I'm back

Bluebells on the forest floor in County Clare. 

I've been blogging only very occasionally for the last few months, as I've been finishing a graduate degree at the Dublin Institute of Technology. Thankfully,  I finished this week, and hope to resume my writing schedule as before. 

The Girl, my daughter, will be 15 in a few weeks. She sang and danced in her secondary school play (high school to Americans), is still shooting archery once a week, and is making friends. She's taken part in many s still teaching horseback riding to children on the weekends, and has taken part in several hunter trials in the last year -- trials in which teams of riders gallop through an obstacle course on the Irish countryside. 

We voted last Friday here in Ireland, and thankfully we have a brilliant voting system that, unlike the US system, allows third parties to easily exist. I'll write about that more in the next few weeks. 

This is the lovely time of year here, when we start to enjoy the lukewarm summer before we plunge back into the nine months of winter. 

As I mentioned back in January, I had the honour to spend the day with Rod Dreher of the American Conservative, who urged me to start pulling my writings into a book, and now that my teenager is self-sufficient and my graduate degree is ended, that's exactly what I plan to do. I'll start posting things regularly here and other places, and will send more details as I finish them. 

The Girl some ten years ago. 

Old movies part 2: To Have and Have Not

A few weeks ago I wrote about black-and-white movies like Stagecoach, and how they often dealt with our modern, 21st-century problems in a way that modern media does not. It occurred to me, though, that someone reading that might ask the question I most feared as a reporter: So What? If a movie made nine decades ago had a timely message, you might say, how does that affect my problems now? I realised this warranted a whole series of posts, this entry focusing on the stories we tell each other about class.

Before any conservative readers go ballistic, I’m not saying that because class exists, we need to eliminate it; there will always be people who have more than others, either through hard work, inheritance or luck, and I think we should reward the first of those three. And before any socialist readers go ballistic, I’m not suggesting that all inequality is good, merely that it exists and shapes our lives, and we should stop pretending it doesn’t.  

Most of us in Europe or North America are seeing our cultures slowly unravel; unemployment, depression, mental illness, debt, homelessness, addiction, poverty and illiteracy are alarmingly high and rising in many places. Drive through once-prosperous towns in my native Midwest and you see decaying houses and crumbling infrastructure, peppered with the occasional Wal-Mart like a lord’s medieval castle on a hill. The gulf between the wealthy and poor might be greater now than in medieval Europe – certainly peasants then kept more of their earnings and had more days off than US workers today.

When I point this out, many people quickly respond that our ancestors also endured hardships we can’t imagine – most of the Depression-era audiences for old movies, for example, earned only a fraction of what Americans do today in straightforward numbers. That does not, however, tell the whole story.

Most people back then had the skills to make and fix things themselves, from homes to tools, and if they didn’t, they had parents or uncles who knew and could show them, or local boys from their club. If they lived outside a city, they typically had gardens to grow most of their food, and they knew how to preserve it whether they could afford electricity or not.

People usually had extended family to look out for each other, and they had clubs like Kiwanis and Oddfellows, they had book clubs and ladies’ societies, and they were more likely to belong to churches and unions. As different as these groups are, they all provided much-needed support; their members helped to pay each other’s bills, offered networks to find jobs, gave emotional support, shared intellectual ideas and gave the otherwise lonely elderly a chance to mentor the otherwise foolhardy youth. Today, however, all of these things are fading from our culture and even our memory, as their members age and the young never join.

Instead, we have become the first generations in history to spend our lives largely alone, staring at little screens. We are surrounded by media, all the time – films and television, Youtube and Netflix stare back at us from our phones and laptops, from the back seats of cars and the walls of restaurants. So if most people are to realise what their problems are and do something about them, what they see on those screens becomes vitally important.   

At a time when more and more people are struggling, our media --- let’s assume we’re talking about my native USA – shows almost none of that reality. This was bad enough when I was growing up in Missouri in the 1980s and 90s; we weren’t poor, but compared to us it seemed like every family in movies or television was from Planet Rich People.

The friends in Friends would have had to make millions every year to pay for their spacious apartments, even though they worked menial jobs or were unemployed. The families on Full House or Family Matters – and even on Rosanne, a show entirely built around the premise of a “working-class” family – lived in giant, palatial homes. 

Nor did anyone ever have to worry about getting their car to start, or paying a medical bill, or paying off a debt, or being able to afford groceries. Characters could pop off for a vacation episode to Hawaii or Las Vegas, whereas we’d never taken a vacation. Certainly no one on television lived in a trailer park, nor were sleeping rough.

I looked at popular shows of the last few decades and found that little has changed; from Modern Family to Parenthood, all the families live in homes that, like the average new house in America, covered more ground than the biblical Temple of Solomon. Even the family in Breaking Bad – a show entirely built around the fact that the protagonist must become a drug dealer to pay the bills – lives in quite a spacious house with no other families in it.  

As writer David Wong pointed out, even characters in a nightmarish, post-apocalyptic future typically have nicer apartments that most of us. The miserable slum-dwellers of Elysium, The Matrix Reloaded or Dredd have spacious flats that would thousands of dollars a month in New York, and don’t need a dozen room-mates.

You might point out that all these programmes are just entertainment, and that’s true. But Hollywood also created entertainment in the 1930s and 40s – hundreds of films a year -- and theirs often dealt with real problems. Also – as mentioned – people then had mentors and groups to show them how to cope with poverty or build a better future; the films showing them the same thing were just frosting on the cake. People today have more need for entertainment that teaches those things, because many of us don’t have anything else. 

Our “reality” media today is much the same as our fictional media, and doesn’t have much to do with our reality. What I’ve seen involves wealthy models arguing, or rich families buying wedding dresses for more money that the down-payment on my house. Meanwhile, programmes like Cops and the evening news show the threatening faces of street criminals from neighbourhoods most likely to be contaminated by toxic chemicals, but not the polluters who made the chemicals.  

We take the same approach with the media we exchange; viral video clips, circulated on social media as hilarious comedy, often show trailer park residents describing the tornado, or slum dwellers describing the robber, all poor people who were unprepared for national news cameras and were globally mocked for years afterwards. Whole web sites are devoted to mocking the unfashionably dressed “People of Wal-Mart” like they were animals at the zoo.

When you think about it, almost all our political insults are class-based. When conservative friends of mine mock campus “social justice warriors,” they say they and their philosophy degrees are destined for jobs at McDonalds. Feminist friends of mine say their critics are just men “living in their parents’ basements.” Democrats I know mock Trump fans as redneck “deplorables,” while Trump fans I know mock welfare families who don’t want to work. All these groups have more in common than they realise: they all sneer at their opponents for allegedly being even lower down on the ladder.

When struggling people are depicted seriously and sympathetically – say, a news item on homelessness -- it is almost always as objects of pity. The rare inspirational story that gives speaking roles to the poor – slum children adopted by a rich family, say, or a teacher who inspires their inner-city high school class – ends with the poor people leaving all the other poor people behind and becoming one of the winners. Wealth is seen as normal, poverty and misfortune bizarre and occasional, and the heroes are typically the rich who are “raising” others out of poverty.

Imagine stories told another way, in which having very little was assumed to be the norm, and in which everyone knew that tragedy and injustice took place. Imagine stories about people whose goal wasn’t to get a big break and leave their neighbours behind, but to make sure their neighbours had enough. Imagine stories that were inspirational not because the heroes won everything, but because they lost everything, dusted themselves off and heartily carried on. In a time when social roles, jobs, politics and the climate are all unpredictable, those stories could be actually useful for audiences.

Movies from the 1930s and 40s did show that, in ways that would feel alien to people across the political map today. For example, they presented poverty, misfortune, homelessness and failure as completely normal, which they are; millions of Americans have been evicted and become either homeless or must live uncomfortably with relatives, like the elderly couple in 1937’s Make Way for Tomorrow.

In fact, it would be quicker to list the films from that era that didn’t deal with class. I mentioned last time that the characters in Stagecoach were from the highest and lowest levels of society, forced to work together and show who they really were inside, and how the homeless of Our Daily Bread pulled a farm together. Likewise, swashbucklers like The Adventures of Robin Hood and Captain Blood and Westerns like Destry Rides Again focused on slaves, serfs and other victims people pulling together to overcome the lord, plantation owner or rancher attacking anyone who stood against them.

Even the down-and-out could be strong, these movies realised, if they stood together. The wacky family in You Can’t Take It With You always lived on the verge of eviction, but pitched in to support each other. The homeless protagonist of Meet John Doe inspires neighbours across America to form John Doe clubs and look out for each other.

Upper-class characters appeared too and not always as the villain, but sometimes needed to learn a few things. My Man Godfrey begins with a group of wealthy party-goers on a treasure hunt, charged with retrieving a homeless man as a prize. When they find one – the titular Godfrey -- sleeping in a garbage dump, he quickly humiliates them for treating him as an object of amusement.

Many films from that era show once-prosperous people losing everything and seeing first-hand how the other 99% live; the aristocratic refugees of Casablanca must pawn everything to escape Europe, the lords and ladies of Tovarisch must find a new life as butlers and maids, the runaway rich girl of It Happened One Night learns to hitchhike and live on carrots. Sometimes, however, the rich person puts their business talents to new uses.  

The hero of 1932’s Beggars in Ermine begins as a successful factory owner – but when he is crippled in an accident, he is reduced to selling pamphlets on the streets from a wheelchair. After talking to other itinerant vendors he realises that most of them have no ability to save money; by pooling their resources, however, they could pay for each other. Thus he uses his skills in finance and persuasion to form a guild and get people to pay a small fee to join, and together they can pay for old age pensions and doctor’s visits.

Some films even showed people living on the edges of society banding together in less wholesome ways. The street criminals of M form an underground network to track down and stop a child murderer, and once they catch him, they hold a trial themselves, telling him that “Every man you see here is a legal expert.”

Perhaps the most curious example came in 1933’s Gabriel Over the White House, in which the US President has a spiritual awakening, forgets his wealthy backers and takes bold steps to provide for the struggling populace – including holding a political summit with the “King of the Hobos” leading an army of homeless on Washington.

I’m not backing all the politics of the film – the president seizes power to do these things, in what could be seen as an endorsement of fascism – but the film treats the homeless with respect, as a genuine political constituency that needs to be won over.

