Mickey Would Love It

[TrueTomHarley]

I wrote the Mickey Spillane summit parody for Jane Spillane, who is re-releasing the Mike Hammer tough-guy series of late 1940's private eye books. It is a spoof on what if the President had handled Putin like Mike Hammer might handle a crime boss. She loved it. She said so right here just two posts ago.

 

I wrote it because Mickey Spillane later became one of Jehovah's Witnesses and his work changed a lot. That triggered my interest in his books. Now, Jane is not a Witness, probably has mixed feelings about them at best, and may feel they were responsible for 'sabatoging' his work, since his post-JW writings lose the excess sex and violence and thereby become less of what Mickey himself once said about Hemingway and the highbrow authors: "What those guys could never get is that you sell a lot more salted peanuts than cavier."

 

Nonetheless, there is no way she could not have picked up on his enthusiasm for the truth, and probably concedes that that is what ensured he remained the upright man he always had been. Jane is intensely political, another reason for the theme of my post. She assures me that Mickey would have been a Trump-man, too. I have not the slightest doubt of it, with the exception that he would know how to keep political leaning its place, and not disturb the peace of the congregation with such matters. All human governments will drop the ball, usually it is a bowling ball, and the only open question is upon which toe will it land. As individuals ponder their own toes, some will favor the left and some the right.

 

Anyhow, I said to Jane that we could help each other. I will use the story to hopefully (this is extremely hard to do) flag the attention of some high profile figures, and did she want to be tagged or not?. She did. Good. It's a win-win, potentially helping both our causes. Mine is to direct attention to my blog, www.tomsheepandgoats.com, the first thing that hits the eyes is a link for my free ebook Dear Mr Putin - Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia, which calls attention to the plight of our people there, (along with answering many a scurilous charge) and that goal motivates nearly everything I do these days. I draw some of my inspiration from Anton Chivchalov Blog. These days it is important to bring one's gift to the altar.

 

The post is here:

http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/showdown-at-the-summit.html

 

Since the violence and sex is excessive in those pre-Witness days, it is easy to dismiss the novels as so much garbage. However, as to the writing itself, Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged) lavished high praise on them and compared them favorably to some elite authors of the day. Mickey's own dad, I think he was a bartender, called his writing "crud." Ayn Rand did not feel that way.

 

Atlantic Magazine (I think it was) interviewed him in later years ('I may write one more Mike Hammer, but that's it. I can't sit eight hours in a chair anymore. My rear end gets sore.') and pointed out that his latter books were winning some critical acclaim. "To Mickey's disgust, one suspects," one suspects, the author adds. Come on! It is impossible not to love this guy. He had the combination of intense interest, yes, even love, of people, coupled with an absolute lack of pretence, and a willingness to go 'in your face,' traits that were a trademark of Witnesses of a certain generation.

 

Jane herself, I am not sure that she realized it, give me the ultimate green light, when she said of my scheme: "Mickey would love it."

[Doug]

'Salted peanuts ' is now a euphemism ?

 

Enjoyed it. 

[jwhess]

Br Tom, I had some friends who used to attend the CBS study in his house (way back in the day).  But it had been reliably reported to me that Br. Spillane had left the truth.  Can you comment or PM me on this?

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, jwhess said:

Br Tom, I had some friends who used to attend the CBS study in his house (way back in the day).  But it had been reliably reported to me that Br. Spillane had left the truth.  Can you comment or PM me on this?

To the best of my knowledge, he died faithful. That is not to say that he was not in and out a time or two. 

 

At any rate, he did much witnessing in his day, within his daily contacts, reaching some high profile people that we would have trouble reaching.

 

http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2006/10/farewell_again_.html

[Old]

He was DFd for a period of time, but the last I heard, shortly before his death, he was in good standing.

 

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_jw.html 

 

Before you get up in arms about some listed as JWs scroll down and read "Further Discussion about This Page," for how they chose who to list.

I see my friend Dave Pear has now made the list.

[TrueTomHarley]

49 minutes ago, Old said:

He was DFd for a period of time, but the last I heard, shortly before his death, he was in good standing.

 

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_jw.html 

 

Before you get up in arms about some listed as JWs scroll down and read "Further Discussion about This Page," for how they chose who to list.

I see my friend Dave Pear has now made the list.

I love this site. It is by far the most complete list I have ever seen. I like their explanation of criteria. I like the author's insight. He knows, for example, that it is an absolute lie to say the Witness religion stifles creativy.

 

You should never expect a non-Witness site to get it all right. If they did, get it all right, they would probably become Witnesses themselves. it is that sort of a topic, that divides heart and soul. 

 

There is a Pew survey on the breakdown of U.S. political leaning by religion. Mormons are at one end, overwhelmingly Republican. African Methodists (I think) at the other, overwhelming Democrat. A steady flow from one end to the other. Jehovah's Witnesses, as one would expect, are in the center, with no strong leanings either way, but what leanings there are are more Democrat than Republican. I account for it in two ways. 1. Participants self-identify. They might allign themselves with Jehovah's Witnesses, but that does not make them publishers, which is our criteria. 2. What little most of us think on the topic is influenced by what is seen on TV. People see Trump, and they say: "He is bombastic, whereas I try to be polite."

[Old]

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I love this site. It is by far the most complete list I have ever seen. I like their explanation of criteria. I like the author's insight. He knows, for example, that it is an absolute lie to say the Witness religion stifles creativy.

 

You should never expect a non-Witness site to get it all right. If they did, get it all right, they would probably become Witnesses themselves. it is that sort of a topic, that divides heart and soul. 

 

There is a Pew survey on the breakdown of U.S. political leaning by religion. Mormons are at one end, overwhelmingly Republican. African Methodists (I think) at the other, overwhelming Democrat. A steady flow from one end to the other. Jehovah's Witnesses, as one would expect, are in the center, with no strong leanings either way, but what leanings there are are more Democrat than Republican. I account for it in two ways. 1. Participants self-identify. They might allign themselves with Jehovah's Witnesses, but that does not make them publishers, which is our criteria. 2. What little most of us think on the topic is influenced by what is seen on TV. People see Trump, and they say: "He is bombastic, whereas I try to be polite."

Many years ago I ame across Adherents.com and was taken by the fair unbiased explanation of our organization and our beliefs. I sent an email thanking them for their straight forward reporting. Adherents responded by saying they got a JW to explain our beliefs. I was quite amazed.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 minute ago, Old said:

Many years ago I ame across Adherents.com and was taken by the fair unbiased explanation of our organization and our beliefs. I sent an email thanking them for their straight forward reporting. Adherents responded by saying they got a JW to explain our beliefs. I was quite amazed.

On second thought, it is woefully lacking. I do not see Tom Brexit, Tom Irregardless, Dr Mike "Ace" Inhibitor, (or his colleague Dr Hep See), And where is Dr. Tom "Hammer' Urabi?

 

And don't get me going about Tom and Pearl Pearlsandswine, or even the brother who went bad, Vic Vomidog.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

Oh, someone should tell them about Coco Rocha. Seriously. She is quite the model, and when they tell her to do something immodest, she tells them right back to forget it.

 

Years ago, I assembled my own list, in response to the 'Atheist Hall of Fame.'

 

http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2009/03/the-atheist-hall-of-fame.html