Shorter Views: Queer Thoughts & the Politics of the Paraliterary

Samuel R. Delany

jiorier v lews 4er Vi Qw££r Thoughts àf The Politics of the Par aliterary

Samuel R. Delany

Wesleyan University

Press

Published by University Press of New England

•

Hanover and London

Wesleyan University Press Published by University Press of New England, Hanover, NH 03755 © 1999 by Samuel R. Delany All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 5 4 3 2

1

CIP data appear at the end of the book For Patrick Merla & Marc Shell The following works in this collection were previously published: "The Rhetoric of S e x / T h e Discourse of Desire" was initially delivered as a lec­ ture at MIT; it first appeared in print in Heterotopias: The Body Politic, ed. Tobin Siebers, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995. "Street Talk/Straight Talk" appeared in Difference, eds. Naomi Shor & Elizabeth Weed, special issue on Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities, guest edited by Teresa de Lauretis, vol. 3, summer 1991, Providence. "On the Unspeakable" first appeared in Everyday Life, eds. George and Chris Tysh, Detroit, 1987; subsequendy it appeared in Avant Pop: Fiction for a Daydream­ ing Nation, ed. Larry McCaffery, Fiction Collective-2, Boulder, Colorado, 1993. " C o m i n g / O u t " appeared first, in slightly different form, in Boys Like Us, edited by Patrick Merla, New York: Avon Books, 1997. "A Bend in the Road" first appeared in the YaleJournal of Criticism, eds. Esther da Costa et al, vol. 7, no. 1, spring 1994; New Haven. "The 'Gay' Writer/ 'Gay Writing' . . . ?" first appeared in the AWPJournal,

1993.

"The Black Leather in Color Interview" first appeared in Black Leather in Color, ed­ ited by Antoinette, Lidell Jackson, and S. Guy Giumento, no. 3, fall 1994, New York City. continued on page 458

Contents

Preface: On Creativity and Academic Writing

vii

Part One: Some Queer Thoughts 1

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

3

2

Street Talk / Straight Talk

41

3

O n the U n s p e a k a b l e

58

4

Coming/Out

67

5

A B e n d in the R o a d

98

6

T h e "Gay" Writer / "Gay Writing" . . . ?

111

7

T h e Black Leather in Color Interview

115

8

T h e T h o m a s L. L o n g Interview

123

Part Two: The Politics of the Paraliterary 9

Neither the First W o r d nor the Last o n D e c o n s t r u c t i o n , Structuralism, Poststructuralism, and Semiotics for SF Readers

141

10

T h e Para*doxa Interview: Inside a n d O u t s i d e the C a n o n

186

11

T h e Politics o f Paraliterary Criticism

218

12

Z e l a z n y / V a r l e y / G i b s o n — a n d Quality

271

13

Pornography and Censorship

292

14

T h e M a k i n g o f Hogg

298

15

T h e Phil L e g g i e r e Interview: R e a d i n g The Mad Man

311

16

T h e S e c o n d Science-Fiction Studies Interview: O f Trouble on Triton a n d O t h e r Matters

315

Part Three: Some Writing/Some Writers 17

A n t o n i a Byatt's Possession: A Romance

353

18

Neil G a i m a n , I, II, a n d III

359

19

A Tribute to Judith Merril

373

20

Michael Perkins's Evil Companions

377

21

N o w It's T i m e for Dale Peck

384

22

Othello in B r o o k l y n

388

23

A Prefatory N o t i c e to V i n c e n t Czyz's Adrift in a Vanishing City

396

24

U n d e r the V o l c a n o with Susan Sontag

39g

25

S o m e Remarks o n Narrative a n d T e c h n o l o g y or: Poetry a n d Truth

408

Appendix: S o m e Notes for the Intermediate and A d v a n c e d Creative Writing Student

433

Index

461

Preface On Creativity and Academic Writing

For twenty-five years I've taught m o r e creative writing classes than any other sort—I've b e e n asked to teach m o r e creative writing classes than any other sort. Creative writing is also the class that has given m e the most pause. W h e n I arrive at a n e w university, s o m e form o f the follow­ ing conversation almost always occurs: T h e m : " O h , y o u will teach a creative writing class, w o n ' t y o u ? " Me: "I'd rather not." T h e m : "But y o u s e e m so eminently qualified to teach creative writing. You've written so many novels a n d short stories." Me: "Novels, yes. Stories, n o . B u t I really d o n ' t k n o w if I have anything to teach in terms o f creative writing." T h e m : " O h , but I ' m sure y o u d o . . ." I'm b e i n g s o m e w h a t disingenuous. A s I said, creative writing is the class I have taught the most, a n d I suspect it will b e the class I shall g o o n teaching the most. (I a m s c h e d u l e d to teach o n e such w o r k s h o p this c o m i n g summer.) Certainly it's an easy class to fill with pleasant c o m ­ ments, pleasing pastimes, a n d passably interesting exercises. T h e prob­ lem is, however, philosophical—specifically, o n t o l o g i c a l . I ' m j u s t n o t sure if "creativity"—as it is presupposed, as it is hypostatized, as it is cornmodified a n d reified in endless writing w o r k s h o p s a n d the b r o c h u r e s they send out to attract writing students—exists. A n d I feel the same dis­ comfort teaching a class in "creative" writing as I w o u l d were I a physicist assigned to teach a class in "phlogiston" physics—assigned to teach it n o t as a historical reaction o f a vanished a n d discredited theory, b u t as a m o d e r n enterprise all my e a g e r students b e l i e v e d was the latest scientific d o p e o n the realest o f real worlds. In his various notes o n nineteenth-century Paris, B a u d e l a i r e , a n d the Arcades, Walter B e n j a m i n m a k e s a most intricately suggestive observa-

viii

Preface

tion: W h e n , in the ninteenth-century m a r k e t p l a c e , industrial products passed a certain number, it b e c a m e a practical impossibility to k n o w all the relevant facts a b o u t e a c h p r o d u c t ' s manufacture, the quality o f the materials that w e n t into it, the care a n d craft with w h i c h it had b e e n m a d e , a n d thus its durability a n d functionality. T o c o m p e n s a t e for this g e n e r a l loss o f empirical k n o w l e d g e , the m o r e g e n e r a l i z e d n o t i o n o f " g o o d taste" arose to o c c u p y the interstices, override the positivities, and finally sublate the material interplay o f the k n o w n and the u n k n o w n — all that was left o f the empirical k n o w l e d g e about care, quality, manufac­ ture, a n d efficiency that h a d g o n e by the n a m e o f quality. It is, then, in the same sense that I m i g h t say that g o o d taste has n o on­ tological status that I suggest a similar denial o f o n t o l o g i c a l status to creativity. T h a t is, while it is a social reality, it is r e d u c i b l e — l i k e a chemi­ cal c o m p o u n d — t o its constitutive elements. But, unlike a c o m p o u n d , its f u n d a m e n t a l properties are also r e d u c i b l e (as in a c h e m i c a l mixture) to the properties o f its constitutive elements. H a v i n g l o c a t e d this so i m p o r t a n t relationship b e t w e e n empirical k n o w l e d g e a n d g o o d taste, we can fix a n u m b e r o f other c o n c e p t s that b e a r the same necessarily mystified relation o n e to the other. Most im­ portant for us today is, I suspect, the relation between individual strength a n d institutional power; for I w o u l d maintain that it is interesting, even necessary if w e wish to be effective political citizens, to consider that strength bears the relationship to p o w e r that empirical k n o w l e d g e bears to g o o d taste. U s e value a n d e x c h a n g e value are another, m o r e classical pair that b e a r a like relation (and the c o m p l e x i t i e s o f their mutual and forever i n t e r d e p e n d e n t analyses suggest j u s t h o w c o m p l e x this relation­ s h i p — h o w e v e r simple it may l o o k at first—actually is). T h e relationship o f t e c h n o l o g y to science is o n e m o r e such relationship. A n d the relation­ ship o f craft to art is still a n o t h e r and—in this discussion—the o n e that most c o n c e r n s us. W h a t is p r o b l e m a t i c a b o u t these relationships is that in the second, re­ ified, mystified t e r m from all these pairs—from g o o d taste to e x c h a n g e value to p o w e r to science to art—lies all possibility for b o t h g u i d e d and u n g u i d e d growth, for u n c o n s c i o u s response, for b o t h evolutionary and entropie c h a n g e . T h a t such c h a n g e a n d growth have b e e n present in the h u m a n universe since caves a n d c h i p p e d flints is the reason that the ear­ lier, positive, a n d seemingly p u r e t e r m s — k n o w l e d g e , strength, use value, craft, t e c h n o l o g y — a r e never really pure. T h e mystified n i m b u s always in­ h e r e s in t h e m , g l i m m e r s like an aura a b o u t t h e m , flickers as their after­ i m a g e , h o w e v e r b r i e f or restricted, waiting only till material forces con­ spire to m a k e it theoretically necessary to n a m e these later a n d m o r e problematic developments.

Preface

ix

Craft is s o m e t h i n g p r o d u c e d by skill. A r t is s o m e t h i n g p r o d u c e d by creativity. I d o n ' t think the suggestion is terribly p r o f o u n d that the "creativity ef­ fect" in art is an indeterminate interplay o f skill a n d originality in a field in w h i c h it is empirically impossible to k n o w in s o m e exhaustive m a n n e r which is w h i c h . It is impossible for the a u d i e n c e o f the art w o r k to know. A n d while the artist may b e a bit m o r e o n top o f certain aspects o f the p r o b l e m than s o m e m e m b e r s o f the a u d i e n c e , finally a n d for the same reasons it is also impossible for the artist to know. W h a t m a k e s it impos­ sible to k n o w is the virtually infinite n u m b e r o f repetitions that must sed­ i m e n t implicitly—and the extraordinary effect small perturbations m a k e o n the overall p e r c e p t i o n o f the results. T h i s is also, o f course, w h a t m a k e s the t e a c h i n g o f a n y t h i n g w h e r e creativity (rather than skill) is involved p r o b l e m a t i c : for the m o d e r n no­ tion o f creativity, t h r o u g h its reliance o n the ideas o f skill a n d original­ ity, c o m e s to m a r k out, j u s t like B e n j a m i n ' s n o t i o n o f " g o o d taste," an area o f h u m a n e n d e a v o r a n d everyday semiosis b a s e d largely, as it w e r e , on ignorance. In practical terms: I have h a d the rather d i s c o n c e r t i n g e x p e r i e n c e o f h a v i n g taught a creative writing w o r k s h o p from w h i c h five o f the twenty students w e n t o n to b e c o m e respected a n d regularly publishing writers. After w i n n i n g a H u g o Award for her first novel a n d basing a n o t h e r o n a passing exercise I'd given in class (and t h e n g o i n g o n to set u p a successful w o r k s h o p o f her own at her own university based o n the o n e I h a d g i v e n ) , o n e told m e s h e ' d f o u n d the w o r k s h o p I'd taught e x t r e m e l y helpful a n d liberating for her. A n o t h e r y o u n g m a n at the same session w h o w e n t o n to publish three novels that I personally respect greatly e x p l a i n e d to m e that, for him, the same w o r k s h o p was o n e o f the most destructive a n d painful ex­ periences o f his life a n d that, if anything, it a c c o u n t e d for his delay in writing his books. A n d the three others w h o w e n t o n to write a n d publish their novels c l a i m e d that they f o u n d the same w o r k s h o p m o d e r a t e l y helpful but helpful in the way that—they suggested—all their life experi­ ences m o r e or less contributed to their writing. While it is the statistics—the five out o f twenty w h o w e n t o n to b e c o m e professional (and in o n e case, award-winning) writers—that justify to the administration, h o w e v e r l o n g after the fact, the w o r k s h o p ' s existence, it is the same writers' individual responses that m a k e m e question the effi­ cacy and, i n d e e d , the o n t o l o g i c a l status o f what, after all, it is that's sup­ posed to be taught. T h e assumption has always b e e n that creativity, like g o o d taste, can b e acquired by g u i d e d e x p o s u r e . But, as with l a n g u a g e learning, the e x p o -

x

Preface

sure is far m o r e i m p o r t a n t than the g u i d a n c e . Doubtless this is why, for myself, I've always felt that I d o far m o r e to foster creativity (of the crea­ tive writing variety) in the courses I've taught in the reading o f novels, p o e m s , a n d short stories, than I have w h e n I was actually assigned to "teach creative writing." Certainly there is the habit o f writing; and it is a habit. B u t what I have b e e n saying u p until n o w is simply a n o t h e r way o f saying that, for all the i g n o r a n c e o n w h i c h it is f o u n d e d , for all its minus­ c u l e e n e r g y a n d paltry glow, w h a t creativity I have seems to m e to be far m o r e c o n t o u r e d , fueled, a n d even constituted by r e a d i n g in a political a n d material w o r l d than it d o e s by the actual practice—whether o n e reads practice in the sense o f tradition or r e p e t i t i o n — o f writing, as hard a n d as energy- a n d time-consuming as it is. Perhaps the c o n s c i o u s m i n d a n d the u n c o n s c i o u s m i n d are a n o t h e r pair to w h i c h o u r e x e m p l a r y Benjaminian relationship obtains. It cer­ tainly w o u l d explain why so m a n y o f us feel so right before Lacan 's asser­ tion that the u n c o n s c i o u s is structured (as are g o o d taste, power, ex­ c h a n g e value, science, a n d art) as a l a n g u a g e . B u t h e r e we are at the verge o f o u r titular topics: creativity and academic writing. T h e theoretical p r o b l e m o f creativity in a c a d e m i c writing—if there is one—is finally a rhetorical o n e . As in the other paraliterary writing prac­ tices (comics, science fiction, pornography, mysteries . . . ) , in academic writing s o m e p e o p l e are far m o r e comfortable with what they assume to be a purified rhetoric: "Let's speak h e r e only o f writing skills and schol­ arly crafts," they often say. "In terms o f academic writing, art and creativ­ ity m a k e m e u n c o m f o r t a b l e , thanks to a host o f p r o b l e m s that run the g a m u t from institutional to i d e o l o g i c a l . " B u t that particular rhetorical e l e m e n t o f the p r o b l e m is solved t h r o u g h r e m i n d i n g ourselves that, as I said before, the terms are never p u r e . T h e a u r a o f creativity a n d art inheres in the very notion o f skill a n d craft w h e t h e r we w a n t it to or not. T h e difference is o n e o f connotative emphasis, n o t denotative ontology. Semantic purity is not ours for the having. B u t I d o n ' t think it s h o u l d c o m e as any surprise that for m e the most comfortable way to p r o m o t e creativity—or skill, if y o u are m o r e comfort­ able with the false purity o f the term—in a c a d e m i c writing is the same way I feel most c o m f o r t a b l e p r o m o t i n g it a m o n g creative writing stu­ dents: g u i d e d e x p o s u r e . In the field o f a c a d e m i c writing, I w a n t to see creative writing (for ex­ a m p l e ) students r e a d i n g J o h n Livingston L o w e , Erich A u e r b a c h , and Ian Watt; I w a n t to see t h e m r e a d i n g Barbara J o h n s o n , S t e p h e n G r e e n blatt, Chris Baldick, Francis Barker, a n d William Gass; they should read

Preface

xi

S h o s h a n a F e l m a n o n J a m e s a n d Freud; they s h o u l d read J a n e G a l l o p on Sade a n d L a c a n . T h e y s h o u l d read A r n o l d R a m p e r s a d o n H u g h e s a n d H a y d e n . T h e y s h o u l d read E.J. Dijkterhuis o n the history o f science a n d O w e n Barfield o n C o l e r i d g e a n d Peter H u l m e o n the C a r i b b e a n . T h e y should read Pater a n d P o p p e r a n d Ryle o n Plato a n d A r t h u r O . Lovejoy o n the G r e a t C h a i n o f B e i n g . T h e y s h o u l d read Marc Shell o n m o n e y and art. T h e y s h o u l d read J. Dover-Wilson a n d B e r n a r d G r e b a n i e r a n d A. C. Bradley and G. Wilson K n i g h t a n d L e o n a r d Knights a n d S t e p h e n O r g e l o n Shakespeare. T h e y s h o u l d r e a d Pears o n Wittgenstein a n d G o l d m a n n o n the intellectual ferment in the seventeenth century at Port Royal and Philippe Aries o n c h i l d h o o d a n d F e r n a n d B r a u d e l o n history. T h e y should read W. E. B . D u B o i s o n black reconstruction in A m e r i c a and David Levering Lewis o n D u B o i s . ( A n d certainly I have my writerly al­ legiances to Foucault, Derrida, and Barthes.) T h e y s h o u l d read C h a r l e s Rosen o n S c h o e n b e r g and classical style a n d M o l d e n h a u e r o n W e b e r n and Paul R o b i n s o n o n o p e r a . T h e y s h o u l d read K e n n e r o n P o u n d a n d E l l i n g h a m a n d Killian o n Jack Spicer a n d E d n a K r a m e r o n the n a t u r e and growth o f m o d e r n mathematics a n d Mary-Claire van L e u n e n o n how to write scholarly writing. B u t g o o d criticism (however y o u define it; and, as an insistently paraliterary field, a c a d e m i c criticism remains an idiosyncratic r h i z o m e o f m u l t i c a n o n i c a l discourses) — g o o d criticism as it is read—will d o a great deal m o r e to further creativity in a c a d e m i c writ­ ing than all the exhortations to "be creative" any d e p a r t m e n t or univer­ sity or w o r k s h o p can proffer. Limit cases are always problematic, but I will w i n d u p with a n o t h e r anecdote. W h e n I was first a visiting professor in the English d e p a r t m e n t of the State University o f N e w York at Buffalo ( 1 9 7 5 ) , I f o u n d myself with three graduate students to advise w h o w e r e in the process o f prepar­ ing thesis proposals. F a c e d with the m é l a n g e o f early o u d i n e s a n d their sprawling non-limited topics l e a p i n g a b o u t b e t w e e n g e n r e s a n d centu­ ries, I asked if any o f t h e m h a d ever reads. P h . D . thesis in English. B l a n k stares. T h e n o t i o n that, in o r d e r to write o n e (not to m e n t i o n write a g o o d one—or, h e a v e n h e l p us, write a creative o n e ) , they m i g h t actually read o n e (or possibly even read five o r six, if n o t a few d o z e n ) h a d n e v e r entered their very creative minds. B u t I can assure y o u that these same b r i g h t a n d enthusiastic y o u n g p e o p l e , if I h a d described to t h e m s o m e o n e w h o tried to write a sonnet, w h o h a d never read o n e but h a d only the rhyme s c h e m e to g o o n , w o u l d have c h u c k l e d as m u c h as y o u j u s t did. For both creative writing and academic writing, I believe that if the reading takes place, the writing—given any c h a n c e at all—will take care o f itself. (I also believe that the most meaningful c h a n g e , w h e r e individuals

xii

Preface

can t r i u m p h over b o t h entropy a n d evolution as it w e r e , c o m e s w h e n p e o p l e use empirical k n o w l e d g e against g o o d taste, use strength against power, skill against art, a n d t e c h n o l o g y against science in their easiest and u n t h i n k i n g m o d e s . Invariably this m e a n s allying t h e m to those same fields in their broader, theoretical m o d e s , in terms o f intelligence, tradi­ tion, a n d those questions o f taste that are not immediately exhausted by s i m p l e m i n d e d notions o f g o o d a n d bad—within the largely u n k n o w n fields the s e c o n d terms constitute.) B u t this m e a n s reading widely in the best (and, alas, in the worst) that is currently b e i n g written. It means r e a d i n g widely in the tradition. T h e w o r k s h o p s a n d the courses in aca­ d e m i c writing—or e v e n G o d h e l p us—in "How to Be M o r e Creative in O u r A c a d e m i c Writing" are exhortatory, supplementary, even, on occa­ sion, a w o n d e r f u l h e l p . Like all supplements, i n h e r e n t within t h e m is the possibility for any n u m b e r o f p o w e r reversals. D o n o t slight them. But w i t h o u t the r e a d i n g , there is n o possibility o f writing worth the name, skillful, creative, o r otherwise. —Amherst May iç)8ç

art

v / n e

S o m e Q u e e r Tliougl

F

L

1

T h e Rhetoric of S e x / T h e Discourse of Desire

1. Apples and Pears. In the two d o z e n years b e t w e e n 1488 a n d 1 5 1 2 , L e ­ o n a r d o d a V i n c i p r o d u c e d a series o f fascinating anatomical drawings that strike the m o d e r n viewer as highly realistic a n d rich with the texture and l o o k o f the b o d i e s w h o s e dissections h e o b s e r v e d or, n o d o u b t , took part in, as he drew from life—or m o r e accurately, from death—his sché­ mas o f the b l o o d vessels, the workings o f the heart, the b l a d d e r a n d uri­ nary system, the w o m b a n d the fetus inside it. T h e s e drawings are clearly and carefully observed, detailed, a n d rich in layerings a n d representa­ tions o f tissue t e x t u r e — a n d practically useless to a m o d e r n anatomist. 1

For as we l o o k closer, w e find there are n o atriums o r auricles in his de­ piction o f the h u m a n heart; rather, h e shows a two-chambered affair with only ventricles; and while h e r e a n d there we can r e c o g n i z e the aorta a n d the esophagus, as well as the larger organs, the circulatory system and the alimentary system are d e p i c t e d in gross form; there are n o articulations shown between the stomach and the intestines (mostly absent from his drawings, t h o u g h n o t his writings). A n d in an early anatomic depiction o f heterosexual copulation, a "wholly fictitious p i e c e o f p l u m b i n g " (to use the commentator's term from the 1 9 8 9 catalogue o f the H a y w o o d Gal­ lery da Vinci exhibition in L o n d o n ) runs from the man's penis, bypass­ ing the testicles, to the small o f the back, w h e r e many d u r i n g the Italian Renaissance believed "the seed o f life" was manufactured. I n d e e d , hardly any vessel shown in any o f L e o n a r d o ' s anatomic interiors c o n n e c t s u p to what, today, w e are fairly certain that it does. 2

A n d what are we to m a k e o f L e o n a r d o ' s d e p i c t i o n o f the w o m b ? For the m o d e r n anatomist, the uterus is traditionally d e s c r i b e d as pearshaped, small e n d d o w n , a n d c o n n e c t e d by m e a n s o f the cervix to the vaginal cavity. T h e pear-shaped b u l g e at the u p p e r e n d is largely a prod­ uct o f the entrance into the uterus o f the fallopian tubes, w h i c h , left and

4

Shorter Views

right, lead b a c k from the o u t e r ends o f the ovaries to c o n d u c t the e g g to the wall o f the uterine cavity. L e o n a r d o ' s w o m b , however, w h e t h e r it is e n g o r g e d with a "four m o n t h old fetus" as in the p e n a n d ink drawing with wash over traces o f black a n d r e d chalk from 1 5 1 0 - 1 2 , "The Fetus in the W o m b , " o r w h e t h e r it is w i t h o u t child, as it is in the 1 5 0 7 drawing o f p e n and ink and wash on w a s h e d paper, " T h e Principal O r g a n s a n d Vascular a n d Urino-Genital System o f a W o m a n , " is as r o u n d as an apple. In " T h e Fetus in the W o m b , " while an ovary is i n d e e d shown, only the vascular c o n n e c t i o n a b o u t the base is drawn; there is n o c o n n e c t i o n at all from the business e n d o f the ovaries to the w o m b proper. T h e fallopian tubes and all the muscular p r o t u b e r a n c e s o f the u p p e r e n d are omitted as tissuey irrelevancies to the w o m b ' s p r e s u m e d perfect, Renaissance sphericality. N o r is this surprising. T h e assumption o f the times was that the material relation obtaining between a m a n and his offspring was that between seed and plant. T h e re­ lation b e t w e e n a w o m a n and her offspring, however, was that of contigu­ ity, sympathy, r e s e m b l a n c e t h r o u g h i m p o s e d distortion—of environment to plant. Certainly, p e o p l e h a d noticed that a child was as likely to resem­ ble its m o t h e r or p e o p l e in its mother's family as it was to resemble its father or p e o p l e in its father's family. B u t the assumption was that pater­ nal resemblances a n d maternal resemblances were o f two different or­ ders. You r e s e m b l e d your father because y o u were g r o w n from his seed. You r e s e m b l e d your mother, however, because y o u spent so m u c h time in her w o m b that y o u p i c k e d u p her traits—because her food had b e e n your food, h e r pains your pains, h e r sorrows y o u r sorrows, h e r soul your soul. In o n e o f the notes o n the drawing " T h e Fetus in the W o m b , " in da Vinci's famous m i r r o r writing, we find L e o n a r d o ' s clear expression o f the maternal sympathy b e t w e e n the body o f the m o t h e r a n d the body o f the child: In the case of the child the heart does not beat and . . . breathing is not necessary to it because it receives life and is nourished from the life and food of the mother. And this food nourishes such creatures in just the same way as it does the other parts of the mother, namely the hands feet and other mem­ bers. And a single soul governs these two bodies, and the desires and fears and pains are common to this creature as to all the other animated members. And from this it proceeds that a thing desired by the mother is often found en­ graved upon those parts of the child which the mother keeps in herself at the time of such desire and sudden fear kills both mother and child. We conclude therefore that a single soul governs the two bodies and nour­ ishes the two. (McCurdy 173)

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

5

O n the same drawing, fascinatingly e n o u g h , there is talk o f a female seed: The black races of Ethiopia are not the product of the sun; for if black gets black with child in Scythia, the offspring is black; but if a black gets a white woman with child the offspring is gray. And this shows that the seed of the mother has power in the embryo equally with that of the father. (McCurdy 173) B u t from what o n e knows o f the r a n g e o f Renaissance writings, the ma­ ternal seed, for all its p r e s u m e d equality with the male, was a highly metaphorical one—just as the male "seed" was to b e c o m e m e r e meta­ p h o r u p o n discovery o f sperm a n d e g g r e p r o d u c t i o n . B u t in the c o m ­ m o n course o f things, it was generally n o t given m u c h c r e d e n c e as l o n g as o n e was within the country, the family, the race. L e o n a r d o died in France d u r i n g the late spring o f 1 5 1 9 . Four years later in 1 5 2 3 at the tiny town o f M o d e n a , Italy, G a b r i e l l o Fallopio was b o r n . S o o n Fallopio b e c a m e c a n o n o f the M o d e n a cathe­ dral. H e studied m e d i c i n e at Ferrara, t h e n e m b a r k e d o n a w o r l d tour, during which h e spent a while w o r k i n g with the great B e l g i a n anatomist, Andreis Vesalius. H e r e t u r n e d to Ferrara, w h e r e h e n o w taught anatomy, having l o n g since switched his n a m e to the Latin f o r m that befit a Re­ naissance scholar a n d u n d e r w h i c h he is m o r e widely k n o w n today: Fallopius. T h e n c e h e r e m o v e d to Pisa, a n d from Pisa, o n the installation o f the new g r a n d d u k e o f Tuscany, C o s i m o I, to Padua, w h e r e , besides the chairs o f anatomy, surgery, a n d botany, h e was also created superinten­ d e n t o f the new botanical g a r d e n . It was Fallopius w h o discovered the o p e n i n g o f the ovarian tubes o f the h u m a n female into the a b d o m i n a l cavity. A s well, h e n a m e d b o t h the vagina (after the Latin for scabbard) and the placenta (after the G r e e k for p a n c a k e ) . H e d i e d in P a d u a in 1 5 6 2 , a year after publishing (in V e n i c e ) his single treatise. T h e fallo­ pian tubes (which retained a capital ^ d e s u l t o r i l y into the 1830s b u t lost it by the 1870s) have b o r n e his n a m e ever since. With Fallopius's anatomy, the spherical w o m b o f L e o n a r d o gave way to the p e a r - s h a p e d w o m b w e are familiar with from the m o d e r n ana­ tomical vision. B u t w h a t I have tried to dramatize in this little narrative is the force s h a p i n g the very sight itself o f a visionary as g r e a t a n d as r e v e r e d as any in o u r c u l t u r e , L e o n a r d o d a V i n c i . It is the till-now-inour-tale u n n a m e d s t r u c t u r i n g a n d structurating f o r c e that c a n g o by n o better n a m e than "discourse." For w h a t has m e t a m o r p h o s e d between L e o n a r d o a n d Fallopius is the discourse o f the b o d y itself— medical discourse, a n a t o m i c a l d i s c o u r s e — a n d that force seems strong e n o u g h to c o n t o u r w h a t is a p p a r e n t to the eye o f s o m e o f the greatest

6

Shorter Views

direct observers o f o u r world. W e find it at w o r k in L e o n a r d o ' s anatomy, as w e find it at w o r k in Gray's. 2. Interlogue One. I pause h e r e to say that, thanks to my title, I feel s o m e w h a t like the m a n w h o shouts, "Sex," t h e n continues o n to say, "Now that I have y o u r attention . . . " For w e have c o m e to the real, i.e., the political, topics o f my essay, w h i c h are rhetoric a n d discourse. S e x a n d desire—while they may now a n d again provide s o m e o f the m o r e dramatic narratives t h r o u g h w h i c h we shall e n d e a v o r to show h o w discourse can manifest and problematize itself t h r o u g h rhetoric—will in my essay remain largely occasions for the e x p l o r a t i o n o f rhetoric a n d discourse themselves. A n d t h o u g h w e will r e t u r n to sex a n d desire again a n d again, and even try to p l u m b t h e m for the secrets o f the misfiring o f so many relations called "sexual" b e t w e e n m e n a n d w o m e n , m e n a n d m e n , w o m e n and w o m e n , w e shall stray from t h e m again a n d again—to areas as diverse as children's picture b o o k s a n d children's g a m e s a r o u n d a fountain in C e n ­ tral Park, to tales told over a calabash o f b e e r in the rainy season o f the West African Tiv, to very similar-sounding criticisms o f writers as differ­ e n t as Ursula L e G u i n a n d T o n i Morrison, to dimly perceived objects in a h o u s e in A m h e r s t at the e d g e o f dawn, to the lack o f operationalism in A I D S research. B u t n o w w e ask: W h a t is this "discourse" that has for so l o n g p r o t r u d e d its rhetorical stumbling b l o c k into the j a r g o n - h e a v y realms o f literary theory, either since the M i d d l e A g e s or W o r l d War II, d e p e n d i n g o n w h o s e a c c o u n t y o u read? Well, here's a tale o f a tale. 3. Pictures and Books. I have an eighteen-year-old daughter. A n d fifteen years a g o , w h e n she was three a n d j u s t b e g i n n i n g to read (and, even m o r e , enjoying b e i n g read t o ) , like so m a n y parents o f those years I no­ ticed that there w e r e p r e c i o u s few children's picture b o o k s with female protagonists. S o m e h o w , with the e x c e p t i o n o f Frances the H e d g e h o g , the illustrated bestiary in these b o o k s was overwhelmingly male. This struck m e as ridiculous as well as unfair—and even, perhaps, dangerous. W h o k n e w w h a t h a p p e n e d to c h i l d r e n w h o s e only identificatory ob­ j e c t s resided outside their race, their class, their sex, their g e n d e r — n o t to say their kind? I n d e e d , having p r o v e d itself powerful e n o u g h to stabilize the process by w h i c h the nation's schools h a d b e e n d e s e g r e g a t e d , an entire dis­ course from the fifties was already in place with its unpleasant sugges­ tions precisely a b o u t the answers to that seemingly rhetorical question.

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

7

W h a t was a p a r e n t to d o with such b o o k s w h e n little girl animals were simply n o t extant? O n e b o o k that fell into my hands, back then, was a c h a r m i n g a n d welldrawn affair, about a little b e a r called C o r d u r o y . What's m o r e , C o r d u r o y wore a pair o f d e n i m O s h k o s h overalls—as did my three-year-old o n most o f her days at playschool. Certainly, there was a p o i n t o f c o r r e s p o n ­ d e n c e . W h y c o u l d n ' t I simply u p a n d c h a n g e C o r d u r o y ' s sex in the tell­ ing? With white-out a n d felt-tip p e n , I w e n t so far as to r e m o v e the he's and c h a n g e the p r o n o u n s to she's—in case Iva's r e a d i n g had actually pro­ gressed further than I suspected. 3

T h e n I sat d o w n , with my daughter. I b e g a n the story—and at the first p r o n o u n , Iva twisted a r o u n d in my lap to declare: "But Daddy, it's a boy bear! " "I d o n ' t think so," I said. ' T h e b o o k says 'she' right there." "But it's not\ " she insisted. I was sure o f my a r g u m e n t . "How d o y o u k n o w it's a boy bear?" "Because he's g o t pants o n ! " Surely she had fallen into my trap. "But you 're w e a r i n g pants," I ex­ plained. "In fact, y o u ' r e w e a r i n g the same k i n d o f O s h k o s h overalls that C o r d u r o y is wearing. A n d y o u ' r e a little girl, aren't y o u ? " "But Daddy," d e c l a r e d my three-year-old in a v o i c e o f utmost disdain at my failure to r e c o g n i z e the self-evident, "that's a bookl " D u r i n g the same three or four m o n t h s ' r e a d i n g in w h i c h I was learn­ ing o f the rhetorical failure o f the discourse o f c h i l d r e n ' s picture b o o k s to provide an egalitarian array o f m u l t i g e n d e r e d protagonists, my d a u g h ­ ter, o f course, had b e e n learning that discourse itself. A n d the fact was, she was right—I was w r o n g . C o r d u r o y was a boy. N o matter h o w unfair or how p e r n i c i o u s it was or m i g h t prove, the discourse of children's b o o k s made h i m a boy. A n d that discourse was so sedimented that a single instance o f rhetorical variation, in 1 9 7 7 , registered not as a new and w e l c o m e d variant but, rather, as a mistake self-evident to a three-year-old. "Well," I said, "let's make C o r d u r o y a 'she.' We'll p r e t e n d she's a girl, just like you. " Iva had also l e a r n e d the discourse o f "let's pretend"—surely from the same b o o k s that h a d taught h e r pants (in b o o k s ) m e a n t m a l e . S h e set­ tled back in my lap a n d s e e m e d satisfied e n o u g h with the revised story. Today, in the shadow o f its shelf, Corduroy has dust o n its u p p e r e d g e . But days a g o I p h o n e d Iva in the city w h e r e she was getting ready to g o off to college n e x t year, and—in preparation for this essay—I asked h e r whether she h a d any m e m o r y o f the incident. No, she didn't. "But o n c e I was l o o k i n g through some o f my o l d picture

8

Shorter Views

b o o k s , a n d I r e m e m b e r finding Corduroy a n d realizing s o m e o n e had taken a p e n a n d c h a n g e d all the he's to she's. I r e m e m b e r w o n d e r i n g why t h e y ' d d o n e it." 4. Interlogue Two. Perhaps h e r e is the p l a c e to state s o m e principles, then, o f discourse. Discourses are plural a n d are learned, with language, w h e r e they function as a particular e c o n o m i c level in the linguistic array. T h e y are n o t a set o f criteria that are to b e m e t or missed by a text. Rather, they l o d g e inchoately in the processes by w h i c h w e m a k e a text m a k e sense—by w h i c h we register a text well-formed or ill-formed. T h e y are révisable, often from within themselves. T h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f a dis­ course, like the revision o f a discourse, always involves s o m e violent rhe­ torical shift—though the final effects o f that v i o l e n c e may well be in s o m e wholly u n e x p e c t e d area o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g that the discourse af­ fects. A n d most discourses w o r t h the n a m e have c o m p l e x methods— starting with simple forgetfulness—for regularly h e a l i n g themselves across such rhetorical violences. A n d this is also the place to recall a com­ m e n t by my fellow science-fiction writer, Ursula L e G u i n : O n l y adults confuse fantasy a n d reality; children never d o . F r o m this a n e c d o t e o f a parent, a child, a n d a picture b o o k , it is not too great a l e a p to the suggestion that w h e r e v e r the world appears (in Plato's phrase) "illuminated by the sun o f the intelligible," the light that d o e s the illuminating is discourse. B u t what o u r earlier tale o f Fallopius a n d L e o n a r d o reminds us is just h o w powerful a light that is. For it may m a k e a p e a r l o o k like an apple— or, i n d e e d , an apple l o o k like a pear. 5. Text and Text. H e r e are two texts that I think m i g h t have b e e n m u c h clarified by the n o t i o n o f discourse: For h e r e is a y o u n g w o m a n , w h o signs herself J. R. D u n n , writing a critique o f a r e c e n t article by Ursula L e G u i n in a letter to Monad, an in­ formal critical j o u r n a l d e v o t e d to science fiction: 4

In her opening pages, Le Guin stated that: ". . . in the European tradition the hero who does great deeds is a white man . . . human women were essentially secondary, taking part in the story only as mothers and wives of men, beloved by or the seducers of men, victims of or rescued by men. Women did not in­ itiate action, except passively . . . the great deeds were men's deeds." I don't think I'm mistaken in taking this as the essay's key premise. That being so, it's unnecessary to go on any further: My argument with Le Guin lies right there. That passage represents the standard feminist historical model in action:

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

9

that before the modern era women were victims at best, a mute inglorious mass marked by biology, allowed no contribution to any branch of human en­ deavor, the history of the female sex is a vast boneyard of oppression, suffer­ ing and degradation. This interpretation has been institutionalized for two decades and it's late in the day to pick a fight over it. But I believe that it is in error, and those adhering to it are seriously contradicted by the record. D u n n t h e n g o e s o n to give a catalogue o f great w o m e n o f accomplish­ m e n t in the West, from warrior q u e e n s such as Telesilla o f A r g o s , Z e n o bia o f Palmyra, a n d B o a d i c e a o f G r e a t Britain, o n to w o m e n cultural fig­ ures, such as S a p p h o , A n n a C o m n e n a , Juliana o f N o r w i c h , Christine d e Pisan, Vittoria C o l o n n a , a n d A n n e Bradstreet, p u n c t u a t e d with a list o f the great tragic heroines from G r e e k drama. A n d toward h e r c o n c l u s i o n (I a b r i d g e ) , D u n n writes: I'm not suggesting that Le Guin doesn't know any of this. I'm sure she does. It just doesn't connect. I won't speculate on why except to note that ideology tends to restrict critical thinking. This happens to the best of us. It's hap­ pened to me. . . . I accept the proposition that feminism is divided into egalitarian and vari­ ous radical branches. I strongly support the egalitarian position on grounds of logic and common sense. The other variants, "gender" or "radical" femi­ nism, what have you, I can only reject, seeing the nature of the "facts" they're based on. I object to any contention that the two streams are in any way one and the same. I'll go on to say I can picture few greater social tragedies than egalitarian feminism collapsing in the wreckage of the weirder varieties. I h o p e it will n o t simply b e a j e j u n e exercise to p o i n t o u t that, in h e r pur­ suit o f logic and c o m m o n sense, D u n n has misread L e G u i n a n d a c c o m ­ plished a truly astonishing rewrite o f history—a m i s r e a d i n g a n d a rewrit­ ing that can be pried apart by the careful insertion o f a n o t i o n o f discourse that will, perhaps, yield us its analytical fruit. But before I d o so, I want to offer a n o t h e r text, this time o n racial mat­ ters, that seems ripe for the same sort o f m i s r e a d i n g that L e G u i n ' s text has fallen victim to in D u n n . F r o m T o n i Morrison's r e c e n t b o o k - l e n g t h essay, Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination: For some time now I have been thinking a b o u t . . . a certain set of assumptions conventionally accepted among literary historians and critics and circulated as "knowledge." This knowledge holds that traditional, canonical American

lo

Shorter Views literature is free of, uninformed, and unshaped by the four-hundred-year-old presence of, first, Africans and then African-Americans in the United States. It assumes that this presence—which shaped the body politic, the Constitu­ tion, and the entire history of the culture—has had no significant place or consequence in the origin and development of that culture's literature. . . . There seems to be a more or less tacit agreement among literary scholars that, because American literature has been clearly the white male views, genius, and power, those views, genius, and power are without relationship to and re­ moved from the overwhelming presence of black people in the United States. 5

It is all too easy to see, at s o m e not-so-distant point, such a paragraph from M o r r i s o n taking its p l a c e within a critique o f s o m e fancied radical liberation m o v e m e n t m u c h like D u n n ' s critique o f "radical" feminism; a n d s o m e y o u n g reader, straight from a perusal o f the paperback shelves o f his o r her local c o l l e g e bookstore, b r i n g i n g o u t the currently available p a p e r b a c k editions o f Phillis Wheatley's Poems and the slave narratives from O l a u d a h E q u i a n o a n d Frederick Douglass and Harriet E. Wilson's OurMgand Martin Delany's Blakeanâ the stories o f Charles W. Chesnutt a n d novels o f Iola H a r p e r a n d Z o r a N e a l e Hurston a n d Richard Wright a n d C h e s t e r H i m e s a n d William Demby, a n d citing the National B o o k A w a r d to Ralph Ellison a n d M c P h e r s o n ' s a n d J o h n s o n ' s and even Morrison's own Pulitzer Prize, in o r d e r to declare: "How can y o u say that there's a conspiracy to k e e p centuries o f black A m e r i c a n writers from b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d a literary p r e s e n c e . . . ?" T h e sanest p l a c e to b e g i n to answer e i t h e r D u n n ' s criticism o f L e G u i n o r my h y p o t h e t i c a l critic o f M o r r i s o n is with the historical truism: T h i n g s as they are today are n o t necessarily the same as they were e v e n ten o r fifteen years a g o , m u c h less twenty-five o r thirty, m u c h less fifty o r seventy-five years g o n e . W e c a n only h o p e that p o i n t will h o l d the ar­ g u m e n t s stable l o n g e n o u g h to l o o k in m o r e detail at b o t h L e G u i n ' s a n d M o r r i s o n ' s initial statements. For they share a n u m b e r o f rhetori­ cal features. O n the o n e h a n d , "white males" are the putative villains o f b o t h pas­ sages. (Are they h e t e r o s e x u a l ? B u t o f c o u r s e . W e d o n o t even have to ask—for there is a discourse already in p l a c e that m a k e s that at least as i n a r g u a b l e as the sex o f C o r d u r o y in 1 9 7 7 . ) O n the o t h e r h a n d , the w o r d s "tradition" a n d "traditional" in b o t h take a deceptively en passant role a m o n g the o p e n i n g sentences o f e a c h . A n d it is within the notion o f tradition that w h a t w e call discourse—traditionally—hides. Articulat­ i n g it m i g h t have a v o i d e d s o m e o f these s u b s e q u e n t p r o b l e m s . H a d L e G u i n o r M o r r i s o n b e e n able to f o r e g r o u n d it clearly, instead o f leaving

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

11

it implicit u n d e r the "traditions" b o t h are citing a n d for w h i c h the "heterosexual white m a l e " m o r e than a n y t h i n g else stands as a marker, a n a m e , an indicator o f a d o m i n a n t c u r r e n t in the i d e o l o g y o f the present century, their passages m i g h t b e less subject to such accusations and misrepresentations. I'd like to think that if, instead of, "In the E u r o p e a n tradition, the h e r o w h o d o e s g r e a t d e e d s is a white m a n " L e G u i n h a d written, "In tra­ ditional E u r o p e a n discourse, the h e r o w h o d o e s g r e a t d e e d s is a white man," D u n n ' s subsequent confusions m i g h t have b e e n less inevitable. O r if Morrison h a d written, "This k n o w l e d g e h o l d s that in the tradi­ tional discourse o f c a n o n i c a l , A m e r i c a n literature, that literature is free of, u n i n f o r m e d , a n d u n s h a p e d by the four-hundred-year-old p r e s e n c e of, first, Africans a n d then African-Americans in the U n i t e d States," t h e n perhaps my hypothetical critic m i g h t have b e e n less confused. O f course, discourse is a strong a n d m e a n i n g f u l c o n c e p t for m e . It represents an e c o n o m i c o r d e r o f l a n g u a g e that is apart f r o m tradition itself as it is apart from d o c t r i n e a n d ideology, t h o u g h it leans o n aspects of all o f t h e m , as all o f t h e m l e a n o n aspects o f discourse. B u t I a m aware that possibly w h a t characterizes D u n n or my o t h e r h y p o t h e t i c a l spoil-sport critic, is that the c o n c e p t o f discourse m a y b e w h a t they themselves lack. For what discourse d o e s above all things is to assign import. Dis­ course, r e m e m b e r , is w h a t allows us to m a k e sense o f what w e see, a n d hear, a n d e x p e r i e n c e . Yes, the Z e n o b i a s a n d the Christine d e Pisans, the Wilsons a n d Chesnutts a n d Hurstons were there. B u t discourse is w h a t tells us what is central a n d w h a t is p e r i p h e r a l — w h a t is a mistake, an anomaly, an accident, a j o k e . It tells us what to pay attention to a n d w h a t to ignore. It tells us what sort o f attention to pay. It tells us what is a n o m ­ alous and therefore nonserious. A n d till very recently " a n o m a l o u s a n d nonserious" is h o w the a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s o f w o m e n , w h e t h e r in the arts or in the world, were j u d g e d . A n d the writings o f blacks in this c o u n t r y were, until very recently, c o n s i d e r e d even m o r e o f an accident. T h e rewriting o f history I've s p o k e n o f is simply that it w o u l d b e h a r d to make a list o f the works that have d o n e m o r e to c h a n g e the discourse of g e n d e r so that, today, D u n n o r I c a n walk into o u r local bookstores and buy a copy o f Christine d e Pisan's City of Ladies, that did n o t i n c l u d e Le G u i n ' s works, such as The Left Hand of Darkness ( 1 9 6 g ) a n d The Dispos­ sessed ( 1 9 7 4 ) . It w o u l d be h a r d to m a k e a list o f those works that h a d h e l p e d c h a n g e the discourse o f race so that w e can n o w walk into the same bookstore a n d buy any o f the p a p e r b a c k v o l u m e s in the S c h o m b e r g Library o f nineteenth-century black w o m e n writers, that did n o t in­ clude Morrison's o w n novels Sula ( 1 9 7 3 ) a n d Song of Solomon ( 1 9 7 7 ) .

12

Shorter Views

W h a t it is necessary to r e m e m b e r , in o r d e r to m a k e discourse a strong c o n c e p t , is that it is the materialist side o f reason and ratiocination, o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d history. It is all very well to explain that electric lights were simply n o t very c o m m o n seventy or eighty years a g o . O r that, even in my own early c h i l d h o o d in the 1940s, o u r p e r f e c d y comfortable coun­ try h o u s e , w h i c h w e drove to every summer, was lit by k e r o s e n e lanterns. O r that, at the same time, the country h o u s e o f my u n c l e , a fine and up­ standing j u d g e in the B r o o k l y n Domestic Relations C o u r t , h a d n o in­ d o o r toilet facilities but only an o u t h o u s e in the back. It is a n o t h e r thing, however, to explain to p e o p l e today, w h e t h e r they r e m e m b e r k e r o s e n e lamps o r not, that, in a pre-electric light era, the creation o f illumination always m e a n t an e x p e n d i t u r e o f time and physi­ cal e n e r g y at least as great as that o f lighting a match (which is already several times m o r e than turning o n a light switch) — and the vast majority o f times m e a n t an e x p e n d i t u r e o f physical e n e r g y far greater than that, an e x p e n d i t u r e , w h i c h , to b e efficient, was e m b e d d e d in a social schema that involved getting candles, fuels, regularly t r i m m i n g wicks and clean­ i n g the glass chimneys, c h o p p i n g w o o d a n d stoking fires, so that even the casual creation o f light in such an age was an entirely different social op­ eration from w h a t it is today. O n e m i g h t even say that, in such an age, light c o u l d n o t be casually created. L i g h t was at the n e x u s o f a great deal m o r e physical e n e r g y a n d daily p l a n n i n g . T h u s , because o f o u r vastly dif­ ferent relation to it, light itself was a different social object from what it is today. A n d thus, every m e n t i o n o f light, in any text from that period, w h e t h e r it b e in the deadest o f h a c k n e y e d m e t a p h o r s o r in the most vi­ brant a n d vivid poetry, is referring to a different o r d e r o f object. W h a t we have b e g u n to e x p l o r e h e r e , o f course, is the discourse o f light. It is the discourse that, e x p l o r e d in e n o u g h detail, can revivify the evil, distant, flickering lights that h a u n t A m e r i c a n writers from Nathan­ iel H a w t h o r n e to A m b r o s e B i e r c e , even as they turn into clichés in the later writings o f Lovecraft; w e must r e m e m b e r that initially such lights usually m e a n t fires in the distance—forest fires or h o m e s c a u g h t from s o m e light source (got o u t o f c o n t r o l ) , w h i c h , at the time, was always a flame source too. In the discourse o f sexual roles, certainly the greatest material distur­ b e r o f traditional roles was the spread, after World War II, in the late for­ ties a n d early fifties (even m o r e so than the Pill), o f the h o m e washerdryer c o m b i n a t i o n . Until that time, in any family o f m o r e than two p e o p l e , the washing, h a n g i n g o u t by h a n d , a n d i r o n i n g o f clothes took u p a m i n i m u m o f two full days a week; a n d that was what m a d e it a fore­ g o n e c o n c l u s i o n , as self-evident to w o m e n at the time as it was to m e n , that in o r d e r to have any sort o f family, s o m e o n e w o u l d have to have at

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

13

least two days a w e e k in a small family (of four, say), a n d three o r m o r e in a large o n e , to devote to this task. T h e reduction o f the w e e k ' s laundry from two o r three days to two o r three hours was as traumatic to the discourse o f sexual roles as the intro­ duction o f electricity a n d the light switch was to the discourse o f light. We can say, o f course, that things have c h a n g e d — a n d have specifi­ cally c h a n g e d in terms o f race a n d sex. B u t I h o p e w e have s o m e way n o w of perceiving the e x t r e m e l y strong statement w e are m a k i n g w h e n w e say, for e x a m p l e , that the discourse o f sex a n d the discourse o f race have c h a n g e d far more—catastrophically m o r e — s i n c e 1 9 5 6 (to pick as an ar­ bitrary date the year w h e n the nation's schools w e r e , by law, d e s e g r e ­ gated) than has the discourse o f light since W o r l d War II. 6. Interlogue Three. Etymologically, the term "discourse" is a Latin w o r d that refers to an old, oval, R o m a n race track. A t a m o d e r n race track, spectators sit in seats o n the outside o f the track and l o o k in o n the runners. A t a discourse, however, the spectators entered the central section o f the track before the race, took their seats—or m o r e often simply w a l k e d a b o u t from o n e side to the other— while the racers c o u r s e d a r o u n d a n d a r o u n d t h e m . With such an object at its origins, it is h a r d to avoid m e t a p h o r i z i n g . O n e e n t e r e d the discourse a n d left it only at specified positions. T h e dis­ course encircled o n e ; it s u r r o u n d e d the spectator, m o v i n g a r o u n d a n d around him o r her. It is also h a r d n o t to speculate o n the nature o f its initial shift into metaphor. T h o u g h it's a n y o n e ' s guess as to h o w the discourse b e c a m e a metaphor for reason, understanding, a n d ratiocination, since discourses were places o f m u c h betting, it's p r o b a b l e that the kind o f h e a d scratch­ ing, the touting u p o f odds, a n d the endless speculative conversation o n the merits o f the racers characteristic today o f horse-racing tracks w e r e a part o f daily life at the discourse a n d thus p r o m p t e d the m e t a p h o r i c shift. But even that's speculation. N o o n e knows for sure. Today, however, the OED gives us u n d e r "discourse": 1. Onward course; process or succession of time, events, actions, etc. Obs. 2. "The act of the understanding, by which it passes from premises to conse­ quences," (Johnson); reasoning, thought, ratiocination; the faculty of reason­ ing, reason, rationality. 3. Communication of thought by speech; "mutual intercourse of language," (Johnson).

14

Shorter Views A n d again: 1. To run, move, travel over a space, region, etc. 2. To reason. (To turn over in the mind; to think over.) 3. To hold discourse, to speak with another or others, talk, converse; to dis­ cuss a matter, confer. 4. To speak or write at length on a subject; to utter or pen a discourse. (To utter, say, speak or write formally.)

B u t we are basically interested h e r e in m e a n i n g n u m b e r two within the c l o u d o f rhetorical c o n n o t a t i o n s m e a n i n g s three and four have set in m o t i o n — a r o u n d a n d a r o u n d it. T h a t arbiter o f seventeenth-century prose, Sir T h o m a s B r o w n e ( 1 6 0 5 - 1 6 8 2 ) , wrote "Hydroitaphia or a discourse o f the sepulchral urns lately f o u n d in N o r f o l k " ( 1 6 5 8 ) — t h a t is to say, a discourse of, n o t a dis­ course o n . T h e forty-seven-page essay represents B r o w n e ' s understand­ ing, his r e a s o n i n g a r o u n d , his c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f the urns; it presents the information from life a n d letters the wise d o c t o r possessed (or that possessed h i m ) to b r i n g to b e a r u p o n t h e m that m a d e the urns make sense—and, in its c o n c l u d i n g thanatopsis, the sense that then soared from t h e m . But, as I h o p e my b r i e f e x a m p l e o f D u n n has already shown, without the n o t i o n o f discourse—or s o m e t h i n g that stands in its stead—there can be n o sophisticated i d e a o f history. 7. Discourse and Desire. T o e x p l o r e a discourse is inevitably to tell a story: A t such a n d such a time, p e o p l e did this and that; thus they t h o u g h t a n d felt o n e thing a n d another. O n e o f my favorite storytellers is a F r e n c h m a n n a m e d R a y m o n d Rous­ sel. T h e m e t h o d h e used to tell a n u m b e r o f extraordinarily far-ranging a n d imaginative stories, as h e outlined it in an essay published shortly after his death in 1 9 3 4 , Comment j'ai écrit certains de mes livres, involved tak­ i n g two phrases, w o r d for w o r d identical or different only by, say, o n e let­ ter o f o n e word, in w h i c h every w o r d had at least two distinct meanings, a n d thus had two distinct m e a n i n g s as phrases. His most famous example is: Les lettres de blanc sur les bandes du vieux billard and Les lettres du blanc sur les bandes du vieux pillard, w h i c h m e a n , respectively, "The white letters in­ scribed o n the cushions o f the old billiard table," a n d ' T h e white man's letters written a b o u t the troops o f the o l d bandit." (Needless to say, the vieux pillard—the old bandit—in Roussel's story is black.) Roussel saw his various tales as attempts to m a n e u v e r logically from o n e phrase, which we w o u l d find in the first sentence o f his tale, to the second, which we would 6

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

15

find in the last. En route, again a n d again, Roussel constructed incidents around phrases that h a d a m o r e or less self-evident m e a n i n g b u t that could be reread to m e a n s o m e t h i n g else ("What d o y o u d o with a stiff neck?" "What d o you d o with a stiff . . . neck?") ; I have always taken the fact that the tales o f this wealthy F r e n c h h o m o s e x u a l e c c e n t r i c — w h e n freed from the constraints o f ordinary narrative discourse by the systematicity of his eccentric m e t h o d — a g a i n a n d again s w o o p e d into the subject o f race, o f blacks, o f Africa (Parmi les noirs, Impression d'Afrique) as a cultural index of just what a pervasive discourse race was for Europe—just as y o u will find, if y o u try the exercise in English, the secondary m e a n i n g s so often have a sexual side. T h e discourse o f race is intimately tied to the discourse o f sex; the term race, until the late e i g h t e e n t h century, m e a n t family—specifically a large, ancient, powerful family, such as the Sforza race, the M e d i c i race. When L e o n a r d o wrote o f the "Ethiopian races" in the notes h e m a d e on "Foetus in the W o m b " sometime b e t w e e n i 5 t o a n d 1 5 1 2 , o n e o f the rea­ sons for the plural, races, is that, within the discourse o f the time, w h a t h e was saying, denotatively, was "the Ethiopian families." T h e n o t i o n o f "race" as we know it w o u l d s e e m to b e g i n in an anxiety to locate a unit, still mediated by heredity, larger than the family yet s o m e h o w within its conceptual economy, but n o t coextensive with the nation. A n d there is no way to have heredity without sex. But even while w e have s p o k e n o f the rhetoric o f sex, and e x p l o r e d some o f the relations o f those rhetorical figures, we have stayed, till now, purposefully away from the idea o f desire. Desire is a very scary a n d uneasy n o t i o n . Its m a r k is a b s e n c e . A c c o r d ­ ingly, a positivistic culture frequently finds itself at a loss to e x p l o r e it or elaborate its workings. T h e two doctrinal principles that most o f us have access to c o m e re­ spectively from Freud a n d his most astute reader, L a c a n : Said Freud: Repetition is desire. Said Lacan: W h a t o n e desires is the desire o f the Other. T h e r e are, o f course, other ways to tell stories besides Roussel's. Rous­ sel e x p e n d e d extraordinary imaginative e n e r g y to m a k e sentences that were phonically all but identical m e a n different things. But suppose we tell two apparently different stories—and try to elab­ orate a discursive structure in w h i c h they can b e seen as o n e . Despite having a daughter, I c o m e to y o u as a gay black m a l e . B u t it is a reasonable assumption that some straight white males linger some­ where in my heredity. I find straight white males interesting—and some­ times, personally, sympathetic. A few years a g o , I wrote a b o o k , The Mo­ tion of Light in Water, an a u t o b i o g r a p h y that tried to delineate for m e 1

i6

Shorter Views

w h a t it m e a n t to g r o w u p in an A m e r i c a n city as a black, gay, male writer o f paraliterary fictions. In the b o o k I talked very o p e n l y about my own particular sexual e x p e r i e n c e s a n d sexual fetishes. I assumed that the b o o k w o u l d b e most interesting to others in margi­ nalized positions, vis-à-vis those straight white males w h o d e m o n i z e so m u c h o f marginal discourse. T h e b o o k received its share o f approbation from black readers (female and m a l e ) , white readers (female and m a l e ) , a n d gay readers (female a n d m a l e ) . Nevertheless, by far the largest num­ b e r o f p e o p l e w h o have c o m e u p to talk to m e a b o u t it or—on m o r e than o n e o c c a s i o n now, after o n e or a n o t h e r lecture such as this—have g r a b b e d m e by the shoulder, d r a g g e d m e into a corner, sat m e down, and b e g u n to tell m e their p r o b l e m s , then asked m e , with great c o n c e r n , what, from my marginal position, I t h o u g h t they o u g h t to d o about t h e m , are straight white males. O n e w o u l d almost think they felt e m p o w e r e d to take anything the so­ ciety p r o d u c e d , n o matter h o w marginal, a n d utilize it for their own e n d s — d a r e we say "exploit it"?—certainly to take advantage o f it as l o n g as it's a r o u n d . A n d c o u l d this possibly be an effect o f discourse? Perhaps it m i g h t e v e n b e o n e we o n the margins m i g h t reasonably appropriate to o u r profit; o r perhaps s o m e o f us already have. Most o f their p r o b l e m s , o f course, involved their relations with fe­ m a l e s — s o m e white, s o m e black, s o m e gay, some straight. I have heard an extraordinary r a n g e o f stories—and w h a t these fellows are attracted to, o h m y w o m e n friends, is a m a z i n g . S o m e want w o m e n o f o n e race, some want t h e m o f another, s o m e want w o m e n with glasses and some want w o m e n w h o are overweight, s o m e want w o m e n with h i g h IQs and some want w o m e n with narrow shoulders set slightly forward—indeed, the range o f tales I have h e a r d from these fellows since 1988 w h e n my b o o k was p u b l i s h e d is e n o u g h to make the variety o f vanilla heterosexual male desire s e e m a seething pit o f perversions quite as interesting as any to be f o u n d in any S & M bar, lesbian, gay, or straight. B u t despite that range, I find myself again and again m a k i n g the same rhetorical intervention. For h e r e w e are centrally sunk in the Discourse o f Desire. W h a t again a n d again I find myself saying to these m e n is: C a n y o u utter the simple statement to the t r o u b l e s o m e object o f y o u r desire: "I like y o u . D o y o u like m e ? " A n d w h a t is this terror o f rejection that is so strong that it almost in­ variably drives o n e half, the other, or b o t h o f these enunciations out o f the realm o f articulation? D o u b t l e s s y o u c a n u n d e r s t a n d why b o t h paired clauses are essential. If y o u c a n n o t say, "I like y o u , " she will simply never know. If y o u c a n n o t

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

17

follow it with, "Do y o u like meP'^owwill never know. M o r e to the point, if you c a n n o t say, "I like y o u , " she will never k n o w y o u have any e m o t i o n s . A n d if y o u can't say "Do y o u like m e ? " she will b e sure, probably rightly, y o u are unable to evince any interest, care, or c o n c e r n with hers. T h i s alone is why, "I like y o u . Let's fuck," d o e s n o t a c c o m p l i s h the same c o m ­ municative ends. In three o u t o f four cases, these fellows will eventually ask: "But why doesn't she say it to me?" To which I answer: "That is not the point. Y o u ' r e the o n e w h o claims to be in pain. W h a t are you g o i n g to d o a b o u t it—for w h a t I tell y o u is as likely to g e t y o u out o f it as anything else y o u c a n d o . It is certainly m o r e effective than waiting in silent agony or c l o w n i n g a b o u t in over-energetic e x u b e r a n c e for h e r to see t h r o u g h y o u r s e d i m e n t e d silences or eruptive vulgarities your central y e a r n i n g self." I say this rather gently, o f course. For o n e thing o n e learns in fifty years is that, t h o u g h most o f us eventually learn to ask, m o r e or less, for what we want, it is always m o r e or less impossible to ask for w h a t w e n e e d . (If we c o u l d ask for it, by definition we w o u l d n ' t need it.) T h a t can only be given us. Finally, we are left to conspire, inarticulately a n d by o u r be­ havior alone, to m a k e sure there is as m u c h o f it available in the land­ scape as is possible, in the h o p e that, eventually, w e will b e fortunate e n o u g h to receive some. But I have known a n u m b e r o f w o m e n w h o , w h e n a m a n b e c a m e inter­ ested in her (when he m a n a g e s to c o m m u n i c a t e the first part o f that o h so important diptych), wait a r o u n d t h r o u g h whatever n u m b e r o f dates and get-togethers they feel are reasonable, for the s e c o n d part—for the other shoe, as it were, to d r o p . A n d , w h e n it doesn't, they break off the re­ lationship secure in the fact that they are leaving a situation w h e r e , for whatever reasons (at this point, the why is n o l o n g e r her c o n c e r n ) , their own feelings will never really be solicited—probably about anything. I recall o n e y o u n g m a n , deeply in love with a w o m a n w h o s e e m e d , cer­ tainly, fond e n o u g h o f h i m to a c c e p t dates with h i m a n d TV viewings with him. H e asked my advice on several occasions. "But d o e s she like m e ? " h e wanted to know. "Why d o n ' t you ask?" I suggested. "I mean, I know she likes me. B u t d o e s she like m e ? " "Again, if y o u d o n ' t ask, y o u may never find out." "I've told h e r that I liked her," he c o m p l a i n e d . "The magic words," I said, "are: T like y o u ; d o y o u like m e ? ' O f course," I a d d e d , "if y o u ask, y o u risk the possibility o f b e i n g told, ' N o . ' But isn't that better than having to wait a n d w o n d e r and n o t k n o w for w h o knows how l o n g ? "

18

Shorter Views

W h e n , after m u c h rhetoric, h e allowed as h o w it was, I t h o u g h t the p r o b l e m finally r e d u c e d to that never simple matter o f gritting one's teeth a n d i n d u l g i n g in that terrible bravery that has to b e b r e a c h e d in o n e form o r a n o t h e r in every situation o f desire. B u t a few days later, h e was back. "I can't ask her," h e declared. ' Y o u ' r e that frightened o f b e i n g told, ' N o ' , " I asked, "that y o u w o u l d give u p the possibility o f b e i n g told 'Yes'?" "It's n o t that. It's because o f what it w o u l d mean if I asked her." "What would it m e a n ? " I asked. "It w o u l d m e a n , like, w e l l " — a n d h e r e , I h o p e what b e c o m e s clear is the structure o f the discourse in w h i c h w e have b e e n involved all along— "it w o u l d m e a n , somehow, that I was insulting her. T h a t she was the kind o f girl w h o was used to guys asking her, all the time, if she wanted to g o to b e d with t h e m , if she liked them—it w o u l d m e a n like, well, I t h o u g h t she was s o m e k i n d o f w h o r e . A n d I c o u l d n ' t stand that." ' Y o u m e a n , " I said, "that if she h a d any sexual feelings for y o u o f the sort that y o u have b e e n regaling m e with for the past six weeks, that have b e e n destroying y o u r sleep a n d p l a g u i n g y o u r dreams, she w o u l d be a whore." "Well, like, n o . " "What about," I said, "like, yes." "Well, like it," h e said. "But n o t exactly it." "Like it, close e n o u g h , " I said. T h e y o u n g w o m a n b r o k e off the relationship after a n o t h e r week. A n d wisely, I suspect. B u t I h o p e this tale a l o n e is e n o u g h to suggest what a vi­ o l e n t rhetorical intervention in the discourse o f patriarchy, with its saints a n d w h o r e s (for that o f course is the discourse we speak o f h e r e ) , the simple bipartite statement a n d question, "I like y o u . D o y o u like m e ? " represents. T h e discourse o f desire, at w o r k t h r o u g h o u t the discourse o f patriar­ chy, maintains s u c h a situation, with its n e b u l o u s orders—want, n e e d , a n d desire itself—notoriously impossible to pin down. For as soon as o n e systematically relates t h e m (say, in the provisionally brilliant Lacanian schema: W h e n all the e l e m e n t s o f n e e d are satisfied in the situation o f want, the remainder is desire), ordinary l a n g u a g e , with its italics and spe­ cial emphases, m a n a g e s to displace t h e m s o o n e n o u g h so that all we are left is a m e m o r y o f a m o m e n t a r y bit o f rhetorical brilliance. Well, that is the first story I tell. B u t sometimes I tell a s e c o n d story. T h o u g h I assure y o u , for all its radically different s o u n d , it is as close in m e a n i n g to "I like y o u . D o y o u like m e , " as the o p e n i n g a n d closing phrases o f a tale by Roussel are close in sound.

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

19

T h a t tale is the dark k n o w l e d g e my o w n life in the margins provides. Very simply, that s e c o n d story runs: " T h e desire to b e l o v e d is sadism. T h e desire to love is masochism." T o unravel the track from o n e to the o t h e r in the c o m p l e x Discourse of Desire—to show that b o t h inhabit a single discourse—is to e v o k e the Freudian n o t i o n that the realm o f desire is the mirror r e a l m o f ordinary motivations. Freud told us that a perversion was the opposite o f a n e u r o ­ sis: In the c h i l d h o o d m a c h i n a t i o n s o f psychic d e v e l o p m e n t , either w e sexualize s o m e t h i n g w i t b e c o m e s a neurotic character trait. To take pleasure from i m p o s i n g y o u r e m o t i o n s o n a n o t h e r p e r s o n is sadism—a m u c h easier translation to follow. B u t then, w h a t else is the open, pleasurable, sincere, a n d a b o v e b o a r d statement: "I like you"? Isn't that, if it's sincerely stated, a pleasurable imposition o f o n e ' s e m o t i o n s on another, a n d thus, w h e n it is shot t h r o u g h with desire, a terrifyingly difficult enunciation? T o take pleasure from the e m o t i o n s o f others over a n d above y o u r own is m a s o c h i s m — a n equally easy translation. W h a t else t h e n is the o p e n , pleasurable, sincere, a n d a b o v e b o a r d request: " D o y o u like m e ? " Again, w h e n such a question is shot t h r o u g h with desire, isn't its asking equally terrifying? For y o u must have n o t i c e d — b y now, certainly—that while s o m e p e o ­ ple are afraid o f saying o n e , they are terrified o f s p e a k i n g the other—ter­ rified to the p o i n t o f sweating, h e a r t - p o u n d i n g , d r y - t o n g u e d paralysis. A n d the difference b e t w e e n ordinary fear a n d terror is the difference between the social fear o f sexual rejection a n d the totality o f the universe-obliterating failure o f b o t h the self a n d the o t h e r that h o m e s a m o n g desire's a n c i e n t a n d hideously d e e p foundations. Certainly we w o u l d stop o u r interrogations a n d discursive translations with the glib observation that every relation to start pleasurably, then, re­ quires a little healthy sadism, a little healthy m a s o c h i s m — o n e v e r y o n e ' s part. But it is that n o t i o n o f pleasure, a n d its dark relation to desire, that completes the identification o f the tales. For, again, w e all k n o w — a n d know that the assignment has n o necessary relation to w h o has what g e n ­ ital configuration—that there are simply too m a n y p e o p l e w h o , t h o u g h they can m a n a g e to h a n d l e either o n e o f those paired clauses, are abso­ lutely b r o k e n before the other. T h e r e are too many p e o p l e w h o c a n tell y o u w h a t they w a n t b u t w h o are constitutionally incapable o f r e s p o n d i n g to what s o m e o n e else might want. T h e r e are too m a n y p e o p l e w h o are endlessly c o n c e r n e d with what others want b u t s e e m to have the same constitutional inability to articulate their o w n wishes. A g a i n , the m a r k o f desire is l a c k — a n d (and pace F r e u d ) repetition. So that o n c e again, if y o u want to b e loved to the intensity o f desire—

20

Shorter Views

so that y o u seek that situation o u t again a n d again, so that the love o f s o m e o n e else inflames y o u , so that even another's m i m i n g o f the em­ b l e m s o f such a situation is e n o u g h to excite, so that the form o f a n o t h e r ' s love is a lack in y o u that, n o matter h o w many times it is ful­ filled by whatever act o f love, it can never b e finally a n d wholly sated, be­ cause it is the f o r m o f y o u r desire itself, t h e n y o u r b e h a v i o r in the world to acquire w h a t y o u seek must fall, o n e way o r the other—to the extent that it is in excess o f any real possibility—into the forms o f sadism. A n d if what y o u want is to love another, again to the p o i n t o f desire— so that y o u seek o u t opportunities to d o so again a n d again, so that the possibility o f a n o t h e r to love is what inflames y o u , so that another's mim­ i n g that she o r h e approves, deserves, d e m a n d s that love is e n o u g h to ex­ cite, that the f o r m o f love expressed in y o u is a lack, that, n o matter how m a n y times it is r e p e a t e d by y o u r behavior, can never b e finally and wholly exhausted, b e c a u s e it is the f o r m o f y o u r desire itself, then your b e h a v i o r in the w o r l d to acquire w h a t y o u seek must fall, o n e way or the o t h e r — t o the e x t e n t that it is in excess o f any real possibility—into the forms o f masochism. "I like y o u ; d o y o u like m e ? " B u t the darker a n d m o r e d a n g e r o u s tale revealed b e n e a t h it is a clash o f sadistic a n d masochistic imperatives: " T h e desire to be loved is sadism; the desire to love is masochism." For w h a t are b o t h these tales finally about? Power. P o w e r is w h a t distinguishes the psychic discourse o f desire from the social rhetoric o f sex. T h e rhetoric o f sex c o m m a n d s e n o u g h strength to m a k e a m a n or a w o m a n walk the streets o f the city for hours, to drive a l o n e or in g r o u p s , searching for a p r o p e r g a p in the c o m m u n i ­ cative wall t h r o u g h w h i c h desire may s o m e h o w show. B u t desire, to the e x t e n t that it is a material a n d social discourse, c o m m a n d s p o w e r e n o u g h to f o u n d a n d destroy cities, to reform the very shape o f the city itself, laying d o w n n e w avenues a n d restructuring w h o l e n e i g h b o r h o o d s within it. A n d desire—paradoxically—is what holds erect that barrier to sex that so m u c h o f o u r rhetoric, as well as o u r actions o f w h i c h finally rhetoric is a part, breaks against a n d crumbles. T h e p o w e r involved in desire is so great that w h e n c a u g h t in an actual rhetorical manifestation o f desire—a particular sexual act, say—it is sometimes all b u t impossible to u n t a n g l e the c o m p l e x webs o f p o w e r that shoot t h r o u g h it from various directions, the p o w e r relations that are the act a n d that constitute it: Y o u ' r e having sex with s o m e o n e . Very well. W h o s e scenario is it? W h o is e x e r t i n g the most physical e n e r g y to b r i n g it off?

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

21

W h a t is the social value assigned to e a c h player in the particular act? W h a t sorts o f energy, action, a n d articulation are n e e d e d to transform or reverse any o n e o f these? D u r i n g such p o w e r analyses we find j u s t h o w m u c h the matrix o f de­ sire (the Discourse o f Desire a n d the matrix o f p o w e r it manifests h e r e and masks there) favors the h e t e r o s e x u a l male, e v e n if there is n o such actor involved. W h o e v e r is d o i n g w h a t the h e t e r o s e x u a l m a l e would b e doing usually c o m e s o u t o n top. T h o u g h his 1 9 1 5 f o o t n o t e m a k e s per­ fectly clear that, by the use o f the w o r d "masculine" h e simply m e a n t "ac­ tive," this may nevertheless have b e e n part o f the thrust o f Freud's state­ ment: "that libido is invariably a n d necessarily o f a masculine nature, whether it occurs in m e n o r in w o m e n a n d irrespective o f w h e t h e r its ob­ j e c t is a man or a w o m a n . " It is a statement that, if taken in the biological sense (which the same footnote e x c l u d e s from the r e a d i n g ) , is precisely as ridiculous as "the u r g e to sneeze is invariably and necessarily o f a mas­ culine nature, w h e t h e r it occurs in m e n or w o m e n . " 8

What we o n the margins have b e e n most able to appropriate o f this discourse is the p o w e r analysis that so m u c h o f the discourse o f patriar­ chy is structured precisely to mystify. In many cases, its démystification is precisely w h a t has allowed us to survive. 8. Discourse contra Discourse. Rich with its materiality a n d explicative force, the idea o f discourse that I have b e e n putting forward is an excit­ ing one and a seductive o n e to those first c o m i n g to history. In 1840 the postage stamp was i n t r o d u c e d in E n g l a n d . B e f o r e that date, w h e n a letter was sent, the recipient paid the p o s t m a n o n delivery. After that date, the sender p a i d — a n d suddenly letter writing b e c a m e a species o f vanity p u b l i s h i n g . T o know this is to b e able to m a k e sense o f a range o f sentences f o u n d in d o z e n s o f early nineteenth-century novels that often a p p e a r as s o m e form o f "From t h e n o n , she w o u l d l o n g e r re­ ceive his letters." Specifically what that m e a n s is: she refused to pay the postman for the letters—and they were r e t u r n e d to the sender. A t o n c e , we have an e x p l a n a t i o n for questions r a n g i n g from why so m a n y letters from before that date were preserved (what y o u paid for y o u k e p t ) , to why there was n o j u n k mail before then (who would pay for it?), to why the correspondents themselves were often so witty (if y o u knew y o u h a d to make your letters worth the three or four p e n n i e s y o u r r e c i p i e n t h a d to shell out—eighty or ninety cents at today's p r i c e s — y o u were likely both to write at l e n g t h a n d to try to have s o m e t h i n g to say). W e b e g i n to see such letters fitting into the social matrix very differently from the way our mail does, and w e b e g i n to d e v e l o p a postal discourse. 9

22

Shorter Views

In 1 8 5 1 , the lead paint tube was i n t r o d u c e d , w h i c h m e a n t that suddenly artists c o u l d k e e p with t h e m a m o u n t s o f paint m u c h smaller than in the pig-bladders full o f h a n d - g r o u n d pigments, traditional since before L e o n a r d o . With the invention o f the metal ferrule in the same few years, w h i c h h e l d the bristles to the brush a n d flattened t h e m , it b e c a m e far easier for artists to travel from their studios and paint nature; the average size o f the canvases suddenly shrank; the possibility o f an amateur painter b e c a m e real. H o r d e s o f painters n o w d e s c e n d e d across the lands c a p e — a n d Impressionism was the result, as d e p e n d e n t on that bit o f soft lead foil as o n any aesthetic considerations. T h e relation o f the artist to society, t h r o u g h all the e c o n o m i c c h a n g e s from that technological dev e l o p m e n t , w h i c h , t h r o u g h that c h a n g e , c h a n g e d the relation o f society to art, resulted in a major reformation o f the discourse o f art. In the early 1870s at Bayreuth, R i c h a r d Wagner, at the o p e n i n g o f that c o n c e r t hall, so as n o t to b r e a k the a t m o s p h e r e created by the music, for the first time in Western concerts initiated the convention that a u d i e n c e s n o t a p p l a u d b e t w e e n m o v e m e n t s o f symphonies or string quartets; now, as the Bayreuth Festspielhaus m o v e d on to the production of operas, h e p u t u p signs in the lobby that n o talking was to o c c u r duri n g the p e r f o r m a n c e ; and, to h e l p the a u d i e n c e concentrate on the music a n d stage action, h e t u r n e d the h o u s e lights off d u r i n g the perform a n c e o f an o p e r a , so that the a u d i e n c e w a t c h e d the p e r f o r m a n c e e n v e l o p e d in the dark, with light only on the s t a g e . Elizabethan theaters h a d p e r f o r m e d u n d e r sunlight at the o p e n - r o o f e d G l o b e and Blackfriars; J a c o b e a n theater, as well as the theater o f Racine a n d Molière, the later theater o f M o z a r t a n d Beaumarchais, were all theaters o f light. B u t w h e n , u n d e r W a g n e r ' s direction, the h o u s e lights were l o w e r e d — a n d the tradition spread from Bayreuth t h r o u g h all the o p e r a houses and finally all the theaters o f the West—a different relation was m a r k e d b e t w e e n art a n d a u d i e n c e , a c h a n g e in the relationship, w h i c h had b e e n g r o w i n g t h r o u g h o u t the rise o f Romanticism, a c h a n g e that we can read in m e t a m o r p h o s e s o f theatrical discourse. 10

T h e initial e x c i t e m e n t from the discovery o f material c h a n g e s controlling discourse (these c h a n g e s are often so total w e d o n o t realize they r e n d e r o n e side or the o t h e r o f a cultural discontinuity set in place by m o n e y a n d t e c h n o l o g y : the n e w a n d m o d e r n gas lamps, say, by which W a g n e r ' s Festspielhaus was lighted and d a r k e n e d , as well as the great steam curtain that p r o d u c e d the billows o f effective stage fog, w h i c h , as G e o r g e B e r n a r d Shaw n o t e d in his recollections o f the R i n g perform a n c e s o f the late 1890s, "made the theater smell like a laundry") at first p r o d u c e s a k i n d o f vertigo in the y o u n g intellectual newly alert to the c o m p l e x i t i e s o f history. 11

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

23

It is perhaps, then, time to cite the e x a m p l e o f the intellectual figure most responsible for the current spread o f the n o t i o n o f discourse as a historical m o d e l i n g tool, M i c h e l Foucault. W h e n we have b e e n considering the problems raised by o u r own studies o f discourse, n o t h i n g is m o r e exciting than the essay he published at the e n d o f his m e t h o d o l o g i c a l study o f the p r o b l e m s o f discursive study ( The Archaeology of Knowledge, where he tears down his own f o r m e r n o t i o n o f "épistèmés" a n d replaces it with a theory o f discourses, utterances, g e n e a l o g i e s , a n d apparatuses), "L'Ordre du discours" ("The F o r m o f Discourse"), rather flightily translated as ' T h e Discourse o n L a n g u a g e . " In the course o f this essay, while he exhorts us to l o o k for c h a n c e , discontinuity, a n d materiality, F o u c a u l t warns us away from the idea o f f o u n d i n g subjects, originating experiences, universal mediation, a n d the tyranny o f the signifier. I think Foucault w o u l d b e the first to r e m i n d us that, in the midst o f that most anxious paragraph o n o u r L e o n a r d o drawing, c o n c e r n i n g the paradox o f Africa as Italy h a d to see it, there is that a n o m a l o u s "female seed." L o o k at it, research it, seek it o u t in a range o f s y n c h r o n o u s a n d diachronous texts, before d e c i d i n g precisely what k i n d o f a n o m a l y it is. A n d the current discourse o f patriarchy and the Discourse o f Desire that suffuses it, a n d — n o w a n d again, h e r e a n d there at its several points—seeks to subvert it, is j u s t as materially g r o u n d e d as any o f the historical ones I have cited. Similarly, a n d p e r h a p s m o r e importantly, none o f the historical ones, w h e n studied in their specificity, their discontinuity, their exteriority, are any less c o m p l e x than w e k n o w from o u r first-hand e x p e r i e n c e the discourse o f desire and patriarchy to be. 12

9. Interlogue Four. F r o m the array o f voices with w h i c h discourse addresses us, o n e insists: "Return a m o m e n t to the homilies with w h i c h , at the e n d o f section seven, you effected your Utopian turn, a n d allow m e to ask: W h y is it necessary for sadism to be about all these emotions} W h y can't it simply b e about pain? D o e s it take an active anticipation o f your a r g u m e n t o n my part to provoke y o u to the cool reason that y o u r text keeps putting forward as your stance? S o o n y o u will b e e x p l a i n i n g that the analogical relation between the sexual a n d the social that is mistaken for causal is, most generously, the structure o f superstition a n d most oppressively the structure of oppression itself. Why, then, must y o u m a k e this spurious analogy between the psychological and the sexual? You yourself have a r g u e d that The Authoritarian Personality by A d o r n o and the Frankfurt G r o u p first validated the notion o f the causal relation b e t w e e n the behavior o f the Nazi bureaucracy o f the thirties a n d forties and sexual sadism, and thus functions on exactly the same level as the discursive origin o f an oppressive

24

Shorter Views

structure as political as the medical institudon o f homosexuality that al­ lows heterosexuality itself to c o m e into existence. W o u l d y o u actually a r g u e that I am, w h e t h e r with my breasts thrust into black leather or bas­ ket heavy in a studded j o c k , the O n e Always T h e r e , w h o , w h e n everyone else is r e d e e m e d , can b e thrown to the dogs, at the eye o f the patriarchal cyclone y o u ' v e already located as the straight white (need I add?) vanilla male? As y o u m a k e y o u r accusations o f appropriation, surely you've no­ ticed the totality o f the structure y o u excoriate: with Jung, h e steals, in the form o f the anima, whatever from the straight female; with the rhetoric o f 'latent homosexuality,' he appropriates all he c o u l d possibly use from the real thing; in the e m e r g e n t rhetoric o f transsexualism, as the center o f discourse, as he learns that most transsexuals are lesbians anyway, he takes over lesbianism for himself (as h e has had it already in any n u m b e r o f les­ bian scenes in any n u m b e r o f p o r n o g r a p h i c films); and now y o u ' d toss h i m my w h i p a n d chains, a l o n g with that Freudian reduction that claims, in a patriarchally p r o d u c e d scarcity field o f sexually available females, the only way h e can g e t by is with a little 'healthy' sadism. Ha! I'll take the sick kind, thank y o u very m u c h . N o w o n d e r h e c o m e s o u t on top. That's sim­ ply w h e r e y o u ' v e placed him! W o u l d y o u setde for s o m e a r g u m e n t in w h i c h everyone, even your straight white vanilla male, n e e d s his very own O t h e r — a n d claim that is, somehow, s o m e t h i n g new? T h e discourse— y o u r privileged term—has b e e n c o n t o u r e d for generations: Jew, forget the insults that lace its text, and l o o k at The Merchant of Venice. W o m a n , for­ g e t the insults a n d l o o k at Madame Bovary ("sitting like a toadstool on a d u n g h e a p , " writes Flaubert in his n o v e l ) . Sadist, forget the insults, and l o o k at H i t c h c o c k ' s Frenzy. Gay black male, l o o k at Mapplethorpe's Man in Polyester Suit. T h e r e ' s s o m e t h i n g there (haven't we all b e e n told?), universal, transcendent, aesthetic—good for you. Just swallow; and always insist to yourself that what must be swallowed is s o m e t h i n g other than the self-respect that is not, o f course, his. Well, neither my sadism nor my masochism runs in that particular direction. B u t even by talking for m e this m u c h , y o u exile m e to the position o f that dark and eccentric figure lurking at the h o r i z o n o f Romanticism, speaking all y o u dare not resist. Well, y o u r cowardice is n o t masochism. A n d my articulation is not sadism. D o n ' t think because y o u speak, or rather m u m b l e , in my stead, I can s o m e h o w be silent or y o u can silence this rhetorical fusillade. "What w o u l d h a p p e n if y o u really (i.e., politically) extirpated that m e t a p h o r i c idiocy from y o u r p r o p o s e d discourse o f desire—idiot not be­ cause m e t a p h o r s are themselves the idiot things Western philosophers have b e e n c l a i m i n g since Plato, b u t b e c a u s e m e t a p h o r s badly f o r m e d are the discursive e l e m e n t s that mystify a n d stabilize oppressive systems. Describe for m e the picture b o o k a b o u t the little bear w h o discovers the

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

25

pleasures o f pain, o f d e g r a d a t i o n , a n d w h o learns the delights o f giving it, receiving it. (Let's g e t really radical with y o u r white-out a n d y o u r felttip!) You and I m i g h t e v e n suggest, o n e to the other, it teaches that y o u must m a k e sure to exercise such pleasures only with s o m e o n e else w h o appreciates it, c o m p l e t e with 'safe w o r d s ' for e n d i n g sessions a n d 'talking out periods' at the start (you can find such in any reasonable m a n u a l of S & M practices with w h i c h , today, I must vouchsafe my social r e a s o n ) . T h e r e ' s your role m o d e l , y o u ' l l say. T h e r e ' s y o u r certificate d e c l a r i n g you a m e m b e r o f the greater society o f sexual variation. A n d , my friend, when such picture b o o k s are n e i t h e r l a u g h a b l e n o r politically correct, but as c o m m o n as Corduroy, then, rest assured, I shall tell y o u not that I accept your Discourse o f Desire in all its Utopian naïveté; rather, that will be the very m o m e n t I shall at least a n d at last b e able to h o l d u p b o t h a n d d e m a n d why my desires must be p o l i c e d in the o n e , while his are still so untrammeled, u n m a r k e d , a n d free that they n e e d n o t even b e m e n tioned in the o t h e r — t h e reticence creating the m a r g i n across w h i c h h e creates himself by creating m e b u t across w h i c h , yes, I p l u n d e r h i m regularly. ( O h , sing it, honey: ' N o t only is it a b o y bear, Daddy! It's a straight, white, heterosexual, vanilla, boy bear—in case y o u h a d n ' t n o t i c e d . ' ) That will b e the m o m e n t w h e n at last a n d at least I c a n prove to y o u that precisely at the p o i n t I w o u l d seize my desire in its f r e e d o m , there you would n a m e my particular form o f it the core a n d k e r n e l o f all policing: the embarrassing H e g e l i a n wish to rule a n d b e ruled. As F r e u d a n d M a r x gave y o u tools to analyze this o n its own terms, y o u insistently equivocate one set o f causes with the o t h e r a n d leave d e m o c r a c y a c o n s u m e r travesty o f itself t h r o u g h the p e o p l e ' s i g n o r a n c e o f w h a t this r u l i n g a n d being ruled is really a b o u t — t h e n y o u d e m o n i z e it by c l a i m i n g that, whenever it rises into articulation clear e n o u g h to signal conflict, somehow its courting political torture is itself o n e with sexual torture, a n d lay it at my terrifying, cloven foot. "Well, I'll tell y o u . A n y o n e w h o believes y o u r v a u n t e d p o w e r relations in a session o f consensual sexual torture are the same as those in a session of i m p o s e d political torture is simply a n d brutally i g n o r a n t o f both—and deserves (the political discourse o f the time d e m a n d s — a s 'shave and a haircut' d e m a n d s 'two bits') whatever h a p p e n s . . . ? "Him or her, my friend, n o m o r e than I. "No o n e deserves 'whatever h a p p e n s . ' T h a t deserving c a n only b e enforced. "Ruling a n d b e i n g ruled, the very d e p l o y m e n t o f political power, the walls of reality a n d every attempt to scale, b r e a c h , o r reposition them— that is the material g r o u n d and limit o f y o u r discourse. W h o speaks n o w is precisely the devil that discourse has p l a c e d h e r e to frighten y o u off

26

Shorter Views

the very q u e s t i o n — w h o lied to y o u that ruling a n d b e i n g ruled are causally entailed with my desires, just as y o u lied to h i m that, in his cowardice, he is as strong as I. B u t learn, mon semblable, mon frère, not that I am you; rather that y o u are not m e — e v e n while the organization o f our oppressions may b e the same. L e a r n , too, by so learning, how different what all your patriarchal logic tells y o u is an identity is from the c o r e d out, resonant h o l l o w o f o u r differences. " T h o s e discursive identities are there to kill me, n o t y o u — w h o e v e r y o u , the privileged speaking subject w h o allows m e only to function as y o u r ventriloquized p u p p e t , are." 10. Interpretation and Perception. In the discussion o f discourse a conc e p t eventually must arise. It seems to be a part o f the m o d e r n discourse o f discourse itself. It is given by the phrase, "Interpretation p r e c e d e s perc e p t i o n . " T o u n d e r s t a n d it, w e m i g h t start with an alternate narrative as to h o w h u m a n s perceive things. T h i s alternate narrative o f perceived m e a n i n g c o m m e n c e s s o m e t h i n g like this. We b e g i n by p e r c e i v i n g abstract colors, shapes, sounds; eventually, by relating t h e m to o n e another, to o t h e r sets o f abstract colors, shapes, and sounds b o t h temporally a n d spatially, we build u p a picture o f objects, events, a n d finally o f reality. O n c e w e have an objective m o d e l , we interpret it a n d ask w h a t w e can u n d e r s t a n d o f it. T h e p r o b l e m with this story o f p e r c e p t i o n is that, from b o t h neurological study a n d introspection, it j u s t doesn't seem to b e the way the brain—or the mind—is set u p . Interpretation o f vision begins, for example, as s o o n as light hits the retina. Cats see horizontal lines a n d vertical lines with different n e r v e bundles. A n d s o m e nerve cells in the frog's eye r e s p o n d to small, dark m o v i n g dots, w h i c h m i g h t be any o n e o f the r a n g e o f edible b u g s , while o t h e r nerves r e s p o n d to b r o a d patches o f g e n e r a l color, w h i c h m i g h t b e land, lily pad, or whatever. T h e r e may, ind e e d , b e electrical impulses m o v i n g a r o u n d the brain that are signs for abstract colors o r e v e n shapes. B u t by the time they register in anything like "mind," interpretation o f what they are has well b e g u n . Introspectively, w e h u m a n s can supply o u r own evidence for the priority o f interpretation over p e r c e p t i o n . I recall w a k i n g u p last a u t u m n in my A m h e r s t apartment, in that d i m p e r i o d w h e n the sky b e y o n d the bedr o o m and b a t h r o o m w i n d o w s was still d e e p b l u e . L o o k i n g for my hairbrush, I w o n d e r e d if for s o m e reason I'd left it in the kitchen. A n d so I s t e p p e d in t h r o u g h the kitchen door— A h , there it was, across the r o o m o n the small triangular table by the sink, its black plastic h a n d l e sticking o u t b e h i n d the e d g e o f a colander left there from last night's spaghetti.

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

27

I took a step across the l i n o l e u m floor— But now I saw all this dust o n the h a n d l e ' s e d g e . Gray fluff was visible in three small heaps generally spread from o n e e n d to the other. I took a n o t h e r step, a n d what I'd seen as a black plastic h a n d l e with the long, three-peaked m o u n d o f dust o n it, b e c a m e the h a n d l e o f o n e of my kitchen knives. T h e h a n d l e was black bakélite. W h a t I'd seen as dust was the light glinting off the three steel bolts that, level with the bakélite, h e l d the b l a d e in place . . . T h e p o i n t h e r e is that often w e d o n o t have e n o u g h p e r c e p t u a l infor­ mation to m a k e o u t what s o m e t h i n g is; b u t in such situations, w e d o n o t perceive—at first—that w e have only partial information. W e perceive some thing, then, sometimes only a m o m e n t later, w e perceive s o m e other thing that contradicts the first. Those contradictions are the sign that w e eventually learn to interpret as i n c o m p l e t e p e r c e p t u a l information. Eventually, if the contradictions g o o n l o n g e n o u g h a n d will n o t resolve, we perceive an abstract c o l o r or shape, w h o s e substance o r full f o r m w e cannot know. B u t such a p e r c e p t i o n represents an e v e n higher o r d e r o f interpretive c o m p l e x i t y than the p e r c e p t i o n o f c o n c r e t e objects a n d events—rather than a simple a n d atomic e l e m e n t o n w h i c h p e r c e p t i o n itself is g r o u n d e d . Abstract entities are a discourse. T h e person or the small d o g we catch out of the corner o f o u r eye w h e n w e k n o w n o person or d o g is there be­ comes, w h e n we l o o k at it fully, an o v e r c o a t h a n g i n g from a h o o k o n the inside o f the o p e n closet door, the o v e r t u r n e d shoe b o x fallen from the chair beside the b e d . T h o u g h , faithful to that o t h e r story, w e m i g h t even say, "I saw s o m e t h i n g that, a m o m e n t later, resolved into a coat, or a shoe box," the truth is that, h o w e v e r fleeting, the s o m e t h i n g was p r o b a b l y something fleeting b u t specific—not s o m e t h i n g in g e n e r a l . To b e c o m e aware o f this process is to b e c o m e aware that s o m e , if n o t all, of these mistaken p e r c e p t i o n s relate to, if they are n o t c o n t r o l l e d by, preexisting discourses. (Reason, memory, a n d desire told m e I m i g h t find my hairbrush in the kitchen.) O n c e w e a c c e p t the n o t i o n that w e cannot perceive w i t h o u t already having interpreted w h a t we p e r c e i v e d , however mistakenly, as something, even if o u r interpretation finally settles on the o n e we call the fact that we are s e e i n g d o e s n o t provide e n o u g h in­ formation to draw a solid c o n c l u s i o n a b o u t the object (and thus must re­ main in the realm o f unresolved abstraction), directly w e find ourselves asking such questions as: Did L e o n a r d o really see a r o u n d w o m b ? A n d , by extension, was that r o u n d w o m b o f the order, say, o f my black plastic hairbrush h a n d l e that I t h o u g h t I saw across the r o o m — o r per­ haps o f the dust piled o n the p i e c e o f black plastic that r e p l a c e d it?

28

Shorter Views

T h i s is certainly the c o m m o n s e n s e place w h e r e o p p o n e n t s o f theories o f discourse find themselves b a n d i n g together to l o o k for c o m m o n s e n s e weaknesses. T h e answer is, I think, that we c a n n o t k n o w for sure—though there are other possibilities that, in this case, seem m o r e p r o b a b l e than this one. You cut o p e n a fresh c h i c k e n to clean it. W h a t is the shape o f the c h i c k e n liver? T h e r e was, o f course, a Renaissance discourse in place that spoke o f the w o m b as the c e n t e r a n d sun o f the body, that talked o f its necessary p e r f e c t i o n in terms o f the p e r f e c t g e o m e t r i c a l form, the sphere. D i d da V i n c i j u s t draw from an uncharacteristically spherical w o m b ? O r did he see the p e a r shape b u t dismiss it as an a n o m a l y o f his particular cadaver a n d silently c o r r e c t it in his picture? O r did h e k n o w the pear shape as well as Fallopius w o u l d c o m e to b u t simply p a n d e r e d to current preju­ dices? O r did the w o m b l o o k round? W e d o n ' t know. T h a t is precisely the k n o w l e d g e that the discourse itself e x c l u d e s . T h a t is w h a t discourse does: it e x c l u d e s — i n f o r m a t i o n , distinctions, differences . . . a n d similarities. T h a t is its precise a n d frightening p o w e r — t h e mark, the trace, o f its one-time p r e s e n c e . T h a t "interpretation p r e c e d e s p e r c e p t i o n " is supported by and sup­ ports a t h e o r y o f discourse is n o t to say that the two notions—discourse a n d the priority o f interpretation—are o n e . B u t that is the equivocation that those w h o raise the objections are finally m a k i n g . 11. Interlogue Five. L a u r a B o h a n n a n ' s a m u s i n g 1 9 6 6 essay, "Shake­ speare in the B u s h , " is a c h a r m i n g parable o f d i s c o u r s e . After an argu­ m e n t with an O x f o r d friend, w h o tells her, ' Y o u A m e r i c a n s . . . often have difficulty with S h a k e s p e a r e . H e was, after all, a very English poet, and o n e can easily misinterpret the universal by misunderstanding the partic­ ular," B o h a n n a n protests "that h u m a n nature is pretty m u c h the same the w h o l e w o r l d over," and, u p h o l d i n g the universality o f such great and classic Western works as Hamlet, she g o e s off, with her friend's copy o f the play as a gift, o n h e r s e c o n d field trip to the West African Tiv and with an e x h o r t a t i o n from h i m to lift h e r m i n d above its primitive surround­ ings: Possibly, by p r o l o n g e d meditation, she m i g h t achieve the grace o f correct interpretation. 13

A n e x t r e m e l y wet rainy season, however, interrupts B o h a n n a n ' s re­ search. T h e e l d e r tribesmen w h o m she h o p e s to observe at their various cultural rituals have n o t h i n g to d o b u t sit a r o u n d in the r e c e p t i o n hut a n d drink calabash after calabash o f beer, b r e w e d by the w o m e n , and tell tales.

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

29

B o h a n n a n s o u g h t solace awhile with Hamlet. B u t finally she f o u n d herself in the r e c e p t i o n h u t as well, faced with the request that she tell a story. A n d so it is the story o f H a m l e t that she d e c i d e s to tell, sure that its universal r e s o n a n c e will s o u n d o u t as clearly in the T i v as it m i g h t in an O x f o r d seminar r o o m . B u t p r o b l e m s o f interpretation, p e r c e p t i o n — a n d discourse—arise immediately. While the tribe has an evolved a n d subtle c o n c e p t o f magic, knowl­ e d g e , madness, a n d the relations a m o n g t h e m all, B o h a n n a n ' s tribe has n o c o n c e p t o f ghosts. In the tribe, there simply were n o stories o f the d e a d returning—either believed or a c c e p t e d as fantasy. T h u s , the very first scene o f H a m l e t ' s father's ghost o h the battlements registers with B o h a n n a n ' s hearers nei­ ther as a frightening event n o r as an e m b l e m o f the supernatural simply to be a c c e p t e d — b u t as a narrative mistake. Obviously what she must m e a n , they explain, is that it is an o m e n sent by a witch. B e c a u s e if y o u see a d e a d person actually walking a r o u n d , y o u can b e pretty sure that's what it is. But as for its b e i n g the soul o f the dead, that's j u s t silly and ob­ viously, then, narrational error. ("But, Daddy, it's a boy b e a r . . . ! " ) T h e tribe's term for "wise m a n " a n d "witch" were the same. T h u s , establishing Horatio's position as a b e n i g n scholar was rather difficult. In that tribe there were strict proscriptions a b o u t what was appropriate to the various generations—proscriptions that served to d e t e r m i n e w h a t j o b s as well as what topics o f c o n c e r n were appropriate to each; as well, those proscrip­ tions served equally to discourage intergenerational v i o l e n c e : Parents did n o t strike children. C h i l d r e n did n o t strike parents. If, in that tribe, s o m e o n e had p r o b l e m s o r complaints a b o u t y o u , from c h i l d h o o d o n they presented them, either u p or d o w n the scale, to your age mates, by w h o m y o u were then j u d g e d and, if necessary, pun­ ished. Intergenerational conflicts there were likely to b e the stuff o f mild irony or appalling vulgarity. B u t the same proscriptive institudons prevented t h e m from b e i n g the c e n t e r o f c o m e d y or tragedy. T h u s , the whole O e d i p a l scenario so m u c h fiction in the West d e p e n d s o n — t h e conflict between g e n e r a t i o n s — h a d for B o h a n n a n ' s hearers a s o m e w h a t sleazy air; and certainly n o tale that a p p e a l e d seriously to t h e m c o u l d res­ onate as the major conflict b e h i n d all cultural progress, s o m e h o w — i n this story—gone awry and g o t t e n terrifyingly a n d tragically o u t o f c o n ­ trol. Rather, it s e e m e d an unnecessary nastiness that ordinary social insti­ tutions o u g h t to have obviated. H a m l e t ' s status as a h e r o was i m m e d i ­ ately in question by all the village auditors. Finally, the b o r d e r l i n e incest C l a u d i u s a n d his sister-in-law G e r t r u d e

3*3

Shorter Views

i n d u l g e to Prince Hamlet's consternation was, in this tribe, de rigueur. N o , certainly y o u didn't g o a r o u n d m u r d e r i n g your brothers. B u t if your father died, then simple politeness said his b r o t h e r should marry his sur­ viving wife or wives. A n d if h e was suspected o f such a murder, it's for y o u r father's age mates to d e c i d e — n o t for y o u to d o anything about. Hamlet's m a d n e s s caused e q u a l p r o b l e m s — s i n c e every o n e knows that m a d n e s s is always the result o f a witch at work s o m e w h e r e . What's m o r e , the witch has to b e a m a l e relative o n the victim's father's side. (Everybody knows that.) Since h e was Hamlet's only male relative in the story, obviously C l a u d i u s was to blame— Well, yes, B o h a n n a n h a d to agree. H e was. B u t with that as the expla­ nation for why, did any o f the Western tale really remain at a l l . . . ? Polonius's m u r d e r b e h i n d the arras was also completely revalued in this tribe o f a r d e n t and e x p e r i e n c e d hunters, w h e r e , just before y o u throw y o u r spear, y o u must call out, " G a m e ! " w h e r e u p o n anyone in the vicinity w h o can't see w h e r e y o u ' r e throwing shouts out so that y o u d o n ' t hit them. W h e n h e sees the arras m o v e , H a m l e t calls out: "A rat! " A s o n e o f the hearers c o m m e n t e d to B o h a n n a n : "What child w o u l d not k n o w e n o u g h to shout out, 'It's me!'" As the tale g o e s on, to turn it into a " g o o d story," a logical story, a story w h e r e the actions were believable, w h e r e the motivations m a d e sense to them, B o h a n n a n ' s auditors distort the tale into a c o m i c cascade whose h u m o r for us is only subverted by its endless intricacy: Hamlet's forging o f the letter that gets h i m out o f trouble with the K i n g o f E n g l a n d and gets Rosencrantz a n d Guildenstern b e h e a d e d in his place sounds partic­ ularly suspect from B o h a n n a n , since she, having already acted as the scribe for the tribe in its relations with the outside world, has already had to tell m a n y o f the same listeners, w h e n t h e y ' d c o m e to ask her to c h a n g e various a m o u n t s o n various bride-price d o c u m e n t s , that such forgery is impossible a n d w o u l d immediately be detected. If B o h a n n a n can't forge a letter, h o w c o m e H a m l e t can? B u t it is only by taking over the tale a n d turning it into an unrecogniz­ able c o n c a t e n a t i o n o f u n r e c o g n i z a b l e p e o p l e in u n r e c o g n i z a b l e situa­ tions o p e r a t i n g t h r o u g h u n r e c o g n i z a b l e motivations, a n d finally o f a significance wholly i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e to us, that B o h a n n a n ' s tribesmen c a n m a k e any sense o f the tale at all. (Laertes must have driven O p h e l i a m a d a n d killed her, o f course, since he's the only m a l e relative o f her g e n e r a t i o n m e n t i o n e d in the tale. His attempt to avenge her death? O b ­ viously a cover-up for deeper, m o r e logical reasons.) A n d w h e n their interpretation d o e s m a n a g e to offer a r e c o g n i z a b l e evaluation, it is for such a different w e b o f reasons that the similarity is really an accident rather than any shared cultural r e s o n a n c e .

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

31

A n old m a n , g a t h e r i n g his r a g g e d toga a r o u n d h i m , finally tells B o ­ hannan: "That was a very g o o d story. Y o u told it with very few mistakes. . . . S o m e t i m e y o u must tell us s o m e m o r e stories. W e w h o are elders will instruct you in their true m e a n i n g , so that w h e n y o u return to y o u r own land your elders will see that y o u have n o t b e e n sitting in the bush, b u t a m o n g those w h o know things a n d have taught y o u wisdom." W h a t B o h a n n a n has learned, o f course, is that the universal is noth­ ing but an intricate relation o f specificities. A n d what's m o r e , the "uni­ versal" is quite different a n d distinct, cultural locale to cultural locale. T h e discursive w i s d o m that B o h a n n a n ' s tale can teach us today c o n c e r n s what Foucault, in "L'Ordre du discours," calls "the tyranny o f the signifier." T h a t is the notion, all too easy to fall into if o n e has not m o v e d a b o u t a m o n g radically different discursive structures, that a single r e c o g n i z ­ able event, a single r e c o g n i z a b l e object, or a given rhetorical feature will have the same m e a n i n g n o matter what discourse it is f o u n d in. T h i s is the notion that impels the so well-intentioned cultural imperialism o f symbol explicators such as J u n g or J o s e p h C a m p b e l l , w h o again a n d again seem to feel that w h e n they find a d r a g o n or a m a n d a l a in two widely separated cultures, s o m e h o w they have discovered the "same" o r a "shared" symbol. For m e this n o t i o n e x p l o d e d o n my first trip to G r e e c e , in 1 9 6 5 , where I quickly l e a r n e d that the p a l m - u p b e c k o n i n g gesture by w h i c h North A m e r i c a n s say, " C o m e here," there meant, "Good-bye." T h e palmdown flapping o f the h a n d by w h i c h w e indicate "So l o n g , " there meant, " C o m e over here." T h e sideways m o v e m e n t o f the h e a d by w h i c h w e in­ dicate negation there meant, "Yes." A n d the single up-and-down m o v e ­ m e n t o f the head, w h i c h h e r e is very close to o u r n o d o f a g r e e m e n t , there meant, " N o . " If the very signifiers for yes, no, come here, a n d good-bye could all reverse between, say, Paris a n d A t h e n s , then the a p p r e h e n s i o n of the "same" signifier in C h i n a a n d M e x i c o , in Texas a n d T h a i l a n d , in India and Guatemala, must mark the existence o f cultural specificity, o f discursive difference, rather than s o m e biculturally obliterating, transcendent "universality"—almost always f u n c t i o n i n g in the service o f some structure o f e c o n o m i c exploitation. B o h a n n a n ' s tale is structured to throw into relief a limit o f discursive disjuncture. A n d that, as w e have n o t e d , is what w e e x p e r i e n c e w h e n w e r e a d Roussel. T h a t both use Africa as their b a c k g r o u n d is, itself, c o n t r o l l e d by the racist discourse o f the West. We must not, for a m o m e n t , ever think, therefore, that o u r e x p l o r a t i o n o f discourse is free, c o m p l e t e ; rather, those explorations are always p o l i c e d by discourses already set in place.

