Assignment #2: A Place

I’m taking an autumn writing seminar sponsored by Mount Auburn Cemetery. Just for fun. Decided to share some of my assignments on the blog.

Assignment #2 – Write about a place that’s meaningful to you, and how it’s changed over time.

Photo Courtesy mountauburn.org

Mount Auburn Cemetery is man’s conception of nature: perfected. In 1831, a group of ‘founders’ (i.e. investors), purchased seventy-two acres of hinterland in Cambridge/Watertown with an Enlightenment vision to create a final resting place in harmony with nature. Instead of crowded burial grounds cramped in church shadows, Mount Auburn would a conscious landscape in which man would find eternal peace amidst purity, permanence, and abundance.

The original grounds, consecrated in 1833, were open to the public as a bucolic park. There were scenic buggy drives and serpentine walking paths, exotic plantings, an experimental farm, sculpted hills and contemplative ponds. Large plots, outlined by granite curbs, each featured a major monument and a dozen or more headstones.

Mount Auburn was an immediate success, and with success comes change. The experimental farm was abandoned for more burial space. A trolley line was built to accommodate throngs of visitors. A tower was built atop the highest peak, providing dramatic views back to Boston. The cemetery expanded to include 174 acres, more than double its original size.

When I first arrived to Boston in 1973, Mount Auburn Cemetery was a regional landmark which I occasionally visited. Twenty years later I moved only a few blocks away, and Mount Auburn became a regular refuge. My children and I enjoyed picnics under shady trees. We climbed the circular stairs of Washington Tower to be Lords of all we surveyed, pointing out our house, our school, our grocery store; in the foreground of the city beyond. I discovered the headstones of favorite citizens (Buckminster Fuller, McGeorge Bundy, Puzant Zildjian) and appreciated the architectural follies of Mary Baker Eddy and Isabella Stewart Gardner.

After I met my boyfriend Dave, our visits to Mount Auburn took on new dimensions. We loved creating backstories to the names, dates, and granite inscriptions. Who were brother and sister, husband, child, and wife? What happened to the dearly beloved who’s listed with a birthdate but no death? Is she still wandering the earth at age 147, or did she find other happiness in widowhood and lay down to rest elsewhere.

Dave, a botanist, helped me discriminate among the many varieties of shrubs and trees. We became ‘citizen scientists,’ tracking the bud/flower/leaf cycles of dozens of trees, some of which have been documented for over 150 years. Thus, this so-called permanent place becomes a gauge by which we measure climate change, as foliage seasons lengthen, and avian patterns reliant on that foliage adapt as well.

Although Mount Auburn does not change as dramatically as the surrounding cityscape, it’s a landscape in constant flux Over half its acreage is still available for burials, but Mount Auburn prohibits new individual markers, to help preserve greenery. New memorials are flush to the earth, or aggregated, or carved in natural features. As trees near two-hundred-year anniversaries, more become diseased. A mighty giant we documented through one growing season was gone the next. Sunlight now highlights gravestones long in its shadow.

Someday, Dave and I will lay side-by-side in this manicured ideal of nature. Perhaps my children will come and picnic with us there. The place will still be recognizable, though it will not be the same.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Assignment #1: A Photo

I’m taking an autumn writing seminar sponsored by Mount Auburn Cemetery. Just for fun. Decided to share some of my assignments on the blog.

Assignment #1 – Write a story about a photograph that’s meaningful to you.

There’s a photograph of me, standing, in profile, leaning to the left side of the frame, pushing a pistol barrel into my mouth.

That description is accurate, though the picture’s not so violent as it suggests. For I’m a toddler; clueless about guns. Nevertheless, it’s a powerful image, at least to me, as it perfectly captures the joys and confusions of my childhood.

The snapshot was taken on Christmas morning, 1956, in the living room of our new house in Toms River, New Jersey. I am 22 months old, wearing a footed flannel onesie and a full-brimmed hat that’s some catalog conception of what a toddler’s cowboy hat might be. A gunbelt’s slung around the bulge of my diaper, and my holster’s shifted from side to front. A faux leather, totally unnecessary, codpiece.

I am not alone. My gaze is intent on the two boys standing upstage right. My older brother Bill, age 5, is wearing an actual cowboy hat. White, of course. Bill always fancied himself the good guy. His belt and holster are properly positioned over his pajamas, and he points his pistols directly at the camera, which I suspect is what photographer mom directed before setting off the flash. Next to Bill, center stage, stands Peter, age 4, crouching forward and thrusting his barrels like a true gunman. Peter’s dark hat cannot shadow his big, mischievous smile. He alone seems to grasp the true magnificence of these Christmas gifts.

One other person completes the tableau. My sister Sugie, age 3, sits on the floor in front of Peter, safely beneath his guns’ trajectory. She’s a round girl, legs splay, a new doll in one arm, the other reaching to a cradle. No gun for the girl, though she’s also got a new hat, more nondescript even than my own. The price tag still hangs from her brim. As if Santa forgot to cut it off. As if my parents might decide to return her.

Four children, very young, quite unformed. Yet, so much of our characters are revealed in this moment. My two older brothers know the ways of the world; what a boy’s supposed to do with a hat and a holster and a pair of guns, even as their presentation is different: Bill’s studied; Pete’s authentic. My sister is simultaneously central and extraneous. Physically centered in our household and childhood order (another son eventually followed me), yet always treated as a completely different species. We boys always received the same gifts, the same treatment, the same gruff parenting. She always got the frilly presents, the lighter touch.

And then there’s me, looking up, always, to my brothers. To demonstrate the right way to be a boy, and someday a man. But never quite being able to pull it off. Because right from the start, we were such different boys, who have grown into very different men.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Friday Night Comfort Food

Hosts of TGBBS. Photo courtesy TVInsider.

I’m not much of a TV watcher. Like to stream movies and the occasional mini-series, but I lack the attentiveness required to watch a regular series, stretched out over a season.

Except in fall, when the days grow short and nights turn chilly and by Friday night I could really use some comfort food. That’s when my housemate and I watch The Great British Baking Show.

TGBBS is total comfort. A reality show of such good cheer that all the contestants help each other out. The format is exactly the same every episode, every season. We start off with a dozen “of England’s most outstanding amateur bakers.” Fortunately for the DEI crowd, every dozen includes a full array of ages, genders, and skin tones, whose origins include Bangladesh, Jamaica, and Ukraine, as well as Cornwall. Every episode includes three timed bakes over two days. A ‘signature challenge’ that the bakers have had a week to customize and practice, followed by a ‘technical challenge’ in which they face a recipe and ingredients blind. Day two centers on the ‘Showstopper Challenge,’ always an over-the-top concoction. Baker’s signatures are usually elaborate, often enticing. Their technicals vary widely, while the showstoppers are so overblown they scarcely qualify as food. At the end of the weekend, one person is named, ‘Star Baker,’ while another has to leave the tent. Thus, week after week, the group dwindles from twelve to eleven to ten…down to three.

2026 TGBBS Contestants. Photo Courtesy The Guardian.

No intellectual muscles overheat watching TGBBS. And you won’t learn how to bake either. The entire point (if there is one) is the jaunty repartee among a pair of wily judges (Good cop Nigella Lawson, Bad Cop Paul Hollywood), their dorkily funny sidekicks Alison Hammond and Noel Fielding, and the good-natured souls trying to bake sumptuous stuff under tight deadlines with those four sticking their noses, and commentary, at every opportunity. And yet, no one ever loses their temper and every fraught cry for assistance gets immediately aid.

Within one or two episodes, my housemate and I have ‘sussed out favorites, though we have no track record of picking winners. Although the show is streamed, we usually watch on Friday nights, when each episode drops. The weekly installment supports the illusion that this old-school, warm entertainment harkens from the days when TV actually occurred at specific times. We pretend to inhabit those good old days. We settle in, and enjoy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

To Kill A Mockingbird for the 21st Century

Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird

The Huntington

October 8 – November 8, 2026

By Aaron Sorkin

Directed by Loretta Greco

Karl Kenzler as Atticus and Karen Killeen as Scout. Photo by Liza Voll.