None of this praise, for that matter, is necessarily an endorsement of all the politics of all the people who made these films. Film-makers then cared deeply about the problems of working Americans, but some of them thought fascism or communism would be good solutions to those problems. They were wrong, but I can admire their compassion and their public works of art without agreeing with their private solutions. 

Working-class sympathy became so normal that it was gently lampooned in Preston Sturgess’ brilliant Sullivan’s Travels, in which a Hollywood director wants to make a serious drama about the plight of the common man. In his search for authenticity he takes to the road in disguise, only to discover that only the wealthy care about pretentious Oscar bait – the genuinely suffering, he finds, want real entertainment to give them a few hours’ relief. Of course, it’s a meta-joke with many layers, for Sturgess made this very point in an entertaining comedy with a serious edge, portraying deftly the injustice he satirised other directors for portraying clumsily. 

The reason I’m talking about this – and will talk about how old movies are useful when thinking about democracy, refugees and climate change in future posts – is that humans think in stories, and we arrange our lives according to the stories that we know. When people talk about stories that changed their lives, they usually talk about the ones that made them realise something was possible -- “even though I was a girl, I could still be a pilot,” for example.

Movies from this era did not show audiences that they were failures for not being rich, or that they could do anything they want; rather, they taught that everyone is dealt cards, sometimes bad ones, but that no matter how low you’d fallen, you were still somebody, and your actions showed who you really were. They said that even the worst of us can get better, and even the greatest of us can’t do much by ourselves, but together even the homeless and forgotten can move mountains.  

They let us know that we could scrape by and still have a good life – because if you had enough to survive, life wasn’t primarily about money. All these are useful lessons in any age, but we move into an age of greater scarcity, they will be needed more than ever.

The world-changing potential of hot composting

Photo courtesy of Wikicommons.

As long as there have been humans, we have taken the parts of plants we don’t eat and thrown them back onto the soil again, knowing it would turn back into soil to create more plants. Until we modern people came along, that is. 

Now we take our food and seal it away in plastic, so that the only bacteria that can work on them are anoxic bacteria that generate methane – a greenhouse gas about 35 times worse than carbon dioxide. The least we can do, obviously, is to throw compostables into the compost, let the proper critters munch away, and let it alchemically turn into soil again.

Ordinary composting, however, has some disadvantages that every gardener knows well. One can’t simply add bones or meat – and some gardeners even avoid eggshells – for fear of attracting vermin. Also, plants that have gone to seed cannot be added, or the resulting soil will be peppered with the beginning of next year’s weeds. You can’t add diseased plants, or the diseases might remain in the resulting soil, ready to infect next year’s crops. Also, it takes a long time, and one loses much of the kitchen waste volume in the process of rotting down.

Imagine, then, a new kind of composting, one that avoids all these problems at once – no more weed seeds, no more disease, no more vermin. Imagine being able to compost almost everything, and keep the majority of the biomass. Imagine, finally, that it only takes a few weeks.

What makes hot composting work is bacteria; instead of the usual variety of bacteria that breaks down over several months, hot composters find the right balance of materials – more on this in a moment -- to attract aerobic, heat-generating bacteria. Then, they oxygenate the soil by turning the compost regularly, and making sure the compost has enough mass – at least 1.5 metres on each side -- to retain the heat it generates.

The bacteria generate heat just as your body does -- between 55 and 65 degrees Centigrade, hot enough to kill any weed seeds and diseases, hot enough to drive away most vermin, and hot enough to feed their fast action.

With this so-called Berkeley method, you first fill a container of the appropriate size with kitchen waste – that’s a lot of waste at once, so you might want to get all your neighbours’ materials together in a communal bin. Leave the compost for four days with no turning.

Then, turn the compost every second day for the next 14 days, making sure to turn it thoroughly from the outside in to get everything well mixed. By the 18^th day, it should look like soil – but you still need to let it rest for several more weeks before planting in it.

I mentioned the right balance of materials to compost; the ratio one looks for is between 25 and 30 parts carbon-rich waste to one part nitrogen-rich waste, proportioned by weight. Carbon-rich materials are typically dry and brown, like sawdust, cardboard, paper, dried leaves, straw and other, similar things. Nitrogen-rich materials are typically moist and fresh, like kitchen waste, lawn clippings and vegetable scraps. Sometimes carbon-rich materials are called “browns” and nitrogen-rich materials “greens” for simplicity, but these terms can be misleading: coffee grounds and animal manure, whatever their colour, would also be nitrogen-rich.

If the carbon/nitrogen ratio is too high in carbon, the compost will not get hot enough or break down quickly enough, and one must add something like manure or grass clippings. If the mix has too much nitrogen, rather smelly bacteria will take over, and the mix might get slimy.

To get the right C/N ratio, keep in mind that all plants have more carbon than nitrogen, so virtually all materials have a ratio of at least 1/1. “Browns” like wood chips have a ratio of 400/1, newspaper has 175/1, and straw has 75/1. “Greens” like vegetable scraps have about 25/1, grass clippings 20/1, and chicken manure has about 12/1. Urine has a ratio of about 1/1, and is excellent to add to soil in whatever way does not violate your social anxieties or local ordinances.

Not everyone can use this method; while I have learned about this and seen it work, our household does not generate enough waste alone; an entire suburb, however, could incorporate the refuse from nearby grocery stores, lawn clippings, mulch and other compostables into the mix, and make this work.

Composting this way eliminates the harmful greenhouse gases that most of our food waste emits, cutting back on climate change. It also generates heat that some people can use to heat their homes or water supply – I’ve seen a functional and quite comfortable outdoor shower in County Tipperary, powered entirely by the bacterial heat of a hot compost bin. 

Households in Minnesota, where I used to live, could spend perhaps $2,000 a year on heating. Imagine homes with hot composters attached, which can use their heat -- perhaps in conjunction with an attached greenhouse. Such simple innovations, if handled rightly by the households, would turn their waste into soil quickly at a time when we need more soil to plant in. It would cut their emissions from garbage and at the same time cut their emissions from fossil fuels, since they would not have to burn as much gas or oil. It would reduce their debt, and their dependence on govenrment and corporations, all at the same time. Few inventions could have more of an impact on our society, if widely implemented.

The Philosophy of Stagecoach

I’ve written about my love of old black-and-white movies from the 1930s and 40s, and how their simple human stories remain relevant to our lives in a way that many computer-spectacle films do not. For that reason, I often showed my daughter the works of Buster Keaton and Preston Sturgess, Frank Capra and John Ford, Charlie Chaplin and Ernst Lubitsch – and the other day, we watched John Ford’s classic Western Stagecoach.

For those who don’t know, the film tells the story of a mismatched assortment of travellers – a cross-section of rich and poor, men and women, lawful and criminal – travelling across the desert in the titular vehicle at a time when Geronimo and his Apaches are on the warpath. The film gives us a concise but clear introduction to each character, and why they must take such a dangerous journey; most of them are running to or away from something, and their time is running out.

One passenger, a proper Southern lady in the last days of pregnancy, is trying to get to her husband in the Army – only to hear that he has been sent into battle, and she spends the journey not knowing whether she is a widow. Another passenger also comes from Confederate aristocracy, a gentleman gambler who fled West after the Civil War, and he looks after the lady who represents his lost home.

The coach also includes a local prostitute named Dallas who has been driven out of town; a stentorian banker with a dark secret; a meek salesman, and a doctor-turned-drunkard. Riding atop the coach, next to the long-suffering driver, is the sheriff, there to protect the passengers but also to look for an escaped fugitive.

The fugitive is the legendary Ringo Kid, who escaped from prison to avenge the murder of his family. The sheriff knows and likes Ringo -- who isn’t a hardened criminal, but simply a kid who got into trouble – but must find and arrest him all the same.

All these people of different classes, who would never be seen together in everyday life, must squeeze uncomfortably together for the dangerous ride. Shortly outside of town, though, they run into a man whose horse went lame on the trail – the Ringo Kid himself, in the role that made a star of the young John Wayne.

The sheriff places Ringo under arrest, but as the stagecoach encounters flooded rivers and hostile natives, he unshackles his friend, knowing they need his capable hands on their side. Their mutual dependence only further complicates the sheriff’s dilemma: does he let Ringo have his vengeance, honouring their friendship and punishing the killers, yet betraying his duty and perhaps seeing his friend killed? Or does he arrest Ringo, betraying their friendship but saving his friend’s life and fulfilling his oath?

Ringo, for his part, forms a gradual friendship with the prostitute Dallas, not realising what she does for a living. When the group stops at a house for dinner, Ringo sits beside her and shyly tries to make conversation; the other passengers move to the far end of the table from her, and Ringo thinks it’s him they’re avoiding. He mumbles in embarrassment that no one will forgive him for his past, not realising how much she can relate.  

Later, after the group has fought off an attack together and delivered the lady’s baby, Ringo asks Dallas to marry him, if he survives the gunfight ahead of him. She must turn him away – not because she doesn’t love him, but because she does, and doesn’t want to break his heart.  

Of course, as my daughter pointed out, Ringo and Dallas have only known each other a few days – old movies often require you to suspend disbelief in that area. In most eras, though, marriage was both a stage of life and a job, not defined by one’s transient feelings of attraction but by one’s willingness to sacrifice for the other. Ringo and Dallas each saw that the other was brave, kind and determined, and they were pulled together not by lust but by admiration.

The other characters are painted with similar complexity and an underlying tragedy. The gambler dotes kindly on the lady in her infirmity, yet snaps irritably at his fellow passengers. He was raised to be a gentleman, I explained, yet that also means he sees himself as superior to everyone else.

Similarly, when the lady goes into labour, the doctor must sober up and help her deliver – but no one thinks he will stop drinking. When the Southern lady thanks Dallas for caring for her through her delivery, she begins to say, “If there’s ever anything I can do ….” and then stops, unsure how to finish the sentence. They both know they can never see each other socially, and there’s no promise they could make that would not be false.

Let’s pause a moment to address some common objections to classic films; for example, that in this and many other Westerns, the Apaches are the villains. From our armchair perspective we can see the centuries of injustice to Native Americans, and declare them victims and the settlers oppressors. Most of the people living at that time, however, did not act like characters in a centuries-long drama to please future historians, any more than most of us are doing regarding climate change or mass extinction. Most people today have limited choices and are simply looking out for their families, just as most settlers and natives alike were then. Also, settlers and natives lived in peace, intermarried and learned from each other, far more often than they fought over the centuries, but those days don’t make for suspenseful movies.

