ILNews

Retired attorney's interpretation of famed Hoosier poet is a labor of love

Dave Stafford
July 30, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Henry Ryder has the quick cadence, the well-timed boom in his voice and the sparkle in his eye as he begins an impromptu performance …

Wunst they wuz a little boy wouldn’t say his prayers –

An’ when he went to bed at night, away up-stairs,

His Mammy heerd him holler, an’ his Daddy heerd him bawl,

An’ when they turn’t the kivvers down, he wuzn’t there at all!

It’s James Whitcomb Riley and his noted poem “Little Orphant Annie” that Ryder is channeling, grinning in his dapper circa-1890 vest and waistcoat.

“This is fun!” he said with a laugh recently, his smile nearly as wide as the brim of his top hat. He shared legends and stories of the Hoosier poet at Riley’s historic home and museum in Indianapolis’ Lockerbie neighborhood, where he volunteers and recently appeared in costume for the dedication of a new visitor’s center.

HenryRyder-7-15col.jpg Retired Barnes & Thornburg LLP attorney Henry Ryder poses by the bust of James Whitcomb Riley at the Hoosier poet’s home and museum in Indianapolis. Ryder, 86, will interpret Riley’s poems at the Indiana State Fair Aug. 9. (IL Photo/Eric Learned)

“It’s been a great part of my life, and I’ve enjoyed it immensely,” Ryder said of portraying Riley. He still may pop up in his poet persona occasionally at the Riley House Museum or a school, he said, but Aug. 9 will be his final appearance at the Indiana State Fair, where he’s appeared annually since about 2000.

At 86, Ryder said it’s time for others to honor Riley’s legacy. Where the poet’s words once flowed from memory, he said, he now needs notes.

“You hit your 80s, these things begin to happen,” Ryder said.

“I’m looking at who’s going to follow me,” he said. He’s comforted that young people already are regular Riley interpreters. “We’ve got some good ones,” he said.

Before Ryder began portraying Riley nearly 35 years ago, he was making a name for himself with a distinguished legal career. A leading labor attorney at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, he also was an Indianapolis community leader for decades, helping the city through the transition to Unigov and helping lead its peaceful compliance with court-ordered school desegregation, among other accomplishments.

Last year, Ryder was honored with the Indiana Bar Foundation’s 2013 Legendary Lawyer Award.

On a recent July morning, he dropped in at his former firm dressed as Riley. It makes people smile, Ryder said. Even almost 100 years after Riley’s death, Ryder observes that the poet’s persona and poems continue to resonate with children and bring out the playfulness of adults.

Retired Barnes & Thornburg attorney Michael Rosiello has seen Ryder’s performances many times over the years, and he said the role of Riley seems to come naturally for Ryder.

“When he gives that performance, you can see his love of acting, his love of James Whitcomb Riley, and his love of Indiana,” Rosiello said. “He throws his heart into it when he performs, and he’s very, very good.

“James Whitcomb Riley was a quintessential Hoosier, and so is Henry Ryder,” Rosiello said.

Ryder traces his style in interpreting Riley’s work to an undergraduate classmate in the 1940s at Purdue University who he said had a studied and polished recitation of the work. Ryder said there are very few recordings of Riley performing, but he’s studied as much as he can to try to honor and do justice to the work and Riley’s sometimes-mischievous character.

Judy Hatfield, an assisting director at the James Whitcomb Riley Museum Home, said that in his heyday of the 1880s through the early 1900s, Riley was one of the most popular stage performers in the nation, though he confessed to suffering terrible stage fright.

Hatfield said Ryder’s interpretation of Riley is done with good nature and humor.

“He has a mellowness that he projects,” Hatfield said. “He has a very pleasant way of presenting the poems.

“Nobody can do a good job of portraying Mr. Riley without doing a good job with ‘Little Orphant Annie,’” she said. “Mr. Ryder does that very well.”

Hatfield said Ryder also knows the material thoroughly – a must for any interpreter. Running through a list of some of Riley’s works he most commonly performs – “When the Frost Is On the Punkin,” “The Raggedy Man” and others – Ryder stops upon mention of “An Old Sweetheart of Mine.” When he performs that idyllic romantic poem, he emphasizes the penultimate line:

But ah! My dream is broken by a step upon the stair,

And the door is softly opened, and my wife is standing there!

Ryder said at that point of his recitation, his own sweetheart, Marilyn Goeke, appears, and he takes her hand for the conclusion of the poem. “The women love it,” he said.

Riley was born to modest privilege in Greenfield in 1849. His father, Reuben Riley, was a lawyer who had been elected to the Indiana House of Representatives the year before James Whitcomb Riley was born. The senior Riley was a friend of then-Gov. James Whitcomb, for whom Riley was named, and later was a captain in the Union Army during the Civil War.

Ryder said Riley, though, eschewed politics except when he worked for the election of fellow Hoosier Benjamin Harrison as president in 1888. Historical accounts suggest the experience convinced Riley to never again foray into politics.

As a young man, Riley attempted to follow in his father’s footsteps professionally, but it soon became clear “he had no love of the law,” Ryder said. “Being a lawyer, that kind of amused me.”

Riley’s popularity among children became legendary during his lifetime, and Ryder attests that a poem such as “Little Orphant Annie” still gives youngsters giddy, laugh-out-loud thrills.

And it still thrills Ryder, too. Especially when each frenetic stanza about misbehaving children slows down, and he delightfully delivers perhaps the most famous lines of any Hoosier poem:

An’ the Gobble-uns’ll git you

Ef you

Don’t

Watch

Out!•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT