Monday, April 07, 2014

Mickey Rooney, Master of Putting On a Show, Dies at 93
A truly remarkable life lived to the fullest!
 
 
Mickey Rooney, the exuberant entertainer who led a roller-coaster life — the world’s top box-office star at 19 as the irrepressible Andy Hardy, a bankrupt has-been in his 40s, a comeback kid on Broadway as he neared 60 — died on Sunday. He was 93 and lived in Westlake Village, California.
His death was confirmed by his son Michael Joseph Rooney.
He stood only a few inches taller than five feet, but Mr. Rooney was larger and louder than life. From the moment he toddled onto a burlesque stage at 17 months to his movie debut at 6 to his career-crowning Broadway debut in "Sugar Babies" at 59 and beyond, he did it all. He could act, sing, dance, play piano and drums, and before he was out of short pants he could cry on cue.
As Andy Hardy, growing up in the idealized fictional town of Carvel, Mr. Rooney was the most famous teenager in America from 1937 to 1944: everybody’s cheeky son or younger brother, energetic and feverishly in love with girls and cars. The 15 Hardy Family movies, in which all problems could be solved by Andy’s man-to-man talks with his father, Judge Hardy (played by Lewis Stone), earned more than $75 million — a huge sum during the Depression years, when movie tickets rarely cost more than 25 cents.
Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland in "Babes on Broadway" (1941), one of the four musicals they starred in together. Credit Clarence Bull/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
In 1939, America’s theater owners voted Mr. Rooney the No. 1 box-office star, over Tyrone Power. That same year he sang and danced his way to an Oscar nomination for best actor in "Babes in Arms," the first of the "Hey kids, let’s put on a show" MGM musicals he made with Judy Garland.
He was box-office king again in 1940, over Spencer Tracy, and in 1941, with Clark Gable taking second place. Three years earlier, in The New York Times, Frank S. Nugent had written of Mr. Rooney’s performance as the swaggering bully redeemed by Tracy’s Father Flanagan in "Boys Town":
"Mickey is the Dead End gang rolled into one. He’s Jimmy Cagney, Humphrey Bogart and King Kong before they grew up, or knew a restraining hand. Mickey, as the French would understate it, is the original enfant terrible."
Mr. Rooney’s personal life was as dynamic as his screen presence. He married eight times. He earned $12 million before he was 40 and spent more. Impulsive, recklessly extravagant, mercurial and addicted to playing the ponies and shooting craps, he attacked life as though it were a six-course dinner.
Movie audiences first saw him as Mickey McGuire, a tough kid in a battered derby hat, in a series of two-reel shorts based on the comic strip "Toonerville Trolley." (The first short in which he had a starring role, "Mickey’s Circus," was thought to be lost, but a print was found, along with many other silent films, in the Netherlands in 2014.)
At 13, he auditioned for the role of the mischievous sprite Puck in the great Austrian producer-director Max Reinhardt’s 1934 Hollywood Bowl production of "A Midsummer Night’s Dream." Though unfamiliar with Shakespeare, Mr. Rooney impressed Reinhardt, who cast him in the play and — along with James Cagney, Dick Powell and Olivia de Havilland — in the movie version he directed with William Dieterle a year later.
He was a sensation. "Rooney seems inhuman, he moves like mist or water, his body is burnished by the extraordinary light, and his gurgling laugh is ghostly and enchanting," David Thomson wrote of Mr. Rooney’s performance in his "Biographical Dictionary of Film." "Could such a performance have been directed? Rooney’s Puck is truly inhuman, one of cinema’s most arresting pieces of magic."
Between 1936 and 1944, Mr. Rooney made more than three dozen movies. Under contract at MGM, he brought vitality even to bit parts like a Brooklyn shoeshine boy in "Little Lord Fauntleroy" (1936), the kid brother in the film version of Eugene O’Neill’s "Ah, Wilderness!" (1935) and a young deckhand on a fishing boat in "Captains Courageous" (1937).
Along with Deanna Durbin, Mr. Rooney was given a special Academy Award in 1939 "for bringing to the screen the spirit and personification of youth." The next year he received his Oscar nomination for "Babes in Arms." His second nomination was for his performance in the film version of William Saroyan’s "Human Comedy" (1943) as the messenger boy who delivers telegrams from the War Department telling families in a small California town that their sons have died. That movie seems saccharine and preachy more than 70 years later, but time has not tarnished the desolation on Mr. Rooney’s face when he reads those telegrams.
 
A Career of Ups and Downs
Although his career was one of the longest in show business history — about 90 years separated his first movie from his last — it was crammed with detours and dead ends. ("There have been crevices, fissures, pits, and I’ve fallen into a lot of them," he told The Times in 1979.)
His elfin face and short, stocky body were part of the problem: At 28, with adolescent roles no longer an option and adult roles hard to come by, he said he would give 10 years of his life to be six inches taller. Yet most of his wounds were self-inflicted.
He married in haste — he wed Miss Birmingham of 1944 after knowing her for less than two weeks — and repented in haste. He turned his back on MGM, the studio that had made him a star, for the mirage of running his own production company, and ended up mired in debt and B movies. Suits for alimony, child support and back taxes pursued him like tin cans tied to the bumper of the car he was driving to his next wedding.
When he needed money most desperately, he could always play Las Vegas. "I was a smash hit at the Riviera, where I drew $17,500 a week and lost twice that on the crap table," Mr. Rooney wrote in his 1991 autobiography, "Life Is Too Short."
At one point in 1950, the only job he could get was touring Southern states with the Hadacol Caravan. Admission to the shows was a box top from a bottle of a 26 percent alcohol tonic that the government soon forced off the market.
Yet he always bounced back, often higher than anyone expected.
Not including the Mickey Maguire shorts, Mr. Rooney made more than 200 movies, earning a total of four Academy Award nominations — he was nominated for best supporting actor as the fast-talking soldier who dies trying to protect $30,000 he won in a craps game in "The Bold and the Brave" (1956) and as the trainer of a wild Arabian horse in "The Black Stallion" (1979). (Because of his size, Mr. Rooney played a lot of jockeys and, as his waistline expanded, former jockeys who had become trainers. He was the vagabond who helps Elizabeth Taylor turn an unruly horse into a steeplechase champion in her breakthrough film, "National Velvet," in 1944.)
He was also nominated for five Emmy Awards and won one, for his performance in the 1981 television movie "Bill" as a developmentally disabled man who has spent most of his life in an institution and must learn to live in the outside world.
 
An Early Start
Mickey Rooney was born Joseph Yule Jr. in a Brooklyn tenement on Sept. 23, 1920. His mother, Nell Carter, danced in a burlesque chorus line. His father was a top banana, a lead comic, but only on second-rate circuits.
Sonny Yule, as he was known, grew up in boardinghouses in a dozen towns, but he lived backstage and, before he was 2 years old, onstage. His parents separated when he was 4, each of them taking $20 of the $40 they had saved.
For a year he had a normal childhood with his mother in Kansas City, Mo. Then she read in Variety that Hal Roach was looking for children for his Our Gang comedies. A few weeks later, the two of them left for Hollywood.
His mother turned down an offer from Roach’s assistant to try Sonny out at $5 a day. In vaudeville, one always waited for a better offer. But no second offer came. There were too many mothers eager for $5 a day.
It was back to Kansas City and then back again to Hollywood. Sonny got a job in a musical revue for $50 a week. "Marvelous for a five-year-old," wrote the Los Angeles Times theater critic. A few months later he was Mickey McGuire at $250 for each "Toonerville Trolley" short. His professional name was changed to Mickey McGuire until the creator of the comic strip objected. But he kept the Mickey.
Nobody ever doubted his talent. Of his "all but unimprovable" performance in "National Velvet," James Agee wrote, "He is an extremely wise and moving actor, and if I am ever again tempted to speak disrespectfully of him, that will be in anger over the unforgivable waste of a forceful yet subtle talent, proved capable of self-discipline and of the hardest roles that could be thrown it."
In "Little Lord Fauntleroy," "Captains Courageous" and "The Devil Is a Sissy" (1936), Mr. Rooney was a foil to MGM’s $2,500-a-week child star, Freddie Bartholomew. Decades after seeing "The Devil Is a Sissy," the critic Walter Kerr remembered "a brief but instantly shocking moment." Fifteen-year-old Mickey played a street urchin whose father was to be electrocuted that night. "Without warning, the street lights dimmed, just for a second or two," Mr. Kerr wrote in The Times in 1979. "As Mr. Rooney glanced upward, the swift and silent realization, the ashen pain, that washed over his face and then was as hastily self-consciously erased was — most literally — staggering."
By "Lord Jeff" (1938) Mr. Rooney and Mr. Bartholomew, playing delinquents in a naval reform school, had equal billing. In the last of their five movies together, "A Yank at Eton" (1942), Mr. Rooney was the star.
But MGM’s cleverest use of Mr. Rooney was teaming him with Judy Garland. His enormous energy and her voice and vulnerability melted the screen in four musicals. That the plots were more or less the same did not matter. In "Babes in Arms," they put on a show to raise money for their out-of-work parents. In "Strike Up the Band" (1940), they raised money for a high school band contest. In "Babes on Broadway" (1941), they wanted to send orphans on an excursion to the country. And in "Girl Crazy" (1943), the money their Wild West Rodeo raised saved their college. What really mattered were Mickey’s brash charm, Judy’s sincerity and the songs by the Gershwin brothers, Rodgers and Hart, and others.
They were also teamed in three of the Andy Hardy movies and — before either of them was famous — in "Thoroughbreds Don’t Cry" (1937), as a jockey who is tricked into throwing a race and the girl who tries to help him.
Mr. Rooney was 21 when he married the 19-year-old starlet Ava Gardner in 1942. The studio fought the marriage and was equally upset at Mr. Rooney’s divorce a year later.
This was just the first chapter in what would be a long and tumultuous marital history. Mr. Rooney was divorced six times, and the divorce petitions all had similar complaints: He had a fiery temper, and he would leave home for days or even weeks at a time.
Drafted into the Army in 1944, Mr. Rooney met Betty Jane Rase, an Alabama beauty queen, at a party. "Sometime after the seventh bourbon or maybe the seventeenth," Mr. Rooney wrote in "Life Is Too Short," "I asked Miss Birmingham if she’d like to become Mrs. Mickey Rooney, and she said yes."
Mickey Rooney in 2012. As late as 2014, the exuberant actor was still making movies. Credit Fred Prouser/Reuters
They divorced in 1949. His third marriage, to the actress Martha Vickers, who had played Lauren Bacall’s nymphomaniac sister in "The Big Sleep," lasted three years. His fourth wife was another beauty queen, Elaine Mahnken, who later recalled, "While they were dunning him for bills, he’d be out buying two new Jaguars." She handled the finances and brought Mr. Rooney to the brink of solvency. He rewarded her by going to Las Vegas and losing $50,000.
His fifth marriage, to Barbara Thomason, an aspiring actress, ended tragically. When Mr. Rooney declared bankruptcy in 1962, soon after the birth of their third child, he had $500 in cash and almost $500,000 in debts, and he owed $100,000 in delinquent taxes. The I.R.S. gave him an allowance of $200 a month, so he borrowed money to play the ponies. A month after they separated in December 1965 and began a messy custody battle, Barbara Thomason Rooney was shot to death by a jealous lover, Milos Milosevic, who then used the same gun to kill himself.
By then, Mr. Rooney’s career was at low tide. As he grew older and wider, the pugnacious cockiness that had been charming when Andy Hardy sipped sodas with Judy Garland, Lana Turner, Ann Rutherford or Esther Williams in the Carvel drugstore seemed rancid. He drank too much and was addicted to sleeping pills. In December 1959, after he had apparently had a few drinks too many, Mr. Rooney made a fool of himself on "The Tonight Show"; the audience applauded when the host, Jack Paar, asked him to leave.
He could still be an electrifying actor, and often was, especially on television. He inherited the title role in "The Comedian," written by Rod Serling, on "Playhouse 90" in 1957 because a half-dozen other actors had refused to play a lecherous, vicious and greedy comedian. The role won him his first Emmy nomination.
But he took virtually every part he was offered in those years, and he was most often seen mugging his way through bad movies. He replaced Donald O’Connor in the last of a series about a talking mule, "Frances in the Haunted House" (1956). In "Everything’s Ducky" (1961), one of his co-stars was a talking duck. In "The Private Lives of Adam and Eve" (1960), a low-budget oddity for which he shared director credit with Albert Zugsmith, he played the Devil in an extended dream sequence. He was a manic advertising executive in search of sex symbols in "How to Stuff a Wild Bikini" (1965), a beach-party movie of which The Times critic Howard Thompson observed that anybody expecting the worst would not be disappointed.
 
The Spotlight Returns
Things began turning around for Mr. Rooney in the 1970s. He stopped drinking and became a born-again Christian. In 1978, after two more marriages and divorces, he married Jan Chamberlin, a country singer whom he met through his son Mickey Jr. Their marriage, his eighth and last, brought stability to his life. And a return to stardom was just around the corner.
It took a year to put together the boisterous and proudly old-fashioned burlesque-style revue "Sugar Babies," in which Mr. Rooney’s co-star was the former MGM hoofer Ann Miller. Mr. Rooney fought over every skit and argued over every song and almost always got things done his way. The show opened on Broadway on Oct. 8, 1979, to rapturous reviews, and this time he did not throw success away.
"Sugar Babies" ran for three years. A road company with Carol Channing and Robert Morse was not a success — audiences wanted only one top banana, Mickey Rooney — so he spent four more years on the road with the show.
In 1983, Mr. Rooney was given an honorary Academy Award "in recognition of his 60 years of versatility in a variety of film performances."
He continued performing well into the new millennium. He had roles in "Night at the Museum" (2006), "The Muppets" (2011) and other movies. In 2007 he and Ms. Chamberlin began touring in a "one man, one wife" show with the nostalgic title "Let’s Put On a Show." As late as 2014 he was still making movies.
In Mr. Rooney’s later years, his life became tumultuous once again. In 2011 he obtained a restraining order against his stepson Christopher Aber and Mr. Aber’s wife, Christina, charging them with withholding food and medicine and forcing him to sign over his assets. He repeated his allegations in Washington before the Senate Special Committee on Aging. He later filed suit against them; the suit was settled in 2013, with the Abers agreeing that they owed Mr. Rooney $2.8 million.
Mr. Rooney is survived by Ms. Chamberlin.
For all the ups and downs of Mr. Rooney’s life and career, there was one constant: his love of performing. "Growing up in vaudeville," he once said, "made me cognizant of the need to have fun at what you’re doing. You can’t get it done well without it being fun. And I’ve never felt that what I do is ‘work.’ "

Ashley Southall contributed reporting.

Sunday, April 06, 2014

Peter Matthiessen, Lyrical Writer and Naturalist, Is Dead at 86



Peter Matthiessen, a roving author and naturalist whose impassioned nonfiction explored the remote endangered wilds of the world and whose prizewinning fiction often placed his mysterious protagonists in the heart of them, died on Saturday at his home in Sagaponack, N.Y. He was 86.
His son Alex said the cause was leukemia, which was diagnosed more than a year ago. “He continued to fight gallantly to the end and was surrounded by his family,” Alex said. “He was terrifically brave.”
Mr. Matthiessen’s final novel, “In Paradise,” is to be published on Tuesday by Riverhead Books.
Mr. Matthiessen was one of the last survivors of a generation of American writers who came of age after World War II and who all seemed to know one another, socializing in New York and on Long Island’s East End as a kind of movable literary salon peopled by the likes of William Styron, James Jones, Kurt Vonnegut and E. L. Doctorow.
A rugged, weather-beaten figure who was reared and educated in privilege — an advantage that left him uneasy, he said — Mr. Matthiessen was a man of many parts: littérateur, journalist, environmentalist, explorer, Zen Buddhist, professional fisherman and, in the early 1950s, undercover agent for the Central Intelligence Agency in Paris. Only years later did Mr. Plimpton discover, to his anger and dismay, that Mr. Matthiessen had helped found The Review as a cover for his spying on Americans in France.
A Passion for Fiction
Mr. Matthiessen’s travels took him to the wilds of Asia, Australia, South America, Africa, New Guinea, the Florida swamps and even beneath the ocean. They led to articles in The New Yorker and other magazines and a raft of nonfiction books, among them “The Snow Leopard“ (1978), about a grief-stricken spiritual journey to the Himalayas, and “Men’s Lives“ (1986), about Long Island fishermen and their vanishing way of life.The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould called Mr. Matthiessen “our greatest modern nature writer in the lyrical tradition.”
Of his more than 30 books, nonfiction works far outnumbered the novels and short-story collections, but he considered fiction his first and highest calling.
“Nonfiction at its best is like fashioning a cabinet,” he told The Paris Review in 1999. “It can never be sculpture. It can be elegant and very beautiful, but it can never be sculpture. Captive to facts — or predetermined forms — it cannot fly.”
He holds the distinction of being the only writer to win the National Book Award in both fiction and nonfiction. And his fiction and nonfiction often arose from the same experience.
His fourth novel, “At Play in the Fields of the Lord“ (1965), grew out of his reporting for “The Cloud Forest: A Chronicle of the South American Wilderness“ (1961). The novel, set in the Brazilian rain forest, depicts the interaction between missionaries and tribesmen — at one point Mr. Matthiessen, an early user of LSD, has his protagonist drink a native hallucinogenic brew — and Western civilization’s damaging impact on primitive peoples. A film adaptation directed by Hector Babenco was released in 1991.
 
Mr. Mattheissen’s fifth novel, “Far Tortuga“ (1975), was inspired by a New Yorker assignment in which he reported on the vanishing Caribbean tradition of turtle hunting. Highly experimental — it drew on recordings of sometimes cryptic Caribbean dialogue — the novel drew mixed reviews.
He delved into another isolated world for his late-career “Watson” trilogy — “Killing Mister Watson” (1990), “Lost Man’s River” (1997) and “Bone by Bone” (1999) — parts of which he compressed into one long opus, “Shadow Country” (2008). It won a National Book Award, though many critics thought a reworked version of previously published fiction did not deserve the honor.
The trilogy uses the life and death of a fearsome historical figure, Edgar J. Watson, to address issues of race, environment and power in America. Watson, a mysterious cane planter in the Ten Thousand Islands region of southwest Florida, was suspected in dozens of murders, including that of the outlaw Belle Starr. Watson himself was killed in 1910 by residents of Chokoloskee, an island settlement where he was suspected in a string of deaths.
“Perhaps the power of Matthiessen’s writing in part derives from his ability to tap into his dark side, his Jungian shadow,” a biographer, William Dowie, wrote. “If so, it would explain at least one similarity between him and the writers to whom he is sometimes compared in his major fiction: Melville, Conrad and Dostoyevsky.”
Indeed, Mr. Matthiessen’s Watson carries an echo of Conrad’s Mr. Kurtz, the corrupted jungle lord in “Heart of Darkness.”
“Even a quarter-mile away, out in the channel, the figure at the helm looked too familiar, the strong bulk of him, and the broad hat,” Mr. Matthiessen writes in the voice of a character named Mamie Smallwood. “When he saw the crowd, he tipped that hat and bowed a little, and the sun fired that dark red hair — color of dead blood, Grandma Ida used to say, only she never thunk that up till some years later, when the ones who never knew him called him Bloody Watson.”
She goes on: “But it was that little bow he made that told us straight off who it was, and my heart jumped like a mullet, and it weren’t the only one. A hush and stillness fell on Chokoloskee, like our poor little community had caught its breath, like we was waiting for a storm to break from high dark thunderheads over the Glades in summer, just before the first cold wind and rain.”
New York to the C.I.A.
Peter Matthiessen was born on May 22, 1927, in Manhattan, a descendant of Scandinavian whale hunters and the second of three children of Erard A. Matthiessen, an architect and conservationist, and the former Elizabeth Carey. He grew up with his brother and sister on Fifth Avenue, overlooking Central Park (in the same building as Mr. Plimpton), and in country homes on Fishers Island, N.Y., and in Connecticut.
He attended St. Bernard’s School in Manhattan and, in Connecticut, Greenwich Country Day School and (with Mr. Plimpton) Hotchkiss, where he graduated in 1945. He served in the Navy at Pearl Harbor and afterward attended Yale, where he majored in English but also studied biology, ornithology and zoology. He spent his junior year in Paris at the Sorbonne. He graduated from Yale in 1950 and stayed on for another term to teach creative writing.
Encouraged by winning the prestigious Atlantic Prize for a story he had written as an undergraduate, Mr. Matthiessen found a literary agent, the steely Bernice Baumgarten, and sent her the first chapters of a novel. “I waited by the post office for praise to roll in, calls from Hollywood, everything,” he told The Missouri Review in 1989.
“Finally my agent sent me a letter that said, ‘Dear Peter, James Fenimore Cooper wrote this 150 years ago, only he wrote it better. Yours, Bernice.’ I probably needed that; it was very healthy.”
It was around this time that he was recruited by the C.I.A. and traveled to Paris, where he crossed paths with young expatriate American writers like Styron, Jones, James Baldwin and Irwin Shaw. In the postwar years the agency covertly financed magazines and cultural programs to counter the spread of Communism. In interviews years later, Mr. Matthiessen said that in those days working for the C.I.A. was seen by many of his peers as honorable government service and that it had offered him “a free trip to Paris to write my novel.”
The novel was “Race Rock,” a tale of wealth and troubled young lives set in a New England fishing village. While working on it in Paris, he met another aspiring novelist, Harold L. Humes, known as Doc, and the two, along with others seeking an outlet for the work of emerging writers, founded The Paris Review in 1953.
“I used The Paris Review as a cover, there’s no question of that,” he told The New York Times in 2008 after his C.I.A. connection had been discussed in “Doc,” a documentary film about Mr. Humes by his daughter Immy Humes. “But the C.I.A. had nothing to do with Paris Review.”
That assertion was challenged in 2012 by an article in the online magazine Salon; drawing on The Review’s own archives, it suggested that there were C.I.A. ties that had bypassed Mr. Matthiessen or had outlived his two-year relationship with the agency.
“I was getting information on people,” Mr. Matthiessen told Charlie Rose in a television interview in 2008. “I was a greenhorn.” He described the episode as “youthful folly.” Mr. Mattheissen had by then married Patsy Southgate, whom he had met at the Sorbonne when she was a Smith College student.
“Race Rock” was published in 1954, after Mr. Matthiessen had returned to the United States and moved to the South Fork of Long Island, where his daughter, Sara, was born. The couple had already had a son, Luke, in Paris in 1953. To put bread on the table, Mr. Matthiessen worked as a commercial fisherman and ran a deep-sea-fishing charter boat in the summer. He wrote during the winter and on days off.
Assignments Abroad
A second novel, “Partisans,” about a young man in Paris in search of a political hero, was published in 1955, and a third, “Raditzer,” about the son of a wealthy family going to sea to find himself, came out in 1960.
Peter Matthiessen won a National Book Award for “Shadow Country.” Credit Fernando Ariza/The New York Times
By then he and his wife had divorced, and he had turned to nonfiction and had begun traveling widely, in one instance on assignment for Sports Illustrated to report on American endangered species. That led to the book “Wildlife in America” (1959), which gained the attention of William Shawn, the editor of The New Yorker. Shawn signed him up to roam the world to write about its endangered wilds.
His first assignment was a journey up the Amazon into Peru and south to Tierra del Fuego. It became the basis of “The Cloud Forest.” More explorations followed, leading to books that were often serialized in The New Yorker.
A sample of his titles convey his geographic reach: “Under the Mountain Wall: A Chronicle of Two Seasons of Stone Age New Guinea” (1962); “Oomingmak: The Expedition to the Musk Ox Island in the Bering Sea” (1967); “The Shorebirds of North America” (1967, revised as “The Wind Birds” in 1973); “Blue Meridian: The Search for the Great White Shark” (1971); “The Tree Where Man Was Born” (1972), a contemplative account of East Africa; and “Sand Rivers” (1981), about a safari in the Selous Game Preserve in Tanzania.
It was after his divorce, in 1958, that Mr. Matthiessen bought his oceanfront house, on six acres, in Sagaponack. In 1963, he married Deborah Love, a writer and poet, and the Sagaponack house became one of many gathering spots for his literary circle of East End neighbors and visitors.
Zen Buddhism
His wife had already embraced Zen Buddhism in the late 1960s when Mr. Matthiessen followed suit, meditating cross-legged for hours on end and later becoming a Zen priest.
His spiritual hunger and the death of his wife from cancer in 1972 lay behind his decision to travel to Nepal in 1973. Ostensibly he went there to record a field trip with the biologist George Schaller. But the book it inspired, “The Snow Leopard,” also chronicled a spiritual journey and a pilgrimage of mourning shadowed by that rare animal, whose presence Mr. Matthiessen finally sensed even if he never actually caught sight of one. The book won the 1979 National Book Award for nonfiction.
He also reached outside himself to understand the struggles of the oppressed and neglected, an effort he traced to a lifelong “uneasiness about unearned privilege.” (At 15, he had rebelliously had his name dropped from the Social Register.)
Travels with Cesar Chavez, the champion of farm workers, led to the 1969 book “Sal Si Puedes (Escape if You Can): Cesar Chavez and the New American Revolution,” referring to the barrio in San Jose, Calif., where Mr. Chavez had gotten his start as a union organizer.
Mr. Matthiessen went on to publish “In the Spirit of Crazy Horse” (1983), a fulmination against the federal government’s treatment of Native Americans, centering on the prosecution and conviction of Leonard Peltier in the murder of two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents in 1975 at Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota.
Mr. Matthiessen and the book’s publisher, Viking Press, were sued for libel damages in separate actions by an F.B.I. agent and a former South Dakota governor, causing Viking to withdraw the book. Both suits were eventually dismissed, but at a cost to the defendants of more than $2 million in legal fees.
In 1980 Mr. Matthiessen married Maria Eckhart, a former media buyer for an advertising firm in London who was born in Tanzania. Besides his son Alex, from his marriage to Deborah Love, Mr. Matthiessen is also survived by his son Lukas and a daughter, Sara Carey, from his first marriage to Patsy Southgage; a daughter, Rue, and a son, Alex, from his second marriage to Deborah Love; two stepdaughters, Antonia and Sarah Koenig; and six grandchildren. He continued to write books and articles into his later years in his roomy art-filled home at Sagaponack.His last novel, “In Paradise,” tells the story of a group that comes together for a meditative retreat at the site of a former Nazi death camp. Such retreats were familiar to him. He regularly welcomed Zen students to a zendo, a place of meditation, on his grounds.
“Zen is really just a reminder to stay alive and to be awake,” he told the British newspaper The Guardian in 2002. “We tend to daydream all the time, speculating about the future and dwelling on the past. Zen practice is about appreciating your life in this moment. If you are truly aware of five minutes a day, then you are doing pretty well. We are beset by both the future and the past, and there is no reality apart from the here and now.”
William McDonald and Ashley Southall contributed reporting.
 

Wednesday, April 02, 2014

 
The Great Divide

Norman Lear, Archie Bunker, and the rise of the bad fan.
by Emily Nussbaum The NEW YORKER

"All in the Family" saturated American culture. It was a time when people found TV so dangerous they put warning signs on it.  

"The program you are about to see is ‘All in the Family.’ It seeks to throw a humorous spotlight on our frailties, prejudices and concerns. By making them a source of laughter, we hope to show—in a mature fashion—just how absurd they are."

This nervous disclaimer, which was likely as powerful as a "Do not remove under penalty of law" tag on a mattress, ran over the opening credits of Norman Lear’s new sitcom. It was 1971, deep into the Vietnam War and an era of political art and outrage, but television was dominated by escapist fare like "Bewitched" and "Bonanza." "All in the Family" was designed to explode the medium’s taboos, using an incendiary device named Archie Bunker. A Republican loading-dock worker living in Queens, Bunker railed from his easy chair against "coons" and "hebes," "spics" and "fags." He yelled at his wife and he screamed at his son-in-law, and even when he was quiet he was fuming about "the good old days." He was also, as played by the remarkable Carroll O’Connor, very funny, a spray of malapropisms and sly illogic.

CBS arranged for extra operators to take complaints from offended viewers, but few came in—and by Season 2 "All in the Family" was TV’s biggest hit. It held the No. 1 spot for five years. At the show’s peak, sixty per cent of the viewing public were watching the series, more than fifty million viewers nationwide, every Saturday night. Lear became the original pugnacious showrunner, long before that term existed. He produced spinoff after spinoff ("cookies from my cookie cutter," he described them to Playboy, in 1976), including "Maude" and "The Jeffersons," which had their own mouthy curmudgeons. At the Emmys, Johnny Carson joked that Lear had optioned his own acceptance speech. A proud liberal, Lear had clear ideological aims for his creations: he wanted his shows to be funny, and he certainly wanted them to be hits, but he also wanted to purge prejudice by exposing it. By giving bigotry a human face, Lear believed, his show could help liberate American TV viewers. He hoped that audiences would embrace Archie but reject his beliefs.

Yet, as Saul Austerlitz explains in his smart new book, "Sitcom: A History in 24 Episodes from ‘I Love Lucy’ to ‘Community,’ " Lear’s most successful character managed to defy his creator, with a "Frankenstein"-like audacity. "A funny thing happened on the way to TV immortality: audiences liked Archie," Austerlitz writes. "Not in an ironic way, not in a so-racist-he’s-funny way; Archie was TV royalty because fans saw him as one of their own."

This sort of audience divide, not between those who love a show and those who hate it but between those who love it in very different ways, has become a familiar schism in the past fifteen years, during the rise of—oh, God, that phrase again—Golden Age television. This is particularly true of the much lauded stream of cable "dark dramas," whose protagonists shimmer between the repulsive and the magnetic. As anyone who has ever read the comments on a recap can tell you, there has always been a less ambivalent way of regarding an antihero: as a hero. Some of the most passionate fans of "The Sopranos" fast-forwarded through Carmela and Dr. Melfi to freeze-frame Tony strangling a snitch with electrical wire. (David Chase satirized their bloodlust with a plot about "Cleaver," a mob horror movie with all of the whackings, none of the Freud.) More recently, a subset of viewers cheered for Walter White on "Breaking Bad," growling threats at anyone who nagged him to stop selling meth. In a blog post about that brilliant series, I labelled these viewers "bad fans," and the responses I got made me feel as if I’d poured a bucket of oil onto a flame war from the parapets of my snobby critical castle. Truthfully, my haters had a point: who wants to hear that they’re watching something wrong?

But television’s original bad-fan crisis did not, as it happens, concern a criminal bad boy, or even take place on a drama. It involved Norman Lear’s right-wing icon, Archie Bunker, the loudmouthed buffoon who became one of TV’s most resonant and beloved television characters. Archie was the first masculine powerhouse to simultaneously charm and alienate viewers, and, much like the men who came after him, he longed for an era when "guys like us, we had it made." O’Connor’s noisy, tender, and sometimes frightening performance made the character unforgettable, but from the beginning he was a source of huge anxiety, triggering as many think pieces as Lena Dunham. Archie represented the danger and the potential of television itself, its ability to influence viewers rather than merely help them kill time. Ironically, for a character so desperate to return to the past, he ended up steering the medium toward the future.

"All in the Family" began as a British show called "Till Death Do Us Part," a hit comedy about Alf Garnett, a Cockney xenophobe who had a sharptongued wife, a hip daughter, and a socialist son-in-law. The show, which first aired in 1965, was a ratings hit, spawning catchphrases ("You silly moo") and mass British identification with Garnett—a response that troubled the show’s creator, Johnny Speight, even as he made the case for its pungent zingers. "To make him truthful, he’s got to say those things, and they are nasty things," Speight argued.

By 1967, Norman Lear, a Second World War veteran who never finished college, had spent years cutting a path through show biz. As recounted in "Archie & Edith, Mike & Gloria," by Donna McCrohan, he began by collecting gossip tips, ghostwrote syndicated columns, and then jumped into comedy, having scammed his way into the office of the comedy bigwig Danny Thomas by pretending to be a reporter. After a successful stretch working on nineteen-fifties showcases, including "The Martha Raye Show," he teamed up with the producer Bud Yorkin. The two became industry machers, packaging TV specials and making movies, such as "Divorce American Style." When Lear read about "Till Death" in Variety, he felt a stab of identification. His father, Herman Lear, a Jewish salesman from Connecticut, was a "rascal," in Norman’s words, who went to prison when Norman was nine, convicted of shady dealings; like Alf Garnett, he was at once loving and bigoted. Lear bought the rights to Speight’s show, without ever having seen it, and hammered out a treatment. He gave Archie one of his own father’s favorite insults for him—"you meathead, dead from the neck up"—and Archie, like Herman Lear, called his wife a "dingbat" and demanded that she "stifle." It’s the origin story of nearly every breakthrough sitcom, as recounted in Austerlitz’s book: memoir mined for a resonant, replicable pattern—in this case, the clash between the Greatest Generation and the emerging Baby Boomers, embodied by Archie Bunker and Michael (Meathead) Stivic, his son-in-law.

ABC was interested, but the network was concerned about the show’s raw language. For the next two years, the executives and Lear went through an elaborate production process, taping two pilots—the first in September, 1968, titled "Justice for All" (Archie’s last name was originally Justice), the second in February of the following year, called "Those Were the Days." Lear wanted to cast Mickey Rooney as the lead, but the actor thought it was too risky. (Rooney did offer to make a different show: "Listen to this—Vietnam vet. Short. Blind. Private eye. Large dog!") So Lear offered the part to O’Connor, an Irish-American actor whose rare mixture of "bombast and sweetness" he described to reporters as being ideal for the role. Lear cast Jean Stapleton as Edith, who transformed the British show’s battle-axe—she resembled the tart-tongued Alice, of "The Honeymooners"—into a figure of genuine pathos, a quavery-voiced housewife whose tenderness cut through the show’s anger, and who gradually became its voice of reason.

In those two clunky early pilots, Archie’s son-in-law is Irish, not Polish. In one version, he sports a hilarious puka-shell necklace; in the other, he’s a clean-cut jock. The chemistry is all wrong, a testament to how much of comedy is casting: when Archie and these lesser Meatheads spar over the insult "the laziest white man I ever seen" (another Herman Lear original), there’s none of the electrical fury that the show gained once the hulking, manic Rob Reiner took the role. ABC killed the project, and Lear went back to making movies. The experiment seemed to be dead until the CBS president, Robert Wood, stepped in, in 1970. Wood, who had just taken the job, was seeking a hip property that could replace the shows that skewed to older audiences—sitcoms like "Green Acres" and tentpoles like "Lassie"—which he planned to cancel, in what would become known as "the rural purge." He pulled Lear’s project from the scrap pile, and a third pilot was thrown together, with the script essentially unchanged, at Lear’s insistence (although the network balked at his request to film it in black-and-white). O’Connor was so sure that it would be another dud that he bargained aggressively for a clause guaranteeing his family plane fare back to Europe, where they were living at the time.

There were a few more last-minute skirmishes, since Lear was determined to set a precedent for network non-coöperation: in an industry that liked to sand down the pointy, he wanted to provoke viewers. He refused to eliminate what the censor called "explicit sex" (innuendo that would seem prudish these days), and he threatened to quit rather than run the milder second episode, about Richard Nixon, as the show’s début. CBS caved. In the pilot that ran, it’s Archie and Edith’s wedding anniversary. They return from church early, catching Michael and a miniskirted Gloria on their way to the bedroom. There’s a loud belch—Lear’s shows pioneered TV toilet humor—and Archie and Michael fight about atheism and Black Power. "I didn’t have no million people out there marching and protesting to get me my job," Archie sneers. "No, his uncle got it for him," Edith replies. Some jokes stick, others fizzle, but it’s Archie’s volcanic charisma that lingers—at moments, it’s easy to imagine him hitting Edith, though the sitcom rhythms reassure us that he won’t.

Right away, critics were split. Variety raved that "All in the Family" was "the best TV comedy since the original ‘The Honeymooners.’ " Its sister publication, Daily Variety, called it "nothing less than an insult to any unbigoted televiewer." In Life, John Leonard wrote a virulent pan, in which he sounded a theme that became a chorus on op-ed pages: that a show like this demanded a moral response. "Why review a wretched program?" he wrote. "Well, why vacuum the living room or fix the septic tank? Every once in a while the reviewer must assume the role of a bottle of Johnson’s No-Roach with the spray applicator: let’s clean up this culture." The Times flooded the zone with pieces, from "Can Bigotry Be Laughed Away? It’s Worth a Try" to "The Message Sounds Like ‘Hate Thy Neighbor.’ " One side felt that the show satirized bigotry; the other argued that it was bigotry, and that all those vaudevillian yuks and awws were merely camouflage for Archie’s ugly words.

As the show’s ratings rose, it began to saturate American culture, high and low. In 1971, the Saturday Review reported that teachers were requesting study guides, to use the show to teach their students lessons about bigotry. The literary theorist Paul de Man quoted Archie and Edith’s dialogue to dramatize a point, appropriately enough, about the slipperiness of meaning: the idea that the intent of words was endlessly interpretable. A paperback called "The Wit and Wisdom of Archie Bunker" became a best-seller ("Move Over Chairman Mao—Here Comes Archie Bunker!"), with quips like "I never said a man that wears glasses is a queer. A man that wears glasses is a four-eyes. A man that’s a fag is a queer!" In 1973, a poll found that Archie Bunker’s was the most recognized face in America, and for a while there was a craze for bumper stickers reading "Archie Bunker for President." At the 1972 Democratic Convention, in Miami, the character got a vote for Vice-President.

