Americans Claim to Hate "Socialized Medicine" - but they Actually Depend on It

This post stems from both a conversation online with a friend and a series of similar cases that have come through my office lately. And also, the recent cuts to the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) subsidies inflicted on Americans by the Republican Party. 

 

Americans - particularly white Americans - tend to see “socialized medicine” as a bogeyman, something to fear, the source of all problems, and on and on. 

 

And yet, Americans depend on the existence of socialized medicine for their survival - at some point in their lives. In fact, I have found that most people - including right wingers - really desire socialized medicine. They just can’t articulate it to themselves, because that would challenge their political commitments.

 

There are a few myths that prop up this belief, and continue to prevent the United States from joining the rest of the first world (and an increasing number of third world countries) in adopting true universal healthcare. 

 

I have practiced in the area of Medicaid law for over a quarter century. Here in California, we call it “Medi-Cal,” and other states often have their own cute names, but it is all Medicaid. My focus is getting people qualified for Medi-Cal when they need nursing home care, and preventing a claim against their estates for benefits paid. But I also have advised a lot of clients about “community-based” Medi-Cal, Medicare, and other health insurance related issues. 

 

I can say with honesty that the following are true:

 

(1) When I am able to solve problems for my clients, the solution is always some form of socialized medicine. 

(2) When I am unable to solve problems for my clients, it is nearly always because their real need is a form of socialized medicine that the United States refuses to provide for its people. 

 

I also practice law in a fairly Red county. Because senior citizens (55+) are the bulk of my clients, they skew even further Republican than the county generally. I regularly get clients wearing Trump hats and railing on about how all their problems are due to some combination of Democrats, black people, Hispanic people, and immigrants. 

 

In reality, their problems, more often than not, would be far worse if they lived in a Red state, and are caused by a lack of socialized medicine that covers their situation. 

 

This makes it, shall we say, challenging to be a lawyer some days. 

 

***

 

Let’s start with some truths that need to be acknowledged:

 

For purposes of this post, I will use “socialized medicine” to describe a healthcare system that includes the following:

 

(A) Universal coverage of a class of people, regardless of health status

(B) Government payment of all or part of the cost

 

This isn’t an entirely accurate definition, however. It is what most people mean when they use the term. 

 

An accurate description (per the dictionary) is a healthcare system owned and operated by the government - such as Britain’s NHS. This does not include other systems where there is a single payer (the government) but private ownership of hospitals and other providers. The latter is the most common form of universal coverage. It also does not include systems like that of Germany, which uses tight regulation, mandates, and subsidies in combination with private insurers to get the same result. 

 

If you want a quick and easy to understand summary of the systems some different countries use, this website is helpful. You might be surprised at some of the countries with better systems than ours. Just saying.

 

I use the colloquial definition of “socialized medicine,” however, because arguing about what is and isn’t “socialized medicine” is pointless and futile in most cases. 

 

It is easy to see, with this definition, that the United States already has some degree of socialization of its medical system. 

 

Medicare is socialized medicine.

 

If you are eligible for Social Security, and are age 65 or older, you receive Medicare, regardless of your income, health status, or employment. Everyone is covered. 

 

Government pays most of the cost (excluding co-pays and co-insurance), using tax dollars. One source (but not the only source) is the percentage withheld from wages as payroll/self-employment taxes. As I will discuss more later, this is one reason many people see Medicare as different from socialized medicine. 

 

But it is, in fact, socialized medicine. 

 

If it were not, then it would be paid by private funds, it would exclude those too sick to be profitable, and insurance companies could kick you off as soon as you cost too much. 

 

People age 65 and older are essentially uninsurable. By that age, all of us are at risk for needing care - and more of it as we get older. 

 

My clients often fail (or refuse?) to understand that literally the only reason they have access to healthcare in their old age is because we as a nation have socialized their medicine. 

 

Medicaid is socialized medicine.

 

Medicaid is, in my opinion, the most misunderstood Federal program. This is in part because the American right wing has succeeded in demonizing it and those who use it. I believe as well that a factor is the way that states (including California) have changed the name of the program. 

 

If I had a dollar for every person I have heard saying, “I’m not worried about cuts to Medicaid - I have Medi-Cal.” Not realizing, of course, that they are the same thing.

 

There are other misconceptions, driven by propaganda. The truth?

 

Most recipients of Medicaid fall into one of these categories:

(1) Low wage workers whose employers refuse to pay benefits 

(2) Low income seniors who are retired

(3) Disabled people, including the mentally ill

(4) The minor children of those who are either low wage or disabled

 

The rest mostly fall into smaller categories, such as college students, caregivers for the elderly or disabled, or unemployed and unable to find work. 

 

There are actually very, very few recipients who are able to work and find employment but do not. 

 

This idea of people freeloading is a myth. A straight-up lie. Access to healthcare doesn’t lead to anyone freeloading. Rather, access to healthcare enables people to treat illness and return to work. 

 

Another truth:

 

41% of all births in the United States are paid for by Medicaid. This rate is even higher in many Red states - Louisiana is the highest at 64%.

 

Needless to say, this isn’t because 41% of people of childbearing age are lazy freeloaders - most of them do indeed work. Rather, it is because younger people are likely to have lower wages, and less access to benefits. 

 

Another truth:

 

Nearly all people in nursing homes are having their care paid by Medicaid. Medicare does not cover long term care. Few of us have $13,000 a month sitting around waiting to be spent. Thus, nearly everyone - the obscenely rich excluded - are getting Medicaid if we need nursing care. 

 

This is where I usually end up assisting people in obtaining socialized medicine. 

 

Medicaid is indeed socialized medicine. If you meet the income and asset guidelines (which vary depending on the specific program within Medicaid you need), you will qualify, regardless of health. The government pays the cost. 

 

Another truth:

 

Undocumented people do not get Medicaid except in an emergency. And remember, this emergency coverage is there to protect the provider. This means that undocumented people are denied access to preventative medicine, diagnosis, and treatment except when they are actually dying or trying to. (Or if they are in a nursing home, because once upon a time, we didn’t leave old ladies to die on the street.)

 

That this is stupid, cruel, and hateful is true – and I will look at that a bit in the next post. It is also thoroughly anti-Christian.

