Mayor Ford’s alternative to Transit City: The “Mushroom Plan” (Keep them in the dark and feed them manure).

December 4th, 2010

To the Readers of the Allderblob: we recently came across the following letter, sealed in a concrete cylinder and buried under a pile of horse manure behind the Toronto Police equestrian facility on Strachan Ave. Marked: “Danger: Radioactive,” it was with some trepidation that we seized it in our teeth and wrenched it open. Imagine our delight at finding an epistle contained within! And since it’s been such a long time since you’ve had a chance to read such deathless prose, we’ve decided to share it with our readers.

Dear Toronto Councillors and Toronto MPPs:

As you ponder the new mayor’s brazen attempt to derail the hard work of the past administration to bring rapid transit within reach of as large a number of people in Toronto as possible, remind yourself of what it’s like to squash into a crowded subway and travel, often for long spells of time, through the dark underground passages beneath our city. Like a rat or a mole, you have no idea where you are. Like a worm, you shove your way against your surroundings to emerge into the light. Which way do you go?

More to the point, as councillors and elected representatives, which way will you take this city?

Are you lost and disoriented, blinking in the light, trying to find your bearings? Or are you standing on solid ground, aware of what’s around you because you’ve seen it coming and going through the wide windows on either side of you?

I like the fact that when I get on or off the streetcar, this busy city pauses, if only for a moment, while I walk to the curb. I see that moment as a small “Thank-you” from the individuals in their cars, a “Thank-you” offered in recognition of my choice to share my ride with a million others that day. I see their moment’s pause as an acknowledgment of both my humanness, and my superiority over their dead and death-dealing motor.

The alternative of streetcars is not a paltry compromise to the dark and expensive subway. Streetcars offer the commuter the chance to experience the daylight, to see the city she or he lives in, to climb on or off at frequent intervals, to make decisions about where and when to embark like a human being, not like some darkness-loving rodent. Streetcars encourage even-spaced development, not the “point-oriented” development that comes from the widely-spread subway stops. Subways are agreeable to many motorists, it’s true: they get the “proletarian masses” off the streets and into holes in the ground, out of the way of the car. It’s no surprise that those who support subways are only occasionally the same people who must take them for lack of other choices. It’s no surprise that grand era of the subway coincided with the “glory days” of car culture. But those days are behind us now, and forever.

I live by the axiom of the former chief planner of Toronto, Paul Bedford: “It should be possible to live one’s entire life in Toronto without ever having to own a car.” I also have the good fortune to live within a few minutes’ walk of two Toronto streetcar lines. Along either line I have access to important amenities in the city of Toronto: Ryerson University and the University of Toronto fall along one line; Toronto City Hall and the Eaton Centre along the other. I can take one streetcar from Main Station in the east end all the way to High Park in the west. I can take the other from the Beaches to a stroll along the Humber river. But many folks in our city are not so lucky. For them, hours on a crowded bus, a crowded highway, or a crowded subway is a daily fact of life. The Transit City plan of our city’s previous administration was an attempt to right this wrong, and bring fast, accessible streetcars, whether on their own right-of-ways or not, within reach of the city’s priority neighbourhoods.

We need more streetcars, whether with or without their own right-of-ways. Please be sure to vote against the new mayor’s subway plan, and in favour of the Transit City plan as it was originally created.

Thank You

Listing

October 23rd, 2010

Listing: tipping sideways and slipping beneath the waves. It’s not for everyone. But then, neither is the act of making a list and checking it twice. Listing, like delegating, is the art of assertiveness, attention to detail and steady hands–even as it calls for compromise, trust, and acceptance of our loss of control. Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself.

I’ve gone through life not really minding being told what to do. To be precise, I am a person who aims to please. Erving Goffman identified “other-directed” and “inner-directed” modes of behaviour. I know which one I am. At least, I used to think so.

I spent a lot of time at my grandmother’s house in my late adolescence. Lots of my cousins did too. My grandmother ran a tight ship. I have only fond memories of her yellow legal pad, laid out on the breakfast table every Saturday, filled with the morning’s chores. Here was the list of things that had to be done before one set out for an afternoon’s entertainment. How satisfying it was then to stroke the chores out one-by-one, putting my initials beside the finished job as the day progressed. If only everyone who would tell me what to do could make such an orderly list of instructions. Bosses and mothers and lovers and others: I want to say, “I want to please you, can you just tell me what that would take?”

It’s fun to act. In plays, I mean. A play is no more than a list–a list of actions to be carried out on the stage, a list of lines to be spoken. Directing? Not for me. And as for writing the script, well, I’ve tried. The problem is plot: the actions I list don’t grab people. Acting is fun. Writing is hard. And that’s it in a nutshell: list-makers are a breed apart.

Almost all disciplines call for list-making. Think about it. Architects lay out lists every time they design something. The design is not the thing, it’s only the instructions for the thing to be built. The demands of architecture are myriad. Designing takes dedication and fortitude and assertiveness. Like other kinds of list-making, it also demands compromise and ego-lessness and letting go.

Like architects, poets make lists. Lists are the pith of poetry. They name the events, the stuff of life. Making a list is laying out a path, not describing the path taken. Fiction writing is easier than poetry, although equally hard to do well, because the poem at the heart of every story is fleshed out, generously curved, meandered through at leisure. In prose the list is disguised, but it better be there or there’s no story.