32

Shorter Views

12. Observation and Articulation. O n e day in a Central Park playground in the s u m m e r o f the same year in w h i c h my d a u g h t e r h a d learned the discourse o f c h i l d r e n ' s b o o k s , a r o u n d the fountain a n d having shed all c l o t h i n g an h o u r back, a handful o f kids in my d a u g h t e r ' s play school g r o u p all clustered a r o u n d a three-and-a-half-year-old girl n a m e d Mischkatel, w h o enthusiastically p r o p o s e d a g a m e to Sascha a n d Iva and N o r d a n d A i e s h a (this was, recall, the seventies): "Let's see w h o can p e e - p e e the farthest!" A n d while I l o o k e d o n — I confess, surprised—the five o f t h e m stood to the ankles in the water at the fountain's e d g e — a n d let whiz. T h e girls, o f course, w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n , w o n — s i n c e , in general, the urinary track exits from the b o d y p r o p e r horizontally, or even with a slighdy u p w a r d tilt. A n d since every o n e was j u s t standing there, letting fly, the litde boys, w h o d a n g l e d a bit, h a d n o t t h o u g h t to use their hands to g u i d e their stream a n d so generally watered in a downward slant rather than straight out. Mischkatel, Iva, and A i e s h a all m o r e or less tied a n d left the two little boys, N o r d a n d Sascha, frowning d o w n at their selfevident lack a n d symbol o f powerlessness, m a r k i n g the male site o f greatest physical vulnerability. In a society w h e r e c h i l d r e n play regularly n a k e d with o n e another, this can not b e an anomaly. B u t I h a d to ask myself, s o m e t i m e later, if I was e m p o w e r e d — a s it w e r e — t o see this by a situation from n o t a full d e c a d e before, w h e n , in 1 9 6 9 , 1 h a d lived in San Francisco, and a n u d e sunbath­ i n g a n d b e e r fest h a d started o n the tarred-over r o o f o f o u r N a t o m a Street flat. E i g h t o r half a d o z e n o f us were sitting a r o u n d , naked, drink­ i n g bottle after bottle o f beer, w h e n , as several o f the m e n h a d already d o n e , o n e y o u n g w o m a n g o t u p , w e n t to the back o f the tar-paper roof, a n d p r o c e e d e d to urinate off the e d g e with as high-flying an arc as any­ o n e m i g h t want. I r e m e m b e r h o w c o o l w e were all b e i n g — i n what, I suspect for most o f us, was s o m e astonishment. A y o u n g w o m a n was a b o u t to speak, w h e n a y o u n g m a n asked ( a n o t h e r white male appropriation, n o d o u b t ) : "How did y o u do that?" H e r answer was classic: "You aim, stupid." T h e n she p r o c e e d e d to d e m o n s t r a t e how, with two fingers o f o n e h a n d in a V, t u r n e d d o w n over the u p p e r part o f the vaginal crevice, o n e c o u l d control the direction o f o n e ' s stream. I a m a writer. Needless to say, I i n c o r p o r a t e d the scene (or rather o n e based closely o n it) in my n e x t novel. S o m e m o n t h s after the b o o k appeared, I re­ ceived a letter, signed by a g r o u p o f five w o m e n in Vancouver, that said, in brief: "Thanks."

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

33

B u t the tale has its converse. In the late sixties a c h e a p series o f char­ tered buses ran back a n d forth b e t w e e n N e w York a n d San Francisco, generically called "the Gray Rabbit." By the e n d o f its run, the restroom at the back o f the c o a c h had l o n g since lost its door. In g e n e r a l , with the rather free-wheeling y o u n g m e n a n d w o m e n w h o availed themselves o f the $45 one-way fare, this was not a large p r o b l e m in itself. W h a t b e c a m e a p r o b l e m was that, after the first day o f the trip, b e c a u s e o f the lack o f springs and the b a c k roads, thanks to the m e n o n the bus the r e s t r o o m b e c a m e pretty foul. A n d the w o m e n o n the bus didn't like it. T h e p r o b l e m was eventually solved by a w o m a n driver, w h o took a length o f a two-by-four, a h a m m e r , and s o m e nails a n d fixed it into the doorway at litde above chest height; she p u t a n o t h e r o n e b e h i n d it so that there was simply n o way to a p p r o a c h the c o m m o d e in a fully u p r i g h t position. O n the first o f the two-by-fours she h u n g a sign: YOU D O N ' T SIT, YOU

DON'T

PISS!

T h e p r o b l e m was m o r e or less solved. But the point is that w o m e n can, and s o m e d o , urinate standing u p ; and m e n can, a n d s o m e d o , urinate sitting d o w n . A s to arcs a n d dis­ tances, well, in the same conversation in w h i c h I asked my d a u g h t e r about Corduroy, I asked if she r e m e m b e r e d h e r infantile p e e i n g contest. N o , she didn't, any m o r e than she r e m e m b e r e d the female Corduroy. B u t was that exclusion from h e r m e m o r y chance? Was it b e c a u s e that m e m ­ ory had not b e e n stabilized by a pre-extant discourse? M e n and w o m e n d o what they d o — w h a t they're comfortable d o i n g . But the constraints o n that comfort, o n w h o d o e s w h a t a n d w h e n , are material, educational, habitual—feel free to call t h e m social. A n d w h e r e all three—material, e d u c a t i o n , a n d habit—are stabilized in o n e form or a n o t h e r by l a n g u a g e , w e have a discourse. F r o m such m e m o r i e s I turn to others that are so like the e x p e r i e n c e s that p r o m p t e d Freud to his theory o f "penis envy," w h e n my daughter, at age four, a year after h e r forgotten t r i u m p h in the park p e e i n g contest, in imitation o f m e , w o u l d stand at the c o m m o d e with h e r h a n d s o n h e r genital r e g i o n and m a k e hissing sounds. In a n o t h e r series o f stories I wrote about that time, y o u will find the detritus—and pretty m u c h my thinking—on all the incidents above. But is the reason such incidents as this are n o t usually talked of—spec­ ulated over, theorized, i n c l u d e d in o u r traditional elaborations o f the way o u r culture works—because o f s o m e massive discursive exclusion? Are they simply n o t seen by most p e o p l e because they take the form o f the pear-like b u l g e in the u p p e r part o f the uterus—or are they simply

34

Shorter Views

misperceived as s o m e t h i n g else, like the mistake o f a knife for a brush? A g a i n , that is precisely the information the structure o f the discourse that has prevailed u p till n o w m e a n s that we can never have with any real certainty a b o u t the past. A g a i n , that is w h a t discursive exclusions do. B u t I also asked my adult daughter, n o t too l o n g a g o , if she r e m e m ­ bers ever w a n t i n g a penis. " N o , " she said, with some consideration. "But I certainly r e m e m b e r , w h e n I was four, w a n t i n g to urinate standing up. It s e e m e d so m u c h m o r e convenient." A reasonable t h o u g h t for a four-year-old w h o , at three, c o u l d — a n d h a d w o n a contest by d o i n g so. 13. Interlogue Six. T h e material fact that has m a d e it desperately impor­ tant for p e o p l e , w h e n writing a b o u t sex, to write a b o u t what they have d o n e a n d e x p e r i e n c e d a n d seen themselves, is, o f course A I D S . This dis­ ease, w h i c h by February 1 9 9 3 (this y e a r ) , a c c o r d i n g to the always conser­ vative statistics o f the C D C , has killed m o r e than 135,000 p e o p l e in the U n i t e d States, o u t o f the m o r e than 210,000 r e p o r t e d cases (1,800 o f w h o m are c h i l d r e n u n d e r the a g e o f thirteen and 1 1 , 0 0 0 o f w h o m are w o m e n ) , is certainly the largest material factor in the transformation o f the discourse o f desire a n d that transformation's manifestation in the rhetoric o f sex. It is painfully ironic that Foucault, w h o wrote in his 1 9 7 0 lecture, "L'Ordre du discours," "We are a very l o n g way from having constituted a unitary, regular discourse c o n c e r n i n g sexuality; it may be that we never will, a n d that w e are n o t e v e n traveling in that direction" ( 2 3 3 ) , died o f A I D S in 1 9 8 4 — f o r A I D S has c o m e as close to unifying certain strands o f sexual discourse as it has c o m e to fraying certain others. F o u c a u l t also said, in a 1980 lecture at Stanford on political and pas­ toral power: "We must g e t rid o f the Freudian schema. You know, the s c h e m a o f the interiorization o f the law t h r o u g h the m e d i u m o f sex." H e d i d n o t say w e must g e t rid o f Freud b u t only that w e must g e t rid of a certain r e d u c t i o n — a n d I w o u l d add, distortion—of Freud's critique o f society that is too often justified by citations o f Freud, usually at his most speculative: "the interiorization o f the law t h r o u g h the m e d i u m o f sex. . . . " Well, what d o e s this m e a n ? It m e a n s an intellectual m o v e in w h i c h the thinker notes s o m e a n a l o g y b e t w e e n s o m e aspect o f a given sexual act, usually the tritest a n d most c o m m o n o n e in a given culture (often o u r o w n ) , a n d s o m e f o r m o f the culture itself o r the usual psychology o f those in it. A t that point, the thinker claims the f o r m e r as a cause for the latter, a n d this causal relationship is elevated to a transcendent affirma-

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

35

tion o f the universal and u n c h a n g e a b l e n a t u r e — t h e l a w — o f the social (or the psychological) t h r o u g h the p o w e r o f the sexual. N o r d o e s it mat­ ter w h e t h e r the a r g u m e n t is: "Because m e n lie o n top o f w o m e n d u r i n g sex, m e n will forever d o m i n a t e w o m e n d u r i n g . . . b a d m i n t o n tourna­ ments," or "Because a fatal disease is n o w transmitted sexually, the w h o l e of society itself must s o m e h o w be psychologically sick a n d d o o m e d to destroy itself." S e x has b e c o m e the m e d i u m t h r o u g h w h i c h s o m e o n e de­ clares a form o f the social to be "natural" law rather than c o n s i d e r i n g sex itself simply a n o t h e r social form. A t this point, w e s h o u l d b e able to rec­ ognize the same discursive structure—and the same misapplied logic— in them all. For this is the discourse, the reasoning, o f sympathetic magic, pure and simple; it is as m u c h superstition today as it was w h e n in 1890 Sir J a m e s G e o r g e Frazer described its practice in the initial chap­ ters o f The Golden Bough. A n d it mystifies a n d distorts any study o f the material realities (i.e., the politics) to w h i c h b o t h the sexual a n d social actually respond. But with that e x h o r t a t i o n (a position i m p l i e d in F o u c a u l t ' s work, again and again) F o u c a u l t b e c o m e s easily identifiable as the e n e m y o f all sexual spectators w h o w o u l d take refuge b e h i n d such superstitions, with their ideas entailed by the n o t i o n , as we usually characterize t h e m today, that b i o l o g y equals destiny. ( T h e most r e c e n t a n d v o c i f e r o u s is, perhaps, C a m i l l e Paglia.) Similarly, F o u c a u l t h a d already b e e n iden­ tified as the clear a n d present e n e m y by those w h o claim history is over, and that w e have e n t e r e d s o m e posthistorical p e r i o d (often d e s i g n a t e d p o s t m o d e r n i s m ) , w h e r e all discourses are h o m o g e n i z e d a n d t h e r e are no discursive articulations to b e f o u n d any m o r e , thanks to the c u r r e n t invisibility o f power; I m e a n , o f course, the a u t h o r o f Forget Foucault, Jean B a u d r i l l a r d . 14

Well, Foucault also said: "While w e sit discussing the w o r d , p o w e r works in silence." B u t the idea that there is a n a t u r e — o r a culture—out­ side o f history, before history, o r after history, to w h i c h s o m e h o w we have a clear access, partakes o f a single discursive form. T h e r e seem to be at least two ways to h i g h l i g h t s o m e o f the structures of a given discourse. B o t h may boil d o w n to the same thing. O n e is the critical observation o f what is a r o u n d us, precisely while o n the alert for things that contravene what we e x p e c t . T h e o t h e r way is to suffuse o n e discourse with a systematically different discourse a n d watch the places where strain a n d tensions result. T h i s , in effect, is w h a t B o h a n n a n d o e s with her story of the story o f Hamlet, a n d it is w h a t F o u c a u l t d o e s again and again in the range o f his work, with his insistent systematicity that grids and grills a n d constantly tries to locate objects schematically within them, even while, as m u c h as Derrida, Foucault himself eventually throws

36

Shorter Views

off his own g r i d d i n g systems as t o o loose, t o o lax, improperly positioned, a n d necessarily displaced. T h i s is what Roussel d o e s in his fiction; his eccentric linguistic m e t h o d , by w h i c h h e arrives at his progression o f preposterous machines, inci­ dents, a n d relations, always gives us the feeling that narrative discourse as we k n o w it is strained, near to the p o i n t o f breaking, a n d thus b e c o m e s a palpable object in o u r e x p e r i e n c e o f his texts. It is n o w o n d e r that Rous­ sel was also a favorite storyteller o f Foucault's a n d that his early study, published in English as Death and the Labyrinth, is certainly—and systemat­ ically—the best single study o f Roussel currently available. 15

14. Conclusion. T h e last thing I want to speak a b o u t is a place where, in­ d e e d , the h o m o g e n i z a t i o n o f discourses has p r o d u c e d an angering, m u r d e r o u s sexual rhetoric that fights the Discourse o f Desire at every p o i n t — a social locus w h e r e two discourses that already suffuse o n e an­ o t h e r must b e separated out. I have already cited the mortality statistics; and, if w e d o n o t separate these discourses, those statistics may b e a long, l o n g time in leveling off their h o r r e n d o u s u p s u r g e . For it was as far b a c k as 1 9 8 7 w h e n I realized that A I D S h a d b e c o m e , a m o n g m y friends a n d acquaintances, the single largest killer, beating o u t cancer, suicide, a n d heart attacks c o m b i n e d . T o m y k n o w l e d g e there have only b e e n two m o n i t o r e d studies to date o n the sexual transmission vectors o f AIDS—certainly n o m o r e than two that have r e c e i v e d anything a p p r o a c h i n g visible coverage. M o r e accu­ rately, there have b e e n only o n e m o n i t o r e d study a n d o n e semimonit o r e d study. T h a t the studies a g r e e as m u c h as they d o in their o u t c o m e is, then, surprising a n d h e a r t e n i n g . B u t in my own informal survey, fewer than o n e o u t o f ten A I D S educators knows either o f the studies, o f their results, or w h e r e to direct p e o p l e to these studies w h o ask about A I D S . W h a t is a m o n i t o r e d study? Well, o t h e r than intentionally e x p e r i m e n t i n g with h u m a n s a n d the A I D S virus (which is illegal), a m o n i t o r e d study is the only way we can ob­ tain information a b o u t A I D S transmission vectors that c a n in any way b e called scientific. In a m o n i t o r e d study o f sexual transmission vectors for HIV, a num­ b e r o f p e o p l e , preferably in the thousands, w h o test sero-negative are t h e n m o n i t o r e d , in writing, at regular intervals, as to their sexual activity: from the n u m b e r o f times, to the n u m b e r a n d sex o f partners, to the specific acts p e r f o r m e d , oral (active a n d passive), anal (insertive or re­ ceptive), vaginal (insertive or r e c e p t i v e ) , anal-oral (active a n d passive), a n d w h a t have y o u . A t the e n d o f a given period, say six m o n t h s or a year, the same p e o p l e are tested for sero-conversion. T h e status o f various

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

37

HIV positive a n d H I V negative p e o p l e is then statistically analyzed against their specific sexual activity. O f the two studies that have b e e n d o n e o f this sort, o n e by Kingsley, Kaslow, Rinaldo, et al., was p u b l i s h e d in The Lancet o f 1 4 February 1 9 8 7 ; it involved 2,507 gay m e n . T h e other, T h e San Francisco M e n ' s H e a l t h Study, involving 1,035 e n p i c k e d at r a n d o m from a n e i g h b o r h o o d hav­ ing the highest A I D S rate in the city, was r e p o r t e d a n d described in a let­ ter to TheJournal of the American Medical Association o f 4 April 1 9 8 6 . 1 call this last a s e m i m o n i t o r e d study because there the m o n i t o r i n g was d o n e only twice, o n c e at the b e g i n n i n g and o n c e at the e n d o f the study, a n d was in the form o f a g e n e r a l survey, asking "What d o y o u d o in b e d a n d what d o y o u n o t d o ? " rather than the specific a n d r e g u l a r tracking o f Kingsley, Kaslow, Rinaldo, et al. m

Both o f these studies report, quite interestingly, a statistical correspon­ dence o f o percent—not 1 percent, n o t 3 percent, n o t % o f 1 p e r c e n t — o percent o f sero-conversions to H I V positive for those gay m e n w h o re­ strict themselves to oral sex, u n p r o t e c t e d , active or passive ( 1 4 7 m e n in Kingsley, Kaslow, Rinaldo, et al.; an unspecified n u m b e r in the JAMA let­ ter describing T h e San Francisco M e n ' s Health Study). T h e statistical cor­ relation between sero-conversions and receptive anal intercourse in b o t h studies was devastating. N o r was there any statistical indication that re­ peated sexual contact had anything whatsoever to d o with transmission. Kingsley, Kaslow, Rinaldo, et al. r e p o r t e d eight sero-conversions to H I V positive a m o n g m e n w h o r e p o r t e d only a single case o f anal-receptive intercourse for the duration o f the study. S h o u l d I have to p o i n t o u t that this r e n d e r s the rhetoric o f "repeated sexual contact," so m u c h a part o f A I D S e d u c a t i o n b o t h b e f o r e the 1 9 8 7 study and since, m u r d e r o u s misinformation? Well, then, I h e a r an a p o l o ­ gist for the status q u o o f (lack of) A I D S information say, maybe it applies to some other areas o f sexual b e h a v i o r besides anal intercourse? T o which I can only say: "Tell m e w h e r e . " N o : M a n y m e n w h o b e l i e v e d such rhetoric applied to anal intercourse a n d b a s e d their sexual b e h a v i o r o n it are now dead. It's that simple. T h e r e has b e e n n o dissemination o f information o f any m o n i t o r e d studies for sexual transmission o f the H I V virus from a n d / o r to w o m e n . I can only assume, after three years' research, that such a study has n o t b e e n d o n e . A n d with an e p i d e m i c that has c a u s e d m o r e than 135,000 deaths in ten years, a n d 1 1 , 0 0 0 cases a m o n g w o m e n , this situation is a crime whose statistics are r e a c h i n g toward the g e n o c i d a l . A m o n i t o r e d study is a powerful discursive m a c h i n e for p r o d u c i n g a set o f highly operationalized rhetorical f i g u r e s — o f the sort w e call evi­ d e n c e in situations such as this. In a m o n i t o r e d study, is there r o o m for

38

Shorter Views

mistake, or lying, or distortion? Certainly. But the k n o w l e d g e obtained is still preferable to the alternative. T h e r e is, o f course, a n o t h e r discourse that p r o d u c e s its own rhetori­ cal array. A p e r s o n is d i a g n o s e d H I V positive or with full-blown A I D S , a n d the d o c t o r asks: "Any idea how y o u g o t it?" A n d the patient, possibly trying to think what h e or she was d o i n g sex­ ually six m o n t h s o r so a g o , possibly relying o n what h e or she already "knows," gives an answer. Logically, however, this c a n n o t be evidence in an attempt to find o u t h o w A I D S is transmitted, if only because it pre­ sumes the answer is already k n o w n to the question we are trying to learn the answer to. Is it necessary h e r e to stress that p e o p l e , especially in sex­ ual situations, will lie, will forget, or will m i s r e m e m b e r pears for apples or e v e n hairbrushes for knife handles—for any n u m b e r o f discursive rea­ sons, in a discourse that has u n d e r g o n e catastrophic c h a n g e s without cease over the last ten years? Nevertheless, the information g l e a n e d from this s e c o n d discourse is regularly overlaid, called fact, a n d used to dis­ place information from the first. Otherwise responsible publications reg­ ularly r e p o r t that n o w 8, n o w 1 6 , n o w 12 p e r c e n t o f m e n have gotten A I D S from oral sex, n o w 1, n o w 2, n o w 3 p e r c e n t o f m e n have gotten A I D S from prosdtutes, w h e n the most they can m e a n is that this is what a certain p e r c e n t a g e o f m e n , w h e n d i a g n o s e d with A I D S , have said when asked, in a discursive field w h o s e precise discursive form is that we d o not k n o w a b o u t these v e c t o r possibilities (because they have n o t b e e n ade­ quately r e s e a r c h e d ) and, thus, almost anything may b e said and be be­ lieved. This, then, is the discourse o f p o p u l a r belief. Purposely leaving n e e d l e transmission aside, w e "know" (that is, the studies that have b e e n d o n e strongly suggest) only two facts about the sexual transmission o f A I D S : that it is not transmitted by oral-genital sex b e t w e e n m e n . A n d that it is transmitted easily a n d effectively t h r o u g h anal sex. A n y t h i n g else w e m i g h t say a b o u t its sexual transmission is all in the realm o f superstition. S o m e t i m e s superstitions turn out to b e true. But in a situation o f such mortal c o n c e r n , what can be g a i n e d for the Dis­ course o f Desire t h r o u g h this appalling and institutionally supported ig­ norance? Please: If y o u — h e t e r o s e x u a l or h o m o s e x u a l , m a n or w o m a n — are c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the sexual transmission o f A I D S , d e m a n d with m e that m o n i t o r e d studies b e initiated, b e rigorously overseen, and their re­ sults b e widely disseminated. For the rhetoric o f sex is c o m p l e x ; and the discourse that organizes it, that m a k e s it m a k e sense for o u r culture, is patriarchy. Study it, know it, critique it, cut it u p and a n a t o m i z e it any way y o u w o u l d like. T h e Dis­ course o f Desire in its c o n t e m p o r a r y form, as it h e r e and there subverts

T h e Rhetoric o f S e x / T h e Discourse o f Desire

39

patriarchy, is a g o o d deal y o u n g e r than the oldest o f my readers. T h e rhetoric o f desire's discourse has only b e g u n to s e d i m e n t in the course of such personal and political intervention. E n c o u r a g e it t h r o u g h y o u r own discussions. Thank you. —Amherst 1993

NOTES

1. Edward McCurdy, ed. and intro., The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, The De­ finitive Edition in One Volume (New York: George Brazillier, 1939). Subsequent page references appear parenthetically in the text. 2. Leonardo da Vinci: Artist, Scientist, Inventor, catalogue of an exhibition held at the Haywood Gallery, by the South Bank Center, London (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986). 3. Don Freeman, Corduroy (New York: Viking Books, 1968). 4. J. R. Dunn, "Letters," Monad: Essays on Science Fiction 2 (March 1992). 5. Toni Morrison, Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992). 6. Raymond Roussel, How I Wrote Certain of My Books, trans, with notes and a bibliography Trevor Winkfiend (New York: Sun, 1977). 7. Samuel R. Delany, The Motion of Light in Water: Sex and Science Fiction Writing in the East Village (1988; rpt. New York: A Richard Kasak Book, Masquerade Books, 1993). 8. Sigmund Freud, Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood, trans. Alan Tyson (New York: W. W. Norton, 1964), 85. 9. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Selected Letters, ed. H.J.Jackson (New \brk: Ox­ ford University Press, 1988). From the introduction by the editor: "The intro­ duction of the postage stamp in 1840, six years after Coleridge's death, signifi­ cantly altered the situation of correspondents. Until then, recipients paid postage; the writers themselves were responsible for making letters worth paying for. As objects paid for, letters had a certain status: they were shared with family and friends; in most households they were preserved and periodically reread; and on the death of the letter-writer, they were customarily returned to the fam­ ily as part of the estate." 10. Samuel R. Delany, Wagner/Artaud: A Play of igth and 20th Century Critical Fictions (New York: Ansatz Press, 1988). 11. George Bernard Shaw, The Perfect Wagnerite: A Commentary on the Niblung's Ring (London: G. Richards, 1898).

40

Shorter Views

12. Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge & TheDiscourse on Language, trans. A. H. Sheridan Smith (New York: Pantheon, i g 7 2 ) . Page references ap­ pear parenthetically in the text. 13. Laura Bohannan, "Shakespeare in the Bush," in Ants, Indians, and Little Dinosaurs, ed. Alan Ternes (New York: Scribner, c. 1975). (I would like to thank Margaret Minsky, who is responsible for my having my most recent copy of this delightful piece.) 14. Jean Baudrillard, Forget Foucault (Paris: Editions Galilee, 1977; New York: Semiotext(e), 1987). 15. Michel Foucault, Death and the Labyrinth: The World of Raymond Roussel, trans. Charles Ruas (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1986).

2

Street Talk / Straight Talk

1. Discourse—an o r d e r o f response, a m o d e o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g , for which various rhetorical features may function as symptoms. Yet rhetoric is never wholly c o e x t e n s i v e with discourse. Discourse a n d rhetoric c o n ­ trol o n e another, yes—but precisely because o f that c o n t r o l , n e i t h e r is wholly at o n e with the other. Nevertheless—the relation o f discourse to rhetoric is n o t the arbitrary relation, negotiable by introspection, o f signified to signifier; it is the de­ termined relation, n e g o t i a b l e by analysis, o f the u n c o n s c i o u s to the enunciated. 2. A c c o r d i n g to the discourse o f "Discourse," rhetoric is quantifiable, particular, arrives in delimitable units, while m e a n i n g s , to q u o t e Q u i n e (8), c a n n o t be "individuated." Consider, then, four m o d e s o f rhetoric: Street talk Brutal, repetitious, vulgar, it marks a subdiscourse o f ignor­ ance, rumor, misunderstanding, a n d outright superstition. It is fixated— now on the aggressive, n o w o n the sexual, n o w o n the cupidinously ac­ quisitive. T h e rhetoric o f an u n d e r w o r l d , its raisonis lying; in the pursuit of myriad dishonesties a n d selfishnesses, "getting over," as it most re­ cently characterizes a major factor o f its o w n enterprise. It arises in sexu­ ally high d i m o r p h i c idiolects: B u t w h e t h e r we m o v e in the realm o f gos­ sip or o f b r a g g a d o c i o , whatever its topic, the very banality o f its endlessly repeated circuits m a k e s it the mark o f the limited, the illicit, a m o m e n t away from brute d u m b n e s s in o n e direction, a m o m e n t away from the linguistic zero o f p u r e chatter in another. Straight talk Indicating it with the rhetorical m a r k reserved for it by "street talk," it is mellifluous, precise, sophisticated: T h e subdiscourse it takes for itself is "the learned," the characterization o f itself it employs in the a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f its o w n truth. It functions to m e d i a t e b e t w e e n truth and k n o w l e d g e , a n d thus is saturated by b o t h . It functions to re­ solve disorder, to clarify confusion, to calm a n d c o m m i n g l e the diverse

42

Shorter Views

a n d the disparate, "to inform"—as it often says o f itself—where formal differences a n d divisions have b e c o m e unclear, violently erased, violated. Supposedly it is sexless—though this is the same as saying that it is un­ m a r k e d , male, a n d materially wealthy. It takes all topics to itself and en­ chains t h e m in a limidess legitimacy that everywhere displaces t h e m and replaces them, n o w in the shadow, n o w in the light, o f its articulation. Yet b o t h these rhetorical m o d e s cast shadows. Straight talk: Indicating it with linguistic marks drawn from its own rhetoric, it is awkward, obscurantist, a n d often crashingly irrelevant. It refuses to r e m a i n within the r e c o g n i z a b l e discursive fields o f the hearer and, by so d o i n g , fulfills—more o r less badly—only the function o f in­ timidation. It uses k n o w l e d g e to hide the truth. T h u s it exists as an op­ pressive v i o l e n c e in a field in w h i c h articulation itself forever strives to mystify the very v i o l e n c e o f its own enterprise. In its privileging o f specu­ lation, it e x c l u d e s all action a n d consigns all reference to the exile of the illegitimate. T h u s the very hollowness with which it resonates is o n e with the lies o f a s e r m o n delivered in a c h u r c h without a g o d . Street talk: Indicating it with linguistic marks drawn from its own rheto­ ric, it is clear, c o n c r e t e , a n d honest. If it is often unfair, it is factual and calls a spade a spade. Its specific vulgarity is the stuff o f poetry—in the sense that g o o d taste is the e n e m y o f great art. Within its compass, you k n o w w h e r e y o u stand. U s e d with clarity, its w i s d o m rivals the ancients'. U s e d with e c o n o m y , it b e c o m e s song. T h e local inscription o f its logic ( a m o n g the "streetwise") is far m o r e powerful than the vagaries o f that " c o m m o n sense" that it a n d straight talk b o t h have abjured. A n d the endlessness o f its b l a s p h e m i e s is, finally, b o t h defense against and ac­ k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f the suffering that is the lot o f all, but especially the poor, that straight talk has p u t — a l o n g with action—outside the precinct o f what may be legitimately articulated. 3. I m a g i n e a discourse, f l u n g d o w n o n o u r coordinate system, traversing all four o f the rhetorical quadrants outlined above: T o o n e side o f it rises the axial o f death. A n y utterance within that discourse is on a continuous a n d uninflected curve that shoots across a deadly locus; it is stopped by a n d absorbed by death at that terrifying a n d totalized point o f unity. F r o m there, the curve flows toward the axial o f life—but a life that is wholly a n d ideally secure, rich in pleasure, close to immobile: T h a t is to say that, above all things, this particular biotic axial is "safe." T h e axis o f death cleaves its space, b e a r i n g with it a mythology similar to that with w h i c h the axis o f the real cleaves the plane o f c o m p l e x numbers. T h e axis o f life carries across its space an equally rarefied mythology suggesting n o t h i n g so m u c h as the axis o f the imaginary that transects the c o m p l e x

Street T a l k / S t r a i g h t Talk

43

plane. T h e discourse a p p r o a c h e s that lively, that i m a g i n a r y axis asymp­ totically, yearningly, steadily, endlessly.. . . 4. A rhetorical m o m e n t abstracted from an u n d e r g r a d u a t e paper, turned in two-and-a-half years a g o by a student at H a m p s h i r e C o l l e g e writing about a prime-time saga o f m o n e y a n d p o w e r that h a d recently introduced a gay male character, m o r e or less visibly, m o r e o r less sympa­ thetically: "A gay male w h o d o e s n o t think a b o u t A I D S is, for most gay males o f this country, an other" (Sean H o l l a n d ) . 5. B u t o f course the gay m a l e character that H o l l a n d ' s rhetorical figure puts so strongly into question lies directly o n the line o f o u r discourse as we have just sketched it out; he is simply far a l o n g the road to an ideal life, to "safety," to the idealized world that television presents u s — m u c h farther a l o n g the road than y o u , than I. I n d e e d , to locate h i m o n that line—"within that discourse," as m a n y o f us have l e a r n e d to say—is to draw H o l l a n d ' s own rhetorical flourish that tries so staunchly, so vio­ lently, to position itself away from that line, ultimately closer to it. H o l ­ land, a n d presumably all the o t h e r gay males in this c o u n t r y with their presumed A I D S anxiety, are simply too far b e h i n d , n o t well e n o u g h ad­ vanced in the endless career toward life, pleasure, a n d safety: T h e y are simply closer to death, a n d their anxiety, e v e n as it m a s q u e r a d e s as cri­ tique, is merely a rhetorical symptom o f their position. 6. Discourses are pervasive, rapacious, h u n g r y — t h e y control, as w e have said, rhetoric: Holland's, mine. . . . 7. It is possible that, for a while, a reasonable a m o u n t o f the theoretical priority o f any field such as gay studies, lesbian a n d gay male, in a social field w h e r e there is simply so m u c h to do, may fall u n d e r that rubric where we traditionally find those theoretical articulations that w o r k in the relation o f theory to practice. B u t that—perhaps—is n o t what this paper is about. 8. A l m o s t precisely a year a g o , in February 1 9 8 9 , the New York Times a n d the Daily News b o t h featured pieces in the same w e e k stating that the New England Journal of Medicine (320.4, 26 Jan. 1989) h a d r e p o r t e d the first "confirmed" case o f the "transmission o f H I V infection from a w o m a n to a man by oral sex." If you pull that issue o f the New England Journal off the back-issues shelf in the periodical r o o m o f y o u r library a n d p a g e through it, c h e c k i n g the table o f contents, y o u will find n o article listed whose title w o u l d suggest such information, discussed, c o n f i r m e d , o r

44

Shorter Views

otherwise. I n d e e d , it is only w h e n y o u turn to the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e col­ u m n that y o u find any m e n t i o n o f A I D S a n d oral sex at all. L e t m e read y o u the substantive section, paragraphs two a n d three, o f a fourp a r a g r a p h letter to the editor, that is the source o f this "confirmed" case. Our patient, a 60-year-old uncircumcised man with insulin-dependent di­ abetes mellitus, was hospitalized because of fatigue, abnormalities of mental status, and pancytopenia. O n examination, he was found to have subcortical dementia and diabetic peripheral neuropathy. His workup included a lumbar puncture, which revealed no abnormalities, and a normal brain computed tomographic scan, performed with and without iodinated contrast material. The man's evaluation included HIV antibody testing, and serum was reactive for HIV antibody on enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing and Western blood analysis. O n further questioning, the patient reported no homosexual encounters or intravenous drug use. He had never received a transfusion of blood prod­ ucts. Although he was living with his wife of more than 30 years, he had had no sexual contact of any sort with her for many years. (His wife's serum was nonreactive for HIV antibody EIA testing.) For the previous several years he had experienced erectile impotence, which had been attributed to his di­ abetic neuropathy. The patient's only extramarital affair had occurred over the course of the preceding two years, when he frequented a single female prostitute with whom he engaged in exclusively oral sex (both fellatio and cunnilingus). On one occasion he had seen her use intravenous drugs. He never performed cunnilingus during her menstrual periods and did not re­ member ever coming into contact with any of her blood. He reported that he had not engaged in deep French kissing with her. He did not remember her ever having oral or genital ulcers. The patient himself reported that he had never had oral ulcers. He described an occasional ulcer on his penis in the past, yet said he had never had sexual contact with his partner at a time when such an ulcer was present. Further laboratory testing of the patient resulted in a nonreactive serologic test of syphilis (rapid plasma-reagin) and revealed a peripheral-blood T-lymphocyte helper/suppressor ratio of 0.1, with an ab­ solute Thelper (CD4) cell count of 36 per cubic millimeter. (Spitzler and Weiner) B u t as I too yearn after a life o n that forever inaccessible and wholly "safe" axis, let m e violate my o w n rhetorical declaration a n d h e r e read the first a n d final p a r a g r a p h s o f this letter, in a m o v e that at o n c e sug­ gests a restoration o f totality to the four-paragraph d o c u m e n t u n d e r my g a z e at the same time that it severs it in a m o m e n t o f v i o l e n c e to this dis-

Street T a l k / S t r a i g h t Talk

45

course w h i c h , I admit, e v e n as I try to characterize it by Cartesian meta­ phors with L a c a n i a n connotations, I d o n o t fully c o m p r e h e n d ; finally, my rhetorical m o v e is vouchsafed only by my c o n t e n t i o n that, as dis­ course controls rhetoric, so rhetoric may, at times, i n f l u e n c e discourse. Transmission of HIV Infection from a Woman to a Man by Oral Sex To the Editor:

In the United States, female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV has been reported infrequently. (Friedland, GH. Klein, RS. Transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus, N EnglJ Med 1987: 3 1 7 : 1 1 2 5 - 3 5 . ) Until now, oral sex alone has not been proved to be a mode of transmission of HIV from women to men. We now report what appears to be a case of HIV transmission from a woman to a man exclusively by oral sex. . . . This case report suggests that oral sex alone can transmit HIV, even when there is no coincident exchange of blood. In the light of this, public health education about safer sexual practices must not only advocate the use of bar­ rier contraceptives such as condoms during vaginal and rectal intercourse, but also caution against the exchange of bodily fluids during oral sexual prac­ tices, such as oral sex. Peter G. Spitzler, MD

Neil J. Weiner, MD

Burlington, MA o 1805

Lahey Clinic Medical Center

I can only say that, to m e , w h a t this suggests is that the p a r a g r a p h s con­ tained b e t w e e n these two, w h i c h I q u o t e d above, s h o u l d b e m o v e d higher, that is n e a r e r to death, o n the line o f discourse—and, by exten­ sion, that their i m p o r t a n c e , i m p l i e d by the entire contextualization o f a medical j o u r n a l , should b e raised, implying a mobility b a c k a n d forth along the discursive slope that we will m e e t with again a n d again in the course o f o u r e x a m i n a t i o n ; t h o u g h I think it is equally i m p o r t a n t to point out that all logic tells us that there is n o t h i n g in the least confirming in this letter (which is j u s t that—a letter to the editor a n d n o t a reviewed study) ; just as all reason tells us that a sixty-year-old m a n , m a r r i e d for thirty years, still living with his wife a n d suffering from diabetes a n d de­ mentia, in Burlington, Massachusetts, w o u l d have every reason to lie about either h o m o s e x u a l e n c o u n t e r s o r intravenous d r u g use—or, to put it m o r e strongly, can w e think o f any reason for such a m a n , c o m e down with A I D S , to tell the truth in today's climate, h o w e v e r m u c h his doctors m i g h t like to confirm it?

46

Shorter Views

9. S o m e street rhetoric here: A b o u t three years a g o , I p i c k e d u p a tele­ p h o n e r e p a i r m a n n a m e d T o m in a gay bar o n E i g h t h A v e n u e , called Cats, w h o was, frankly, drunk. B u t h e was c o h e r e n t e n o u g h to explain that h e was o u t c e l e b r a d n g the birth o f his first granddaughter. H e was forty-two years old, a n d his nineteen-year-old d a u g h t e r had just given birth to h e r first child. H e had b e e n married three times, and was cur­ rently separated from his third wife, but living with his sixteen-year-old son at his sister's h o u s e , in Brooklyn. T h e n e x t m o r n i n g , after a very satis­ factory n i g h t o f sex, w h e n h e was substantially soberer, T o m told m e that, since his seventeenth year, h e h a d f o u n d that for seven or eight months in a row h e never c o n s i d e r e d sex with m e n , n o t even in passing. But o n c e or twice a year, since that time, h e w o u l d find himself g o i n g out to get d r u n k and, in the course o f it, w o u l d usually g e t fucked by anywhere from three to ten m e n , sometimes m o r e . H e f o u n d the e x p e r i e n c e d e e p l y satisfying; a n d the result was that, again, for the n e x t six m o n t h s o r so he did not even c o n t e m p l a t e sex with m e n — u n t i l the same thing h a p p e n e d . H e used to worry about it; but now, in his own words: "I guess it's j u s t part o f w h o I am." Since it av­ e r a g e d o u t at less than a twice-a-year o c c u r r e n c e , a n d in most places the urge was easily satisfied, h e h a d never m e n t i o n e d this "tendency" to any o f his three wives. I m e n t i o n that I h a d not fucked him, a l t h o u g h at o n e point he had very badly wanted m e to. B u t after I insisted, for about five minutes, that I just was n o t g o i n g to d o that (we had n o c o n d o m s ) , we b o t h e n d e d u p d o i n g just a b o u t everything else two m e n can with o n e another—several times—before w e fell asleep. Taking his quite soberly offered account at face value, I can only n o t e that T o m is a prime target for A I D S . Also, I sus­ p e c t that, should h e contract it, w e can be fairly sure that, for c o n v e n i e n c e ' s sake, h e will likely g o d o w n in the b o o k s as having picked it u p from a female prostitute. R e c a l l i n g T o m p u t m e in m i n d o f a y o u n g m a n o f a b o u t twenty-five or thirty w h o m , for several years, perhaps fifteen years back, I used to run into and have sex with at a b o u t three- to five-month intervals. We m e t in a m o v i e h o u s e o n E i g h t h A v e n u e . T h e first time we did anything—mu­ tual masturbation a n d fellatio—he b e g a n by confessing to me shyly that this was the first time h e had d o n e anything like this. A l l his other sexual e x p e r i e n c e s , h e e x p l a i n e d , h a d b e e n with w o m e n . T h u s I was a little surprised w h e n , three m o n t h s later, I e n c o u n t e r e d h i m again, a n d — a g a i n — h e e x p l a i n e d that this was the first time h e had d o n e anything like this. All o f his o t h e r sexual e x p e r i e n c e s , he ex­ plained, h a d — a g a i n — b e e n with w o m e n . A n d , o n o u r third encounter, t h o u g h clearly h e s e e m e d to r e m e m b e r having m e t m e and talked to m e

Street T a l k / S t r a i g h t Talk

47

before, he o n c e again e x p l a i n e d that h e h a d never d o n e anything like this before. All o f his o t h e r sexual e x p e r i e n c e s . . . A g a i n , I suspect that, should this y o u n g m a n ever c o m e d o w n with A I D S , it is h i g h l y likely that he will b e o n e o f the p e o p l e w h o have a c q u i r e d the disease "heterosexually." So m u c h for street rhetoric. A little street discourse analysis, however: T h e s e a n d m a n y like experi­ ences, some involving gay activity, s o m e involving intravenous d r u g users, are the only o n e s I have that allow m e to read the a c c o u n t in D o c ­ tors Spitzler and Weiner's letter q u o t e d from the New England Journal of Medicine so that it makes anything like sense to m e , whatsoever. 10. A m o m e n t from a n o v e l I wrote in 1 9 8 4 , The Tale of Plagues and Car­ nivals: . . . while I was on the subway, I decided just to drop in on a public John at the Seventy-ninth Street subway stop—a rather active New York sexual congregat­ ing spot in those days—just to see how all this [the proliferation of AIDS rhet­ oric in 1983] was affecting things. . . . [W]ith all the brouhaha, the scientist in me was curious. Well, would you believe that, between the first and the second day I looked into that shabby hole with its peeling walls and asbestos covered pipes, the blue and ivory paint soiled almost to one hue, the filthy incandes­ cent bulbs in their wire cages from another era, and only metal partitions between the stalls, someone came in and filled both the commodes and the urinals with plaster of paris, which hardened and bulged up over the porce­ lain rims, making the facilities wholly unusable—except for the industrialsized sink in the corner, which, a day later, was fouled with urine, feces and soggy paper by the desperate? Irate straights attempting to render inoperable a well-known cruising spot? Social-minded gays trying to put the place out of operation, assuming they were lowering the chances of AIDS contact? No, there's no way to know for sure. But from the men who still stood around in it, it didn't stop the cruising—nor, from the condition of the floor and the sink, people using it for a toilet. But a few days later, the inoperable bathroom was permanently locked. (45 i) T h e question arises immediately: W h a t status d o I claim for this passage o f declared fiction? Even lifted from its fictive c o n t e x t as I have d o n e , abridged as I have a b r i d g e d it, a n d placed h e r e , I will always a n d forever claim it to have the status o f a j o u r n a i a c c o u n t , a text for w h i c h I m i g h t make the claim o f truth appropriate for that g e n r e : W h a t I described, I saw. (Moreover, in h a l f a d o z e n or m o r e N e w York subway Johns since,

48

Shorter Views

n o w l o c k e d u p for g o o d , I have seen the same a g a i n — w h e n mainte­ n a n c e workers o p e n e d the doors briefly over the n e x t years to put in a pail, to take o u t a m o p . I n d e e d , the entire public b a t h r o o m system o f N e w York m e n ' s and w o m e n ' s r o o m s , was p u t o u t o f operation over that w e e k or two p e r i o d a n d has n o t b e e n functional since.) W h a t I specu­ lated, I b e l i e v e d to b e t r u e — t h o u g h , certainly, other evidence m i g h t someday conceivably c o n v i n c e m e otherwise. B u t the v i o l e n c e I still feel constrained to p e r f o r m o n my own text (not far from the v i o l e n c e I have p e r f o r m e d o n the medical letter above) is to p o i n t out, i n d e e d to insist, that for y o u it is—presumably—just a text. W h a t is m o r e , it is in the m a r g i n b e t w e e n claims o f truth and the claims o f textuality that all discursive structures (that w h i c h allows us to r e a d rhetoric) are f o r m e d . A n d this is as m u c h a fact for my text as it is for the text o f D o c t o r s Spitzler a n d Weiner's letter. 1 1 . A rhetorical m o m e n t from 1983 that did n o t m a k e it into the same novel: W h i l e I sat in the b a l c o n y o f the Variety Photoplays T h e a t e r in N e w York, a tall, muscular white m a n in his mid-thirties, in c o m b a t boots, A i r Force flight j a c k e t , with a military crew, finished sucking off o n e black guy in a paint-stained j a c k e t , only to climb over the back o f the seats o f the row b e t w e e n us and, steadying himself o n my shoulder, g r i n n e d at m e with the wet-lipped d e l i g h t o f the satisfied. I g r i n n e d back, b u t felt constrained to say, sofdy, to this stranger w h o , until a min­ ute before, h a d only b e e n a h e a d b o b b i n g u p a n d d o w n between the legs of the m a n in the row in front o f m e , "Aren't y o u w o r r i e d about AIDS?" "Naw," h e said. ' Y o u can't g e t it suckin' dick—unless y o u g o t cuts in y o u r m o u t h or s o m e t h i n g like that. " I g r i n n e d back. ' Y o u ' r e probably right—'cause if y o u weren't, w e ' d b o t h have it." A n d , t h o u g h w e e x c h a n g e d n o m o r e words, a minute later, h e was c r o u c h e d d o w n b e t w e e n my k n e e s a n d the back o f the theater seat in front o f m e , his h e a d b e t w e e n my legs. 12. A rhetorical m o m e n t from the same w e e k that c a m e from a letter written m e from California by a c o n c e r n e d a n d sensitive heterosexual w o m a n friend that struck m e e n o u g h so that I f o u n d myself returning to it in t h o u g h t day after day: "AIDS has n o w p u t gay m e n in the position that straight w o m e n have always b e e n in with sex: A n y u n p r o t e c t e d sex­ ual e n c o u n t e r n o w always carries with it the possibility o f life or death." 13. I t h o u g h t , i n d e e d , a b o u t b o t h this street level (balcony level?) ex­ c h a n g e a n d this very powerful epistolary observation a g o o d deal. Was I a n x i o u s a b o u t AIDS? Constantly, continuously. T h e first e x c h a n g e , how-

Street T a l k / S t r a i g h t Talk

49

ever, was—more or less—the o n e a r o u n d w h i c h I structured m y behav­ ior. T h e s e c o n d was the o n e a r o u n d w h i c h I—more o r less—structured my intellectual analysis o f the situation. W h a t I can say at this distance, however, is that I d o u b t I ever t h o u g h t about t h e m b o t h at the same time. A t least in 1 9 8 3 . T h e y b e l o n g e d to two different discourses, a n d it was probably n o t till the s u m m e r o f 1 9 8 8 , till just after a c o n f e r e n c e o f the Marxist S u m m e r Institute at C a r n e g i e Mellon, not primarily o n A I D S b u t o n theory, w h e n , from o n e o f the most marginal participants, I received an offprint o f a Lancet article by Kingsley, Kaslow, Rinaldo, et al. ( 1 4 Feb. 1 9 8 7 ) , that I was e v e n able to consider the two together. 14. In 1 9 8 4 T h e M i n e Shaft, a gay bar near N e w York's V i l l a g e e x p a n s e of waterfront, s a n d w i c h e d b e t w e e n various m e a t p a c k i n g c o m p a n i e s , was closed d o w n by the city. In the same m o n t h , the St. Mark's Baths, o n St. Mark's Place b e t w e e n the then-Valencia H o t e l (whose l o b b y u p into the early 60s h a d h o u s e d the Five Spot, t h o u g h n o w it was a h o t d o g stand) and the o l d site o f the Strait T h e a t e r (where o n c e , as a teenager, I h a d acted in a N e w Y o r k - b a s e d s u m m e r stock c o m p a n y , a n d w h e r e , a few years later, A l l e n G i n s b e r g a n d the Fugs h a d p e r f o r m e d , t h o u g h more recently it h a d b e c o m e a vintage c l o t h i n g store), was p e r m a n e n t l y shut. I was never a regular at either institution, t h o u g h I h a d b e e n to each m o r e than ten times in s o m e w h a t m o r e than twice that n u m b e r o f years. S e x was j u s t as constant in b o t h places as at the Variety, if n o t m o r e so. T h e r e was, however, this d i f f e r e n c e — a n d the factor was a prime o n e in the closing o f e a c h establishment: T h e m a n a g e m e n t s o f both places, in their last m o n t h s , allowed c o n c e r n e d gay m a l e g r o u p s to institute safe sex demonstrations at b o t h . I n e v e r saw t h e m , b u t I cer­ tainly talked to friends w h o did; a n d there w e r e reports o f t h e m in the Village Voice newspaper. T h e s e d e m o n s t r a t i o n s w e r e h a n d s - o n , explicit, and active—and by report very effective in c h a n g i n g the b e h a v i o r o f the m e n w h o w e n t there. Many p e o p l e w h o have not direcdy e n c o u n t e r e d situations w h e r e sex is public and persistent assume that, because the activity is marginal, it must s o m e h o w take place outside all social constraints a n d cultural order. I w o u l d hazard, however, that the exact opposite is true. In a situation where o n e must deal, publicly a n d repeatedly, with the fear a n d the real­ ity of rejection (and however dionysiac the situation gets, there is still, for almost everyone, m o r e sexual rejection than a c c e p t a n c e involved), such behavior b e c o m e s almost immediately a n d insistently constrained, if n o t ritualized. T h e s e are intricate and multiple patterns o f politeness—and indeed, ritualized rudeness—which I have never yet seen formally given

50

Shorter Views

the Irving G o f f m a n treatment, b u t w h i c h are nevertheless firmly and formally in p l a c e . B u t y o u must i m a g i n e the effect o f a g r o u p o f p e o p l e in such a highly a n d responsively social field w h e r e sex is actually o c c u r r i n g all a r o u n d t h e m , e x p l a i n i n g a n d demonstrating: If y o u d o this, y o u will die; if y o u d o this, y o u will live. I p o i n t out that it was from this time a n d these dem­ onstrations that we g e t o u r c u r r e n t emphasis o n c o n d o m s and the lack o f e x c h a n g e o f b o d y fluids. T h e demonstrations were murderously effec­ tive, nevertheless. T h e response o f the city was to close b o t h institutions. 15. N e e d I p o i n t o u t that the safe sex demonstrations at the Baths and at T h e M i n e Shaft w e r e not in a g r e e m e n t with the street level o f discourse: T h e y e n c o u r a g e d the use o f c o n d o m s d u r i n g fellatio as well as during anal intercourse. R i m m i n g was out. A l l three practices were viewed and discussed in these demonstrations as if their fibrillating distance from the axis o f death was a real a n d material consideration against which a latex barrier must b e e r e c t e d at all costs. 16. By 1 9 8 6 w e h a d m o v e d into a p e r i o d w h e n anal intercourse had shifted its rhetorical slot a n d was n o w discussed repeatedly as "high risk" behavior, often in a rhetorical c o n t e x t o f "repeated sexual encounters." L e t m e also p o i n t out, in passing, that in 1 9 8 4 , w h e n I was writing my novel, any suggestion at all that o n e m o d e o f bodily sexual behavior was safer than a n o t h e r was c o n s i d e r e d totally irresponsible. It is into this rhetorical field that a letter was published in J A M A (Jour­ nal of the American Medical Association ) o n April 4, 1986: To the Editor:

The San Francisco Men's Health Study is a prospective study of a population-based random sample of single men 25 to 54 years of age residing in the i g census tracts of San Francisco with the highest incident of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. One thousand thirty-five eligible men were re­ cruited. Participants visit the study clinic at six-month intervals, where they undergo a detailed medical and life-style interview and physical examination and provide specimens for laboratory study. Serological testing for AIDSassociated retrovirus (ARV) is performed on the cohort using the indirect fluorescent antibody technique. . . . Compared with men who had no sexual partners in the prior two-year period, the men who continued to engage in oral-genital contact only did not have an increased rate of infection by ARV. . . . Moreover, we found in a more detailed sexual practices interview at subse­ quent clinic visits that all of the 14 seropositive men had engaged in receptive

Street T a l k / S t r a i g h t Talk

51

anal intercourse prior to June 1982. In contrast, only 24 of the 50 seronega­ tive men in these two groups had engaged in previous receptive anal inter­ course. . . . These results may not completely exclude the possibility of trans­ mission of ARV infection by oral-genital contact because they are based on a small number of observations. They do, however, show no excess risk of infec­ tion by this route and support the theory that anal-genital exposure is the major mode of infection. An extended report describing the distribution of sexual practices and ARV serology is in preparation. David Lyman,

Univ. of California at Berkeley

MD

Warren Winkelstein, MD

A n d eight m o n t h s later, in February, the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d Kingsley, Kas­ low, Rinaldo, et al. study was p u b l i s h e d in The Lancet. T h e study is too l o n g to quote in full, t h o u g h I r e c o m m e n d anyone interested in the cor­ relation o f sexual behavior to seroconversion to H I V positive read it. If I may summarize a n d c o n d e n s e : Twenty-five h u n d r e d a n d e i g h t h o m o s e x ­ ual m e n , w h o , at the b e g i n n i n g o f the study tested negative for antibod­ ies to HIV, were m o n i t o r e d as to their sexual activity for six m o n t h s . T h e study states: " O n multivariate analysis receptive anal intercourse was the only significant risk factor for seroconversion to H I V . . . " (345) in the ninety-eight m e n w h o , in the course o f the study, d e v e l o p e d H I V anti­ bodies. It also states: The absence of detectable risk for seroconversion due to receptive oralgenital intercourse is striking. That there were no seroconversions detected among 147 men engaging in receptive oral intercourse with at least one part­ ner, but not receptive or insertive anal intercourse, accords with other data suggesting a low risk of infection from oral-genital (receptive semen) expo­ sure. It must be mentioned that we were unable to determine the infection status of the sexual partners to whom these men were exposed. Perhaps these 147 men who practiced receptive oral intercourse were never or rarely ex­ posed to HIV seropositive men. However, this explanation seems improbable. (348) T h e question quickly b e c o m e s why this information has n o t b e e n dis­ seminated with anything like the intensity o f various claims for h e t e r o ­ sexual transmission such as the o n e q u o t e d , o r a n o t h e r one-time re­ port, again from a letter, this time to The Lancet ( 1 5 A u g . 1 9 8 7 ) r a t h e r than to J A M A , a b o u t a one-time case ( t h o u g h nevertheless referred to in several g e n e r a l r e a d e r s h i p newspapers as a "well d o c u m e n t e d case") o f w o m a n - t o - w o m a n transmission t h r o u g h oral sex ( G r e e n h o u s e ) —

52

Shorter Views

w h i c h s o m e t i m e s seems the only use the m e d i c a l establishment has for the lesbian community, a dismissal w e c a n sadly r e c o g n i z e as typical. N e e d w e p o i n t o u t that one-time cases are not, by definition, well doc­ u m e n t e d ? W e can only talk a b o u t meaningful d o c u m e n t a t i o n in the case w h e r e w e b e g i n with seronegativity a n d t h e n , over a p e r i o d o f time, sex­ ual b e h a v i o r is carefully m o n i t o r e d , until seropositivity occurs; n o r can such cases b e meaningful until they are carried out at a reasonable statis­ tical r a n g e , since there is always the possibility o f error in m o n i t o r i n g even w h e n the establishment o f seronegativity occurs. Last year, in the three m o n t h s b e f o r e the Variety Photoplays T h e a t e r was closed d o w n by the city, I seriously c o n t e m p l a t e d x e r o x i n g u p several h u n d r e d c o p i e s o f the Kingsley, Kaslow, Rinaldo, et al. study and leaving t h e m in a pile in the lobby. T h a t I did not is, I suspect, a procrastination I shall forever feel guilty about. W h e n the Daily News r e p o r t e d the clos­ ing, it c l a i m e d that inspectors, over a two-day period, had observed " 1 5 8 acts o f unsafe sex." I will attest, from personal e x p e r i e n c e , that the only sexual acts occur­ ring in the theater at that time w e r e fellatio a n d the varieties o f mutual a n d solo masturbation. B u t the discursive structure that controls this rhetoric, the Daily News' a n d m i n e , is characterized precisely by its ability to m o v e acts anywhere a n d everywhere a l o n g that uninflected line, s o m e t i m e within days, sometime within hours, or even minutes. . . . 17. A t s o m e point, the mavens o f straight talk must realize that there are two discourses: T h e i r findings can b e expressed in b o t h street talk and straight talk—which are, after all, merely rhetorical expressions, and thus multi-discursive. T h e first is a discourse for w h i c h the individual rhetorical figures that constitute it a n d are m a n i p u l a t e d within it are g e n e r a t e d by a series o f o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d p r o c e d u r e s before they are admitted within its compass as "evidence." T h e s e c o n d is a discourse o f e x p e r i e n c e , w h e r e all is evi­ d e n c e t h o u g h it d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n operationalized rhetorical sifting. A n individual d i a g n o s e d with A I D S , w h o is then asked, "How did y o u get it?" or "What has y o u r sexual behavior b e e n over the last year or year and a half?" is, in his o r h e r answer, speaking from a n d to the s e c o n d dis­ course. O n l y a g r o u p o f seronegative m e n a n d / o r w o m e n w h o are asked to m o n i t o r in writing, daily, their sexual activity, a n d w h o are then tested for seropositivity, a n d w h o s e m o n i t o r e d reports are c o m p a r e d with the results, can contribute e v i d e n c e to the first. Is there r o o m for mistake—or for lying—in the operationalized dis­ course? O f course. B u t the operationalizing o f its rhetoric is neverthe­ less an effective m e a n s o f steering a course closer to what b o t h you and I are probably m o r e willing to stake o u r lives o n , in terms o f its findings.

Street T a l k / S t r a i g h t Talk

53

If these discourses are n o t k e p t separate, t h e n we m u s t b e forever cursed with the m u r d e r o u s contradiction, in official discourse (or straight talk) so far, that all the m o n i t o r e d studies strongly suggest that it is difficult or impossible to transmit A I D S orally, while perfectly l e a r n e d statements flood society, all stating, equally unequivocally, that A I D S can be transmitted by any and every sexual act involving an i n t e r c h a n g e o f bodily fluids—all o f t h e m based on individual, after-diagnosis requests for origins, even t h o u g h street rhetoric ("You can't g e t A I D S from suck­ ing dick") has already p o l l u t e d the c o n c e p t s o f all "high risk" b e h a v i o r (i.e., anal sex a n d n e e d l e sharing), so that practically n o o n e o n the street will admit to any interest in either at all a n y m o r e , with or w i t h o u t a c o n d o m , with or without sterilization. To the official question, "What has y o u r sexual activity b e e n for the past few years?" straight talk takes the myriad answers given by persons with AIDS, in all their discomfort or certainty— "Mostly sucking, I guess." "I only suck. Why do I have it?" "Let's see—all I remember is sucking dick." "No, I'd never take it up the ass. That's dangerous, I know that. Everybody knows that. I won't even suck: And if I do, I spit out and wash my mouth out right afterwards with Scope." "Nothing that ought to make me come down with this shit!" "It doesn't really matter, since I got it—probably getting head from some prostitute." —and the myriad answers given by m e n a n d w o m e n w h o often inhabit a world of borderlines, lines laid out very differently from w h e r e the straight world m i g h t place t h e m , and conflates these answers into an offi­ cial statement, "AIDS can be passed t h r o u g h fellatio," c o m p l e t e , in many cases, with statistics o n the n u m b e r o f p e o p l e w h o have so c a u g h t it. T h e law o f discourses, like the law o f g e n r e s , is that "Discourses are not to be m i x e d . " (It is, o f course, the same law.) A n d , as with the law o f genres, the truth o f the law is that it can never b e o b e y e d : like g e n r e s , discourses never arrive p u r e . T h e p r o b l e m with individuating discourses and genres is simply the macro-version o f the p r o b l e m o f individuating meanings. T h e signified can only—at times—appear to b e unitary. Yet the conflation o f discursively o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d rhetoric with u n o p erationalized rhetoric, b o t h taken as equally w e i g h t e d e v i d e n c e , has pro­ duced the c u r r e n t discourse o f AIDS—provisionally, locally, a n d at this historical m o m e n t , a demonstrably m u r d e r o u s discourse, vigorously em­ ployed by the range o f conservative forces p r o m u l g a t i n g the anti-sexual stance that marks so m u c h o f this era, a discourse o f "high risk" a n d "low

54

Shorter Views

risk" behavior, rather than the dicta o f street talk: " D o n ' t g e t fucked u p the ass w i t h o u t a c o n d o m . D o n ' t use a n y o n e else's works." Today, in­ stead, t h e r a n g e o f chatter a n d disinformation moves t h r o u g h all the m o d e s o f street talk a n d straight talk ("Use a c o n d o m for all sexual acts"), o b s c u r i n g a n d o c c l u d i n g precision, articulation, a n d the possibil­ ity for life. 18. T h e r a n g e o f discourses—and the rhetoric that falls o u t o f them— must b e listened to, a n d listened to carefully, if only to suggest further o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d studies. B u t to give conclusions drawn from unoperationalized rhetoric the same w e i g h t as such studies, while lacking their o u t c o m e s , is a discursive crime at o n e with murder. A n d the range o f o u r society, from h i g h e s t to lowest, is guilty o f that crime, o n the g r o u n d s o f what w e say a b o u t A I D S . 19. A r e w e s p e a k i n g o f s o m e t h i n g that can, if o n e wishes, simply b e called the scientific m e t h o d ? N o . We are speaking, rather, o f what hap­ p e n s to such a " m e t h o d " in a field ripe with a n d r i d d l e d by despair a n d terror a n d prior political agendas that flagrantly, at all levels, abnegate that m e t h o d , in a k i n d o f w a g e r far m o r e immediate, if n o t m o r e desper­ ate, than the o n e Pascal so famously c o n c e i v e d : "If ' D o n ' t g e t fucked u p the ass w i t h o u t a c o n d o m ' is safe, perhaps ' D o n ' t d o anything without a c o n d o m ' is safer." B u t because the latter is far h a r d e r to follow, it mili­ tates instead for laxness; a n d to the e x t e n t that the two are perceived as s o m e h o w the same, the laxness finally infects the former. B u t — t o b o r r o w an always already i m p u r e rhetoric—unless these dis­ courses c a n b e k e p t separate l o n g e n o u g h to d o m o r e studies a n d to dis­ seminate their results, n o t h i n g officially said a b o u t A I D S can be ac­ c e p t e d as straight. A l l is twisted—and is deadly. 20. W h i c h brings us to the ticklish question o f w o m e n a n d A I D S . T h e r e is a k i n d o f Utopian desire to see A I D S as equally d a n g e r o u s to w o m e n as to m e n . A n d w i t h o u t question, in its transmission t h r o u g h the use o f IV needles, it is. W i t h o u t question, in receptive anal intercourse, w o m e n are j u s t as susceptible to A I D S as m e n . W h e t h e r A I D S c a n or c a n n o t be passed to w o m e n vaginally, I, personally, have n e v e r h e a r d discussed o n the street, n o r have I y e t seen a m o n i t o r e d study to find out. T h e notion that A I D S is unlikely to b e passed o n by w o m e n in ordinary heterosexual vaginal intercourse sounds like a n o t h e r anatomical d e c r e e or g e n d e r powerlessness. D o we really n e e d a n o t h e r one? W h a t I have f o u n d in an informal survey o f b o o k s o n w o m e n a n d A I D S is that o n e c a n peruse v o l u m e after v o l u m e purportedly addressing

Street T a l k / S t r a i g h t Talk

55

w o m e n and A I D S in w h i c h anal intercourse is n o t m e n t i o n e d ; v o l u m e after v o l u m e in w h i c h no inflection in the c o n t a g i o n rates b e t w e e n oral and anal intercourse is suggested. T h e assumption w o u l d s e e m to b e that w o m e n ' s bodies in sexual terms are n o t h i n g but vaginas—and that these totally vagin ate d bodies can never be l o o k e d at, m o n i t o r e d , or tabulated. We simply have a n o t h e r major situation o f s e x u a l / g e n d e r oppression to deal with, its thrust overwhelmingly toward heterosexually active w o m e n . A l t h o u g h there is a discourse, c o n t r o l l i n g vast a m o u n t s o f A I D S anx­ iety a m o n g gay males, in w h i c h , yes, my California friend's association still resonates, there is also a level o f street discourse that has m o r e or less wrestled with that anxiety from 1983 onward, a n d t h r o u g h w h i c h the straight rhetoric o f the m e d i c a l j o u r n a l s only n o w a n d again transpares. It is o f course straight discourse that is wholly entailed in the m o d e l I began this p a p e r by describing. I shall r e p e a t that description h e r e : A t one side o f it rises the axis o f death. T h e discourse is a totally c o n t i n u o u s and uninflected curve that shoots across that deadly locus at "one"; that is, it is stopped by a n d a b s o r b e d by death at that terrifying a n d totalized point o f unity. F r o m there, the curve flows toward the base axis o f life— but a life that is wholly a n d ideally secure, rich in pleasure, close to im­ mobile: T h a t is to say that above all things, this particular biotic axial is "safe." T h e axis o f death cleaves the space b e a r i n g with it a m y t h o l o g y similar to that with w h i c h the axis o f the real cleaves the p l a n e o f c o m ­ plex numbers. T h e axis o f life carries across its space an equally rarefied mythology suggesting n o t h i n g so m u c h as the axis o f the imaginary that transects the c o m p l e x plane. T h e discourse a p p r o a c h e d that lively, that imaginary axis asymptotically, yearningly, steadily, endlessly. . . . For by now I h o p e we can r e c o g n i z e the rhetorical symptoms o f this discourse: "High risk behavior" and "low risk behavior" define a discursive substratum w h e r e all sexual behavior b e c o m e s m o r e o r less d a n g e r o u s , and all is subject to endless displacement a n d slippage a l o n g that discur­ sive slope, now n e a r e r to, n o w further from, death; in "repeated sexual encounters," a kind o f inflation o f pleasure brings o n e s o m e h o w m o r e and m o r e mysteriously close to infection a n d annihilation (in Kingsley, Kaslow, Rinaldo, et al., at least eight o f the m e n w h o seroconverted h a d only a single anal receptive e n c o u n t e r ) . Symptoms i n c l u d e such phrases as "AIDS is everybody's p r o b l e m , " from the latest circular from my own university's so well-intentioned A I D S c o m m i t t e e , a circular that d o e s not go on to distinguish what kindoi p r o b l e m it is for different p e o p l e — a tax problem here, a w h o l e range o f m e d i c a l p r o b l e m s for a w h o l e r a n g e o f other p e o p l e there; a w h o l e range o f specifically sexual p r o b l e m s , b o t h for p e o p l e w h o are in b e d with each other a n d w h o are w o n d e r i n g what to d o next, as well as for p e o p l e w h o are w o n d e r i n g if they are ever g o i n g to e n d u p in b e d with anyone again. In short, the rhetorical symptoms o f

56

Shorter Views

this discourse are n o t a set o f polidcal intentions but rather the signs o f a discourse that, from whatever political position, h o m o g e n i z e s the prob­ l e m instead o f inflecting it; that assigns p e o p l e a n d actions, sexual and social, positions o n that u n p r o b l e m a t i c a n d uninflected line r u n n i n g from life to death—until the establishment o f quarantines, curfews, and d e a t h c a m p s . A n d I a m c o n v i n c e d that a later age will l o o k back on this o n e a n d r e s p o n d to these rhetorical moves that scatter so many o f our texts today; it will read t h e m with the kind o f mute h o r r o r with which we read the anti-semitic rhetoric that proliferated t h r o u g h G e r m a n y in par­ ticular a n d E u r o p e in general all t h r o u g h the '30s and 40s. 21. L e t m e c o n c l u d e with a n o t h e r p i e c e o f street rhetoric, another bit o f street discourse. B e c a u s e , in various talks, I have b e e n saying m u c h what I a m saying h e r e for two years now, I felt it was i n c u m b e n t u p o n m e to have an H I V test a n d c h e c k o u t my o w n , a g i n g body. Since I have b e e n at the Univer­ sity o f Massachusetts for a bit over a year and a half now, with only occa­ sional visits to N e w York, my sexual e n c o u n t e r s , in the city, all o f t h e m oral ( s e m e n r e c e p t i v e ) , w i t h o u t c o n d o m s , a n d the vast majority a m o n g strangers (I last g o t fucked well over twelve years a g o ) , have certainly fal­ l e n off: A conservative estimate w o u l d b e three h u n d r e d a year between 1 9 7 7 a n d 1 9 8 3 ; that falls d o w n to a b o u t a hundred-fifty a year till I left for Massachusetts in 1988; that has t h e n a bit m o r e than halved, to some­ w h e r e b e t w e e n forty and sixty-five a year since. F o u r m o n t h s ago, on a visit to the city, I availed myself o f the city's H I V testing facilities. Four m o n t h s a g o , I was seronegative. B u t n o w w e must m o v e to a discursive analysis o f this very classically rhetorical ploy, for—despite its truth claims—it is n o t h i n g m o r e . In n o way a m I asking a n y o n e to c h a n g e his or h e r behavior o n the strength o f ways I have or have n o t b e h a v e d . W h a t I a m asking is that all o f us begin to p u t forward the m o n u m e n t a l analytical effort, in whichever rhetorical m o d e w e c h o o s e , n e e d e d n o t to interpret what we say, but to say w h a t we do. T h a t requires first and foremost speaking with others about what we d o . T h a t is the only way that w e can destroy the discursive disarticulation that muffles and m u d d l e s all, that drags all into and within it, that represses a n d suppresses a n d lies a n d distorts and rereads a n d rewrites any a n d every rhetorical m o m e n t within its field. Rhetoric can control discourse—but only if it is insistent, accurate, an­ alytical, a n d articulate. —Amherst February 19,

iggo

Street T a l k / S t r a i g h t Talk

WORKS

57

CITED

Delany, Samuel R. "The Tale of Plagues and Carnivals." 1984. Flight From Nevèryon. New York: Bantam, 1985. Greenhouse, Peter. Letter. The Lancet 15 Aug. 1987: 4 0 1 - 0 2 . Kingsley, Lawrence A., Richard Kaslow, Charles R. Rinaldo, Jr., et al. "Risk Factors for Seroconversion to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Among Male Homosexuals: Results from the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study." The Lancet 14 Feb. 1987: 345-48. Lyman, David, MD, and Warren Winkelstein, MD. Letter. "Minimal Risk of Transmission of AIDS-Associated Retrovirus Infection Oral-Genital Contact." Journal of the American Medical Association 4 Apr. 1986. Rpt. in The AIDS Reader: Documentary History of a Modern Epidemic. Ed. Loren K. Clarke and Malcolm Potts. Vol. 1. Boston: Branden, ig88. 261. Quine, W. V. The Philosophy of Logic. Engleside Cliffs, NJ: Prentice, 1970. Spitzler, Peter G., MD, and Neil J. Weiner, MD. Letter. "Transmission of HIV Infection from a Woman to a Man by Oral Sex." New England Journal of Medicine 320.4 (1989): 251.

O n the Unspeakable [The Capri Theater, Times Square, 1987]

the p o s i t i o n i n g o f desire that al­ ways draws us to " T h e Unspeak­ a b l e " in the first place. It is an area, a topic, a trope im­ possible to speak o f outside (it is at o n c e evil a n d extralinguistic) that r a n g e , equally difficult to describe, to define: " T h e Everyday." (It is at o n c e banal a n d representationally difficult.) B o t h are terribly local­ ized. B o t h are wholly a n d socially b o u n d e d . T h e division b e t w e e n everyday a n d u n s p e a k a b l e , diffi­ cult a n d extralinguistic, banal a n d evil may j u s t b e the prototype for all social division. We n e e d s o m e t h i n g from the everyday, then, o f a 45-year-old black, gay m a l e w h o cruises the c o m m e r c i a l p o r n theaters a l o n g E i g h t h A v e n u e above 4 3 r d Street in N e w York City (the "Author") in the m i d d l e a n d late 1980s: W h y n o t this? Rose is a pudgy, white, w o r k i n g class prostitute, m a y b e twenty-six, from Upstate N e w York; she's also a c r a c k e r — w h i c h m e a n s that for

to clear away the p r e - c u m leakage, raise his t h u m b to his m o u t h , and suck it clean. After three minutes, his hips b e g a n to lift in little twitches. H e h a d b o t h hands on his c o c k now. H e shot in a c o u p l e o r three four-inch spurts that fell, shiny as snot from a N o v e m b e r sneeze, d o w n the knuckles o f b o t h hands. H e raised o n e and thrust the backs o f three fingers into his m o u t h , t u r n e d t h e m over, and s u c k e d away the c u m . T h e n he lifted the other, to lick m o r e off, this time delicately. His t o n g u e r e a c h e d out p o i n t e d , but b e c a m e broader, s l u g g i n g slowly between o n e a n d the n e x t knuckle, bright with saliva a n d semen in the video's flicker he still stared at. T h a t ' s w h e n the o l d RR. beside h i m w o k e u p l o n g e n o u g h to give h i m a frown. T h e white kid j u m p e d a little, rearing to the side, in a hyperbolic m o m e n t o f fear. ( H y p e r b o l e is the figure o f the everyday; e u p h e m i s m is the figure o f the unspeakable.)

O n the U n s p e a k a b l e

59

the last few m o n t h s she's s e l d o m g o n e for m o r e than ten dollars a trick, since her interests have dwin­ dled pretty m u c h to the n e x t bot­ tle o f rocks—a h y p e r b o l e if there ever was o n e : the "bottie," a plastic capsule a shy c e n t i m e t e r l o n g , stoppered at o n e e n d with some­ thing like they p u t in the top o f Bic pens; the "rocks," a b o u t h a l f a crystal o f rock salt's worth o f cooked-down c o k e b r o k e n u p into smaller bits. C o s t p e r bottle any­ where from six to ten dollars. Eight is average. T h e long-time professional h o o k e r s w o r k i n g the winter Strip outside have lost all pa­ tience with the new b r e e d o f "ten dollar w h o r e " crack has created— many o f t h e m only fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen years old.

B u t h e gave the guy a l o o k that said, "Say s o m e t h i n g to m e , m o ­ therfucker, a n d I'll bust y o u ! " T h e r e was a wholly m a c h o aspect to his exhibitionism. T h e o l d guy s h o o k his h e a d , l e a n e d back against the wall, a n d closed his eyes again. T h e kid w e n t b a c k to licking, m o v e d to the inside o f his wrist. W i t h the e d g e o f o n e t h u m b h e s q u e e g e e d u p s o m e clam o f c u m that h a d fallen o n his d e n i m thigh, ate that, a n d e x a m i n e d his lap a n d g r e e n workshirt for any h e ' d missed. W i t h a few m o r e tugs h e m i l k e d his c o c k o f its final freight; then, with the h u g e l y circular t o n g u e m a n e u v e r five-year-olds re­ serve for d r i p p i n g c o n e s , h e l a p p e d the last from his first.

( T h e m e a n i n g o f the following exterior u r b a n portrait is entirely in terms o f what it tells us o f this m o m e n t a r y travesty o f theatrical interiority.) T h e last three years have seen a radical atmospheric and e c o n o m i c shift a l o n g the Strip from the fall­ out o f the c o c a i n e trade—crack, base, eightballs. It's part o f the slowly g a t h e r i n g e c o n o m i c devas­ tation o f the entire n e i g h b o r h o o d , which is presumably p r e p a r i n g the way for the brave n e w r e b u i l d i n g as a large s h o p p i n g mall, with a few theaters and business towers, scheduled to b e g i n n e x t year: gro­ cery stores, comic-book stores, shoe repair shops, drugstores, barber­ shops, bookstores, theatrical light­ ing and m a k e - u p stores, the m a g i c

( T h e above, o b s e r v e d purely as information—his actions a n d his dress a n d his b e a r i n g , from polite­ ness to b e l l i g e r e n c e — t e l l only o f w h a t is exterior to this tightly c o n ­ v e n t i o n a l i z e d a n d wholly c o n ­ tained c o m m e r c i a l , public space.) W a t c h i n g h i m , I f o u n d it easy to see the entire non-white a u d i e n c e a r o u n d h i m — m a c h o , male, a scat­ tering o f prostitutes, o f transsexu­ als, o f faggots, a n d largely there for drugs a n d the safest o f safe sex—as an a n a l o g u e for the w h o l e o f A m e r i c a n (if n o t o f Western) civilization. I f o u n d it equally easy to see the trio o f whites—Rose, R e d , a n d the y o u n g w o r k e r (again sucking o n e finger a n d the next, n o w o n his left h a n d , n o w o n his right, for any l i n g e r i n g taste) —as

6o

Shorter Views

shop, souvlaki a n d h o t d o g a n d pizza stands, hardware stores, liq­ u o r stores, drugstores, cafeterias, coffee shops, a n d the s e c o n d story rehearsal studios a n d the dry cleaners—the h u m a n services that, a l o n g the g r o u n d - f l o o r fronts o f the two- a n d three-story buildings (now d e e m e d wholly unprofitable for the T o w e r i n g City), scattered a m o n g the p o r n shops, peepshows, sex palaces a n d fuck-film houses, o n c e k e p t the area alive a n d livable for a considerable residence—have b e e n b o a r d e d u p o r shut d o w n . " T h e crackers are drivin' o u t the c o o k i e s , " has b e e n the call o n the street for a year, now. ( ' C o o k i e ' refers to the b e n t s p o o n or bottlecap in its hairpin h o l d e r — t h e c o o k e r — w i t h w h i c h h e r o i n users traditionally boil u p a fix, as 'crack' refers to the faint Rice Krispie crackle o f the b u r n i n g rocks as they h e a t to an o r a n g e glow in the screened-off e n d o f the sooty glass tube t h r o u g h w h i c h the drug's in­ haled.) B u t the crack trade, far vaster, cheaper, m o r e visible, a n d m o r e visibly d a m a g i n g than the h e r o i n traffic o n c e was, is only part o f the g e n e r a l d e c l i n e . T h i s is the Strip: this is the n e i g h b o r h o o d that, like n u m e r o u s n e i g h b o r h o o d s b e f o r e it ( C a n n e r y Row, Farrell's or Bellow's C h i c a g o , R u n y o n ' s Broadway) yearns to be­ c o m e a m e t a p h o r for the w h o l e g r e a t A m e r i c a n outside. T h e r e is n o r e t r e a t / a d v a n c e e x c e p t within. Rose was d o z i n g in the ninth row o f the b a l c o n y o f the C a p r i

an a n a l o g u e o f whites and white culture within that A m e r i c a n / Western c o m p l e x . Perhaps the major appeal o f the analogy was that the reversal, the subversion, the overturning o f m o r e usual an­ alogical alignments o f primitive a n d sophisticated, o f white and non-white, initiated (at least mo­ mentarily) its o w n critique o f pre­ cisely the failures o f such racially analogic thinking (the overriding characteristic o f the culture it sym­ bolized) in the first place. T h e kid w a t c h e d the movie a few m o r e minutes; finally he p u s h e d his c o c k back into his j e a n s a n d z i p p e d u p . A minute later, h e stood and w a n d e r e d to the bal­ cony d o o r to g o d o w n . "Man," Rose was saying to R e d ( s h e ' d already said it n o w as many times as s h e ' d said "Huh?" b e f o r e ) , "what the fuck is he g o n n a c o m e b o t h e r m e for if h e ain't g o t n o money? T h a t ain't right. I gotta get m e s o m e m o n e y . W h a t does he think I am?" Still half asleep, R e d was r u b b i n g b e t w e e n Rose's legs n o w — h i s reparation for sitting beside her, offering what protec­ tion h e can while she sleeps or works. "Man, what the fuck is he g o n n a c o m e b o t h e r i n g m e for if h e ain't g o t n o money, y o u hear what I'm saying . . . ?" T h i s interior? All three whites there—or per­ haps just the relationship between t h e m (its cultural, analogical rich­ ness) —I found, o n o n e level or an­ other, sexually attractive: both guys

O n the U n s p e a k a b l e p o r n o theater o n Eighth Ave. just below 46th Street, beside Red, o n e ­ time p i m p , now wino and cracker, a scrawny guy with a m e d i c i n e ball of dirty red hair, his winter-burned hands alight with the translucent bloat o f the permanentiy under­ nourished alcoholic. R e d was half asleep too, b u t now and again h e ' d scratch him­ self, pawing d o w n inside the front of his j e a n s , clawing at his hip, b e n d i n g to g e t at an ankle inside the d o u b l e pair o f sweaty tube socks I can smell from w h e r e I ' m sitting a row in front o f t h e m to the left, n o w thrusting a h a n d through the n e c k o f his sweater to rake out an armpit. Rose a n d R e d were the only two whites visible a m o n g the y o u n g to m i d d l e - a g e d black and Hispanic m e n ; h e r e a n d there, long, forbidden flames from red, blue, a n d yellow Bic lighters, turned u p high, played a l o n g glass stems. T h e smell o f the d r u g — a burnt plastic stench, besides w h i c h the spicy o d o r o f pot seems healthy and o r g a n i c — w e l l e d h e r e , fell away there, or drifted across the flickering video projection at the front o f the narrow theater. T h r e e rows down from Rose and Red, a guy in a black and white c h e c k e d scarf with tassels was giv­ ing a blowjob to a n o t h e r guy, w h o leaned back staring t h r o u g h wireframed glasses m o r e at the ceiling than at the porn movie. S o m e o n e else was b e n d i n g down b e t w e e n the seats, l o o k i n g a r o u n d with his lighter—and had b e e n for ten min-

61

physically so, Rose intellectually so. B u t that, o f course, is w h e r e I find myself at the particular b o u n d a r y o f the everyday that b o r d e r s the unspeakable, w h e r e l a n g u a g e , like a n e e d l e infected with articulation, threatens to pierce s o m e ultimate a n d final interiority—however un­ clear, as we a p p r o a c h it, that limit is (if n o t what lies b e y o n d it) w h e n we attempt analytic seizure. T h e lack o f clarity is, o f course, w h a t is t h e r e to b e analyzed, artic­ ulated. T h e unspeakable. T h e unspeakable is, o f course, not a b o u n d a r y dividing a positive area o f allowability from a c o m ­ plete a n d totalized negativity, a b o u n d a r y located at least o n e step b e y o n d the f o r b i d d e n (and the forbidden, by definition—no?— must be speakable if its prescriptive p o w e r is to f u n c t i o n ) . If we pursue the b o u n d a r y as such, it wrill r e c e d e before us as a limit o f mists a n d va­ pors. Certainly it is n o t a line drawn in any absolute way across s p e e c h or writing. It is n o t a fixed a n d locable p o i n t o f transgression that glows hotter a n d brighter as we a p p r o a c h it till, as w e cross it, its searing heat b u r n s away all pos­ sibility o f further articulation. Rather it is a set o f positive c o n ­ ventions g o v e r n i n g w h a t can b e s p o k e n o f (or written about) in general; in particular, it comprises the endlessly specialized tropes (of analysis, o f apology, o f aesthetic distance) r e q u i r e d to speak or write a b o u t various topics at vari-

62

Shorter Views

utes now—for any rocks that m i g h t have fallen o n the floor b e t w e e n the cigarette butts a n d the soda bottles a n d the b e e r cans a n d the spit a n d the trickles o f urine from the guys four a n d three a n d nine rows back, too lazy or too frus­ trated to g o d o w n to the John (which was always filled with five or six guys in the m i d d l e o f a d r u g deal, anyway), a n d the dried a n d not-yet-dried c u m puddles. S o m e ­ o n e else p u s h e d his rolled screen from o n e e n d o f his stem to the other with a w o o d e n stick to collect the m e l t e d residues from the glass sides for a n o t h e r impoverished hit. T h e effects o f the d r u g are kind o f like a p o p p e r that lasts four minutes instead o f forty seconds. T h o u g h it has n o long-term with­ drawal effects, it's g o t the worst c o m e - d o w n — b e t w e e n three and six h o u r s o f depressed h e a d a c h e , nausea, a n d achiness—this side o f airplane g l u e . A n d its addiction s c h e d u l e is fierce. Intermittent use over three m o n t h s will h o o k y o u . A n d , as far as I can see, use o n six consecutive days will m a k e some­ o n e an addict. S o m e o n e else was m o v i n g u p a n d d o w n in his seat, quickly, rhythmically, shoulders shaking in a masturbatory frenzy. I'd passed h i m five minutes back: H e ' d p u l l e d his pants off, balled t h e m u p , a n d p u t t h e m a n d his coat in the seat beside h i m , so n o o n e w o u l d sit n e x t to h i m while h e b e a t off. In a man's d o w n j a c k e t c l u t c h e d

ous a n o m a l o u s places in o u r com­ plex social g e o g r a p h y — p l a c e s w h e r e such topics are specifically n o t usually (or ever) spoken of: W h a t is speakable between client a n d a c c o u n t a n t is unspeakable b e t w e e n newly i n t r o d u c e d ac­ quaintances at a formal dinner party. (What about the unspeak­ able as drug? Its history comprises l a u d a n u m , o p i u m , heroin, and n o w crack. T h e unspeakable as d r u g b e c o m e s the e p o c h ' s roman­ tic metaphor.) W h a t is speakable b e t w e e n client a n d prostitute in the b a l c o n y o f a 4 2 n d Street porn theater is unspeakable between m a n a n d wife o f thirty years. W h a t is speakable between lovers o f three w e e k s is unspeakable b e t w e e n best friends o f a dec­ a d e — a n d vice versa. W h a t is speak­ able b e t w e e n a magazine essayist a n d an a u d i e n c e c o n c e r n e d with art a n d analysis is unspeakable b e t w e e n a p o p u l a r journalist and an audience c o n c e r n e d with "every­ day" news. A n d there are a d o z e n p e o p l e I—or y o u — m i g h t tell the story o f R e d , Rose, a n d the u n n a m e d semenophage. "Unspeakable," then, is always a s h o r t h a n d for "unspeakable unless a c c o m p a n i e d by especially press­ ing rhetorical considerations" ( T h e u n s p e a k a b l e is as m u c h a b o u t cruelty as it is about sexual­ ity. I n d e e d , for many o f us it is w h e r e they m e e t ) : I d o n ' t know how to tell y o u this, but . . . (The unspeakable comprises the wounds

O n the U n s p e a k a b l e a r o u n d her with f o l d e d arms, an anorexically thin black w o m a n with missing teeth l e a n e d over m e to smile: "You want c o m p a n y . . . ?" T h e n , r e c o g n i z i n g m e for gay, she grinned, s h r u g g e d , a n d whis­ pered, " O h . . . !" a n d h u r r i e d on. Oblivious, Rose o p e n e d h e r eyes. "Man, I'm itchin', too," she told Red: ' Y o u w a n n a scratch my b a c k . . . ?" R e d finished his o w n clawing and turned to Rose with a g r u n t and a c o u p l e of b e w i l d e r e d sighs. Without really l o o k i n g u p , he rubbed the side o f Rose's navy sweatshirt. "No," Rose said. " U n d e r n e a t h . " So R e d put his h a n d u n d e r the frayed cloth and r u b b e d . Rose twisted in the seat. "Hard, m a n . Yeah, there. Hard. L i k e that. T h i s is killin' me!" N o t l o o k i n g any m o r e awake, Red l e a n e d his full hundred-thirty p o u n d s (five o f w h i c h is hair) into her, rubbing, raking. "That's it," Rose said, her b a c k toward him. " G o on. K e e p it u p , man." In d o w n j a c k e t a n d knitted watch cap, a n o t h e r white g u y pushed t h r o u g h the fellows hang­ ing a r o u n d the b a l c o n y door. Husky, g o o d - l o o k i n g , b e t w e e n eighteen and twenty-three, he could be an a p p r e n t i c e starting at one o f the construction sites fur­ ther up, in from L o n g Island a n d just off w o r k — o r he c o u l d b e a working-class student from o n e o f the city's outlying colleges. L o o k -

63

o n the b o d i e s o f a b u s e d c h i l d r e n , their mutilations and o u t r a g e o u s shrieking or tight-lipped m u r d e r s at the h a n d s o f parents); I have s o m e t h i n g I really have to e x p l a i n to y o u . . . (It is certainly any pleas­ ure at such abuses, even private, p o r n o g r a p h i c , onanistic); Allow m e to m a k e a special p o i n t h e r e . . . (It is civil o r political prisoners tortured or slowly slaughtered by i d e o l o g u e s o r their h i r e ) ; You mustn't take it personally, b u t . . . (It is the uncritical c o n j u n c t i o n in the m i n d o f certain social critics o f p o r n o g r a p h y a n d such pleasure— a c o n j u n c t i o n that dissolves with any real e x p e r i e n c e s o f the r a n g e of current, c o m m e r c i a l p o r n o g r a ­ phy or the real practices o f practic­ ing sadists and masochists—that makes the p o r n o g r a p h i c unspeak­ able, b e y o n d any rhetorical re­ d e m p t i o n , impossible to a p o l o g i z e for); Now, this may s o u n d very cruel, but I feel I j u s t have to say . . . Quotability always allows, at least as a limit case, the everyday j o u r n a l i s t to q u o t e the unspeak­ able artistic a n d / o r analytic text. (What h e c a n n o t d o — w h a t re­ mains, for the journalist, unspeak­ able, save t h r o u g h an analytical raid a m o n g the esthetic figures o f analysis, o f apology, esthetic dis­ tance—is tease apart for his every­ day a u d i e n c e the boundary, the g a p b e t w e e n p r o b e and presenta­ tion, b e t w e e n interpretation a n d representation, b e t w e e n analysis and art.) It is as if w e must estab­ lish two c o l u m n s , with everything

64

Shorter Views

i n g a r o u n d the aisle, h e m a d e to­ ward Rose a n d R e d as only o n e white can seek o u t a n o t h e r in the dark sea. Sitting two seats away from w h e r e Rose still swayed u n d e r Red's r u b b i n g , for a m i n u t e the n e w guy l o o k e d at the dull, n e a r colorless picture down o n the screen; n o w a n d again h e g l a n c e d at the pair to his left. Finally, h e t u r n e d in his seat, smiled openingly, l e a n e d toward r o c k i n g Rose, a n d asked: "Can y o u use a n o t h e r h a n d ? " N o t l o o k i n g from u n d e r the b r o n z e blades o f h e r hair, Rose said: "Huh?" "Can y o u use a n o t h e r h a n d ? " "Huh?" Rose still d i d n ' t l o o k u p . "Can y o u use a n o t h e r h a n d ? " S h e l o o k e d now. (Red w e n t o n scratching.) "What'd y o u say?" T h e kid was good-natured, pleased with himself: "I said, ' C a n y o u use a n o t h e r hand?'" Because there were n e w words in the sentence, Rose was back to the b e g i n n i n g o f h e r befuddlem e n t . " H u h ? " S h e g r i m a c e d , with eyes already pretty m u c h swollen closed. (This m u c h repetition is, o f course, narratively u n a c c e p t a b l e , aesthetically u n s p e a k a b l e : Its only e x c u s e is accuracy o f transcrip­ tion; its only m e a n i n g is the pa­ tient persistence o f it: Repetition, said Freud, is desire.) T h e guy repeated: "Can y o u use another hand?" "Huh?"

o f o n e m o d e relegated to o n e side a n d everything o f the other rele­ g a t e d to the other. It's as if w e h a d to figure the im­ possibility o f such a task, such a split, such a gap—figure it in lan­ g u a g e — r a t h e r than write o f it, speak o f it. T o speak the unspeakable with­ out the p r o p e r rhetorical flourish o r introduction; to muff that flour­ ish, either by accident, misjudgment, or simple i g n o r a n c e ; to c h o o s e the w r o n g flourish or not c h o o s e any (i.e., to c h o o s e the flourish called "the literal") is to p e r f o r m the unspeakable. M a n y o f us are n o t taught the p r o p e r rhetorical flourishes that allow us to say anything anywhere: H o w to tell y o u r parents y o u ' r e gay. H o w to tell y o u r boss you want a raise. H a v i n g said any o f these unspeakable things, that's n o guar­ antee it will p r o d u c e the effects we want. B u t the fear o f reprisals (or failure) b e c o m e s o n e with the ig­ n o r a n c e o f how to say it. This is a form o f oppression. T h e history o f the unspeakable descends most recently from the unprintable—from forties and fif­ ties A m e r i c a w h e n certain words w o u l d r e n d e r a text "outside the law"—an interesting metaphor, as what the m e t a p h o r ' s exclusionary force actually o n c e indicated was that, u p o n containing such words, a text b e c a m e a privileged object of the law. T h e m e t a p h o r was the under­ side o f a system whose major thrust

O n the U n s p e a k a b l e "Can y o u use a n o t h e r h a n d ? " His tone o f whispered goodwill did n o t vary. Rose pulled herself u p , t u g g e d the front o f h e r sweat shirt d o w n (it rode u p from h e r belly right away because b e h i n d h e r R e d was still r u b b i n g ) . "You g o t any m o n e y ? " she asked, finally, voice raucous and bitter. T h e kid s h o o k his head, laugh­ ing a little, n o t as a negative answer but just to a c k n o w l e d g e the suggestion's preposterousness. She can sell the niggers a n d spies a r o u n d t h e m ten dollar blowjobs, he was thinking, b u t n o t h i m . (Even h e is unaware that Rose will g o for five.) H e t u r n e d back to look at the movie. T h e n , after an­ other minute, he stood. F e e l i n g along w h e r e foam r u b b e r p u s h e d between the metal backs, with their c h i p p e d m a r o o n paint the color o f his knitted cap, a n d the torn c o r d u r o y o f the seat cush­ ions, he e d g e d to the aisle. A few rows down, o n the other side o f the balcony, were three sets of two chairs apiece, all o c c u p i e d e x c e p t o n e at the front, before the iron balcony rail. Beside the free seat, in a black b o m b e r j a c k e t , fur collar up and white hair awry, an older Puerto Rican slept against the wall. T h e white kid m o v e d down the aisle, l o o k i n g left and right, like the eyes o f a reader sweeping back a n d forth in their descent a l o n g the c o l u m n a r text. (The unspeakable is always in the c o l u m n you are not reading. A t any

65

was protective. T h a t w h i c h was within the l a w — p e o p l e , actions, texts, p r o p e r t y — w e r e p r o t e c t e d by the law. W h a t was outside the law was attacked, d e t a i n e d , im­ pounded, exploited, and pun­ ished by the law. T h e b o u n d a r y was b e t w e e n a passive surveillance in the n a m e o f p r o t e c t i o n a n d an active aggression in the n a m e o f retribution. T h e n o t i o n that a n y o n e should clearly a n d c o m m i t t e d l y believe in the absolute locatability o f such a b o u n d a r y is, for m a n y o f us (if n o t most o f us), u n s p e a k a b l e . Yet we function as if such a b o u n d a r y were lucid, absolute, a n d unques­ tionably everyday. T h e everyday a n d the unspeak­ able are only the linguistic—the 'social,' in its most limited sense— shadows o f this legalistic system: the passive surveillance a n d the ag­ gressive attack o f the law s p o k e n of, written o f (figured) as an in­ side and an outside. In m a n y cases, desire lies like a bodily b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n the everyday a n d the u n s p e a k a b l e . In s o m e circles it is u n s p e a k a b l e to call m e n feminists: they may b e "feminist sympathizers," but a "male feminist" is as m u c h a contradic­ tion in terms (as well as a sign o f the m o s t naive political c o optation o n the part o f any w o m a n w h o accepts the term) as a "white black-militant." In o t h e r circles— A m e r i c a n a c a d e m e , for e x a m p l e — it is c o m m o n p a r l a n c e . In s o m e circles it w o u l d b e u n s p e a k a b l e to

66

Shorter Views

given m o m e n t it is what is o n the opposite side o f the M ô b i u s text at the spot your own eyes are fixed on. T h e unspeakable is mobile; it flows; it is displaced as m u c h by lan­ g u a g e a n d e x p e r i e n c e as it is by de­ sire.) R e a c h i n g the empty chair, the guy hesitated, p u s h e d his lower lip over his u p p e r a m o m e n t in thought; b u t the Puerto Rican really s e e m e d out o f it. So h e sat d o w n beside h i m and u n z i p p e d his coat. T u g g i n g his belt o p e n (like a text that l o o p s a n d seals u p o n it­ self, w i t h o u t c o m m e n c e m e n t or termination, the u n s p e a k a b l e lies in the silence, b e y o n d the white space that a c c o m p a n i e s the text, across the m a r g i n a l b l a n k that d r o p s o p a q u e l y beside the text to­ ward a c o n c l u s i o n a r y a b s e n c e that finally is n o t to b e f o u n d ) , uns n a p p e d h i s j e a n s , p u l l e d d o w n his fly, a n d p a r k e d his R e e b o k s o n the lower metal rail. T u g g i n g his c o c k o u t from the side o f his briefs, he m o v e d it from o n e fist to a n o t h e r a n d b a c k a few times, b e f o r e h e b e g a n to j e r k . F r o m w h e r e I sat, across the aisle a n d a row b e h i n d , the h e a d a b o v e t h u m b a n d fore­ finger l o o k e d like a Barbie-doll hard-hat. His u p w a r d tug was clearly the business o n e ; down­ ward was j u s t to g e t his fist back to w h e r e h e c o u l d pull u p . N o w a n d again h e ' d rub the t h u m b o f his free h a n d across his c o c k ' s c r o w n

suggest that c o m m e r c i a l porno­ graphic films are relatively less sex­ ist than the c o m m e r c i a l n o n p o r n o g r a p h i c c i n e m a . Yet this is certainly the way in w h i c h they strike m e . (However minuscule their plots, they have a h i g h e r pro­ p o r t i o n o f female to male charac­ ters; they show m o r e w o m e n hold­ i n g m o r e j o b s and a wider variety o f j o b s ; they show m o r e w o m e n in­ stigating sex; they show a higher p r o p o r t i o n o f friendships between w o m e n ; a n d they show far less physical v i o l e n c e against w o m e n than d o the c o m m e r c i a l films m a d e for the same sociological au­ d i e n c e . T h e i r particular didactic message a b o u t the sexual act per se is that "the n o r m a l sex act" should i n c l u d e cunnilingus, fellatio, male superior, a n d female superior posi­ tion; anything else is perceived as a diversion from this norm.) But it is precisely this rhetorical frame that m a k e s such an analysis—here— speakable, precisely as it makes speakable the analysis o f the soci­ ology o f pornography (in the literal sense o f writing a b o u t prostitutes) that is to follow. T h e positioning o f desire is a result o f social power. B u t the c o n t e n t o f desire does not contain—the way a mirror contains —social power, in image or in real­ ity. (What it contains, if anything other than itself, is that tiny part of the f r e e d o m o f language asso­ ciated with abjection.) Indeed, it is

4

Coming/ Out

In the twenty-seven years since the 1 9 6 9 Stonewall riots, " c o m i n g o u t " has a c q u i r e d e x t r a o r d i n a r y significance in the gay c o m m u n i t y — s o m u c h significance that many o f us m i g h t e v e n say c o m i n g o u t "defines" the difference b e t w e e n b e i n g gay a n d an older, pre-gay n o t i o n o f b e i n g h o m o s e x u a l . T h r o u g h m u c h o f that quarter-century-plus, w h e n , if y o u h a d n ' t " c o m e o u t o f the closet," m a n y gay m e n a n d lesbians felt y o u h a d s o m e h o w betrayed t h e m , that y o u c o u l d n ' t really "define y o u r s e l f as gay," that y o u had n o t " a c c e p t e d y o u r gay identity," I f o u n d myself f a c e d with a p a r a d o x : M u c h o f my critical enterprise over that same p e r i o d had b e e n d e v o t e d to s h o w i n g that s u c h "defining" or "identifying" events (when, as a reader, y o u first b e c a m e aware o f s c i e n c e fiction; w h e n , as a child, y o u realized y o u w e r e black, gay, or an artist) simply did n o t "define" anything. In the gradual, continual, a n d constantly m o d u l a t i n g process o f be­ c o m i n g w h o we are, all events take their m e a n i n g s , characteristic or un­ characteristic, from the s u r r o u n d i n g event field in w h i c h they occur. While certainly they contribute to what we are or are b e c o m i n g , single events simply d o n o t carry the explicative strength "definition" a n d "identity" d e n o t e . T h i s is n o t to say s o m e events a r e n ' t m o r e i m p o r t a n t than others. Recently I h a d a discussion with a w o m a n w h o , s o m e years back, h a d b e e n a catcher in a circus aerial act. "Well," she said, "I see what y o u mean. But I r e m e m b e r the m o m e n t my p a r t n e r fell. It c o m p l e t e l y c h a n g e d my life. W e were in the m i d d l e o f a p e r f o r m a n c e in Las Vegas. I didn't d r o p h e r — I ' m rather touchy a b o u t that. S h e was swinging around, h a n g i n g from a h a n d - l o o p attached to the trapeze. T o steady her, I was fronting the b a r — m y term for b a l a n c i n g horizontally o n my pelvis o n a still trapeze. W e were j u s t getting ready for the finale. T h e loop b r o k e a n d she flew out, still o n h e r side—and w e n t d o w n . She landed o n the c o n c r e t e , almost thirty feet below. N o , she wasn't killed.

68

Shorter Views

B u t she shattered h e r elbow, b r o k e h e r arm, and bruised herself from h e a d to foot. F r o m that m o m e n t o n , I just c o u l d n ' t be an aerialist again. I f o r m e d a n o t h e r act with my boyfriend immediately, w h e r e h e was the c a t c h e r this time. I guess it was to prove to myself that I hadn't c h a n g e d . B u t three w e e k s later, after three m o r e p e r f o r m a n c e s , I quit." She sighed. "I missed the circus for the n e x t ten years. B u t my life just wasn't the same after the a c c i d e n t as it was before." "I d i d n ' t say that w h a t h a p p e n s in a single m o m e n t can't change your life," I told her. "I said that it d o e s n ' t deftneyour life. W h a t m a d e that mo­ m e n t have the m e a n i n g for y o u that it did was your previous years o f training as an acrobat, as an aerialist, the circus tradition; it was the med­ ical e m e r g e n c y that followed, the severity o f y o u r partner's injuries, the response o f the p e o p l e a r o u n d y o u — a l l that makes such an o c c u r r e n c e as o v e r w h e l m i n g l y significant as it was. T h e fact that y o u did g o u p again, a n d also that y o u missed the circus for so l o n g , o n c e y o u left, shows how m u c h wasn't changed in spite o f the very real c h a n g e that did occur." It's a subtle b u t i m p o r t a n t difference. My friend a g r e e d . All the incidents I a m g o i n g to r e c o u n t — n o n e so dramatic as my aer­ ialist friend's a d v e n t u r e — c h a n g e d my life. B u t they c h a n g e d it in small, distinct ways. N o n e o f t h e m m a r k e d a before or after point, distinguish­ i n g a b s e n c e from presence. Rather, each is notable because it was a. point o f c h a n g e , a p o i n t w h e r e w h a t was present b e f o r e was still present, only in r e a r r a n g e d form.

/ My s e c o n d s u m m e r c a m p was as wonderfully rich a n d pleasant (I was ten) as my first h a d b e e n nightmarish. T h e boys in the senior c a m p area were h o u s e d j u s t b e y o n d a small hill, the Knoll, in a clearing in the trees, the Tent Colony. T o o n e side was a plank-walled, black-brown shack with a slant roof: the boys' John. Inside were two wooden-stalled showers, two wooden-stalled c o m m o d e s , sinks, a n d urinals. O u t s i d e , just left o f the door, against the c r e o s o t e d planks a n d above a splatter o f gravel, the steel basin (that let the water fall o u t the b o t t o m o n t o the stones) leaned askew. A water fountain's rusted spigot thrust u p from it, with an ancient spring-knob to turn it o n . A r o u n d a twenty-five- o r thirty-yard clearing, set in pairs, were the w o o d e n platforms a n d frames over w h i c h , for the summer, o r a n g e or olive drab canvas tents were p u t u p to h o u s e the y o u n g male campers: two tents for B u n k Five, two tents for B u n k Six, two tents for B u n k Seven,

C o m i n g / Out

69

two tents for B u n k Eight, and, finally, c o m p l e t i n g the circle o n the o t h e r side o f the j o h n — t w o for storage o f extra b e d s a n d mattresses. A t least that was the ideal a r r a n g e m e n t , b u t s o m e t i m e s the vagaries o f enroll­ m e n t m o v e d things a r o u n d . T h e o t h e r interruption to this pattern was geographical: T h e far c o r n e r o f the c o l o n y d i p p e d steeply, so that the B u n k Seven tents were practically o u t o f sight o f the others. 1 9 5 3 , the s u m m e r the K o r e a n War e n d e d a n d my s e c o n d s u m m e r at W o o d l a n d (I was eleven n o w ) , b e g a n with a major disappointment. I a n d some o f my friends from the previous s u m m e r w e r e assigned the same tents beside the j o h n for B u n k Six as we h a d b e e n in, the year before, for B u n k Five. T h e camp's logic a n d folklore was that the y o u n g e r y o u w e r e , the closer they w a n t e d y o u to the b a t h r o o m . T h e extra eight- o r n i n e yard walk across the w o r n grass a n d gravel was to b e a m a r k o f o u r o n e year's seniority, o u r n e w maturity—and n o w it h a d b e e n d e n i e d . W e sulked as w e p u t away o u r clothes in the w o o d e n c u b b i e s beside o u r beds, newly m a d e u p with olive drab army blankets. Two days after o u r arrival, however, o n a windy a n d rainy July 3, after w e ' d hiked down the cindery road in o u r rain g e a r to the recreation a n d dining hall for breakfast, while w e w e r e eating o u r o a t m e a l a n d pan­ cakes, the weather blew u p into a windstorm. In o u r g r e e n p o n c h o s a n d yellow slickers, we c r o w d e d to the d o o r to stand at the top o f the h i g h w o o d e n steps a n d gaze out, l a u g h i n g a n d d a r i n g e a c h o t h e r to d e s c e n d to the cinders a n d gravel, o n e a c h side o f w h i c h b r a n c h e s s n a p p e d a n d quivered as torrential gusts slated the w a d i n g p o o l - s i z e d p u d d l e s b e f o r e the deluge salted t h e m over with froth. T h e rain stopped. T h e wind lessened. But w h e n we g o t back to the T e n t C o l o n y a n d the six o f us B u n k Six­ ers (in the o l d B u n k Five tent) started across the clearing, w e saw some­ thing wrong. A tree h a d blown d o w n , to fall across the tent's r o o f a n d smash the two-by-four that h e l d u p the peak. O u r counselor, Roy, a n n o u n c e d that we should stay a g o o d twenty feet away from it. O n e small, angry camper, Noah, b e g a n to argue that he h a d valuable things in there that n e e d e d to be taken out. Now! T h o u g h I did n o t say it, I felt m u c h the same. My vio­ lin was in there. T h e rest o f us a r g u e d with N o a h : S u p p o s e the tent col­ lapsed further while h e was inside? N o o n e should g o in, at least till the fallen tree was r e m o v e d . "Now don't g o in there ! " were Roy's last w o r d s as h e sprinted away to­ ward the Tent C o l o n y entrance to g e t s o m e assistance. T h e m o m e n t h e was g o n e , little N o a h uttered a harsh, "Fuck himV m a r c h e d u p to the half-collapsed tent, a n d p u s h e d within the skew o r a n g e flap, to e m e r g e a few m o m e n t s later with his m i c r o s c o p e , a b o x o f slides, a n d his c a m e r a .

