Studs Terkel

by on October 31, 2008 11

By James North
Studs Terkel was the smartest person I ever met, and the greatest single influence on me as a writer.  He was much more than his folksy, cigar-chomping red-checked-shirt persona, authentic as that was. 
The last time I saw him was one evening maybe 10 years ago just off Michigan Avenue, in downtown Chicago.  He was in a long conversation with a homeless person who he obviously knew, long after most of us passed by the homeless with barely a thought. 
I told him I was just back from Mexico, and I gave him the latest on Mexican politics.  He was entirely conversant with affairs outside of Chicago.  "The Mexican ruling party sounds just like that fucking right-wing Berlusconi, in Italy," he added.
I was part of a group celebrating with him in 1984, when he won the Pulitzer prize for The Good War.'  He was characteristically modest.  "It's not 'great' news," he insisted.  "But it is 'good' news."
With Division Street America in the late 1960s, Studs basically founded the field of oral history -- telling large truths through individual people, mainly in their own words.  So many books have used his approach that we sometimes forget he started it.  (I basically just copied his methods and applied them to southern Africa in Freedom Rising -- as I said to him when he had me on his radio program.)
Being interviewed once by Studs was one of the great experiences of my life.  He was so good at it that compared with the rest of us he was like White Sox (and Orioles) shortstop Luis Aparicio next to little leaguers.  First, he actually had done his homework; he had my book next to him, marked up throughout with his green felt pen. He had a performer's sense of timing.  He had worked as an actor, and he used his experience to play a role: the likeable old guy, befuddled by his big, ancient tape recorder, who really needed your help.  Before ten minutes had passed, you found yourself telling the old gent about things you didn't even realize yourself.
I have one more strong memory of him: his sensitivity.  I reviewed one of his later books in a small but valuable publication called In These Times, and, almost as an afterthought, I mailed him a copy of the review.  He contacted me immediately, with profuse thanks.  A negative notice had just appeared in another publication, and he said my review had been just what he needed.
We met for lunch, and I asked him a little delicately if he was sensitive to criticism, after all the honors he had received.  He was close to 80 years old at the time.  "Of course I'm sensitive," he said.  "That other review hurt my feelings, and my morale was low."

Posted in Beyondoweiss, Israel/Palestine, US Politics

{ 11 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Richard Witty says:
    October 31, 2008 at 11:49 pm

    James,
    I didn't know you wrote for In These Times.

    Studs Terkel was a hero of mine as well.

  2. anon says:
    November 1, 2008 at 8:26 am

    PBS had Studs on countless times–why hasn't PBS had Ralph Nader on? He's running on the ballot in many states… Where's Charlie Rose? In our public school mock balloting, why aren't the third party candidates on the ballot?

    What's public about public except taxpayer funds?

  3. Sword of Gideon says:
    November 1, 2008 at 10:09 am

    The "Good War" was a great book. So was Division Street. I lived in Chicago for 20 years and he and MIke Royko were both great.

    Nader has shot his wad, that's why they don't have him on. I'd rather have two parties that encompass most people then multiple parties that bring the system to a halt like in Israel. Then again there is the Hamas method. Throw the other guy off the roof. Which come to think of it is the Arab way.

  4. Robert Hume says:
    November 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

    What were his positions on Israel … settlements … Palestine … Zionism and on immigration to the US?

  5. anon says:
    November 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

    I lived in Chicago for forty years.

    I also liked Studs and Royko. I went to where Royko hung out.

    It's not for PBS to ignore a person like Nader, with all he has added to the American good and discourse because he "shot his wad." He's running for POTUS.

    PBS record shows constant showing of fringe ideas, as well they should. So, SOG, please how about a little brains from your end?

    Too much to ask?

    PS: How about the Israeli way? You know, just assassinate those you don't like, toss the rest in jail, torture them, pretend they don't exist by the thousands? Leave cluster bombs in the field for their children to play with–all paid for by USA dollars…

    HAMAS was democratically elected just as much as any Israeli
    parliament with its no-go for any Arab member swing vote.

  6. Sword of Gideon says:
    November 1, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Look, I would hardly call PBS a conservative outlet. Nader has been runing for president for what seems like forever. At what point do you say enough already. Studs Terkel on the other hand was a prominent American literary figure.

  7. D. says:
    November 1, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    I didn't realize Terkel was Jewish until I saw Richard's comment.

  8. anon says:
    November 1, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    PBS is liberal just like Joe Lieberman is liberal–on everything except
    any voice against Israel policy.

  9. anon says:
    November 1, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    SOG, and Nader didn't contribute an equal amount for the USA as compared to Studs as a "literary" figure? Not to mention he's running for POTUS?

    SOG is a perfect candidate for Nader's lemon law.

  10. Sword of Gideon says:
    November 1, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    You think that anything besides Hezbollah and Stormfront is an Israeli mouthpiece

  11. Dan Kelly (higginslads) says:
    November 2, 2008 at 7:41 pm

    "Where's Charlie Rose?"

    He's probably out to dinner with one of the men he then pretends to hold an unbiased "interview" with.

Leave a Reply