An Interview with Sandra Scofield

Sandra Scofield is the author of seven novels, including Beyond Deserving, a finalist for the National Book Award, and A Chance to See Egypt, winner of a Best Fiction Prize from the Texas Institute of Letters.

She has written a memoir, Occasions of Sin, and a book of essays about her family, Mysteries of Love and Grief: Reflections on a Plainswoman’s Life. She is also the author of The Scene Book: A Primer for the Fiction Writer and in the fall Penguin will release her book The Last Draft: A Novelist’s Guide to Revision.

We sat down on the internet to talk about her new book of short stories, Swim: Stories of the Sixties, just released by Ashland’s Wellstone Press.

EB: Swim is a trilogy of stories about a twenty-something woman who negotiates dangerous travel—hitching, crashing at the ranch of a bullfighter in Mexico, and with two young soldiers on leave in Mykonos. How did you come to write the stories?

SS: Each one began in a different way. All took years of brooding, sketching, writing, fussing. Still, I think a story always starts with an image or impulse you can’t escape. In the case of these stories, those images became part of who I am, and as I slipped into old age I saw my young self with great empathy; I wanted to figure her out. A friend had saved my hundred+ letters to her during the 60’s, and in 2005 she gave them to me. (I’m going to be posting some on my website starting in July: sandrajscofield.com) They are packed with detailed observation and also with a naive, passionate, earnest scavenging for stories. In my letters–and they are long–everything is a story. I was keeping a journal, writing those letters, and, I think, memorizing a lot of life as I lived it. I can’t say what a gift her stewardship and generosity is.

More specifically, I’ll tell you that “Swim” began as an extension of my Mykonos notes that I brought back; I worked on them in 1968, when I was studying theatre in Illinois. Some years later I tried a story. But it wasn’t until a few years ago that I picked up those old efforts and saw what the story was, and that the soldiers’ stories were the vehicle for it.

“An Easy Pass” was clearly an outgrowth of the dozens of letters from Mexico, full of detailed observations, and also an almost hysterical fascination with bullfighters (especially the young beginning ones). I had done a lot of what I think of as “younger” Mexico stories. They are archived. I did one a few years ago for Image, too.

“Oh Baby Oh” was in a way the most personal of the stories, because it arose not just out of some experience (none of the stories are “true”) but some thread of resentment toward a whole string of young men who wanted to advise me on how to be a better person.

In the last couple of years I found myself going back to the stories, fussing with them, and, if I can say this, falling in love with them in a way I never have with a story before. I longed to see them between covers, and I asked Jonah to read them and tell me what he thought. His enthusiasm was such a relief!

EB: The main character, who is called Baby, keeps a writer’s journal and carries a copy of The Stranger. It makes me wonder what pieces of your own experiences might be reflected in her stories—and how she is like the younger you?

SS: Well, sure, I kept a journal and carried Camus around. (I just read Alice Kaplan’s Searching for the Stranger, a kind of biography of The Stranger; it’s a marvelous read.) And I had a “fall” when my hair was growing out. (Ouch.) I hitchihiked from NYC to SF. I don’t think I was capable of just being, just doing; I always had to interpret life, day to day. At the heart of all my ruminations was my conviction that no one understood me, which is probably true, since I didn’t either. Guys either liked me or couldn’t stand me, based, I think, on my own attraction to them. If I didn’t like a guy–jocks, slick guys, big shots, etc.–I was snotty. I felt that all relationships, friendships, however short or long, were my choices. I didn’t think I was pretty but I could get a guy talking about things he’d never thought about before. And I was joyful, eager. I didn’t expect anything in return; sex was never a negotiation in my mind. I suspect I shocked a lot of boys–well aren’t they boys, in college?–because I also brought a lot of joy, a sense of fun, a freedom to sex and friendship. I was never seduced; nobody could make me do what I didn’t want to do before they even thought of it. I felt superior but on the other hand I was kind of generous. I wasn’t looking for any kind of attachment. I lived with someone in Chicago because I was broke, but regretted it. I wouldn’t say I had a real boyfriend, a real lover, until I met my first husband in a crazy sort of accident in Ithaca NY. I was in an acting troupe at Cornell, and Al had come to see an old Coast Guard buddy who lived in my house. We were like magnets. My whole life went off-track and it was years before I had any kind of stability, but those years with him were the electrical storm of my life. I wrote about him in Mysteries of Love and Grief, which is made up of essays, and he’s the basis for “Fish” in my novel Beyond Deserving, which was a NBA finalist, but mostly I’ve kept him to myself. For one thing, I’ve been happily married since 1975 to a man I wouldn’t dream of writing about. I wouldn’t want to analyze us or betray his privacy. And I think my stories are all far in the past. My present life is totally mundane, happily so.

EB: Many of the characters—not all, but many, seem on the verge of losing their innocence and learning to make their way in the world. For me, Baby seems most aware in the middle story, “An Easy Pass.” What trajectory did you in mind for the order of the three pieces?

SS: I knew “Swim” was last because I wanted its ending to end the book. The other two? I agree about your assessment, but I had “An Easy Pass” first until Jonah suggested we switch the first two stories. I took his advice and came to agree completely.

EB: The prose of the stories is taut—and especially the sentences, which ironically reminded me of Hemingway. Your sentences create a unique, almost aerobic, pace to the stories and I found myself wondering about the craft of these. Do you sometime revise a sentence several times until it feels just right?

SS: I think the story is in every sentence. And every sentence leads to the next. It’s slow work. Deliberate, and largely aural. Remember I’m of an age of reader who grew up on long novels with beautiful prose, lot of winding sentences in some, taut in others. I would never think of Hemingway as kin to me, but I adored James Salter’s work and feel he had an influence on me. As did Camus. Mavis Gallant. Jane Bowles. Jean Giono. Robert Stone. Rebecca West. And remember I grew up Catholic–boarding school Catholic–and language was a huge part of the practice of Catholicism, and of expectations of Catholic school students.

EB: I was intrigued by the stylistic choice you made not to signal dialogue with quote marks or italics. That seemed to signal remembered speech to me, or some attempt to disorient the reader. Did you have something particular in mind?

SS: You seem to have identified my intention well. In a way, everything is a dream, a fiction; the stories are outside of time; in another way, Baby doesn’t connect with anyone, and dialogue is connection. I certainly wasn’t trying to be precious or anything; it just felt inevitable and right.

EB: The nineteen sixties seems to be perpetually interesting to readers—both those who lived them and those who know them from history. What is the attraction of the sixties?

SS: It’s wild, isn’t it! All of a sudden, SIXTIES books–from the New Yorker, from the New York Times, and others. I just got the New Yorker one and am reading James Baldwin, whose great essay, “Letter from a Region in My Mind” blew the lid off the staid New Yorker. I guess there are lots of us with roots in that time. I also think something about the awful politics right now sends us back to the conflicts and inventions of the sixties. It was exciting to be young then, and scary, too. Baby, of course, isn’t involved.

EB: Looking at the cover art. “The Weight of Water,” by southern Oregon artist Abby Lazerow reminded me that you are also a painter. Is your painting like your writing?

SS: Ed, that is a wild question. I’ve never considered it. Maybe. I don’t follow many rules, but I spent a couple of years learning them. I’m more interested in color than in form. I like certain kinds of precision, and then I love wildly free gestures, too. Every painting is a discovery. I have an idea, I might even be working from a photograph, but no painting ever turns out like something I imagined or planned. Don’t misunderstand: I consider myself to have a lot of deliberateness, of control, but I like to break it open at some point. I’m much influenced by British Modernists like Ben Nicholson, Christopher Wood, Joanna Carrington, Mary Fedden, Margaret Mellis. Lots of wit and freedom and interpretation of what is apprehended. I’m making a second trip to St. Ives to paint in October, and will do a workshop on the Modernist landscape.

I started so late, I had to make a choice: settle on a style and try to get deft at it; or widen my range, and reach for discovery, luck, freedom. So now that I think about it, I’d say I’m a hell of a lot more controlled as a writer than as a painter. But as a writer, I’m still not willing to follow many rules. And by the way, one thing I love about painting is that THERE ARE NO WORDS.

EB: You are also coming out with a book The Last Draft about revision. Can you tell us a little about that?

SS: December, from Penguin. It would have been dead in the water if I had called it: Sandra’s Poetics of the Novel, but that’s a lot of what it is. It’s what I’ve learned the hard way. Nobody taught me to write a novel. I never took a novel workshop or class. I don’t have an MFA. I learned to write by reading, by writing, by revising. So I decided that if the world needed anymore writing books, one would be on revision of the novel. I think of myself as speaking one to one to the reader, a kind of coach and cheerleader; I mean to be encouraging and demystifying, but I’m also serious. There’s a lot in that book. It’s really step by step how to describe what you wanted to do in your first draft, and how you tried for it; how to analyze what’s strong and what’s not in that first effort; a deepening of your vision and your sense of direction; a plan for redoing or integrating old material with new writing. It all comes from my teaching and analysis of how my instruction and exercises and guidance worked. Kisses to my students! Someone could sort of whip through the explanations and exercises and do a revision. Or someone who really wants to be a writer could use it as a guide to a whole journey of learning. Janet Burroway very generously said of it, “We need this book.” I guess that’s what I thought, after over twenty years of working with aspiring novelists. Now I’m trying to write a new novel and all I write rings in my ears! It’s helpful, yes; it’s also humbling. Writing a novel is huge and hard.

EB: Any final words of advice for writers?

SS: I don’t know that this is advice, but I want to say that not everyone is going to write a bestseller and even a big house paying a lot can’t make it happen very often. The work of writing is going to be happy if it makes you happy to do it. What happens next is a big duck shoot. With “Swim” I knew I wanted to work with Jonah because I knew he loved my writing and these stories and I knew we would be a great team. I chose to publish with a small press without trying for a big one, and it’s been more fun, more productive, happier than any experience I’ve had in publishing. I hope readers will buy my book and tell others about it but I’m not putting a kid through college on the proceeds. If we made a little money I’d probably do another book this way. More Stories from the Sixties, anyone?

EB: Thanks for talking with us. It’s good to have you back in the area.

SS: This is so nice. I think what a writer really really wants is for someone to want to talk about her stories!! So here we are.

Posted in Ideas and Opinions, Interviews | Comments Off on An Interview with Sandra Scofield

Rhoticity within American English a guest post by Zachary Cagle

Zachary Cagle is a senior at Southern Oregon University, where he will be graduating this spring with a degree in English. After graduation, he plans to pursue a career as a writer, and this essay is his first published piece.

Dating back to the 15th century, non-rhotic speech (a variety of English in which /r/ is not pronounced unless followed by a vowel) originated in Southeast England in a handful of Old and Middle English words. By the seventeenth and eighteenth century, the postvocalic /r/ began to be deleted systematically, and by the 1790’s, postvocalic /r/-less pronunciation became common within London; although, it wasn’t until the early 19th century that this Southern British pronunciation became the British prestige standard and, subsequently, a fully established non-rhotic variety. However, due to the rising popularity of the /r/-less pronunciation in the early seventeenth century, as the English began to immigrate to America the majority of settlers came from areas of non-rhoticity. Ergo, the areas of Boston, New York, Richmond, Savannah, and Charleston all became /r/-less, with the only exception being Philadelphia. Consequently, the majority of the Northeastern and Southern areas of what would later become the United States of America were largely influenced by this non-rhotic variety, which ultimately became the accepted standard and remained so until the 1940’s. In essence, the end of World War Two triggered a shift in prestige from non-rhotic to rhotic speech within American English, resulting in a transition from /r/-less to /r/-full speech within the North and later the South due to a variety of socioeconomic/regional factors.

In contrast to the adoption of the British English non-rhotic standard in the seventeenth century, the change in prestige that occurred after World War Two was a result of the declining influence and prestige of England in America. This change in prestige, rather than evolving slowly over many generations, was abrupt, occurring first in the North with the South following suit shortly after, and resulted in a loss of the /r/-less pronunciation within three generations. However, the social motivation behind this transition differed between the Northeastern and Southern populations. In the North, this realization of the rhotic norm occurred within the upper middle classes and was, therefore, a case of change from above, whereby r-lessness received a negative connotation and consequently low social evaluation. Whereas in the South, due to a history of /r/-less speech gaining prestige among the upper classes with the spread of the plantation system from 1750 onward, the change to /r/-fullness was and is, consequently, a case of change from below – both below the level of consciousness and moving from lower to higher social classes.

