Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )
I went to the Crossroads but I did not ‘claim it’. We all know that the Rite of Hat, (with it’s documented record of the power established with the Treaty of Tordesillas), empowered me to claim the Crossroads of Rosedale, Mississippi as my personal property. I was there, I have a video record to prove it, (it can be viewed on the last Video Friday Post). I also have still photos and maps and notes and (I may not have thrown aways the bottle of water that I bought at the Double Quik Lunch right there on Mississippi Rt 1 less than 100 yards from the intersection of Rt 8 and Rt 1). …and, and I had the hat on my damn head and my video camera in my hand and
…I could not do it.
I could not claim the Crossroads as my own.
Don’t get me wrong, it was not that I looked around and saw the people standing on the corner or (that) I could see the movement of a teacher at the blackboard in the little elementary school on the north side of the intersection or (on the south side of Rt 8) the supermarket where shoppers were busy buying groceries and such…it is not because I was given a look of disapproval of anyone of these people, but I could not say the words: “I claim this Crossroads, by Rite of Hat for my own…so get your damn things and move it on out“!
Interesting. I was not afraid to claim it, I was not embarrassed to claim it, I was not too busy to claim it, I did not feel pity for the (former) owners of the place, I did not think that someone would disapprove of my actions, I was not in fear for my life, on the run from the law, or even going to see my baby… I simply had a feeling of respect for that place.
Interesting. And what does the Doctrine tell us about the significance of a reaction like this?
- clarks think …therefore it was not an emotional attachment to the place affecting my decision
- rogers feel …but it was not a roger who travelled to this area, dressed in a business suit with a Wakefield Doctrine hat on …so it cannot be a weakness of character
- scotts act …but there was plenty of activity and people were moving about in plain view and there was no instinct driving me to give chase, so it could not be that I viewed the people there as prey
So what the hell?
We all know that clarks are the outsider(s). Justified from your point of view or not, that is the basic worldview of a clark.
We are and everything else, the world and peoples and places are all ‘out there’. Even when a clark knows better, realizes that everyone else has the same fears and dreams,insecurities and confidence we cannot escape the feeling that we are different. Not (even) necessarily different/deficient or different/more than or different/you-will-disapprove…just different. Just as a scott knows without thinking about it, that the world is a hostile place and that only by staying on the alert can they survive and (as) the rogers feel the certainty that the herd is proof of a world where the rules are there to be understood and shared and maintained and preserved, clarks know they are different.
So maybe it was this, this sense of seeing Rosedale without pre-conception, as an un-abashed outsider, maybe that is what kept me from claiming the place.
Damn. Is this a Doctrine or what?
Hey, great Saturday Night Drive last night. Nearly full house as we had DS#1 and Ms AKH(in the dashboard) and DownSpring glenn (aka Lunchbox Lennie) riding shotgun. Even better, we were joined by Molly! Located in one of the big, regular-shaped States that use longitude and latitude for house numbers, Molly is providing us with a perspective on the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers , in addition her feedback on the writing of this blog, will surely result in an acceleration of the growth of the Wakefield Doctrine. So don’t get left behind, call or write us here at this here blog here and tell us which of three (nearly) identical Wakefield Doctrine hats (for your damn head) we should be sending y’all. Don’t delay, supplies are limited.
About clarkscottroger
After reading the above definitions, I must conclude that I am probably a clark and just…different. But I absolutely loved the video of Robert Johnson! One needs to feel “different” to fully appreciate those down home blues and life at a crossroads.
@askcherlock thanks for stopping by!
I know that you know that there is nothing wrong with being a clark…think about how barren a place the blogosphere would be without us! lol
I mean really, (without the blogs written by clarks) the internet would consist of porn-centric Scrabble sites, Sports Insider news and websites devoted to 305 Ways to cook porridge exactly like the Pilgrims.
You know, your Comment has me recalling that several weeks ago, when the Delta Road Trip was being planned, the inevitable question was asked: Was Robert Johnson (at least the Robert Johnson who met the Devil at the Crossroads) a clark or a scott or a roger? Maybe it was the reasoning behind the answers that was most heartening. Everyone cited the same qualities (ascribed to each of the three types) as their reason for deciding that he surely was a clark.
Will be happy to send you a (nearly free) Wakefield Doctrine Hat for your damn head/
Pilgrim Porridge? Really!? Please share the recipe!
lol
…a little of why I go with the Crossroads being in Rosedale, (instead of Clarksdale) is because of the following version of the tale, a section of which goes:
“You know where you are, Robert Johnson? You are standing in the middle of the crossroads. At midnight, that full moon is right over your head. You take one more step, you’ll be in Rosedale. You take this road to the east, you’ll get back over to Highway 61 in Cleveland, or you can turn around and go back down to Beulah or just go to the west and sit up on the levee and look at the River. But if you take one more step in the direction you’re headed, you going to be in Rosedale at midnight under this full October moon, and you are going to have the Blues like never known to this world. My left hand will be forever wrapped around your soul, and your music will possess all who hear it. That’s what’s going to happen. That’s what you better be prepared for. Your soul will belong to me.”