 

The ACA exchanges are socialized medicine

 

This is another area where misunderstandings are rampant. 

 

“I hate Obamacare - we should get rid of it. I prefer the Affordable Care Act.”

 

They are, of course, the same thing. And Obamacare is really just the old Republican plan - Romneycare - but because a Democrat enacted it, it is bad, right?

 

(Beyond the scope of this post is a discussion of the merits and problems with the ACA - that is a whole topic.)

 

The ACA exchanges were intended to fill the gap between middle class people (who are fairly likely to have employer-subsidized insurance) and poverty level people (who qualify for Medicaid.) 

 

The GOP, through its bought and paid for Supreme Court, and legislative undermining, has chipped away at the ACA. By eliminating the individual mandate (at least the fines which enforced it), people who were currently in good health could (and often did) take the risk of not paying for coverage, since they figured they could always join later when they got sick. And, more recently, but cutting the subsidies, the cost of those ACA plans will skyrocket next year. 

 

Far too many people - particularly in Red states - rely on these plans even as they vote to cut their own throats. 

 

And yet, these are indeed socialized medicine. The plans are required to cover pre-existing conditions, take all applicants, and a significant portion of the costs had been covered by government funding. 

 

As this funding is withdrawn, and people can no longer afford the plans, a death spiral is likely to ensue, driving costs further and further higher until the system collapses. 

 

This is intentional on the part of the Republican Party, which has also voted to make massive cuts to Medicaid. The why is something I will discuss later in this post. 

 

The bottom line is that a lot of people gained coverage through the ACA, and now stand to lose their coverage through no fault of their own, but through the actions of one of our main political parties. 

 

Employer-provided insurance is socialized medicine

 

Did this surprise you? It shouldn’t. If you get employer-provided insurance, it is universal: you get the insurance regardless of how healthy you are, your age, your income level. 

 

Not as well understood is that it too is subsidized. This happens in two ways. First, the healthier (meaning younger) employees use less, and the extra is used to care for the less healthy (meaning older) employees. 

 

The other is less well known. Because health insurance is an “above the line” deduction, employees do not pay taxes on it. If you count health insurance as part of the wage paid, then that part of the wage is not taxed. Meaning it is subsidized by other taxpayers. I wrote about this a few years ago. The worst part is that high income people get more of a subsidy for their health insurance. 

 

Employer-provided insurance therefore does indeed qualify as socialized medicine - and that is why we all want it, and even make job decisions based on obtaining and keeping this coverage.

 

ALL of us benefit from socialized medicine, whether we have private insurance or not

 

This too is a huge misunderstanding that many people have about our healthcare system. It too is the result of a deliberate propaganda misinformation campaign by the right wing. 

 

Have you or anyone you loved done any of the following:

(1) Ridden in an ambulance to get to care?

(2) Been treated in a hospital?

(3) Been treated in an emergency room?

(4) Received healthcare at a rural hospital or clinic?

(5) Needed care in a nursing home? 

 

Guess what? You have benefited from socialized medicine. Because without it, none of these would be able to survive. 

 

This is where a huge misunderstanding comes in. The purpose of socialized medicine isn’t just to pay for care. It is to ensure that the providers of that care get paid. 

 

When you call an ambulance, why does it come? Well, because the company that provides that ambulance knows that it will get paid, whether or not you have insurance. (There are a few exceptions, but they are relatively rare.) 

 

Emergency rooms are required by law to treat anyone who comes in (more about that later), and they can only do so knowing that they will get paid. 

 

And what about after the emergency room, when you are admitted to the hospital for care? That too is only possible because of socialized medicine paying the providers. 

 

Going even further, rural providers - hospitals, clinics, doctors, labs, and more - typically treat a population that is lower income than average, with a majority often on Medicaid. Do you think that such a provider could afford to give away more than half their care without being paid? Of course not. Without socialized medicine, these providers would close. 

 

As would most urban hospitals as well. The only ones that could afford to exist are those that were in places where few people are low wage workers. 

 

My wife is now in management at one of our local hospitals, and has been in on meetings with the local and regional CEOs. And it is ugly - they are literally talking about which hospitals they are going to have to close with even the cuts that the Republican Party made this year. If the ACA exchanges collapse, that is more uninsured people who will have zero coverage except for emergency Medicaid……which is also on the chopping block. 

 

And yes, this problem is even more serious in Red states. Rural healthcare in particular could very well disappear entirely from much of Red state America. 

 

This assumes that the OTHER socialized medicine, Medicare, stays intact. Without that, the senior population would mostly lack the ability to pay. That would pretty much completely collapse our system entirely. Only the obscenely rich could afford to fly to Europe every time they needed healthcare. 

 

Note that when these go away, ALL of us suffer. The ambulance won’t come for us either. The emergency room will be hours away and too crowded to see us. If we get sick on vacation, there will not be a hospital or clinic to treat us anywhere nearby. 

 

At that point, we will be living in the equivalent of a failed state, a third world nation where getting sick or injured means death or disability, not treatment and recovery. 

 

I already mentioned above that nursing homes rely on Medicaid for long term care patients. And on Medicare for pretty nearly everyone there on a short stay. 

 

***

 

Recurring Client Scenarios

 

I wanted to talk a bit about some scenarios I see in my office all the time. These are not specific cases - I have removed identifying details - and they happen again and again and again and again. 

 

Scenario #1:

 

Client is in their late 50s or early 60s, and becomes ill with a chronic serious disease that needs long-term treatment and care. 

 

Think of things like cancer, heart disease, autoimmune disease, joint degeneration. 

 

As a result, they miss some work, and the employer fires them or lays them off. Now they get that COBRA notice informing them that they have 60 days to sign up for gap coverage or they lose all health insurance. And this gap coverage costs thousands of dollars per month! 

 

So, they come to me, and all I can tell them is that they are over the income limit for Medicaid (due to unemployment payments, or a spouse’s income). At least we have the ACA, right? Well, those costs just went WAY up - perhaps almost as much as COBRA payments. 

 

What do they do? If they are sick enough, the “best” option they have is to go on Medicaid with a really high “share of cost” - that’s a co-pay they have to make before Medicaid covers anything. For a single person, that means they “get” to keep $21,597 per year of their income (2025 limits - they change each year), which is all of $1,800 per month, not enough to pay average rent even in Bakersfield. So, do they lose their house? Or die of treatable cancer?

