Saturday, April 26, 2025

My Very Own Abenaki Round Table

 

When I was about 15, my mother hosted one of her many soirees in our living room. She was a high school teacher and I was accustomed to coming home to a raucous gathering of inebriated school teachers mixing up martinis by the quart, and raising their glasses to me as I tried to sneak past them, slipping in through front door, in a vain attempt to fly upstairs unnoticed to my room.



My mother provided a sort of social center for her high school faculty, and they teasingly called her "Pearl North," after Pearl Mesta, who threw elaborate parties for the Washington, DC in-crowd at her home in Spring Valley, which was just seven miles south, down Massachusetts Avenue. 

One day, the gathering had no men, which was unusual, and the teachers were much better behaved than usual, and better dressed. They were awaiting the arrival of Katherine Anne Porter, who drove up and parked her car on the street outside our house, and I watched from my bedroom window as she walked into our house. I wondered who she was, and what all the fuss was about. 

 Later, I read "Pale Horse, Pale Rider" and I knew.

Katherine Anne Porter


As fate would have it, when my first book was published, after having been rejected by 25 New York City publishing houses, the publisher who decided to take it on was Kathern Anne Porter's publisher, twenty years after publishing "Ship of Fools."

I thought that was a curious coincidence.

Now, in my dotage, I sometimes dream about playing that role my mother played, as a part of a group which gathered, enjoyed each other and organized the world, like Dorothy Parker and her Algonquin Round Table in New York City.

That would be fun. Real fun.

The Algonquin Round Table


So, when I read a book by some interesting author, I include that person in my list of Abenaki Round Table folks. (It's the Abenaki's up here in New Hampshire, not the Algonquins of New York.)


So far I have:

1. Jill Lepore



2. Adam Gopnik



3. David Remnick



4. Dudley Dudley



5.Tim Sebastian



6. Ken Decell


7. Paul Offit



8. Olivia Ostrich





The Algonquin Round Table had twenty or so who drifted by for lunch, and it included luminaries from the literary world, from Broadway and even Hollywood (Harpo Marx.)

They were, I supposed an in-crowd, a clique, a "cool kids' table."  Personally, I was never much into cliques or being a cool kid (no real possibility of that), never joined a fraternity in college--but the idea of having a group of people with whom you could look at the world and laugh--that was appealing. 

Also, key qualification: among this group you could say anything without fear of causing an eruption because you'd hurt someone's feelings, or because something you said might be construed to lead, if you followed its logic, to unhappy conclusions about the world, or about what is just or what is vile.

On that basis, I would disqualify some of the people I really love, some fellow Democrats, who have all the "right" values, but who refuse to discuss anything which would cause discomfort or possible hurt to others, e.g. discussing the case for or against trans athletes participating in women's sports. (In that, by the way, required viewing is the John Oliver piece on this subject.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flSS1tjoxf0&t=2204s

So, this would be a round table with only one rule: discussion is not restricted for fear of hurting anyone's feelings, but is aimed at following a topic toward a "truth" without regard to whether that truth might be perceived as being hurtful. And, there is always the understanding, we don't really mean some of the nasty things we say, as was true when someone arrived at the table and said, "President Coolidge is dead." And Parker said, "How can they tell?"

Dorothy Parker


The folks above include three New Yorker writers.

Dudley Dudley is the woman, now in her 80's, who stopped Aristotle Onasis  in 1975, from destroying the New Hampshire seacoast by building an oil refinery complex and when she spoke at a commemorative event a few years ago, she was just as hot wired as ever.

Paul Offit is the University of Pennsylvania pediatric vaccinologist who has tried to save American children from RFK JR among other crusades.

Tim Sebastian is a BBC newsperson I knew in Washington, D.C., fluent in Russian, with a cosmopolitan perspective unlike any I've ever met.

Ken Decell is a former editor of the Washingtonian Magazine,  born and raised in Mississippi, educated at Princeton, who was one of the first journalists to see in Barak Obama the stuff everyone else eventually saw, and who somehow absorbed all the vitriol in which his youth was marinated, and came out better able to to defeat it.

Olivia Ostrich is a New Hampshire woman who is simply the most pure bred scholar I've ever run across. I spent my youth in three different Ivy League institutions and never met a mind more curious, relentless, insatiable  or more open than hers. Mention a topic, cite a reference, and she will read it all the way through, google the footnotes and then read the footnotes in the footnotes. You never know where she'll come down on any issue, because she has always thought it through so much further than you have.

Lately, I've been thinking about adding a woman named Carole Hooven, PhD. 

Dr. Carole Hooven


Having read her piece in the Boston Globe about the question of whether or not there are two sexes, I googled her, read her piece, "Why I Left Harvard" and then I read her book, "T: The Story of Testosterone," which left the matter unsettled.

I hasten to add: it is a worthwhile book, worth reading, maybe even should be required reading for high school students. It is a book I read from start to finish, which in my case is a rarity, as I most often lose faith in the author and wind up throwing books against the wall and stomping off. Not so with this one.

Which is not to say it's a perfect book. I could have done without the stuff I am guessing got added because Dr. Hooven's (female) editor told her she had to add some "softer" elements, to "humanize" and "personalize" the material, which otherwise could be seen, and would be criticized by the media, as being overly dry and scientific.  

Personally, I could have done without hearing about Dr. Hooven's suffering a sexual assault, or her own struggles with depression, or her problems with breaking down into tears under stressful or emotional situations, or even about her son, who sounds like a wonderful kid, but really, why is he in the book? Her struggles with the imposter syndrome, (which so many of us who entered the world of science and medicine more or less disinvited suffer) are more relevant, but I would have edited those out. 

Ditto for her adventures tromping through the jungle as a latter day Jane Goodall, which are admittedly relevant to evolutionary biology, but most of us are not reading "T" for evolutionary theory.



Just as an aside: Jane Goodall was celebrated because of those photographs of her leggy blondness in the African jungle titillated and inspired women and men (for different reasons) not because huge worldwide audiences became suddenly enthralled with evolutionary biology. And I say that as an undergraduate biology student who was head over heels in love with Ms. Goodall's media personality. Still am.

What Hooven does exceptionally well is to develop the important role testosterone plays in human life, and she maps out how we become either male or female or possibly something in between or something else entirely, and she uses exactly the right examples (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome [CAIS], five alpha reductase deficiency, congenital adrenal hyperplasia.) I do not agree that male sex is defined by gametes, i.e. the production of sperm, because CAIS patients make sperm but they are clearly not male, but that's a quibble. There are some minor piffles--dihydrotestosterone (DHT) does affect terminal scalp hair, and in fact that is the basis for the drug Propecia being used to fight male pattern baldness. But, overall, this is a very solid, valuable and worthwhile book.

Overall, her book is a service, and her arguments ring true about the way in which feminist authors have fought against the basic facts she presents because admitting that we are propelled by biology in certain directions might imply that women are doomed to subservient roles in society, rather than arguing whether or not it is true that testosterone drives animals toward violence, domination and sex.

She uses the perfect line from the movie African Queen, when Katherine Hepburn tells Humphrey Bogart,  "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we were put in this world to rise above."

So, yes, Ms. Hooven is invited to the Round Table.

Other nominees will be considered as the Phantom  receives them.














4 comments:

  1. Phantom,
    Let me start by saying your mother certainly knew how to throw a party with an impressive guest list.

    The round table is a fabulous idea and your choice of members, thus far, is most impressive. I humbly offer a couple of other names for your consideration, chosen not only because they are skilled writers, but because they are interesting conversationalists as well. (Not that I’ve chatted with any of them personally, but I have heard them interviewed.) They are: historian Heather Cox Richardson, editor Martin Baron, humorist David Sedaris, writers Malcolm Gladwell and Michael Lewis and journalists Scott Pelley and Ted Koppel. Unfortunately the person who would have been most perfect for this round table, Christopher Hitchens is no longer with us…Oh and of course John Oliver and James Carville….Feel free to approve or disapprove of these entries as you see fit…
    Maud


    ReplyDelete
  2. Ms. Maud:
    Yes, Mr. Hitchens would have been the first and founding member, but one of the things about death is it excludes ongoing conversation.
    Not sure about Malcolm Gladwell or James Carville (vidre infra) , but my inclination would be, when in doubt, if you want to hear from them, include them.
    Listening to Gladwell on podcasts I realize the extent to which he is truly a dilletante. He's not really equipped to see the problem in the research b/c he's never done any himself.
    One of the things which got Carole Hooven on the list is reading her book "T" which is not a perfect book, but it reveals the extensiveness of her reading and critical thinking about her subject. She is an actual scholar, much as she may try to fuzz over that fact, like the soft fuzz on deer antlers, which cover the sharp edges developing below.
    Ted Koppel would never have occurred to me, but Michael Lewis would make the list for sure.
    And how could I have forgotten John Oliver?
    But why did you not include Jon Stewart? I mean, I sort of understand that omission, as he is more showman than thinker...just asking.
    David Sedaris! How did I forget him? He occupies an inordinate length of space on my home bookshelves.
    Heather Cox Richardson, yup. And if she is at the table, then surely Paul Krugman.
    Do not know Martin Baron, but if you recommend him, he's in. Same with Scott Pelley.
    As for Carville, I might fight you on that one. He's just so often wrong, and mainly b/c he tells us what he thinks the world ought to be, and he seems to operate on the self fulfilling prophecy wish rather than the real world. Like so many who have lived in the world of politics, he is one of those "in speech there is logic" folks, who think if you just say it's so, it will gain a reality of its own, but that means he lives not in the world of what is, but what he wishes it would would be.
    So, now, Ms. Maud, it's all up to you. Knowing your organization skills, I will bestow on you the nuts and bolts problem of getting in touch with all these folks and choosing a site for the meetings.
    Of course, NYC would be the obvious place, but perhaps a summer site up here on the Seacoast. The dining room of the Wentworth hotel?
    Or maybe Ogunquit, as there is a summer C&J bus from NYC to Ogunquit.
    It being the 21st century, I suppose this could all be done by zoom, which would be by far the most practical solution, but it would possibly make any really "back and forth" impossible. And, in fact, that would be the equivalent of texting rather than speaking on the phone. So, no. Nix that. Nope. Has to be in person.
    The only fly in the ointment is the realization this would not be in any way unique. There have been so many artists retreats, Iowa writers workshops, Chautauqua institution things--would we simply join the ranks of effete intellectuals?
    No, it really should be more like my mother's soirees, where nobody is concerned to actually succeed in changing anything, but simply take comfort in a coalescence of rebellion. A sort of Farenheit 451 society.
    Do you think Hitchens and Ben Franklin are sitting around some celestial bar exchanging barbs?
    Phantom

    ReplyDelete
  3. Phantom,
    Touché- one of the first things to go in death is conversation…As is so often the case, I have considered your points and agree with them. Although Gladwell can be annoying at times- he still should be included. I don’t believe he tries to sell himself as an expert in the various areas he writes about. I think he fancies himself an exceptionally intelligent person who knows a multitude of facts on a wide variety of obscure subjects. With the possible exception of the word exceptionally, I’d say that view of himself would be accurate. I’m not blind to the fact that knowing a lot about a mundane subject is necessarily a virtue— however some of his stories are very interesting and entertaining. Well, to me anyway…

    You are right about Carville-he does like to hear himself speak and I’m not sure how deft a conversationalist he’d be. He might have the tendency to talk at you as opposed to with you and be furious if anyone disagreed with him. The thing with Carville is he can also be hilariously spot on and at those times he’s superb. All in all, I agree he has to be scratched.

    You’re right about why I didn’t include Jon Stewart, although I did consider him. It seems he’d want the spotlight more than John Oliver and like Carville, might not tolerate anyone disagreeing with him.

    Martin Baron is the former editor of the Boston Globe and Washington Post. He oversaw the publication of the Spotlight articles on the Catholic Church at the Globe and has been an outspoken critic of the current attacks on journalism. He’s been quite critical of what’s been going on recently at the Post under Bezos. Scott Pelley is the best journalist working at 60 Minutes. The stories they have covered the last couple months have been, in many cases, gut wrenching. They have been relentless in covering subjects that have driven the nut in the Oval Office to distraction, but the show and Pelley have not backed down. They tell stories that need to be told- Pelley is a hero…

    The meetings of the round table would have to be in person- zoom would never do. Your suggestions of locales by the sea are excellent…I can also imagine this rarified group enjoying the setting at the Mt Washington Hotel in the summertime…The hotel has a comfy library that would be perfect for conversation and in the late afternoon discussions could continue with cocktails on the wrap around porch in the shadow of Mt Washington. In the evening, after dinner in the ballroom, there’s an informal speakeasy bar for round table members to really let their hair down…I think we need to start sending invitations immediately…
    Maud




    ReplyDelete
  4. Ms. Maud,
    As usual, you have surpassed anything I could have dreamed up.
    Is that organizational gene on the X chromosome? If so, you have twice as many X chromosomes as I do, and so that must be why you are so much better at imaginative logistics.

    I had thought it had to be in New York because, you know, it's New York.
    But wouldn't those jaded, sweaty New Yorkers love to escape that city heat--summer in the city--for the setting you so elegantly describe.

    Phantom

    ReplyDelete