Poor Brentford Gives a Knuckle Rap. A Guest Column.


“Never mistake the undone for the unworthy.
The desk may be cluttered.
The life is not.”

Poor Brentford Lee (b. 1947. Altar ego—with an alter ego, too, of course. He ministers and he meddles. Life coach without credentials. Available for lectures, upbraidings, and unsolicited reminders of everything you’ve already accomplished.)


Sometimes we’re our own worst enemies. Maybe, all times. I know I am.

It doesn’t matter how much I get done, it’s always the undone that grabs hold of me in my waking hours and throws me into a tiff.

Just the other day—just as dawn was breaking—I sprang up in bed, asking myself:

“Where did it go? Where did it all go?”

Not my life, mind you. That’s still very much in progress.

I meant January and February—two months that often keep me snowed in on my mountaintop here in the Shenandoah Valley. And this year—once and for all—they were supposed to be the two perfect months to bring order to chaos. To organize my office.

Boxes. Amazon boxes, to be precise—a small mountain of them, stacked near the woodstove like a cardboard monument to every good intention I’ve ever had. Some are open. Some are not. All of them smile at me. That relentless Amazon smile, curved and cheerful and absolutely unbothered by my shame. I have begun to suspect they are multiplying when I’m not looking.

Desk and worktable. Buried. Buried under manila envelopes, unopened mail, a box of highlighters, a coffee mug that may or may not still contain coffee, and enough paper to reforest a modest hillside. The lamp burns bravely through the chaos like a lighthouse in a nor’easter.

Even the plants have opinions. Two magnificent specimens—sprawling dramatically across their ornate iron stands—have taken matters into their own fronds. One has sent a long, accusatory leaf directly toward my leather chair. As if pointing.

Pointing. Yes, pointing. The same way the ghost of my gray-haired grade school history teacher would point and declare with the wrath of an angry God:

“A cluttered desk is the devil’s workshop.”

And between Mrs. Snyder’s admonitions and my lament—”Where did it go? Where did it all go?”—Poor Brentford appeared as if in a vision rising up from nowhere in particular and everywhere at once.

“Where did it all go, you ask? Where did it all go? I’ll tell you exactly where it went. Pull up a chair if you can find one in that brain of yours, all cluttered now with nonsense.”

I thought I knew for sure where his harangue was headed. But for once he surprised. He did not stoop so low as to rap knuckles with any of the cliches from his repertoire of wisdom.

Not once did I hear,

“Time and tide wait for no one.”

Not once did I hear,

“Make hay while the sun shines.”

I didn’t even hear the one I was certain he would speak with calm certainty,

“Lost time is never found again.”

He didn’t recite any of those things.

Instead, he cleared his throat with great ceremony and delivered his first knuckle rap with the precision of a surgeon and the satisfaction of a man who has been waiting a very long time.

“Only handle it once.”

He let it hang there. Just those four words. Floating in the air above the Amazon boxes and the buried desk and the manila envelopes and the coffee mug of uncertain vintage.

“Your words. Well, Grace Reed’s words, if we’re being precise. Your Copyright Office colleague. The woman whose office was lean, mean, and sparse. The woman whose wisdom you borrowed, researched, published, celebrated, and then—apparently—left to ride around in the Jeep with the junk mail.”

He fixed me with a look that left no room for argument.

“Don’t bemoan where it all went. You know fully well. And you know exactly what to do.”

Then Poor Brentford’s voice softened. Just slightly. Just enough.

“Do you remember what you wrote on January 15th, 2024? You raised your Bunnahabhain to all the tarriers, the delayers, and the occasional shelver. You said, and I quote, ‘Here’s to the to-morrowers, the champions of It can wait until tomorrow, because sometimes tomorrow is just a delay away from today.'”

He smiled. For the first time.

“And do you remember Scarlett?

“She understood something you sometimes forget. Tomorrow is not surrender. Tomorrow is strategy.”

Poor Brentford gestured grandly at the Amazon boxes.

“Your Tara is a little more cardboard than hers. But the principle holds.”

He straightened his jacket.

“The office will get cleaned. One day. Tomorrow, perhaps. Or the day after. Or sometime before the Amazon boxes learn to walk.”

“Scarlett managed. So will you.”

But Poor Brentford wasn’t finished. He stood there, poised to deliver his final and most devastating knuckle rap. Quietly. Almost tenderly.

“Forget the cluttered office for now. I want you to remember something you wrote, something about a young professor who stopped you in a hallway and handed you an offprint with four words inscribed on the front.”

He paused.

“This is life everlasting.”

Another pause. Longer this time.

“You asked whether he was suggesting that we live on forever through what we share with others: ideas immortalized in print. You answered your own question. Here you are, nearly fifty years later, speaking his name. Professor Myerson continues to live.”

He leaned in close.

“And so will you. Through every word you have ever written. Eight books. More than a million words. Scholarship and essays that will outlast every Amazon box in that corner.”

“THAT is your life everlastin’. Now act like it.”

Just when my chair started getting uncomfortable, Poor Brentford had the nerve to tell me to shout out:

“Get behind me, Satan.”

I sprang up at once because in that command I recognized my own mother’s voice. Over and over again I had heard her rebuke the Devil whenever she faced her own pole of proverbial chaos.

Only then did I realize what Poor Brentford had done.

He had serenaded me with snippets of my own advice—counsel I had been publishing right here in this column for years.

I could hardly be offended.

I looked again at the Amazon boxes. The buried desk. The pointing plant.

They were all still there.

But the panic was gone.

The office could wait.

After all, tomorrow is strategy.

What We Know. What We Believe.


“Death is not extinguishing the light;
it is putting out the lamp because the dawn has come.”

—Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941). Bengali poet, philosopher, and Nobel laureate.


“Dead? She died?”

“Yesterday.”

“Well, she suffered a lot. Now maybe she’s with her mother and father and relatives.”

