“There is always a best way of doing everything, if it be to boil an egg. Manners are the happy ways of doing things.”–Ralph Waldo Emerson

Today, my post takes off (at least, I hope  it will fly) from the topic of manners to a general discussion of the best ways of doing things.  Doing things, that is, so as to be not only understood but also loved and valued by those around us, and not only appreciated for our best qualities but also forgiven for our worst.  And it all starts with a little exemplum or fable told to my brother and myself by our mother when we were small.  Not that I am necessarily an example of the best way of doing things, though I often aspire in that direction, but that these things are usually best inculcated when people are young and just learning their first steps of behavior in social settings (and what are any of our settings but social settings, since we are social beings first and foremost, as we have been often told by social scientists, sociologists, psychologists, and the like?).  Here’s how the story goes:

There was once a very rich and fashionable hostess who loved to give extravagant dinner parties and afternoon teas alike.  Everyone who was anyone came to her parties, and had the time of their lives, even though the parties were somewhat formal and even occasionally a bit stuffy.  They discussed her behind her back with a great deal of indulgence for this formal, stuffy quality, loving it too because they loved her.

At a certain party, when a host of literary lights were in attendance, one guest in especial was watching our hostess and her arrangements, a society page writer who lived just on the edge of penury, but who was usually asked as a particular act of kindness toward the hostess’s cousin, who was a good friend of his.  In looking around the table, he noted who was there, what was served, and made mental notes of the sparkling conversation, planning his column carefully for the next day, and modestly determined to give the hostess as good a write-up as possible, in exchange for tolerating his humble presence at her party.

Everything went along just fine, until the very end of the main course, when the salad was served (European style, instead of before the meal, American style).  Aswim in a sea of positive emotions and not a little of wine, the writer looked down to discover that there was a huge fat worm in his salad!  What to do, what to do?  At the very next moment, while he was pondering his dilemma, he noticed that the hostess, with a carefully disguised expression of horror on her face, had noticed exactly the same thing, the worm in his salad.  Their glances crossed.  He hesitated only a second.  Heroically, he pronged a fork into exactly the bite of salad with the worm, placed it in his mouth, and chewed and swallowed.  He was rewarded the next minute by the hostess’s warm and glowing smile radiating down the table and bathing him in its effulgent glow.  It all seemed worth it, though the worm had tasted a little bittersweet.

He really had reason to think it was worth it, however, six months later, when the hostess passed away and left him as her only heir.  And he never told a soul what it was all about, though many people speculated that he had been an autumn romance of hers, or that she had left him money in exchange for his article about her dinner parties as a whole, which really wasn’t even a probable motive.

Now, one might feel that in the telling this story appealed too much to a child’s (nearly innate) “get-rich-quick-by-being-a-suck” tendency, except for the manner in which the story was told.  For my mother was quick to point out that it was only good manners not to tell, and that ordinarily no one could expect to be left potloads of money in exchange for merely obeying the dictates of good manners.  In vain I pointed out that the writer could merely have surreptitiously lifted the worm out onto the table or floor; yet I too was cognizant of his magnanimity in actually eating the worm and thus hiding it from all eyes.

And perhaps here’s the lesson (I always cozy up to a good moral):  when we find a fault, while pointing it out may be meritorious in the sense of keeping to exactitude, sometimes hiding a fault (in someone else) is far more honorable, and may have unexpected and not-to-be-calculated-upon benefits besides.  These benefits extend not only from others to us (in which case they appreciate us more because we hang fire and don’t criticize them for qualities or acts which perhaps they can’t help), but from us to us ourselves (in which case we learn to judge ourselves more generously as well, knowing that we held our fire).  As Shakespeare’s Portia from “The Merchant of Venice” has it, “The quality of mercy is not strained….”  And that’s my post for today.

2 Comments

Filed under A prose flourish, Other than literary days....

Mark Twain and the importance of deceit in civilization– “Is He Living or Is He Dead?”

Having recently taken into my home yet another waif of a volume found on my local library’s “free” shelf, I began to peruse it this morning and found that Mark Twain, as many of you already know by having read his works, is not only a yarn-spinner but a liar extraordinare.  And he’s proud of the fact!  At least, his writing persona is proud of the fact in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way.  And all you have to do is think back on almost any Twain fiction, essay, or diatribe to see that lying is not only one of his favorite topics, but one of his favorite pastimes, from “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” to the smallest and least significant essay.  If he’s not advocating a falsehood, he’s practicing one in the full knowledge that the reader is most likely in on the joke, though different readers may have different reactions, some readers being complacent and some of them uncomfortable.

The volume I found myself closeted with this morning was entitled The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg and Other Stories and Essays, and was a reprinted volume put together from several other reprinted volumes at some point in time by P. F. Collier and Son Co. in a Harper Brothers edition, a publishing history that reeks of some of Twain’s own invented lines of fictional descent and which would have delighted the great man himself.  In an aside in an essay entitled “My First Lie, and How I Got Out of It,” Twain remarks, “….[A]ll people are liars from the cradle onward, without exception, and…they begin to lie as soon as they wake up in the morning and keep it up, without rest or refreshment, until they go to sleep at night.  If [my parents] arrived at that truth it probably grieved them–did, if they had been heedlessly and ignorantly educated by their books and teachers; for why should a person grieve over a thing which by the eternal law of his make he cannot help?  He didn’t invent the law; it is merely his business to obey it and keep still; join the universal conspiracy and keep so still that he shall deceive his fellow-conspirators into imagining that he doesn’t know that the law exists.”  Of course, in this essay Twain writes a lot about “the lie of silent assertion,” in which people pretend that nothing is wrong when something actually is.  But this quote still distributes itself equably over many situations when people lie out loud about something, as well as practicing the silent lie of assent.

The story in question which I’m commenting on today is one called “Is He Alive or Is He Dead?” from the same volume, and its comedy relies on the fact that often people don’t know 1) who a famous artist is 2) whether he or she is alive or dead and 3) what the value of his or her paintings actually is.  Nor do they want anyone to know that they don’t know, another stock comic device as well as often being an actual fact about people.  In this story, four starving artists (the actual famous artist François Millet makes a cameo appearance) are trying desperately to think of a way to make a living, when nearly no one will buy any of their pictures.  The narrator is one of them, and he lists Millet and two other artists (whom he names Claude Frère and Carl Boulanger) who are in this predicament.  Putting their heads together, they decide to achieve fame via the well-known assertion that dying often makes an author or artist famous whereas he or she could not achieve this status in life by any means.  Taking this as the inspiration for their deception, they “make” Millet the artist who will “die” (actually in their plan he retreats to live in private, hiding while pocketing his share of the proceeds), and so they all paint lots of pictures and studies and sketches as “students” of “the famous Millet” (as they talk him up to people they meet), and he paints many pictures as well.  The other three give out that he is dying or near to dying when they try to sell his paintings and their own studies, and of course the ploy works, and they all become not only respected but much richer than they would otherwise have been.

This case of fradulent art practice is one with which many people can sympathize as long as it’s a case of comedy written by Twain, in which the in extremis condition of starving while trying to make a living off something as high-minded as one’s art provides the average reader with the impetus towards sympathy.  But an art dealer, for example, even one gifted with a genuine interest in tangled histories of art provenance, might be smiling or grimacing even a little more wryly than the average reader in following the artistic quartet’s adventures.  For, there’s a formula to be used in bringing off this kind of artistic triumph, and it goes something like this:  a) a serious situation or need that most or all readers can sympathize with; b) an ingenious idea, so ingenious that the reader feels the temptation of the characters’ own desire to see it employed; c) a discussion of whether or not it’s honest and safe, a strategem which allows the author to engage the reader even more thoroughly by exploring what most people ask themselves about any course of action, whether they have the moral stomach for it and whether it’s any use to try it.  This is a key element in the formula, because it enables the writer to get the convinced reader even more fully on the characters’ side.  Next follows d) at least one example of the stratagem successfully employed, and then the plot is taken as having been acted upon, so there’s no reason not to go on practicing the deceit in question (in terms of the moral equation which says “to lie once is to lie always,” not true if you believe in reformation of character, but nevertheless true in the sense of the story’s fictional structure).  In this case, this last step is a continuation of the fiction that the famous artist (Millet, having become famous in fiction as well as being famous in non-literary fact) is dead.

The entire story is enclosed within an exterior story in which one of the four artists, now a rich man (whom the external narrator “disguises” by naming him “Smith”) tells him the inset story of the four artists because they have seen another rich man (who it turns out is Millet, living under an alias) go out the door of the hotel, and “Smith” wants to tell the narrator the tale.  Why he should want to reveal Millet’s secret to a comparative stranger is the one weak point in the story, but it’s more or less successfully glossed over by the knowledge most people have of quick familiarities between people who travel and end up telling their own life stories to people they meet on the way, comfortable in the knowledge that most likely they won’t see them again.

But there’re two more layers of deceit practiced in this story, and one is that of “Smith,” who see “Millet” and tells the external narrator the story:  it’s the layer in which someone tells an incredible story, and then as proof takes a match out of their pocket and says challengingly, “You don’t believe me?  Here’s the match I had in my pocket when it happened!”  Of course, Smith doesn’t say this to the narrator, but he might as well have–for what’s to prove that the man named Smith isn’t a congenital liar who just happens to see the man he calls “Millet” and dreams up a tale about him, or a creatively inspired liar (a writer!) like Twain?  And then, there’s Twain himself, that arch-fabulist of all fabulists, behind the scenes, no doubt chuckling over every word, even from wherever he is now (and we all know where we go when we keep company with The Father of Lies, as the devil is popularly called)–yet who can help but believe that when confronted with such a solid satirical moralist (as Twain often is) that some god didn’t pass him along to heaven anyway?

6 Comments

Filed under A prose flourish, Articles/reviews, Literary puzzles and arguments

“Believe one who has proved it. Believe an expert.”–Virgil

Yesterday, I wrote a short post to let my readers know that I was experiencing some trouble with my site, and that I wasn’t sure of the ramifications or the extent of the time necessary for corrections.  Just now, after I sat like a nervous “biddie” (“broody”) hen over my computer all morning, my “view by country” stats were back up, and I once more was able to see the fascinating places that my readers come from, and how many of you are from each country, and I was also able to stop worrying about other forms of impending blogsite doom that might be in the works.

This post today is a small and totally inadequate “thank-you” to those “19 Happiness Engineers” who’ve been working so hard behind the scenes to restore order to a gazillion people’s websites on all sorts of different issues.  They were rapid to respond, and didn’t ask me to do anything I was unable to understand, which isn’t always the case when computer gurus give me instructions, due to the fact that I don’t always use the correct lingo to describe my difficulties, and they speak the language perfectly.  Hence the title of my post, from Publius Vergilius Maro, otherwise known as Virgil:  “Believe one who has proved it.  Believe an expert.”  I followed their instructions, and lo and behold!  things are working perfectly again!  Assuming that all continues to go well, I’ll be writing another literary or “essay” post again soon, on one of my standard topics.  And thanks to all those who have continued to be patient with my site, whether experts or readers and fellow bloggers.  We all need these humbling lessons of help from our fellows now and then, and I’m just glad mine was of so gentle a nature.  See you soon!

6 Comments

Filed under A prose flourish, Other than literary days....

A spot of trouble here, folks! And a sincere hope that it’s nothing serious!

Early this morning, when I got on my site to check my stats, I found that my stats by country were showing the circular icon rotating around and around.  After a few hours of perplexity, I contacted the helpful folks at WordPress.com support, and got a gratifying and nearly immediate response about re-setting my browser, complete with instructions that were copious and detailed.  I followed the instructions, but continued to have difficulties with my site, some of which I can only describe to those at WordPress.com, who are trying to help everyone as best they can, as I understand it.

The problem is that they are suddenly in the news, in the sense that there are numerous additions and changes being made which could benefit everyone, but which are costing some people money, of which I don’t have a lot to contribute at this point.  Therefore, their support page announces now that they will help people in the order in which they come, subscribers to the WordPress.org and the paid upgrade subscribers first.  I do have ambitions eventually to be able and to find it necessary to purchase more space, but cannot do so now, and therefore I’m in a waiting line to be helped with my problems.  This post is not intended as criticism; I’m just letting my readers know that if they don’t hear from me immediately, or if the site suddenly goes down, I’m here on the other side still trying to get the site back up, to the best of my not-very-computer-literate abilities.  And I hope and trust that as usual the guru folks at WordPress.com will be able to help me in that eventuality, as they have done many times in the past.

If all is well, I hope to publish again in the next day or two; if I hit a snag or delay, it may take a little longer.  Here’s to success on all our parts, and thanks for reading so far.  It makes the pain of becoming slowly more computer-literate all worthwhile.

Leave a comment

Filed under Other than literary days....

The unity and interplay of comedy and horror in the tales of Saki (H. H. Munro)

Many years ago, when I was just a teenager and had a part-time job which allowed me a generous disposable income to spend on books and records, I bought an omnibus edition of The Complete Works of Saki.  Though I didn’t understand fully what “mafficking” was, I was enchanted by the lilt and insouciance of one particular verse, which ran thus:  “Mother, may I go and maffick,/Tear around and hinder traffic?”  Later I came to know that Mafeking was a town in South Africa where the Boer War was fought, and that “mafficking” was wild and boisterous celebration upon achieving a victory (for example, in warfare).  But playful strewing about of place-names from the Victorian and Edwardian eras and warfare in jest weren’t the whole of the charm of Saki’s stories, verses, and plays.  He has a particular gift for uniting comedy and horror with the emphasis in one story being on one of the two elements, and on just the opposite in another story.  Two stories which play with this uncanny combination, a combination which I have remarked upon before as being particularly effective in conveying both parts of the equation, but especially the chill that runs down one’s spine at a good horror story, are “Gabriel-Ernest” and “The Open Window.”  The first has a tinge of comedy and is otherwise a short horror story; the second seems to be a horror story at first, but keeps the surprise about the jest until the very last sentence of the story, and builds up excellently to that point.  The first story, “Gabriel-Ernest,” works by contrast by starting out with the outré note in the first sentence.

In Gabriel-Ernest, an artist named Cunningham informs his friend Van Cheele in the first sentence that “There is a wild beast in your woods.”  When Van Cheele responds to this by insisting that the “wild beasts” are limited to a fox and a few weasels, Cunningham takes back his remark, but it gives the reader pause.  The next day, when he goes to visit his own property on a ramble, Van Cheele finds a young boy, totally naked, stretched out full length by a pool, sunning himself.  We are told his eyes are light-brown, “so light that there was almost a tigerish gleam in them” and that they watch Van Cheele “with a certain lazy watchfulness.”  When Van Cheele challenges him as to his presence there, the boy says that he lives on “flesh,” and from there on, Van Cheele is on the losing side of the dialogue.  He keeps trying to make ordinary sense of what the boy says and does, but the boy succeeds in intimidating him physically, and the next day, after Van Cheele has been considering that a lot of small animals and a child or two have gone missing lately, the boy turns up naked again, in Van Cheele’s morning-room this time.  When Van Cheele becomes angry and challenges him again, the boy responds with wild equanimity, “You told me I was not to stay in the woods.”

Van Cheele’s aunt comes in and is promptly deceived by the two of them, the boy because he sits indolently under the copy of the “Morning Post” which Van Cheele hurriedly drapes over him, Van Cheele because he can’t seem to recognize just what’s wrong, though he knows that something is very, very wrong.  He decides that he will have to contact Cunningham and take his opinion about the situation, so he unadvisedly leaves the boy in his aunt’s care and his aunt when he leaves is “arranging that Gabriel-Ernest [their name for the “adopted” boy] should help her to entertain the infant members of her Sunday-school class at tea that afternoon.”  Cunningham tells Van Cheele that the boy had vanished right in front of him and to a further query says, “on the open hillside where the boy had been standing a second ago, stood a huge wolf, blackish in color, with gleaming fangs and cruel, yellow eyes.”

We are next told that Van Cheele “did not stop for anything as futile as thought.”  He thinks of sending a telegram to his uncomprehending aunt, but realizes that “‘Gabriel-Ernest is a werewolf’ was a hopelessly inadequate effort at conveying the situation, and his aunt would think it was a code message to which he had omitted to give her the key.”  The story’s ending smiles and leers at us just as wolfishly as Gabriel-Ernest himself, an ending in which when the “boy” and the infant with him disappear, the aunt concludes that Gabriel-Ernest has jumped into the water to save the infant and that both have drowned, and sets up a brass plaque in the parish church.  The last line, smirking at us and our readerly discomfort, reads:  “Van Cheele gave way to his aunt in most things, but he flatly refused to subscribe to the Gabriel-Ernest memorial.”

In “The Open Window,” the quantity of horror to comedy is reversed, though the dead pan delivery of comedy at the last line occurs again.  A guest, Framton Nuttel, who is taking a cure for his nerves by paying a set of “formal visits on a set of total strangers,” finds himself sitting in Mrs. Sappleton’s living room talking to her fifteen year old niece.  The niece tells him what seems like a perfectly lucid story of how his aunt has had a “great tragedy” in her own life three years previously.  As she explains it, “Out through that [large French window], three years ago to a day, her husband and her two young brothers went off for their day’s shooting.  They never came back….Poor aunt always thinks that they will come back some day, they and the little brown spaniel that was lost with them, and walk in at that window just as they used to do[,]…her youngest brother[]singing, ‘Bertie, why do you bound?’….Do you know, sometimes on still, quiet evenings like this, I almost get a creepy feeling that they will all walk in through that window–“.  Well, the niece has clearly set the scene.  In comes the aunt and keeps looking out the window with anticipation, which chills the marrow of the young visitor, because he’s nervous and he believes what the niece has told him of her aunt’s mental obsession.  He tells them about his own illness in an effort to stem his rising nerves as the aunt keeps watching the window.  Finally, she leaps up and says “Here they are at last!….Just in time for tea, and don’t they look as if they were muddy up to the eyes!”  But when Mr. Nuttel faces the niece sympathetically, she too is looking out the window with a horrified look on her face.  When he looks out, he does indeed see three figures carrying hunting guns and a little spaniel, and hears a hoarse voice singing “Bertie, why do you bound?”.  “Framton grabbed wildly at his [walking-]stick and hat; the hall-door, the gravel-drive, and the front gate were dimly noted stages in his headlong retreat.  A cyclist coming along the road had to run into the hedge to avoid imminent collision.”  The people converging on the room (all of whom are actually alive) discuss the mystery of his rapid departure, and the aunt says, “A most extraordinary man….could only talk about his illnesses, and dashed off without a word of good-bye or apology when you arrived.  One would think he had seen a ghost.”

The niece, however, is equal to this occasion too, and so is “Saki.”  In the penultimate paragraph of the story, the niece says, “I expect it was the spaniel….he told me he had a horror of dogs.  He was once hunted into a cemetery somewhere on the banks of the Ganges by a pack of pariah dogs, and had to spend the night in a newly dug grave with the creatures snarling and grinning and foaming just above him.  Enough to make anyone lose their nerve.”  As the final line of the story runs, in Saki’s wonderfully condensed tongue-in-cheek explanation:  “Romance at short notice was her speciality.”

Many of Saki’s stories use the combination of the horrific chill and the comic chuckle, but the two above are certainly among the most well-known of them all.  As the Introduction’s writer Noël Coward says of Saki, “Many writers who raise youthful minds to a high pitch of enthusiasm are liable, when re-read in the cold remorseless light of middle age, to lose much of their original magic.  The wit seems laboured and the language old-fashioned.  Saki does not belong to this category.  His stories and novels appear as delightful and…sophisticated…as they did when he first published them.  They are dated only by the fact that they evoke an atmosphere and describe a society which vanished in the baleful summer of 1914.  The Edwardian era…must have been, socially at least, very charming.  It is this evanescent charm that Saki so effortlessly evoked.”  Why not have a glance through some of Saki’s stories and pay a visit to that world of “evanescent charm” for yourself?  All you have to lose is your solemnity.

6 Comments

Filed under Articles/reviews

The tenets of friendship–(it has no tenets, only a soul.)

This is the time of year for lists of things, or at least this is the time of year when people are persuaded that it’s good to follow a list of things:  New Year’s resolutions, for example.  And there are dieting checklists, and exercise checklists, and lists of types of behavior to follow in the quest for a successful job interview.  There are even checklists to follow in choosing the new family pet, the new family car, and the most recent repair people to visit the house.  We are simply inundated with lists of organized considerations for how to do, how to ask, how to be.  Is it any wonder that it occurs to me to write a list (or at least to think that it’s once again time for someone to write a list) of the tenets of friendship, the more especially as this is the time of year when we are reevaluating things and people in our lives, and deciding which ones will continue to “do,” and which ones simply won’t?

The problem is, as I am sitting here typing, it occurs to  me that in the deepest sense, friendship has no tenets, but only a soul (because if you have to make rules, it means you’re playing a game, not living a life).  And I ask myself, what is the best way to conceive of the love of friendship, without setting out a whole host of considerations for tying tight knots and binding others in uncomfortable ways which speak more of the ardors of Fifty Shades of Grey than of a loving and equal relationship?  And it follows that I find myself thinking of some of the nicer and more resonant things said by writers and poets about friendship.  Here’s a few of them:

As George Noel Gordon, Lord Byron once wrote, “L’Amitié Est l’Amour sans Ailes” (Friendship is Love without his wings!”).  A moment’s thought and a brief factoid about Byron’s private life will inform the average reader that this means that while Love may fly away, true Love (Friendship) doesn’t, in the poet’s august opinion.  Certainly, Byron was an authority on Love with women flying away, whatever he was on the subject of Friendship.

As to the unknown features of what makes friendship tick, as Ibycus said in 580 B.C., “An argument needs no reason, nor a friendship.”  Thank God, that saves us making another list, a list about what makes friendship! (Though I suppose I’m coming close to doing so in this post.)  Probably this will remind most people of the friendships they formed either while young in age or young at heart, those friendships that just seem to depend on a certain proclivity for the other’s company that isn’t easy to explain.