What about teaching? That old saw, “those who can, do…” slags teachers with the notion that teachers are incapable. Many others have rebutted the put-down but there’s a kernel of truth to it. The “doing” of teaching is teaching. I teach design. That’s easy for me. Designing, that’s hard. What do teachers do? The good ones are list-makers. They lay out the day’s work for their students and check off the homework as it’s handed in. Teachers run the classroom. Their act is to direct.

Still, at the end of the day teachers get their marching orders from their directors and deans, and lots of teachers get lazy and teach the same “list” over and over again. Or, if they inherit another teacher’s course outline, teachers become actors in a script written by someone else. I like teaching for the same reason I like acting: it’s a performance, within guidelines: the list is the script. The list is a course outline. As a teacher, I try to rise above the outline–all the more when I am the writer of it.

But most of us listen to others rather than our own hearts. Is it that we are not “disciplined?” We may call it listening to our heads, but our heads are so stuffed with what we read in the paper, or what someone we respect says to us, or what we think will impress someone else, or what we “ought” to do (because it’s the right thing, or because it’s “common sense”) that the list we listen to is often someone else’s, not our own. Our head is our super-ego, it’s not who we really are. Our heart is who we really are. Most of us really need to try hard to hear what our hearts are saying.

Most of us go through life not heeding our hearts. And that’s okay, too, most of the time. Most of the time, as Bob Dylan famously said, “I never think of her at all.” Most of the time, we can motor along on auto-pilot, meeting someone else’s requirements. Following someone else’s orders. Eating the food someone thinks we’ll like, rather than the stuff we really want for ourselves. If only we could be bothered to think about it.

But I’m beginning to think a time must come when I make my own list. It’s scary because I’ve done it so rarely. I’m afraid to get it wrong. Getting it wrong is going to hurt. There’s no delete button on the kind of list I’m talking about. The list predicts your future.

But I’m going to try, because making a list is really about writing your own story. I’m actually the only one who can do that. My heart (I hear it even above the roar in my brain) tells me so.

The Angry Ones

October 18th, 2010

It’s not you who’s angry. Oh, no, you’re the mild-mannered sort. But you see them, the angry ones, out there. You see them, and you know they know who they are, because if they catch you looking at them they stare back, or they gesture rudely, or they lunge at you. You don’t want to aggravate them further, so you keep your eyes down. You look past them, at a distant bird, or a tree branch waving. You wait until they look the other way, then you watch them. The angry ones. You look at them and try to understand what drives them.

And they are drivers, usually. Most of them are in cars, at least part of the day. If they live in cities, they spend hours looking for parking spots near home. If they live in the country, their trucks kick up clouds of dirt on back roads they rush along to reach town for supplies or to get to work. They drive above the speed limit on residential roads, and they sit bumper-to-bumper on high-speed freeways. Either way, they’re damn angry about it. People on bikes, they better stay out of the way. People on foot, you’ve had fair warning.

But you don’t own a car. You chose your home well–a short walk for groceries, a cafe nearby. You ride a bike here and there, or if you have a long way to go, you take a combination of streetcar, subway and bus. Your commute to work is an hour and a half each way, but you use the time wisely. You study for the exams you have to take, or you read a novel, something you can hold tight to your chest in a crowded vehicle. If there’s a seat free, you study your exam material, or you sharpen your brain against a cryptic crossword or the sudoku puzzle.

If you drove, you’d be there sooner, it’s true. You’d have an extra hour every day to decompress and spend time with your family, or maybe that hour would be set aside to study for your important exams. But you’ve done the drive. You’ve sat beside a friend in a carpool for the hour it takes to get home from work. You’ve put your foot on the imaginary brake on your side of the car, you’ve clutched the seat-rest on a sharp corner. You’ve dealt with the glare from the setting sun, if not from your friend, or the people in cars around you. You saved a half-hour on your commute that day, it’s true, but all you could think about when you got home was having a drink–more than one. The word “decompress” never felt more apt.

Your friend does the drive every day. She’s used to it. But you, no thanks. You don’t mind the extra half hour in transit, if it means you get home unfrazzled. You’ll put the time to good use. After that one time, you find a reason to stay late when she’s ready to leave. After a while she doesn’t offer any more.

No, it’s not you who’s angry. You’re easy-going. You ride a bike across town. It takes you twenty-two minutes, door-to-door, not breaking a sweat, to get to your class. It’s true, in a car you could do it in 17 minutes. Maybe 16. But then there’s parking to find, and a walk to the door. Eight minutes parking, four minutes walking…meanwhile, your bike’s locked to the fence by the door and you’re inside. Never mind the days when the car-drive takes longer. If a main road is under repair, or if there’s a crash, in a car they grit their teeth and wait in line. Sixteen minutes becomes a half-hour, no sweat (and that’s the day they had an important presentation to make, damn it!). On a bike you’d step onto the sidewalk and walk past the obstruction, carrying the machine that carries you. On a bike your 22 minutes is sometimes off by thirty seconds, but you’ll get there when you planned. And you’re still not sweating.

If the city’s shut down for one of its annual marathons, car-drivers freak out. The city’s daily papers fulminate. One mayoral candidate’s entire transportation platform is based on the plan to put runners and bike-riders in city parks, taking them off the street. Bikelanes and residential street-calming strategies get branded the “War on the Car.” It’s all about the driver, and what might slow him or her down.

Drivers are angry, but you’re not. You’re the one they’re angry about. You walk on a green, but that means the drivers have a red. They gun the engine. You slip past them on your bike, in the gutter, but the driver ahead stops only inches from the curb. No biggie. You just pass on the other side. They gun the engine. You better keep your head down. They seem to think if you weren’t there, their day would go faster. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not fair. Doesn’t that piss you off?

In fact, you should be the angry one. Those car-drivers are using up the world’s resources at an unsustainable rate, and for what? They’re doing the same thing you are, only you’re on foot, or you’ve taken transit, or you’re on your bike. What gives them the right? What about the future? You’re doing your part to reduce climate change. You’re doing your part to preserve non-replaceable resources for future use. You’re doing your part to lower demand, which lowers costs for those other people, the angry ones, the ones in cars. Your small footprint leaves extra room for their super-sized one. What do they have to be angry about?

But maybe it’s not them. Maybe it’s you. Maybe your conservation masks intransigence. Maybe you’re just stubborn. Maybe you really are in the way, pressing the button and holding out your hand at the crosswalk. Maybe you could move a little faster if you were in a car, too, even if it just took you to the next red light a little sooner. Maybe your “thoughtfulness” is a mask for inaction. Maybe it’s not that you believe in a “slow” movement, but that you’ve got your back up at being bullied, even if you daren’t say as much. No, you won’t look at the “angry” ones, but you won’t rush out of their way, either. Maybe you secretly like the thought that you’ve slowed them down, even by a second or two. Maybe it pleases you that the person who’s stupid enough to drive, when they could bike or walk just as easily, gets caught in traffic on the day of the marathon and takes an hour just to cross an intersection. The same intersection you slip across on foot, or sail under on the subway. Are you laughing? Are you enjoying their misery? You’re smug, that’s clear. But are you also angry, and taking it out on those idiots?

Maybe it’s time you got a car of your own, and joined the human race.

The Smorgasbord

October 1st, 2010

How do you approach a huge table laden with lip-smacking food? The fact is, we have only one stomach. And the restaurant serves its meal for just the hours of 11 a.m. to three p.m., so you have to be focused. I’m guessing you have your system. If I get around to it, I’ll tell you mine. But first, here’s what I’ve noticed people will do.

Some people sample a bit of everything. They want to try things they’ve never had before, as well as things they know pretty well and have even sometimes cooked at home. They heap their plate and go back to their table with a smattering of tidbits from every section of the buffet. They never get to know any one kind of food really well, but they have a delicious variety of experiences, each one pleasurable in its own, brief way.

Some people take the opposite approach. They decide to focus on one kind of food, and they really enjoy it. If it’s the roast beef, they have some of the well-done outer part, they have some that’s runny with blood from the middle, they have some smothered in gravy and they have some seasoned with horse-radish. They eat it with mashed potatoes or with beans, they grind on a little pepper or they shake on some salt, or they eat it just as it comes, from the platter. They chew the fat or they nibble the gristle. They really come away with a full understanding of roast beef. They’re experts in roast beef by the end of the meal.

Some people skip the entrees and go straight to the dessert table. They only want what they never have at home, the rich chocolate, the whipped cream, the fancy oozing yummy part of the meal.

Some folks can’t decide what to do. They walk around the banquet and don’t know where to start. In the extreme cases, they hover from one part to the other, watching others enjoy themselves but never really tasting or trying anything. It’s as if the plenitude of choices overwhelms their ability to make a choice or to begin somewhere. Then the restaurant closes and they are asked to leave, even though they have not eaten anything. It’s sad, really–but no one’s to blame but themselves.

I’ve seen others who come with a friend or loved one, and sit down, and let their friend choose their meal for them. Are they lazy? Incurious? No doubt they enjoy the food they’re served, but why not take a chance? Why relinquish all control like that? It’s strange. Maybe they like the fact that if they have a “bad” meal, they can blame the other person.

There’s another way to approach the burden of choice a smorgasbord presents. Just stay home. Eat the leftover noodles from the fridge. Put some tomato sauce on it for something special. Stay away from the rich variety of food that others are enjoying. Keep it simple, stupid. What you don’t know won’t hurt you. It’s sad, really.

Here’s what I do, and I’m not proud of it. I crave the in-depth knowledge of one kind of food that I described in the first example. I load up on roast beef and all its permutations, and I bring it back to the table. I dig in. But after a few bites, I get curious about what I see my neighbour eating. That lobster looks really delicious! So I leave my plate of roast beef and I go back for lobster. When I come back to my spot, I push my barely-tasted plate of roast beef to one side and get cracking on the crustacean. But you know what? It’s not long before I notice someone else digging in to a falafel sandwich, or another person with a plate of cold salmon, or someone with a really good-looking Greek salad. And I leave aside my lobster and go for one of those other choices. The meal ends with my place surrounded by half-finished entrees, as if I’m going to set up my own little restaurant there at my table. There’s just not enough time to do justice to each kind of food. I end my meal without finishing anything, and a lot gets wasted. It’s not very sustainable, obviously–but worse, I miss both the satisfaction of doing one kind of thing really well, and that which comes from doing a variety of different things at an “amateur” level.

