In the thirty-year period between 1920 and 1950, Henry Mencken was a dominant figure in American letters. He was prominent in American political affairs as well. He was a writer, an editor, a publisher of two intellectual magazines, and he found time to author more than 80 hard-cover books. Few things escaped Mencken’s attention. The title of this essay is taken from one of Mencken’s work in which he said of a female acquaintance that she wore enough jewelry that she “flashed and glittered like the mouth of Hell itself.”
There is a certain anomaly here in that Mencken was a non-believer in religious affairs, so I assume that he used “Hell” in a metaphorical sense. But that is of no moment in this essay. Mencken had a logical mind that probably reflected his Germanic heritage. His attention to the woman who wore outrageous jewelry was a subject for his curious mind. Mencken must have wondered at the logic and reasoning of it all. If the woman wore outrageous jewelry, would she be more attractive to men or was it done simply to please herself? In any case, since Mencken has departed the scene, I suspect that the “flashed and glittered” business is now greater than ever and it continues to defy logic and reasoning. The illogic of it all makes me wonder why people wear accoutrements and accessories that do, in fact, flash and glitter like the mouth of hell itself. Let me give you a few examples.
When I departed Chicago to accept a transfer to New York, my going-away party was attended by perhaps 100 women. After all, I was leaving a traffic office in Chicago where many women were employed. Many years later, I looked at photographs of that party because it was a happy affair. As far as I could tell from the photograph, every woman wore a hat to the party. There were hats of every description from the skimmers to more elaborate concoctions. The fact is that those women did not wear those hats to work on ordinary workdays. The hats were saved for special occasions and had to be fastened to the hair on top of the head with hairpins. I can remember from that night wondering whether those hats ever fell off into the soup or the roast beef. While the hats did not flash and glitter, the irrationality of it all was impressive.
In the photographs taken of the going away party, it appeared to me that every woman was wearing earrings. Logic has no place in the wearing of earrings. In my view, they are nearly the ultimate in irrationality. Some of the women in the photograph wore discreet earrings, but others wore the so-called bangle-dangle earrings of several rings that hung down two or three inches below their ears. Now I will reveal a male secret. If women wear earrings for the flash and glitter that they may lend to the occasion, I have never met a man who said, “I want to marry that woman because of her earrings.” Similarly, I have never met a man who would say, “I want to become seriously involved in a romantic relationship, even if it is only for one evening, with that woman with the flashy and glittery earrings.”
On the other hand, the old curmudgeon Mencken might be surprised to know that in these days, men also wear earrings. The women in that photograph at the going-away party seemed to all wear necklaces. I have no debate with necklaces and believe that they are an excellent accessory to show off the female body. I suppose that some of them may be so outrageous as to meet Mencken’s test of flash and glitter, but the Chicago women who saw me off that night wore modest necklaces.
What is disturbing is that, in these days, professional baseball players tend to wear necklaces. The more I think about that, I recall that professional basketball players and football players also wear necklaces. This is an atrocious development. I have seen games where the pitcher, wearing a necklace, must stop between pitches to gather his necklace and stuff it back in the top of his uniform. If necklaces are to be worn, they should enhance the female body and male professional athletes should be chucked into the mouth of Hell itself for wearing them.
During the current Bush administration, in the first five years every member was required to wear an American flag pin in his lapel. It seems to me that none of us, American or otherwise, would need an American flag lapel pin to identify the country of origin of the American president. This truly belongs in the flash and glitter category and Henry Mencken’s ghost would be greatly disturbed. How illogical can you get?
Now we proceed to a member of the legal fraternity who was assigned to work with me when I had the labor relations job in New York. This gentleman had three given names. His only saving grace is that his name was not followed by a number which would indicate that he was the fourth or fifth in that line of succession. This lawyer met every test of Mencken’s flash and glitter maxim. He wore one ring on each ring finger which could be seen when he laid his hands down on a desk, which he often did. The object of showing us his hands was to lead us to ask about his rings. For the four or five years that we worked together, I was successful in avoiding bringing up the subject of his rings. My reluctance to ask about the rings had a basis in fact. Fairly early in our association, I had asked him about his three given names and had gotten a genealogy report on the lawyer’s family. That cured me. But the lawyer met every test of Mencken’s flash and glitter rule.
I notice that over the years, there are women who use five or six or seven bracelets. Some of these bracelets extend up toward the elbow. When I see such an exhibition as that, I am greatly unimpressed. And of course there are women who wear not one ring but six or seven including the thumb. Again, to reveal a masculine secret, I would not be moved to marry such a woman or even to become seriously involved with her. All those bracelets and rings might serve only to attract lightening.
One of the most outrageous examples of flash and glitter occurred one night in Bombay, India. The woman involved was Mrs. Ramaswami, the wife of an important correspondent with the Indian Telecommunications Authority. When we met the Ramaswamis for dinner one night, Mrs. Ramaswami was dressed in the height of Indian fashion, including diamonds studs glittering from each nostril. There was one diamond for the right nostril and another diamond for the left nostril. I remember nothing about that dinner because I was concerned about how those diamonds were anchored inside her nose. I wondered if she took them off when she went to bed and if so, how did she get them reinserted the next morning. So you see, the Indians have their own version of flash and glitter, which would have amused Mencken endlessly.
Another thought comes to mind having to do with eyeglasses. In recent years, I have seen eyeglass frames decorated with twined ivy as well as fake diamonds. The frames of glasses have nothing to do with improving visual acuity. The essence is in the glass, which is ground so that one may see a little bit better. Again, I would have trouble running away with a woman who wore decorated frames on her eyeglasses. But on the other hand, there may be millions of men who would roll over and play dead at the sight of such eyeglasses but I am not one of them. All I can say is, ain’t democracy grand?
In addition to wearing bracelets to the elbow, I am informed that some women wear bracelets on their ankles. I suppose I can live with that, but I tend to draw the line at one of our mailmen who has a stud in his tongue. Now of course the stud doesn’t flash and glitter when he keeps his mouth shut, but I shake my head at what that is supposed to represent. Do tongue studs advance the cause of democracy or medical knowledge? I doubt it. Tongue studs bring to mind Ubangi women in Africa who stretch their lips so that ornaments may be attached to them. I do not favor tongue studs or Ubangi female lip ornaments.
Well, there you have my summary of the flash and glitter accessories that is reasonably up to date. Mencken’s quote took place in 1927, when American men were aghast at women who wore flapper clothes and “bobbed” their hair. Several religions of the Nazarene and Pentecostal stripe declared that bobbing the hair would lead straight to the Hell about which Mencken had commented.
Now if Mencken thought that some of the accessories women wore flashed and glittered like the mouth of Hell itself in 1927, he should be told that their granddaughters are wearing outrageous accessories and, in addition, there are tattoos on every part of the body. I suspect that Mencken might be disturbed to know that the granddaughters in 2007 might wear bracelets up to the elbow, rings on every finger, ankle bracelets and, in addition, they might have a spitting cobra tattooed around their mammary glands. Henry Mencken was a man of the world, but today’s accessories worn by men and women, might cause him to say that, for the last 80 years, he was absolutely right when he said those accessories “flashed and glittered like the mouth of Hell itself.”
And now I retire to contemplate, as I have for the last 30 years, about how Mrs. Ramaswami had those diamond studs stuck in her nostrils. For me, this is one of the great mysteries of the world. At least Mrs. Ramaswami had the saving grace that she did not wear stiletto heels and belly button rings, which some modern women now do. Again, ain’t democracy great?
E. E. CARR
March 21, 2007
Essay 242
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: Well this one was a bit curmudgeonly, huh. I would go so far as to call it uncharacteristic. I guess Pop disagreed with his Father’s sentiment that wearing a wristwatch made someone gay, but he draws the line at male necklaces. Now I have never worn a necklace because I think they’re a bit tacky on guys, but damning them to Hell, even if the person doing the damning doesn’t believe in said firepit, seems a little extreme. In a similar vein I don’t know why we’re holding personal jewelry choices to their ability to “advance the cause of democracy or medical knowledge.”