The question, therefore, is: how did this transition occur systematically and, secondly, how did such drastic change occur in such a short span of time? Two studies – one conducted by Crawford Feagin on the dynamics of sound change within the South, and a second study conducted by Thomas Schönweitz on the role of gender and the postvocalic /r/ in the South –provide answers to these questions. And, despite focusing primarily on the loss of the postvocalic /r/-less pronunciation within the Southern United States, they nonetheless provide insight into some of the factors that likely played a role in this transition within the North as well.

In the study titled “The Dynamics of a Sound Change in Southern States English: From r-less to r-full in Three Generations,” Feagin examines the changes that were taking place in the realization of /r/ within the community of Anniston, Alabama. Using the interviews of ten informants “divided by age, sex, social class, and – for the older informants – urban/rural” (Feagin 130), Feagin deconstructs the linguistic ordering of change – i.e., the /r/-shift – and examines it for four linguistic environments representing the various degrees of rhotic speech (three vocalic environments, one postvocalic), after which he extracts and analyses all words containing potential /r/ in said environments. For example, “Environment 1. Stressed vocalic r followed by a consonant as in work, person, university, Environment 2. Stressed vocalic r in word-final position as in fir, her, were” (132-133), etc. In essence, Feagin’s findings corroborated the former prediction by linguist C.J. Bailey regarding language change:
Change appears – variably – first in restricted environments, begins slowly, then simultaneously speeds up and expands to more and more environments, going to completion in first one environment then another, until the change has gone through all linguistic environments for all members of the community (qtd. in Feagin 132).

Accordingly, Feagin identifies four stages regarding the degree to which an individual integrates rhotic pronunciation within their own speech: “Stage 1. No vocalic or postvocalic tautosyllabic r at all, Stage 2. Low occurrence of r in Environment I, stressed vocalic r followed by tautosyllabic consonant, with even lower rates of r-occurrence in Environments III and IV, Stage 3. Categorical pronunciation of r in Environment I, with rapidly increasing proportions elsewhere, Stage 4. Nearly 100% r in all positions” (137). These stages illustrate the way in which the transition from /r/-less to /r/-full speech occurs systematically.

Before delving into Feagin’s analysis of the social ordering of change, it is important to first address the study by Schönweitz, titled “Gender and Postvocalic /r/ in the American South: A Detailed Socioregional Analysis.” In this study, Schönweitz looks at the correlation between sex, ethnicity, age, education, social status, and region with regard to an individual’s level of tendency towards standard pronunciation features within speech. In essence, Schönweitz set out to determine whether the general consensus regarding these traits, which is prevalent in the results of various small studies conducted in the past, holds true for all of the Southern states, and whether /r/-fullness is observed in a variety of social groups in all the Southern regions concerned. These characteristics are highlighted in a study conducted by Levine and Crocket (1966):

Women, young people, the newer residents, and higher status persons take the national /r/-norm as their speech model, while the linguistic behavior of males, older people, long term residents, and blue-collar respondents is referred to a southern prestige norm – the /r/-less pronunciation of the coastal plain (qtd. in Schönweitz 260).

Furthermore, most studies also showed that those with higher educations tended to be /r/-full, that the higher the social class the more likely for individuals to be /r/-less, and that whites tend to be more /r/-full when compared to blacks.