“Is that what you believe?”

“I don’t really know. I don’t think we’ll recognize people the way we do here, now. But I don’t know.”

“I believe she understands the mysteries … of life and death. She knows all.”

The conversation was getting too heavy, so we drifted to other topics.

Somehow, though, it struck a nerve. How can you not know what you believe about death, especially as you get closer and closer to that unknown journey.

Afterward, I started thinking about how we come to know what we know. What we believe.

After all, we know some things with certainty. Right?

Some because the results never vary. Two plus two always equals four. The distance between two fixed points remains the same no matter when we measure it. Water boils at a predictable temperature. Gravity pulls downward. Cause produces effect with reassuring regularity.

These certainties are grounded in repeatable outcomes. Test them once or a thousand times—the answer holds. They do not depend on belief, mood, or memory. The world behaves, and we trust it to keep behaving.

Then there are the certainties born of lived experience. Morning follows night. Habits steady us. The familiar route gets us home. What worked yesterday will probably work again today. These truths may not be written as formulas, but repetition grants them authority. Experience becomes evidence. Pattern becomes trust.

Together, these forms of knowing shape our confidence in the world. Whether derived from calculation or habit, they rest on the same foundation: consistency. When outcomes repeat, doubt quiets. We stop testing. We accept and move on.

Other things we know but with less certainty.

The weather forecast offers likelihoods, not guarantees. A medication helps one person and fails another. A conversation unfolds as expected or veers off course for reasons we cannot quite name. We plant the same seeds in the same soil, and one season flourishes while the next disappoints.

Here, knowledge comes through probability rather than proof. We notice tendencies, not laws. We have seen enough to believe, but not enough to relax. Patterns appear, then break. This kind of knowing asks something different of us. Not trust, but attentiveness. Not certainty, but judgment. We proceed carefully, aware that what often happens is not the same as what must happen.

Now comes the third kind of knowing: knowing what we believe.

This one does not submit to proof or probability. It rises instead from lived moments that resist explanation. Experiences that arrive uninvited and linger long after analysis ends. The sense that someone who has died is still, somehow, present. The calm that sometimes settles in a room at the moment of death, unmistakable and unearned. The feeling that something matters even when nothing practical is at stake.

These are not conclusions we reach. They are recognitions we undergo.

Here, certainty takes a different form. Not the certainty of answers, but the certainty of encounter. We may disagree about what these moments mean, but we rarely deny that they occur. They are woven into our lives—in hospitals and bedrooms, at gravesides and kitchen tables, in silences that feel fuller than speech.

This is where death stands apart.

Death is neither a hypothesis nor a forecast or a probability curve. It is the one certainty that admits no exception, the one experience every one of us, without fail, will face. Whatever else we debate, revise, or relinquish, this much is fixed.

What matters is that we cannot face death—our own or another’s—without believing something. Belief, in this sense, is not doctrine. It is orientation. It is how we stand in the presence of loss, how we love without guarantees, how we make sense of endings that refuse to be tidy.

I have always lived in awe of what has come my way. I have bowed, again and again, to the belief that life is good and meaningful and mysterious. I see no reason to abandon that posture now. I am confident that death will be a continuation of that vision—for me.

Shaped by faith traditions throughout the world, by experience, and by nearly eighty years of living, I can say what I believe.

I may be wrong. Others will stand elsewhere, with different convictions or none at all. But belief, for me, is not certainty. It is the posture I choose in the presence of mystery.


I believe that death is not an ending but an unveiling, a beginning—a stepping into shared sacredness.

I believe that I will understand fully, see clearly, and grasp truth without distortion.

I believe that I will know others as completely as I have been known.

I believe that all confusion will clear and all mysteries resolve.

I believe that the questions of life and death, justice and suffering, will be answered.

I believe that I will be gathered into a collective consciousness—united with all who have gone before and present with all who have yet to go.

I believe that every life is known clearly, held equally, and belongs fully.

I believe that love stands unveiled—clear, complete, and free from all that once obscured it.

I believe that fear has no place in death, because the journey continues as it always has—guided by goodness, shaped by beauty, and sustained by love.

I believe that I will go on.

Oh, No! No Sourdough!


“Convince me that you have a seed there, and I am prepared to expect wonders.”

—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862). American essayist, naturalist, and author of Walden, whose writings celebrated attentive living and the quiet wisdom of nature.


Superstitions surrounding Friday the 13th do not concern me. If my middle name weren’t Lee, it would be Lucky. I walk under ladders, ignore black cats, shop, travel and do all the things others won’t do. I will keep right on doing what I’ve always done. But this year, my luck may have run out. Or not.

The day started out on as good a note as possible. I fed my sourdough starter in my usual fashion even though the kitchen was a tad cooler than usual. A slow rise never kept me from planning ahead for scrumptious sourdough pancakes.

After our usual morning routines, Gary and I went out for lunch and returned home. In the afternoon, I preheated the oven to 350° so that it would be ready for whatever it was that I planned to cook for dinner.

Then I went about my affairs as usual. That is until I smelled a wonderful aroma wafting out from the kitchen. Bread? Cake? I was fascinated because I hadn’t started dinner. What could it possibly be?

Just as I walked into the kitchen to see what had lured me there, I exclaimed,

“Oh. No. My sourdough!”

When I turned the oven to preheat after lunch, I forgot that hours earlier I had put my sourdough starter in there on “proof” to get a faster rise.

What I saw when I opened the oven door was not fermentation. It was transformation.

The jar no longer held a living starter. It held evidence of my carelessness. The sides were lacquered in amber and gold, as if the sourdough had tried to climb out and been stopped mid-escape. A caramelized tide line marked how high it had risen before heat overtook it. What had once been soft and elastic was now fixed in place, streaked and hardened like candle wax after a long vigil.

Inside, the starter had transformed into something strangely geological. A pale, spongy dome baked solid at the edges, its surface torn open in small craters where trapped gases had burst and frozen in time. The smell was unmistakable: toasted flour, faint sweetness, a whisper of bread that almost existed.

I stood there looking at a crime scene, fully aware that the culprit and the witness were one and the same.

I had been the one who coaxed these mountain spores into life years ago, watching their first tentative bubbles gather and rise as if they had somewhere important to be. I had fed them, talked about them, and trusted them to do their quiet work while I went about mine.

They had made their way into breads and cakes and cookies and scones and cinnamon rolls, earning praise far beyond my mountaintop kitchen. And yet, on this particular Friday the 13th, I had forgotten them entirely, leaving a small natural wonder behind, unnoticed, to the fate of an oven I had set to preheat.

For a time, I did nothing but stand there, laughing at my stupidity while absorbing the lesson. There seemed little left to do but clean the jar and move on.

But just when I was feeling the depth of loss, I remembered. Flakes. Sourdough flakes.

A year or so ago I had dried some starter and set it aside, more as an experiment than anything else. I never imagined needing them. They sat unnoticed in a small jar, ordinary and still, offering no hint that they might hold anything alive.

I weighed a small portion and put it in a bowl with an equal amount of warm water. I watched as they softened and disappeared into a cloudy mixture. Then I added an equal amount of flour, creating a pasty potential. It felt more like a laboratory ritual than a kitchen rescue. Truthfully, I wasn’t certain anything would happen. But I held on to hope, realizing that those flakes were the only thing left for me to try.

At first, nothing happened.

The mixture sat on the counter looking exactly as one might expect flour and water to look when stirred together: pale, still, and entirely unremarkable. I told myself not to expect too much. After all, these were only dried remnants, fragments of something that had once been alive. Whatever vitality they possessed had long since faded.

But some time later–hours, perhaps less–I noticed a change so small it might easily have been missed. A tiny bubble appeared along the edge of the bowl. Then another. The surface loosened almost imperceptibly, as if taking a slow breath after a long sleep.

By the next morning, there was no denying it. The mixture had awakened. Fine bubbles traced delicate pathways through the paste, and a faint, familiar aroma rose to meet me—not flour, not water, but something living. Something remembering what it had been.

What astonished me most was not simply that the sourdough culture had returned, but how quickly it did so. Years ago, when I first coaxed those mountain spores into existence, I waited days for signs of life, peering into the jar with the anxious patience of a novice. This time, revival came with confidence, as though the culture already knew what it was meant to do.

Up from the flakes it arose.

What had seemed lifeless only hours earlier now stretched upward, gathering strength from invisible work. I found myself watching it the way one watches a garden after rain—not interfering, not hurrying, simply witnessing growth. A living culture once again, carrying within it all the strength and possibility of its ancestral spores.

And standing there, I realized that nothing about it felt accidental. Life, given the smallest chance, had simply resumed its work.

Watching it rise again, I began to understand that what I had witnessed was more than a small kitchen recovery. I had baked the starter, yes. But I had not baked the possibility.

Something essential had been preserved long before the mistake was made. Tucked away almost absentmindedly, those flakes had carried forward what mattered most. Given warmth, patience, and a little attention, the sourdough culture simply resumed its work, as though interruption were only a pause and not an ending.

It struck me then how stubbornly life finds its way back, even after neglect, even after carelessness. What appears lost may only be waiting for the right conditions to begin again.

Perhaps that is the real lesson Friday the 13th had to offer me this year. Not bad luck. Not superstition confirmed. Just a moment of carelessness and a jar of forgotten flakes, both filled with truth. We measure our mistakes with finality, and we assume that one moment of inattention defines the whole story.

Nature does not agree.

Two Porches. One Voice.


“The first porch is where you find your voice. The second porch is where your voice finds others.” —Poor Brentford Lee (b. 1947. Keeper of two porches, one mountain, one dog, and an inexhaustible supply of things worth saying—none of which he has to say alone anymore, thanks to his partner, Gary.)


Dear Faithful Readers,

You’ve been here with me on the porch since—well, some of you since the very beginning, back when I built it as nothing more than a place where you could pull up a chair and talk with me about the joys, challenges, and discoveries of research. We kept right on doing that from 2012 to 2021 when I decided to make the porch a little more fun by bringing you weekly creative nonfiction essays.

I’m still at it. Nearly 750,000 words later. Yes, you read it right. Foolin’ around in bed every night with ideas and words adds up. I’m spurred on by you, my Dear Readers, whose numbers keep increasing annually! Last year, we shared more than 35,000 views right here on the porch.

But I’ve built a brand-new porch, and I want you to be the first to know about it.

Don’t worry, though. I’m not leaving The Wired Researcher porch. It will remain open virtually forever. Same Monday mornings. Same voice–mine, with Poor Brentford’s voice chiming in from time to time. We’ll both be there, waiting for you.

I just heard someone shout out:

“So, why are you building a new porch? What’s that all about?”

Well, for starters, it has better lighting, and it might just bring in more neighbors for all of us to visit and exchange ideas.

I’m counting on you to check it out. I’ve named the second porch The Kendrick Chronicles.

“Where on earth is this new porch of yours?”

Gracious me! You know that I like to take my time–slow and easy like. In a sec, I’ll give you the link so that you can check it out for yourself. And when you do, go ahead and Subscribe! From that point forward, my essays–ever goldern new one that hits the world, every Monday morning like a neighbor who always brings something worth reading and never overstays his welcome–will find their way directly to your Inbox.

You can find this new porch of mine in Substack. Here’s the link:

brentlkendrick.substack.com

“What will I find when I get to this new porch of yours?”

Why, gracious me! You’ll find a comfy chair with your name on it and a handful of your favorite essays with my name on ’em:

● Redbuds of Remembrance

● Learning to Love in New Ways

● I Am Afraid

● Poor Brentford Cleans the Wax Out of His Ears

● Two, Together

● Glimpses of My Mother’s Hands

● The Ghost of Palmyra Church Road

● Truths Half-Told. Letters Half-Burned. A Legacy Waiting to Be Fully Heard.

● Carrying the Bags of Colonial America’s Humourist

And get this. If you subscribe, next week you’ll get an essay about a kitchen disaster beyond belief: “Oh, No! No Sourdough!” And the week after that, “What We Know. What We Believe.” It may be the most complete thing I’ve ever written about who I am and what I believe about what comes next.

So go on now. Pull up a chair. Same voice. Wider porch.

Come find me there:

The Kendrick Chroniclesbrentlkendrick.substack.com

But always remember to come back here, as I remain–

Epigraphically yours forever,

Brent L. Kendrick
(—and Poor Brentford Lee, who deserves full credit for my nonsense)

Little by Little


“The greatest thing in the world is to know how to belong to oneself.”
—Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). French pioneer of the personal essay.


I tried to blame it on the boots.

I tried to blame it on the coat.

I tried to blame it on the sweater.

I tried to blame it on the scales.

I even tried to blame it on Thanksgiving and Christmas.

But I knew deep down inside that on those occasions I made conscious choices to eat the rich foods that I served up for Gary and me, and sometimes for our guests. Turkey first, of course—sliced generously, then followed by ham, salty and sweet, and later a rack of lamb brought out because it felt like the season called for something a little special. Deep-dish pecan pie, glossy and heavy with syrup. Deep-dish apple pie, still warm, the kind that sinks slightly when the knife goes in. Golden fruitcake—dense, fragrant, unapologetic—cut thin and then, somehow, not so thin. Banana nut bread—the healthy version, of course—on the counter, always ready for just one more slice. Candy dishes everywhere, each one holding something different: chocolates, caramels, peppermints, specialty candies meant for guests but sampled daily. Taffy apple salad. Orange fluff salad. Cranberry sauce—homemade, of course—because it wouldn’t be the holidays without it. Gravy poured generously, more than once. Sourdough dinner rolls torn open while still warm, butter melting into the crumb. And wine—one bottle opened, then another, because it paired well, because it was already there, and because winter evenings stretch long. And it was good. All of it was good.

One or two overindulgences wouldn’t have been so bad. But what started with Thanksgiving rolled into Christmas, kept going through New Year’s, and here I am after a prolonged pig-out snow-in, blaming my weight on scales, sweaters, coats, and boots.

I know better. This is a repeat of last year and the year before, stretching back to the start of memory. All along my satiated journey, I knew what was happening. I sensed it in my body. I felt it in my clothes. I saw it in the mirror. Eventually, my day of reckoning came when I stepped on the scales, gasped, and sighed,

“Enough, Brent. Enough.”

I could veer off into a litany about all the reasons I overindulged. I have no doubt that you’ve heard them all already. Heard them all.

But I’ll plate up a few reasons anyway. Food is how we mark time. Holidays, snow days, long evenings, the stretch between Thanksgiving and New Year’s—meals become punctuation marks. We don’t just eat; we commemorate. One dinner leads to another, then another, until the season itself seems to demand a full plate.

Then there’s winter. The quiet. The staying in. Food keeps us company. It warms the house, fills the hours, shapes the day. A loaf on the counter, something sweet after supper, a little more than usual because there’s nowhere else to go and nothing much else to do.

None of this is shocking. None of this is new. But here’s the thing. Knowing why doesn’t change the outcome. It only explains how easily awareness can lag behind—until one morning, one glance, one number brings it all into focus.

I could dwell on all of that. But chances are you can already relate—whether in your own “appetite” life or in some other corner. You can relate to areas where you’ve lost an awareness—areas that need attention.  Maybe it’s your perennial garden beds overtaken by weeds. Maybe it’s your inbox overtaken by junk mail. Maybe it’s your personal and spiritual relationships overtaken by inattention. The list of “maybes” goes on and on.

But here’s the good news. We don’t need to rant and rave. We don’t need to blame our metaphorical sweaters, coats, and scales. And we don’t need to blame ourselves.

We only need to notice—and then course-correct.

Little by little.

Carrying the Bags of Colonial America’s Humourist


“Give a man a mask and he will tell you the truth.”

—Oscar Wilde (1854–1900), Irish playwright, novelist, critic, and a master of wit, paradox, and social satire.


Humor means different things to different people.

Sometimes it appears when something almost goes wrong but doesn’t. The tension releases, and everyone exhales at once.

Sometimes the biggest laughs come when someone names a behavior we all recognize but rarely admit—family habits, social pretenses, small vanities we pretend not to see in ourselves.

Humor lets people say risky things safely. We soften criticism with a joke. We test opinions indirectly. We disagree without declaring war.

Sometimes humor does something even simpler: it lets strangers feel briefly aligned. People who laugh together feel, if only for a moment, that they belong to the same world.

I can relate to all of those kinds of humor.

But lately I’ve been tapping into another kind of humor. Laughing at myself.

Because here I am, at this stage of life, carrying the bags of a Colonial American writer who performed behind his own joke for nearly 275 years.

He wrote in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1753 and 1754 under the pseudonym The Humourist. I eventually identified him as Alexander Gordon—antiquarian, playwright, former operatic tenor, Egyptologist, and Clerk of His Majesty’s Council—and published the essays in my book Unmasking The Humourist: Alexander Gordon’s Lost Essays of Colonial Charleston, South Carolina.

Right now, I’m laughing out loud as I finish typing that last paragraph. It captured all the necessary details in so short a fashion that a reader who doesn’t know about my work might think it was easy.

It wasn’t and that’s no laughing matter.

I started working on these pseudonymous essays in 1973, and it took me decades of on-again-off-again research to solve what was the greatest mystery in all of American literature. Who wrote the essays that were right up there with Benjamin Franklin’s?

I solved the mystery by giving the essays a close reading and by developing a precise profile of the pseudonymous author.

He shows deep classical learning; fluency in music and theater; detailed knowledge of colonial legislative procedure; access to the printing process; and—most strikingly—specialized antiquarian expertise, including repeated, highly technical references to Egyptian mummies.

That last detail matters—hold on to it.

Serendipity helped. While combing the South Carolina Gazette for anything that might name the author outright, I stumbled on an obituary for Alexander Gordon, Clerk of His Majesty’s Council. The obituary didn’t identify him as The Humourist, but as I dug further, Gordon’s life and learning aligned almost point for point with the profile my close reading had built—especially the mummy trail.

Egyptology was not casual learning in colonial Charleston. Yet the essays speak in depth about mummies, and Gordon’s will independently inventories Egyptian paintings and drawings and an unpublished manuscript on Egyptian history. When the essays and the archival record illuminate one another so precisely, alternative candidates disappear. The mask does not merely fit. It belongs—and suddenly the performance comes into focus.

With Gordon restored to authorship, the essays change. They stop being a curiosity and become something far more interesting: a sustained experiment in humor and performance inside the colonial newspaper itself.

Attribution reveals design. What once appeared as scattered satire resolves into a deliberate experiment—using humor, performance, and print itself to create a conversation between writer and public.

Recently, I explored that angle for a talk at the South Central Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies in a paper titled “Pleasure, Play, and the Colonial Press: Unmasking The Humourist in Eighteenth-Century Charleston” — I realized something unexpected.

The real story is no longer the mystery.

Now that the mystery has been solved, the authorship established, and the essays restored to print in Unmasking The Humourist: Alexander Gordon’s Lost Essays of Colonial Charleston, South Carolina (2025), readers can finally approach them not as an attribution puzzle but as a serious contribution to colonial American literature — and to eighteenth-century humor itself.

What emerges is humor doing real cultural labor.

Gordon deploys mock-serious moralizing, feigned modesty, fabricated correspondence, and theatrical self-presentation to probe colonial life. He stages debates with himself, parodies authority, and moves constantly between sincerity and self-mockery. Humor here is not decoration or diversion. It becomes a way of negotiating civility, reputation, and power in a city both ambitious and anxious.

Just as important, the humor is local. Charleston is not London or Boston. Gordon writes within a transatlantic essay tradition, yet his satire is tuned to a specific press, a specific readership, and the particular pressures of a provincial colonial capital learning how to see itself.

One of his most sophisticated devices is fabricated correspondence. Figures such as Alice Wish-For’t, Urbanicus, Calx Pot-Ash, and Peter Hemp enter the newspaper as letter writers, each occupying a recognizable social position. Alice Wish-For’t blends patriotic seriousness with playful irony, turning courtship into commerce as she urges Carolina to favor its own “manufactures.” Urbanicus performs civic refinement, respectfully cataloguing Charleston’s dangers until earnest reform quietly becomes satire. Calx Pot-Ash and Peter Hemp speak as commodities seeking settlement, reducing questions of empire and policy to negotiations among trade goods.

Equally telling is where these voices write from — England, Sweden, Russia. Distance lends authority while keeping Charleston firmly at the center. The newspaper becomes a stage upon which local life is judged through transatlantic eyes.

Of course, Gordon writes all the letters himself.

Yet the illusion matters. Humor manufactures sociability, creating the sense of an engaged public responding in real time. The newspaper becomes not a lecture but a space of play, populated by voices entering and exiting as if directed from behind the curtain.

That play extends even further — to authorship itself. Rather than locating comedy only in scenes of leisure, Gordon repeatedly turns writing into the joke. The Humourist exists entirely in print, negotiating with readers, printers, and critics while never stepping outside the role he has invented. Apologies, promises of reform, threats of retirement, and editorial decisions mimic literary authority even as they quietly undermine it. Print culture itself becomes performance.

At moments he turns this playfulness toward authority directly. In a mock proclamation issued by Apollo, styled “King, Ruler, and sole Arbiter of Parnassus,” poetry is regulated like civil law, offending writers condemned in language borrowed from official decrees. The humor lies not simply in exaggeration but in recognition: authority, literary and political alike, depends on performance.

By this point, the pattern becomes unmistakable. The newspaper has become a stage. Voices circulate, authority performs itself, and meaning moves through print while a hidden author directs the scene.

The experiment reaches its height in the Humourist’s carefully managed disappearance. His farewell dramatizes authorship itself, insisting he will never again “enter the Lists of Authorism.” Timing, posture, and voice — the very tools of authority — become part of the joke he appears to control.

Here humor shifts away from events and toward the performance of authorship itself, as the writer gradually becomes part of the joke he has created.

Once we recognize that experiment, we can finally ask a larger question:

“What, exactly, did my scholarly research really recover?”

Not just an author’s name. Not just a solved literary mystery.

What returns is pleasure—yhe pleasure of wit, play, and performance in the colonial press.

These essays can now be read, taught, and argued over not as anonymous artifacts, but as the work of a specific and remarkably complex mind. They invite us to reconsider early American literature not as solemn beginnings, but as lively experimentation — writers testing ideas about society, behavior, and power through laughter.

I keep carrying Gordon’s bags.

From Charleston, where he wrote them. To Deltaville. To Pinehurst. And wherever the conversation goes next.

Because if humor helped him speak safely to his own century, perhaps it can help us hear him clearly in ours and remind us that one of the sharpest, funniest voices in Colonial American literature was never lost.

He was simply waiting for the joke to land.

So I keep carrying the bags—following the voice that once spoke from behind the mask, wherever the road leads.

.

Death Watch


“Life is in the transitions.”
—William James (1842–1910). American philosopher, psychologist, and father of American pragmatism.


I was seven, a skinny, average-height boy standing on the neighbor’s porch. The white clapboard house rose tall, its long windows draped in lace curtains. But at one window, the curtain had been pulled back and the green blind raised, as if inviting me to press my face against the glass. Inside, an open casket cradling an old woman. Her dress, light lavender with a large lace collar. Her waist, small. Her figure, tall and slender. Beyond the casket, the room dissolved into shadow.

I had seen a dead person before, so it wasn’t death that lured me across the road that afternoon. But I had never seen anyone laid out in a casket, all dressed up for a wake.

My mother had talked about wakes. People stayed up all night with the body, neighbors carried in food, and children fell asleep in corners. I never went to one. What I knew came from scraps I overheard—the rustle of women’s dresses, the scrape of chairs on pine floors, the low murmur of prayers. Where I grew up in southern West Virginia in the late 1940s and ’50s, a wake was as ordinary as rain.

I’ve thought about my neighbor’s wake now and then for seven decades. Each time, I return to my seven-year-old self, standing barefoot on the porch, looking in the window, mesmerized by death’s pale lilac gown.

All those years, that was as far as my reflections went until recently when I was listening to “Four Days Late.” Eight words grabbed hold of me:

“The death watch was over.
Buried four days.”

I know the Biblical story. Jesus waited four days before calling Lazarus’s name—long enough, it was believed, for the soul to depart and the body to begin its decay. What followed could only be proclaimed a miracle.

What grabbed me wasn’t the miracle. It was the emphatic statement:

“The death watch was over.”

With that line lodged in my mind, I began noticing how often the idea of a death watch appears, even when we don’t call it that.

In Judaism, the dead are not left alone. There is shemirawatching. Someone stays with the body, for hours or longer, reading psalms, keeping vigil. The tradition holds that the soul lingers nearby for a time, not yet ready to depart. What struck me was not the theology, but the instinct: don’t leave yet. Something is still happening.

In Islam, too, death unfolds rather than strikes. The community gathers quickly. The body is washed, prayers spoken, and the dead oriented toward Mecca. Nothing casual or rushed. The living tend to the dead carefully, attentively, as if aware that departure is not abrupt but gradual, and that presence is a form of respect.

Buddhist and Hindu traditions go further, understanding death as a process that may take hours or days, consciousness loosening its hold slowly. Those nearby are encouraged to remain calm and steady—not to cling or hurry, but to remain present while something completes itself.

Even in the folk practices my mother described, the same posture holds. People stayed. They watched. They waited. Death was not treated as an emergency to be cleared away, but as a threshold to be witnessed.

I wonder what, exactly, those watchers believed they were watching for.

Not for proof. Not for reversal. But for something to finish—or something to begin. Across cultures and centuries there is a shared intuition that death is not an erasure, but a passage. A crossing—something that unfolds just beyond our ability to see, but not beyond our need to attend.

So, we stay.

The seven-year-old boy I was could not have named that instinct. He only knew to stand barefoot on a porch and look through a window. He didn’t understand death or wakes or souls lingering nearby. But he understood—without words—that he was standing as witness at the edge of something mysterious.

Perhaps that is what a death watch has always been—not a refusal of death, but an act of faith in continuance: a willingness to be present at the threshold, to witness a crossing we cannot explain.

Maybe the watching is how we admit we don’t believe it’s over.

Underneath a Jacket and Yaller Pants


“It is only with the heart that one can see rightly;
what is essential is invisible to the eye.”

— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1900–1944). French writer and aviator, best known for The Little Prince, a timeless meditation on seeing, love, and what truly matters.


Two travelers, journeying to the Northern Neck of Virginia, midway between our home in the Shenandoah Valley and our destination, Kilmarnock.

Two travelers with two mid-day choices.

“Horne’s,” Gary read out loud from his phone. “It’s an old-time eatery serving American fare since 1961. It’s a mile or so away.”

He continued with their lunch menu.

“Hmmm. Any other restaurants?”

“Randolph’s on the River.”

About the time he started with their menu, we were approaching Horne’s. Three cars in the parking lot at noon raised some red flags, and the building raised more. It had been something once upon a time, looking back now with one nostalgic backward glance too many.

“Let’s go on to Randolph’s.”

We were there in several minutes. Right on the river with a beautiful view of the bridge.

We drove into the parking lot. One car.

“Maybe they’re closed?”

We both discovered the open door at the same time, looked questionably at one another, entered, and sat by the window on the water’s edge.

We waited and waited and …

“I’ll walk over and get a menu.”

As he did, Gary craned his head toward the open kitchen door.

“It looks really unorganized in there.”

“Maybe we should go back to Horne’s.”

But just as I was on my way to the door, the solo bar customer assured Gary the food was good, as he yelled,

“Hey, Mama. Ya got a customer.”

We returned to our booth.

“Oh, so sorry. I’m the only one here. Nobody else show up yet. Cook. Waitress. Cashier. That’s me. Whatcha want to drink?”

“Water.”

“Same for me.”

In a second, the wizened, chisel-faced Black waitress was back, her hair pulled up tight on top of her head, pulling her taller than her thin frame stood, and 32-ounce plastic glasses of iced water landed gracefully before us.

“What will ya have?”

“Are your oysters local?”

“Oh, yessss. And they big ones.”

“I’ll have the oyster po-boy. You like it?”

“Oh. No. I don’t do oysters, but we sure sell a lot. And it’s on a really big bun.”

“I’ll have one.”

Gary ordered a tuna melt, with French fries and coleslaw.

“What about you?”

“Hmmm. Coleslaw and collards.”

She beamed. “I makes ’em. They so good.”

She spirited around to head back to the kitchen, turning for a sec,

“If ya’ll need anything, just yell out ‘Auntie.'”

We were amused, and maybe smitten by the rawness of her charm, even when she appeared again, grinning.

“Fish truck ain’t got here yet, so we don’t have no tuna. How about a Rock Fish sandwich? Mighty good.”

“Okay.”

“Broiled or fried?”

“Broiled.”

She sprinted away again, as we continued chuckling about our lunch choice and wondering what the food could possibly taste like in a restaurant staffed by a three-in-one.

But nearly as fast as Auntie had sprinted away, she appeared again balancing two plates of food as wide as her beam.

“Ya’ll enjoy.”

“Gary, look at the size of this po-boy! How will I ever eat it all?”

“Well, try one of these fries. I’ve never had fries this good.”

“OMG. They’re awesome. How did she do that?”

By then, I had started to savor the collards.

“Never in my life have I had collards this good. They’re velvety magnificent.”

Just as Gary could not be enticed to savor the collards, neither could I lure him to try my po-boy that I had just dubbed the world’s best ever.

We sat there, enjoying a lunch that we never expected to enjoy, each of us beaming more that Auntie’s beam that competed with the sun glistening on the river.

“What marvelous food!” I quipped. “How did she pull this off?”

She was back soon to see how we were doing.

“How’d you learn to cook collards like that?”

“My grandmother. Just wash ’em up and down several times. Add some onion.”

“Fat back?”

“No. Just bacon. Cook ’em long and slow.”

“They’re the best I’ve ever had.”

She leaned in and whispered as she headed back to the kitchen.

“Gonna bring you a big bowl to take with you.”

We kept eating. Kept enjoying our culinary surprise. Kept nodding in agreement when Gary pronounced:

“Just proves you can’t judge a book by its cover.”

Not judging a book by its cover is a saying we all know. It reminds us not to measure worth by appearances alone. The phrase has been around since 1867 when the Piqua Democrat put it this way:

“Don’t judge a book by its cover; see a man by his cloth, as there is often a good deal of solid worth and superior skill underneath a jacket and yaller pants.”

The idiom’s insight holds.

Once you notice it—really notice it—you start seeing its truth everywhere.

A green thing pushing up through a crack in the sidewalk. Something so small it could be missed entirely if you’re walking fast or looking at your phone. It shouldn’t be there. Concrete says no. Yet there it is, insisting. Alive. You slow down, surprised by how much you want it to win.

A dog at the shelter. The one not pressed eagerly against the gate. The older one. The one whose eyes seem to say, “I’ve already tried being hopeful.” There’s nothing wrong, exactly—just nothing flashy. You move on, almost without thinking, until something tugs. A look. A stillness. Suddenly you’re wondering what kind of life left that quiet patience behind.

A fixer-upper. The peeling paint, the sagging porch, the smell that lingers longer than you’d like. Everyone sees the work. The cost. The trouble. But every now and then you catch a glimpse of something else—a line of light across a floor, a room that wants to breathe again—and you realize the house isn’t finished telling its story.

Then there are people.

People whose jackets are worn. Whose stories arrive with footnotes. People who don’t sparkle on first glance, who hesitate, who carry loss or age or disappointment a little too visibly. People who have been misunderstood long enough that they’ve learned not to rush forward anymore.

People like us. Like you. Like me.

We all know how quickly judgment comes. A glance. A pause. A decision made before the second sentence. We decide what’s worth our time, our care, our patience—and what isn’t.

Sometimes, though, we sit down anyway.

By a river. In a nearly empty restaurant. With a three-in-one waitress who says, “Y’all enjoy” and means it.

If we’re lucky—if we slow down just enough—we leave carrying more than we expected. A full stomach. A warm heart. And the uneasy, beautiful knowledge that the best things in life often arrive wearing the wrong cover.

I Want to Know Why


“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”

—George Orwell (1903–1950). British writer and essayist.


Two weeks apart. Thirteen or more shots fired. Two American citizens dead in Minneapolis.

January 7, 2026. Renée Good.
Three or more shots fired, including one to the head.
Bam. Bam. Bam.

January 24, 2026. Alex Pretti.
Ten shots fired.
Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam.

Both dead.

I can’t stop thinking about those thirteen shots.

Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam.

I hope you can’t stop thinking about them.

I am haunted by the shots. Not by the chaos of the moment. By the decision to use lethal force.

I don’t raise these questions lightly. I raise them because I feel an obligation to do so.

I am appalled by what happened to Renée Good and Alex Pretti. Not because I know all the answers—but because the answers offered so far do not begin to match the gravity of what occurred.

I am outraged by the shots.

Not that shots were fired—anyone who understands law enforcement understands danger. Threats are real. Decisions are made in fractions of a second.

But these shots.

A shot to the head. Ten shots fired after a man had been disarmed.

These are not details. They are the story.

I want to know why:

• lethal force was chosen where restraint appears possible

• a vehicle was not disabled if it was the threat

• a disarmed man required ten rounds to stop him

• “self-defense” is offered as a conclusion instead of the beginning of a serious public accounting

• we lower our voices when bullets have already spoken

Let me be clear: I would be asking these same questions with or without ICE involvement. This is not about immigration policy. It is not about partisan loyalties. It is about the use of lethal force by the government—any arm of government—against citizens, and the obligation that power carries with it.

When a gun is fired by law enforcement, intent matters. When a head is struck, intent matters more. When shots continue after a suspect is disarmed, intent becomes unavoidable.

We are often told that officers do not “intend to kill,” only to stop a threat. But bullets are not suggestions. Aimed fire is not symbolic. The human body understands intent even when language tries to soften it.

I want to know why the federal government can irreversibly take a life without the checks that define a democracy.

Not to inflame.

Not to prosecute from my keyboard.

Not to pretend that complex situations have simple answers.

But because a democracy that cannot answer why—plainly, fully, without euphemism—cannot credibly claim justice.

Silence is not neutrality. Deflection is not due process. Repetition of official language is not accountability.

I want to know why.

I think you should, too.

More to This


“To die is different from what any one supposed, and luckier.”
—Walt Whitman


Lying on my leather sofa. Scrolling through Facebook reels. My mind is quiet. My heart is unguarded. And then—there he is.

