 |
|
 |
|
The Alienist - Dr. Wellmer
Roquelaure First, the scandal does not reflect any specific previous LARP scandal. It has elements of all the most controversial scandals I could think of, lumped together in a fashion that is quite original. None of the persons involved are based on any actual people in the LARP community. It was my intention to produce the "mother of all scandals," and I think I did. The incident is very loosely based on two incidents in other communities with which I have had ties. Second, I think I touch here on the nightmare of many GMs, and ultimately the great fear behind those who would detract from or limit roleplay. What happens when someone does not know when to stop? What happens when someone reacts in a way we cannot manage? What happens when the lines are not clear? I hope a reminder of the way in which the LARP Community used to deal with such problems sets a good example of "how not to." deal with any problem or controversy. Third, and finally, I wished to show a little something about the clash of cultures taking place in the early 20th century, to make it a little more relevant to us now. Clarence is a period piece and contains much interesting about the early 20th century. It is my nature to show the gleeful decadence of a Thaddeus Walker, but in 1903, though not outstanding in an arts community, he is outrageous in the eye of the public. I wanted to show both something of the more conservative and normal reaction one might see, and the gamut of social responses in a transitory Victorian time period. At any rate, if read in entirety this piece stands at one end of a gamut from lighthearted humor to dark parody. I meant to include all of these things in Clarence, and hope I have.]
In three original runs of Clarence, the Alienist Dr. Wellmer Roquelare was played by Frank Taylor. He requested the character, and so defined it that the GMs would not give it to anyone else. He also gave rise to the ultimate scandal of early LARP. Taylor is an odd figure. He was reasonably well written of, however he seems to have been both a more obsessive womanizer and less successful at it than Walker (who admittedly seemed to attract women for no good reason, a fact Marsden often commented on). Oddly however, he seems to have been a commanding figure - Henrietta was clearly intimidated by him, as was King. One assumes his profession - he was a Medical student - a doctor by the time of the Scandal - must have had some impact on this. He didn't remain in the community long enough for us to get a really clear picture of him. He was a student at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, (which had been established ten years earlier) and as he apparently moved to the southwest to practice sometime around 1907. Taylor knew a great deal about psychology such as it stood in 1903. Critics said he became "too psychodramatic" and tried to "treat" his female patients. Supporters said he was a good roleplayer. Taylor caused some serious controversy. There were serious accusations that he went too far in conversation with his female 'patients' referring graphically to the suggestion that they were sexually assaulted in their childhood. This "Seduction Theory" was scientifically sound, in that it had been put forward by the already distinguished Dr. Sigmund Freud beginning in 1895. By the mid 90s, Freud was an advocate of, and had written about sexual gratification and orgasm for both sexes. He felt that any emotional or physical interference with the full cycle of sexual arousal and satisfaction (such as coitus interruptus) could serve as a focus for anxiety neurosis or as a factor in psychoneurosis. Freud also believed that female sexual gratification in intercourse depended on the male partner engaging in adequate foreplay and intromission, writing therefore "it is positively a matter of public interest that men should enter upon sexual relations with full potency" In his landmark Studies on Hysteria with Breuer in 1895, Freud suggested that much adult psychopathology stems from childhood abuse, "in part because he saw reconstruction of the abusive history as evidence for a critical-period view of neurotic development: any genital stimulation of a very young child was almost certain to be traumatic because of the child's primitive emotional and cognitive resources and would give rise to psychological defenses" In 1896 he enlarged this to include seduction, in which a child might might "be moved to cooperate in the sexual events -- might in fact be seduced as well as abused" The idea of a child being active as a participant in precocious erotic behavior points up the idea of "infantile sexuality" on which Freud would later base much of his psychoanalytic model. By 1906 Freud was re-evaluating the Seduction model, but it continued to occupy some place in his work, and it was perfectly reasonable that a well read Psychologist might not be familiar with his further work, which had largely been published in German. Taylor was a very commanding figure, and he launched into his "patients" with full blown Freudian language, which included a basic explanation. It is not difficult to imagine that a conversation which included not only reference to, but necessitated a detailed understanding of the function of orgasm might have been upsetting to many run of the mill players in 1906. Yet can we condemn Taylor for it? He was using scientific theories and jargon which were not only recognized at the time, but which would become increasingly more critical to a field we recognize as scientifically valid today. On the other hand it might well be the case that a fresh faced and demure girl - who however experienced may have never had a man use the word "orgasm" in her presence before, and certainly not discussed foreplay, might become "intolerably excited." Taylor's detractors said he took advantage of such excitement "after hours" - after all the girls were not his patients and he was merely roleplaying.
The "Sex Talk" Scandal Most of the argument revolves around the ill-fated 1906 Philadelphia run, in which Taylor cornered a distraught Annette Spath for the better part of an afternoon. Cast as Tess of the D'Urbervilles, Taylor had found fertile ground. There is no "agreed on" version of the story. It ranges from rape to succor. It was one of the first "flame wars" in the pages of Metagame, inciting flames not only about the issue, but about whether or not the word "orgaic" (of or pertaining to an orgasm) should be printed in its pages. Reprinting the entirety of the debate would be outside the scope of this game - the debate ran from Fall 1906 to Summer 1908, and occupied at its height more than seventy percent of the fledgling LARP magazine. Ironically, the debate also popularized the magazine, which had a circulation of only forty to fifty going into 1906, but was nearly 150 strong by 1909. We've pulled key comments out of the magazine attempting to illustrate both sides of the acrimonious debate. Even now it is difficult to say who was "right" and who was "wrong." Time to some extent was on the side of the Taylorites. The issue had subsided by the time the war broke out, and the loosening of sexual mores - both during the racy teens, and the Jazz era 1920s made the Anti-Taylorites seem stodgy and frankly provincial. However the real issue goes deeper. The fact is not that time made Taylor's actions acceptable or unacceptable - time merely made them unremarkable and clouded our ability to reasonably analyze them. By 1925, conversations about Freud and sex were commonplace, and to affect distress at simply hearing such things would in fact be ludicrous. But in 1903, these matters were on the cutting edge of "modern" behavior. Certainly throughout the "gay nineties" there were subcultures in which such matters were discussed with comparative freedom. It can be historically argued that such things "definitively were subjects of everyday discussion" and "definitively were not subjects of everyday discussion," with equal ardor. In the 1880s and 90s, middle class Victorian women flocked to matinees of Ibsen's "sex problem plays" which discussed many of these same issues. By 1921 such topics were firmly in bounds. But in 1900 the young Urugayan erotic authoress Delmira Agustini had been murdered by her husband for writing about the same. Certainly time has favored the explicit. Freud was the fundament of psychological thought throughout the early 20th century. By 1919 film and magazines had taken Freud into the mainstream, and while it would be the late 30s before "orgasm" would see print in a typical publication, it was certainly no more than mildly scandalous in person. But to base our assessment on what later became the case is to miss the point of the Taylor Scandal. The basic question remains as valid today as it did in 1903. What rights does a player have to expression "in character" if it makes other players uncomfortable. And what obligation does the uncomfortable party have to make this clear, and how much should they be able to rely on reserve and manners? Unfortunately these issues were, in 1903, as clear as mud. Slowed by being argued in the pages of a quarterly publication, and sidetracked by endless digressions the sharp relief of the question would not be seen until as recently as 1994, when Miriam Jung presented an article on the scandal in JALARPA (Journal of the American LARP Academy). In 1903, the manners and expectations of one group of players collided with another. The relatively liberal Arts crowd from DC and Baltimore - heavily biased towards persons with an active interest in stage drama or visual arts - collided with a Philadelphia Social Community which had only the faintest of such connections. And the collision was dynamite. The extremes of behavior like Thaddeus Walker (who knew he was outrageous) aside, moderates like Ivan Collins felt they were well within their rights to defend Taylor. And likewise, the Philadelphians - citizens of the city that bored W.C. Fields the most - felt that he was painfully out of line. Were either right? There is no firm answer. We still do not have an answer. In general we rely more on guidelines and the clearly delineated expectations of GMs. In the days of Clarence the game tended to be either a dictatorship or an anarchy - the modern spirit of cooperation was lacking, and the players acted as if any rights not specifically reserved to the GMs were absent - to some extent as if GMs were only players themselves, bound by the rules they had written. Most games contained an 'elastic clause' however by its very vagueness it was so weak as to hold no power. Games were a power struggle between GM and player, and as often as not between GM and GM. Where a GM would now explain the need for a ruling, GMs at the time spoke "ex cathedra" or maintained the right of the players to run amok provided they had not broken a written rule, no matter how badly the game fared as a result. But situations still come up where player behavior raises questions that cannot quickly and easily be answered. Argument in print was no stranger to Edwardians. In the late Victorian era, and the early 20th century the pages of the local newspaper were the site of a free-for-all among the more vocal minded members of any community. Well into the 80s a man might be scandalized to the point of dueling in the newspapers, and biting personal criticisms were the rule - in short the Newspaper was a public forum for private argument. By the early 20th century, the worst excesses had faded away, but newspapers were still a forum for heated and often very personal battle, and despite magazine pretensions, Metagame of 1906 was little more than a newspaper for LARPers, modeled more on a Broadsheet than a true magazine. Likewise many newspapers would run any number of anonymous letters, and absent a policy of rejecting them, Metagame accepted them.
A few Facts This is largely paraphrased from Miriam Jung's conclusions, which include not only the Metagame articles, but various private letters and interviews. It is reasonably well agreed that Taylor did not have sexual intercourse with Annette Spath. It has been suggested that if he did the whole case would be different - the accusation much more serious. However Miriam Jung has concluded that there was never any credible allegation of such, and that the charge does not show up until 1932, when an article in a conservative Philadelphia paper in discussing the banning of Dawn Roz' "One Hundred Sheiks and a Shieksa" referred to "a game some years ago where a girl was raped." But it wasn't seen that way at the time, and though the case has been made in years since that the family covered it up, that would seem contrary to the point of running a public letter about it. Of course nothing can be proven. But nobody who was involved - on either side of the fight - ever made that allegation in writing. The question was one of impropriety. Nobody during the entire debate even suggested that Taylor had taken Spath to his room (though he may have briefly). The issue was what Taylor had said to her, and the reaction it had caused. It is generally agreed that Taylor sat next to Spath on a couch in the Rose Room for most of Saturday afternoon. Nobody knows what happened after about four, but there is no evidence that either of them left the playing floor. Walker later said that he thinks they did, only for a few moments, so that Taylor could get a headache powder for Spath. Dr. Moore later wrote that he gave Taylor a powder but that he was alone. Neither of them was gone long enough to elicit comment. The Hotel Detective did not note any "unusual activity." Taylor says that he lost track of Spath shortly after dinner. He sat with her through the meal, which she said she did not feel like eating, in order to "keep company," and "as she was obviously feeling poorly I did not expect any advantage of it, but merely sought to distract her from her state with stimulating conversation." Annette Spath was found by her friend Agnes Johnson at about ten o'clock, and was in a state of "excited hysteria." She cried and was uncommunicative for several hours. Johnson called a cab at about midnight, after she refused to see Dr. Moore, and asked her cousin Coleman Love to see Annette home, but she adamantly refused to get into the cab with Love (who she had never met). At about half past midnight, Agnes Johnson rang Leonard Spath, her brother, who came and got her in his motor-car. She did not return the next morning.
