|
A Few Words from
the Editor
This first issue of Praesidium’s third
year (at least, its third year as Praesidium: some of you
recall the journal’s earlier incarnation as Arcturus) was
quickly determined by three factors. The first was my own burning
desire to write more about the teaching of foreign language—particularly,
this time, as we find it prosecuted in our elementary schools.
Needless to say, I spend a great deal of my space talking about
Spanish, which is increasingly the only nag running in the
Elementary Sweepstakes. The central issues, however, have a much
broader scope. They concern not just which second language we learn,
if any, and not just what kind of education our children receive (if
any), but what role we in the West foresee clear thought playing in
the race after the hearts of buyers and voters. If any.
The second factor was J.S. Moseby’s decision to
begin writing a novel, one chapter of which he originally offered to
me for this issue. Since the inauguration of Praesidium, I
have been consistently puzzled by the difficulty of extracting
fiction from creative writers. I find it hard to believe that all of
them expect payment today when, thirty years ago, we no-names were
happy just to get into print somewhere. The truth, I’m beginning
to suspect, is that serious fiction simply isn’t written any more.
(I decline to view multicultural propaganda and cartoon-like science
fiction as serious.) In my ever more quixotic quest, then, to insert
a little fiction into every issue, I have found myself deeply
beholden to a few writers, one of whom is certainly Mr. Moseby. As
our deadline approached and it appeared probable that we would have
a lot of free space, I asked for a second chapter of this novel in
progress, and it was graciously volunteered. Not long after that (as
luck would have it), I was offered an excellent essay on realism and
given a proposal for another essay on romantic fantasy, either one
of which would have filled up our open space nicely… but I was
already committed to the two chapters. I have every intention of
publishing both of said essays in the spring issue. Meanwhile, I
hope you like Footprints in the Snow of the Moon as much as I
do, because it accounts for a third of what you have before you!
Which isn’t at all a bad thing in principle—devoting
a large space to fiction, I mean. Would that we might do so more
often! Sometimes I fear Praesidium’s becoming so profoundly
philosophical that we give the impression of holding creativity in
low esteem. On the contrary. All of our contributors over the years
have been men and women who love literature, and impressively many
of them have also referred to music and other of the fine arts in
their articles. Why, one of the things that distresses me most about
how we teach Spanish is that we provide no very effective gateway to
reading Hispanic authors: we only prepare our children to gab with
waiters or charm foreign investors. The third major evolutionary
factor behind this issue, then, was a vague feeling of mine that it
was time for us to "loosen up" a bit—not to be less
profound, but to run our study over some of our landscape’s
colorful cottages and hamlets rather than counting quasars. Legend
has it that the Greek philosopher Thales broke his neck stumbling
into a hole one night while gazing at the stars. The lesson is well
worth attending: not just both feet on the ground, but an eye on the
road.
I didn’t simply pull this third objective out
of my hat and then approach people about helping me fulfill it. I
was, rather, very lucky: people started sending me reviews of books
and films before my idea had really crystallized. One of the book
reviews—that of Peter Sacks’s Generation X Goes to College—was
actually a collaborative effort (one person started it and another
had to finish it). In such cases, I have always simply appended the
label "staff" to the item, though we really don’t have a
staff in any of the word’s recognized senses. I might add that we
also abuse the same word quite often in cases where the writer
offers a short, perhaps slightly caustic piece (but when have we
ever been caustic?) and prefers not to be identified.
Otherwise, some of our most faithful supporters
have chipped in, including Professor Bertonneau, Mary Grabar, Kelly
Hampton, and Peter Singleton. It’s a pleasure to be able to offer
so much variety, and produced by such fine writers. Note well, by
the way, that we turn away neither the very short nor the very long:
we attend only to content.
Finally, I ask formally that anyone contact me
who knows of a genuinely bibliophile bookstore which might care to
risk a small part of a shelf on Praesidium. One of my firmer
resolutions this year is to attempt wooing a few such places with
copies of our journal. If you have a favorite fearless bookstore on
the corner and happen to mention us to the sympathetic person behind
the counter, please remember that the quarterly is a non-profit
venture—which means, practically, that the owner gets to pocket
whatever he or she charges. All that we might ask would be an
occasional small contribution to help defray production and postage
costs.
Winter continues mild in these parts. May your
spring bring you a bluebird or—if city-bound—a cherry blossom!
~JH
back to top
******************************
Foreign
Language and the Enemies
of Literacy: An Addendum
by
John R. Harris
In an earlier issue of this journal, I published
some thoughts about the teaching of foreign language in the United
States, mostly as practiced at colleges and universities.1
I expressed the opinion then that although foreign language
departments seem one of the few pockets of the liberal arts likely
to withstand the vast decline of literate habits, the sad realities
of the classroom belie the discipline’s promise. Specifically, I
noted an ominous shift in instructional strategy favoring verbal
fluency over literate competence. When the shift began, the Free
World (as we then called it) was fighting for its survival, and
North America had recognized its prevalent mono-lingualism as a
severe handicap in waging the Cold War. There are no more such vital
concerns driving the pedagogical vector now. On the contrary, in
times of peace and plenty, we simply neglected our literate heritage
until, today, only the college student majoring in foreign language
ever reads one or two very short novels or writes as much as a
paragraph.
This disparagement of literacy has thoroughly
percolated through the system. In the present addendum to my earlier
comments, I wish to trace its effects upon the elementary school
curriculum—up from which the toxic percolating has
proceeded, I am told. Here my own son and his classmates are
struggling before my eyes, as it were, to clutch linguistic
substance through a miasma of merry conversational chatter. My
testimony as a parent (admittedly anecdotal) and as an educator at
many levels (somewhat more objective) must constitute my body of
evidence, for an essay is not the proper forum to conduct an
exhaustive survey of textbooks. If I may ballast my case from the
start by appealing to common sense, I would invite anyone to search
the Internet for information about foreign language instruction. The
material thus dredged up will be heavily redolent of progressive new
teaching aids (videos, tapes, software, CDs) and reviews of said
aids. Since the essence of technology is to draw the student away
from the "boring" printed page of the "stodgy"
classic and into a world of fireworks-at-the-fingertips, no bright
observer would need much convincing beyond this point that
literature and literacy are in deep trouble.
Of course, one may be more objective still
without claiming to be exhaustive. The American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages, for instance, publishes a newsletter
(partially accessible online) which gives one a sense of how
professionals view the trends. My own sense, as primed by such
perusal, is that foreign language teachers recognize two great
crises afoot: viz., students are getting bored, and the old literary
establishment—people like me—has not yet been annihilated.
Actually, the lower levels seem confident that they have solved the
boredom crisis. My essay is devoted to assessing their
"triumph". At the upper levels, college professors appear
less concerned that high school whiz kids cannot place out of French
101 than that placement tests are so rigorous. To them, the problem
is not the freshman’s lack of basic grammatical knowledge, but a
testing system which bestows a premium upon that knowledge. Recent
"studies" (predictably enough) urge an inversion of
priorities, based largely upon student interest (i.e., degree of
fun). An enthusiastic adherent to one such report anticipates an
indignant query from some atavistic grump about grammar’s
disappearance, and offers the following response:
In their answer to this question, the authors
[of the report] stress their efforts to change the emphasis from
memorization of words and grammar rules to the exploration,
development and use of "communicative strategies, learning
strategies and critical thinking skills as well as the appropriate
elements of the language system and culture"…. The document
is intended as a corrective to past practices, where teachers were
tied hand and foot to the grammar book. The authors seek to set
them and their students free.2
These days, when you see the word
"strategy" or the equative "as well as" used to
attach the last member of a list, duck: a large ball of educationese
is careering your way. "Document" is almost as ominous,
while "set free" is a positive siren, warning that
whatever has devoured your hook is likely to pull you into the deep
blue sea. With such mushy jargon oozing from them at the slightest
prod, no wonder the educators who write our children’s textbooks
hold precise communication in low esteem! One can well imagine that
they neither have much affection for order nor comprehend how to
keep young students (who hate disorder) from rebelling. Over and
over in my cursory reading, I remarked the terror inspired in these
visionaries by the bored child—and the complementary delight
stirred in them by entertaining "strategies". Every other
consideration seemed to take a back seat. The college brain trust,
particularly, saw enrollments shrinking and departments shriveling
up if the ivory tower should fail to fall in behind the
crayon-and-kazoo brigade.
How ironic it is, then, to hear one’s son of
seven years denouncing such entertaining methods as tedious because
they obscure basic grammatical relationships to his young mind! The
truth is that chasing after a child’s whimsy is like trying to
build a road to a moving target, whereas proceeding straight to a
highly visible destination invites a few songs and games along the
way. How did foreign language teachers come to adopt the flashy
pedagogy of constant casual chatter which yields so many mixed
results and downright absurdities? Was it simply a gambit to keep
little children engrossed in their classes? Can it ever have been
that at the lower levels, where every child I question registers
frustration over the absence of rules and guidelines?
A great many studies—and, before them, the
cogent testimony of practical experience and common sense—argue
that human beings learn languages other than their mother tongue
more readily while still on their mother’s knee. At an early age,
it seems, you can get two mother tongues for the price of one. Of
course, a certain amount of confusion results. The toddler is likely
to lisp his own patois bred of the two languages he hears
daily. There is plenty of time to sort this all out, however:
building grammatical and dictional fences between the two gardens as
they flourish is immensely easier than breaking ground for a new
garden as another luxuriates within well-manicured boundaries. Let
us, therefore, teach our children to say "pass the salt,
please" in two tongues rather than one.
So goeth the case. The palpable consequence of
such reasoning is the muscle-flexing dominance among today’s
textbooks and pedagogical tactics of "real life" Spanish
or French over charts, tables, and paradigms. Since children learn
to speak before they read, and since few "real life"
encounters these days involve any reading whatever (how many of us
still characterize reading as either "real" or "an
encounter"?), the officially blessed variety of immersion is
conversational. Its vocabulary is trite and lackluster, its grammar
is idiomatic to the verge of slang, and its context may be classed
as leisurely/commercial—the ball game, the lunch room, the movie
theater, the birthday party, the grocery store. Wherever we learned
to jabber English before we learned to read it (if we ever truly
did), there we are transported by the contemporary foreign language
textbook. Life between these two covers is a festive array of piñatas,
bananas, avocados, and sopapillas. It is colorful, yummy,
sensuous. It requires no pondering or dissecting. I came, I saw, I
tasted.
But my comments here impinge upon moral judgment:
if I am not cautious, my next remark might indict the unworthiness
and stupidity of the shallow life. Such a criticism would not be
entirely fair as a challenge to foreign-language pedagogy, for it
more accurately attaches to all celebration of idle chatter
over deliberate writing—and our whole culture, of course, is
becoming a "chatter" culture. Let me confine myself,
therefore, to addressing this "real life immersion"
pedagogy strictly as a means of learning another language. In my
opinion, even its shallowest depths are quite sufficiently corrupted
by shoals to render them unnavigable.
Point One: Total immersion in another
language is a practical impossibility for most children. The
youngsters who grow up speaking English and German or French and
English at the same time live in bilingual households. The school
teacher has control over about half of their waking hours—and in
how many cases is this teacher also bilingual? One would hope,
indeed, that math, science, music, and art lessons (not to mention
English class) would be carried on in one language only: twice the
linguistic presentation would mean half the math, science, art, and
music. Foreign language textbooks tacitly acknowledge the futility
of their own method precisely by being conversational rather than
offering paradigms and logical explanations. That is, they undertake
to supply the casual exchanges in the second language which the
student would otherwise never have. But if the student is only
"immersed" in casual chatter during one thirty- or
forty-minute period of a very full day, then the immersion is
scarcely so much as a kindergartner’s hand-washing. For most
students, the kind of exposure needed to imbibe a second language
from the routine of living could not possibly be achieved, even if
such acquisition were truly the most thorough and reliable sort.
Fortunately, this isn’t at all so, for the reasons that follow.
Point Two: Conversational language
is often improper: its "lessons" must be unlearned later,
and it has indeed no reliable instructive value even in teaching
good phonetic habits. To my dying day, I shall remember how the
chairman of my dissertation committee, Douglass Parker, confronted
me with my misspelling of the word "helmet". A gentle man
whose sense of irony was tireless, Dr. Parker was very hard put to
find a way of saying, "You’re a doctoral candidate, and you
don’t know how to spell helmet?" I believe his
discomfort upset me far more than my own—was largely the cause of
my own, no doubt. He was looking for a way to laugh something off
which didn’t particularly move him to mirth.
Of course, it took him no time at all to diagnose
the problem correctly: my Texas upbringing. I spelled the word as I
had always heard it pronounced: helmit (rhyming with hermit).
If I wanted to chafe against life’s little injustices, now would
be my cue to indict a system which rates some people over others
just because of where they’re born. Northeasterners who are not a
whit smarter than the rest of us spell properly without effort (and
probably interview far better for cerebral white-collar positions)
merely because they were brought up to mangle the language less than
those of us south of the Mason-Dixon Line and west of the
Mississippi. To be forever paddling against the currents of
childhood and environment in pursuit of correctness is the ultimate
raw deal… or would be, but for one thing. A good teacher (the
grade-school equivalent of a Douglass Parker) can considerably
reduce the current’s drag, and surely children in the world’s
wealthiest nation have a right to expect one or two such teachers
somewhere along the way. The ultimate raw deal, then, is not to be
born into a sub-culture of defective linguistic habits, but to be
aided and abetted in sustaining such habits by those entrusted with
setting one straight.
Conversational speech is a veritable treasure
trove of aberrant habits. When we speak informally, we contract,
coin, and maim without suffering any chastisement whatever. Indeed,
the unintelligibility which would cost us a chance at a good job
writing handbooks or press releases may be the tie that binds among
tight cliques of cronies. In a setting where people are heard to
deliver themselves of utterances like, "Car’s bad loose on
them hairpins," knowledge of exactly how to abuse the language
can mean the difference between penetrating the inner circle and
being waved back among the mass of outsiders. In other words, slang
is élitist. It raises walls. Academic liberalism would have
us believe (with the insufferably haughty histrionics of "going
slumming") that, on the contrary, the observance of grammatical
rules and standard diction is a ploy of the educated to keep the
masses down—but this only happens when the educational system
fails. The self-evident objective of rules and standards is
instead to create a game where all can play. By basing foreign
language instruction upon the parlance of the parking lot, the
contemporary teacher ensures that students will be drifting away
from the center’s "universalist" gravity, if not
directly approaching the arcane gibberish of some certain fringe
population. The student will be learning the language as it is used
among those of its native speakers who have poorly learned it, or
(at best) as its learned use it in their most careless moments.
I cannot think of a more succinct way to express
the imbecility of this operation. For those who protest, "Yes,
but my Mexican friends don’t understand the Castellano
Spanish I learned in college," I would counter that a Chilean
or a Dominican would probably understand these friends no better
than they would understand a Spaniard. At least learning a fairly
mainstream variety of Spanish gives you some chance of being
understood tolerably by all groups. The main road leads to the
possibility of reaching innumerable villages (and if some Mexican
villagers need a new bridge to the Camino Reál, perhaps they
should go back to school and study Spanish). A goat track to
this or that village can only take you to this or that village.
Again I ask the reader to ponder which of these two alternatives is
more genuinely élitist.
Point Three: Typical conversation, thanks
to its high density of irregular verbs, is actually the worst
place to go looking for grammatical principles in action: to expect
a child to induce such principles from such practice is outrageous.
This point is quite distinct from the previous one, just as
irregular but standard structures are distinct from slang. Strictly
on the basis of logic, "he had went" is more defensible
than "he had gone", yet it is sub-standard beyond any hope
of reprieve. The logic of English has the preterite form and the
past participle both emerging from the addition of –ed to
the verbal stem: "he combed, he has combed". The
formulations, "he went, he had went", would adhere to this
pattern (or, better yet, "he goed, he had goed"). Over a
period of centuries, however, certain odd preterites and past
participles have become standard for certain verbs—probably, to be
sure, because of the same forces which shape slang. People get
careless, and the more times they use a word, the more likely they
are to treat it carelessly. Familiarity breeds contempt. Irregular
verbs are almost always those which have received the most frequent,
most careless workouts. Words like get, take, do,
see, go, and (of course) be are irregular in
every language of which I have any special knowledge. The wind of
human conversation has worn them into peculiar structures just as
the winds of the high plains wear down rock into grotesque
sculpture. Call this slang’s revenge, if you will: an irregular
verb is an array of abuses which have become canonical.
We are stuck with each language’s Monument
Valley of oddball structures. If we don’t learn them, we can’t
communicate at the most superficial level; for, once again, these
structures are almost always oddball precisely because they are on
everyone’s lips all the time. They riddle the ordinary
conversation of the ordinary person (even though not always in the irregularly
standard form).3 In fact, I would
guess that irregular verbs (if we include all appearances of
"to be" in its many twisted guises) account for at least
half the verbs used in any informal exchange. There have been no
studies on the subject, as far as I know—but I would guess further
that this same figure is well below twenty-five percent in most deliberate
literature (i.e., writing which has been thought through carefully
rather than rushed into print… i.e., writing as it used to be
done). For instance, the casual remark, "I don’t see how he
can take another hit like that," contains four verbs, every one
of which is irregular! The same statement, written down with a
teacher or attorney peering over one’s shoulder, might become,
"I do not believe that he could have absorbed another shock of
that kind." Only the auxiliary verbs remain troublesome. Just
as conversation carries a much higher density of slang and slovenly
error than literature, so it has a higher density of irregular verbs
than literature. That thesis, subjective though its quantification
may be, seems irrefutable to me on the basis of mere common sense.
If you prefer, conduct your own experiments.
To return to our miserable youngster trying to
learn Spanish or French from the contemporary textbook, its pages
purged of conventional paradigms and filled endlessly with dialogues…
this child has been posed a Herculean task. Under a steady
bombardment of soy, estoy, voy, and doy
(with he tossed in just to keep the brew completely muddied),
he is to infer, over some untold number of years, that the standard
ending for the Spanish verb in the first-person singular of the
present tense is –o. I foresee three very likely
"outcomes" (to talk the bureaucratic talk): he ends up
believing immovably that the way to say "I speak Spanish"
is Habloy español; he ends up believing with equal
conviction that the way to say "I’m going to the store"
is Vo a la bodega; or, most likely of all, he ends up not
wanting to say anything, because he believes with some justification
that he understands nothing.4
Point Four: English is almost unique among
languages in its rigidly linear structure, causing English
monolinguals frequently to underestimate the importance and
difficulty of learning inflections in other tongues. Most
studies of early multilingualism involve children in
English-speaking households where a French spouse or a Spanish nanny
introduces another tongue.5 English is a
very special language in these relationships: its linear logic is
exceptionally easy to follow for one who comes to it from another
language, while one who must move from it into a less linear
language does so most easily at an early age. In other words, the
happy results which such studies show accruing to early
bilingualism, while quite real, are probably skewed by the fact that
one of the languages is English. Youth would otherwise be a less
consequential factor.
No language that I have ever studied has fewer
inflections than English. Endings of any sort are a rarity in our
tongue. The standard way of designating a plural noun is to add an s,
and the standard way of designating a verb’s preterite tense is to
add an ed. Beyond this, very little goes on at the end of our
words. We have no cases except in pronouns (and there only two), nor
have we gender endings except for the now-infamous –ess (much
deplored by feminists in words like actress). We ingeniously
manipulate our verbs by a system of auxiliary words—be, will,
and have—which snap into place, so to speak, like a toddler’s
jointed blocks. A non-English speaker, armed with an adequate
dictionary and allowed time to flip through its pages, could make
himself understood among us as long as our occasionally Gothic
spellings did not stop him dead in his tracks. If he were in one of
our restaurants and wished to alert us that fish induces in him an
allergic reaction, he could look up and piece together his vital
communication word by word. I+can+not+eat+fish. The word can
might create problems if, upon chasing it down in his own tongue, he
should find the definition, "to be able". Even so, "I
not be able to eat fish" makes pretty good sense. The only
other real danger that I foresee would perhaps lurk in his not
looking up the pronoun I; for in many languages, the subject
pronoun is expressed by a verbal ending.
The same happy experience from the other
direction—an American in Paris, say—would be difficult to
imagine. I honestly don’t know what, if anything, a native
Frenchman would make of Je non pouvoir manger poisson, the
nonsensical list of dictionary equivalents with which our Yank would
be certain to emerge. I know that it doesn’t come close to
Je ne peux pas manger de poisson. The partitive genitive is
especially perplexing to modern English speakers (though my wife’s
family in rural Georgia smells of and tastes of
things: in most places such usage died with Shakespeare). Without
that small preposition, and considering the rest of the sentence’s
grammatical nullity, a Frenchman might well conclude that his guest
didn’t want to eat this fish, or perhaps that he simply had
no appetite. At least the French language, like English, expresses
subject pronouns separately from their verb. Should our tourist
continue to Spain or Italy, he would be sure to draw even longer
stares upon himself by emphasizing all his subject pronouns
unintentionally.
I find that well-meaning people without much
experience of foreign language believe its study largely a matter of
learning new vocabulary. You learn the words, and you plug them into
place as needed: what could be simpler? The new generation of
textbooks encourages such naiveté. Besides chatty dialogues at the
mall and the ball game, the one feature they are sure to display
prominently is the vocabulary list. Every dialogue is usually
accompanied by its own list: names of foods for the visit to the
restaurant, names of decorations and favors for the birthday party,
and so on. Memorize the chatter template and the list, and… you’re
all set for your very own birthday party! You are not set,
however—not after even fifty lessons on this scale—to write
"thank you" notes to those who attended the party, to
describe the feeling of being a year older, to discuss how you play
with your favorite gifts, or to do conduct any linguistic activity
whatever beyond the template. While you could no doubt import
several of your new words into these other exercises, you would
still not know how to interweave them with a coherence remotely
approximating native fluency. You could only repeat the futility of
the American in Paris: "Bicycle… birthday… thank you."
At this rate, we might as well be urging our
children to draw pictographs intended for Barnard’s Star. A boy…
a dog… a smiley face. Maybe they’ll put it all together
themselves, whoever they are. After all, how stupid could they be?
Piece One, Piece Two, Piece Three… doesn’t everyone think that
way? What other way could there be?
Point Five: There is no genuine trade-off
or balancing act between verbal fluency and logic (i.e., grammar)
when the object is thoughtful expression. A constant and eternal
war, rather, exists between the literate’s universal audience and
the speaker’s tribal clique. The implicit assumption in much
of the new foreign-language pedagogy is that grammar somehow damages
learning. So subliminal is this notion that I can do no more than
point to things conspicuous by their absence: the tables, charts,
paradigms, highlighted rules, and other loci communes of the
elementary foreign language text fifty years ago. Editors do not
spring forward belligerently and proclaim, "Grammar is boring!
We have suppressed all grammatical instruction so as to retain the
student’s interest and put him in a mood susceptible to
learning!" They simply suppress all grammatical instruction.
Of course, grammar really is boring to an
untrained mind, as are all abstractions. Furthermore, most of those
reverend texts which were the foreign language teacher’s Bible
fifty years ago do not explain abstractions very well. They lay down
rules and, at most, grudgingly allow an example to slip through.
Their editors may have thought that the teacher would supply further
depth and color. I have never seen an elementary Latin text in wide
circulation, for instance, which handled the ablative case
effectively. The Ablative of Personal Agent… the Ablative of Means
or Instrument… the Ablative of Manner… the Ablative of
Accompaniment… my first Latin textbook was awash in these
Victorian phrases—as was everyone else’s, apparently. (The
graduate students of my time used to joke about the hyper-analytical
character of it all: they would propose additions like the Ablative
of Pecuniary Reimbursement.) As far as I know, no mass-marketed
textbook has ever taken the time to explain to students that there
were once many more cases than we find in historical Latin, that the
ablative case had become a kind of grab bag into which other cases
collapsed, that most Latin prepositions are used with the ablative
precisely because that case could scarcely preserve its pristine
meaning under all the debris of accumulated meanings, and so forth.
In other words, textbook-writers did not foresee a child with a
curious mind, or at least did not consider such a mind as deserving
of encouragement. The child was to memorize and regurgitate:
explanations would only confuse the issue. Through an odd and very
unfortunate series of associations, Latin became a rod for bending
stiff necks. Military schools, hard-line Catholic schools, and
private schools with patrician reputations—places where obedience
was reckoned the supreme virtue—taught Latin because it was
painful, and because pain breeds character.
I suppose the writers of the new textbooks may be
responding to such traditions as that. If so, they are being very
childish. They would be better advised to look up their fifth-form
slavemaster or Brother Bruno and punch him in the nose than to
continue torturing children from the other direction. They should
recover their attention from over their shoulder, where they
luxuriously sneer at yesteryear’s rigid pedagogy, and watch where
they are steering the new generation’s bus. Bad explanation is
boring, painful, and—yes—likely to make spirited children dig in
their heels against the pedagogical endeavor; but no explanation
is surely at least as ruinous. I have seen this method, by the way
(uprooted from Dartmouth linguist John Rassius’s "crash
course" context), inflicted upon ninth-grade Latin students.
The experimental textbooks contained not a syllable of English
anywhere—just Latin and pictures. The pictures were meant to
explain the Latin, naturally; but if one picture is worth a thousand
words, how many of those thousand words are appropriate to defining
the picture’s relevant aspect? Children get some very strange
ideas about the meaning of vocabulary and the function of changing
inflections when cajoled into "absorbing" the language
rather than offered straight answers once in a while. Soon their
reading of the unfamiliar tongue begins to resemble a Rorschach
test. Quot homines, tot sententiae, as Terence puts it: a
different version for every pair of eyes.
I do not say that an awareness of grammar
does not slow down the cataract of jabber. Obviously, it does. You
can’t talk as fast when you’re concerned about the clarity and
precision of what you’re saying. Delay is no doubt a grievous sin
in the age of clicking on "icons". (How many years will it
be, I wonder, before we simply flash cards at each other, or wear
head-gear whose screen does so for us?) Since the object of the
lesson is communication, however, surely the happy results of
thinking things through are worth a slight investment of time. To
addict people to brevity until they are no longer capable of
original thought, then to applaud the flash-card,
stimulus-and-response method of instruction because it accelerates
their meaningless jabber, is a bizarre inversion of means and ends.
Not too many years ago, educators would physically slap the left
hand of any student if it were detected in the act of writing.
Right-handedness was highly advantageous: desks, doors, and place
settings were designed to accommodate it. Beating the
left-handedness out of students was thus regarded as doing them a
favor. Do we really want to adopt similar measures now for the left
side of our brain?
I must observe that this fascination with
coffee-house gossip and cell-phone babble has too many political
undertones not to have been hatched deep in the nurseries of
theoretical academe. I realize that many of us recall grim
encounters with the "memorize and regurgitate" pedagogy
(not that I can see any transformation in the new approach, except
that trivial blather has replaced rule and paradigm as the matter to
be memorized). The revolutionizing of the nation’s consciousness
which the academic élite is forever trying to accomplish very often
reaches the boondocks as an imminently practical way of getting
quicker, easier, more visible results. I shall have much more to say
about this in the next section. For now, I stress that there is a
distinct flavor of rabble-rousing to today’s pedagogical romance
with idle chatter. The People chatter—the proletariat.
According to their oppressive oligarchs, they chatter in bad grammar
and malapropism… but the oligarchs would say that, wouldn’t
they? They want to preserve a world where no one outside their
privileged circle is able to communicate in the "proper"
manner.
I hope that I have already well demonstrated how
gnostic exclusivity is the province of slang, not standard usage.
Popular movements are infinitely more likely to generate their own
parlance as a means of nudging outsiders away. I recall a film about
The Battle of the Bulge (Battleground [1949], starring Van
Johnson) wherein a well-educated American lieutenant is very nearly
shot by his own men because he doesn’t know anything about
baseball—and therefore, in their minds, can only be a German! Or
consider the case of one "Big Archibald" MacPhail, a
Highlander whose traditional virtues distinguished him among his
seventeenth-century clansmen:
He once met a Lowlander by Achnacone and
greeted him in the Highland way: Beannachd Dhia dhuit, a dhuine!"
God’s blessing on you, sir. The Lowlander, having no Gaelic, but
seeing that some response was expected, replied that it was indeed
a fine day. "Foolish man," said Big Archibald [in
Gaelic], "do you despise the word of God?" Before the
Lowlander had time to decide what this might mean, he was struck
down by MacPhail’s sword. Big Archibald took the dead man’s
shoes, musket, and a guinea from his coat pocket, and walked on to
Ballachulish. There he told the Stewart laird what had happened,
adding that to his mind it had been a profitable morning.6
This is the Land of Milk and Honey which awaits
us in the post-literate world of Everyman’s preferred jabber. It
isn’t a working man’s paradise of straight talk—of Mark Twains
and Harry Trumans—where Jane and Jill are comparing how many teeth
their babes have lost while Jack and Joe share a beer over the
football game. That, to be sure, is part of the tableau (which is
already insipid enough: how many of these Janes and Jacks would
Professor Jones want in her revolutionary seminar?). Eventually,
however, these people and their seemingly innocuous prattle become a
tyranny. Everyone has to like what they like, buy what they buy, and
talk as they talk. The proletariat has expectations of behavior
which are every bit as suffocating as those of the middle class (a
blunt truth with which the academic élite would be familiar if it
ever had lengthy contact with working-class settings.) The great
difference between the two is the universalizing tendency
within middle class standards: the tendency, that is, to create
customs and manners valid for all human beings, not just for this or
that tribe. It is a tendency nourished by literacy far more than by
capitalism (indeed, the historical development of open markets was
itself fueled by literacy); for written communication is constantly
seeking to justify its reasoning to an audience as large as the wide
earth, whereas the oral communication seeks merely to lace itself
into the swift flow of an exchange between two or three or twenty
participants. To the latter kind of communicant, what’s right is
what carries his raft into the smoothly running midstream. To the
former kind, what’s right is what can be objectively demonstrated
before all possible comers.
Grammar is hard, especially if it is poorly
taught. Correct diction is the struggle of a lifetime, and each day
conceals little blunders. Yet when the goal of all this toil and
struggle is an open marketplace of ideas whose value is pegged, not
by their point of origin, but by their intrinsic coherence and
common humanity, isn’t the effort worthwhile? If some people start
farther back in the race than others, should we exhort them to make
haste, or call off the race? In view of the natural human zeal for
competition (what is commonly human, as we know, is not always
humane), we cannot suppose that other, less fairly arbitrated races
will not arise. Should we not therefore embrace rules adumbrated
over a centuries-long search for fair play rather than let every
neighborhood bully make up his own? In terms of teaching foreign
language, how can we believe that ignoring grammar to chase after
the moment’s "hottest" phrases will prove a liberating
exercise? At best, the "gangs" whose badges our students
end up wearing in their speech will be benign little cliques of
thoughtless consumers, stopping for tacos on their way to the
movies, rather than Fascists and Maoists with passwords and
slogan-catechisms.
Point Six: Vocabulary relating to
intimate household and familial details is always more idiosyncratic
than that relating to matters of more public currency. The latter
often has cognates in geographically neighboring languages, and
hence offers significant support for further education when compared
the former. The above remark is probably a rather opaque view of
a scene which becomes crystal-clear from any kind of close-up angle.
The basic facts are these. A language is usually a series of
overlays, beginning with origins so distant that they blur into
pre-history. More superficial strata are deposited over the
prehistoric core as neighboring societies invade or intermarry or
otherwise merge with the local tribe. Usually these neighbors will
be rooted, at least to some extent, in the same hazy source as the
specific Language X under examination, so that learning any one
language in the group will provide a headstart toward learning
others. Together, they all form a family. Nevertheless, X has a few
words all its own. Most of these belong to objects or behaviors
which are more domestic than formal, more intimate than public, or
more rude than sublime. The words for "family" and
"reunion" may be shared, for instance, while the word for
"stepchild" or "napkin" may be entirely unique
to the mountains of X.
By focusing on those informal and even intimate
occasions so fertile in chatty dialogue, the new foreign-language
pedagogy deprives students of a chance to prepare a broad basis for
studying other languages later on. It mires them in vocabulary words
without cognates in any other tongue. The list below compares
several words as they exist in French, Italian, and Spanish—languages
which, of course, are all descended from Latin. The more formal or
general words have been arranged on the left, the more informal or
specific words on the right. The results are quite striking.
thought
pencil
penser
crayon
pensiero
matita
pensamiento
lápiz
hope
pen
espérance
stylo
speranza
penna
esperanza
piuma
song
grandfather
chant
grand’père
canto
nonno
canto
abuelo
book
shoe
livre
soulier
libro
calzone
libro
zapato
fish
fox
poisson
renard
pesce
volpe
pez
zorro
life
meal
vie
repas
vita
pasto
vida
comida
In most cases, the Italian and Spanish words on
the left are either identical or different by only a letter. French
is a little more distant from both, yet its kinship bond is still
strong enough that anyone who knew Italian or Spanish would stand a
good chance of guessing the French word. If we look to the right,
however, we find a clear parting of the ways everywhere except for repas
and pasto (which are nonetheless so dissimilar that only the
best guesser could leap from one to the other). Just as clear,
surely, is the reason for the departure: the words on the right are
less formal, abstract, general, communal, or—in a
"centripetal" sense—civilized. The contrast between
words for "fish" and "fox" is indicative of how
little politics or élitism is involved in the distinction. These
are not "high brow" versus "low brow" words.
"Fish" is simply more generic: were we to add
"trout" to our list, we would once again find the road
dividing. At the same time, "fish" is no airy abstraction,
any more than "song" or "book". To desire that
students learn a large quantity of such words as would appear on the
left of this diagram is not to suggest that young children be
tortured with philosophical readings far beyond their years. It is
simply to ask that songs and books receive a little more air-time in
instructional materials than pens, pencils, spoons, and shoelaces.7
There is an implicit connection between a
language’s unique words of intimacy and its culture’s sense of
having preserved itself. Even cultures which have been overrun and
colonized by another power—have been so vanquished, indeed, that
the alien tongue significantly fuses with their own—can take a
certain solace in the number of "uninfected" words within
the domestic threshold. The Celtic peoples in the British Isles, for
example, not only have substantially un-Anglicized languages of
their own (i.e., Welsh and Gaelic: Cornish, I am told, is a dead
issue): they also widely circulate unique coinages in the
"invader’s" tongue for intimate objects and
relationships, such as boyo for "young
man" and girsha for "girl". The same languages had earlier resisted Latin in cultural
skirmishes which may now be reviewed quite clinically, since their
final blows have long been struck. Welsh was far more influenced
than Irish Gaelic by the Roman presence (for there was no such
presence on Irish soil). Hence the language abounds in Latin words
for military and political office (amherawdyr from imperator,
"emperor, general"), words for weapons (cleddyf
from gladius [sword] and saeth from sagitta
[arrow]), and especially words for literate endeavor (ystyr
from historia [story] and llyfr from liber
[book]).8 Yet the Welsh domestic setting
bears practically no trace of Latin nomenclature. While the invader’s
culture deeply infused public life, it was virtually invisible in
private life.
I raise this matter because it helps to explain
some of the volatility of the "second language" issue in
American politics. At least some of the resentment, I believe, often
registered by Anglo-Americans over other languages in their midst—and
here we might as well name Spanish outright—is caused by today’s
favored pedagogy, which invades the home’s inner sanctum rather
than contenting itself with roads, trees, birds, and clouds. A child
may quite possibly come home babbling "cupcake" or
"toilet" in Spanish before he knows how to say
"flower" or "horse". I doubt that this
astonishingly subtle "invasion of the patriarchy" can have
been planned at any level but the most intuitive by the
textbook-writing élite in the academy. There is most certainly such
an invasion going on at conscious levels elsewhere, however, and I
would by no means dismiss the notion that its captains intuit
how subversive would be little Jimmy’s or Janie’s request in
Spanish for a birthday party. Whether the parents of these children
deserve to be wrenched from their complacency is not a judgment
which should be handed down from an academic’s desk; but that they
should not be so wrenched through their manipulated children must
be morally transparent to anyone but a fanatic.
***
Let us pursue the broader objectives of what I
call the academic élite. Let us stand back from specific classroom
strategies which seem designed, not to teach students another
language thoroughly, but to prepare them for parachuting into
villages where it is spoken and making their way along alien streets
undetected. In its entirety, this pedagogical phenomenon presents us
with a very odd prospect—odd enough that it begs an explanation.
Its theorists and champions cannot argue that they have simply
tossed out the tedious rote learning of yesteryear, for they haven’t.
If anything, this method involves more commission of senseless
linguistic chunks to memory than ever. At least yesteryear’s
drills ("amo, amas, amat…")
inculcated paradigms which applied sweepingly to the language in
question, and thereby liberated the child to go forth and compose or
read virtually anything with the help of a lexicon. Today’s
"hello, how are you?" drills are perhaps less tedious in
that they apply to narrow, "real life" circumstances—but
the same narrowness inhibits them from being exported to other
circumstances. The student who has been forced to memorize dozens of
lines of polite jabber is in nowise fit to go forth and read the
language’s great novelists (if it has any: can the
prattle-proctors, I wonder, name a couple?). Thanks to the demotic,
quasi-slang nature of conversational language and its tendency
toward top-heaviness with irregular forms, it is at best a tortuous
route to great literature.
The cynic will already have unearthed a couple of
motives behind "chatter" pedagogy’s far-and-wide
adoption. First, it instantly captures the audience with an illusion
of being fully "plugged in" to reality; second, people can
teach it who have little or no knowledge of literature. It’s an
easy sale, and the seller needn’t have spent years in school. I
hasten to add that some teachers chatter fluidly, eloquently, and
even beautifully. I will not deny a certain jealousy of such types,
for I have never enjoyed the gift of gab in any tongue, including my
native English. Still, one would have expected that the
trend-setters at major universities, where chatter-strategies have
not only been blessed but were originally designed, might stick up
for literacy. The academy would hardly strike the layman as a likely
place to encounter persistent hostility to literate culture. How can
such antagonism exist where people have dedicated themselves to
higher learning?
Sooner or later, I suppose I must risk whatever
lucidity my discussion has by mentioning deconstruction, the
dominant theory in departments of language and literature for the
past thirty years or so (now mercifully in ebb). Academic readers
may have noted with irony that the neo-Marxist romanticizing of
ordinary parlance so visible in the chatter-texts exactly reverses
the polarities of deconstruction—or appears to do so. Thirty-five
years ago, Jacques Derrida delivered the pronounce-ment (extravagant
from the start, and extravagantly defended since he made it in Of
Grammatology) that writing actually evolved before speech in
some sense. We are to suppose that Western culture’s speakers have
harbored a grudge against its writers since the neighbor of Rousseau’s
caveman scribbled, "He said that was his." I
can see no possible profit in reviewing Derrida’s rhetorical
loop-de-loops. The gist of it all is that the written text, by
fixing words for subsequent careful examination, exposes that they
are lies. Nothing is at the bottom of anything—but professional
mouthpieces like priests and bards can get away with propagandizing
for the political élite as long as their lofty claims are not put
under the magnifying glass. Literacy does precisely this disservice
to the ruling powers: hence they vilify it.
Indeed, there is truth in what Derrida claims if
you can strain the political dialectic out of it (which leaves
behind, however, a very bland fare). Writing, at least of the
alphabetic sort which can be quickly learned by multitudes,
eventually wears away oral-traditionalism beneath a steady onslaught
of astute perceptions and rational qualifications.9
Yet this is not where Derrida and his footsoldiers want to go. The
whole point of devising a Manichaean tug-of-war between writing and
speech was to pillory the West’s conventional leadership. We have
all been fed a steady diet of propaganda for centuries now: that is
the message. The written/spoken rigamarole is a convenient means to
a glorious end.
So it turns out that deconstructionists and
chatter-champions are not at loggerheads, after all. In fact, they
are on the same side of the battering ram, working in complementary
motions to level the edifice of meaning, law, tradition, faith,
order, hierarchy—everything resistant to the chaotic forces of
whimsy which pass for freedom among this crowd. As far as I can
tell, there was never even any sort of intellectual negotiation
between Derrida’s urbane, facetious punsters and the cocksure
crusaders who shared their beds around campus. That fact is quite
astonishing. Just imagine. The deconstructionist suspends belief in
everything, absolutely everything (for this is his one and only
absolute); the neo-Marxist romantically "postpones"
nirvana to a vague, gilded future and derives his rigid marching
orders therefrom. The latter seems the preeminent example of all
that the former chuckles over. Indeed, when post-structuralist
"scholars" had to write about something distinctly
literary to win their tenure, they almost invariably chose a
romantic author—a poet rapt in self-aware self-delusion before a
Grecian urn or chasing a waif which he knows to be incaptible.10
Bemused though they were, these same romantics bequeathed to us the
lunacy of bloody revolution for a utopian vision—not
general upheaval in the ancient world’s tawdry sense, when mobs
backed a charismatic figure to loot under his banner (res novae),
but vast slaughter of live humanity left and right to incarnate (or
incarnadine) a "dream". If ever any sane adult might be
wooed to deconstruction’s sophistical paralysis, it would be
through the contemplation of such "principled" excesses as
ideology has visited upon us in the last two hundred years. The
rhetorical shell games of Hegel and Marx, no less than those of
Benjamin Constant or Victor Hugo, veritably scream for
deconstruction, if by that is understood demolition through mature
analysis.
How could these two mentalities possibly coexist,
and even be considered mutually supportive? The answer, I repeat,
lies in that great common enemy of all hipster intellectuals,
bourgeois decorum: common sense, common decency, common humanity…
the suffocating blandness (as the intellectual often finds it) of
life in a smoothly functioning, civilized society. If I have
stressed above the logical incompatibility of deconstruction’s dégagé
philosophers and the engagé campus radicals who sat at their
feet, it is to demonstrate that no rigorous logical connection
between the two ever existed—no developing pedigree of doctrinal
kinship such as one would expect of thoughtful people. On the
contrary, the idle intellectual’s script for two centuries now has
contained little but phrases intended to shock the audience (or to
delight an audience of self-selected rebels, I should say, by
shocking the tastes of those not in attendance). The academy’s
loathing of the bourgeoisie is a phenomenon extending well back into
the nineteenth century. Indeed, Voltaire was theatrically crying écrasez
l’infâme as the eighteenth rumbled to its unhappy conclusion.
Deconstruction’s grandiose claim to epochal insight is therefore
absurd. We see no significant transition here: we see only the rise
of the middle class, some of whose brightest children grow
deliriously frustrated because their upward mobility is impeded or
because pushy scoundrels are elbowing past them. An argument—a
rational concatenation of facts—is not what we should expect from
this crowd. We need merely note who is always deemed right by the
rhetoric and who always wrong. On the wrong side, a system whose
hierarchies have stood for centuries and are generally defensible by
objective reason; and on the right side, everything anti-systematic.
To paraphrase Milton’s Satan (another counter-conformist whose
freedom is enslaved to shock effect), "Chaos be thou my
order!"
For foreign language instruction, all this means
that today’s reigning neglect of literature and grammar in favor
of demotic parlance should not in any wise be construed as a
back-to-basics rejection of pedantic folderol. On the contrary, the
new trend is perfectly in step with the deeper rhythm of
deconstructive chic. Forget about those theoretical tomes than which
nothing more impenetrable to the common man—and the streetcorner
chatterbox—has ever been written. (Or pause for a moment to
reflect that these tomes, in their illegible jargon, tortured
syntax, and disguised ignorance of basic grammar are indeed an
assault upon literacy from another direction.) The grand design
behind this campaign of many fronts is very simple: the subversion
of the canonical, the traditional, the acceptable.
Now, the old
establishment (and "old" is not redundant here, for the
system is already a mere memory) was scarcely a hotbed of
"English first" zealotry. If anything, its stalwarts put
Latin first, or ancient Greek—or if English, then the English of
Shakespeare and Bacon and Dryden, certainly not the picaresque
oratory of the barber shop. And they fostered Spanish of the same
caliber. In college Spanish departments, one studied (as well as
Cervantes and the picaresque—for there has always been a
barber in Seville) Lope de Vega, Calderón, and Cadalso. Today’s
chatterers no more aim their pedagogy toward the bright
constellations of Spanish literature than their high-brow
deconstructive comrades addressed unreadable treatises to that
quadrant of the sky. Frankly, I don’t know how anyone could
deconstruct literary convention and human bombast more effectively
than Cervantes did (except, perhaps, Ariosto). A deconstructionist
would have to turn tail and run from such testimony lest he be found
naked in his own sophomorism.
No, the variously styled "old boys" or
"dead white guys" were not trying to silence
Spanish-speaking voices: on the contrary, they required that their
children speak—or, to be exact, read—in more voices than
one now finds in the typical public library. The war is not with
oppressive Anglo-Saxon patriarchs who want all other comers to go
back where they came from: if such "barbarophobes" are
fast becoming a new establishment, they were never so before. This
is the war in which student radicals occupied the administration
building at Columbia, bullied professors of literature across the
nation into teaching such "relevant" matter as rock
lyrics, and voted with their parents’ checkbooks to eliminate
philosophy and foreign language (by the way) from the core
curriculum. It is the war against culture: against the Western
tradition of independent thought, open discussion, and common-sense
objectivity. Everything unfamiliar, capricious, intractable,
unstable, anomalous, ungovernable, or irrational has long been
stockpiled for ammunition. While deconstructive sappers were
attempting to undermine the very possibility of rational discourse,
hordes of barefoot buck-privates (whom the Greeks called idiotês)
asserted the existence of lunacy with lupine howls from the trenches
or suicidal leaps from the battlements. The latter have now taken
over the siege.
And what is it which interests such people about
Spanish? For the debate about foreign language in the United States
is really about Spanish, and more so every day: does that fact in
itself not suggest the answer? The Spanish-speaking population is
much the largest group of Americans whose native tongue is not
English. Hence it is an ideal wedge for penetrating the armor of
common custom, of bourgeois convention. And why is it, then, that
the commonwealth was not faltering earlier under the more intense
"assault" of Latin, Greek, and French transmitted tidily
by the educational system—was, indeed, more stable and judicious
than ever, to all appearances? Because languages were then taught
with a heavy emphasis on literacy—on reading and writing rather
than speaking. Literacy fosters independent thought, which
fosters an interest in open discussion, which fosters an interest in
reaching objective consensus… all the centripetal values which
build a sense of common humanity. Of these the antinomians want no
part. Spanish-speaking Americans have caught their eye because they
are a minority, and in many ways a frightening minority to
Anglo America. The typical WASP cannot so much as comprehend their
speech, even if he or she took four years of Spanish in college:
that much is already dismaying.11 A
literary education in Spanish would surely diffuse this tension
somewhat: for it is true, after all, that you can’t scorn a people
whose literature you have read. On the other hand, to introduce the
colloquial palaver of this "suspect" people through the
back doors of those who fear it and into their very hearths—by
having all the little bourgeois toddlers trip home babbling it, no
less—seems to me a surefire method of escalating alarm.
I have already discussed how conquered peoples
have conventionally been able to conserve their own words for life’s
most homely and most private objects, even under a massive effort of
colonization (Point Six). Here we see from the textbook-writing
élite, not a grand initiative to enhance the literacy of both
cultures concerned, or indeed of either culture—but what looks,
instead, very like an incendiary nurture of incomprehension among
both cultures, and particularly aimed at the dominant culture’s
foundations. Sandra Stotsky has noticed the same tactics in a
slightly different context, where, at first glance, the textbook
industry seems intent upon bewildering children rather than
insinuating itself into their parties with candy and toys. Her
thorough study of English readers (of reading texts, that is) for
elementary students reveals a disturbing tendency to impose
indecipherable, unpronounceable foreign words upon bourgeois scenes
of intimacy. Bear in mind that Stotsky is considering the texts from
which young children learn English. While the same foreign
words might be more pronounceable in a foreign language class, they
are presented in a setting where their correct elocution—and,
indeed, sometimes their basic meaning—remains an enigma (for
footnotes or explanations in the teacher’s guide are not always
forthcoming). How could the effort to destabilize the young person’s
warmest household rituals in bursts of "otherness"
possibly be made more apparent? Writes Stotsky of one such passage
(which, within fewer than one hundred words, hurls ten Swahili nouns
at a fourth-grade readership):
How likely are you to see any of these Swahili
words again in outside independent reading? The answer? Not very
likely. They are not words that contribute to the vocabulary
needed by the typical middle or secondary school student in an
English-speaking country.
One can only speculate why such a story is
offered as fourth-grade reading material since the teacher guide
provides no justification for including it for instructional
purposes. Is it there to teach nonblack children to respect other
languages? To enhance the self-esteem of black children on the
grounds that this may have been the language of their ancestors in
Africa? (In fact, most of their ancestors came from the western
part of Africa and spoke other languages.) Or to pique black
children’s interest in learning Swahili as a second language?
Whatever the reason, students and their teachers will spend
valuable time learning the meaning of words with no real utility
for English speakers, readers, and writers.12
To Stotsky’s far-from-rhetorical questions, I
would respond with emphasis, "Destabilization!"
Unknowingly, she produces in her sample passages the very kinds of
foreign words which I cited above in Point Six as informal,
intimate, or rude (in the literal sense of rustic or unpolished).
These words are dubious enough even in the foreign language
classroom, for the student in that setting is almost as constricted
by their narrowness of application as the student in English class
is by their being utterly incomprehensible. What clearly shines
forth in both classrooms is the intimacy of the setting; and I ask
any sane adult, would the "colonization" of this setting
as it occurs in your child’s life by a culture whose words and
ways you find mysterious not stir you to fear, and even to
animosity? If we grant that perhaps you should not find these
alien ways fearful—that you should probably go back to school
yourself—is the infiltration of your own most private rituals a
very prudent or humane means of eliciting your benevolent interest
in the other?
With regard to Hispanic culture (and Stotsky
concedes that most incidents of oracular inscrutability in textbooks
involve Spanish), it is worth stressing that Spanish-speakers do not
profit from the academy’s antagonizing of an Anglo mainstream
which largely decides their fate. If the average American is already
annoyed that he cannot communicate his order at the local cafeteria,
he is downright neurotic about what he perceives as a new crime
wave. In many areas (especially urban centers receiving a steady
influx of immigrants, legal and otherwise, from very poor nations),
the middle-class establishment is painfully aware that crime has
risen—violent crime, above all. The phrase which haunts English
nightmares is not Buenos días, amigo, but Plata o plomba!—"Bucks
or a bullet!" The physically dangerous side to the Hispanic
diaspora, while lending itself to demagogic exploitation, is
statistical fact. The all-Spanish newscast out of Dallas-Fort Worth
which I regularly watch features a story or two every week about the
disproportionately high rates of homicide, traffic fatality, and
alcohol and drug abuse among Hispanic youths. To these figures might
be added the exorbitant rates of larceny practiced by the fluently
bilingual upon recent immigrants—withholding wages from illegals,
for instance, and pocketing money supposed to be wired to relatives
down south. (Such crimes, I note in passing, would be largely
expunged if immigrants were taught literacy in Spanish at the
same time as or before they learned English.) To say that these
children of the south are most often their own victims is also
statistically accurate, but such sad figures and numbers remain a
"public relations" disaster before a tremulous Anglo
majority. When we—and here I mean all of us—consider that
certain of our "best and brightest" who write textbooks
are royally amusing themselves with the situation’s volatility, we
should not shame to feel grave indignation.
Now, Hispanic culture (if such a thing still
exists) is nothing if not conservative. Mothers worry about their
daughters bearing children out of wedlock, fathers feel humiliated
when they cannot feed their children, and brothers or sons as well
as fathers will illegally cross a border hundreds of miles away to
siphon a little money back home. This community is hit hard by the
occasional violence of life on the edge, and is eager to work its
way toward something better. To offer welfare payments or an
abundance of blue-collar jobs, either one or both together, without
also offering literacy is like clearing two escape routes from a
burning house without applying water to a yet manageable flame. I
repeat: reading and writing turn people into independent thinkers.
An immigrant Hispanic boy who reads will perhaps not require
membership in a gang to find emotional stability. His sister will
perhaps not feel compelled to bestow sexual favors lest she be
shunned. Their father, when out of a job, will perhaps not squander
precious pennies on beer and cigarettes, even if reading does not
successfully steer him through that famous sea of Job Applications
to the fabled Better Position. A poster in our local library has
actor James Edward Olmos declaring like some iron-jawed
propagandist, Leer es poder—"Reading is power."13
This is true, I suspect, in ways which never occurred to the poster’s
designers. Quite apart from enhancing income, reading affects how
we live: what we buy, what we eat, what we do for pleasure. It
renders us stronger on the inside—less vulnerable to circumstance,
more self-reliant. It is a resource from which people already
disposed to take responsibility for others would very much profit.
Am I saying with insufferable condescension that
immigrant paupers should improve themselves by learning how to read?
Well, I certainly believe that we should all improve ourselves, and
the literate life is a shortcut to improvements of the deepest kind.
Inasmuch as the pain of striving to "write truth" is that
of honest prayer and confession, I am not disposed to apologize for
urging anyone to improve so. If that seems insufferable to some,
then I would ask them why they do not find instability, doubt,
despair, and self-annihilation in the manic hysteria of
gang-and-drug culture to be still less sufferable. But, of course,
flight from such ruinous miseries is convergence back toward the
human center of bourgeois, "universalist" values. Better
that our saddest social statistics should continue to rise than that
our academic élite should lose the Hispanic community as a fulcrum
against middle-class America!
Consider the following passage from Emilio Romero’s
novel about the Spanish Civil War and its aftermath, The Peace
Begins Never. The hope which Romero claims here for all
Spaniards, I say parenthetically, seems so humane and reasonable
that it fully deserves extension to all people everywhere:
This people of mine deeply moved me with its
originality, simplicity, and grandeur. From a certain perspective,
it was indeed determined to stage a revolution to live better—yet
under the condition that this revolution not remove everything
which constituted our emotional patrimony. The communists call
this bourgeois prejudice; and, in reality, I believed that the
best revolution would be that which would make us all bourgeois,
not proletarian. At the bottom of every naïve Spanish communist,
there wasn’t a desire to impoverish the rich, but to enrich
oneself—to be able to become an engineer or soldier or doctor,
to marry a handsome young woman and go to the opera. Any
revolution that would not pursue a higher level of life was no
revolution at all, but a regression.14
When I say that literacy is the entrance to this
vision, not just financially but also—and in particular—psychologically,
I mean the reading-and-writing habit of life in any tongue. I
should be quite happy to see our public education system fund a
program for our Hispanic fellow-citizens which taught meaningful
literacy in Spanish. Having a ballot printed in two languages seems
to me no great threat to our society. On the other hand, having
people who can barely read a ballot, whatever its language, and who
seldom read anything longer than a paragraph is very possibly the
greatest threat any democracy can ever face. As long as our citizens
read (i.e., wrestle with each printed idea in their minds
until they take possession of it), I shouldn’t care if they do the
reading in Spanish, French, Urdu, or Mandarin. Our critical problem
is not a multiplicity of tongues, but a paucity of reading matter
and of readers.
Certainly my young son’s school, which I
believe to be the finest in the area, has always exhorted him to
read and write. I am told that he presently reads four years above
his grade level—and, of course, this delights me. All the more
cause to wonder, though, why the most advanced Spanish textbooks
used in his institution’s middle school offer no literary
readings: just dialogues ad infinitum. Forget about when my
son will ever be able to read Romulo Gallegos or Antonio Azorín
(two of my favorites): when will a girl or boy from a
Spanish-speaking household ever be able to write a thoughtful
editorial in Spanish—or read one—even if that child should
attend this fine school? Why must both native English-speakers and
native Spanish-speakers be denied access to the Spanish literary
tradition? How long must all our children keep drowning in this
"total immersion" of Arcadian chatter where funny old men
dance and candy falls from the rafters?
For Arcadia is a critical point of connection
between Ivy League topsy-turvyists and the dedicated, warm-hearted
teachers of Middleville. I have already alleged (with an appearance,
no doubt, of mean-spiritedness) that the social-engineering project
to force Hispanic culture down mainstream America’s throat appeals
to the average teacher, not because he or she burns to stupify the
bourgeoisie, but because chatter requires few lesson plans and
little formal training. (In fact, it doesn’t really require a
teacher—those teachers who have staked their future on a strategy
so compatible with video technology are sawing off their limb of the
proverbial tree.) Naturally, there are more humane motives behind
this pedagogy, as well. The socialist vision of one big happy family
sharing all its toys is hopelessly, even absurdly unfitted to adult
reality: adults don’t like to lend their toys to others who abuse
them. Yet the share-all frolic around the Maypole is a perfectly
plausible—and even commendable—objective for an elementary
school classroom. Traditions are not riveted into minds at this
point. Susie and Ahmed and Joaquín and Bahar are just so many
children with so many colorful names to one another, and their
celebrating Christmas in different ways—or celebrating different
holidays around Christmas time—is an intriguing curiosity rather
than an invincible wall. A good teacher can effectively stress
common humanity for a few of these Arcadian years before the gates
of Eden close (as they most surely will: for the rivets are applied
from within, even if the traditions are transmitted from without).
To teach another language by drawing children into the intimate
quarters of another culture—the kitchen, the birthday party, the
year’s most exotic feasts and vigils—is thus a tempting way to
rally them round a humanitarian morale (and, dare I say, a "universalist"
ethic).
But the "party" approach remains, above
all, a practical one; and it is to this pragmatism rather than to
any excessively Arcadian commitment that cultural subversion owes
its securest footholds in the elementary curriculum. Children, especially very young ones, like singing
puppets and dancing clowns, whose appearance on the scene always
imposes a chatty, extroverted occasion (Hola, niños!). Of
course, birthday parties and holidays, besides being magically
special, are also highly social occasions eliciting steady dialogue.
Chatter in such surroundings is likely to interest the young
student, even if he or she doesn’t understand it. And who knows?
Since children are far more apt to soak up piñata and Feliz
Navidad! than mansedumbre, maybe they will also soak up a
few irregular verbs. A strategy which commandeers bright images and
festive trim plainly holds youthful attention better than a lecture
on grammar—and nothing good can happen without attentiveness!
To such bourgeois pragmatism as this, the élite
game plan seems wonderfully savvy about adapting its methods. Time
and time again, Middle America does the footwork for the Ivory Tower’s
most fantastical causes. And why not? The two "polarities"
here—the academic Left and the bourgeois Right—are really just
alternatives of the pragmatic. Insanely idealistic though the
socially engineered Arcadia of Marxism is, its furtherance justifies
a cold, calculating suspension of all moral principles to the
faithful. (Or, to state this view properly, all moral principles are
a bourgeois illusion, sustained in the hall of mirrors which
deconstruction exposes.) Ideological "change agents" can
comfortably harrow the middle class with the incomprehensible
chatter of its gardeners and nannies even as they woo its children
with cakes and Christmas presents. The war, as I have said, has many
fronts. Why wouldn’t it, since its objective is a romantic fusion
with the indefinitely remote Not Here, Not Now—the n’importe
où hors du monde away from which deconstruction (one would have
thought) warns its congregants?
For their part, the solid bourgeois citizens
whose children are becoming multilingual jabberers incapable of
parsing a verb in any tongue are the most unlikely collaborators of
all in this sad conspiracy. In the long run, they really don’t
mind having their Anglo Christmases and birthdays go Spanish, or
even seeing the Fourth of July merge hazily with Cinco de Mayo.
After all, a holiday’s a holiday! They themselves have so heartily
embraced the post-literate life that their rituals are skin deep,
their inner sancta wired for cable and the Internet. As sanguinary
as tribal disputes can be over arbitrary boundaries or meaningless
items of dress (one slip of the tongue can get your head cut off, as
Big Archibald reminds us), they are also soluble at what seems to a
literate person the most superficial of levels: the pragmatic. Cinco
de Mayo makes money. Hang out a sign, stock a few specialty
knick-knacks, and watch the month of May soar into the black. You
can’t hang out a sign—you don’t know Spanish? Ask your child.
