Being “Ern Malley”, the Avatar Bard of Croydon, NSW, 2132

Posted on by Sloane Snodgrasse
Creative Writing, Literary & Linguistics, Popular Culture

Every age produces its share of literary hoaxes, it’s a practice to deceive that has been around for ‘yonks’. A Irish hack writer back in the 18th century claimed to have discovered (and subsequently published) a ‘lost’ play purportedly penned by Shakespeare. Jonathan Swift dabbled in it in his time, and in recent times we have seen the surfacing of false claims of a ‘lost’ autobiography of Howard Hughes and the emergence of the so-called “Hitler Diaries”.

▲ Pranker J McAuley

The Antipodes’ most celebrated entrant in the canon of great literary hoaxes occurred in 1944. The perpetrators were two nondescript conservative young poets serving in the Australian army, (Lt.) James McAuley and (Cprl.) Harold Stewart (both Fort Street High old boys), who “shared an animus towards modern poetry” (Lehman). The two desk soldiers, intent on “deflat(ing) the egos of the pretentious literary avant-garde“𝟙, honed in on the most conspicuous target, Max Harris, Adelaide publisher of the modernist literary mag Angry Penguins.

▲ Pranker H Stewart

McAuley and Stewart’s prank𝟚 was to write to Harris pretending to be one “Ethel Malley” from Croydon NSW, informing him of unpublished poems written by her brother Ern, a working class soldier whose life had been cut tragically short. Harris, taken in by the fraud lock, stock and barrel, called “Ern’s poems” modernist gems and was only too eager to publish the 18 “Ern Malley” poems in a 1944 volume of Angry Penguins.   ⿻ ⿻ ⿻
▲ Cover art by Sidney Nolan

Malley’s “magnum opus“, entitled ‘The Darkening Ecliptic’, according to the hoaxers was written in a single afternoon in a random manner, a pastiche of fragments patched together from widely disparate sources of inspiration – Shakespeare, the classics, a dictionary, a book of  quotations, a tome on tropical hygiene, a US Army treatise on mosquito infestation…all mixed in together with snatches of McAuley and Stewart’s own poetry. Consisting of abstruse, flowery, high-sounding verse, to the minds of the hoaxers they were simply creating nonsensical, bad modern poetry:

❝ Though stilled to alabaster

This Ichthys shall swim

From the mind’s disaster

On the volatile hymn. ❞

𓂎𓂎𓂎

❝ The swung torch scatters seeds

In the umbelliferous dark ❞

𓂎𓂎𓂎

❝ I am still

the black swan of trespass on alien waters. ❞

𓂎𓂎𓂎

▲ Max Harris with his Heide Circle friends (Source: literaturelust.com)⿻⿻⿻

After a Sydney tabloid exposed the poems as a hoax and McAuley and Stewart fessed up to the deed, the fallout for Harris was caustic, the publisher was publicly humiliated for being duped so completely. And to add insult to injury, he was charged, tried and convicted on obscenity grounds (“indecent advertisements” the police prosecution charged). The trifecta of misfortune for wunderkind Harris was that his publication Angry Penguins folded within two years of the episode. Harris relocated to Melbourne, becoming a bookseller (fronting the Mary Martin’s chain of bookshops).

⿻⿻⿻

Afterwards Harris reproached himself for not picking up on the several clues McAuley and Stewart embedded in the text, eg, “It is necessary to understand that a poet may not exist”; (alluding to earlier incongruous stanzas) “these distractions were clues” (Parezanović). Interestingly though, Harris never backtracked from his initial evaluation that the ‘Darkening Ecliptic’ poems were works of genius𝟛. Despite being pilloried by the press he also elicited support from the literary world for his stance, most notably from influential critic Sir Herbert Read who contended that “it was possible to arrive at genuine art by spurious means – even if the motive of the writer was to perpetrate a travesty” (Lehman).

▲ No. 40 Dalmar St Croydon: the Malleys’ supposed address, actually the home of Harold Stewart⿻⿻⿻

Read’s anti-clockwise take on the controversy points to a debate that continues to this day over the merit or otherwise of the “Ern Malley” poems. Critics at home and abroad praised ‘The Darkening Ecliptic’ for its literary merit – including Robert Hughes. American poets John Ashbery and Kenneth Koch both lauded the poems’ surrealist qualities and even taught Ern’s work in their college literature classes (Wertheim). Even a poet of the highest calibre, TS Eliot, had positive words, wiring his support for the poems.

⿻⿻⿻

Ern Malley and the intentional fallacy
The Ern Malley controversy focuses attention on the issue of authorship. Sasha Grishin argues that where an author is “unknowable” and the author’s intentions irretrievable and perhaps irrelevant…once a work of art has been created…it is largely a fruitless task…to try to determine what an author may have intended by it“. Michel Foucault gives credence to this perspective: “we can imagine a culture where discourse would circulate without any need for an author” – a prime example of this is Homer, the unknowable but putative author of western literature’s ur-canon. ⿻⿻⿻
Nolan’s “Ned Kelly” series ▲

Like the poems or loathe them, the Malley hoax continues to fascinate critics and writers. US poet and critic David Lehman calls it “the greatest literary hoax of the 20th century”. Sidney Nolan (who contributed the cover artwork for the Ern Malley volume) credits the phenomenon with giving him the nerve to embark on his iconic “Ned Kelly” series of paintings. Garry Shead is another artist who produced his own idiosyncratic visual take on the Malley poems. In Peter Carey’s My Life as a Fake the Malley hoax influence—along with the influence of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein— shows itself in the novel’s character ‘Christopher Chubb’.

▲ Garry Shead’s Ern Malley ‘Petit Testament’ interpretation

A cause célèbre with staying power
Undeniably, the creation of the fictitious Ern Malley far surpassed the literary significance of his creators (Grishin). As Lehman noted, “Malley escaped the control of his creators (enjoying) an autonomous existence beyond and at odds with the critical and satirical intentions of McAuley and Stewart”.

◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘

𝟙 Stewart late in life described the deception as “a wonderful jape (which would) absolutely slay Max Harris”

𝟚 some have suggested that the Australian anti-modern poet AD Hope was behind the prank to deceive Harris but Hope vigorously denied any involvement (McCulloch)

𝟛 Stephen Orr suggests that Harris’ eagerness to take the Ern Malley discovery at face value and run with it was in part due to his being on the lookout for something authentic and new to take the place of bush poetry in Angry Penguins, something “modern, anti-Adelaide, anti-Australia-as-a-talcum-scented tea shop”

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Papers and published pieces consulted:

‘The Ern Malley Poetry Hoax – Introduction’, David Lehman, Jacket, 17 — June 2002, www.jacketmagazine.com

‘The Poet Who Never Was’, David Lehman, Washington Post, 06-Mar-1994, www.washingtonpost.com

‘Garry Shead and the Ern Malley series by Sasha Grishin, 2003’, Gagprojects, www.gagprojects.com

“It is Necessary to Understand That a Poet May Not Exist: The Case of Ern Malley”, Tijana Parezanović, SIC – A Journal of Literature, Culture and Literary Translation, Dec 2012, www.sic-journal.org

‘The Fall and Rise of Ernest Lalor Malley: The Poet who wasn’t’, Christine Wertheim, Cabinet, Issue 33, Spring 2009, www.cabinetmagazine.org

‘In Dialogue with A.D. Hope – Dialogue Three Politics & Poetics of Australian Literature’, Ann McCulloch, Double Dialogues, Issue 5 2003, www.doubledialogues.com

Prohibition and Ice Cream: From Breweries to Creameries

Posted on by E Curb Nottus
Leisure activities, Popular Culture, Regional History

Say the word ‘Prohibition’ and people think of those years in the early 20th century when America went dry with a blanket ban on hard liquor consumption, but much less well known is its connexion to that most popular of frozen desserts, ice cream.