The Chronology Fall 1906 An Injurious Presence - Anonymous It is suggested that Agnes Johnson is unlikely to have used the term blackball, whereas Leonard Spath, who was a member of several exclusive clubs, would be very familiar with it. Another theory says that it may have been composed by Coleman and Imogene Love, both of whom played the game. If so then the responses served only to pour gasoline on flames. Spring 1907 GM Meeting - Shortly after Metagame came out, the full staff met at Henrietta's - for once even Walker being allowed in. The meeting focused on what we would now call "spin control." It was decided that King would write one letter on behalf of all the GMs and explicitly deny having issued an "improper" sheet. It is clear that if the original Carmilla sheet had been given to Dora Belle Henderson, it had not been used in Philadelphia, and the GMs felt their slate was clean. None of them had any doubt what was being referred to. Second Anonymous Letter - it was revealed before the end that the Second Anonymous letter came from Taylor, and it destroyed any hope of peaceful resolution. By February the general sentiment was running against the poorly worded complaint, and Walker thought that King's response would not be "dismissive" enough. Walker's critical mistake (aside from taking pen in hand) was that his point of view was largely warped by his perception of support from the Collinses, and their immediate friends, and the fact that Henrietta did not take the matter too seriously. Walker's note is incendiary, and rambles about "people with their heads buried ostrichlike" and ends up more or less accusing the Philadelphia writer of being the sort of person "responsible for the death of talent like Oscar Wilde." It should be remembered that De Profundis had been published the year before, and had a strong impact on Walker - he quotes De Profundis - mostly the unapologetic parts - in writing. Here Walker makes his second error, in misjudging his audience. He believes that like his limited circle of artist friends, most of the readers enthusiastically endorse sexual conversation and Freudianism, and that anyone who doesn't is at needs "little more than a Neanderthal." In fact the general feeling against the letter is because most people assume that the things referred to never occurred, or are gross exaggerations. Walker's letter virtually insists that they did occur, and thus a confrontation is ignited. Nothing Improper about Clarence - for a blustering egomaniac, King did a fairly good job in this response which it is suspected that Bucher edited. On the positive side, next to Walker's invective it reads rather moderately. On the negative side, despite being a decent piece of diplomacy it is less than a sixth the length of Walker's tirade, and makes a typical derisive King reference to "the fantasies of hysterical females," which while far more typical at the time than today, was not likely to inspire love and forgiveness from the Spath or Cole families. Anonymous Philadelphia Response - Because Metagame published so infrequently, and people talked between times, it was not uncommon for two letters essentially in response to each other to appear in the same issue. As we'll learn later this was something of a political issue in itself. It will later be maintained that the writer of this response, who was probably Coleman Love, possibly with help from his cousin or Leonard Spath, that they had seen the Walker Letter. For years it was maintained that this was not the case, however Miriam Jung uncovered a letter from Metagame Editor K. Walton Barrett to Millicent Enroe, written in 1926, in which he admitted giving the "particulars" of the letter to Imogene Love, "because it was so extraordinarily vituperative." He is never very clear about why this made it a good idea to show Imogene the letter beforehand, however it seems unlikely that his intent was malicious. Apologists at the time suggested he feared a lawsuit, but the more likely reason is that he was concerned over the ugly turn the thing was taking, and wished not to appear to be on the "other side" in printing such an item. The anonymous Philadelphia response is brief and defamatory. It names Frank Taylor, and says that he has "used role playing as a basis for taking advantage of several young women, including the previous Tess (Julia Lederer) 'with whom he engaged in illicit sexual relations of the sort that are termed, among more decent folks, fornication.' Summer 1907 Anonymous - Ban him from Games In Defense of the Game Clarence Shut up already The Perspective from a Woman's View Fall 1907 Walker makes it worse The Lady in Question Speaks for Herself Female Counterperspective Winter 1907 Munger makes it worse The problem is that Munger's idiocy gets considered right alongside Imogene Love's Letter, and colors the perception of the "Anti-Tyler Faction" as being wildly irrational. Don't use the O____ word An Apology Spring 1908 Negative publicity causing Clarence to fail Outrage among Taylor's Supporters Orgasm reasonable Response to Liberal outrage in same issue Summer 1908 Outrage at the Editor Henrietta Chimes in Barrett Defends his Policies Love Makes his Points - Again Fall 1908 Anti Metagame Circular Winter 1908 Two final perspectives
|
||||||
