Author Mark Munger (Cloquet River Press)

Nostromo by Joseph Conrad (2011. Tantor Audible. ISBN 978-1853261749)

I’m a Conrad fan. Victory. Heart of Darkness, his short stories. I’ve read and loved them all. But I hadn’t heard of, much less listened to, Nostromo: A Tale of the Seaboard, until my book club picked it as the January selection. Again, given I’ve been spending rehab time at the Y track in Hermantown, I chose to listen, rather than read, this novel. After many hours on the track, with the weights, and on the exercise bike, here’s my take.

The headline says it as succinctly as I can. If this was a debut novel, given it takes the first one-third of the book before the story begins to pique one’s interest, I’m not sure a modern day first-time novelist could get this story published. I’ve been told that editors/agents in this hurly-burly world give a book-at most-five pages, to make a favorable impression. Here, if that test is applied to Nostromo, the novel would be doomed. But it isn’t. Why? Because Conrad wasn’t some neophyte handing an agent or an editor his first manuscript. By 1904, when this book hit the shelves, Conrad, whose remarkable personal story deserves an entire book itself, Heart of Darkness, Typhoon, and Conrad’s other noteworthy works of fiction had already made their marks, meaning Conrad had the attention of the world’s readers when Nostromo debuted.

This is a very complex novel in terms of multiple characters, including the title actor, Nostromo, the leader of the the longshoremen in the fictional port town of Sulaco, in the Occidental Province, in the nation of Costagauna (a stand-in for Columbia). But the plot itself is relatively simple and straight forward once Nostromo is introduced and the action begins. Again, patience is required for a reader to meet up with the dashing former Italian sailor, who, while admired by everyone in the port city for his pluck, bravery, and daring-a-do, is not one of the city’s elites.

A revolution is taking place. A rebel army is threatening. The region surrounding the port is home to a productive silver mine and Nostromo is charged with captaining a boatload of silver away from the rebels’ hands. I won’t spoil the plot here by divulging what becomes of the sailor, his companion, or the treasure. I’ll leave it to you to turn the pages and come to the book’s conclusion before making up your own mind up about whether, as some contemporaries of Conrad opined, this is best work.

All things considered, worth the listen or the read.

4 stars out of 5

Peace

Mark

I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal and proud of that label. So, take my musings with a grain of salt.

Recently, I’ve been troubled by a segment of America continuing to support the former Occupant and his vision of the future for nation. As a retired judge, former prosecutor, historian, political scientist, and author, I believe the man has proven himself to be unqualified for public office. His rhetoric and actions during his presidency (and since his electoral defeat) have only solidified my perception. With that perspective in mind, I’d offer the following as a way to truly make American great again.

SUGGESTION ONE: READ THE NEWS

I’m not talking about scanning blogs or posts or headlines constantly appearing like freshly popped popcorn on the internet. I’m talking about subscribing to and reading your daily newspaper. It might be the printed version. Or it might be online. Or it might be, as my newspaper is, a hybrid. Whatever format fits your lifestyle is fine by me. But it’s critical, if we actually want to make America great again, that we support, read, and consider our daily newspapers. Without them (and they’re disappearing faster than moose in Minnesota) we’re left with local gossip and unverified rumors as our guides.

SUGGESTION TWO: WATCH AND/OR LISTEN TO LOCAL BROADCAST NEWS

Turn on your television (or, if in the car, the radio) and supplement the news your get from your local newspaper with actual, non-biased, reporting. This means avoiding MSNBC, CNN, Fox, NewsMax, or similar agenda-driven networks. On the radio, that’s a hard ask since much of Am radio is dominated by Right Wing Talk. I prefer PBS and Public Radio. Why? Not because there’s an elitist, Liberal bias to such outlets but because they drill deep into issues. And, nearly every night, I supplement public media reports with local television news as well as national news from the Big Three, ensuring that my bank of knowledge is wide and varied and based upon fact, not fiction.

SUGGESTION THREE: MEET CHALLENGES RAISED BY THOSE WHO DON’T AGREE WITH YOU

Recently, a friend asked me to watch The Fall of Minneapolis, a film concerning the conviction of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd. Five minutes into the two-hour YouTube video, I was ready to pull the plug. It was obvious the producer/director had a bias, one that, having spent considerable time following the trials concerning the involved officers, I knew was not based upon fact. But my wife, a mental health practitioner and a very wise lady, convinced me to watch the whole film before casting judgment. So, I did. It was a painful exercise, one filled with half-truths, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and bias. But in the end, she was right. If you’re asked to read something or watch something by a well-meaning friend, even if you’re suspicious of what’s behind the information, do so.

SUGGESTION FOUR: DIG DEEPER

In today’s social-media-driven world, it’s easy to see a headline, accept it as gospel, and move on. Don’t. I’ll confess that, from time to time, I log onto Huff Post or similar Liberal pages (or watch a short clip from “Morning Joe”).  But I learned long ago that both sides of the political divide like to “gild the lily” as Grandmother Munger used to say. A number of times, I’ve read a headline on a Liberal media site, said to myself, That’s interesting, and opened the article only to find that the hook exaggerated the facts. My caution to you is, regardless of whether it’s a piece by Hannity or Scarborough (or anyone else) read, watch, or listen to the offering in its entirety. Don’t rely upon a headline, or worse yet, someone else’s interpretation of the information, for the basis of your opinion

SUGGESTION FIVE: READ BOOKS

No, not mine (unless you want to!) I’m talking about investing time, either listening to audio books, reading books on Kindle, or reading a book the old-fashioned way. And in this vein, here’s a thought. Before getting on the band wagon to ban a book in a school or library, why not actually read what’s been written before allowing censorship by a school board, a governor, or some other authority figure to ban someone’s words? One school district in Florida is, at present, considering dictionaries and encyclopedias as books worthy of such consideration. Really? That’s damn scary stuff to anyone, Liberal or Conservative. Maybe Webster’s including the term “transgender” somehow will magically turn Florida children into furries. I doubt it but I’d suggest that, before such things are accepted, citizens actually read and weigh in on books being scrutinized. And while I’m at it, did you know that half of our population (the female half) buys 80% of all the books sold in America? That’s unacceptable, men. We need to be reading, learning, and growing regardless of our age, gender, or political affiliation. So read, gosh darn it, and hopefully some of your reading includes history, biography, fiction, and poetry; not just the latest tomes from political pundits or celebrities.

