From: Angusson-AT-aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:37:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Roses



In a message dated 11/18/96 5:52:01 PM, Dorlis Grubidge wrote:
>On 11/16 Fred Thompson wrote:
>
>"Dorlis Grubidge has suggested that some sort of "myth" has been built up
>around the Roses and that is, to some degree, true. The "legend"
>notwithstanding, they had difficult times too. They were real people.
>
>
>I don't know, but that didn't come out as I wrote it to Fred when he was
>corresponding with me regarding my research and publication on Sue
>Hastings.  If memory serves me right I said that I found it easier to write
>about someone (Sue Hastings), who was no longer living and who had not been
>so well known by P of A members . . . and that Fred's project would be
>harder since the Roses had almost myth-like standing with the P of A -- in
>other words, they are a legend to many.  Legends are full of characters who
>struggle and succeed, and are usually passed on as role models for future
>generations.  
>
>I would have loved to approach Margo Rose for permission to do a biography
>on her and Rufus, but by the time I turned the corner after Sue Hastings, I
>had heard that Fred was working on the Rose Project -- I hope that he
>publishes soon.
>
>Dorlis



PLEASE NOTE: I've just reread this mess below and want to say that it might
read a tad "defensive". I hope not. I want to understand. It is really an
explanation and a call for clarification and help. I recall a saying of
sometime past: "It's not the substance but the tone."
I cannot help but respect Dorlis' and her great work. I want the conversation
to continue.    Thanks. Fred..........

Firstly, I'd like to apologize to Dorlis for misinterpreting her comments
about the Roses.  But when I read her line: "...since the Roses had almost
myth-like standing with the P of A..."  it didn't seem far from the truth or
the meaning for me to suggest that "...that some sort of "myth" has been
built up around the Roses..." 

I guess I didn't understand Dorlis' suggestion that it might be harder for me
to write about the Roses because of their "myth-like" standing in the PofA.
What I was trying to do in my own crude way  was to cut through some of that
"perceived" myth and tell it like it was. 

I thought that because of my very fortunate situation of being befriended by
and having worked with the Roses that I had a unique perspective on their
lives and their work for over 40 years. I bring to it recollections and
information which are not documented anywhere. Bits and pieces which might
color or illuminate a story of their lives.
I'm not sure if Dorlis knew of this connection?

No question as a kid, I was in their thrall.
When I was a boy, the Roses could do no wrong.   But as I got to know them -
as I worked alongside Rufus and Margo - I was witness to the human side.
Private moments. Personal moments. The day to day routine which couldn't
(wouldn't) have been recorded, with lots of little pieces which would have
been lost in the folds of the mantle of myth or discarded in the colder
academic pursuit of "facts only". 
As time went on, my attitude changed. The Roses were discovered to be no
different from other people.  (With the obvious exceptions, of course.) I
witnessed Rufus' anger and bullheadedness, (and benefitted from his great
generosity and concern) and watched as they "discussed" opposing views, and
saw the wonderful results of those discussions. I felt the sting of Margo's
brutally honest critiques and knew through it all that she loved me.

I guess I don't see the problem here. 
I would LOVE to have some clarification. 
Just two brief quotes from the introduction of Leon Edel's book "Writing
Lives" (Principia Biographica). 

"A writer of lives is allowed the imagination of form but not of fact."

"The relation of the biographer to the subject is the very core of the
biographical enterprise. Idealization of the hero or heroine blinds the
writer of lives to the meaning of the materials. Hatred or animosity does the
same. But most biographies tend to be written in affection and love. If there
ensues an emotional involvement on the part of the biographer he or she must
be reminded that love is blind. Psychology calls this "transference."

There are a few more wonderful quotes by Edel so get the book and check it
out. Whether or not you plan to write.


I thought Dorlis might have had a much harder time with her research and
writing. Take the time to read her preface to her book - "Sue Hastings -
Puppet Showwoman". [Charlemagne Press -1993] available through the Puppetry
Store and Charlemagne Press.  Her time with Sue Hastings was limited, and she
was under some academic constraints concerning her doctoral dissertation,
with not a few stumbling blocks thrown in along the way. But she persevered
and we now have this wonderful document of a great life in puppetry. 

I don't have any such constraints except to tell it "like it was". Dorlis has
done an incredible amount of research to gather her material. I have had so
much of the factual material handed to me that it makes my effort so much
easier. Margo kept everything and of course there are the puppets and the
photographs AND Margo!  I have done some outreach to get more "anecdotal"
material for this record. I still have to verify a lot of the material. Even
on Margo's own "Chronology" put together in 1976 there are some mistakes. And
other sources have misinformation. I wanted to dig deeper and correct all of
that. 

>I would have loved to approach Margo Rose for permission to do a biography
>on her and Rufus, but by the time I turned the corner after Sue Hastings, I
>had heard that Fred was working on the Rose Project -- I hope that he
>publishes soon.

I have a lot yet to do. Dorothy Abbe, author of the great book on W.A.
Dwiggins spent years putting it all together. 

I never intended to write a "book". Only after I did a few workshops and
brief articles about the Roses did some (dare I say "influential"?) folks in
 puppetry suggest that I do a book. As I've mentioned to Dorlis, I am NOT a
scholar. I spend as much time reading about "HOW" to do it as "doing" it.  
My original intent was to record as much history about the Roses as I could
while Margo was around to fill in the blanks. I would document the puppets,
stringing, controls and mechanics as a record for myself and for others to
study. I knew that much of the Rose collection would end up in a museum with
limited access. I wanted to share with anyone interested in the material what
I knew and would discover, and have tried to do just that. It's been fun!

Compiling this information and interviewing Margo and others started only a
few years ago -1993 - I think. This led to a study of the proper methods of
preserving, conserving and storing multimedia objects. I didn't want to do
any damage to these objects. I also studied the proper ways to document store
and display archival and manuscript materials.  This led to a suggestion for
a workshop for the Bryn Mawr Fest on preservation and documentation of puppet
collections and related items. At the last minute I could not attend so Stacy
Roth presented the workshop using her notes and mine. I hope a small handbook
comes out of all this preservation work. 
Beyond that, I've discovered problems concerning puppet collections around
the country and have tried to voice my concerns in various ways.

And finally, trying to get through the day to day personal stuff takes its
toll.  Sound familiar?

So I am still digging and verifying and with each new discovery or
illuminating item, a whole new set of questions is born. I have looked for
some money to free me up for a bit so I could focus on this project. But
there seem to be few sources for funding this kind of work. 

I want to do it right. 
I am open to any and all suggestions.

Thanks for wading through this.

Fred Thompson






  --- Personal replies to: Angusson-AT-aol.com
  --- List replies to:     puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  --- Admin commands to:   majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu