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.
A secondary source of proof is found in the
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.
Members of this class may not be aware that
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:
"A fictionalized biography of an 'arrested alco-
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,'
and the how and why of drinking and how the
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."
Also the following excerpt from an obituary
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
Only one man in Silkworth's life distinguished
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.
The closing paragraph may offer the most
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.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 6962. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Dr. Bob article in Your Faith
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.'"
"The possibility that Dr. Bob signed this article means that he may have
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'"
"'The publicity that Doc got [not specified -- perhaps the article in Faith
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].'"
=========================
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 6963. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Why don''t you choose your own
concept of God?
From: Roy Levin . . . . . . . . . . . . 10/25/2010 10:20:00 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I highly recommend listening to the recordings ( now available on the net)
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.
In this talk he recreates essentially the message that Ebby brought to him,
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:
"...and Bill, I know you're kind of shy about this God stuff, but I think I
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.
Bill's account of Ebby's delivery of the message was most edifying to me,
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 (jax760 at yahoo.com)
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.
Below is the comparison between the original manuscript and the first
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.
God Bless,
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.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 6964. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Bill W''s two books on
philosophy at Towns?
From: Roy Levin . . . . . . . . . . . . 10/25/2010 10:06:00 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Who was the Director of a large corporation?
I believe that Director in a large corporation refers to Hank Parkhurst who
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.
We know on our circle everything gets "inflated."
Jared,
I'm sure Silky didn't get it right when he said he arrived carrying two
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.
> >
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++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.
To make such observations leads to judgmental attitudes which are
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.
I would balk at anyone suggesting that we correct a speaker in this manner.
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
Dostları ilə paylaş: |