Aa history Lovers 2010 moderators Nancy Olson and Glenn F. Chesnut page
Yüklə 25,47 Mb.
|
|
about Dr. Silkworth being the true author, as though she thought everyone already knew it to be true. If Dr. Silkworth had lived three or four generations earlier, the current family beliefs might be difficult to accept as truth. The fact that he lived at the same time and spent much time with his namesake only strengthens the family history.
book review section of the New York Times in 1950. The prerelease book review for Easy Does It names Dr. Silkworth as the author. Minot C. Morgan wrote of this review in the December 8, 1950, Princeton Alumni Weekly, where he discussed Easy Does It and the author.
one of our classmates is an author named Hugh Reilly, but the following book review in the New York Times reveals his identity to be none other than Dr. Bill Silkworth, who is still devoting his energies and his professional skill in a fine and much-needed humanitarian service:
holic' by an author who writes under the pseudonym of Hugh Reilly will be published on May 26 by P.J Kenedy. 'Easy Does It: The Story of Mac' presents the life of a 'stew-bum,'
alcoholic returned to normal life. Dr. William Duncan Silkworth, Physician-in-charge of the Alcoholics Anonymous Wing in Knickerbocker Hospital, says in his foreword: The author very properly integrates the moral therapy and psychology of Alcoholics Anonymous as an essential element in restoring the integrity of the alcoholic."
of Dr. Silkworth was found as a third source: A few months before his death his book, "Easy Does It: The Story of Mac," was published by P.J. Kenedy, the fictionalized biography of an arrested alcoholic, telling the how and why of drinking and explaining the means of recovery, emphasizing the moral therapy and psychology of Alcoholics Anonymous as an essential element in restoring the integrity of the alco- holic. In the publication of the book Billy concealed his identity under the pseudonym of Hugh Reilly, only the foreword being credited to Dr.William Duncan Silkworth. The New York Times had a resource at its finger- tips since lost in the annals of AA history - an original book review. Silkworth's New York Times obituary was matter-of-fact about the authorship of Easy Does It. Certainly, had there been a man named Hugh Reilly, of whom we have been unable to, find any record exists, he would have come forward for his rightful ownership of the book. In fact, the book itself admits the name is a pseudonym. The dedication page of Easy Does It can be viewed as a path to the author's identity. Certainly thousands may have the same initials as those listed on the following dedication page. Yet if we begin with those who had a positive influence on Dr. Silkworth, we can quickly find names that correspond with the initials. TO T. F. M. WITH GRATITUDE FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT WENT INTO HIS BEING "THE FIRST TO UNDERSTAND" AND TO C.E.T WHICH MIGHT ALSO STAND FOR CHRIST EXEMPLIFIED FOR OUR TIMES
as "the first to understand" has the initials T. F. M. And many referred to Thomas Francis Marshall as the first to understand. He was among the first to publicly preach a required "conversion experience" for alcoholic recovery. Long before William James and Joel Steele, Marshall beckoned spiritual conversion as a solution to alcoholism. One of the most ardent supporters of conversion was William Silkworth. Colonel Edward Towns (C.E.T.) was known as a very compassionate and Christian man. Towns and Silkworth became very good friends through the work at Towns Hospital. Many who knew Towns referred to his strong Christian values, and one in parti- cular, the Reverend Harry Emerson Fosdick, called him "an example of Christianity." The introduction to Easy Does It was written with authority. Not with the authority of one man's understanding of one alcoholic, but with one man's experience of many alcoholics. Again, the author praises several founding members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous, including "a great man named Bill." The introduction reveals the identity of 'The Padre," one of the main characters of the book, as a composite portrait "not unlike the four immortal chaplains commemorated on a three cent stamp issued by the United States Government." The men, Reverend Samuel Shoemaker, Father Ed Dowling, Reverend Harry Emerson Fosdick, and Reverend Frank Buchman, were all founding spiritual supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and well known to Silkworth. In his "introduction," the author attempts mainly to offer Alcoholics Anonymous as "the only program that takes cognizance of this whole man in the treatment of the alcoholic and motivates him in a way of life by which he remains sober." Sound familiar? He also, however, sheds light on his true identity. First, the generic language itself is obviously a barometer of Silkworth's prior writings. Almost word for word, in the introduction and in the story told in the book, we find Silkworth's theoretical influence. Either the author knew the content and sum of all Silkworth's writings and speeches, or the author was Silkworth. Phrases like "case history" were used to describe the book's story. These are not words of a non- medical man.
