Not-God (60 page)

33
    Wilson’s conscious wrestling with the problem of making what he wrote acceptable to both his New York alcoholics and the Akronites, who were still tied to the OG, is clear in his letters to Dr. Bob Smith —
cf
. citations in note #1, above. It seems that it was Wilson’s reliance on Smith here that brought Bill explicitly to view Dr. Bob as “co-founder” of A.A. — Smith’s leadership among the Akron alcoholics, and his role in enabling the acceptance of the book by all, were crucially important and indeed essential at that point. Others in New York — Hank P., for example — did not yet share Wilson’s awareness of the centrality of Smith:
cf
.
Chapter Four
, note #31, p. 286.

34
    
AA
, pp. 71-72 (1st ed.), with the final changes to be treated below, p. 76, returned to their original form. Here also, the original draft has been lost. Insofar as I have been able with the help of NW to reconstruct from the earliest available drafts and comments the
original
form of the Twelve Steps, there were slight differences in the following six (the italics mark the differences):

35
    
AACA, p
. 161.

36
    
AACA
, pp. 161-164.

37
    
AA
, p. 164.

38
    
AACA
, p. 164; “The Doctor’s Opinion” appears in
AA
, pp. xxiii-xxx (2nd ed.); in the 1st ed., it comprised pp. 1-9. Dr. Esther R. (Baltimore) to Wilson, 18 July 1938, suggested concerning Bill’s early draft of the first two chapters that although she found “the presentation of the material … gripping,” and that “what you say carries the conviction of truth, … I think you should get a No. 1 physician who has a wide knowledge of the alcoholic’s medical and social problems to write an introduction.”

39
    Interview with Lois Wilson, 16 November 1976; for the Akron situation, Bob E., tr., p. 22. Also Ruth H.’s description of these early meetings as recorded by NW and reported to writer in a letter of 6 December 1976.

40
    In New York, only one speaker and Wilson spoke formally at each of these early meetings. Knowledgeable New Yorkers — e.g., NW and Professor George Gordon reporting on interviews of Ruth H. and Marty Mann — claim that the practice of many speakers at the same meeting originated in Akron. However, Anne C., Warren C., and Dick P. — interviews of 7 and 8 September 1977 — denied this, pointing out that even then in Akron and Cleveland what are now called “one-speaker discussion meetings” were by far the most common type of A.A. meeting. It seems likely that the practice of having many speakers and no formal discussion at A.A. meetings originated as a carry-over from Twelfth-Step practice with individuals. On “Twelfth Step calls,” which informal A.A. tradition insisted always be made by more than one member, each A.A. told his story to the not-yet-sober object of their concern, in an effort to facilitate identification. Exactly when and where first occurred the transition that made this into a meeting-format is impossible to determine, although a good guess would seem to be that it took place spontaneously, in different places, as A.A. entered the phase of its growth described at the beginning of
Chapter Five
, below.

41
    
AACA
, p. 164; for the “intention to portray variety” in the 2nd ed., Tom P. (New York) to writer, 15 December 1976;
cf
. also below,
Chapter Five
; for the 3rd ed., interview with Bob H., one of its editors, 15 November 1976.

On the actual variety among members of A.A.,
cf:

M. M. Murphy, “Values Stressed by Two Social Class Levels at Meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous,”
QJSA
14: 576-585 (1953);

R. H. Seiden, “An Experimental Test of the Assumption that Members of Alcoholics Anonymous are Representative Alcoholics,” thesis, Denver University, reported by CAAAL #8400;

H. M. Trice, “Sociological Factors in Association with
A.A.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
48; 378-386 (1957);

G. Edwards, C. Hensman, A Hawker, and V. Williamson, “Who Goes to Alcoholics Anonymous?”
Lancet
2 (n.s.): 382-384 (1966);

Beyond the detailed information offered by Leach and Norris, “Factors,” in Kissin and Begleiter, the most recent analysis from more critical points of view may be synthesized from four other contributions in Kissin-Begleiter;

B. Kissin, “Theory and Practice in the Treatment of Alcoholism,” pp. 40-41;

A. Beigel and Stuart Ghertner, “Toward a Social Model,” pp. 215-219;

D. R. Doroff, “Group Psychotherapy in Alcoholism,” pp. 237-240;

F. Baekeland, “Evaluation of Treatment Methods in Chronic Alcoholism,” pp. 402-408.

Wilson recalled often, e.g., to Jay ?, 13 April 1965: “For the first 15 years of A.A. we had hardly any young people at all. We were equally slow in making progress either on Skid Row or Park Avenue.”