The weightiest criticism came in another Times essay, by Laura Z. Hobson, the elderly author of "Gentleman’s Agreement," the source for Elia Kazan’s earnest Oscar-winning 1947 film about anti-Semitism. In September, 1971, she published a five-thousand-word critique called "As I Listened to Archie Say ‘Hebe’ . . ." Hobson argued that Lear had attempted to "deodorize" bigotry, to make it safe and cute: among other things, Archie used words like "coon" and "yid," but he didn’t say "nigger" or "kike." Rather than puncturing hatred, she argued, Lear had made Archie into a flattering mirror for bigots. "I don’t think you can be a black-baiter and lovable, or an anti-Semite and lovable," she wrote. "And I don’t think the millions who watch this show should be conned into thinking you can be."

Lear responded with his own Times essay, "As I Read How Laura Saw Archie," arguing that of course bigots could be lovable, as anyone with a family knew. If Archie Bunker didn’t use harsher language, it was because those words were "from another decade." Besides, Michael and Gloria, the bleeding-heart liberals, always got the last word. Despite Lear’s playful response, later episodes of "All in the Family" contain many echoes of this debate. The show’s tone gradually softened, and the more caustic slang dropped out; Archie even stopped telling Edith to "stifle." (As with "M*A*S*H," its creators were influenced by the rise of feminism.) In Season 8, there’s a trenchant sequence in which Archie, drunk and trapped in a storage room with Michael, talks about his childhood. Yes, his father said "nigger" while he was growing up, Archie says—everybody did—and when Michael tells him what his father said was wrong, Archie delivers a touching, confused defense of the man who raised him, who held his hand, but who also beat him and shoved him in a closet. It was all out of love, Archie insists. "How could any man that loves you tell you anything that’s wrong?" he murmurs, just before he passes out. The scene should have been grotesquely manipulative and mawkish, but, strengthened by O’Connor’s affecting performance, it makes Lear’s point more strongly than any op-ed, even decades later: bigotry is resilient, because rejecting it often means rejecting your own family.

Civil-rights advocates, including the National Urban League and the Anti-Defamation League, tended to share Hobson’s distrust of the series. (In contrast, the A.C.L.U. awarded Lear the Freedom of the Press Award, in 1973.) Bill Cosby, who was a major TV star after "I Spy," downright despised Archie Bunker. Even a decade later, on "The Phil Donahue Show," Cosby was still expressing frustration that Bunker had never apologized for anything, making him "a hero to too many Americans for his shortsightedness, his tunnel vision." He added, "And I’m really a believer that the show never taught or tried to teach anybody anything."

To critics, the show wasn’t the real problem: its audience was. In 1974, the social psychologists Neil Vidmar and Milton Rokeach offered some evidence for this argument in a study published in the Journal of Communication, using two samples, one of teen-agers, the other of adults. Subjects, whether bigoted or not, found the show funny, but most bigoted viewers didn’t perceive the program as satirical. They identified with Archie’s perspective, saw him as winning arguments, and, "perhaps most disturbing, saw nothing wrong with Archie’s use of racial and ethnic slurs." Lear’s series seemed to be even more appealing to those who shared Archie’s frustrations with the culture around him, a "silent majority" who got off on hearing taboo thoughts said aloud.

This clearly wasn’t true of every bigot—at least, not Richard Nixon, who eagerly recapped the series for H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. In the Watergate tapes, Nixon describes in detail an episode in which a gay friend of Michael’s comes to visit, leading Archie to discover that his own football-player buddy is gay. The series "made a fool out of a good man," Nixon grumbles. He theorizes that Michael probably "goes both ways" and worries that the show will corrupt children, just as Socrates did in ancient Greece. Ehrlichman interjects, in Socrates’ defense, that at least "he never had the influence that television had."

"A vast wasteland"! It’s impossible to discuss TV, even today, without stumbling upon the medium’s most famous libel, its own version of "meathead." The context has been lost, though. That description comes from the first official speech given by Newton Minow, shortly after President Kennedy appointed him chairman of the F.C.C., in 1961. Minow wasn’t arguing that what aired on television was bad; he was arguing that it was amoral. He quoted*, with approval, the words of the industry’s own Television Code and urged the networks to live up to them: "Program materials should enlarge the horizons of the viewer, provide him with wholesome entertainment, afford helpful stimulation, and remind him of the responsibilities which the citizen has toward his society."

From a modern perspective, the passage feels prissy and laughable, the residue of an era when television was considered a public utility: it was in everyone’s best interest to keep it pure, and then add fluoride. No critic could support that approach, least of all those who see TV as an art form, and want to free it from anxious comparisons to novels and movies—to celebrate TV as TV. During a recent visit to a university, I bridled when an ethicist praised me for taking a moral stance. (I’d called a network show "odious torture porn.") I told her that I wanted originality, even if it was ugly, and that I’d rather watch a show that unsettled me than something that was merely "good."

That’s true. And yet, like Archie himself, I have to admit to my own fascination with the good old days—in particular, that spiky, surreal moment when people found television so dangerous that they slapped warning stickers on it. Lear and his critics disagreed about how his show affected people, but they agreed that it should affect people. Every day marked a fresh skirmish: Should there be a "family hour"? Were Starsky and Hutch making viewers violent? Back when television was a mass phenomenon, controlled by three networks, watched live by the whole family, it was no wonder that observers wrung their hands over whether it might turn its viewers into monsters. (These days, we reserve those concerns for the Internet.)

Five years after "All in the Family," Lear launched an even more radical show, "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman," a prophetic, neglected TV classic stuffed with anti-TV themes. A satire of soap operas, and one of the first truly serial evening shows, it was so loopy and avant-garde that its producers syndicated it independently, airing it on affiliates mostly late at night. Lear explicitly designed it to appeal to two audiences: those who enjoyed it as melodrama and those who took it as social satire. In the finale of the first season, its eponymous housewife heroine (played by Louise Lasser) has a nervous breakdown on David Susskind’s talk show, as moralists hammer her with questions. "Were your orgasms better before Johnny Carson?" the ideologues shout. "Erase! Erase!" Mary Hartman begs, panicked that she has said something wrong. It was a cry of terror that seemed to symbolize the mood of that era: the world was in chaos, and viewers like Mary were tragically vulnerable to the media’s influence. Yet Lasser’s character’s odd, raw humanity—together with the show’s disorienting, deliberately ugly editing rhythms—was a form of resistance. (The next season, she was institutionalized and happily became a member of the hospital’s Nielsen family.)

Decades later, television has a different relationship with its audience. We collect and record it; we recap it with strangers; it pours through hundreds of narrow channels. Perhaps it’s not so odd that, around the time the digital revolution began, another Archie-like figure rose up, as if from TV’s unconscious: the rancorous middle-aged white male antihero, nostalgic for a past when he was powerful—and often conceived by a middle-aged white male showrunner, the demographic with the greatest economic ability to shake things up. As with "All in the Family," the best of these dramas shoved TV forward with a rough charisma, blasting through piety and formula, frightening us and turning us on—and, often, dividing the audience in two. Then this genre, too, became a pious formula.

In "Sitcom," Austerlitz argues that, as important as "All in the Family" was, it is hard to re-watch: among other problems, its racial politics are dated, reducing racism to mere personal prejudice. There’s some truth to that, and yet, these days, Lear’s legacy is everywhere, often in stealthy packages. Lear set the stage for agitating comedies like "Louie" and "Girls," acrid satires like "It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia," and boundary-crossers less to my taste, like Seth MacFarlane’s "Family Guy." Ryan Murphy, the creator of "Glee" and "American Horror Story," is a professed admirer of Lear, and his shows feature diva-bigots who are female variants of Archie Bunker. Lear is a hero to Judd Apatow, too. Every time a show crosses the line of good taste, from humane pulp like "Orange Is the New Black" to bleak nightmares like "Hannibal," it enlarges Lear’s territory. Some of these shows place people who look nothing like Archie at the center, helped by production models that don’t require reaching every viewer.

There is no way—and maybe no reason—to unite TV’s divided audience. If television creators began by trying desperately not to offend, they clearly learned that the opposite approach can work just as well: a show that speaks to multiple audiences can get ratings by offering many ways to be a fan. As for the "vast wasteland" debate, at times it feels as if the balance has shifted so far toward a reflexive cynicism (about torture as entertainment, for example) that it’s difficult even to talk about the subject—at least, without getting called a Margaret Dumont. Perhaps there’s another way to look at it, which is to imagine an ethical quality that is embedded in real originality. The best series rattle us and wake us up; the worst are numbing agents. Sometimes, a divided audience is a result of mixed messages, an incoherent text; sometimes, it’s a sign of a bold experiment that we are still learning how to watch. But there’s a lot to be said for a show that is potent without being perfect, or maybe simply perfect for its moment: storytelling that alters the audience by demanding that viewers do more than just watch. ♦




 

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Annals of Religion

Sacred and Profane

How not to negotiate with believers.
by Malcolm Gladwell The New Yorker
At Waco, the F.B.I. treated a community’s religious claims as a mere distraction.

When Clive Doyle was a teen-ager, in the nineteen-fifties, he and his mother met an itinerant preacher outside their church, in Melbourne, Australia. He was a big, gruff Scotsman named Daniel Smith. The Doyles were devout Seventh-Day Adventists. But Smith was the follower of a self-proclaimed prophet named Victor Houteff, who became an Adventist just after the First World War and parted ways with the Church a decade later. The Doyles listened to Smith’s account of the Houteff teachings until the small hours of the morning and were impressed. "We were taught that if someone comes with a message based on the Bible, instead of trying to fight it, instead of trying to put it down or trying to prove it wrong, we should study the Bible to perceive whether the message is true," Doyle writes in his autobiography. "Study to see if it’s so."

The Houteff group held that those in the mainstream Seventh-Day Adventist Church had lost their sense of urgency regarding the Second Coming and would soon face the judgment of God. To the Doyles, however, this presented a problem: where did it leave Seventh-Day Adventists who hadn’t heard the Houteff message? The Doyles knew, for example, that no one had taken the Houteff teachings to Tasmania, off Australia’s south coast. So, in 1958, Doyle quit his job as an apprentice in a cabinet shop, and he and his mother took the overnight boat to Tasmania, where they spent a month trudging around the back roads of the island, going from one Seventh-Day Adventist church to the next. "My mother had borrowed the biggest suitcase she could find," he writes. "We had packed it full of books because we thought: They’re going to want to know what we believe, so we’ll give Bible studies . . . and we’ll use the Bible to prove our points. I was just a teenager lugging this huge suitcase all over the island. It weighed a ton."

The Doyles were neither wealthy nor well educated. Clive Doyle’s mother worked in a garment factory. His father had left before he was born. Doyle once came home from Sunday school and solemnly greeted his mother with: "You’ve shaken hands with a servant of the Lord." He writes, "I was two or three years behind everybody. I was never in the ‘in’ crowd in school." He and his mother were religiously committed, and indifferent to what others thought of them. Matters of religious doctrine, in their view, required action and commitment. In Tasmania, Doyle was looking for people who wanted to "actually get down to the nitty-gritty" and study the Scriptures with him. That search would end up consuming Doyle’s life, leading him clear across the world to a religious retreat founded by Houteff, just outside Waco, Texas. The group that Doyle joined was called the Branch Davidians. Their retreat was called Mount Carmel, and the most famous of its leaders was a young man named David Koresh.

"A Journey to Waco," Doyle’s memoir, is an account of what it means to be a religious radical—to worship on the fringes of contemporary Christianity. Doyle takes the story from his childhood in Australia through the extraordinary events of 1993, when some eighty armed agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms raided the Mount Carmel community, in an effort to serve a search and arrest warrant on Koresh, on suspicion of violating federal firearms rules. "I want you all to go back to your rooms and stay calm," Doyle recalls Koresh saying, as federal agents descended on Mount Carmel. Doyle goes on, "I could hear David’s steps going down the hall toward the front door. . . . Then all of a sudden I heard David say: ‘Hey, wait a minute! There are women and children in here!’ Then all hell broke loose—just a barrage of shots from outside coming in. It sounded like a bloodbath."

In the resulting gun battle, four A.T.F. agents and six Davidians were killed. The F.B.I. was called in. The Davidian property was surrounded. An army of trained negotiators were flown to the scene, and for the next fifty-one days the two sides talked day and night—arguing, lecturing, bargaining—with the highlights of their conversations repeated at press conferences and broadcasts around the world. The Waco standoff was one of the most public conversations in the history of American law enforcement, and the question Doyle poses in his memoir, with genuine puzzlement, is how a religious community could go to such lengths to explain itself to such little effect.

"If people read this account, they will at least gain a different perspective on who David Koresh was, where he was coming from, who we were, and why we believe the way we do," he begins. "Most people think ‘cult’ about us and think we are people who were brainwashed and deceived. They think our church members don’t know what they’re doing or where they’re going. Hopefully, my story can open their eyes."

The Branch Davidians belonged to the religious tradition that sees Christ’s return to earth and the establishment of a divine Kingdom as imminent. They were millennialists. Millennial movements believe that within the pages of the Bible are specific clues about when and how the Second Coming will arrive. They also rely on what the Biblical scholar James Tabor calls "inspired interpreters," prophets equipped with the divine insight to interpret those clues and prepare their followers to be among God’s chosen. Mormonism began, in the nineteenth century, as a millennial movement; its "inspired interpreter" was Joseph Smith. Jehovah’s Witnesses began as a millennial movement, as did the Pentecostal Church.

Of all mainstream contemporary American churches, though, the Seventh-Day Adventists have the strongest millennial tradition. The Church—which has around eighteen million adherents worldwide—was formed by followers of the early-nineteenth-century evangelist William Miller, who prophesied that the world would end in 1843. During the next century, the Adventist community produced one "inspired interpreter" after another. Ellen G. White laid down the foundations of the Church in the eighteen-sixties. Victor Houteff broke away to start the Davidian movement at Mount Carmel, and after he died, in 1955, the movement splintered again, creating the Branch Davidians, headed by Ben and then Lois Roden. Doyle came to Mount Carmel during the Roden era and stayed with the group as it underwent its final iteration, under the leadership of David Koresh.

David Koresh was born in Houston in 1959, to a fifteen-year-old single mother. He arrived at Mount Carmel at the age of twenty-two, pulling up to the retreat in a yellow Buick—another in the long line of disenchanted Seventh-Day Adventists in search of a purer church. Koresh was not slick or charismatic, in the conventional sense. He was thin, with long wavy dark hair and a gentle manner. He was good with engines and guns, and he played in a rock band. His formal education was limited. His vocabulary was full of words of his own invention. He wore dirty jeans, T-shirts, and sneakers, and, after study sessions, would gather some of the other young men and head into Waco, as another survivor’s memoir, by David Thibodeau and Leon Whiteson put it, to "kick back, swallow some suds, play some tunes."

When it came to the Bible, however, he was without peer. Doyle had heard Koresh’s predecessor, Lois Roden, speak and had "wrestled" with her message. But, the first few times he heard Koresh speak, he was convinced that "this was of God." Koresh, he writes, "made scripture come alive. He showed that all of the prophets in the Bible were writing more for our day than for their own time." Koresh would speak of obscure Old Testament kings like Ahaz and Hezekiah as if they were household names. He didn’t preach. He threw out theories and ideas—inviting argument and discussion.

To the Branch Davidians, who walked and talked and dreamed about the Bible, this was intoxicating. "We thought of Mt. Carmel as a training ground and haven," Doyle writes. By the early nineteen-nineties, the community consisted of about a hundred and fifty people—many of them sleeping in spartan dormitories. Doyle continues, "A lot of them came with their heads in the clouds or with cameras, thinking they were tourists, if it was their first time. David straightened them out pretty quick." Koresh told them, "You should come here to learn, that’s why you came. If you want to do those other things, you might as well leave now and go have your fun. . . . But if you are here to study, you need to get your priorities straight." There were Bible studies at night, and smaller group studies during the day. As another Branch Davidian put it, "Lots of times, maybe he would say, ‘I am tired of giving Bible studies to you guys. I wish you would learn Bible studies.’ So everybody would hang around. And he’d say, ‘What is it that you want? More Bible study?’ And everyone would run and get their Bibles and come down. We might sit there for fifteen, nineteen hours, ten hours, six hours. It would depend, it was never a bore."

Koresh’s focus, like that of many millennialists, was the Book of Revelation—in particular, the difficult passages concerning the Seven Seals. There God is described as holding a scroll, locked by seven seals, on which is written prophecies about the end of time. "Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?" the passage asks. The answer given is "the Lamb." But who was the Lamb? The question was a crucial one for the Branch Davidians, because they believed that whoever unlocked the seals and revealed the secrets written on those scrolls would set in motion the end of time. In "Armageddon in Waco," a book of essays about the Davidian conflict, James Tabor writes:


In Isaiah 48:14 we read, "The LORD has loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans." Koresh would ask, who is the "him," here, who is the "arm of Yahweh," who is to destroy Babylon? The text goes on to say, "I, even I, have spoken, yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous . . . and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit hath sent me." Psalm 80:17 states "Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself." Who is this man of God’s right hand?, Koresh would ask. He would painstakingly take his followers through these and other related sections of Scripture, repeatedly asserting that this mysterious figure could not have been Jesus of Nazareth, who fulfilled none of these prophecies.

Koresh’s answer to the puzzle was simple: he was the Lamb. That’s why he was so good at making sense of the Seven Seals. This exalted station was how he justified his most controversial practice—taking numerous "spiritual wives" from among the daughters and wives of his followers. At least a couple of these "wives" were reportedly as young as twelve and thirteen, in a state where the legal age of marriage with parental consent was fourteen. Psalm 45 speaks of a great king, anointed by God, who marries many princesses and creates a mighty dynasty that will one day command the world, and Koresh argued that his "spiritual wives" had been taken in fulfillment of that prophecy.

Koresh’s status as "the Lamb" also explains the nature of the Branch Davidians’ relationship to him. The F.B.I., to justify its decision to bring about a sudden and violent end to the siege, believed that the Branch Davidians were dangerously in the thrall of Koresh; it feared a catastrophic act like the mass suicide, in 1978, in Guyana, of the cult leader Jim Jones and his followers in the People’s Temple. But the Davidians weren’t like the People’s Temple. Doyle’s memoir emerged from an oral-history project conducted by the religious-studies scholar Catherine Wessinger, who maintains that the People’s Temple was an example of the "fragile" subset of millennial groups: defensive and unstable, and willing to initiate great violence in response to an outside threat.

The Branch Davidians, however, were far from fragile. They engaged freely and happily with the world around them. Doyle went to California periodically to work for an audiotape-dubbing company and make money. Other Davidians started small businesses around Waco. Wayne Martin, a prominent member of the community, was a Harvard Law School graduate with a legal practice in town.

They did not worship Koresh, the way you would a deity. He was just the latest of many teachers, in a religious tradition that dated back half a century. "I’m just a messenger of the truth," Koresh would say. "I’m like a Dixie cup that God will crumple up and throw away when he’s done with it." Or, as his deputy, Steve Schneider, put it, "All of these places talk about a man in the last days that’s a sinner. He can do one thing, open up the words of the book, open up the Seven Seals. Can’t do any miracles, doesn’t raise the dead, heal the sick, isn’t a psychic but . . . if people have questions about life and death, eternal life, no matter what the question is, he will show it in context from the book."

There is a telling moment during the siege when Schneider is talking to an F.B.I. negotiator about an undercover A.T.F. agent who used the name Robert Gonzalez. The A.T.F. believed that the Branch Davidians—who ran a small business selling weapons at gun shows—had converted a batch of firearms from semiautomatic to automatic without the proper permits. Gonzalez’s job was to infiltrate the Davidian community and look for evidence. (He found none, a fact that—along with the A.T.F.’s bizarre decision to serve a warrant on Koresh by force, rather than arresting him on those numerous occasions when he ventured into town—loomed large in the many Waco postmortems.) Here is Schneider and a negotiator talking about what happened after the Davidians realized that Gonzalez was not who he said he was:


F.B.I.: Why didn’t you have a confrontation [with Gonzalez] and say look, l just . . . don’t appreciate you being here?
SCHNEIDER: Well . . . because here’s a possible guy, here’s a soul maybe, here’s someone like myself—
F.B.I.: Yeah. But he wasn’t there to have his soul saved, right?
SCHNEIDER: Well, who knows, though? You never can tell.
F.B.I.: Wait a minute. I know . . . I worked under cover years and years ago and I wasn’t there to have somebody save my soul.

The F.B.I. agent expected that the Davidians, like a fragile cult, would turn paranoid and defensive in the presence of a threat. He didn’t grasp that he was dealing with a very different kind of group—the sort whose idea of a good evening’s fun was a six-hour Bible study wrestling with a tricky passage of Revelation. It was a crucial misunderstanding, and would feed directly into the tragedy that was to come. The agent continued: Did the Branch Davidians realize that Gonzalez, as a government investigator trained to uncover criminal evidence, was an unlikely prospect for conversion?


SCHNEIDER: I realize that. . . . [But], still, we love people so much, you give them the opportunity. . . . Even if it’s one out of a million, even if it’s that, whatever it might be, he’s still a person that was made, created by an authority above himself and we loved the guy. I mean . . . we spent enough time with him where we really do appreciate the man’s character and personality.

At one point during the siege, Koresh made a home video. He is sitting down, wearing a white tank top. He was wounded in the raid and looks worse for wear—thin and unkempt. Next to him is a young woman. On both their laps are small children, and Koresh announces that he wants to introduce the world to his family: "These children that I have are for a reason, and unless we really have the ear and the eyes to open ourselves up and understand the prophecies in a lot of the Seven Seals the explanation would seem almost foolish."

A young boy with long blond hair comes into the frame. Koresh introduces him as Cyrus. He waves at the camera. Then a young girl climbs onto Koresh’s lap, followed by a boy named Bobby and a girl named Holly—and then, one after another, come a parade of toddlers and babies, accompanied by two other young women, one of whom looks no older than sixteen.

"This is my family, and no one is going to come in on top of my family and start pushing my family around. It is not going to happen," Koresh declares. He puts on a pair of aviator sunglasses. "You come pointing guns in the direction of my wives and my kids, damn it. I’m going to meet you at the door every time."

Doyle says very little about Koresh’s sexual practices in "A Journey to Waco," even though his own daughter, Shari, became one of Koresh’s spiritual wives at the age of fourteen. In other memoirs of Davidian survivors, the issue is treated with similar reticence. But Koresh’s behavior seems to have been controversial even within Mount Carmel. It was discussed at length during Bible study. Some people left the Church over it. In a separate interview, Doyle recalled that, at first, "I wondered, I asked, is this God or is this horny old David?" But, in the end, he and the other Branch Davidians who stayed accepted the logic of it: if Koresh was indeed the Lamb, then it followed that he was entitled to the privileges promised to the Lamb in prophecy. It seems not to have mattered that this conclusion was at odds with virtually every social convention of modern life. No one became a Branch Davidian if he required the comfort of religious orthodoxy. One of Koresh’s predecessors, George Roden, had multiple wives as well, arguing his case in an essay on the Mosaic law of polygamy. Roden’s mother, Lois, had advanced an innovative argument that the Holy Spirit was feminine. From the movement’s beginnings, the point of being a Davidian was to be different.

The second, more serious problem with the way the F.B.I. viewed the Branch Davidians was the fact that the agents could not accept that beliefs such as these—as eccentric as they were—were matters of principle for those within Mount Carmel. During the siege, two of the leaders of the F.B.I. team referred to Koresh’s theology as "Bible-babble" and called him a "self-centered liar," "coward," "phony messiah," "child molester," "con-man," "cheap thug who interprets the Bible through the barrel of a gun," "delusional," "egotistical," and "fanatic." For another essay, published in "Armageddon in Waco," the religious scholar Nancy Ammerman interviewed many of the F.B.I. hostage negotiators involved, and she says that nearly all of them dismissed the religious beliefs of the Davidians: "For these men, David Koresh was a sociopath, and his followers were hostages. Religion was a convenient cover for Koresh’s desire to control his followers and monopolize all the rewards for himself."

In the government’s eyes, the Branch Davidians were a threat. The bureau trained spotlights on the property and set up giant speakers that blasted noise day and night—the sound of "rabbits being killed, warped-up music, Nancy Sinatra singing ‘These Boots Are Made for Walking,’ Tibetan monks chanting, Christmas carols, telephones ringing, reveille." Doyle writes, "I got to where I was only getting about an hour or two of sleep every twenty-four hours."

Outside the Mount Carmel complex, the F.B.I. assembled what has been called probably the largest military force ever gathered against a civilian suspect in American history: ten Bradley tanks, two Abrams tanks, four combat-engineering vehicles, six hundred and sixty-eight agents in addition to six U.S. Customs officers, fifteen U.S. Army personnel, thirteen members of the Texas National Guard, thirty-one Texas Rangers, a hundred and thirty-one officers from the Texas Department of Public Safety, seventeen from the McLennan County sheriff’s office, and eighteen Waco police, for a total of eight hundred and ninety-nine people. Their task, as they saw it, was to peel away the pretense—Koresh’s posturing, his lies, his grandiosity—and compel him to take specific steps toward a resolution.

That is standard negotiation practice, which is based on the idea that, through sufficient patience and reason, a deranged husband or a cornered bank robber can be moved from emotionality to rationality. Negotiation is an exercise in pragmatism—in bargaining over a series of concrete objectives: If you give up one of your weapons, I will bring you water. When this approach failed, the F.B.I. threw up its hands. In bureau parlance, the situation at Mount Carmel became "non-negotiable." What more could the bureau have done? "I guess we could have fenced it off and called it a federal prison," Bob Ricks, one of the lead F.B.I. agents during the siege, said last year in an interview

But, as the conflict-studies scholar Jayne Docherty argues, the F.B.I.’s approach was doomed from the outset. In "Learning Lessons from Waco"—one of the very best of the Mount Carmel retrospectives—Docherty points out that the techniques that work on bank robbers don’t work on committed believers. There was no pragmatism hidden below a layer of posturing, lies, and grandiosity. Docherty uses Max Weber’s typology to describe the Davidians. They were "value-rational"—that is to say, their rationality was organized around values, not goals. A value-rational person would accept his fourteen-year-old daughter’s polygamous marriage, if he was convinced that it was in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Because the F.B.I. could not take the faith of the Branch Davidians seriously, it had no meaningful way to communicate with them:


F.B.I.: What I’m saying is that if you could make an agreement with your people that they’re walking out of there and you could—
KORESH: I am not going to tell them what to do. I never have and never will. I show them out of a book what God teaches. Then it’s for them to decide.
F.B.I.: David, these kids need their parents, and we want everybody to be safe. How about the women? Can—will you let them come out of there? . . .
KORESH: Yeah, but the thing of it is that if they wanted to, they, they could.
F.B.I.: Well, I, I think they feel like they can’t because you don’t want them to.
KORESH: No, no, no, no. Let’s stop that now.

To the F.B.I. agent, Mount Carmel was a hostage situation, and the purpose of the "negotiation" was to get the man behind the barricade to release some of his captives. But Koresh saw his followers as his students. They were there of their own free will, to learn the prophecies of Revelation. How could he release people whom he was not holding in the first place?

On another occasion, the Davidians asked the F.B.I. to bring milk for their children, and the bureau insisted that some of the children be released before the supplies were handed over:


F.B.I.: We got the milk for you . . . we’ll bring the milk down. We’ll drop it off. . . . In return, we want four of your kids to come up, and we’re going to give you the milk for the kids.

This is how negotiations are supposed to work: tit for tat. But what proposal could have been more offensive and perplexing to a Branch Davidian? The bureau wanted to separate children from their parents and extract them from the community to which they belonged in exchange for milk. "That doesn’t make any sense," a Davidian named Kathy S. tells the negotiator. But the negotiator thinks she means that the terms of the deal aren’t good enough:


F.B.I.: Listen. I’ll, I’ll get the milk to you for two kids.

Again, Kathy S. reacts angrily, and the negotiator gives up. He thinks the problem is that he’s saddled with someone who just isn’t reasonable:


F.B.I.: Kathy, perhaps we’re wasting each other’s time. All right? Put somebody else on.
K.S.: I mean, all you want, all you want to do is bargain?
F.B.I.: Kathy!
K.S.: Are you going to bargain with human lives?
F.B.I.: Kathy! I’ve told you what we’ll do and, and if that’s not agreeable to you, perhaps we’re wasting one another’s time. All right? . . . Why don’t you put somebody else on, please?
K.S.: Look . . . there are babies here that need the milk. Are you that inhumane that you can’t just send us the milk for not sending out kids, or sending out David, or sending out women?
F.B.I.: Our concern, our concern is for those children first and foremost and the rest of you also. All right? The children—
K.S.: So, your concern is that these babies get fed the milk they need?
F.B.I.: Kathy.
K.S.: It doesn’t sound like you are concerned.

Even at the beginning of the siege, in the first call that Koresh made after the A.T.F. attack, the fundamental misunderstanding between those inside and those outside Mount Carmel was plain. Koresh telephoned Larry Lynch, in the local sheriff’s office, and—while the battle outside raged—insisted on talking about the Seven Seals:


KORESH: In the prophecies—
LYNCH: All right.
KORESH: it says—
LYNCH: Let me, can I interrupt you for a minute?
KORESH: Sure.
LYNCH: All right, we can talk theology. But right now—


What Lynch means is that right now there are dead and wounded bodies scattered across the Mount Carmel property and a gunfight is going on between federal agents and Koresh’s followers. For those who don’t take the Bible seriously, talking about Scripture when there is a battle going on seems like an evasion. For those who do, however, it makes perfect sense:


KORESH: No, this is life. This is life and death!
LYNCH: Okay.
KORESH: Theology—
LYNCH: That’s what I’m talking about.
KORESH: is life and death.

It is useful to compare the Branch Davidians with the Mormons of the mid-nineteenth century. The Mormons were vilified in those years in large part because Joseph Smith believed in polygamy. But the Cornell historian R. Laurence Moore, in his classic book "Religious Outsiders and the Making of Americans," points out that the moral hysteria over the Mormons was misplaced. The Mormons were quintessential Americans. "Like the Puritans before them, the Mormons linked disciplined labor with religious duty," Moore writes. "Mormon culture promoted all the virtues usually associated with the formation of middle-class consciousness—thrift, the denial of immediate gratification, and strict control over one’s passions." Polygamy, the practice that so excited popular passions, was of little importance to the Church: "First, the vast majority of nineteenth century Mormons did not practice polygamy, and many of them found it distasteful, at least as a way of conducting their own lives. Second, those who did practice plural marriage scarcely exhibited the lascivious behavior made familiar in anti-Mormon literature. Plural wives were commonly the widowed or unmarried sisters of the original wife."

So why were nineteenth-century Americans so upset with the Mormons? Moore’s answer is that Americans thought the Mormons were different from them because the Mormons themselves "said they were different and because their claims, frequently advanced in the most obnoxious way possible, prompted others to agree and to treat them as such." In order to give his followers a sense of identity and resilience, Joseph Smith "required them to maintain certain fictions of cultural apartness." Moore describes this as a very American pattern. Countless religious innovators over the years have played the game of establishing an identity for themselves by accentuating their otherness. Koresh faced the same problem, and he, too, made his claims, at least in the eyes of the outside world, "in the most obnoxious way possible."

The risks of such a strategy are obvious. Mainstream American society finds it easiest to be tolerant when the outsider chooses to minimize the differences that separate him from the majority. The country club opens its doors to Jews. The university welcomes African-Americans. Heterosexuals extend the privilege of marriage to the gay community. Whenever these liberal feats are accomplished, we congratulate ourselves. But it is not exactly a major moral accomplishment for Waspy golfers to accept Jews who have decided that they, too, wish to play golf. It is a much harder form of tolerance to accept an outsider group that chooses to maximize its differences from the broader culture. And the lesson of Clive Doyle’s memoir—and the battle of Mount Carmel—is that Americans aren’t very good at respecting the freedom of others to be so obnoxiously different. Many Mormons, incidentally, would say the same thing. When the Mormons settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, local public opinion turned against them. Joseph Smith was charged with perjury and adultery, then arrested for inciting a riot. While he was in custody awaiting trial, in 1844, an armed mob stormed the prison and shot him dead.

Not long after the Waco siege began, James Tabor, the Biblical scholar, heard David Koresh on CNN talking about the Seven Seals. Tabor is an expert on Biblical apocalypticism and recognized the Branch Davidians for what they were—a community immersed in the world of the Old Testament prophets. He contacted a fellow religious scholar, Phillip Arnold, and together they went to the F.B.I. "It became clear to me that neither the officials in charge nor the media who were sensationally reporting the sexual escapades of David Koresh had a clue about the biblical world which this group inhabited," Tabor writes, in an essay about his role in the Mount Carmel conflict. "I realized that in order to deal with David Koresh, and to have any chance for a peaceful resolution of the Waco situation, one would have to understand and make use of these biblical texts."

Arnold and Tabor began long discussions with Livingstone Fagan, a Branch Davidian who had been sent out of Mount Carmel early in the siege to act as a spokesman. Fagan was a Jamaican-born Brit, and one of the community’s scholars—a man known for greeting others with the very English "Hello, Livingstone Fagan here. Shall we study?" Fagan helped Tabor and Arnold understand that Mount Carmel’s adherents thought they were living through the "fifth seal"—a late stage in the end of time, during which believers are asked to suffer through a round of bloodshed, to "wait a little season," and then to suffer a second round.

This was why the Davidians wouldn’t leave. They had been through the first round of violence, with the initial A.T.F. raid. Now they were doing as they believed the Bible compelled them to do—waiting. "We were fascinated by the way in which the literal words of this text dominated the entire situation," Tabor writes. But they also saw the peril ahead—the promised second round of bloodshed. "Might they not provoke a violent end to things simply because they felt it was the predetermined will of God, moving things along to the sixth seal, which was the great Judgment Day of God?" Tabor asks.

Koresh needed another way to make sense of the prophecies in the Book of Revelation, so that a violent end was not preordained. Tabor and Arnold made a tape—a long, technical discussion of an alternative reading of Revelation—aired it on the radio, and sent it to Koresh. Koresh listened and was persuaded. He had been called a liar, a child molester, a con man, and a phony messiah. He had been invited to treat his children like bargaining chips and his followers like hostages. But now someone was taking his beliefs seriously. "I am presently being permitted to document in structured form the decoded messages of the seven seals," he wrote back. "Upon the completion of this task, I will be freed of my waiting period. . . . As soon as I can see that people like Jim Tabor and Phil Arnold have a copy, I will come out and then you can do your thing with this beast."

Inside Mount Carmel, Doyle writes, there was rejoicing. Soon they would all come out together, and the ordeal would be over. The F.B.I., however, remained skeptical. "Then what’s next?" one of the agents in charge allegedly said. "He’s going to write his memoirs?" The negotiators quizzed Koresh, again and again:


F.B.I.: Now listen. Let’s get back to the point in hand. This ah—you know—the writing of the seals. Ok. You’ve got to do that in there, and its gonna take you x amount of time. But—just tell me this, David—are you saying that when you finish that manuscript—
KORESH: Then I’m not bound any longer.
F.B.I.: No. But see, that doesn’t answer the question.
KORESH: Then I’ll be out—yes—definitely.
F.B.I.: I know you’ll be out. But that could mean a lot of things, David.
KORESH: I’ll be in custody in the jailhouse.

The negotiator doesn’t believe him. The conversation goes on—and on:


F.B.I.: I know—I know that some point in time that’s true. But I’m getting from you—I’m asking you, "When that is finished, are you telling me that you are coming out the next day, or two hours after you send that out or what?"


That conversation took place on Friday, April 16th. Doyle says that he thinks Koresh would have finished the manuscript within two weeks. The F.B.I. waited three days. By the morning of April 19th, the Feds had had enough. The F.B.I.’s tanks rumbled up to the Mount Carmel buildings, and punched holes in the walls with their mechanical arms. Some four hundred cannisters of CS gas—which can be flammable under certain conditions—were shot into enclosed spaces lit by candles and Coleman lanterns. Walls were rammed, sending huge chunks of concrete crashing down on those huddled inside. Doyle says that he crouched on the chapel floor, between the pews, trying to escape the tear gas. Someone yelled that a fire had started. He and a group of nine or ten people had been clustered in a passage at the back of the chapel when, suddenly, he says, everything turned black. He was hit by a wave of unbearable heat, and fell to the floor. He prayed to God for a miracle. He saw a hole in the wall, and crawled toward it.

Outside, the F.B.I. agents manning the loudspeaker system were chanting: "David, you have had your fifteen minutes of fame. [Koresh] is finished. He is no longer the Messiah." Doyle continues, "I looked at myself. My jacket was melting all over me and smoking. The skin was rolling off my hands. It was not blistering, it was just rolling off. I turned around and looked at the hole, and it was a big mass of flames. The thought that went through my head was: No one is coming out of there now."

In the fire, Koresh and seventy-three others perished, including twenty-five children. Doyle writes:


I came out the little driveway on the side of the building and got onto the main driveway that ran along the front of the building. As I turned the corner . . . one of the agents outside a tank started screaming at me to come over to him. My left ankle was all blistered, the skin was rolling off my hands, and my face was burned down the right side of my neck where the mask had been. I guess I took the mask off after I got out. It was kind of melting onto my face. . . . He was cussing me out, telling me if I made a false move he was going to blow my so-and-so head off. But he said: you’re gonna remember this day for the rest of your life. I thought: at least that is a true statement. ♦






PHOTOGRAPH: Ron Heflin/AP



Rosewood