“All that you are, Is the end of a nightmare! All that you are is a dying scream!”

Friends:

I can remember the specific moment in my life when my love of literature and reading was seriously challenged and I turned my mind away from the concept of literature as worthy of my efforts.  It was in 9^th grade English and the class was assigned to read Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado” for homework.  While reading we were to determine the story’s major irony and be ready for a quiz the next day.

If you are not familiar with the story, it concerns one man’s quest for revenge against the villain who offended him and it focuses on the “villain’s” love of wine (and especially a select barrel of Amontillado).  The main character lures his villain to the wine cellars with the promise of this rare and beautiful cask of wine and, in the process, convinces the villain to actually brick himself into the wine cellar to die.

Everyone in the class was in agreement that the major irony of the story was the fact that the “villain’s” love of wine was actually his undoing; that the wine he so loved was what ended up killing him.  Unfortunately, the teacher had other thoughts and we all failed the quiz.  Apparently the major irony of the story was the fact that the “villain’s” name was “Fortunato” and since he ended up dying at the end of the story, he wasn’t very fortunate was he?

Look, I can appreciate that people have different interpretations of literature.  Literature, like art, affects people in different ways and everyone brings their own perspective and prejudices to literature just as it would a painting or sculpture.  But the aspect of the exercise that truly injured my sensibilities was the fact that the teacher told me I was wrong.  Not that there was another interpretation, not that scholars have argued about this or that—no, the teacher categorically and with affirmation declared my interpretation of the literature as being wrong.

And that was enough for me to seriously fight with literature, something that I truly struggled with for about 20 years.  I still read excessively, but I stuck with the bestsellers and the throwaway novels.  When I had to read Melville’s “Billy Budd” in college, I warred with the professor over the interpretation that Billy Budd was a “Christ-figure.”  When I had to read “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” I presented a term paper that ripped the book to shreds and castigated it as the garbage-stylings of a drugged-out mind.  While I won’t say that I was scarred by my 9^th grade experience with Poe, I felt that my love of reading had been tarnished by a teacher who made me question my own abilities in reading comprehension.

But eventually, I began to come back around—now that no one can tell me I am wrong, I am venturing back out into the world of literature.  Certainly my stimulation by Dickens has been well documented here, but I have recently begun to explore other well-known works.  In fact, I just finished Robert Louis Stevenson’s “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” and I have to tell you that I truly dug it; it was just a cool, creative book. 

I also recently finished what many consider to be the greatest American novel ever written, “The Great Gatsby” and I have to confess, I don’t understand what the hubbub is all about.  I guess it was an ok story, but not terribly weighty, poor character development, and somewhat of a drag to get through.  And yet the “scholars” have figured out a way to find the symbolism in the work, to make the story something more, something bigger and more important than I certainly perceived. 

Which made me think again about how someone can be wrong about what they read.  When you go the book store, the sections are divided as “Mystery and Thriller,” “Science Fiction and Fantasy” and “Fiction and Literature.”  What makes a work simply “fiction,” and what puts it into the upper-echelon of “literature?”  Is it just the interpretation of “scholars?”  Look, a book can be really, really good, but is it literature?  Is “The Firm” literature or just a really good book?  In 50 years, will “scholars” be analyzing “The Da Vinci Code” to find its symbolism?  And if they come up with some “symbolism,” will it really be what Dan Brown had intended?  Do we give our authors that much credit?

Sure, I understand “Jekyll and Hyde” and the concept of the duality of our personalities.  But is it possible that Stevenson simply wanted to write a mystery novel and thought that a clever way to do it was to make the villain and the hero the same person?  Did he really intend for the novel to be this huge expose on the ogres inside of us just yearning to break free?

Did F. Scott Fitzgerald really intend for “Gatsby” to be so heavy with symbolism as to be fodder for scholars for decades thereafter?  Or was he just trying to sell some books and entertain people?

How do we know???

And yet, I am determined to still work through some of these “classics” of literature.  I stocked up my shelves with Faulkner and Conrad and Twain and Orczy and I will push through them, cheating with cliff notes if need be, but only to gain new perspectives on the novels, not to convince me that my interpretations of them are incorrect or wrong.  Take “Gatsby;” I feel no shame or dishonor in stating that I simply didn’t get it, that it was a fine novel but nothing earth shattering or awe-inspiring.  And no one can tell me I am wrong.  I just have a different perspective and understanding and I am absolutely fine with that. 

I think that our children are being done a disservice when it comes to literature.  I think we are all in agreement that we generally disliked books in school because we were forced to read them.  But I would argue differently with my newfound perspective.  I think that I disliked the books not because they were forced on me, but because I was in fear of being wrong in my interpretations.  I was gun-shy of expressing my own opinions for fear of getting a bad grade.