All the kids are learning Spanish in school now, and it’s not that
useless stuff in old novels and poems that nobody reads. My son,
your daughter, are going to know how to handle this lingo so that
the average José with a dirty roll of untaxed bills in his pocket
from a law-breaking employer will
understand it. And a bill’s a bill, you know: the bank doesn’t
deduct points for dirtiness, or even for tax-evasion.
That, of course, is the sordid side of the
bourgeoisie—the side from which so many bright young adolescents
were seeking refuge when they entered graduate school and adopted
some neo-Marxist (or quasi-deconstructive, or crypto-nihilist)
philosophy. The literate bourgeois historically sought liberation
from the arbitrary chains of tradition to amass wealth, yes; but he
also amassed knowledge of faraway places in the process of opening
new markets, he learned how to treat those faraway customers
civilly, and he began to suspect that a spiritual sameness unites
all human beings beneath the differing skin tones and headdresses.
In him, the god of goodness found a conduit. Unfortunately (from a
marketing point of view), too much spiritual knowledge leads to too
little interest in the world, which leads to declining profits and
collapsing businesses. At some point, then, the bourgeois was forced
to choose between the spiritual opportunities which venal curiosity
had accidentally revealed to him and the worldly opportunities which
directly satisfied his venal ambition. I venture to say (in the
certainty of drawing much censure from "patriots") that we
of the United States are living in the twilight of our predominantly
venal choices. We have gone so far as actually to abandon that
literacy, with all of its attendant habits (independence,
responsibility, belief in objective goodness), which rendered us
capable of arbitrating the world’s disputes. At the moment, we
remain better arbiters, in my opinion, than anyone else around us…
but how long can we be so, as we turn into utter pragmatists? If our
most pressing concern about the very language in which we think is
that our orders are not being processed conveniently, to what level
of thinking have we descended? If our fondest hope for the second
language which our children are being taught is that they may
process more orders in that tongue for a higher profit, at what
point do they learn from us the end of human existence?
Pragmatists, one and all: the élite
textbook-writer, who will pull any punch to disrupt and destabilize;
the teacher in the trenches, who will adopt any strategy as long as
it reduces rowdiness and boredom; the all too insouciant parent, who
will submit his child to any text-taught outrage or absurdity as
long as a good job shimmers at the end of the rocky pedagogical
road. I have been trying to promote the view for some years that
material pragmatism is at last suicidal, since men and women are at
last not material beings. The analysis—and it is often painful
analysis—which literacy imposes upon their thinking is inestimably
precious in how it awakens the sense of an inner, invisible,
immaterial, life of universal value. On this basis alone, the
shift in our instructional methods from literacy to speaking is a
tragedy, whether we find it occurring in foreign language pedagogy
or English or history or the sciences. Though few of us can
influence the textbook industry, we should resist the shift in the
classroom even if levels of boredom rise and resist it at
home even when we cannot punctuate parental counsel with
expensive toys. We should apply ourselves to recovering our
human dignity.
Quite beyond that, however, and for the reasons
detailed in this essay, teaching another language by conversational
chatter is simply bad teaching. Use a standard as pragmatic as you
like: it remains unwieldy, even indefensible. Our English-speaking
children need a more generalized sense of the rules. Our
Spanish-speaking neighbors’ children need the same thing, not only
to understand our "book-learned" version of their language
but to reassemble their ever more fragmented dialects. By continuing
down the present path, we assure both the rootlessness of our own
children’s language skills and the eventual dissolution of the
languages they are trying to learn. And all for what? For a few more
sales of piñatas? For a few more hours per week without
lesson-planning? For a few more clever jabs at those selfish,
heartless hypocrites of the bourgeoisie? Any shrewd huckster could
make that out to be a very poor bargain.
NOTES
1 See "The
Intimate Message of Foreign Language: One Small Curricular Step
Toward Restoring Reason" Praesidium 2.2 (Spring 2002):
5-16. I here renew my earlier refusal, by the way, to avoid
"foreign" lest it offend. The word exists in no other
language as we spell it in English (forain is extremely rare
nowadays in French); therefore, anything linguistically foreign, and
labeled "foreign", would simply be
"non-English". Even a language spoken abundantly where
English predominates (e.g., Spanish in the United States) would
remain "foreign", not to American shores, but to the
English language, because… Spanish isn’t English. A mind too
obtuse to grasp this distinction or too pugnacious to accept it must
be excused from any serious discussion of the issues.
2 From p. 13 of
D. James, "The Impact on Higher Education of Standards for
Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st
Century," ACTFL Newsletter (Fall 1998): 11-14.
3 I have lived
where "went" is indeed functionally the past participle of
"go"; and I cannot help wondering how many egalitarian
academics would rush to hire a candidate as Director of Composition
who volunteered, "I’d went back home a while before finishing
my Ph.D." To be fair to the "principles" of these
professionals, their sure rejection of such a person might well have
less to do with his churlish grammar than with his being a
"Southern redneck" or "Appalachian hillbilly".
That is, his grammar would designate him as affiliated with regional
and ethnic groups inimical to the academic political agenda. In
contrast, if an applicant from a northeastern urban center were to
say with tight-lipped inflections, "All’s I’m saying is, it
ain’t no big deal," he would probably be thought cute.
4 If the child
is studying Spanish or Italian by the chatty new methods, he or she
will mix with the bewildering mire of irregular verbs the archaic
use of the third person in those two languages as a polite form. It’s
impossible to steer clear of this form, in fact, while immersing (or
deluging) children in questioning phrases ordinarily addressed to
strangers (and hence requiring formality): cómo está?, habla
español?, and the rest. A few minutes spent in trying to
explain to a youngster why a person may be directly addressed in
forms normally reserved for persons not present is enough to make
any teacher simply cry, "Memorize it and don’t ask!" But
isn’t this the sort of authoritarian approach which we are
supposed to be sparing children now—and, in any case, for how long
do we postpone the explanation of a curiosity which is bound to
frustrate any novice’s theory about why endings change? How does
an intelligent adult, let alone a child, "absorb" grammar
when left alone to confront such Byzantine structures? Wouldn’t
the saner approach, indeed, be to avoid conversation until
the learner is more advanced grammatically?
5 The
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) provides an online
"clearinghouse" of research. My perusal of this source
suggests that studies of bilingual households overwhelmingly involve
cases where English is one of the languages, especially when a group
of several families is procured. Exceptions crop up in and around
Russia: but here one encounters bilingualism where the two languages
a) have broad support within the general community, b) are scarcely
written at all, and c) may often be closely related. The focus of
such research is usually to establish that a politically
"discouraged" language is doing no harm. Otherwise, there
is little sense of urgency driving comparative studies in
non-Anglophone Western nations. Continental Europeans are able to
absorb other romance or Germanic languages with ease. The least
educated Italian, depending on his location, may well have enough
Spanish or German to render him the verbal equal of an American with
twelve college hours in those same languages. Bilingualism in the
United States, Britain, and Canada, on the other hand, is always
controversial when advanced as public policy. For reasons explained
hereafter, English is a very poor preparation for studying any other
language.
6 From John
Prebble, Glencoe: The Story of the Massacre (New York: David
and George 1966), 42. I might add that when Gaelic was being
resuscitated in western Ireland at the beginning of the twentieth
century, the effort was two-pronged: record as much lore from the
mouths of local story-tellers as possible, and send
schoolmasters out into remote areas to teach grammar and spelling in
these communities. The endeavor’s founders were insightful enough
to understand that the centrifugal forces of dialect, if allowed to
run unchecked, would shred the language beyond recovery.
7 For the
record, my own young son (second grade) has brought home the
following words from my table in his vocabulary lists: lápiz,
abuelo, and comida. From the left side of my table, I
have not seen a single word appear in his lessons. How could lápiz
possibly occur in his course of instruction before libro?
I have no idea. Such absurdities seem to be par for this course—and,
I should add, books and what one does with them are presented as
quite dispensable in the whole process.
8 These
particular words, by the way, have Irish cognates. Medieval Ireland’s
isolation from the continent has been grossly exaggerated. The
island maintained a lively commercial and cultural intercourse with
parts of Europe.
9 The objective
of such qualification historically, however, has been that very body
of abstract, universal truth which Derrida sees dissolving under
literacy. It is oral tradition’s misrepresentation of truth as
inscrutable gnostic mystery, rather, which literacy erodes in
pursuit of a more proper enunciation. Furthermore, the early
literacy of the royal chronicle and the sacred history, by being
entrusted only to an élite class (and often in those hieroglyphs
which Derrida exploits so ingeniously where his logic buckles),
actually shores up the status quo. Scribes and Pharisees are
proverbial for using precious, seldom-seen documents to hallow their
arbitrary pronouncements.
10 Cf. Eric
Havelock, The Muse Learns to Write: Reflections on Orality and
Literacy from Antiquity to the Present (New Haven and London:
Yale UP, 1986), 50: "Derrida performs the service of stressing
the romanticism which inspired Rousseau and has lingered on in the
Lévi-Strauss perception of a mythic structuralism as a fundamental
representation of the realities of human experience. But has he, any
more than his predecessor, stretched his vision to comprehend that
‘primary orality’ which supplies the original key?"
11 Contrast
with the situation in, say, France—or French-speaking Canada—where
the same four years of college render one fairly comprehensible even
to provincial types. Why? Because even the provincials have been to
school and studied their language formally, through grammar and
literature, thereby developing their sense of the linguistic matrix
from which their dialects stem.
12 From Sandra
Stotsky, Losing Our Language: How Multicultural Classroom
Instruction Is Undermining Our Children’s Ability to Read, Write,
and Reason (New York: Free Press, 1999), 150-51.
13 I do not
suggest that Mr. Olmos knew how his manly mug would be used on the
poster. I have been a keen fan of his since The Ballad of
Gregorio Cortez (originally made for PBS, and aired in 1981)
took television to new heights. To be sure, the historical incident
behind that sad film involved flawed oral communication
between English- and Spanish-speakers: a sheriff’s deputy did not
recognize the word yegua, "mare", at a crucial
juncture. Even in these cases, however (and I will not maintain that
wide reading would have introduced the deputy to this particular
word, though it’s common enough in Don Segundo Sombra),
mere verbal drilling is a dubious solution. My teaching experience
has shown me that speakers are far less likely to admit that they
don’t know a word than are readers, perhaps because mere ignorance
of one word is a minor infraction in translating texts, whereas in
the moil of quick verbal exchanges it can draw charges of complete
incompetence. In short, a fully literate person is more likely to
confess humbly, like any good scientist, "I don’t know the
answer to that."
14 My
translation from p. 294 of La Paz Empieza Nunca (Barcelona:
Planeta, 1957). That Romero’s narrator sympathizes with the
Falangists, of course, would immediately disqualify everything the
book says from serious consideration in an academic setting: the a
priori invalidation again of those who choose the
"wrong" side.
back to top
********************************
Koba the Dread:
Laughter and the Twenty Million
By Martin Amis
Reviewed by Thomas F. Bertonneau
The critique of ideology might be the most
important of humane endeavors in the aftermath of the Modern Age. It
is a task made more difficult by the fact that ideology since Marx
has tended to appear under the guise of a critique of ideology. The
image of a ranting deconstructionist or gender studies maven
denouncing as false and pernicious the millennial cumulus of
carefully sifted human self-observation while declaring the true and
mandatory ordo seculorum will be familiar enough to establish
the notion. The picture is risible, of course, but not the actual
thing when it manifests itself. Bitter experience will have taught
many that the ordo brooks no rebuke, least of all the one
served up by a combination of broad smile and hearty laughter. As
the announcement reads at the local airport: JOKES TAKEN SERIOUSLY
HERE. That is to say: we have no sense of humor.
Outside the overlapping realms of airport
security and political correctness, on the other hand, some quite
unlikely things may be made the objects of jocund ridicule. There is
Mel Brooks, with his Producers, or rather with its play
within a play, "Spring Time for Hitler". You feel guilty
for laughing and yet you laugh, guiltily, all the same. But is
"Spring Time for Hitler" really outside the domain of
political correctness? It’s not PC in the obvious sense, but one
can hardly imagine the liberal Brooks building his comedy around a
musical called "Spring Time for Stalin". Why not? One can
laugh at some aspects of the Soviet Union and at some of its
leaders, especially those of the gerontocracy just before Gorbachev.
Rush Limbaugh even pokes fun at Gorby, for his birthmark, which
looks from an oblique angle (Rush says) like a map of Russia. As
Martin Amis puts it in his new book Koba the Dread: Laughter and
the Twenty Million this license to chide or giggle is due to the
fact that
there’s something in Bolshevism that is
painfully, unshirkably comic. This became palpable when the
Russian experiment entered its decadent phase: the vanity and
high-bourgeois kleptomania of Brezhnev, the truly pitiful figure
of Chernenko (an old janitor with barely enough strength to honor
himself as a Hero of Socialist Labor). Both these men, and
Andropov (the KGB highbrow), whom they flanked, presided over a
great landmass of suffering. The country was living at African
levels of poverty, malnutrition, disease, and child mortality.
Especially with hindsight, in the knowledge that
the terror, if not the misery, would eventually slacken and then
altogether cease, the post-Krushchev
First Secretaries can appear comically puffed up and foolish―and
so can their post-Soviet successor, Yeltsin. But just behind the
comic-opera antics, as Amis reminds us, lay that “great landmass
of suffering”. Amis himself used to laugh about Communism
and the USSR with his friend, despite a non-correspondence in
political stripe, Christopher Hitchens; in the early 1970s they both
wrote for The New Statesmen. Amis records a number of their
talks in his partly autobiographical, partly biographical (the
subject is his father, Kingsley), and partly historical book. Amis
once asked Hitchens about the famine in Ukraine in the 1930s:
"There wasn’t a famine," Hitchens answered,
"there may have been occasional shortages."1
Another time Amis wondered aloud to Hitchens "about the
difference between Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany."
"Don’t fall for that," Hitchens said, "don’t fall
for moral equivalence." Amis wanted to know why not, to which
Hitchens replied (it seems non sequitur), "Lenin was…
a great man." Even so Hitchens could joke about the Soviet
Union. Amis quotes a longish jape about the failure of a centrally
planned cocktail lounge. The waitresses wear the appropriate,
western influenced, skimpy garb ("cupless brassieres… thongs…
G-strings"). And then there’s the additional attraction:
"they’ve all been loyal party members for at least forty-five
years." Note, however, that the fall guy in the story is the
gerontocracy. About Lenin, the "great man," Hitchens did
not caper or jest. “As a socialist,
he needed to feel that October had not been an instantaneous―or
indeed an intrinsic―disaster.” His making fun of the
Brezhnev’s self-parodying USSR, Amis thinks, revealed Hitchens’
insecurity about the line he had chosen to adopt: if only
Trotsky instead of Stalin…. "He knew it wasn’t true.
But truth, like much else, was postponable." By 1975, however,
or around the time that these corridor dialogues transpired, the
postponement should no longer have been morally tenable. The second
volume of The Gulag Archipelago had appeared. Yet Amis’
left-wing acquaintances hardly seemed to have registered it.
For honesty, Amis enjoyed the example of his
father and of his father’s friend, Robert Conquest. Kingsley Amis
joined the Communist Party in 1940; he left it in 1956 when the
Soviets crushed Hungary after which he swiftly became a Tory. The
Amis residence, to which the family referred ironically as
"Fascist House", hosted a stream of refugees from behind
the Iron Curtain. The younger Amis knew from first-person testimony
what conditions had prevailed under the regimes of Lenin and Stalin
and he had inherited his father’s sensitivity to mendacious
denials of the facts. He recalls an exchange between the elder Amis
and A. J. Ayer, who argued that, "in the USSR, at least they’re
trying to forge something positive." "But it doesn’t matter
what they’re trying to forge," said Kingsley, "because
they’ve already killed five million people." Or twenty
million, as Conquest counted them in The Great Terror. In
this irreconcilable disagreement, Amis comes to the fundamental
syllogism of the true believers. I’d phrase it this way: Socialism
is an absolute value; anything other than socialism has less value
than socialism; therefore human life has less value than socialism.
But it’s not entirely syllogistic. Magical
thinking accompanies the proofs. Thus socialism, whose chief
characteristic is that it doesn’t exist, exudes an aura; anything
touched by that aura partakes in socialism’s primary
glamour―even the repulsive “Man of Steel”. (Also known as
“the Big Moustache”.) Hitchens might describe himself as, of
course, anti-Stalin, but he would spend his weekends passing out
Leninist and Trotskyist pamphlets in working class neighborhoods. He
could joke about his hopes for Great Britain: "rule by yobs"
or in less colloquial language the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Amis returns repeatedly to the squeamishness in the jokes:
Pace Adorno, it was not poetry that became
impossible after Auschwitz. What became impossible was laughter.
In the Soviet Case, on the other hand, laughter intransigently
refuses to absent itself. Immersion in the facts of the Bolshevik
catastrophe may make this increasingly hard to accept, but such an
immersion will never cleanse that catastrophe of laughter…2
Amis devotes part of Koba the Dread3
to documenting how the sainthood of Lenin, preached by those who
want others to believe that Stalin murderously hijacked a pure and
noble experiment, is insupportable: "Lenin bequeathed to his
successors a fully functioning police state," complete with the
prison system for dissenters. So "the differences between the
regimes of Lenin and Stalin were quantitative, not
qualitative." Lenin’s comparatively short reign explains the
quantitative discrepancy. Lenin had barely five, Stalin over
twenty-five years to express the persona of the revolution.
The myth of Lenin as the good man betrayed remains nevertheless
deeply imbued in the view of the contemporary left, who, in default
of the proletariat, have long since nominated themselves for the
redeeming class. Amis cites Vladimir Nabokov gently but firmly
chastising Edmund Wilson for the latter’s fatuous treatment of
Lenin in To the Finland Station and Travels in Two
Democracies. Wilson rejoined the correction by withdrawing from
the friendship. In a section called "Ten Theses on Ilyich",
Amis draws on his own research as well as that of Solzhenitsyn,
Conquest, and others to lay plain the character and modus
operandi of Vladimir Ilyich Ulianov. Lenin emerges a fury:
"Civil war became inevitable when Lenin took power"; he
was a man, in the words of Adam Ulam, "at once childish and
nightmarish"; his policies 1918-1921 resulted in "the
obliteration of [Russia’s] industrial base and the worst famine in
European history"; in warring ferociously against religion,
which he did by murdering priests and nuns and by confiscating and
razing churches, he made war "against human nature"; he
originated both "executions by quota" and "the notion
of ‘collective responsibility,’ whereby the families and even
the neighbors of enemies of the people, or suspected enemies of the
people, were taken hostage." Amis points to Lenin’s
"studied amorality", his "giggly response to
violence", and his "flirtatious nihilism". Trotsky
too was a "fucking liar" and a "nun-killer".
Stalin for his part saw the value of all these traits in the
pursuit of absolute power. Stalin, who in his hatred for everything
"bourgeois" at least equaled Lenin and Trotsky,4
might have seen to Lenin’s demise (Amis says this is now less
certain than some used to assert―he
saw anyway to Trotsky’s), but he was still Lenin’s successor.
The Gulag Archipelago is a big work in
three volumes. People talk about it more than they read it. The same
goes for Conquest’s Great Terror. Amis offers, in the long
middle of Koba, the "Short Course" on Communism in
power in the USSR under Stalin and after him. Lenin told Maxim Gorky
that the artists and intellectuals were not the "brains"
of the nation but its "shit". Stalin, who in Amis’
analysis actually had some feel for literature, more cannily than
Lenin saw how artists and intellectuals could be made to serve the
regime. Stalin flattered Gorky, who edited a glowing volume, with
scores of contributors, on the building of the White Sea Canal; then
he put him under house arrest and probably had him murdered. He
couldn’t murder Bernard Shaw or H. G. Wells (or a hundred others
from the West), so he merely flattered them, showed them Potemkin
villages, and feasted them from a menu unimaginable to the average
Russian. At this time in starvation-stricken Ukraine, as Amis points
out, cannibalism was widespread. The westerners returned home
fulsomely praising the tyrant. (He was "trying to forge
something positive.") The litany of real events is by now well
known: the engineered famine for the sake of "de-Kulakization"
and the collectivization of agriculture beginning in 1933; the ceaseless
arrests, deportations, imprisonments, and executions, which
continued policies first emplaced by Lenin; the purges and
show-trials; the swelling of the gulag. Amis writes of the
"negative perfectionism" of the Stalin regime and of
"hard Bolshevism" from 1918 to 1953. There are words, he
says, for what happened in Germany from 1933 to 1945: Shoah,
Holocaust. There is none for what happened in Russia. Every Russian,
however, knew what was happening and that was the point: to make
terror and obedience ubiquitous, to make it invade sleep. The
outside world should have known, for the evidence lay at hand, but
the intellectuals adamantly closed their eyes to the facts.
The mendacity starts with the predisposition of
the chattering classes to two things: resentment of the existing,
"bourgeois" order, which does not heed their chatter, and
a deeply seated presumption that nature can be remade in accordance
with ideas. It continues with an attraction to two things: the claim
of the revolutionaries to be remaking the "bourgeois"
order in conformance to a radical agenda and the pragmatic triumph
of the revolution. The triumph especially grants to resentment a
sense of power―vicarious power,
it is true, but intoxicating all the same. The dialectic tells one,
furthermore, that the victory is inevitable. This means that
arguments against the revolution, or objections to its doctrine,
have all failed in advance. One is vindicated a priori
without having to answer one’s critics. The temptation for people
who put their life’s stock in winning arguments must be great
indeed. But in order for the formula to work, the subject has to
blind himself against an inconvenient reality of blood and bone.
Koba the Dread’s concluding section
begins with an open letter from Amis to Hitchens. To Trotsky (the
real advocate of the pure revolution, betrayed by that scoundrel
Stalin), Hitchens applies the reverential term "prophet".
"What was he a prophet of? A Communist England? A Communist
USA?" Amis suggests to Hitchens that he should "reread the
twenty-four volumes of Lenin’s works in the following way: every
time you see the words ‘counterrevolution’ or ‘counterrevolutionary’
you should take out the ‘counter’; and every time you see the
words ‘revolution’ or ‘revolutionary’ you should put the
word ‘counter’ back in again." Hitchens claims that 1918 redeemed
a society in which "the value of human life had already
collapsed." Amis demolishes the proposition. Amis always
returns to the moral swindle required by defenders of the
Bolsheviks. Suppose in 1921 that Lenin and Trotsky have built the
workers’ paradise. "Knowing that 15 million had been
sacrificed to its creation, would you want to live in it?" Many
have echoed Eric Hobsbawn’s "disgraceful" affirmation.
They uphold the inescapable conclusion: therefore human life has
less value than socialism. Amis’ address to Hitchens is as
generous as it is rhetorical. It belongs to Amis’ own search for a
decorum that will allow him to go on speaking to those who can make
light of the "Satanic arrogance", as Nadezhda Mandelstam
called it, of the Bolsheviks.
I mean both to give a compliment and make a
recommendation when I say that in Koba Amis has written not a
scholarly, but rather a human, book. He is not a savant and we
should hope that he never becomes one. He has made a moving and
meritorious contribution to understanding one of the purulent
afflictions of the twentieth century (and indeed of the incipient
twenty-first): the willingness, namely, of the indulgently
disaffected. He to set vindictive ideas over the ordinary
human relations that have come out of the agonized laboratory of
prior millennia to the present as a common property. Amis’ study
conveys an apposite knowledge to those who contemplate the reigning
distortions in academia. In the university, the vicars of fanaticism
can do no great, but only a little, evil. In politics, the actual
fanatics admired by their vicars have stuck and bled a century. The
context is different. The principle is the same.
NOTES
1 When
I studied comparative literature at UCLA in the 1980s, in the usual
left-leaning academic context, I heard precisely this argument still
being made by the proudly fellow-traveling privilegentsia
among the graduate students. When I taught English at Central
Michigan University in the 1990s, there were still framed
portraits of Lenin hanging on the office walls of some faculty. I am
speaking of isolated, rural, Central Michigan. Hitchens stands for a
great many people.
2 Are
there any comedies about the USSR? Ernst Lubitsch’s Ninotchka
is a decidedly black comedy, in no way friendly to Communism,
although profoundly decent in its solicitude for the plight of the
Russian people. There is a movie from the mid-1960s called Morgan,
about a British Marxist; I remember almost nothing about it, except
that its title character owned a gorilla suit. A "Monte
Python" sketch called "The Bicycle Tour" involved an
early post-revolutionary meeting of the Central Committee and some
imbroglio about Trotsky, but was otherwise simply an exercise in
randomness and absurdity.
3 Koba
was Stalin’s code-name during the period of revolutionary activity
right through the years of the Civil War. Lenin once sent a telegram
asking (it was either Trotsky or Kamenev) what "Koba’s"
real name might be. He had forgotten. Stalin took the name from a
nineteenth century novel about revolutionaries.
4 That
is to say, Lenin and Trotsky forecast Stalin to the proverbial t.
back to top
********************************
No More Mr. Nice
Guy for "Zero Tolerance"
by
Peter T. Singleton
Dr. Singleton, former educator
with an easily upset stomach, gentleman of private means, and
frequent contributor to this journal, hails from Tidewater Virginia
and is currently seeking to escape north Texas.
My highly informal survey of friends and
colleagues suggests that the phrase "zero tolerance" is
slightly more than ten years old—maybe twelve or fifteen. I myself
can distinctly remember its floating to the surface during the
earlier rounds of high school shootings. In that context, it is
still widely and officially applied, as in "zero
tolerance" policies about weapons on campus, student threats of
violence, and fish sticks leveled off in the lunch room like gun
barrels. If anyone should ever compile a lexicon of late
twentieth-century idiot-speak, this phrase will at any rate have to
figure prominently beside "family values", "learning
experience", "distance learning",
"self-image", "self-esteem", and "sex
life". The volume might be titled, Idiologicon: A Dictionary
of Content-Free Noun Phrases from the Era That Uninventing Thinking.
My bœuf against "zero
tolerance"? I contend that the impulse behind it reveals
"zero" thought. In fact, I contend that the phrase is a
saber-rattling celebration of "zero" thought. I was
probably unimpressed with this phrase the first time I heard it, for
any sign of the laboratory encroaching upon public discourse alarms
me. The substitution of "zero", as an adjective, for
"no" is clearly meant (or was originally meant) to mimic
the language of clinical science. "Sherman, set ‘tolerance’
coordinates at ‘zero’." But I have enough admiration for
smooth rhetors that I might have been placated. The initial
consonant of "zero" can be grandly protracted, and the
long "e" can be made to circle around (or zero in on) the
"o" in a rivetingly sensuous manner. By comparison, an
emphatic nnnoooo seems weak and childish.
So Z.T. and I might have shared a living space
with relatively little friction if only one of the two parties had
not grown so full of himself that he began to intrude into every
cupboard and slip behind every picture frame. This is usually the
case with our idiot phrases, by the way. I won’t declare pompously
that I can’t abide them under any circumstances, or even that I
personally never use them. It’s just that they seem to take over
without any regard for balance, modesty, or sanity. I shall spare
everyone an essay on "sex life" and nudge it forth,
instead, as an example which needs no elaboration. Zero
taste.
What I am trying to demonstrate as I discuss
early moments of patience with Z.T. is that I actually thought
about the phrase. Before you think about something, you must first,
in some sense, tolerate it. Such practice makes some people very
nervous, of course. If I attempt to understand the motives of a
serial killer, I will sooner or later be accused of having sympathy
for him. As I struggle to express what I believe passed through his
twisted mind, someone will be sure to pipe up, "How can you
defend this man?" But if understanding constitutes a defense,
then either the crime wasn’t so heinous, after all, of else the
person who "understands" must be equally sick. In the
latter instance, that person is less probably I than the
other who fears my effort to understand—because I am confident
that to understand is not to defend, whereas my indignant
fellow-jurist seems to fear understanding as if it would open a door
upon some horrid recess of his own soul. I choose to think
things through, for any number of healthy and respectable reasons:
because we may have the wrong man in the docks, because uncovering
motive will help us uncover evidence, etc. My cringing companion
chooses not to think things through, because thinking would involve
complicity—and what can that mean, other than that he is a
potential serial killer himself?
In the military, falling asleep on guard duty,
especially during time of war, has always been severely punished,
sometimes by death. There was "zero tolerance" of such
misconduct. On the other hand, walking one’s rounds on one’s
palms would not have been handled so summarily: it would at least
have drawn an inquiry. Why? Because soldiers are not normally
attracted to it. They are attracted to slumber after a long,
nerve-racking day. We rigorously censure those actions to which we
are all almost irresistibly inclined, but whose commission would
jeopardize the entire community. There are really very few acts of
this order in civilian life, it seems to me, perhaps none. Even rape
and murder we punish with a great deal of variation and
"flexibility" (though rape less and less so, as our
"sex lives" have rendered us steadily more ungovernable.)
Why, then, I ask, would we instantly toss an
adolescent into the dungeon and throw away the key upon finding a
knife in his backpack? The crime is extreme, I agree—but why can
we not hear the culprit out and allow our response a certain
discretionary room? Do we believe, then, that our children are all
well nigh irresistibly drawn to murder each other?
On the contrary, I would imagine that most of us
find murderous behavior in children far less likely and more
monstrous than murderous behavior in adults. Shouldn’t we study it
intensively in general, and review specific cases of it under a very
high power of magnification? It hardly seems like something from
which most children would need to be dissuaded at all, let alone
from which they must be bullied with threats of summary expulsion in
the event of a suspicious gesture. We hold a tight rein where human
nature wants to charge off in folly, or where it is tempted to go by
a logic which runs contrary to the community’s goals. If we do not
think our children natural-born killers, then do we think killing in
the typical high school’s corridors a logical response? A response
to what? To adolescent hormones, or to something we adults have
imposed upon young lives? If hormones, than ought not these
dangerous puppae be nursed along in small chambers rather than broad
corridors until they emerge with shiny new wings? If the danger is
of our own making, then why have we made it, and why don’t we
change it? Exactly why is it that we shut down thinking of all kinds
in these situations?
I have stayed with an example of "zero
tolerance" non-thinking which was much in the news before the
attack on the World Trade Center. Since then, we hear the phrase
more often in contexts relating to the war on terrorism. We are
warned, for example, that officialdom will have "zero
tolerance" of jokes and pranks. This is truly, definitively
stupid. Are we to incarcerate anyone who is overheard muttering that
he will rush the cockpit if he’s served one more bag of peanuts,
while we are absolutely to abstain from "profiling" adult
male travelers under the age of sixty with citizenship in an Arabic
country? There is certainly a difference between a transparent joke
murmured by a weary businessman to his neighbor and an exploded
firecracker. Did we need a "zero tolerance" policy to spur
us in pursuit of the latter kind of rascality—wouldn’t we have
thrown the fool who set off the firecracker in jail before
September 11? At what point do we decide that a joke is something so
far from the threatening that taking it as other than a joke is in
itself ludicrous? Or, to look at another facet of the same question,
how far do we allow the observer’s subjectivity to define an
unfunny joke? If a waitress recovers a napkin with the words,
"Meet you same time next week if my plane doesn’t blow
up," scrawled on it, is she allowed to infer that the scribbler
has a plot afoot? What if she sees another customer who happens to
be an engineer sketching something very like (in her excited mind)
the diagram of a small bomb? A subtly hilarious film of the fifties,
Our Man in Havana (based on a Graham Greene novel), followed
a vacuum cleaner salesman recruited to be a British spy as he sent
back to London sketches of his latest models surrounded by little
men in hardhats. What if our engineer leaves out the little men—what
if he’s just sketching his latest dust-i-vore for a client? Should
the waitress be arrested, perhaps, for wasting the government’s
time? Should we couple our "zero tolerance" of jokes with
a "zero tolerance" of outrageously stupid
misinterpretation of jokes, or outrageously stupid interpretation as
jokes of matter which was never jocular?
I dislike the word "stupid" almost as
much as the phrase "zero tolerance", though for different
reasons. "Stupid" is a perfectly good word: it’s simply
overused, and often very stupidly misused. The Latin stupidus
is an adjective describing someone in a stupor—that is, someone
who is so bewildered in a certain situation that he gapes and
stares, incapable of speech. People do not have to be certifiable
morons to have moments of stupidity. When I use the word
"stupid" over and over in the previous paragraph, then, I
am not necessarily denouncing anyone’s unintelligence. I am
saying, instead, that the people in question have switched off, shut
down, and tuned out their intelligence. (Pardon the evocation of
Timothy Leary: as I’ve said, I admire good rhetoric.) I see no way
around the conclusion that "zero tolerance" is cipher for
"suspended thinking", and that strikes me as definitively
stupid. To hang a man after he’s had his chance to offer a defense
is one thing, and may well be the thing to do in the
circumstances; but to hang a man on the spot because he is found
with a "dirty" nuclear bomb in his suitcase is to confuse
the enormity of the potential crime with the man’s proximity to
the criminal instrument. Maybe this man was hauling the suitcase to
FBI headquarters. What about the courteous gentleman who opened a
door for him—do we hang him, too? What about the woman who chatted
with him as they walked down Fourth Street? Do we offer her life
without parole if she agrees to divulge the names of the conspiracy’s
other members? Do we send a SWAT team in at midnight to ransack the
house of her sister’s husband’s uncle in Boise who is known to
work with biotoxins?
At least the latter of these extreme deeds show
some degree of reflection, though they have already accepted guilt
by association as given. We are not interminably stupid, most of us:
we switch our brains back on after a brief pause. What I ask is why
we should enthrone a policy legitimizing the brief switch-off in
critical circumstances. Why should we ever not allow an
accused person the right of rebuttal? As they say in the old
westerns, we can hang him after he’s had his fair trial. This is
the bottom of the matter, I think: the advertisement of severity. We
already have the situation under control by the time we drag the
student and his weapon-laden backpack, the passenger and his Swiss
army knife, into the security guard’s office. We can now conduct
inquiries at our leisure. The public hanging that follows does not
so much show our unwillingness to conduct hearings as it does our
eagerness to stage a horrible spectacle. We want to frighten
potential malefactors not yet caught, and this is how we do it. The
whole thing strikes me as Koranic. Chop off the thief’s right
hand, and you prevent innumerable future thefts. When it becomes
known far and wide that a crime will be punished with stupifying
severity and also with stupid incuriosity, that crime will very
likely be little committed.
Koranic, yes. And also very "PC". Part
of the animosity toward tolerance implied by its new prefix
"zero" must surely stem from the gross abuse of the word
"tolerant" by forces on the cultural Left. During the last
three decades of the twentieth century, tolerance was demoted and
disgraced to being a synonym for that postmodern verbal and
conceptual atrocity, "non-judgmentalism". To judge is to
review a body of evidence with dispassion and reach a logical,
objective conclusion about the truth behind it. (Notice, by the way,
how the stock of the word "passion" rose over these same
years.) Hence to be non-judgmental in the purest form is to fail to
reach any such conclusion. It is to be stupid, once again—to
exercise a zero-tolerance of effective thinking. I’m beginning to
suspect that all of the entries in that yet-unwritten Idiolexicon
may ultimately be glossed with "stupid", which is an
excellent argument for not writing it, of course. Give an overused
word a break!
But the point here is worth stressing. As stupid
as it is to turn the blind eye to human sacrifice, say (such as the
Hindu custom of suttee), when it is practiced by a
non-Western culture, turning a blind eye to possible reasons for
that practice in that culture (such as the absence of provisions for
widows) is just as stupid. Two blind eyes make a blind man. The
zero-tolerance reaction to the tolerance cult of the seventies and
eighties has in common with that cult a childish impatience with
deliberation. When I listen to these two crowds screaming at each
other in chorus—"I sleep with my sisters and I kill my
babies! Don’t judge me!"—"Everyone is a baby-killer
who isn’t on my side of the line! Cross or be damned!"—I
hear a kind of awful harmonizing. Both sides are off key on just the
same notes. And make no mistake: though their hateful scowls are
screwed up straight at the other side, their common enemy is we of
the examined life who think any other life not worth living. If they
agree upon nothing else, they agree that we must go.
Anyone who doubts that Left and Right have fused
in the cult of non-thinking should return to the Political
Correctness movement proper. A young man looked too long at a
shapely coed? Mandatory suspension. A Christian student positively
refused to read a Gay Activist pamphlet? She’s booked for the next
Sensitivity Training session. Zero tolerance. Perhaps my connection
of PC to the cultural Left is somewhat daring; it is certainly
called so by many of my friends on the Left. PC, they would argue,
is the very opposite of the non-judgmentalism which they stand for.
(As our great philosopher Groucho once remarked, these people stand
for something—in fact, they stand for just about anything.) This
curious excommunication of dogmatic activists by elder liberal
intellectuals is a tough nut to crack, perhaps because it is already
in a thousand pieces, all too small for the nutcracker. Its
rationale is self-annihilating. PC dogma really is leftist insofar
as the behavior it proscribes is precisely the proscribing of any
behavior. People who make hateful remarks about gays must
categorically be hated, people who block preferential treatment of
certain minorities must categorically be denied access to the
system, and so forth. Here we have non-judgmentalism turned into a
Koran. Yet I can see how the Left would notice a similarity with
tactics on the Right, for this new religion fresh from our
intellectual desert is none other than Zero Tolerance of
Intolerance. Would it not be just as accurate, however, to say that
the Right turned Left when it decided to discard reason from its
practice of living? And would it not be more accurate still to say
that Left and Right have no more intelligible meaning in a culture
which has declared war on intelligibility?
It makes me angry to see kids getting suspended
from school for shouting, "Bang, bang!" on the playground.
It makes me angry to hear that I’d better not crack a joke about
an airplane over a cup of coffee. With policies that send up red
flags at such moments, who needs Al Qaeda? With such a glut of
frivolous incidents flooding investigative agencies, what good will
a new Department of Homeland Security do? Listen to the kid:
he says that his little brother slipped the toy gun into his
backpack, and the evidence confirms his story. Let him back in
school, you idiots! Look at this poor man: he’s flown
between Chicago and Seattle three times this week, and he grumbled,
"They missed the radio jamming device in my shoestring."
That was funny, you jerks! No humanity, no humor, no common
sense. My tolerance of zero-tolerance has reached its limit.
back
to top
********************************
Generation
X-Minus-One Goes to Hell in a Tenure Package
Things are happening altogether too fast
nowadays. The effects of life beyond the fast lane—the
consequences of sailing over the guard rail—are observable in a
great many quarters. Most such effects are more lethal than the
lag-time between new books and their reviews. Of course, we speak
from the earth-bound perspective of the literary journal. E-reviews
are available within days of a book’s appearance, and, yes, they
bear their own traces of the giddy sail through the air. If a)
anyone reads them, and b) the same person is also likely to read the
book which they review (or any book at all), then c) that person
will have to contend with insights on the level of "I spilled
my coffee because of this book, and I’m still mad at it." But
why would someone who enjoys reviews written with such feckless
caprice possibly want to read a genuine book?
Faced with that alternative, then, maybe you’re
better off waiting an extra year or two for a proper review to
appear. For our review of Peter Sacks’s Generation X Goes to
College: An Eye-Opening Account of Teaching in Postmodern America
(Chicago and LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1997), you will have waited
well over five years. In fact, the book is now in its third
printing, having been released in 1996. We have the advantage, at
least, of being able to assess the book itself, its reception, and
the efficacy of its prognostications. Book reviewers are ordinarily
supposed to be prophets rather than retrospective analysts, to be
sure: the publishing industry has no use for them except right when
an item hits the stands and shelves. Praesidium, however, has
no use for people who must have a use for everything. Mr. Sacks (or
whatever his real name is) has already made a pile of money and a
formidable (if pseudonymous) reputation. We are far less concerned
with passing a verdict on the book as its ink dries than with
weighing for our readers the entire phenomenon which it represents.
Would it be brutally uncharitable to say that
Sacks’s book is itself yet another manifestation of
hyper-accelerated life in free fall beyond the guard rail? Generation
X is both a fully just condemnation and a brilliant example of
everything it condemns. Its reception among teachers, especially
college teachers, was understandably warm. All who have taken that
particular yoke upon them can sympathize with the ingenu professor’s
shock at students who cut class, who blabber or snooze or whip out a
cell phone when they do come to class, who get up in the middle of a
lecture and exit, who seldom do homework, who half-do what homework
is done and offer it late, who expect study guides after having
taken not a note for weeks, who refuse to tolerate any sort of
chiding for their slovenly efforts, and who—above all—seethe in
righteous indignation if they fail to receive the minimal B- on any
assignment. These young people are a disgrace to themselves and to
our culture. They are lazy, rude, arrogant, smug, irresponsible,
dishonest, careless, contemptuous, undisciplined, and utterly
self-absorbed. That they should lay claim to exemption from rebuke
as voting-aged adults even as they wander in and out of class with a
piratical swagger unknown to A.D.D.-afflicted first-graders is prima
facie outrageous and absurd. If there were one ounce of
sincerity behind the mission statements of our institutions of
higher learning, a good two-thirds of this royal lot would be tossed
out after a single semester on its collective gluteus maximus
just where the real world’s spit-and-oil infused pavements pose
the perfect landing pad.
In short, teachers hear a spade called a spade so
seldom that Sacks’s exposé of academe’s dirty little secrets
was assured a hearty round of applause. Frankly, the subject
deserves a far better treatment. It deserves more maturity of style:
Sacks’s chatty confessions read very like a long distance
conversation with your favorite freshman-calling-home. It deserves
more coherence of presentation: the book has little sense of design
beyond being a chronicle of Sacks’s first year, and thereafter
reels and stumbles among various diagnoses and prescriptions. It
certainly deserves that these same diagnoses and prescriptions
should be fully developed: Sacks runs one cause after another up the
masthead, and his closing recommendations are miserably inadequate
(as they would have to be after so weak an assessment of the
problem). Ironically, all of these shortcomings mirror the failures
which he very plausibly claims to see in the work—especially the
writing (he teaches journalism)—of his lackluster students. The
kids ramble on about themselves rather than addressing the subject
objectively, they have little sense of order or purpose, and their
incapacity for analysis is virtually complete. Sacks toys
occasionally with the popular theory that they have all seen too
much TV, a view which is by no means unfamiliar to readers of Praesidium.
Yet he has nothing to say about the specific nature of the
influence, nothing to say about computers and the Internet (1996
wasn’t that long ago), and nothing to say about how the
electronic revolution fits into postmodernism. This latter, greater
phenomenon he unveils in the book’s second half as if having
discovered how to fuse atoms with hardware from Wal-Mart; and in his
enthusiasm for postmodern aporia as a catch-all explanation,
he forgets earlier, "lesser" causes. He also fails to see
that the mystical vagueness he bestows upon postmodernism is no more
explanatory than a dark cloud visiting muteness upon some
fantastical Arthurian kingdom.
We’re playing hardball now, and our allegations
are as severe, no doubt, as our space is limited. Well, then:
consider in evidence a few minutiae whose cumulative effect is not
at all minor. Would an author who is capable of indicting our
educational collapse properly have left the following typographical
errors in the third printing of his opus; or, rather, does
the persistence of these errors not argue that they are not
typographical at all, but the product of a writer and publishing
house whose combined effort did not suffice to safeguard basic
standard English?
I felt he was one of the people to whom I could
really talk to. (66)
… the demands by students to be entertained
has produced a sharp split among educators… Students’ desires
for entertainment has become a fact of life. (146)
"For the first time in our history, the
weird and the stupid and the course are becoming our cultural
norm, even our ideal" (quoting Carl Bernstein, 150)
It’s bad enough when you don’t know to whom
your prepositions have just referred to. Two "to’s" are
too many, to whom it may be of concern to. Honestly, though, to
misidentify the subject at the head of a prepositional phrase twice
in one paragraph is twice too often; and even if Mr. Bernstein
was responsible for the misspelling of "coarse" as
"course" (we are dubious), the writer owes the reader a
bracketed sic as a courtesy. A professor who doesn’t know
that much probably doesn’t know how to spell the word, in the
first place; and a professor who doesn’t know that much, to
repeat, is very poorly situated to assess the damage done in the
contemporary university by "student-centered"
commercialism.
Commercialism: Sacks’s whipping boy, at least
before he finds the Holy Grail of postmodernism. (Like the influence
of TV, commercialism oddly vanishes as a cause once Sacks begins to
ponder Auschwitz and The Bomb.) Of course, the campus has indeed
gone commercial (just as surely as TV has retarded our mental
acuity): colleges today are full-fledged degree factories. They cut
core courses in the humanities and ban challenging class assignments
in order to convince students that a quick, easy sheepskin leading
to big bucks is just a few payments away. The situation is at least
as disgraceful as that surrounding the typical student’s attitude,
and is deeply implicated in that attitude. Even if freshmen enter
college already possessed of an overweening arrogance, the system
confirms their posture by bowing and scraping beneath young scowls.
To say blandly, however, that this surrender is
the logical consequence of capitalism is to kick the academic’s
favorite straw man without adding one iota of insight to the
analysis. Why have college administrations actually grown more
cynically commercial as they have become more closely tied to the
public sector and as American society across the board has come to
depend more and more on the government to solve its problems? A
narrow examination of just how and why top administrative offices
have changed over the past thirty years would have been most
apposite… but Sacks will not touch such questions with a ten-foot
pole. He is evidently as shy of offending those who pull his
strings, even behind his pseudonym, as he is lion-hearted in his
pursuit of money-grubbing collegiate robber barons.
All of this begs the question, can a pseudonym be
morally responsible in a non-fiction work whose intent is of a
"whistle-blower" nature? One cannot cross-examine Mr.
Sacks or engage him in any sort of public exchange.* One
presumes that, since the publisher’s background information
locates Mr. Sacks yet among the ranks of the professoriate, he would
expect reprisals if his true name were known. In that case, though,
administrative despotism must rage at Stalinesque levels throughout
the academy; and in that case, how can Mr. Sacks possibly
decline to name administrative despotism as part of what’s wrong
in higher education? As a matter of fact, such decapitation-friendly
leadership as is implied by this pseudonymity has no place in the
give-and-take world of a successful capitalist venture. A good
businessman cannot afford the anemic counsel of sycophants; and if
he punishes all other varieties, then he will soon have paid an
exorbitant price for his vanity. The tin-pot Pol Pots of the ivory
tower need to be called to a full account for having presided over
our nation’s dumbing down in a manner which, in the private
sector, would certainly have seen them hauled into court. Mr. Sacks
is not up to this task.
But then, Mr. Sacks is just another careerist, by
his own rather proud admission. Early on, he tells of how he lied to
secure a tenure-track appointment:
In fact, I could hardly say the latter book
shaped me in the slightest, because I’d never read it, but it
was one a former editor of mine suggested I use in my lecture. An
honest answer to Anita’s question would have been to talk about
Kafka or Camus, but I thought better than to bring up existential
angst during a job interview. So I coughed up the baloney about The
Word, and I watched one of the committee members, Beth, nod
appreciatively. (6)
To be sure, this "baloney" is of the
little white species—clearly not of Paul de Man proportions. That’s
Mr. Sacks’s modus operandi: he tells what lies he
"must" in order to get on—the ones "everybody
tells"—and then whispers out of class, under an assumed name,
about how horrid it all is. By the end of the book’s first
section, he again seems rather proud (as in the citation above) of
how he beats the devil. He stages his "Sandbox
Experiment": that is, he fawns upon students, gives them easier
assignments and higher grades, shows plenty of videos, represses his
urge to correct preposterous assertions, and in general does all
that he needs to do, all that everybody does, in order
to win good ratings on student evaluations. The experiment is a
success. He beguiles his enfants terribles into ranking him
high in the beauty contest, and tenure is the result.
Hasn’t our biggest complaint about Generation X
usually been its deficient sense of ethics? Here we have one of its
teachers telling lies and corrupting standards, first because all of
his peers routinely do the same things to survive, and secondly
because principled attempts on the part of a rare few to alert the
administration are greeted with cynical neglect (you know: the
presidential "grade inflation must stop" speech at the
general faculty meeting coupled with a sharpened axe for those whose
student-eval numbers go down). The whole system, upstairs and
downstairs, is as rotten as an old galleon. How could its architects
and sustainers have anything to teach Generation X about ethics—how
could Gen X have anything to teach them about feint,
subterfuge, confidence rackets, and bald-faced lies?
Sacks blames it all on postmodernism. The
naiveté with which he relates his readings on the postmodern
malaise is almost poignant: here, he is certain, we find our answer.
We just couldn’t help ourselves. Those world wars cold and hot,
those nuclear bombs and meltdowns, those gas chambers and killing
fields… our children just don’t care about anything any more:
nor, apparently, do we. It isn’t their fault, and it isn’t
ours. We should all simply accept that twenty centuries of
escalating scientific rationalism have midwived the birth of this
rough beast. After all, postmodernism isn’t really so bad. As long
as we can salvage our belief in "hard" science from
plagues of right-wing cultism, waving goodbye to stale philosophical
and literary traditions (not to mention religion—but that,
of course, is part of right-wing cultism) will not be so traumatic.
In fact, our young students aren’t entirely wrong. Western
tradition really is pretty boring, and the new ways of doing things
really are more exciting:
… when knowledge becomes a commodity the only
interesting game in town then becomes what new things one can
dream up to do with that knowledge. It follows that using one’s
imagination while working on one’s skills then become [sic]
the twin philosophical pillars of the postmodern educational
enterprise. And there you have it: at last, the marriage of praxis
and theory, which I imagine many educators would view as
educational nirvana. In a postmodern sense, any given course would
be one in learning how to do something, and at the same time you’d
be thinking about what you’re doing, wondering why you’re
doing it, and imagining new ways of doing it. (180)
Who’s sounding commercialist now? Using
knowledge as a commodity—isn’t that rather like
"selling" the classroom as the floor show in a cabaret?
And this, then, is a philosophical pillar? Which pillar—the
evasive ethical one, perhaps? Utilitarian exploitation run amuck?
The other pillar would be aesthetic, no doubt (leaving empiricism
mercifully untouched: Sacks is ever conscious of the need to
preserve the ER’s competence). The imaginative marketing of
knowledge-nuggets will include such enriching exercises as splicing
Marilyn and Humphrey into a Coke commercial or ingeniously tweaking
downloaded images with "html" until they pulse and migrate
across the screen. Michelangelo, eat your heart out. Yet the
aesthetic experience will also be empirical, after all, because you’ll
be thinking about what you’re doing and wondering why you’re
doing it as you do it. Or is that an ethical thrust again? Or is it
simply the long-lost state of consciousness? Is that Sacks’s point—that
the computer will rouse the classroom’s back row from slumber? Is
that our nirvana?
Naturally, computers are the star of this show.
They make a sudden appearance in Sacks’s conclusion (as if they
had nothing to do with the earlier mentioned phenomenon of TV and
dumbing down). When you see a book offering an integral part of the
problem as the keystone of the solution (along with stop-the-press
brainstorms like stemming grade inflation), you suspect that you’ve
been wasting your time; but this is not so in the case of Generation
X. The prosecuting attorney, it turns out, is also the
perpetrator. If your purpose in picking up the book was to
understand our contemporary educational debacle, then here you have
both the superficial case made superficially and the agent
provocateur revealing himself accidentally. That’s a
two-for-one deal for you knowledge-shoppers.
* As we go to press, we learn that Mr.
Sacks is no longer claiming pseudonymity and that, indeed, he
vigorously promotes his oeuvre at petersacks.com. Macte
virtute!
back to top
********************************
"Rings"
on the Screen: Peter Jackson’s Valiant Defense of Moral Coherence
by
Kelly Ann Hampton
Kelly Hampton has long served as Praesidium’s
youngest (and probably most youthful) advisor on the Board of
Directors. She has done extensive graduate work in English but (like
so many of us in that troubled discipline) has not found a
comfortable niche in the post-literate, anti-literary world. She is
currently working on a novel.
When books get made into movies, many things can
happen. If the book itself is full of either violence or sexuality,
no matter how stupidly staged, the movie is likely to be, also; and
as a general rule, the movie will be a hit. This was the case with
films like Interview with a Vampire and Total Recall.
Now if the book has depth, a stupid movie may still result, because
directors fear the translation of complex moral lessons, well
thought-out plots, and fully realized characters might go over the
average movie audience’s head. In some cases, this fear is
founded, because there are people who will not watch a movie if they
have to think in any way. They want spectacular explosions,
attractive stars, and happy endings. These facts made fans of Lord
of the Rings (by J.R.R. Tolkien) very nervous until one year
ago.
Would they get it right? That was the question on
every Tolkienista’s mind. The consensus since the first film, The
Fellowship of the Ring, was released has been a heartening,
"Yes." Being a long time Tolkien geek and a bluntly honest
person, I must offer a more complex opinion. I am far too
straight-laced to say that director Peter Jackson got everything
right. However, knowing the books, I acknowledge that it would have
been impossible to get everything right, and I must say I am
impressed that he got so much more right that wrong. I am even
further impressed that, while there was action in the movies, so
much of the screen time was devoted to Tolkien’s moral lessons.
Yes, the look of the films was fantastic. Yes the
details, loyal to Tolkien, were meticulous. Yes, New Zealand was
lovely as Middle Earth. However, all of that only scratches the
surface in the matter of Peter Jackson’s desire to "get
it". What I loved was that he "got" the plot, the
characters, and the message. When Tolkien’s actual lines worked,
he showed no desire to alter them. When they did not, rather than
edit the lines out or alter them, he often preferred to move them to
a more suitable part of the script. He even managed to preserve
lines I never expected him to include (since they did not seem
"movie" enough). The best example I can think of is a
conversation between Gandalf, the wizard, and Frodo, our hobbit
hero. Gandalf tells Frodo, "Many that live deserve death...
some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?... Do not be
too eager to deal out death and judgement." This line, while
key to the book, I hardly expected to see in the film. Yet there it
was.
Of course if I went through every moral theme of
Tolkien and discussed how well Peter Jackson dealt with each, this
essay would be far too long. I shall therefore confine myself to the
moral theme of the temptation of the ring, and its use as a tool of
evil which leads to a fall from grace. Most major characters at some
point are tempted by the ring’s power. Jackson does not ignore
this.
First there is Isildur, the human prince who took
the ring and kept it. He fails, and dies due to the betrayal of his
newly acquired trinket of power. Jackson does not have to include
all the details Tolkien provided of Isildur’s story. He could have
simply told us that the Dark Lord Sauron lost the ring in battle.
Why then does Peter Jackson inform us of Tolkien’s story of
Isildur’s fall? The answer is because it sets the ring up as an
object of temptation and power for the rest of the film.
Next there is Gollum. He too fails and is
devoured spiritually by the ring. While more could be said about
Jackson’s treatment of this character in the second film, where
his part is greater, Gandalf’s crucial line about granting pity to
Gollum is included. Frodo is told that he must pity Gollum. He will
learn the reason in the next film: Gollum’s fate could be his own
if he himself falls under the ring’s power. It is by the grace of
God and not our own strength that we all resist temptations like the
ring.
The next person to deal with the temptation of
the ring is its finder, Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit. Bilbo’s
situation is unique in that the ring’s seduction is only beginning
to take hold of him. The interpretation actor Ian Holm presents is
much like a person who has only recently become an addict. This adds
a harsh, dark element to Bilbo’s character. Peter Jackson could
have chosen an interpretation that was softer. After all, Bilbo is
one of the good guys, and is, indeed, the hero of the children’s
tale The Hobbit. Again, the slightly darker edge to Bilbo
reinforces the idea that good people can fall. With the prompt
intervention of a friend (Gandalf), he recovers and gives up the
ring before the damage becomes too great.
Gandalf’s response to the ring’s temptation
is also unique. He refuses to touch or hold it, even to keep it
safe. The reason is that he fears what would happen should he be
tempted to use it. He realizes that his good intentions might be the
cause of his downfall. The movie quotes the book directly. "Do
not tempt me... I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe."
The book’s Gandalf further states that the ring’s path to his
heart is his desire to do good, but that he would become too
powerful "like the Dark Lord himself". This is reworded
somewhat, but also remains.
Perhaps the most tense temptation scene is that
of Galadriel, the powerful elven queen of the golden wood.*
Critics of the film have said that she was too "heavy" in
the film, but the book constantly refers to her in a manner that
makes it clear she is somewhat dangerous. Her words to Frodo when he
offers her the ring in the movie are almost entirely intact from the
book. The best way to compare them is to set them side by side.
Movie: "You offer it to me freely. I
do not deny that my heart has greatly desired this. In place of a
dark lord you would have a queen. Beautiful as the dawn!
Treacherous as the sea! Stronger than the foundations of the
earth! All shall love me and despair!... I pass the test. I will
diminish and go into the west and remain Galadriel."
Book: "I do not deny that my heart has
greatly desired to ask what you offer... You will give me the ring
freely. In place of the dark lord you would set up a Queen! And I
shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and
the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the
Mountain. Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightening. Stronger than
the foundations of the earth! All shall love me and despair... I
pass the test... I will diminish and go into the West and remain
Galadriel."
Aside from the fact that she says slightly more
in the book, there is little difference in the content. She sees at
this moment clearly what she would become if she had failed the
test. It is also at this point in the film that Peter Jackson
chooses one of his most powerful effects shots, showing Galadriel (Cate
Blanchett) in all her potential power. While some effects in movies
these days are merely to thrill the audience, the book description
of Galadriel justifies Peter Jackson’s choice. "there issued
a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She
stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement and beautiful
beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful." The film captures
this description quite well.
To fully capture all the potential responses to
temptation, Jackson needs to include not only examples of people who
fall and are unredeemed (Gollum), and people who for one reason or
another succeed (Gandalf, Galadriel, Bilbo, etc.); he must also
include a person who falls but then repents. For this I must give
him praise for a character that I consider to be one of the most
fully realized in the film: Boromir.
I admit, Boromir’s character had always been
one I considered to be least important. He doesn’t survive the
first book, and his status as a traitor makes him seem less heroic
than the others. However, Peter Jackson takes Boromir and makes him
sympathetic by doing two things. First he constantly reminds us of
Boromir’s motives, often moving lines that betray his intent to
places in the story where his actions are worst, and second
preserving the lines that are there in the book. The scene where he
attempts to take the ring from Frodo is absolutely a perfectly done
moment. "I ask only for the strength to defend my people,"
he cries in frustration. In the book his line is, "We do not
desire the power of wizard lords, only the strength to defend
ourselves, strength in a just cause."
This is not the only point in the film which
mentions the fact that Boromir’s people are seriously threatened
and bear the brunt of the war that the Dark Lord has unleashed. At
the council of Elrond, Boromir states in the film, "By the
blood of our people are your lands kept safe." This reminder is
important, because to fully understand Boromir’s desire for the
ring, it must be understood that his motives are good. He seeks
glory, yes, but more than that he seeks the salvation of his dying
people. That is a motive both noble and just.
However just his motives, his attempt to take the
ring was wrong, and that fact is not whitewashed in the movie. What
is also clear is his almost immediate repentance. In both book and
film he quickly exclaims, "What have I done? Frodo, Frodo! Come
back!" Further than that, he is willing to give his life in
defense of Frodo’s hobbit friends, Merry and Pippin—a fact that
is not revealed until the second book, but which brings more closure
to the first film when included. This is an act of repentance, and
the film did not take that lightly. The movie’s emphasis on his
death is not merely to show us violence. We see clearly in his face
that his actions are a choice. He chooses to defend the hobbits even
when his painful death becomes inevitable. He even continues to
fight when he realizes his defense will fail and they will be
captured. In both book and film, Boromir is unable to rest in peace
until reassured that someone will defend his people, once again
reminding us that his concerns were not merely for himself.
Peter Jackson could have chosen a different
script. It would have been easy to make Boromir simply treacherous
and secretly evil. That would have been the choice most directors
would have made. After all, villains are fun and translate easily on
screen. It would not, however, have been true to the story and the
moral lesson Tolkien wanted to tell. Rather than an evil,
power-hungry man, we are given a sad, tragic man who did the wrong
thing for the right reason, fell from grace, repented and was
ultimately redeemed. That was a harder story to tell, but was, in my
opinion, worth it.
At the beginning of The Two Towers, the
remaining members of the fellowship that accompanies Frodo mourn for
Boromir. With a film that successfully captured the sadness of his
fate, it is easy to see why. On a positive note, though Boromir lost
his life, through repentance he kept his soul. This is a message
consistent with Tolkien’s Christian faith. It also is a message we
all can apply when we realize we have fallen short. Rather than
despair, we, like Boromir, can fight on.
Will Peter Jackson’s success shift Hollywood’s
position in the battle between the trite and the true? One can hope.
The Fellowship of the Ring was, after all, nominated for best
picture. I, however, am doubtful. I hear one of New Line’s next
projects is a marriage of Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday
the Thirteenth. Apparently, Freddy will fight Jason. Is there
anyone who will be able to keep track of the body count in this one,
or who will bother trying?
* An Oxfordian of the old school,
Tolkien had many a good fuss with well-meaning, well-educated
editors over his choice of words. If we were discussing Santa's
helpers, "elfin" would be the correct word. However, in
discussing Middle Earth, to refer to Galadriel, White Lady of the
Golden Wood, as "elfin" would make Professor Tolkien roll
over in his grave. He chose "elven" to avoid connotations
like the ones the Keebler company invokes. For further information,
I recommend the "Note on the Text" in the latest Houghton
Mifflin edition of The Fellowship of the Ring, and also
appendix F, "The Languages and Peoples of the Third Age,"
at the end of The Return of the King.
back to top
********************************
Auto Focus
by
Mary Grabar
Mary Grabar is a frequent contributor to Praesidium.
She recently received her Ph.D. in English from the University of
Georgia (Athens), where she is a postdoctoral teaching fellow for
the current academic year, specializing in American literature since
1865.
In the earlier part of the last century, such
disparate thinkers as Theodore Adorno, Martin Heidegger, and Walker
Percy commented on how the technologically projected image has come
to define our sense of identity and reality. The tourist snapping
photographs of the Grand Canyon could no longer see the Grand
Canyon, commented Walker Percy in one of his essays. The Grand
Canyon is presented by the postcards, brochures, and photographs
that define it for us. Binx Bolling, the protagonist of Percy’s
first published novel, as the typical mid-century American consumer,
has lost his own sense of self to such an extent that he needs to
identify with movie actors. The novel’s plot revolves around the
search for and recovery of Binx’s soul.
Things have gotten worse. Don DeLillo made this
point in White Noise, where depictions of all kinds— even
of gratuitous violence—have become identified as art, to be
analyzed by the stars of the postmodern academy. The "most
photographed barn" is famous for being a "photographed
barn". We can no longer see reality--a barn qua barn, a
dying woman, or a dictator, implies DeLillo.
The photographed, mediated image has a way of
distancing us from the real. And the real involves the ability to
feel pain.
To be included in this category are pornographic
images of women (as well as of children and men, of course). The men
gawking at them are only tourists in terms of their experience
of sex. They are more connected to each other (in a perversely
erotic way) than to the women they leer at.
This, I believe, is the larger point demonstrated
by the film Auto Focus, dismissed by many critics as a
moralistic biopic of Bob Crane, the lead of the popular television
series, Hogan’s Heroes. (The film suggests that when there
is anonymous groping, it doesn’t matter whether the hand doing the
stimulating belongs to a man or a woman.) A point that the film
leads to is that pornography, disrespect of women, and
objectification of women (whether cast in religious or feminist
terms) lead not only to ‘unhealthy’ relationships between men
and women, but between men and men as well. The producers imply that
the unhealthiness involves homosexuality.
Joining such movies as Ice Storm and Last
Days of Disco, Auto Focus examines the excesses of the
sexual revolution. It is a tragedy about a man, Bob Crane, whose
flaw was his compulsion for anonymous sex. The sex in Auto Focus
is graphic and abundant—and probably as stimulating to the viewer
as it would be to a bouncer in a nudie bar. It is intended to cancel
itself out, much as does the taste of a good Chardonnay to an
alcoholic on a binge.
But don’t say that to a reviewer writing for a
sophisticated publication. Even if the reviewer is female, the last
thing she’s allowed to do is to condemn someone for exercising his
First Amendment rights to view pictures of naked women. That would
be puritanical. In a Sex and the City culture, to criticize a
man for the stash of girlie magazines in his garage and then imply a
slippery slope from gawking to cheating to meeting a tragic end
would be unconscionable. Surely, there is something wrong with Bob
Crane for having an addiction to pornography, though not for
consuming it occasionally. A practice is only considered bad
nowadays if one needs twelve steps to overcome it.
The consensus of the critics is that Auto
Focus makes a valid moral point when it shows the dangers of
addictive obsession—or of the ‘perfect’ Catholic marriage’s
repression when it leads a man to such an outlet. (A scene simply
showing Bob Crane and his first wife at Mass is taken as evidence
enough by some reviewers that church attendance leads to hang-ups.
In the popular media, church scenes (unless at weddings or funerals)
are short-cut methods of demonstrating conventionality, repression,
or dysfunction.)
There is a larger point to the movie, far from
the ‘biopic’ to which many reviewers reduce it. (Hence the
objection of Crane’s son to the liberty of adding that Crane had a
penile implant and taped women surreptitiously is beside the point).
This is as much a story about a man with a healthy sex drive as
Hawthorne’s "Birthmark" is about a birthmark or Frankenstein
is about a monster.
All the swinging group-sex and graphic displays
of body parts lead to the point that Bob Crane is a lonely
man. Despite the endless stream of women that throw themselves at
him, his one companion in the end is Johnny Carpenter, who, when
feeling abandoned, murders Crane. Pornography leads to male
bonding. It ultimately excludes women as it distances them. There is
hardly a more pathetic image than that of Carpenter and Crane in a
room decorated in seventies decor watching themselves having sex
with women on the screen in a four-some and then autonomously
gratifying themselves in front of the flickering images. Sexy. Yeah,
baby.
Because of the graphic overload of nudity and
explicit sex, I doubt that the conservatives will give this film
serious consideration (but then, they might be accused of voyeurism
by the left if they were to do so). But while television routinely
titillates with near nudity, while such ‘action’ films as the
PG-13 Spiderman rely on the female lead ‘s tight wet
tee-shirt, while even conservative commentators on talk shows show
cleavage, and while teenage girls follow suit in the classroom,
shopping mall, and even church, we scoff at the ‘puritans’ who
would dare criticize the behavior of someone like Bob Crane. This
movie rightly carries an R rating, but it is ultimately less erotic
than a Friends episode. This movie may have more nudity than
an old-time porn movie, but in the end it is anything but sexy.
back to top
********************************
The Forsytes
Were Better in Hindsight
The mass media continue to offer impressive
evidence of catastrophic dumbing down. The raw tastelessness of
filming body-built twenty-something twits as they chug-a-lug
arachnids or initiate copulation before their parents is perhaps
less pure a measure of general stupidity than the labeling of it all
as "reality TV"; for what dumbfounds one the most about
these gauche tours de force is their separation from the
reasonable occupations of reasonable beings. Meanwhile,
"dramatic" serials also pride themselves on a realism bred
of the precious and the perverted. As crime investigation units
discuss autopsies, our screen accelerates us arthroscopically down
arteries into lurid landscapes of guts and gore. Murderers are
invariably having kinky sex with their victims—no one just blows
you away for your wallet any more. Lawyers, in turn, are springing
all kinds of clients because the same cops who are searching
computer data bases on Channel 8 cannot seem to line up an exit
wound with a hole in the wall on Channel 10. The one cop drama of
last fall in which anyone around here detected a convincing dose of
"life on the streets"—Robbery/Homicide Division—died
in about eight episodes. Does the American public really think it is
being fed reality?
Well, there’s always PBS. The recent airing of
John Galsworthy’s Forsyte Saga, though, reveals how
invincibly inimical is true realism to technologically enhanced
framing and cutting. The camera’s lens is constantly too deep in
our minds, riveting a character’s features or gilding a London
suburb into an idyll the way one word from a CSI examiner
plunges us into a gut-shot fantasy. The heavy-handed rewriting of
Galsworthy’s dialogue was bad enough. If you could possibly get a
copy of the original BBC Forsyte Saga from the late sixties
(you can’t), you would instantly appreciate the difference between
Victorian parlance and the soapy, slang-seasoned mush infused today
into downward "re-makes" of the classics. But a comparison
of scripts deserves a much longer space. Suffice it to say here that
true realism sees the whole room, as did the camera of the sixties.
It sacrifices cover-girl close-ups for the distances which we must
observe in normal conversation. It even has a tendency to
colorlessness (the former Saga was filmed in black and
white), especially when the dominant theme is precisely life’s
suffocating routine and hypocrisy. Today’s BBC has given us a
pastoral in pastel of modern history’s dreariest era. Well done,
lads.
Where, oh where, are those sixties reels? Did the
storage vault at Pinewood Studios catch fire? In any case, a
black-and-white Susan Hampshire seen from a distance was more
beautiful than the best they could primp and paint this time.
back to top
********************************
Footprints
in the Snow of the Moon
by
J.S. Moseby
Mr. Moseby has frequently
contributed short stories to Praesidium.
"Footprints", as will be apparent to all who read it, is
the first chapter of a novel in progress. Our experience of trying
to serialize long works in a quarterly format has not been
encouraging; but this chapter, despite leaving one with a hunger to
know what happens next, stands very well on its own as a
psychological study.
I.
More and more, I find the labor of writing to be
oppressive. I don’t mean putting one word behind another: that’s
no labor at all. I do it daily, do it abundantly, and do it in
complete confidence that nine out of every ten words will never be
read. Reports and reviews, recommendations and evaluations, budget
proposals and defenses of said proposals… these I grind out by the
dozen, or perhaps the hundred. The very rare scholarly paper I have
attempted on certain case studies is another matter, but it presents
difficulties of a welcome sort: questions of accuracy, of correct
deduction, of alertness to other research. I’m not really the
clinical type, but I find that the remove of such discipline appeals
to me. I should like very much to be able to observe life from
within the armor of a white lab coat and the comfort of
last-names-only.
But writing, real writing, is almost beyond me
now. Thirty years ago, when I was a freshman in college, I would
never have dreamed that I could regard my first love with such
dread. Though my dad eventually "talked sense" into me, I
never surrendered my passion for scribbling even as a science major.
The student literary magazine seemed especially pleased to have
something from someone down the icy corridors of dissection and
autopsy, so I never wanted for laurels in those early years. The
literary influence, besides, must have had a role in drawing (or
"warping", as Dad would probably have said) my scientific
interests toward social science, and eventually toward counseling.
In fact, I find (for it is a discovery: writing continues to inform
me about myself, even now) that I have passed most of my life
believing in its coherence. My creative and my analytical halves
harmoniously joined in a career, my career sufficiently profitable
while also serving the betterment of mankind… I have come, in
middle age, to view myself not just as a successful man, nor just as
a man who didn’t have to sacrifice one talent to another—though
that would already make me a wonder of the world—but as a good
man. I not only like what I do for a living (or thought I liked it
until now): I like myself for doing it.
So why am I no longer able to write? Why have
even personal letters become impossible for me? The advent of e-mail
supplied me with a generously floppy carpet under which to sweep all
kinds of ugly confrontations. My correspondence became quick and
shallow because it could be so, because it had to be
so—"no time… just a note… fyi… syl." I kept
palming off electronic rain-checks on my conscience, nipping my
confessions in the bud with technological shorthand. And I had
absolutely no idea that I was doing so. The miracle is that I know
now.
So this is a confession, maybe. Agony—alack-a-day!
If there’s one thing upon which I have grown surfeited over the
past thirty years, it’s narcissism. People talking endlessly about
themselves, perhaps in the illusion that they are confessing—or
often beginning in sincere confession, but quickly snapping the thin
thread connected to duty in the labyrinth of self-preoccupation. As
I look back over what I’ve written so far, I count an
"I" in almost every sentence. If I were a reader, I would
be on the very edge of bailing out right now. Not another confession—not
another indictment of society, of everyone else, disguised as a
confession! Everyone accusing everyone else of ruining his life, her
life… I stopped reading fiction a long time ago (just before I
gave up serious writing) exactly because I got so sick of it all,
all the baying at the moon. So why am I of all people now talking
about myself so much?
The oddest thing of it is that I wanted to talk
about her, she whom I have not yet managed to name. That isn’t
a discovery whose gate my writing has just crashed: I knew all along
that this was about Celine. The discovery is that I cannot simply
begin writing about her as though I were composing a report—that I
can only reach her by talking about myself. I should have expected
that, no doubt, since Celine is laced into the very core of my
being. Maybe Celine is the reason I gave up writing—because the
core of my being has become divided against itself.
But no, people with divided hearts are precisely
those who write the most, and the best. Celine isn’t my writer’s
block. It’s you, my readership—or, I should say, those of
you who are not reading this and who, like me, have given up
reading anything. You won’t understand. What’s the point of
setting this down for you? You might understand… but you
won’t try, because you’ve slid too far down the slope. So have
I. You don’t have the wits or the patience to listen, and I don’t
have the wits or the patience to tell the story. Good God, how we’ve
fallen! If we weren’t already so begrimed with an infernal mud of
hell’s lower circles, I could throw my arms about you and have a
good cry (at which point you would sock me in the eye, and then we
would have an uproarious brawl straight out of Dante).
So I will keep my hands to myself, rest assured.
Only allow me to prepare you for some of the quaint trappings which
you will not understand, or will not have the patience to
understand. People used to fall in love. They were falling in love
even as late as thirty years ago, though by then they were already
getting the hang of falling around or through or just shy of love.
They were already starting to speak of attachments as
"relationships", using that clinical dispassion which I
personally admire for its objectivity only in circumstances where
one is an observer. I have never suffered from any desire to be a
distant observer of my own emotional involvement, and I certainly
have never been able to keep such distance at the very climax of my
longing. But all around me, thirty years ago, the people who
attended high school and then college with me were beginning to make
a great deal of noise about their "wants" and
"needs" without registering any interest in commitment. In
my view, it was my generation’s least attractive characteristic:
we lived, breathed, sang, and sighed love, but we were always
very clear about not being tied down. Our children now deplore our
fickle hearts, we are told—the children of our divorces,
rebellions, and experiments; but they are our children, and I
frankly see much of our worst side in them. They have a right,
maybe, to know nothing of love and to have no patience with love. If
there is bitterness in the evolution of our "relationship"
into their "hook-up", they have a right, I’m sure, to
that bitterness—to the quick, the coarse, the childish, and the
cynical. I just want to warn them away from my story. They won’t
understand it, because they won’t understand love. Their parents
are just beginning to understand it in many cases, and some of those
parents I would like to slap in the face. And yet, those same
parents, maybe, will sit still for my story. My classmates, my
brothers and sisters—my hypocrites lecteurs—you destroyed
Celine, some of you, and Celine’s destruction has destroyed the
best part of me. For that I hate you, I hate us all; but I expect,
at least, that you can understand my feelings and will not be apt to
"click" me off for being "boring".
Another thing. People still paid attention to
detail thirty years ago. They were beginning to ignore it, and they
would make rapid progress in that direction until, today, their
children are wholly incapable of perceiving anything outside the
paradigm of movie formulas, TV clichés, rock-star poses under the
strobes, and a menu of computer icons. My classmates were already
starting to dress the same, wear their hair the same, listen to the
same music, and always—always—mouth the same lines about
being independent. But for a little while in my youth, it still
mattered how you said "hello" and "goodnight" on
a date. I suppose it matters now, too. What I mean is that, back
then, your degree of deviation from the mass-produced paradigm was
rich in nuance and was read minutely for important hints. A stammer,
a smile, a hanging head… none of that matters with our children
today, it seems to me, except as an indication of failure to enact
the paradigm. I have witnessed young people of the present eructate
a "Hey, dude!" at peers of either sex in an oily, gravelly
tone which sullies every notion I have of childhood or innocence or
decency, and receive for these Uriah Heap-like contortions immediate
entry into the clique. Willing members of such cliques, if they
could possibly have worked this far into my story, should exit now.
My images are "tainted" by unwrinkled blushes and candid
glints of the eye whose mere memory weighs upon my heart and has
probably—I wouldn’t be surprised—cheated its lifetime of a few
thousand beats. People to whom that sort of thing ranks no higher
than "boring" should not waste their time on these pages.
Finally, there’s the matter of sex—the sex
act itself. Today, nobody can even define such a thing. Little girls
with crosses around their necks are convinced of their virginity
because they only bestow fellatious intercourse on their pimply
beaux. More conservative types who insist on having their pleasure
the old-fashioned way come armed with condoms, which are now a
household word (and, in some households, as available to passing
teenaged fingers as salt and pepper shakers). Those who have grown
crazed after pleasure, on the other hand, as an alcoholic is crazed
for moonshine, court death and release from their mania in the same
motion, copulating in all postures with both sexes—perhaps with
several species. Somewhere amid this chaos, maybe among the last
group but sociopathically bereft of the skills necessary to capture
prey alive, sit millions and millions of frustrated men before
"live performances" of entrepreneurial females on the
Internet. Disease, lunacy, and murder raft through the whole brew,
competing for castaways to haul away to hell.
Words begin to fail me again. How could any young
survivor of this Lepanto ever imagine a world (and yet it existed
only a few decades ago!) where a single act of consummation was a
major stake in the great game? The risk which loomed over everyone’s
head was also the prize: an emotional attachment more forceful than
anything else on earth. Of course, there was the risk of pregnancy,
as well—the risk of social ostracism for young females, the risk
of premature adult commitments for young males. The fear of
sex was really a fear of society, or of society’s begrudging of
necessary supports. The two people involved knew (or thought they
knew) how they felt, and lying together in rapturous embrace was the
climax of that feeling which kept intruding its images upon every
touch. But how would they live after, she rejected by her family and
he unemployed? All the artificial pressure and poignancy of
melodrama imbued these situations as they repeated themselves dozens
of times in every graduating high school class. There were no death’s
heads dancing in the frolic around the Maypole, or not until Roe v.
Wade let in the first band of those uninvited revelers. How insipid
it all seems now—now that the polarities are life and death,
aversion and perversion, the girl’s constant risk of rape and the
boy’s of criminal prosecution, the two faces of Jekyll and Hyde
versus the castrated half-body of a Heaven’s Gate convert. But
does this mean that our children have proceeded farther into
something "real"? Doesn’t it mean, rather, that they
have lost touch with reality? Professionally speaking, I have often
been moved throughout my career to make the observation that, from a
certain point of view, freedom leads to insanity.
Celine. Earlier generations of men (and of women,
even more) would have described—rather crudely and quite
heartlessly—someone who had been through what she had as
"damaged goods". Today’s generation would find her
anguish entirely ridiculous. Our children find nothing hard to
comprehend about a person eating spiders or feces on television for
money: they call the subject’s aversion "fear", having
no concept of disgust or disdain within their moral ken. The idea
that a woman in her mid-twenties might actually "crack up"
because one man has enjoyed her body and then disposed of it in one
brief "relationship", her first and only
"relationship", would never pass review for a television
script. Far too improbable. Just doesn’t happen. There, you see?
There’s the source of my writer’s block. Here I sit, trying to
write about the most important encounter of my life—about the
great love of my life (a flattering cliché I flippantly bestowed
above upon writing, but it belongs to Celine)—and the whole thing
can never have happened. Too improbable. No movies or TV shows or
lives of the rich and famous to confirm the precedent. It is not
retrieving stardust from the past’s ruin, but trying to admire the
past in the present’s sulfurous stench, which blunts my efforts.
I was home from graduate school for the Christmas
holidays. I have to convey that part of the setting, because, for
all I know, it had a major impact on the most extraordinary day I
have ever lived. The best way I can portray my state of mind is to
say that I was nervous but confident. A year of teaching high school
after my first degree had fully convinced me that I was on the wrong
track: now I was enrolled in a program which would allow me, I
thought, to fulfill my destiny. That’s not too strong a word, for
I was twenty-three, and I believed in destiny. I imagined that I had
discovered a special mission to bridge past and present. In a
combination of arrogance and devotion such as only young people can
generate, I fancied that the problems of contemporary life lay in
the too hasty rejection of ancient wisdom. I wanted to revive the
classic stories of the world now that the world seemed to have
forgotten them (an enthusiasm which hadn’t gotten me very far with
ninth-graders). I was going to revolutionize clinical therapy,
specifically, by using great literature as its basis; and I was
going to dedicate my Master’s thesis, instrumentally, to the
neo-Jungian idea that recurrent literary sequences and myths flesh
out the essential neuroses to which the human spirit is most prone.
I expected, grandly and obtusely, to make a big splash. I was
enamored of structuralism at a time when it was passing quickly out
of style, I mistook the academy’s accelerating surrender of all
standards for tolerance of new approaches, and I misread the
demoralization going on around me as a post-Vietnam daze which was
bound to wear off as cooler heads prevailed. I was twenty-three, and
I had my whole life ahead of me. How could I help but be optimistic?
The Vietnam fiasco itself had completely ended a
few years earlier. I remember that my birthday had come up Number
One in the lottery the year before I was eligible for the draft. The
following year, I was given a Selective Service number in the low
three-hundreds. That, too, probably fueled my tendency to
confidence: I had dodged the bullet which had claimed a few of my
friends, and also my older brother. (I speak figuratively: Damon
spent most of his stint shuffling papers, and only one of my
acquaintances ended up dead in a rice paddy—apparently from
friendly fire.) Though Dad was gung-ho on supporting our country and
had himself brought back a Bronze Star from the South Pacific, there
was undiscussed agreement among our clan that this action was a big
mess. Random sniping, hikes through mine fields, tracking the enemy
into sectors where only women and children were visible, living with
leeches and fever, surrounded by drugs and illicit diversions in a
stationary wait for the next round of pandemonium… no, I won’t
deny that I was happy to have been spared all that. I will say,
even, that my having avoided the war’s slippery vortex made me
believe more in destiny than ever. And now my brother was back safe
and newly married, and everyone around me was still spinning in a
childish intoxication, listening to childish music and wearing
childish clothes—all a vast cultural reaction, I theorized smugly,
to years of fatally misplaced gravity. Any day now, a small élite
of intelligently and correctly grave men was going to step forth
from the bell-bottomed fiesta and lead civilization into the
twenty-first century. In some very vague way, I felt in my bones
that I was going to be among those men, if only as a lieutenant. For
I was twenty-three.
Damon’s marriage had also bequeathed to me, for
the first time in family history, the Number One Son spot around the
holiday hearth. I had not really been old enough to enjoy that
position the one Christmas when he had been away in the service; and
Christmas a year ago, he and his new bride had hogged the spotlight
at our home. Now Patty was pregnant, and the two had agreed to
lavish their holiday presence upon her parents. That left me king of
our domestic mountain, and this time I was prepared to relish my
office. With a bachelor’s degree and a year of "real
life" employment under my belt (or wearing me under its treads,
more exactly—but they didn’t know the difference), I
wielded an august authority over my college-freshman brother and
high school-junior sister. I felt old, in that delightfully
self-satisfied (and rather inane) way that only the young can feel
old. Even Dad, I sensed, was somewhat out of the "real
world" loop into which I had been admitted. For I had already
begun to realize (how could I have failed to realize instantly?)
that grad school was no open exchange of brilliant ideas, but a kind
of intellectual shake-down from which only the fully cooperative—the
spiritually subservient, the creatively null—would be allowed to
emerge unmolested. I brought home invisible wounds from a
battlefield which people like Dad could not begin to conceive of. He
thought I was doing science, after all, and he also had a general
respect for higher education (part of his military background,
perhaps—he always believed that hierarchical systems worked). I
don’t know what it would have done to him to learn how squalid
were the games played in such respected places, or if he could
have learned by any means at my disposal. After a couple of
lackluster attempts at serious conversation on the subject, I gave
up. It made my wounds hurt a little more, for I had never before
been so completely cut off from Dad’s advice, from the calm sanity
of his mind; but in compensation, as I have said, it made me feel
more mature. In a way, Damon had probably brought home less from
Vietnam that Dad could not assess at its proper value than what I
brought home from my graduate program. That put me in a pretty
special place, for no one in our household had ever explored terrain
unknown to Dad.
When he died a couple of years later, claimed in
his sleep by a heart attack whose discomforts he must have decided
to tough out rather than complain about, I understood what a pompous
young ass I had been that Christmas. How could I ever have imagined
that I was the ascending head of the household, the resident Master
of the Real World! Our family members flew apart like the cars of
some overheated carousel whose center has finally snapped. My mother
lived in a mild sort of stupor for the rest of her life, and we four
children settled into unconnected cracks and fissures separated by
hundreds of miles. It was Dad who had always held us together, even
though he was the last to know when anyone arrived for a visit, the
last to give you a grudging pat on the shoulder out in his workshop
after everyone else had hugged and laughed and flailed about in
removed coats and transported baggage. He was always at the control
center. None of us has proved remotely his equal, even in our own
growing families. How could I have worn such a big head on my
shoulders that Christmas? Put it down to twenty-three.
One more thing. I don’t know how to write this
in a few words, but probably no young man could ever be more ready
to fall under Celine’s spell than I was then. My experience of
women was not exactly wide and varied. A couple of my little sister’s
friends had fawned on me constantly as I loafed about the house
during my high school years—which kept me, I suppose, from ever
being unduly afflicted with low self-esteem in that area. On the
other hand, the girls I actually went out with were few. On most of
the many festive occasions of those years, I appeared publicly in
the company of Beverly Brady, largely because my mother was
convinced that she was a thoroughly "nice" girl. The
Homeric phrase "cow-eyed Hera" has always evoked memories
of Beverly in me—and not, I am afraid, just because of her dark,
limpid eyes. What I originally took for shyness in Beverly was more
likely a deep temperamental passivity. There were times in my senior
year when I desperately longed to ask out someone else, but by then
Beverly and I were taken so much for granted that I hadn’t the
heart to destroy her idyll. I waited patiently, instead, for
college, which brought new opportunity with a vengeance. There I set
my sights so high that I encountered nothing but rejection—or
perhaps Beverly had so swollen me with false confidence that I had
never developed the necessary seductive powers for big-game hunting.
I was so humbled by these experiences that I actually sought Beverly
out over a summer break. One of her close friends would only tell me
(with an invincibly stupid laugh) that she had become "really
wild" at college. Another was more explicit, if hardly what I
could call helpful. Beverly, it seemed, had wandered so far
"out of her shell" at college that she passed for
promiscuous even in a dormitory of coeds eager to earn their stripes
of feminist liberation. She was currently enrolled in a drug rehab
program (and, I later figured out, bringing an unwanted pregnancy to
fruition). I never did manage to see her face to face. The odd thing
is that the compassion I felt for her then was by far the strongest
draw she had ever exerted upon my emotions. I literally wept for
her.
The news of Beverly’s running amuck festered
deeply and, in some way which I can’t entirely explain, left me
ice-cold at the center—stunned numb, perhaps scared stiff. Coupled
with my own failures at wooing the most splendid figures on campus,
it turned my nose back into my studies for the rest of my
undergraduate years. Afterward, during my ill-conceived venture into
teaching, I had neither the time nor the energy to devote to girls
and dating. Not that I had any intention of remaining a bachelor for
the rest of my life: that, indeed, was one of my concerns about
teaching. I didn’t see how I could keep at it and also ever have a
life of my own. Then came grad school. For the first time in my
mortal existence, I was both far away from anyone who might have
tattled on me for misbehaving and also surrounded by young women who
wanted very much to misbehave. (This was less true of my
undergraduate years, not only because I just didn’t crave to see
"the far side" with the hunger characteristic of my peers,
but also because I boarded with my grandmother and attended several
classes with a first cousin.)
Here I arrive at the very heart of my… oddity.
My susceptibility to Celine, perhaps. I am no plaster saint, and
though we were all raised in the Church, I heard plenty of criticism
of the clergy at home for its involvement in political issues (more
accurately, for its choosing what seemed to my dad the wrong
political side). So I had not abstained from sex throughout my young
life in devotion to holy principles. I wish I could say that I had—but
it was really more of an accident. However I happened to reach the
ripe old age of twenty-three intact in this peculiar manner, I was
made aware in grad school as never before that
"adventures" were constantly sitting in the chair beside
mine, just waiting for a nod or a smile. Maybe if these girls with
an axe to grind had been prettier, or had allowed themselves to look
pretty… but no, besides being "sexist" (I plead guilty,
if it is sexist to be repelled by a belligerent mug), that
explanation only gets at minor causes. The main reason was power.
Power: a noun which these harridans used in every other sentence.
And they were right about power—that was the point. If they had
harvested me—if I had allowed myself to be harvested by their
club-and-cave technique—I would have been just one more male scalp
on their belt, while they, in turn, would have deprived me of
something very precious, a kind of integrity upon which I had
blundered by the grace of God and the luck of the Irish. If I had
not held out this long, I would not have held out now; but having
held out this long, I could not see the need to grope after such
puny, temporary favors. And yes, the un-prettiness of these young
women was part of the puniness of their favors—not because I was
such a young sexist pig, but because they were offering their favors
on that level. Just sex: just a night of wine, weed, and rumpling
the mattress. I would sooner have sought out a dazzling professional
than I would have given away first bragging rights to such as these.
But I figured that I could do better than both, with a little
endurance. I’m sure some of them sensed the specific nature of
this reserve about me (there were many student-lounge conversations
about bourgeois hang-ups which got quite personal—these were some
of the deepest secret wounds I was carrying about that Christmas).
The general resentment of my moral reserve, of my
"mystification" before sex—of my power to hold out, to
hold on—among our tight clique of graduate students made me more
determined than ever to hold aloof. I occupied the position of
greater strength, and I enjoyed the feel of that strength. I
possessed the power to forge an ultimate union with a woman stronger
than any that my rude critics could ever forge with a man, and they
knew it, and they hated me for it. And they knew that my choice
would not be one of them. Hippolytus and Phaedra, with the number of
Phaedras multiplied by ten.
But whom, then, would I choose? Beverly was out
of the question now… and would there ever be another Beverly at
this late date? After all, I was getting old: I was twenty-three.
The first words Celine ever said to me are burned
into my brain—or, rather, they forever float about behind every
thought I have had since, the echo of a waterfall or the sigh of a
breeze which has grown inaudible through familiarity. I was at the
mall looking for last-minute Christmas gifts. I was alone, my
windbreaker zipped about my neck, an important man with bills in his
wallet and a bank account. I can see myself as I was, because I
literally saw my own figure just before Celine appeared. Much of the
old mall (which was all new back then) opened upon a pleasant
network of outdoor colonnades and landscaped promenades especially
popular in the summer, but also traveled on mild winter days like
this one; so my pause before a jeweler’s display window had
brought me up before my mirror image, dark but clear against the
parking lot’s shimmering backdrop. In that instant, my eyes had
strayed from a bracelet I was considering for my sister to the
silent face that considered. It was reserved but not intimidating, I
thought, intelligent but good-humored, full enough to smile
expressively but muscled enough to set its jaw firmly. Was it
handsome—was I handsome? In two seconds, I must have grazed many
of the thoughts which I have lavished the last several pages on. A
jeweler’s store… why wasn’t I standing before this window in
search of something special for my girl friend? Why didn’t I have
a girl friend? A man with my promise, with my command of life… it
wasn’t fair that I should be alone like this.
"How long are you going to pretend that you
don’t recognize me?"
The sidewalk was not crowded in that quarter, and
the voice was so soft, so near, that it could only have been
addressing me. I looked up in a combination of startled
embarrassment (for we are not supposed to study our faces publicly,
are we?) and absolute certainty that a mere pivot of the neck would
produce an apology—for nobody with a voice like that knew me
well enough to speak with such intimacy.
This is where the formula calls for me to write
that I was thunderstruck by the most beautiful woman I had ever…
etc., etc. In the first place, Celine was not what I would call
beautiful. She was a sprite, a nymph: she could easily have played
one of those Shakespearean girls who masquerades as a young page
(and who were played in Shakespeare’s time, of course, by boys).
She was cute beyond cute, but she was too energetic—too boyishly
agile and restless—for the stateliness of a classic beauty. Yet I
have to confess, at the risk of cliché, that I was thunderstruck.
The fair blond races cannot imagine what such eyes as hers, pale
green and brilliant, do to gloomy tribesmen like me. Everyone in my
immediate family is brown-eyed. To look into such eyes for me, then,
has something of an encounter with a photographic negative or with
anti-matter. For a moment, it is completely arresting, completely
disorienting. After that, for me, it partakes of a religious vision.
Two broad pupils staring at me through the crystalline empyrean,
pure light descending upon my soiled clay… it was irrelevant that
these particular pupils stood the better part of a foot beneath
mine. The transparent splendor in which they swam marked them as
heavenly bodies, while in my mind lingered the dusky afterglow of my
own image in the window.
Over the years, I have tried to measure how long
in real time we must have stared at each other—tried until my
calculations were hopelessly garbled by previous attempts at
calculation. One thing’s for sure: that gilded green gaze never
betrayed a hint of having mistaken its object. My best guess is that
I awaited the inevitable apology—and then remained stupified that
no such apology came—for the better part of a real-life minute. We
use the word "minute" very carelessly. Sit before an
old-fashioned clock and watch the minute hand sweep out thirty
seconds… well, it was close to that much, anyway. Many people who’ve
been married for forty years have never looked into their partner’s
eyes silently for so long. Even before the conversation that
followed, I had absolutely no doubt that this lovely elf of Winter
Wonderland believed we knew each other very well. A sight like that
freezes all the clichés and formal platitudes which spring to the
tongue. (Besides, I am morbidly sensitive to clichés, as I may
already have indicated: unlike today’s kids, I would have run the
other way if I saw one coming, even at twenty-three.) How many
responses must have died on my parted lips in those thirty seconds?
"I’m sorry, you’ve made a mistake," would have expired
at once. "I assure you, madame, I would have remembered"…
anything in that form, you know, I would never have dared whatever
my degree of confidence. But these eyes were so certain that they
shook me to the core. I am positive that at least a physical shiver
must have passed down my spine. And since an integral part of the
"showdown" (as I must have sensed, despite my youth) was
for her not to help me out by uttering another syllable—was for me
to be kept on the "spot" where she imagined she had me—I
could expect no way out of this terrifying rapture which didn’t
arise from my own throat.
"You know," I finally laughed (though I
doubt that the smile carried any sound), "my cousin did that to
me in my last year of college. I mean, she mistook me for someone
else. My own first cousin! She was absolutely positive that she’d
seen me the night before at some wild party where her date took her—and
she kept insisting on it in front of my grandmother, to make matters
worse. It’s the eyes, I think. I mean, I’ve got unusually dark
eyes—"
"Yes, you do."
"—and I… what was I saying?"
"That you have dark eyes."
"You have very… very green eyes. I’ve
never seen… well, anyway. Yes. People with unusually dark eyes are
typed in our culture. They all look the same—we all look
the same. To people with… to fairer people, you know. I mean, more
Nordic people. The people of the midnight sun. My cousin comes from
the side of the family that has blue eyes occasionally. Through
intermarriage."
"With people of the sun."
"Yes."
"Who visited your island on a dragon?"
"Something like that. I remember… you
know, there’s this photo of me in the high school yearbook. I’m
sitting behind this girl who’s reading, and I’m leaning forward
in my desk for some reason. The caption reads, ‘Anthony Toole
contemplates violence.’ That bothered me for years. And what made
it worse was that I really did look like a heavy about to strangle
the girl. All because of my eyes—because the angle of the camera
threw their shadow over my face. Anyway… I guess that’s why I
get mistaken."
My mysterious sprite bit her lower lip. Perhaps
it was then that I consciously perceived, for the first time, how
the hair-fine lines radiating outward from the exact center of her
lips had reinforced the sense of beams humidly rising, not just from
her gaze, but from her whole face. The disruption of that perfect
center, especially where it creased the bottom lip more heavily in
two, was sure to capture attention. (At least, it always captured
mine.)
"So you don’t go by Richard any more…."
These words were said with such a fading tone of
sadness—and they so clearly implied that the celestial stranger
didn’t buy a word I’d said—that I must have gaped for another
several seconds. Of course, her stubbornness took me completely by
surprise. How could it not have? We were now crossing the border
into something very unorthodox, she and I. Something not yet
unhealthy, not quite unhealthy—but far, far beyond the bounds of
any polite script. I had not yet recovered from meeting this vision
on a sunbeam, and I was supposed to confess some degree of intimacy
with her which, perhaps, was more than I had known with Beverly
Brady in high school. I certainly sensed that it was more. I felt
like one of those fabulous travelers, maybe an Arthurian knight out
of Mallory, who enters a strange castle and finds a beautiful queen
welcoming him home. What man living would have had the strength not
to sit in the prepared chair before the prepared feast?
"My middle name is Richard," I
volunteered at last.
"Your middle name." She
brightened a little—just enough to make her seem even sadder.
Surely she must have blinked before then—but that was the first
time I noticed her blinking; and the smile which wryly upset her
perfectly centered lips was as painfully picturesque as a cloud
draped over the setting sun. "I suppose I’ll have to make do
with that." And she looked back up at me keenly. "As a
concession."
For the first of several dozen times that
afternoon, I reflected that I had to choose between convincing this
Ariel of unknown name that I was not her estranged beau—thereby
losing her forever, quite possibly—and allowing her to believe
that I was someone precious to her who had proved disappointing, and
must still prove so in acting out a cruel forgetfulness (how could I
play it otherwise?). I very nearly drew out my wallet then and there
with the intent of showing her my driver’s license… but I was
frightened at the thought of chasing her off. Later. Maybe an hour
or two later, maybe a day or two. I would know when… but not now.
We had started to drift down the sidewalk
together, she apparently thinking that we had picked up where we
left off some weeks or months or years ago, I without a thought in
my soul’s coolest recesses of prying myself away from her. The
great luxury of being admitted to instant intimacy in this way was
that I didn’t have to strain for small talk. We seemed to have
reached the point (or she and "Richard", whose existence I
already blessed and cursed) where complete silence was acceptable.
In fact, the more steps we took without a word, the more genuine our
intimacy became. I could feel it growing in dense, warm folds about
us. Her shoulder and mine were virtually rubbing when she happened
to turn up her impish nose (I counted three freckles) and delicate
chin at my lapel.
‘What were you doing back there, pricing a ring
for your latest conquest?"
I stopped on the spot. That bracelet had been
ideal for Meg, and Christmas was just four days away. At
twenty-three, neglecting to buy your little sister a suitably gaudy
present is a direct blow against reality’s foundations, especially
if you have just anointed yourself the clan’s high priest of
reality.
"I… will you come back with me?" I
babbled.
I could tell that she was again utterly
nonplussed. For all my resolution to walk on eggshells, I was
turning over carts left and right. The tiny cleft bisecting her
lower lip was already beginning to fascinate me as much as her green
eyes: now it seemed to grow rounder, as if she were going to
whistle.
"It’s for my sister," I continued,
miring myself still more deeply in un-Richard-like detail, no doubt,
before I could rein in my tongue. It was too late now. She would
either have to think me the most inept liar in the world (which
wouldn’t be all bad) or an outright lunatic (which might even be
better).
That was probably the very matter she was trying
to settle in her mind. Her pupils widened in their Venusian orbs,
the cleavage in her lips spread outward to became a fissure, and her
thin golden brows twisted acutely. All I can say is that the fear of
what might be bubbling up behind these features I already wanted to
see every day of my life must have made a lion of a mouse. I grabbed
her slender wrist with as much playfulness as I could inject into
the act (keeping my touch carefully to the cuff of her shirt) and
sped her back toward the shop. Later I credited myself with having
felt instinctively that she didn’t really want to be deprived of
her recovered Richard—that a decisive gesture of tenderness was
sure to trump material fact and logic. Though I felt her fingertips
tremble and recoil the one time they grazed the back of my knuckles,
I also noticed that she quickly fell into step, her heels tapping
smartly over the concrete beside my silent sneakers.
We passed a nice little quarter-hour in the shop.
I latched onto the bracelet without any show or discussion, then
floated along beside her as she examined the merchandise no less
eagerly than a child would have a candy store’s. I was beginning
to notice, having now memorized every curve and color of Celine’s
face and every scent in her hair, the fine points of her general
appearance. She plainly had an artist’s eye for details in her
dress, and willingly occupied herself with them. Her shirt was a
kind of dull golden, her slacks dark green, and the sweater-vest
bridging the two a gentle beige with Indian designs running across
it in brick-red and forest green. The weather, though mild for the
season, was perhaps too brisk for mere shirt sleeves. No doubt, she
wore the sleeveless sweater at some small sacrifice because it
snugged so faithfully about her trim midriff and flowed out along
her compact but angular bust. She was a perfection of balance. The
flared cuffs so popular back then (except with me alone, apparently,
among the twenty-somethings) seemed to emphasize that she could cut
a cartwheel with ease at any moment. Of course, she must have known
well that shades of red and orange—and green, naturally—were her
colors, though she had the taste never to choose loud ones. Her
short yet richly bodied hair (which obediently lifted its touch from
her temples but converged and amassed thickly around the neck) was a
deep blonde color, almost russet. Women always tell me that tint is
called a strawberry blonde; and when they tell me so, I can usually
surprise a note of envy in their voices.
Somehow—one more thunderclap, I suppose, in
this afternoon when miracle rained upon miracle—the return to the
jeweler’s had been just the thing to cure our sudden intimacy of
its sadness. Surely, I reflected, this sublimely mistaken girl
couldn’t believe that I was buying trinkets for other conquests
when I had dragged her back to observe my purchase. However jocular
her remark may have been, I felt that she was relieved to be here
beside me. She nudged me more than once to look at a piece, more
than once held something to her neck or finger in an earnest
"What do you think?" pose. The earnestness impressed me.
There was coquetry, all right, in her doings; but I am convinced
that it was mostly unconscious, because there was far more of the
studious artist mixing designs and matching effects. I can vouch
that she had no inkling of my asking the saleslady to slip a gold
Celtic cross with a tiny emerald at its center out of the casement.
At the time, she was kneeling down before an array of wristwatches,
her back completely turned.
Meg’s bracelet was already a bit steep for my
budget. I had rather finely calculated how much I needed to register
next semester, buy books, and pay January’s rent. Buying the gold
cross with the emerald, besides being an act of gross presumption
and even sheer folly, was the sort of fiscal irresponsibility I have
never committed before or since. It didn’t clean out my account,
but it assumed, at the very least, that the King of the Real World
would be larded with a rich haul of Christmas leftovers to cart back
to grad school, or that he could otherwise make do on bread and
water. How could I have done it, I of all people—the rationalist,
the reserved skeptic? I did it because gold and emerald were her
colors. I did it because, at the time, I could not not have
done it. I did it, if you want a specific motivation, because the
saleslady seemed so utterly convinced that we were a pair, Celine
and I. As she removed things for us and followed us about the shop
with her eyes, I surprised her a couple of times in a smile—not a
suspicious scowl, but a smile. Imagine! That smile was no sales
tactic, for I had surprised it. Rather, it was objective
verification of everything I felt in my heart: that this was my
girl, this girl whose name I did not yet know and who knew me by
another’s name.
At least I had the sense not to present the
necklace to her in the shop and risk public humiliation. But no,
what I really did was to preserve my salesclerk-witness’s false
"objectivity" by stealing the moment of truth away from
her. The man that I am now cringes to remember that moment. I have
counseled professionally many a stalker who regaled his idol with
expensive gifts as innocently, and as clumsily, as I did then. No
doubt, it worked in my favor that the necklace wasn’t quite as
extravagant as I boyishly thought it to be, meant it to be: it
seemed so to my budget, but Celine, who lived and breathed such
things, must have known that this was no mink coat. Still, the look
she gave me when I detained her before a gurgling fountain, drew the
small case from my sack, and opened it against her collar was even
more perplexed than that which had preceded our visit to the shop.
In it were mingled fear and—most mortifying of all—anger. The
fountain’s purling chatter helped me to conceal the nullity of my
stammers, but she must have discovered in my eyes that I had no very
good explanation. Only the obvious one… but that, you see, was the
problem. You boy of twenty-three, couldn’t you have
foreseen that that would be the problem? An ex-lover doesn’t
suddenly fall head-over-heels in love. I had betrayed the part which
I had half-agreed to play. My love wasn’t simply too much too soon
by any normal standard, it was too much too late by the standard of
this farce which I had consented to. I had placed her in the
position of having to admit either that I was another, completely
different Richard or that the old Richard was up to some kind of
incredibly, indecipherably subtle mockery.
I would write out some of our verbal exchange
here as I have elsewhere, for I recall almost every word which
passed between us that day—but there was scarcely any exchange at
all. "This is too much," or, "How could you?"
or, "It’s lovely"… none of that conveys what nervous
looks fluttered back and forth, avoiding each other yet constantly
crossing each other. I was never closer to losing Celine that first
day, before I even knew her name, than when I presented her with
that beautiful, baleful necklace. She slipped it back into the case,
which she kept tightly clasped in her right hand, a thing both
precious and dangerous.
But she could not leave me then, after all—not
without flinging the necklace in my face; and she could not fling
the necklace in my face without being sure that I knew why she was
doing so. By accepting it, she accepted the possibility that I might
really be enthralled to her; and by accepting that possibility, she
was accepting a new admirer, and hence accepting more time and more
intimacy. Yet the reason she would most have wanted to run away,
even more than if I were the old Richard playing a cruel prank,
would be if I were a complete stranger. It was an impossible
predicament for her. I realized it at the time, belatedly. My
clumsiness had brought the thumbscrews to their tightest twist. The
least I could do now was just to keep quiet: to climb back up on the
eggshells and stay there.
Gradually, the activity around us restored a
certain equilibrium between us. We walked among the shops and stores
and displays, diverted almost as much by other shoppers (many of
whom were about our age, but none of whom seemed as sensible as we)
as by the wreathes and strings of lights and store-front Santas.
Whether we slipped indoors to follow a corridor among a cluster of
shops or escaped those overheated spaces to enjoy the brisk
afternoon again, Christmas carols were piped steadily about us. The
highly staged scenes before which we lingered—a toy train running
through cotton snow, a mannequin in ermine poised like Miss Eskimo
after her Jell-O diet, an armada of color televisions running the
same sharp picture without antennas—always supplied matter for a
few words (mercifully, for our silences had grown hazardous since
the necklace). As I recall, our comments were often salted with a
mild irony (the Miss Eskimo crack was my original) or barbed with
genuine astuteness (she volunteered how much worse the TV shows were
getting as the pictures improved). By tacit consent, neither of us
wandered into family matters, jobs, friends, or anything remotely
personal, let alone our own troubled history which—I knew, and she
must have suspected now—had never existed.
Things loosened up over lunch. As we sauntered
past a restaurant, I was assailed by the scent of grilled hamburgers
and suddenly realized that I hadn’t eaten since early that
morning. It was now after two-thirty! My visionary companion did not
decline to break bread with me, though she ended up doing little
more than foraging among the contents of a rather large salad. Upon
being given the option by the waiter, I had requested that we be
seated on the "patio". Here we were suffused in sunlight
yet happily concealed from any breeze. Celine’s shirt sleeves were
no longer a worry to me (yes, I had worried about her taking a chill
before: I had twice offered her my jacket). Thanks to the odd hour,
we had only a handful of diners to guard our comments from, if the
inspiration and courage should overtake either of us to be
forthright. But for the opening minutes, at least, we drank hot tea
and admired each other a little groggily. I complimented her
sweater, and she said I looked dashing in my Navy blue turtleneck—"like
James Bond," she cajoled with her wry smile. "Or better
yet, Sean Connery."
If I should die and go to heaven, I have no
fonder hope than that God will let me resume that off-hour lunch
with my young Celine in my own young pelt between performances of
high praise. If I should die and go to hell, I can think of no more
exquisite torture than being forced to view that scene forever from
some gutter-level grate as the real Richard plays my role. For I was
happier in those moments than I had ever been before, or have been
since or shall ever be; yet the lazy sunlight was not so purgative
that it entirely managed to dissolve the shade of the other man. How
could it have done? He flitted between us like a gossamer thread
every time one of us spoke to the other, warping all our words in
their invisible passage through him. As I listened to Celine chat
more and more freely about her work, about her intimate likes and
hopes, I understood (since her little revelations were tailored to his
level of knowledge) that this captivating young woman had given
her heart away to a man who had learned very little, after all,
about that heart—who had exploited its generosity without pausing
over its secrets. And I both rejoiced and feared. I was exhilarated
that I had already come to know her soul so much more privately than
he had; yet I grasped that, by default, the nature of her profound
involvement with him could only have been of one kind, of the remaining
kind. Of my ability to compete with such memories, I was agonizingly
uncertain.
I have lived half a century without knowing a man
who desired to strangle another with his bare hands when he could
neither give this person’s full name nor describe the first detail
of his appearance. Only I have been that man, and I began to
be him on that day.
Someone named Mona kept coming up in Celine’s
remarks. (Was she now talking about herself so much to avoid
discovering more contradictions in her false Richard?) At first I
took Mona for a sister, then a best friend: of course, I didn’t
ask for clarification, but just followed it all knowingly over my
hamburger. Finally I decided that Mona was a kind of
employer-cum-mentor. Mona had brought new commissions for her to
work on when she was recuperating, and Mona had granted her an
extended leave of absence while she resumed her interrupted bachelor’s
degree work. I was struck by two things along this conversational
corridor: that she wanted to lay before my eyes a series of solid
accomplishments, and that she wanted to hint at some grave
indisposition’s having overtaken her while she accomplished them.
Being a student myself, I didn’t have to feign an interest in her
career, especially since it seemed artistic. I gathered (again, I
avoided asking questions too directly) that she designed background
matter and illustrations for a magazine, or maybe an advertising
agency. The sinister gap in her young life left me far more timid;
yet it was here, I suddenly reflected, that the other Richard would
have forced some query. Had she fallen desperately ill and he failed
to come see her, to track down the causes of a disappearance?
Alarmed that I might already have allowed my cue to pass me by, I
clumsily intruded, gulping spectacularly and coughing as if to
indicate that a mouthful had stifled me for several seconds.
"You said… excuse me… you mentioned
something about recuperating. Were you… what was that about?"
Had I misread the cues? For a moment, I thought I
had ruined everything. She abandoned her fork, rolled her green eyes
as if checking for signs of the sky’s splitting open, and hugged
her elbows to contain a shudder. A cynic would probably say that I
had been taken in by theatrics for several hours now, but no gesture
of hers had seemed remotely theatrical to me before this one. It
seemed altogether too much for the provocation… yet its artifice
ended up relieving me in a very temporary way, since the little show
clearly declared the subject to be off limits.
"Thanks for asking," she finally
murmured over an empty swallow. "It happened right after you…
after the last time I saw you. I don’t really want to talk about
it right now."
Maybe she didn’t, and maybe she did… but just
as her manner relieved me of pursuing the issue, her "right
after you left" warned me not to do so. I would inevitably have
tipped my hand if I went further. Then again, I had been tipping my
hand all along. Perhaps I was a little vexed that she insisted on
continuing the charade: perhaps stepping around a secret that she
probably wanted to reveal was my way of exacting revenge. Perhaps
that’s why I even dared to add, "Well, I hope you’re all
right now. Are you sure you don’t need my jacket?"
She waved me off, resuming her fork and her
pleasant ramble. She could easily have asked to see the contents of
my wallet, I mused now for the umpteenth time—and mused again in a
moment, when I paid off the waiter so that he would leave us in
peace. But then I mused further that nothing was keeping me from
shoving my identification under her nose.
"It’s funny how few women go into
designing women’s fashions. Mona thinks I should go in that
direction. She says our business is slowly going to dry up… that
bigger companies with more hi-tech stuff are going to take it over.
But I don’t know… I don’t know if I have the pushiness to be a
fashion designer. That’s probably why women don’t do it. I’ve
been working on being more assertive, but… I guess you think it
was a little pushy to come up to you the way I did."
I dealt my empty plate my best Sean Connery
smile. "Pushy has negative connotations. It’s entirely the
wrong word to describe our meeting."
She hadn’t really laughed before then—maybe
just a bar or two: but at that moment she played me the whole tune.
The sunlight caught her teeth, the coffee cups on the surrounding
tables seemed to peal in harmony, and I noticed the patio’s
remaining couple turn our direction from thirty feet away (the woman
with a glance, the man in lingering admiration).
"You’ve really changed, Richard! You’ve
really, really changed. I’ve been noticing it all afternoon. Here
I’ve been talking about myself all this time, but what I’m
really thinking is, ‘What’s he been up to? What’s made him so
different?’"
"Is the change for the better?"
"Oh, I should say so."
My deep satisfaction with the compliment was
clouded by my realizing that I had just—quite accidentally—implied
a confession that I was him. I squirmed vigorously. For a
penny, I would have asked, "Was I so bad before, then?"
But I was not going to let my curiosity about the other man block me
off from establishing my own version of Richard—of Anthony
Richard. With just a little more priming, then, I hazarded a few
vague sentences about my entry into graduate school. I skipped over
the bit about teaching for a year: I said only that my earlier
employment didn’t challenge me, and that I needed something which
would put my mind through its paces regularly. I described my meager
graduate fellowship (they were being doled out left and right to
keep the psychology department afloat) as if I had received some
prestigious grant; and I’m sure I made my projected thesis sound
less like an ingenu’s literary effusions than a government
scientist’s formula for truth serum. It wasn’t that I was trying
to seem brilliant or important. On the contrary, I wanted to stay
obscure, like a real secret agent… but I’m afraid my
obfuscations had the effect of puffing me up.
Was it that cloak of importance in which I
wrapped myself (with maddening credibility), or was it the mere
notion of Richard going to grad school? She grew more and
more still before me as I spoke. Her bright eyes widened, her brows
lifted toward a red-gilt shock of hair which beckoned them, and her
cheeks flattened until that mysterious, microscopic "o" in
the heart of her lips opened again. While I spun my yarn, I fought
off a million questions swirling in the back of my mind. Does she
like this new Richard better—is now the time to press home the
point about his being a different Richard? Or is it, rather,
the prospect of a new depth grafted onto the old lady’s man (for
so I pictured him), full of fine phrases but empty of insight, which
fascinates her? Would not amputating the latter from the former be a
disastrous mistake? Couldn’t she have cut the incision herself a
hundred times already if she wanted a clean separation? Indeed, if I
distanced myself too much from the old bounder—the young bounder
of earlier days who must, after all, have looked a little like me—wouldn’t
I chase her away forever? More than once, girls had left me smarting
under the charge that I was too intellectual, too cool. (I
remembered those painful undergraduate rejections.) For once in my
life, I had a chance—but maybe it all depended on this borrowed
skin.
"You’re just so different," she
almost whispered. "I can’t believe it." I would have cut
my life’s years in two and thrown away the part without her if
only she had smiled, just a little, in saying that.
When we left the restaurant, shortly thereafter,
we had to exit either into the mall’s inner labyrinth again or
engage the wide walkway which divided it from the parking lot. We
did the latter without saying a word or even exchanging a look. Yet
we proceeded slowly. Though we knew that the road back to those
scenes of our incredibly unsteady first hour—the jewelry shop, the
fountain, the storefront Santas—was sealed behind us now, we were
in no hurry to be parted. We ambled and basked in the sun. I
honestly don’t know which of us made some prosaic comment about
the gentle weather—probably both at about the same time.
"Indian summer," she daydreamed.
"That’s what my grandmother would have called it. It doesn’t
seem right for Christmas… but it seems right that everything
should be all golden, just now. Like Easter, maybe. I like the sound
of that better. Indian summer makes me think that it’s bound to
end in a day or two. Do you think it will end soon?"
"Christmas and Easter are really the same
thing, you know," I said in what must have struck me as a
straight answer at that instant, craning my neck at the parking lot
so that I could feel her hair graze my chin. "The rebirth of
longer days… the rebirth of green plants… the triumph over cold
and death. It’s never too late to begin again…."
My voice fell flat, leaving a wide gap where her
name should have been. Her name. This had gone on long enough—I
had to know.
But the mischievous god who had presided over
this midwinter day’s dream (in fact, that very day was the winter
solstice: no wonder the sun was so low and liquid at our backs)
sprang into action before I could rend his delicate, maddening web.
"Mona is always saying that," she had
already picked up. "That I should begin again—look at today
as the first day of my new life. ‘Celine,’ she says, ‘today is
the first day of the rest of your life, not the last day of all you’ve
done before.’ I really like the sound of that… I really want to
make a clean start, Richard."
She stopped and stared straight into my eyes.
Those large pupils in their pale brilliance again reversed gravity
and turned me upside-down. My spirit flailed about. Yes, tell her we’ll
start again—but I was not him, there was no again
with me, and to play this part much longer would be to annihilate
myself utterly in the role of someone I detested. All I found to
hold onto in my somersaults was her name.
"Celine," I said. "Celine."
Perhaps she thought that was an answer in itself.
Her lids fell deliberately, and her head bowed toward my shoulder.
In my struggle to find just the right words now
while also sneaking a touch of her hair across my lips, I believe I
almost grew a little dizzy. Who had time to think about breathing?
"Your name… I’ve always wanted to ask you…" Always?
Careful! "Celine… it’s such a beautiful name. It sounds
French. There was a French impressionist painter by that name, wasn’t
there?"
I just wanted her to keep talking, for I still
had next to nothing. (I missed both the medium and the period of my
French artist, by the way: I’m not trying to dress up my pompous
blunders, for I was young and erudite enough to leave them strewn
behind me at every step.)
"I had an aunt named Celina," she said
as we resumed walking. Dare I reach for her hand? Dare I not?
"Mom thought that Celine sounded more French, actually, though
I never heard about a painter."
"Maybe ‘Selena’ was with an ‘s’,"
I strayed off in my damned pedantry—or was I chasing a metaphor?
"The Greek goddess of the moon."
"This was with a ‘c’. Maybe they changed
it from some earlier great-grandmother, or something."
I wanted to say, "My land of dreams,
at any rate, starts with a ‘c’"—but that kind of courtly
frivolity has always been beyond me. I hope my stuffiness
occasionally gets reckoned in my favor as honesty, or at least
modesty. What would he have said, I wondered? Maybe,
"Let’s head back to my place, babe"? Was that what she
wanted to hear, just maybe?
I never did find the courage to take her hand on
the way to her car. By way of covering my awkwardness, I thought to
fish out a pen and blurt, "Why don’t you give me your
number?" I bit my tongue just before I said, "It’s
probably changed." Instead, I added, "I’m staying at…
staying with friends. For the holidays. I can give you the number
there, if you like. No telling who’ll answer—it’s a big
family."
"Sure. Give me the number." We had
rounded a group of cars to a small two-door sedan: hers, I supposed.
This was it—these were our last precious moments, my last chance
to garner information. I recall trying—ridiculously—to memorize
her license plate in one nervous glance.
"Just let me see if I have a piece of paper
in my purse."
"No. I… here, here’s an old sales
receipt from the university bookstore. Thought I might sell back a
couple of textbooks if I dropped a course."
I had not planned the effect—in fact, I would
probably have caught myself if I’d thought in time—but the
validation of my story about graduate school sent a visible shudder
through her trimly angled shoulders. (The sweater-vest emphasized
their perfect T, as she must have known.) Her right side actually
twitched with such suddenness that its tendons tugged her chin in a
flinch. With my wallet poised in my left hand like a writing pad, I
briefly paused and calculated how I might turn my "gaff"
into a chance to press my case—to press home the truth.
"Somebody will answer here at any time of the day or
night," I continued very slowly as I scrawled. "I’ll
tell them that someone might be calling for Richard."
When I gave her the scrap, I pretended to dig
around in my wallet for more paper. I managed to eavesdrop on her
flipping the receipt over and cradling it in her palms.
"Ah… I’ll use this for your
number," I said airily in mock triumph. "My Selective
Service card. They’re obviously not going to draft me now. I could
have gotten a deferment, anyway, since my brother went."
As she distantly droned her number for me, I
feared that I had pressed too hard. Only a few minutes earlier, the
fragrance of her hair had filled my nostrils. Now she was looking
absently around the parking lot as if to flag down a passing car.
"I’ll call you tomorrow," I broke out
cheerfully, sliding the wallet back out of her sight. "I’ll…
I’ll call you tonight, about tomorrow. About when we can meet.
Unless… maybe it’s too much, for right now." Too much, too
soon—or too little, too late. How apparent was the panic within my
forcibly vaulting tones?
Celine had been in the process of slipping my
receipt-with-scrawl into her purse (a woolen design matching her
vest so well that I’d scarcely noticed it until now) when she must
have seen the jewelry case. She lifted it out and held it tightly to
her ribs in both hands.
"Why did you give me this? You never gave me
anything before. Not like this."
My panic mounted. Do not say, "I’ve
changed," I told myself. Her eyes seemed almost blue now with
intensity. I had to focus on her clutching fingertips before I found
enough breath to answer.
"It’s just as we said, Celine, we’re
starting ov—" Do not use over with starting,
either. "We’re starting, just starting. For the first time,
everything is new. Nothing has ever happened before now. Today is
the day that Celine meets Richard and Richard meets Celine."
But now, for some reason, she wasn’t buying it.
The receipt, the wallet, the draft card, my brother… yes, I had
gone too far. Broken eggshells lay all about me. All I could do was
try to restrain my gesturing hands as they reached in her direction,
searched to soothe her quavering figure. Whatever phantom car she
was going to flag down must have sprouted wings, for she intensely
directed her gaze to the sky, her elbows twitching as if she would
suddenly hail a late sunbeam. Her freckles grew browner as her
cheeks flushed, and her lips swelled until they would no longer
seal. I was witnessing a kind of breakdown.
"At first I thought that maybe you were
confused—that you’d had some trouble. Like my trouble. But I
never really believed that. You of all people could never have that
kind of trouble—no one would ever be allowed to get that far
inside you. You’d never let them in. But then, why?"
Here she looked down at the jewelry case and squeezed it ferociously
in one hand while the other caressed it. "You didn’t owe me
anything. That’s what you told me, anyway, two years ago. And you
believed it. Why would you think otherwise now? Besides, what you did
owe me—what I thought you owed me… you could never pay it
off this way. Or get out of paying. Not even you could have believed
that."
"It belongs to you," I babbled
stupidly, as afraid of being evaded by her eyes now as of meeting
with them. I tried to soothe both of us by letting my worship utter
a kind of prayer. "It’s gold and emerald. Like you. It’s
rare and precious and beautiful, and perfect and delicate and
sparkling. Like you. A few dollars made it change hands, but it was
always yours, and it will always be yours—"
"Don’t, Richard. Don’t. You need to take
it back." Still she wouldn’t look at me, only at her
intricately agile hands, her wonderfully limber wrists, as they
extended their charge to me.
"Then I’ll take it and wear it under my
shirt, where no one will ever see it. Next to my heart. It will
still be yours to me—it will be you. It’ll be waiting for the
day when I can put it around your neck. It’s your colors, Celine."
And I laughed and repeated, as if this argument clinched my victory,
"Gold and green are your colors!"
"I know… but you couldn’t have!"
Finally she stared straight into my eyes, her upper body swaying
toward me over the fondled necklace so that I could count her
lashes. "You were color-blind!"
I made no movement to take the box: I was
suddenly incapable of any movement at all. In the same instant, she
spun away, the necklace still clasped tight in her right hand, and
leaned with her left heavily on the car’s roof. Despite the
sweater’s burly concealment, the space between her shoulder blades
began observably to quake. I saw the left hand make a fist over the
car, and could not help but admire, even in my daze, the perfect
little squares which its knuckles formed beyond the broad cuff. And
then, as a slight breeze blew or as her head twitched convulsively,
I saw the impishly upturned nose, the chin which God’s thumb
brought from a heavenly lathe, a glint of her front teeth… and I
heard a sigh captured by a sob.
"I’m so frightened! I’m so frightened! I’m
so frightened! I couldn’t believe it was you, after two years and
an eternity—after nearly losing my mind over you. Now I can’t
believe it’s not you. Your face, your voice, your manner…
did I imagine them all today, or did I forget them all two years
ago? It has to be you! Oh, you’ve changed, yes. I… I said that
to you, didn’t I? I kept telling myself that people change. Who
doesn’t change in two years? And it was okay while it was just…
just books and ideas. People can grow up. Maybe you grew up. Or
maybe I never knew you very well to start with. You never let me
know you—you always kept so much from me. So maybe I just never
saw that part of you before. Or maybe you’ve been faking it this
afternoon. How do I know? Maybe you’ve been stringing me along
today. It wouldn’t be the first time! Myths and Greek words and
French painters… how do I know if any of it is true, or just made
up? You know I don’t know! Maybe you’re just refining your act,
practicing for some heiress."
I couldn’t take any more of this. I knew the
man she meant, all right—the kind of man—and I hated him as much
as she seemed once to have loved him. I was indignant, frankly, that
she had squandered herself on him. I grabbed her shoulders gently
but firmly. The feel of the soft flesh beneath her thin shirt
evaporated any last trace of timidity in me.
"Do you really think this has been an act?
Look into my eyes and tell me I’m acting."
She looked over her shoulder, instead, at my
hand. The lowered lid showed no fear—it held a full tear for
seconds on its lashes—but it also signaled a strange distance,
almost a state of trance.
"I know you’re not acting. Because of your
eyes—your eyesight. Because of the necklace, and what you said
earlier about my sweater and that TV that needed tuning. You can see
colors, Richard!" She bent very close to my fingers, which rose
on her contracted shoulder, and whispered into them, "My
middle-name Richard!" That was the first moment when I confided
to my conscious mind, in so many words, that I loved Celine.
"And you see things with taste," she
went on. "You have an eye for beauty now. You, of all people—you
who used to make fun of my designs. But it’s not you. That’s
just it. All of this, it’s not the kind of thing anyone could
fake. So then you’re not Richard, after all, are you? And
me taking you for him all afternoon, talking to you as if you were
him… I’m not cured at all, am I? Mona told me I’d be fine, but
my mother was right. I’m not there yet—I’m not even close.
Maybe I’m farther away now than I’ve ever been—maybe I can’t
even remember what he looks like. Now I’ll have to go back… back
there. I don’t won’t to go back there!"
I was losing her to the convulsions again. What I
did next was all wrong, from a professional standpoint. But I had no
profession then. I was a lost young man who had found his way, or so
he thought, in this lost child. And so I folded her trembling
shoulders from behind in the blanket of my arms. My jacket was
unzipped, and I held her slender, shivering spine against my broad,
warm chest. I had no doubt that I could smother the tremors just as
my gaze could at once have purified all her doubts about my
sincerity. And, indeed, I felt her calming in my embrace. Maybe a
boy knows some things better than a man. With my lips, I sought her
ear through a sweet, smooth curtain of hair, and I spoke the spell
which love and whimsy suggested to me.
"Listen to me, Celine! Who I am and who you
are... it all started today, when we first met. There’s you, there’s
me, there’s right now, and there’s all our lives from now on.
Call me Richard—Richard’s fine. I like Richard. I’m the
Richard who’s not blind—who knows gold when he sees it. We can
go anywhere we want, do anything we please. Who’s to stop us? We’ll
join the circus. You’ll tell fortunes, and I’ll tame lions. We
can live in a little shack—I’ll unload boxcars by day, and you
can make spaghetti for my dinner. What’s it matter—what’s any
of it matter? All I know is that my life began today, the minute I
saw you. You can’t leave me now. Half a day isn’t long enough to
live, not with our whole lives ahead of us. I can make it all okay
for you. That’s all I want to do with my life from now on… to
pay you back for that time you lost, to make you forget the pain.
This is the day when the nights stop getting shorter. This is the
day when the sun starts to come back."
Then I pressed my cheek down into her hair, and I
held her that way until my shoulders told me that our lungs were
going up and down in unison. At last the thick wave of thin locks
shifted slightly under me, and I felt a moist whisper upon my neck.
"All right," she said. "All right.
II.
My life immediately grew very complicated. In a
way, it grew very simple, too: its sole focus was Celine, and the
sole purpose of getting up in the morning was to see Celine. But
accomplishing that purpose required a subterfuge which rendered all
of my comings and goings very intricate. My mother was at once alert
to the strange distance which she saw in my gaze and heard in my
vague answers. I’m sure my younger brother and sister were also
impressed by it, though they must have ascribed it to the kingly
aura of the "independent adult" rather than to any more
specific cause. In fact, I could have squeezed as much savor from
the role of Worldly Graduate Student as I’d wanted if I had had
any time for such trivial pursuits. That’s the irony of the whole
game, of course. Only a juvenile heart longs to bask in the
admiration of those who admire its maturity: a truly mature heart
doesn’t even notice that it is being admired, or perhaps smiles at
the admiration’s childishness. I don’t think I paid enough
attention to my family, however, to entertain these uplifting
thoughts. All of them—Mom, Roger, Meg—were just so much clutter
on my radar which I had to steer around or navigate through. I guess
I was being immature in a different way rather than showing any
growth spurt. I was exchanging an eagerness to impress my family for
an eagerness to fling myself at Celine’s feet, the latter actually
being a far more fanatical eagerness than the former had been. If I
had truly possessed some kind of manly poise during those holidays
long ago, I would have paused to reflect that my family had a claim
upon my affections, too, and hadn’t seen me for several months.
But I can’t be too hard on myself as I was then. A young man is
constantly trying to put his boyish past behind him and hurl himself
into the future. This is probably nowhere more true than when he
first meets the woman who represents that future for him as does no
other single person on earth.
Dad was a different story. In an odd sort of way,
I think the situation brought me closer to him than I would have
been if I were strutting about the house dispensing superior smiles
over all the gift-wrapping, tree-trimming, and candy-making. I can’t
imagine a man so little afflicted by the need to show off finding my
ostentation at all interesting; and the one serious topic that I had
already tried to tackle with him—the politically poisonous
atmosphere of grad school—was probably one of the few grave issues
under the sun which he couldn’t handle knowledgeably, as I wrote
earlier. But now he was almost like a co-conspirator with me. Over
supper during those four days before Christmas, I was always in the
hot seat. I would invariably have done some skulking around in the
day or be planning some for the evening which I wasn’t inclined to
explain. (Of course, I couldn’t very well skip out on our family
suppers to court Celine: the barbarity of it wouldn’t have stopped
me, but the indiscretion of it warned me off.) My attitude was
absolutely beyond my mother’s comprehension. Hadn’t I gone out
last night? Why was I going out again tonight? To see Jimmy Warwick
again? Since when had we become such good friends? If I went to his
house, could I deliver a box of cookies to his mother? We weren’t
going to be drinking, were we? The probes did not come all at once,
but between seams of the conversation and under the cover of
comments they trailed with the loosest of logic. If I had been faced
merely with the chore of fighting off one stiff onslaught, I might
have toughed it out without much trouble. But the effect of this
constant sharp-shooting was very wearisome, and I must have sighed
pretty heavily between mouthfuls sometimes. Without Dad’s help, I
might very well have lost my temper. His ability to deflect Mom’s
questions was flawlessly good-natured. "Cookies! Since when
have you become such good friends with Mrs. Warwick?" he
smirked once, and later, "A twenty-three-year-old man who’s
never been drunk a day in his life isn’t going to start because he’s
seeing a few high school friends at Christmas."
It was actually Mom who ended up getting angry. I
could hear them later on through the vent of the upstairs bathroom,
which sometimes brought me reconnaissance from the most unlikely
places. This conversation was probably being waged just below me in
the laundry room. "I can tell when something’s not
right," my mother kept repeating. "You should be helping
me rather than interrupting me." My father might have
indignantly clamored for a more responsible use of the word
"interrupt", as I would have done… and then push would
have come to shove. Instead, he picked up on another word. "I am
helping you. I’m helping you not to ruin Christmas for yourself
and everyone else."
The only problem that really occupied me at the
time, however, was how to arrange meetings with Celine without
smothering her in my attentions. I had virtually no idea of what
family commitments she had for the holidays, but she was apparently
going into her job right up until Christmas Eve. That was just as
well for me. Otherwise, half of me would have been wanting to spend
the whole day with her, every day. But the other half was restrained
by something like decency, if not sanity—or even more probably, by
something like self-consciousness. I dare not seem overly pushy and
scare this rare bird back into the forest forever, just as I dare
not play it too cool and let her follow her inclination to run away
from the "wrong Richard". I settled for meeting her at
lunch time the day after our encounter at the mall—we had a very
low-key half-hour at a sandwich shop which, she said, was within
walking distance of her job. From then on, we scheduled our
rendezvous in the evening (including one that same evening, at the
park). The hour had to be fairly late in the evening, since we only
finished supper at home around seven o’clock (more like
seven-thirty: I’m afraid I rather rudely gulped it all down and
took French leave, to use my mother’s terminology). As I look back
now, I’m surprised that the obvious explanation didn’t occur to
Mom: I had met a girl, and I had a date each evening. But then, what
young man returned from grad school for Christmas suddenly
"meets a girl" in his hometown and starts chasing after
her like a teenager? No, I’m not surprised at all. I’m only
surprised that I behaved like a teenager. I was probably surprised
in that respect at the time—I certainly wasn’t unaware of my
situation’s silliness. But I couldn’t fight it. I couldn’t so
much as summon the will to wish that I could fight it. On the
contrary, nothing like this had ever happened to me.
Celine never breathed a word about having to
spend this or that evening with this or that parent or relative, so
my discomfort about pressing her too hard wore off quickly. At the
same time, I wondered how she could be so alone. I have written that
we met in the evenings after one attempt to squeeze our time
together into the narrow window allotted everywhere for lunch. Those
evenings are blurred together for me now, after all these years. In
a way, they seem many in retrospect, twice as many as their true
number could have been; and in a way, they seem a single long,
intimate exchange between two people, one of them increasingly in
love with the other, that other always a little frightened and
confused. After more effort than I would like to admit or would ever
have believed necessary, I can separate our encounters into distinct
occasions. None of this is to say that my memory is going, or that
what I’m about to write is a story-teller’s invention. I’m
sure I’ve already used artistic license here and there in trying
to resurrect a conversation that happened decades ago, and I’m
sure I’ll do so again. We embellish even what we recall from
yesterday or this morning. But I’m also sure that I am being very
faithful to the substance of each exchange. There are certain visual
images, and even certain sensations of the ear and nose, which I
shall remember until my heart lies still and the blood ebbs from my
brain—whereupon, if I go to heaven, I shall recover all those
images intact and multiplied. What I’m saying is that everything
else around them—the circulation of the day which made them
possible, the composition of the day which almost made them
impossible—is now a great gray swirl. It is the sallow, crinkled
edge, that vital background detail, around some ancient photograph
in whose middle a beloved face is forever young.
The walk through the park on the evening of our
rendezvous for lunch proved a bad idea. Although the weather
continued clear and the days had an amber, wine-like quality which
left you slightly tipsy, they nevertheless ended early. Once night
descended, the temperature quickly dropped. I recall that we had to
walk fast just to stay warm, and our swollen lips almost missed the
"r’s" on the few words they exhaled from upturned
collars. Yet I recall, too, the joy of bending to catch Celine’s
eroded words in my ear, and to capture her frosty breath in my
nostrils. I recall saying at the end of the jaunt, "You’re
shivering. It was wrong of me to drag you out here at this
hour," and then holding her tight—so tight—against my
jacket on the pretext of warming her up. I’m sure that neither of
us was very much deceived by the pretext, especially when I closed
my eyes and rocked her back and forth.
The next night began in the grocery store, of all
places. Celine had remarked over the phone (when I called her: she
never presumed to call me) that she was about out of food and had to
make a trip to the supermarket. I was the one who had the bright
idea of meeting her there. The arrangement reassured me: obviously,
she could not have been concealing very much if she would allow our
trysts to be diverted into something as prosaic as getting
groceries. Yet this glimpse into her intimate routine also renewed
my wonder at the desolation of her personal life. Why was she
getting groceries the night before Christmas Eve? Why wasn’t she
being feasted by a doting family, like me? If she got along so well
with this Mona, who appeared to be her best friend as well as her
boss, then why hadn’t Mona given her a few days off for the
holidays? Especially if her family lived out of town, what was she
still doing here—why wouldn’t she have left to be with them? It
certainly wasn’t for me… was it? If it was for me, then was it
for the Richard whom I was supposed to be—or not supposed
to be, I should say? How could it possibly be for a stranger she met
a few dozen hours earlier at the mall? Was she, then, planning to
spend Christmas Day alone in her apartment? If so, I had to know
about it—because I wasn’t going to let that happen. Even if I
had to leave my own family—even if I had to have some definitive
falling out with my mother—I had already decided that I wasn’t
going to let Celine be alone on Christmas.
I actually enjoyed shopping with her. The word
"charming" has been so overused, and used so artificially,
that I can’t quite bring myself to write it now. But I did indeed
feel as if someone had struck me with a magic wand as I wandered up
and down aisles with her, standing with my hands in my pockets while
she examined apples or compared the price of cheeses. The other men
who passed me in the company of women were most certainly husbands.
What I wouldn’t have given, then and there, to be able to go home
with this fair-haired child of the Aurora Borealis, help her store
away cans and boxes, sit with my arm around her before the evening
news, and then find a dark retreat with her under three winter
blankets! When we finally reached the checkout counter, I was
pierced with an unexpected twinge of humiliation and regret upon
realizing that my checkbook had no part to play here.
We hadn’t discussed doing anything afterward.
When she had mentioned the grocery store over the phone, I had just
dived in and said, "Well, then, let’s go grocery
shopping!" I think we had both been somewhat intoxicated by the
idea’s… its what? Not its absurdity, for it seemed anything but
that to us. By its very sensibleness, in a way: by the fact that we
could do something so sensible, so ordinary together. What could be
more intimate than that? Only the rites of a couple puttering around
their little domestic nest… and maybe that’s why Celine resisted
my offer to drive her home, help her unpack the groceries, and then
trek back to my car. She said that it was too cold for me to go
rambling in the dark, that the distance was too far; but when she
added that her apartment was a mess with last-minute gift-wrapping,
I knew that, at the bottom, she wasn’t quite ready to have that
space invaded by me. I backed off.
I also knew that she wasn’t entirely alone. I
don’t mean that I suspected her of harboring another person in her
apartment, but only that I registered the plain fact of her having
some friends and family around, since she had been wrapping
presents. And in the oddest sort of way, I felt my relief on that
score grow overshadowed by a disappointment. I suppose something in
me had wanted the two of us to be alone against the world: Christmas
Eve transformed into The Eve of Saint Agnes!
So instead of going back to her place, we stood
talking after the last brown bag was stored in her trunk. Once a few
minutes had passed, I suggested that we sit in my car, parked next
to hers. I said that her frozen things wouldn’t thaw very quickly
at this temperature, and that we might as well keep ourselves warm
if we were going to talk for a little while.
"What a nice car!" she shivered after I’d
shut her door and run around to let myself in behind the wheel.
"It still smells new." Our hermetic enclosure made her
voice seem suddenly right on my shoulder: in her s’s I
could hear all the crispness of a tongue against moist teeth.
I turned to her, the vinyl seat moaning drowsily
under my coat. "It’s my dad’s."
Her pale, brilliant eyes darted away from me to
the ceiling, and kept darting behind her nervous lashes. With my
first sentence, I had already blundered. How badly… how hard would
it be to get back from this ledge? But no, I wasn’t going back. I
leapt forward with all the confidence of a man plunging to his
death.
"I’m staying with my family, Celine. I…
I live here. I grew up here."
"Me, too."
"Really? I’ve been meaning to ask. I mean…
yeah, that’s what I mean. I’ve been meaning to ask. Because I
didn’t know. I don’t know anything about you but what you tell
me."
Now her eyes were fixed upon the darkness
straight out the front window, like a driver’s who is unable to
see the road through a thick fog. I watched her pupils grow larger,
watched her chest rise and fall beneath her woolen pullover (where,
at the height of inhalation, her breasts defined their roundness
from the folds).
At some point I shook off a spell concocted of
fear, doubt, and something like sensual longing. "Anyway…
yeah, I was going to speak to you about my family. About my staying
with them. I was going to say that maybe it wouldn’t be such a
good idea if you called and asked for Richard. Because they don’t
use that name for me at home, and my Mom’s already suspicious
about why I keep leaving the house at strange hours."
I could have fallen on my knees and said a long
prayer of thanks to the God of Graces when she queried, with the
flicker of a smile, "And what do you tell her?"
"Certainly not the truth!" I laughed—and
then realized that my hearty chuckle would sound serpentine if she
hadn’t guessed that it sprang from her recognizing me as not
Richard. "I mean… the truth would be something like, ‘Mom,
I’ll die if I can’t see this girl that I met at the mall over
the weekend. I know this is Christmas, and that I’ve been away for
months, but… I can’t… I’ve got to go!"
Her smile kindled from my laughter a bit, though
she remained gazing out the front window. "I don’t like the
sound of that! I don’t want to be destroying your family’s
Christmas!"
"It’s nothing that can’t be fixed. It’s
just a little chipped here and there… and that’s my mom, it’s
not you. But if you call and someone else answers, and you ask for
me—"
"You mean, if I ask for Richard," she
said glumly. Her gaze ahead was all at once no longer searching, but
riveted. A furrow appeared between her slender brows, and her jaw
rose in a way which made her minutely fluted, precisely modeled
lower lip protrude during her brief pause. A strip of radiance from
the parking lot’s floodlights ran smoothly over that lip just
before the deep line where it merged with the upper one. "I ask
for Richard, and she says I have the wrong number, and you snatch
the phone from her hand, and then you have to explain to her why I
call you Richard. You have to tell her that you’re seeing a girl
who’s a little off her…"
"Celine, don’t!" I insisted.
"I’m to call you… Anthony, is that
right? You only told me once. When we first met. Your very first
words, almost. If I phone you, I’m to call you Anthony."
I followed this incredible concession (incredible
to me… why? because I had actually thought her mentally unstable?)
without taking a breath. When it was over, my voice, almost too
faint to hear, sounded sad to me. I should have expected it to sound
happier. "Yes. Yes, that would be better. But she’ll be
suspicious no matter what you call me. That was my main point. And…
as far as we go, you can call me Richard all the time. If you
want to. It’s my middle name—I don’t know if you remember my
telling you that, too. Nobody’s ever called me by it before, and I
kind of like the idea of your doing it. I mean, because… because I’ve
never known anyone like you before." When I saw her face begin
to soften, I added, "In a way, I became a new person when I met
you. I feel like I became alive for the first time. So I’m really not
the same person, you see."
Her eyes had sunk from the window to the
dashboard to her lap, and I thought she was going to speak once
when, instead, she closed her lips again and puffed out her cheeks.
I watched her left hand, just a few inches from where my fingers
dangled over the arm rest, flex and relax over and over in a
geometrician’s dream of perfect circles and perfect squares.
"My mother is funny about things, too,"
she finally said, still studying her lap. This was the only time I
would hear her speak openly of her family in those early days.
"Before I left home, when I was still in high school, she
always had to know who I was going out with. If it was a boy, she
had to know all about him—how I’d met him, how he’d spoken to
me, how he dressed and cut his hair, what I knew about his family.
If I didn’t make the right answers, I couldn’t go out. And I
usually didn’t go out, because all the answers were never right.
Sometimes I cheated a little, just to get out of the house. But then
I’d find out later that mother had been right, after all. That was
the worst of it. She was always right. I didn’t mind her being
right, but… I minded her being right about everyone else being
wrong. About all the boys being… being what they were. It got to
where I got really scared of boys, because I was scared that I would
be alone all my life, but scared that there was nothing else but
this, no other choice but this—that this was the only way
out. Boys, I mean. One time, in my junior year, one of them threw me
out of his car because I wouldn’t do what he wanted. It was right
about here. He’d parked in this parking lot. I ended up… there’s
the phone booth I used over there. I expected mother to give me an
ear-full, but she never said a word. Not one single word. That
night, before I went off to bed, she ran her hand through my hair.
It was like her telling me, ‘You poor kid, you’re doomed, and
there’s nothing I can do for you.’ Or like her telling herself—like
her thinking, ‘The evil prophecy is beginning to happen. I’ve
done all I can. My girl will be destroyed.’"
I must have been almost gaping by the last few
sentences of this soliloquy. The thought of a girlish Celine being
almost raped in the very spot where we sat, then trembling and
sobbing in the very phone booth that I saw fifty feet away, held me
bound and gagged before the outrageous prophecy of doom which, in
some vague manner, Celine continued to reveal.
"It’s not that you don’t appreciate it
when your mother gives you advice… or it wasn’t that I didn’t,
anyway. But there should be some hopeful advice, too. Or if the
advice is all about all the wicked people in the world, why does it
have to be such good advice? Why does it always have to be true? If
that’s all there is, wouldn’t the best thing be to let your
child find out for herself? Wouldn’t that be better than knowing…
knowing that every man was hopeless the instant you met him?"
Thank God, I did not launch the protest that was
on my tongue: something like, "And me? You think I would do
something like that to you?" There was no reason to force
myself into these bitter recollections. The more proper thing was to
let them keep rolling along, as recollections. I’m sure that my
sense of timidity kept me silent far more than whatever sensitivity
to others I had… but silence was the right response. Finally, in
what may actually have been a true flash of emotional insight, I
remarked, "It doesn’t sound as though your mother has had a
very happy life."
Celine gave a voiceless laugh—an outrush of
breath through her nostrils, since her lips shut tight in a smile. I
found it a rather warm smile, under the circumstances: her large
eyes warmed it, looming over it with the streetlights caught in
their glaze. "Poor Mom! No, she’s not what you’d call a
happy person."
"Did you… did you live nearby here, back
then? I mean, if this pig decided to choose this particular parking
lot…."
"Not too far from here. Over in Westbrook
Hills."
"That’s a very nice part of town."
"Yeah. That neighborhood and the ‘boy’
thing were enough to ruin my reputation at school. They all decided
that I thought I was better than they were. The funny thing is, we
couldn’t afford that house. We had a piano when I was younger, but
that got sold pretty soon. Most of the rooms upstairs were almost
empty." Then she noticed the look on my face: it was good to
realize that I was receiving a glance ever so often. "What are
you thinking? You look like you’re trying to remember
something."
"I was just thinking… with us living down
the street a few blocks from here… and back then I was probably
just sitting up in my room, as I did on a lot of weekend nights. If
only I’d known that you were here, that that was happening! I
would have put on my cape, jumped out the window, and been here in a
flash! That guy would have ended up between the apples and the
bananas!"
I couldn’t have put in the plug for myself at a
better time. Since she had offered me a penny for my thoughts, I was
not gate-crashing upon her sad reminiscences to assert my ego—and
my protest against the young gorilla’s behavior, as I see now, may
well have been something that she wanted to hear from me. I can look
back now and marvel at how I made just the right moves at just the
right time; but the truth, of course, is that these were not
"moves" at all. Nothing could have been less calculated.
Age forgets that youth, quite without wisdom’s help, can do right
things from love. My weathered mind and withered heart have to
struggle sometimes to appreciate the kind of energy which inspired
me then.
Since we’d reached a pleasant note, and since
we knew that we needed to part company about now, we both began to
talk about tomorrow night as if on cue.
"It’s Christmas Eve tomorrow," I
said. "I guess you’ll probably want to go be with your mother…
or someone else in the family. Maybe if I could just see you… I
don’t know. We could always try lunch again. It was kind of a
madhouse yesterday, but at least I’d get to see you."
"I won’t be going to my mother’s until
Christmas day. Her new husband has two children, so they have their
own sort of…."
"Chestnut-roasting ’round an open
fire," I joked, and won that sad wry smile from her, the broad
high point of her right upper lip climbing, her lashes falling like
a curtain. I held back from observing that the same mother who had
warned her against all men clearly hadn’t refused herself a little
indulgence—that was way too far out of bounds; but the thought
certainly crossed my mind. "So you’ll be over there on
Christmas day?" I pried instead, anxious for one more glance in
the family closet.
"Christmas morning. I’ll go over so they
can open their presents. I’m skipping Christmas dinner since I’m
going over to Mona’s for supper. She has no one—her only son is
in… Allentown, I think. Pennsylvania… right? The steel town? Too
far for her to travel."
"It’s not very comfortable for you,
though, is it? I mean… at your mother’s. It seems like you don’t
really want to go there, very much."
The fingertips of her raised hands interlaced in
a gesture whose purpose escaped me. All I could think of was the
miraculous elegance of the two thin wrists looping from the pullover
at right angles.
"He’s all right… her husband. And the
little girl, she’s about ten. I get along well with her. Stacey. I
got her a sewing kit. I think she’s really going to be surprised.
But the older boy—well, he’s no boy. He’s about our age."
With a big sigh, she concluded, "I just don’t like being
around him."
Again with the wisdom of age, I have decided that
the inclusion of "he’s about our age" leaves no room for
doubt that this stepbrother, too, had been brushing up against
Celine and pressing her into tight corners. And with the genius of
young intuition, I’m again sure I recognized the same thing then.
I was a little bewildered that, no matter which direction this girl
of my dreams and I walked, some avenue or corridor always opened up
with a bone pile or a burned house at its end. To fight the sense of
impending doom which Celine exuded at such moments drew upon every
ounce of optimistic energy I possessed.
Perhaps that very metaphor of wandering through
some populated labyrinth entered my mind at the time: perhaps it
caused me to turn my eyes out upon the suburban street corners
surrounding our island of concrete and parked cars. At any rate, I
was privy to one more inspiration that evening.
"Christmas lights! I’ll pick you up at
your place tomorrow, and we’ll cruise around and look at Christmas
lights!"
What an idea! A slow tour of the neighborhood’s
decorated house fronts would be blandly holiday-cheerful, it would
save us expenses which neither of us could well afford now, it would
be one of those things of homely intimacy like grocery shopping
(which obviously attracted her as much as me), and it would keep us
moving—would save us from more anguishing confessions. Yes, love
had served me well in my want of wisdom. As she suddenly let herself
out of the car, surprising me a little with the abruptness of the
resolution, Celine caught my wrist and squeezed it, allowing her
chilly fingers to run the length of mine and return for a split
second upon their tips.
The next evening was indeed an idyllic Christmas
Eve for us—perhaps the best of my entire life—but I paid dearly
for it back home. I had rushed through supper, as usual, and was in
the process of mumbling the curt excuses which had become typical of
me. I don’t blame my mother a bit for losing her composure. Now
that I’m a father myself, I can imagine how several evenings of
being sloughed off in this manner must have wounded her. If only
everyone had known about Celine, if only she had been my high school
sweetheart… a parent can accept neglect at such a level, and even
feel sadly happy about it. But how on earth could I explain Celine?
I was aware that I had been utterly, definitively "swept
away" by her, and a young man is ashamed of no emotion before
his parents more than a purely irrational one. He does not want to
give them good cause to mistrust his reason just when he’s trying
to establish his competence for handling life. I couldn’t have
told Mom alone, either. Dad would have been brought into it: Mom
would have run to him instantly. But that actually states my problem
inside-out. If only I could have explained it to Dad, I think he
would have understood. He was a man, and a gentleman, as they used
to say. The honor of devotion would not strike him as
something irrational, but rather as something necessary for
survival. And he would have kept my secret. But I didn’t need a
father-confessor or an advisor: I needed Mom off my tail.
When I got up from the table to leave, her face
grew as slack as if I’d slapped her, and she said (in a voice more
accusatory than plaintive), "I thought we would all go look at
Christmas lights after supper."
It was then that I very nearly spilled the story
about Celine, in two or three sentences and in front of all four of
them. Something like, "I’m going to see a girl, okay? I’ve
been seeing her every night. I have to see her. If you want
to kick me out of the house, I’ll go stay in a motel." Of
course, that would not have been the story about Celine at all, and
I couldn’t possibly have devised a worse way to introduce her to
the family. Fortunately, my own stars are lucky ones, not the
ominous group which tormented Celine. I have always been endowed
with the happy quality of chewing on my words before I spit them
out. My younger brother Roger would, in my shoes at that moment,
have let something fly which nobody present would ever forget. The
tense silence which preceded my own ruthless announcement, however,
was broken by my father, so that announcement was never made.
"You didn’t tell me you wanted to see the
lights," said Dad with mock simplicity.
"Do I have to make an appointment?"
fired back Mom, still aghast—now more than ever—at the
churlishness which had invaded her household. "Are we not a
family any more? Do I just assume that you’re all going to be gone
on Christmas Eve unless I check your schedules? I certainly know
better than to expect anyone to go to midnight Mass any more… but
I thought some of you might at least stay on the premises."
The unwise appeal to the whole table sealed the
defeat of her proposal. My sister Meg would never have opened her
mouth until someone else had taken the brunt of the attack: now she
thought it safe to speak up. "As a matter of fact, Mom… I
told Melanie that I’d stop by tonight. I did mention to you
that they were having a little party." Probably a complete
fabrication, off the cuff. "And anyway, I’ll only be gone
about an hour. We can do something when I get back." Also
completely disingenuous. Three hours minimum, and she knew Mom would
never take her up on her generous compromise.
Mom looked at us all as though we had betrayed
her to the Sanhedrin: it felt more like the Eve of the Crucifixion.
"What about you, Roger? Would you like to drive me around town
to see the lights?"
"Hey, I never said I wasn’t coming,"
said Dad. "The only way you can keep me out is to let Roger do
the driving."
"Why don’t you two go?" shrugged my
younger brother with that aplomb he displayed only in matters
requiring verve. "I was going to watch Mannix."
Everybody probably knew all along that the whole
scene revolved around my strange behavior over the past few days.
Nevertheless, Dad insisted that Mom leave the kitchen alone and get
her coat. There was another flare-up when he asked if I needed his
car again, and I remarked stupidly, "No, mine’s fine in the
cold as long as I don’t let it stop running." Mom overheard,
and unleashed a howl whose split-second insight frightened me:
"So you’re not even going to turn the car off? You’re just
cruising the town?" But I knew by the way that Dad shushed her
up that the real purpose of their jaunt was to have Round Three or
Four or Five about me where they could not be observed. He passed
his keys to me and waved me out the door. Over my shoulder, I heard
arrangements being made to take Meg’s car (which had been
bequeathed to her by Dad, of course), drop her off at Melanie’s,
and pick her up two hours later. Give her an hour more than she’d
said she needed but an hour less than she would have taken:
generosity and discipline in one and the same stroke! That was my
father. God bless his soul, and God forgive me for harrowing one of
his last Christmases.
Honesty compels me to confess that all the
anguish I was putting my mother through, as well as all the noble
sacrifices my father was making on my behalf, passed from my mind as
I sped off through the suburbs, intent upon finding the street which
led to Celine’s apartment complex. I had never appeared on her
doorstep before, but the venue was nothing very revealing. Neither
posh nor the worst that money could buy. I could probably have left
my little Chevy coughing at the curbside while I ran up a flight of
stairs if I had been reduced to traveling third-class—our city
certainly wasn’t crime-free, but the riskier spots were still on
the other side of town. (What idiot thief would have stolen that
car, anyway?) Having Dad’s Buick at my disposal, however, was
unquestionably an ego-booster. I played the grand host that night
precisely as I had intended to do, never getting very personal,
always whisking my lovely but brooding charge away to some new
curiosity. I had taken care to feed our acquaintance with such
moments from the start, a feat of sensitivity which, again, I can
only put down to the genius of love. That evening was pure
neutrality, rich in emotional sugar and carbohydrate, void of
protein. We didn’t settle anything or even broach anything. We
just logged time together. I had intuited that the more our bodies
simply occupied the same proximate space, the better I would be able
to wrestle with Celine’s demons when they could no longer be
avoided.
My good luck also spared me the thought that I
might cross paths with Mom and Dad while cruising the town. That
particular horror only occurred to me in retrospect, as I lay in bed
sleepless and without any ear for reindeer and sleigh bells. In the
very deep retrospect of the present, I rather doubt that my parents
actually went a-gawking as Celine and I had. More likely, Dad had
forced Mom to sit with him through some movie—the sillier the
better—or to calm herself in some overheated ice cream parlor. It
was probably a Christmas Eve that she would never forget,
either.
Celine and I parted very good friends, wishing
each other a merry Christmas. I left her at her door, and she didn’t
offer me any fruitcake or cookies. I think we both understood that
the evening’s "therapy" called for us to stop well short
of whatever intensity was just beneath the surface (and in me, of
course, was the makings of a volcano). I didn’t even kiss her: I
had not yet kissed her once in the four-day eternity that I had
known her, and I wasn’t going to chance the first one now. I just
held her hand until I couldn’t tell if its heat were more mine or
hers.
A major reason that I have difficulty separating
the various settings of our trysts, I think, is Christmas Day. There
it stands in my memory, impossible, incredible, unique. It shouldn’t
even have been in the file. By rights, Celine should have spent the
whole day with her family, I with mine. We were just a couple of
mainstream bourgeois naïfs: what a daring rupture of
convention! One of the oddest things about the occasion, in fact, is
that it so clearly turns oddity right back around in my face. I
was odd! I had created the occasion, I had willed it against all
propriety and common sense. Celine had an excuse to be eccentric—had
several excuses: her split family, her recent health problems, her
sentimental topsy-turviness over the hateful Richard. What was my
excuse? How long had I been floating far adrift from the Standard
Deviation Curve?
In fact, Celine had tried to dissuade me from
meeting on Christmas Day as I had nosed the Buick back before her
apartment the previous evening. The only time she could slip away,
she had said, would be mid-afternoon: she had her mother in the
morning and Mona in the evening. Maybe, she had said, I shouldn’t
chance an exit at such an awkward, observable hour if I was trying
to keep our secret. I hadn’t thought of this myself. It made good
sense—but I remember being more disturbed that I had so
successfully enlisted Celine into keeping our love a secret (her
paranoia was contagious: was she, perhaps, ashamed of me?)
than that I would have to extract myself from a household swelled in
number by two grandparents and probably an aunt’s family. Aunt
Martha’s family… well, the conundrum carried the seeds of its
resolution. Aunt Martha’s family was enough to give anyone cabin
fever, and very plausibly. I would simply arise at three o’clock
and announce that I needed some fresh air (or I would sneak away
behind the bodies, more likely, and whisper a word to Dad). Then I
could walk the six or seven blocks down to a local oasis containing
a drug store, a bakery, and a laundromat. I’d meet her in front of
the drug store, I had exclaimed triumphantly to Celine—and not
without a laugh. On Christmas afternoon, there would be no cars
parked before these businesses, nor any snooping eyes of strolling
adults and biking kids. (But why did I care about the snoopers? I
recall being pinched by that thought, as well.)
Celine’s only objection had then been the
weather, which was predicted to turn very cold. Possible snow
flurries. She had been sincerely, visibly worried about my getting
chilled during my seven-block hike. I had been so delighted by her
concern that I don’t think I ever registered its logical content.
I had said something like, "You really care, then, don’t
you?" and she had answered, with a wounded pout that melted me—whose
mere memory could have warmed me through a blizzard, or so I must
have thought—"Of course I care!"
If I had nevertheless been the least bit bothered
by her protest’s possible lameness ("Is she just afraid to
tell me straight out that she doesn’t want to see me?" I kept
thinking on Christmas Eve between visions of sugar plums), the next
day justified her worries completely. Christmas morning was colder
in broad daylight than the previous evenings had been, and with the
vengeance of a strong north wind. It was a dry cold: a few flakes of
snow milled before our timidly opened drapes, but we saw no
accumulation of white upon the tawny dead lawns about us. Traffic
moved freely, if rarely. Nothing prevented my grandparents from
arriving at their appointed time (and I should say that I genuinely
enjoyed talking with them that morning: my love hadn’t reduced me
to utter boorishness or indifference where third parties were
involved). We opened presents on cue, we had Christmas dinner on
cue, Aunt Martha’s mob arrived on cue just when my family felt
like dozing off (Grandad actually retreated to my room for a nap: he
braved the stairs lest his rest be negated by little feet
pitter-pattering to and from the downstairs bathroom)… everything
went according to plan. Their plan… and mine, too. At the
specified hour minus thirty minutes, I stretched luxuriously—but
not ostentatiously—and sidestepped my way around kids playing with
missile-launchers, comatose adult males, and women of a certain age
murmuring on and on about… well, about subjects like my romance
with Celine, probably, if only they had known. That was why I
had to keep the lid on. I would decide my own fate and live my own
life, thank you very much.
The only snag in my slick escape was Meg. Decorum
absolutely demanded that I tell someone where I was going, and I
chose her as least likely to impede my progress… whereupon she
insisted that she wanted to come, too. She made just enough noise
that Mom, who must have been keeping an eagle-eye out from the
kitchen on my movements, noticed us at the front door. Her hands
folded in her apron, she came staggering toward us across the
marbled foyer floor (doing kitchen work in those dress shoes must
have been comfortable!) without ever a word, glancing over her
shoulder, obviously eager to keep intruders out of whatever family
crisis she thought she was immersed in. Her look was more imploring
than severe. It made me feel guilty as nothing she could say would
have done. I uncorked my well-prepared and ridiculous excuse for
plunging into twenty-degree weather, knowing that my not taking a
car absolved me of all the most desperate sins, knowing also that it
magnified the mystery of my behavior tenfold.
Of course, I instantly forgot about all of these
anxieties after pulling the door behind me. I had anticipated
delivering myself to my most delicious memories of Celine: holding
her tightly to me at the mall, embracing her shivering shoulders in
the park, feeling her fingers on mine as she slid out of Dad’s
car, hearing her object, "Of course I care!" last night…
but the wind, alas, was simply brutal. It knocked everything out of
me, all thoughts guilty and giddy, repentant and ecstatic. It
reduced me to a walking machine, and a very inadequate one. My toes
felt frozen after one block. I was wearing a kind of parka, and the
hood provided a little cover for my ears but also chuted gusts down
behind my neck. I struggled to arrange the forward collar so that it
would cover my mouth and nose. When that effort met with little
success, I pulled on my elastic shirt collar and snuggled my chin
and face down in it as far as I could. All things considered, I
would probably have been all right—seven blocks, after all, is no
trek across the Yukon—if I had just not left so early. It was the
one point in which I had not adhered to my plan. I couldn’t help
myself. At a certain moment, I just had to be off to see Celine.
Add to that the misfortune that Celine was
fifteen minutes late (how I reproached her infidelity as I stomped
along the concrete walkways before the closed stores: was she, then,
not even a little impatient to see me?), and you have the
picture of a thoroughly miserable young man. Did I write
"miserable", and "misfortune"? What blessed
folly, to be twenty-three! Five minutes later, I was the most
transported, passionately raptured human being on the face of the
planet. Her yellow hatchback came wheeling through the empty lot at
a speed which would certainly have drawn attention if any living
soul had stood by to watch. She flung open the door before my gloved
but frozen fingers could reach the handle. I was instantly beside
her—close beside her. Maybe my haste to get in out of the
cold had carried me into the passenger seat before she could vacate
it, or maybe she was reaching to shut the door behind me. Maybe,
too, she was trying to warm me back to life: certainly that, because
she babbled some horrified remark about my face being blue and some
abject apology about not being able to get her car started over at
her mother’s. "They made me park in the street, of
course," she whimpered in my ear as she reached inside my parka
with both hands and pressed my body to hers. Between my coat’s
unwieldy vastness and the gear box’s irritating presence just at
her back, we had both sunk into an impossible position. As I
gathered her around the waist and dug my heels in to right us, my
half-frozen lips slid right across hers. Through the coldness of the
Arctic, I felt the coolness of heaven. I kissed her, and then kissed
her more times than I can count. Between rounds of measuring the
perfection in her lips, her chin, her cheeks, I drew deep, cold
breaths through her frosty hair, and I told the mind contained
therein, "I love you," enough to match the number of our
kisses. I said, "I’m going to spend the rest of my life with
you"—not I want to, but I’m going to. I said,
"The day I don’t have you any more is the day I stop
living." I said, "Nothing that could ever happen to me
could ever matter as long as I have you."
After a while—as her face lay half-buried under
my parka and the winter stung my right shoulder through the window—I
told her that I was going to start putting things in order. I said
that, once I’d finished the spring semester’s course work, I
could begin writing my thesis in earnest, which would not require me
to be on campus regularly. I could even move back here, I said, and
just make the trip to the university when I had to see my advisor. I
could stay there a night or two in a motel, and I could get books
through library loan. Over the summer, as I wrote my thesis, I could
look for counseling jobs. I could get it all set up: in just a few
months, maybe by Christmas next year, we would be all set up.
I said these things rather than repeating,
"I love you," another hundred times because, first of all,
they were what sprang to my tongue, and they sprang there from my
heart. They were what I really felt. There was no maneuvering
involved. To me, describing for Celine my vision of the two of us
permanently, stably together—not my vision, but my very realizable
design—was a way of repeating, "I love you," with force.
Call it bourgeois or crude, if you like. It was at least not naïve:
these were things I could do, even though they all demanded great
energy. She would have seen that, too: she did see that.
Proclaiming that I would have slain a dragon for her would have been
empty bombast, a stain of dishonest excess: revealing to her how I
would muscle a space for us in the adult world was an actual step
into the line of fire. And as for bourgeois, and crude, is it less
of these to want a woman’s body and tell her lies leading to its
capture, or more? If it is bourgeois to lie for money, is it less so
to lie for carnal relief? The joy I felt in kissing Celine and
holding her that day was as much spirit as body. It was one part
now, and one part forever: one part exploring the crease that
bisected her lower lip, and one part caressing a sunbeam. I could
easily cover my tail now before the cynics by reiterating—yet
again—that I was twenty-three. Frankly, though, I was far older
than the cynics then, and I hope I have not regressed.
The leaden lining of this silver cloud was that I
took sick that night. The two women who most ruled my life, and whom
I was terrified of bringing together, had both advised me against my
trek through the cold air, and they were both proved right. I
probably trapped too much moisture in my lungs when I covered my
mouth with my shirt again for the trip back home (for I would not
let Celine drop me off even within a couple of blocks: I think this
foolish stunt was improvised for her eyes as some kind of medieval
sacrifice, like wearing a hair shirt or walking barefoot up a
mountain). Or maybe my body had finally just been taxed too far by
missed sleep, curtailed meals, and hyperventilating anticipation. I
wanted to fight against the despicable weakness of the flesh, of
course, but my rattling cough soon convinced me that I would have to
yield in this particular struggle. My mother seemed strangely
pacified in her grim concern. Her silent frown was a combination of,
"I told you so," and, "Now you’ll have to
stay home."
As severe as was my own disappointment, I
discovered that it, too, was tinged with peace. The last few days
had been like a race, me against my shadow—my love of Celine, my
invincible need to have her, against that other Richard who soiled
and caricatured all our touches and kind words. (Or was it, perhaps,
myself that I was running against—that other Anthony whom two
princesses had cruelly snubbed in college and whom the girls at grad
school regarded as fit fun for a dull weekend?) I had never been a
moment without the fear of failure in the back of my mind, the fear
of having pressed too hard always equaled by that of not pressing
hard enough. Now I was off the hook, for a day or two. I was sick.
There was nothing I could do but loll around in bed. For the next
several dozen hours, I was allowed the luxury of reveling in a great
race finally won.
My one poisonous anxiety upon waking up with a
chill and a cough was that I might not be able to get word to Celine
before evening. I now knew where she worked and could look up the
number… but what if she had taken the day off, or were
unavailable? And when would I be able to get at a phone unnoticed?
(There were two in our house, but neither occupied what you would
call a private position: on the contrary, the jacks seemed to have
been strategically positioned to permit eavesdropping from four or
five directions at once.) The latter problem quickly solved itself.
My mother, satisfied that I was hors de combat, took off with
Dad early in the morning to return several gifts of clothing that
didn’t fit (probably at that same mall where I had met Celine).
Roger was sleeping till noon these days after his grueling nights of
watching whatever movies The Late Show found to throw at him. With
similar predictability, Meg would burst from her room at about
nine-thirty, make a fifteen-second pass through the kitchen (I have
no idea what she imbibed in transit: I could never turn my head fast
enough), and vanish through the garage door in a jingle of keys. The
field was mine, then, by ten o’clock. I could stump miserably,
robed and slippered, to the upstairs phone in full confidence that
my privacy would not be invaded.
It was Celine, in fact, who answered the number I
dialed. "Images Unlimited," her voice chirped through the
receiver, "how may I help you?" My own voice was so
convincing in its raspy morbidity that merely identifying myself was
a greater challenge than explaining my business.
"Richard!" she finally exclaimed in hushed excitement.
"I told you you shouldn’t have come out yesterday!… I’m
glad you did, too, but… no. Yes. Positively, you need to stay in
today. And tomorrow. As long as it takes…. Me, too."
Those were the highlights. I ascribed the
terseness to her being in a room full of other employees, or perhaps
clients whose names she didn’t even know. Certainly the concern in
her whispers sounded genuine. The "me, too" was in
response to my parting, "I love you"—and it was
delivered with feeling, even though it was not verbally embellished.
What could you expect in those circumstances? I would have been far
more uncomfortable if she had advertised effusions in front of
strangers. Celine wasn’t like that: whatever expression of emotion
you got from her was the real thing, and couldn’t be appraised on
the basis of how much noise it made. At that moment, I had
absolutely no doubt that she loved me… nor do I now. Maybe what I
should write is that I hung up without any inkling that another big
bump lay just around the corner. I saw only smooth coasting through
infinite fields in full blossom.
It actually did take me two days in bed—two
evenings without Celine—to recuperate tolerably from my hacking
cough. I’m seeking a seam somewhere in my story now to break off
the chapter, for what was about to happen definitely began a new
chapter in my life, even if it was temporally still attached to the
Christmas holidays. I prefer to leave those first days bundled in
bright foil and bound with a golden ribbon, just as I shall set them
apart in these pages. For there were moments when being with Celine
was pure heaven. The other moments cast a cold, dark shadow over
these, but did not stain them: they always remained the happiest
days of my life—the most blessed, holy days—despite their being
stockaded in depression and paranoia. Even when I realized that, in
some grotesque fashion, they caused the other days—that
extreme happiness somehow threw Celine into a panic, so that she
would crush her head on the pavement rather than wait for the sky to
fall on her—I will never be able to view the good days as anything
other than my making true contact with the true Celine. She loved me
as much as she possibly could. If she perhaps would not have managed
much more than that "me, too" even in complete privacy,
the "me, too" was still a triumphant assertion above the
terrifying voices of her demons.
There were two interesting encounters in my
bedroom over the next two days (they may have come in the same
afternoon: I honestly don’t remember). My mother had removed the
tray of soup and crackers which she’d served me and had come back
to see if I needed anything else. Of course, I’d felt a lot worse
than this at college on occasions and had no one to wait on me hand
and foot, so I was sensitive to her attentions. I never wanted to
hurt her at any stage of this affair—far from it. But there wasn’t
much I could do to keep her from hurting herself. As she retreated
from my room the second time, she hung back and dealt me a long look
which electrified me. I had seen that face, just days ago—but not
on her. The haunting, dark-eyed stare, searching and searching for a
lighter corridor among thick clouds… at last it came to me. The
mall, out in front of the jeweler’s shop—just before I met
Celine. My own reflection in the display window. I remembered how,
as a child, I had often heard it said that I looked more like her
than any of the other children. It was a compliment, for she was a
handsome woman.
"You do know," she finally said at an
impressive crawl, "that Beverly Brady isn’t the same girl she
once was…."
I was astonished. I think my lips started to
frame a gigantic Who? when the name suddenly conjured up
certain very sad associations in me—certain feelings which had
once made me weep. I regrouped, and came back with a question like,
"Did something happen to Beverly?"
"Yes, she… but I thought you knew this,
Anthony! You were the one that first told me, about three summers
ago."
"Oh, that. I thought you meant she’d been
in a car wreck, or something. A drunken car wreck," I couldn’t
help adding in cruel jest.
I had now astonished her, in turn. I think it was
the jest that dumbfounded her, for she had imagined herself to be
charting a course through very delicate waters. She began to work
her wedding ring around and around with the fingers of her right
hand, as she always did when she was extremely perplexed. "But
even though she’s back home now," she said still more slowly—almost
in a drone, "and even though she may appear to have all the
pieces back together again… you should know that appearances can
be deceiving. To protect yourself, you should know. I was talking to
Mrs. Lambert…."
At this point, her voice trailed into nothing.
She must have been waiting for some sign of agitation on my face, or
perhaps of irritation. Instead, I think I must have looked faintly
bored. I pitied Beverly Brady as I pity Dido of Carthage, but the
one was no more real to me then than the other.
"So you haven’t seen Beverly?" she
very nearly whispered.
I sighed and leaned meditatively back on my
pillow. "About a week after senior prom was the last time I was
alone with Beverly, and the last time I saw her at all must have
been the day I graduated from high school."
Obviously, Mom had imagined that she had put all
the pieces together. I should have shown some mercy on her, no
doubt; but instead, I could only keep picturing what mincemeat she
would make of Celine if she had now decided that I needed protecting
from Beverly—Beverly, the good girl whom she herself had
pushed me toward all those years ago. I was probably also slightly
alarmed that, ludicrous though her error was, she had found her way
into the right ballpark. In fact, her intuition about such things
could be unnerving. That I had scored a small victory over it,
therefore, gave rise to a wicked little smirk on my face as the door
closed. I’m not proud of that smirk… but as a middle-aged adult
now, I can say that she had left me no exits where I wouldn’t soil
my knees or elbows. Parents who want their children to keep clean
consciences should not paint them into moral corners.
Either later that afternoon or some time during
the following day’s, my sister Meg also blessed me with a visit.
She came right to the point (as she always did when she intended the
point to be reached at all). Cynthia Cooley (or some such initiate
of her set) insisted that I was in Danforth’s Deli a few days
before Christmas with "this beautiful, beautiful girl".
And then Meg gazed upon me as if I were Mick Jagger. If she had held
a piece of paper in her clasped hands, I would have offered my
autograph.
Immediately I recalled the college incident when
my cousin had sworn up and down before my grandmother that I had
been sighted in some swinging dive a few nights earlier. This
confrontation was part of our family mythology now, thanks largely
to me: I had been deeply offended at the time, and I made sure all
on my side of the family knew it. I could easily have played that
card heavily upon Meg’s eye-witness. I could have lifted my brows
and said, "Hmm, here we go again with these sensational
sightings of your brother being hip in public places." Frankly,
though, I felt far too proud to be vexed, or even alarmed. The
praise which Meg lavished upon my mysterious companion’s unearthly
aura was manna to me. I simply smiled and waited for her to dish out
more.
"Is she really beautiful? Cynthia thinks
everyone’s beautiful who’s not overweight… but she said
really, really beautiful. That’s why you’ve been going out every
night, isn’t it? Are you going to marry her?"
And then she got to the point of her point.
"What will you give me if I don’t tell Mom? Can I have
another charm to go on my bracelet?"
A thought seized me, and I started to laugh. I
laughed some more—I laughed so hard that I careered headlong into
a violent fit of coughing. And then I laughed some more. What if Meg
told Mom? What if she told her that I was courting the most
exquisite girl on earth? It wouldn’t have come from me, so Mom
would harbor no illusions about my soliciting her advice or
approval. (My reluctance to invite her judgment of Celine was
surely at the heart of my not breathing a word to her: I knew that
both discovery and judgment would be bound to happen eventually.)
Maybe this hot scoop from the deli would set some of Mom’s worries
to rest, at any rate. But it would also torment her with new ones.
She would be eaten up by the desire to know more. All in all, it
would be a zero-sum gambit: the losses would match the gains. And
since it wasn’t worth encouraging, the best answer was no answer.
Say nothing. I well knew, having served years of apprenticeship as a
big brother, that teenaged girls observe some unwritten law against
divulging anything to a parent unless they can extract hard cash or
clear profit from it.
"Close the door on your way out," I
croaked weakly as I nestled back under my blankets. "I feel a
swoon coming on."
back to top
********************************
Dr. Palaver
De omnibus pauca, de nullo omnia
Dear Doctor,
In a recent U.S. News and World Report
[September 16, 2002], I noticed the following two very awkward
phrases within three pages! In a story about West Nile Virus, this
sentence: "That’s many times as high as the risk of getting
HIV through blood." Shouldn’t that have been "higher
than"? Then, in a story about human genetic mutation, "The
mutation knocks out the gene for a form of sialic acid, a sugar that
coats cells. Chimps and most animals have this form; humans have
none" (my italics). As I say, these phrases strike me as
very awkward. Are they not just plain ungrammatical? I am also
dumbfounded that such wording could pass under the eye of a
well-paid copy editor and not be red-flagged. What are these editors
supposed to do, if not make reading smoother for those of us who can’t
read the writer’s mind? U.S. News, besides, has always
seemed to me the most "black tie" of the three mainstream
news magazines (Time and Newsweek being the other
two). If the USN staff is incapable of handling the English
language any better than this, then how bad a shape must our whole
culture be in?
Just Want the Facts
Dear Sleuthhound,
We would never presume to pass a judgment upon
the relative merits of weekly news reporting’s Glossy Triad. Let
it suffice to say that if you could compare the 1980 version (or
even 1990 version) of any one of these three with the best of them
today, you would confront unimpeachable witness to the decline of
our writing skills. Besides the two brow-benders which you cite, any
given issue of these publications seems routinely to contain a dozen
patent grammatical errors nowadays.
The use of the equative ("as high as")
in comparative circumstances ("higher than") is on the
border of misuse, but must probably be allowed to slip past. Logic
is more on your side. One building may readily be understood as three
times higher than another, whereas to call it three times as
high as another may invite an instant of discomfort among keen
wits like yours. The latter phraseology has a kind of poker-chip
logic: "I’ll see your building, and I’ll see it again, and
once again," as if three quarters were being smacked down
beside one. On the other hand (and by the same token, since we have
dealt ourselves into this metaphor), the poker-chip visualization does
make sense in its context. Think of situations involving
"twice". We say "twice as fast", not "twice
faster than"—and so we should, for "once faster
than" would be nonsense, whereas "once as fast" could
be glossed as "equally fast". What "twice" means
is "just as fast, and once again as fast". Of course,
"twice" is a legitimate adverb on its own. Strictly
speaking, "many times" should be used adverbially only in
a prepositional phrase, though such stickling is now archaic. In
your instance and related instances, the preposition "by",
as in "by many times", has been suppressed because
its intent may be assumed. Now, would you say, "The risk is as
high by many times," or, "The risk is higher by many
times"? The comparative option (the second choice) is
indisputably the better: the first option looks periphrastic enough
to excite an attorney.
I might mention a pet peeve in passing: the
popular abuse, "as high or higher", "as fast or
faster", and so on. The equative expression must be completed
before one shifts into a comparative expression: "as fast as
or faster". This is the sort of gaff which goes everywhere
unremarked today, even in the most highly reputed sources, and it is
simply not defensible except in telegrams, last-breath confessions,
or reconnaissance missions behind enemy lines.
In a postscript to my digression, I might also
add that I recently heard a character on the relatively high-brow
primetime drama, Law and Order, observe while pondering a
seven-out-of-twenty statistic, "That’s almost a third."
To at least one professional scriptwriter, one highly remunerated
copy editor, one director, one actor, and countless other cue-card
flashers, crewmen, stage hands, and camp followers, seven is almost
a third of twenty! I already knew that Americans can’t read;
know I suspect that we can’t count. The confusion over equatives
and comparatives may quite possibly have more to do with
mathematical than grammatical incompetence.
Your second faux pas is a clear case of an
excessively remote antecedent—the kind of thing which
freshman-comp teachers destroy their eyes and numb their brains
correcting ad nauseam and to no apparent end. The
"none" which humans (or their cells, to be exact) possess
is sialic acid. Yet the previous clause has substituted
"form" for "acid" as the noun of impending
reference, and the demonstrative adjective "this" stands
as a signpost in case we should lose our way. Unfortunately,
"none" always implies a partitive genitive (as we used to
say in Latin class): none of it, none of them; and
"form", by definition, resists any sort of internal
quantification. Half a mold is good for nothing. You can’t have
more or less of a form as you can of an acid: you either have it or
you don’t. Sloppy, sloppy writing! Even without Latin, a
professional writer should have enough "ear" to shy away
from this one.
back to top
Praesidium
Archive
The Center for Literate
Values |
|