WE NEED THE TRUTH

I’m establishing a form: the youtube channel. I’m a performance artist and an actor. I also write, sing, play guitar, edit/record videos, and produce tracks on garageband. I’m also producing a tumblr. This will probably go on both my tumblr and my blog and perhaps my facebook. If I think it’s good enough, unrevealing enough, and relevant enough.

I’m laying flat on my stomach on my bed. I haven’t left my room for more than a couple hours a day this week. I have been hungry since Friday I’ve had six to eight meals. Today is Wednesday. Last night I was super hungry, but just about an hour ago I exploited a dom/sub fetish relationship for some food. I picked up a burger, sandwich and beer from Lodge, which is a restaurant that is currently giving away free books.

I got one called Confronting Capitalism. Did you know, that this has been a major issue and concern for some time now? I opened up to an interview with Noam Chomsky because it was titled ‘art’ in the table of contents. He reminded me of the protest at the WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle that I’m almost too young to remember, but not quite.

Here’s a bit of what I read..

at the start of the nineteenth century, the ration of real incomes per head between the world’s richest and poorest countries was three to one. By 1900, it was ten to one. By the year 2000 it had risen to sixty to one.

then Noam says

And that is extremely misleading. It vastly underestimates what’s going on. The real and striking difference is not the difference among countries but the difference within the global population, which is a different measure. That’s risen very sharply, which means that within countries the divisions have sharply risen..

So then I got super angry, and convicted and I went right to my tumblr account. What are we going to do about this you guys?

The richest 1% of adults owned 40% of the world’s total assets in the year 2000. The richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of total assets. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth - World Institute for Development Economics Research, The World Distribution of Household Wealth, 2006

And it has only gotten worse.

Well I thought, this is all very convenient, the poor person picking up on economic inequality. And what of it? I’m only suffering income inequality in America; I tip the scales in the other direction when you consider global inequality.

Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day - World Bank Development Indicators 2008

So you know what just came on my iTunes. I swear to God, and we can have the conversation about whether Microsoft is evil later, it was my song Working. In it I sing about how I renounce working. I no longer wish to bear the burden of employment. I choose to make art.

What a spoiled shit.

How on earth can someone deny the opportunities of employment that the united states has to offer? How on earth? Where the poorest 40 percent account for 5 percent of global income and the richest 20 percent account for three-quarters of world income [World Bank Development Indicators 2008]

Well I’m lucky to be an American. Luck is relative. Last night I was flowdreaming about helping all the people of world, which is to say all the disempowered, but I don’t think that needs clarifying. I would like to add though that I just took a hit of my bong and watched a video I made for youtube titled THE RALLY TO RESTORE SANITY AND/OR FEAR (we made it!!!!!). Also, I just finished my third beer. I don’t mean to be disrespectful. The point is to be honest.

We need the truth. I can provide truth in many different ways. It’s the process of denial that is harmful. Of denying the truth in so many way. It’s got to be a problem. Now I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be doing so I’m just typing it as it comes out, like a stream of conscious but with distractions. Like life. The universe. Youtube.

I’m writing a screenplay with my good friend Dr. Kelly. He’s a stud. But he’s straight so back off. You might remember him from my videos Pretty Boy or My First Project. He also created the track Williamsburg Rooftops. He’s a talent. Watch out America. You’re gonna be blown over by this guys talent.

But enough about him. Our screenplay is about the universe. How this has all already happened before, and how drugs are actually not immoral, but a rational option for many people, and how these experiences can sometimes awaken parts of our consciousness, changing the course of our lives. Well it’s inevitable, whatever happens.

There’s a loud banging happening in the next room. I live with crazy people. Which reminds me, I wanted to talk about being crazy. It happens when your perceptions don’t match up with reality. But sometimes the truth and reality don’t match up. So there is now a difference between reality, truth, and sanity. This is not a flippant observation.

I feel, something like duty, although I believe in freedom above all things. I feel bound to champion the truth. Do you know what just came on my itunes, I swear to god, “I Know the Truth” from Aida. This is too much, don’t even get me started about coincidences.. well, I guess. Coincidences are the spice of life. They are not random, they are proof of a subconscious experience. Jung wrote a whole book about it. And others have as well. And though I can’t make a thorough argument right now, I firmly believe coincidences are the spice of life. The seasoning that is the detail that is the missing ingredient connecting us to the universe. Follow coincidences. They are magic.

The subconscious, or pre-conscious, is all powerful. Language and its ugly step child ego or “identity”. Oh! That reminds me! I also got Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: Sourcebook of Basic Documents for free when I picked up this food. So you’re still with me, thanks so much. I hope when I reread this it makes sense and that I’m not wasting your time.

Anyway, The Subconcious is the source of Truth. It exists pre morality, social convention, habit; it is ultimate freedom and can be accessed in degrees or sometimes subsume you, almost like when you dream. It is magic too, and coincidences are messages it receives from the external world. So are daydreams. You would know this if you ever flowdreamed. Try it.

Also, everyone should take an introductory acting lesson. Not for commercial purposes. We’re not all going to be reading copy. But in order that we may have the experience, just once, of completely demolishing and then rebuilding the foundation of your “identity”. We can do this other ways, but surely this way is effective and thorough. It goes to the very subconscious. I’ll tell you how my training went.

My teacher was a master. As in the old sense of the word, of which there are very few left. She was a guru. An absolutely individuated, experienced, and knowledgeable teacher. So I got in a lot of trouble the first semester cause I didn’t wanna do it, and I was scared, and I had invested so much already into my identity as an actor that I couldn’t bear to stand to find out that I couldn’t do it. You see, I was insecure that I wasn’t or wouldn’t be as good as I thought I was. I thought I was an artist. And I thought acting was my destiny.

We could substitute the word think for believe. Or even at some point know.

However, I haven’t become anything but less certain as I’ve grown older. After that rough period I brought something very personal into class, I convinced myself (for the sake of my training and ultimately art) that I had contracted HIV and I was going to die of it. I do not intend to claim that my experience in this imaginary circumstance can parallel that of actual HIV patients. There is a way to convince the brain of certain things that aren’t true in reality per se. The subsequent experience however, of this daydream, sustained at the teacher’s pleasure, seems very real. And so we learn.

You can have an experience, in all truth and reality, under imaginary circumstances. For if it is real in your mind, it is real in your body, and then it is really happening. You can convince yourself of something that is not true and believe it. This specific and intentional manipulation of consciousness results in character. By releasing the subconscious so freely, and surrounded by ‘the other’, by having a deeply private or primal emotional experience we can understand certain things about relationships, truth, performance, focus, reality, and the subconscious.

Truths that were imbedded in our dna before we could even speak begin to be revealed. The face to face is the initial differentiation. It is the point of ethics. All further differentiation, and choices arise from the face to face. Language, identity, belief.

So in this process, along with the physical work we did which was designed to completely re-introduce us to our bodies, where nothing was taken for granted, everything was a habit, and every day was a discovery of vast potential and unimagined opportunity, we learned to become actors because we learned how to release the subconscious. The experience, one day after another, of not only having a NEW experience, but of realizing it was a possibility that we had heretofore cut ourselves off from, was so bittersweet. We cried a lot, rolled around on the floor a lot, wailed a lot, played a lot.

We are socialized to inhabit our bodies the way we do. It is subtle and not entirely intentional. My teacher, Victoria Hart, summed up the goal for us with the phrase ‘sense of truth’. Language has overlap, ideas are inherited. Truth is in constant flux, the subconscious (like the universe) cannot be entirely apprehended. Time cannot be fully comprehended. It is a sense that we are after of what’s true. What exists preverbally, even pre consciously, before we assume any role, opinion, or even point of view. It is the ultimate resistance to authority, definition, form, linear logic, rationalism, and fraility. The truth is ultimate power.

There is a wealth of information, a lexus of options and freedoms, that many people live unaware of. We must bring this information forward. Freedom is the goal. This is a metaphor for the global catastrophe of inequality that is happening. Now more than ever. “The top 1% of the U.S. population is getting one-fourth of the national income and nearly half of the national wealth, twice as much as two decades ago” globalissues.org

It is not a coincidence that intuition, queerness, empathy have been suppressed in our industrialized culture. That the performer’s body has been absent in art until the 1960s. That women are victimized in the artistic canon, in employment, and in society. It is not a coincidence that black people don’t receive the same level of education as their counterparts, and are imprisoned more frequently. It is not a coincidence that policies have been enacted on a federal, local and global level that promote and support corporations not the individual. Preference is given to the rich. In terms of education, health care, access to information, time, resources, travel, freedom. There is a starting point inequality that belies any promise of full equality.

This is the result of a now disgustingly powerful minority that can intentionally control the discourse of culture and economy on a massive level. These outcomes are not the law of some natural force, noam says, “they are the results of very specific decisions, institutional arrangements, and plans which can be expected to have these effects. And they have these effects.”

We are seeing the results a mechanism of power, of an intellectually and ethically lazy conservatism that protects it’s own and disenfranchises ‘the other’.

The scales are tipped so dramatically in favor of the powerful that we will not see full equality before we die. It’s that battle. The one where you’ve already lost, it is determinedly futile, and all that counts is in the attempt. As with making art, what matters is that you try. There is beauty and truth in that. It seems the most important thing for me to do. Keep trying.

As an artist, who is that because there is nothing else I am happy doing, I must be able to make the work I want. From my audience, I seek to gain trust in my intention. Words cannot express the full thrust of this. I’ve moved from my bed to a table.. well it’s really a nightstand. It was my grandfather’s.

Now I’m making work that perhaps seems frivolous, or narcissistic. Considering all this. I do. I’m not interested in wasting anybody’s time, especially when the time I usually get is from people who already agree with me.

I read, in one of those free books I was talking about (it was called Libra), the quote: “Happiness is not based on oneself, it does not consist of a small home, of taking and getting. Happiness is taking part in the struggle, where there is no borderline between one’s own personal world, and the world in general.” Which is an excerpt from a letter sent by Lee Harvey Oswald (who was a Libra like me!) to his brother.

What I’m getting at so well is that: the personal is the political. Libra happens during the fall equinox. Astrology is a metaphor, or a mythology, for the evolution of the personality as correlates to the time of year. I was actually born on the very day of the year when the dark and light are equal. I believe in mythology. I believe it shapes character and explains character. The reason I segued from writing about psychology to mythology earlier was because the words we’ve created to represent sections of our brain, figments of our imagination, and relationships between us, our body, and the external universe, is exactly the same project the ancient Greeks were involved in but with different words. They called their ego narcissus and spelled it all out through allegory. Which is exactly what we’re doing, though perhaps more specifically. Mythology, psychology, the narrative, pattern, figment, form, construction, expectation or language we inhabit becomes who we are and in turn our destiny. We’ve heard that quote before right? Character equals destiny. The greeks figured it out in their epic tragedies. Just because now we have much more specific stories does not mean we’ve transcended the predicament. I struggle everyday to override my socialization and meet my destiny on the path to freedom.

Maybe the whole project of language is why we’re here in the first place. Differentiation is perhaps the problem period, more specific differentiation is not going to make the problem better. It might make it worse. I dream of returning to the origin of ethics and systems, the face to face, the original stepping out and facing a crowd and doing so for what reason? What is the point of the human project? How can we see it through? I’m no longer interested in these endless differentiations. Neurotic distractions. There’s too much work to ever finish. But I at least would like to honestly say that I tried.

I don’t believe in good or bad. I believe in progress and the truth. Even though you can’t ever get to it at all, sometimes you can get at the truth with 3 words just as easily as you can with 1000. So here it is, The top one percent of Americans receive more income than the bottom 40 percent [Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World, p. 108]

Ultimately, measures to create equality must entail a net transfer of resources from the richest 5% of the population to the majority world – the 40% of the world who currently live on less than $2 a day. [Copyright 2006, Share The World's Resources]

being an actor

At the beginning of his book, Stephen Callow writes a letter to himself upon entrance into drama school. “My main purpose in pursuing this course is therapeutic. Perhaps that’s what all acting is to all actors; and perhaps all acting is almost accidental, a sort of symptom, or cure, of an illness produced, like the pearl, by grit. This could be the beginning – not of a new life – but of life itself.”

At this point Callow has basically summarized the entire experience of getting into drama school complete with a perfect description of his body seizing up and his leg shaking uncontrollably during his audition. This passage seems a little psychic to me. At least I probably would have kept the insight that I was attending drama school was for primarily therapeutic reasons to myself. It seems embarrassingly self-centered and egomaniacal. But now we know it is not. We don’t work to service the ego, we work to transcend it. We don’t work to understand ourselves better for purely selfish reasons, we work to understand ourselves better so that we may understand and instruct humanity better. We center in on ourselves to experience others from this core which we all share, and hopefully to guide others to it as well.

We all bear within us the potentiality for every kind of passion, every fate, every way of life. Nothing human is alien to us. But inheritance and upbringing foster individual experiences and develop only a few of our thousands of possibilities. The others gradually sicken and die. Life today is narrowly circumscribed, and poor in feeling. The normal man generally feels once in his life the whole blessedness of love, and once the joy of freedom. Once in his life he hates bitterly. Once with deep grief he buries a loved one, and once, finally he himself dies. That gives all too little scope for our innate capacity to love, hate, enjoy, and suffer. We exercise daily to strengthen our muscles and sinews that they may not grow feeble. But our spiritual organs, which were made to act for an entire lifetime, remain unused, underdeveloped, and so, with the passing years, they lose their vitality. – Max Reinhardt

I’ve found to that when we can do the work for ourselves improves it enormously. Besides being more satisfying, the results are better when I can weld my own ideas, feelings, experiences, and fancies to the technique that is being given or the method being taught. It’s a constant battle - hard to fight, but necessary – to bring as much of yourself into the work as you can, to make it your own, and to own it.

Callow describes our scholastic experience even more when he talks about the students’ sense of being involved in a uniquely important and secretly special work. He compares it to working in intelligence during the war. He describes the insecurity of being surrounded by a group he sees as superior at everything dramatic. He describes how easy it is to work tremendously hard, but not be doing well due to a miscomprehension of the work. He stayed up late to “think of droller and droller quips to use in improvisation.” It was like losing my virginity, he says. Only it wasn’t Simon Callow (his ego) who had to lose his virginity, it was something deeper. “My devotion of Outer Man – putting him through his paces, making him do this funny voice or that, or indicate this emotion or that – was total”

What his school was first asking for was simplicity based on action because everything in a play is done in order to achieve a want of some kind. This resolves to the formula of objective, action, obstacle, activity, and super objective that we are dealing with now. They had the same problems in his class that we are having in ours: confusion, lack of specificity, absence of meaning. I though this was profound: “For me, the biggest problem was to show myself wanting something. To want something is to put oneself into a position of frightening vulnerability and then to pursue a course of action to achieve that want is to show oneself at one’s most naked. It can be very ugly.”

“Follow your impulse,” his teacher would say, “as if you may never have another.” The teacher was Doreen Cannon, a student of Uta Hagen. “Emotional truth, she demanded. Oh, did she ever.” Later on I love when he explains how, “suddenly, for the first time, I was acting. Not performing, or posturing, or puppeteering. I was being in another way.” Giving in was the essential experience for him, and I agree. “Leave yourself alone” they’d been telling him since he got there. “It was here, if anywhere, that any talent for acting that I might possess had resided: the knack of throwing off self-consciousness and finding, however briefly, a pool of liberated energy which was nothing to do with how I presented myself in life.”

He talks about his movement work, with the purpose of exploring sensations, as the heart of acting. The sensory work we do with Nate never ceases to amaze me. I never would have imagined such depth was available, and now that I know I want it all the time. The beautiful work that we’re doing now as we move into the DRUNK project is so exciting. To explore the basis, the foundation of our humanity, to think that everything else about us was built on top of this, and how unexplored it is. How unfamiliar to be sensual, to crave touch so desperately, to be overwhelmed by the simplest of sounds, movements, or sights. How utterly everything can affect us when we drop the guards we didn’t even realize inscrutably surround us for lengths a universe could fit into. That’s what it often feels like when I’ve dropped those defenses. It feels like there is a universe between my mind and anywhere else on my body. I love that feeling.

A genius quote from Ruth Gordon, “it’s not enough to have talent – one has to have a talent for having a talent.”

PRINCE Oƒ PARADOX

Kirk Duval

G.K. Chesterton was born a Gemini on May 29^th 1874. He was a contemporary of fellow Gemini George Bernard Shaw and Libra Oscar Wilde, and along with these artists and many other artists of that time, he represents a turning point. The century, the aesthetic, the science, the technology, and the art were all in flux and the artists that emerged from this period are forever remembered for shaping what is now contemporary thought.[1] We are currently experiencing a similar paradigm shift in our society. I’d like to explore the ways in which G.K. Chesterton contributed to his culture, in order that I may better understand how to contribute to mine.

Chesterton is considered a member of the Avante-Garde for many reasons. By simply adjusting with and reacting to the times in which he worked, he is granted enormous credibility as regards his industriousness. He was able to see possibilities for expressing himself and for utilizing his skills in almost every medium of the time, many of which involved the written word. He didn’t limit himself to a specialized genre, but instead chose to follow his desires across various platforms, mastery be damned. Although, master many he eventually did.

His dexterity in function and form reflect importantly on his dexterity of thought. Coined “The Prince of Paradox,”[2] Chesterton’s art lied in the way he could hold two opposing beliefs in his mind and turn each on it’s head while still examining the disparate truths of either and/or both. The paradox, or rather the spectrum of tensions created by paradox, was Chesterton’s artistic and intellectual fuel. He loved exposing the cultural hypocrisy that seems inevitable in a modern society.

This simple foray into differentiated aspects of culture and his diverse use of mediums is already very avant-garde. The established knowledge and popular wisdom of the time would suggest that specialized skills were highly valued. Hard work in one discipline was the gold standard. Professionals in every field were formalizing their profession. That period seems to be the time when people’s pursuits became more and more individualized.[3] It was the study of this or that, not this and that. By overthrowing these traditions of popular culture in his work, Chesterton participated in a cultural liberation from the passivity that capitalism encourages.

In his weekly publication G.K.’s Weekly, and along with the poet and essayist Hilaire Belloc, Chesterton espoused the economic system of distributism. This system, a balance between the two poles of capitalism and socialism, is based on the idea of increasing the owners of production as much as possible. Whereas in capitalism the means of production becomes inevitably centralized, and in socialism it’s under the control of the state, distributism “seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property.”[4] This system reflects many of Chesterton’s artistic principles as well.

As owner and publisher of his own weekly magazine he produced and distributed his own artistic content at will. He provided an example for an emerging society of artists who had advanced technology and tools at their disposal. On politics he is quoted as saying, “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”[5] Chesterton seems to be providing a creative blue print for the more typical modern man to make his own work. Become owner and producer of your own artistic property. Ignore the political polarization of popular discourse; it doesn’t affect all public points of view. There is no wrong or right way. “Mistakes” are welcome. It is dogma that seems to be the enemy; the mutual presence of contradictions is encouraged here.

Chesterton put into popular forms many complicated theories and philosophies, making them at once more accessible while also exposing their inflated importance. He said, “Oscar Wilde said that sunsets were not valued because we could not pay for sunsets. But Oscar Wilde was wrong; we can pay for sunsets. We can pay for them by not being Oscar Wilde.” And about George Bernard Shaw:

After belabouring a great many people for a great many years for being unprogressive, Mr. Shaw has discovered, with characteristic sense, that it is very doubtful whether any existing human being with two legs can be progressive at all. Having come to doubt whether humanity can be combined with progress, most people, easily pleased, would have elected to abandon progress and remain with humanity. Mr. Shaw, not being easily pleased, decides to throw over humanity with all its limitations and go in for progress for its own sake. If man, as we know him, is incapable of the philosophy of progress, Mr. Shaw asks, not for a new kind of philosophy, but for a new kind of man. It is rather as if a nurse had tried a rather bitter food for some years on a baby, and on discovering that it was not suitable, should not throw away the food and ask for a new food, but throw the baby out of window, and ask for a new baby. 5