SUGGESTION SIX: STOP WEARING POLITICAL SIGNS AS CLOTHING

In our home, there’s an old John Kerry for president ball cap hanging on a hook. No one wears it. Not out of shame or remorse but out of respect for others who might not view the world as our family does. I also have a “46” tee (in honor of Biden’s win) in my closet but only wear it around the house. Not out to dinner. Not to church (yes, some Liberals actually go to church!). Not to the local Y. Not to the mall. Same is true of my “Shut Up Man!” tee (my favorite Biden debate response). While I love Uncle Joe and want him to serve another four years, I don’t need to parade my support around town. My suggestion to my Conservative friends? If you own a MAGA hat, sweatshirt, or tee, maybe consider leaving it at home rather than trying to stir up an argument. Sure, I get there’s a right to free speech. I’m not saying anyone should be prevented from expressing their politics. I’m just saying wearing a political billboard in public  (not talking about at campaign events here) isn’t helping us to talk things through. You won’t sway me with your tee shirt and I won’t sway you with my ball cap.

SUGGSTION SEVEN: TAKE DOWN THE FLAGS

Folks in my neck of the woods continued flying flags supporting the ex-President for months following January 6^th. During the 2020 election, my wife and I spent time in an Arizona RV park surrounded by such flags. Did it make me feel uncomfortable to be in the minority? Sure. Did I object or start arguments with my fellow campers? Of course not. And after the election, after Biden won the popular vote and eclipsed the prior Occupant’s “electoral landslide” (his words, not mine), the next time we were in the park, the flags were gone. We can have a debate about the validity of the election results. We may disagree as to whether the events of January 6^th, including the actions of the former president, constitute fomenting an insurrection. But I’d prefer letting juries decide such things. Continuing to fly MAGA flags after that terrible January day isn’t fostering productive dialogue. So, instead of flying such a flag at your cabin, from your boat, or on your pickup, take it down. Invite me over for coffee and conversation. But be prepared: I won’t allow you to rest on fiction; I’ll ask for the sources behind your positions and your views.

SUGGESTION EIGHT: WALK A MILE IN SOMEONE ELSE’S SHOES

This is my biggest criticism of the former Occupant. He, in my humble view, is entirely devoid of empathy. He cannot, will not, place himself in the shoes of another. Christ encouraged us, throughout the Gospels, to do just that. You don’t have to be a Christian to accept that, before you cast the first stone, you should look at yourself. As an example, every one of us (with the exception of descendants of African slaves brought here against their wills; or Native Americans on whose land we now tread) are the progeny of immigrants. Yes, the southern border needs addressing. But before you decide how that should be accomplished, do the hard work of reading up and listening to and watching news reports covering the issue. Do the same for any issue you’re concerned about. Then, as Christ would, put yourself in the shoes of the people being affected by the issue.

SUGGESTION NINE: DO THE HARD WORK

In my vocation as a novelist/writer, I find myself relying upon the internet to research events, people, and places. As I do so, I’m constantly checking the source I’m consulting against other sources to ensure I’m not relying upon an article, movie, clip, or book based upon magical thinking or revisionist history. As an example, I’m currently working on a novel based upon my Slovenian heritage. In  nutshell, I’m trying to understand what happened in the Balkans from 1918 through present day. In doing research, I must constantly guard against bias, be it Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, or Bosnian, as to what happened and why. To do so takes hard study and in-depth probing. It might seem like a lot to ask you to be similarly thorough with respect to your political views. But, if you’re casting a vote for a candidate based upon his or her views, upon his or her perceptions of reality, don’t you owe it to America (and to your kids and grandkids) to do the hard work and make sure what you’re being sold is the real deal and not a catch phrase based upon fiction or bias?

SUGGESTION TEN: BE INVOLVED AND VOTE

I may not like your position on an issue. I may not support your views of a candidate or a platform or where America is headed. That’s OK. Our Founders didn’t always agree with one another when they created, out of whole cloth, the Great American Experiment. But if you take the above to heart and choose to support or vote for a party or cause or candidate after you’ve done your best to ferret out truth from fiction, I can live with that.

Peace

Mark

Recently, an old friend, whom I admire both for his wisdom and pragmatism, asked me to watch the documentary, The Fall of Minneapolis. After watching the first five minutes, wherein the intentions of the folks behind the film are made abundantly clear (the main premise being that the conviction of Derek Chauvin for the intentional murder of George Floyd was a sham), I emailed my friend and said, “No, I’m not going to watch the rest. I already know where it’s headed.” But my wife, a very thoughtful, retired mental health professional, convinced me I needed to watch the entire documentary to come to a judgment regarding its merit. So I did.

Before I discuss the factual and legal fallacies inherent in the film, let me raise a couple preliminary points.

I’m in the midst of reading the complete works of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I have, for the better part of a year, been steeped in King’s message of nonviolent change. I’m at the point in King’s journey where he’s dealing with advocates of Black Power: younger, more strident Black men and women tired of the slow, steady, drip-drip of attaining civil rights. King watched the Watts and Detroit and other riots of the mid-60s, his people fueled by rage and anxiety and poverty and hate to destroy the cities they lived in due to frustration at the pace of racial reform. As the riots unfolded, King believed his way, the nonviolent path to racial justice in America, was in jeopardy. I write this so you understand: I don’t minimize or condone what the rioters did in Minneapolis or any other American city following Mr. Floyd’s death. Violent crimes were committed and the folks who committed those crimes should be held accountable. In addition, much of the film deals with the angst and heartache and loss and sadness and fear experienced by the Minneapolis police officers who worked out of the 3rd Precinct and were forced to retreat from their beloved station house. They were heroes, doing heroic things to try to keep order and peace in a neighborhood on fire. The officers failed in their attempt to keep the peace, not due to a lack of courage or will but due to overwhelming odds against them. There’s no shame in that and I honor their sacrifice and their service. 

When I conduct historical research or in-person interviews for my books (or when I worked as a judge and attorney) I am and was cognizant of the training I received as a college student working on research assignments handed out by my history and political science professors, as well as the research protocols I learned as a law student, legal assistant, and full-time legal researcher while attending William Mitchell College of Law. In any such enterprise, the fundamental questions to be asked are:

1. What is the source of any background material?; and
2. What biases do the witnesses and/or the individuals (including me!) asking questions bring to an interview?

The film begins with footage of the arrest of George Floyd. Let’s remember that Mr. Floyd had not been accused of committing a violent crime. He was accused (by a shop owner) of attempting to pass a counterfeit $20 bill; a financial offense. For certain, passing/possessing a fake $20 bill can be charged as a felony. But the question I’ve never been able to answer is whether Floyd knew the bill was fake. That’s something any prosecutor charging Mr. Floyd would want to know and the answer, so far as I’m aware, died with Mr. Floyd. Given the nature of the allegation, the interaction between the suspect (Floyd) and the officers (Chauvin and others on scene) should, all things being equal, have been a routine matter. For a number of reasons, it wasn’t.

There’s no question Floyd was high on illegal narcotics, including fentanyl and meth. That combination didn’t assist his cognition or how he responded to officers. But in the initial interaction, it’s clear Floyd isn’t verbally abusive or cursing or disrespecting the officers. He’s mostly polite, if excited, and largely cooperative with commands to leave the van he’s seated in. The video shows at least one officer approaching the parked van with his handgun raised and pointed at Floyd. I understand officers believed something was going on inside the van (cops call such behaviors “furtive movements”) which made them wary. But a cadre of uniformed cops approaching a Black man, with at least one gun raised, shouting the “F word” at the top of their lungs would be enough to make even the most compliant and calm citizen nervous. 

Additionally, young Black men have been taught for generations that policemen, Black, white, purple or orange, are not necessarily their friends. This urban understanding is historical and long-standing. I have four sons. I’ve never had “The Talk” with my sons about potential interactions with police because, well, they’re white and that discussion is something Black parents have with their sons. That Mr. Floyd becomes more and more upset, as no officer on the scene takes the time to calmly defuse the situation and explain that Floyd is suspected of a financial crime, might not be understandable to me, an old white man. But it’s understandable to George Floyd and generations of Black men.

Let’s also remember that the Minneapolis Police Department has a history of misconduct based upon race. Remember: this is the same department, that, when dealing with an intoxicated Native American, saw its officers shove the man into the trunk of a squad car for the ride back to the precinct. That incident, and countless others, have cost the city money in civil settlements over the years. That history, well known throughout the state, is part of a larger legacy of racial profiling and mistreatment of citizens of Color by the Minneapolis police. It’s not me saying that: it’s the United States Department of Justice and State of Minnesota agencies saying such is the case in their official findings.

Back to the film. 

With respect to source material, the movie is less than two hours long. Testimony, instructions, and arguments in Chauvin’s jury trial took more than a month. For the first fifteen minutes or so of the movie, we’re provided snippets of body camera footage from cameras worn by three of the four responding officers. So I raise this question: Why is there zero, repeat zero, footage from Derek Chauvin’s body cam included in this film? After all, that footage was viewed by the jury and presumably, if they did their job, jurors considered that evidence in arriving at their verdict. To this researcher, reporter, trial lawyer, and judge, that’s a glaring, selective omission and, likely, by its absence, an admission that the footage doesn’t support the film’s political agenda.

Additionally, the journalist on camera conducting interviews needs some discussion as well. The photo at the top of this piece is of former WCCO reporter, Liz Collins: the face and voice behind the film. It’s important to understand that Ms. Collin is married to the former head of the Minneapolis Police Federation. After a lengthy career as a cop and union steward, the husband, Bob Kroll, found himself under scrutiny for a number of things, not the least of which was wearing an arm patch (off-duty) supporting white supremacy. He left his post in January of 2021 and, in 2023, settled a civil lawsuit filed by the ACLU regarding his actions following the murder of Mr. Floyd. The financial terms of that agreement are sealed but the settlement includes a provision that Kroll not seek employment with any law enforcement agency located in Hennepin, Ramsey, or Anoka Counties. This husband and wife connection, a clear conflict of journalistic interest for Ms. Collin, is undisclosed in the film. 

Further, while the fact a book about the Chauvin trial and the violent riots following Floyd’s murder (They’re Lying: The Media, the Left, and the Death of George Floyd) is referenced at the film’s conclusion, nowhere are viewers told that the person conducting the interviews and the person who penned the book is Ms. Collin. And it’s curious to me that Collin’s name, unlike the names of witnesses she interviewed, never appears beneath her during the film (as least so far as I can recall). Wouldn’t it be important, in assessing bias of the reporter asking questions, to know she’s married to a cop (and not just any cop but the head of the police union) and that she has already, as indicated by the title of her book, made up her mind regarding who is the real victim in her saga?

Now, let’s examine the folks who speak on camera and support the film’s conclusion that Chauvin did nothing wrong. Collin parades ex-Minneapolis officers, sergeants, lieutenants, and the mothers of two of the convicted officers to establish a number of points of view. Understand: all of this narrative would be irrelevant and inadmissible in a criminal trial. Just like a defendant’s prior arrests or an officer’s prior instances of excessive force and/or misconduct are, under general precepts of evidence, irrelevant and not fodder for jury consumption, so too are the opinions of the officers and the mothers shown on camera. I wasn’t at the trial and I didn’t follow it day to day. But I know it’s likely that both sides presented evidence regarding whether the “hold” used by Chauvin was proper police procedure under Minneapolis rules and guidelines. Such evidence would have been presented by experts (training officers) who reviewed the manuals, training videos, and other evidence of what Chauvin was actually taught. Both sides would’ve called their experts: the state, to show Chauvin’s conduct was beyond the pale; the defense, to show Chauvin did what he was taught to do. The officers who appear in the film (other than a self-serving audio by Chauvin from his prison cell: “I did nothing wrong”), so far as I know, don’t have the expertise to provide such evidence. If they did, they would’ve qualified as experts and been allowed to present their opinions to the jury.

More broadly, who and what is Alpha News, the outlet behind this documentary? According to reputable media watchdog groups (e.g., www.factcheck.org) Alpha News is:

• A conservative news outlet founded in 2015 by Tea Party Activists;
• A media organization with questionable veracity and reliability based upon poor sourcing of information, promotion of conspiracy theories, anti-Islamic propaganda, bias, and a lack of transparency as to its funding and ownership.

On the company’s website, Liz Collin is listed as a principal reporter/journalist working for and at Alpha. I don’t know about you but I don’t get my news from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or any other cable/streaming outlet. I get my news from PBS, the three major networks, our local TV and radio news outlets, and mainstream newspapers.

Much is made of “missing” or “withheld” body cam videos. The innuendo is that someone: the AG, the police chief, Mayor Frey, President Biden, Governor Waltz, the Court, or perhaps Pope Francis, deliberately excluded relevant body cam footage from the jurors’ review of evidence. No. Close scrutiny of the film establishes that, while that allegation is made at the beginning of the documentary, what in fact was excluded from jury consideration was body cam video taken after George Floyd died. The videos referenced are shown towards the end of the film and include efforts by Officer Kueng to apply CPR in the ambulance (but Floyd was already dead) and footage depicting conversations held in the ambulance cab between Kueng and an EMT. None of that would be relevant at trial given the charges involved murder, which had already occurred. 

The film also includes an interview of a nurse anesthetist. In her discussion of the case, she states that: a. a mistake was made by the EMTs with respect to providing oxygen to Mr. Floyd; and b. she has an opinion regarding George Floyd’s cause of death. Again, the nurse being interviewed did not, so far as I know, testify as to either issue. Why? Even though, as a nurse, she may be qualified to give certain opinion testimony in a trial, her views regarding perceived EMT errors, while interesting, are not probative as to why Floyd died unless she has the necessary expertise to establish some causal connection between such errors and his death. Further, nurses don’t testify in courtrooms regarding causes of death. MEs, coroners, and pathologists carry that evidentiary burden. She may have a personal opinion as to cause of death based upon her background but she doesn’t have the necessary experience, education, or training to testify about the same in front of a jury. 

Collin also interviews a general surgeon on similar topics. In a telling exchange, the doctor admits his views are based upon hearsay (“I’m told …). He also downplays the fact that the autopsy, which found the actions of Derek Chauvin (kneeling on Floyd’s sternum/neck area for 7-9 minutes) likely caused Floyd’s fatal heart attack, had its conclusions peer reviewed. That review found the ME’s conclusions (testified to at trial) were supported by the science behind the medicine. Finally, the general surgeon, who might be able to testify regarding cause of death but who, to my knowledge did not do so at trial, indicates the involvement of the FBI in the investigation into Mr. Floyd’s murder is a “red flag”; intimating that there’s sculduggery afoot to wrongfully convict an innocent man (Chauvin). 

The film makes a great fuss about whether “MRT”, an arrest technique described in Minneapolis police training manuals and policies, is what Derek Chauvin applied when he knelt on Floyd’s neck/shoulder/chest area for 7-9 minutes. In the movie, officer after officer sympathetic to Chauvin makes the claim that MRT includes the maneuver/technique deployed by Chauvin. However, no interviewee is able to supply Collin with a video or a diagram from Minneapolis police training materials depicting the technique. Not even Chauvin’s mother, who holds up two manuals (owned by her son) for the camera, is able to open either manual and prove that MRT, as described in the manuals, includes the hold Chauvin used on George Floyd. There’s a still photograph in the video demonstrating the technique but we have no idea where it came from and, if it wasn’t from Minneapolis training materials, the trial judge would’ve barred it from jury consideration as irrelevant. That some other department, in some other city or state or county allows the technique and teaches it isn’t the issue. A similar, grainy, hard to see line drawing of the technique likely ran up against the same evidentiary bar. But it must be repeated again: the manuals introduced at trial, the testimony that the jury saw and heard regarding MRT, apparently did not establish that what Derek Chauvin was doing to George Floyd for 7-9 minutes was, at the time, an approved Minneapolis police procedure. 

Which leads to this question. If Derek Chauvin was trained by the Minneapolis police department in a technique he says was part and parcel of MRT, why didn’t he explain that to the jury? Sure. Jurors are admonished by the judge at the end of the case that the state must prove a defendant’s guilt; that it’s absolutely within a defendant’s right not to testify and that his or her silence cannot be weighed against the defendant. And yet, if things were as Mr. Chauvin believes, that all he was doing was his job, following protocol, using approved techniques to subdue Mr. Floyd, why not tell the jury? And, while you’re it, tell them, that while you were just doing your job, you now regret a man lost his life in the process. Those things didn’t happen because Chauvin decided not to clear the air.

There’s a hint in the video that Derek Chauvin couldn’t get a fair trial in Minneapolis given pre-trial publicity and the riots that engulfed the 3rd Precinct and other parts of North Minneapolis. Ask yourselves this question: given a state court case cannot be moved out of the state where the crime was allegedly committed, what far reach of Minnesota was not affected by the murder of George Floyd and its attendant publicity? What other jurisdiction within Minnesota could provide the necessary security, jury facilities, and a similar jury pool (including jurors of Color)? In the end, it’s within a trial judge’s discretion to grant or deny a motion to change venue (I both granted and denied such motions as a jurist) and if Judge Cahill got it wrong, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court all have the ability to vacate a wrongful conviction, grant Mr. Chauvin a new trial, and order that the second trial be moved. The reviewing courts declined to do any of those things. 

A couple of other observations gleaned by a fact-finder of forty years’ experience. One of the allegations, not necessarily proven during the Floyd trial but one advanced in political, social, and cultural circles, is that the Minneapolis police department had, over considerable time, demonstrated racism during interactions with young Black men. Racism is a strong word. I don’t know what’s in a man or woman’s heart. But one of the officers in the film, when discussing Floyd’s situation, uses the phrase, “Well, if a person is colored …” That caught my attention as it’s the sort of language my ignorant paternal grandmother used when discussing Black folks. She often, in a very pejorative way, called Blacks, “coloreds” or “darkies”. Both terms carry connotations of prejudice. Then too, Officer Keung, his mother and other interviewees spend time pointing out that Keung is Black and that he’s listed as the arresting officer. But, as other police officers (including respected chiefs of police) have pointed out in the aftermath of the Floyd verdict, the fact Keung is Black doesn’t and didn’t insulate him from becoming part of the Blue Wall. As an officer responding to a situation where a superior (Chauvin) was acting in a fashion not in keeping with “protect and serve”, it doesn’t matter if Leung is Black, Asian, Native American or white. It matters he was complicit in a man’s death at the hands of a fellow officer. 

There’s a scene towards the end of the film where an officer is standing next to his or her (the footage is grainy) squad car and a citizen throws a hub cap. The cap strikes the officer in the head and drops him/her to the ground. No explanation or context is included. What’s depicted is a heinous and unprovoked attack. But stop the video. Rewind it (as I did). Study the emblem on the squad car. Study the writing on the driver’s door. Compare it to the earlier views of the marked squads that responded to the counterfeit bill call. To me, the emblems don’t match. The writing on the car doors doesn’t match. To me, the incident shown is yet another attempt to advance an agenda. That’s not reportage or an honest exploration of the facts. 

A last word. I’m deeply troubled that, if one clicks on Ms. Collin’s book title on Amazon and looks at the ratings and reviews, one finds universal praise for her work. No, this isn’t my ego rising up; my hackles being raised by a competing author’s success. I wish Ms. Collin well in her writerly pursuits. But it’s deeply disturbing to this old man-someone whose professional career was an attempt, perhaps misguided, to attain justice for the ordinary folks I represented as a lawyer and the citizens who appeared before me as a judge-that facts no longer seem to matter in our democracy.

Here’s what you need to do to prevent being hoodwinked by such faux news. Stop. Consider the source of the information. Then, dig deeper. Go behind the headlines. Uncover the reality concealed by fantasy.

The truth is out there waiting to be discovered. I am certain of that.

Peace

Judge Mark Munger (Retired)

See also:

https://thebradentontimes.com/stories/letter-fall-of-minneapolis-documentary,68870?

Here’s the unedited version of my interview in FAR with Finnish American author, Tim Jollymore.

MM:

Kiitos for doing this, Tim. Let’s start with your surname. Jollymore certainly doesn’t seem to be Finnish and yet, we run into each other at all these Finn Fests and events! Give the readers of FAR a brief explanation of your heritage and how Finnishness fits into your upbringing.

TJ:  Both my first and most recent novel (Listener in the Snow and The Nothing That Is Not There, respectively) investigate this conundrum of identity: How can a fellow named Jollymore be Finnish?

The short answer, and one very incomplete, is that once in America, my grandmother Ruth Martin of Kokkola, Finland, married the immigrant Andrew Lumppio. My mother, born in  Cloquet, 1915 then, was as Finnish as her mother and father were.

Had Elsie Elizabeth, my mother, met and married a Finn, I would have fully identified as the same, but then entered the handsome, half-Irish, French Huguenot and German John Jollymore, my father, who was as proud of his own heritage as he was unfamiliar with mom’s. The result was that the Jollymore in me was raised up and the Lumppio in me was suppressed, although  never extinguished.

Being Finnsh, then, was more an aspiration, more a search, more a mystery to me than it was a belonging, a surrounding of culture, or familiarity with  practices and foods that were Finnish at their root. It was not until adulthood that I tasted (and made) pulla, had enjoyed a wood-fired sauna, spent a summer at the cabin, or had spoken even a word of the language.

In a sense, the search for identity that Tatty Langille, my hero in the books cited above, is represented in my own life: a choosing  among things Finnish over the things of the wider European tradition.

MM:

You’re a writer and a playwright who’s written a number of novels. What writers have influenced your work? Who do you consider to be your mentors? Are any of the works distinctly Finnish in culture, history, plot, or character?

TJ:

I grew up an English major, so, of course, I’ve read the cannon that was current, say, in 1968, but I seldom now think of or mention anyone but Fitzgerald and George Orwell. Writers creating work since then have more meaning for me now: Sigred Nunez (The Last of Her Kind), Paul Auster (Leviathan and The New York Trilogy), Cormac McCarthy, and the Scandinavians: Knut Hamsun, Laxness, Petterson, Gaarder  and Knausgard.

I single out Diego Maroni’s New Finnish Grammar (a novel) which takes up Finnish identity in a most fascinating and surprising story of engaging and learning culture from an absolutely blank slate, something my own Finnish identity lives within.

MM:

You’re presently located in California. Could you give the readers of FAR a history of your education, employment, and background as to how you ended up on the West Coast?

TJ:

I grew up in my dad’s town, Proctor, and my mother’s town, Cloquet, then spent thirteen years in Duluth, half of that in college at UMD. I earned my MA degree at Duluth. I never intended to leave the area and have always and do now love the town. But Honeywell, Inc. had plans for me in Minneapolis and San Francisco. The company so well respected in Minnesota, was just another pretty face on the coast and our relationship did not last. Finally, I found and rededicated myself to teaching, Advanced Placement English. Teaching writing proved an easy step into professional writing. Since 2014 I’ve published seven books of fiction as well as publishing the fiction and poetry of others.

MM:

Finns Way is your publishing enterprise. Could you explain the origination of Finns Way, the ins and outs of self-publishing, and what are the benefits and/or downsides to being your own publisher. What advice would you give to would-be writers who are thinking about going the route of self-publication.

TJ:

I publish my own work and the work of two other authors, one’s a poet. Using my own imprint allows my work to be read. Had I insisted on finding an agent or other publisher, my words would likely have been less widely distributed.  A cursory glance on-line tells us that of five million titles  published annually nearly four million are self-publications. The main difference will be that the self-published works sell fewer copies each (mainly because of lack of promotional funding) but in aggregate own 30-40% of the market. Traditional publishers are certainly better at promoting new titles than a new self-published author can ever hope to be. Self-publication, though, opens more door to a variety of voices.

