“Never Source Blame the Booster for What the Sucker Does”
This provocative phrase carries layers of meaning that shift dramatically depending on your perspective. The saying emerged from the colorful world of 1930s American journalism and Broadway culture. Its origins trace back to Damon Runyon, a writer who specialized in chronicling gamblers, hustlers, and street-smart characters.
Runyon first shared this motto with readers in May 1939. He presented it through a syndicated newspaper column that appeared in major publications across America. The phrase appeared in The San Francisco Examiner and Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, among others.
The Story Behind the Saying
Runyon crafted a narrative around an elderly gentleman who cherished this expression deeply. This character had printed the words in oversized letters and mounted them on his bedroom wall. The old man referenced his motto constantly in daily conversations.
According to Runyon’s account, the elderly man viewed the phrase as wisdom gained through hard experience. He believed many of his life’s troubles stemmed from a recurring pattern. People blamed him for outcomes that resulted from his attempts to help them.
The character explained his philosophy through concrete examples. Each story illustrated situations where good intentions led to unexpected consequences. Nevertheless, the old man maintained that helpers shouldn’t bear responsibility for how recipients use their assistance.
Understanding the Criminal Slang
The phrase takes on darker implications when you understand period terminology. Source In the underworld lexicon of Runyon’s era, “booster” meant something specific.
A booster worked alongside con artists running fraudulent operations. These individuals supported rigged card games and other deceptive schemes. Meanwhile, the “sucker” represented the mark—the victim who lost money or possessions.
Runyon knew this criminal vocabulary intimately through his journalism work. He covered Broadway’s seedier elements extensively throughout his career. His familiarity with street culture informed every story he wrote.
However, Runyon’s 1939 presentation softened these harsh connotations. He portrayed the booster as someone with genuinely good intentions. This interpretation suggested innocent helpers rather than criminal accomplices.
Tales of Good Intentions Gone Wrong
The old man’s first anecdote involved helping a woman find housing. He directed her to a respectable boarding house operated by his married friends. Initially, everything worked perfectly for all parties involved.
The new boarder proved to be an ideal tenant. The old man received grateful thanks from everyone repeatedly. Then disaster struck without warning.
The female boarder and the husband ran away together. They abandoned the devastated wife behind. Consequently, the furious spouse directed her rage squarely at the old man.
She blamed him entirely for introducing the woman into their lives. His response was straightforward and unapologetic. He mailed her a printed copy of his beloved motto.
A Mining Stock Investment
Another example aligned more closely with criminal definitions of the terms. An acquaintance named Chris convinced the old man to purchase gold mining stock. Chris promised substantial returns on the investment.
After Chris left town, the stock became completely worthless. The old man initially planned to have Chris arrested for perpetrating fraud. However, he changed his mind after receiving something in the mail.
Chris had sent him a copy of the very same motto. The old man abandoned his plans for legal action. This story suggests a more cynical interpretation of the phrase.
Indeed, this version implies that con artists shouldn’t be blamed for their victims’ gullibility. The motto could justify exploitation rather than innocent helpfulness. Therefore, the phrase operates on multiple levels simultaneously.
Public Recognition and Adoption
By 1940, Ladies’ Home Journal commissioned an interesting feature. The magazine asked prominent figures to share their personal guiding principles. Runyon contributed this saying as his own motto.
Other notable figures participated in the same feature. Christopher Morley selected a philosophical quote from Spinoza about belief and capability. Orson Welles offered a humorous response instead.
Welles suggested that anyone capable of displaying framed mottos was capable of anything. His tongue-in-cheek contribution contrasted sharply with Runyon’s earnest submission. Nevertheless, Runyon’s choice revealed much about his worldview.
Preservation Through Published Collections
The saying gained continued circulation through reprinted anthologies of Runyon’s work. “In Our Town” appeared in 1946, featuring the piece under the title “Our Old Man.” This collection brought the motto to new audiences.
Additionally, “A Treasury Of Damon Runyon” was released in 1958. This volume included the story as “On Good Turns.” These publications ensured the phrase’s survival in American popular culture.
Runyon’s distinctive writing style made his work memorable and quotable. His characters spoke in colorful vernacular that captured a specific time and place. Moreover, his philosophical observations resonated with readers across generations.
The Misattribution to W. C. Fields
Interestingly, attribution confusion emerged decades later. In 1984, The Washington Post credited the expression to comedian W. C. Fields. This error demonstrates how quotations migrate between figures over time.
Fields had died in 1946, making verification impossible. The article claimed Fields maintained two favorite cynical expressions. This motto supposedly ranked among his cherished sayings.
However, no documentary evidence supports this attribution. The claim appears to represent faulty historical memory rather than fact. Fields certainly expressed cynical views throughout his career, making the misattribution plausible to casual observers.
The Dual Nature of the Motto
This phrase functions as a philosophical Rorschach test. Your interpretation reveals your assumptions about human nature and responsibility. One reading emphasizes innocent helpers unfairly blamed for unforeseeable outcomes.
Alternatively, the darker reading justifies exploitation and fraud. It suggests victims bear responsibility for their own gullibility. This interpretation aligns with the criminal slang meanings of “booster” and “sucker.”
Runyon likely appreciated both meanings simultaneously. His stories often explored moral ambiguity in urban underworld settings. Characters operated in gray areas where right and wrong blurred together.
Relevance in Modern Context
The motto remains relevant in contemporary discussions about personal responsibility. It speaks to ongoing debates about accountability and victimhood. When do helpers bear responsibility for how others use their assistance?
Social media amplifies these questions exponentially. People share information, advice, and connections constantly online. Consequently, unintended consequences spread faster and farther than ever before.
The phrase also applies to financial advice and investment recommendations. If someone loses money following your suggestion, who bears the blame? The question has no simple answer.
Conclusion
Damon Runyon introduced this memorable saying to American culture through his 1939 syndicated column. He later claimed it as his personal motto in a 1940 magazine feature. The phrase encapsulates his worldview shaped by years covering Broadway’s underworld.
The saying’s genius lies in its ambiguity. It can justify either innocent helpfulness or cynical exploitation. This flexibility explains its enduring appeal across different contexts and generations.
Whether you interpret it as wisdom about unfair blame or a con artist’s justification depends entirely on your perspective. Runyon understood this duality perfectly, making the motto a fitting representation of his literary legacy.