Tort for Christmas

A couple of years ago, our cast of denizens atop the entertainment center in our living room helped us re-imagine the Christmas story. They've been doing it faithfully for several years now. I chronicled some of those events in a previous blog.

Unfortunately, during a season like this you would like peace and goodwill to prevail, but, as reality will often do, even the Christmas season is not immune from its reach. I have refrained from writing about these events before now, but my lawyer assures me the the case has finally been settled and there will be no repercussions to my telling my side.

One December morning I was cleaning my desk and discovered a tiny envelope which was addressed to myself and had a forbiddingly legal atmosphere. I dared to open it; I needed a magnifying glass to read it. I reprint it here blown up to 100s of times the original size but preserving all the grossly exaggerated language of  its author:

Dear Sir:

I represent the League of Crechepersons International. It has come to our attention that you have placed, within the last year, an enormous glowing box for your internet within close proximity to our stable. This is not only in violation of our agreement, it is dangerous to all concerned. The effects of the rays and other dangerous waves released from these boxes has been known to cause tumors in both sheep and shepherds, to disrupt the peace and well-being of persons of the town, to cause kings to lose their sense of direction, and even to cause birth defects in baby Jesi. We therefore demand that you move your box from this location IMMEDIATELY in order to avoid legal action.

Sincerely yours,
Gabriel, Michael and Raphael, attorneys at law

What would you do with a letter like that? I consider myself a reasonable human being (just like everyone else), but the tone of the letter really peeved me. There was no attempt to understand my position; besides, did he really have to capitalize IMMEDIATELY? And what was this mysterious agreement he claimed I was in violation of? Probably he had pulled this from his legal posterior. And while I am certainly aware of the possibility of things in the environment causing ill effects, could one small tower possibly log such a litany of terrors? Surely not. I wrote him back and told him that the presence of the creche people was voluntary and that due to our internet provider drilling a rather intrusive hole in the wall some months ago our box could not be relocated, whereas our creche most certainly could be, even to the other end of the entertainment center, several feet away. Anywhere else and the figures would most likely meet a much quicker end than any router-derived radiation at the paws of our cat.

 Joseph explaining the situation to Mary

He did not appreciate the part about our cat: evidently lawyers are paid vast sums of money to interpret anything they can to the advantage of their clients, and by simply pointing out to him that there were dangers in the world beyond the one he was concerned about he decided I was threatening the safety of his clients. He also made me aware that my use of the term "creche people" was not at all welcome, being derogatory. I told him I had no intention of being offensive and that I would use any term that was acceptable to all parties concerned and apologized, and he simply told me I should have known better and reiterated his disdain; despite my repeated attempts he never let me in on what was the proper term so I think he was mainly concerned about making me look bad rather than trying to promote justice.


A few days later I received a notice that I was being sued for all I was worth, and that the internet box must be turned off immediately pending further action by the court. I was nonplussed, since it meant no more communication with the outside world. (Some smart guy told me I had a box at the end of my driveway that would answer just as well but I gave him a withering look and went on my way.)

Since interruption of the internet was a serious matter I went about looking for a lawyer. Would you believe one of the wise men had a JD? This was certainly going to make it easier to communicate; I tried to overlook the possible conflict of interest and hoped that the other wiseguys didn't beat him up when they found out. My lawyer immediately suggested we try to settle out of court.

One night we had a meeting of the minds. Things did not go well at first; my own counsel had to suggest I not use the term "straw man" in sizing up opposing counsel's argument. It did seem to me a bit exaggerated until I was shown a safety video in which several individuals-a-creche were seen to be suffering some pretty horrible effects from cable and internet boxes thoughtlessly placed in their vicinity, and all in the name of unpaid and uncared-for creche figures bringing graphic representation of a story at the very heart of the holiday. It amounted to the most rude exploitation, opposing counsel said. It turned my stomach. I said I was sorry; I hadn't known, and he gave me a frustrated look that must be common to many among the frustrated when they have to deal with the clueless.

After that things proceeded quickly. I was told that the box needed to be a few hundred feet away; however, when converting their distances to mine it turned out only to be a couple of feet, which was even less than my original offer. I was also ordered to pay a heavy fine. Seeing the look of worry on my face the arbiter quickly added that, as the persons involved were more used to a Medieval economy, they could be paid in foodstuffs. This turned out to be a year's supply for the entire cast, or one cookie. I timidly offered them a thimble of milk as well, as a good will gesture, and they were quite happy. I think they believed I was a rather broken individual by this time. However, after Santa takes his cut, I will only have to go without one more cookie at Christmas. I think I can live with that.

It's not just for shepherds anymore....if at all

I keep thinking about that shepherd over there on the right.

If there's ever been a more visually obvious way to emphasize the word "marginalized" I don't know what it is. There is only one of him, and he is right at the edge; it looks like he barely made the cut. They'll let him be part of their tableaux if he doesn't say anything and doesn't draw any attention to himself. They're ignoring him.

Well of course they're ignoring him, you say. All their attention is on the infant in the middle. He's the reason for the season. Not the shepherds.

Shepherds, you say. Oh, right. The Bible says there were shepherds. Plural. More than one. Possibly lots of them. So why do we only have the one?

I'm not accusing our crèche of anything unusual, here. Most of the ones I've seen in fact only have one shepherd, with a sheep over his shoulders so you can tell what he does for a living. And it makes him look cute--by proxy, since the little lamb he's chosen is always adorable. He's usually on the periphery, with the sheep.

The kings, on the other hand--the Bible says nothing about the "wise men from the east" being kings, nor does it say there were three of them--but there they are, right up with the holy family, all three of them. They are also centered on the action--sort of. Actually one of them is turned a little awkwardly so he seems to be presenting his gift to us, rather than the infant in the middle.

They must know somebody to get those front row seats right next to the holy family.

This Christmas season I'll be sharing several pieces with you that bear the curious title "pastorale." This word is a cousin of the word "pasture"--also "pastor" as in "shepherd of his flock."

The reason these pieces bear witness to the season is precisely because of their connection with shepherds and the shepherds connection to the Christmas story. See, in the Bible, a whole throng of angels decided they had some news they wanted to go tell the shepherds. So they went right to where they worked (they knew the shepherds were in a job that wouldn't give them any time off) and they told them that news. And the shepherds left their flocks and went to see the baby that was to be a Messiah.

I wonder if their employers ever found out, and if they got fired for their civil disturbance. The citizens of Bethlehem couldn't have been all that pleased to see them.

Shepherds aren't exactly at the top of the food chain when it comes to social importance. They are right at the bottom. And like people on the bottom, they don't get to speak for themselves. Which is where things get interesting.

Typically, a composer with the ability to speak so that others will hear, and listen well into the next century, is a highly trained fellow with at least a spark of genius and a cosmopolitan background. Let's put Mr. Liszt in that category. Here is a little piece he wrote when he was on a three-year journey through Europe. His musical travelogue (he called it "Years of Pilgrimage") contains this little specimen. It has a few "rustic" touches, seen through the romanticized gaze of a city boy. It is also fairly simple of construction, and contains plenty of repetition. The entire first part unfolds over a bass note that does not change--a drone note, common to many pastorales.

Would actual shepherds approve?

Is anybody planning to ask?

Here it is, anyway. It's a pretty little piece, not the sort of thing that would disturb us in any way. Unless you start thinking outside the music, and start asking troubling questions about who gets to speak for whom and so on. Next I'll be wondering if it actually snowed at the first Christmas.


Liszt: Pastorale

------
on to the second article on this series