Quantcast
Channel: oz.Typewriter
Viewing all 1889 articles
Browse latest View live

There Must Be 32 Ways Of Losin' the Typewriter Blues That I Got From Lovin' You

$
0
0

Comments on my last blog post have only succeeded in intensifying my thinking about the Olivetti Letteras 22 and 32 (no, Ted, you’re not missing anything; 1964 was definitely the year for the 32*). The overriding impact of the comments was to reinforce the general Typospherian view that typewriter preference is very much a personal choice. Bill likes his Skyriter or Montana and goes for portability, while Richard seems to prefer something a little larger (a Series 5 Smith-Corona, perhaps, or a Royal Quiet De Luxe?). But the topic of choice made me wonder: What range of typewriters did others have to choose one from, back in the day?
In my case there was only one typewriter shop in town, Jim McNulty’s on Albert Street (although Hay’s Department Store later sold Olympia SM9s). In 1965, I probably went out of my way to walk down Albert Street at least three or four times a week, after school, just to make sure the Lettera 32 was still in the window. Someone else had to get it before me – it was just too gorgeous for words. I have no idea whether Jim had other portables for sale, the 32 was the only one in his window. When I did finally did get my hands on it, and took it proudly into the Grey Star’s newsroom, I quickly noted it was the only Olivetti on the seven desks. The editor had his 1956 taupe Lettera 22 amid the ash on his office desk, but in the reporters room there were only Imperial Good Companions (albeit in an eye-catching deep red) and Brothers. I didn’t think for one second I was kidding myself, in regarding mine to be vastly superior in all regards.
It’s a funny thing, looking back on it now, but when, after six years of yearning to start a journalism cadetship, the last thing I thought of taking into the newspaper office - when the chance eventually did come - was a typewriter. I must have thought the tools of the trade were supplied. Well, the pens and notebooks were, but not the typewriters. Of course, I did already own my own portable, an Underwood Universal, which was given to me by my Dad in 1957. But that machine got such a pounding on my home desk, I would never have taken it anywhere else. It deserved its occasional respite.
When I first started work at the newspaper, it was as an intern in the August school holidays. Jack Turner, the chief of staff, scoured the building for me, and found a clunky old Remington standard somewhere out the back, in the print shop. I was far from unaccustomed to using standards, and the Remington suited me just fine, although its racket probably disturbed the concentration of the older reporters around me. Soon after joining the staff full-time, in early December, I was given the nod to go down to McNulty’s and buy the Lettera 32. The company paid for it, and would dock my wages a few shillings each week to settle up. But the Olivetti was mine, all mine! And I loved the feeling that I was its proud owner.
From that point on, as I travelled across the world, working in Auckland, Sydney, Cork, Dublin, London and then back in Australia, and was sent on assignment around the globe –to places as exotic as Fiji and Egypt – I always used a Lettera 32. I never considered a change for one moment. That enormous amount of usage naturally entrenched my loyalty to and passion for the 32.
I have to confess portability – the weight of the Lettera 32 in its snazzy, tight-fitting carry case – was always an important factor, right up there with never wavering reliability. In 1974 I worked so late in the Press Room at London’s Twickenham rugby stadium that when I finally emerged, the lights were out and the 20-foot high gates were locked. I got out, with typewriter, by pushing the Olivetti through the palings and dropping it on to the ground outside, then scaling the gates. I’d never have managed it with anything bulkier.
So I came back to the matter of choice. Yes, the Lettera 32 greatly appealed to me in 1965. For one thing, my editor owned a taupe 22 and, after all, he’d got it at the Melbourne Olympic Games. More importantly, however, I liked the look of the Olivetti, the way I liked the look of Carter Brown potboiler covers, of a 57 T-bird or a Triumph Spitfire (got to own a couple of them, too), or a Jaguar Mark 2 (still dreaming). The Lettera 32 was sleek and modern and – well, very sexy. I liked the concave keytops in grey plastic, I liked the steely blue colour. I liked the state-of-the-art case.
Were there any other criteria when it came to making my selection? Not one. I only had eyes for this one portable anyway. But how the Lettera 32 typed, how it suited my typing, what its features were - I didn’t give a single jot for such things. It was so beautiful, I would have to fit myself around its needs, not it around mine. It’s bit like the way one feels about a girlfriend: she could say, “Go jump” and you’d ask, “How high?” It was the same for me and the Olivetti.
We’re told one never forgets a first love. I can’t say I’ve ever really fallen completely out of love with the Lettera 32, it’s just that many other loves have come into my life in the past 54 years, and some I’ve loved even more than the 32. But I’ve never been able to abandon the 32 either. Oddly enough, when I was asked about a machine for The Typewriterorchestral performance in November, my mind drifted toward the 32 – now, I suppose, I tend to think of it as my “old reliable”.
Most Typospherians have, in the past decade or so, given themselves the chance to use a whole wide range of typewriters. Many have collections, and can make a daily choice from a selection of dozens. That’s what the typewriter obsession is really all about – trying out new machines, experiencing as many as financially and physically possible, being the Lotharios of typewriting. I’ve never once received a “new” old typewriter without wanting to type with it immediately. For me it’s a natural instinct. An insatiable curiosity, if you like, an ever-present need.
With these multiple experiences, preferences will naturally evolve. But while Richard talks about “the first typewriter I would grab to use”, I don’t think many us ponder that choice for very long. I’ve been asked the question, “What would you take if the house was on fire?” many, many times, and the answer probably changes every time. Hopefully, we’ll never have to make that decision. So it’s not worth sweating over. For me, it comes down to this: the Lettera 32 was my first love, the love wore off, but the affection remains. Other portables have, from time to time, filled the gap left in my heart. The Lettera 32 isn’t the one I’d grab in case of fire – they’re easily replaceable. Yet, for all that, I can’t forget the way I felt about it in 1965, and how it succeeded, back then, in mindlessly reducing my choice to one. It was the only choice I remember having. Most of the blokes who worked around me on the Grey Star in 1965 can’t recall what they used. I can and always will.
 
*Yes, Ted and John, “The Magnificent Seven” willbe reprinted, hopefully sometime later this year.


Chevron Electronic 330 Typewriter

$
0
0
PS: The correction tape works just fine!
PPS: There was a green IBM Selectric II at the recycling centre, too. I may go back for it in a week or two. If it's still there and at the same price, I'll bring it home as well.

Underwood News: Typewriter Company's Family Magazine Cartoons From the 1930s

Underwood News: Typewriter Company's Family Magazine Covers From the 1930s and 40s

Svitlana, the Soviet Who Spied On Me

How Typewriters Helped Me Adjust to Adjustment Disorder

$
0
0
One of the benches in my new typewriter workshop,
a major part of the recuperation therapy.
This is the story I wanted to post two months ago, when I returned to blogging on ozTypewriter after a break of 108 days. It is in large part a heartfelt thanks to the many people who continued to follow me during that absence, and those who are now my new online friends. I was so overwhelmed with the excitement of resuming blogging, and by the wonderful “good to see you back” comments I received, that I didn’t get around to writing this back then. It was always planned as some sort of explanation for the long intermission, and, I guess, a form of apology.
       On August 1, 2018, I took a photo as my blog page view counter turned over to 3.5 million. I fully intended to post something that day, mentioning this milestone. But I didn’t. And for the next 15½ weeks I couldn’t. I couldn’t concentrate sufficiently to write anything, I could hardly handle researching anything. I lapsed into torpor in terms of most forms of communication.
Then, to cap it all off, I became aware that I was a late-comer to the family curse of osteoarthritis, something from which my mother had seriously suffered, and my surviving siblings suffer from badly. At first I thought it was a mouse-related pain, possibly even carpal tunnel syndrome, as I’d been whiling away my time mindlessly playing countless games of solitaire. It got so bad I had to go to my GP, and after X-rays and ultrasound, osteoarthritis was the diagnosis. But my doctor, never satisfied to stop at a quick, simple answer when there might be some complicated underlying cause, asked why I had been wasting so much of my time playing solitaire. Was I writing, researching and blogging? And if not, why not? A short time later I was diagnosed as having adjustment disorder. As with a bipolar disorder diagnosis 18 years earlier, a lot of things immediately became blindingly clear.

Adjustment disorder has a recognised group of symptoms, such as stress, feeling sad or hopeless, and physical effects that can occur after one goes through a stressful life event. It results in people having a hard time coping in the aftermath of such an event. Stressors include illness or other health issues for one’s self or a loved one.
In hindsight it was apparent August 1st had been a turning point in my life. My partner was found to have cancer back in January, and after major surgery in Sydney on Valentine’s Day, she faced an enormous struggle to conquer it. In early July she was declared to be in remission. Oncologists, specialists and doctors all advised us that the first and most important thing we should do was to take a complete break from it all, to go away, try to relax and put all the woes of the previous six months behind us. Harriet started to quickly regain strength and optimism. For six months I had been her full-time carer, including administering daily blood-thinning injections. And full-on it was. Then suddenly that type of care was no longer needed. And it was only then that I realised I’d been driving myself on with an empty tank for weeks, that I’d tapped into reserves I didn’t know I had and had exhausted them. I’d hit a wall.
I don’t think I’d ever done anything as profoundly important in all my life as caring for Harriet. It gave me a deep sense of purpose, and I responded as perhaps most would and as I’d always hoped I should. In a way it was an empowering experience, too, because it was a very tangible example of my ongoing usefulness. I felt it had exposed a new, positive side of me, and then it was no longer needed. It would take many weeks before I could achieve a level of functioning comparable to what I’d known before the cancer scare.
By mid-November I began to feel I could face things again, and returning to blogging was a sign of that. It helped enormously. But there were many things that had helped me get there. One of the most important was sorting out space in our garage, so that I could both display my few remaining typewriters and still have as much as 88 square feet of workbench area to work on typewriters, old and not-so-old. For the first time ever, I now have a proper typewriter workshop, where many hundreds of tools, spare parts and sundry other things are all within arm’s reach. It’s a wonderful feeling to go out into the garage these days, to look around at all the typewriters there, and I know I have time in spades to work on them or simply “play” with them.
Finding in the local public library one day the book Notes From a Public Typewriter, by Michael Gustafson and Oliver Uberti, provided another reminder of the joy of typewriters. It was most uplifting. On our travels in August – 3451 kilometres (2144 miles) to Queensland and back in 16 days – my interest in typewriters was stimulated on a daily basis. Harriet loves nothing more than to trawl through op-shops and bric-a-brac stores, and of course I always kept an eye open for typewriters – with some success, I might add.
There’s certainly been no shortage of blog post ideas in the past six months, and it’s now a question of when I can get to them all, rather than leaving them stored away in the back of my head. Last evening my blog page view counter clicked over to 3,675 million, 175,000 views on from August 1. There were days during the my period of hebetude when the views depressingly dropped down to the low 800s, and the graph leapt up and down like a herring on the skittle. But they’re consistently back over 1000 again now, so hopefully it’s onward and upward from here.

1919 – The Year of the Portable Typewriter (I)

$
0
0

In its first editorial of 1919, Typewriter Topics forecast the “unprecedented demand for portable typewriters” would go on unabated. In another accurate prediction, it added that, because of “enormous government purchases” during the 1914-18 World War, portable typewriter manufacturers would need at least a year – until 1920 – to catch up with production demands for public supply, even with their plants operating “at full speed”.
       What Typewriter Topicswas unable to allow for in January 1919 was a nine-week strike at Underwood’s Hartford, Connecticut, factory. The stoppage, from July 15 until September 15, cost Underwood the production of 40,500 machines (750 a day for 54 days), and at a profit of $25 a machine, that added up to a loss of $1,012,500. With up to 900 of its 4100 workers out, Underwood closed the plant on July 22. Another 1110 employees joined the strike on August 9.
Hartford Courant, Tuesday, September 16, 1919
       The Underwood strike caused a typewriter shortage throughout the US and delayed the introduction of Underwood’s first portable until late October 1919. Planning for the 8¾lb Underwood portable had started in December 1917, after the company had finally recognised a vast opening in the new market created by the Corona 3 in 1912. Underwood had spent almost two years strenuously testing the dependability and serviceability of the compact non-folding three-bank, which had been designed by Lee Spear Burridge just before Burridge’s death on May 4, 1915.
January 28 this year will mark the centenary of the first patent (USD52907S) being specifically granted for Burridge’s wonderful little typewriter. The application for a patent on the mask of the machine had been made on July 27, 1918, by Frank Burridge, Lee’s brother and the executor of his will, and was assigned to Underwood. An application for a patent on the mechanics (US1297085A) was made on September 25, 1915, and granted on March 11, 1919. A further patent (US1322530A) was issued on November 25, 1919, a month after the portable had first gone into production.
Considerable ground in the marketplace had already been lost by Underwood, and not just because of the prolonged strike. Realising, as Typewriter Topics had done early in the year, that 1919 was “The Year of the Portable”, many other designers and manufacturers had moved quickly to challenge the stronghold gained by Corona during the war years.
As Typewriter Topics said in January, “Probably no commodity has ever won its way into public favour so rapidly and so surely as the portable writing machine. Irrespective of the genuine demands existing for such machines, the manufacturers of portable typewriters deserve no end of credit for the splendid manner whereby they have practically created a new industry and educated and molded public opinion to the variegated and efficient uses of their products.
“The result is that a number of concerns are giving considerable effort to the production of portable machines, The oldest and largest manufacturer of such machines [ed, Corona] is operating at the fullest speed and rapidly becoming one of the best known manufacturers in America. The demands from abroad for portable machines is on a par with that of the larger makes … Where one dealer represents a portable machine, a half dozen in the same territory are looking for a similar commodity and at the present writing it seems as if manufacturers will never catch up with the demands.”
Typewriter Topics was on the money. Heavy advertising for portables began in the same January 1919 issue and increased throughout the year, as new models came on the market. One of the heaviest advertising campaigns was for the 7lb “Baby” Fox 1, still then with its own version of a folding carriage. Another was for the Blick Featherweight, although with the death of the Blick’s creator, George Canfield Blickensderfer, in August 1917, the “Blick” Manufacturing Company was merely hanging on to the last vestiges of past glory. Already Lyman Resolved Roberts was preparing to cash in on the company’s name, and launched the 7lb Blick Ninety in December 1919.
Both the Empire and Hammondwere making claims about making portables, at 10½ and 11 pounds respectively, and in October a branch of Remington’s Union Trust launched a remodelling of the Remington Junior, the Century at a staggering (and barely luggable) 17½ pounds, almost three times that of a Blick or a Corona. At the least the Molle(which “can be used as a portable”, its advertising claimed) was significantly lighter at 11¾lbs. By the end of the year Remington had its breakthrough four-bank well advanced in planning, and Visigraph was also talking about bringing out a portable. Corona, having set in motion the creation of this “new” industry, kept its head about the pack, saying in its 1919 advertising, “Portable typewriters may come and portable typewriters may go, but there can be but one Corona.”
With Fox facing legal problems with Corona, and heavy financial losses as a consequence, and both the Blick and Roberts’ Blick Ninety destined to finish up in hands of Remington, another genuinely small, lightweight, compact portable comparable to the Corona was still badly needed.  Serious contenders did emerge in 1919, in the shape of the 9½lb National (designed by Chicago’s Hubert Knibloe Henry [1869-1930] and made by Rex in Wisconsin) in May and the 5½lb Garbellin November. Richard Ulhig also announced plans for his Allen in April.
Confronted by this amount of emerging competition, Underwood could afford to hold off on its portable no longer. And the company had placed great faith in the non-folding three-bank. On November 8, 1919, The Wall Street Journal, reporting on Underwood’s 10-month business returns, said, “Large orders [for the portable] have already been booked, and deliveries will begin as soon as special equipment has been installed at the [Hartford] factory to enable portable machines to be turned out at a rate of 50,000 a year without interfering in the least with the making of 200,000 standard machines a year.
“Many in the company expect the portable model to take as commanding a place in that field as has the company’s large model among standard machines. The Underwood portable is strong, has a good type-bar action, its keyboard is not too compressed, and it sells for 25% less than do rebuilt standard machines at present. Consequently it is felt that the small machines will find ready sale for home use as well as to travellers.”
On December 13, the Journal reported, “Although Underwood production has returned to normal since the strike, the company is far behind in filling orders. It is understood that the New York office of Underwood is more than 4000 machines behind on delivery. The company is trying strenuously to catch up, and hopes next year to be able to raise its production to 220,000 machines. It is understood that at present the Underwood factory is turning out in the neighbourhood of 550 standard machines a day. Underwood portables are as yet appearing slowly on the market, but it is understood that a strong demand has already appeared for them.”
(On August 17, 1920, Underwood solved the problem of the maximum capacity having been reached at the Hartford plant by buying the Bullard Machine Tool Company factory in Bridgeport, Connecticut, specifically to make its portable there. The move ended further hold-ups in producing sufficient Underwood portables to satisfy market demand, which had lasted more than a year. Portable manufacturing returned to Hartford in 1932. Underwood offered to relocate Bridgeport workers as well.)
Typewriter Topics editor Ernest Merton Best told The Wall Street Journal at the end of October 1919, “A notable development [in the typewriter industry] in recent years has been the portable machine of type-bar design such as the Corona. For six years Corona sales have been large. Recently the factory has been increased to turn out about 80,000 machines a year. Within the last two years several other designs of portable machines have been put on the market. Last week the Underwood company began to sell a portable model, and it is said that Remington will put one out shortly. Several other companies are also considering portables. Competition therefore promises to be intense. But the demand for portables is increasing so rapidly that the new field will be able to stand it.
“The typewriter has made itself indispensable in the modern offices. Now, having invaded the traveller’s grip, it is beginning to enter the home. Rapid increase in use both of large and small machines can be expected. The possibilities of well-managed typewriter companies with machines of high merit therefore are alluring.”
Sure enough, on December 10 the Journalreported that Remington “will put out a new portable model of the general Corona type in the next few weeks. It is already busy making these machines, and just as soon as enough have been made they will be placed on sale at the different branches of the company.
“Earnings upon this portable model should be large as there is a greater demand for portable typewriters than can be supplied by the various makers at the present time, and the Remington company is understood to have an unusually good models in this new machine.”
TOMORROW: Part II – All Hail the Remington Four-Bank.

1920 – All Hail the Remington Portable Typewriter (And Dodge the Russian Arms Dealer)

$
0
0

Events in 1919 flattered to deceive the portable typewriter marketplace of 1920. On December 10, 1919, The Wall Street Journal said Remington had started making its “unusually good model” and would “put it out in the next few weeks”. At that point Remington directors and stockholders were no doubt rubbing their hands in glee. With Underwood finding it couldn’t produce enough typewriters to meet early demand at its Hartford, Connecticut, plant, Remington seemed certain to steal a march on its major rival – and to be the first of the major manufacturers to truly challenge Corona’s stranglehold on the portable market.
       In the event, the champagne stayed on ice at 374 Broadway a very long time. Just as Underwood had been forced to do in August 1920, in moving portables production to another plant, Remington moved the manufacturing of its portables to one of its former Union Trust stable factories – the Smith Premier plant in Syracuse, where production of the Smith Premier standard was discontinued to allow for the making of the new portable (a Monarch standard continued to be made). It wasn’t until September 27 that the Journal was able to report the 7½lb Remington portable (“with all the features of the standard Remington’) was “now in quantity production”. The machine was due on the market in 60 days (that is, November).
But only one shift key
       As it turned out, the Journalreported the market launch on October 25, highlighting such landmark features as typebars being actuated by meshing bevel-gears and a one-shift keyboard. The $60 Remington portable made its public debut at the National Business Show at the Grand Central Palace in New York from October 25-30. Typewriter Topics reported, “The new Remington portable typewriter was put on display for the first time. Take it from one who saw, the Remington portable was the centre of mobs at all times.”
Announced in April 1920
       Topics’ coverage of the show pointed out, however, that not far from the Remington fuss was another one surrounding yet another portable. This was the Gourland – the difference being the directors of the Gourland Typewriter Corporation had something already well and truly on the market to show for their efforts. “Gourland luminaries were having the time of their lives,” wrote Topicseditor Ernest Merton Best. And well might they. They were “listening to the unusual compliments passed about regarding their product.” One of the Gourland team was Walter Wilbur Ramer, head of the Typewriter Factory Sales Corporation and previously of the Wholesale Typewriter Company, Montclair. Another “luminary” at the show was Neal D. Becker, president of Hammond. While Hammond in 1920 continued to strenuously push its 11lb “lightweight” version as a portable, guess what Becker took when he went to Europe: a National portable!
       Typewriter Topicsgot to review the Remington portable for its November issue, saying its “advent has been long expected by the typewriter trade.” In terms of full market flow, in the end there was really only a few weeks between the arrival of the Underwood and the Remington portables, making the advent of a four-bank portable an even more crippling blow for Underwood’s huge hopes for its machine - and after five years of planning to boot! What should have been a full year start for Underwood turned out to be just a matter of a month or so. Admittedly, Remington portable production didn’t hit its straps until 1921.
       Topics added, “The great and growing demand for a small, compact, practical, portable writing machine has long been recognised in typewriter circles. To fill this need the Remingtons began their exceptional work on a portable machine long ago. With the usual Remington thoroughness, one by one the usual objections to small machines were overcome. The fact that new portables were being marketed one after another did not hasten the Remingtons. They were determined to build a machine which would supply all of the exacting requirements of the people for whom a typewriter of this type is intended. And the portable Remington is distinctive among portable machines, chiefly because of its standard keyboard” ... Remington thoroughness is maintained throughout the entire construction of the new addition to the Remington family. Strength and reliability have not been sacrificed in the effort to achieve lightness. The lightness of the machine is due to the design itself.” (My italic emphasis, not TT’s).
       Typewriter Topicspointed out that as long ago as 1876,William Ozmun Wyckoff  (of Wyckoff, Seamans and Benedict fame) had written to later Remington president John Walter Earle predicting that “the ultimate future of the typewriter would be in the home”. Topics believed the Remington portable had brought that prophecy to fulfilment. “The advent of the portable machine … marks the definite advance into the other and wider field [beyond business] …”
       Quite why it took Remington 11 months to finally launch the machine remains uncertain. Topicssuggested it was because of the “insistent demands of the business world” and from salesmen to make standards a priority, causing congestion at plants such as Ilion and Syracuse. Was it only because a post-Revolution Russian order for Smith Premiers fell through, allowing space to make the Remington portables at Syracuse? Was it because, as Topicsalso claimed, Remington was in no haste and wanted to take their time in perfecting the machine before putting it on the market. This last notion, of prolonged finickiness, makes little economic sense, since a large gap pretty much remained in the portable market from the end of 1919, factoring in the slow and unsteady drip of Underwood three-banks. Perhaps Remington simply wanted to first let the Gourland enterprise come to its inevitable demise?
Remington’s planning for a real portable certainly took at least four years. It was primarily designed by John Henry Barr, who, meeting the challenge of the Corona 3 head-on, first applied for a patent on the machine on August 12, 1915 (US1267356A). Barr said in his application, “One of the main objects of the invention is to produce a machine … in which a contraction of the [standard, four-bank] keyboard may be readily effected at will, in order to reduce the compass of the machine and thus facilitate packing and transporting or carrying the machine. A further object of my invention is to provide a comparatively small, cheap and light yet highly efficient typewriting machine.” A patent for the final design was applied for on May 21, 1918, and issued on October 28, 1919 (US1320034A).
Barr wasn’t a full-time Remington employee, but a professor of machine design and mechanical engineering at Cornell University. And before his portable reached the market, he had had plenty of staff help from experienced Remington engineers like English-born Arthur William Smith and Arthur J. Briggs. A superb outcome was always a very strong possibility.
With that in mind, Topics, reporting in November 1919 on Remington’s soaring, portable anticipatory stock value, referred to “Wall Street dope” about “a public announcement of discontinuance of selling by the Remington company of a side-line – ‘a well-known make of portable typewriter’ – the inference being that this either has been unprofitable or that more money would be made from the sale of an entirely new portable typewriter of Remington make.”
October 1919
The “portable” to be discontinued was the Syracuse-made Remington Junior, which was taken off the market and replaced by a rehashed Junior, the Century No 10, in June 1919. Launched to great fanfare and very heavy nationwide advertising in July 1914, the $50 Junior was no match for the same-priced but genuinely portable Corona 3. The Century had an even shorter career, being discontinued in 1921. But as Richard Polt points out on his The Classic Typewriter Page Present Remington Portables, “The situation is complicated by a few Century typewriters that are essentially just Remington Juniors with a Century name decal.”  Barr also chiefly designed the Junior.
While clearing the decks in its former Union Trust range of factories, Remington was quite probably blindsided by a Lithuanian-born arms dealer for the Russian Revolution, and general international wheeler-dealer, Michael Jacob Gourland.
In hindsight it seems to have been most opportunistic of Gourland to set up the Gourland Typewriter Corporation in February 1919 (capitalised at $2 million) and to make a widely-advertised public offering for $250,000 cumulative preferred stock in the company in mid-February 1920. The corporation said it had already contracted to manufacture 50,000 of its machines, labelled the “Baby Grand”, by the end of 1920 alone, and that production would subsequently increase.
       Underwood’s problems in making machines in Hartford, Connecticut, to meet the early demand for its new three-bank portable - while at the same time maintaining the rate of production of its standards - was common knowledge. The slow rate of portable manufacturing wasn’t overcome until Underwood bought the Bullard Machine Tool Company plant in Bridgeport on August 17, 1920. In the meantime, Remington’s breakthrough four-bank portable, promised for the first few weeks of 1920, had failed to appear and didn’t do so until the end of October. So no doubt Gourland saw a tantalising opening, evident in his spruiking the 9½lb “Baby Grand” as being “said to be the only single-shift, standard and universal keyboard portable typewriter.” Unlike a Corona it didn’t fold and unlike a Fox (and the Remington, if Gourland knew in advance what Remington was planning) it didn’t collapse. In the absence of the Remington – and faced with real competition from only the three-bank Coronas and a relatively few Underwoods - that much could at least be said to be true.
       The Gourland prospectus said the typewriter “will come on the market at a time when experts advise that the present demand for typewriters is far greater than the supply and they predict that the proposed output of 50,000 machines the first year could be largely oversold. Contracts for exports already entered into and the domestic demand indicate this result.” Gourland forecast a first year profit of $1 million. This was based on projected sales, but Michael Gourland planned to keep the overheads low by employing young Brooklyn girls to assemble his machines.
Of course, the first year of business brought nothing like that sort of profit. Indeed, in June Gourland was still looking for draftsmen and mechanics and by August it was in debt. On May 24, 1921, Gourland called a stockholders meeting to consider refinancing and reorganisation. The corporation changed its name to GT in February 1922. Undaunted, Gourland increased capital to $5 million in 1922, but under a new Wilmington-based board, led by stenographer Telesphore Leon Crouteau and without Michael Gourland. In truth, the Gourland typewriter-making enterprise had lasted less than two years.
       The Gourland prospectus emphasised that Charles Spiro, who it called the “dean of typewriter art”, was the consulting engineer in the design of the typewriter.  “The parts number 625, which is 50 parts less than those in other small machines … It is a standard typewriter in all but its size.” The latter sentence was in turn picked by Remington. It’s most likely the Gourland was actually designed by Jesse Alexander, was a cut down version of Alexander’s Perfect and was almost certainly made in Alexander’s factory at 35 Ormond Place, Brooklyn, premises he’d acquired from furniture manufacturers the Langrock Brothers.
       Michael Gourland was unquestionably an opportunist. Born in Vilnius on November 24, 1879, he spent time in Britain in 1912-13 negotiating on behalf of the pre-revolution Russian Government (as well as Austria, Romania and Holland) for the rights to mechanical parts. Gourland was sent from St Petersburg to New York through Liverpool in August 1916 to buy munitions for Russian revolutionaries. He and his twin brother George, a broker, set up the Russian-American Commercial and Industrial Company to cover for their activities. Its branches were in New York, St Petersburg, Moscow, Odessa and Rybinsk. When the February Bourgeois Democratic Revolution ended after Tsar Nicholas II’s abdication, on March 16, Gourland was in Boston making absolutely certain everyone knew which side he had been on all along.
       After the collapse of his typewriter venture, Gourland quickly got into movies and then cosmetics. He died in New York on October 5, 1951.

Vroom, Vroom: Hot Rod Typewriters - Is This The 'Thing' Now?

$
0
0
I didn't realise I had a stock of "hot rod typewriters" until I came across this item in the Amazing Mill Markets in Daylesford in Victoria in September. Imagine my surprise to not just see a stripped down machine being sold as is, but to look at the price tag: $120!!! By that reckoning my little stockpile of Nakajimas, Olympias and Kofas (Flying Fish) is worth $600! But for the time being at least, it will continue to gather dust in the typewriter workshop. Any offers? 

Identify the Old Typewriter (Cryptic Clues Provided)

$
0
0
How many of these 12 old typewriters can you identify? Brand names will suffice, no need for the model number. Answers at bottom of post.
1
An easy one to ease you into it. Cryptic clue: Razors and rifles.
2
First rival for question 1, note the central spring. Cryptic clue: "Beautiful writer" said James Densmore.
3
Cryptic clue: Royal, or otherwise.
4
Cryptic clue: Syracuse leader.
5
Cryptic clue: The key is the key at the back. What an organ!
6
Cryptic clue: Big Ben (as in Benjamin).
7
Cryptic clue: Masked British magicians.
8
Cryptic clue: "The Mississippi Delta was shining like a ... guitar".
9
Cryptic clue: What the Dickens? Some twist!
10
Cryptic clue: It strikes back.
11
Cryptic clue: ... Milk ... - "He thinks you're talking about Dylan Thomas, whoever he was." (Yes, rhymin' Paul Simon again.)
12
Cryptic clue: The 5lb Secretary.









Answers: 1, Remington, 2, Caligraph; 3, Bar-Lock; 4, Smith Premier; 5, Hammond; 6, Franklin; 7, Maskelyne; 8, National; 9, Oliver; 10, Empire; 11, Underwood; 12, Blickensderfer.

How the Gift of a Rented Underwood 5 Typewriter Brought America’s Old West Back to Life

$
0
0
Louis L'Amour at his Olympia portable, at a time when he
was able to afford to buy his own typewriters.
Charles Almeth Donnell died at Bunker Hill, Los Angeles, on March 30, 1939, almost exactly seven years after his act of generosity in Oklahoma City had helped bring America’s Old West back to life.
In 1932 Donnell, a former Remington Typewriter Company manager in Oklahoma City, ran the C.A. Donnell Typewriter Company at 210 North Harvey Street in “The Big Friendly”.
On February 2 that year, a struggling 23-year-old would-be writer called Louis LaMoore from Choctaw came into Donnell’s store and rented an Underwood 5 standard for $2.50 a month, one month’s payment in advance. The terms of the typewritten contract were strict: LaMoore agreed to return the typewriter in good order at the end of the rental period; if LaMoore failed to keep up the rent, he authorised Donnell to enter his premises in Choctaw without consent to remove the Underwood.
As it turned out, LaMoore paid the rent for several months, but then fell behind. He wrote to Donnell explaining his straitened situation. He didn’t hear back from Donnell. “No bill, no nothing. That typewriter meant more to me than anything else that happened. I was able to go on working.”
LaMoore came to consider the Underwood a gift from Donnell. It’s more probable Donnell had shut up shop in Oklahoma City (too many defaulters?) and had moved with his family west to California. He was in no position to reclaim the Underwood. Maybe he had creditors, too. Donnell lived in the Stanley Apartments on South Flower Street in Bunker Hill and by 1936 he was claiming social security in Los Angeles. He was dead at age 54.
Meanwhile, back in Oklahoma, Louis LaMoore was on the way to fame and fortune – thanks to Donnell’s Underwood 5. Except he wasn’t known as LaMoore any longer. He was typing frontier stories under the pen names of Tex Burns, Jim Mayo and, more lastingly, Louis L'Amour.
Louis Dearborn LaMoore was born in Jamestown, North Dakota, on March 22, 1908. He, too, was to die in Los Angeles, from lung cancer at his home on June 10, 1988, aged 80, almost certainly unaware his 1932 benefactor was buried in the same city. It’s also likely that Louis L’Amour had no idea Donnell had been born (on November 17, 1884) on the Rio de los Brazos de Dios (“River of the Arms of God") in Texas and grew up in Fort Worth and El Paso, places L’Amour would make internationally famous through his writings (Killoe, Shandy et al). L'Amour is indeed honoured with a star on the Texas Trail of Fame in the Fort Worth Stockyard.
At the time of L’Amour’s death almost all of his 105 existing works (89 novels, 14 short-story collections, and two full-length works of non-fiction) were still in print, and he was regarded as one of the world's most popular writers. His work had sold more than 320 million copies by 2010, in more than 10 languages.
L’Amour grew up skinning cattle in west Texas, baling hay in the Pecos Valley of New Mexico, working in the mines of Arizona, California and Nevada, and in the saw mills and lumber camps of the Pacific Northwest. He met Old West characters, an experience which, allied to his extensive travels through the Old West, enabled him to vividly and accurately recreate the past.
Settling down in Choctaw, L'Amour and his Underwood 5 produced a story, “Death Westbound”, which was published in the 10 Story Bookmagazine. He started to get paid for stories, with “Anything for a Pal” in True Gang Life. Then in 1938 his stories began to regularly appear in pulp magazines. Two years later he found his richest vein, the Western genre, with “The Town No Guns Could Tame”. After World War II service as a lieutenant with the 362nd Quartermaster Truck Company in Europe, L’Amour resumed writing in April 1946 with “Law of the Desert Born” in Dime Western Magazine (April 1946). L'Amour's first novel was Westward the Tide in 1951.
Critic Jon Tuska, surveying Western literature, wrote: “At his best, L'Amour was a master of spectacular action and stories with a vivid, propulsive forward motion.”

Why Australia Day Should Be Celebrated On Typewriter Day

$
0
0

This folder of typewritten copy and letters, written by Australian journalist Keith Murdoch during World War I, was donated by his son Rupert to the National Library of Australia in Canberra, where I photographed some of its contents. The letter below, typed by Keith Murdoch on a Corona 3 portable typewriter, is a justification for Murdoch's famous "Gallipoli Letter", which led directly and instantly to the commander of the Allied forces in the Dardanelles, Ian Hamilton, being relieved of his duties, in large part because of the unnecessary sacrifice of thousands of Anzac troops in the August 1915 Offensive. In this document, there is proof positive that Murdoch's typewritten letter was mailed to Australia, not cabled, as generally believed. If Gallipoli truly represents the "birth of the Australian nation", then surely typewriters were the midwives. 
Today, January 26, is Australia Day. It’s still called Australia Day because on January 26, 1788, 231 years ago, the First Fleet of British ships arrived at Port Jackson, New South Wales, and the Union Jack, the Flag of Great Britain, was raised at Sydney Cove by Governor Arthur Phillip. When I first came to Australia, going on 50 years ago, all of this seemed to be universally accepted. Now, however, a growing number of Australians are seeing January 26 as marking “Invasion Day”, or “Survival Day”, as the idea that Australia began life as a nation on January 26, 1788 – with the arrival of the first white people - is obviously a complete nonsense. Various alternative options have been put forward, and among the more sensible are: that Australia Day should be moved to January 1, marking the date of Federation in 1901; March 3, marking the 1986 Australia Acts (cutting some ties with Britain, but not the Union Jack from our flag); April 25 (Anzac Day, see below); May 27 (1967 referendum to change the constitution to allow First Australians to be counted in the census), or December 3 (Eureka Stockade uprising, 1854).
       My suggestion, to settle this issue once and for all, is that Australia Day should be celebrated on June 23, to coincide with World Typewriter Day. I don’t agree that June 23 is the appropriate date for this anniversary, but it is what it is – the date in 1868 when Christopher Latham Sholes, Carlos Glidden and Samuel Willard Soulé were granted the first patent (US79265A) for what would later become the Sholes & Glidden typewriter. I would have thought a more suitable date for World Typewriter Day might be March 1, when this typewriter first went into production (1873), or July 1, when it first reached the market (1874). But someone else settled on June 23, and so it remains.
       Regardless of all that, there is one salient reason why I think Australia Day should be marked on Typewriter Day. Anzac Day, which marks the anniversary of the first attack by Australian forces on Turkish soil in 1915, has come to be seen as celebrating a coming-of-age for Australia as a nation, or as marking the advent of Australian nationhood itself. While many Australians have more lately come to regard January 26 as “Invasion Day”, the idea that events at Gallipoli on April 25, 1915, heralded “the birth of the nation” has been around for more than a century. It was a favoured – indeed romantic - notion that a nation should be born amid oceans of blood and gore – or, as Henry Lawson wrote, “the lurid clouds of war”. Lawson also claimed, “We boast no more of our bloodless flag, that rose from a nation’s slime.”
       The truth of the matter is, however, that Australians would have had little comprehension of its staggering losses, of the amount of its young blood that was spilled at Gallipoli, if it wasn’t for the typewriter. It was only through typewritten accounts of the full horrors of Gallipoli – written first by British war correspondent Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett on a green Empire aluminium thrust-action typewriter, and later by Australian journalist Keith Murdoch on a Corona 3 folding portable – that Australians (and Britons) got to grasp the full extent of the Gallipoli slaughter. This much, at least, is recognised in Robert Manne’s 2014 book (written with Chris Feik) “The Words That Made Australia: How a Nation Came to Know Itself ”
Ashmead-Bartlett at his Empire.
       Ashmead-Bartlett typed his letter on September 8, 1915, in the fortnight following the abysmal failure of the August Offensive (Battle of Sari Bair) on the Gallipoli Peninsula and the massive loss of Allied life. Ashmead-Bartlett wrote the letter on Imbros (now Gökçeada) in the Aegean Sea, at the insistence of Murdoch, who was briefly visiting the Dardanelles. Murdoch took the letter with him, intending to personally deliver it to British Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith at 10 Downing Street, London. British military authorities were tipped off that word of their incompetence was on its way to Asquith, and intercepted Murdoch at Marseilles, relieving him of Ashmead-Bartlett’s revealing letter. Murdoch continued on to London, where he typed his own version of the Ashmead-Bartlett letter, using his recollections of it as well as his own brief observations of the situation at Gallipoli. The Murdoch Letter was mailed (not cabled) to Australian Prime Minister Andrew Fisher in Melbourne.
       Given the immediate impact of the Murdoch Letter, in both Australia and Britain (where it had already been printed and circulated to Cabinet members before it reached Fisher) the use of typewriters is of enormous significance. Without them, and without knowledge of what had been typed on them, the subsequent course of World War I may have been very, very different. And if an Australia nation was, as many still contend, born amid the blood on the beaches of Gallipoli, it was the typewriter which got word of that birth out to the world.
       I thereby rest my case. Australia Day and Typewriter Day should be celebrated together – starting this very June 23.

The Gunslinger Who Died at His Typewriter

$
0
0
Old West gunslinger turned New York sports columnist Bat Masterson stands at his New York Morning Telegraph desk with his close friend, Western silent film actor William S. Hart. The photo was taken 18 days before Masterson died at this very desk.
Two of New York's most legendary sports columnists are believed to have died at their typewriters, Bartholemew William Barclay "Bat" Masterson on October 25, 1921, and Henry Grantland Rice on July 13, 1954. Well, in the case of Grantland Rice, that's not entirely true - he actually died some distance from a typewriter, in Roosevelt Hospital at 6.15pm, six hours after suffering a massive stroke. He had written a "Sportslight" column on Willie Mays at his apartment at 1153 Fifth Avenue and gone into his office at 22 West 48th Street, Manhattan, to have his secretary, Catherine Mecca, submit the copy to the North American Newspaper Alliance.  Rice was 73.
Grantland Rice very much alive at his typewriter.
On the other hand Bat Masterson, the infamous Old West gunslinger, did die at his typewriter, suffering a massive heart attack sometime before noon at the offices of the New York Morning Telegraph on 50th Street and Eighth Avenue. Masterson, 67, had just finished writing his column, which was duly published two days later. It contained the words, "There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I’ll swear I can’t see it that way.”
Bat Masterson outside his newspaper office.
Newspapers of the day reported Quebec-born Masterson was found slumped on his typewriter, which some said was a Remington. He was found by Sam Taub, who Masterson had hired as a copy kid in 1908,  five years after joining the paper himself. Taub went on to become sports editor of the Telegraph and a boxing writer and commentator.
The New York Times report of Masterson's death.
Eighteen days before his death, Masterson was visited in his office by his close friend, the actor William Surrey Hart, who was fascinated by the Old West and was the leading Western film star of the silent era. Masterson and Hart were photographed at Masterson's desk.
Among the many notable journalists who worked with Masterson at the Morning Telegraph was movie gossip columnist Louella Parsons, who joined the staff in 1918 and found Masterson "a kind-hearted old man, a grand newspaper crony". Another was American Newspaper Guild founder Heywood Broun.
Louella Parsons at her Remington Model 2 portable typewriter in 1929.
Below, Heywood Broun.

Hef 'n' Tennessee and Their Typewriters

$
0
0

The Hefner Underwood
Hugh Marston Hefner was photographed at typewriters almost as often as Thomas Lanier"Tennessee" Williams III. Well, not quite, perhaps, but he was headed that way. And while one used typewriters to put together some of the finest art of the mid-20th Century, the other typed words to go around some of the sleaziest art of the same period. (No prizes for guessing which did which.)
     What else do they now have in common? The inflated value of their old typewriters, it seems. The Underwood portable Hefner used when he lived at 1303 West University Avenue, Urbana, and attended the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (he graduated in 1949), sold at auction last December 3 for $US162,500 ($A225,837). The estimated sale price had been $US2000-$4000.
     One news outlet claimed the Underwood had been used to write articles for the first issue of Playboy magazine in 1953. Hefner, who died on September 27, 2017, aged 91, was photographed at a range of models in his younger days, including Underwood and L.C. Smith standards, and a Royal standard and portable, but not an Underwood portable.
     Proceeds from the auction, conducted by Julien’s in Beverly Hills, California, have gone to the Hugh M. Hefner Foundation, which supports organisations that advocate for and defend civil rights and civil liberties. Hefner’s copy of the first Playboy, which featured nude photos of Marilyn Monroe, sold for $US31,250 ($A41,421) and his iconic smoking jacket fetched $US41,600 ($A57,794).
     Earlier in the year, yet another of Tennessee Williams'  portable typewriters sold at auction. Described as “An important artifact in the history of American theatre”, the Remington Model 2 sold for $US37,500 ($A52,113) at Sotheby’s in New York City on June 28. It was purported to be the machine Williams used to write A Streetcar Named Desire, so naturally the estimate had been between $US30,000 and $50,000. Anticipated price aside, however, other aspects of this offering should have raised some eyebrows among typewriter collectors.
The Williams Remington
As Richard Polt, not just a world expert on Remington portables but also on famous writers and their typewriters. says on his Classic Typewriter Page, “This man [Williams] loved to have himself photographed with his writing machines!” Richard lists some of the models Williams is said to have used, or can plainly be seen using: a 1936 Corona Junior,  a Corona Sterling, a Royal KMM standard, a Hermes Baby, an Olivetti Studio 44, Remington Model 5 portable flat top, a Remington Standard M and an Olympia SM8. He might also have offered an Olivetti Lettera 32 and one of two others, including an early Underwood portable and a later electric. But a Remington Model 2 portable?
Sotheby’s offered some evidence of provenance. “This typewriter,” it said, “is accompanied by a large scrap of brown butcher's paper inscribed in red ink by Lady St Just [Maria Britneva], ‘Tennessee Williams' typewriter on which he wrote 'A Streetcar Named Desire': given to Maria Britneva, London, early 1950s.”
Now it is true that Russian-born actress Maria Britneva (1921-1994) was the executor of Williams’ literary estate. Britneva met Williams in 1948 at a party at John Gielgud's house and they became lifelong close friends. However, it seems that nowhere in the book Britneva published in 1990, Five O'Clock Angel: Letters of Tennessee Williams to Maria St Just, 1948–1982, is the gift of a typewriter - especially not one as important as this one is alleged to be in literary history - mentioned. Rather, newspaper reviews of Britneva's book about her correspondence with Williams said the playwright used a Remington Model 5 portable flat top to type his earliest plays. Indeed, LIFE magazine's February 16, 1948, feature on the "newcomer" confirmed this, clearly showing him using the flat top.
Yet Sotheby’s claims for the Model 2 stated, “Williams began work on ‘Streetcar’ in the spring of 1947 and continued to revise it right up until opening night in December of same year.” It speculated that as he worked on the play in New York, Charleston, South Carolina, New Orleans and other locations … “a portable typewriter was a necessity. This typewriter was around 25 years old when Williams used it for ‘Streetcar’. It is possible he also used it for earlier plays, short stories, poems and letters.  A later typewriter owned by Williams, an Olivetti Lettera 32 (1963 or later), is in the Tennessee Williams Collection at Columbia University.”
Of course, in the absence of signed provenance provided by the actual author – which admittedly, in the case with the Olivetti Lettera 32 sold at auction by Cormac McCarthy, was very clearly incorrect - there is always bound to be speculation about the typewriters used by great writers. But in the case of Tennessee Williams, such conjecture was fuelled by the sure and certain knowledge about the typewriters Williams did use (and did discuss using, such as the Olivetti Studio 44). That knowledge comes from something irrefutable – photographic evidence. After all, there is surely a limit to how many typewriters one writer can use in a lifetime – provided he is not also a typewriter collector!

The Typewriter Lady Who Turned Paris on its Head

$
0
0

Glamorous Prague typist Maria Lani hit artistically vibrant Paris like a tempest in the Spring of 1928. Less than three years later she disappeared, just as mysteriously as she had arrived. Lani had set the city a-tizz, and become known across the globe as “The Lady with 50 Faces” and “The “Muse of Modern Masters”. In December 1929, Vanity Fair called her the “improbable perfection of her sex. [The] genius of Europe has massed against this one objective: merely to claim for art the secret of Maria Lani’s smile.” The New York Times said she was "an international phenomenon”.
The world would not soon forget Maria Lani, and little wonder. She had fleetingly proved to be the very essence of an enigma: 59 artists, including Bonnard, Chagall, Cocteau, Derain, Matisse, Rouault and Suzanne Valadon, had painted, drawn and sculpted her face, and no two images were alike. Only the suspicious Pablo Picasso stood apart from mob crying out for Lani to pose for them.
Jacqueline Marval's portrait  
Georges Rouault's portrait
Maria Lani was not a 22-year-old Czech, nor an aspiring German film star, as she claimed at the time. She was Maria Geleniewicz, born on June 24, 1895, in Kolno, Poland, and raised in Częstochowa. She was the key part of an elaborate ruse, concocted with her husband, Belarus-born Maximilian Abramowicz (aka Maximilian Ilyin and Mac Ramo) and her brother Alexander, to convince artists she needed multiple portraits for the plot of a horror movie, The Woman of the Hundred Faces that they claimed to be making. Jean Cocteau fell for the scam and encouraged other artists to become involved. “Maria Lani! Maria Lani! Maria Lani!” wrote the surrealist Giorgio de Chirico, who found the cry “repeated through the night, agitating, like the sirens in a factory district.” De Chirico gave up and drew her faceless above a pile of monument columns (below).
The evasive Lani and Abramowicz kept the 76 art works, which they exhibited across Europe and in America, and in March 1941 they settled at 147 West 55th Street, New York City, later moving to 31 West 53rd Street.
Lani’s mystique remained, such that she was to be the subject of a second planned – and this time real - movie, in 1943, co-written by Thomas Mann, Louis Bromfield and Abramowicz (as Ilyin), with Jean Renoir as director and Greta Garbo (or, as one critic claimed Hedy Lamarr) as Hortense Pichat [Lani]. This was never made either.
In late 1945 Lani was found by LIFE magazine working as a volunteer waitress in a patriotic red, white and blue apron at the Stage Door Canteen in Manhattan, a recreational centre for US servicemen.
This charity work aided Lani and Abramowicz (as Ilyin) in getting instant US citizenship on May 9, 1946. But on April 6, 1951, Lani left New York and returned to France alone, docking at Cherbourg on the Queen Elizabeth and telling immigration officials she intended to stay only six months. Abramowicz (as Ilyin) flew to Paris to join her in late April 1953. Describing herself as a mere housewife, Lani lived at 11 Rue des Belles-Feuilles, Paris. Still claiming to have been born in 1905, and therefore only 48 instead of 58, she died of a brain tumor at 2.30 on the afternoon of March 11, 1954, at the Hôpital de la Pitié at 83 Boulevard de Hôpital. She was buried not in a pauper's grave, as some stories suggest, but in the extra muros Cimetière Parisien de Thiais in the Val-de-Marne department of Île-de-France. There, in grave two of the 24th row of the 78th division, she lay beside such luminaries as King Zog of Albania, Kiki the Queen of Montparnasse, andLev Sedov, son of Léon Trotsky. Abramowicz (as Ilyin) also died in Paris, on February 5, 1964, aged 71.
San Francisco Examiner, November 30, 1930

'The Man Who Didn't Count': Torn to Pieces from a Gay Author's Typewriter

$
0
0

Gerald Glaskin at his Olivetti Lettera 22 portable typewriter
It isn’t all that often that an Australian writer’s novel is turned into a movie. But twice? That’s almost unheard of. What’s more, the author, Gerald Glaskin, is practically unknown in his own country, primarily because Glaskin was gay and in the oppressive days of 1965 dared to write (albeit under the pseudonym of Neville Jackson) what has been described as Australia’s first and most important gay novel, No End to the Way. The topic was verboten at that time. Yet no more so than creating a hero who’s an Aboriginal, as Glaskin did in A Waltz Through the Hill. This was the only one of Gaskin’s books to be made into a film, although six others were optioned.
A scene from the film of A Waltz Through the Hills
       Of Glaskin’s 20 published books, 12 were fiction, seven nonfiction, and one a mix of the two. His novels, novellas, plays and short stories explored many other taboo subjects, such as incest, paedophilia and youth suicide. As one reviewer said, “It was as though he was trying to confront middle-class Australians of his day with issues most would rather not have to deal with. Through his writing, he reached out to marginalised groups in Australian society - Aboriginals, Asians, gays and young people.”

The claim about No End to the Way prodding the boundaries in Australian literature came from Tasmanian-based author Robert Dessaix, who, in terms of Glaskin’s fame in his homeland, pointed out, “It is as if [he] lived out his tumultuous and prolific life as a writer on the far side of the moon.” Even from that distance, however, Glaskin had the vision to regard Australia’s only winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, Patrick White, as “an old lady sitting with her knitting” and to rage against “the cult of the moron” in his native land. Fittingly, in the J.S. Battye Library of West Australian History Collection is a torn-to-pieces typescript of a Glaskin tale called “The Man Who Didn’t Count”. Some Australian readers actually thought he was a Dutch author.

Glaskin wrote A Waltz Through the Hills four years before No End to the Way, and it was indeed a very different kind of story. Both the movie of the same name, as well as a 2001 version of Glaskin’s book, called Southern Cross, are classified as children’s telemovies.
The movie of A Waltz Through the Hills was made in 1988 and starred the Aboriginal actors Ernie Dingo and Mawuyul Yanthalawuy. Not all that many months ago I chanced to catch the film, screened on television late one night, and was deeply impressed – by the story as much by the acting of Dingo and other cast members, and by the filming. I was thus greatly surprised that I’d never previously heard of this Australian movie, the more so because it was based and filmed in a part of Western Australia with which I was very familiar. Upon looking up details online, I was even further taken aback to find it was based on a story by a West Australian author I’d never come across before.
Gilbert Glaskin at an Olivetti Studio 44 typewriter
As it turns out, Glaskin’s book was richly praised on publication before Christmas 1961. A Canberra Times reviewer said, “This work is too mature and sophisticated a novel to be classed as a ‘book for children’, although it should provide a tremendous literary experience for some of the more perceptive older boys and girls.” The book was “exhilarating” and had “great breadth and depth”. “Mr Glaskin displays a rare insight into the simple logic, immature frailty and imaginative power that together form a child’s character. He has drawn the two children with truth and respect, and without any trace of sentimentality … This magnificent story is essentially Australian, yet it also possesses the universal appeal which usually ensures that a book will live.” Sadly, it did not.
       A Waltz Through the Hills is the story of two orphaned children, Andy Dean and his sister Sammy, who run away from their kind-hearted carers in the outback to go to Fremantle so they can sail to England to live with their grandparents. It was produced for the PBS series WonderWorks in the United States. It is set in 1954 in Wyanilling, which in reality is known as Wyanilling Soak and is a native well hundreds of miles inland from Fremantle. With police in pursuit, the children walk south towards Quindanning and are guided by a wily Aboriginal tracker played by Dingo, who sets them on the right track to the Dwellingup and Pinjarra areas. As the children prepare to depart for England, the Dingo character tells them to “Go and be with your own people”, to which the girl responds by kissing the Aboriginal.
Even in 1988, that scene may have had an impact similar to the way Sydney audiences gasped when Australian actor Peter Finch kissed Murray Head in John Schlesinger’s Sunday Bloody Sunday 17 years earlier - perhaps the first Hollywood film to feature homosexuality without wallowing in guilt, remorse or fear, a breakthrough in gay cinema.
A scene from Southern Cross
Southern Cross changes the plot of A Waltz Through the Hills from white orphans to more topical refugee children - illegal immigrants called Liang and Bo who escape from an outback detention camp. It was nominated for the Australian Film Industry’s Best Children’s Drama award.
No End to the Way was published in 1965 in Britain and banned in Australia for more than a year for its frank portrayal of a homosexual relationship (any story that failed to punish its characters for committing this illegal act was deemed to be glorifying and promoting it, hence breaking the law.) And No End to the Way did not have the “obligatory” tragic ending. Instead it drew attention to the injustices suffered by gay men, whose lives were governed by fear and who were forced to live in secret. Most of all, it affirmed the experience and integrity of many gay men. Eventually the ban was lifted and 50,000 paperback copies were sold in Australia.
Two more of Glaskin’s books were temporarily banned here, O Love, O Loneliness (1964) and The Beach of Passionate Love (1961) – the latter is actually a travel book and Passionate Love is a beach in Malaysia. But censors didn’t like the title. These weren’t to be Glaskin’s last encounters with censorship. In 1969 he shipped a copy of Philip Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint into Australia from New Zealand, but the novel was seized by officials. Glaskin protested and said he would renounce his Australian citizenship. He was eventually allowed to have the book, but had to “keep it in his custody at all times” and for just one month! Two years later he was one of a group of West Australian literary figures who testified and succeeded in having the ban on Portnoy’s Complaint lifted.
Philip Roth at his Olivetti Lettera portable typewriter
In the mid-1970s Glaskin wrote three books on the “Christos Experience”, which the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology described in 2001 as “A technique for inducing altered states of consciousness … The Greek word Christos (anointed one) was thought by Glaskin to mean ‘inner self’. The technique involves massaging the subject's feet and forehead before a series of visualisation exercises, culminating in the experience of travelling by mind (imagination) to other places, identities, and time periods. When successful the technique produces a vivid and stimulating experience that often includes re-experiencing events believed to have happened in former lives.” Glaskin described the experiments in Windows of the Mind; Discovering Your Past and Future Lives Through Massage and Mental Exercise (1974), Worlds Within: Probing the Christos Experience (1976) and A Door to Eternity: Proving the Christos Experience (1979).
Taken overall, Glaskill’s writing covered a vast array of genres and interests, extending from his novels to plays and screenplays, books on travel and exploration, autobiography and memoirs, science fiction and fantasy, and children's fiction to songs, lyrics and libretti. One of his books, Flight to Landfall (1963) sold 850,000 copies, but only a small percentage of those sales were in Australia.
The young Gerald Glaskin
Gerald Marcus Glaskin lived to see the first version of A Waltz Through the Hills made, but died a year before Southern Cross came out. He was born in West Perth, Western Australia, on December 16, 1923. Growing up in Buckland Hill, north of Fremantle, Glaskin won prizes in the junior section of flower shows (vases of Clarkia were his speciality) and joined the Mosman Park boy scouts. From the age of nine he was also an inveterate writer to the children’s section of Perth newspapers, contributing stories and poetry and boasting of having a “fantastically vivid imagination”. He won a scholarship to Perth Modern School and started having his stories published across Australia and overseas at age 18. He joined the Royal Australian Navy Reserve in 1941 but after 15 months was discharged after suffering serious injuries to his right arm in an accident while serving as a rating on the armed merchant cruiser Kanimbla. He then joined the Royal Australian Air Force in 1944 and trained as a navigator under the Empire Air Scheme in Winnipeg, Canada, attaining the rank of flying officer. Typical of the malapert young Glaskin, on leave while in North America, he went to Hollywood and managed to meet actress, director and producer Ida Lupino and Phantom of the Opera star Susanna Foster.
Glaskin after the war
Back in Western Australia, in mid-1946 Glaskin became editor of the rural Harvey Murray Times. But he missed city life and moved to Peppermint Grove, closer to his beloved Cottesloe Beach, north of Fremantle, then (inappropriately) Graylands and finally Warnham Road, a short walk from Cottesloe Beach. He continued to have short stories published by Perth newspapers, but his writing didn’t pay much. In 1949 he settled in Singapore and worked there as a stockbroker, becoming a partner in Lyall & Evatt from 1951-58 while still contributing articles to Australian publications (and recuperating in Australia from spinal meningitis and tropical infective hepatitis in late 1954). In March 1953 he had travelled to London and found a book publisher – James Barrie, great-nephew and godson of Peter Pan creator J.M. Barrie. Glaskin’s first novel, A World of Our Own, written in five months at his grandmother’s cottage at Safety Bay before the author went to Singapore, came out six years later, in 1955. It is widely claimed that he won Australia’s Commonwealth Prize for Literature that year; the truth is that Glaskin applied to the Commonwealth Literary Fund for a Literary Fellowship that year but was rejected. He applied again and in 1957 was awarded a fellowship for £1000 for work on a second novel. But Glaskin had to relinquish the grant because he was unable to comply with its condition that he return to Australia.
Glaskin did return to Australia, in late 1958, but in 1961 was charged with having “wilfully and obscenely exposed his person” on Swanbourne’s nude beach. He moved overseas again, this time to Amsterdam, where he met Leo van de Pas. The couple settled in Perth in 1968 and remained partners until Glaskin’s death in Mosman Park on March 11, 2000. (Van de Pas moved to Canberra in 2002 and died here in  2016).
Glaskin's partner Leo van de Pas

Journalist, Take Your Typewriter and Leave: The Coatman Cometh

$
0
0

The idea of robot reporters has been around a very long time, 85 years to be precise. But what Mancunian John Coatman, professor of Imperial Economics at the London School of Economics, had in mind when he was appointed news editor of the British Broadcasting Corporation in 1934 was very different from the alarming news Jaclyn Peiser reported in the media section of yesterday’s The New York Times, under the headline “The Rise of Robot Reporters”. The Coatman robot wasn’t expected to be able to think for itself; Peiser wrote about artificial intelligence now being used in reporting.
      Coatman’s plan was to add a metallic “reporter” to his staff – he also appointed the BBC’s first two professional journalists, who happily happened to be humans. Coatman had decided to send his robot to political meetings, first nights at the theatre, public dinners and boxing and football matches. Its sensitive recording device would pick up “raw news” to be broadcast on BBC radio. Presumably the BBC thought Coatman was quite mad, because it didn’t proceed with the idea.
       Given Coatman’s dubious qualifications for the job – sadly he was a precursor for the people who are making decisions for the worldwide media today - his thinking was based on economics. His Tin Man reporter might need an occasional drop of oil, but it would save the BBC having to pay a weekly salary to feed some living-breathing reporter's wife and kids and put a roof over the head of the flesh-and-blood journo.
"Robot" machines in the Press Box on fight night.
       Coatman wasn’t the first to think of the idea of a robot reporter, simply the first to seriously propose such a monstrosity. Six years earlier, when the great American newspaper publisher Frank Ernest Gannett (1876-1957) demonstrated Walter Welcome Morey’s robotic typesetting machines to news industry leaders in Rochester, New York, he was asked whether the automation of Linotypes could be extended to a “mechanical substitute for reporters”. The journalist covering the event for Associated Press thought the question was “facetious”. Gannett’s technology was actually the Teletypesetter, a device for setting type by telegraph developed with Morkrum-Kleinschmidt in Chicago and ultimately dependent on human input (and outtake).
The horrid vision of robot reporters had been around since at least 1924, when US journalist and political theorist Frank Richardson Kent I (1877-1958) was asked about his insightful interviewing style. "His" interviewing technique would remain in vogue, Kent said, until such time as the unthinkable happened and newspaper and magazine publishers replaced human beings with robot reporters. It took another 67 years before the nightmare became a reality, when Nihon Visual in Tokyo launched its $US7 million Stherotina (or “Tina” for short), a 5ft tall, 99lb kimono-clad beauty who could interview robot dancers at Tokushima on Shikoku. Apparently they understood one another’s language.
By 2002 the world was gripped by MIT’s idea that Mars Explorer-type robots could report in war zones. Not only would the reporter not ask for wages, but it wouldn’t take sick leave and wouldn’t die on the job expecting to be buried at some expensive funeral. Costly blood would not be spilt in the quest for news.
Robotic reporting is now a reality, even here, where The Guardian’s Australian edition published its first machine-assisted article last week. And the world is worse for it. How are these machines programmed, and who’s in control of programming them? Can they really THINK for themselves? I doubt it. A New Zealand journalist pointed out today, “There are quite severe limitations with auto-stories. For example Motley Fool (presumably using a human reporter) reported that MicroStrategy’s ‘Revenue declined once again, and adjusted earnings fell off a cliff’. A preformatted automated story won’t spot the unexpected - which is where the news is.” As Peiser reported, AP’s straightforward robot written story said, “MicroStrategy … reported fourth-quarter net income of $3.3 million, after reporting a loss in the same period a year earlier.”  
The worst part of all this is, as Coatman foresaw 85 years ago in London, robot reporters save publishers and broadcasters money. Right now in Australia, private equity owners such as Allegro Funds, Anchorage Capital and Platinum Equity, organisations which know nothing about the industry, are lining up to carve up “regional” (Australian Community Media division) newspapers not wanted by the Nine Network (Nine Entertainment), which took over Fairfax Media last year. These people have no interest other than the extraction of money, and their civic responsibility is limited to a blank stare. “Hedge funds buy old media not to save them, but to milk them,” reported Crikey.com. “Old media may have a limited life, but they have revenues to be milked all the way to the end. To maximise profit on revenues, they gut cost-centres - or ‘newsrooms’ as we used to call them.” Yes, they gut them of humans and replace bodies with robots.
Investment bank Macquarie Capital has the mandate to divest the “regional” newspapers, more than 170 publications and related websites which include key mastheads such as The Canberra Times, The New­castle Herald, The Border Mail and Illawarra Mercury. Many of the publications mentioned on the right of the graphic above have, in my 50 years’ experience in Australian newspapers, proved to be the breeding ground of some of this country’s finest human journalists.

Flying High: The Australian Air Ace and the New York Typist. Two Wives = Two Widows Squabbling Over His Remains

$
0
0

Bert Hinkler
Bert Hinkler is one of Australia’s favourite fearless adventurers, a flying genius no less, dubbed “Hustling Hinkler, Australia’s Lone Eagle”. Out of the skies, however, he was anything but a loner. To this day Australians know little about his daring-do love life. When it came to keeping two wives apart in England and America in the early 1930s - neither knowing of the other’s existence, even when all three were aboard the White Star liner Baltic on the voyage from Boston to Liverpool in late May 1932  – he showed manoeuvring skill equal to anything he’d ever done aerobatically.
Herbert John Louis Hinkler was born on December 8, 1892, in Bundaberg, Queensland. At 8.48am on this day in 1928, Hinkler set off from Croydon in London in an Avro Avian on the first solo flight to Australia, arriving in Darwin in just under 15½ days, slicing 12½ days off the previous record. In 1931 Hinkler flew his de Havilland Puss Moth from Canada to New York, Jamaica, Venezuela, Guyana, Brazil, across the South Atlantic to West Africa and on to London. His was the first solo flight across the South Atlantic and he was only second person to cross the Atlantic solo, after Charles Lindbergh. But at 3.10am on January 7, 1933, hoping to beat C.W.A Scott’s April 1932 England-to-Australia flight record of 13,187 miles in eight days, 20 hours, 49 minutes, Hinkler flew out of Feltham Aerodrome, London, in the Puss Moth. He crashed and died in Italy later that same day.
Hinkler with his mother, right, and de facto wife Nance Jervis, left.
       Imagine the surprise of Australian Government officials in London when Leslie Vincent Pearkes, of Pettiver & Pearkes Solicitors, 21 College Hill, informed them that he was not acting on behalf of the woman they believed to be the widow of Hinkler. He was, Pearkes told them, acting for Hinkler’s real widow, a New York typist called Catherine Milligan Hinkler (née Rose).
       For almost a week after Hinkler’s crashed Puss Moth plane Karohi and his body were found on the northern slopes of Pratomagno in the Apennines between Florence and Arezzo, Italy, on April 27, 1933, Australian newspapers had been speculating on what would become of his remains. Finally, on May 3, Prime Minister Joe Lyons announced to Parliament that his Government was “proceeding with arrangements” to bury Hinkler in Brisbane. This was, said Lyons, in accordance with the wishes of his widow. Except the woman Lyons was referring to, Hannah Elizabeth “Nance” Jervis, was not married to Hinkler. She was still legally married to a man called Herbert Crossland.
       The crumpled wreck of the Karohiin the Apennines had given authorities no immediate clues to Hinkler’s tangled marital web. Many had just assumed the plane’s name was a Māori word, or Aboriginal for “lone wanderer”, as Hinkler had told the Press. . In fact it stood for (Ka)therine (Ro)se (Hi)inkler – Catherine, after arriving in the United States from her native Scotland in 1907, felt it fashionable to change the ‘C’ to a ‘K’. In any case, Hinkler had removed the name from the port side of the Puss Moth’s engine cowling before leaving Feltham.
Hinkler and Nance
       Even though Pearkes had revealed the truth soon after Hinkler’s funeral in Florence on May 1, it didn’t dawn on people in Australia until they read their Monday morning newspapers on December 18 that Hinkler’s widow was Catherine, not Nance. They had been aware since June 27 that the principal probate division of the High Court of Justice in London had awarded a portion of Hinkler’s estate to his widow, but the name of the widow wasn’t published until December, when an application was lodged with the Supreme Court of Queensland in Brisbane for the reseal of letters of administration granted by the High Court. The revelation came just five days after the Australian Government announced a widow’s pension of £104 a year to Nance. Up to that time the Government and the populace at large had continued to regard Nance as Mrs Hinkler, widow of the late aviator. The confusion was such that Pearkes was initially thought to be Nance’s lawyer.
       Nance, indeed, had been consulted by the Australian Government about Hinkler’s burial, and had declared she wanted his remains brought back to Australia and buried in Brisbane. Hickler’s hometown of Bundaberg naturally wanted him buried there. But all this went on, seemingly, while Australians remained blissfully unaware that Pearkes, acting on the real widow’s instructions, had insisted to Australian, British and Italian officials – both in London and Florence - that Hinkler be buried in Florence and that his remains should not be subsequently disturbed.
       Once the truth emerged, Australian officials and newspapers clearly decided to leave best alone. Nothing more about Hinkler’s marital situation was said or written, at least for many years, until journalists, researchers and authors began to look more closely into Hinkler’s personal life. Even then mistakes were made: Hinkler’s entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography says Hinkler’s wife was Katherine ROME, not Catherine Rose, and many researchers have made the same error. Most writers have Nance’s name as Jarvis, but she was actually Jervis, and much older than historians have thought.
       Nance was born Hannah Elizabeth Jervis in Sheffield, Yorkshire, on September 18, 1876 – she was more than 16 years older than Hinkler. She grew up in Ecclesoll Bierlow and at Royston on June 23, 1896, married Herbert Crossland. On August 22, 1897, the couple had a daughter born in Barnsley, Maida Vivian Crossland, later Mrs Canavan. Herbert died in Huddlesfield on November 11, 1939, almost seven years after Hinkler’s death. However, Nance and Hinkler had lived together, in Bundaberg and elsewhere, in a de facto marriage for many years before Hinkler legally married Catherine Rose at Stamford, Connecticut, on May 21, 1932 (Hinkler used his mother’s maiden name, Bonney, on the marriage licence).
Hinkler and Nance
Nance and Hinkler had met when Hinkler visited his brother Jack in an army hospital where Nance was nursing in France in 1917. They went through the process of banns of marriage being read at St Giles Church, Camberwell, in December 1917, despite Nance already having a husband and a daughter. The Church of England blocked the wedding on the grounds of potential adultery (let alone bigamy).
Nance went to England after Hinkler’s death and remained there until 1955, when she joined her daughter in South Africa. Nance died at Sea Point in Cape Town, on January 28, 1958, aged 81. She continued to call herself Mrs Hinkler to the end.
       The real Mrs Hinkler was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, on New Year’s Eve 1901. A typist with the British Consulate in New York when she first met Hinkler there in 1925, Catherine continued to work for the consulate off and on for many years and in 1947 was involved with the consulate and the New York Chapter of the American Red Cross in helping British war brides, 70,000 of whom had arrived in the US at the end of World War II, looking for their American husbands. Catherine died at her home on 37th Street, Astoria in Queens on October 31, 1976, aged 74.

RIP Albert Finney (1936-2019)

$
0
0
Rest in peace Albert Finney, one of the great actors of the 20th Century. Charlie Bubbles (1968), written by another Salford-born hero of mine, Shelagh Delaney (below), remains one of my Top 10 all-time movies. It was set in Salford, Lancashire.

Happy 50th Birthday, Olivetti Valentine 'Brightwriter' Portable Typewriter

$
0
0
This week - Thursday to be precise - marks the 50th anniversary of the Olivetti Valentine portable typewriter being launched in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14th, 1969. The "brightwriter" Valentine reached America in August and was being heavily advertised - through a campaign clearly aimed at teenage students with a typewriter revolution bent - the next month.
The Valentine arrived in Britain in November (when The Guardian story below appeared) and Australia a year later, just in time for Christmas 1970. It sold here for the RRP of $54.95, in Britain for 18 guineas and in the US for as low as $44.88 (ranging up to $60).
The factory in Barcelona, Spain, where the Valentine
was launched on February 14th, 1969.
The chief designer, Ettore Sottsass, a feat worthy of a book cover:


Viewing all 1889 articles
Browse latest View live