 

Yes, this fucking SUCKS! And this is the stupidity we put up with as Americans. 

 

Scenario #2:

 

Client is in their late 70s, increasingly frail, and becoming forgetful. They cannot safely live at home. 

 

The best place for them would be in a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) - we commonly call these Assisted Living, Memory Care, or Board and Care. 

 

Alas, these places can cost $3,000 per month or up to a lot more than that. Client only has $2500 per month in income. 

 

So, the only option is a skilled nursing facility, which Medicaid will pay for. And, which costs Medicaid a lot more per month than the RCFE would cost. 

 

So, client gets a worse situation, the government pays more. It’s a lose-lose. At least there is Medicaid to pay for the nursing home. If that goes away, what? People die in their homes from neglect?

 

Scenario #3:

 

Young couple is engaged. They get a little ahead of things, and get pregnant. They have no employer-provided benefits, although they do both work. They want to go ahead and get married, but are worried about paying for the pregnancy - even an uncomplicated one is tens of thousands of dollars, and if something goes wrong, they would be financially destroyed.

 

What are their options? Well, prior to the ACA, not much. 

 

Private insurance would turn them away because of the pre-existing condition. In fact, most plans wouldn’t cover a pregnancy until two years of payments had been made. Yeah, that’s helpful. 

 

Medicaid? Well, that is problematic if they make “too much” money. 

 

The “best” option? She quits her job, and they remain unmarried so his income doesn’t count. And indeed, I have advised clients in this situation to do just that. Have your children, get married after you are done. 

 

Note that this could be even worse: imagine they were already married? The best legal advice I could give them would be to get divorced. And yes, that is crazy! 

 

The ACA, at least, gave options: get insurance through the exchange, with subsidies based on income, making coverage at least somewhat more affordable. This is what the Republicans decided to take away this year. 

 

Scenario #4:

 

Parents have a child who is profoundly disabled and needs constant care. This includes surgeries, in-home nursing, and more. A LOT more. And this need for care will not end when the child turns 18. 

 

Most private insurance does not cover all of the care needed. Often, not even close. So what is a parent to do? 

 

Well, Medicaid currently steps in, even if the parents have too much income and assets to qualify for benefits themselves. And when the child turns 18, they will qualify for Medicaid for the care they will need for the rest of their lives. 

 

***

 

I could add to this list, of course. The people in other states who find that their entire savings will be spent on nursing home care, or claimed in an estate claim, literally making them worth more to their heirs dead than alive. The people who are suddenly laid off, jeopardizing their access to life-saving medications like insulin - where even the delay in applying for Medicaid or ACA insurance could kill them. The undocumented workers who are ineligible for Medicaid and ACA who end up in the ER and hospitalized with life-threatening conditions that could have been prevented had they had affordable access to primary care and diagnosis. 

 

Our medical system is fucked up and cruel and stupid. 

 

It also costs us twice as much per person than the rest of the first world.

 

That above is a fact. We pay far more to cover fewer people. And we also get outcomes that are no better - and are often far worse (maternity and infant mortality, for example) than the rest of the first world. 

 

Every one of the scenarios I listed above would be solved with universal socialized medicine.

 

Every single one. 

 

Imagine if, when you lost your job, your insurance kept on going, whether or not you could afford hundreds or thousands of dollars per month. Imagine if you could get cheaper, less institutional living and care arrangements near the end of your life. Imagine if pregnancy and starting a family didn’t risk financial ruin because your employer refused to provide benefits. Imagine if we treated nursing home care like other healthcare, and paid for it, rather than trying to financially ruin the elderly as punishment for getting old and frail. Imagine if working class people didn’t go without healthcare because they couldn’t afford it. Imagine if we didn’t cruelly punish the people who harvest our crops, build our houses, mow our lawns, and a lot of other necessary yet poorly compensated jobs by denying them healthcare?

 

We could do ALL of this - the rest of the first world does, after all - but we refuse to.

 

Why is that?

 

I’ll talk about that in the next post.

 

The Ten Loves of Nishino by Hiromi Kawakami

Source of book: Audiobook from the library

 

For some time, I have had The Briefcase (also known by the alternate title of Strange Weather in Tokyo) by Hiromi Kawakami on my reading list - it seems to be considered her best book. However, it has been beastly trying to find a copy to borrow. Instead, it turned out that the wait wasn’t too long on The Ten Loves of Nishino, which sounded intriguing enough. 

 

An alternate title, which I actually think is better, is The Ten Loves of Mr. Nishino, because his actual name is Yukihiko Nishino. However, throughout the book, both names are used. Interestingly, the last name is used more often, including by schoolmates and peers. Also, it is used by the younger women in the story. In contrast, there are a couple of women who are either of the same age or older than he is, who feel close enough to use the first name. 

 

The interesting idea behind the book is that Nishino is the main character, yet we never hear his perspective. Instead, the book is narrated in turn by the ten women (or girl in one case) who are romantically involved with him over the course of his life from his early teen years to his sudden death in his fifties. 

 

Each of the women is different, and their perspectives of Nishino are different as well. 

 

Who IS he? 

 

The book at one point describes him as a “womanizer,” but I’m not sure this is universally true throughout the book. Yes, he sleeps around, and sometimes with more than one woman. But he isn’t in to the thrill of the chase, and doesn’t seem to be leading the women on. 

 

In trying to find information on the names of the women (spelling off an audiobook is challenging, to say the least), I ran across writeups that saw Nishino as a stand-in for all the horrible men women date, but I didn’t get that vibe at all from the book. 

 

Nishino is a complicated character. He has a tragic backstory, as we find out. He struggles to find genuine deep connection with women, but the women themselves have the exact same struggle in connecting with him. They are equally commitment-phobic. In fact, they are more so, as several turn down Nishino’s proposals, either for a more committed relationship, or marriage itself. 

 

One of the stories includes a scene that is pretty rapey by modern standards - she says no, but he persists. And yet, she is in a position of power over him, as his boss, and rather than punish him, she chooses a relationship. And then eventually dumps him. So, it isn’t a clear case of power. 

 

More often, throughout the book, Nishino comes off as a genuinely nice guy, but one who is too haunted to fully give and experience emotional intimacy. And likewise for the women, who actually are less emotionally vulnerable, on average, than Nishino is. 

 

Without getting too far into the plot details, I want to note that the AI generated summaries online are shite. Utter shite. This is unsurprising, because AI is not “intelligence” at all, just predictive text. It does not understand the book at all. Hence, ignore the character list. Except for the spellings, which I did check to see if they were legit, and re-listened to where they are mentioned in the book. 

 

There are ten total women (or girls), and each tells the story of their relationship with Nishino. The stories are not in chronological order, but jump around a great deal. In some ways, the book starts with the end. Nishino’s shade visits one of his past loves - perhaps his greatest love? - after he dies, and asks her to “bury” him in her garden. 

 

Because the AI character list is so terrible, and I was unable to find better information, I will list all the women here, with a bit about them that actually makes sense as part of the book. If you don’t want spoilers, skip this section. 

 

I would say that the main theme of the book is the achingly difficult problem of human intimacy. And I don’t mean sex. Many of the characters fuck without any emotional intimacy at all. Others - Nishino included - often try to combine the two, but sex is physical and easy compared to moving past attraction to a deep, intimate love. 

 

This is why I think the analyses that claim the book is a “feminist” screed against worthless men miss the point badly. Nishino is no villain, and he is not intended to be. He is no better or worse than the women who come in and out of his life. The tragedy isn’t about him, but about the failure to connect, the inability of all of the people in this book to allow themselves to bond fully with anyone else. 

 

To know and be known is a difficult thing, painful and vulnerable and raw. To know and be known and to pair bond over the long term is both incredibly beautiful and also rare and fragile to maintain. 

 

I am reminded of a song from my childhood, by Keith Green, about his own marriage. 

 

You want to love with me, love with me then

I only ask that you still be my friend

For there are many where friendship's unknown

They live together, but really alone

 

And the days go their ways in silence

Tense hours of woe

We do not mean to have it so

 

I know that sometimes I'm harder to love

I thrash out blindly like nothing's thought of

So won't you help me to help you be sure?

God only knows that I want to be pure

 

But the world keeps its promise daily

Pulling me down

But it can't hide what I have found

 

So I will love you and love you, I do

It's not complete yet, but you know we're not through

And the days go their ways in blessings, moments of truth

We truly dare not waste our youth

 

So many live together, but really alone - indeed, that is the story in this book. Nishino is so close, and yet so far, from the intimacy he craves. And he really does crave it more than the women he loves, most of whom break up with him shockingly casually. The “what if?” question hangs over the entire book. While a few relationships seem obviously doomed, the others could easily have resulted in happiness for both…but don’t. 

 

Kawakami’s writing is concise, yet filled with everyday detail. Each of the ten women feel unique, with their own voices. For a fairly short book, it makes the most of its space to flesh out the characters and emotional landscapes. 

 

I found it to be a thought-provoking book, with unexpected delights along the way, even as the overall pervading mood is one of sadness and regret. 

The audiobook was narrated by Cindy Kay, who did a great job with the voices. Nishino in particular has a lovely understated voice that fits his personality. The translation is by Allison Markin Powell.  

 

Here are the women, in the order they tell their stories. 

 

Natsumi: 

 

She is a married woman having an affair with Nishino during his middle age. She and her young daughter meet him away from home, and he always buys the daughter a parfait, even though she dislikes them. When Nishino’s shade comes to visit after his death, she gives him a tiny gravestone in her garden, which allows him peace at last. Is she his true love? 

 

Shiori: 

 

This is the first in chronological order, a schoolhood friend who shares a kiss with Nishino. However, she isn’t really into him, so they never become an item. This is where we first hear about Nishino’s older sister, who lost an infant daughter. Shiori also witnesses some weird stuff between Nishino and his sister, which we learn more about later. 

 

Manami:

 

This is the one which starts off with “Nishino is an animal,” and the rape scene. She is his supervisor at work, a few years older. She dumps him after deciding he is incapable of love. But is it she instead? This is where the book's ambivalence is at its height. Is Manami ultra-perceptive and can see that Nishino can’t commit? Or, and this is arguably more likely, is she projecting her own fear of commitment onto him? 

 

Kinoko: 

 

She is his girlfriend during his 20s. They have a fairly long relationship (by the standards of this book) that seems good. It ends when Kinoko, for reasons even she doesn’t understand, leaves Nishino for a man she doesn’t even like. Many years later, when Nishino is with Manami, she runs into them - we get a really awkward “you slept with him” moment, which is told from both perspectives. At that point, Kinoko is filled with regret for leaving Nishino, and tries to convince him that they should try again. But it is too late. 

 

Reiko: 

 

She is an author, a good bit older than him, who is sexually aggressive. The story starts with her thinking, “I want to have sex with him,” and gives him a brazen come-on. And ends up staying for a whole week. For her, the problem is that she wants to be independent, and doesn’t want Nishino to be any more than a quick, fun fuck. 

 

Tama: 

 

One of two stories set during Nishino’s college years. Tama is a roommate with Subaru, who is dating Nishino at the time. One night, Tama and Nishino fuck, are discovered by Subaru, who ends not only the relationship, but moves out. The interesting thing about this one is the amusing story of how Tama and Subaru ended up roommates in the first place - it involves a refrigerator, which Subaru names. And indeed, I think the two of them cared more about the appliance than Nishino. There is also the problem that Tama and Subaru have a thing for each other that neither will admit.  

 

Eriko: 

 

She is a neighbor, and she and Nishino initially bond over their shared love of a stray cat who adopts Eriko, and who she names Mao. This relationship also could have been viable, except that Eriko, who is divorced, has no interest in risking her heart again, and is emotionally unavailable. Nishino proposes, but she turns him down.

 

Sayuri: 

 

Significantly older woman - in her 60s, and married with adult children. Nishino is about 30 in this story. They meet at an “Economy Cooking” class. It is unclear if they even have sex, or if he just confides in her. He ghosts her and the class eventually. In fact, I think this is the only story in which Nishino initiates the breakup. 

 

Ai: 

 

This story comes chronologically last in Nishino’s life (not counting his afterlife.) Ai is a college student who works at a concession stand in the vacation town where Nishino is visiting. He is 50 at this point. They have kinky sex, but she never loves him. He dies in an accident during the relationship. 

 

Nozomi Masuno: 

 

The only woman as far as I remember, who gets two names. She becomes Nishino’s college girlfriend, after a fashion. She sleeps around - 5 guys in one week, and even more - but she insists that she is choosy - she only fucks men that interest her. Nishino confides his secret about his sister to her: that she eventually committed suicide, and Nishino is wracked with guilt that he wasn’t there to stop it. This combines with the crush he had on his sister (who was 10 years older) that he hasn’t really processed. Nosomi herself realizes that she has never been truly emotionally intimate with anyone - Nishimo bares his soul to her, but she does not reciprocate. 

 

***

 

Trivia Fact:

 

The character of Subaru is not named after the car. Subaru is the transliteration of the Japanese word for “Pleiades,” the star cluster. 

 

In mythology, there were seven sisters, but one disappeared. This has led to the incorrect belief that you can only see six of the stars with the naked eye. This is untrue. If the night is dark and you have decent vision, all seven can be seen reasonably well. 

 

The Pleiades are an actual star cluster. Unlike most constellations where the stars only appear near each other, but are in fact quite distant, the Pleiades is a group of stars clustered in space. There are far more than we can see with the naked eye - Gallileo catalogued thirty-six of them, but with our modern equipment, we know there to be at least 1000 of them - some are binary or even multiple stars that are not oriented in a way that we can confirm the exact number.

 

The car company took the name when they combined five smaller companies into a sixth, larger one. The Subaru logo is a stylized version of the Pleiades - but with only six stars, reflecting the myth.   

 

Loitering With Intent by Muriel Spark

 

Source of book: Borrowed from the library

 

I don’t even remember how I ended up with this book on my list. I am guessing it was a recommendation somewhere from one of the literature-related websites I read. Otherwise, I doubt I would have just put a book by a Scottish author from 1981 on there. 

 

That said, I really enjoyed the book, so there must have been a good reason. 

How to describe it? That is more difficult. It is a very interior book, with the broader world events merely being the context of the story. It is set in post-World War Two England, when rationing was still a thing, and the economy hadn’t really recovered. 

 

Fleur Talbot is a young aspiring author, working on her first novel, and in need of work. She also has a, well, complicated personal life as well - and it gets a lot more complicated as the book goes on. 

 

She is offered a job by the somewhat mysterious and very pompous and self-important Sir Quentin Oliver, who leads the Autobiographical Association. This group consists of a number of equally self-important borderline somebodys who plan to write their autobiographies - telling the whole truth, lock them up for 70 years, and have them published after anyone who might sue them is dead. 

 

With the exception of one of them, they are all terrible writers, and their stories mostly deadly boring. Hence the need for Fleur to type them up in a form that is at least marginally readable. 

 

Meanwhile, Fleur is having sex with Leslie, a critic, who is married to Dottie, another critic. Not only do Fleur and Dottie know about each other, they are friends, or at least frenemies. So when Leslie runs off with a poet for a homosexual affair, Dottie comes to Fleur to commiserate - she preferred it when Leslie was with Fleur. 

 

As all this goes on, Fleur works on finishing her novel, Warrender Chase, and starts to notice that the plot and characters, which she conceived years before meeting Oliver, resemble real life all too much. Oliver is Chase, and the other members of the Association strongly resemble other characters. 

 

And that includes Oliver’s mother, the gloriously eccentric old woman Lady Edwina, who is a lot smarter than she pretends, and who practices “strategic incontinence.” 

 

Things get a lot more serious, however, when Fleur finds that her now-completed manuscript has been stolen, her publisher breaks the contract (under pressure from Oliver), and that Oliver has flagrantly plagiarized the novel and written it into the autobiographies. 

 

And then the deaths start. 

 

I will leave it there as far as plot goes. 

 

The fun of the book is in its cheeky irreverence, its sharp wit, and its hilarious and memorable characters. It doesn’t take itself seriously at all, and the author leans into the absurdity of the happenings. 

 

There are so many hilarious lines, and so many great witticisms. I will share a few of them, starting with the delightful first line. 

 

One day in the middle of the twentieth century I sat in an old graveyard which had not yet been demolished, in the Kensington area of London, when a young policeman stepped off the path and came over to me. He was shy and smiling, he might have been coming over the grass to ask me for a game of tennis. He only wanted to know what I was doing but plainly he didn’t like to ask. I told him I was writing a poem, and offered him a sandwich…

 

Later, at the end of the book, we finally get the rest of this scene, which is interrupted by all of the events of the book, which took place shortly before the opening in the graveyard. 

 

I love the line about the autobiographies themselves. 

 

The memoirs written by the members of the Autobiographical Association, although none had got beyond the first chapter, already had a number of factors in common. One of them was nostalgia, another was paranoia, a third was a transparent craving on the part of the authors to appear likeable. I think they probably lived out their lives on the principle that what they were, and did, and wanted, should above all look pretty. Typing out and making sense out of these compositions was an agony to my spirit until I hit on the method of making them expertly worse; and everyone concerned was delighted with the result. 

 

The subplot of the love life of Leslie and his lovers does lead to plenty of great lines. Like this one.

 

Neither of us had seen him for over three weeks. I had decided to finish with him as a lover, which was easy for me although I missed his face and his talk. Dottie was infuriated by my indifference, she desired so much that I should be in love with Leslie and not have him, and she felt I was cheapening her goods.

 

Lady Edwina is a great character. Throughout the book, Sir Quentin and his housekeeper, Mrs. Tims, are paranoid that Fleur is trying to get Lady Edwina’s money from her. Which is pure projection, of course. And also, Lady Edwina isn’t actually rich, but they don’t know that. 

 

On the whole, the old lady bore very well the fact that she had spawned a rotter; it wouldn’t have done to rub it in. 

“Her fortune’s all a myth.” I had known this for a long time, for one Sunday when I was wheeling Edwina out with Solly she told me, “I married for money.”

“I consider that very immoral of you, Edwina,” said Solly.

“I don’t see why. My husband married me for money. We were a devoted couple. We had several things in common. One was expensive tastes and the other was no money.”

 

Another great passage is one where Fleur reflects on the sayings she was raised with: “All is not Gold that Glisters,” “Honesty is the Best Policy,” “Discretion is the Better Part of Valour,” and most of all, “Necessity is the Mother of Invention.” 

 

And I have to testify that these precepts, which I was too flighty-minded to actually ponder at the time, but around which I dutifully curled my cursive Ps and my Vs, have turned out to my astonishment to be absolutely true. They may lack the grandeur of the Ten Commandments but they are more to the point.

 

There is a mention of Wedgwood pottery in the book - I am a descendant of the Wedgwood family on my mother’s side, which means that Charles Darwin was a relative by marriage. Anyway, this line about Sir Quentin is fun. 

 

I suspect he really believed that the Wedgwood cup from which he daintily sipped his tea derived its value from the fact that the social system had recognized the Wedgwood family, not from the china that they had exerted themselves to make. 

 

At the end of the book, before the author wraps up what happened to the characters afterward, she returns to the graveyard, and we learn how the book got its title. 

 

I asked him: suppose I had been committing a crime sitting there on the gravestone, what crime would it be? “Well, it could be desecrating and violating,” he said, “it could be obstructing and hindering without due regard, it could be loitering with intent.” 

 

I’ll end with my favorite line in the book, which is about one of the colorful members of the Association, and also one of my life goals. 

 

Sir Eric Findlay died on good terms with his family, having lived long enough to earn the reputation of an eccentric rather than a nut. 

 

Overall, a fun and delightful book, not like anything I have read before, and an unexpected discovery. 

 

Dracula: A Comedy of Terrors by Gordon Greenberg and Steve Rosen (The Empty Space 2025)

This week has been busy for me, and I have a concert this weekend, so this review won’t be that long. That does not mean that I didn’t enjoy this play, or want to analyze it in more depth like I do some productions. It’s just a time issue. 

 

Dracula: A Comedy of Terrors is a sendup of the original novel by Bram Stoker. You can read my thoughts on that from (gulp) more than a decade ago. I’m getting old. 

 

The play is substantially different from the book, but it has enough in common that if you have read the book, the play will make more sense. 

 

The biggest change is in the female characters. 

 

In the original, Jonathan Harker is engaged to Mina. Lucy is Mina’s best friend, not her sister. 

 

In the play, the two are sisters - Lucy is the pretty one, engaged to Jonathan, while Mina is the ugly sister who nobody wants…except Dracula when he is hungry enough. This, combined with the fact that the part of Mina is played in drag, forms the basis of a lot of jokes in the play. 

 

So that bit is vastly different. But a lot of the rest of the plot basically tracks well enough with the book. Harker is a solicitor in the book, a profession which is only partially correspondent to that of lawyer here in the US - so he is changed to a real estate agent in the play. This makes plenty of sense, and changes nothing important. (Legend has it, we lawyers would kill for a fee too, right?)

 

Harker goes to Transylvania to meet with Dracula about the latter’s purchase of property in London. There, he falls prey to a mysterious illness but escapes back to England.  Dracula comes to England on a ship that wrecks, with himself as the only survivor. 

 

Soon thereafter, rumors of a giant bat, and attacks on women start flying. In the book, Lucy is the first major victim, being drained of blood by Dracula. In the play, it is Mina. The famous doctor, Van Helsing, is called in, and determines that there is a vampire on the loose. 

 

In another change from the book, Dr. Van Helsing isn’t Abraham, but Jean. A woman. (Also played in drag by the same actor that plays Mina.) This gives the opportunity for Lucy and Mina’s father, Dr. Westfeldt (a character not in the play, but based on one of Lucy’s suitors in the book, Dr. Seward), to display his sexist assumptions…and eventually fall in love with Van Helsing. (To make things even more interesting, Dr. Westfeldt is also played in drag - so both halves of the eventual couple are gender swapped and in drag.) 

 

From there, the basic process of chasing down Dracula is reasonably similar, minus the flight to Transylvania. 

 

The play is a comedy, as the title indicates, not the more serious, tragic drama of the original book. 

 

And, to be sure, it is thoroughly naughty, taking all of the veiled sexual implications of the original out into the open, both in the dialogue and in the acting. 

 

After all, there is a lot of homoeroticism in the book, a lot of gender bending when it comes to behaviors and expectations, and that whole penetration that leads to a “little death.” Hmm. 

 

These days, we are fairly confident that Bram Stoker was gay, even though he tried to hide it. And there is certainly some evidence that Dracula was modeled on Oscar Wilde - an interesting perspective on who Wilde was. 

 

So, in the play, Dracula clearly has something for Harker as well as for the women. And Harker…has ambivalent sexuality, even if he doesn’t want to admit it until the end. 

 

The play, of course, also explores the same idea as the book, that of female sexuality, and desire that cannot be said out loud. 

 

Overall, the humor is pretty broad in the play, but there are more subtle digs at modern concerns. I already mentioned sexism, and this is a theme throughout. Clearly the smartest people in the play are the women. Lucy (or, in the book, Mina) figures things out well before the men. The female Van Helsing isn’t far behind. But the male characters take a bit longer, to put it mildly. 

 

What made this production so enjoyable was the excellent acting and staging. There were a lot of veteran actors that I always love to watch in this one, including a few throwbacks to when my wife and I were dating and newlyweds and actors who are now fixtures in the drama community were young, raw college students just getting started. 

 

In particular, it was nice to see Jeremiah Heitman back on stage, in the role of Dracula. He is still pretty darn ripped, and made the most of his shirtless scenes. There was no reason to doubt why women - and men - fell for him. 

 Dracula (Jeremiah Heitman) and Harker (Alex Mitts)

Stealing so many scenes was Jesus Fidel, who you will find behind the scenes at multiple theaters, designing sets, building, working on lights and sound, and really anything needed. But he is darn funny on stage too. (I loved his work in Pride and Prejudice recently.) 

 

In this one, he simpered and pouted and flirted as the poor unattractive and unlucky Mina. And also did the stiff German woman thing as Van Helsing. Often with nothing but a wig change. It was so much fun. 

 Mina (Jesus Fidel) and Dracula (Jeremiah Heitman)

Tessa Ogles, usually playing the romantic lead, took a very different turn, doubling as the stuffy yet innovative Dr. Westfeldt, and as his star mental patient, Renfield. It was great to see her in a totally different role - her comic timing is excellent. 

 Doctors Westfeldt (Tessa Ogles) and Van Helsing (Jesus Fidel)

The two straight people - in the theatrical, not the sexual sense - were Lucy and Harker. The ones who seem to be the only sane people in a madhouse. Lucy was played by Avery Gibson, who is reliably excellent in any role. Harker was played by another of my long-time favorites, Alex Mitts. Both of them somehow, beyond all reason, were able to keep straight faces during all the hilarity and madness. And also to bring their own occasional humor to the scene when needed. 

 Dracula (Jeremiah Heitman), Lucy (Avery Gibson), and Dr. Wesfeldt (Tessa Ogles)

Holding down the rest of the parts, from wolves to horses to noblemen were the quartet of Joseph Raner, Dezi Lorelli, David Guillen, and Sophia Bertram. Which meant plenty of costume changes and physical acting. 

 

As I said, it was a lot of fun. We went there on Halloween night, sipped on the signature cocktail, and enjoyed the company of a number of theater friends who had the same idea of fun. 

 

I think this play reminded me a lot of the old location for The Empty Space, and the manic energy that often drove their productions back in the day, when everyone was young and crazy and experimental. 

 

No shade whatsoever on their current location, which is better in so many ways, or on any current productions - they still have the high artistic values combined with modest budgets that makes them one of the best entertainment bargains in town. 

 

But I did enjoy seeing some of that madcap spirit that the old guys and gals from back in the day can still bring. 

 

Unfortunately, this play is over - we saw it closing weekend - but there are others this season that look like a lot of fun. 

 

***

 

Side note: after reading the book, I ended up discussing it with an acquaintance as part of an online book club she ran. Sometime thereafter, it became apparent she was a white nationalist, and unfriended me when I wrote a post about her idol, self-described “paleo-confederate” Douglas Wilson. A name you might have run across more lately because of his connection to “Whiskey Pete” Kegsbreath and his insistence that women aren’t fully human. 

 

Anyway, as part of that discussion, she literally insisted that there was nothing sexual about Dracula. Which, um…I hate to break it to her. When I recounted this to my 17 year old kid after we saw the play, he snorked pretty hard. He had read the book prior to seeing the play, and even as a teen, he could tell that it was sexual AF. 

 

Perhaps file this in the category of “Growing up in a cult” and “how did my wife and I end up understanding double entendres anyway?” 

 

Washington Irving: An American Original by Brian Jay Jones

Source of book: Borrowed from the library

 

I have read two other biographies by Brian Jay Jones: Becoming Dr. Seuss, and Jim Henson: The Biography. I like that his books aren’t hagiographies, but also aren’t hit pieces. His subjects are presented in their full humanity. 

 

Washington Irving: An American Original, is a bit different from the other two. Both Dr. Seuss and Jim Henson were alive during my own lifetime, and both lived in a very different media environment than Washington Irving. Thus, there is so much more information available on their personal lives. And also, living people to interview regarding the events and the people involved. 

 

For a figure who lived in the 18th and 19th centuries, in the newborn United States, there is a lot less to work off of. On the other hand, it was an era of extensive correspondence and diary writing, so certain aspects are easier to find than others. 

 

In the case of Irving, his own writings, in letters, notes, and diary entries, are deliciously witty and personal. So much of the person shows through, and I think he would be a good addition to my own dream dinner party guest list. 

 

Most of us know Washington Irving from two of his stories, “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” and “Rip Van Winkle.” These two have become part of the American cultural fabric - indeed the American mythology itself. And deservedly so - they are great stories! 

 

However, many have never read beyond these two, and have missed the delightful world that Irving created, as the first American author to support himself with his writing. 

 

Years before starting this blog, I read pretty much all of his fiction. The fact that I downloaded it off of Gutenberg and read it on my Palm tells you something about the era. These days, I have a hardback with much of his shorter fiction. 

 

I will particularly note that The Alhambra and A History of New York are favorites of mine. 

 

Irving also wrote non-fiction, particularly biographies of persons from Columbus to Mohammed to George Washington. These haven’t aged as well as his fiction. It was a different era, with different standards of research and objectivity. But they paid his bills at the time - which was important. 

 

This book talks a lot about the specific circumstances of Irving’s family. He was the last child in a large family, with a 20-year span in ages. The family importing business supported everyone for years, but failed due in no small part to the mismanagement of the European branch by Irving’s brother Peter. From then on, Irving had to support not only himself, but several of his siblings. He wasn’t thrilled at having to live by his pen, but he did it, becoming America’s most famous author at the time, even though he is less read these days than he should be. 

 

Also virtually unknown to most is that Irving originated two of the most familiar terms applied to New York City. 

 

Yes indeed, the name of “Gotham” was created by Irving, in a story about a city that was clearly meant to be New York. 

 

His character of Dietrich Knickerbocker - the supposed Dutch settlor who narrates A History of New York as a pseudonym for Irving, has become so associated with the city that its professional basketball team is named after him. 

 

Yet another unknown fact about Irving is that a dream sequence in A History of New York is considered to be an early appearance of Santa Claus in a form similar to that which would be popularized in the subsequent decades. 

 

Not only that, but none other than Dickens himself (who admired Irving) would credit Irving’s early Christmas stories as the foundation for his own, including the ghost story elements.

 

And there’s one more! An early story of his coined the phrase “almighty dollar.” 

 

Jones argues that Irving is a perfect embodiment of the young United States, for better and worse. He was a literary superstar, brutally handsome, charming and personable. He hung out with the glitterati of the day, would have been a tabloid darling. But he also was terrible with money, struggled with writer's block, feuded with his publishers, and suffered from imposter syndrome. 

 

His love life was also…interesting. Jones makes a pretty good case that he was gay, or at least bisexual. But probably the former. He had close relationships with men throughout his life, and, although nothing explicit was in the open in that era, there are enough indications of these relationships that his homosexuality is not just plausible, but probable.

