“Bill Brett and His Texas Tales”

[Note from Christopher:  I wrote this short piece on Bill Brett as a sidebar to accompany a longer article entitled “East Texas Cowboin’” by my friend Randy Mallory for the May 2000 issue of Texas Co-op Power Magazine. Bill was a fine man and a wonderful storyteller. He died a couple of years afterward, in August 2002. Upon hearing the news, I wrote a short memorial column for the Beaumont Enterprise newspaper; you’ll find that column in the Newspaper Dispatches section. I still think about Bill. He was a jack of all trades and even ran the little post office in his rural community.]

 

 One time in East Texas, back in the 1980s, at an event that must remain nameless, Bill Brett handed me a small glass jar half filled with clear liquid and said, “Try a swaller.”

I did. It went down smoother than silk and tasted like fresh water, but when it hit my stomach a warm razzle-dazzle spread outward over my belly, a pleasant gong in B major went off in my brain.

Man oh man, I thought. I couldn’t believe how painless it was to swallow. Not caustic, no fire at all. Handing the Mason jar back to Brett, I commented, with a puzzled expression, “It don’t burn up your throat like that store-bought stuff.”

Brett nodded. “Yep,” he said, “that’s right.” He gave me a wicked grin. “Shore makes you wonder, don’t it?”

It sure did.

Back in those days I was a newspaper columnist, and in the course of my ramblings I’d met Brett somewhere or other. In his 60s, gray haired and handsome with twinkling blue eyes, he’d impressed me right off as a fella worth knowing. For one thing, he could tell a story. Years later, I saw where The Handbook of Texas, in its section on Texas writers, compares his Bill’s “vernacular narration” to that of Mark Twain. I reckon the Handbook is right, although Brett never used such words as that, even if he did have a seventh grade education.

He could write a story, too, as I soon learned from reading his The Stolen Steers: A Tale of the Big Thicket and There Ain’t No Such Animal and Other East Texas Tales, both from Texas A&M Press. They’re fine books, and still in print.

Anyhow, as I was saying, Bill Brett impressed me right off. I arranged to drive over to his place in Liberty County, down in the Trinity riverbottom country, so I could sit at his knee, so to speak, and maybe learn a thing or two about telling stories, and about writing some, too. When I drove up in the afternoon, he was out in his yard braiding a horsehair rope. He was wearing boots and jeans and a khaki shirt, had his faithful cowboy hat with a braided horsehair band cocked back.

That was one thing I learned about Brett right away—he sure did like to braid horsehair. Before I left that afternoon, I was wearing a brown and white horsehair band on my own hat. I sat there and watched him make it, too. He had strong sure hands that worked with an economy of motion, the hands of an accomplished craftsman. He also knew how to work with horn. He could take an ordinary cast-off cow’s horn and make it into something worth admiring.

But the thing that struck me most, especially on that first visit, was that Bill Brett was an unusual mixture of woodsman and cowboy. He talked about working horses and cattle, but in the East Texas woods, not on the open prairie. His stories seemed as southern as they did western. They mentioned dark creekbottoms and baygalls and thorny thickets. I’d never heard cowboy stories like that, so I learned something.

Whether I learned anything from him about telling a story, or writing one, is another matter. I’d like to think so, and if he happens to read this, maybe he’ll let me know.

 

*****

 

—Christopher

“Cantus Trini Caeruli”

 

(a poem in process)

for Elizabeth Orlando

 

I.  BLUES MAN BLUES

The blues man,
he play bad.

So bad he make his momma cry
when the offer come in from Memphis
to play the Blue Moon Saloon
on Thursdays,
Fridays,
Saturdays.

But he go anyway.

That way a blues man be,
he say,

that way we be.

A blues man,
he gotta break his momma’s heart—

For practice.

 

II.  JEU DU JAZZ BLEU

C’est toujours la même chanson:
“C’était du beau jeu, mon petit jouet,
       joue-le encore une fois,
       si seulement pour moi.”

Mais je ne fatigue pas un poisson mort.
Une fois, c’est tout;
deux fois, ce que ça pue.

Je joue gros jeu, je dis,
si tu veux l’entendre deux fois,
achète un disque.

Oui, je suis dur.
Je dois être.
Regarde cette salle obscure,
vois la fumée;
pareil que Monmartre à minuit, c’est bleu.

Mais il n’y a pas de fumée sans feu.

Feu est dur, comme moi.
Feu ne brûle jamais le même deux fois.
Ce n’est pas un jeu quand je joue
parce que je suis brûlant, pas bleue comme toi.

Bon, l’entracte se termine,
il est temps de travailler,
le moment viendra de flamber.

Regarde,

Et quand je suis des cendres,
viens jouer de mon cor.
Mets le feu à quelqu’un,
juste une fois.

mais pas encore.

 

III.  BALADA ALZANDOSE EN AZUL

El hombre con la guitarra azul,
toca,
canta,
remonta el vuelo.

Las canciones se alzan arriba de la belleza.

Cerca del sol,
porque canta a la luz del sol;
cerca de la luna,
porque canta a la luz de ella.

El guitarrista con la guitarra azul
incluso canta a la luz de la sombra,

porque es ciego.

Tocando,
cantando,
remontando,

en veulo sin estorbo,
cercando todo,

desaperece.

 

—Christopher

“Hard-wiring, the Will & the Soul”

 

(Prague—October 28, 2005)

Hierarchy in human relations (social, cultural, political, economic) appears to be biologically hard-wired. That is, a powerful leader (or leaders) with many followers is the human norm. This hard-wiring, while biologically adaptive to the species in the past, now reinforces some of the more self-destructive tendencies in human behavior: tribalism, patriotism, blind loyalty, failure to assume both individual and collective responsibility.

But we humans refuse to acknowledge that we are animals with hard-wired behavior; instead, we claim to be beings with immortal souls and free will, therefore superior to the animal realm, and an exception to it.

The biologist Edward O. Wilson suggests that in the history of our species, human groups who were religious were more adaptive; religious beliefs held in common forged purposeful, collective behavior. These humans better survived difficult natural world conditions; given human predatory behavior, they also successfully extinguished any human groups who lacked such collective belief and purpose. Therefore, through selection over time, religious behavior itself has become hard-wired. That is to say, the belief that we humans aren’t hard-wired is hard-wired into us.

Given the powerful tool of science and its recent technological consequences, this contradiction—hard-wired animal behavior versus hard-wired religious faith—now poses a species survival problem. Religious belief, even though it asserts individual free will to choose between right and wrong, with consequences for the individual immortal soul, permits us to deny our collective will and our collective responsibility for collective behavior. Collective human behavior falls into the realm of God’s will, God’s plan, or the “invisible hand” of God; therefore, we humans are not responsible for our collective behavior, or its consequences.

One result of this belief is that damage we collectively cause to the planet’s ecological balance is not our responsibility. Even though the ecological damage threatens our own long-term species survival, we are not responsible for it; the consequences are part of God’s larger plan.

Given current trends, unless we intervene in this collective belief pattern we will almost certainly extinguish our own species. Our extinction will result from our own success: technological success for which we are unwilling to take responsibility.

The ideal solution is for us to accept that (1) we are hard-wired animals, (2) who possess limited will rather than free will, (3) who cannot be shown to either possess or not possess immortal souls. Regarding each of these three assertions:

(1)  While biological hard-wiring is a powerful force, cultural and intellectual values are an attempt to influence and even overcome such wiring. Moral codes and moral spiritual principles that are born of religion, and legal codes and principles of justice born of political systems, all are attempts to overcome biological hard-wiring. Success in this endeavor has been partial. The Ten Commandments, the legal code of Confucius, the appeals of Christ to love and forgive, Buddha’s embrace of non-attachment, the Golden Rule, the Magna Carta, the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights… such human constructs attempt to limit and overcome the biological hard-wiring of aggression and predation, both individual and collective. Their partial success—that is, the degree to which they fail—is evidence of how strong the hard-wiring is, how resistant it is to change, but it also indicates that such change is possible.

The above description of the interplay between biology and culture is more easily embraced by the non-religious than religious person. But it is possible for the religious believer to accept the hard-wiring of humans as part of God’s plan, and even view the human attempt to transform and overcome hard-wiring through law, ethics and spiritual values as part of that plan.

(2)  The notion that free will exists as a pre-given human attribute, an attribute as clear-cut as speech or hearing, is erroneous. Will is an ability than can be learned and developed, just as we can learn mathematics, just as we can develop increased muscle mass. Therefore, “free will” is a misnomer; there is only “will,” with relative degrees of freedom.
 
Humans do choose; we make choices between alternatives, but any choice is limited to those alternatives. If none of those alternatives are desirable, then we choose the least undesirable or (less often) create a new, more desirable alternative. The more alternatives one has, the more free one feels, and the more will one seems to possess. It is in our interest, then, to increase the number of alternatives from which we choose.

The ability to create new alternatives is a function of creative intelligence and education. The stupid, the ignorant, they possess and create fewer alternatives, and so feel less free, seem to possess less will. Creative intelligence cannot be taught (it is hard-wired), but intellectual skills (education) can be taught and learned. The equation is straightforward: more education leads to increased alternatives, increased freedom, increased will.

In the end, will is a human ability that exists in varying degrees along a continuum between “zero will” and “free will.” A person can learn to move along that continuum in either direction.

(3)  The existence of an immortal soul possessed by a human being can be neither proved nor disproved; one either believes in its existence, or does not. The belief is a function of religious faith, not empirical proof. Arguments for and against the immortal soul’s existence are rhetorical exercises more likely to create interpersonal and collective conflicts than to illuminate the actual case. The wise person chooses to avoid such discussions.

There is, in fact, an alternative to the dictum that one either believes or does not believe in the immortal human soul. I can choose to say that because belief holds no sway over the fact (it either exists or does not), I neither believe nor disbelieve; I simply do not know.

A further possibility: To treat the human soul as a poetic construction, a poetic metaphor for human aspirations. As such, the soul’s immortality is a poetic construction, as well. Still, one may decide that given what we know about ourselves, this is bad poetry.

In any case, the tendency of arguments over the existence and nature of an immortal human soul—and what we are obliged to do with it—to lead to human conflict, aggression, and even war, persuades one to affirm religious tolerance as a solution. This will not occur if religious authorities control political affairs. Religious belief must fall under the protection of a political authority, the civil power must require religious tolerance by statute, and such tolerance must be enforced if necessary by force.

 

—Christopher