A Bendel Bonnet, A Shakespeare Sonnet

What do a Bendel bonnet and a Shakespeare sonnet have in common besides rhyme? Throw in Mickey Mouse. No, it’s not a riddle manqué or a question rejected by the Miller Analogies test. As many probably know already, these are just a few of the superlative attributes applied to the person who is nonpareil in Cole Porter’s 1934 song “You’re the Top.” In fact, the list of best-in-kind comparisons goes on for verse after verse, including the Mona Lisa, the Tower of Pisa, Mahatma Gandhi, Napoleon brandy, cellophane, an O’Neill drama, a Waldorf salad, Whistler’s mama, and camembert. While the wit of this compilation is yet another example of Porter’s lyrical brilliance, it may also be considered symptomatic of a tectonic shift in the hierarchy of cultural values that took place in the early twentieth century.

The song was written for the musical Anything Goes, with a Porter title song that’s yet another indication of an upheaval:

The world’s gone mad today

And good’s bad today

And black’s white today

And day’s night today

Porter uses the word “shocking” in the song, and many people were shocked by jazz, art deco, dada, and surrealism, not just by “a glimpse of stocking.”

“You’re the Top” contains, in effect, a cultural blurring, a fashionable hat given equal value to the poetry of Shakespeare. What would Matthew Arnold have said? Would he have rolled over in his 1888 grave? Arnold introduced the term “high culture” in his 1869 book Culture and Anarchy, defining it as “the disinterested endeavour after man’s perfection” pursued, obtained, and achieved by effort to “know the best that has been said and thought in the world.”

For Arnold, if he had written a version of “You’re the Top,” all of the comparatives would have been examples such as Goethe’s Faust, Plato’s Phaedo, Oedipus Rex, and, of course—like Porter, Shakespeare’s sonnets. As his book’s title indicates, the opposite and enemy of culture is anarchy, which he considers lacks standards and a sense of direction. He associates anarchy with England’s growing moves toward democracy in the second half of the nineteenth century. No doubt, he would have considered Porter’s lyrics an example of such anarchy—“the world’s gone mad today.” Or to use lines from Arnold’s own poem “Dover Beach”:

And we are here as on a darkling plain

Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,

Where ignorant armies clash by night.

The late twentieth century attacks on the literary canon—an exalted list of works almost all by dead white males—can be considered an anti-Arnold movement, Arnold himself being one of the dead white males. Beyond ignoring works by women and people from minority groups, the canon was based on the assumption that some experts had the authority to determine the best that had been said and thought and objective standards existed for making such judgments.

Might “You’re the Top” be a whimsical version of a new canon? If not, the specific choices in the list might serve as  a strategy way to deconstruct the old canon?

Yet, even thirty years after Porter, a defender of Arnoldian standards can be found in Dwight MacDonald, a journalist and cultural critic who mixed a patrician background—Phillips Exeter and Yale—with radical politics as a writer for The New Yorker. He probably is best known for his delineation of culture that compares high culture to the lesser qualities of what he called Masscult and Midcult, terms in the title of a 1960 Partisan Review essay.

For him, works of high cultural value called for an active engagement of the reader or observer and produced sophisticated emotional and intellectual reactions. Masscult works are essentially prepackaged and easy to access, emotionally lazy. Midcult he found more dangerous in its pretentious mixture of high and mass culture, seemingly sophisticated but still accessible with minimal thinking. In that category, he placed works like Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea and the writing of John Steinbeck. Would MacDonald have categorized Porter Mid or Mass?

Ironically, a magazine he wrote for, The New Yorker, has been put down as Midcult in distinction to, say, The New York Review of Books, clearly high culture. The circulation of the former is roughly a million and a quarter, that of the latter 135,000, about one-tenth as large. The New Yorker launched in 1925, five years before Anything Goes, and might be considered an example of a cultural potpourri mixed in the pages of a publication—cartoons, humor writing, fiction by excellent writers, profiles of a variety of people and subjects, and advertisements for expensive products.

In a representative issue, the one of November 24, 1934, three days after Anything Goes opened on Broadway, a reader could find—amid many cartoons and pages of ads for products ranging from Dewar’s Scotch, the new Hupmobile, Beech-Nut chewing gum, to Lucky Strikes—a short story by Norman Matson, humor by Robert Benchley, a poem by Ogden Nash, a profile of the Kewpie doll, a book review by Clifton Fadiman, a movie review of the Astaire-Rogers The Gay Divorcee, reviews of music and art galleries, and articles on sports and fashions.

A magazine with a similar cultural mix that thrived from the teens through the 1930s was the original Vanity Fair. Its issue of the Anything Goes month of November 1934 featured a caricature of Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the cover, with an internal conglomeration including a short story by Alan Seager, H.L. Mencken’s “Why Not an American Monarchy?”, John Gunther writing about the exiled Archduke Otto, Marquis W. Childs on the wicked city of New Orleans, and an article on the shopping bazaars of Manhattan, Bendel’s counterparts.

If there were a competition between Porter and MacDonald, Porter is the clear winner, the ranking of cultural values no longer pertinent. In fact, in many ways, Masscult has become the source of new form of mythological references. Consider Mickey Mouse, one of the superlatives defining the person who is the Top, and the cut rodent’s recognition throughout the world. In fact, the cartoon character was once rated the most famous symbol of America.

Yet many references of the literary works in the canon require detailed footnoting to explain names and terms contemporary readers would have understood immediately. The Porter song, too, close to ninety years old now, contains names and objects that would escape many younger listeners today—the nose of the great Durante, Garbo’s salary, and no doubt a Bendel bonnet. A Henri Bendel hat was considered the height of fashion in the 1930s, examples displayed in the high culture Metropolitan Museum of Art. But the store he founded in 1895 on the New York Fifth Avenue site of a Vanderbilt mansion closed forever in 2019.

Still, such ephemera plays a greater cultural role in recent writing than, say, Phoebus Apollo. Brand names—the products characters own or covet—serve as shorthands to define their personal tastes and economic, educational, and social status. An author can avoid paragraphs of exposition just by writing whether a character drives a Tesla or a sputtering Toyota Corolla, drinks Bud Light or Châteauneuf-du-Pape, reads The New Yorker or The New York Review, or eats flown-in Omaha Steaks or SPAM.

SPAM became the one-word lyric of a Monty Python song and the term to designate the junk that arrives on a computer because of the hash of unlikely ingredients blended into that canned meat product.

Another canned-meat product may mark a cultural turning point in the literary merger of high culture and Masscult references. That’s James Joyce’s 1922 novel, Ulysses, based on Homer’s Odyssey transplanted to twentieth-century Dublin. Plumtree’s Potted Meat and its advertising jingle runs through the mind of the novel’s protagonist Leopold Bloom, a seller of commercial advertising space, who associates the product with the newly buried body of Paddy Dignam, the haunting memory of his dead son, Rudy, and the adulterous relationship of Bloom’s wife, Molly, with Blazes Boylan. The term “to pot one’s meat” is Irish slang for copulation.

Ironically, the singer of accolades to the person who rates as the Top has an almost masochist self-evaluation: “Baby, I’m the bottom, you’re the top.” If Bloom had been singing the song, he might tell Molly she was a Homer heroine and himself mere potential potted meat.

If such a Bloom had been thinking of a Shakespeare sonnet, it would, unfortunately, be the line, “An expense of spirit in a waste of shame” rather than, “Let me not to the marriage of true minds / Admit impediments.”

Cole Porter may have been having a sport when he wrote “You’re the Top,” but, as Adam Gopnik writes about him in The New Yorker, “He takes pleasure in rhyme for rhyme’s sake, in the play of language, and does so in a way that is, oddly, far more in tune with the main lines of the American avant-garde of his time than operetta style could ever be.”

Matthew Arnold and high culture have followed the fate of Paddy Dignam. The world’s gone mad today.


The Semplica Girl Diaries | Recommended by Nathan Tavares

“The Semplica Girl Diaries.” This is such a tightrope walk of grim humor and sadness. The story also contains one of the weirdest (and weirdly moving) examples of “people as commodities” that you can think of. 

“The Semplica Girl Diaries” can be found in The New Yorker. Also found in his short story collection, Tenth of December, published by Random House.

Nathan Tavares writes fiction, sometimes about benevolent frauds, young immortals, and the terrible and/or wonderful things people do for/to each other. His writing has appeared in PANK, Necessary Fiction, Daily Science Fiction, and elsewhere. You can find more of his work at nathantavares.com.

Do You Have a Book Launching? Submit Your Book to The Eckleburg Book Club.

What others are saying about Eckleburg
“The most exciting and adventurous and gutsiest new magazine I’ve seen in years.” Stephen Dixon
“Refreshing… edgy… classic… compelling.” Flavorwire
“Progressive….” NewPages
“Eye-grabbing… fun… bold… inviting… exemplary.” Sabotage
“Eclectic selection of work from both emerging and established writers….” The Washington Post
“Literary Burroughs D.C…. the journal cleverly takes its name from the The Great Gatsby. F. Scott Fitzgerald….” Ploughshares

Proud member of the Council of Literary Magazines and Presses.


How I hate those who are dedicated to producing conformity. —William S. Burroughs


The Doctor T. J. Eckleburg Review was founded in 2010 as an online and print literary and arts journal. We take our title from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby and include the full archives of our predecessor Moon Milk ReviewOur aesthetic is eclectic, literary mainstream to experimental. We appreciate fusion forms including magical realist, surrealist, meta- realist and realist works with an offbeat spin. We value character-focused storytelling and language and welcome both edge and mainstream with punch aesthetics. We like humor that explores the gritty realities of world and human experiences. Our issues include original content from both emerging and established writers, poets, artists and comedians such as authors, Rick Moody, Cris Mazza, Steve Almond, Stephen Dixon, poets, Moira Egan and David Wagoner and actor/comedian, Zach Galifianakis.

Currently, Eckleburg runs online, daily content of original fictionpoetrynonfiction, translations, and more with featured artwork–visual and intermedia–from our Gallery. We run annual print issues, the Rue de Fleurus Salon & Reading Series (DC, Baltimore and New York), as well as, the annual Gertrude Stein Award in Fiction, first prize $1000 and print publication, guest-judged by award-winning authors such as Rick Moody and Cris Mazza.

We have collaborated with a number of talented and high profile literary, art and intermedia organizations in DC, Baltimore and New York including The Poetry Society of New YorkKGB BarBrazenhead BooksNew World Writing (formerly Mississippi Review Online), The Hopkins ReviewBoulevardGargoyle MagazineEntasis PressBarrelhouseHobart826DCDC Lit and Iowa’s Mission Creek Festival at AWP 2013, Boston, for a night of raw comedic lit and music. We like to promote smaller indie presses, galleries, musicians and filmmakers alongside globally recognized organizations, as well as, our local, national and international contributors.

Rarely will readers/viewers find a themed issue at Eckleburg, but rather a mix of eclectic works. It is Eckleburg’s intention to represent writers, artists, musicians, and comedians as a contemporary and noninvasive collective, each work evidence of its own artistry, not as a reflection of an editor’s vision of what an issue “should” be. Outside of kismet and special issues, Eckleburg will read and accept unsolicited submissions based upon individual merit, not theme cohesiveness. It is our intention to create an experience in which readers and viewers can think artistically, intellectually, socially, and independently. We welcome brave, honest voices. To submit, please read our guidelines.

Over the ashheaps the giant eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg kept their vigil, but I perceived, after a moment, that other eyes were regarding us with peculiar intensity from less than twenty feet away. – The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald

You Are Very Ambitious | Women on Writing on Success

Anna Holmes writes a thorough study of Sandberg’s new book, LEAN IN, and the roll out, backlash, controversy at The New Yorker. I find the position of women, motherhood and ambition, as commented in the piece, to be of particular interest. Personal. I wonder how many more women would feel the same after reading.

Recently, I had some very good news and had to make some tough choices relating to this, choices I had never expected in my wildest dreams to have to make. It was all new to me and strange and good, but strange. I went directly to a writer who I considered to be a friend and someone who had helped advise previously and has shown support and happiness. Not a best friend or close mentor but a solid friend, someone who had often sought my advice and who I thought could help and would want to help, you get the idea. This time it was different. Where it got truly difficult was when he said, “You are very ambitious.” The tone and undercurrent of the statement had a strange sort of lackluster quality. I had done something wrong in receiving good things apparently. I’ll admit that the comment was unexpected. And I wondered how many women suffered the same smacks on their hands for being, for lack of a better word, “ambitious.”

Such comments could stem from a myriad of factors, sure. A doubt as to worth. Competitiveness. The against odds likelihood of a woman finding some degree of success in a predominantly male driven market? This last one stuck with me most, the other options being the more tiresome, worn out discourses of the three. Regardless, the episode brought home the ever present issue of women on profession on success and how “ambition” becomes the seeming tag word for anti-female, which is a little laughable. As said friend would be as much if not more “ambitious” than me. But then, ambition for a male writer is perhaps more expected? So the adjective is not necessary?

The whole affair lingered with me in an academic sense, though, I’m fortunate to have fantastic and supportive writing friends both male and female, so it didn’t sting for long, but I do sometimes think about how many of my sisters come across these sideline comments from friends. And furthermore, how many of my brothers suffer the same? We more often ignore and move on in the interest of maturity. To speak of such things in specifics and name dropping would be a form of ridiculousness I could never stomach. But I do think the issue of gender and ambition is a necessary discussion. It seems to me that living in general and specifically, living with a passion for writing, is difficult enough on its own without adding further difficulty.

To the point: All this  makes me realize how beautiful it is to see friends do well. I’ve made it a renewed priority to share my joy of it. Coming off AWP, I’m still reveling in the injections of positivity, support, friendships, and a particular group of friends who really excel at this support of each other. It is a gift. One not to be wasted. One to hold and cherish. And they don’t care if a writer is male or female they just want to see amazing things happen for their friends and anyone, in fact, who has passion and talent for what they do. This kind of energy is addictive, a good kind of infection. As exhausting as conferences are, AWP has this potential, when surrounded by those who would perpetuate it. I can say with all certainty that this kind of spirit is the driving force of the Mission Creek Festival, but that is another discussion.

For my sisters who have ever felt jibed for being female and seeking successes with their writing, I’ll leave you with a list of women in an article titled “Ambitious Women” at The Chronicle. Leading the pack is Flannery O’Connor. Hmm. Yeah, I’ll take ambitious. With a side of bad ass. Who will join me?