The Cheapest Kind

The song is a memory of a childhood in the Midwest, a childhood (we’d say) in poverty, although the point of the song is to question that.
    The first line establishes location. “We traveled Kansas and Missouri spreading the good news.” Who are they? A preacher’s family, wearing “pressed clothes and worn-out polished shoes.” Yes, they were poor (the shoes are worn out), yet they wore the dignity of having “pressed clothes.”
    The adults are marked by the scarcity of money. It weighs on them, worries them; it shapes all their life. Here is a telling scene:
    Dad and me would stop by the store when the day was done / Standin’ at the counter he said, “I forgot to get the peaches, son” / “What kind should I get?” I said to him there where he stood in line / And he answered just like I knew he would: “Go and get the cheapest kind.”
    That was their life, that was how they got by: always getting the cheapest kind.
    But the refrain swells high over all that:
    But the love, the love, the love
    It was not the cheapest kind.
    It was rich as rich as rich as rich as rich as
    Any you could ever find.

---
    Part of the song’s power is that it never says “poor,” it never says “poverty.” There are images that convey vividly their life, their making-do with little, but it is only the hearer (only someone like you or me) who looks at them and sees poverty. By contrast, the song leans into the word “rich”—with that refrain line which slides over any commas—“rich as rich as rich as rich as rich as,” a line repeated (depending on the version you hear) at least four times. Score: Poor, zero; Rich, 20.
---
    “Get the cheapest kind.” We know the impulse. Get the house brand. Look for the sales. It seems virtuous. I have been entertained (this is a true story) at a restaurant where the bill was heading north of a hundred bucks a person, and our host’s refrain throughout dinner was what a good deal we were getting. We know the impulse: but do we get the love?
---
    The singer remembers his grandfather, “rocky as Ozark dirt,” “raisin’ seven children on a little farm in not the best of times. The few things that they got from the store was always just the cheapest kind.” But (here the chorus hits again) the love, the love, the love.
    He’s not, I think, romanticizing, nor is he altogether approving. He looks at fancy houses and rich people and turns away, wanting to hold those old hands again, to see those old, deeply-lined faces. He has to cry and he has to laugh when he sees how those lines were carved into those faces from many years of making do with the cheapest kind. He both cries and laughs: crying, perhaps, that they had to have the cheapest kind, and yet laughing at the joy. The love: it was not the cheapest kind.
---
    To love one another in hard times: it is not the cheapest kind.
---
    On the web. “The Cheapest Kind” is a song by Greg Brown, which you can find on YouTube and other such sites. Brown was a frequent guest on the radio show, “A Prairie Home Companion,” where I first heard this song.

 

It Looked Like a Button to Me

A socially distanced class, nine of us altogether, each with a six- or seven-foot table to him or herself, arranged in an oval: we had to speak up a bit but we could actually hear and see each other and the conversation was going swimmingly when I noticed some laughter on the side.
    One student apologized, but I missed his words. On the floor across from him, I saw a button. I figured it had popped off a jacket and rolled there; maybe he was embarrassed.
    Then I noticed that the button had thin, long, hinged back legs. “O, I see; a grasshopper.”
    Wrong again. Another student, Saint Francis, rose and with cupped hands took the critter out the door. A frog. A miniature frog, the size of a quarter. Saint Francis returned and pumped the hand sanitizer.
    What had we been talking about? Something about human nature, I think, maybe the difference between human beings and animals. Only a day or two before we had been talking about Genesis 2, where the original human named the beings God brought to him. “Frog,” he must have said. And here we were.
---
    The original human must have had good eyes. Can you imagine God bringing him a frog and him calling it a button?
---
    God made those creatures in Genesis 2—the birds and the land animals (and yes, I know a frog is only ambiguously a land animal)—God made them all because he saw it was not good for that human to be alone. They were not made to be lesser beings, but rather to be companions, “helpmeets.” God seems to have thought they might have made good fellows for us, in the sense of beings that could answer our aloneness. God seems to have thought they might be our friends.
    It didn’t turn out that way. I imagine the parade of new critters coming past Adam, and him saying, “giraffe ... cockroach ... pelican ... starling ... otter ...” What I don’t know how to imagine, however, is the process by which he determined none of them would be a fit companion. Did they go out on dates? “I say, pelican, you sure swallowed that soup fast.” Maybe the cockroach communicated with him by typewriter (as does Archy in Archy and Mehitabel). Each date ended, Adam came home. God asked him how it went. “Well, actually, I’m sorry—maybe it was my fault—but we just couldn’t get much conversation going.”
    So it didn’t work out. Nevertheless, we do seem to bear with us a bit of that old longing, the wonderment that just possibly we might be friends with other creatures, and friends in the fullest sense, sharers in a common enterprise. I loved the Doctor Dolittle books when I was a boy: a doctor who learns animal languages and forms around himself a household where an extensive menagerie dwells as a family. And it seems important that, in the Lord of the Rings, some animals are peers with Gandalf, and their cooperation is needed for the defeat of wickedness.
    Poor fallen man that I am, I only had an eye for a button.
---
    On the web. I have been recommending this article to friends since it first came out in June, and I judge it to be a Virus-related thought-piece of lasting value. The author’s question is: Why has science become politically weaponized in this matter? He has an interesting parallel with the 1986 Chernobyl radioactive fallout on sheep farmers in Cumbria. In these long-haul situations, we need to recognize that people on the ground have their own expertise that must be engaged. Experts’ trust “is gained in drops and lost in buckets.” https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/radiation-politics-in-a-pandemic

 

12...9596979899100101102103104 ... 184185

The Rev. Canon Victor Lee Austin. Ph.D., is the Theologian-in-Residence for the diocese and is the author of several books including, "Friendship: The Heart of Being Human" and "A Post-Covid Catechesis.: