Log in

No account? Create an account

John Palcewski's Journal

Works In Progress

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Abandoned Discourse

By happenstance the other day I received from an ex-girlfriend a manila envelope full of manuscript pages I wrote 15 years ago, about eight years before the death of my father.

As I skimmed them I was struck by how unfamiliar the writing was. It was as if some stranger had on a lark decided to copy my style, my phrasings, my vocabulary. Very much like me, but not me.

I went over the material carefully, one page after another. Gradually I sensed a dark, unintended undercurrent. My sentences were meant to be conversational, but too often they were stilted and inhibited, the words of a man incapable of speaking freely and accurately about his past, and most especially how he felt about it.

My writing, I was disappointed to see, had all the authenticity and conviction of a filmed confession of an American prisoner of war in North Vietnam. It was all about my self-preservation, not the pursuit of truth for its own sake.

One of the pieces was a fictional conversation I had with an imagined professor of literature during a lunch at The White Dog Café, on Philadelphia’s Samson St., near the University of Pennsylvania. The professor—who’s named Stephen—had just returned from a literary conference in Paris. On the flight, he said, he’d read in Le Monde a long article on William Burroughs.

“There exists but one theme for Burroughs,” Dr. Steve said. “To travel in space—and here he means literary space, of course—it’s necessary to abandon all old verbal smut.”

“What in hell is literary space as opposed to actual space?” I asked.

“It’s an esoteric and wholly inpenetrable academic concept, my friend. Anyway, Burroughs insists that ‘You must learn to exist and to live without religion, without country, and without allies. You must learn to see what is in front of you without prejudice.’ And of course that includes the contemplation of being dumped by the woman you love.”

“I prefer to forget that awful experience,” I said.

“A mistake, I assure you.”

“The chicken is good,” our cute waitress announced, her pencil above her order pad.

“Bring me a thick, juicy burger. And fries,” Dr. Steve said.

“The same,” I said.

“I know exactly how you feel, John. The year after my first divorce I spent a lot of time hanging out at a low-life bar outside Cambridge. This was after I finished my thesis and passed my orals. I got friendly with some bikers who didn’t know what I did or where I lived.”

“The Invisible Man!”

“Or the alienated man. But these bikers were okay, actually. Nice people, except for the sociopaths. But it rather quickly got boring. Then for a while I dug out my phone list and spent a lot on long distance talking to old friends at Chicago. After the reminiscing, it fell flat. Because those old, good times were gone and nothing could resurrect them. Plus they were living in their own little cages, and wouldn’t come out even if they could.”

Dr. Steve described an awful thing he’d seen on TV a while back. A documentary on Thailand, or Burma. Coolies transporting a bunch of cats. Days and days on the jungle trail giving the cats no food or water. When they got to the restaurant where the cats would be eaten, they refused to leave their shitty bamboo cages. They had to be pried out with sticks. Perhaps they sensed what was coming.

“We become so accustomed to the misery at hand that we are loath to make a change, even for something better,” Dr. Steve continued. “And that’s what I did. I went through a long period of wallowing in my grief. Saturated myself with it. I watched the same movies over and over. Taxi Driver. Little Big Man. Dr. Strangelove. Dead Calm.”

“Why those?” I asked.

“There’s some depressing thread there. And I read Death On The Installment Plan, and the rest of Celine. I re-read all of Bukowski. Then I resumed my more serious reading. Joyce.”


“No, Dubliners, Portrait, Stephen Hero. I was struck in the Nestor episode of Ulysses with Joyce’s ambiguity of the Latin amor matris. Subjective and objective genitive. Could mean either a child’s love of his mother, or mother’s love for her child. Now Burroughs insists we must abandon discourse of mother, of love. Even though it’s the only true thing in life. But then…”


Amor matris is something that you have never experienced, right?”

“You can’t miss what you’ve never had,” I said. It was a rote answer I had at the ready, whenever the subject came up.

“How old were you when your mother ran off?” Dr. Steve asked.

“They tell me ten or twelve months.”

Dr. Steve nodded. “Sometimes I wish my mother had fled to find a new life. But where was I?”

“We must abandon discourse.”

“Burroughs, yes. Again he says we must learn to see what’s in front of us without prejudice.”

“Like an objective photojournalist?”

Dr. Steve laughed. “Who can ever be truly objective? But here’s the thing, John. In Nestor Stephen Dedalus says his childhood bends beside him, which is to say that he sees himself in the moment as two different people, child and man. And then he says,

‘Secrets, silent, stony sit in the dark palaces of both our hearts: secrets weary of their tyranny: tyrants willing to be dethroned.’”

“Ha!” I said. “My tyrant was never willing.”

“But perhaps he will be,” Dr. Steve said, “and he’ll depart when you finally see him clearly—without prejudice—for who and what he is.”

* * *

Relevant excerpt from the Nestor episode in Joyce’s Ulysses:

In long shaky strokes Sargent copied the data. Waiting always for a word of help his hand moved faithfully the unsteady symbols, a faint hue of shame flickering behind his dull skin. Amor matris: subjective and objective genitive. With her weak blood and wheysour milk she had fed him and hid from sight of others his swaddling bands.

Like him was I, these sloping shoulders, this gracelessness. My childhood bends beside me. Too far for me to lay a hand there once or lightly. Mine is far and his secret as our eyes. Secrets, silent, stony sit in the dark palaces of both our hearts: secrets weary of their tyranny: tyrants, willing to be dethroned.

Site Meter

  • 1
Let's be honest. Objectivity is impossible for human beings. We can present the facts of something that balances them for the viewer, but that is an active choice. The "Blank Slate" does not exist.

Our opinions are given to us through parents, peers, our society, our teachers... the things we read, the things we see and hear. We can choose to ignore them, we can suppress or stifle their appearances in what we say or do, but they're still there.

And I suppose this is going to lead to another thinkpost, and probably one of the longer ones I've written in awhile...

If as a child I accepted my father's judgment that I was unworthy of love and admiration, I'd probably now be either in prison, in a nut house, or dead. I knew from the earliest moment that I was NOT who or what he wanted me to be, and I knew it instinctively, deep down, and--most important--as an objective fact.

One quick point. You discovered early on that your father was not a reliable source for opinion, so he was removed from the equation. It's that simple.

It is great that you survived that trauma, however, it wasn't the point I was making, but I believe I will cover your comment here in the post I'm making there. I may be using "objective" differently from the way you are intending? I'm not sure about that. We'll straighten it out, I'm sure.

It probably boils down to the nature vs. nurture debate. Some lean one way, others another. Obviously I'm way more in favor of nature--we are who we are, many times wholly independent of our parents, teachers, etc.

I've long been an empiricist, as opposed to those who simply swallowed whole received religious or political wisdom. No wonder I became a professional journalist, where objectivity was an ideal, something you did your best to achieve.

But that was back in the day.

We are defining differently! To me, if you are in favor of "nature" over "nurture," you are saying that we are born into what we are and we can't learn our way out of it.

I would think that if we are using the nature model, we would be more like our parents, as opposed to the nurture model, where we might gain our education from other sources that permit us to see other elements and formulate our own opinions...

Maybe it's that the formation of a human personality is too complex to neatly categorize. Another model for understanding behavior and belief is the 50-50 thing.

On any given subject, generally half the population like it, and the other half doesn't. Case in point are the Native Americans. When the Europeans invaded, the tribes were divided about what to do. Half said, kill all the White Devils because they clearly intend to kill us. The other half said, let's make peace.

Interesting that when the Europeans exterminated all the killer Natives, the remaining Natives again split in what to do about it.

And so on.

Edited at 2011-03-26 06:00 pm (UTC)

  • 1