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.