Secular Exiles & Prodigal Returns

prodigal_son“One Groove’s Difference”: Inherent Vice by Thomas Pynchon

 

“Maybe the Golden Fang had sailed on to its fate, gathering those who hadn’t found their way to shore deeper into whatever complications of evil, indifference, abuse, despair they needed to become even more themselves.  Whoever they were.  Maybe Shasta had escaped all that.  Maybe she was safe.”  – Larry “Doc” Sportello, entertaining ‘maybes’

Practically speaking, the business of a private eye arises from the exercise of paranoia.  To see around appearances, you might entertain every manner of phantom notion, and it’s only as false leads drop away that the truth will become isolated, more often than not cloaked in silence.  Ain’t that just the way with evil?  Only in cartoon life would a Bernie Madoff, bound in rope, choose to fess up to Scooby and the gang: “Yes, I did it.  And here is how.  And here is why… woulda got away with it, too, if not for you rascally kids!” Cartoon life, or some kind of spiritual echo chamber, maybe.

The fiction of Thomas Pynchon has always enjoyed an easy relationship to paranoia and cartoons.  Evil, too.  Inherent Vice, then, his latest novel, a play on the hard-boiled—or seriously baked—detective tale is not such a departure from previous work, even if the edges appear rounded to the naked eye.

Principal in this “glittering mosaic of doubt” figures one Larry “Doc” Sportello, affable stoner and PI, whiteboy afro on his head, huaraches on his feet.  A hippie with a gun, he’s a denizen of surf village Gordita Beach, CA, a locale lost in time somewhere between the 60s and 70s.  Doc has love for old movies, particularly those starring John Garfield (a blacklisted movie star of the 40s and 50s), and hate for contemporary TV hit The Mod Squad, which he sees propagating the myth of Cop-as-Everyman, paving to the earth the part once played in popular consciousness by PIs.

No matter.  Even as a self-conscious member of an endangered species, Doc is more than happy to ask questions about a married real estate mogul named Mickey Wolfmann, who his “ex-old lady” Shasta Fay happens to be seeing.  Of course, the investigation begins at Shasta’s request (“You were always true,” she tells Doc).  And when these initial, nearly innocent questions lead to more vexed questions, and the vexed to the outright thorny, Doc doesn’t hesitate (too much) in keeping after the figurative ball, even if he’d rather be watching the Lakers play in the NBA Finals.  The trick being to talk to the right people, adopt the right guise, and not forget to pack a few joints.

It doesn’t take long before Mickey and Shasta both have disappeared.  So it is that Doc sets out, behind the manner of cool, to identify the agent(s) of evil pulling the strings at a classy outfit called Golden Fang Enterprises.  Beyond Gordita Beach and the flagging myth of the American West (the Manson trials provide backdrop to Doc’s pursuit and obsessive fodder for his imaginative life), the investigation comes to center on two persons: Coy Harlingen, revenant surf band sax soloist and Zelig-like chameleon, and Lt. “Bigfoot” Bjornsen, investigating officer in the Mickey Wolfmann case and general pain in Doc’s ass.

Not long after Shasta’s disappearance, Doc receives a call from Coy Harlingen’s would-be widow, Hope: she’s not sure that her husband’s really dead.  Married with a child, they were stuck in a seemingly unbreakable cycle of addiction and longing.  Heroin to her represented “freedom—from that endless middle-class cycle of choices that are no choices at all.” And when Doc catches up to him, Coy sees it nearly the same way: “We’d get fucked up and just sit there and go, ‘We’re draggin each other down, what’re we gonna do?’ and then end up doing nothing…” The answer, it seems, was provided by Golden Fang Enterprises: fake his own death, and Coy could become a well-paid counter-subversive.  “A spy… a snitch, a weasel,” is how Coy, in self-hatred, sees it.  “A very well-paid actor,” is what the guys in the suits call it, “and without groupies or paparazzi or know-nothing audiences to worry about.” When they sweetened the offer to include a set of false teeth, Coy, with his heroin-ravaged choppers, was sold.  Only now he finds himself cut off, adrift between feelings for his wife and child, and the duty he’s bound to fulfill:

Doc knew that tone of voice and hated it.  It reminded him of too many vomit-spattered toilets, freeway overpasses, edges of cliffs in Hawaii, always pleading with men younger than himself distraught with what they were so sure was love.  It was actually why he’d quit doing matrimonials.

On the other hand, there is Bigfoot Bjornsen.  In so far as a spouse can be seen as a constant companion who incessantly reminds you of your shortcomings, Doc’s might as well be his badge-toting doppelganger, “the LAPD’s own Charlie Manson,” as Doc puts it, “the screamin evil nutcase right at the heart of that li’l cop kingdom.” Everywhere Doc goes, Bigfoot seems to follow soon after, and soon enough, it becomes unclear whether Bigfoot is trailing Doc, or leading him.

Haunted by Hunter S. Thompson’s “high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back,” or lost idealism of the 60s, Inherent Vice culminates in meditation on the collective, more genuine life that once seemed close enough to touch, just a people’s movement away from realization.  A friend of Doc’s has arrived at the myth of a vanished civilization to represent something akin to this disappearing dream.  About the lost city, Lemuria, Doc later reflects:

People in this town saw only what they’d all agreed to see, they believed what was on the tube or in the morning papers half of them read while they were driving to work on the freeway, and it was all their dream about being wised up, about the truth setting them free.  What good would Lemuria do them?  Especially when it turned out to be a place they’d been exiled from too long ago to remember.

Which is a lot of weight for any hard-boiled—or seriously baked—detective tale to bear.

“The Ballad of Lost Children”: Home by Marilynne Robinson

“It is the desire of the tattered moth for the shining star that has brought me home, little sister.” – Jack

The prodigal observances run like this: “I’m sorry,” he says.  Followed shortly by the dissonant smile, or a surprised laugh (as if to ask: how did this happen?  Or, where did I go awry?).  Maybe even a hand raised to hide his face, touching “the nick of scar” beneath his eye.  An action taken time and again, with nearly the regularity of those sanctified by Sunday ritual.

His believing sister’s unvarying response: a generosity of tears.

In her most recent novel, Home, Marilynne Robinson has set herself the task of creating a work of lasting import that lives up to its title, a tall order if ever there was one.  After more than twenty years of waiting since the release of Housekeeping, we readers have been fortunate enough to receive in the past five years the critical and popular success Gilead and, now, as of fall 2008, its sister fiction, also set in Iowa of 1956.

It is almost beside the point to say that she succeeds.

Like a fissure running across the novel’s pages the prodigal observances appear with such regularity (“I’m sorry,” he says, with that smile or that laugh, that shame-covering hand, the finger raised to touch the nick of scar) that some readers—one fresh from the work of Thomas Pynchon, for example—may find their hearts thundering with impatience at the page’s staid serenity, burning with a desire to exclaim, ‘For crying out loud, man!  Stop it!’ But he can’t hear you, Robinson’s protagonist, and that is exactly the point.  Jack is alone, and deeply so.

More properly, Jack is John Ames Boughton, son of the reverend Robert Boughton, who for years has served as the Presbyterian minister in the small, middle-American (and fictional) town of Gilead.  The name “John Ames” comes from Boughton’s lifelong friend, the still active Congregationalist minister (whose memoirs to his young son comprise the full text of Gilead).  Ames, reinvigorated by a late marriage to a much younger woman named Lila (having lost his first wife in childbirth) and the arrival of a son, Robby (named after the elder Boughton), claims to be able to picture his ailing friend with “that lace bonnet sitting on the top of [his] head,” decked as he once was in the threads of infancy.  The two men meet on a near weekly basis, the ambulatory Ames arriving at Boughton’s house to discuss the concerns of his congregation, as well as the pressing matters of the day, at least as they register to the two old friends: “Eisenhower or Dulles or baseball or Egypt.”

“Egypt will have consequences,” Boughton declares.

On politics, Ames simply avers, “Stevenson is a very fine man, no doubt,” meaning that he will never vote for him.  Boughton, of course, sees it the other way.