(Source: Flickr)

The Volstead Act in 1920 outlawed the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution invalidated the licences of brewers, distillers, vintners and sellers of alcoholic beverages✴. The anti-alcohol legislation had its roots in the formation of the Anti-Saloon League (1893) supported by et al the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, sharing its alarm at the growing prevalence of hard drinking and the development of a culture of drink. These like-minded groups coalesced into a national movement which successfully lobbied Washington for the desired reform (‘Why Prohibition?’, Temperance & Prohibition, Ohio State University, www.ose.edu)❂.

(Source: Flickr)

Nature (and business opportunism) abhors a vacuum
Into the void left by plummeting alcohol consumption (in the early 1920s consumption of beverage alcohol was around 30% of the pre-prohibition level (‘Why Prohibition?’), came ice-cream, marketed partially as a “comfort food” for those committed drinkers bereft of the booze. The advent of Prohibition was thus a boost to the ice cream business. Americans didn’t simply stop drinking beer, wine and spirits and take up iced confectioneries…over the nine years from 1916 ice cream consumption increased 55%, against a population increase of only 15% (‘Thanks, Prohibition! How the Eighteenth Amendment Furled America’s Taste For Ice Creams’, Rachel Van Bokkem, AHA Perspectives on History, 08-Aug-2016, www.historians.org).

(Image: Omaha World Herald, CooksInfo Food Encyclopedia)

Even before Prohibition the ice cream business surge started, due to improvements in technology which boosted ice cream’s popularity. Improved methods led to mass production of ice cream; improved refrigeration preserved the product better. Other recent innovations in the industry enhanced ice cream’s appeal to the public, eg, the development of single-serve products (the chocolate ice cream bar, the Popsicle, the Dixie Cup), notably the Eskimo Pie (marketed initially as the “I-Scream-Bar”) by Christian Nelson; Harry Burt’s “Good Humor Bar” which added a wooden stick to the frozen confectionery…a further advance by Burt was the introduction of a mobile service (trucks with freezers bringing the bars to the neighbourhoods) (Van Bokkem). Another factor was the spike in the number of soda fountains in American drugstores (the New York Times estimated that there were over 100,000 soda fountains in 1922, generating $1B in sales (‘Why Ice Cream Soared in Population During Prohibition’, Farrell Evans,
History, 28-Jan-2021, www.history.com).

Coors Porcelain Co (Source: coortek.com)

Breweries’ strategies responding to Prohibition
When the bans were enforced, the bulk of breweries went to the wall. Research by Maureen Ogle indicates that of the 71,300 American brewers in 1915, no more than 100 survived Prohibition (Ambitious Brew: The Story of American Beer, 2007). The big names in US brewing stood more chance of surviving, but only by diversifying. This they did by branching into the manufacture of everything from ceramics (Coors) to dyes to farm equipment to police vans. Beer giants Anheuser-Busch and Yuengling followed the trend into ice cream production (as did Stroh Brewing), contributing to the estimated 40% growth in consumption in the 1920s (Evans). Pabst Brewing went into making cheese (“Pabst-ett” spread), which was sold to Kraft after Prohibition ended. A number of the brewers made the logical switch to soft drinks, malted milk and malt syrup. Busch also produced frozen eggs, infant formula, carbonated coffee and tea (‘How America’s Iconic Brewers Survived Prohibition’, Christopher Klein, History, 16-Jan-2019, www.history.com).

The alcohol drought prompted the big brewers to fall back on their substantial real estate property holdings to stay afloat and generate ongoing income. Miller resorted to selling off its chain of saloons when things got tight. Some enterprising ice cream parlours bought the disused equipment and facilities of liquor businesses (Van Bokkem).

Ice cream mania…a health food?
US newspapers got in on the public’s ice cream craze, ascribing purported but unspecified health benefits to be had from eating the product. Some dietitians also sought to give the frozen confectionery validity with claims that ice cream was one of the best foods for children’s physical development (Van Bokkem). The Anti-Saloon League added its endorsement to the dairy industry’s marketing campaign for its sweet frozen cream and milk treat, declaring it a “refreshing and palatable food” (Evans).

