in which she would write down her recollection of the evening's conversation before bed.  What Doncha Know ? About Henry Miller * is the product of that effort.

The book mostly focuses on Miller's recollections of, and reflections on, the people and events in his life. But it does touch a little bit on Twinka herself.  An especially revealing passage about Twinka concerns her relationship with Warren Beatty -- whom she met through Miller.

Imogen and Twinka (1975)

Warren courted Twinka in 1975, after seeing the famous photograph of her with Imogen Cunningham. He won her over, and the affair lasted until Twinka tired of Warren's sleeping with women too numerous.

Of course, when such things occur -- when a woman discovers there is a long line of other women beyond the door to her lover's bedroom -- the moment is a delicate one.  Anything can happen.  It is common enough for the woman to denounce her lover as a jerk.

Twinka reveals herself to possess thoughts and feelings that are just as graceful as her pose in the photo with Imogen. She broke off her sexual relationship with Beatty, but did not discard her appreciation for him as a superb lover (pp.34):

"He was always graceful, mannered, relaxed and confident, never mussed or awkward and never out of line. Even though I was one of many, when we were together, Warren knew exactly how to make me feel absolutely extraordinary.  Now that's a great gift!"

For that and many other reasons, the passages in this book that deal with Twinka herself are just as engaging as the passages that deal with Henry Miller.    

Apparently, Miller himself was not a great lover of women in Warren Beatty's sense.  For one thing, most of Miller's loves were never consummated.  And it seems he did not always leave his lovers much better off for having known him. But Miller knew several great truths about love, and he practiced them.

For one thing, Miller knew sex was not a necessary ingredient in great loves -- the kind of loves that inspire, affirm, and renew us.   To love and to be loved in that way is to be reborn.  And I suspect that such loves are especially valuable to artists and other creatives, for they seem to be associated with great bursts of creativity.

That was one kind of love Miller had experience and insight into.  Another, and perhaps for Miller, a more important kind of love, was the one-sided affair -- the love that longs, yearns for an impossible to obtain lover.

Unrequited love is also associated with great bursts of creativity.  But it is a darker creativity, born more from the suffering and angst associated with thwarted desire than from the love itself.

• Miller (pp. 169): "Love is the most important theme in my life because it has provided me with almost all my creative fuel.  I could've written volumes on the subject of unrequited love."  
• Miller again (pp.170):  "I was in love with many women, but I haven't really written about love with a capital L.  I wrote about sex!" 
• And later on (ibid): "I'll sacrifice everything, anything -- money, jobs, wives, children -- all for love! And always for the love of an unattainable woman, an elusive woman."

From those and various other things said in Twinka's book, I get the impression Miller was more at home with a one-sided love than with a mutual love, although he experienced both in his life.  But regardless of what kind of love he was at home with, Twinka's book makes it clear love was, in Miller's eyes, a -- or even the -- motivating factor behind his writing.

As I was reading her book, I hoped for more details of her relationship with Miller. There wasn't quite the dept of description I wanted, and too few anecdotes, so I was a bit disappointed. But that's probably just me.

Twinka's book is fun.  In it, Miller tells a charming/sad/funny/revealing story about the revolutionary, Emma Goldman, that I thought taken alone was probably worth a third of the book's $15 price.  (If anyone feels they will just die unless they hear the Goldman story ASAP, email me for the scandalous details.)  There are several other precious little stories like that one, too.  Overall, the book is a quick, easy read, and you will probably not drink yourself to death out of regret if you read it.

By the way, I have emailed Twinka a few questions, and I will be posting her answers soon. Also, Darlene Chan, Twinka's publicist, has graciously agreed to give away a free copy of Twinka's book to a lucky reader of this blog.  I will post details on that free give away soon.  

I have an interview with Twinka posted here.

____________________________

* Twinka Thiebaud's publicist, Darlene Chan, sent me a free copy of the book, which I read as part of the prep for this post. 

Should We Legalize Polygamy?

Although I fancy myself a man of passions -- even strong passions -- loyal, experienced readers of this blog are sure to know that few issues -- no matter how controversial -- are likely to give me the vapours (except, of course, egregious mistakes in the noble field of epistemology).  Therefore, it might come as something of a shock when I confess that the issue of legalizing polygamy has all but reduced me to my smelling salts.

The problem, you see, is I can't make up my mind whether I am for or against the legalization.

On the one hand, I can think of at least two powerful arguments for the legalization:

1. As a general principle, I favor allowing informed, consenting adults to choose whatever marriage arrangements they deem best for themselves.  By the same token, I believe that the marriage arrangements of informed, consenting adults should not be restricted -- unless a weight of reason and evidence demonstrates those arrangements to be injurious to others.
2. It has been my experience that a person can have more than one great love in his or her life.  But to restrict marriage to two people would seem to force some people to cruelly reject or deny at least one of their loves.  Consequently, I believe restricting marriage to only two people should never be done for light and transient reasons -- but only for the soundest of reasons.

Either one of those reasons alone would be enough to satisfy me that we should legalize polygamy -- except for the fact there seem to be several reasons not to legalize it.  The best summary I've found of the reasons against legalization comes from a Canadian court case.

In 2010, the Supreme Court of British Columbia was asked to reconsider a ban on plural marriage. The core issue was whether polygamy was bad for society.  That is, whether anyone besides the partners to a polygamous marriage were harmed by it.

As part of its deliberations, the Supreme Court called upon the expertise of Joseph Henrich, an inter-disciplinary professor whose scientific credentials are so extensive they require 17 pages to list and are of such quality as would be lightly dismissed only by a madman or a Republican candidate for the presidency.  That's not to say Henrich is above being wrong -- for who among us is -- but only to suggest his findings might be worth some consideration by reasonable folk.

Before being called upon by the Court, Henrich had never published on polygamy nor formed any reasoned and evidenced opinion of it.  However, after reviewing a large body of evidence from several fields -- including psychology, anthropology, sociology, and economics -- he reached several provisional conclusions. His conclusions, however, dealt with only one aspect of polygamy -- polygyny, or the marriage of a man to multiple wives (.pdf pp. 25):

• A non-trivial increase in the incidence of polygyny, which is quite possible if polygyny were legalized given what we know about both male and female mating preferences, would result in increased crime and antisocial behavior by the pool of unmarried males it would create.
• Greater degrees of polygyny drive down the age of first marriage for (all) females on average, and increase the age gap between husbands and wives.  This generally leads to females marrying before age 18, or being "promised" in marriage before age 18.
• Greater degrees of polygyny are associated with increased inequality between the sexes, and the relationship may be causal as men seek more control over women when women become scarce.
• Polygynous men invest less in their offspring both because they have more offspring and because they continue to invest in seeking additional wives.  This implies that, on average, children in a more polygynous society will receive less parental investment.
• Greater degrees of polygynous marriage may reduce national wealth (GDP) per capita both because of the manner in which male efforts are shifted to obtaining more wives and because of the increase in female fertility.

Henrich then offers the Court what seems to me substantial evidence for his provisional conclusions.  But, perhaps even more striking than his conclusions, he goes further to offer the Court "a speculation".

That is, he suggests that monogamy -- which is historically much rarer among our societies than polygyny -- might be linked to democracy and gender equality (.pdf pp. 64): "Historically, we know that universal monogamous marriage preceded the emergence of democratic institutions in Europe, and the rise of notions of equality between the sexes."  The idea there might be a relationship between monogamy and social and political equality is intriguing, although I gather much more work would need to be done for the claim to be reasonably evidenced.

Now, I myself am a polyamorous individual.  I have experienced at least three great loves in my life -- women I have been inordinately passionate about -- women who, at times, I have even loved more deeply and truly than ever I loved a well-formulated operational definition.  Consequently, I'm conflicted by Henrich's findings.

Fortunately, I never had to choose between one of those loves and another since several years separated each from the other.  But I can imagine how cruel it would have been had I been forced to choose. Yet -- if Henrich is right -- the consequences of legalizing polygyny seem to me dire enough to warrant the ban of it.

What do you think?  Should we legalize polygyny?  Why or why not? And, just out of curiosity, have you ever found yourself profoundly in love with two people at once?

Would a Loving God Send Us to Hell?

For the sake of discussion, let us assume there's an able god.  By "able", I mean that god is capable of doing anything that does not violate the rules of logic.  For instance, it can create the universe, but it cannot create a square circle because a square circle is logically impossible.  

Next, let us assume that god unconditionally loves all of creation, including each one of us.

Is that scenario logically possible?

Well, I think it is possible. I would not account it very probable. It's not something I'd bank on.  But possible?  Yes.

Now, let us assume the same two conditions -- an able god and that god's unconditional love -- plus a third condition.

The third condition is there exists a hell that is a part of creation and to which people are sent after their death if they disobey the god.

Is the new scenario logically possible?

I do not think so.  Instead,. I think the new scenario involves a logical contradiction and consequently cannot exist.  That is, it cannot be real.  But what is that contradiction?

Well, how can you logically have an able god that loves you unconditionally and also causes you to go to hell if you disobey that god?

So far as I can see, you cannot.  An unconditionally loving god would neither impose a condition upon it's love ( i.e. if you do not obey me, I will not love you) nor would an unconditionally loving god, if it were able to prevent it, allow it's beloved to come to harm (i.e. if you do not obey me, I will cause or allow you to go to hell). 

But what do you think?  Is it an amusing logic puzzle?  Or have I just had too much caffeine again?