MM:

Have you visited Finland? If so, what were your impressions of the country, its people, its history and geography? If not, any plans to do so in the future?

TJ:

I have spent time in Helsinki, Truro, and Kokkola. “Progressive” and proud, but not in an overweening or obnoxious way, is how I’d characterize Finland and the Finnish. Left to their own devices the Finns are ingenious and highly creative folk.  Unfortunately, the history of the country and people is replete with interference (Swedish, Russian, and German) from outside. I most admire the Finnish dedication to excellence in education and support of the newborn citizens of their republic. I was able to participate in this last by sending a “baby box” to my son before the birth of my grandson. He’s an honorary Finn and 12%-er.

MM:

Your novel, Listener in the Snow, draws from Native American mysticism and religion. Do you have indigenous heritage? If not, what are the drawbacks to a non-Native utilizing Native American characters in a fictional work? If so, what from that heritage to you draw upon to formulate the plot and characters of the book?

TJ:

Any author works both within and outside of their zone of comfort. Far from gender or cultural appropriation, the active author must strive to characterize and authentically portray characters of another sex, age, culture, or set of interests. As long as same-gender authors and writers working within their cultural milieu are promoted, there is less danger in a majority imposing its understanding of gender and culture on others. Leave the judgment to quality and depth of the character and narrative.

MM:

What are you currently working on? Is there a snippet of your work-in-progress, maybe a short scene or exchange of dialogue, you’d be willing to share with our readers? When do you expect the work to be published? Where can the new book, and all your other books, be purchased by readers?

TJ: In the last few years, I took a turn at something very different: The Final Confession of Saint Augustine, an historical novel set in the north African 5^th century. It is a scholarly work with dynamite plot and character twists. My challenge, beside historical accuracy, was to portray the characters both from the historical contemporaneous standpoint, that is to show Augustine, for instance, as a Catholic church father, a flesh and blood man, and as an interior character with the usual blindsides, fears, and weaknesses. That work has been warmly received.

Last year, while touring with The Final Confession of Saint Augustine, a classmate of mine from Cloquet High asked, “Tim, why haven’t you written a sequel to Listener in the Snow? We all wonder what happened to those people.” After thinking about it a day or two, I committed myself to give it a try. Within nine months, The Nothing That Is Not There was ready for publication. Lovers of Listener will be pleased.

MM:

Last question. What’s on your reading and signing calendar for the coming days? Any appearances back home in Minnesota?

TJ:

I appeared at Finn Fest 2023 in July. Coming up are events at Hakensack, MN, The Art and Book Festival, August 12, at North Country Booksellers in White Bear Lake, MN on August 19, Chapter 2 Books in Hudson, Wisconsin, August 26, a CHS class party, August 19, Ely’s Harvest Moon Festival, September 8-10, and events at The Coffee Landing, International Falls, the Thunderbird Lodge, Rainy Lake, MN, and Nelson’s Resort, Crane Lake, MN. I leave for California in September. Finn Fest 2024 is a likelihood.

Tito: The Story from Inside by Milovan Djilas (1981. Phoenix. ISBN 1-84212-047-6)

In my continuing research regarding my manuscript, Slovenci (The Slovenians), I picked up my second book by one of Josip Broz’s (Tito’s) understudies. Here, Djilas, writing after his fall from grace (1954) chronicles Yugoslavia’s wartime hero in terms of personality, traits, and actions. Djilas carefully avoids sounding like he has a bone to pick with Tito, despite being removed from office, incarcerated (twice), and reduced to a mere private citizen because of his “anti-Communist”, revisionist views. In essence, the journalist and one-time Partisan ends up in Tito’s doghouse because he believes that more personal freedoms, both individual and economic, need to be incorporated into the Yugoslav political equation, especially after Stalin’s death changes the interplay between the countries. 

Tito, who was pragmatic enough not to completely nationalize the entirety of the agricultural output of the united nation, and who, for a time, tolerated Djilas and others gently questioning the direction of the country after its break with Stalin in 1948, finally had enough dissent. His retribution, disguised and carried out by other functionaries, left one of his closest advisors in prison, shamed, and forever marked as unpatriotic. But through it all, the author manages to maintain sufficient distance from his own story to paint a thorough and fascinating portrait of a man whose persona held disparate peoples together until his death. 

Djilas is wise enough to understand that, with Tito’s passing, the dream of Yugoslavia would likely come to an end. And it did.

4 stars out of 5.

Peace

Mark

Surface Displacements by Sheila Packa (2022. Wildwood River Press. ISBN 978-1-947787-36-0

I woke to an acre of mayflies

a lace of water lilies and weeds

before and after

nudges of waves

coming to and from the island

a cloud on the water, thick pollen afloat

and lines crossing.

Confession time. I know the poet. She knows me and has even been a pre-reader for Sukulaiset. So take my review here with a grain of salt. But I have to say, friend or not, I thoroughly enjoyed my time with Ms. Packa as encapsulated in her latest volume of poems. Why?

First, she carefully and dutifully explores NE MN, where both of us have lived the majority of our lives. It takes someone who is born (or has spent extensive time in) the gabbro and peat and muskeg and open pit mines and black water to do this place justice. And she has. Second, the title cleverly sets the stage for an examination of the displacements we, as northerners living in a land of cold and snow and mining (and, sometimes seemingly incomprehensibly, wilderness) and our ancestors, be they Finnish (Packa’s) or mine (Slovenian) commonly experience. One might argue that her musings about our “neck of the woods” containing three continental divides (the Arctic Ocean to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and the Gulf of Mexico to the south), given the erosive power of the rivers raging to those compass points, forms a third displacement, one based upon geographical orientation and watery flow.

I sat in my easy chair in my writing studio over a period of a couple of weeks inhaling these little gems of verse and wisdom. I was unhappy my time with this work ended so quickly. That said, this is my first review typed at my new stand-up desk in my studio space, a feature that my newly fused and titaniumized low back sorely (pun intended) needed. All things considered, fused spine and all, I’m happy to give the newest effort from Duluth’s former poet-laureate a big thumbs up.