Utilizing information on more than 100 words and phrases collected from more than 1,100 interviews of informants, which was conducted during the late 1960’s and throughout the 1970’s for the Linguistic Atlas of the Gulf States (LAGS: a linguistic map describing the dialects of the American Gulf states), Schönweitz used multiple programs to analyze the data in order to determine if the characteristics of rhotic pronunciation were an atlas-wide phenomenon; i.e., a pattern seen throughout the majority of the Southern states and, therefore, not confined to the restricted environments of previous studies. It was discovered that some of the overall patterns found in the LAGS area – regarding the aforementioned social factors – are not present when the data is broken down by sector; however, this doesn’t mean that they didn’t still have a considerable role within the transition, such as the case with social class. In other words, some social factors may not be atlas-wide according to Schönweitz analysis, but they still played a significant role within the transition from /r/-less to /r/-full speech within both the South and the North. Therefore, these findings should be taken with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, Schönweitz analysis found that only sex, ethnicity, and age showed consistent atlas-wide patterns with regard to rhoticity and the pronunciation of /r/. The results of the study are as follows: females are more rhotic than males, whites more than blacks, and young more than old.

In relation to Schönweitz findings, Feagin’s analysis of the social ordering of change provides some insight into how this transition occurred so rapidly and why it was, and still is, characterized by the social factors illustrated by Schönweitz and others. In one southern family studied by Feagin, the grandmother showed 0% /r/ pronunciation while the grandson showed 91%; however, interestingly, they were both from the upper classes. According to Feagin, there are a variety of factors that likely contributed to the rapid transition, which emanated from the general trend regarding the change to rhoticity, especially within the South; that is to say, “the change began in the urban working class…spread out to the rural working class and welled up socially to the upper class teenagers” (Feagin 138). Given the level of prestige associated with /r/-less speech within the South, the transition originated with teenage girls in the urban working class, which, as Feagin points out, adheres to the normal pattern in developed countries in the west with regard to language change. However, the conclusion of World War Two brought prosperity to the South and, subsequently, new opportunities that gradually influenced speech through social change. And when these effects became prominent, it sparked a rapid transition from /r/-less to /r/-full speech due to the fact that this transition – as a result of a variety of social factors – now had influence on the upper classes. Accordingly, Feagin postulates that there were four factors that likely contributed to this rapid change: a rise in association of /r/-lessness with femininity; the amount of contact between whites and blacks decreased; an increase of mixing with people from other areas; and more travel, which exposed children to a larger variety of speech.

Looking specifically at the factor of ethnicity, Feagin suggests that “Southern White /r/-lessness might have been reinforced by the /r/-lessness of the large black population” (Feagin 139). In essence, prior to World War One Southern upper-class children had close relations with blacks due to their presence as servants within households. However, after World War Two “contact with blacks was curtailed, both because of black migration to Detroit and other Northern cities and because of the institution of minimum wage laws” (140). As a result, the majority of children studied during this period were almost 100% /r/-full, while those who still had black servants were noticeably more /r/-less.

In looking at these studies, it becomes apparent why any remaining non-rhotic speech within American English is currently typically found amongst older Southern and Northeastern speakers, and even then only in a few select areas, with the exception of a few dialects from New England, Boston, Main, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. In essence, the current nature of non-rhotic speech within American English is due to the fact that this transition began amongst the youth – largely due to a variety of social factors that arose at the end of World War Two, as aforementioned. However, one question remains: Why then is non-rhoticity a staple feature of African American Vernacular? In short, according to a study by John Myhill, much like how the rise of /r/-full speech had ties to the relations between blacks and whites, the retention of non-rhoticity among African Americans is directly correlated to their level of integration and association with the white community. Hence, the more interaction between African Americans and whites the lower the probability of /r/-deletion, and vice versa.

While the topic of Rhoticity and the transition that occurred may seem daunting and overly complex due to the myriad of factors at play, in the end, they are merely a handful of interworking socioeconomic/regional factors that had the combined effect of bringing forth a transition from /r/-less to /r/-full speech. This transition ultimately emanated from a decline in England’s influence and prestige within the United States at the end of World War Two. And, consequently, a shift in prestige occurred that swept the Northeastern and Southern United states, which was a change from above in the North and below in the South with regard to the factor of socio economic status and the realization of the rhotic norm.

Works Consulted

    Elliott, Nancy C., A Sociolinguistic Study Of Rhoticity In American Film Speech From The 1930S To The 1970’s. n.p.: Dissertation Abstracts International, 2000. Art Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 12 Mar. 2016.