At its peak during Prohibition New Yorkers were consuming 300 million gallons of ice cream a year by themselves. Among those businesses seeking to cash in, a number of confectionery and butter factories starting manufacturing ice cream as a by-product (Van Bokkem).

Cotton Club, NYC’s premier speakeasy

Speakeasies, drugstores and “Near beer”
For the aficionado or the hardened drinker there were ways, illegal and legal, to get round Prohibition’s national ban on liquor. With the ingredients still obtainable for backyard stills moonshiners and bootleggers benefitted from an upsurge in demand for the home-brewed stuff. As formerly legal saloons were closed down in 1920, the void was filled by the mushrooming of ‘speakeasies’ (unlicensed bar rooms) selling ‘hooch’. These operations were commonly run by city gangsters, organised crime ‘luminaries’ such as Al Capone and his lucrative Chicago racket.

Brewers like Pabst, Busch and Miller were able to exploit a small window of opportunity—beverages containing less than 0.5% alcohol were legal—to produce a concoction described as “near beer” (Miller’s equivalent brand was called ‘Vivo’). Busch manufactured a non-alcoholic malt cereal beverage, ‘Bevo’, which apparently tasted much like actual beer. Genuinely serious drinkers ultimately rejected “near beer”, opting for real beer which could be procured from Speakeasies and bootleggers (Klein).

(Source. vinepair.com)

Another, legal avenue for sourcing alcohol were drugstores. Licensed druggists were allowed to sell liquor for “medicinal purposes” – or to clergymen for “religious reasons”, eg, “Kosher Wine” was available to rabbis for “sacramental purposes” (‘Speakeasies Were Prohibition’s Worst-Kept Secrets’, Prohibition, www.prohibitionthemob.org).

In 1933 Prohibition was repealed and brewers and drinkers went back to doing what came naturally, although the taste for ice cream was by then “permanently engrained in US culture” (Van Bokkem). As it remains today with Americans, who per capita consume 20.8 litres of ice cream a year, second only to sweet-toothed New Zealanders.

(Photo: US Naval Institute)

End-note: The Navy jettisons liquor
The US Navy was the first arm of the government to move against the “demon drink”, banning alcohol from its ships and ports in 1914 (Secretary for the Navy Josephus Daniels was a fervent supporter of the Temperance Movement). Later on the Navy replaced it with ice cream – building two floating ice cream factories on concrete barges during WWII (‘How Ice Cream Became America’s Native Treat Because of Prohibition’, Cleveland Whiskey, 16-Jan-2019, www.clevelandwhiskey.com).

_________________________________
✴ Prohibition legislation did not ban the consumption of alcohol, just its production and distribution. Nor were the ingredients for making beer prohibited
❂ there were prior American moves, initiated by Temperance activists, to outlaw alcohol at state-level, the earliest to succeed was in Maine (1846)

Sherlock Holmes’ Posthumous Copyright Case

Posted on by E Curb Nottus
Cinema, Creative Writing, Law and society,, Literary & Linguistics, Performing arts, Popular Culture

The image stereotype of the Sherlock Holmes character (Source: Culture Livresque)

⌖

Few characters from modern literature pop up on cinema screens and TV sets as frequently as Sherlock Holmes does. Some observers have stated it more firmly. Christopher Redmond estimates that Sherlock Holmes is the most prolific screen character in the history of cinema (A Sherlock Holmes Handbook (1994)). Just how many different Sherlock Holmes screen adaptions have been made is too large and elusive a number to pin down accurately, but screen vehicles of Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous super-sleuth and Mensa-alumni certainly number in the hundreds✱.

(Photo: CrimeReads)

A publishing can of worms
When Arthur Conan Doyle (ACD) died in 1930 the author left his literary works in Trust to his widow (Jean Conan Doyle) and immediate family. But in excluding his daughter Mary from his first marriage, ACD opened the door to an ongoing family rift, decades of squabbles, strife and litigation by his heirs, descendants and their spouses.