I know people who objected to the “political correctness” of films like Dances with Wolves, which portrayed natives as good and whites as fools or villains. Me, I loved seeing that excellent film present a native perspective – along with earlier examples, like 1964’s Cheyenne Autumn -- just as I love watching Stagecoach do the same for the settlers. All people see the world from their own limited point of view, and all films will show some perspectives and not others. Nor is Stagecoach completely one-sided; it opens with a sympathetic native, whose people are also victims of Geronimo, and the white soldiers trusting him.

I also talk to people who can’t watch old movies because of the way they depict women, and it is true that they did not show women and men as interchangeable. The women in Stagecoach did not utter sassy quips, defeat men in hand-to-hand combat or kill people without pity. They did, however, endure tragedy with quiet strength, nurse the suffering and wounded, protect a new-born from death and provide the voice of reason during male arguments.

I have heard other modern people question why they would watch films in black-and-white when they could see films in colour, or watch silent films when sound has existed for almost a century. 

Many have similar attitudes toward technology in general, thinking that newer means superior; why see a 2-D movie when 3-D exists, or a normal screen when gigantic screens exist? Different technologies, however, are appropriate for different things, with films just like anything else; just as there’s still a place for bicycles in an age of cars or books in an age of computers, some older technologies still fill certain roles best – and might be more durable in the long run.

Buster Keaton’s hour-long train chase in The General is a masterpiece of comedy and suspense communicated through physical action; it would not be improved by the addition of sound, any more than a dance routine would be improved by a sports commentator narrating the action. Silent films, also, could be shown around the world, their basic human stories equally understandable to people of every language. Only the advent of sound cut peoples off from each other.

Black-and-white film, likewise, is not inferior to colour, but more appropriate for some stories -- as shown when some misguided soul tried to remake Psycho in colour, or when some modern company garishly colourises classic films. It forces the emphasis away from visual spectacle and towards characters and dialogue, especially with the simple, minimalist sets of many classic films. And black-and-white film has a stark beauty all its own, as seen in films as different as City Lights, The Third Man and Schindler’s List, none of which would be improved by colour.

Finally, when I see old movies in the cinema these days, I often hear people laughing during serious moments, and when I ask why, I’m told the films are “corny” and “unrealistic.” It’s a strange accusation, for all films are unrealistic to some degree – compared to say, security camera footage -- and more realism does not automatically make a film better. The films often cited as “realistic,” moreover, seem to involve lots of internal organ splatter and casual cruelty – things that aren’t part of my daily reality, or yours. 

As a film critic I occasionally defended films with graphic violence or nudity, and still do, but more often I found that such content cheapened the characters. I welled up with tears at the shy tenderness of Ringo and Dallas’ courtship, and I can’t imagine having that same reaction to seeing the most intimate parts of their anatomy displayed Godzilla-sized on a movie screen. 

When films imply rather than show adult material, they generally become more subtle, able to ignite more of the viewer’s imagination – in other words, they become better films. They also become appropriate for all ages to see, so cinemas become a safe space for all people equally in a pluralistic democracy. Only when the mass media became countercultural did it stop making media for the common man and start making it for a hip elite – not coincidentally around the time that the wealthy elite began to separate from the rest of us.  

Occasionally I see critically-praised films today, and I find them sometimes worthwhile (most recently The Favourite) and sometimes disappointing (most recently Mary, Queen of Scots). I’m not too highbrow, either; I’ve defended many modern superhero films as both artistically underrated and a revival of the hero myths of classical times. Few recent movies, however, show as much depth or complexity as films from the 1930s and 40s – and those films were made with perhaps one per cent of one per cent of the budget of a film today.

Their scripts, often written by working-class intellectuals and erstwhile novelists, took on poverty, homelessness, crime and injustice, portraying society with a darkness that seems shocking to us today. In It’s A Wonderful Life – one of the only black-and-white films most people have seen – the hero spends most of his life under the tyranny of the town’s wealthy man, and as seen in the alternate universe, everyone hangs precariously close to a life of grief, or crime, or failure, kept out of it only by the nobility of everyday choices.

Finally, most of these films are relevant to people’s lives today, in a way that most modern films are not. I think of friends of mine back in the USA, who have had to deal with gang shootings in their neighbourhoods, layoffs at their workplace, who have served their country proudly overseas but who can’t afford their medical bills at home. Most of the films and television I see today dos not deal with their problems – but films 80 years ago did.  

Imagine a film about a returning veteran encountering disdain and unemployment, remembering that he is good with a gun and realising that crime pays very well. Such a film could reflect a painful reality for many Americans today, and would no doubt be controversial, as Breaking Bad was. Yet such films were made in abundance in the 1930s, such as Twentieth Century with James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart.

Or imagine a film about sex workers organising to testify against the gangster that sells their bodies, with one of the women going public on behalf of the others, knowing she will be killed for doing so. That too could be a difficult film to make – but that was 1946’s Marked Woman, with Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart, and while of course the women’s profession is alluded to discreetly, the story was clear enough.

Or imagine a film in which an unemployed couple on the verge of homelessness inherits a bit of farmland, but who have no idea how to run a farm – so they find more homeless wandering the roads of America, some of whom know how to farm or can learn, and they bring them to work together. Many Americans today are in this position and could benefit from a movie like this to teach them – and they have one, in 1936’s Our Daily Bread.

I wrote a few weeks ago about the Great Forgetting of modern times, how most modern people have abandoned the communities and traditions of our forebears. In the same way, the simple rituals of self-reliance and neighbourliness, democracy and organising, courtship and friendship, have grown scarcer in this age of lonely indulgence, and as our resources grow scarcer we will need these things again. Many movies from that era provide just that, offered in fictional stories that were created to give people a template for people to follow.

It’s not just that such films show common people enduring hardship and injustice, but that they rise above them with determination and kindness, working with their peers and settling their differences like adults. They portrayed the alleged lowest of humanity – criminals, prostitutes and the homeless – as heroes, and the highest – bankers and aristocrats – as capable of the foulest injustices. The heroes don’t always win in the end, but they leave this world having done their duty. That, I think is what people mean by “corny” and “unrealistic” – made in a time when despair was a constant temptation, they are life-affirming, hopeful, and intentionally, unapologetically inspirational.

They set an example for people to follow, and in an era when we interact more with screens than with people, and when few people remember how to work together or build a better society, examples are what we need more of.

Thanks to Rod Dreher

I'll write more soon, but for the moment I wanted to thank Rod Dreher, author of "Crunchy Cons" and "The Benedict Option," for spending the afternoon with me this past weekend. Rod gave an inspiring and heartfelt talk at the University Church on Stephen's Green, Dublin, and was kind enough to mention me. 

Rod, thank you for everything. 

Keeping eggs over winter

No matter what else you have in your kitchen, you probably have eggs. Whether you boil or fry them for breakfast, whisk them into egg-drop soup, bake them into pastries or mix them into batter, eggs provide one of the simplest and yet most versatile of foods, prized the world over as a rich source of easy protein.

If you raise your own chickens, moreover, you have a ready source of eggs, as well as fertiliser and comedy relief. Hens convert your leftovers into your next breakfast, keep your garden free of pests and mow your lawn for free. Other animals can do some of these things, but not many of us have the time, space or will to manage a suburban herd of sheep or swine, or to slaughter them in the garage. Hens, however, require little space or maintenance, and turn any home into a homestead.

They lay eggs seasonally, however, speeding up in summer and slowing in winter. You could give them more indoor light or Vitamin D supplements, but they cost money and interfere with the chickens’ natural cycle – and saving money and being all-natural are two of the most popular reasons for keeping backyard chickens in the first place.   

Another way would be to collect the extra eggs in summer and preserve them through the winter. Eggs can be preserved in several ways; one, well-known to pub patrons here, is to pickle them. A typical recipe involves hard-boiling eggs and removing the shells, and then creating a pickling solution of cider vinegar, small amounts of salt, sugar, herbs and spices. Bring the mixture to the boil, then simmer for five minutes and pour over the eggs – they should keep for at least a few months.  

You can also soak the eggs in a solution of sodium silicate, known as isinglass or water-glass. One popular recipe from a century ago recommended dissolving sodium silicate in boiling water, to about the consistency of a syrup (or about 1 part silicate to 3 parts water). The eggs -- as fresh as possible, and thoroughly clean -- should be immersed in the solution in such manner that every part of each egg is covered with the liquid, then removed and let dry. If the solution is kept near the boiling temperature, the preservative effect was said to be much more certain and to last longer.

Perhaps the best and longest-lasting way, however, is to preserve eggs in limewater. No recipe could be simpler; take fresh raw eggs in the shell, set them gently in a jar, and pour in a simple lukewarm mix of tap water and lime powder. I’ve done this with our eggs, and they lasted for up to a year and remained edible.

“Lime” here means neither the citrus fruit nor the tree, but refers to calcium hydroxide, a white powder derived from limestone. For at least 7,000 years humans burned limestone in kilns to create the dangerous and caustic “quicklime” (Calcium oxide), and hydrated that to create lime powder (calcium hydroxide). Sumerians and Romans used it as a cement, while farmers mixed it with water to create whitewash, tanners used it to remove hair from hides, gardeners to repel slugs and snails, printers to bleach paper. 

Perhaps most importantly, farmers here in Ireland spread lime over their boggy fields to “sweeten” the acid soil and increase crop production as much as four-fold. For hundreds of years until the mid-20th century, lime supported a vast and vital network of village industry in this part of the world-- County Cork alone was said to contain an amazing 23,000 kilns, or one every 80 acres.

In his 1915 monograph “Lime-water for the preservation of eggs,” Frank Shutt describes a series of egg preservation experiments at an experimental farm in Ottawa, which found lime-water to be “superior to all other methods” – how, he didn’t say.

When I first tried to preserve eggs in lime-water, I simply mixed equal parts lime and water – which did no harm, but most of the lime simply settled to the bottom. It turned out a fraction as much lime would have sufficed – Shutt says that water saturates with lime at 700 parts water to one part lime, but adds that “owing to impurities in commercial lime, it is well to use more than is called for.” In any case, if you use more lime than is necessary to saturate in water, the rest simply condenses out.  

Since exposure to air causes more lime to condense over time, some articles recommend keeping the container sealed, either in a Kilner jar or by pouring a layer of oil over the top. I kept mine in an ordinary mayonnaise jar, and they kept fine for a year.