Newly arrived on the scene is Boughton’s youngest child Glory (there are eight Boughton children in all). At thirty-eight, she has just returned from a protracted engagement that failed: the man was already married, a secret she keeps from her father; one night she deposited over four hundred of their letters in the sewer.  Glory is surprised by the transformation in her father, ambivalent about the role she is expected to play in his house (caretaker to both him and the family trappings, his expectation being that she will maintain it like a museum, with pieces that include: “the table and sideboard with their leonine legs and belligerently clawed feet, like some ill-considered, doily-infested species of which they were the last survivors”).  In Old Boughton the ravages of age are in plain view, and yet the sight of him is not without passing beauty: “His hair had been brushed into a soft white cloud, like harmless aspiration, like a mist given off by the endless work of dreaming.” Much of Glory’s father’s time is spent in agonizing on the well-being of Jack, whom neither he nor Glory has seen in twenty years.

Then he is there on the front porch, the handful of false cues that he might soon arrive instantly forgiven.  The well spoken son of a preacher man, Jack has been shedding skins now for years, most recently in the restorative embrace of a woman named Della, with whom he lived for some time in St. Louis.  This confession he makes to Glory.  Della, who is black, has recently been taken up by her father and brothers to return to the family home in Memphis; Jack’s only means of communicating his longing for her is through letters, which go unanswered.

Wearied and worn by the world, Jack remains adamant in his refusal to accept his father’s faith, “I wished very much at the time that I could have been, you know, a hypocrite.  But I just didn’t have it in me.  My one scruple.  And it has cost me dearly.” When Glory invests in a television for the three relative strangers to gather around, conversation runs like mercury from the tried and true to an underlying strife more difficult to address with politesse: for example, recent events in Montgomery, Alabama.  Or the murder of Emmett Till.  As father and son vie over social outrages that demand redress (the son’s cause) and the state of the younger’s soul (the father’s), Glory, in her abundance of empathy, seeks to ensure nothing more than peace of mind for them both.  This, in spite of her own lingering emotions, a feeling of unease at occupying her father’s house, of futility at expending further effort on Jack, who can be, to say the least, difficult.  “I really am nothing,” he tells her.  “Nothing, with a body.  I create a kind of displacement around myself as I pass through the world, which can fairly be called trouble.” And, again and again, he makes the prodigal observances.

As students of American history, we know that Gilead—small town middle America—will soon change forever (on the light side, check out Bill Bryson’s “The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid,” on the dark, Nick Reding’s “Methland,” and somewhere in between, Ron Power’s “Tom and Huck Don’t Live Here Anymore”).  The fires that animate Jack’s passion will consume the town where he feels he cannot remain.  Old Boughton and Ames debate whether God’s existence in the universe allows for the possibility that a person might change (“A person can change,” Lila declares, “Everything can change”).  While, steadfastly, Glory keeps watch, making the gentlest observations of her wayward brother:

That odd capacity for destitution, as if by nature we ought to have so much more than nature gives us.  As if we are shockingly unclothed when we lack the complacencies of ordinary life.  In destitution, even of feeling or purpose, a human being is more hauntingly human and vulnerable to kindnesses because there is the sense that things should be otherwise, and then the thought of what is wanting and what alleviation would be, and how the soul could be put at ease, restored.  At home.  But the soul finds its own home if it ever has a home at all.

Jeff Price is a freelance writer and editor. He held the position of Associate Editor at Electric Literature in 2009.  Find him here.

Christmas Card

andy-warhol-details-of-the-last-supper-c-1986-double-jesusby Etgar Keret

There was this guy who could walk on water. Not that that’s such a big deal. Lots of people can walk on water. They usually don’t know that because they don’t try. They don’t try because they don’t believe they can do it. In any case, that guy believed, and tried and did it. And that’s when the whole mess began.

That guy had an apostle who was very close to him and sold him out. Not that that’s such a special thing either. Lots of people are sold out by someone very close to them. If they weren’t very close, then it wouldn’t really be considered being sold out, would it. Then the Romans came and crucified the guy. Which, also, isn’t very unique. The Romans crucified a lot of people. And not just the Romans. Lots of other nations crucified and killed lots of people. All kinds of people. Ones who performed miracles and even ones who didn’t. But that guy, three days after they crucified him, was resurrected. And by the way, even that resurrection thing didn’t happen here for the first time, or even the last, for that matter. But that guy, people say, that guy died for our sins. A lot of people die for our sins: greed, jealousy, pride, or other, less well-known sins that haven’t been around for such a long time. People die like flies because of our sins and no one bothers to even write a Wikipedia entry about them. But they wrote one about that guy. And not just any old entry, but a really big one with lots of pictures and blue-colored links. Not that a Wikipedia entry is such a big thing. There are dogs that have Wikipedia entries about them. Like Lassie. And there are diseases that have entries there, like scarlet fever and multiple sclerosis. But that guy, they say, unlike multiple sclerosis and Lassie, achieved what he achieved through the power of love. Which is something we’ve also heard before. After all, there were those four English guys with the hair and the beards too, just like him, except that they were a little less famous, and they sang many songs about love.  Two of them are already dead, just like him. And they, by the way, have a Wikipedia entry too. But that guy, there was something special about him. He was the son of God. Except that, actually, all of us are God’s children, right? We were born in his image. So what the hell was it about that guy that turned him into such a big deal? Such a big deal that so many people throughout history were saved or killed in his name?

Anyhow, every year, around the end of December, half the world celebrates his birthday. In many places, it snows on his birthday and everyone’s happy. But even in places where it doesn’t snow, people are happy on that day. And all because of what? Because a skinny guy who was born more than two thousand years ago asked us all to live lives of love and morality and was killed because of it. And if that’s the happiest thing this weird race has to celebrate, then it deserves a Wikipedia entry too. And actually it’s got one. Go to the nearest computer now. Type in “humanity” and you’ll get the entry. Short. Very short. Not a lot of pictures. But even so. One whole entry on a fascinating and slightly baffling race. A race that could have walked on water and never tried. A race that could have killed all those who believe the world can be a better place and in most cases, made sure to do just that. So merry Christmas to you too.

Please forward or post online, in full or in part, with credit to the source.

Translated by Sondra Silverston

Etgar Keret can be found at www.etgarkeret.com.

Image: Details of The Last Supper Double Jesus by Andy Warhol.

El Camino Real

USA 67 RED EL CAMINOIn 1979, when I’m eight years old, my dad, drunk out of his gourd on Schlitz and high on crank, runs over some guy with his brand new El Camino.  I don’t know this when I’m eight.  I just think his car is cool.  It’s cherry-red with a huge, white vector stripe and vaguely resembles the Gran Torino from Starsky and Hutch.  He drives it as he leaves town and us later that year.

Five years later, I’m thirteen and visiting Dad for an assigned two-week stint at his crappy apartment in Indy.  This guy Snyder is there—as always—and Dad’s drunk—again—but it’s Milwaukee’s Best this time, not Schlitz.  Dad throws me one and tells me to drink up.  And he tells me the story.

This guy’s sprawled out in the middle of the road, in the pitch black.  Dad’s blitzed as he’s driving down Meridian, so he doesn’t see the guy until the last second.  He doesn’t even try to brake, he says, just cruises right over him.  Dad stops, gets out of the car, walks over and gives the guy a once over.

This is what he sees.  The guy’s naked, hog-tied and has a curling iron shoved up his ass.  Every time my dad mentions the curling iron, he makes this uppercut motion with his fist like he’s actually the one cramming the thing up the guy’s keister.

I’m sure Snyder’s heard this story a hundred times, but he still spits his Beast and slaps his knee.

“I tell you what,” Snyder yells.  “That was one sorry motherfucker.”

Dad does the uppercut movement again and says, “I’m just glad the fucker was already dead when I hit him or I would have been in serious shit.”

My thirteen year old mind processes the information, thusly:  driving around drunk and stoned at three o’clock in the morning is not serious shit so long as the guy you run over is already good and dead.  Or like this:  it is better to be lucky than good.

This is a maxim I repeat and live by for many years, even though I don’t like the taste of beer—Schlitz or the Beast or even Heineken.  I begin to think at some point that this is the only life lesson I will ever learn from this man, my dad.  It is hard to learn life lessons, I guess, when you no longer talk.

But then, twenty-five years later, I talk to my dad for one last time and learn something new.  He has just bought a small-town convenience store and invites me over for a tour.  I peek in and see about what I expect to.  Overpriced packages of diapers compete with Fig Newtons for space on crowded metal shelves.  Stained linoleum runs under our feet, not completely intact at the seams.

As we walk through the store, he explains his hopes for expansion—into gas and liquor.  He pauses for a moment, stretches his arms wide and grins.  Without looking at me, he says the thing to me that I will always remember.  Without irony, he says this thing.  In complete seriousness, he says it.  This is what he says, as he stands in the middle of his run-down mini-mart:  “Son, it’s all legit.  Not a single black market item in the place.  Your step-mom insisted.  How do you like that?”

I don’t know how I like it.  I ask him if it is a rhetorical question that he asks me.

He walks over to a cooler, pitches me a beer—PBR—and says, “What the hell are you talking about?”

“I don’t know,” I say.  “I have no idea.”

I toss the beer back his way and tell him I have to go.  And this is what I learn: as good as it feels to go, it doesn’t feel that much better than staying.

On that day in the convenience store, the El Camino is long gone.  Not just Dad’s, but all of them.  Erased from the automotive memory of a nation.  But not from mine.  I love that car, no matter how many people he ran over with it.

- Jason Stout lives in Atlanta, Georgia with his wife and five children. His works have appeared in Every Day Fiction, Twelve Stories, Flashquake, The Battered Suitcase, A Thousand Faces, Loquacious Placemat, Shine! and Pequin. He can be contacted through his website: jasonstout.jimdo.com.

City Mouse, Country Mouse

bromanceDiscussed Herein: Chronic City by Jonathan Lethem and Amateur Barbarians by Robert Cohen


“My Birds…, My Tower…”

“Frank O’Hara and Joe Brainerd, Mailer and Broyard and Krim, Jane Jacobs, Lenny Bruce, Warhol and Lou Reed, all of it, including Patti Smith and Richard Hell and Jim Carroll, poets declaring themselves rock stars before they even had songs, Jean-Michel Basquiat writing SAMO, Philippe Petit crossing that impossible distance of sky between the towers, now unseen for so many months behind the gray fog.”

– one-time rock critic Perkus Tooth’s list of influences and heroes

“So, I’m Perkus Tooth,” is how the screed-prone, chronically ill, chronically high, and yet curiously pure protagonist of Jonathan Lethem’s latest novel introduces himself to the powers that be—as if in resumption of a previously ongoing conversation. Perkus’s talent, observes Chronic City’s narrator, the pleasant-on-the-eyes and quite nearly harmless Chase Insteadman, is for ellipsis, netted flutterings of meaning that oh-so-evocatively suggest an apprenhension taken from the sheer angles of Manhattan’s coldly shining architecture, its personalities, its towers. To deliver his message, Perkus must brave dangers from within (migraines, hiccups) and without (a tiger on the prowl). That’s not to mention his circle of friends.

Whether the narrative spotlight happens to fall in a particular instant on Perkus (recovering rock critic), or Chase (TV actor), or Richard Abneg (former tenant’s rights advocate, now instrument of the effort to leech upscale pads from units intended for affordable housing), or Oona Laszlo (ghostwriter extraordinaire, one time protégé of Perkus), or Georgina Hawkmanaji “The Hawkman” (Armenian heiress and close companion of Abneg’s), or Strabo Blandiana (Romanian acupuncturist), or Mayor Arnheim (Michael Bloomberg), or Sadie Zapping (ex-rocker turned dog walker), those who populate Chronic City abide: they have always been around and always plan to be, plot contrivances be damned; they are each bigger than the story in which they take part. So, Lethem’s novel proceeds, seemingly in sway with the whimsical, or habitual, directions of his characters’ days, while slyly advancing a narrative in subtext, one that emerges by degrees from the “amnesiac mists” of Perkus, Chase, Richard, and the Hawkman’s fellowship. Or the partially glimpsed epiphanies of Perkus’s “broadsides,” manifestos put to poster and pasted on lampposts. Or else the gray fog at the island’s southern tip.

Lethem has been quoted referring to his novel as “a bromance”; only, when he uses the word it seems somehow to quiver in meaning between irony and earnestness. Finally, though, such categories of classification must blur as well, since, surely, one who feels “a bromance” in earnest cannot himself accept such a buzzword in place of meaning. It is a liquid living thing, this connection, something alive.

Chronic City is alive. For Perkus, Chase wants nothing more than that he “have his ellipsis, have it wholly and unreservedly… without cluster [headaches]—however terribly much I suspect that one might be the price of the other.” And, yes, while he longs for his friend Perkus to realize the best, the childhood TV star grown to some facsimile of adulthood won’t hesitate from enjoying the pleasures of the physical realm, a warm body in his bed, while he remains, in public, “outstanding only in [his] essential politeness,” a “prisoner of [his] plate’s arrival, roast brown glistening something.” In outer space, the true love of Chase’s life, astronaut Janice Trumbull, orbits, while below Perkus Tooth, averse to the containment of romantic “pair-bonding,” fires off his broadsides, each “an arrow aimed into the infinite obsessive.” As must the aspiring novelist, Perkus culls choice elements from the chaos of the universe to braid together. In a novel that skirts plotlessness, he is the puttering, beleaguered plotter, the little engine that could. From the mediated peaks he dreams of setting loose a flood that will once and for all wash away the eye-liner from the city’s imperial visage.

Says Oona, who shares Chase’s bed in fits (“I’m your whatever,” she tells him), on the subject of a virtual online “reality” that seems to be bleeding into the actual lives of their trusted circle of Manhattanites: “There might be trillions of these simulations going on at once.” Asks Chase, “Why couldn’t we be the original?” “We could be,” Oona replies. “But the odds aren’t good. You wouldn’t want to bet on it.”

Whatever their provenance, Perkus’s obsessions cluster together like paragraphs on a page, while in tow to his pleasure, Chase looks on, unable in his own life to find any certain connection between the church tower outside his window and the birds who eternally circle it. The final line of Lethem’s acknowledgment in the back of the book runs, “Everything else to everywhere else forever and ever amen.” A rock critic’s benediction, if ever there was one.

The Terrible Fate of Becoming Yourself

“Hey, show a little class. You’d think someone getting laid as much as you are would spend a little less time feeling sorry for himself. But it works for you, doesn’t it, Oren? It gets you off the hook?”

- Gail Hastings to Oren Pierce

It takes no real insight to assert that Robert Cohen’s Amateur Barbarians has received considerably less attention than other current releases: for example, Dan Brown’s The Lost Symbol, with which it has nothing in common, save for a middle-aged (and intrepid) protagonist. Somehow, though, Amateur Barbarians has fallen under the banner of “middle-age” in subject matter, a topic about as seductive as toe-nail clippings, suggesting, as it does, the burden of responsibility and allegiances forged, concessions made to the inevitable flow of time, the specter of senescence (for the lucky few), a thinning hairline, Nick Carraway & Cialis, so on and so forth. In the popular realm, middle-age is nearly synonymous with the phrase “so on and so forth,” because everyone knows that everything worth happening happens to the young. And once that is over, well… “so on and so forth.”

Like Lethem’s Chronic City, Cohen’s novel could be termed “a bromance”: rather than sexless rock critic and oversexed actor, the bond here, the study in shadings, is between Teddy Hastings, an overachieving, fifty-something high school principal and father of two, reeling from the loss of his younger brother (a literary type) to cancer, and Oren Pierce, a mid-thirties, bookish, and omni-talented floater (having partially fulfilled graduate degrees in religion, film, psychiatric social work, and law). A perpetual adolescent, Oren would be unmoored if not for his work as Acting Vice Principal of the local high school in a small Massachusetts town, where he inches ever closer to that previously remarked upon precipice, “middle-age.” As a co-worker observes: “There’s something about that man. What is it? His eyes are all over the room.”

So, what happens?