 

Those who disagree point to his early engagement to a young woman, who tragically died of tuberculosis before they could marry. After that, he pled a broken heart as the reason why he never married. The closest he came was to propose to a young woman half his age - she turned him down, to nobody’s surprise. 

 

Irving started out as a lawyer. A very bad one, primarily because his heart wasn’t in it. This was pretty much his only option for a career at the time, since he was uninterested in being a part of the family business. (And, he had multiple brothers already working there - a place wasn’t really open for him.) 

 

His real interest (other than being a society gadfly) was in writing. He and some friends started out with a magazine, Salmagundi, in which some of Irving’s alter egos would appear. The publication was mostly satire, taking shots at more serious periodicals as well as local political and social figures. 

 

His next project - and his first big hit - was his spoof of more serious histories of New York, A History of New York. 

 

And it all started with a clever marketing hoax. 

 

Notices were taken out in local papers about a missing elderly historian, Dietrich Knickerbocker, said to have disappeared. This created quite a stir, and prepared the way for the “discovery” of Knickerbocker’s great manuscript. 

 

By the time the book was published, the stir was sensational, and the fact that the book was hilarious, wickedly satirical, and very much aligned with the mood of the times, led to its becoming a smash. 

 

And then, writer’s block struck. 

 

Irving would move to London, to try to rescue the family business from Peter’s mismanagement. He would serve for a while as an assistant to the American ambassador - a job he did quite well. (He would years later be appointed ambassador to Spain, where he likewise shined. He was a good schmoozer, read people well, and de-escalated tensions to pave the way for agreements.) 

 

Eventually, his need for money led him to write again. And also, meeting Sir Walter Scott, who became a good friend. 

 

He resurrected the character of Geoffrey Crayon (from his Salmagundi days), writing a series of books mostly about Europe. And also the two famous stories mentioned above, which established his literary reputation.

 

He would eventually return to America to great acclaim, build a beautiful home in upstate New York, dote on his favorite nieces and nephews, and finally die at the relatively old age of 76, surrounded by family and friends. Not a bad life at all.  

 

I won’t get into the specifics of the biography beyond that. It is a fascinating story of a fascinating man, and better told by Jones than me. 

 

I would be remiss if I didn’t quote a few of the witticisms in the book, both by Irving and others.

 

In describing his rigid Calvinist upbringing, Irving had this to say about religion:

 

“When I was a child, religion was forced upon me before I could understand or appreciate it. I was made to swallow it whether I would or not, and that too in its most ungracious forms. I was tasked with it; thwarted with it; wearied with it in a thousand harsh and disagreeable ways; until I was disgusted with all its forms and observances.” 

 

He was hardly the only one to find fundamentalist religion to be a turnoff. Later, he would include ideologues in general in his condemnation.

 

“I have no relish for puritans either in religion or politics, who are pushing for principles to an extreme, and overturning everything that stands in the way of their own zealous career…I always distrust the soundness of political councils that are accompanied by acrimonious and disparaging attacks upon any great class of our fellow citizens.” 

 

 At one point, finally offered the government sinecure he had earlier dreamed of, declined. 

 

“It is not so much the duties of the office that I fear, but I shrink from the harsh cares and turmoils of public and political life at Washington, and feel that I am too sensitive to endure the bitter personal hostility, and the slanders and misrepresentations of the press.” 

 

Irving didn’t like critics much, and critics all too often were harsh on him even as the public bought up his books. Irving’s best friend (and probably his lover as a young adult) Henry Brevoort, took Irving’s side in a letter after a scathing review by Francis Jeffrey. 

 

“His foible is an unceasing effort to act the high finished gentleman. Consequently he is blessed with such an immaculate degree of taste as to contemn every thing in the world both moral & physical.” 

 

I love seeing that sadly archaic word, “contemn” again. It really should come back into common usage. It is not the same as “condemn,” but is related to “contempt.” No need to go destroying things or sending them to hell. Just a good cutting look or remark. 

 

Irving ended up spending over a decade and a half in Europe before returning. In a letter to one of his brothers, he explained himself. 

 

“Do not, I beseech you, impute my lingering in Europe to any indifference to my own country or my friends. My greatest desire is to make myself worthy of the good-will of my country…I am determined not to return home until I have sent some writings before me that shall, if they have merit, make me return to smiles, rather than skulk back to the pity of my friends.”

 

Indeed, he did return to smiles, a true American celebrity. 

 

A rather significant topic in the book turns out to be copyright laws. Irving had to be careful to secure publishers both in European countries (England in particular) and in the United States, otherwise the law would permit the stealing of his works. Not-in-print works were fair game. 

 

Irving also complained about readers who thought the books were too expensive. 

 

“If the American public wish to have literature of their own, they must consent to pay for the support of authors.”

 

This remains true today, as does the conflict between creators and publishers over rates. 

 

There is also an incident where a British publisher insisted Irving change some of his stories to be kinder to the clergy. Irving complied, but grudgingly, noting that he based his characters on his own experience, promising “not to venture too far even when I have fact on my side.” 

 

During his career as a diplomat, he did get some pithy observations in. On attending the young Victoria’s grand ball, the social event of the year, “he noted that the only person who didn’t seem to be having any fun was the young queen, who was constantly pushing her own crown up off her forehead.” 

 

Those of us of a certain age probably think of this:

 

Another funny line came when the railroad was run within a few hundred feet of his beautiful country home. 

 

“If the Garden of Eden were now on Earth, they would not hesitate to run a railroad through it.” 

 

I also liked his musing upon turning 70, quite the old age in that era. 

 

“I have reached the allotted limit of existence - all beyond is especial indulgence. So long as I can retain my present health and spirits, I am happy to live, for I think my life is important to the happiness of others; but as soon as my life becomes useless to others, and joyless to myself, I hope I may be relieved from the burden; and I shall lay it down with heartfelt thanks to that Almighty Power which has guided my incautious steps through so many uncertain and dangerous ways, and enabled me to close my career in serenity and peace.” 

 

What more can any of us hope for?

 

It was a fun experience to learn more about Washington Irving’s life, and about who he was - I really think he would have been a blast to be around. 

 

But more than that, I truly wish more people would discover his delightful writing beyond the two best-known stories.