Eggs kept this way do come out with their whites darkened slightly, and with a faint “musty” smell like old clothes. It does not, however, have the unpleasant smell of a rotten egg – believe me, you won’t mistake one for the other. The difference can perhaps be compared to that of rehydrated milk from powder vs. fresh milk – the former is not inedible, just slightly different than expected. As Shutt puts it, nothing “can entirely arrest that ‘stale’ flavour common in all but strictly fresh laid eggs.”

I’m not aware of an upper limit on how long eggs could be kept this way, but I would not recommend going longer than several months to be on the safe side. Several months, however, still allows the homesteader to continue harvesting eggs through the winter.

Shutt recommends keeping the water at a cool temperature – 40-45 degrees Fahrenheit, or five degrees Centigrade, to help the preservation. That’s the temperature of a refrigerator, but a cellar or underground storage container would probably be fine. I kept mine at room temperature during an Irish year, where the temperature ranges from freezing (32F, 0C) in winter to lukewarm (75F, 25C) in summer, with no ill effects. Some old texts say to boil the lime-water, dissolving as much of the lime as you can and letting it cool before immersing the eggs; that might be slightly preferable simply to maximise the amount of lime dissolved or to sterilise the water, but I tried it both ways and noticed no difference in quality.

Some old recipes recommend adding salt to the eggs, but I tried it with and without salt and found that it didn’t make a difference, and neither did Shutt a century ago. Still other 19^th-century recipes mixed the lime with salt-peter and even borax, but I would not try those until I had confirmed their safety.

Experiments like this might seem pointless when we have refrigerators, freezers and a convenience store down the road. Many of us, though, like being able to do things ourselves, with simple ingredients, for a lot less money than processed food at the store would cost. Money and electricity, moreover, are less certain than they used to be; I know many friends who have lost jobs, or whose power now goes out regularly. The results are not as apocalyptic as most people imagine -- crises are rare, and even in a crisis life goes on – but in an emergency your family or neighbourhood would benefit from someone who knows how to do things the old-fashioned way.

Christmas during the Forgetting

Winter sunset over the Bog of Allen

Every year my daughter was growing up, I brought her to the Wren Day at the local forest, and was pleased to be part of a ritual that dates back hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Now that my daughter is a teenager, we haven’t been back in a few years, but I returned last year to visit it again. I was crestfallen, then, to find that the festival was cancelled … they couldn’t get enough people to come, they told me, in order to pay for the insurance they now need to pay.

I should explain that wrens are little songbirds that remain here through the winter, and their ritual here comes the day after Christmas. On that day we and hundreds of our neighbours would gather in the local woods, and in a clearing with park benches and a tea shop, musicians played traditional Irish music while locals gathered with hot drinks around fires or danced to the music, and children gathered around for the “Hunting of the Wren.”

In the ritual, local men dressed up as “wren boys” -- which for our group meant looking like Robin Hood’s Merry Men – gathered around a statue of the songbird. The wren, the men explained to all the gathered children, was sacred to the Celts – the old Irish name for it, dreoilin, means “the Druid bird.” One day a year, local “straw boys” – dressed like haystacks, their identities concealed -- hunted the wren as a prize, and the Wren Boys swore to protect the bird.

As the musicians played in the background, however, and as the children listened wide-eyed to the Wren Boys tell their stories, a group of Straw Boys snuck up behind them, hitting sticks together menacingly, grabbed the wren and ran off. The children erupted in delighted outrage, and the Wren Boys led hundreds of local children in a chase through the woods until they retrieved the bird. Eventually, the two sides came to an understanding, shook hands, and placed a small crown on the statue’s head, declaring the wren the King of Birds.

Straw boys approaching.

A friend of mine who specialised in folklore said the slaying of the wren meant the slaying of winter, and the pact to accept and cherish it meant the acceptance that winter would return – an important detail where we live, a thousand miles from the Arctic Circle where the winter nights are long and dark. In some eras, when Irish customs were being stamped out, the ritual had to be carried out in secret, but they did so anyway, so devoted were they to keeping it alive. Now, our local Wren Day is gone.

Of course, other communities will likely still celebrate it, but I suspect fewer every year. This is one of hundreds of ways in which the traditional, local and national cultures have been gradually steamrolled away by the mass pop culture of Hollywood.

I realise that I’m complaining about the loss of a tradition I didn’t grow up with myself, but the same is true of local culture in my native USA. Songs of the Appalachians and Ozarks, the rituals of towns and clans, are more and more preserved in amber by aficionados or tourist boards rather than lived by children, while family traditions grow more homogenized and dictated by the mainstream media, more focused on buying things quickly and discarding them. The same process has happened across Europe and, I’m told, non-Western countries where children are raised now by screens rather than blood.  

In each of those places – in every place we have been human – mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, teenagers and children gathered around campfires and hearths, around tables and altars, and shared the songs and stories that made them who they were. They passed down skills and dishes, rituals and holidays. In more and more places around the world now, only the older people remember such things, while the kids play video games or watch Youtube memes, their bodies sitting next to their grandparents but with an interior world that would be alien to their forebears.  

Of course, we’ve done this with holidays as well, so that all the festivals people here used to celebrate to mark the passing of the year have disappeared in the last few generations. Mention May Day, Lughnasa, Midsummer, Twelfth Night or to people these days and you get blank expressions – except the last two as titles of Shakespeare plays, among the few who know Shakespeare anymore.

Musicians at Wren Day

A few generations ago, a neighbour tells me, local children used to gather and dance around the May Pole in a field near us; today, I doubt any of the local children would know what May Day was, and the same could soon be true of Wren Day. A half century of Hollywood has done for this country what centuries of starvation and imprisonment could not.

Nowhere is this more true than around Christmas, which has metastasized from a holy day into a shopping season. For only a few weeks lamp-posts and cubicles grow plastic boughs and wreaths, and normally functional roofs sport enough lights to be seen from space. Radio stations put aside their normal playlists to endlessly repeat a handful of Christmas-related rock ballads over and over. Haggard faces jam the malls and shopping districts, news announcers track the spending numbers like a telethon host, and grim office ladies start aggressive campaigns to cover every surface with coloured cardboard and festive glitter.  If you’re like me, you want to boycott this seasonal magic as much as possible.

Don’t misunderstand; I cherish my own memories of Christmas, love the seasonal spirit and can carol with gusto. For that reason, though, I ration my exposure to the season; the decorations become a backdrop after the first time you see them, inspiring songs quickly grow annoying, and enforced spending leeches the joy from giving.  

The radio and television floods us with images of how our holiday is supposed to be: we are supposed to eat too much, drink too much, spend too much and listen to the endlessly repeated holiday songs, whether we actually enjoy these things or not, in the name of tradition.

But most of these customs are not the real Christmas traditions, and many were just created as marketing gimmicks by corporations. Only in the 1930s, for example, did a Coca-Cola advertising campaign cement our modern version of Santa Claus in the public mind, with a red-and-white colour scheme to match their product. Some version of Father Christmas has existed before then in other forms, of course, but even in the early 20th century ago people depicted him in a variety of outfits, often a green robe. He was often shown as thinner as well – perhaps it’s not a coincidence that his obesity began when he started advertising soda pop.  

Some of the Christmas songs we treat with reverence are not particularly old either, and some of them were also marketing campaigns: "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer," for example, was invented as an advertising gimmick for Montgomery Ward stores in 1939. Families on this side of the Atlantic tell their children that Santa lives in Lapland, rather than the North Pole, but that seems to have been a similarly late addition to the Christmas legend, developed mainly by the Finnish government in the 1960s to boost tourism.

No one is saying that all modern creations are bad, of course, and you can like whatever you like. I’m simply saying that the actual customs that our forebears kept for hundreds or thousands of years disappeared quickly and recently during the Great Forgetting of modern times, replaced by less wholesome and healthy customs manufactured by people with agendas.

In fairness, this is the only time of year many Americans are exposed to classic movies like It’s a Wonderful Life; repetition has turned them into white noise, and they were of course mass media products of their own time, but they remain a window into a less wasteful past. Likewise, if people are going to read novelists like Dickens, recite poetry, visit family members or sing songs in a group, it will probably be around this time of year.

But here’s the thing: many of those things used to happen every day. People used to spend every day with loved ones, and singing and storytelling used to be normal, and while not everyone in every era read books or saw plays, they used to be far more common a century or two ago than now. Every day used to be more like the best parts of Christmas today.

Take wassailing as an example. Today a few people here and there still sing carols around the neighbourhood around Christmas, or even wassail -- like carolling, except that the carollers were invited in for drinks. Only several decades ago – in the time of motor-cars and electricity, and within the memory of people still living – it was much more normal, even in America. Here in Ireland, though, people didn’t just do it at Christmas, but all through the winter, in a union of drunken party, social gathering and prayer that has no modern equivalent.

Such customs broke up the long darkness of winter, kept families from getting cabin fever, and let them check on each other. It allowed each family share with their neighbours – food drinks and stories -- in a pooling of resources. It strengthened the feeling of community, so that burdens were lessened because they were shared, and joys were heightened because they were shared.

The other thing to remember is that there’s nothing stopping us from bringing back many of these older rituals, which we might find still serve their old purpose. Wassailing would be a great thing for many older people --- or young people, for that matter – who don’t get out much. Give it a try, offering snacks or cider as you go along – if one in a hundred houses lets you in, that’s one house that might join you next year. Most importantly, you’ve planted a seed for everyone who heard you, and made it seem more normal. It doesn’t have to stop at Christmas either – remember that the twelve days of Christmas ends January 6 – or just make plans for next year.

Try singing some of the older songs; if you are tired of hearing “Fairytale of New York” or “Santa Baby” for the thousandth time this month, try looking up the music or words for “Angelus Ad Virginem,” “Tomorrow Will Be My Dancing Day,” or other neglected carols from ages past. Alternately, try looking up different versions of familiar carols; “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen” came in many regional forms, from mournful to jaunty, before settling on our current version. For my part, I’ll talk to people about reviving Wren Day here, and see who’s interested.

Wherever you are, your climate, neighbourhood and family will have your own customs – but look at what your grandparents, or their grandparents, did and what could be revived. Many of those customs, field-tested over generations, were more fun, and healthier for body and mind, than whatever the television’s telling you to do.