In short, Teddy, after fourteen years as a high school principal, tries on his Oren Pierce hat, making a pitch at a new pursuit (photography, with calamitous results: “This is New England we’re talking about, a place with a proud tradition of repression and denial to uphold,” Teddy’s lawyer advises him), before embarking on a trip to Ethiopa to track down his wayward daughter, Danielle. Oren, meanwhile, tries on his Teddy Hastings hat, filling in while his boss is away. Then, for good measure, he embarks on an affair with Gail Hastings, Teddy’s wife (who happens to be the novel’s most dynamic character).

Transference, all around.

All of this has something to do with a teacher named Don Blackburn, one of the school’s most august personas, recently stricken speechless by a stroke. Oren takes to occupying Don’s empty house for hours at a time, under the pretense of seeing to its upkeep; he teaches Hawthorne’s Wakefield to a class of by and large uninterested students (“Maybe for Wakefield the only time his life looks interesting, looks real even, is when he’s standing outside it, looking in”); the affair with Gail begins in Don’s absented bed. Meanwhile, Teddy’s desire to reclaim something like the freedom he enjoyed in youth is propelled by his shock and horror at poor Don’s fate.

The wheels in motion, Cohen follows their revolutions with stunningly observed prose, conscious thought in reverie. By Beckett-inspired gradations (a few feet of agonized progress, another limb rendered useless!), the protagonists’ paradoxical meditations proceed, the minute seeming always to lead back to the overarching, and vice versa, but never without a humorous turn. Reflects Teddy, prior to taking his leave, on the subject of books and marriage:

Between her books and his you could hardly move around the bedroom at this point. But then books and marriages were well suited to each other… Both were middle-class adventures: they conspired to keep you at home, sitting still, being good. Meanwhile the mind went sneaking off under cover of darkness, traveling the world, kissing strangers in parking lots, suffering torments and temptations no one could see.

Oren, meanwhile, in the throes of an affair with Gail, pushes past the subject of marriage and books altogether to settle on an obsession with newness: “Something you discovered, not invented. Something already there. The design embedded in the carpet. The scrambled message in the acrostic. The tiny blue egg cradled in straw at the bottom of a nest. A newness that lay latent in its opposite, like oil in rock.”

Visited by memories of his departed brother Philip, Teddy muses on the folly of bourgeois attitudes: “Expecting the world to surrender its goods and lie belly-up at your feet like a dog—this was not just arrogance, Philip would say, but pathology.” Oren, in turn, communes with the spirit of Heidegger: “Suppose you were one of those people who perpetually longed for the extraordinary; did that mean you really longed for the ordinary? Or was longing for the extraordinary the most ordinary longing of all?” Once on the ground in Africa, Teddy finds himself admiring camels for “their melancholic persistence, their elaborated necks, their sly, lofty, aristocratic expressions.”

Beyond the elegance of his sentences, Cohen’s most memorable moments cut to the quick, pointing toward a premise that underlies what folks in a small town might take for granted. When Teddy at last catches up to Danielle, she has a dramatic revelation in store for him:

Okay, okay, he’d said. Come here. What else could he do? Their bodies, themselves: that was how they were raised. He’d pulled her onto his lap, stroked her bony, tremoring shoulders. Patted the clumps and knots in her hair, dabbed the snot from her nose with the back of his hand, smeared the dewy trails that ran down her cheeks like foul lines marking off the shining diamond of her face. Okay, okay. She’d clung to him that night as she had at the airport, with the same feverish intensity, the same flush of discovery and relief. As if each new moment were merely a repetition of an old one, which in the repeating became new.

- Jeff Price is an Associate Editor at Electric Literature

Writing Offline

internet_distractionsRecently, I was reading an interview with Ann M. Martin—perhaps my secret favorite writer of all time, the woman responsible for the voice that narrated me through my childhood, both on and off the page—and, in describing her daily routine, she mentioned that she “eases into the day” by taking care of email, then settles in to write. That struck me as counterintuitive—lately, my morning tactic has been to try to write for as long as I can possibly bear before finally opening my window onto the living world. You know, the pretend-window that I pretend-open by pretend-pressing some pretend-buttons. On my computer screen, which is also my canvas, my instrument, my palette, and my page. Does any other art have it so hard?

My email isn’t something I can ease in or out of very gracefully, nor is it something that can be taken care of in a single shot, and reading about Martin’s routine got me thinking about the differences between “growing up” as a writer today—or, okay, being a youngish wannabe writer, one of this so-called digital generation—and growing up as a writer in an earlier era. I can’t really fathom trying to write a whole short story or (god forbid) a novel on paper or a typewriter, although, sure, it might be a good option if the internet’s temptations are really killing me so hard. Nor can I honestly imagine writing on some kind of dino processor that’s not connected to the internet, though I’ve fantasized about the idea. It’s just that—when I got stuck, what would I do?

Sit there? Take a walk? Try harder?

Has any other generation of endeavoring writers had to battle a distraction this powerful, this omnipresent, and this snugly nuzzled against their work?

On principle, I’m reluctant to entertain any question that, like this one, reeks of literary doomsdayism. I hate hearing about the death of the novel, the poor prospects for literature today—all of it feels false, coming as it does at a time when people seem to be reading, in some form or another, quite a lot. I don’t like to believe that the spray of newfangled digi-stuff really represents such a monumental change, even for the literary world. We’re still communicating and we’re still living. We’re still making up stories and writing them down and giving them away to be read.

Nor do I really want to address the question in what might be the anti-doomsday way—that is, to come up with some slick metaphor that shows how we internet-surfing writers may actually have an advantage over the writers of the past. I could say that today, more than ever, there is life literally pressed up against our art-work (that funny work of rearranging pixels of meaning on the 2D-but-actually-infinitely-D plane of the screen). Life: the breathing bodies of friends and enemies and strangers, all lurking just behind the virtual page, waiting to chat, to exchange news and jokes and stories and insults and love; life, right there living within and underneath our work, ready to feed and fill and maybe receive our art—this undoubtedly a good and beautiful thing.

I do admit to feeling some writerly pleasure at the idea that the boundaries between our lives-lived and lives-on-the-page are blending—at the fact that more and more of our “living” happens in text, in these black squiggles that readily translate into words and that, bouncing between cell phones, between computers, between paper and brain, can so easily become, themselves, an act. But to exalt our historical moment in any way—to pay its idiosyncrasies any sort of privilege or disdain—feels to me like a mistake. I don’t know what the opposite of timeless is, but I’m recoiling from it.

What I want, frankly, is for my writing work and the internet to exist in some maybe-unremarkable harmony, the way they seem to for Ms. Martin. I suspect that’s how it is for many writers who have it better than me: their work is not so precious as to need to go untouched by the bustling online world, and, in hand, the online world is for them less threatening. Maybe their work is also more engrossing (read: better) than mine.

It’s only because this is what I want but don’t have that I can’t help but shout it: Painters, actors, musicians, you have it so easy! You veritable farmers! Alone and unbothered out there with your seedlings: watering, harvesting, bearing fruit. It’s not even as if we could balance the scales by somehow inviting the internet onto the palette, the stage, the violin—even then, I think, it would not be much of a threat for you others. The thing about the online world is that it is not only physically near the writing artist’s work—and, for its sociability, particularly alluring for the writer who works alone—but also that the online world is physically like our artistic world. Made up of letters, sentences, and lots and lots of silent, private, outside-of-real-time talk. A child, an alien, or even a prize-winning author could be forgiven for, once in a while, not being able to tell the difference between the fake real world of the writer and the real online world of…the world.

So here’s the story: Once upon a time, writers navigated between speech and writing, life and art. On the page, they painted a picture of their world and played the song of its sounds. Now, the page is the world. Or, at least: every day, the page and the world get closer. They creep up on each other, they press together in the dark and feel each other—so smooth, so alike. What’s a writer to do? Go out and play with the world, I guess.

- Helen Rubinstein is a youngish wannabe writer, one of the so-called digital generation. Her fiction has received awards at Yale, at the Wesleyan Writers Conference, and at Brooklyn College, where she’s finishing her MFA. She will be writing without an internet connection as a Fellow at the MacDowell Colony in the spring.