He reconciled catholic thought with liberal thought.[6] He addresses Kant, Darwin, Materialism, Orthodoxy, Ontology. “He was a literary and social critic, historian, playwright, novelist, Catholic theologian and apologist, debater, and mystery writer. He was a columnist for the Daily News, the Illustrated London News, and his own paper, G. K.'s Weekly; he also wrote articles for the Encyclopædia Britannica, including the entry on Charles Dickens and part of the entry on Humour in the 14th edition.”[7]

Chesterton’s work in popular culture is one of the reasons he was more appreciated in his time rather than posthumously, as was the case with many of his contemporaries. Although, it is still curious as to why he’s not as studied as several other turn oƒ the century artists. Perhaps he was too uniquely of an age, perhaps too prolific and diverse to be studied in our traditional way. Maybe his temperament as a Gemini produced work that, though quotable and funny, seems superficial. And maybe still, his work, involving paradox, and his tongue in cheek turning of conventional wisdom on its head, might put the average reader ill at ease:

I have never managed to lose my old conviction that travel narrows the mind. At least a man must make a double effort of moral humility and imaginative energy to prevent it from narrowing his mind. Indeed there is something touching and even tragic about the thought of the thoughtless tourist who might have stayed at home loving Laplanders, embracing Chinamen, and clasping Patagonians to his heart in Hampstead or Surbiton, but for his blind and suicidal impulse to go and see what they looked like. This is not meant for nonsense; still less is it meant for the silliest sort of nonsense, which is cynicism. The human bond that he feels at home is not an illusion… But to travel is to leave the inside and draw dangerously near the outside. [8]

As a student of astrology this subject, and his sense of humor about it, strike me as particularly funny. “Mercury is connected with travel because travel is a means by which one fills in the details of one’s map oƒ reality. Mercury signifies travel of the routine, day-to-day variety, however, not long journeys, which are discontinuous with normal experience and hence expand the mind.” Mercury is of course the ruler of Chesterton’s sun sign, Gemini. “Often underplayed in astrological writing... Mercury signifies the gap that exists between separate entities. The world as seen in normal human consciousness is a world of divisions. The first of these is the division between subject and object... We can never fully occupy another’s point of view, yet we are not wholly cut off. We can communicate, and communication is one of the chief mercurial functions.” [9]

Still Chesterton seems content with the confusion he causes. Rather than explain himself, he lets the work speak for itself. And though it may appear so, his work is not easy. It unfolds and explains itself over “around 80 books, several hundred poems, some 200 short stories, 4000 essays, and several plays.”[10] This idea of allowing not just the work, but also the whole body of work, to speak for itself seems very modern to me. We live in an age where very little that’s created in or for the public sphere is truly lost. This easy proliferation of easy product is becoming and has been becoming since Chesterton’s time it seems.

Nowadays, consistent and unfettered access to online materials seems to be promoting more and more the vision of art that Chesterton propagated. The means of production are more so than ever in the hands of the producer, and unlimited access to the art consumer allows for work that can endlessly refer to itself (or, at this point, even Others). In our digital age, Lady Gaga acknowledges this new system of distribution in her work by creating pieces that are layered, symbolic across levels, and that expand on a narrative begun with her earliest underground and online work in New York City. This system seems appropriate to our modern age and correlates nicely with what appears to be G.K. Chesterton’s point of view: everything exists on a spectrum between two poles, nothing exists without its opposite, the process is the product, and the paradox is the solution.

---

[1] Wikipedia contributors. "G. K. Chesterton." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 30 May. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.

[2] Douglas, J.D.G.K. Chesterton, the Eccentric Prince of Paradox, 24 May 1974.

[3] Wikipedia contributors. "Modern history." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 1 Jun. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.

[4] Wikipedia contributors. "Distributism." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 24 May. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.

[5] Wikipedia contributors. "Distributism." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 24 May. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.

[6] Victorian Periodicals Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 1989), pp. 44-45. Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

[7] Wikipedia contributors. "G. K. Chesterton." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 30 May. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.

[8] Royal, Robert. Our Curious Contemporary, G. K. Chesterton. The Wilson Quarterly. Vol. 16, No. 4 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 92-102

[9] Hand, Robert. Horoscope Symbols. Whitƒord Press. 1981. pp 54-58

[10] Wikipedia contributors. "G. K. Chesterton." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 30 May. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.