The Huntington’s production of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird is superb. Beautifully executed. Everyone should see it. Full stop.

The production is so good it makes clear that, despite the play’s title, this is not Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. It is Aaron Sorkin’s. Sorkin’s sensibility. in all its liberal glory, permeates every word of his 2018 interpretation of a mid-century American Classic.

There are two ways to experience the play. You can see it as my audience neighbors did, apparently unfamiliar enough with the story that they exclaimed at every knife-twist of the plot. Or, if you’ve read the 1960 book and seen the 1962 movie and even Christopher Sergel’s 1970 stage adaptation (of which Umbrella Arts in Concord did a fine production last year), you’ll absorb The Huntington’s magic through the lens of…Sorkin changed this, and expanded that, and eliminated the other.

The bones of the story remain intact. But timeframes are shifted, and direct audience address replaces the dual characters of ‘adult Scout’ versus ‘child Scout.’ More importantly, the only two significant Black characters in the story—Calpurnia, the Finch family housekeeper; and Tom Robinson, accused of raping a white woman—are more fully fleshed. They possess voice and emotion and harbor grievance, though, since the story’s set in 1934 Alabama, they still lack agency.

The more illuminating (and controversial) tonal shift is Atticus. The self-deprecating small-town lawyer who actively defends a Negro accused of rape, is traditionally seen as virtue personified. Here, he has human flaws. Apparently, President Trump’s comment after the 2017 Charlottesville, VA riot that “there were good people on both sides,” led Sorkin to reconsider Atticus’ moral purity. Sorkin’s Atticus is milquetoast, unable to condemn anyone in the Jim Crow town of Maycomb. Not his racist neighbor, nor the twelve white men who convict an obviously innocent man, nor even the incestuous rapist who pins his crimes on a Black man with the smug surety that race will trump deed.

It’s a big leap, attaching clay feet to a favorite hero, but Sorkin does it fleetly, and The Huntington presents it compassionately. The cast is uniformly excellent. Jackie Scholl, as Mayella Ewell is amazing, all trembling fire and fear. While Boston’s own Ken Cheeseman, as Judge Taylor, is a delight. Sorkin’s Mockingbird serves up more humor than Lee’s version, and Cheeseman fully inhabits his comic potential.

Karl Kenzler as Atticus and Rafael Jordan as Tom Robinson. Photo by Liza Voll.

There are a few hiccups. The denouement warrants more efficiency; fully mature Benjamin Izaak is miscast as a 12-year-old boy; and the set is simultaneously too stark yet too complicated, as props pop up and down against bland walls. On this huge stage, one could envision a stately courtroom elevated above a foreground of domestic action anchored by the essential tree. That simple setup would streamline movement while also supporting Scout’s ideal that when the bailiff calls court in session and declares, “All rise,” we do so in every possible sense.

These are minor quibbles against the overwhelming power of this superb production. It’s a sin to kill a mockingbird. It would also be a shame to miss this show. Attend. Let the myriad messages of moral complexity simmer. Emerge energized and motivated to make the change in our world that Atticus envisions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

James Baldwin’s Wisdom for Our Present Day

Photo courtesy bi.org

I recently read a wonderful book, Our Fathers: Reflections by Sons, a collection of essays by prominent writers about their relationships with their fathers. Funny, tragic, bittersweet, each piece caused me to stop and consider the myriad ways my own father manifests in me.

The opening essay, “Notes of a Native Son,” is a famous one, written by James Baldwin on the occasion of his father’s death. Published the year I was born, it speaks powerfully to me today.

I love the way James Baldwin writes; I honor the way he lived. His analysis, his anger, the clarity with which he sees the world. A clarity reserved for an outsider. Baldwin’s astute damnation of our nation, our prejudices, and our behaviors is always right. Yet he consistently yields short of being righteous. He identifies our human horrors, and then finds some glimmer of potential, some opportunity for communion or understanding. He suggests that someday, in some meaningful way, we might bridge the abyss that separates us all.

Towards the end of “Notes of a Native Son,” in the close of a lengthy paragraph about the legacy of his father’s preaching, Baldwin writes this single line.

“Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law.”

That line catapults me forward seventy-one years, to our dismal state of 2026, where hate has been normalized into government policy. Somehow, someday, our Hater-in-Chief will be destroyed by his own hate. If we can recognize Baldwin’s wisdom, and let it take root, we will learn from our folly that gave Trump such power. And we will expand, once again, in love.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why Do We Think AI is Going to Be the End of Us?

AI Woman and a horse. Courtesy The Equinest

I don’t understand AI. How it works, why it’s a boon, why it’s a threat. I don’t use it, except when Google crams it in my face before any other search result. I had an earnest discussion about AI with my level-headed thirty-something daughter who assured me that, yes, Dad, AI is an existential threat, and then admitted that, as my generation has already screwed up enough things in this world, AI is her generation’s bogeyman.

Despite not being on the hook for this looming disaster, I strive to stay tuned to the world, and so I read pretty much every article about AI in The New Yorker, The Boston Globe, The Atlantic; the proto-liberal rags that shape my worldview. And, over time, I believe some concept of what AI is, and what it’s capable of, is sponging into my aging brain.

Then in this week’s New Yorker (September 28, 2026) Jill Lepore’s article, “Is AI Above the Law” offered some insights that inched me closer to comprehension. Lepore’s a terrific writer whose often able to make common sense of complicated matters. Once again, she wrote to the rescue. This time, with horse analogies.

Legally speaking, AI’s closest analogy is chattel slavery. Slaves had owners, and the owners had rights over them. Except—handily for the owners—when slaves went rogue and acted on their own volition, in which case slaves were punished directly. According to Lepore: the antecedents for slave laws came from horses. Legally, horses are considered property first, sentient beings second. Ditto slaves. Ditto, for the moment, AI.

Lepore does an admirable job explaining how our legal processes, cumbersome and reactive, snarled in precedent, don’t seem up to the speed of AI’s transcendence. Some legal minds believe that’s fine; others argue AI demands more pro-action. Regardless, at this moment, AI’s legal precedents are essentially rooted in horses. Lapore goes on to describe how horses exist today: completely under the thumb of their human domesticators. Yet, are they any worse off for that subservience? Do they feel oppressed? Are horses seeking liberation?

The article ends with a suggestion that humans could become to AI what horses are to humans; creatures fully under another higher being’s control. Then she iterated the usual alarms about how AI can annihilate us.

But I came away with a completely different take. If humans are to AI what horses are to mankind, why would AI want to annihilate us? We love horses. We care for them, we admire their fleetness. They used to do real work for us but now they pretty much just hang out in pasture. An overriding plurality of clever minds seem to agree that AI could spell our doom. But, perhaps, AI will simply turn us into pets.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Hurling Chestnuts at the Current Moment

All My Sons

By Arthur Miller

Directed by Scott Edmiston

Lyric Stage Boston

September 18-October 18, 2026

Josephine Moshiri Elwood and Mark Souza. Photo by Benjamin Rose

The present MAGA moment often harkens back to America after World War II, when our country has king of the heap, white men ran the show, their wives stayed home, and people of color were, well, pretty much never considered. But undercurrents of doubt and discontent existed, even then, which prompted some playwrights to raise uncomfortable questions. So it’s notable that today, many theater companies are dusting off chestnuts from that era and offering them as a contrapuntal perspective to our current moment.

ART’s production of Eugene Ionesco’s anti-Fascist masterpiece, Rhinoceros (alas, only through September 27, and completely sold out), is a solid production with a stellar cast. Seeing Paul Giametti transform from petty bureaucrat to rhinoceros is worth the price of a ticket. But the whole enterprise left me cold. Ionesco was a driving force in “Theater of the Absurd,” and an essential characteristic of the Absurd is that the actors don’t play real people. They’re types or symbols, widgets in the apocalypse of dread suspended between World War II and nuclear Armageddon. Surface frivolity (poorly) masks existential doom. I understand it, intellectually. But Ionesco lacks the warmth of humanity that I cherish on stage. And when we hear rhinoceros stampede across ART’s huge stage with such precision, Fascism’s march toward uniformity feels like something happening ‘over there.’ Which is the exact opposite of the urgency our present moment demands.

A more satisfying exploration of twisted values that thrive in post-War America just opened at Lyric Stage: Arthur Miller’s All My Sons. Lyric’s small stage and intimate seating; a plot centered on four households that actually only occupy three adjacent houses; the earnest Midwest setting; this p[production distills moral bankruptcy to its most elemental level.

Laura Marie Duncan and Bill Mootos. Photo by Benjamin Rose.

The set is terrific. A 1920’s era bungalow, distorted to cubist angles, provides the backdrop for all the action takes place in the front yard. Neighbors come and go. Everyone seems so wholesome. Eldest son Larry’s plane went down over the Pacific three and a half years ago, and Mother’s inability to accept the obvious appears to be the biggest problem on the table.

The first act starts a bit sluggish. Miller’s dialogue of anticipatory domestic events is clunky and the cast seems unsettled. Until the minutiae gains momentum. Then, the plot soars, the dialogue zings, and the actor’s raise their pitch. Bill Mootos, a longtime Boston actor, delivers likely the best performance of his career as father, Joe Keller. By the end of Act Three, everyone in the cast has you poised uncomfortable on your seat. This is not some intellectual exercise. These are real people. People we want to think of as good. Doing terrible things, and swallowing the necessary compromises to salve their consciences. The kind of compromise too many of us make every day, simply to get up and put one foot in front of the other.

Go see All My Sons. Care about these folks. Search your own soul to determine what reflection resides therein. Then look around see how far we haven’t come in the last eighty years.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Eleanor at Central Square Theater is a Triumph!

Eleanor

By Mark St. Germain

Directed by Bryn Boice

Central Square Theater

September 10-October 11, 2026

Image courtesy CST website

Any opportunity to see Paula Plum, the dame of Boston theater, is always good reason to get up and get out to a show. But you must run to see Ms. Plum’s star turn in Central Square Theater’s production of Eleanor. She is simply spectacular. And the play, a one woman show about the life of Eleanor Roosevelt, is rich in unexpected detail and dramatic tension. This perfect fusion of superb actor and engaging subject makes for a rewarding ninety minutes.

Central Square Theater (CST) is mission-driven, perhaps more than any theater company in the area. They thrive on plays about women, science, and progressive voices. Sometimes, so preachy as to be academic rather than dramatic. But fortunately, Eleanor plays to CST’s strengths without ever giving over to lecture. You learn a lot, but come away being both thought-provoked and entertained.

The set-up is simple, yet spot on. Present day, at Rock Creek Cemetery in Washington, D.C., where the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt comes to visit. Why, you may ask, this cemetery, when Eleanor Roosevelt, who died in 1962, is buried beside her husband, Franklin, in Hyde Park, New York? Three reasons, I suspect. First, to illustrate the fraught complexity of Eleanor and Franklin’s marriage. Where their bodies lie bears little connection to where their spirits thrive. Second, because it’s historical fact that Eleanor Roosevelt often visited Augustus Saint-Gaudens’ haunting statue, The Mystery of the Hereafter and The Peace of God that Passeth Understanding (commonly known as Grief), when contemplating the heartache of her husband’s life-long affair with Lucy Mercer Rutherford. And third, by setting the play in the present, Eleanor gets to aim her sharp wit at present-day Washington, which she does sparingly, yet to great effect.

Image coutesy Wikipedia

“Who are any of us, but the choices we make?” Eleanor challenges early in the play, and then Paula Plum, decked out in an elegantly simple vintage dress with a double string of pearls, proceeds to entangle us in the multiple, complex choices that Eleanor made in life. Ms. Plum also plays more than a dozen side characters, all of whom she renders with alacrity and humor. The cemetery set is stark, yet the occasional projections elicit a range of moods and reinforce the sense of spanning time.