I need to work on this.

The smorgasbord is life, of course. You are what you eat, as they say.

What are you?

In the Time Remaining Before I Quit and Join Up

September 19th, 2010

IN THE TIME REMAINING BEFORE I QUIT AND JOIN UP
Winner of 3rd prize (shared 2 ways) in the New York Press “Autobiography Contest” Fall, 1988
(Published as “Countdown” by J. Letchworth Allderdice)
This is part of a larger work I once planned (and wrote one other piece of) about the work of an architecture firm in New York City in the late 1980s.

This is all happening about the time that I quit folding out the sofa-bed to sleep at night. For a while I’d been leaving it folded down, but then someone was over, or I wanted to sit up and read, or maybe it was to retrieve something that had fallen behind. In any case up it came, and ever since I’ve not been folding it down to sleep at night. I lie there in its lap and by morning my face has taken the mesh imprint of the cover. I sleep with my nose snug in the crotch of the V, breathing through inches of cotton batting, making imperceptible traces in the gathering dust behind the couch.

I’m still taking care of my plants, remembering to water them, but since Wednesday I haven’t brushed my teeth. When I brushed my teeth on Wednesday the acid in the toothpaste and the bristles rubbed against a sore on my lip, stinging it and making me salivate.

At the moment I’m lying down on the sofa on my back, a ragged blanket that the streetlight’s made more yellow than ever tickling my neck. My toes pad against the naugahyde cover of a suitcase at the other end. I have two timepieces that run fast or slow, and their ticking spirals into the air above me like two ribbons of smoke, like a molecule of DNA, the strands in tension. “Ticky-ticky-ticky,” and “Tick-ah, tick-ah, tick-ah,” round and round, up to the ceiling, an opening and closing of shimmering light that passes from my room into the apartment upstairs. It’s still on its way up, but I’m in sleeping position, collecting cotton dust in my lungs; now I’m asleep.

The alarm clock’s tiny cry licks my ear in a kittenish way, like a swab of disinfectant applied before an injection. There’s a scum on my teeth about an eighth of an inch thick and I can’t open my right eye. I reach over to cut off the pitiful noise but my hand swings wild, numb from its inhuman position all night, and smashes into the steel edge of the bookshelf.

I’m scraping my teeth with a greenish towel that was here when I moved in. the terry-cloth picks up a slime of brown blood and yellow blanket fibers. One fiber remains lodged between two teeth and I tweeze it out with my fingers. It reminds me of when I used to floss. Halfway out it breaks so I’ll be walking around with this plastic thread in my mouth all day.

In the mirror, which is spattered with stuff but clear near the middle, I fumblingly tie a knot around my neck to wear to work. High on my cheek I spot a blackhead with its single hair. Out it comes, sticky as lemon pie filling, the colour of window putty, and I smear it from the back of my fingernail on to the frame of the mirror.

My food crunches wholesomely as I chew it: dry shredded wheat. There’s milk in the fridge but I forgot to fetch it out when I sat down and now my watch, which gains around seven minutes an hour so is about forty minutes off, definitely says go: “Go, ticky ticky go!”

I calibrate my life morning and night on Blimpie time, at the corner. From the sidewalk I peer through the plate glass window into the dark interior, and find the clock on the wall amidst reflections of gingko leaves, shrilly autumnal, yellow, vivid, horrible. I make out the minute hand, I’m squinting and somebody at the table just in front of me dumbly looks back. He opens his mouth in what could be a small burp; his mouth closes and then he’s sinking his teeth into what—it looks like it has a lot of mayo, anyway. He turns his back on me. He’s got on a camouflage jacket and a wool cap with a fairly large splash of white paint on it.

The “tock” of a woman’s heels comes closer from my left and I stand still adjusting my watch for a moment longer than it really takes. “Tock-tock, tock-tock,” and my watch, probably, “Ticky, ticky, ticky,” as a faint shred of perfume reaches me on a breeze. I frown, sunshine glinting off the bezel, the tocking growing louder, louder, shouting, then passing behind me. The second hand drips towards its nadir and I turn to look and to follow, if she’s going the right way.

Down the street past a couple stores until she, in a red knit suit, enters a fruit stand. I’m not going to wait for that. I realize I saw her two weeks ago and she did the same thing. This relationship is not going to work out. I guess I want a woman who eats breakfast at home in the morning.

I come to the corner where the school-kids hang out, waiting for the last possible call to class, showing off their clothes and their cigarettes, concretizing the cliques. The same clump of five girls always sits on the four-step entryway to an apartment there; the space has an ineffective iron railing and a gate that swings open if you lean on it. And just ahead of me a girl with long dirty-blond hair hanging in dreadlocks, wearing fishnet stockings under a jean skirt, the stockings with big gaps where one got away, stumbles backwards from where a guy’s trying to pour coffee onto her by the pay phone, just clowning around I guess but I stop short and she realizes she’s almost banged into me, gives a sheepish look and hollers at him; I shake my head and roll my eyes to nobody in particular. Like, whatever happened to dress codes? The light’s green and I continue walking.