Literature must be taught like the art that it is; every one of us brings our own prejudices and life-experiences to literature and those beliefs and though-processes must be nurtured and encouraged, not suppressed.  I think we will have a much better-read society if we do that—because some of the literature I have read is pretty damn cool…

Now on to “The Catcher in the Rye.”  I can already hear Vin Scully with the narration- I so do love books about baseball…

” If I were the man I was five years ago, I’d take a FLAMETHROWER to this place!”

Friends:

I must confess to a little measure of confusion lately as to the lines that are drawn separating sports and competition from the law.  In basketball, a player clearly elbows another in the face with malicious intent—he doesn’t get arrested, he gets suspended for 7 games.  Or a baseball player, in a blind rage, throws his helmet at an umpire—he doesn’t get arrested, he gets suspended for 4 games.  Or a football player who pays other players to hurt opposing players—he doesn’t get arrested, he gets suspended for a season.  Don’t get me started on hockey—the whole hockey fight thing is a completely different beast.

But why is it that when an act of violence takes place on the field, there is no legal prosecution?  Take the baseball player from earlier this week, Brett Lawrie of the Toronto Blue Jays.  He didn’t like the calls of the home plate umpire, so he took of his helmet, charged the umpire and wound up to throw the helmet at him, only to slam it into the ground at the last minute, with the result that the helmet bounced right up and hit the umpire in the hip.  If you watch the video, it is clear that in his rage he looked as if he would throw the helmet through the umpire, not straight into the ground.  What if you did that in your profession?

I think we can all agree that on the baseball field, the umpire is the judge and makes the rulings.  When I am in court, I sometimes don’t like the judge’s rulings—if I were to charge the bench, I guarantee you I would not only be pounced on by the bailiff, but I would also see some time in the greybar motel.  Yet my anger was manifested while within the confines of my profession, doesn’t that exempt me from prosecution like it does the professional athlete on the field?

In 1965, in a baseball game between the Giants and the Dodgers, Juan Marichal, batting for the Giants, got so upset at the Dodgers that he actually hit Dodger catcher John Roseboro in the head with his bat.  Marichal missed 8 games and was fined $1,750.00.  What do you think the punishment would have been if the incident had happened on the street instead of on the baseball field?  Assault with a deadly weapon?  Sounds like it could be a felony—more than 8 days in jail, right?

Leaving baseball, what about football and the bounty scandal that has been the big story of late?  If you aren’t up to date, apparently some football players were being paid cash “bonuses” if they not only made tackles, but hurt the other player so badly that he had to be taken out of the game.  Paying someone to hurt another person—sounds like what a hit man does.  As punishment, the coach who initiated the bounty program was suspended for a year as was one of the players.  But why not criminal prosecution?  It’s all fun and games, but what if someone truly got hurt?  What if a player’s career was prematurely ended because of a particularly vicious hit that was placed simply because payment was coming?  

We can attempt to justify the players’ actions by saying that they play a physically demanding and intense game, where aggression and exertion are expected and required.  We can contend that adrenaline and exhilaration is simply a recipe for explosion when triggered by anger.  But I get pretty intense in my work.  I deal in a high-stress world, why am I not given a free pass to detonate at a judge or an opposing attorney? 

The problem is that this is teaching the fans, and especially the young fans, a poor lesson; that it is ok to fly off the handle and even physically harm another person so long as it is within the lines of the field.  Sure, there will be punishment, but a few days off from work is nothing terribly significant.  In fact, I am sure some of would appreciate a few days off from work as a punishment.

And what of the people who the players work with and play for, what do they say?  Would you believe they encourage the behavior?  In responding to questions about the helmet-throwing incident, the Blue Jays general manager said that he would “never begrudge a player for being upset and being a competitor.”  No one is saying that the players are not allowed to get emotional and upset when things go bad, but is turning to violence ever appropriate?  Because of the high level of athletic ability, players are even more capable of seriously injuring another person.  The pitcher who can throw 96 miles per hour can end a batter’s career by a well-placed pitch to the face.  But if that happens, the pitcher barely gets a slap on the wrist and then can go back to making his millions. 

I apologize, but none of this makes any sense to me.  However consider this—the exemption from prosecution does not seem to be the case in all sports.  Remember the Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan fiasco?  Harding was prosecuted and eventually pled guilty to conspiring to hinder prosecution of the attackers.  One would wonder, though, what would have happened if the attack had taken place on the ice during competition and not on the sidelines…

“I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.”

Friends:

Many of you have commented at various times as to a post that you particularly enjoyed or which spoke to you.  Well, I felt it might be an appropriate time to re-post my favorite.  Not my best, mind you, but my favorite.  Hopefully you will understand why.  It’s from October 12, 2009.

Friends:

Week #10: Family Is Everything

As I sat at Dodger Stadium Wednesday night watching the Dodgers win game 1 of the National League Division Series from the Cardinals, it struck me as to how lucky I am to be so close to my family. Picture this, four generations of Cohens, all wearing Dodger Blue and celebrating a Dodger victory. Grandma (three days into her 87th year), dad, me, and my daughter– 4 generations. This is the way it should be, the best part of being a family.

