"… an author who writes exceptionally fascinating stories on social and cultural change." — The Globe and Mail

It ranks among the most famous body parts of history, on a level with Venus de Milo’s missing arm, Pinocchio’s nose, and the penis of the statue of a little boy in the Grand Place in Brussels from which emerges a continuous splash of water.

I refer, you may have guessed, to Vincent van Gogh’s ear – the ear that he cut off, in whole or in part during an attack of hysteria brought on by the departure of his painter friend Paul Gauguin from their Yellow House in Arles, France.

This most famous of the early modern painters is known as much for his troubled mental state as for his brilliant artwork. And despite the efforts of legions of physicians, psychologists and psychoanalysts to fathom the exact nature of van Gogh’s illness, the world today knows little more of it than on the sultry day in 1890 when he took his life by gunshot (or was it an accident?).

As van Gogh struggled with apparent attacks of epilepsy that rendered him near senseless, he managed to create the greatest works of his lifetime. Most of this took place in the southern French town of Arles, and in the mental institute of Saint Paul de Mausole in nearby Saint-Rémy.

f_0529.jpg

Doctors had various theories as to the cause of van Gogh’s problems but few answers. Sigmund Freud was still meddling with hypnotism. The emerging psychiatrists of the day were known as alienists, trying to understand the alienation sick patients were indicating as the key symptom to their mental illness.

Van Gogh’s attack on his ear, which came on the night before Christmas Eve in 1889 after escalating arguments with his house guest Paul Gauguin, provides the focal point of a fascinating new book, Van Gogh’s Ear; The True Story.

The author, Bernadette Murphy, is an obscure Englishwoman who lived for many years in the South of France before taking up a study of van Gogh’s life. Once she got started, she was indefatigable. Her book is as much a story of her research into forgotten archives that would shed fresh detail on van Gogh, as it is a retelling of the painter’s life.

“Practically everything I thought I knew about van Gogh in Arles when I set off on this adventure turned out not to be true,” she confesses.

Ms. Murphy made three remarkable discoveries. In musty boxes at the University of California, she had a custodian find a drawing of van Gogh’s ear by the physician who attended him in Arles, Dr. Félix Rey. It shows that van Gogh severed nearly the whole of his ear, and not just the lobe as has been generally believed. After more than a century, the mystery appears to have been solved.

Ms. Murphy was also able to establish the true identity of Rachel, the girl in the brothel to whom van Gogh presented his newspaper-wrapped ear, telling her to take good care of it. And the famous petition demanding van Gogh’s removal to an asylum was engineered, according to the author, by a real estate agent conniving to rent the Yellow House to a more reputable tenant.

In writing Van Gogh’s Ear, Ms. Murphy might have given more attention to the role that self-injury plays in emotionally disturbed people. The Mayo Clinic says “this type of self-injury is an unhealthy way to cope with emotional pain, intense anger and frustration.” Certainly van Gogh was undergoing such pain in Arles that Christmas, and indeed throughout much of his life.

Bernadette Murphy sees van Gogh’s actions that night as “altruistic – the behaviour of a thoughtful, sensitive, and extremely empathetic man,” one who was “far more than the sum of his torments ”

I was drawn to Van Gogh’s Ear because I’m working on my own upcoming book which I call Van Gogh’s Ghost. In it, I recount my search for the 21st century legacy of this great and troubled artist. But you don’t have to be writing about van Gogh to enjoy reading of him, and Bernadette Murphy’s contribution is an enjoyable and revealing addition to the shelves of van Gogh literature.

One need not search far in the global media for commentary on the remarkable success Canada is enjoying amid a world of economic turmoil, political crisis, and cultural confrontation.

The Washington Post, seeking to understand “What Canada is About,” sees our welcome of 25,000 Syrian refugees (30,000 by the end of 2016) as evidence of a country pulling together to meet a new challenge:

“Businesses, the Canadian Labor Congress, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, small towns and large cities are all contributing clothing, furniture and financial support to help settle Canada’s most recent influx of refugees.”

The London Telegraph, commenting on the unprecedented openness and people mingling ability of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, offered an answer to those who criticize his penchant for selfies in this quote from political observer Amanda Alvaro:

“I think the team that surrounds the Trudeau government has really understood strategically that if you have a willing leader who is prepared to walk in Pride and take photos with people and be accessible, then you would use that to your advantage to get people to participate in the political process.”

While the United Kingdom totters toward separation (losing Scotland) and isolation (abandoning the EU) and the United States faces a presidential choice between an artful manipulator and an unadulterated ignoramus, Canada rejoices that it is led by a young, vigorous, progressive Prime Minister.

Nor are Canadian journalists shy about recognizing the euphoria that seems to have settled on the “peaceable kingdom.”

Margaret Wente of the Globe and Mail, generally no friend to liberals and progressives, wrote last week that “Canada is that increasingly rare exception — a country in which public support for immigration is strong.”

She quoted Prime Minister Trudeau at his meeting with the “Three Amigos,” (he, Barack Obama and the president of Mexico):

“No matter where you are from, nor the faith you possess, nor the colour of your skin, nor whom you love, you belong here. This is your home.”

Not that all is perfect in  Canadaland. Not all immigrants are succeeding, and the country is about evenly split on whether Canada’s current policies are taking it in the “right” direction.

So bring on the books. There’s been a half dozen published on Justin Trudeau, not counting his campaign autobiography, Common Ground.

The newest, Justin Trudeau: Natural Heir, will be out in English from Dundurn on July 23.  Huguette Young, the well-known Quebecoise journalist, wrote this in French and it’s been translated by George Tombs.

51O-3SOHobL._AA160_.jpg

Huguette’s book is good workmanlike  reportage that takes one through the well-known early life of the son of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, and comes to a sudden stop on election day, October 15, 2015.

Like most books written on the run, The Natural Heir does not contain a lot of analysis. We learn that when he gave his noted eulogy at his father’s funeral in 2000, “He seemed younger than his 28 years.”

We get a recounting of his educational progress through Collège Brébeuf, McGill University, and the University of B.C. When he decided to enter politics, he chose the tough east end Montreal riding of Papineau, then held by a Bloc MP, because if he could understand Papineau “it would be like understanding Canada as a whole.”

From there, the outcome seems inevitable. First came attempts by the Conservatives to denigrate him as a lightweight. They failed. In the debates, Young writes, “Justin Trudeau comes across as the embodiment of change. With the good looks, optimistic tone, dynamism and passion he seemed quite the reverse of Stephen Harper, who appeared wooden, serious, and controlling.”

“You can’t buy charisma,” Young tells us. “Justin Trudeau remained a blank slate.” “Trudeau played his cards well.”

For the general reader who doesn’t follow politics closely, this is an excellent primer on Canada’s new Prime Minister. Readers seeking a more analytical appraisal of Justin Trudeau’s attempt at feminist, progressive, and generally leftist policies will have to await another day.

 

There was a time, early in the Republican presidential primaries, when Donald Trump could have established himself as the leader the United States is much in need of if it is to find its way out of decades of political misdirection and corruption.

A Trump presidency looked at one time as a preferable alternative to the continuation of the same misguided set of politics that has prevailed since the days of Bush the Elder.

images-13

Donald Trump came into the Republican primaries unleashing a devastating critique of all that’s gone wrong in American domestic and foreign policy of the last several decades:

  • The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, accurately described by Trump as the “worst catastrophe” in American history.
  • Mismanagement of U.S. intervention in Syria and Libya — in which Hilary Clinton played a major role.
  • The Great Recession of 2008 — brought on by a pairing of government and financial industry strategies understood only too well by Donald Trump, making him perhaps the one man who could clean up the financial chicanery of Wall Street.

On a number of the most critical issues now facing the United States, Donald Trump showed a clarity of understanding, if not a mastery of potential solutions.

He indicated — and still holds to — a gun policy considerably more nuanced than the National Rifle Association. He has correctly identified the magnitude of the illegal immigration that the U.S. has tolerated for many years. And he’s cleverly tapped into the anger of mostly older, mostly white, mostly male Americans who have been hardest hit by globalization and the export of jobs to low wage countries..

So if Donald Trump has been able to identify America’s major problems, and establish empathy with the white middle class that has lost jobs and security, why must he now be written off as a possible solution to what ails America?

One need only scan his latest outbursts to see the political ignorance, blatant racism, gender prejudice and colossal arrogance that lies deep in the heart and mind of Donald Trump.

The fact that 70 per cent of Americans now hold an unfavorable view of the man tells us the American public is not buying in to the idea of building a wall on the Mexico border or banning all Muslims from entering the United States.

The public opinion polls will shift between now and November. But the mid-June reading — a 12 point edge for Hilary Clinton, 49 per cent to 37 — is probably about where the voters will line up on election day.

Trump can fire his campaign manager, shake up his strategy team, and pretend to court hold outs in the Republic establishment. None of it will do any good.

Knowing the White House is lost, Republican leaders have only one choice: to try to save their majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before fainting dead away, I implore my readers and Canadians to consider this: A Trump presidency could break the logjam of American failure at home and abroad, something that could be of considerable benefit to its neighbors and the world.
No, this is not satire. It is reality.
The rage that has enveloped the Republican presidential campaign – and to a lesser degree the Democratic – stems from the widespread conviction that a corrupted political establishment has failed to meet the challenges America has faced at home and abroad.
Its institutions have been irresponsible in catering to the powerful in managing the economy, its reckless foreign policies have paved the way for Islamic extremists to take over vast swaths of the Middle East, and in Washington – once the capital of the “free world” – partisan rancor has paralyzed its government.
The nervous breakdown running through the American body politic is reminiscent of upheavals that have swept governments out of office in other countries. And as in any revolutionary period, outrageous behavior that would be normally unthinkable becomes not only acceptable but popular.
Many in France despised that country’s Third Republic at the onset of the Second World War. It took Charles de Gaulle, a virtual outsider, to hold together the French Empire, restore France’s “grandeur” and then convince his countrymen to give up Algeria. A conservative, he nationalized banks and the auto industry and set France on the road to a welfare state.
Donald Trump’s often vulgar and frequently tough talk – threatening “more than water boarding” against terrorists and proclaiming his desire to “punch out” a protester – makes him look to some like a blustering egocentric oaf.
He has, however, cleverly amended direction when he has been called out on reckless positions. He will become more amenable to conventional niceties as he moves into full campaign mode, while always reserving the right to shock the public with brutal assaults on Hilary Clinton.
Should Trump become President, a distinct possibility now that he is the presumptive Republican nominee, history and the realities of realpolitik suggest a further mellowing of his distemper.
But some crucial differences – not all of them outrageous – will cling to hinder, or hamper, this most irascible of modern American candidates.
On the most incendiary issues facing U.S. voters, immigration reform and homeland security, Trump has railed against Mexicans and Muslims. Mexico will never agree to pay for the wall he would build, but Mr. Trump is right that the U.S. must find a way to control its borders. He will have the support of the public and Congress on whatever practical steps he can take to reduce illegal immigration.
Mr. Trump has made it clear that as president he would pursue the fight against ISIS, but would pull back from attempts to destabilize authoritarian regimes, as has been the case with Iraq, Libya and Syria where Hilary Clinton supported U.S. intervention. Such a tilt to isolationism, if it kept the U.S. from fomenting new regional wars, would be welcomed in Canada and Europe. A more nuanced approach could be expected toward Vladimir Putin who, Mr. Trump says, accorded him a “great honor” by praising him as an “absolute leader.” And his willingness to meet personally with North Korea’s Kim Il-sung, might actually lead to a toning down of the Hermit State’s wild sabre-rattling.
Mr. Trump’s distaste for free trade agreements, especially NAFTA, is shared by many Americans – and Canadians – who see it as the prime cause of profit-hungry corporations having transferred millions of jobs to Mexico.
In the White House, a President Trump would penalize such actions either with Congressional assent, or if he couldn’t get it, through executive orders. A promised 35 per cent duty on goods shipped back to the States by offshore plants of U.S. corporations would raise the cost of everything at Walmart, a prospect unlikely to please his most adoring followers. But it could stop the drain of jobs and encourage manufacturing ramp-ups in the United States. Canada would benefit by such a shift in the global manufacturing balance.
Donald Trump is well positioned to fulfill his claim that only he can put an end to the kind of corrupt financial practices that led to the 2008 economic crisis. His assertion is akin to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s argument for appointing Joseph P. Kennedy, who had profited handsomely from financial manipulation, as head of the tough new U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934.
A President Trump would replace Obamacare with something that sounds very much like the same thing. He once advocated Canadian style health care but now says he favors private insurance, adding “I want everyone to have coverage.”
On gun control, Trump asserts he supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms but he favors “the ban on assault weapons and a longer waiting period to purchase a gun.” Compared to the stance of the NRA, this is a radical approach, and could actually lead to more effective gun control.
The most positive result of a Trump victory in November, however, would be to soothe the rage that has burned across America. Angry voters will be mollified, at least for a time, with the election of a man committed to breaking cleanly with the past. By delivering small bits of red meat to his followers, they will be inclined to overlook his inability to achieve more sweeping change. In the end, when he is forced to retreat – as he will – on all but his most pragmatic policies, the time will be ripe for a return to reasonableness in American politics.