poignant sentence in the entire book: I want here to express my fervent appreciation of the inestimable assistance which I received consciously from the spoken and written statements of the eminent doctor whose name and words give luster to this book in the Foreword. . . .Upon review of these facts, there is truly only one option to consider: Dr. Silkworth was the author of Easy Does It. And through this fictional story, he offers the world a glimpse of his private thoughts as one of the founding fathers of AA.
magazine
From: tomper87 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10/29/2010 7:24:00 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII The following is the mention of Dr. Bob's "Faith" magazine article from "Dr. Bob
and the Good Old Timers" pp. 175-176: ========================= "At this time, Dr. Bob wrote and may have signed an article on A.A. and the Big Book that appeared in the August 1939 issue of a magazine called Faith. He alerted Ruth Hock (in the New York office) to its publication, and later reported he had received inquiries from 12 other doctors as a result." "'I rushed right out and bought a copy of this month's Faith, and it was quite a
thrill,' Ruth replied. 'If my opinion is worth anything -- bravo! That's the was
I like to see it set out -- honest, straightforward, and unembroidered.'" "Further on, she continued: 'With constant pounding like the New York Times review, your contribution in Faith, the medical articles, etc., we'll make constant, steady progress, I'm sure.'"
been
among the first to break his anonymity at the public level -- before there were
any A.A. Traditions. When queried in 1978, Ruth vaguely remembered the article
and thought Dr. Bob did sign it." "At the same time, the New York office was referring to Bob all inquiries from
other doctors throughout the country, as well as from problem drinkers who lived
anywhere near Akron." ========================= Several questions come to mind: 1. This mentions that the magazine is called "Faith" and not "Your Faith". Are
these the same magazines? 2. This mentions that the article was probably signed by Dr. Bob. No mention of Dr. Bob in the article in "Your Faith" magazine. Also this mentions that the date of the article was August 1939 not September 1939. I think we are dealing
with two articles and do not have the one by Dr. Bob or even about Dr. Bob. Furthermore, the article from "Your Faith" mentions "Finally a friend he trusted
got him to attend a little meeting in a living room one evening." This does not sound like Dr. Bob's intro to A.A. It seems there is another article out there by Dr. Bob. The search continues! - - - - From Glenn C. the moderator: It might also be of interest to look at page 208 of
Dr. Bob and the Good Oldtimers. The Oxford Group people did NOT believe that the
ideas in the article about Dr. Bob represented good Oxford Group teaching. They
mounted a vicious attack on the ideas presented in the article. Why did the Oxford Group react in such hostile fashion? Because the article did
not give an accurate picture at all of what Dr. Bob was really doing in Akron?
Or because the article showed that Dr. Bob was no longer following orthodox Oxford Group practices in the way he was running things in Akron? Or both? At any rate, page 208 says: ========================= "An October 3, 1940, entry in Lois Wilson's diary noted: 'Met Williamses from Akron. Things muddled up there!" "Later that month, Dorothy wrote to Ruth Hock and Hank P., 'Things are happening fast and furious around here. I feel I have to sort of stand by to catch the pieces of Doc, Anne, and Clarence when they come hurtling in, torn limb from limb'"
magazine] really roused the Oxfordites, and is there ever mud-slinging and reverberations! Doc and Anne took shelter at our house Saturday night, and they
were both so stirred up and looked so old that it hurt me terribly. Hence my frantic efforts to get Bill down here. I really think Doc needs Bill for his own comfort. Doc looked pretty licked and tired. I'm so glad Bill is coming.'" "'The Akron group is pretty dead [but A.A. in Cleveland is successful and growing].'" =========================
concept of God? From: Roy Levin . . . . . . . . . . . . 10/25/2010 10:20:00 AM
of Bill W.'s 1951 Dallas talk (not Ft Worth talk) which though covering much of the material in the well known "Three Legacies" talk, is much more up close and personal.
and
though he does not use the line "Why don't you choose your own conception of God?" as having been delivered verbatim from Ebby, he states Ebby's message along the same, gentle, open minded, non-evangelical tone:
found it helpful to me, and I think you would too, to pray to whatever God you think might be out there while you go through this...( the inventory, confession, and restitution process)." The meaning is the same, pick whatever God you wish, and the tone is most important, nothing of this evangelical "If you don't accept Jesus as your personal savior, you ain't going to make it!" "our way is the only way" stuff.
and instructive in the way to deliver a twelve step call, and actually quite consonant with the specific instructions in "Working With Others" chapter in the
book. ________________________________ From: John Barton Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 Subject: Re: Why don't you choose your own concept of God? I believe if we carefully review the facts on this question we will conclude that this event never occurred as described in Bill's Story.
printing, first edition big book of that portion of Bill's story that we are discussing. We can easily see that sometime prior to the publication of this first printing
on April 10, 1939 but after the printing of the multilith manuscript in early 1939 (produced for comments) that the following four paragraphs were added to Bill's Story [page 12 in the 4th edition]: ======================================== Despite the living example of my friend there remained in me the vestiges of my old prejudice. The word God still aroused a certain antipathy. When the thought was expressed that there might be a God personal to me this feeling was intensified. I didn't like the idea. I could go for such conceptions as Creative
Intelligence, Universal Mind or Spirit of Nature but I resisted the thought of a
Czar of the Heavens, however loving His sway might be. I have since talked with
scores of men who felt the same way. My friend suggested what then seemed a novel idea. He said, "Why don't you choose your own conception of God?" That statement hit me hard. It melted the icy intellectual mountain in whose shadow I had lived and shivered many years. I stood in the sunlight at last. It was only a matter of being willing to believe in a power greater than myself.
Nothing more was required of me to make my beginning. I saw that growth could
start from that point. Upon a foundation of complete willingness I might build
what I saw in my friend. Would I have it? Of course I would! ======================================== .... For my thinking, the reason these paragraphs are not contained in the earlier version of Bill's story is because it probably never happened as written. Had it truly occurred it would have to have been included in the earlier version (original manuscript). You wouldn't report the story without its most profound "truth"! Of course Ebby would have come carrying the non-denominational Christian message; (surrender to Jesus Christ) what other message did the Oxford Groupers carry? .... In a AAHL post # 4409 Bill Schaberg talks about the four inserted paragraphs that appear written by hand in the printers copy. It seems there were no notations in the manuscript to indicate the source or reason for the revision. Dr. James Wainwright Howard from Montclair, New Jersey (see AAHL post # 6026)
may have been the culprit. As you know he suggested dozens of edits to soften
the book and make it more suggestive (let him choose his own concept could have
been his suggestion). Or it may have been needed to support the change "God as you understand him" as made first to step three and then later again to step eleven. The "committee" (Hank, Bill, Fitz, Ruth, Herb and possibly others) may
have thought this change to the story would tie up the "loose ends" into one neat, credible package. By the way, in the tape recordings I have heard of Bill telling "the bed time story" I don't recall him ever saying that Ebby said to him "Why don't you choose your own concept of God?" .... Bill ... may have had trouble repeating that which wasn't true when telling his story. Quite "revealing" in Bill's autobiography (Bill W. My First Forty Years) there
is no mention of it. I also seen to remember Mel B. saying Ebby could never recall the conversation in Bill's Kitchen other when they argued a bit over religion.
John Barton P.S. I remember feeling a bit down when this first came to light in my mind but
recalled how many have been helped by this statement, so I am not concerned about its historical accuracy. I believe its inclusion in the story was Providence.
philosophy at Towns? From: Roy Levin . . . . . . . . . . . . 10/25/2010 10:06:00 AM
may
have been included by Bill as the actual writer or at least liberally paraphrased by Bill in writing the Big Book chapter entitled "To Employers." Hank had previously been a sales manager for Standard Oil of New Jersey, a big
time executive position which he lost due to his drinking. As most AA history
devotees know, he was the "super promoter" referred to by Bill in the book, and
according to original sources like Jimmy Burwell's early AA speaking tapes, one
of the real motivators and instigators to the writing of the Big Book. ________________________________ From: jax760 Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 Subject: Re: Bill W's two books on philosophy at Towns? Bear in mind the date ... 1937, what other group of alcoholics existed then? I am assuming that the "Director" in a large Corp would refer to Bill's position at Honor Dealers whether or not the title bestowed accurately reflects any legalities.
books
.... I believe the only thing he was carrying was a bottle of beer. I think we can safely assume VRE is one of the two books Silky refers to. Regards John B P.S. Thank you! The Little Flowers is a marvelous book. - - - - FROM THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE: > >
> > Reclamation of the Alcoholic > > W.D. Silkworth > > Medical Record, April 21, 1937. > >
> > http://www.silkworth.net/silkworth/reclamation.html > >
> > Case IV (Hospital No. 1152). - A broker, who had earned as much as $25,000 a >year, and had come, through alcohol, to a position where he was being supported >by his wife, presented himself for treatment carrying with him two books on >philosophy from which he hoped to get a new inspiration: His desire to >discontinue alcohol was intense, and he certainly made every effort within his
>own capabilities to do so. Following the course of treatment in which the >alcohol and toxic products were eliminated and his craving counteracted, he took >up moral psychology. At first, he found it difficult to rehabilitate himself >financially, as his old friends had no confidence in his future conduct. Later >he was given an opportunity, and is now a director in a large corporation. He >gives part of his income to help others in his former condition, and he has >gathered about him a group of over fifty men, all free from their former >alcoholism through the application of this method of treatment and "moral >psychology." To such patients we recommend "moral psychology," and in those of >our patients who have joined or initiated such groups the change has been >spectacular. > >
++++Message 6965. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Make amends? or make an amends? From: Jon Markle . . . . . . . . . . . . 10/20/2010 10:57:00 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII From Jon Markle, jim_011591, Jonathan Lanham-Cook, wgwalker3, and Chuck Parkhurst - - - - From: Jon Markle (SerenityLodge at gmail.com) I found that when I concentrate on such things in a meeting, I miss the real message of ESH. AA is not an English course, grammar class, or a course in public speaking.
counterproductive and disruptive to the recovery process. I think it's inappropriate to dwell on such details in meetings. I believe if I
had heard someone say things like this when I was new, it would have hindered my sharing. Thankfully, that was not so, and I can't recall ever hearing anyone make these kind of comments in meetings. It's not what we're about as a Fellowship.
What's that got to do with recovery? Hugs for the trudge. Jon M. (Raleigh) 9/9/82
From: "Jim" (jim_011591 at hotmail.com) I take it that you have lost hours of sleep over this? - - - - From: Jonathan Lanham-Cook (lanhamcook at gmail.com) We all really need to start following the rules .... let's start with rule no. 62 :-) - - - - From: "wgwalker3" (wgwalker3 at gmail.com) I'm a new guy here, but allow me to divert the discussion from the literal linguistics involved - Which is admittedly fascinating - and point out that actually DOING it is the important thing, whether one says it correctly or not.
My experience is that many newbies are a lot like I used to be: WE'd rather argue and nitpick than take the indicated action! We're not placing soil additives into bare dirt, and in AA, I don't frankly care whether we're changing
by taking one action or more than one. I don't mean to sound even slightly harsh. Yesterday I listened attentively to someone advocate that we make amend(s) for harms we've done, but NOT those Yüklə 25,47 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|