( from http://www.vagablogging.net/robert-johnson-sold-his-soul-to-the-devil-in-rosedale-mississippi.html with full attribution, yo)
Thanks for the link. Enjoyable, scary but true sounding….how could I possibly follow that…. but… I liked today’s title. True to point. clarks do look. At everyone and everything. In fact, we have a pretty nifty knack that comes in pretty darned handy – the “scanning”. clarks can walk into a party and take a visual reconnaissance faster than you can say “scott at 12 o’clock!” (Huh) This Doctrine thing could be quite the primer for up and comers who, for one reason or another, find themselves at social functions on a regular basis. rogers in fact will be gathered in small groups. You will never see a roger alone at a social function. scotts on the other hand may or may not be alone but will always be “on the move” – all over the place they be. clarks are the “overseers” for sure. (In a bar you want a female clark close by. She will be able to lead you through the massive crowd when you need to get to the other side of the room stat. She’ll maneuver you through those bodies faster than you can say “herd ‘o rogers at 9 and 3 o’clock!”) But everybody knows this kind of stuff…
clarks are different. We know we are “different” very, very early on. Lends to some additional growing pains sure, but if we are lucky we grow up to become…well adjusted “different” adults. lol Now that’s an oxymoron! Having said that, recent discussion at the corner store about the Doctrine as a tool reminds me that without doubt the Wakefield Doctrine is about acceptance. Knowing how someone else “views the world” – what kind of world does my husband, friend, brother, boss etc wake up to each day? What is the context of their world? Makes it a whole lot less a mystery as to why they are the way they are. I can better accept an individual without prejudice if I know “what” they are: clark, scott or roger. Using the Doctrine is like learning to play a musical instrument – practice every day and before you know it, it becomes second nature. Speaking of ….did I mention accessing and utilizing the “other 2 characteristics” present within our own selves? I didn’t? Guess I need a bunch a clarks for that to matter, eh?….. the Wakefield Doctrine at work. Marvelous. Just marvelous.
(damn, where is that roadmap….)
Sounds like that ol’ Devil could have used a hat for his damned head…
alright…since you seemed to be determined to entice* controversy, let us ask the Readers this question:
Is the Devil (in the Tale above, not the generic devil) a clark or a scott or a roger?
(be prepared to defend your answer).
We know which Robert Johnson was … but the figure he negotiates with, tell us why he is what you say he is…
*entice: a minor rogerian expression
Hmm… A scott would have just dragged him over the county line…a roger would have gotten there early and constructed a giant pentagram, with candles, red robes and satanic chanting….had to be a clark. Get him tied up in the semantics.
totally agree with the (call) on how a scottian devil would have behaved, but not sure on the roger/clark
I (also) agree with the idea that a clarklike devil would have gone with the indirect semantics, but there is something distinctly rogerian to the idea that the devil (in this version of the story) did not answer the question directly (and we all know that rogers will always answer a question*)
(as to the giant pentagram…also agree but that would be necessary only for Public Appearences and/or Recruiting Rallys)
There is a un-mistakeable ‘what are you looking at me like that for’? tone to the story that makes me think roger as opposed to clark. Was it not you, the Progenitor roger who made the statement that (on occasion) rogers will elect to lead from behind?
“…Robert yo, you the one who took that step to the north…you sealed the deal not me!”
*provided the correct question is asked
I would like to validate this notion of late that clarks are fearful of being wrong….was waiting for someone else to answer the question as to “who” the Devil is. Yesterday, alone, in my head, I was figuring a roger but, like the progenitor clark, was thinking there was a slight chance he’s a clark. But really, my gut was telling me roger. (We have yet to discuss the more “evolved” clarks, scotts and rogers.)
I know. There is no point now, the day after and after someone else has “spoken” first, to write “who” I think the Devil was. Or is there. I drove home(if only for myself except I know there are other clarks reading) the fear of being wrong “characteristic” we clarks own.
Have to face it to place it….
Have to face it to place it….
Damn! ‘cellent expression! (How I no hear before?)
There is a Post in and of itself there…the roots of fear (for each of the three types)
No, wait! scratch the word ‘roots’….substitute ‘context’ (which is a form of perceived roots)…
Anyone out there care to step up and write a Post? I will provide the Title(s)
the reason a clark is hesitant:
the avoidance behavior of a scott: !
…hey, it’s because I don’t want to (roger)…
Come on the first three who step up will recieve a (nearly) free Wakefield Doctrine Teee Shirt
I’m thinking a clark. They like to give things away. However, my only hesitation is that clarks give things away for free as opposed to rogers who feel that if if something is free it is not worth anything. Robert supposedly “sold” his soul to the devil. But my gut is telling me a clark.
lol keerect on the clark ‘giving things away’ but (disagree) on the which type the devil is
…while the ‘traditional’ devil is a scott (the cool one) the mainstream Devil does answer to: ‘Prince of Lies’
…wait, try this: (forget scotts for a minute….think Robert DeNiro and James Spader both standing on the corner of MS Rt 1 and Rt 8 when Robert Johnson has his little conversation…
(DeNiro: ‘what? you talkin to me?! listen, I got no beef with you…)
(Spader: ‘no no trouble at all, I really would like to help you out but….)
tell us, which of the two would seem least out of place
‘cuz I just made it up just now:) Or did I?!!!!!!!!! Oh no, doubt via someone’s comment about something I said, has triggered something… Typically, a clark would now go and search the internet for that phrase-ette “have to face it to place it…” to find out whether or not someone else said those words first. Yeah! That’s right, the fear of being wrong or guilty of some sort of vague plagerism (so much information to retain in our brains) which leads to being hesitant which leads to…..damn! no kidding there is material for multiple posts.
Popcorn is at the ready.
DeNiro (clark)
Duh. Nevermind. DeNiro shouldn’t be referenced as a clark. I already said clark. Was thinking of a particular video with DeNiro as a clark. BUT, it may still be DeNiro. hmmm…
actually that was me (doing that) when I was setting up the question (which of the three was the Devil) I was seaching my head for ‘examples’ of clarks and rogers (since we knew it was not a scott) and the highest profiles I could come up with was DeNiro (Casino vid) and Spader ( Wolf) .
My fault for not making it clear that (those 2) were for ‘illustration of type’ purposes only!!
btw: the answer is roger