As the intra-family ‘Barney’ over who controls the copyright to the Sherlock Holmes works deepened, the imbroglio entangled an investment company specifically set up to manage the windfall (aptly named “Baskervilles Investments”) and even the Royal Bank of Scotland (‘History of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Copyrights’, (2015), www.arthurconandoyle.com).

1954 Holmes TV series with Ronald Howard (Photo: dvdfr.com)
⌖

The upshot of the kerfuffle was that each of the competing parties claimed to be the rightful holder of the rights to ACD’s literary estate, and then attempted to sell it notwithstanding the prevailing uncertainty over ownership. American TV producer-director Sheldon Reynolds acquired a licence from two of Arthur’s sons to make a Sherlock Holmes series in the 1950s. When, 20 years later, Reynolds tried to get a licence for a follow-up series on TV, he found that the legal landscape had changed. The rights were now held by the Royal Bank of Scotland who had acquired them after the previous owner defaulted on a loan. Eventually, with funds provided by his Pfizer heiress mother-in-law, Reynolds secured the rights to the Holmes stories.

Andréa Plunket (Source: goodreads.com)

Culture of litigation
Since 1990 the main battle for control of the copyrights has pitted Reynolds’s ex-wife, Hungarian-born heiress Andréa Milos (née Reynolds, née Plunket) versus the Conan Doyle Estate and others. Plunket has doggedly claimed to hold the rights to the name “Sherlock Holmes” and the stories, despite a lack of legal support for the claims. Lawsuits were exchanged between her and the Estate. Plunket also threatened to sue the BBC over its Sherlock television series for allegedly infringing ‘her’ trademarks (‘The Scandalous Sherlock Holmes Copyright Issue’, Mattias Boström, I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere, 30-Jul-2015, www.ihearofsherlock.com).

The Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Estate for its part has been particularly litigious in defence of its literary legacy. The Estate has consistently striven to maintain water-tight control over both the Sherlock Holmes stories and the characters. In 2013 it demanded author Leslie S Klinger pay a fee to license the Sherlock character for an anthology he was planning to do. Klinger’s response was to sue the Estate on the basis that most of the Sherlock material was in the public domain. In court the judge upheld Klinger’s position, while reaffirming that some late works were still covered under copyright (‘Sherlock Holmes Copyright: An overview’, Brogan Woodburn, www.redpoints.com). In 2020 it sued Netflix over its upcoming film Enola Holmes. The grounds? The film apparently depicts Holmes as having emotions and respecting women. This, the Estate contends, breaches Conan Doyle’s copyright (‘Lawsuit over ‘warmer’ Sherlock depicted in Enola Holmes dismissed’, Alison Flood, The Guardian, 22-Dec-2020, www.theguardian.com).

‘The Red-Headed League’ story (Golden Press edition, 1963)

⌖

End-note: An additional complication over the Holmes copyright issue is a demarcation between the UK and US laws. In the UK copyright lasts for 70 years after an author’s death (in Conan Doyle’s case, the copyright expired in 2000). Conversely in the USA some copyrights extend for 95 years from the date of the work’s first publication⍟. This has proved a stumbling block for TV series and film-makers trying to adapt one of the Sherlock stories in recent years (‘Sherlock Holmes And His “Copyrighted Emotions”‘, Copyright House, 28-Sep-2020, www.copyrighthouse.org).

…………………………………………..