Lately it seems that I have seen the worst when it comes to families. In the past 5 years I have been involved in more litigation between family members than in any other type of litigated matter. Brothers against sisters, children against parents. Why? Greed I think plays a large role, as does the age old lament, “Mom always loved you best.” Sometimes it appears that people will run to court to litigate not just the division of assets, but the division of love.

Wills and trusts that don’t divide the assets equally amongst the children is one factor, but it can even be as “trivial” as selecting one sibling over the other to act as administrator of the estate. The gory details that I have seen and heard would make you cringe. Currently I am litigating a matter in which three children are alleging that their father physically abused their mother. Last year I had a case in which a brother alleged that his sister attempted to defraud their father. And don’t even get me started when the estate plan provides for a majority if not all of the assets to be distributed to one sibling, to the absolute exclusion of the other.

It sometimes makes me sick, but more often that not it makes me sad. Sad that not all families are as great as mine. Sad that not all families can work out their differences over coffee or a beer but must turn to lawyers and judges. Sad that the assets that mom and dad spent years accumulating are depleted by attorneys fees and court costs. I guess you could say that it is a dirty job and someone has to do it, right?

But what does it really instill in me? A deeper sense of family, of dedication to that family, and a need to constantly be showing my affection. Money comes and goes; we can (and will!) always be able to make more. But once family is gone, all we have left are memories. I prefer to make them good memories: of celebrations, of birthdays, of vacations, and of Dodger victories.

Your mission this week, should you choose to accept it: make one extra call or send one extra email this week and send out some love to those you care about. It is a minor thing to do, but pays instant dividends…

“Ah but everybody’s only/Looking out for themselves”

Friends:

If I were to tell you that money changes people, I expect that you wouldn’t be terribly surprised.  Sure, we all would like to think that we are honorable and moral, but at some point, greed and desire take over, right?  We have all been placed in situations where a softening of our morals could result in financial gain for ourselves.  And yet, while I would like to think the best of people, sometimes I am reminded of just how immoral and classless some people can be. 

The other day I received a call from a potential client, a woman who believed that she was the beneficiary of a trust of which her half-brother was the trustee.  My client had never seen the trust but had been alerted to her potential claims by her half-brother’s wife.  But my client was not in LA and couldn’t meet with me, so she asked her half-brother’s wife to bring me a copy of the trust.

Well, the wife was certainly a piece of work.  It seems that my client’s claims might actually be legitimate and this was music to the ears of the half-brother’s wife… because she is expecting to receive some kind of finder’s fee from my client.  In effect, she is ratting out her husband of 12 years for failing to distribute assets from the trust to my client and now she thinks that she will share in my client’s payday.

What made the interaction with the wife more discomfiting was that she was bold and brazen about her interests, laughing and joking about it, and in one instance, in a teasing and “playful” manner, grabbing me around the shoulders and shaking me while she asked me how much she should ask for.  My concern grew serious, however, when she refused to turn over the trust documents to me, instead preferring to hand them to my client when she arrived in LA.  My antennae immediately went up; I couldn’t help but think that there was a strong chance that the trust documents might never get into my client’s hands.

At one point she said something completely out-of-line; not because of its racist twinge, but because of her complete ignorance of human character.  The wife, an African-American woman, said these exact words:  “You know how we people are when it comes to money.”  While I have always marveled at the idea that racism is acceptable when it is promulgated within its own race, her shortsightedness was striking and I had to immediately disabuse her of the notion that greed and avarice were restricted to one particular race of people. 

Money changes everybody, regardless of race, religion, creed or class.  Add to that jealousy and covetousness and you have a recipe for backstabbing and selfishness.  It certainly gives me cause for concern in all of my dealings.  Think of it this way- is it possible that there are rewards out there for you that you are unaware of because someone was too jealous to tell you about it?  Can you even imagine a situation like that?

What happened to us?  Look, I can honestly say that I generally like people- until given a reason not to.  I’ll give everyone the benefit of the doubt.  And yet situations arise in which I am reminded that perhaps my view of the world is clouded in naïveté. 

Maybe it’s just a function of my profession and the type of law I practice.  When you deal with families that have been destroyed in fights over money, you become a little cynical about people.  If they would stab their own brother in the back, what’s to stop them from stabbing me in the back or someone I love?

And don’t think that it has to involve large sums of money.  In my example from the other day, the wife was willing to stab her husband in the back for $10,000.00.  Sounds less like a shakedown and more like a hit, doesn’t it?

Is this a function of the economy; just a normal side effect of a recession/depression?  Or is this simply the way human nature has evolved over time?  Are we “every man for himself?”  How did it all go so wrong? 

Or am I the one who is wrong?  Maybe people generally are good and decent and it is just the one rotten apple that spoils the bunch.  I guess only time will tell on that one.  But I, for one, am not simply going to blindly trust that everyone has the same morals and principles that I do.  Fool me once, shame on me—fool me twice… well, you know the rest.