7o

Shorter Views

"You're crazy," a stolid c a m p e r n a m e d Dave d e c l a r e d . "You know that? Y o u ' r e really crazy." "Well, I j u s t d i d n ' t w a n t anything to h a p p e n to this," N o a h declared, "while they w e r e f o o l i n g a r o u n d with the tree." O n c e the o r d e r was b r e a c h e d , however, w e all drifted closer to c h e c k things out. Bathtubs o f rainwater filled the bellied-down canvas. Leaves floated in it. T h e tree itself h a d l o d g e d securely. N o n e o f the tent canvas was actu­ ally torn, save a six-inch rip at o n e c o r n e r w h e r e w e a t h e r e d w o o d thrust t h r o u g h . A heavy, sensible kid n a m e d Billy shoved first at this part, then l e a n e d o n another. N o t h i n g b u d g e d . B e n e a t h the canvas, the shape the b r o k e n two-by-fours h a d fallen into was stable. "I'm g o i n g to l o o k inside, too," I said. I stepped u p t h r o u g h the front flap. Inside, weighted with all that water, the canvas pressed my b e d , held u p by my cubby beside it. T h r o u g h canvas, a watery light deviled the shadows. T h e fabric smell was far more intense than it h a d b e e n in the past two nights w e ' d slept there. Flush with the w e i g h t e d tent, part off and part o n my cubby, was my violin case. C r o u c h i n g a n d h o l d i n g the e d g e o f o n e , I squat-walked between two b e d s to see that the c u b b y c o r n e r h a d p u n c t u r e d the case's b o t t o m . I tried to tug the case free. W i t h h u n d r e d s o f gallons o f water above it, however, it w o u l d n ' t m o v e . In w h a t c o n d i t i o n , I w o n d e r e d , was the violin? O u t s i d e I w e n t b a c k d o w n the platform steps. In minutes, Roy came b a c k with the c a m p director and Mr. H e r d m e n , from the farm down the hillside. O v e r the n e x t hour, with b l o c k and tackle, the tree was r e m o v e d from the tent roof, a n d it was d e c i d e d that o u r g r o u p w o u l d relocate, along with o n e o f the o t h e r bunks. W e w o u l d g e t what, last year, h a d b e e n the B u n k Seven tents, d o w n in the depression at the Tent C o l o n y ' s corner— even further from the j o h n than the B u n k Six tents! T h e r e m a i n i n g B u n k Five tents w o u l d b e used for storage; the o l d storage tent w o u l d n o w be­ c o m e the c o u n s e l o r s ' "day off" tent. It was a vindication and a reward Na­ ture h a d e n g i n e e r e d to c o m p e n s a t e us for the indignity o f the camp's shortsightedness. T h r o u g h o u t the rest o f the m o r n i n g , w e d r a g g e d trunks and r e m a d e beds. In the collapsed tent, the water was p u s h e d o u t o f the canvas, so that it r o a r e d a n d splattered over the tent ropes. I g o t my violin case out, took it d o w n to m y n e w tent, and, o n my n e w b e d , o p e n e d it. T h e bridge's feet h a d stamped two tiny rectangular holes t h r o u g h the face—as the b r i d g e itself h a d s n a p p e d . T h e strings lay loose. A seveni n c h crack split the face.

Coming/Out

71

I lifted the instrument from b l u e plush a n d t u r n e d it over. T h e c u b b y corner had g o n e t h r o u g h the black case b o t t o m a n d p u n c t u r e d a rightangle crack in the back o f the varnished w o o d . S h o r t o f major repair, it was unplayable. T h e day's relocation m e a n t Roy h a d to b e d o w n at the c a m p office a lot. T h e wind settled. T h e sun c a m e out. T h e m o r n i n g grew warmer. A n d , in o u r new tent out o f sight in the dell, we w e r e left unsupervised. It was stolid Dave w h o suggested, "Hey, let's all g a n g u p o n some­ b o d y — a n d have a fight!" "Yeah, sure!" declared N o a h . We all felt the thrill o f possible victimiza­ tion—like a great Russian roulette g a m e . "Yeah, but w h o ' s it g o n n a b e ? " I asked. "We're g o n n a g a n g u p o n . . . " In the m i d d l e o f the tent floor, b e t w e e n the b u n k beds, Dave t u r n e d slowly. ". . . himl " H e p o i n t e d to short, heavy Billy. W h o cried out, ".. . Hey\" Relieved, the rest o f us threw ourselves o n Billy, w h o b e g a n to shout: "Come o n — c u t it out! Now, stop itl Stop!" It was also Dave w h o yelled: "Let's m a k e h i m suck o u r dicks!"—a camper w h o , before or afterwards, I never h a d any reason to think was other than straight. "Yeah!" a g r e e d Joel, a n o t h e r b i g camper, in the midst o f the fray. Like m e , J o e l wore glasses. L i k e m e , J o e l was black. L i k e m e , J o e l was light e n o u g h that y o u m i g h t n o t have n o t i c e d it. It was signaled only by the b r o a d nose and the d g h t curl to his b r o w n hair, above a bony, even horse-like face, that, o n s o m e o n e older, c o u l d have s p o k e n o f a truly interesting character. Also Joel was a b a d nail-biter. O n c e Dave h a d articulated the g a m e ' s g o a l , over the first thirty sec­ onds I n o t i c e d the i n c r e a s e d avidity, a level or two h i g h e r than a n y o n e else's, with w h i c h J o e l threw himself into it. In the crush o f the six o f us, pushing protesting Billy to his k n e e s b e t w e e n the iron-frame steads, without even l o o k i n g J o e l g r a b b e d first Dave's h a n d , t h e n m i n e , to thrust it against his grey khaki crotch. W i t h i n , his penis was hard. Dave just y a n k e d his h a n d away, a n d w e n t o n struggling with Billy, b u t I s q u e e z e d — a n d r u b b e d . A n d k e p t r u b b i n g , till first Dave, then J o e l , then N o a h , then I p u l l e d o u r flies o p e n to p u s h o u r c o c k s at Billy's gri­ m a c i n g face as he tried to twist away. Joel's a n d m i n e w e r e the only two erect. Quickly it was over. Billy was released, with a l l — e x c e p t Billy—laugh­ ing. I r e m e m b e r watching h i m carefully. M o r e than anything else, his at­ titude was a n n o y a n c e . T h e r e was n o major distaste, horror, o r degrada­ tion. But, then, the " c o c k s u c k i n g " h a d only b e e n a ritual t o u c h o f o u r

72

Shorter Views

penises to his m o u t h . O n l y J o e l a n d I h a d tried to push within his pursed a n d t i g h t e n e d lips. "That was really stupidl" Billy said—three dmes. M o m e n t s later, Roy was c o m i n g u p the tent steps, a n d the incident— like several d u r i n g those first days—simply vanished in all its bodily traces, as m u c h from Billy as it did from Dave, Joel, a n d the rest o f us. I d o n ' t k n o w w h e n I d e t e r m i n e d to speak to J o e l a b o u t it, but s o m e d m e in the following ten days I d e c i d e d to, n e x t d m e w e were alone. J o e l a n d I b o t h l o a t h e d baseball: After a w e e k , we were regularly c h o ­ sen last for the baseball teams. Finally, in despair at o u r lack o f enthu­ siasm for his u n d e r h a n d pitches, Roy p u t the two o f us to tetherball—a "girls' g a m e " set a d o z e n yards into the baseball field's foul area: A twelve-foot p o l e was driven into the g r o u n d in the center o f an irregular c o n c r e t e circle, a r o p e fixed to its top, a net at the r o p e ' s end, h o l d i n g a s o c c e r ball. J o e l a n d I batted it b a c k a n d forth, e a c h trying to g e t it past the other, till finally the r o p e w r a p p e d the post a n d the ball b a n g e d the w o o d . By the g a m e ' s end, w e were often in hysterics over o u r shared clumsinesses; a n d w h e n Roy called, "Okay—athletics is over! T i m e for y o u r swim," often w e g o t to leave for the p o o l (at the u p p e r e n d o f a h u n d r e d - y a r d field, beside a muddy, m a n - m a d e lake called the UshyG u s h y ) , a m i n u t e o r so b e f o r e the others, w h o clustered a r o u n d h o m e plate with Roy, to d e m a n d if they threw like Pee-Wee Reese, if they hit like M i c k e y M a n t l e . O n e afternoon, thirty o r forty yards a h e a d o f N o a h , Dave, Billy, a n d the others, J o e l a n d I were walking to the p o o l . 'Joel," I said, "do y o u r e m e m b e r w h e n w e h a d the fight w h e r e we all m a d e Billy suck o u r cocks?" ' Y e a h , " J o e l said. "Sure." "We really liked that, d i d n ' t we? I m e a n , I c o u l d tell—you and m e , we liked it a lot m o r e than the others did." "Huh? Yeah, I guess w e did." "I c o u l d see it. I m e a n , I liked it t o o . " T h e n I said: "I think that's be­ cause w e ' r e h o m o s e x u a l . " T h o u g h I h a d r e a d it, l o o k e d it u p in the dictionary, and searched it o u t o f the i n d e x e s o f any n u m b e r o f b o o k s , this was the first time I'd s p o k e n the w o r d " h o m o s e x u a l " to a n o t h e r person. " O h , " J o e l said. ' Y e a h . I guess so . . . I figured that." H e let o u t a sigh. I sighed too. "It's funny," I said. ' Y o u and m e . W e ' r e b o t h h o m o s e x u a l . We're both Negro . . . " "Well,"Joel said, after a c o n s i d e r e d m o m e n t . "I'm only halfNegro. It's j u s t m y father." I was a litde surprised. A shade or so lighter than Joel, I'd never

Coming/ Out

73

thought o f myself as anything o t h e r than black. B u t then, h e ' d b e e n raised by a white mother. I'd seen t h e m t o g e t h e r the previous year's Vis­ iting Day. F r o m s o m e c h a n c e conversation, w h e n I'd asked h i m w h y his father h a d n ' t b e e n able to c o m e u p , I'd l e a r n e d Joel's d a d h a d left the family so l o n g a g o J o e l d i d n ' t even r e m e m b e r him. "Yeah," I said. "But in this country, that d o e s n ' t m e a n anything. L e ­ gally, y o u m i g h t as well b e all N e g r o . " "Yeah," Joel said. "I t h o u g h t a b o u t that, t o o . " "We should probably be friends," I said. '"Cause w e may have a very rough time. A lot o f p e o p l e d o n ' t like p e o p l e like us, w h e n they find out." "Yeah,"Joel said, "I know." It s o u n d e d as t h o u g h that c a m e from e x p e r i e n c e . Before we r e a c h e d the p o o l , w e h a d a g r e e d to b e friends—then h a d practically n o t h i n g to d o with e a c h o t h e r for the s u m m e r ' s remainder. T h r e e years later, w h e n I e n t e r e d the B r o n x H i g h S c h o o l o f S c i e n c e , I learned that J o e l h a d also arrived there as a freshman. N o n e o f o u r courses overlapped, t h o u g h , a n d a certain anxiety c o n n e c t e d largely to what I was learning a b o u t what society t h o u g h t o f such sexual pursuits kept m e from seeking h i m out. By my j u n i o r year, however, e x p e r i e n c e had sedimented within m e b o t h m o r e self-consciousness a n d m o r e so­ cial awareness. I d e c i d e d to find J o e l — i f only to say h e l l o again, to see how he was d o i n g , and, yes, to reminisce a b o u t o l d times at s u m m e r camp. I asked a girl n a m e d M a d d y if she r e m e m b e r e d him. S h e did. B u t after three or four days, it b e c a m e clear that J o e l n o l o n g e r a t t e n d e d the school. I asked a n u m b e r o f students if they h a d any i d e a w h a t h a d hap­ p e n e d to him. I even h u n t e d u p p e o p l e w h o ' d g o n e to e l e m e n t a r y school with him. N o n e h a d any news. In the years since, I've run into d o z e n s o f p e o p l e from my h i g h s c h o o l days; n o w and again I've h e a r d news o f d o z e n s m o r e : But, t h o u g h I've often asked after h i m , I've never e n c o u n t e r e d J o e l — o r any information about him.

II T h e r e ' s a reason heterosexuals d o n o t usually ask e a c h other, "What was the m o m e n t y o u realized y o u w e r e straight?" T h a t ' s b e c a u s e the fixing of such a m o m e n t w o u l d m e a n that there was a w h o l e b l o c k o f time, prior to it, w h e n y o u didn't k n o w y o u w e r e straight. T o k n o w y o u are straight is to k n o w y o u are n o r m a l . T h u s , to the e x t e n t that s u c h ignor­ ance is itself a form o f k n o w l e d g e , n o t to k n o w y o u w e r e straight w o u l d signify a time w h e n y o u were d a n g e r o u s l y close to abnormal. N o t only is

74

Shorter Views

that an u n c o m f o r t a b l e idea for h o m o p h o b i c reasons, also it's intuitively "off." O n e learns o n e is attracted to whatever attracts o n e — m a l e s , fe­ males, w h a t e v e r — m o r e and m o r e over a p e r i o d o f time. A n d the only times straight m e n are asked, " W h e n did y o u first b e c o m e interested in girls?" o r straight w o m e n asked, " W h e n did y o u first b e c o m e interested in boys?" are w h e n the o v e r a r c h i n g rhetorical enterprise is to trivialize a n d delimit m a l e heterosexuality vis-à-vis s o m e other social field, such as labor o r familial relationships, o r to trivialize female heterosexuality, often vis-à-vis male heterosexuality. T h e rhetoric o f singular discovery, o f revelation, o f definition is o n e of the c o n c e p t u a l tools by w h i c h d o m i n a n t discourses repeatedly suggest that there is n o b r o a d a n d r a n g i n g field o f events informing the margi­ nal. T h i s is true o f science fiction versus the pervasive field o f literature; art as c o m p a r e d to social labor; blacks as a marginal social g r o u p to a central field o f whites; a n d gay sexuality as marginal to a heterosexual n o r m . T h a t rhetoric b e c o m e s part o f the way the marginal is trivialized, distorted, a n d finally oppressed. For what is w r o n g with all these seem­ ingly i n n o c e n t questions—which i n c l u d e , alas, "When did y o u c o m e out?"—is that e a c h tends to assume that the individual's subjective field is o n e with the field o f social statistics. Sexual interests, concerns, and observations form a b r o a d and perva­ sive field within every personality, as b r o a d a field in m e as it is in you, as b r o a d within the straight m a n as it is in the gay w o m a n . W h e n we speak o f b u r g e o n i n g sexuality, that's the internal field w e speak of—not the social field defined by what p e r c e n t o f us are gay or straight, male or female. T h e discourse b e h i n d that same rhetoric o f singularity is, o f course, the discourse w h i c h stabilizes the belief that a single h o m o s e x u a l event can m a k e an otherwise straight person turn g a y — o r that the p r o p e r hetero­ sexual e x p e r i e n c e can "cure" s o m e o n e gay a n d turn h i m or her straight. A s a p r e l u d e to m o r e incidents, then, that p r e c e d e d my "coming out," I've p u t t o g e t h e r a list o f some twenty-two incidents involving sex that h a p p e n e d to m e b e t w e e n age seven ( 1 9 4 9 ) a n d a g e fifteen ( 1 9 5 7 ) , in­ c l u d i n g the 1 9 5 3 i n c i d e n t with Joel. T h e twenty-two are n o t exhaustive. T h e y are the o n e s I r e m e m b e r . A reason I r e m e m b e r t h e m is because e a c h taught m e s o m e specific lesson. (Possibly I've forgotten the sexual incidents that only r e p e a t e d o r c o n f i r m e d these lessons.) T o g e t h e r they limn the range of sexual events against w h i c h any individual event a m o n g t h e m signifies; thus they delineate at least part o f the field o f my child­ h o o d sexual awareness. T o h e l p t h e m register as a field, however, I'll speak a b o u t t h e m for a few paragraphs in statistical cross sections, rather than as specific occur­ rences, o r even as particular m e a n i n g s drawn from them:

C o m i n g / Out

75

O n l y o n e o f the twenty-two—the earliest, d u r i n g m y s e c o n d year at my first s u m m e r c a m p , with a s o m e w h a t older girl, herself wildly misin­ formed about sex—involved anything like pain or physical abuse. Eight o f these twenty-two events o c c u r r e d in rural settings. T h r e e o c c u r r e d in suburban locations. Eleven o c c u r r e d in N e w York City, w h e r e I lived the vast majority o f my life t h r o u g h o u t those years—far m o r e than the fifty p e r c e n t the sta­ tistical d e p l o y m e n t suggests. Seventeen involved bodily contact with other youngsters. Seven o f them were fundamentally heterosexual. Finally, fifteen of t h e m were fundamentally h o m o s e x u a l , so that, with e x p e r i e n c e to back m e , I was fairly sure by the a g e o f eleven my own sex­ uality was largely g a y — t h o u g h I was curious e n o u g h a b o u t the o t h e r kind. Virtually all specifically sexual behavior for the pre-fifteen-year-old lies outside socially a c c e p t a b l e — b u t by n o m e a n s outside socially deter­ m i n e d — b o u n d a r i e s . Freud, Foucault, a n d Aries have all r e m i n d e d us that the family is the social unit that most confines a n d constrains children's sexual behavior. T h e "normal" m o d e l for all o f us in the West, even the most resolutely h e t e r o s e x u a l , is to b e g i n o u r sexual life outside the socially acceptable, as children, a n d only with time to e n t e r it m o r e and m o r e . Immediately and absolutely I b o w to the assertion that the various m e a n i n g s I took from those early incidents w e r e d e t e r m i n e d by a range of intersecting and intercritiquing preexisting discourses—discourses which allowed m e to read, w h i c h stabilized in my memory, w h i c h consti­ tuted for m e the events themselves. B u t because o f that "intercritique" o n e o f the important m e a n i n g s I quickly inferred from my e x p e r i e n c e s was that often what is said a b o u t sex d o e s n o t cover the case. B u t now we can p r o c e e d with some sense o f an i n f o r m i n g field to the following i n c i d e n t s — p r o l o g u e , as I have said, to " c o m i n g out." Generally s u m m e r c a m p was a constant series o f sexual surprises. My very first e v e n i n g in B u n k Five, a y o u n g c a m p e r n a m e d K e n r o y from Florida e x p l a i n e d to the b u n k that the way to have the best s u m m e r was if the big boys (like him) regularly f u c k e d the asses o f the smaller boys (like m e ) —and p r o c e e d e d to use an interested a n d willing m e to d e m ­ onstrate how it was d o n e . Five years later, o n my very last night, half a d o z e n o f us were cavorting about, in the altogether after lights o u t in the b u n k n e x t to o u r own, w h e n the flashlight o f the r e t u r n i n g c o u n s e l o r flickered across the p o r c h screening. T o my astonishment, big, r o u g h Berny, whose foreskin was as l o n g as his four-syllable Italian last n a m e ,

76

Shorter Views

lifted u p his covers a n d whispered, "Quick, Delany! G e t in!"—and I slid in to b e e n f o l d e d by his arms, my n a k e d b o d y p u l l e d against his, where his c o c k , already rigid, b e g a n to r u b against my belly. In that same landscape, b e t w e e n those first a n d last days, fell some half-dozen o f those twenty-two incidents that constituted the field o f my c h i l d h o o d sexuality. O n e o f the oddest was w h e n , in my third year o f senior c a m p , I n o t i c e d a boy, T o m , h a n g i n g toward the outside o f the cir­ cle o f c a m p e r s a n d counselors that w e f o r m e d every m o r n i n g a r o u n d the flag p o l e b e f o r e breakfast for Flag Raising. W h e n he t h o u g h t himself u n o b s e r v e d , T o m w o u l d d i g in his nose repeatedly with o n e thick finger o r the o t h e r a n d f e e d himself the pickings. W a t c h i n g h i m gave me an e r e c t i o n . T h e r e was litde specificity to the desire, neither to emulate nor to share, t h o u g h if h e h a d offered m e some, I w o u l d have accepted, won­ derfully pleased by the b o l d self-confidence a n d inclusion o f his gesture. ( A g e d five, in s c h o o l , I'd b e e n r o u n d l y embarrassed out o f the same habit by public ridicule, led by Miss Rubens: "If y o u are hungry, y o u n g m a n , I ' m sure w e c a n arrange for y o u to g e t s o m e t h i n g to eat. B u t stop that! ") My response was to m a k e every effort to befriend T o m and, o n c e that friendship h a d b e e n secured, to explain to h i m that I h a d n o prob­ lems with the habit I k n e w must have caused h i m , n o w and then, at least some social pain. H e s h o u l d feel free to i n d u l g e it w h e n e v e r we were a l o n e together. H e did, at first with s o m e trepidation, t h o u g h less and less as time w e n t o n . W e e n d e d u p taking l o n g walks t h r o u g h the woods, h o l d i n g h a n d s ( a n o t h e r nail-biter, h e ) , talking o f this a n d that. W h i l e h e d u g a n d ate, I w a n d e r e d a l o n g b e n e a t h the leaves, p u s h i n g aside brush, c r u n c h i n g twigs, a n d c l i m b i n g over logs in a haze o f barely presexual ecstasy. T h e same years c o n t a i n e d three fairly e n d u r i n g (for weeks in each case) h e t e r o s e x u a l e x p e r i m e n t s w h i c h , while they were physically pleas­ ant e n o u g h (all three involving everything, as they say, e x c e p t penetra­ tion), nevertheless registered with a c o m p l e t e e m o t i o n a l flatness and lack o f affect, save the i m m e d i a t e frisson o f trying s o m e t h i n g new—a flat­ ness a n d lack w h o s e prevailing sign is the lack o f detail with w h i c h I re­ c o u n t t h e m h e r e . ( T h e four girls' b u n k s o c c u p i e d two b u n k h o u s e s out­ side the T e n t C o l o n y o n the o t h e r side o f the Knoll, across from a red a n d white barn—gray inside a n d h o u s i n g a P i n g - P o n g table and upright p i a n o — c a l l e d , rather eccentrically, "Brooklyn College.") A l t h o u g h the w o r d "love" was s p o k e n repeatedly—and, I suspect, sincerely—by the y o u n g w o m e n (and e v e n a few times by m e , to see h o w it tasted on my t o n g u e ) , silent j u d g m e n t was that if this was all that accrued to these "nor­ m a l " adventures—very m u c h socially a p p r o v e d o f by b o t h the male and female counselors—they just w e r e n ' t worth it. In two cases, the lessons

Coming/Out

77

learned were a m o n g the m o r e negative o n e s I took from these early ex­ plorations. O n e affair e n d e d with a fight b e t w e e n m e a n d a rival n a m e d Gary over the affection o f o n e girl w h o c o u l d not, or w o u l d not, m a k e u p her mind. ' Y o u d e c i d e w h i c h o n e o f us y o u like better," G a r y a n d I a g r e e d , "and the other o n e will g o away." "But I can't! I d o n ' t want to h u r t anybody's feelingsl " the y o u n g w o m a n insisted, then lamented, repeatedly b e h i n d B r o o k l y n C o l l e g e , while Gary and I growled, r e p e a t e d o u r request, then shoved, r e p e a t e d o u r request once m o r e , then—finally, to avoid any h u r t f e e l i n g s — b l o o d i e d e a c h other's noses. A feminist critic, to an earlier a c c o u n t o f this i n c i d e n t o n c e suggested: "Perhaps she wanted y o u b o t h a n d was as stymied in h e r ability to g e t out­ side the status q u o response as either o f y o u w e r e . " It's quite possible. Probably we were all social dupes: My rival, Gary, was fat a n d h a d l o n g dirty fingernails—and thus h e l d no sexual interest for m e . T h e o t h e r girl (Karen), the other b o y — b o t h may have b e e n acting u n d e r the impetus of an always-excessive [hetereosexual] desire. B u t if s o m e idealized so­ cial n o r m is the villain in the p i e c e , then I represent it—since, t h o u g h I sincerely liked the girl and (equally sincerely) disliked the boy, I f o u n d both without sexual interest: My actions were d e t e r m i n e d purely from my knowledge o f social norms, a n d h a d n o n e o f the creative energy, enthu­ siasm, or invention that sexual desire can sometimes l e n d — w h i c h may well be why the i n c i d e n t was the particular (and n o t greater o r lesser than the) disaster it was. I've n o clear m e m o r y o f what any o f us did afterward. I d o n ' t think much o f it was with each other. (Possibly she w a n t e d neither o f us—and this was the only socially acceptable way to g e t rid o f me.) Leave such pur­ suits to the girls a n d boys, I d e c i d e d , w h o g o t s o m e sense o f soaring, o f safety, o f security—or at least g o t the rewards from creative social manip­ ulations that h o n e s t sexual interest always adds to a situation. B u t all m y heterosexual e x p e r i e n c e s have g r o w n from opposite-sex friendships that have gotten out o f h a n d , spurred o n by a v a g u e sense o f social expecta­ tions, whether at s u m m e r c a m p or in the d o z e n years after. A n o t h e r i n c i d e n t returns m e to N e w York City, the spring in w h i c h I went from fourteen to fifteen ( t h o u g h today I d o n ' t recall w h i c h side o f my birthday it fell o n ) . By that time, I'd l e a r n e d (again, I d o n ' t r e m e m ­ ber how) that N e w York's 4 2 n d Street a n d Broadway area was o n e o f the centers o f the city's furtive h o m o s e x u a l activity. S u n d a y m o r n i n g , w h e n I was e x p e c t e d to g o to c h u r c h a n d t h e n c h o i r practice, I d e c i d e d to visit.

78

Shorter Views

I'd c o n t e m p l a t e d the j o u r n e y for days. B u t how or why, that particular Sunday, w h e n I w o k e , I knew that this was the day I w o u l d make the trip d o w n from H a r l e m , I c o u l d n ' t tell y o u — t h o u g h I recall the silent, tin­ g l i n g e x c i t e m e n t , all m o r n i n g , t h r o u g h breakfast d o w n in the kitchen, t h r o u g h shaving at the upstairs b a t h r o o m mirror, t h r o u g h putting o n my white shirt a n d tying my red tie. In gray suit a n d tan overcoat, I left my H a r l e m house to walk u p Seventh A v e n u e , turn left at 1 3 3 r d Street, stop for a shine at Lewy's sag­ g i n g g r e e n - p a i n t e d p l a n k stall, then c o n t i n u e d o w n the street, even an­ g l i n g across the m a c a d a m b e t w e e n the cars toward St. Philip's back en­ trance, n o w a n d again w o n d e r i n g if any o f the three horse bettors chatting with Lewy inside his "shoeshine parlor" w o u l d notice that, this m o r n i n g , I did n o t turn in to the Parish H o u s e that w o u l d let m e into the c h u r c h basement, b u t c o n d n u e d d o w n the street toward Eighth A v e n u e . N o , I figured, they w o u l d all b e too busy speculating on the track events that w e n t into the day's "number"—at least, I h o p e d so. T h e r e were three o r four H a r l e m blocks I knew to every inch, but my father was strict a b o u t w h e r e I was a n d w h e r e I was not allowed to g o . As little as a b l o c k away from my o w n h o u s e lay vast areas o f the neighbor­ h o o d I'd simply never seen. A t the unfamiliar c o r n e r o f Eighth A v e n u e a n d 1 3 3 r d Street I t u r n e d north, thankful for my k n o w l e d g e o f the city's grid. T h o u g h I traveled to h i g h s c h o o l every m o r n i n g using the 1 3 5 t h S t r e e t / S t . N i c h o l a s A v e n u e subway stop, this m o r n i n g ' s decision had sent m e there by a wholly new route, by n e w barbershops, new eating places, n e w a c c o u n t a n t offices, n e w r e c o r d shops, a n d new funeral par­ lors (far smaller than my father's o r Mr. Sterritt's back o n Seventh Ave­ n u e ) . Finally, at the familiar 1 3 5 t h Street subway station, across from the rising slope o f St. N i c h o l a s Park a n d u n d e r a sky without cloud, I took the steps to the d o w n t o w n side (instead o f the u p t o w n kiosk across the street—as I w o u l d have d o n e o n a school m o r n i n g ) . I c a m e u p , s o m e few minutes before nine, at 4 2 n d just in from Eighth A v e n u e . In those days, 4 2 n d Street was an all-night affair, with its d o z e n plus m o v i e houses o p e n till four o ' c l o c k in the m o r n i n g and r e o p e n i n g four h o u r s later at eight. O n weekdays, that is. O p e n i n g time was ten o ' c l o c k o n Sundays, I f o u n d o u t w h e n I w a n d e r e d u p to a closed ticket window. A c r o s s the street a n d u p at the o t h e r e n d o f the block, Grant's (where o n e c o u l d g e t h o t d o g s , h a m b u r g e r s , a n d fresh clams at the side­ walk c o u n t e r ) h a d a few p e o p l e lingering before it. Directly across from m e , s o m e o n e w a n d e r e d into the H o r n & H a r d a r t A u t o m a t , while some­ o n e else w a n d e r e d out. B u t there was certainly n o t the constant and lively flow o f pedestrians that I'd seen o n my last Saturday afternoon or Friday e v e n i n g visit with whatever friend or cousin.

Corning/Out

79

It was my first visit alone. Across the street, its n e o n lights wan in the chill spring daylight, Hubert's M u s e u m was o p e n . I w e n t to the corner, crossed, a n d d e c i d e d that m i g h t b e as g o o d a p l a c e as any to e x p l o r e . O n the front window, hand-painted letters declared: H u b e r t ' s Flea C i r c u s — a sign that easily could have b e e n twenty years old. I w e n t inside—was the Sunday m o r n i n g admission fifty cents?—and down the black stairwell, at the b o t t o m p u s h i n g t h r o u g h the o r a n g e cur­ tain. In the little r o o m , s o m e o n e else was already waiting. W h e n two other p e o p l e j o i n e d us, the g u i d e / g u a r d (wearing a u n i f o r m cap, b u t otherwise in street clothes) said they usually waited for six customers be­ fore they started. B u t it d i d n ' t l o o k as if they were g o i n g to g e t six any time soon. So we four were u s h e r e d out to see, first, b e h i n d a rail u p o n a kind o f stage, the Fat Lady, w h o told us h o w heavy she was, h o w m u c h she ate daily. T h e n , g r i n n i n g , she l e a n e d over the rail to h a n d us h e r sta­ tistics o n little p a p e r slips. W e w e n t o n to see the Alligator M a n a n d the Dog-Faced Boy. T h e g u i d e a p o l o g i z e d that the Siamese Twins w e r e off that m o r n i n g . I d o n ' t r e m e m b e r w h i c h e x h i b i t i o n w e were w a t c h i n g , but, with my overcoat o p e n , I was standing at the front, b o t h my h a n d s o n the w o o d e n bar, w h e n , o n my left hand, I felt s o m e t h i n g warm. I looked down—and up. A y o u n g black m a n in a sports j a c k e t and a cap, perhaps j u s t twenty, had slid his dark fingers over m i n e a n d was smiling at m e . I k n e w that this was exactly what I h a d c o m e h e r e for. B u t I was t o o surprised to smile. I pulled my h a n d from u n d e r his, t u r n e d b a c k to whatever was o n stage, but did n o t step away. M o m e n t s later, we were u s h e r e d into the r o o m with the flea circus—a round, glass-covered table, b e n e a t h w h o s e transparent p a n e the fleas pulled a small cart, j u m p e d over a hurdle, w o r e o d d little bits o f c o l o r e d paper that were their "costumes." M a y b e six p e o p l e c o u l d fit a r o u n d it at any o n e time. I m a d e a big show o f watching, d e c i d i n g quietly that, w h e n we went upstairs, I w o u l d speak to the y o u n g m a n — t h a t is, o n c e the oth­ ers had left. O n l y w h e n I l o o k e d u p — t h e show was over, we were asked to g o up­ stairs—he was g o n e . A p p a r e n t l y because I h a d n o t r e s p o n d e d , h e ' d de­ cided h e ' d better leave. Back o n 4 2 n d Street, I l o o k e d a b o u t for him. B u t h e ' d h u r r i e d away— perhaps g o n e into the A u t o m a t , or j u s t sprinted across to the subway. It was almost an h o u r till the movies o p e n e d . After w a l k i n g u p a n d d o w n the b l o c k a n o t h e r twenty minutes, I w e n t to the subway a n d r o d e home.

8o

Shorter Views *

#

#

By my last year o f h i g h s c h o o l , my friends were divided into two catego­ ries: those w h o k n e w I was "queer"—the working-class term in general use b a c k t h e n — a n d those w h o didn't. T h o s e w h o k n e w i n c l u d e d Marilyn, Judy, G a l e (friends o f mine now in c o l l e g e , a year or so a h e a d o f m e in their e d u c a t i o n ) , and a y o u n g man in a n u m b e r o f my h i g h school classes n a m e d Murray. B l o n d and grayeyed, Murray h a d b e e n b o r n in the B r o n x . B u t his hair was extremely long, as if h e w e r e s o m e E u r o p e a n or South A m e r i c a n — a half or even threequarters o f an i n c h l o n g e r than any o t h e r boy's in the school. In the preBeatles fifties, that was as g o o d as having a two-foot ponytail. T h e r e were always whispers a b o u t h o w Murray l o o k e d like a girl. His features were delicate. H e was very smart. Like m e , h e enjoyed music and the arts. I was certain h e must b e queer. T h e r e was nothing a b o u t h i m I f o u n d sexually attractive. B u t I'd also realized that, since e n t e r i n g h i g h school, the easy, poly­ m o r p h o u s bisexuality that h a d b e e n rife a m o n g my friends in elemen­ tary s c h o o l a n d s u m m e r c a m p h a d dried u p almost completely. I had m o v e d into a space w h e r e a stricter a n d stricter c o d e o f heterosexuality was taking over. If I w a n t e d to have any sort o f satisfying sexual outlet for myself, I'd have to w o r k at it. Several times I'd invited Murray to my h o u s e . A c o u p l e o f times I'd g o n e over to his. O n his n e x t visit to my place, after a few minutes o f m o o d y silence, d u r i n g w h i c h he asked m e w h a t was the matter, I told him that I was h o m o s e x u a l — a n d w a n t e d to g o to b e d with him. I was very surprised w h e n h e e x p l a i n e d to m e ( 1 ) h e just wasn't like that, (2) this was the s e c o n d time, n o t the first, that s o m e o n e had felt this way a b o u t h i m , and (3) t h o u g h h e liked m e and w a n t e d to b e my friend, h e really h o p e d I w o u l d n ' t find it too upsetting o r frustrating if he didn't share my sexual feelings. B u t (4) k n o w i n g h o w serious the matter was, he p r o m i s e d that h e w o u l d n o t reveal my secret. T o w h i c h I said, "Yeah . . . sure. Okay," actually with some relief. We r e m a i n e d friends. A n d I did h a v e — t h o u g h oddly acquired—a straight m a l e friend with w h o m , however guardedly, I c o u l d mention, n o w a n d again, my desires for other m e n , which—intellectually, at least—he s e e m e d to find interesting.

/// I first h e a r d the w o r d s "camp," "closet," a n d " c o m i n g out" all o n the same afternoon in July o f 1 9 5 9 . 1 was seventeen and had gotten ajuvenile

Coming/Out

81

role in an aspiring s u m m e r stock c o m p a n y w h o s e directors h a d h a d the ingenious notion o f basing the c o m p a n y in N e w York City. T h e y ' d rented a litde theater o n e b u i l d i n g to the west o f the St. Marks Baths, o n the south side o f St. Marks Place n e a r the c o r n e r o f T h i r d A v e n u e . ( T h e iron steps that led u p to the lobby are still there today, t h o u g h the space is now a s e c o n d h a n d c l o t h i n g store.) After o u r theatrical c o m p a n y was long g o n e , the theater b e c a m e the p e r f o r m a n c e space for E d Sanders, Allen Ginsberg, and the l e g e n d a r y Fugs. W h e n we g o t it, however, the performance space a n d lobby were in appalling c o n d i t i o n . In true summer stock style, cast m e m b e r s were requisitioned by the set designer, his assistant, and the two d i r e c t o r s / p r o d u c e r s to paint the entire theater— lobby, auditorium, a n d s t a g e — o n c e s o m e m i n i m a l carpentry w o r k h a d been done. T h e set designer and his male assistant w e r e lovers—had b e e n lovers, they told us all, that afternoon, for s o m e ten years. I was the only p e r s o n in the volunteer paint crew u n d e r twenty-one, a n d m u c h was m a d e o f it, to my embarrassment. I'd b e e n taking ballet lessons for the previous three m o n t h s and h a d a hopeless crush o n the only straight student in the class, a twenty-three-year-old aspiring actor with a w o n d e r f u l bearlike body w h o h a d b e e n instructed by his acting c o a c h to study d a n c e to "learn how to m o v e . " W e were b e c o m i n g friends, b u t I'd taken a lesson from Murray: T h e r e was as m u c h c h a n c e o f o u r b e c o m i n g lovers as there was o f this thick-thighed, stout-bellied fellow's b e c o m i n g a dancer. B u t I'd never g o n e back to 4 2 n d Street, and, despite the b a n t e r a n d repartee in the Ballet T h e a t e r m e n ' s c h a n g i n g r o o m (and, frankly, there wasn't m u c h ) , in many ways I was as naïve a b o u t the social side o f h o m o s e x u a l ity as it was possible for a N e w York City y o u t h to be. F r o m the j o k i n g that w e n t o n a m o n g the actors painting the theater lobby that afternoon, I l e a r n e d that " c o m i n g out" m e a n t having y o u r first h o m o s e x u a l e x p e r i e n c e . A n d what y o u c a m e out into, o f course, was h o m o s e x u a l society. Until y o u h a d a major h o m o s e x u a l e x p e r i e n c e , y o u could be—as many younger, older, straight, gay, male o r female folk have always b e e n — a kind o f mascot to h o m o s e x u a l society. B u t it took s o m e major form o f the sexual act itself to achieve " c o m i n g out." A n d f o o l i n g around with y o u r bunk-mates after lights out, I was i n f o r m e d , was not major. T h e origins o f the term w e r e d e b u t a n t e cotillions, those sprawling, formal society balls w h e r e , squired by equally y o u n g a n d u n c o m f o r t a b l e cousins, brothers, or schoolmates, y o u n g ladies o f sixteen or so "came out" into society. By n o w I h a d b e e n an escort at a c o u p l e o f those, too— Harlem variety: the presentation m a r c h d o w n the hall's r e d central carpet, two seventeen-year-old or eighteen-year-old g e n t l e m e n o n the arms

82

Shorter Views

o f e a c h sixteen-year-old y o u n g lady, the listless rehearsals in e c h o i n g ballrooms, the quivering o r c h i d petals, the nervous parents, the rented tuxedos. D u r i n g that afternoon's painting session, I first l e a r n e d what "a c a m p " was—the c o l o r s c h e m e the directors had c h o s e n for the theater, for one: p e a c h , g o l d , a n d azure. I also l e a r n e d that "to c a m p " and the g e r u n d " c a m p i n g " d e n o t e d dressing u p in d r a g and, by extension, acting in a particularly effeminate manner, either in private or in public—flouting the notions o f the straight w o r l d by flaunting the customs o f the q u e e r o n e . T h e n o u n form was the base form: " O h , my dear, she is such a c a m p ! " ("she," in such cases, almost always referring to a m a l e ) . Etymologically, o f course, " c a m p " was an a p o c o p a t i o n o f "camp follower." C a m p followers w e r e the w o m e n , frequently prostitutes, w h o followed the armies across E u r o p e from military c a m p to military c a m p . Since the military have always h a d a special place in h o m o s e x u a l mythology, and presumably b e c a u s e the advent o f a large g r o u p o f y o u n g , generally womanless m e n was as g o o d an e x c u s e as any for cross-dressing a m o n g the local male p o p u l a c e so inclined, the then-new m e a n i n g o f the term—"to g o o u t a n d c a m p it up"; "to have a m a d c a m p " (and "mad c a m p " was the phrase most c o m m o n l y in use) — g a i n e d currency in En­ g l a n d d u r i n g W o r l d War I a n d h a d b e e n b r o u g h t back to the U n i t e d States by A m e r i c a n soldiers. Calling s o m e t h i n g "a c a m p " followed the same linguistic template as calling a funny e x p e r i e n c e "a riot." Indeed, the two were often synonymous. T h a t same afternoon, I l e a r n e d that ordinary day-to-day h o m o s e x u a l argot h a d a far m o r e analytic way o f dividing u p p e o p l e by sexual prefer­ e n c e s than any b u t the most detailed psychiatric j a r g o n : T h e r e were queers interested exclusively in "seafood" (sailors); there were "toe q u e e n s " (foot fetishists) a n d "dinge q u e e n s " (white m e n interested only in blacks) a n d "snow q u e e n s " (from a p o p u l a r b r a n d o f ice cream, black m e n interested only in whites) a n d "speed q u e e n s " (this last, taken from the n a m e o f a c o m m o n clothes washing m a c h i n e : It m e a n t a gay male a d d i c t e d to a m p h e t a m i n e s ) . T h e r e were "leather q u e e n s " (the S & M crowd) a n d "size q u e e n s " ("There are two kinds o f queers, my dear. T h e r e are size q u e e n s — a n d there are UarsV) a n d "chubby chasers" and "chicken q u e e n s " (those w h o w e n t after y o u n g children) and "closet queens." H o w e v e r mildly pejorative e a c h was, e a c h represented an active per­ version. A closet q u e e n was s o m e o n e w h o liked d o i n g it in the closet— that is, w h o enjoyed the fact that friends a n d others d i d n ' t know. I d o n ' t k n o w h o w m u c h my discovering a g r o u p o f gay m e n w h o used these terms a n d expressed themselves with this slang had to d o with it,

Coming/Out

83

but four m o n t h s later, in O c t o b e r , w h e n the plays a n d playfulness o f the summer were over, I "came out." In many ways it was a repeat o f s o m e t h i n g I'd already d o n e , t h o u g h not for three years. O n c e m o r e , alone, I w e n t d o w n to 4 2 n d Street—on a Saturday afternoon. This time I walked directly to the largest theater o n the strip, the N e w A m s t e r d a m , and, inside, took a seat midway b a c k in the orchestra. It was a busy day, a n d soon p e o p l e w e r e sitting o n b o t h sides o f m e . T h e film was a western in w h i c h I h a d n o interest, b u t w h i c h I made myself watch. After fifteen minutes, o n my right I felt a leg m o v e against m i n e . I re­ m e m b e r e d what h a d h a p p e n e d to the guy in H u b e r t ' s M u s e u m a n d re­ solved not to let this o n e get away, n o matter w h o it was. I pressed back. S o o n a h a n d was o n top o f m i n e ; it m o v e d over to my crotch. I felt a r o u n d b e t w e e n his legs. H e was stubby a n d hard. W h e n I looked, he was a d u m p y guy in his m i d d l e o r late forties, with glasses a n d white hair. Finally, tentatively, h e l e a n e d over to speak. " C a n y o u c o m e h o m e with m e . . . ?" H e had a strong accent. "Yes! " I declared. We g o t u p together and left the theater. H e lived in B r o o k l y n , h e ex­ plained. Brooklyn was a l o n g way; but I was d e t e r m i n e d . O n the subway, sitting inches apart, we h a d a spare conversation. T h e man was Israeli. H e ' d b e e n in the country not quite a year. I also realized, as we rode over the Manhattan B r i d g e , h e was nervous. A block from his house, I listened to his c o m p l i c a t e d instructions. H e would g o in first and leave the d o o r o p e n for m e — i f it was all right. If s o m e o n e was around, h e w o u l d l o c k the d o o r — h e was sorry. B u t if the door was l o c k e d , then I w o u l d simply k n o w the coast was n o t clear a n d I had to g o h o m e . If the d o o r was not l o c k e d , I was to c o m e u p to the third floor a n d knock—softly—on the apartment d o o r there. Even inside his apartment we had to speak quietly.. . . T h e d o o r was o p e n . In a stairwell c o v e r e d with cracked, yellow paint, I walked u p to the third floor. I knocked—softly. T h e d o o r o p e n e d , wide e n o u g h to show half his face. For a m o m e n t h e l o o k e d as t h o u g h h e was not sure w h o I was. T h e n , the quick whisper: " C o m e in . . . ! " H e lived in two g r u n g y rooms, the first o f w h i c h was b o t h kitchen a n d living r o o m (with very b l u e walls). H e took m e into the second. We sat o n his b e d and p u t o u r arms a r o u n d e a c h other. I was e x c i t e d e n o u g h by the whole situation o f d o i n g it with a stranger that I c a m e the m o m e n t w e lay down. (It remains my single e x p e r i e n c e o f p r e m a t u r e orgasm.) B e c a u s e I felt guilty for c o m i n g so fast a n d because I still h a d an erection, I tried

84

Shorter Views

to b e o b l i g i n g while w e took o u r clothes off—he never r e m o v e d his undershirt—and w e l a b o r e d to an orgasm for him. "Okay," h e whispered, as soon as h e finished. "You gotta g o now." " C o u l d n ' t w e rest j u s t a little?" I asked, even as I slid o n my pants. I'd w o r k e d h a r d to m a k e h i m c o m e , a n d I was tired. H e took a d e e p breath. ' Y o u w a n n a rest a little . . . ?" H e didn't sound happy. "But I d o n ' t think it w o u l d b e g o o d in the same b e d . " H e g o t u p and, carrying the clothes I h a d n ' t yet p u t on, took m e back into the living r o o m / k i t c h e n . "I rest in there. You rest in h e r e — o n the c o u c h . " "Okay . . . " I said, sat o n the sagging yellow sofa, a n d stretched out. H e h u r r i e d b a c k inside. A m o m e n t later, I h e a r d a kind o f ratchet and l o o k e d u p . T h e r e was a full key-and-lock m e c h a n i s m o n the b e d r o o m door. I stretched o u t again, possibly even tried to sleep. After a little w h i l e it may have b e e n only minutes—I g o t u p , w e n t back a r o u n d the c o u c h , and knocked. T h e r e was n o answer. I tried the k n o b — y e s , h e ' d firmly l o c k e d the d o o r against m e . S u d d e n l y I g o t a sense o f the despairing idiocy o f the w h o l e thing. "Hello . . . !" I called, t h r o u g h the door. " L o o k , I'm g o i n g to g o h o m e now." H e didn't answer. Maybe he'd fallen asleep. "I'm g o i n g to leave now. G o o d - b y e . " I p u t o n my shirt a n d my shoes, g o t o n my j a c k e t , and w e n t outside into the hall a n d d o w n the stairs. A year later, I'd h a d m a n y m o r e sexual e x p e r i e n c e s , m a n y o f t h e m o n 4 2 n d Street, m a n y o f t h e m o n C e n t r a l Park West. If y o u ' d asked m e to evaluate my " c o m i n g out" e x p e r i e n c e against these others on a scale o f o n e to ten, w h e r e five was a v e r a g e / a c c e p t a b l e , I'd have given it a two. Frankly, it d o e s n ' t often g e t m u c h worse than that. B u t the unpleasant o n e s are the most informative; I'd l e a r n e d from it h o w m u c h anxiety cer­ tain m e n c o u l d c o n n e c t with the sexual e n c o u n t e r — a n d how m u c h anx­ iety p e o p l e were willing to p u t u p with to have sex in spite o f it. Eventually I d e s c r i b e d the e x p e r i e n c e in a l o n g letter, c o m p l e t e with an attempt to sketch the m a n ' s face, i n t e n d e d for my friend Gale, which I never sent her. Rather, I k e p t it. A year later, w h e n I read the letter over, I was astonished by h o w m a n y stock phrases o f despair and disgust I'd used, as t h o u g h the entire vocabulary for describing the incident had b e e n lent m e by s o m e true-confessions m a g a z i n e (that didn't exist) de­ v o t e d to d e g r a d i n g h o m o s e x u a l e n c o u n t e r s . T h e e x p e r i e n c e had only b e e n a two, after all—not a o n e or a z e r o !