For A.A.’s self-consciousness of this problem at this time,
cf
. Wilson to Charles P., 1 July 1938; also the information sought on a questionnaire sent to members in late 1938 — apparently in the hope of finding more variety for the stories: “age; occupational history; educational history; age serious drinking started; age uncontrolled drinking started; years uncontrolled drinking; when drinking, how long did sprees last; average time between sprees last two years drinking; how strong was religious background as a child; what was religious history after leaving childhood home; number of hospitalizations; effects of hospitalizations; number and effects of physicians and psychiatrists; number of jobs lost through drinking; marital results of drinking; during drinking, were any religious approaches made and what were the results and your attitudes towards.” Important here, of course, are the assumptions in the questions asked and the other possible questions unasked.

For early Cleveland, I asked Warren C., interview of 8 September 1977, if he could recall the occupations of the members listed on a record in his possession of the names of the charter members of that city’s second group, a group which from circumstances contained no one also in the Oxford Group. After noting that “almost all were unemployed at the time we got them, but just about all went back to what they had been doing,” he recalled: “newspaper distributor, commercial artist, sales and promotion, clothing salesman, family income, advertising, accountant, traffic manager, sales manager, railroad brakeman, farmer, typewriter repair, office supplies, clothing sales, hortoculturalist.”

42
    The “story-section” of the 1st ed. ran pp. 183-390.

43
    “Cadillacs” and “playgirls,” p. 194; “teas” and “bridge parties,” p. 219 (1st ed.).

44
    Strangely, inexplicably, and incredibly, writer Jack Alexander in a later recollection of his 1940-1941 investigation of A.A. claimed that after observing A.A. in Philadelphia, New York City, and Akron, it was in Cleveland that he first saw the movement’s universality. That by itself makes sense, but hear his explanation: “In Akron it had been mostly factory workers. In Cleveland there were lawyers, accountants, and other professional men, in addition to laborers.”
AAGV
1:12 (May 1945), 1, 8. All other evidence, oral and written, testifies that the Oxford Group-tied early Akronites were hardly “mostly factory workers.”

45
    Bill D.’s story appeared in the 2nd ed., pp. 182-192: according to Anne C., interview of 7 September 1977, it was not in the 1st ed. “because he was too humble;” letter of Tom P. to writer and interview with Bob H., as above, #41.

46
    
AACA
, pp. 164-165; the direct quotation is reconstructed from
AACA
, p. 164, and
LM
. Ruth H., tr., details this concern.

47
    
AACA
, p. 165;

Wilson to Smith, ? June 1938: “By the way, you might all be thinking up a good title. Nearly everyone agrees that we should
sign
the volume Alcoholics Anonymous. Titles such as
Haven, One Hundred Men, Comes the Dawn
, etc. have been suggested.” (emphasis added).

A form-letter of introduction, “To Whom It May Concern,” by Albert L. Scott (New York), 1 July 1938, lays heavy stress on “a fellowship of 100 ex-alcoholics who have recovered";

Frank Amos (n.p.) to Albert Scott, 4 October 1938, refers to Wilson and Smith as “leaders of the ‘Alcoholic Squadron’” and makes reference to the proposed book as titled, “One Hundred Men";

Jim B., “Evolution,” p. 4, testifies that “about the middle of October [1938] the manuscript of the book was finished … the name of the book at this time was ‘100 Men’“;

Wilson to Frank Amos, 4 January 1939, refers to the proposed book as “One Hundred Men.” Amos, in a memo to Rockefeller dated 6 January 1939 and apparently inspired by this Wilson letter, titles his memo, “Alcoholics Anonymous";

An early draft which seems intermediary between the fund-raising and book stages of the first two chapters of
AA
, dated 7 January 1939, is headed: “Memorandum — Final Draft — 100 Men Corp.";

Dating from late January or early February 1939, is a pamphlet proposal headed: “Alcoholics Anonymous;” yet it begins: “It is proposed to form — ‘THE 100 MEN CORPORATION’: Purpose: to publish the book — ‘100 Men’”;

After the date of the telegram cited in the following note, all references to the book call it “Alcoholics Anonymous.”