    Feagin, Crawford. “The Dynamics Of Sound Change In Southern States English: From R-Less To R-Ful In Three Generations.” Development and Diversity: Language Variation across Time and Space. 129-146. Dallas: Summer Inst. of Ling. & Univ. of Texas at Arlington, 1990. MLA International Bibliography.
    Web. 12 Mar. 2016.

    Lass, Roger (1999). “Phonology and Morphology”. In Lass, Roger. The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 56–186.

    MacNeil, Robert, and William Cran. “Toward a Standard: Putting the “R” in “American”” Do You Speak American? New York: Doubleday, 2005. 49-87. Print.

    Myhill, John. “Postvocalic /R/ As an Index of Integration into the BEV Speech Community.” American Speech: A Quarterly Of Linguistic Usage 63.3 (1988): 203-213. MLA International Bibliography. Web.
    12 Mar. 2016.

    Schönweitz, Thomas. “Gender And Postvocalic /R/ In The American South: A Detailed Socioregional Analysis.” American Speech: A Quarterly Of Linguistic Usage 76.3 (2001): 259-285. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 12 Mar. 2016.

Posted in Language | Comments Off on Rhoticity within American English a guest post by Zachary Cagle

An Interview with Michael Copperman, author of Teacher: Two Years in the Mississippi Delta

author photo: Ed Croom

From 2002 to 2004, Michael Copperman taught fourth grade in the Mississippi Delta through Teach For America. Today, he teaches writing to students from diverse backgrounds—primarily low-income and first-generation college students—at the University of Oregon. Michael also frontlines The Oregon Writers’ Collective, which fosters a vibrant writing community where emerging writers can connect with one another, discover audiences, and develop their craft.

His writing has received awards from the Munster Literature Centre, the Oregon Arts Commission, Oregon Literary Arts, and Bread Loaf Writers’ Conference, among others. Some of the places his work appears include The Sun, The Oxford American, Guernica, Creative Nonfiction, and Copper Nickle.

Michael’s recent memoir Teacher: Two Years in the Mississippi Delta illuminates his experiences teaching in rural black public schools in Mississippi, depicting clashes between educational ideals and realities. Mario Alberto Zambrano (Lotería: A Novel) called the book “heartbreaking and crucial,” and Katie Williams (The Space Between Trees) called it “a work of tremendous skill, honesty, and heart.”

Allie Sipe is a senior at Southern Oregon University who will graduate at the end of June, after which she will teach in Rhode Island through Teach For America.

AS: Tell us a little about your background. How did you come to serve as a corps member for Teach For America in the Mississippi Delta?

MC: I graduated Stanford, where I’d been a college wrestler and also the chair of the Hapa Issues Forum, a multiracial Asian-American advocacy group—that is, I was driven and social justice oriented.  TFA sounded like a good next step, a worthy cause.

AS: Can you talk about translating your experiences with Teach For America into writing a memoir? What did that process look like?

MC:  It took me many, many years to write well about the experiences—I needed the clarifying distance of time to be able to reflect and reckon with what the experience came to mean.  I wrote long emails to family and friends when I was there which was valuable source material—and I wrote many of the pieces of the memoir discretely, publishing piece by piece.

AS: Did you discover anything intriguing or surprising about your time in the Delta when revisiting your experiences to write your memoir?

MC: I found that while I thought I was full of regret and guilt, what I was finally experiencing was longing to be back there with the kids I taught, who I cared about so much that I had been unable to let go of.  I found out that perhaps I had been a good teacher after all.

AS: When reading your book, I was particularly struck by the gap between educators’ idealistic goals for students and the incredibly difficult realities those students endure. At one point, you refer to this as teaching “children with so much promise and so little opportunity.” Can you speak a little more about that?

MC: I went to Mississippi imagining that I could remake the world—take the burden and consequences of slavery and racism and segregation and poverty and create justice, which is to say, give deserving children a chance to learn and so realize the American dream through education.  That proved far more difficult than I knew, as teaching is an art, and while what teachers do does resonate out of sight, it does so invisibly through years and years.  I left believing I’d failed.