✱ including works for film, music, radio, stage, video games, there are over 25,000 products that are related to the famous detective (Woodburn)

⍟ the last of ACD’s published work expires in 2023

Selling Soda and the American Way of Life to the World: Coke and Pepsi and their 120-Year Rivalry

Posted on by E Curb Nottus
Commerce & Business, Media & Communications, Popular Culture

For as long as most consumers in the West can remember, it’s been Coca-Cola versus Pepsi-Cola, vying for the public’s preferred carbonated soft drink. Just how long is that? Well, the Pepsi-Cola Company was established in 1902, ten years after Coca-Cola did, so the rivalry got going pretty much early on in the 20th century. It was a long gestation period however for Pepsi before it got close to being competitive with Coca-Cola✱. PepsiCo struggled so much in the early years that in 1923 the company was even declared bankrupt – basically due to WWI sugar rationing in the US. Eight years later it filed for bankruptcy again! Pepsi never actually went away though, slowly and methodically rebuilding itself as a significant player in the industry, albeit for a long time it remained as one observer put it, a “persistent gadfly” in a lake dominated by Coca-Cola (Kahn).

In its early days Coke was marketed both as a medicinal drink and as a “refreshing tonic”

While Coca-Cola powered on with innovatively marketing (using high profile sportsmen) its product to kids with Santa Claus’ help, and expanding Coke overseas, Pepsi didn’t really get its act together until the middle of the 20th Century.  PepsiCo shifted its branding and marketing (moving from bottles to cans and adopting patriotic red, white and blue colours for the product). Another direction Pepsi goes in at this time is product diversification … the company’s 1965 merger with Frito-Lay Inc marks Pepsi’s foray into the snack food field. It also acquired other soft drink brands like Mountain Dew in 1964. Coca-Cola on the other hand confined itself to the beverage field with the introduction of TaB (a sugar-free diet version of Coke), then Sprite and Fresca.

Pepsi’s watershed year was 1975 when it mounted the “Pepsi Challenge”, a series of filmed blind-taste tests in which the majority of participants chose Pepsi over Coke as their preferred soda. This boosted Pepsi sales and escalated the rivalry between the two “Big Sodas”, kicking off what became known in America from the Sixties on as the “Cola Wars” or the “Soda Wars”. Until the Pepsi Challenge happened Coca-Cola had been coasting somewhat, complacently presenting itself as “the real thing” in contrast to the upstart pretender. Coca-Cola’s response to PepsiCo’s move was to promote the then most popular personality on US TV Bill Cosby as “the face of Coke”.

Pepsi embarked on a marketing campaign which depicted itself as a younger, hipper brand than its outmoded rival. Drinking Pepsi was a cool thing to do (so proclaimed the marketers), when stacked up against the tired, same old, same old Coke alternative. Integral to PepsiCo’s campaign was the recruitment of celebrities to endorse the beverage, the centrepiece of which was Michael Jackson. Other  pop music icons followed the success of Jackson’s involvement with the product – David Bowie, Madonna, Lionel Ritchie, etc. Ad men heralded Pepsi as “the choice of a new generation”.

In the early Eighties, under pressure from Pepsi’s inroads into the market, Coca-Cola introduced diet Coke, a caffeine-free soda, followed by a complete redesign of Coke—given the secret codename “Project Kansas”—the outcome in 1985 was a sweeter Coke, New Coke. To counter Pepsi’s sweeter, more syrupy taste, Coca-Cola replaced sugar with corn syrup (which also reduced the production cost). New Coke however proved a disaster for the company, provoking a huge backlash from loyal consumers, some described the new taste as like “two day old Pepsi”. Southern fans of Coke, where Coca-Cola (and Pepsi) had its origins, were especially offended.

Faced with an avalanche of criticism, Coca-Cola brought back the old formula under the name “Coca-Cola Classic”. New Coke for its part got rebranded but never really took off and was eventually discontinued. Disappointment that it was, New Coke did provide one unanticipated positive – it managed to reawaken in many Coca-Cola drinkers suffering from a bout of ennui a new craving for the original taste (Little).

The feud between Pepsi and Coke has continued to the present, in contemporary times reaching social media and outer space. In 2011 the hardball rivalry saw PepsiCo target Coke’s famous, family-friendly mascots, the polar bears and even every child’s favourite stranger Santa.