The sun shines spottily through the start-up smoke of a hundred dirty chimneys along the street. A mote tickles the back of my nose, making me sneeze. A guy in a camouflage jacket blesses me from where he stands in a coffeeshop doorway. I mutter a bleary “thanks” and walk on.

There’s a line of people waiting for the bank doors to open at 9:00 and I think about that as I pass them. The poor fools, if they only knew what I know they’d break that line, they’d sell their stocks and open a pig farm in the South Bronx, they’d—whup!—I dodge around some old lady with a six-pointed cane who’s trying to negotiate the curb just as the light turns and a mail truck honks at her. A guy in a camouflage jacket solicitously reaches to help her out, and I’m at the next corner, just two blocks from work.

It’s a wide street with two-way traffic and subway entrances, newsstands, trucks from over the river and dented and rusting Japanese cars from the seventies competing for places at the starting line, all of them outclassed by the manoeuvers of the yellow cabs. At this moment a city bus, greenish light reflecting off its tinted windows, its horn in a Doppler effect now high now low, coasts to the stop in front of me, its wheels passing less than a foot from the bonnet of a baby carriage at the edge of the curb. The side door ejects a skinny guy in a loose-fitting camouflage jackets and two school kids who are gonna be late if they don’t watch out. The bus groans and ticks; a fart of brown diesel air erupts from its innards and anaesthetizes some litter in the gutter. The bus wrenches back into traffic and I walk.

The people in line at the corner are rustling their overcoats around them and looking expectantly in through the glass doors, to where some clerk bends to fiddle with a lock at ankle-height. These steps are the nightly home of a rag-tag band of beer drinkers and stoop piddlers. The whole thing is swabbed each morning with disinfectant; milky-white traces of it glimmer on the flagstones now.

In front of the lumber shop two guys in camouflage jackets off-load gypsum board from a flatbed truck, arguing about which end should go up. The one in front sets his end down to tie his shoe, leaving two feet of sidewalk to the pedestrians and causing his partner, who didn’t see it coming, to hit his chin on his end and drop the whole thing. The back one is rubbing his chin and looking at the little puddle of plaster dust on the sidewalk, while the one in front, who sees the boss storming out from inside the store, grabs his end and drags the whole board forward. I squeeze past just as the boss arrives to scream at the two loafers.

The clock at the reception desk shows four minutes past as I tick the in-box by my name; I’m a little bit late but the workstations near mine are all empty still. I sit down and pick up a leadholder and begin another day.

The Architects are Here

March 24th, 2010

Michael Winter may yet be sued by the Ontario Association of Architects or the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada or some other group who claims as proprietary the use of the word “architect.” After all, the title of his novel The Architects are Here could confuse the public, who might think, upon reading his book, that what architects do is kill their brothers.

In fact, generally this is not the case.

Architects in most of North America have a “titles act” of one kind or another, not to mention a “practice act.” The former limits those who are permitted to call themselves architects to individuals who have achieved specific criteria; the latter limits those who would say they are practicing architecture to those who have been qualified as architects. The limitation of these strictures has always been the question of what’s reasonable–thus a carpenter or real estate agent will be sued if they claim the title unlawfully, but the profession of computer systems “architecture” has usurped the word so thoroughly that most of the time a classified ad for an architect these days will turn out to have no use for for those of us who’ve taken and passed the NCARB exams.

In fact the “architects” of the title of Winter’s book come from a book by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, known as Suetonius. In a Robert Graves translation of the work, called The Twelve Caesars, the phrase “the architects are here” serves as the code to indicate the assassins are in place:

Otho excused himself to the emperor, saying he had to view a house that was for sale; then slipped out of the Palace by a back door and hurried to the rendez-vous.

Or as Winter puts it, “The architects are here. It was a phrase that summed up his experience with his brother, that bad times were lurking.”

We just read Winter’s novel, and felt deeply unsettled by it. Is the story a memoir? It concerns a writer from Newfoundland named Gabriel English whose previous work was about an American artist who settled for a time on the island. Surely this writer is Winter himself, a Newfoundlander whose previous novel, The Big Why, concerned the American artist Rockwell Kent (Kent, born in Tarrytown New York, famously settled for a time in Brigus Newfoundland. He also studied architecture at Columbia University).

Rockwell Kent

Rockwell Kent


Previous works by Winter that centre on the same main character are billed as “fictional memoirs.” Nice work, if you can get it:

Publisher’s note: This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are the product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously, and any resemblance to actual persons living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental.

Ah yes, the catch-all: “or are used fictitiously.” We like it. We like it a lot.

So many things in this novel resonate after our first reading, and draw us back. It could be the first novel in a while (since Toole’s A Confederacy of Dunces in fact) that we might be tempted to re-read. We like Winter’s notion of “Wyoming,” a term that seems to relate to his “Big Why” novel, but which in any case is a play on the dreamy questioning of the protagonist: his tendency to ask “Why,” and exclaim “Oh” on reaching a conclusion. We do a lot of Wyoming ourselves (only, being from Montana, we hesitate to call it that).