AS: One of my favorite parts of your book was reading the notes that students wrote to you and left in your mailbox, as well as reading the poems students wrote in class. Especially in the poetry assignment where students used metaphors to write about their past, present, and future, students’ authentic voices came to life. Why was poetry such an appropriate vessel for students’ voices and stories?

MC:  Those kids, who spoke AAVE in the particular Delta variation of Southern idiomatic English—well, they had style and verve and an ear for rhythm, and they knew the world they inhabited, which was rough and bleak at times, but also beautiful, and richer for the intensity of their experiences.  Their voices were dazzling because poetry freed them from the burdens of grammar conventions which were not native, and because poetry, when freed from the stuffy halls of academia, values life and affirms it, raw and vital and present.

AS: Near the end of your book, you write that, “Teach For America’s merit is that it bridges the gap between worlds.” After reading your book, your work now as a professor at the University of Oregon who works with low-income, first generation students seems to be a commitment to this work of bridging gaps. How would you say that your experiences with TFA in the Delta inform you as a writing teacher today?

MC: The lessons I learned in Mississippi are the lessons I relearn today, again and again, in teaching students who have often come from difficult backgrounds—not to make assumptions, but to listen.  To value students’ experiences and try to make them matter in how learning happens, so that one’s identity is not erased.  Patience, compassion, kindness.

AS: Do you have any advice for emerging teachers and writers?

MC: Teach with passion—if you don’t care, why should your students?  Write from the heart—puffery, tricks, and cleverness don’t hold up, but the truth does, even it is itself insufficient.

AS: Thanks so much for talking with us.

 

Posted in Ideas and Opinions, Interviews | Comments Off on An Interview with Michael Copperman, author of Teacher: Two Years in the Mississippi Delta

An Interview with Jan Wright

Jan Wright is the founder and director of Wright Research and Archives, the archivist for Harry and David in Medford, Oregon, and the former Director of the Talent Historical Society. She is the author of Images of America: Talent (Arcadia, 2009). She is working on a book project to be titled Imperfect Apostle John Beeson, Advocate for Native Americans.

EB: Can you tell our readers a little bit about John Beeson?

JW: Injustice made John Beeson squirm. When he saw something that inflicted pain or wrong on any group of people, particularly the American Indians, he took action. Regardless of the personal consequences to himself or his family, he went straight to the source of the problem and confronted politicians, Indian agents, volunteer Indian fighters, newspaper editors and unfeeling ministers. His fire kept a smoldering camp of Beeson haters who belittled him and his mission whenever they could. Somewhat of a mystic, he fell into Spiritualism and was visited by ghostly messengers who guided him from beyond the grave.

EB: How did you get interested in his story?

JW: I resisted John Beeson for years. I was more attracted to telling the locally significant story of his son, Welborn Beeson, as it unfolded from his amazing diaries. Of course, Welborn wrote about his father’s whereabouts in the east and what he said about the father son relationship fascinated me. My research trips to New York, Illinois and DC turned up so much information about John Beeson that I gave way to the story that had a more national appeal and was so intertwined with the fate of Native Americans.

EB: Beeson wrote the Plea for the Indians in 1857. How was that received?

JW: Written after he was forced to leave Oregon, a Plea for the Indians launched his long career as an advocate for the Indians. He used the book effectively as an introduction to the the East Coast lecture circle. To the city dwellers, he was considered a credible witness of the far west experience but generally the people of the West, derided and condemned him as too soft on “savages.” He eventually became a reliable speaker at suffrage gatherings, abolitionist meetings, churches, government councils and as a form of entertainment with a troupe of Indian singers. One of his speeches in Buffalo, NY was attended by President-Elect, Abraham Lincoln, on his way to his own inauguration. After Lincoln moved to the White House, John Beeson, was invited as a guest to deliver his Indian message along with his favored Indian songstress, Larooqua.

EB: He returned to Oregon later. How was he received by his family and the community?

JW: After being gone for 8 years 8 months and 1 day, John returned (in 1865) to his family on Wagner Creek near present day Talent, Oregon. It was not an easy adjustment to be once again in a rural setting with farm work to do. He was used to crowds of people paying to get in to see him, to making appeals before Congress, to organizing peace groups at the Cooper Union in New York, but on Wagner Creek he was a farmer behind the plow like the rest of his neighbors. His attempts to give lectures in Jacksonville and Ashland were not well attended and though people tolerated his presence, he was out of his element and not generally respected.