Speaking for the vitality and occasional storminess of friendship, the Marquise de Sévigné once said, “True friendship is never serene.”  I suppose that means that a living, growing friendship keeps us always on our toes, because as it grows we have to grow and change with it, to accomodate its differences and the changes of the other person(s).  Ralph Waldo Emerson expatiated even more on this thought by saying in his Uncollected Lectures:  Table Talk:  “Keep your friendships in repair.”  Not a bad thought, though I hope it doesn’t make you feel tired when you are hovering here on the brink of a new year and just getting started with another winter season.

Following from the last paragraph above, I think of one of my own favorite poetic disquisitions on the difference between friendship and enmity, by William Blake, called “A Poison Tree,” based on the metaphor of boys stealing apples from others’ orchards.  I’ll quote it in full, from David V. Erdman’s Doubleday Anchor edition of The Poetry and Prose of William Blake:

“I was angry with my friend; I told my wrath, my wrath did end./I was angry with my foe;/I told it not, my wrath did grow,/And I watrd it in fears,/Night & morning with my tears:/And I sunned it with smiles,/And with soft deceitful wiles./And it grew both day and night./Till it bore an apple bright./And my foe beheld it shine./And he knew that it was mine./And into my garden stole,/When the night had veild the pole;/In the morning glad I see;/My foe outstretchd beneath the tree.”  This poem is a bit overbalanced by the “poison apple” motif (which of course like evil or negative outcomes in other poetry and fiction is more “dramatic” and so gets more “airplay” than the good and the happy), but the first two lines contain the true moral of the story, not the “twisted” moral which is the subject of examination in this poem as it is contained in Blake’s “Songs of Experience.”  “I was angry with my friend; I told my wrath, my wrath did end” is the happy ending of the poem, though it occurs at the beginning, and Blake gives us a “taste” of the poison of the apple festering in the speaker’s soul so that we are also “outstretchd beneath the tree” if we don’t see that.  Of course, we’ve probably all had situations in which we’d like gleefully to see a “foe” at a disadvantage, and temptation being what it is, I can’t deny that the negative part of the poem has a real force to it, but having written my share of poetic and literary broadsides about people who’ve offended me in some way or other, I can tell you that I generally prefer sharing anger straightforwardly with friends to letting resentment build up for months or years and getting even with persons who’ve become enemies instead of friends.  This is because focusing on anger and negative emotions I’ve felt toward enemies causes me to “taste the poison” again too, and I would far rather be “keeping my friendships in repair” than revisiting old quarrels (though quarrels are so very good for fiction and poetry that I am occasionally inconsistent).

Finally, the timing of friendship’s formation is an uncertain measure, more like a sea (and a boundless soul) than something from a checklist of characteristics.  As James Boswell said, “We cannot tell the precise moment when friendship is formed.  As in filling a vessel drop by drop, there is at last a drop which makes it run over; so in a series of kindnesses there is at last one which makes the heart run over.”

The factors listed above are some of the things I would consider important when attempting to suggest what I think the soul of friendship is.  But there’s one more thing that I consider valuable, and that is that my friends (and many of you who respond to my writings, whether by this blogsite or by e-mail, are friends)–my friends are those who encourage me when they see me at my best, who may shake their heads privately at me when they see me at my worst but still bear with me, and who tell me what they think, even when I offend or irritate them.  They are people who are working at keeping their friendships in repair and who don’t plot to feed me poison apples, and they are worth loving for those features alone, though they have others equally endearing.  So this is my time to say “Thank you” to all of you who have participated in reading and/or commenting on my blog for the last six months, since July 4 when I started writing here on WordPress.com.  Thank you for being first willing readers then interested acquaintances, then finally friends who tell me what they’re up to and who also give me good reads on their own sites and in their own forums to keep me going.  I appreciate all your comments, and hope you will keep reading and continuing to “feed” the soul of friendship by keeping them coming!

7 Comments

Filed under A prose flourish, Literary puzzles and arguments

The love of death and the death of love, and how they are connected in one sad story.

I’m about to do something I don’t ordinarily do, and that is to write about real people.  Real people, that is, as opposed to characters based on real people.  For you see, I always like to protect the privacy and feelings of actual persons I know by soft-peddling, and disguising, and rewriting to cover up people’s identities.  It doesn’t seem fair, somehow, to put my own impressions about people and their vagaries down on paper for all the world to see when sometimes those same people don’t have an equal opportunity to respond about me.  And of course, I don’t want to give them the chance to respond about me, because I like to think that I am as sensitive as they are, and as likely to be hurt.  But now that years and years have elapsed since these people were in the same constellation of social stars (not movie stars, because we all have a tendency to believe that they in some degree deserve what they get, for putting themselves out there for everyone to see)–now that years have passed, and these people are doubtless doing other things perhaps nearly as foolish as what they once did, but with different people in tow, or perhaps some of them have learned how to do otherwise, it’s high time to comment on what I believe is the essence, philosophically speaking, of what drew them to each other, and what tore them apart.  That’s a promising start for a love story, isn’t it?  Telling you what’s going to happen before the ending comes.  But since what I’m concentrating on isn’t the drama or the plot or the setting, but the philosophical underpinnings of their connection, perhaps you will find that you don’t mind so much.  Consider it a free and edifying if not very exciting short story, if you like.  And if it keeps you from making similar mistakes, you can give me a mental footnote someday!