4 and 1/2 stars out of 5.

Peace

Mark

Land Without Justice by Milovan Djilas (1958. Harcourt. ISBN 978-1-15-648117)

Just so you know. I’m in the process of trying to write a second historical novel regarding Slovenia from the 1930s to present day. My first effort, The Legacy, was well received but I feel, in retrospect, taht novel was a bit too sentimental in its treatment of the rise and fall of Tito, Yugoslavia’s dictator who controlled the fate of the Balkans until his death. In my second attempt at writing the Great Slovenian American novel, I’m trying to paint with a broader brush and understand why, within a decade of Tito’s demise, Yugoslavia ceased to be and the region once again found itself plunged into terror and war. In any event, I’m reading some of the literature of Milovan Djilas, one of Tito’s trusted lieutenants who, in 1954, ended up falling from grace to spend decades in prison and/or under house arrest. This is the first of two Djilas books I’m using as background for the middle portion of my novel, the timeframe being post-war through Tito’s death. 

This is an interesting read in that, rather than focus on Yugoslavia as a whole, it’s a patchwork of anecdotes concerning the author’s upbringing (and his family’s history) in the tiny state of Montenegro. Essentially, one gets, from reading this irregular narrative, that Montenegrins share with their Serbian brothers and sisters a history of repression and prejudice at the hands of the Ottomans, who ruled both nation-states into the late 1800s. This, in the author’s skilled prose, begets atrocities on both sides of the ledger: cruelty and nastiness permeates virtually every corner of Montenegrin and Serbian society during the timeframe of the tale. From that standpoint, it makes what happened in 1991, when the federal state so carefully managed and nurtured by Tito and his Communists, a union of six Balkan states, including Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, and Macedonia, blew apart, understandable. Certainly not laudable. But understandable.

I found this book to be a valuable addition to my understanding of the circumstances confronting the Balkans before, during, and after the Great War. But given the slightly disjointed nature of the storytelling, it’s not quite the classic I’d hoped for.

3 and 1/2 Stars out of Five.

Peace

Too Much and Never Enough by Mary Trump (2020. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-9821-4146-2)

I get it, Dr. Trump. I really do. After spending time reading your analyses of your uncle, former president (and hopefully, soon-to-be convicted felon) Donald J. Trump, after wading through your version of family history beginning with the great grandparents of the House of Trump, carefully assessing your views of the patriarch of the family’s real estate business, grandfather Fred Trump (and his often ill, never child-centric wife), my conclusion about your book is exactly the conclusion I came to with respect to Right-wing iconoclast Mike Savage’s terrible book, Banned in Britain: you could have spared us all a long, tedious slide into Trump slimedom by writing a succinct opinion piece for any major newspaper. Instead, readers, who must spend hours of time inside a very fucked up family, are treated to few new revelations and asked to navigate a fairly listless, factless, and uninspired reportage of grievances you hold against Grandpa Fred, with a few sidelong glares tossed The Donald’s way.

Sure, I understand that Grandpa was aloof, unloving, and really a no-good bastard bent at all costs to make money: the one and only god he and his younger son, the Donald, worship. It’s obvious you feel you father, the eldest Trump son, Freddie, got a raw deal; that the Klown Prince of the family, the dilettante playboy-turned serial husband and money loser stole your father’s inheritance (and yours), not to mention your dad’s rightful place in the sun. But really, aren’t you, in your indictment, overlooking your own father’s failings, including his inability to manage money or his sobriety, to toss vitriol at a dead man? Sure, you throw The Donald into the same pit of inequity and dishonesty and “money at all costs” that claimed Grandpa Fred’s soul. And you do include some casual, non-specific, generic references to the former president’s sociopathic behaviors. But that’s not new information, revelatory or, likely-given the multiple axes you juggle as you grind them against the lodestone of history-to convince anyone who believes the chief liar’s lies of your major premise: that the man is dangerous and shouldn’t be given sharp scissors, much less nuclear warheads.

I so wanted to like this book. I cannot stand the man who’s the subject of this tome. And yet, I came away a very disappointed reader.

2 stars out of 5. Wait for the movie version starring Christian Bale as The Donald … (JK)

Peace

Mark

(Find my review of Savage’s hit piece by typing in “Banned in Britain ” in this website’s search bar, above right.)

Today, my local paper, the Duluth News Tribune, published my rather lengthy (what did you expect from a novelist?) rumination on the writing life. You can read the edited version here:

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/columns/local-view-how-does-an-author-know-when-its-time-to-rest-the-pen.

Or the unedited version here:

                                                            A WRITER’S JOURNEY

It started with a subtle suggestion from my wife. On the eve of my first spinal fusion surgery in 1991, René knew, given my OCD nature, I’d be a handful for her if I didn’t keep my mind and my body occupied. “You’re going to be off work for three months,” she said as we rode to a medical appointment with my neurosurgeon, “you need to do something to occupy your time.”

I shrugged, looked out the window and simply let her keep going. “Why don’t you write a novel? You’ve always wanted to,” she added.

            I won’t belabor the point. I’ve told many gatherings, book clubs, and groups who’ve come to hear me speak since my first novel, The Legacy, hit bookstores in October of 2000, how I came to writing, how, as a small child learning to read, I penned my first “book”, a daring-a-do adventure saga entitled The Priates and the Two Man (The Pirates and the Two Men) in Mrs. Nelson’s first grade class. The writing bug struck early, stayed with me through high school (I was the sports editor of the Denfeld Criterion), but took a hiatus during college and law school. Still, even while navigating courses and papers and professors on my way to attaining a juris doctorate degree, I remained an avid reader. Mostly of historical and contemporary fiction: books like Lonesome Dove, The Thorn Birds, Rich Man, Poor Man and The Godfather. It wasn’t until we moved back to Duluth and started practicing law that I explored the classics: diving into Hemingway, Tolstoy, D.H. Lawrence, and other authors of note. Those novels rekindled a desire, an urge, a calling, if you will, to write. But instead of staking out a plot of writerly ground from which to plant and harvest fiction, I started writing a column for my local newspaper, The Hermantown Star, a slice-of-life effort entitled “Living Out”, chronicling our family’s life in rural NE Minnesota in an old Sears farmhouse along the banks of the Cloquet River. For eight years, editor Cindy Alexander (and her successors) welcomed my essays portraying the antics of the Munger clan until, as I faced surgery, René issued her challenge to my creativity.