His wife, Ann, died while he was home but she only wanted her son, Welborn, to be at her side. John was in the field plowing corn and was unaware of her death until he saw the neighbors gathering at their home to prepare her body for burial.

In the fall of 1867 John left for the East Coast again, hoping he could still be of use to the Indians on a national level. He was 77 years old and nearly deaf on his final return to Oregon in 1880.

EB: His life—and his story–seem to be very relevant today, I think. What connections do you see to current affairs?

JW: He told the truth as he saw it, blew the whistle when he had to, and was willing to stand alone to face his enemies. He envisioned an America that stuck to its stated values and principles and engaged in a non-stop quest for justice as a full-time occupation. He lived on the stranger’s dime, traveled in stage coaches, trains and on foot to school houses, churches, state houses, mansions and cabins to organize a national movement to seek a better outcome for the Indians. His story was a microcosm of what was going on all over America. He walked up the steps of each state capitol, each neighborhood, and visited each congregation with the news of the day and with the same old story. He wore the mantle of leadership without seeking exorbitant compensation. That kind of leadership is manifest in today’s organizations (such as Indivisible) that keep the pressure on local representatives to mind the will of the people. Beeson’s struggles show us that each generation adds a personal narrative and a new baseline from which to start but each has to vigilantly improve the workings of democracy and combat greed, corruption and racism.

EB: There must be some interesting local sources on Beeson in the Talent and Southern Oregon Historical Society archives. What sorts of material are you finding?

JW: The Welborn Beeson diaries are the single most outstanding source of information about the Beeson family and the historical, social and political events in Southern Oregon. They span the years 1851-1893 and began when the Beeson’s still lived in Illinois. The diary was tucked away at the University of Oregon Special Collections until 2006 when the Talent Historical Society had them microfilmed and repatriated to Talent.

Southern Oregon Historical Society has a photo album which includes some photos of John Beeson and his family and copies of correspondence from friends and relatives. The living descendants of John and Ann Beeson are very much engaged with the progress of the book and have shared family photos and archived information.

EB: Are there important sources about Beeson elsewhere? I understand he lived in New York for a time.

JW: British born John and Ann Beeson arrived in New York in 1830 on the ship Samuel Robertson. John who had been trained as a confectioner in England, followed that occupation in Ithaca and Troy, NY until the family moved to Illinois. I have visited the New York state archives in Albany to do research on the Beeson family and have been in contact with the New York Public Library and the Cooper Union to obtain more information about John while he lived in that state.

I also visited the site of the farm in Illinois where Beesons lived for over 20 years and corresponded with the family who live on that property. My sister and I did extensive research at the courthouse in Ottawa, IL and elsewhere to document that portion of their lives. Newspapers from Maine to Rhode Island, from New York to Philadelphia, from Minnesota to Illinois and of course, Oregon all have multiple articles about John Beeson’s lectures and performances, his resolutions and petitions.

EB: You’ve launched a kickstarter campaign to support the research project. What was that experience like?

JW: The Kickstarter experience has changed the way I view the book. When the campaign ends on June 12th, I will know precisely who my audience is. I feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude and responsibility to make the book meet expectations and to follow the truth with accuracy and finesse. From the Mayor of Talent to a widow lady in Ashland, from my former boss, to my own children, people have come through for me and joined in the dream to resurrect John Beeson’s voice. I acknowledge that my journey has been a bit backwards, that the cart is before the horse when I talk about a book that does not yet exist.

In a sense, I am taking up my mission in much the same way as John Beeson did by asking for financial help to relieve me of the worry of earning my daily bread with a 9-5 job while I write the book.

Community support has made me a bit nicer and more disciplined and made me more likely to support others in their dreams as well.

EB: Thanks for talking with us.

JW: It’s been a pleasure. Thank you.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/235507129/imperfect-apostle-john-beeson-advocate-for-native

Posted in Interviews | Comments Off on An Interview with Jan Wright