Standing alone on the rocks, guitar slung low, sunset pouring behind him like a benediction. Waves slam against stone, but he’s steady. Rooted. A white t-shirt clings to his chest, a pendant rests just above the place where prayer begins. He looks like someone who’s known both ache and awe but hasn’t run from either.

He strums. And sings.

“I’ve been thinking about dying…”

It grabs me. Grabs me deep. Not the lyric alone—but the way he sings it. Calm. Certain. Like someone who knows not only the shoreline but also the undertow.

I listen to the end. I sit still in its wake.

Later, I call my oldest sister. Ninety. Sharp. Aware. Lucid in a way that startles sometimes. I tell her about it. I play it for her.

Silence.

Then softly, she says, “Play it again.”

I do.

And there it is. The line that undoes me.

“My daughter says we live again…”

A child’s faith. A father’s voice. A goodbye that sounds like a hello in disguise.

She doesn’t ask what it means. She doesn’t need to. Some truths live in the body, not the brain. And some goodbyes don’t speak in past tense.

That’s what struck me about the song—about him—this barefoot man with a guitar and the Atlantic licking at his heels. He wasn’t mourning. He was offering. Not an elegy, but a threshold.

Suddenly I began to wonder—not just about dying, but about the shape of leaving itself.
How often the final word is really the first line of something else.

What I hadn’t yet named—what was already working on me under the music—was the song’s quiet insistence.

Over and over, Mark Scibilia returns to the same plea, almost like a whispered vow:

Don’t you dare
tell me that there ain’t more to this.

It isn’t argument. It isn’t doctrine. It’s defiance. He’s not trying to prove an afterlife. He’s refusing a small one.

The line keeps coming back like a tide, not to persuade us but to steady us—reminding us that our lives don’t fit neatly inside a closing. What we give our lives to has a way of exceeding the frame.

When he sings it, it sounds less like belief and more like fidelity: a promise to those he loves,
a promise to the life they’ve shared, a promise that whatever waits beyond this moment must somehow be wide enough to hold them all.

That refrain—there’s more to this—isn’t a conclusion. It’s a refusal to conclude.

What moved me wasn’t simply the lyric, or even the tenderness of a daughter’s faith carried in a father’s voice. It was the way the song refused to close in on itself. More to This doesn’t resolve so much as it opens outward. It leaves space. It resists the neatness of an ending.

I noticed my own response before I noticed the pattern in the song. I didn’t want the ending sealed too tightly. I didn’t want it explained away. I wanted to lean forward, not back.

Once I noticed that, I couldn’t unsee it.

I began thinking about how often endings—especially those that arrive at the moment of death—behave this way. Not declaring an end. Not insisting on finality. But gesturing instead. Toward light. Toward motion. Toward wonder. Toward something unfinished and unnamed.

Literature has long understood how difficult it is to stop speaking.

In A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens sends Sydney Carton to his death with a sentence that looks forward rather than back. “It is a far, far better thing that I do…” The line does not tell us what follows. It simply insists that meaning survives the moment.

Fitzgerald closes The Great Gatsby not on death itself, but on motion. “So we beat on, boats against the current…” The sentence ends. The movement does not. Time presses forward, indifferent but alive.

In Beloved, Morrison refuses to let memory die with the body. “This is not a story to pass on,” she writes—an ending that sounds like a warning and a summons at once.

And in Woolf’s To the Lighthouse, the novel concludes not with extinction, but with a completed gesture. Something is finished, yes—but not everything ends.

Different writers. Different centuries. Different convictions.

Yet we witness the same reluctance to close the door too firmly.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich. Ivan does not receive a doctrine. He does not glimpse a mapped-afterlife. What he receives instead is recognition—a sudden clarity that loosens fear’s grip. Terror gives way not because he knows what comes next, but because something essential falls into place before the end.

Death happens. But it does not cancel significance.

Tolstoy never argues that life continues. He simply writes as if meaning does.

What struck me, once I saw it, was how consistent this posture is. Literary endings at the edge rarely snap shut. They soften. They widen. They behave as if language itself resists abrupt closure.

Then I began noticing the same thing outside of books.

Real life, it turns out, leans too.

Emily Dickinson’s last words—“I must go in, the fog is rising”—do not explain themselves. No reassurance. No declaration of belief. Just movement. Go in. Not away. Not gone. Into something obscured, indistinct, impossible to chart.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe is said to have asked for “More light.” Not an answer. A desire.

Steve Jobs, famously unsentimental about metaphysics, reportedly died repeating: “Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow.” Awe without explanation. Wonder without commentary.

Claude Monet is said to have murmured simply, “It’s beautiful.”

Different lives. Different beliefs. Different temperaments.

Yet, at the edge, language leans in the same direction—not toward negation, but toward attention. Toward light. Toward something still being apprehended.

What interests me isn’t whether these people believed in an afterlife. Some did. Some didn’t. That’s not the point.

The point is posture.

Faced with an ending, we pause. We soften our language. We gesture rather than conclude. We speak as if relation has not been severed—only altered.

That notion brings me back to the song. To Mark Scibilia standing barefoot on the rocks, Atlantic licking at his heels, singing not a goodbye but a threshold.

Long after it ends, the song keeps playing—not audibly, but somewhere just beneath thought. What lingers isn’t melody so much as stance. The way it opens outward. The way it refuses to settle. The way it leaves me listening.

Perhaps that is the common denominator. Not belief. Not certainty. But attention.

We don’t close the door too fast.

We lean forward instead.

Even after the final note fades, something in us remains listening—
sure, somehow, that there is more to this.

༺༻༺༻༺༻༺༻༺༻༺༻༺༻

Remembering
Patrick Allen Duff
March 17, 1960 – January 28, 2021

༺༻༺༻༺༻༺༻༺༻༺༻༺༻