Eleanor hits all the high points we already know about the longest serving First Lady: her ungainly looks; her championship of the downtrodden; her relationship with Lorena Hicks. But it doesn’t dwell in gossip. Rather, the play introduces a bevy of attributes and characters of which I was unaware. Eleanor’s elegant French tutor who taught, “how to raise your place in society, not settle for where society puts you.” Eleanor’s unstinting devotion to her (no good) father. Her close relationship with a beefy Secret Service guard. The clarity—and blinders—that both she and Franklin brought to their marriage and their official roles. Eleanor was the emotional heart (and functional legs) of the duo; Franklin the savvy political animal.

I will not spoil the dramatic peak of this biography we all think we know, except to say there’s drama aplenty, which Paula Plum delivers magnificently.

Go see Eleanor. Because it’s a story infused with hope, which we need in these brutal days. But also, to feel comforted in what we know about this remarkable woman, challenged by what we don’t know, and delighted by the engaging theater experience. Thank you, Paula Plum. Thank you Central Square Theater.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Happy Summer!

A beautiful marsh mellow flower along the shore of the Charles.

Enjoy the summer.

Awkward Pose looks forward to return in the fall.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fairyland: in Print and on Screen

Courtesy The Boston Globe

Somehow, I’ve never met Alysia Abbott. She’s lived around the corner from me for more than a decade, in an octagon house set back to allow a most remarkable tree claim space. She’s been to my house, at a party my housemate gave while I was off pedaling somewhere West. Her husband designed a poster that’s framed in my kitchen; one that I lifted from a boarded-up building on the outskirts of SoHo back in the 90’s

I’ve known of Alysia for years. Her memoir, Fairyland, about growing up in San Francisco with a gay dad in the 1980’s, got great press in the mid-2010’s, just before my memoir, Architecture by Moonlight, went straight to the dollar bin. I never read Fairyland. Ostensibly because, twenty years after coming out, I was over reading gay books about San Francisco and AIDS. But really, I was just envious of her success.

A few weeks ago, my housemate mentioned that Fairyland had been made into a movie, streaming on Amazon. Did I want to watch? Not really; envy having a long half-life in my Celtic psyche. But I agreed to watch because, well, at least I have the self-awareness to know when I’m being small.

Fairyland, the movie, is okay. Emilia Jones as Alysia is captivating. Geena Davis as her grandmother is horrid. Scoot McNairy, as Alysia’s father Steve, captures the gently narcissistic gestalt of pre-and post-AIDS San Francisco quite well. Which, as I watched the movie, bothered me more and more.

I have no tolerance for anyone who’s a lousy parent, especially when the parent turns out to be gay. The father in Fun Home, who leaves his children alone at night to go tricking, makes my skin crawl. He gives gay parents a bad rap. Watching Fairyland, I felt that same way about Steve Abbott. Throughout the movie, he drags his daughter to various adult events, leaves her alone too often, and exposes her to random sexual partners too freely. We see Alysia alone, vulnerable, preyed upon by perverts, and saved by strangers when her father ought to be there. By movie’s end, I was sick of Steve Abbott.

But I also realized that Alysia’s Abbott’s memoir was likely quite different from the movie, if for no other reason than the title alone conjures something more magic than miserable.

So I borrowed Fairyland, the book, from the library; and I’m so glad that I did. The book is lovely. Yes, the events portrayed in the movie are there. But they’re buffered by so many scenes of parental care and concern. In the book, Steve is less a narcissist than an innocent. His benign view of the world translates into a parental style that might be considered permissive, but certainly not uncaring.

Comparing the movie and the book offers a vivid illustration of how we contort reality to create drama. By leaving out the majority of positive parenting expressed in the book, while highlighting all of the shortcomings, Steve Abbott becomes a caricature of the nuanced, complex man he truly was. I gather that Alysia Abbott didn’t have a large voice in creating the movie, though her Boston Globe opinion piece indicates harmony with the result. But I, for one, wish the movie had found a better balance, offered us more joy. It’s something I’d like to discuss with Ms. Abbott. If we ever get the chance to meet.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment