This is sort of a discovery--but I think I will let it wrap up a series, as well, being partly observation and commentary. As I was continuing to read "The Life and Adventures of Dr. Dodimus Duckworth," a satire of quack medicine claimed for Asa Greene (but actually written by Mathew Franklin Whittier), I noticed a striking parallel between the young "Duckworth," and B.P. Shillaber's character, "Ike." Young Ike is being raised by his daft aunt, Mrs. Partington. As drawn by Shillaber, he had a mischievous and ostensibly lovable penchant for being cruel to animals. Where Mathew is forced to deal with him, in the faux biography of Mrs. Partington--which was his portion in "The Life and Sayings of Mrs. Partington"--he soft-pedals Ike's cruelty, giving the example of holding a mud turtle under water (mud turtles can survive in a submerged state for a long time, the inference being that the turtle was unharmed). But where Shillaber presents this character, Ike hangs the Partington cat, and stomps on a monkey's tail. One may ascribe this to the ignorance of the times; but Mathew didn't participate in it.
What forcibly struck me, this morning, is that where Mathew portrays "Dody," or young Duckworth being cruel to animals, he does so with a purpose. He is setting forth, in this seemingly light satire, a theory of the psychology of the criminal mind. That theory is that the criminal has been spoiled rotten, and so far as I know, it may have some validity. But when Mathew becomes personal friends with Shillaber, and shows him his earlier work, Shillaber creates a kind of amalgam--a female character prone to Malapropisms (which Mathew had also portrayed previously), and a boy who is cruel to animals. At least, that's how I would guess it went down.
Once again, I saw that when Mathew collaborated with another writer--or where his work was imitated, stolen or claimed by another writer--not only was Mathew's work more competent, but it was far deeper. These people watered down Mathew's writing, and achieved either lesser or greater fame thereby. This was not only true of Shillaber, but also of Asa Greene (inasmuch as he wrote a straight guide to New York City), Elizabeth Barrett, Charles Dickens, Francis Durivage, Edgar Allan Poe, Ossian Dodge, and others whom historians have argued about, or settled upon as the authors of Mathew's anonymous work. Where Mathew's work is attributed to Greene, it is considered light humor (though the prices of the originals are going through the roof, I see); Dickens, himself, subtitled "A Christmas Carol" as being merely a "Ghost Story of Christmas." Durivage was making a name for himself as a spinner of yarns, until he was caught plagiarizing from his editor--but nobody ever bothered to question who had actually been writing the stories he was gaining a reputation for. "The Raven" has gone down in history as a clever, somewhat twisted horror poem.
The difference, today, is that I don't veil anything, and I don't collaborate with anybody. And the result is that I am ignored. There is no one watering down my work for public consumption, and therefore the public will have none of it. There is nobody hyping it, so nobody comes looking for it. I am very easily found online--a few clicks and you're there. Reaching my home page, all my books are listed, and linked, at the top. My self-interview is at the top of my Interviews page (and it is 100% honest and factual); the documentary is there to watch, for free. (Half a million people watched the stolen and adulterated viral versions, until I had them taken down--some 5,000 have watched the official one that I posted.) People are busy with lesser productions, which they praise as great progressive works. Just as in Mathew's time. But today, my own work is not being represented by lesser lights. It is here with its right attribution, and in its full, pristine intensity.
My next interview is on the 15th of next month, and then there are a couple more pending. All three programs appear to have fairly substantial audiences. I think the thing may be moving. But there is something odd going on, some kind of unseen opposition working. I say that, because looking at my stats for this month, I see daily visit figures well into the 400's (and once into the 500's), until just the last few days, it has dipped into the 200's--a drop of almost 50%. I assume that reflects some large website dropping their link to mine, for unknown reasons. I've seen this happen fairly often. Whether the link just "expired for natural causes," or whether someone got offended, I have no way of knowing. But the people who link to this website, and whose own sites are much more popular, aren't as advanced in their understanding as I am. So, typically, I say something which offends them, and they drop the link.
I am by no stretch of the imagination in a league with Swami Vivekananda. But by way of illustrating the principle, I recall a story about his small group of Western disciples, here in America. He would give talks, and one of the ladies, a Christian, would get so offended that she would go off in a huff; but then she would be drawn back after some days. Once, he exclaimed, "Every worm is a brother to the Nazarene!" This remark kept her away for almost a week, as I recall. Of course, he meant that the soul in the worm and the soul in Jesus of Nazareth is precisely the same; it is only the degree of consciousness which is different.
There is a powerful figure-ground shift inherent in this past-life study I'm doing. It seems ludicrous to say that Mathew Franklin Whittier wrote "The Raven"; but in actuality, it is ludicrous to think that Poe wrote it. Whereas today it seems ludicrous to think that Mathew and Abby wrote the original treatment of "A Christmas Carol," in actuality it is absurd to think that Dickens could have written it. And likewise with these other mistaken attributions. When this epiphany dawns, the shift is huge, because these attributions are inextricably rooted in an entire paradigm. When they go, philosophical Materialism, itself, goes.* The entire value system of Society, which puts the superficial and trite at the top, and consigns the deeply significant to the bottom, up-ends. The great become mere hacks and imitators, while the ignored and marginalized become the great. Where have we heard this before...does it ring a bell? Oh, yes, I think it's in the Sermon on the Mount. It means that when things are seen rightly, what was taken as significant--what was taken as social reality--what was taken as reality, itself--is revealed as an illusion, as "vanity." And what was marginalized, and laughed at, and relegated to the dust bin of life, is suddenly found to have been the real substance.
In other words, this is just a subset of a huge shift, which is now pending. I think my own work--my own piece of this shift--will probably be ignored until the thing goes down. Or maybe just before...
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*Because they are inextricably tied to my reincarnation study, and that study also proves the reality of reincarnation.
Audio opening this page: from the film, "Planes, Trains and Automobiles"