We’ve been thinking a lot about architecture lately, which no doubt explains our urge to read Winter’s book. After all, we are the architects. The architects, in fact, are here. We have a license from the state of New York, a license achieved after a hell of a lot of pain and hard work, which in the province of Ontario has no meaning or value at all. The situation is simple, according to the Ontario Association registrar: the individual who signed the interjurisdictional agreement between New York and Ontario (as well as with most other signatory jurisdictions across North America) was discovered, about a year and a half ago, to have no signing authority. All agreements were rendered null and void, and no cross-border recognition exists from that time to this.

Who pays? Us, that’s who. Which only makes sense, right?

And please do not ask us about our brother.

We might as well be writers, for all the good our license does us.

If only we could write as well as Winter. That’s the rub.

Our own little “Wyoming:” how did Winter get so good? Was it his copy editor, Shaun Oakey, who must be credited? After all, it’s Shaun who, at Winter’s insistence, left the apostrophes off so many words. To Shaun then we give our praise: Shaun, you did a good job. We only found one typo in the whole book, on page 149: you allow “hapse” when we feel sure you mean “hasp” (Hackapik, in the same sentence, is correctly spelled).

Swallowed by the A-void: March 17 comes and goes

March 15th, 2010

Sometimes we at the ALLDERBLOB wish we’d chosen a less-well-entrenched holiday to try to displace than St Patrick’s. It’s one thing to be “bigger than Jesus” (like the Beatles on Dec. 25 1966), it’s quite another to drive out the Saint who drove the snakes out of Ireland on March 17.

Fact is, after several years at the ol’ blobbing machine [trans: "typewriter" --ed.] we’d be hard-pressed to say we’re any closer to our goal.

Doubt us? Have you seen streets in your city closed for the ALLDERBLOB parade? Have bars in your neighbourhood substituted “Alldergrog” for green beer on March 17? Have the coattail-riding hacks (A.K.A. any writer with a parent already established in the industry, by our definition) been driven out of town, like the snakes they are?

No? Well, then.

Fact is, in the face of such utter failure, it’s been hard to keep it up, here at the ol’ blob.

Yes, you heard correctly: the ALLDERBLOB has trouble keeping it up.

Most of you at this point will be tut-tutting and scratching your head and muttering sympathetically about “medical solutions” and “not giving up” and so forth. And yes, we hear you. Fact is, the message box here at the ol’ blob brims with your offers daily: offers for the purchase of Vagina, of Callous, of Leave-it-to, as well as other, more “natural” solutions to our soft-hardedness (we get other messages, too, of course–invitations to purchase drugs like Prosaic and Scenics for example. No one could say the ALLDERBLOB is not a hub of the “new social media.”). But to all of these offers we have been firm: the answer is “no.”

Fact is, we really don’t care anymore. But what’s worse, we don’t care that we don’t care. It really doesn’t bother us that we can’t keep it up at the ol’ blob. Who can keep it up, for Crissakes? Crazy Biker Chick? ARC? Afterbirth of the Cool? No, no and no. Nobody keeps it up anymore. Not like the old days (except that Cranks guy. He’s still pumping it out. How’s he do that? We don’t know).

Oh, we remember the old days. We remember them well. We remember the sunny mornings at the Only Cafe, the cool breezes, the smell of damp and rotting leaves on the walk through Phinn Park. We remember how the traffic lights all stayed green for us, before. We remember writing our name in fresh concrete and thinking that something, at least, would be forever.

The real world, in real time

The real world, in real time

So what happened?

What changed?

Answer? It’s complicated.

For starters, there’s the void. Yes, people died. Surprised? Not us. People have always died, thank god (“Make way for Ducklings,” and all that (and R.I.P. Robert McCloskey)).

So not death, but some other void: the “A-void.” We call it the a-void so alphabetically, it comes first–but it’s first in other ways too. It’s the first questions we won’t answer. Heck, we won’t even pose these particular questions. That’s the first thing we won’t do. The a-void is first on any list of questions anyone wouldn’t want posed. But not only that, but harder, and stranger still, the a-void yawns before any writing project, here at the ALLDERBLOB these days, swallowing all good intentions, if not good ideas, before they can even be voiced.

It’s because of the a-void we can’t keep it up so great around here. The a-void swallows clarity of purpose, and principled stances, and drive, but it’s worse than that. The a-void eats language. Who can speak with any precision in the face of the a-void? Some might say the “a” stands for apathy, but who cares?

We care. We really do. It sucks to care as much as we do, because it just makes the a-void yawn wider, and with greater sullenness. We may have to change the name of the ol’ blob to THE SULLEN YAWN. And we may just do that, if things don’t come around ’round here.

So. The ALLDERBLOB’s another year older. And another year dumber. Our silence measures the victory of the a-void, but we haven’t given up. Not yet anyway.

How to fight back? The best we can muster for now is a list. The following sets into stone and mortar [pixels, to be precise --ed.] our tasks for the year to come (i.e. ALLDERBLOB 5):

1. DESTROY THE REPUTATION OF J.D. SALINGER (this should not be hard, thankfully)
2. APOLOGIZE TO JACK LAKEY (for chrissakes, the guy doesn’t even own a car. Who are we to judge?)
3. SHARE COFFEE AND A FEW LAUGHS OVER “OLD TIMES” WITH CASE OOTES (20 votes? 20 votes is a lot. When did we ever get 20 votes?)
4. APOLOGIZE PROPERLY TO JACOB RICHLER’S NO.1 FAN, “USAgirl” (she likes him, she really likes him. Who are we to judge?)
5. DETERMINE WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO JOHN KENNEDY TOOLE. FIND A PUBLISHER FOR OUR MANUSCRIPT, NOTES TOWARD A LAST NOVEL BY JOHN KENNEDY TOOLE AS EDITED BY WALKER PERCY (help settle the question once and for all: was Toole the “tool” of Percy?) (and, find a buyer for our autographed copy of A Confederacy of Dunces)
6. RE-ESTABLISH CONTACT WITH OUR ARCH-NEMESIS (who for the time being must remain nameless) (you know who you are!) (care to drop a line?)
7. GET A TWO-YEAR-OLD TO START TALKING MORE (you know who you are!)
8. GET A 16-YEAR-OLD TO START TALKING MORE (do you know who you are?)
9. TURN 51, FOR CHRISSAKES (with dignity).

Nine’s good. Not perfect, perhaps. Not a dozen, certainly. But good. Thrice three, as they say. Two cubed plus one. Salinger wrote nine stories; we have nine points. It won’t be long before Salinger’s reputation’s destroyed, at this rate. Won’t be long before the a-void’s vanquished. We’re off to a good start.

David Miller declines to seek re-election for a third term, ALLDERBLOB takes the hard questions

September 25th, 2009

In a moment that will surely warm the cockles of Royson James’s heart, Toronto Mayor David “Broom-broom” Miller today announced that he has had enough of the mayoral duties, and will not be following through on his oft-touted aim of being a “three term mayor.”

At the end of his press conference, Mayor Miller made the unusual request for “courtesy,” whatever that is, and said he would not be taking questions.

Fortunately, we have the ALLDERBLOB. Royson, Ed, Enzo, and Marcus, not to mention Jeff and Antonia, you can direct your questions to us. We will answer them for you.

For example, consider the following hypothetical scenario:

Royson James (Toronto Star and Car Advertiser): Is it true, Mayor, that you have failed the people of Toronto and are now slinking out the back door with your tail between your legs?

Mayor Miller: That is a gross exaggeration (lowers trousers, turns around). As you can see, and contrary to rumour, I have no tail.

Ed Keenen Keenan (eye weekly and Car Advertiser): When you won your last election, you said the easy bicycle infrastructure had been installed by your predecessor, Mayor Last Man, but that you would be taking on the difficult projects. Yet today, the bikeplan is dead in the water. What have you done for the city’s most vulnerable road users?

Mayor Miller: Cyclists in Toronto have it easier than at any time in the city’s history. Today on Bloor street, many personal friends of mine are willing to literally lift a cyclist from the road and carry them along for a certain distance on their automobiles. Bikeplan? That’s just paper. I’ll give you a bikeplan you can believe in (grabs Ed by the neck and strikes his skull repeatedly with bare knuckles). Nyuh! Nyuh! Nyuh!.

NOW Magazine and Car Advertiser): Mayor! Mayor! NOW magazine readers want to know about your support for sex workers!

Mayor Miller: Support? I’ll show you support (activities of Mayor Miller are blocked from view by Don Wanagas’s thick tweed coat, which is whipped out and held in front of the Mayor’s lower half).

Marcus Gee (Toronto Globe and Mail and Car Advertiser): Pardon the loutish shenanigans of my lowbrow colleagues, Mayor Miller. My question is far more germaine to the real concerns of “real” Torontonians. It’s been said that you are a member of the NDP and a socialist. What are you personally going to do to refute these nefarious rumours, and to ensure that no socialist ever be elected to the mayor’s office in the future?

Mayor Miller: To answer that question, I would like to turn to a member of my Executive Council, Councillor Paula Fletcher. Paula?

Paula Fletcher: A politician’s past should not have a bearing on their activities of the present. That said, when Mr. Miller launched his campaign I was among the first to warn him he’d better quit the NDP and disavow his connection with them. I can tell you, no socialist will get anywhere near the mayor’s office in this city. Not now and not in the future. The mayor’s office will be relegated to the dustbin of history before that happens.

Antonia Zerbisias (Toronto Star and Car Advertiser): Sir, I have a question.

Don Wanagas: I’m sorry, that’s all the time we have for today.

Antonia: But sir, what about the Palestinian people? What about the small animals? What about Building Seven? Was it a controlled demolition?

Chris Phibbs: You heard the man, lady. Beat it.

(Phibbs and Wanagas form a human phalanx against the rush of photographers and reporters. Mayor Miller climbs on his waiting Segway and wheels from the room).

Jeff Gray (Toronto Globe and Mail and Car Advertiser): (arrives at back) Wha’ happen? Did I miss anything?

End of Press Conference.

Toronto covers up after cyclist death on “Blood” Street

September 4th, 2009

There’s a mystery wrapped up in these pictures:

Cadmus photos

Chapter 1: An innocent fireplug on Bloor Street in Toronto gets a paint job. “Nothing to see here, sir. Move along.”

Darcy Allan Sheppard, RIP

Darcy Allan Sheppard, RIP

Chapter 2: A roadside memorial for a slain cyclist, Darcy Allan Sheppard. Photographed during the aftermath of a cyclist’s memorial this past Wednesday that saw a thousand observers take over the intersection of Bloor and University at the centre of Toronto, where Sheppard was killed in traffic on Monday night.

Fresh paint over fresh blood on Bloor Street

Fresh paint over fresh blood on Bloor Street

Chapter 3: Sheppard was killed after being scraped from the side of the speeding car he’d been holding on to, reportedly battered against a tree, a fireplug and a mailbox, and then run over by the back wheels of the car itself. Former Attorney General Michael Bryant was the driver. Navigator was the PR company that Bryant contacted from jail in the aftermath of being arrested and charged. Invest Toronto was the City of Toronto agency Bryant was hired to run (at $300k per year) by his fellow Harvard alumnus Mayor David Miller after quitting public office. The city sure acted fast to have the fireplug repainted. Wonder who ordered it?

More than words spilt on Bloor St

September 2nd, 2009

On Monday night we were at a party celebrating the launch of issue number three of Dandyhorse magazine. As our loyal readers will know, we share in the glory of our former Urban Design Expert (sorry about calling you a cascade of detritus in a previous post, Jake. You know we don’t mean it and we wish you every success), who has a short piece (cribbed from these pages) in the issue on the subject of bikelanes along Bloor Danforth. In a nutshell Allderdice claims bikelanes are in order on the street, but that whatever happens it’s imperative the city not destroy the part of the highway that already works well for all road users: the stretch of Danforth from Pape Ave to Broadview. In fact he advocates (and we at the ALLDERBLOB back him on this) an extension of the road-striping east of Pape all the way to Victoria Park Ave, a simple move that would turn all the Danforth into a safe and pleasant “mall” for all: cyclists, drivers and shoppers on foot.

Huzzah. Hooray for Jake. Hooray for the ALLDERBLOB. Hooray for Dandyhorse. Great party, Tammy and Arlene.

Meanwhile that same night, another cyclist was murdered in Toronto. On Bloor Street.

So much for words. Fuck words.

At around 9:45 pm, on Monday August 31, Darcy Allan Sheppard, age 33, father of four, a bike messenger, was killed in a most brutal way in front of many witnesses. The murder has claimed the attention of the nation. You can read stories about it in the Toronto Globe and Mail and Car Advertiser, in the Toronto Star and Car Advertiser, in the National Post and Car Advertiser, as well as in the New York Times and Car Advertiser, as well as most other papers in Canada. It’s front page stuff around the world in fact: try The Times and Car Advertiser of India, for example.

What makes the story shocking is the cold-blooded ruthlessness of the murder, as well as the fact that now under arrest and charged with “criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death” is Michael Bryant, the Harvard-educated former Attorney General of Ontario, former Member of Provincial Parliament, father of two and a stalwart foe of “stunt driving.” He is quoted in the New York Times article saying:

Among his targets were street-racing motorists. In 2007 he gave the police the power to seize and destroy cars modified for racing even if no charges were lodged against their owners.

After describing such cars as being as dangerous as explosives, he said, “We will crush your car, we will crush the parts.”

Later that year the province passed a bill to deem any vehicle traveling more than 50 kilometers an hour, or 31 miles an hour, faster than the speed limit to be racing. The legislation, under which more than 10,000 charges have been brought, allows the police to immediately seize vehicles and suspend licenses.

Note that the “explosive” in this case [our emphasis] was not a souped up street racing machine, but a normal old luxury vehicle, a Saab convertable.

A couple weeks ago we published an ARC press release on the murder of cyclist Tevane Sean Lennon, which said, in part:


We speak of “gunning the engine,” and the cowardice implicit in the gunning down of this man is a demonstration of a power relationship, just as much as if he had been driven into and run over.

How much more clear can this power relationship be than when the former attorney general of Ontario, in his Saab convertable, drives over an off-duty bike messenger?

Okay, it’s a sad day for Bryant too. It’s likely a career-killer. Regardless of the results of the impending trial and regardless of the valient efforts already underway to smear the dead cyclist (read here how Sheppard had outstanding warrants from Alberta for writing cheques to himself, and watch this to learn that according to one witness, Sheppard escalated the violence), Bryant will forever have this death on his hands, his own personal Chappaquiddick.

He’s trying. He’ll have the best legal council money can buy, and it does not take a cynic to imagine a future where he walks free, acquitted of all charges. If convicted, Bryant could receive a sentence of about two years. In the meantime he’s issued a self-serving statement, in a few terse words, expressing “sincere condolences” for the family of his victim.

There’s only one way this most powerful individual will ever be able truly redeem himself–that is if he abandons his car-worship and joins with ARC and others in the call for better bicycle infrastructure across all of Toronto. He could start by pushing his fellow Harvard crony at City Hall, Mayor David Miller, to demand a bikelane be built across the spine of Toronto, along the very street where Darcy Allan Sheppard was killed: Bloor-Danforth.

We will wait to hear if Michael Bryant ever utters the words “Take the Tooker” to judge the “sincerity” of his “condolences” to Darcy Allan Sheppard’s family.

UPDATE: ARC calls for police to be removed from the Bryant case: See TorontoCranks for more.

UPDATE 2: Dave Meslin, founder of Toronto Cyclist Union, agrees with Toronto Police Sheppard was not a cyclist but a pedestrian. See Mez dispenser for more.