First of all, there was a young man, a man in his mid-twenties, who had read a few too many cranky old philosophers like Schopenhauer and who found them “romantic,” though he would never have used this expression to himself, because that would’ve been “sentimental.”  And if there was one thing this young man didn’t want to have a reputation for being, it was “sentimental.”  No, he was a hard thinker, to his own mind, and liked to pose a bit (more than a bit, actually) as a philosopher himself.  He was very fond of bringing up about Nietzsche, when lecturing (for he was a lecturer in a large university, a teaching assistant, in fact) that Nietzsche had had syphilis, and was crazed as well as inspired.  It’s not, of course, that no one needed to know that, because like all facts about authors and philosophers, it’s fair game.  It’s rather that he liked alerting his mostly youthful students to the facts of life, of which syphilis is certainly one, and that he liked to flirt with dangerous ideas, such as whether or not being crazed and inspired were actually the same thing.  Nor is it that he wanted anyone to think that he himself had syphilis (which in one light would explain his obsession with talking about it) but that he was himself inspired and just a bit (romantically) crazed was something he didn’t mind having people think, if they really insisted upon thinking about him, which it was certainly agreeable that they should.  It was even more unusual that Nietzsche should come up so often, because the young man–we’ll call him Walter–wasn’t a lecturer in philosophy, rather he was a teaching assistant in English.  The students had of course heard of Nietzsche in their philosophy classes, history classes, and psychology courses in passing.  But Walter’s students were tempted to titter after a few times of hearing quotes from Nietzsche applied to other texts:  “Oh man, here we go again,” about summed up their reaction.

Now, if there was one thing that Walter was in love with more than Nietzsche and syphilis, it was death.  He didn’t think of it as a dangerous thing to be in love with, because of course so many of the great authors were in love with it too, or gave the appearance of being.  The fact that they were great and he was small and insignificant by comparison didn’t occur to him, because of course when Walter read the great authors (aloud to his students, particularly), he participated in their greatness, became as great and as noble and as dark and depressed as they themselves were, and that was all to the good, because being in love with death made life worth living.  And there was an added feature of appeal:  it made Walter’s young wife Isobel angry with him when he quoted from the great depressives, and it made his young female students fall in love with him.  And those two things taken together were a heady combination!  Why, death was the ticket to fame and fortune and love and all those other things Walter sat in his carrel in the library and dreamed about when he was supposed to be marking papers.  It was Death personified who dictated a good number of those forbidding remarks and rejoinders Walter penned in black marker on the papers themselves, remarks and rejoinders that put his students in their respective places in the order in which Walter figured they understood about things that he himself valued, with Death at the top of the list and his least significant student at the bottom.

There was, however, one student who took Walter a little more seriously than the rest, and she (for it was a she) was determined to join him in his celebration of darkness and despair.  She even had a motive for her feelings, a genuine motive of the heartfelt sort which Walter lacked, for Walter was worshiping Death as a concept, and Ilse (we’ll call her Ilse) had a more emotional motive for putting Death in such high regard, and it was that Walter was already taken and not available for late-night coffee klatches and romantic (there’s that word again!) walks by the pond below the campus, and–but wait!  As it turns out, Walter was available for these things, only he observed a due amount of circumspection in making himself accessible to Ilse (or at least he thought he was circumspect.  The fact that I can tell you about this couple lets you know that they weren’t as circumspect and proper in public and private as they thought they were being, or no one else would ever have found out).

And finding out was of course what Isobel did too, because Walter, in the wallowing in despair which he foisted upon everyone included in the situation, talked a long time about Death and sadness and lack of enjoyment of life and more about Death, until finally Isobel flattered his ego enough to pry out of him exactly what was on his mind (which wasn’t really Ilse, though he pretended it was, but was in fact only Walter himself).

Ilse’s respect for Death came about only after much suffering and sorrowing and the realization that Walter wasn’t worth the psychic and emotional “paper” he was written on, whereas Death was a real thing, a real foe, something to be feared and fought off until it could be no longer fended away.  And that’s where the death of Love comes in.  Because Ilse, after having experienced the love of Death second-hand through Walter, now experienced the death of Love.  Which, now that I come to think about it, makes this a happy story after all, not a sad one, since it would’ve been far sadder to remain in love with Walter than to lose all interest in him, as Ilse, and later Isobel, to judge by their later courses of action, certainly did.

I’m sorry for having promised a sad story and having in fact delivered the very opposite, but since Ilse and Isobel are two happy people at this date and Walter is still alive (though still Walter), you’ll have to figure for yourself that if you want a sad story, you’re going to have to ask Walter for his version:  people who fall in deep love with Death demonstrably have little or no sense of humor.

4 Comments

Filed under A prose flourish

Finality is only another word for the movement’s natural ending, and every ending contains the seeds of a new beginning.

We are still in the depths of a winter in the temperate zone, and it’s cold, and nothing is growing much outside in the snow/freezing rain/or at the very least, frigid temperatures.  But let’s release the organic metaphor that governs many a mode of thought for the moment, and say that though each finality is a sort of natural ending of some movement or other (whatever sort of growth or development the movement might be), each ending contains the seeds of a new beginning.  Seeds are stored up in the frozen ground beneath our feet, waiting for the sun to come out on days when the temperature likewise is gentle and mild, and though we can’t see the seeds right now, and though it seems as if spring will never come, short of some universal catastrophe, we know that it will.