Vintage 1950s ad: “Pepsi-Chic” before it went “Pepsi-Hip” (Robt Levering)

The battle between the brown carbonated sugar beverages has seen Pepsi and Coca-Cola go tit-for-tat. Coke had the contour bottle so Pepsi introduced the swirl bottle, Pepsi had Gatorade so Coke had Powerade, Coke had Fanta so Pepsi had Tropicana, and so on. Only the decision by Pepsi to branch into non-beverage fields has not seen Coca-Cola follow suit. Some industry observers attribute Pepsi’s declining market position commensurate to Coke (2008–2018: Pepsi’s market share fell from 10.3 to 8.4 per cent, while Coca-Cola’s rose from 17.3 to 17.8 per cent) to it’s preoccupation with diversification leading to the company losing its focus on its flagship product (Weiner-Bronner; Beverage Digest).

World domination through the prism of “Coca-colonisation”
Both Coke and Pepsi are deeply embedded in American culture and psyche as national icons.  Coca-Cola’s brand recognition goes beyond this, embodying a universality that is global in reach. Mid-century Coca-Cola officials gleefully crowed that the drink is the “most American thing in America”. Robert W Woodruff, Coca-Cola president for over three decades, declared it to be “the essence of capitalism”. World War II enabled Coca-Cola to spread the word via US servicemen by cleverly promising (and delivering) them the sugary product in overseas theatres of war. The seemingly unstoppable postwar expansion of Coke as the company sought to extend its market to all corners of the world met with some international pushback. Certain European states like France (spurred on by agitation by the French Communist Party) staunchly resisted the drink’s introduction to their domestic markets, an attempt as they saw it to “Coca-colonise” other sovereign nations. In such countries the arrival of Coca-Cola bottles on their city shop shelves was seen as a pervasive evil, a symbol of American cultural imperialism, an all-consuming Americanisation which undermines the way of life and values of their society⍟.

Footnote: the Big Sodas rivalry had ad companies of second-half 20th century working overtime to come up with the jingle or tagline that would give their client the edge … from Coca-Cola’s early go-to “The pause that refreshes” to the TV age’s standards “Things Go Better with Coke” and “It’s the Real Thing” (the words “real” and “real thing” recur over the decades in Coca-Cola’s ad campaigns). Pepsi for its part, went from “more bounce to the ounce” in 1950 to its 1960s accent on youth, “Come Alive! You’re in the Pepsi Generation” and numerous variations over the years on this theme (“young” and “generation” are the key Pepsi words that recur through the jingles and slogans).

Photo: George Marks/Retrofile/Getty

Postscript: The taste difference!
Most people know that Coca-Cola originally used small amounts of cocaine in the famous beverage (scandalous as that may seem to modern sensibilities), but what is it that makes the two brown-coloured soft drinks taste a bit different? They both have carbonated water, sugar, colour Caramel E150d, phosphoric acid and natural flavourings. Well, according to Malcolm Gladwell (Blink, 2005), its the hints of citrus acid that is added to Pepsi that sets the drinks apart – cf. Coke’s citrus-free, sweet vanilla and raisin flavours.

¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

✱ Pepsi was always coming from behind in the formative period, by the time PepsiCo was founded the Big Coke was already selling about one million gallons a year

⍟ the familiar bottle of Coke is boundless as well as ubiquitous, having  been carried under the North Pole and into outer space

°°°°°°°°°°

Articles and sites consulted:

‘Why Coke is winning the cola wars’, (Danielle Wiener-Bronner), CNN Business, 21-Feb-2018, www. money.cnn.com

‘COKE VS. PEPSI: The Amazing Story Between the Cola Wars’, (Kim Bhasin), Business Insider, 02-Nov-2011, www.businessinsider.com

‘Ever Wondered What’s The Difference Between Coca-Cola and Pepsi? It’s Literally ONE Ingredient’, (Bobbie Edsor), Delish, 03-Dec-3020, www.delish.com

‘The Universal Drink’, (E.J.Kahn Jr), The New Yorker, 06-Feb-1959, www.newyorker.com

‘The Cola Wars’, (Melissa Santore), Ranker.com, 20-Feb-2020, www.ranker.com