Readings, Rated
RIP, Studs
It occurs to me that there should absolutely be some Web site out there collecting remembrances of this great man, much the way McSweeney’s did for David Foster Wallace. (Maybe there is; if so, let us know.) Tragic, yes, to be saying goodbye again so soon, and at this particularly charged point in time, to another great writer, and this time to one so emblematic of Chicago. But Terkel’s was the gold standard for a full life, lived well. He’ll leave a stunning legacy, and if there’s a sting in the fact that we lost him on the eve of a historic election, there’s also the hope that, going forward, we really will be entering a new American era —one in which Studs Terkel’s massive contribution to this country’s literature and history will be read and respected in a new context.
It’s interesting to note that he published his first best-selling book, Division Street: America, at age 55, which brings to mind this recent article about different kinds of creativity.
He gave genuine voice to working Americans long before plumbers became useful politicking devices. He loved his wife enormously. He faced death, it seems, with no illusions, with little fear. The epitaph he suggested for himself? “‘Curiosity did not kill this cat.” Gotta love all that.
A bit of the coverage:
You must have missed this other article in the Times about Terkel, “An Appraisal” by Edward Rothstein that appeared on November 2. In this ridiculous commentary on Terkel’s work, Rothstein points to what he sees as Marxist philosophy underlying Terkel’s work and he stops just short of calling him a communist, as exemplified in this choice tidbit:
“Part of Mr. Terkel’s wide appeal was that he seemed to be a scrappy liberal in his choice of causes and concerns, but look more closely and it becomes less clear where his liberalism slips into radicalism. Though Mr. Terkel was not a theorist, nearly every one of the positions approvingly intimated by him seem to fit models shaped by Marxist theory; he even wore something red every day to affirm his attachment to the working class.”
His main argument in support of this conclusion is that in “Working,” Terkel attacks capitalism by focusing on subjects who said they were not satisfied by their menial jobs and found them deadening to their spirit. Isn’t that shocking? It doesn’t take a Marxist to point out something that’s self-evident to thinking people. Though such views are apparently still considered anti-capitalist by the establishment, notice how such views are never related in traditional medial or educational curricula? And what’s with criticizing the red-checked shirts as a means of identifying with the working class? He should get his head examined.
WFMT posted remembrances of Studs here:
http://www.wfmt.com/main.taf?p=1,1,41,31.
Also, Eight Forty-Eight’s Richard Steele hosted a show with Quentin Young, Jaime Kalven and Alex Kotlowitz that basically featured caller’s memories of Studs. You can find that here:
http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Program_848.aspx?episode=29910
Hey, Schmuck,I just read your comments– ain’t it amazing that someone who was actually falking blacklisted would be redbaited after he was dead? Come to think of it, though, Studs did always say that being blacklisted was one of his greatest honors and that getting kicked off television pushed him into radio and, eventually, books. Maybe he’s up there at a party, with Vachal Lindsey and Carl Sandburg supplying the music, and Mike Royko and Nelson Algren tearing Edward Rothstein (who the hell is Edward Rothstein, by the way?) to shreds.
Some great recordings of Studs at http://www.studsterkel.org/
proxy business lower
apple suggested lime www
domestic induce concentrations
potential variability adaptation
during allows details