If you want to want to get rich don’t try to do it as a writer, any wise parent would advise their offspring. Unless, perhaps, by writing for corporations or big-time politicians. Winston Church did all three – became a tax-avoiding corporation, was a gifted and highly-paid author, and a brilliant statesman who led Britain and the West through World War II.

What would he think of the pressure on today’s emerging writers to write for free – for news blogs, commercial publishers, and for the general public?

Not much, according to an insifghtful biography of the great statesman. In Mr. Churchill’s Profession: Statesman, Orator, Writer, Peter Clarke examines how the wartime leader conned publishers, beat the tax man, and crafted great literary works while staying just a dodge ahead of his creditors.

41erRtXG9uL._AC_AA160_

Churchill secured his position in history as a statesman, but Clarke makes it clear that “writing was his profession.” His country home of Chartwell became a “word factory” And through most of his life, his earnings from writing made up the bulk of his income.

How did Churchill do this? Born to a distinguished line of nobility, Churchill had friends at every level of high society and all of them – from his American-born other to prime minsters – helped him in his literary career even while they sometimes opposed his political ambitions.

Churchill made a name for himself as a newspaper correspondent at the time of the Spanish-American war and the South Africa, or Boer war. He was clever enough to turn his dispatches for the Daily Post from the Sudan – having earlier served in the 4th Hussars in India – into a best-selling book, The Story of the Malakand Field Force. His participation in a British expedition up the Nile led to a another success, The River War, published in two volumes.

Churchill didn’t have to look far for his earliest inspiration. He achieved early success with a book on his father. Lord Randolph Churchill became his great defence of his father, a key figure in British politics until his early death from syphilis. The book, together with proceeds from My African Journal and a novel, Savrola, earned Churchill over three thousand pounds in 1908-09 – half as much again as his salary as a government MP.

While Peter Clarke is meticulous in detailing Winston Churchill’s hereditary and personal life, it is when he digs into Churchill’s management of his literary income that he is most fascinating.

Throughout his life, Churchill was up against a wall of debt, built primarily from his exorbitant spending on personal pleasures such as wine and whisky. His 1935 accounts show four hundred pounds for wines and spirits supplied to his country home of Chartwell (another extravagance Churchill could hardly afford.)

In 1930, Churchill published an autobiography, My Early Life, and began work on what would be his greatest literary project, his History of the English Speaking Peoples. For the next decade, he stalled and delayed, promising but failing to deliver a completed manuscript of 400,000 words by 1937. He sucked up advances, and cleverly arranged for his publisher, Cassells, to buy the copyright to the work rather pay a royalty. In this way, the income became a capital gain and was free of tax under the laws of that time.

Churchill would not finish his monumental History until the 1950s. World War II got in the way. But the war did give rise to another great literary work, the Second World War.

Together, they stamped Churchill as one of the great figures f English literary, as well as of statesmanship.

Peter Clarke shrewdly observes that “The cash-strapped literary drudge who turned immediately from one big book to the next nevertheless lived in mouth-watering, eye-popping luxury.” And why not? In his own defence, Churchill often quoted Samuel Johnson: “No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 490 other followers