I saw this on the student wall at Pomona College today.
Leave a CommentTom Fasano Posts
It’s tax day, although we here in California have an extension, and I’m still wearing a coat. Whenever I think spring has sprung, I get surprised.

My flagship typewriter: a Woodstock No. 5 from 1916. This WWI-era machine still works perfectly over a hundred years later. Amazing!
Leave a CommentMy new bucket hat, inspired by Gilligan on Gilligan’s Island.
To truly comprehend the origins of this notorious prank, we must first acquaint ourselves with the figure of John Partridge. In the early 1700s, almanacs reigned supreme as the most popular form of literature, overflowing with predictions for the upcoming year. Partridge was an astrologer who frequently published his own almanacs, though many of his predictions proved to be woefully inaccurate. Notably, in 1708, Partridge predicted that a fever would sweep through London in early April.
Shortly after Partridge’s prediction was published, Jonathan Swift, writing under the pseudonym of Isaac Bickerstaff, released his own almanac. In it, Bickerstaff made the audacious claim that on March 29th, precisely at 11pm, Partridge would succumb to “a raging fever.” This proclamation provoked both shock and amusement among Londoners. Partridge himself denounced Bickerstaff as a fraud, insisting that his prediction would prove to be false: “His whole Design was nothing but Deceit. The End of March will plainly show the Cheat.”
All of London eagerly awaited the fateful day, wondering whether Bickerstaff’s prediction would come true. When March 29th arrived, Bickerstaff released an elegantly printed elegy in a black frame, announcing that Partridge had indeed died. The elegy went on to describe Partridge as a “cobbler, Starmonger and Quack.” According to Bickerstaff, he had even visited Partridge on his deathbed, where the latter had confessed to being a fraud who wrote predictions only to support his wife.
A pamphlet called The Accomplishment of the First of Mr. Bickerstaff’s Predictions began to circulate around London, claiming that Partridge had indeed died on March 29th, but a few hours earlier than the predicted time of 11pm. The pamphlet stated that Partridge had died at 7:05pm instead. Word of this quickly spread, and by April 1st, most people in London believed that Partridge had truly passed away as Bickerstaff had predicted.
However, Partridge was very much alive on April 1st, 1708. He was awoken that morning by a sexton who asked if there were any orders for his funeral sermon. Later, as Partridge walked down the street, people stared at him in confusion, with some even mistaking him for a deceased relative. Furious at this turn of events, Partridge printed his own pamphlet insisting that he was alive and that Bickerstaff was the real fraud. Bickerstaff retaliated by claiming that Partridge was obviously dead, as no living man could have penned the rubbish that appeared in his last almanac. Bickerstaff even claimed that Partridge’s own wife had admitted that her husband had “neither life nor soul.”
Despite Partridge’s insistence that he was still alive, the joke persisted well beyond April Fool’s Day. In fact, contemporary writers continued to publish stories about Partridge’s death for years to come. While Partridge did survive to experience Swift’s satire, he eventually stopped publishing his almanacs and ultimately passed away in 1714.
Leave a Comment
A little cake for Sandy and me in celebration of our first date 30 years ago.
As I sauntered into the musty thrift store, I didn’t expect to lay eyes on something so magnificent – a typewriter. Not just any typewriter, mind you, but a bona fide Royal De Luxe portable. The kind that’s beloved by typewriter connoisseurs worldwide. I had to have it.
The price tag was a little steep, a cool $58, but my heart was set on it. After all, when you stumble upon a gem like this, you don’t let a few dollars stand in the way of true love. So I snatched it up and held it close to my chest, feeling the weight of history in my hands.

It turns out, there’s a deadly flaw in the escapement – it skips, threatening to render this beauty useless.
My heart sank as I realized that this prized possession may only serve as mere decoration. And to add insult to injury, the shift key was proving to be a tough nut to crack. I should’ve scrutinized this more closely when I was perusing the thrift store, but alas, my excitement got the best of me.
I may have to face the hard truth that this Royal Deluxe will only ever grace my shelf, never to be used for its true purpose. But, as they say, such is life. And who knows, maybe there’s a typewriter repair wizard out there who can work their magic and bring this machine back to life.
Leave a Comment
Here’s the printed proof of my sci-if novel, THE AREAN WALL, along with a favorite writing machine. The book will publish toward the end of the month. It’s not listed yet, but stay tuned.
If we’re going to assert that poetry is work, we need to go beyond the semantics and difficulty and consider how it’s valued alongside other types of labor. The movie Paterson and Jim Jarmusch give us the opportunity to compare the work of making poetry with material forms of creative work and the waged work of bus driving. By highlighting the contrast between Paterson writing at work and his wife Laura making things at home, we’re immediately confronted with the historically lopsided and gendered division of labor that takes place in the public and private spheres.
Political philosopher Hannah Arendt argued that the division of public and private realms is partially linked to the prioritization of intellectual over manual labor in classical Greek society. Arendt saw poetry, which is made purely of language, as the most human and least worldly of the arts. On the other hand, Richard Sennett saw craft as a merging of mental and manual labor, with the products representing the intimate connection between the hand and head.
However, the American philosopher Richard Sennett acknowledges that not all crafts are seen as equal, with parenting being viewed as different in character than plumbing or programming. Jarmusch defends the character of Laura against accusations of regressive gender roles, pointing out that she lives how she wants and is entrepreneurial, even if it’s in a domestic set-up. Jarmusch sees domesticity as a fact of how social structure works, but he also emphasizes the essential difference between the approaches to their respective crafts of the two main characters.
Leave a Comment