I’m taking comfort in this particular organic metaphor right now because I’m finding it very hard to continue my self-appointed tasks of reading and writing, and am spending a fair amount of time staring at the wall or out the window, not even daring to daydream overmuch because I don’t want to be “caught” (even by myself) wasting time.  So, my mind is frozen; motionless; and yes, you guessed it, I’m typing it all out here in my post in an effort to “start a hare” from the underbrush and get on with my work.  (I like that particular metaphor of “starting (startling) a hare from the underbrush” even though I would never shoot a rabbit or be caught with a gun looking for rabbits to shoot unless I were starving, because when one is out walking and a rabbit or squirrel or other small animal pops up nearly underfoot and rushes away, one oneself is equally startled by the suddenness of the encounter, and loses track of the–in this case obsessive–thoughts one is going through in one’s mind.  Though of course whether the THOUGHTS are going through one’s mind, or one is going through the thoughts IN one’s mind is a matter for brain specialists and metaphysicians to contemplate.)  There’s a freshness to sudden encounters of the rabbit or chipmunk kind, as the tiny being leaps away from one’s own bumbling footsteps and seeks a safer haven; and one feels a part of the small life in the sense that then one’s heart begins to beat more swiftly in reaction, one’s face may flush, one may stumble, or feel a sudden rush of exhilaration at the presence of another life so near at hand and so rapid.

Now, you are perhaps tempted to point out to me that if I am indeed “frozen” and “motionless” in inspiration when it comes to impetus for reading and writing, my two favorite mental activities, that I AM in fact “starving,” and would perhaps have done well to bring a “gun” along in case I should, while typing this post, see a small furry shape dart from beneath my feet and try to get away from me.  But even though I am omnivorous and not solely a vegetarian, I’m looking to track the life bounding away without actually hunting it, because of course those other small forms of life are hunters, too, and they are “hunting” those seeds and pods and vesicles of life that remain in the trees, bushes, and ground over the winter.  It’s simple:  one life leads to another.  I start the hare by accident, perhaps, but then I peer ahead of it to see where it’s bounding, hoping to discover some seeds or shoots that I can bring indoors and attempt to “sprout” for my own projects.  And there’s probably the tail end of this particular metaphor, since I can think of nothing else to do with it at this point.  Whatever “seeds of a new beginning” I happen to find will require patience from me, because nothing happens overnight, and after potting something you have to wait while it sits in a warm windowsill or under a grow lamp, stretching itself upward slowly.  So, here’s the “sprout” I found while sitting at my desk and trying to think of something to post about on this second day of January, 2013.  But really, you and I know that I wasn’t sitting at my desk at all, I was out in a snowy field , following tiny tracks with perplexity and some confusion because I didn’t see anything to connect them with, when suddenly up popped a rabbit or squirrel, running, perhaps, for a bed of early crocuses which they’ve been nibbling at before.  Here’s my “crocus bulb” for you–I hope it will help you start a few hares or chipmunks too!

4 Comments

Filed under Other than literary days...., What is literature for?

“I was going to buy a copy of ‘The Power of Positive Thinking,’ and then I thought: What the hell good would that do?”–Ronnie Shakes

For some of us, indeed, for many more of us than can easily afford to acknowledge it without further loss of equanimity at least and happiness at most, this is a very sad time of year.   In fact, it’s no time of year at all, it’s the end of the year, and the New Year, with all its happiness derived in part from alcoholic bubbles and party snacks hasn’t started yet (or at least, it’s a few hours off in some parts of the globe, only a few hours old and hence not really fully underway in other parts of the globe).  So what do we do?  We rush out, buy the aforesaid snacks and alcohol, and then sit around waiting for time to start our eager consumption of what is supposed to signal a celebration of ringing out the old and ringing in the new.  We may even think of a New Year’s resolution or two, but then we tell ourselves that after all, that’s for the first of the year (tomorrow) and shouldn’t cloud our enjoyment of the last day of this year, when we hope to really “tie one on” and watch the bright lights go up around our neighborhoods, or watch a good movie and have a good cry, or go to the local neighborhood party and wear a funny hat and embrace people under the mistletoe for the last time this season.

And we ask ourselves, “What would really make me happy this year?  What would I like to achieve, or have, or have happen to me?”  It’s not in fact that we can’t think of things, for we of course can.  It’s rather that the things we think of are far too often not commensurable with the same sorts of things that can be achieved or had or experienced if we make a “realistic” New Year’s resolution.  For we all know what those things are.  I can work a little harder each day, or I can vow to lose 30 pounds by the end of the year, or I can save up a few extra dollars in order to get something I really want, but for which I will have to deprive myself of other things I need or want.  In short, everything we can realistically get takes a lot of effort, a constant push or pull or force exerted on our own moral inertia to accomplish.  So, often we decide, “Why should I?  I’ll worry about it tomorrow.  I’ll start on it two days from now.  Next week, when I’ve cleaned up the mess from this party I’m supposed to be having, will be time enough to begin.”  And in short, we put it off and sooner or later it simply slips to the back of the mental cupboard with all of the other things we once hoped to do and have and be.  Aren’t we a real mess?

Do I have an answer for this dilemma?  No, I do not, but I can tell you that I for one would rather “dream dreams” and “have visions” than place myself mentally in that “realistic” framework which we assume when we set about to do things “for real.”  I would rather not set goals, but would like to huggle-muggle willy-nilly toward what I want, one day sighing and one day crying, and another day laughing for joy because it seems that the sun is shining on my aspiration.  That way, when I reach next New Year’s Eve and I have only a bit of success to show, or a pittance of my desired amount saved up, or have only taken off ten pounds, I will know that I did it easily rather than arduously, and thus I participated in the glee of childhood we all once used to have, when we were unaware of how hard adults often had to strive to gain for us our “power of positive thinking” and to keep us happy and healthy.  Yes, I’m saying that I want something to happen easily and without effort, that I’m tired of the “no pain, no gain” morality, that at the very least I want to be self-deceived about something that will make me happy rather than deluded about something that makes me sad in the end.  Play along with me, won’t you?  Be giddy and happy all you like this New Year’s Eve, but don’t come down hard on yourself on January 1 or 2 or even 3 and tell yourself that it’s time to get “back to reality.”  Reality as we know it is hard enough:  let’s live in the happiness bubble for as long as possible this year, at least when it comes to achievements and goals and our own personal gifts of living happily.  Who knows, maybe those “dreams” and “visions” are a little closer than we know!  Happy New Year!

