The Secret of Max Adeler's Name

Regular listeners to Mister Ron's Basement are probably quite familiar now with the humorous stories of Max Adeler, who wrote some of the most outrageously funny stories of all time in the 1870s. Adeler's real name was Charles Heber Clark. In 1995, Professor David Ketterer issued a beautiful book called "Charles Heber Clark; A Family Memoir," containing Clark's autobiography, which he had written for his family between 1906 and 1912, and also included various notes and annotations by Ketterer, as well as a reproduction of of the novelette "Fortunate Island" (which we have read on the Basement). The edition is well worth owning, long out-of-print, and usually costs more on the used market than original 1870s editions of Adeler's books.


When Clark first started writing humor for newspapers, he used the silly punnish pen name of "Quill." Later he adopted a better pen name. In the autobiography, Clark states:


"I wrote under the name of "Max Adeler," which belonged to a character in a little story book I was fond of when I was a boy."


In the footnotes, Ketterer wrote:


"I have not been able to identify the "little story book" containing the "Max Adeler" character."


Well, I found it!


The book is called "Island Home Castaways" by Christopher Romaunt, who was actually James F. Bowman. It was first published in the US in 1852 (right about the time Clark was eleven years old). A British edition of the book can be found on Google Books for free download as a pdf file at  this site.


The raw text that was used in preparation for a Gutenberg edition can be found (at least for a while) at:

http://www.athelstane.co.uk/r_archer/islehome/islehome.htm


Essentially, the story concerns six castaway youths on an island. One of them is named "Max Adeler." Here is a revealing quote from the book:


"That now, is positively diabolical!" exclaimed Max, from his covert among the creepers, where he was completely invisible, except his heels, which were kicking in the air; "I wouldn't have believed, Arthur, that you were such a methodical, cold-blooded creature! I suppose now, that if I had tumbled overboard during that hideous time, and been gulped down by a shark, or if Shakespeare had starved to death, you would have made a regular memorandum of the event, in business-like style, and wound up your watch as usual. I think I see the entry in your pocket-book, thus: '1839, June 3rd-Mem. Max Adeler fell overboard this day, and was devoured by a shark-an amiable and interesting youth, though too much given to levity, and not prepared, I fear, for so unexpected a summons. June 5th-Mem. My worthy and estimable friend, John Browne, late of Glasgow, Scotland, died this day, from lack of necessary food. Threw him overboard. What startling monitions of the uncertainty of life!'"


Clark adopted the name of "an amiable and interesting youth, though too much given to levity."


Additionally, there are many instances of Clark's characters getting shipwrecked or abandoned on an island. I found three or four in "Random Shots," for example, and of course, there is the Professor and his daughter in "Fortunate Island."


The feeling I got when I discovered this was quite strange -- it was like reaching into the mind of someone 150 years ago, and for a few minutes at least, I had the experience of probably being the only person on the planet who knew this (and one of the few that cared).


The way I discovered this is kind of complex, but suffice it to say that a decade ago it would have been almost impossible to do. The power of the internet to find things long dormant and forgotten is amazing. In many ways, I am using twenty-first century technology to open up the lives and thoughts of people from the nineteenth in ways that are new and wonderful.


Your comments are welcome.

Thirty-One Years


Thirty-one years ago today (March 27), for some strange reason I’ll never figure out, Karen said “I Do” and she’s been stuck with me ever since. As I flitter through life, doing strange and quirky things like seven-days-a-week podcasts, she’s the one who keeps me down to earth.


Nevertheless, I simply couldn’t do any of this without her. While she often claims to want routine day-to-day events that she can count on, Karen can display a sense of wonder and exhibit total enthusiasm for driving ten hours to search through 150 year old boxes of Fanny Fern memoribalia, or spending all day at Podcamps in strange cities, or scrounging around antique bookshops in small towns up and down the East Coast, or going to visit Emily Dickinson’s house in the pouring rain, or discovering someplace new and different.


Karen complains that I’m down in the Basement recording until midnight, yet she loves hearing me read fan mail to her. She has her hands full every day teaching eighth graders how to read, and comes home weary and exhausted, but is usually ready to hop up at a moment’s notice if we’ve won movie tickets, or we’re invited to an opening, or a cartoonists’ get-together, or something of that nature.


After all those years there’s plenty that she does that I am not involved in directly on a day-to-day basis, and vice-versa. Nevertheless, I couldn’t do anything I’ve been doing without her. We’re partners, after all. She’s my partner in everything I do, and vice-versa.


Happy Anniversary, Karen! I'm still head over heels in love with you. The best is (hopefully) yet to come...

Old-Time Story Censorship?

On a Comics History email list I am on, there has been discussion on whether  "many academics are intentionally perpetuating racism" or whether "some academics are un-intentionally perpetuating racism," by reprinting and even writing admiringly about some old comics that would be interpreted as racist by today's audiences. This is a difficult subject, because historical accuracy may demand that those hurtful images be included in scholarly studies, but common decency may require that they be left out. Well, this does not just apply to comics scholarship, to be sure.

I posted this message to my email group, and present it here, more or less as it appeared:

When I go through old stories to read in Mister Ron's Basement, there are quite a few that may have seemed harmless a hundred and fifty years ago or so, but I simply can't bring myself to present them. The odd things are stories that inadvertently include hurtful words or expressions that are not crucial to the stories. I myself feel that it really is not academically incorrect to remove or slightly change those references if it manages to bring a forgotten old storyteller to life in modern times.

Examples might include more than one George Ade story where he used the term "c--n songs" to refer to popular music that is not "high-brow." In those cases, I simply call them "songs." Is this academically reprehensible? I don't think so; not if the alternative is to leave otherwise delightful stories dead and forgotten. 

I ran into some particularly difficult times reading stories by William Tappan Thompson, a great southern writer whose tales often featured slaves and black servants referred to with the "N" word. Usually those characters were incidental to the story, so once again, I saw no problem using the term "servant" or something like that. 

If I was reading something like "Huckleberry Finn," or perhaps "The Weeping Time" by Philander Doesticks, where the use of certain words were intrinsic to the story line and the characters were treated with absolute respect, then I would have no problem using those terms.

Do I have the right to make those judgement calls? Well, legally, yes. The stories are in the public domain, and I can do whatever I want with them. Morally and ethically, some might argue that I do not have the right, but to me, the overriding concern is to make these long buried treasures palatable to a modern audience. 

One that same note, I have so far refrained from reading M. Quad's "Lime Kiln Club" stories, and anything by Joel Chandler Harris because they may be misinterpreted. Oddly enough, some of Harris's stories, presented in what he considered "authentic southern Negro speech" at the time were actually derived from Cherokee Indian legends.

On a cartooning note, something similar happened about twenty years ago, when a popular book of old-time cartoons of cats was published, and it featured A. B. Frost's "A Fatal Mistake," the panel showing the black butler being scared with his hair standing on end by the dying cat was left out. Was this proper? Maybe. Although I have an 1888 edition of "Stuff and Nonsense" with that picture and it doesn't seem demeaning to my sensibilities, when the Butler is compared to the other characters.

How do you feel? Am I being "unscholarly"? Your opinions are welcome...