48
    Telegram from Fitz M. (Washington) to Henry P., 11 February 1939; “The B.W. Movement” idea:
AACA
, pp. 165-166;
cf
. also “A Tradition Born of Our Anonymity — by Bill”
AAGV
, 2:8 (January 1946), 2-10;

On the significance of the title of the book for the name of the fellowship,
cf.
, beyond note #47, above, p. 78, below.

A.A. lore attributes the first use of the name “Alcoholics Anonymous” to Joe W.: NW, interview of 14 November 1977, responding to the writer’s question
re
a parenthesized insert in Ruth H., tr.

49
    
AACA
, pp. 168-169;
cf
. Ruth H., tr., Virginia M., tr., Jim B., “Evolution,” p. 4, reports
re
Dr. Howard: “He became greatly interested and enthusiastic, but was highly critical of … entirely too much ‘Oxfordism’ and that it was too demanding.” It would be nice to be able to determine whether it was Dr. Howard or Jim B. himself who linked the suggested stylistic changes with “Oxfordism;” since Dr. Howard’s correspondence has been lost, this is impossible. My own reading of the multilith draft in question, for what it is worth, inclines me to suspect that this is Jim B.’s projection: such would surely be in character.

50
    
AACA
, pp. 168-169 (italics Wilson’s); the history of reviews of the book, including Fosdick’s, is treated in
Chapter Four
,
cf
especially pp. 91-92 and note #23.

51
    
AACA
, p. 167; Ruth H., tr., offers color and detail; concerning the Cleveland occurrence,
cf
. p. 78, below.

52
    
AACA
, p. 170; the problem of Wilson as “professional” reappears here: the only income Bill ever received “from A.A.” was his royalties on his writings, especially
AA
and
12;12
. (Until his death in 1950, Dr. Smith received a part of the royalties for
A A.)
Those who objected to such “professionalism” consistently pushed for a cheaper — and in later years, paperback — edition of
AA
. Those who stressed that “A.A. has to stand on its own financial feet” as consistently — and more successfully — opposed such moves. Citations are unavailable because the Trustee Minutes remain closed, but reflections of the debate may be found in the “Final Report of the __th General Service Conference of Alcoholics Anonymous” for almost every year after 1955.

The early beginnings and heat of this controversy may best be followed in the Clarence S. correspondence:
cf
, Clarence S. (Cleveland) to L. V. Harrison, 27 April, 21 July 1944, and an undated letter between the two just cited. Further comments by Clarence on the topic are available in the maiginated copy of
AACA
sent by him to the writer; also in a tape recording I hold of an interview with him, 6 October 1978.

53
    
AACA
, pp. 171-179;
cf
. also “Book Publication Proved Discouraging Venture — by Bill,”
AAGV
4:2 (July 1947), 3.

54
    “Dr. Bob,”
AAGV
7:8 (January 1951), 26; the New York practice from the recollections of Marty Mann, tr. and interview of 15 November 1977; “wives”: in both New York and Akron at this point, the alcoholics approaching the program were all male.

According to some (Henrietta Seiberling, Clarence S.), these separate gatherings were not “meetings” but private sessions in which any newcomers who had not yet “made surrender” then did so. However: according to Bob E.’s own testimony — useful here because he is among the “some” indicated — “making surrender” was a
pre-requisite
for meeting attendance, and the phenomenon here under analysis clearly took place
after
the OG meeting
each week
once it began. Doubtless the distinction was not so clear-cut as I make it in the text: little was in this period. It seems to me clear, however, that a significant and self-conscious separation did take place at this time, in this way.