15 Comments

Filed under Other than literary days....

Marguerite Duras’s “The Lover”–A Book Without Boundaries, Yet Bounded

Marguerite Duras’s August 1984 book The Lover, published in the heyday of deconstructive thought, bears the signs of that thought in the sense that while it operates without boundaries, it yet is bounded by the very system that calls it forth.  It is a paradox, in fact.

The book has no boundaries of time and space, first of all.  The story, which purports to be mainly about the love affair between a girl in her mid-teens and her lover in his late twenties in French colonial Indochina, is broken up into short segments of a page or two to less than a page, and the time and place sequences are confusing in their order, since the story does not proceed from the beginning to the end, or start at the end and go back to the beginning forward, or even proceed in a sequence with various flashbacks, in short in any of the more standard ways in which a story often is told.  Rather, it is mostly all flashback, so to speak, but the flashbacks come in what seems like any old order.  As the main character, the young Lolita-like Caucasian teenage girl with the Chinese lover says near the beginning, “The story of my life doesn’t exist.  Does not exist.  There’s never any center to it.  No path, no line.  There are great spaces where you pretend there used to be someone, but it’s not true, there was no one.”  This is not only a character speaking of herself and giving some insight into what she is like, however, but an off-the-cuff analysis of how the story itself operates and is written.

Other boundaries which are broken are taboos.  She is Caucasian, he is Chinese, which is a taboo in the French Indochina of the time because even though he is rich and she is poor, she is of higher status than he is.  Her lover is also nearly twice as old as she is.  In several places, she says outright that her elder brother is a fratricidal “hunter” who is responsible for the death of her younger brother (who is two years her senior), though it’s unclear in what exact sense this is true.  Her mother doesn’t love her children all equally, which is often thought of as taboo as well.  The lover uses her as a prostitute, yet even this set of boundaries is not observed, because he loves her and tells her so, and even after many years, at the end of the book when he calls her in Paris, he says he still loves her.

The decadence of the whole book is heralded in the main atmospheric conditions, which also have no boundaries, but saturate the entire “feel” of the book.  The climate of Indochina of the colonial period, with its heat, humidity, conditions of fever and wood-rot and somnolence, is made to stand as the “objective correlative” (to use T. S. Eliot’s term) for the desire which the young girl says she has to die.  Yet at least twice when she communicates this desire to cease to exist, she follows it up with the remark that she wants to write.  It is as if in the writing itself she will somehow cease to exist.

The text as well has no boundaries of narrative perspectives which remain unbroken.  The child tells her own story through much of the book, yet there are also passages such as this one:  “Fifteen and a half.  The news spreads fast in Sadec.  The clothes she wears are enough to show.  The mother has no idea, and none about how to bring up a daughter.  Poor child.  Don’t tell me that hat’s innocent, or the lipstick, it all means something, it’s to attract attention, money.  The brothers are layabouts.  They say it’s a Chinese, the son of the millionaire, the villa in Mekong with the blue tiles.  And even he, instead of thinking himself honored, doesn’t want her for his son.  A family of white layabouts.”  The narrative about the girl and her lover sometimes uses first person from her perspective, but sometimes uses third person, as if the mature writer is intruding into the story and objectifying the experience.  As well, there are two confusing segments near the halfway point in the text where a short history or sketch about an American expatriate living in Paris named Marie-Claude Carpenter and then about two collaborators in the war named Betty and Ramon Fernandez occur.  The history of these three characters is brief and intrudes in the midst of the story of the girl and her lover, and is not otherwise explained.

Perhaps the whole tale may be finally explicated by this one remark in the text, which is said of the mature writer when she is later in Paris:  “[In her lover’s voice] she heard again the voice of China.”  The entire book is thus the tale not solely of a decadent Caucasian family in China, but of their desperate love affair with the country itself in the colonial period.  As the girl says in what seems like only a casual comparison at the time, there is a similarity between having an affair with a person of lower status and colonizing a country–the book is an emotional “history” of that colonization of a rich country and that girl’s affair with a rich man who is still seen by their family and society as inferior to her because he is part of the indigenous population.  Thus, finally, this one boundary is affirmed when the lover, years later, calls her up in Paris:  “Years after the war, after marriages, children, divorces, books, he came to Paris with his wife.  He phoned her.  It’s me.  She recognized him at once from the voice.  He said, I just wanted to hear your voice.  She said, It’s me, hello.  He was nervous, afraid, as before.  His voice suddenly trembled.  And with the trembling, suddenly, she heard again the voice of China.  He knew she’d begun writing books, he’d heard about it through her mother whom he’d met again in Saigon.  And about her younger brother, and he’d been grieved for her.  Then he didn’t know what to say.  And then he told her.  Told her that it was as before, that he still loved her, he could never stop loving her, that he’d love her until death.”

Yes, this one boundary, between the two people, which is not only a barrier but also a line of unity, a union, is reaffirmed, yet in the overturn of the colonial administration, it is also stood on its head.  Only the male character in the end remains the same, and the girl too, perhaps, as she has written herself.

5 Comments

Filed under Articles/reviews