            Oh. I didn’t stop writing “Living Out”. Rather, that effort became secondary to my research and writing a James Michener-style combination historical novel/thriller set in my maternal grandfather’s homeland, Yugoslavia. From 1991 until 2000, I worked and reworked the novel, queried literary agents and publishers, and waited for someone to say, “This works. We’ll publish it!”. Along the way, I was hoodwinked by an unscrupulous agent, had a Canadian agent pass away just as she was going to accept the book, and tried to hold my fire and let things play out. In the end, the book came out in October of 2000 through Savage Press, a local collaborative publishing house, and became a regional bestseller.

            Following book tours (that took me from Youngstown, OH to Denver, CO and all points in between), I hunkered down to write Pigs, a Trial Lawyer’s Story, a John Grisham-style legal thriller set 0n Minnesota’s prairie. But even after the modest success of The Legacy, neither Savage nor any other publisher was interested in the manuscript. Which, after much consideration, led me to form Cloquet River Press (CRP) as a vehicle to self-publish Pigs in 2002. I’ll spare you the details of what that journey entailed, other than to simply chronicle, that, along the way, two of my U.S. distributors closed their doors; my Canadian wholesaler filed for bankruptcy; and I was left distributing my books through Ingram, the largest book wholesaler in the world. That wasn’t a good fit: the publishing game requires that books be sent to the wholesaler with the caveat that all books not sold are eligible to be returned to the publisher (me!) for full credit. In the end, that model proved too expensive and difficult for me to negotiate (I was working fulltime as a district court judge), which led me to rely heavily on hand sales (at events) and internet sales (through Amazon).

            I changed printers because I couldn’t afford to order books in amounts that allowed for a reasonable per-book-cost, migrating to KDP, Amazon’s self-publishing platform, where books are priced, not upon quantity ordered, but upon page count. Since moving to self-publication, a number of my novels, most notably the Finnish American trilogy (Suomalaiset, Sukulaiset, and Kotimaa) have sold well, with two of the Finnish historical novels garnering national grants towards publication. But I’ve never made money, much less broken even, on any book following the success of The Legacy. More devastating to my writerly ego, of the fourteen books (nine novels) I’ve penned in the past 30 years, nary a one has been seen worthy enough to be a regional or state-wide award winner (or even receive an honorable mention) from judges reviewing my work. Oh, a couple of short stories have won local writing contests but the collections containing those stories (Ordinary Lives and Kulukari (Vagabond) and Other Short Stories) have been largely ignored by the powers that be. Even so, I’ve soldiered on, my fragile ego buttressed by reviews from Kirkus, readers, and book clubs who’ve found my work worth a read. But a writer can only chase a dream so long. At some point, the costs associated with paying professional editors, printing review copies for pre-readers, and attending craft fairs, book fairs, and other events (which require paying a table or booth fee), and printing books for sale become something akin to Ahab sailing an endless ocean in search of a white whale.

            This book buying season, I find myself once again facing spinal fusion surgery. I’m not able to host a book launch of my latest tome, Muckraker, a Novel Noir, or attend book festivals, craft shows, or readings and signings. Like all my work, for better or for worse, I put my heart and my soul¾not to mention considerable coin¾into researching, writing, editing, formatting, and uploading my latest book onto KDP (Amazon’s printing arm) and Ingram Spark. My own hubris may have well brought me to this point, a point where I unplug my keyboard, end my research (the new book I’m working on is a massive historical novel chronicling Yugoslavia from its inception to its disintegration through multiple characters and families), and simply admit, “I’ve done the best can. It’s time to rest the pen.”

Agents? I queried an even one hundred while working on Muckraker, following the carefully described protocols on their websites when submitting the manuscript. Perhaps a dozen agents wrote back, saying, in essence, “Thanks, but no thanks.” Small presses? Two dozen received queries from me. I never heard back from a single one. So, as autumn turns to winter, as the sleeping lawn between my writing studio and the black waters of the Cloquet River whitens from snow, I’m left to consider: What now?

I’ll let you know if I arrive at an answer that suits both my writerly ego and my desire, my passion, to tell stories.

(Mark Munger is a life-long resident of NE MN, retired attorney and judge, author of 14 books, and a writer for the Finnish American Reporter.)

Little Fires Everywhere by Celeste Ng (2017. Audible. B074F3BX79)

I’ll confess. Before I listened to this audio version of Ng’s novel, I watched the Hulu series adapted from the book. I’d suggest reading or listening to the story first, then watching it, because once you spend time with Reece Witherspoon and Kerry Washington as the two primary characters in the video version, it’s awfully hard to get those faces and their depictions out of you mind while reading or listening to the novel. Still. Even after watching the series, I found the book extremely well-written, timely, and full of interesting character (if not plot) twists.

Elena Richardson is a well-off, well-meaning, wife, mother, and journalist who believes she is a modern, highly educated, race-neutral American woman. She and her husband and their three kids live in Shaker Heights, a planned suburban community outside of Cleveland where income, race, religion, and connections are believed not to matter. Mia Warren is an African American woman, artist, and mother of Pearl Warren, her only child (who was actually supposed to be adopted as a surrogate but Mia ran off before fulfilling her surrogacy contract). The Warrens end up living in a rental home owned by Elena, which is the foundation of the connection between the two families. 

I’ll not try to walk through all of the plot twists and turns in this short review. What I will divulge is that Ng tackles not only race as it pertains to interracial dating and the everyday interactions of Americans of different ethnicities, she heaps the social issue foundation that undergirds this lovely, well-written work with, as mentioned, additional questions devoted to surrogacy, abandonment, interracial adoption, poverty, white guilt, and a host of other triggers that keep the reader, viewer, and listener riveted on the story. 

A fine effort.

4 and 1/2 stars out of 5

Peace

Mark