Coming/Out

85

A n o t h e r bit o f fallout from the w h o l e business is worth m e n t i o n i n g . I talked a b o u t the e x p e r i e n c e endlessly to Marilyn, to Judy, to G a l e . I also talked with t h e m o f the m u c h m o r e pleasant e n c o u n t e r , only a few weeks later, with a Puerto Rican pharmacist w h o p i c k e d m e u p o n C e n ­ tral Park West and gave m e detailed instructions o n h o w to give a n d take anal sex, and w h o lived in a friendly b r o w n s t o n e off the park, all o f whose tenants were gay a n d most o f w h o m I m e t over a three-day stay. I told t h e m about the twenty-three-year-old postal worker, w h o drove m e back to his apartment in Brooklyn. Q u i t e as anxiety r i d d e n as the Israeli, at least he was o n e o f the most physically g o r g e o u s m e n I've ever b e e n to bed with, before or since. I told t h e m a b o u t the o d d e x p e r i e n c e s with Cranford and Peter a n d the incredibly h u n g black m a n , j u s t o u t o f jail, who took m e back to the E n d i c o t t H o t e l . ("He c a m e w a l k i n g u p to m e , where I sat o n a b e n c h o n Central Park West, s t o p p e d right in front o f me, with a big, friendly smile, a n d said, 'Hi, there. W h a t y o u o u t l o o k i n ' for?' A n d I said, 'I d o n ' t know! W h a t d o y o u . . . have?' A n d h e said, " O h . . . ' b o u t eleven i n c h e s — ' ! " G a l e threw h e r h a n d s over h e r face a n d cried, "No! No—really} O h , my G o d . Really? N o , d o n ' t tell m e this. Yes, tell me . . . ! " ) O t h e r friends—mostly m a l e — I simply d i d n ' t e v e n c o n s i d e r b r o a c h ­ ing the subject with. O n e o f those was my g o o d friend B o b . I d o n ' t think I've ever k n o w n a n y o n e w h o h a d m o r e hostility toward his parents, b o t h o f w h o m were fairly elderly—his father a doctor, his mother an administrator in the N e w York public h i g h s c h o o l system. A grandmother lived with t h e m , w h o reputedly h a d quite a bit o f m o n e y (millions was the r u m o r a m o n g the tenants at M o r n i n g s i d e G a r d e n s housing cooperative w h e r e w e ' d b o t h lived t h r o u g h o u t m y h i g h school years). B o b claimed that his parents' only interest in letting his grand­ mother live with t h e m was h e r wealth. F r o m what I'd seen o f his parents and his grandmother, that s o u n d e d patently unfair. B u t to visit their apartment with B o b was s o o n to witness a shouting m a t c h b e t w e e n child and parents o f a vicious intensity I've never e n c o u n t e r e d , b e f o r e o r since, at any social level. Bob's sexual history was equally strange. T h e first time h e ' d mastur­ bated, he e x p l a i n e d to m e , h e ' d b e e n twelve or thirteen, sitting in the tub finishing a bath. T h e orgasm h a d o c c u r r e d underwater. Soapy b a t h water had b a c k e d u p his u r e t h r a a n d spermduct; within a day o r two, in­ fection had ensued. Afraid to tell his parents a b o u t it, h e ' d let it g o till it reached an incredibly painful state. H e ' d h a d to be hospitalized a n d come near having to b e castrated. H e ' d never masturbated again. Almost exacdy a year after the O c t o b e r I c a m e out, my father died. A n d at the same m o n t h ' s e n d (itwas i 9 6 0 ) , I m o v e d into B o b ' s 1 1 3 t h

86

Shorter Views

Street apartment, in the St. Marks A r m s (no, it h a d n o t h i n g to d o with St. Marks Place) a n d i m m e d i a t e l y — u n b e k n o w n s t to Bob—started a low-key, pleasant, desultory affair with a white guy from the South w h o lived d o w n the hall from us, n a m e d L e o n . A t a b o u t the same time, Judy a n d B o b h a d g o n e o u t o n a few dates to­ g e t h e r — a n d Judy finally told h i m o f my 4 2 n d Street adventure. Today, I'm n o t sure if h e realized h o w l o n g a g o it h a d b e e n . But o n e evening, w h e n I c a m e in a n d s t e p p e d into the living r o o m full o f Bob's ham-radio e q u i p m e n t , w h e r e b o t h o f us slept, h e switched off his m i c r o p h o n e , t u r n e d a r o u n d a n d stood u p s o m e w h a t uncomfortably, his b l o n d hair awry, his bare feet o n the cluttered rug. Pulling at his T-shirt, he began: "I've g o t s o m e t h i n g very i m p o r t a n t to say to y o u , C h i p . You d o n ' t have to say anything back. Judy told m e that y o u . . . did s o m e t h i n g . D o w n on 4 2 n d Street. Y o u k n o w what I ' m talking about. We d o n ' t have to say ex­ actly what it w a s — n o , d o n ' t say anything n o w . . . " I was d u m b f o u n d e d . I h a d n o idea what h e was talking about. T h e in­ c i d e n t I'd told Judy a b o u t h a d o c c u r r e d almost a year ago; and t h e r e ' d b e e n a g o o d l y n u m b e r o f others since, on 4 2 n d Street and elsewhere. I b e g a n to realize that it must have h a d to d o with sex—and probably h o m o s e x u a l sex. O n l y as h e w e n t on, did I realize it was last year's "com­ i n g out" that h e was talking about. ". . . B u t I d o n ' t w a n t y o u to d o anything like that ever again! That's very important. Y o u have to p r o m i s e m e — n o , w e ' r e n o t g o i n g to talk a b o u t it. B u t y o u have to promise m e that—see? I d o n ' t want y o u to try to e x p l a i n it. I d o n ' t want y o u to say anything a b o u t it at a l l — e x c e p t that y o u p r o m i s e m e y o u ' l l never d o it again. A n d n o w I've a c c e p t e d your p r o m i s e — " (All I'd d o n e was raise an eyebrow, w h e n finally I'd realized w h a t h e was referring to.) "—and n o w it's over. W e ' l l never m e n t i o n it a n y m o r e . It's all b e e n taken care of. I won't—I promise you. A n d you won't. B e c a u s e y o u ' v e p r o m i s e d m e . That's all there is to it." N o d d i n g his h e a d , h e t u r n e d b a c k to sit at the radio. I was left to g e t a soda from the i c e b o x , sit for a while, read, then fi­ nally leave the little apartment w e shared to g o off d o w n the hall, d r o p in o n L e o n , and, b e t w e e n bouts o f l o v e m a k i n g , tell h i m about what B o b h a d said, decry h o w self-righteous h e ' d b e e n , but suggest that w e ' d bet­ ter b e careful, the two o f us. . . . O n e night seven years later, I was leaving my mother's h o u s e and ran into B o b , w h o was n o w m a r r i e d to a pleasant y o u n g black w o m a n with w h o m I h a d g o n e to e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l . W i t h a surge o f old friendship he invited m e to c o m e u p a n d say h e l l o . H e a n d his wife were living in an­ o t h e r M o r n i n g s i d e G a r d e n s a p a r t m e n t filled with strange contraptions: m e c h a n i c a l gypsy fortune-telling b o o t h s o f the sort that had lined the

Coming/Out

87

walls o f Hubert's M u s e u m ; o l d musical instruments c o n t a i n e d in glass booths, such as the T a n g o Banjo or the D u o Arts Player P i a n o or the V i o lano Virtuoso (a player violin built in 1 9 1 6 with m e c h a n i c a l stops a n d an automatic bow that played songs p r o g r a m m e d into it). B o b h a d restored them all and had b e c o m e an e x p e r t o n t h e m — t h o u g h they m a d e his apartment l o o k like the b a c k storage r o o m in a bizarre carnival. T h e notes I took o n the evening, right afterward, p r o v i d e d a scene in the novel I was then writing, Nova. A year or so later, B o b t o o k his own life s o m e w h e r e in the C a r i b b e a n .

TV W h e n I was seventeen and my friend J u d y was e i g h t e e n , o n e e v e n i n g I left my parents' M o r n i n g s i d e G a r d e n s a p a r t m e n t to visit a coffee s h o p a r o u n d o n A m s t e r d a m A v e n u e a n d settle into the p h o n e b o o t h , so J u d y and I c o u l d have an u n i n t e r r u p t e d hour-and-a-half conversation. J u d y had b e e n a child actor a n d was n o w a dancer. She knew lots o f gay m e n , some o f w h o m (Freddy H e r k o , V i n c e n t W a r r e n , J a m e s Waring) s h e ' d introduced m e to. I r e m e m b e r my surprise w h e n she said (the first o f half a d o z e n w o m e n w h o w o u l d later tell m e the s a m e ) , "I always wanted to be a m a n so I c o u l d g o to b e d with other m e n . I've often w o n d e r e d why anyone w o u l d want to g o to b e d with a w o m a n , anyway!" T h e c o m ­ m e n t was offered as support from a y o u n g w o m a n to a y o u n g e r gay m a n . But even in 1959—pre-Stonewall; p r e - W o m e n ' s Liberation; pre-Martin Luther King—I c o u l d hear in it a p r o f o u n d and troubling dissatisfaction with the whole situation o f w o m a n in this country. Marilyn, Judy, and Gale are a trio o f n a m e s anyone w h o has l o o k e d at my memoir, The Motion of Light in Water ( 1 9 8 8 ) , will r e m e m b e r as repeat­ edly s o u n d i n g out, singularly a n d together, t h r o u g h the course o f my late adolescence a n d early m a n h o o d . Marilyn, in A u g u s t 1 9 6 1 , b e c a m e my wife; we lived together for thirteen years a n d have a w o n d e r f u l daughter w h o has always k n o w n h e r parents were gay. (In 1 9 8 4 , w h e n she was ten, my d a u g h t e r sat o n a p a n e l o f C h i l d r e n o f Gay Parents at the Lesbian and Gay C o m m u n i t y Services C e n t e r in N e w York, discussing the situation and answering questions. All those children a g r e e d that it's best to let your child know as early as possible. T h e s o o n e r they know, the less traumatic it is.) W h e n w e were first married, I r e m e m b e r how, at eighteen, Marilyn s e e m e d to d e l i g h t in using gay terms a n d gay slang in front o f o u r straight friends, to m a k e j o k e s o r to pass c o m m e n t s to m e b e h i n d their backs or over their heads. Several times w h e n w e w e r e alone, I asked her not to. It s e e m e d as t h o u g h she w o n d e r e d w h a t was

88

Shorter Views

the fun o f b e i n g gay if it wasn't a special c l u b that allowed y o u to have it over the ordinary p e o p l e . B u t in that n e e d to be special, I sensed the same dissatisfaction with the ordinary situation o f w o m e n that I h a d in Judy's statement o n the p h o n e a year or so before. Racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, a n d h o m o p h o b i a are intricately re­ lated—only secondarily b e c a u s e o f the o v e r l a p p i n g categories o f op­ pressors. Despite their vast r a n g e o f specific differences, so many o f their m e c h a n i c s follow the same pattern, from the direct inflicting o f eco­ n o m i c a n d social d a m a g e s , to b l a m i n g the victim a n d the transcendental mythicizing o f the victim's "world." Immediately o u r marriage b r o u g h t that analysis (the tale is told in Motion) to articulation. If only as a gloss, I must m e n t i o n h e r e all the help, support, and friendship I've had from w o m e n , over these same periods, in learning to u n d e r s t a n d these m e c h a n i s m s — f r o m hours, months, years o f personal discussion, questions, a n d insights, to the (at the institutional level) m a n y v o l u m e s o f feminist and social analysis I've b e e n lucky e n o u g h to have t h e m push at m e , without w h i c h my understanding o f the m e c h a n ­ ics o f oppression, from racism to h o m o p h o b i a , w o u l d have r e m a i n e d in another, far m o r e i m p o v e r i s h e d ballpark. J u d y a n d Marilyn r e m a i n my friends to this day. A n d happily I w o u l d w e l c o m e a r e u n i o n with Gale. All three eventually took greater or lesser j o y in lesbianism. B u t b e i n g gay is n o t a matter o f b e i n g in a special club. In this country it's a belea­ g u e r e d situation that o n e must learn to negotiate as best o n e can. I d o n ' t think I've ever b e e n that m u c h into control—as an earlier gen­ eration m i g h t have p u t it. B u t I d i d want to b e in control o f w h o knew a n d w h o d i d n ' t know I was gay. In the h o m o p h o b i c social field that ob­ tained pre-Stonewall (and, i n d e e d , s i n c e ) , it was still—as it h a d b e e n with B o b — a litde too disorienting w h e n p e o p l e f o u n d out on their own. As o u r c u r r e n t society is discursively constituted, that is still o n e o f the things that creates tension in the relations b e t w e e n s o m e gay m e n and a range of women. It's a p h i l o s o p h i c a l p a r a d o x : Differences are what create individuals. Identities are what create g r o u p s a n d categories. Identities are thus conditions o f comparative sim­ plicity that c o m p l e x individuals m i g h t m o v e toward, but (fortunately) never achieve—until society, tired o f the c o m p l e x i t y o f so m u c h individ­ ual difference, finally, o n e way or the other, imposes an identity o n us. Identities are thus, by their nature, reductive. (You d o not n e e d an identity to b e c o m e yourself; y o u n e e d an identity to b e c o m e like s o m e o n e else.) W i t h o u t identities, yes, l a n g u a g e w o u l d b e impossible (because

Coming / Out

89

categories w o u l d n o t b e possible, a n d l a n g u a g e requires c a t e g o r i e s ) . Still, in terms o f subjects, identity remains a highly p r o b l e m a t i c sort o f reduction a n d cultural imposition. T h r o u g h the late sixties the sensation-hungry m e d i a b e g a n r u m m a g ­ ing t h r o u g h various marginal social areas for n e w a n d e x c i t i n g v o c a b u ­ lary. In almost every case, however, o n c e a n e w term was f o u n d , an al­ most c o m p l e t e c h a n g e in m e a n i n g o c c u r r e d as it was a p p l i e d to m o r e o r less bourgeois e x p e r i e n c e s a n d c o n c e r n s . "Rap" h a d already b e e n appro­ priated from the w o r l d o f down-and-out a m p h e t a m i n e d r u g g i e s ("rap­ ping" was initially the term for the u n s t o p p a b l e , often i n c o h e r e n t cas­ cade o f talk from s o m e o n e w h o ' d taken too m u c h o f the d r u g ) ; " c a m p " had already b e e n b o r r o w e d from gay slang, largely in the w a k e o f a p o p ­ ular 1 9 6 4 Partisan Review essay by Susan Sontag, "Notes o n ' C a m p , ' " after which it all but lost its m e a n i n g o f "cross-dressing" a n d b e c a m e a g e n e r a l synonym for 'just too m u c h . " With Sontag as q u o t a b l e source, " c a m p " be­ came an adjective, driving out "a c a m p " a n d "campy"—as t h o u g h "riot" were to be used as an adjective, displacing b o t h "a riot" a n d "riotous." (To ears my age, adjectival " c a m p " still sounds like a usage error.) Spurred o n by Stonewall a n d the rapid formation j u s t after it o f an orga­ nized Gay Liberation Front, the term " c o m i n g out" over the n e x t eight­ een m o n t h s c h a n g e d its m e a n i n g radically. Gay liberation p r o p o n e n t s b e g a n to speak a b o u t " c o m i n g out" o/"the closet"—the first time either the words or the c o n c e p t s h a d ever b e e n linked. (Till then n o o n e w o u l d have t h o u g h t o f asking the closet q u e e n to give u p his closet any m o r e than o f asking the toe q u e e n to give u p his toes—save in the smug, p e r e m p t o r y tone in w h i c h all perversion was de­ cried.) In the m e d i a this m e t a p h o r i c a l e x t e n s i o n s o o n c o m p l e t e l y dis­ placed the denotative m e a n i n g ("coming o u t into" gay society: having one's first major gay sexual e x p e r i e n c e ) . A g o o d n u m b e r o f p e o p l e — m y ­ self i n c l u d e d — w h o were u n d e r the impression w e h a d c o m e o u t ages ago, now realized w e were e x p e c t e d to c o m e o u t yet again in this wholly new sense. T h e logic o f " c o m i n g out"—in this new sense—was i m p e c c a b l e . Six­ teen and seventeen years before, the H o u s e U n - A m e r i c a n Activities C o m m i t t e e , a l o n g with its h o u n d i n g o f communists, h a d b e e n equally vigilant in its crusade against h o m o s e x u a l s : Its logic was that h o m o s e x u ­ als were security risks because w e were susceptible to blackmail. Said the Gay Liberationists, if w e ' r e "out," n o b o d y can blackmail us a n d n o b o d y can accuse us o f b e i n g blackmailable. S o let t h e m all k n o w w h o w e are, how many o f us there are, and that w e ' r e p r o u d to b e w h a t w e are! L i k e m a n y gay m e n , I f o u n d myself seriously asking, "Just h o w o u t am I?"

go

Shorter Views

In i g 6 i , I'd g o t t e n married. A s far back as i g 6 4 , I'd d e c i d e d — w h e n I'd a spent a few weeks in Mt. Sinai Hospital's m e n t a l ward—that if anyone ever asked m e was I queer o r not, I w o u l d never even c o n s i d e r lying. Was that a kind o f "coming out"? O n l y it was five years before Stonewall a n d in a wholly pathologized situation. A n d t h o u g h I'd m a d e the decision (and stuck to it), years had passed w i t h o u t my having to confront such a question directly and test my resolve. In 1 9 6 7 I'd published a story, "Aye, and G o m o r r a h . . . ," in which the basic situation dealt with a future perversion, clearly an a n a l o g u e o f cur­ r e n t homosexuality. T h e story w o n a N e b u l a A w a r d for best SF story o f its year. I was sure most o f the tale's readers w o u l d assume I was gay. In 1 9 6 8 , I'd written "Time C o n s i d e r e d as a H e l i x o f Semi-precious Stones," a story a b o u t h o m o s e x u a l S & M which w e n t on to win b o t h a N e b u l a and a H u g o . I was pretty sure any r e a d e r w h o ' d had doubts a b o u t my sexual­ ity after the first story w o u l d have t h e m cleared u p with the second. Was I afraid o f b e i n g f o u n d out? Yes. In n o way d o I m e a n to imply I partook o f s o m e particularly h e r o i c social bravery. T h e fact that I was gay had b e e n o n e o f the greatest factors in d e t e r m i n i n g m e to c o m m i t myself seriously to writing a n d the arts in the first place: Even in my early teens I knew the worlds o f theater, d a n c e , a n d literature were far m o r e tolerant o f such deviancy as m i n e , whereas w h a t h a p p e n e d to g e t m e n a n d w o m e n in m o r e "central" areas o f e n d e a v o r were the sort o f tragedy a n d social os­ tracism portrayed in Lillian H e l l m a n ' s The Children's Hour, a play I'd read in h i g h school. A t least o n e straight science fiction scholar, w h o did not m e e t m e till m o r e than a d e c a d e later, has told m e : "I knew y o u were gay by 1968, t h o u g h I d o n ' t k n o w how I knew. N o r d o I r e m e m b e r w h o told m e . " I'm sure h e did too. T h e only p e o p l e in A m e r i c a w h o wrote even vaguely sympathetic portrayals o f gay m e n a n d w o m e n were—it was a f o r e g o n e c o n c l u s i o n — g a y themselves. In science fiction, the only gay characters not written by gay authors were those like the evil B a r o n H a r k o n n e n and his equally evil nephew, Feyd Rautha, in Frank Herbert's Dune, m o n ­ strous villains w h o D i e d Horribly in the End. By i g 6 g it was c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e t h r o u g h o u t the science fiction field that I was gay. Marilyn a n d I were living t o g e t h e r a b o u t half the time. ( W h e n Stonewall o c c u r r e d , w e were together in San Francisco.) T h e o t h e r half we w e r e following o u r own amatory pursuits, with neither o n e o f us really set o n establishing any sort o f p e r m a n e n t relationship— w h i c h was n o t p r o v i n g to be an easy solution for either o f us. A s a result o f Stonewall a n d the redefinition o f " c o m i n g out," I had to c o n s i d e r that, while I a p p r o v e d vigorously o f " c o m i n g out" as a necessary

Corning/Out

91

strategy to avoid blackmail a n d to p r o m o t e liberation, there s e e m e d to be an oppressive aspect o f surveillance a n d c o n t a i n m e n t intertwined with it, especially w h e n c o m p a r e d to the term's o l d e r m e a n i n g . B e f o r e , one came out into the gay community. Now, c o m i n g o u t h a d b e c o m e something entirely a i m e d at straights. Its initial m e a n i n g h a d b e e n a mat­ ter o f bodily practice. (It involved coming . . .) N o w it h a d b e c o m e a purely verbal o n e . Despite its political goals, was this c h a n g e really as beneficial as it was so often touted to be? Since it h a d b e e n a case o f dis­ placing a term, rather than a d d i n g a term, h a d n ' t we p e r h a p s lost some­ thing by that displacement? We heard the phrase m o r e and m o r e . It b e c a m e almost a single word. T h e straight m e d i a b e g a n to take it over. ( T h a t was the time w h e n the "si­ lent majority" was n o w " c o m i n g out" o f the closet o f its silence. A few months later, fat p e o p l e were " c o m i n g out" o f the closet o f their fat, and smokers were " c o m i n g out" o f the closet o f their smoking.) I f o u n d my­ self wanting to stop p e o p l e , every time they b e g a n say the phrase—to slow t h e m d o w n , startle t h e m with a slash struck d o w n b e t w e e n the words, m a k e t h e m c o n s i d e r what e a c h m e a n t separately, a n d r e m i n d them o f all the possible meanings—historical, new, a n d revolutionary— that the two c o u l d be p a c k e d with, either apart or j o i n e d . T h e r e was a closet o f banality, overuse, a n d cliché I w a n t e d to see "coming out" c o m e o u t of! In 1 9 7 5 , 1 taught my first university class. I told my students I was gay within the first two weeks. In the gay press the fact h a d a p p e a r e d often e n o u g h that there s e e m e d n o reason to let it m o v e t h r o u g h a n e w g r o u p of y o u n g p e o p l e as a m o r e o r less c o n f i r m e d rumor. I'd h e a r d too m a n y horror stories about gay teachers w h o did not c o m e o u t to their students, accused by neurotic y o u n g m e n or w o m e n (who knew, o f course, their teacher's secret) o f playing favorites because o f sexuality. T h e p r o b l e m is taken care o f w h e n everything is a b o v e b o a r d , w h e n they know, w h e n I know they know, a n d w h e n they k n o w I k n o w they k n o w — b e c a u s e I've told them. In the middle seventies I received a harsh criticism from a gay friend because a biographical p a r a g r a p h that a p p e a r e d in the b a c k o f a n u m ­ ber o f my b o o k s m e n t i o n e d that I was married to the p o e t Marilyn Hacker, that we h a d a daughter, a n d that Marilyn h a d w o n the National B o o k Award for Poetry. N o t only was I trying to gain prestige t h r o u g h Marilyn's reputation (ran my friend's accusation), I was falsely present­ ing myself as a straight m a n , happily married, with a family, e v e n t h o u g h in those years Marilyn and I n o l o n g e r lived together. T h e p a r a g r a p h had b e e n written perhaps a m o n t h before w e ' d last separated. I'd u s e d it, first, because it was true w h e n I wrote it. My reason for m e n t i o n i n g the

g2

Shorter Views

National B o o k A w a r d I'd felt to b e wholly altruistic. T h o u g h it's the high­ est, or o n e o f the highest, awards for poetry in the U n i t e d States, the fact is, a year after y o u ' v e w o n it, hardly a n y o n e can r e m e m b e r — e v e n p e o p l e p r e s u m a b l y c o n c e r n e d with such things. ( C a n you n a m e the last three years' recipients? ) I'd t h o u g h t by putting it in my biographical squib I m i g h t k e e p the fact o f Marilyn's award before a few p e o p l e ' s eyes just a lit­ tle l o n g e r than usual. 1

T h a t ' s h o w I'd i n t e n d e d it, a n d that's how Marilyn h a d taken it. (At a b o u t that time, Marilyn a p p l i e d for an interim j o b teaching at C o l u m b i a University. W h e n the j u n i o r professor w h o was interviewing h e r men­ tioned the r a n g e o f possible salaries a n d asked h o w m u c h she w o u l d seek, she n a m e d the highest figure. H e l a u g h e d . "For us to give y o u that m u c h , " h e said, "you w o u l d have to have w o n a National B o o k A w a r d or s o m e t h i n g . " R e c o u n t i n g it to m e later, she said: "It was so m u c h fun to be able to smile at h i m d e m u r e l y a n d say, 'Well, actually . . . I have.' H e t u r n e d quite red.") I'd already m a d e o n e desultory attempt to c h a n g e the paragraph even b e f o r e my friend objected, b u t it h a d g o n e astray in the Bantam B o o k s office. Now, true, Marilyn a n d I were living apart. I had a perma­ n e n t m a l e lover. I wrote a n e w b i o g r a p h i c a l p a r a g r a p h a n d t u r n e d it in to my publisher, only to learn that a n e w run o f my science fiction novels h a d j u s t b e e n o r d e r e d m e r e days before—with the old squib! It was an­ o t h e r year a n d a h a l f b e f o r e I c o u l d c o r r e c t it. H o w e v e r i n n o c e n t my transgression, m y friend's criticism h a d its point, t h o u g h , and I felt I s h o u l d r e s p o n d to it.

V In i g 7 7 for the first time, at the World S c i e n c e Fiction C o n v e n t i o n in P h o e n i x , A r i z o n a , a p a n e l o n "gay science fiction" was p l a c e d o n the offi­ cial W o r l d C o n P r o g r a m . I was asked to sit a n d a g r e e d readily. T h e four panelists i n c l u d e d Frank R o b i n s o n (author o f the ig§6 sci­ e n c e fiction classic The Power), N o r m a n Spinrad (our t o k e n straight), a n d m e . W h e n the p r o g r a m c o m m i t t e e asked for permission to tape the p r o c e e d i n g s , I was surprised w h e n the y o u n g w o m a n o n the p a n e l flatly refused. S h e w o u l d n o t participate if there w e r e any c h a n c e o f its get­ ting back to h e r family. A w e e k b e f o r e the panel, however, I too was electrically aware that it was the first time I'd sit in front o f an a u d i e n c e a n d talk a b o u t b e i n g gay. T o o u r surprise, that a u d i e n c e t u r n e d o u t to b e standing r o o m only a n d c o m p r i s e d o f m o r e than three h u n d r e d people.

Coming/Out

93

It was wonderfully invigorating. For m e its h i g h p o i n t was w h e n R o b ­ inson told us what T h e o d o r e S t u r g e o n , already a personal h e r o o f m i n e , had had to g o t h r o u g h in 1 9 5 3 , d u r i n g a n d after writing his ovular story on a gay t h e m e , "The W o r l d Well Lost." W h e n S t u r g e o n submitted it to Fantastic, editor H o w a r d B r o w n e n o t only refused to publish it b u t l a u n c h e d a t e l e p h o n e c a m p a i g n a m o n g all the field's editors never to publish anything by S t u r g e o n again, and, further, t h r e a t e n e d to see that anyone w h o published that particular tale w o u l d b e ostracized from the SF community. Feisty little h u n c h b a c k e d editor Ray P a l m e r b r o k e the nascent boycott a n d published the story in Universe Science Fiction, w h e r e it b e c a m e an i m m e d i a t e classic. After the p a n e l h a d taken place, I was astonished h o w quickly I be­ came "Samuel R. Delany, the black, gay science fiction writer" in the straight media. ( T h o u g h my 1 9 6 7 a n d 1 9 6 8 stories h a d g o t t e n m e in­ vited to sit on the panel, they h a d p r o d u c e d n o such effect!) A n interview in the Advocate followed, a n d several articles a p p e a r e d in the Village Voice. Any newspaper m e n t i o n o f m e — e v e n in the New York Times Book Re­ view—seemed o b l i g e d to tag m e as gay (and b l a c k ) , a n d if the article was by a straight reporter, usually the tag a p p e a r e d in the first sentence. After only a little while, the situation b e g a n to s e e m vaguely hysterical, as if, through an awful oversight, s o m e o n e m i g h t not k n o w I was gay. I d i d n ' t mind. But, from time to time, it g o t a bit tired. In the late seventies, w h e n my d a u g h t e r was a b o u t four, I h e l p e d es­ tablish a Gay Fathers g r o u p with two o t h e r m e n — a b a n k vice president and a musician teaching at C o l u m b i a . O v e r the n e x t two years the g r o u p e x p a n d e d to i n c l u d e m o r e than forty fathers a n d twice that n u m b e r o f children. I was surprised to learn that, just as I had, all o f us h a d told o u r wives-to-be that we were gay well b e f o r e the w e d d i n g ; t h o u g h often nei­ ther husband n o r wife was quite sure what, exacdy, that w o u l d m e a n o n c e marriage took place. In those same years, a collection o f gay businessmen p u t o n a pro­ gram at an East Side gay c l u b in w h i c h they asked three gay m a l e "role m o d e l s " — Q u e n t i n Crisp, a n d an o p e n l y gay p o l i c e m a n o n the N e w York City police force w h o h a d b e e n m u c h in the news o f late, a n d m e — t o take part. D u r i n g the fresh-faced b l o n d c o p ' s presentation, I r e m e m b e r , he said, "You know, there've b e e n half a d o z e n articles a b o u t m e in the New York Times in the last year—but the truth is, I ' m n o t o u t to my mother." Frankly, I wanted to h u g him. I'd never s p o k e n a b o u t b e i n g gay to any­ one in my immediate family, either. I r e m e m b e r visiting my m o t h e r in 1 9 8 5 , while h e r downstairs n e i g h ­ bor, Mrs. Jackson, having d r o p p e d u p for a visit, e n t h u s e d to m e over a

94

Shorter Views

r e c e n t Village Voice article, in w h i c h , yes, I'd b e e n identified as gay in the first s e n t e n c e . D i d my m o t h e r herself know? I d o n ' t see how, d u r i n g those years, she c o u l d have missed it! Still, w e ' d never talked a b o u t it to e a c h other. Perhaps a year later, my m o t h e r took m e to see William M . Hoffman's m o v i n g A I D S play, As Is, w h i c h s h e ' d already seen o n c e and had b e e n im­ pressed with e n o u g h to see again. S h e ' d wanted m e to see it. Was this her way o f letting m e k n o w she knew? We talked only a b o u t the play, not a b o u t ourselves. A l o n g with the b u r g e o n i n g tragedy o f A I D S , I was r e a d i n g many arti­ cles by gay m e n a b o u t the p r o b l e m s they h a d getting their families to ac­ c e p t their gay lovers. My family, however, was always immediately and warmly a c c e p t i n g o f any m a n / e v e r lived with. My p r o b l e m s b e g a n w h e n w e b r o k e u p ; my folks s e e m e d unable to ac­ c e p t that such a relationship was finished. "Why d o n ' t you ever bring over X , these days?" "I told you, M o m . H e m o v e d out. W e d o n ' t live together anymore." " O h , well w h e r e is h e living? Maybe I'll call h i m u p a n d invite h i m over for d i n n e r n e x t Sunday. H e always used to enjoy my Sunday biscuits so much . . . " W o u l d my " c o m i n g o u t " to my m o t h e r really solve such a problem? (In later years, several times I'd h a d to speak to my m o m to r e m i n d her that Marilyn a n d I really were divorced.) In the mid-eighties, I was giving lectures regularly in w h i c h the per­ sonal e x a m p l e s I cited c a m e from my life as a gay m a n . O n e N o v e m b e r e v e n i n g I was l e c t u r i n g to a large a u d i e n c e at the m a i n b r a n c h o f the N e w York Public Library. Halfway t h r o u g h it, I realized my sister was sit­ ting s o m e rows b a c k — n e x t to Mrs. Jackson. W h e n the question p e r i o d afterward started, I saw a m o n g the a u d i e n c e a d o z e n o t h e r well-tailored black w o m e n , also close friends o f M o m ' s , w h o ' d c o m e to the lecture to­ g e t h e r a n d were sitting to o n e side. W h e n the lecture was over, Mrs. Jackson b r o u g h t my sister u p and ex­ plained, "I realized that P e g g y h a d never h e a r d y o u talk. You've always b e e n such an e l o q u e n t speaker, I d e c i d e d to b r i n g h e r h e r e to the Li­ brary to h e a r y o u lecture as a birthday present!" A m i n u t e later, my m o t h e r ' s friends h a d g a t h e r e d , e a c h o f t h e m congratulating m e o n o n e o r a n o t h e r o f my points. I was truly h a p p y to see t h e m . B u t I left the library that n i g h t thinking, "Well, if I wasn't out before, I a m now! " In 1 9 8 7 I b e g a n writing a memoir, focusing specifically o n changes in attitudes toward s e x — g a y sex at that—from 1 9 5 5 t h r o u g h the sixties. I

Coming/Out

95

resolved that, o n c e I finished the text, I would have the by-now-fabled "coming out" talk with M o m . Since o u r separation Marilyn h a d b e e n e x p l o r i n g h e r own lesbianism; she had finally o p e n e d the subject with my mother, only to find—to h e r surprise (but n o t really to mine) —that it h a d not g o n e well. My m o t h e r felt such things were better left b e h i n d closed d o o r s a n d not s p o k e n of. B u t because o f the nature o f the b o o k I was writing, I felt that such a direct conversation—the first a n d most i m p o r t a n t that so m a n y advo­ cates o f "coming out" e n c o u r a g e d — w a s imperative. S o m e two weeks before I finished the manuscript, in a Village restau­ rant on the way to the Public T h e a t e r with two o l d friends, my m o t h e r suffered a major stroke, as a result o f w h i c h she lost all powers o f lan­ guage, both o f speaking and o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g . S h e survived in that state, wheelchair b o u n d for the n e x t eight years. O n c e the b o o k was finished, I did have a conversation with my sister: It turned out to be easy, brief, and all but superfluous. I never did g e t the c h a n c e to c o m e out to my mother. T h e truth is, t h o u g h , it's not a major regret. Many times I've asked myself, j u s t w h e n a n d if (in the post-Stonewall sense) I did c o m e out? A l t h o u g h I approve o f c o m i n g o u t a n d believe it's imperative at the stadstical level, it's still not a question I can answer easily. Did I d o it w h e n I was eleven, walking from the athletic field with Joel? Is it what I did at n i n e t e e n w h e n , o n the platform o f the D-train, I asked p r e g n a n t Marilyn, w h o m I w o u l d shortly marry, if she was really aware that I was h o m o s e x u a l , and that even if w e married, I d i d n ' t see how that was g o i n g to c h a n g e . (She l a u g h e d a n d said, " O f course I am! You've taken m e cruising with y o u , for G o d ' s sakes! ") Did I d o it in the mental hospital w h e n I spoke to the g r o u p o f psychi­ atric residents interviewing m e a n d e x p l a i n e d I d i d n ' t think my h o m o ­ sexuality had anything to d o with any p r o b l e m s that h a d b r o u g h t m e there? Did I d o it w h e n I took my three-, four-, t h e n five-year-old d a u g h t e r o n outings with the Gay Fathers a n d o u r kids to the U p p e r C e n t r a l Park ice-skating rink, w h e r e she l a u g h e d a n d h a d fun with the o t h e r children? (As I w o b b l e d across the ice, a large black w o m a n in a s w e e p i n g p u r p l e coat, far steadier o n her blades than I, asked, "Excuse m e , b u t w h o are you all?" I explained, "We're a g r o u p o f gay m e n , h e r e with o u r . . . chil­ dren!" and fell into h e r arms.) O r did I d o it at the Staten Island Z o o , where I answered the same question for the y o u n g w o m a n taking the kids a r o u n d o n the d o n k e y ride?

g6

Shorter Views

("When are w e g o i n g with the daddies again?" my four-year-old de­ m a n d e d , j u s t b e f o r e we left. E v e r y o n e l a u g h e d . A n d " T h e Daddies" be­ c a m e the g r o u p ' s unofficial name.) D i d I d o it the first time I sat o n the gay p a n e l in P h o e n i x a n d spoke a b o u t the realities o f b e i n g a gay SF writer? Will c o m i n g o u t b e s o m e t h i n g I shall d o in three weeks, o n c e I start t e a c h i n g again at the University o f Massachusetts, a n d (again) I tell the a n o n y m o u s hundred-fifty faces in my lecture class that I have to l o o k at this tale or that from the p o i n t o f view o f a gay m a n — b e c a u s e , after all, I am gay? Or, finally, is it s o m e t h i n g that I, like the gay p o l i c e m a n written about so widely in the Times, can never really d o , b e c a u s e I never c a m e out to Mother? I w o n d e r today if, instead o f c o n s i d e r i n g " c o m i n g out"—in the new sense or the o l d — a point-effect that separates a before (constituted o f si­ l e n c e , paralysis, a n d fear) from an after (constituted o f articulation and bodily, e m o t i o n a l , or linguistic f r e e d o m ) , the discontinuity between the a b s e n c e and p r e s e n c e o f an identity, it m i g h t b e better to consider com­ i n g o u t an aware attitude, a vigilant disposition, an o p e n m o o d (or even a discursive apparatus) that c o u l d beneficially inform all o u r behavior a n d discussions involving the sexual, a n d even, at s o m e points, for any n u m b e r o f considerations, contain its p r e s u m e d opposite—not c o m i n g o u t to s o m e o n e — a s l o n g as the reason involved c h o i c e and not terror, n o t intimidation, n o t victimization, n o r any o f the range o f attitudes that fall u n d e r the u m b r e l l a o f oppression. (For those, I ' m afraid, we still have to c o m e out; a n d if it's too scary to d o it by yourself, organize a fullscale demonstration: That's o n e o f the things they're for.) But the fact is, c o m i n g o u t (in the post-Stonewall sense) was s o m e t h i n g that many o f us h a d b e g u n to d o , h e r e a n d there, without the n a m e , years before Stone­ wall: Stonewall only f o c u s e d a n d fixed its statistical necessity as a b r o a d political strategy. W e n e e d to r e m e m b e r that if the h u m a n material—not to m e n t i o n the simple bravery so many have shown a n d continue to show in o u r still h o m o p h o b i c society—had not already b e e n there, the strategy w o u l d n o t have b e e n anywhere near as successful as it was. M a n y p e o p l e have m a d e the point: O n e d o e s n o t c o m e out o n c e . Rather, o n e c o m e s o u t again a n d again a n d again—because the d o m i n a n t discourse in this c o u n t r y is still o n e o f heterosexist oppression and be­ cause it still controls the hysteria to know w h o ' s gay a n d w h o ' s not. H e t e r o s e x u a l s d o n o t have to c o m e o u t — i n d e e d c a n n o t c o m e out—be­ cause there is n o discursive pressure to d e n y their ubiquity (and, at the same time, d e n y their social contribution and the sexual validity o f their growth a n d d e v e l o p m e n t , the event field-effect o f their sexuality) and to

Corning/Out

97

penalize t h e m for their existence. T h i s is the same discourse that c o n ­ strains " c o m i n g out," for all the act's Utopian thrust, to a c o n d i t i o n o f heterosexist surveillance. A n d t h o u g h perhaps my " c o m i n g out" with the anxious Israeli was an i n c i d e n t that my interested friends c o u l d subse­ quently use to define the fact that I had, i n d e e d , actually c o m e out, o r t h o u g h my " c o m i n g o u t publicly" in P h o e n i x m e a n t that the straight media c o u l d n o w define m e , regularly, as a "gay science fiction writer," t h o u g h I w o u l d n o t relinquish either e x p e r i e n c e , a n d value what b o t h taught m e (for b o t h are part o f the field of e x p e r i e n c e s that have articu­ lately demonstrated to m e that the h u m a n b o u n d a r i e s o f sexuality c a n be far m o r e h u m a n e l y p l a c e d than they have b e e n : B o t h o f t h e m c h a n g e d me, and c h a n g e d m e for the better), t h o u g h b o t h showed m e m u c h and c h a n g e d my life in ways I can only celebrate, I c a n n o t claim that either identified o r defined anything o f m e b u t only illuminated parts of my endlessly iterated (thus always c h a n g i n g ) situation. Firmly I believe that's h o w it should be. —New York City January iççô

NOTES

l. A. R. Ammons, 1993; James Tate, 1994; Stanley Kunitz, 1995.

5

A B e n d in the Road

"We're having a c o n f e r e n c e o n postcolonialism. W e ' d like y o u to take part." "But it's n o t my field. I'm a science fiction writer—a black science fic­ tion writer, w h o dabbles in gay studies." "Well—we t h o u g h t w e ' d p u t y o u o n the p a n e l called ' T h e U n i t e d States'." " O h — t h e n , I suppose so. A l l right." W h y d o I feel that, somehow, I have b e e n recolonized? W h y d o I feel, in line with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's definition (provisional description?) o f postcolonialism ("Postcolonialism repre­ sents the failure o f recolonization"), that if what I have to say this morn­ i n g bears any relation at all to questions o f postcolonialism or postcoloniality, as w e have u n d e r t a k e n t h e m in their multiplicity during yesterday's two panels, it will i n d e e d b e t h r o u g h that recolonization's failure?

/ "More than three-quarters o f the p e o p l e living in the world today have h a d their lives s h a p e d by colonialism," begins the introduction to a b o o k b e a r i n g a science-fiction inspired title a n d c o n t a i n i n g a collection o f fas­ cinating fictions a b o u t fiction, The Empire Writes Back. W h a t a vast topic, t h e n , o u r c o n f e r e n c e title covers! A n d only a p a g e later, we find the first m e n t i o n o f the subject o f o u r particular panel: So the literatures of African countries, Australia, Bangladesh, Caribbean countries, India, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, South Pacific Island countries, and Sri Lanka are all post-colonial literatures. The lit­ erature of the U.S.A. should also be placed in this category. 1

A B e n d in the R o a d

99

T h a t last, singular sentence, in w h i c h the U n i t e d States falls outside the b r o t h e r h o o d that—for the U S A — d e f i n e s the exotic, m i g h t give any n u m b e r o f readers pause. B u t our Empire authors, Ashcroft, Griffiths, a n d Tiffin, immediately explain their singularizing the U S A in its very own sentence: Perhaps because of its current position of power, and the neo-colonizing role it has played, its post-colonial nature has not been generally recognized. But its relationship with the metropolitan centre as it evolved over the last two centuries has been paradigmatic for post-colonial literatures everywhere. 2

It is m o o t w h e t h e r the n e x t sentence i n c l u d e s the U n i t e d States—or excludes it, as a special case, already c o v e r e d in the previous two sen­ tences. T h a t sentence reads: What each of these literatures has in common beyond their special and dis­ tinctive regional characteristics is that they emerged in their present form out of the experience of colonization and asserted themselves by foregrounding the tension with the imperial power, and by emphasizing their difference from the assumption of the imperial centre. 3

Let me note here the most fleeting, historically b o u n d e d i d e o l e c t a l dif­ ference in my own, very marginal i d e o l e c t o f written A m e r i c a n English, with its local, historically prescribed, a n d o u t m o d e d n o d o n o f prescrip­ tive grammar: In that fast-fading i d e o l e c t I write, the singularity o f "each" w o u l d control the rest o f the n o u n s in the s e n t e n c e m o r e tightly than this particular academic ideolect (which so easily encompasses "dif­ ferent than") allows. In my o u t m o d e d a n d all but s u p e r s e d e d A m e r i c a n ideolect (and let m e stress, perhaps as an invented Unity, that it is an A m e r i c a n ideolect o u r three Australian-based writers s e e m to m e to write—an i d e o l e c t that has b e e n the recipient o f m u c h translated poststructuralism and M a r x i a n rhetoric), / m i g h t have written: "What e a c h o f these literatures has in c o m m o n b e y o n d its special a n d distinctive re­ gional characteristics is that it e m e r g e d in its present form o u t o f the ex­ perience o f colonization a n d asserted itself by f o r e g r o u n d i n g the ten­ sion with the imperial p o w e r a n d by e m p h a s i z i n g its difference from the assumption o f the imperial centre." W h a t I h o p e w e can h e a r in w h a t sits so uneasily between a rewriting a n d a translation is an uneasiness with such specificity that b e g i n s with the first n o t i o n o f "regional characteris­ tics" as applied to the countries involved, an uneasiness that resonates all the way to the end.

l oo

Shorter Views

T h e special a n d distinctive "regional characteristics" o f Indian litera­ ture, as a hypostatized w h o l e , are certainly as p r o b l e m a t i c as the special a n d distinctive r e g i o n a l characteristics o f " A m e r i c a n " literature as a w h o l e — n o t to m e n t i o n Australian literature, C a r i b b e a n literature, or Pa­ cific Island literature. A n d w o u l d the described template really cover all postcolonial literatures in the list—including the A m e r i c a n ? W h a t about that p o s t c o l o n i a l w r i t i n g — h o w e v e r embarrassing, it is there—that sup­ ports the imperial centre? M o r e to the point, isn't that what a g o o d deal o f postcolonial literature is p o l e m i c i z i n g with, defining itself against? Es­ pecially if o n e is to i n c l u d e , h o w e v e r uncomfortably, the U n i t e d States? Is it p e r h a p s allegorical o f s o m e t h i n g w e m i g h t find useful that this par­ ticular pluralized blindness to the p r o b l e m s o f specificity occurs pre­ cisely in a s e n t e n c e in w h i c h it is u n d e c i d a b l e w h e t h e r that sentence does, o r d o e s not, i n c l u d e the U n i t e d States as postcolonial? A n d while w e h o l d o n t o that notion, certainly we should note as well that, in the pause w e spoke o f above, there is certainly r o o m for a g o o d deal o f q u e s t i o n i n g o f the w h o l e assertion. T h a t a r g u m e n t e x t e n d e d , British literature itself is a form o f postcolonial literature, since at some p o i n t in the age o f the blue-painted Picts, Britannia itself was u n d e r Rome .. .

// T h i s is w h e r e I'd g o t t e n , w h e n I asked myself: What, from my own, margi­ nal, c o n t e m p o r a r y position, d o I see in these postcolonial discussions? What, i n d e e d , is that position? I am, o f course, first a n d foremost a writer, a teller o f tales. I am, c o e q u a l with that, a black m a n , in A m e r i c a , w h o , a l t h o u g h six o u t o f e i g h t o f his great-grandparents were slaves in this country, is nev­ ertheless, in the c u r r e n t debates—in w h i c h melanists contest with culturalists, w h o contest with Afro-centrists, over j u s t what black means—at a rather p r o b l e m a t i c position. A n d quite as subjectively i m p o r t a n t as either o f the previous two, I am a gay m a n — w h i c h is to seize only a n o t h e r m a r g i n a l a n d problematic i n d e x in the discussion a r o u n d so sexually a n d hereditarily laden a no­ tion as r a c e — a n d I a m a gay m a n , let us n o t forget, w h o has h a d a wife a n d a child. F r o m such a position, fixed only t h r o u g h so many intersecting mar­ gins, if I were to c h o o s e to tell a tale, what w o u l d it be? L i k e the teller, it w o u l d b e marginal. Its relation to the discussion c o u l d b e only indirect.

A B e n d in the R o a d

1o1

A n d , yes, it w o u l d c h r o n i c l e a certain play b e t w e e n blindness a n d a singular vision. Certain margins w e envision as safe, practicing a sort o f safe sex, as it were: my tales will all c o m e from at least twenty years a g o or m o r e — though, I h o p e , the points drawn from t h e m will not.

Ill In 1 9 6 5 , w h e n I was twenty-three, I took off to G r e e c e with a friend. I wanted to g o because the country was c h e a p . I w a n t e d to g o b e c a u s e the culture, b o t h ancient a n d m o d e r n , was o f historical interest. It h a d never o c c u r r e d to m e that G r e e c e was a colonial, o r postcolonial, country— and certainly not a c o l o n y o f the U n i t e d States. T h e G r e c o - T u r k i s h War, that, in 1 8 9 7 S t e p h e n C r a n e h a d r e p o r t e d o n so vividly in the N e w York press, for m e was a dateless ghost. B u t World War IFs G r e c o - G e r m a n hos­ tilities, as novelized by J o h n Fowles in The Magus, I'd read o f only months, if not weeks, before my trip. A n d Fowles's smoky tableaus o f the embattled islands were b u r n e d t h r o u g h by the b r i g h t i m a g e s from Law­ rence Durrell's Bitter Lemons, Prospero's Cell, Reflections on a Marine Venus, and H e n r y Miller's Colossus ofMaroussi. Also, my o w n marginal g e n r e , sci­ e n c e fiction, h a d m a r k e d the same g e o g r a p h i c area o f the i m a g i n a t i o n with R o g e r Zelazny's novel o f a devolved G r e e c e , And Call Me Conrad—as interesting a n o v e l a b o u t life in an o c c u p i e d c o u n t r y as Ulysses. T h a t novel—And Call Me Conrad— l o o k i n g b a c k o n it, should have w a r n e d m e . But it didn't. Understand: I wanted to visit Paris. Understand: I wanted to visit V e n i c e . But—understand—I w a n t e d to live in G r e e c e . T h e specific channels t h r o u g h w h i c h I'd gotten the sexual samizdat in­ formation that G r e e c e , as a M e d i t e r r a n e a n country, w o u l d likely b e . . . well, a land not o f sexual b o r e d o m b u t o f sexual pleasure, I can n o l o n g e r recall. But it was part o f the image, with w h i c h I took off from the States. Two o f us left; a n o t h e r y o u n g m a n , a C a n a d i a n , j o i n e d us o n the plane, so that w h e n w e set d o w n in L u x e m b o u r g , w e w e r e a g r o u p o f three. My c o m p a n i o n s were straight a n d white. A n d o u r trio persisted, in an uneasy c o h e r e n c e , t h r o u g h ten days in Paris at a t h e n inexpensive hotel o n the Isle St.-Louis, a n d ten days in V e n i c e at a p e n s i o n e n e a r Ferovia, and finally, after a n i g h t o n the ferry from Brindisi, t h r o u g h the Corinth Canal a n d into the Piraeus.

IO2

Shorter Views

Paris a n d V e n i c e h a d b o t h provided g e n e r o u s sexual encounters within the first twenty-four hours o f my stay, so that I was, at this point, rather blasé a b o u t the possibilities o f pleasure in general. A t h e n s lived u p to its reputation, however. W i t h i n the first twenty minutes we were there, while R o n w e n t in to see if any mail h a d c o l l e c t e d for us at A m e r ­ ican Express, a n d Bill, as was his wont, w e n t to c h e c k the prices in hotels that were obviously b e y o n d o u r means, I was sitting in Syntagma Square, w h e n a G r e e k in his early thirties started a conversation with m e in En­ glish, a n d after a few looks, a few n o t particularly subtle questions, sug­ gested I c o m e with h i m to the m e n ' s r o o m . W h e n we were finished, I asked h i m my usual question: "But w h e r e d o . . . p e o p l e — g o in Athens?" H e m e n t i o n e d several park areas, gave m e the n a m e s o f two movie houses in a street j u s t off O i m o i n e i a Square (one, the Rosyclaire, he told m e , I s h o u l d watch o u t for, as it c o u l d g e t a little r o u g h ) , and the names o f s o m e clubs. "But, really," he said, "in A t h e n s , if y o u ' r e l o o k i n g for it, you'll find it practically anywhere." T h e n h e left. T h a t n i g h t we three spent the first o f four days at the dingy H o t e l O i ­ m o i n e i a . T h a t e v e n i n g w e ate in a restaurant near Syntagma, recom­ m e n d e d — s i g n o f an earlier a g e — i n H o p e a n d A r t h u r Fromer's Europe on Five Dollars a Day. Pale, p l e a t e d curtains stretched over the lower parts o f the window a n d d o w n the glass in the d o o r ' s dark w o o d e n frame. We sat at a whitec l o t h e d table, eating a v g o - l e m o n o soup a n d discussing o u r travel plans. And Call Me Conrad h a d scenes set o n the isle o f K o s — a n d so, with n o m o r e reason than that, Kos was o u r destination. Just then, from the table d i a g o n a l to ours, a G r e e k businessman in his forties, w e a r i n g a staid suit a n d tie, with a horseshoe o f black hair around a prematurely bald h e a d , c o u g h e d a n d said to us in very g o o d English: "Excuse m e — I c o u l d n ' t h e l p o v e r h e a r i n g y o u . B u t the three o f you are p l a n n i n g to g o to Kos, for six weeks y o u were saying? D o e s o n e o f y o u have relatives there?" No .. . " T h e n I just d o n ' t think that's w h e r e y o u want to g o . I understand, you d o n ' t want a heavily touristed island. But, at this time o f the year, none of the islands are heavily touristed. Y o u c o u l d even g o to Mykonos, and still b e quite private. B u t K o s — y o u have to understand. T h e r e ' s nothing there at all! N o hotel. N o guest houses. I d o n ' t think there are three h u n d r e d p e o p l e living o n the island! A boat will m a k e a special stop there—per­ haps o n c e a m o n t h , if there's a particular reason to. You'll be g o i n g to an island w h e r e the p e o p l e have simply never seen tourists before. Really, with only y o u r best interest in mind, may I m a k e some suggestions . . . ?"

A B e n d in the R o a d

103

His suggestion was an island called Mîlos. T h e r e were two towns o n it, an old city, Plaka, and a h a r b o r town, A d e m â s . In the o l d city, there were some catacombs and also s o m e Hellenistic ruins. A n d three days later found us o n the weekly b o a t to Milos. ( O n l y after w e arrived did w e real­ ize the island h o u s e d the site o f the discovery o f the V e n u s di Milo.) Knowing h o w isolated we were o n Milos, w h e r e , i n d e e d , in the first after­ n o o n we rented a small h o u s e o n the e d g e o f the h a r b o r town that c o u l d be traversed, e n d to end, by a sharply h u r l e d p e b b l e , w e realized h o w right o u r restaurant acquaintance h a d b e e n a b o u t the m o r e m o u n t a i n ­ ous and even m o r e r e m o t e Kos. B u t two a n d a h a l f m o n t h s later, with a n o t e b o o k full o f seaside tales a b o u t o u r local baker, butcher, cafeneon owner, fishermen, a n d landlady, a n d finally, yes, a m o n t h o n M y k o n o s , we returned to A t h e n s . I had not forgotten the locations o f the movie theaters given to m e o n my first afternoon in A t h e n s , so many weeks a g o now. A n d o n a w a r m day in a m o n t h that, in N e w York w o u l d have b e e n in the d e a d o f winter, I went to visit them. A single narrow m a r q u e e with wrought-iron d e c o r a t i o n s h u n g over both. B o t h screened Steve Reeves-style Italian m u s c l e epics, alternating with A m e r i c a n westerns. (At o n e , I recall, I saw Anjelica H u s t o n ' s first film, A Walk with Love and Death.) T o say that the Rosyclaire was the r o u g h e r simply m e a n t that there were m o r e y o u n g G r e e k s there, often from the army or the navy, actively hustling the procession o f m i d d l e aged businessmen, in a n d out, m a n y o f w h o m c o u l d easily have b e e n cousins to the m a n w h o h a d diverted us from rock-shot Kos. I w o u l d m o v e from o n e theater to the other, simply to vary the faces that, even in the flickering darkness, grew, after a w e e k or two, fairly fa­ miliar fairly quickly. A n afternoon there b e g a n with s o m e q u i p ex­ c h a n g e d with the prim a n d a g i n g g e n t l e m a n with his black b o w tie w h o took your m o n e y t h r o u g h the bars o f the Rosyclaire's ticket window, or it w o u l d involve s o m e w h i s p e r e d tale—in my inventive G r e e k — t o a n o t h e r patron a b o u t the thickly b e s p e c t a c l e d , b l u e - s m o c k e d , iron-haired, w o m a n attendant o f the incredibly sexually active m e n ' s r o o m , w h o r e i g n e d over the first three feet o f those facilities with lordly hauteur, while maintaining magisterial obliviousness to w h a t w e n t o n in the re­ m a i n d e r o f that dripping, white-tiled hall. A s far as I c o u l d tell, n o o n e ever tipped her after their first visit. In that r o u g h e r setting, then, I was surprised, o n e afternoon, w h e n I saw a y o u n g m a n , a b o u t e i g h t e e n , sit­ ting in the balcony in a suit and tie—rare a m o n g the w o r k clothes, mili­ tary uniforms, a n d slouch j a c k e t s most o f the patrons wore. H e s e e m e d a bit too p r o p e r for this milieu. But, after o b s e r v i n g h i m for twenty min­ utes, I saw he knew a n u m b e r o f the p e o p l e m o v i n g a b o u t from seat to

104

Shorter Views

seat in the b a l c o n y — a n d , a bit later, o n c e w e h a d passed e a c h other o n the narrow stairway u p to the balcony, he c a m e over to talk to me! Petros was a student—and t u r n e d o u t to b e extraordinarily intelligent. C o m m i t ­ ted to b e i n g a doctor, h e was nevertheless a lover o f literature. A t the mo­ vies—and, later, b a c k at the Boltetziou Street r o o m my two friends and I w e r e r e n t i n g — w e h a d sex s o m e three o r four d m e s . "Are y o u really black?" h e w a n t e d to know. A n d I e x p l a i n e d as best I c o u l d that, a c c o r d i n g to A m e r i c a n law and culture, I was. His response was to leap o n m e for a n o t h e r session o f lovem a k i n g , w h i c h m e r e l y c o n f i r m e d what I'd already learned, really, in France a n d Italy: that the racial myths o f sexuality were, if anything, even m o r e alive in E u r o p e a n u r b a n centers than they were in the cities o f the U n i t e d States. A l m o s t as s o o n as w e finished, Petros asked m e w o u l d I give h i m En­ glish l e s s o n s — t h o u g h h e already spoke the l a n g u a g e fairly well. In re­ turn, h e said, h e w o u l d h e l p m e with my G r e e k . C o u l d h e take o n e o f the novels I had written h o m e with h i m to try to read it? Certainly, I said. T h e four or five sessions over w h i c h I h e l p e d Pe­ tros u n s c r a m b l e the syntax o f various paragraphs in my fifth novel, City of a Thousand Suns, w e r e s o m e o f the most useful lessons in the writing o f English / h a v e ever had! A n d for my first G r e e k lesson, a day or two later, Petros c a m e over to my r o o m s after his university classes with a p a m p h l e t copy o f Yanis Ritsos's 1 9 5 6 '0 Sonata Selinophotos (The Moonlight Sonata). In that highc e i l i n g e d r o o m , with its three c o t b e d s a n d tall, shuttered windows, we sat d o w n a n d b e g a n . "If y o u are g o i n g to learn G r e e k , y o u start with very g o o d Greek—very great G r e e k poetry," Petros e x p l a i n e d . "You k n o w Ritsos? A great mod­ ern poet!" In s o m e ways r e m i n i s c e n t in b o t h tone a n d matter o f Eliot's "Portrait o f a Lady," '0 Sonata Selinophotos is a g o o d deal longer, however, and—fi­ n a l l y — m o r e c o m p l e x . T h e speaker, an o l d w o m a n in a h o u s e (which may, after all, b e e m p t y ) , k e e p s l o o k i n g o u t the F r e n c h window, wanting to g o with s o m e o n e in the m o o n l i g h t just as far as "the b e n d in the road"— "'0 streve tou dromou. " N o literary slouch, Petros spent an h o u r and a h a l f explicating the phrase, "let m e c o m e with y o u , " which tolls re­ peatedly t h r o u g h the p o e m , e a c h time m o d u l a t e d in its n u a n c e — t h e phrase with w h i c h h e h a d invited h i m s e l f to my r o o m , as h e r e m i n d e d m e with a grin. By the e n d o f two w e e k s , sex h a d fallen o u t o f o u r relationship: Poetry h a d taken its p l a c e . T h e n , with a burst o f warm weather, now at

A B e n d in the R o a d

105

my e x c u s e , n o w at his, e v e n the l a n g u a g e lessons d r o p p e d off. B u t the friendship e n d u r e d . A brief trip I took to T u r k e y (I was d e p o r t e d for a week, but that's a n o t h e r story), at a b o u t this point, established a few o f its own postcolonial insights. S o m e o f the things I'd suspected were n o w confirmed: W i t h its white skirt a n d fez, the G r e e k national c o s t u m e was largely Turkish in origin. T h e G r e e k custom o f having the kitchen in the front o f the restaurant s e e m e d to be basically Turkish. A n d a g o o d m a n y G r e e k foods were very similar to Turkish foods—only the Turks ate t h e m in m u c h smaller quantities a n d m u c h m o r e varied c o m b i n a t i o n s . O n my return, I m e n t i o n e d these insights to Petros. T o appropriate a phrase directly from the imperial centre: W e w e r e not amused. O n e e v e n i n g after my return, Petros a n d I d e c i d e d to g o for d i n n e r down to the Piraeus—a few stops o u t o n the subway that b e g a n at O i m o i neia Square, with its d o z e n s o f lottery salesmen a n d their sticks a n d streaming ticket strips, strolling a b o u t the u n d e r g r o u n d c o n c o u r s e . A l o n g the docks, as the c l o u d s striped the east with e v e n i n g , w e h u n t e d out the smallest a n d most pleasant o f places w e c o u l d find: A w o o d e n structure, it was built o u t over the dockway. Inside, it was painted green, with s c r e e n i n g at the windows rather than glass. A t places you c o u l d l o o k d o w n b e t w e e n the floorboards a n d see water flicker. A t a picnic-style, o r perhaps barracks-style, table, we set o u t o u r b e e r and a plate o f mezei— hors d'oeuvres. A s w e sat, talking, j a b b i n g tooth­ picks into oily bits o f octopus, artichokes, and stuffed g r a p e leaves, some­ how we g o t o n t o the politics o f G r e e k a n d A m e r i c a n relations. W h a t pushed us across the transition from the amiable converse o f two y o u n g , gay m e n o u t in the p u r p l e e v e n i n g to s o m e t h i n g entirely other, I've never b e e n able to reconstruct. B u t suddenly Petros was lean­ ing across the table toward m e , b o t h his h a n d s in fists o n the boards. "Even this p l a c e — " h e was saying. "What c o u l d b e m o r e G r e e k than this place—eh? Y o u think, yes? H e r e o n the Piraeus docks? Eh? Well, I tell you—everything y o u see h e r e is A m e r i c a n ! T h e paint o n the walls— A m e r i c a n ! T h e s c r e e n i n g in the w i n d o w s — A m e r i c a n ! T h e nails in the boards—American! T h e fixture o n the sink over t h e r e — A m e r i c a n . Even the calendar o n the wall, there—even y o u can see that's A m e r i c a n ! "—he p o i n t e d to a pin-up calendar, in G r e e k , advertising C o c a - C o l a . " T h e blades that cut the p a p e r mats w e ' r e eating on! T h e m a c h i n e r y that puts the electroplating on this knife a n d fork. N o n e o f that is G r e e k ! L o o k out the windows at the boats in the harbor. Even if s o m e o f t h e m are Italian-built, their hull paint is A m e r i c a n ! Everything, the floor, the ceil­ ing, everything y o u l o o k at, every surface that y o u see—in this G r e e k e s t

l o6

Shorter Views

o f G r e e k places—is A m e r i c a n ! I have n o country! Y o u — y o u A m e r i ­ cans—have it all!" T o say I was taken aback j u s t d o e s n o t cover my response. B u t s o m e h o w Petros, then I, r e c o v e r e d . W e finished eating. T h e n we w e n t for a walk outside by the water. B u t it was, i n d e e d , as if I had c o m e so far a l o n g an e v e n i n g road, only to r o u n d a certain b e n d — t o discover a waterfall o r an o c e a n or a m o u n t a i n r a n g e b e y o n d , that I had never seen before, so that, e v e n on the return trip, n o t h i n g l o o k e d quite the same. S o o n , however, w e were m o r e or less amiable. I told Petros w h e r e I h a d to g o the n e x t afternoon—a street that m a d e h i m raise an eyebrow, then laugh. It was famous in the city for its cross-dressers. B u t I e x p l a i n e d to Pe­ tros: "No—there's an English-language school down there, w h e r e a Brit­ ish friend o f m i n e is teaching. B e c a u s e I write b o o k s , he's asked m e to c o m e a n d visit his class. H e wants m e to read t h e m s o m e t h i n g o f mine. A n d to talk a b o u t writing English with them." "Will y o u talk to t h e m a b o u t s o m e o f the things y o u spoke to m e about, in y o u r b o o k that w e read?" "Probably," I told h i m . " G o o d ! " Petros p r o n o u n c e d . We c a u g h t the subway b a c k to A t h e n s , and I walked u p steep T p p o c r a t o u to ' O d o s Boltetziou, trying to k e e p h o l d o f the fact that what I was s e e i n g — m u c h o f it, at any rate—was simply not what I had thought I was seeing w h e n I'd left.

IV T h e n e x t afternoon at twenty-to-four, I t h r e a d e d my way out from O i m o i n e i a S q u a r e to the glass d o o r with the Venetian blinds inside it, hurried u p to the s e c o n d floor o f what was called s o m e t h i n g very like the Panipistemiou Ethnike Anglike; and my British friend J o h n let m e into the r o o m , w h e r e his fourteen pupils—two girls and twelve boys, all about seventeen o r s o — h a d b e e n in session for twenty minutes o f their hour-and-a-half English lesson. T h e pages I read t h e m from o n e o f my science fiction novels and our discussion o f t h e m were n o w h e r e near as interesting as Petros's exegesis o f Ritsos. B u t the students m a d e a brave attempt to question m e intelli­ gently a b o u t it. ("How m u c h m o n e y y o u m a k e from writing o f a b o o k in A m e r i c a ? " A t the time, I m a d e a t h o u s a n d dollars a novel—seven hun­ d r e d a n d fifty, if it was u n d e r sixty thousand words. "Are writers very rich in A m e r i c a — t h e y are n o t so rich in G r e e c e , I think.") T h e n my part in

A B e n d in the R o a d

107

the lesson was m o r e or less over, a n d J o h n m o v e d o n to o t h e r material. W h e t h e r it was o n e o f the students or J o h n , at s o m e point, w h o m a d e a j o k e about the cross-dressers w h o , outside, w o u l d s o o n b e strolling u p and d o w n the e v e n i n g street, I d o n ' t r e m e m b e r . B u t I recall h o w o n e thick-set, dark-eyed youngster l e a n e d forward now. "I m u s t say . . . " h e b e g a n three times: "I must say . . . I must say, b e c a u s e w e have a g u e s t today, I must say—must explain: T h e r e is no h o m o s e x u a l i t y in G r e e c e ! " In concentration, his fists k n o t t e d o n the small table b e f o r e h i m , as h e leaned with an intensity that m i r r o r e d Petros's from the n i g h t b e f o r e — t h o u g h this y o u n g m a n was a year taller, a n d w e i g h e d , I ' m sure, h a l f again as m u c h . "There is no h o m o s e x u a l i t y in G r e e c e ! T h e G r e e k s must not— can not d o that. It is dirty. It is bad. It is b a d a n d disgusting they w h o d o that. T h e Greeks d o n o t d o that. T h e r e is homosexuality only from foreigners. T h e y m a k e homosexuality in G r e e c e ! It is n o t us—the Greeks! It is the bad and dirty foreigners! It is all the b a d a n d dirty tourists that make—that bring homosexuality in G r e e c e . T h e E n g l i s h m e n . T h e A m e r ­ icans. T h e Germans. T h e tourists! N o t G r e e k s — y o u know, now! " J o h n knew that I was g a y — t h o u g h I d o u b t the students did. Perhaps, as s o m e o n e w h o had invited m e to his class, h e felt h e h a d to d e f e n d m e , t h o u g h I would have b e e n perfectly happy to let it ride. "That just doesn't make sense to m e , Costa. W h e n y o u all g o h o m e from h e r e , the p e o p l e you see on the street, most o f t h e m are pretty obviously G r e e k . Y o u h e a r them talking with o n e another, j o k i n g . That's G r e e k I hear, downstairs." "You d o n ' t see that!" Costa insisted. ' Y o u d o n ' t see that! N o t G r e e k s ! If Greeks d o that, it is only because o f the foreigners. T h e y d o it, some­ times, maybe for n e e d m o n e y — m a y b e , that the foreigners pay t h e m . B u t Greeks n o t d o that. It is bad, it is very bad. Why w o u l d G r e e k s d o that? It—how y o u say, d o e s n ' t m a k e sense!" I watched this impassioned y o u n g m a n . I l o o k e d at the o t h e r y o u n g ­ sters a r o u n d the r o o m : O n e girl in a dark sweater r u b b e d the e d g e o f a b o o k with her f o r e k n u c k l e . A boy with a b u s h o f light hair s l o u c h e d back, o n e h a n d forward over the front e d g e o f the table. S o m e smiled; some just l o o k e d u n c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h o u t smiling. T h e r o o m ' s walls w e r e gray. A ceiling fan h u n g from the center, n o t t u r n e d o n . Blinds w e r e raised halfway u p the windows. Costa's white shirt was o p e n at the neck; his sleeves were rolled u p his forearms. B e n e a t h his desk, h e w o r e dark socks b e n e a t h broad-strapped sandals, w h i c h n o w h e slid b a c k u n d e r his chair. I w o n d e r e d what surfaces o f G r e e c e , if any, I was seeing. After the class, I w a l k e d h o m e with E n g l i s h J o h n — w h o was r a t h e r breezy a b o u t it all, t h o u g h e v e n h e s e e m e d t r o u b l e d . "You know, h e m a n a g e s to m a k e that s p e e c h to us almost every o t h e r w e e k ! I wasn't ex­ p e c t i n g it today, t h o u g h , but—like h e said—we h a d a guest."

l o8

Shorter Views

O v e r the n e x t days, I f o u n d myself thinking a b o u t b o t h experiences. W h a t was particularly b o t h e r s o m e to m e was the way the s e c o n d seemed p o s e d to obliterate the first—to i m p u g n the very social c o n d u i t by which my n e w vision h a d b e e n gained. If, i n d e e d , as Costa insisted, I "didn't see that," w h a t was I to m a k e o f w h a t I did see? T h e way to "untrouble" such conflicting visions is, o f course, to shrug off—as daily, in those m o n t h s , I'd f o u n d myself having to do—the no­ tion o f s o m e hypostatized, m o n o l i t h i c entity called "modern G r e e c e " a n d its constitutive necessity, "the m o d e r n G r e e k . " T h e country I was in was as various a n d multifaceted in its play a n d counterplay o f ideas as anywhere else. A n d what I was seeing w h e n I l o o k e d at Costa, I now know—this side o f Stonewall—was j u s t a g o o d deal o f Petros's problems to c o m e . For better or for worse, the e x p e r i e n c e s that we actually have form the m o d e l s by w h i c h w e interpret all situations that w e encounter, verbally or pictorially, in the abstract. ( A n d a situation p r e s e n t e d to us only in film o r v i d e o is as abstract as o n e presented in words.)

V Today, however, w h e n I h e a r discussions o f h e t e r o s e x u a l A I D S in Zaire, say ( a n d A I D S is certainly the most p o s t c o l o n i a l o f diseases), it is im­ possible for m e n o t to r e m e m b e r a thirty-four-year-old black African from N a i r o b i ( o n e o f two c a r p e n t e r s w h o m I h a d regular, casual sex with in those m o n t h s ; the o t h e r was white, n a m e d J o h n , a n d lived in a f u r n i s h e d flat s o u t h o f the T h a m e s ) , w h o told m e h e w a n t e d to be c a l l e d Willy b e c a u s e his real n a m e I w o u l d p r o b a b l y b e u n a b l e to n e g o ­ tiate. F o r several m o n t h s , d u r i n g the two years I lived in L o n d o n almost two d e c a d e s a g o n o w — a city w h e r e I lived with my wife, w h e r e my d a u g h t e r was b o r n , w h e r e m y h o m o s e x u a l i t y was at its most marginal— I w o u l d m e e t h i m n e a r B a k e r Street. Willy was missing an eye from a c h i l d h o o d a c c i d e n t a n d lived in Earls C o u r t in a slightly uneasy truce with his n u m e r o u s Australian n e i g h b o r s ; a n d h e e x p l a i n e d to m e that, b e t w e e n the time h e was e i g h t e e n a n d the time h e was twenty-five, w h e n h e ' d left N a i r o b i , his s e x u a l p a r t n e r s had i n c l u d e d , in his own w o r d s , "Pretty m u c h every b l a c k African in the N a i r o b i p o l i c e depart­ m e n t . T h e y w o u l d p i c k m e u p o n their m o t o r b i k e s . T h e n w e ' d g o off— t h e n t h e y ' d drive m e h o m e . " A n d I c a n also r e m e m b e r Willy saying: "Are y o u really black? Y o u are? T h a t ' s very e x c i t i n g ! C o m e h e r e , let's d o it again!"

A B e n d in the R o a d

109

T h o u g h I a m perfectly aware that Z a i r e is n o t K e n y a , t h o u g h I ' m perfectly aware p e o p l e like to e x a g g e r a t e their sexual c o n q u e s t s , I also r e m e m b e r Willy saying: "No, it is n o t like h e r e . T h e r e is n o h o m o s e x u a l ­ ity in Africa: T h e r e y o u d o n ' t talk a b o u t it at all. Y o u j u s t d o it!" B u t though his words were closer to Costa's, his inflection was closer to Petros's. My story o f G r e e c e b e l o n g s , o f course, to the n e o c o l o n i a l i s m that Ashcroft, Griffiths, a n d Tiffin d e s c r i b e d in their o p e n i n g paragraphs. If there is a point to draw from it, it is that n e o c o l o n i a l i s m c a n so easily masquerade as postcolonialism that they are often indistinguishable. A n d my story o f Willy. . . ? Understand, I d o n o t tell any o f these as a tale o f the h o m o s e x u a l s or the h o m o p h o b e s o f G r e e c e . I d o n o t tell t h e m as a tale o f the h o m o s e x u ­ als o f Africa, representing s o m e h a p p y H e g e l i a n synthesis of, for better or worse, the G r e e k opposition, say. A n d a l t h o u g h I think Willy's story of­ fers at least a partial explanation for what I h e a r d in A t h e n s eight years be­ fore, that is still n o t the direction I h o p e y o u will take the stories' e x e m plarity in. I want my tales to trouble with the same trouble that was pluralized out o f the o p e n i n g s e n t e n c e o f The Empire Writes Back a b o u t what is c o m m o n to all postcolonial literature—possible e x c e p t i o n , the United States's, w h i c h o f necessity must contain, for better o r worse, these tales. A n d as they trouble, I h o p e they r e m i n d us o f the differences in the world that have c o m e a b o u t since they o c c u r r e d . (I have since read accounts o f celebrations o f Gay Pride Day in Athens.) I h o p e they call into question certain assumptions a b o u t the w o r l d that is n o t the United States for those w h o , h e r e at this p a n e l , are c o n s i d e r i n g the United States as a topic o f e x a m i n a t i o n , study, a n d interrogation—for those w h o , h e r e , in this c o n f e r e n c e , are c o n s i d e r i n g v e n u e s w h e r e (sometimes) there is homosexuality and, sometimes, there isn't. Equally I h o p e that n o n e o f these tales suggests a c e n t e r e d answer to any question o f homosexuality, certainly n o t o f A I D S , n o r — h e a v e n forefend—of postcolonialism itself. B u t w h e n w e h e a r h e t e r o s e x u a l statistics for A I D S in Africa, I should simply like to k n o w what h a p p e n e d to the homosexual statistics, w h i c h , from all I've b e e n able to find, d o n ' t exist— though such n o n e x i s t e n c e should n o t b e terribly surprising for a c o u n t r y in which, as Willy i n f o r m e d m e , b e t w e e n bouts o f v i g o r o u s l o v e m a k i n g , there is n o homosexuality; n o r should it b e surprising that, in such a country, the h e t e r o s e x u a l statistics are as h i g h as the h o m o s e x u a l statis­ tics are low. B u t should even these—let's face it, very A m e r i c a n — t a l e s I have told eventually stand revealed as ventriloquized by the imperial cen­ tre itself, against w h i c h o t h e r marginal subjects have to p o l e m i c i z e a n d define themselves, I h o p e only that their side o f the p o l e m i c is carried

11 o

Shorter Views

o n at the level o f direction and indirection, o f statement and suggestion, w h i c h is w h e r e , a l o n e I think, they can b e o f any use. —New York City April 1993

NOTES

1. Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures (London: Routledge, 1989), 2. 2. Ashcroft et al., The Empire Writes Back, 2. 3. Ashcroft et al., The Empire Writes Back, 2.

6

The "Gay Writer " / " G a y Writing". . . ?

It's too easy to r e d u c e the p r o b l e m o f "the gay writer" to the split between those gay writers (like myself) w h o , o n the o n e h a n d , feel that all art is political o n e way or the o t h e r a n d that all they write is f r o m a gay position—and, in my case, from a b l a c k a n d a m a l e position as well—and those writers w h o , o n the o t h e r h a n d , feel that all they write is fundamentally apolitical, e v e n if it involves gay topics; that they are j u s t writers w h o h a p p e n to b e gay, or, i n d e e d , black, o r f e m a l e , or m a l e , or Jewish or what-have-you. W h a t e v e r o n e ' s knee-jerk reaction to either stance, the truth is that a tally o f what writers f r o m b o t h g r o u p s actually write in their fictions, in their poetry, in their plays w o u l d show that, out­ side o f direct statements o n the matter, there's n o simple way to tell from their creative w o r k — f o r certain—which i d e o l o g i c a l t h e m e e a c h es­ pouses. Writers w h o believe that art is f u n d a m e n t a l l y apolitical often p r o d u c e extraordinarily socially sensitive works. A n d it is an endless em­ barrassment to us w h o believe in the fundamentally political n a t u r e o f all h u m a n p r o d u c t i o n s that, simply f r o m the p l o t r e d u c t i o n s o f their stories, or even from the e x p r e s s e d sentiments o f their p o e m s , meas­ u r e d against whatever n o t i o n o f "political c o r r e c t n e s s " they b e l i e v e in (and, like the rest o f us, I believe in m i n e ) , writers w h o express the m o s t "correct" political sentiments can p r o d u c e the m o s t politically a p p a l l i n g work. If we are ever to solve o u r p r o b l e m s , I believe the o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n the two—the belief in the fundamentally apolitical nature o f the best art and the belief in the fundamentally political nature o f all art—needs to be carefully u n d o n e . Personally I suspect that m o r e i m p o r t a n t than which o f these positions a particular writer adopts is w h e t h e r that writer sees his or her own position as o p p o s i n g the majority o p i n i o n a r o u n d , o r whether the writer sees his or h e r position as m e r e l y an e x t e n s i o n o f what most other intelligent p e o p l e think. In the academy, for instance, there's a tendency to see everything as politicized: T h u s writers w h o have

112

Shorter Views

l o n g s t a n d i n g a c a d e m i c c o n n e c t i o n s can assert their oppositional stance by u p h o l d i n g art to be fundamentally apolitical. I've lived most o f my life outside the a c a d e m y in a society and at a time w h e r e a n d w h e n the n o t i o n that there m i g h t be any political aspect to any w o r k n o t a n n o u n c i n g itself as p r o p a g a n d a is hardly entertained or is wholly p o o h - p o o h e d . T h u s my oppositional belief in total politicization. But, if I ' m honest, w h e n I read with great care, say, m u c h o f Harold B l o o m , or even Paul d e M a n , n o t to m e n t i o n Milan K u n d e r a , in The Art of the Novel (three critics w h o u p h o l d that art is fundamentally apolitical), it seems that m u c h o f what they m e a n by "apolitical" is precisely what I m e a n by "political." I j u s t d o n ' t k n o w if t h e y ' d give m e as g e n e r o u s a r e a d i n g as I give t h e m . A n d , i n d e e d , the generosity o f their readings, o n e way o r the other, w o u l d b e controlled, I suspect, by their perception o f w h a t e a c h saw as the major abuses o f the position h e polemicizes against. W h a t I h o p e we can d o this afternoon is to switch the scene o f the de­ bate from that o f h o w the gay writer perceives her- or himself ( e n g a g e d in a fundamentally political o r apolitical endeavor) to h o w the gay writer is p e r c e i v e d at large. T h a t , I think, is w h e r e the debatable p r o b l e m s lie. T w o e x a m p l e s c o m e to m i n d that dramatize a r a n g e o f perceptions a n d their problematics. My first e x a m p l e is Martin D u b e r m a n . Prizewinning playwright a n d n o t e d a c a d e m i c historian, D u b e r m a n is the b i o g r a p h e r o f J a m e s Russell Lowell a n d the a u t h o r o f the definitive history o f Black M o u n t a i n C o l l e g e as well as a r e c e n t b i o g r a p h y o f Paul R o b e s o n . A n d h e is an o u t s p o k e n d e f e n d e r o f gay rights. For several years D u b e r m a n was also a regular reviewer for the New York Times. O n c e D u b e r m a n b e c a m e established as a c o m m e n t a t o r on gay rights, he f o u n d the Times s e n d i n g h i m n o t h i n g but b o o k s o n gay topics to review. After several years o f this, h e finally asked t h e m , first informally, then formally, to s e n d h i m b o o k s o n historical or dramatic topics to review as well. W h e n they didn't, with m u c h soul searching, h e finally asked them to send h i m n o m o r e b o o k s on gay topics. H e w o u l d b e glad to review for t h e m anything o n history o r theater, two areas in w h i c h he h a d d e m o n ­ strated clear a n d p o i n t e d authority. T h e result? D u b e r m a n has n o t reviewed for the Times since. My s e c o n d e x a m p l e is the career o f the writer G u y Davenport. I start by saying I have n o n o t i o n what Davenport's sexual persuasion might be. For m a n y years h e has closely associated with a w o m a n in his h o m e t o w n o f L e x i n g t o n . Even ten years a g o , such a claim as m i n e m i g h t have b e e n taken h e r e as polite disingenuousness, a protective gesture toward preju­ dice a n d the law. B u t in this case, my disclaimer is sincere. I d o n ' t know.

T h e "Gay" Writer / "Gay" Writing . . . ?

113

N o r d o I care. Certainly D a v e n p o r t is a m o n g the most e l e g a n t writers at the sentence level to work in A m e r i c a n prose. O n l y William Gass currently c o m e s n e a r him. A n d Davenport's erudition is occasionally almost b e y o n d following . . . His short stories (in Tatlin!, Da Vinci's Bicycle, Eclogues, a n d The Jules Verne Steam Balloon) dramatize b o t h my claims. His essays (in The Geogra­ phy of the Imagination a n d Every Force Evolves a Form) confirm the facts be­ hind the drama. H e is also a superb translator from the G r e e k . His are simply the finest versions d o n e o f the prose a n d poetic fragments o f H e ­ rodotus and S a p p h o , A l k m e n , A r c h e l o g o s , A n a k r e o n , o r o f the m i m e s o f Herondis. S o m e years back, it was rewarding to see D a v e n p o r t n o w intro­ d u c i n g N a b o k o v ' s p o s t h u m o u s l y p u b l i s h e d notes o n Don Quixote, n o w writing the o d d sidebar for the Times, n o w reviewing this or that w o r k o n classicism for a general a u d i e n c e w h o m his writerly color, r a n g e , a n d pre­ cision c h a r m e d . But, as o n e b o o k followed another, it b e c a m e clear that o n e o f Davenport's fictive t h e m e s was boys masturbating, singly or in g r o u p s , now alluded to in passing, now described in electric, limpid, endlessly in­ ventive l a n g u a g e . Masturbation surfaces in half a d o z e n o f the twenty-six or so stories o f his I've read. Whatever Davenport's o w n sexual leanings, the h o m o e r o t i c c h a r g e o n these onanistic celebrations is u n d e n i a b l e ; the h o m o p h o b i c m a r g i n g e n e r a t e d a r o u n d t h e m is i n e s c a p a b l e — i n a h o m o p h o b i c society. A n d Davenport's n a m e b e c o m e s rarer a n d rarer in the better quality g e n e r a l readership magazines. T h e last time I asked a n y o n e literary a b o u t Davenport's work, I was given a small mou a n d a little shake o f the head. "No, his w o r k is too per­ fect. It's too studied—too polished; n o t first-rate art at all." But the truth is that it is too h o m o p h o b i c a l l y embarrassing. A n d since it is always embarrassing to admit embarrassment, this silly j u d g m e n t a l j u d o is positioned to cover over a topic it d o e s n o t even b e g i n to tease at, m u c h less touch on. But these two e x a m p l e s — D u b e r m a n , the o p e n l y gay writer p i g e o n ­ holed and stripped o f o n e critical platform, a n d D a v e n p o r t , the writer who, whatever his sexual fixes, nevertheless p r o d u c e s w o r k saturated with pédérastie resonances (only c o m p a r e the relative ease with w h i c h Nabokov's far m o r e legally a n d morally disturbing, a n d certainly as esthetically intense, p e d o p h i l i a was assimilated: b e c a u s e it h a p p e n e d largely in the sixties and because the transgression was h e t e r o s e x u a l ) — are, for m e , the best characterizations o f the p r o b l e m , n o t o f the gay writer (such a topic finally dissolves before the impossibilities o f defini­ tion), but o f the p r o b l e m s a c c r u i n g to the p r o d u c t i o n o f writings per­ ceived to be gay.

114

Shorter Views

T h o u g h y o u m a y accuse m e o f switching the scene of the debate o n c e a g a i n — a n d o n c e t o o o f t e n — I ' d l i k e to leave us w i t h this q u e s t i o n . N o t w h a t w o u l d w e a d v i s e D u b e r m a n o r D a v e n p o r t t o do as w r i t e r s . P r e s u m a b l y they w i l l c o n t i n u e to write a n d to p u t w h a t e v e r e n e r g i e s they d o o r d o n o t p u t into that m o s t i m p o s s i b l e o f objects, the writerly career, a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r w o n t s a n d t e m p e r a m e n t s . M y q u e s t i o n is r a t h e r : D o w e , g a y , s t r a i g h t , o r o t h e r w i s e , as r e a d e r s a p ­ p r i s e d o f the s i t u a t i o n , h a v e a n y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to D u b e r m a n , D a v e n p o r t , o r t h e i r texts?

—Philadelphia February ig8g

7 The Black Leather in Color Interview

Questions by Thomas Deja

BLIC:

W h e n y o u s t a r t e d w r i t i n g s c i e n c e f i c t i o n , it was still b a s i c a l l y a

w h i t e , m a l e h e t e r o s e x u a l p r e s e r v e . A s a gay, b l a c k m a n , h o w d i d y o u f e e l a b o u t b e i n g t h e o d d m a n o u t ? D o y o u t h i n k it m a y h a v e c h a n g e d t h e w a y y o u r c a r e e r p r o g r e s s e d i n a n y way? W h y d o e s it still s e e m t o b e a c o m m u ­ nity o f white guys?

Samuel R. Delany:

O f c o u r s e , t h e r e are n o " h e t e r o s e x u a l " m a l e p r e ­

serves. T h e r e a r e s o c i a l g r o u p s w h e r e g a y o r b i s e x u a l m e n f e e l safe a c ­ k n o w l e d g i n g themselves—first to o n e a n o t h e r , t h e n to pretty everyone. A n d there

are o t h e r

social groups where

much

they don't.

By

h e t e r o s e x u a l p r e s e r v e , y o u s i m p l y i n d i c a t e the latter. T h e gay a n d b i s e x ­ u a l m e n a r e t h e r e . B u t t h e h o m o p h o b i a i n t h e g r o u p is h i g h e n o u g h t o m a k e t h e m wary o f a c k n o w l e d g i n g their p r e s e n c e — s o m e t i m e s e v e n to themselves. Possibly because I h a d a n extremely supportive a n d w i d e - r a n g i n g ex­ t e n d e d b l a c k f a m i l y , I've r a r e l y f e l t m y s e l f t h e o d d m a n o u t i n a n y g r o u p I've e n t e r e d — e v e n t h o u g h I p r o b a b l y w a s . A g a i n a n d a g a i n . O r , p o s s i b l y , b e c a u s e o f m y s e x u a l i t y a n d b e c a u s e o f m y i n t e r e s t i n w r i t i n g as a n a r t

(I

d i d n ' t c o m e o u t s e x u a l l y i n m y f a m i l y at a l l w h e n I was a y o u n g s t e r , a n d w o u l d have b e e n s c a r e d to d e a t h to, b u t they all k n e w I w a n t e d to w r i t e a n d t h o u g h t that was great) I'm so u s e d to b e i n g the o d d m a n o u t I j u s t d o n ' t n o t i c e it a n y m o r e . You decide where, o n the s p e c t r u m between the two, the e x p l a n a t i o n lies. C e r t a i n l y i t ' s c h a n g e d m y c a r e e r . T h e a r t i s t is a l w a y s t h e o d d w o m a n or o d d m a n o u t i n a n y g r o u p — e v e n i n a g r o u p o f o t h e r artists. ( T h a t last is t h e m o s t p a i n f u l l e s s o n w e a l w a y s l e a r n a n d t h e n r e l e a r n . ) I f t h a t ' s a n anxiety-producing situation for you, a n d you're an artist—then

you're

n6

Shorter Views

b o u n d to have a n u n h a p p y life; a n d that's certainly g o i n g to i n f l u e n c e h o w y o u present yourself, h o w you're perceived, a n d h o w you're treated by those a r o u n d you. W h y is S F s d l l s o o v e r w h e l m i n g l y w h i t e ? I w i s h I k n e w . T h e r e ' r e l o t s o f A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n SF r e a d e r s — m a n y m o r e today than there were when I e n t e r e d t h e field i n '62, b y h u n d r e d s o f p e r c e n t . I m e e t t h e m a t c o n v e n ­ t i o n s . I m e e t t h e m at a c a d e m i c c o n f e r e n c e s . I m e e t t h e m at b o o k s t o r e signings. W h y h a v e n ' t the writers followed? ( T h e y ' r e f o u r o f us w r i t i n g regularly in English: Octavia Butler, Steven Barnes, Charles Saunders, a n d m y s e l f — a n d most r e c e n d y N a l o H o p k i n s o n . In the related field of H o r r o r there's Tananarive D u e . A n d , writing in F r e n c h , out of Canada, there's Haitian-born Jean-Claude Michel.) A g a i n , I don't know. I know w h a t it's n o t , t h o u g h ; it's n o t e d i t o r i a l b i a s . If a n y t h i n g , t h e w h i t e e d i t o r s I've t a l k e d t o t o d a y a r e a w a r e e n o u g h o f t h e b l a c k r e a d e r s h i p t h a t t h e y ' d j u m p at the c h a n c e to s p r i n k l e s o m e g o o d S F stories w i t h a b l a c k per­ s p e c t i v e a r o u n d t h e i r m a g a z i n e s o r b o o k lists. A m I o v e r - o p t i m i s t i c ? P e r h a p s . B u t n o t b y m u c h , I'd wager. W h e n sub­ missions by black writers hit the twenty p e r c e n t m a r k — o r get above t h a t — t h e n we may well have some problems. But right n o w they're no­ where near that number.

BLIC: H o w d i d y o u d i s c o v e r t h e l e a t h e r c u l t u r e ? SRD:

T h e l e a t h e r w o r l d has always b e e n t h e m o s t visible p a r t o f the gay

m a l e w o r l d , n e x t to the a r e a that l a p s — o r o v e r l a p s w i t h — t h e w o r l d o f cross-dressers. T h e r e a l q u e s t i o n for m a n y if n o t m o s t gay m e n m i g h t b e t t e r b e : H o w d i d y o u m a n a g e t o find t h e rest o f t h e g a y w o r l d , o n c e y o u f o u n d the w o r l d of leather a n d / o r drag queens? A m o n g t h e first t h r e e o f f o u r t i m e s I g o t p i c k e d u p a n d t a k e n h o m e , b a c k w h e n I was e i g h t e e n o r n i n e t e e n ( n i n e years b e f o r e Stonewall), a g u y i n his thirties started t a l k i n g to m e o n C e n t r a l P a r k W e s t a n d invited m e b a c k to his p l a c e , a f e w b l o c k s away. C l e a r l y , h e e x p l a i n e d , h e was i n t o sadomasochism a n d thus things w o u l d be somewhat unusual once we got there. B u t since I was n e w to the w h o l e c r u i s i n g scene, I wasn't all that clear o n w h a t the u s u a l was. S o I w e n t w i t h h i m . A t his place, h e h a d s o m e l e a t h e r l y i n g a r o u n d , a j a c k e t o n h i s c o a t h o o k , a vest o v e r the b a c k o f o n e chair; he himself h a d gone cruising, I recall, in a brown, threep i e c e suit. H e t o l d m e to strip, t h e n — w h i l e h e r e m a i n e d d r e s s e d — h e started to p u t m e t h r o u g h a n instruction r o u t i n e : " A l l right! P u t y o u r h a n d s o n y o u r k n e e s ! N o w y o u r toes. N o w r e a c h a r o u n d — a n d spread your buttocks!" I w e n t a l o n g w i t h it w i t h w h a t I t h o u g h t was p e r f e c t g o o d w i l l . W h a t I

T h e Black Leather in Color I n t e r v i e w

117

w a n t e d to d o was s u c k a n d get s u c k e d , c u d d l e s o m e , a n d m a y b e d o s o m e f u c k i n g — i n a b o u t that o r d e r o f p r e f e r e n c e . B u t if this was a necessary p r e l u d e , I was w i l l i n g to c o o p e r a t e . A f t e r a b o u t t e n m i n u t e s , t h o u g h , h e sat b a c k a n d l a u g h e d : " Y o u ' r e n o t r e a l l y i n t o t h i s , " h e s a i d , " a r e y o u ? " I confessed: " N o t really." "Get y o u r clothes o n , " he said, good-naturedly, " a n d get o n out

of

h e r e . Y o u g o b a c k to C e n t r a l P a r k a n d m a y b e y o u ' l l f i n d s o m e b o d y else m o r e into what y o u ' r e l o o k i n g for." S o I d i d . W e s h o o k h a n d s at t h e d o o r . A n d I left, t h i n k i n g h e was a pretty n i c e guy. T h a t was m y i n t r o d u c t i o n to t h e l e a t h e r w o r l d . A p e r f e c t l y p l e a s a n t M r . B e n s o n , i f y o u w i l l — w h o k n e w w h a t h e w a n t e d , a n d t h a t I w a s n ' t it. B u t i n the way that first i m p r e s s i o n s o f t e n d o , this o n e f o r m e d a pretty g o o d basis f o r m o s t o f w h a t I've f o u n d i n t h a t w o r l d s i n c e : a c e r t a i n a m o u n t o f c o m m o n sense, a certain a m o u n t o f g o o d w i l l .

BLIC: H o w h a s l e a t h e r i n f l u e n c e d y o u r w r i t i n g ? W i l l i t i n f l u e n c e y o u r writing further? SRD:

I first started w r i t i n g a b o u t S / M — i n a tale c a l l e d " T i m e C o n s i d ­

e r e d as H e l i x o f S e m i - P r e c i o u s S t o n e s " — p r e t t y m u c h t h e w a y m o s t p e o ­ p l e d o . I s a w S / M as a l i m i t c a s e f o r h u m a n s e x u a l i t y . T h a t is t o say, i n ­ i t i a l l y S / M h a d b e e n p r e s e n t e d t o m e as s e x u a l i t y s t r a d d l i n g

some

border, beyond w h i c h we were outside of the "acceptable," the " h u m a n , " the " c i v i l i z e d . " I w r o t e a b o u t it i n t h e t y p i c a l way that o n e t e n d s to w h e n o n e is w r i t i n g a b o u t a s e x u a l i t y t h a t o n e p e r c e i v e s as f u n d a m e n t a l l y

"not

m i n e . " I o f f e r e d e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r it. ( W h o e v e r t r i e s t o e x p l a i n h i s o r h e r own s e x u a l i t y , o n c e s o c i e t y h a s a l l o w e d y o u t o b e c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h i t ? It's j u s t y o u ; it's w h a t y o u e n j o y d o i n g ! ) I saw it p e r m e a t i n g e v e r y a s p e c t o f t h e y o u n g c h a r a c t e r ' s ( H a w k ' s ) l i f e — i n d a n g e r o u s , e v e n s u i c i d a l w a y s . It f u n c t i o n e d l a r g e l y as a m a r k o f d o o m , a s c a r o f C a i n . T h i s is w h a t ' s o f t e n c a l l e d t h e " R o m a n t i c " v i e w ; a n d i t ' s p e r f e c t n o n s e n s e . T h i s is t h e v i e w t h a t says t h a t s o m e h o w p e r f e c t l y d e c e n t , o r d i n a r y g u y s , l i k e t h e o n e w h o p i c k e d m e u p by the p a r k w h e n I was a k i d , are at h e a r t secret J e f f r e y D a h m e r s o r J o h n W a y n e G a c y s — a t least o n the S side. A n d , conversely, a n y o n e o n t h e M s i d e is s o m e h o w o n s o m e s u i c i d a l r o l l e r c o a s t e r t h a t m u s t l e a d t o s e l f - i m m o l a t i o n . B u t b e c a u s e I ' d h a d as m a n y r e a l a n d p r a c ­ t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e s as a s e x u a l l y a c t i v e g a y m a n t h a t I h a d ( a n d o f c o u r s e t h e r e w e r e , l a t e r , m a n y m o r e t h a n t h e o n e I've j u s t r e c o u n t e d ) , s o m e o f them leaked over into my description of things like actual meetings a n d real conversations. T h e story w o n b o t h a H u g o A w a r d a n d a N e b u l a A w a r d for

1968

118

Shorter Views

f r o m the Science Fiction Writers o f A m e r i c a — p r o b a b l y for all the wrong reasons. W h e n I thought about taking o n thetopic again, I realized I could g o o n w i t h t h e r o m a n t i c view. O r I c o u l d g o m o r e d e e p l y i n t o t h e m a t e r i a l that m a d e u p m y o w n experiences. B u t t h e r e a d e r r e a c t i o n to t h e s t o r y — i n c l u d i n g t h e awards it w o n , f r o m a largely straight r e a d e r s h i p after a l l — a l e r t e d m e that there was a reality ( a n d f o r m e , "reality" is a s y n o n y m f o r "politics") to b e e x p l o r e d h e r e ; a n d there was also a m y t h to b e c u t t h r o u g h . M y 1 9 7 4 n o v e l Dhalgren f e a t u r e s a l e a t h e r m a n — T a k L o u f f e r — a s a n i m p o r t a n t secondary character. A s Virgil g u i d e d Dante, T a k guides m y n a m e l e s s h e r o , as h e e x p l o r e s t h e i n s a n d o u t s o f t h e b u r n e d - o u t c i t y o f B e l l o n a . B u t t h e stories i n w h i c h I t u r n e d to e x a m i n e s o m e o f t h e real (i.e., a g a i n , I m e a n p o l i t i c a l ) p r o b l e m s that t h e i d e a o f S / M b r i n g s u p was i n a p r o j e c t I b e g a n i n 1 9 7 6 — m y series o f stories set i n t h e a n c i e n t land of Nevèryôn. N e v è r y ô n is a l a n d w h e r e t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e g o o d citizens, the majority o f its a r i s t o c r a c y a r e b r o w n o r b l a c k — w h i c h is t o say t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e money i s i n t h e h a n d s o f p e o p l e w h o a r e b r o w n o r b l a c k . T h u s i t r e p resents a n u n s e t t l i n g reversal o f t h e A m e r i c a n p o w e r structure. It's also a l a n d t h a t e m p l o y s s l a v e r y as a n e c o n o m i c s y s t e m — m a n y o f t h e s l a v e s a r e b l o n d a n d blue-eyed "barbarians" f r o m t h e south. A n d that o f course takes t h e reversal o n e step further. I n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e e l e v e n stories a n d n o v e l s that m a k e u p t h e series, t h e b a c k g r o u n d tale that h o l d s t h e m all together

is that a g r e e n - e y e d b l a c k m a n c a l l e d G o r g i k is h i m s e l f

taken—uncharacteristically—as

a slave w h e n h e is s i x t e e n . O v e r t h e

c o u r s e o f the series, w h i c h covers s o m e thirty-five years, G o r g i k gains his f r e e d o m , f o m e n t s a slave revolt, f i n a l l y m a n a g e s t o b e a p p o i n t e d a m i n i s ter o f state, f r o m w h i c h p o s i t i o n , after m u c h w o r k , h e e v e n t u a l l y a b o l ishes slavery f r o m t h e l a n d . T h e p r o b l e m a d z i n g f a c t o r , h o w e v e r , i s t h a t G o r g i k i s n o t o n l y gay, b u t h e is also s e x u a l l y attracted to t h e a c c o u t r e m e n t s o f s l a v e r y — w h i p s , c h a i n s , a n d t h e i r o n slave c o l l a r s that, t r a d i t i o n a l l y , slaves i n N e v è r y ô n w e r e m a d e t o wear. H e h i m s e l f is n o t a b l o n d b a r b a r i a n — b u t

h e is

c l e a r l y racially m i x e d ; a n d h e also f i n d s t h e b a r b a r i a n s sexy. F o r a w h i l e , i n t h e first h a l f o f t h e series, h e has a b a r b a r i a n f o r a lover . . . a relationship that comes to a rather b a d e n d , bythe bye. B u t what p a r a d o x e s d o these situations create f o r G o r g i k ? D o e s his o w n d e s i r e s o m e h o w c o n t a m i n a t e h i s p o l i t i c a l p r o j e c t o f a b o l i s h i n g slavery? D o e s it i n t e n s i f y it? H o w is t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n d e s i r e a n d p o l i t i c s p e r c e i v e d b y h i s f o l lowers, b yhis a d v e r s a r i e s — a n d b y the o r d i n a r y p e o p l e i n the society w h o

II

T h e Black Leather in Color I n t e r v i e w

119

d o n ' t t h i n k o f t h e m s e l v e s as r e a l l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e q u e s t i o n ? F o r G o r g i k is v e r y m u c h " o u t " a b o u t h i s p r e f e r e n c e s . T h e stories have a lot b o t h to interest a n d to d i s t u r b b l a c k r e a d e r s , gay readers, S / M r e a d e r s — a n d , probably, white, straight readers o f

both

sexes. If y o u w a n t to w a t c h a w r i t e r t r y i n g to solve s o m e o f t h e s e p r o b ­ l e m s , s u c c e e d i n g at s o m e a n d f a i l i n g at o t h e r s , t h e n t h e s e b o o k s m i g h t interest y o u . T h i s past year, W e s l e y a n U n i v e r s i t y Press r e s c u e d t h e m f r o m m a s s - m a r k e t o b l i v i o n a n d h a s j u s t r e p r i n t e d t h e m as h a n d s o m e ,

trade

p a p e r b a c k s . S h o u l d y o u r e a l l y w a n t t o k n o w w h a t t h i s w e i r d D e l a n y g u y is a l l a b o u t , these a r e t h e b o o k s t o w r e s t l e w i t h .

BLIC: Y o u ' v e

b e e n o n r e c o r d as s a y i n g t h a t Starship Troopers' c o l o r - b l i n d

society was o n e o f the t h i n g s t h a t i n f l u e n c e d y o u to e m b r a c e s c i e n c e fic­ tion. C o n s i d e r i n g that, thirty years after M a r t i n L u t h e r K i n g , the racial s i t u a t i o n is as b a d — i f n o t w o r s e — i n t h i s c o u n t r y , d o y o u f e e l t h a t s u c h a s o c i e t y is s t i l l o b t a i n a b l e ? W h a t w o u l d w e h a v e t o d o t o o b t a i n it? SRD:

F i r s t o f a l l , t o say t h i n g s a r e j u s t as b a d o r w o r s e t h a n t h i r t y y e a r s

a g o is a b s u r d . O n l y s o m e o n e w h o w a s n ' t h e r e t h i r t y y e a r s a g o c o u l d p o s ­ s i b l y say t h a t . T h i n g s n e e d t o g e t a l o t , l o t b e t t e r , c e r t a i n l y . B u t t h e r e a r e n o r e s t a u r a n t s i n M a n h a t t a n , at least, w h i c h , i f y o u ' r e b l a c k , w i l l s t o p y o u — a s s u m i n g y o u ' r e d r e s s e d p r o p e r l y — a t t h e d o o r a n d say, " I ' m

sorry.

W e can't serve y o u h e r e . W h y d o n ' t y o u try s o m e p l a c e else?" I j u s t c a m e b a c k , a c o u p l e o f w e e k s a g o , f r o m a B l a c k A r t s F e s t i v a l i n A t l a n t a — a fes­ tival w h i c h h a d t a k e n o v e r t h e e n t i r e city. T h e w h o l e p u b l i c p a r k b e e n t u r n e d over to b l a c k a n d w h i t e v e n d o r s a n d p e o p l e

had

exhibiting

A f r i c a n fabrics, jewelry, pottery, a n d art. T h e guests at t h e m o t e l I stayed at w e r e a b o u t fifty p e r c e n t A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s . T h e r e w e r e b o t h w h i t e a n d black waitpersons in the d i n i n g r o o m . W e l l , if y o u t h i n k that's w h a t A t l a n t a was like thirty years a g o , y o u ' r e out of your m i n d ! Atlanta, N e w Y o r k City, W a s h i n g t o n , L o s A n g e l e s have all h a d b l a c k m a y o r s . T h e r e w e r e no b l a c k m a y o r s t h i r t y y e a r s a g o , m y f r i e n d ,

and

m o r e to the p o i n t if y o u s u g g e s t e d that t h e r e ever m i g h t b e , y o u ' d h a v e been laughed out of the r o o m . T h i r t y y e a r s a g o i t w a s 1 9 6 4 — a n d less t h a n t e n y e a r s b e f o r e

that

schools were desegregated by law for the first d m e ! T h e p a r a d o x today, t h o u g h , is t h a t w e a c t u a l l y s e e m to h a v e a c h i e v e d n o t H e i n l e i n ' s " c o l o r - b l i n d " w o r l d by any m e a n s , b u t s o m e t h i n g distress­ i n g l y c l o s e t o it: a w o r l d t h a t ' s c o l o r - d e a f . B y t h a t I m e a n a w o r l d w h e r e , w i t h v e r y f e w e x c e p t i o n s , s u c h as n o w a n d a g a i n i n t h e a c a d e m y a n d i n a few newscasts f o c u s i n g p a r t i c u l a r l y o n a racial i n c i d e n t , there's little o r

120

Shorter Views

n o t a l k o f r a c i a l m a t t e r s at a l l . A n d t h e r e ' s a b s o l u t e l y n o talk o f t h e class matters—of money, politics, a n d power—that underlie them. A n d — n o — u n t i l that happens, we probably won't m a k e m u c h m o r e p r o g r e s s t h a n we've m a d e . A n d that's a c r i m i n a l situation. W h a t d o we h a v e to d o to m a k e t h i n g s better? S h i f t a r o u n d a lot o f m o n e y ; d o a lot o f politicking; a n d redeploy a lot of power. B u t I d o n ' t see h o w t h a t c a n b e d o n e — a n d d o n e w i t h g o a l s — u n t i l w e s t a r t t a l k i n g a b o u t it, l o u d l y a n d a r t i c u l a t e l y ,

intelligent first.

BLIC: W h a t i n f l u e n c e d o y o u t h i n k y o u r w o r k , a n d t h e w o r k o f t h e o t h e r ' N e w Wavers,' has h a d o n m o r e recent trends i n science

fiction?

What's

y o u r o p i n i o n o f s u c h s t y l e s as c y b e r p u n k ? SRD:

T a l k i n g a b o u t y o u r i n f l u e n c e o n t h o s e w h o ' v e c o m e a f t e r y o u is

the q u i c k way to s o u n d like a p o m p o u s c l o w n . T h a t ' s f o r those who've b e e n i n f l u e n c e d to s a y — n o t m e . I e n j o y e d t h e c y b e r p u n k p h e n o m e n o n b a c k w h e n it was h a p p e n i n g — b e t w e e n 1982

a n d 1987.

T h a t , seven years later, p e o p l e are still t a l k i n g

a b o u t it, a n d t h a t i t ' s s t i l l s e e n as a n a c t i v e f o r c e i n s o m e p e o p l e ' s m i n d s , seems a little strange to m e , I c o n f e s s — l i k e p e o p l e talking a b o u t N e w E n ­ g l a n d T r a n s c e n d e n t a l i s m as if, a h u n d r e d - f o r t y y e a r s l a t e r , i t w a s s t i l l g o i n g o n . B u t I ' m v e r y p l e a s e d f o r t h e w r i t e r s i n v o l v e d b e c a u s e it k e e p s t h e m i n t h e s p o t l i g h t . I l i k e G i b s o n ' s w o r k . I ' m always g l a d w h e n a tal­ ented writer gains some serious attention. T h e d o w n s i d e is, h o w e v e r , that a lot o f p e o p l e n o w t h i n k that o n c e t h e y ' v e r e a d G i b s o n , S t i r l i n g , a n d C a d i g a n , t h e y ' v e r e a d a l l t h e r e is o f interest in the w h o l e science

fiction

field

f o r the last

fifteen

years o r so.

T h e y k n o w n o t h i n g about the exciting w o r k of K i m Stanley R o b i n s o n , o r K a r e n J o y F o w l e r , o r L u c i u s S h e p a r d , o r C o n n i e W i l l i s — n o t to m e n ­ tion Octavia Butler. B u t there are an incredible n u m b e r of

fine

writers

i n t h e S F field r i g h t t h r o u g h h e r e . It s e e m s i d i o t i c t o p e n a l i z e t h e m s i m ­ ply because they weren't involved with o n e particular fanzine that flour­ i s h e d i n T e x a s f o r a c o u p l e o f y e a r s i n t h e e a r l y e i g h t i e s — C h e a p Truth— w h i c h , w h e n a l l i s s a i d a n d d o n e , is r e a l l y a l l t h e c y b e r p u n k s h a v e i n common.

BLIC: It is p o s s i b l e t o w r i t e e f f e c t i v e

fiction

without putting

p e r s o n a l i n t o it? H o w m u c h d o e s y o u r i d e n t i t y s h a p e y o u r

something fiction

and

vice versa? SRD:

O f c o u r s e y o u can't write effective

fiction

without putting some­

t h i n g o f y o u r s e l f i n i t — b u t I ' d h a t e t o l e a v e t h i s d i s c u s s i o n w i t h t h a t as

T h e Black Leather in Color I n t e r v i e w

121

a n e n d note. Because y o u can't write d r e a d f u l , w o o d e n , lifeless fiction w i t h o u t p u t t i n g s o m e t h i n g o f yourself i n that, either. The

sad fact a b o u t

fiction

is t h a t t h e

autobiographical

element,

w h i c h , m o r e o r l e s s t r a n s f o r m e d , is a l w a y s t h e r e , h a s n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h e f f e c d v e n e s s — o r l a c k o f it. F i c t i o n e x i s t s as a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y c o m p l e x o f e x p e c t a t i o n s . T e x t s t h a t f u l f i l l a l l t h e s e e x p e c t a t i o n s r e g i s t e r as m o d e r a t e l y g o o d o r m e d i o c r e t i o n : t h e sort o n e r e a d s , m o r e o r less e n j o y s , b u t f o r g e t s W h a t s t r i k e s u s as e x t r a o r d i n a r y , e x c e l l e n t , o r s u p e r b

fiction

fic­

immediately. must fulfill

s o m e o f t h o s e e x p e c t a t i o n s a n d a t t h e s a m e t i m e v i o l a t e o t h e r s . It's a v e r y fancy dance of fulfillment

a n d violation that produces the " W o w ! " of

w o n d e r t h a t g r e e t s a t r u l y fine p i e c e o f w r i t i n g — a t r u l y w o n d e r f u l s t o r y . T h o s e e x p e c t a t i o n s have to d o w i t h e v e r y t h i n g f r o m the p r o g r e s s i o n o f i n c i d e n t s t h a t , i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e s t o r y , w i l l r e g i s t e r as p l o t , t o t h e p r o ­ g r e s s i o n o f s o u n d s i n t h e c o u r s e o f its s e n t e n c e s . A n d t h o s e e x p e c t a t i o n s c o v e r m a n y o t h e r t h i n g s at a l l l e v e l s — a n d o f t e n b e t w e e n levels. N o o n e sits d o w n a n d t e a c h e s y o u w h a t t h e s e e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e — m u c h less w h i c h o n e s y o u s h o u l d c o n f o r m

to a n d w h i c h o n e s

you

s h o u l d violate. I've n e v e r s e e n a c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g c l a s s y e t t h a t e v e n t a l k s a b o u t t h e m a t any length. You learn them f r o m reading other fiction—other truly g o o d a n d also f r o m r e a d i n g b a d

fiction;

fiction.

B e c a u s e v i o l a t i o n h a s as m u c h t o d o w i t h s u c c e s s as f u l f i l l m e n t

does,

t h e r e c a n n e v e r b e o n e story, o r e v e n a g r o u p o f stories, t h a t c a n t e a c h y o u all the e x p e c t a t i o n s at o n c e . A l s o , we l e a r n t h o s e e x p e c t a t i o n s n o t as a s e t o f r u l e s t o f o l l o w o r b r e a k — t h o u g h , a f t e r a w h i l e , s o m e w r i t e r s c a n actually list a n u m b e r o f t h e m . R a t h e r w e l e a r n t h e m i n the s a m e way w e l e a r n a l a n g u a g e w h e n w e g o to t h a t c o u n t r y — l e a r n its g r a m ­ m a r a n d s y n t a x ; l e a r n w h a t is e x p e c t e d o f a c o m p e t e n t s p e a k e r o f t h a t language. A n d j u s t to u p the ante, l a n g u a g e s c h a n g e — a n d the l a n g u a g e o f

fic­

t i o n c h a n g e s as w e l l . W h a t w a s p e r c e i v e d as a v i o l a t i o n y e s t e r d a y is a s e d i m e n t e d e x p e c t a t i o n t o d a y . W h a t w a s o n c e a n e x p e c t a t i o n is n o w t o b e h o n o r e d only in the b r e a c h — o r p e o p l e will just giggle. T h e language of

fiction

is n o t q u i t e t h e s a m e t o d a y as i t w a s e i g h t e e n o r t w e n t y y e a r s

a g o . A n d it's c e r t a i n l y n o t t h e s a m e as it w a s s i x t y o r s e v e n t y - f i v e y e a r s a g o . A n d it's a l m o s t e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m w h a t it w a s a h u n d r e d o r a h u n d r e d - f i f t y y e a r s a g o . S o w h i l e it's a l w a y s g o o d t o k n o w t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e language you're speaking, a n d w h i l e that history will often tell y o u the rea­ son why certain expectations are (or are not)

still i n p l a c e today,

the

great stories o f the past h o l d the key to w r i t i n g the great stories o f today

122

Shorter Views

n o m o r e t h a n a n o r a t i o n by C i c e r o will tell a c o n t e m p o r a r y politician the specifics o f what to m e n t i o n i n his n e x t s o u n d bite. P e r h a p s that's w h e r e y o u r " p e r s o n a l identity" c o m e s i n , if we r e m e m ­ b e r t h a t i d e n t i t y is w h a t w e s h a r e w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e — a g a i n i n t h e l a n ­ guage sense: the infinite play o f differences that m a k e u p o u r specific lives, w h o s e p a t t e r n s , w h e n t h e y b e c o m e c o m p l e x e n o u g h , start to regis­ t e r as s i m i l a r i t i e s w i t h t h e p a t t e r n s t h e p l a y o f d i f f e r e n c e a m o n g o t h e r people make. Y o u r s e n s e o f t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s is a l w a y s

filtered

t h r o u g h that play of

d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t is e a c h o f u s . B u t , i n t e r m s o f t h e t e x t o n t h e p a g e — a n d i n t h e r e a d e r ' s m i n d — t h e i r f u l f i l l m e n t (and

v i o l a t i o n ) is e v e r y t h i n g .

—New York City i 9 9 4

8 The Thomas L. L o n g Interview

At the time of this interview, Thomas L. Long was a graduate student working at the University of Virginia o n questions of AIDS and American

apocalyptic

imagery. THOMAS LONG: W h a t w o r k

does your writing

perform

i n regard to

H I V / A I D S ? W o u l d I b e o n t r a c k b y t h i n k i n g t h a t § 1 1 . 4 i n The Tale of Plagues and Carnivals

represents a summary o f your self-understanding

of all your writing?

SAMUEL R . D E L A N Y : I n g e n e r a l , w h a t I h o p e a t l e a s t p a r t o f m y w o r k p e r f o r m s — o r helps to p e r f o r m — i s a necessary d e f o r m a t i o n o f a n older, pre-AIDS discourse, which privileged sexual reticence, into a discourse that f o r e g r o u n d s d e t a i l e d s e x u a l honesty, i m a g i n a t i o n , a n d a r t i c u l a t i o n . A I D S makes such a discursive adjustment imperative. (Today, a n y t h i n g else is m u r d e r . ) B u t s u c h a d e f o r m a t i o n a l s o h a s o t h e r b e n e f i t s , i n t e r m s of the liberation o f a range o f subjects frequently m a r g i n a l i z e d u n d e r the r u b r i c o f "the p e r v e r s e . " A s a n a r t i s t I (I w a n t t o a d d , " o f c o u r s e " ) r e s i s t t h e i d e a o f m y w o r k c o n t a i n i n g a n y s u m m a r y o f itself. A s I u n d e r s t a n d it, s u c h a s u m m a r y w o u l d m a k e — o r at least take steps t o w a r d m a k i n g — t h e rest o f t h e w o r k superfluous. B u t especially I resist t h e n o t i o n o f s u m m a r y i n terms o f § 1 1 . 4 ! T h a t , y e s , i s t h e c l i m a x o f m y 1 9 8 4 n o v e l a b o u t A I D S , The Tale of Plagues and Carnivals. A s s u c h , i t ' s a p i e c e o f w r i t i n g t h a t w o u l d b e m e a n ­ ingless w i t h o u t a l l that has g o n e b e f o r e i n t h e n o v e l — a n d that c a n o n l y f i n i s h i t s r e v e r b e r a t i o n s as t h e r e a d e r r e a d s t h e s e c t i o n s t h a t c o m e a f t e r it. A l o n e , i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y f l a t a n d d e a d . B y i t s e l f , i t i s a l m o s t i n c o h e r e n t . T a k e n o u t o f c o n t e x t , r a t h e r t h a n s u m m a r i z e a n y t h i n g , it w o u l d strike m o s t r e a d e r s u n a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e r e s t o f t h e b o o k , I s u s p e c t , as l u n a t i c b a b b l e . I t ' s a p i e c e o f w r i t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y c r a f t e d t o b e without a n y o f t h e

124

Shorter Views

e x p l a n a t o r y excess that, at least t o m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g , s u c h a s u m m a r y section w o u l d d e m a n d . If I were g o i n g to c h o o s e a s u m m a r y section f r o m that novel, I w o u l d c h o o s e a n y a n d every s e c t i o n b e f o r e I w o u l d c h o o s e t h a t o n e ! P a r t i c u l a r l y , I w o u l d c h o o s e — a s a s u m m a r y — s e c t i o n §9.82 a n d t h e o t h e r sections c i r c l i n g a r o u n d t h e Master's attempt at a b i o g r a p h y o f B e l h a m . A t least t h o s e s e c t i o n s d r a m a t i z e w h a t I see as t h e p r o b l e m o f the subject-for-another-subject—and

d o so i n general s u m m a r y terms.

T h e i r constituent m i c r o d r a m a s allegorize the p r o b l e m s w e have appre­ hending any other

subject, w h e t h e r

that subject b e t h e socially ac­

c l a i m e d great m a n , t h e m o s t o r d i n a r y p e r s o n o n t h e street, o r t h e partic­ ularly m a r g i n a l i z e d a n d o p p r e s s e d : s o m e o n e w h o m society urges us at e v e r y t u r n t o s e e as o s c i l l a t i n g b e t w e e n t h e s t a t e o f " d a n g e r o u s " a n d t h e s t a t e o f " v i c t i m " — s o m e o n e w h o i s , say, H I V p o s i t i v e . T h u s they generalize the overall problems o f

fiction

w r i t i n g as I s e e

t h e m , w h e t h e r a b o u t A I D S o r a b o u t a n y t h i n g else i n v o l v i n g

human

beings. T h e faltering a n d all b u t impossible attempts o f the "author" to de­ scribe a specific m o m e n t i n t h e life o f t h e i l l " P h e r o n " i n section § 1 1 . 4 constitute a specific, n o n - s u m m a r y e x a m p l e o f the general

problems

that t h e M a s t e r h a s d e s c r i b i n g t h e life o f B e l h a m t h r o u g h o u t

section

§9.82 ( a n d h a s , e q u a l l y , t r y i n g t o find a r e c o g n i z a b l e r e f l e c t i o n o f h i s o w n life i n §9.83). I w o u l d h o p e i t ' s c l e a r t h a t §9.82 a n d §9.83 d r a m a t i z e t h e g e n e r a l c a s e w h i l e § 1 1 . 4 i s a s p e c i f i c c a s e ( a s p e c i f i c n a r r a t i v e c a s e e f f e c t i v e as i t recalls a n d evokes t h e g e n e r a l i t y , c e r t a i n l y ) — b u t not t h e o t h e r w a y a r o u n d ! T h e g e n e r a l is t h e r e s o n a n c e to t h e specific. T h i s is t h e "law" c o n t r o l ­ l i n g t h e r h e t o r i c o f P r o u s t a n d J a m e s . A n d , f o r b e t t e r o r f o r w o r s e , it c o n ­ t r o l s m y fictive r h e t o r i c as w e l l . I n d e e d , m y a p p r e h e n s i o n o f t h e t e x t — m o r e t h a n a d o z e n years after w r i t i n g i t , t r u e — i s s o f a r f r o m y o u r s , a t l e a s t i n t e r m s o f t h i s p o i n t , I sus­ pect we m a ysimply have different notions o f the meanings o f such terms as " s u m m a r y , " " u n d e r s t a n d i n g , " a n d e v e n ( o r e s p e c i a l l y )

"writing."

TL: W h a t c a n y o u t e l l m e a b o u t y o u r r o l e as b o t h w r i t e r - e d u c a t o r a n d w r i t e r - a d v o c a t e (i.e., y o u r i n c l u s i o n o f s p e c i f i c b i o m e d i c a l d i s c o u r s e o n H I V infection a n d y o u r persistent message that adequate research into vectors o f transmission have n o t b e e n undertaken)? SRD: T h e m e s s a g e i s p e r s i s t e n t — a n d , y e s , i t s t i l l is—because t h e s i t u a t i o n is p e r s i s t e n t .

T h o m a s L. L o n g Interview

125

M y g e n e r a l s e n s e is t h a t i n a n a n t i - s e x s o c i e t y s u c h as o u r s , e v e r y w h e r e w e t u r n , w h e t h e r it b e t o a g r o u p o f t h e m o s t w e l l - i n t e n t i o n e d

women

(in a d e m o n s t r a t i o n I w a t c h e d i n K n o x v i l l e , less t h a n two m o n t h s a g o ) swathing themselves a n d their partners' bodies in rubber—gloves, d e n ­ t a l d a m s , a n d c o n d o m s — s o as t o p r e v e n t l i t e r a l l y a l l c o n t a c t

between

b o d i e s i n t h e n a m e o f " s a f e s e x , " o r w h e t h e r i t is t h e a d m o n i t i o n t o t e e n ­ agers f r o m advertisement cards a l o n g the tops o f subway cars i n N e w Y o r k C i t y t h a t " a b s t i n e n c e is t h e b e s t p r o t e c t i o n , " I t h i n k p e o p l e a r e t r y ­ i n g t o u s e A I D S as a n e x c u s e t o a r m o r t h e b o d y i n s i l e n c e , i g n o r a n c e , a n d r u b b e r — e v e n as t h e y p r o c l a i m t h i s a f o r m o f e d u c a t i o n . T h i s is why, I t h i n k , s o l i t t l e w o r k h a s b e e n d o n e i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t r a n s ­ m i s s i o n v e c t o r s . A I D S is c u r r e n t l y a t its m o s t p o w e r f u l a s a

"cultural

t o o l " against sex w i t h i n the d o m i n a n t heterosexist d i s c o u r s e , to the ex­ t e n t w e a r e i n t h e g r e a t e s t i g n o r a n c e a b o u t it. T h e m o r e w e a c t u a l l y k n o w o f it, t h e l e s s w e c a n u s e i t i n s u c h a n a n t i - s e x a g e n d a as w e h a v e been. I h a v e a c t u a l l y h e a r d p e o p l e a r g u e t h a t i t ' s good t o u s e t o A I D S t o s c a r e teenage girls away f r o m b e c o m i n g u n w e d m o t h e r s ! T h i s r e p r e s e n t s s u c h a b a s i c m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e p s y c h o l o g y o f s e x as t o l e a v e o n e r e e l ­ i n g . T h e f e a r o f A I D S is n o m o r e l i k e l y t o s c a r e t e e n a g e g i r l s a w a y f r o m s e x t h a n it s c a r e d a w a y t h e f o u r - h u n d r e d - t h o u s a n d - o d d f o l k w h o h a v e , or have d i e d f r o m , the disease already!

TL:

Outside of writing, what role have y o u played in your n e i g h b o r h o o d

o r local c o m m u n i t y w i t h respect to H I V / A I D S ? SRD:

O u t s i d e o f w r i t i n g a n d writing-related activities ( l e c t u r i n g to a n d

talking with various groups, usually i n colleges a r o u n d the country),

I've

d o n e very little. I a m not a m e m b e r o f any organization.

A n d w h e n I w r o t e The Tale of Plagues and Carnivals back i n 1 9 8 4 , 1 h a d d o n e a g r e a t d e a l l e s s ! A s I say i n t h e b o o k , a t t h a t p o i n t I h a d n ' t e v e n k n o w n a n y o n e w i t h A I D S . S i n c e t h e n (as I've w r i t t e n i n s u b s e q u e n t e d i ­ tions) , A I D S has b e c o m e the largest killer a m o n g m y p e r s o n a l circle o f f r i e n d s a n d a c q u a i n t a n c e s . (I l e a r n e d o f m y f r i e n d p o e t E s s e x H e m p e l l ' s d e a t h o n l y a w e e k a g o . H e d i e d w h i l e I was t e a c h i n g o u t at M i n n e a p o l i s . ) W h a t have I d o n e ? W e l l , I've h a d a l o t o f s e x — w i t h o u t c o n d o m s . A n d I a m a l w a y s r e a d y to talk a n d discuss the s i t u a t i o n w i t h the p e o p l e I h a v e sex w i t h , espe­ cially those (very rare) f o l k w h o are m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e d o i n g t h i n g s w i t h rubber. (I'm fifty-three,

n o w , so that's d o w n to a b o u t seventy-five to a

126

Shorter Views

hundred times

times

a year. U p u n t i l 1992, this was closer to three

hundred

a year. B u t t h e n I e s t a b l i s h e d a p e r m a n e n t [ o p e n ] relationship.) I

g e t a n H I V test e v e r y y e a r . A n d I r e m a i n H I V negative. TL:

W h a t w o r k d o y o u see y o u r " B e n j a m i n e s q u e m o n t a g e " a n d " B a k h -

t i n i a n p o l y l o g u e " p e r f o r m i n g i n b o t h The Tale of Plagues and

Carnivals

a n d The Mad Man? SRD: I g o a l o n g a g o o d b i t w i t h S. L. K e r m i t ' s i n t e r n a l c r i t i q u e o f t h a t s o r t o f t h i n g , as e x p r e s s e d i n § 1 0 o f T o P a C . I t h i n k t h e o n l y t h i n g s u c h t e c h n i q u e s c a n d o ( a n d y o u have to r e m e m b e r that a " B a k h t i n i a n poly­ l o g u e " i s w h a t a n y n o v e l w o r t h t h e n a m e , a f t e r a l l , is) i s invite a c e r t a i n r i c h n e s s o f r e a d i n g . B u t t h e y c a n n o t assure s u c h a r e a d i n g . T h a t i s s o m e ­ thing that c a n only be s u p p l i e d by the radical reader. ( A n d , I m i g h t suggest, a search f o r s u m m a r y points does n o t strike m e as t h e m o s t p o w e r f u l o f r e a d i n g s t r a t e g i e s t o g e n e r a t e a r a d i c a l r e a d ­ i n g — o f m y texts, o r o f a n y o n e else's.)

TL: H o w h a v e w r i t i n g s l i k e The Tale of Plagues and Carnivals a n d The Mad Man b e e n r e c e i v e d b y n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l r e a d e r s ( i . e . , p e o p l e w h o a r e n ' t b o o k r e v i e w e r s , a c a d e m i c s , o r critics) ? A r e r e a d e r s o f p a r a l i t e r a r y texts m o r e c o m m u n i c a t i v e " f a n s " t h a n t h e r e a d e r s o f literary texts, a n d h o w w o u l d y o u characterize y o u r relation with them? I n n o t i n g that "[t]he a u d i e n c e ' s p e r f o r m a n c e is always m o r e o r less s t o c h a s t i c " ( T o P a C , 345), d o y o u m e a n c o n j e c t u r a l ( i n t h e sense o f "imaginative") o r r a n d o m o r both o r neither?

SRD: I t is t h e r a r e , r a r e p e r s o n w h o w r i t e s t o a w r i t e r w h o d o e s n ' t h a r b o r s o m e a m b i t i o n t o w r i t e h i m - o r h e r s e l f . O f t e n i t is p o l i t e l y w i t h h e l d u n t i l the t h i r d o r f o u r t h letter, b u t it is a l m o s t always t h e r e , s o m e w h e r e . T h u s , the distinction between professionals a n d / o r academics o n the o n e h a n d a n d n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l s o n t h e o t h e r is a b i t h a r d to m a k e . W h e r e does o n e p u t , f o r e x a m p l e , enthusiastic students (graduate o r under­ g r a d u a t e ) w h o a r e not c u r r e n t l y w r i t i n g a b o u t you? B u t I shall try t o d o m y best. W h e n , i n t h e s u m m e r o f 1984, m y e d i t o r f i n i s h e d r e a d i n g the T o P a C m a n u s c r i p t , h e c a l l e d m e u p t o tell m e . H i s w o r d s stayed w i t h m e . I re­ c o u n t t h e m n o w n o t to boast, b u t o n l y b e c a u s e o f w h a t was to h a p p e n later. O n t h e p h o n e , h e said: " W h e n I f i n i s h e d t h e b o o k , I was i n a daze. I g o t u p , w a l k e d o u t o f m y house, d o w n the hill, a n d — k i n d o f like a r o b o t — t u r n e d i n at m y n e i g h b o r ' s y a r d . H e was o u t t h e r e , w o r k i n g , a n d

T h o m a s L. L o n g Interview

127

h e a s k e d m e w h a t w a s t h e m a t t e r . I t o l d h i m , T t h i n k I've j u s t r e a d t h e f i n e s t b o o k I've e v e r r e a d , i n m y l i f e — a b o u t a n y t h i n g . P e r i o d . ' " Realize, w h e n h e said this, I h a d n o i l l u s i o n s a b o u t e d i t o r i a l h y p e r b o l e . It's a n e c e s s a r y f a c t o f c o m m e r c i a l p u b l i s h i n g . T h e o n l y r e a s o n , as I say, t o c i t e t h i s a t a l l i s n o t t o a p p e a l t o a n y o b j e c t i v e j u d g m e n t o n t h e n o v e l , b u t o n l y t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e r e p r o b a b l y w a s a t l e a s t some e n t h u siasm, i f o n l y o n a n e m o t i o n a l level, o n that e d i t o r ' s p a r t — u n l e s s h e was s i m p l y a n u n c o n s c i o n a b l e liar. H e also s a i d (to b e f a i r ) : " A n d I h a v e n ' t the vaguest i d e a h o w to m a r k e t it." Right from Nevèryôn a p p e a r e d i n t h e e a r l y m o n t h s o f 1 9 8 5 . I t r e c e i v e d o n l y t w o r e v i e w s : t h e o b l i g a t o r y p a r a g r a p h i n Publishers Weekly ( w h i c h d e v o t e s o n e t o e v e r y p r o f e s s i o n a l l y p u b l i s h e d t r a d e b o o k as i t a p p e a r s ) a n d a n o t h e r e q u a l l y b r i e f m e n t i o n ( b y M a r t a R a n d a l l ) i n t h e San Francisco Chronicle ( i n w h i c h — A h e m — s h e c a l l e d i t a " m a s t e r p i e c e " ) . T h e b o o k w e n t t h r o u g h t w o p a p e r b a c k p r i n t i n g s — t h e first, seventyfive t h o u s a n d c o p i e s , t h e s e c o n d f i f t e e n t h o u s a n d c o p i e s , p u t t i n g e i g h t y five t h o u s a n d p a p e r b a c k c o p i e s i n p r i n t . F o r a b o o k p r i n t e d i n s u c h n u m b e r s , this is a n u n u s u a l l y s m a l l n u m b e r o f reviews. A n ordinary paperback original with only a twenty-five-thousand-copy p r i n t r u n , c a n usually c o u n t o n a n y w h e r e b e t w e e n eight a n d a d o z e n re-

v i e w s . I n m y files Tales of Nevèryôn, Neveryâna, a n d The Bridge of Lost Desire (Return to Nevèryôn), h a v e u p w a r d s o f t w o dozen r e v i e w s a p i e c e ! V o l u m e s I, I I , a n d I V — t h a t i s t o say, t h e t w o v o l u m e s p r e c e e d i n g i t a n d t h e v o l u m e f o l l o w i n g i t — w e r e a l l r e v i e w e d f a v o r a b l y i n t h e New York

Times Book Review. B u t a y e a r a f t e r Flight from Nevèryôn a p p e a r e d , I h a p p e n e d to r u n into thereviewer (Gerald Jonas) w h o h a d b e e n so genero u s t o t h e first t w o a n d t h e l a s t o f t h e s e r i e s . H e w a s u n a w a r e t h a t t h e third volume even existed! The

novel d i d elicit o n e hate letter f r o m a C a n a d i a n reader. I n sub-

s t a n c e , as I r e m e m b e r , i t b o i l e d d o w n t o , " Y o u t h i n k y o u ' r e s o s m a r t p u l l i n g all t h e s e l i t e r a r y t r i c k s ! W e l l , / t h i n k it's

boring." T h i s w a s b l u r t e d

with

a spattering o f four-letter words over three pages handwritten i n r e d ballpoint. N e i t h e r A I D S n o r sexuality was m e n t i o n e d . I c a n o n l y assume t h e writer was fairly y o u n g , a n d m a y n o t h a v e g o t t e n v e r y far i n t o the b o o k . N o b o o k I ' v e e v e r p u b l i s h e d h a s r e c e i v e d l e s s a t t e n t i o n t h a n Flight from Nevèryôn. W h e t h e r i t w a s b y t h e p u b l i s h e r s ' a c c i d e n t o r b y d e s i g n , I have n o way o f k n o w i n g . E v e n at eighty-five t h o u s a n d , t h e sales o f t h e t h i r d v o l u m e w e r e l e s s t h a n h a l f t h e s a l e s o n e i t h e r o f t h e first t w o Nevèryôn b o o k s . B u t e v e n i f i t w a s a n a c c i d e n t t h a t t h e b o o k w a s n o t s e n t to t h e u s u a l r e v i e w e r s , i t ' s a n a c c i d e n t t h a t f a l l s i n t o a s y s t e m , t h a t f u n c t i o n s as p a r t o f a r e p r e s s i v e d i s c o u r s e .

128

Shorter Views

W h i l e , f r o m t i m e t o t i m e , p e o p l e have w r i t t e n t o tell m e that they disl i k e d o n e b o o k o f m i n e o r a n o t h e r (has it h a p p e n e d a d o z e n times i n w h a t n o w m u s t t o t a l s o m e t h r e e o r f o u r h u n d r e d f a n l e t t e r s I've r e c e i v e d o v e r thirty-five years?), the letter f r o m C a n a d a was certainly the m o s t viol e n t , i f n o t e n e r g e t i c , i n its n e g a t i v e e x p r e s s i o n . T o c o m p l e t e t h e story, w h e n I t u r n e d i n t h e m a n u s c r i p t o f the f o u r t h v o l u m e , Return to Nevèryôn, t h r e e d a y s l a t e r I r e c e i v e d a b r i e f n o t e

from

t h e s a m e e d i t o r w h o ' d c l a i m e d t o h a v e b e e n so t a k e n w i t h v o l u m e three. The

n o t e said h e was r e t u r n i n g the m a n u s c r i p t , u n r e a d . B a n t a m B o o k s

was n o l o n g e r i n t e r e s t e d i n p u r s u i n g t h e s e r i e s ; p e r f u n c t o r i l y h e w i s h e d m e g o o d luck with the b o o k elsewhere. T h e f o u r t h v o l u m e w a s b r o u g h t o u t b y A r b o r H o u s e , its n a m e c h a n g e d

f r o m Return to Nevèryôn t o The Bridge of Lost Desire: E d i t o r i a l r e s e a r c h e s disc o v e r e d that, now, i n t h e m i n d s o f b o o k distributors a n d b o o k buyers across the c o u n t r y , the series was p e r c e i v e d t o b e c o n t a m i n a t e d , i n f e c t e d , s i c k i n s o m e s t r a n g e a n d d a n g e r o u s way, s o t h a t i t s e e m e d a d v i s a b l e t o d i s s o c i a t e i t from t h e s e r i e s ( o f w h i c h i t w a s t h e c o n c l u d i n g v o l u m e ) ! S i n c e its h a r d c o v e r a p p e a r a n c e i n s p r i n g 1 9 9 4 , The Mad Man has, h a d a m u c h m o r e o r d i n a r y history o f reviews. I've revised the b o o k substantially, h o w e v e r , i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r a m a s s - m a r k e t p a p e r b a c k e d i t i o n . T h i s w e e k , actually, that m a s s - m a r k e t e d i t i o n a p p e a r s . T h e r e are still a few m i s t a k e s — a n d , yes, e v e n s o m e m i n o r a d d i t i o n s t o b e m a d e (I've

pre-

p a r e d e r r a t a sheets) — b u t basically I ' m v e r y h a p p y w i t h it. The

Mad Man r e v i e w s , as y o u h a v e s e e n , a r e o v e r w h e l m i n g l y p o s i t i v e .

I f I d o say s o , t h e i n t e l l i g e n c e b e h i n d t h e R e e d W o o d h o u s e p i e c e ( " L e a v i n g N o B u t t o n U n p u s h e d " ) a n d the Ray Davis overview ("Delany's Dirt") a r e a t a l e v e l a n y w r i t e r m u s t b e g r a t e f u l f o r . Lambda w a f f l e s . B u t t h e o n l y truly dissenting voice was C a n d a c e J a n e Dorsey's " O n B e i n g O n e ' s O w n Pomographer. " The

o t h e r r e s p o n s e s t o the b o o k I've g o t t e n are s o m e six f a n letters,

a l l r e c e i v e d i n t h e f i r s t m o n t h a f t e r The Mad Man a p p e a r e d . A l l w e r e praiseful. F o u r are, i n d e e d , f r o m other academics at other universities t h a n m i n e — t h u s t h e y m a y f a l l o u t s i d e y o u r p u r v i e w . S t i l l a n o t h e r is f r o m a gentleman w h o wrote to make m e an honorary m e m b e r o f "The Soiled S o l e Society," a g r o u p o f twenty-five m e n a n d w o m e n w h o f i n d dirty feet sexually attractive. A n o t h e r i n v i t e d m e t o a sex party, s o m e w h e r e o n the other side o f the country i n the O r e g o n woods. I s u s p e c t , T o m , t h a t p e o p l e w h o d o n o t e n j o y s u c h w o r k s as t h e s e s i m ply d o n ' t get far e n o u g h into t h e m to m a k e w r i t i n g the a u t h o r a reasonable possibility. Y o u ask w h a t I m e a n t b y " s t o c h a s t i c " o n p a g e 345. T h e w o r d , y o u ' l l

T h o m a s L . L o n g Interview

129

recall, is part o f a t w o - p r o n g e d r h e t o r i c a l attack a n d recovery, t h e first part o f w h i c h is at the b e g i n n i n g o f that s a m e s e c t i o n : " T h e artist's p e r ­ f o r m a n c e is always m o r e o r less a l e a t o r y . . . . T h e a u d i e n c e ' s p e r f o r ­ m a n c e is always m o r e o r less s t o c h a s t i c . " I w o u l d a c c e p t as a p a r a p h r a s e : ' T h e artist's p e r f o r m a n c e is always m o r e o r less a s c a t t e r - s h o t affair . . . t h e a u d i e n c e ' s p e r f o r m a n c e is always m o r e o r less g u e s s w o r k . "

TL: I n b o t h The Tale of Plagues and Carnivals a n d The Mad Man, c h a r a c ­ ters h a v e e n c o u n t e r s w i t h a m o n s t r o u s b e a s t , t h o u g h i n b o t h cases t h e m a n i f e s t a t i o n is s u f f i c i e n t l y h a l l u c i n a t o r y o r d r e a m l i k e as t o s e e m i m a ­ g i n e d , n o t r e a l . I n b o t h cases this m a n i f e s t a t i o n is also n o t a b s o l u t e l y central to the narrative a n d seems t o g o against the g r a i n o f o t h e r realis­ tic f e a t u r e s o f t h e n a r r a t i v e . W h e r e i n y o u r o w n i m a g i n a t i o n d o e s this beast c o m e f r o m ? A r e these beasts s y m b o l s o r d o y o u u n d e r s t a n d

them

t o b e p e r f o r m i n g o t h e r f u n c t i o n s as w e l l ?

SRD: Y o u m i g h t f i n d i t i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t , u n t i l y o u p o i n t e d i t o u t , I w a s u n a w a r e o f t h e b e a s t s as s h a r e d e l e m e n t s b e t w e e n t h e b o o k s ! T h e k e y t o s u c h a r e v e l a t i o n is, I t h i n k , F r e u d ' s d i c t u m : " R e p e t i t i o n is desire." B o t h beasts are j u s t t h a t — f i g u r e s o f ( a n d e v e n for) desire. ( M y n o v e l Equinox c o n t a i n s a s i m i l a r e n c o u n t e r w i t h a n h a l l u c i n o ­ g e n i c beast.

Hmmm...)

N o w that y o u have m a d e t h e p o i n t , i m m e d i a t e l y I c a n see o t h e r fea­ tures they share. B o t h a r e c o l l a g e m o n s t e r s , f o r m e d o f f r a g m e n t s a n d d i s p a r a t e traits, h e l d t o g e t h e r o n l y b y t h e d e s i r e o f a r e a d e r t o m a k e t h e m i n t o a w h o l e , t o f o r m t h e m i n t o a c o h e r e n t e n t i t y . I n The Tale of Plagues and Carnivals i t i s , o f c o u r s e , t h e e v i l m o n s t e r o f d e s i r e w h o i s f i g ­ u r e d i n t h e t e x t . I n The Mad Man, t h e m o n s t e r ' s f u n c t i o n i s m o r e c o m ­ p l e x : I a s s o c i a t e h i m b o t h w i t h L e a k y and w i t h M a d M a n M i k e — a s w e l l as w i t h the d e a t h o f M i k e B e l l a g i o , w h i c h d e a t h , i n effect, b r i n g s t h e m o n ­ s t e r i n t o b e i n g f o r M a r r as s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e q u e s t i o n o f H a s l e r ' s own death. I n h i s 1 9 9 2 b o o k Donner la mort, D e r r i d a s u g g e s t s t h a t a r e l i g i o n c o m e s into b e i n g w h e n t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f responsibility extracts itself f r o m s o m e interplay o f t h e a n i m a l , t h e h u m a n , a n d t h e divine. ( T h a t is t o say, t h e w i n g s o f t h e a n g e l s a n d t h e h o r n s , h o o v e s , a n d t a i l o f t h e d e v i l m a y j u s t h a v e a g o o d d e a l m o r e t o d o w i t h m a r k i n g C h r i s t i a n i t y as a r e l i g ­ ion than d o the w o u n d s o f Christ.) W i t h o u t the extraction o r the divine, however, w h a t is p r o d u c e d is t h e m o n s t r o u s . T h e m o n s t r o u s thus m a y just be a presupposition f o r the religious.

130

Shorter Views

P a r t o f the p r o b l e m w i t h s u c h s y m b o l s , however, is that the a u t h o r c a n usually n e g o t i a t e t h e m o n l y w i t h i n a specific text. That's certainly true f o r me. TL:

W h a t m o r e c a n y o u tell m e a b o u t t h e c o n n e c t i o n between t h e

e r o t i c a n d the m y s t i c a l i n b o t h stories? SRD: A l a s , n o t h i n g . I ' v e a l w a y s f e l t t h a t a n y " m y s t i c a l " e x p e r i e n c e f a l l s s o m e w h e r e between a logical a n d a psychological b r e a k d o w n . T h a t goes f o r t h e o n e t h e l e t t e r t o S a l l y M o s s m a n d e s c r i b e s i n The Mad Man. T h a t s e v e n t y - p a g e l e t t e r i s , as a m a t t e r o f f a c t , a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h r e e a c t u a l letters I wrote i n the early eighties, two to w o m e n a n d o n e to a m a n , t h e t h r e e o f t h e m c o b b l e d t o g e t h e r i n t o a s i n g l e , fictive d o c u m e n t . Save a few d r e a m m o m e n t s , the o n e r e c o u n t e d t h e r e is the o n l y mysti­ cal e x p e r i e n c e I've ever h a d . A n d , after a l l , w h a t b r o u g h t it o n was think­ i n g n o n s t o p f o r t w o o r three h o u r s a b o u t matters o f m y o w n life a n d death. Mystical experiences are certainly rare, different, a n d interesting. B u t I d o n ' t t h i n k t h e y a r e p r i v i l e g e d , as i t w e r e , o v e r a n y o t h e r sort. I n f a c t I t h i n k i t ' s b e s t t o i n t e r r o g a t e t h e m e v e n more c a r e f u l l y t h a n m o s t . Certainly I don't believe they o c c u r outside theconstraints o f discourse, say, h o w e v e r d i f f i c u l t i t m i g h t b e t o a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r c o n t e n t . A s I s a i d , I a m m u c h m o r e likely to rack t h e m u p to (psycho) logical breakdown t h a n I a m to a s s u m e they i m p l y any sort o f access to a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l re­ a l i t y — t h o u g h , c e r t a i n l y , w h e n y o u have o n e , y o u c a n u n d e r s t a n d w h y people m i g h t assume t h e m to b e such.

TL:

A p o c a l y p s e i s a n e x p l i c i t t h e m e i n The Mad Man, w h e r e T i m H a s l e r

h a s s c r a w l e d "ekpyrosis" i n s h i t b e f o r e h i s d e a t h , a f t e r w h i c h M a d M a n M i k e defiles the apartment. T h e G r e e k root o f the term "apocalypse" m e a n s l i t e r a l l y r e v e l a t i o n o r u n v e i l i n g . D o y o u see a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n these two senses? SRD: A t t h e l e v e l o f p l o t , w h a t I ' d i n t e n d e d t h e r e a d e r t o a s s u m e i s t h a t m o s t o f t h e d e f i l e m e n t w a s d o n e before T i m a n d M i k e l e f t T i m ' s a p a r t ­ ment—likely

i n a scene, possibly even involving several o f M i k e ' s

f r i e n d s , s i m i l a r t o t h e " t u r n - o u t " t h a t fills u p t h e s e c o n d h a l f o f p a r t I V a n d t h e first h a l f o f p a r t V . A n d , y e s , i t ' s b e f o r e t h e y l e a v e t h a t "ekpyrosis" is d a u b e d o n t h e m i r r o r a n d t h e w i n d o w . O n c e , d o w n a t T h e P i t , T i m h a s b e e n k i l l e d a n d M i k e h a s b e e n w o u n d e d , M i k e returns t o t h e a p a r t ­ m e n t t o w r e c k it. T h u s t h e d e s t r u c t i o n — o f f u r n i t u r e , b o o k s , a n d t h e like—is overlaid o n t o p o f thedefilement. Defilement and destruction surround

t h e m u r d e r o f H a s l e r — a s they d o its replay, t h e m u r d e r o f

T h o m a s L. L o n g Interview J o e y . It's i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e a l l e g o r y t h a t t h e m u r d e r n e i t h e r

131

climaxes

( n o r initiates) b o t h d e f i l e m e n t a n d d e s t r u c t i o n . (But a l l this m a y b e m u c h c l e a r e r i n t h e revised p a p e r b a c k version.) T h e r e ' s a h i s t o r y , o f c o u r s e , o f a p o c a l y p t i c i m a g e r y u s e d n o t o n l y as a s y m b o l o f t h e e n d o f t h i n g s b u t also as a s y m b o l f o r t h e b e g i n n i n g o f things.

( G e n e s i s , a n d t h e B i g B a n g b o t h , begin w i t h a p o c a l y p t i c m o ­

ments.) O n e o f the m o s t f a m o u s s u c h users, o f c o u r s e ( a b o u t w h i c h I've w r i t t e n , i n m y m o n o g r a p h Wagner/Artaud e n d s W a g n e r ' s Gotterdâmmerung—the

[ 1 9 8 8 ] ), i s t h e a p o c a l y p s e t h a t

e n d i n g o f the R i n g . T h a t tripartite

apocalypse ( i n o n e cataclysmic event, t h e fall o f t h e G i b i c h u n g castle, the b u r n i n g o f V a l h a l l a , a n d t h e f l o o d i n g o f t h e R h i n e ) is at o n c e t h e end of d i v i n e , c y c l i c , m y t h i c a l t i m e a n d t h e beginningoi

h u m a n , develop­

mental, historical time. (This d o u b l e r e a d i n g o f apocalypse I trace b a c k to W a g n e r ' s associa­ tion

w i t h B a k u n i n , as a n a c c o u n t o f t h e f r i e n d s h i p b e g i n s , b e f o r e t h e

D r e s d e n U p r i s i n g , i n W a g n e r ' s Mein Leben.) C e r t a i n l y i n The Mad Man, I w a n t e d t h e a p o c a l y p t i c i m a g e r y t o f u n c ­ t i o n i n b o t h ways. B u t , a g a i n , t h a t is m u c h c l e a r e r i n t h e r e v i s e d p a p e r ­ back v e r s i o n — w h i c h spends m o r e time portraying J o h n a n d Leaky's life t o g e t h e r after J o e y ' s d e a t h — t h a n i n t h e e a r l i e r h a r d c o v e r v e r s i o n . TL:

I a m c o n v i n c e d that a p o c a l y p t i c d i s c o u r s e is A m e r i c a ' s c h i e f struc­

ture f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g social identity, w h i c h it does b ym e a n s o f b i n a r y o p ­ positions ( U s / O t h e r ) , usually predicated o n sexual anxieties, particu­ larly i n terms o f physical d e f i l e m e n t . B o t h o f y o u r narratives

explicitly

s e e m t o resist a n d d i s m a n t l e s u c h b i n a r i s m s a n d so are i n these r e s p e c t s a n t i - a p o c a l y p t i c . Is t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n a c c u r a t e i n y o u r v i e w a n d h o w m i g h t y o u qualify it f o r m e ? SRD: B a s i c a l l y I t h i n k y o u ' r e o n t h e r i g h t t r a c k . B u t I t h i n k t h a t t h e a p o c a l y p t i c d i s c o u r s e y o u h a v e l o c a t e d is p a r t o f a l a r g e r d i s c u r s i v e p h e ­ nomenon—what

D o n n a H a r a w a y c a l l s "Salvationist r h e t o r i c " o f w h i c h

a p o c a l y p t i c i m a g e r y is a n i n t e g r a l p a r t . A n t h r o p o l o g i s t M a r y D o u g l a s ' s w o r k o n d i r t a n d d e f i l e m e n t is also relevant h e r e — t h o u g h , I a m trying to answer these questions quickly. I have forty cartons o f u n p a c k e d b o o k s currently i n a storage r o o m , c o n ­ taining m o r e than half m ylibrary—including the Douglas. So I'm afraid I can't give y o u the exact citation. E t y m o l o g i c a l l y , a n a p o c a l y p s e is a " d i s - c o v e r y " o r a n " u n - v e i l i n g . " B y t r a d i t i o n , w h a t is u n c o v e r e d o r u n v e i l e d i n a n a p o c a l y p s e ( t h a n k s t o t h e R e v e l a t i o n o f St. J o h n ) w i l l i n i t i a l l y a p p e a r m o r e c o n f u s i n g t h a n n o t , a n d w i l l b e seen to n e e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . O f t e n , i n w h a t is d i s c o v e r e d , t h e

132

Shorter Views

n e w s w i l l n o t b e g o o d . I n t h a t s e n s e a n a p o c a l y p s e is s o m e t h i n g o f a n e x ­ posé. T o the extent I a m w r i t i n g i n detail a b o u t p e o p l e a n d practices that are

77ft? Mad ( i f n o t The Tale of Plagues and Carnivals) a p o c a l y p t i c . B u t , y e s , i n

not usually portrayed in fiction, I suppose y o u c o u l d call

Man

g e n e r a l , I t r y h a r d t o r e s i s t t h e Salvationist r h e t o r i c t h a t a w a i t s t o f o r c e s u c h m a t e r i a l i n t o its w e l l - w o r n g r o o v e s . T h a t m e a n s r e s i s t i n g t r a d i t i o n a l apocalyptic imagery—in search, perhaps, of a m o r e rigorous a n d pro­ ductive sense o f the apocalyptic. In the sense that the b o o k s are anti-salvationist, they are also antitraditional) apocalyptic. C e r t a i n l y d i s m a n t l i n g U s / T h e m o p p o s i t i o n s is o n e w a y t o r e s i s t Salva­ tionist rhetoric. D e f i l e m e n t is a c u l t u r a l

TL:

( a n d therefore, relative)

category.

(My

m o t h e r , f o r e x a m p l e , o n c e t o l d m e that she t h o u g h t F r e n c h kissing was disgusting. I d i d n ' t ask h e r w h a t she t h o u g h t o f s u c k i n g cock, getting f u c k e d , o r r i m m i n g . ) I n The Mad

Man

p a r t i c u l a r l y y o u s e e m to b e carv­

i n g o u t a d i s c u r s i v e s p a c e or s t r e t c h i n g o u r b o u n d a r i e s b y g r a p h i c d e ­ s c r i p t i o n s o f w h a t is p o s s i b l e o r w h a t c a n b e i m a g i n e d , a " p o r n o t o p i c fantasy" w h i c h y o u (disingenuously) declare "never h a p p e n e d a n d c o u l d n o t h a p p e n . " H I V / A I D S p u b l i c d i s c o u r s e has f o u n d d e f i l e m e n t issues difficult to talk a b o u t (e.g., " C u m , spit, piss, shit, etc." b e c o m e " b o d i l y f l u i d s " ) . T h e r e l i g i o u s r i g h t is f a s c i n a t e d / h o r r i f i e d b y i m a g e s o f h o m o ­ s e x u a l d e f i l e m e n t . ( I ' m h a v i n g a h a r d time d e f i n i n g a s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n h e r e . ) I'd l i k e to k n o w y o u r o b s e r v a t i o n s , e x p e r i e n c e s o f d e f i l e m e n t a n d

its r e l a t i o n s h i p t o b l i s s , t h e s a c r e d ( t h e mysterium tremendum et fascinans, terrifying a n d fascinating), identity, sense o f self a n d other . . . W h a t m o r e c a n y o u tell m e a b o u t " p o r n o t o p i a " ?

SRD:

T h a t ' s a l o t o f q u e s t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y to c o m e so late i n t h e g a m e . A s

f a r as m y o w n e x p e r i e n c e s , s u f f i c e i t t o say t h a t , w i t h o u t r e p r o d u c i n g a n y o f t h e m p h o t o g r a p h i c a l l y ( t h e c l o s e s t I c o m e t o t h a t is t h e " S l e e p w a l k e r s " l e t t e r ) , The

Mad

Man

covers a great e n o u g h r a n g e o f t h e m so that a

r e a d e r w h o b e a r s i n m i n d t h a t i t is w r i t t e n b y a f i f t y - a n d f i f t y - o n e - y e a r - o l d m a n a b o u t a twenty- to thirty-five-year-old m a n , a n d thence allows for the necessary novelistic exaggeration a n d f o r e g r o u n d i n g , w o u l d

probably

n o t b e t o o f a r o f f i n m o s t o f h i s or h e r a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t m y o w n s e x l i f e . I d o n o t h a v e v e r y m u c h t o say a b o u t b l i s s . I a m m u c h m o r e c o m f o r t ­ a b l e t a l k i n g a b o u t p l e a s u r e . (I q u o t e J o h n M a r r : " W i t h o u t b e i n g b l o w n a w a y b y it, I l i k e d it. A n d w a n t e d t o d o i t s o m e m o r e . " T h a t ' s b e e n m y r e ­ a c t i o n to m o s t o f t h e s e x i n m y l i f e , o n e w a y o r a n o t h e r . ) B l i s s t e n d s to f u n c t i o n ( f o r m o s t o f u s ? ) as a p o i n t e f f e c t , a n d a p o i n t w e p e r c e i v e /

T h o m a s L. L o n g Interview

133

a p p r o a c h asymptotically, rather than e n c o u n t e r directly. T h o u g h I agree with what I take to b e t h e p o l e m i c a l thrust o f Barthes's discussion o f jouissance i n m a t t e r s l i t e r a r y , I s u s p e c t h i s p o i n t

finally

is p o l e m i c a l a n d

o n l y signifies as a c o u n t e r t o t h o s e w h o w o u l d a r g u e t h a t r e a d i n g is a p u r e l y A p o l l o n i a n activity, w i t h n o D i o n y s i a n s i d e at a l l . A s f a r as i t s r e l a t i o n t o t h e m y s t i c a l , a g a i n , w h i l e t h e m y s t i c a l m a y ( o r m a y not) b e a p a r t o f o n e ' s p e r s o n a l l i b e r a t i o n i n t o w h a t e v e r o n e gets p l e a s u r e o u t o f d o i n g ( w i t h b l i s s s e e n as t h e u l t i m a t e p o i n t o f p l e a s u r e ) , I d o n ' t t h i n k i t i s i n a n y w a y a necessary p a r t . T o u s e a m o r e D e r r i d i a n f o r ­ m u l a t i o n , t h e m y s t i c a l is a s t r u c t u r a l possibility o f a n y aspect o f h u m a n e x p e r i e n c e — t h u s it can never b e d i s c o u n t e d , b a r r e d , o r e x p e l l e d f r o m the M a t e r i a l City. B u t p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e it is (potentially)

inherent in

e v e r y t h i n g , that's w h a t m a k e s it so u n i n t e r e s t i n g — a t least t o m e . It d o e s n o t w o r k i n a n y strong m a n n e r t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e . A n d d i f f e r e n c e f o r m e i s still the s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n , o f interest, or, i n d e e d , o f p l e a s u r e . " P o r n o t o p i a " is n o t t h e " g o o d s e x u a l p l a c e . " ( T h a t w o u l d b e " U p o r n o topia" or "Eupornotopia.")

It's s i m p l y

the " s e x u a l p l a c e " — t h e

place

where all can b e c o m e (apocalyptically) sexual. " P o r n o t o p i a " is t h e p l a c e w h e r e p o r n o g r a p h y o c c u r s — a n d that, I ' m a f r a i d , i s t h e w o r l d o f The Mad Man. I t ' s t h e p l a c e w h e r e a n y r e l a t i o n s h i p can b e c o m e sexualized i n a m o m e n t , with t h e p r o p e r w o r d o r l o o k w h e r e every r e l a t i o n s h i p is p o t e n t i a l l y s e x u a l i z e d e v e n b e f o r e i t starts. I n The Mad Man I t r y t o n e g o t i a t e p o r n o t o p i a m o r e r e a l i s t i c a l l y t h a n m o s t

— i n m u c h t h e s a m e w a y t h a t A la recherche du temps perdu a n d Ulysses n e g o ­ tiate t h e u n i v e r s e o f c o m e d y . B u t , t h o u g h o u r lives a r e p a c k e d w i t h t h e c o m e d i c , m o s t o f w h i c h w e i g n o r e d a y to day, t h e u n i v e r s e o f c o m e d y is still n o t t h e d a y - t o - d a y w o r l d w e i n h a b i t — n o r is i t t h e s a m e as w h a t is called "realism." T h e c o m e d i c universe has m a n y c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s t o the w o r l d we live in—just

as p o r n o t o p i a h a s m a n y s u c h c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s . B u t t h e t w o

w o r l d s a r e s t i l l n o t t h e s a m e a s t h e w o r l d o f r e a l i s m . T h e y feel d i f f e r e n t . T h e y a r e s i g n e d b y d i s c r e t e r h e t o r i c a l m a r k e r s . Ulysses a n d À la recherche a r e s e r i o u s c o m e d i e s . A s s u c h , t h e y are o f t e n c o n f u s a b l e w i t h r e a l i s m . B u t i t is a c o n f u s i o n , n e v e r t h e l e s s . A c r i t i c w h o completely m i s s e s t h e c o m e d i c a s p e c t s o f A la recherche a n d Ulysses w o u l d p r o b a b l y b e t a k e n t o b e m i s r e a d i n g t h e t e x t s — a t l e a s t b y most knowledgeable readers. The Mad Man i s a s e r i o u s w o r k o f p o r n o g r a p h y . I s u p p o s e I o u g h t t o be flattered by some readers' c o n f u s i n g it with realism. But,

finally,

i t is a

p o r n o g r a p h i c w o r k . Its v e n u e i s p o r n o t o p i a , n o t a r e a l i s t i c p o r t r a y a l o f l i f e o n N e w Y o r k ' s U p p e r W e s t S i d e , f o r a l l I h a v e u s e d t h a t as t h e b a s i s f o r w h a t I w r o t e . T h o s e w h o say it is n o t a p o r n o g r a p h i c w o r k ( a n d t h a t I a m

134

Shorter Views

b e i n g d i s i n g e n u o u s b y saying that it is) are, h o w e v e r

well-intentioned,

just wrong. TL:

I n a d d i t i o n to " p o r n o t o p i a s " b o t h narratives suggest a W h i t m a n i a n

i d e a o f a f f e c t i o n b e t w e e n m e n t h a t crosses class l i n e s . H o w w o u l d y o u c h a r a c t e r i z e y o u r o w n u t o p i e s ? D o y o u b e l i e v e that r e v o l u t i o n is pos­ sible o r only resistance (Sara S c h u l m a n ' s position i n " W h y I ' m N o t a Revolutionary") ? SRD: A g a i n , q u e s t i o n s l i k e r e v o l u t i o n o r r e s i s t a n c e s t r i k e m e as s e m a n ­ t i c h a g g l i n g — p o s s i b l y o f a n e c e s s a r y o r d e r . (I d o n ' t k n o w M s . S c h u l ­ m a n ' s essay.) A r é s i s t e r b e c o m e s a r e v o l u t i o n a r y w h e n t h e p e r c e i v e d d a n ­ g e r t o h e r o r t o those she loves is great e n o u g h f o r h e r to g o get a g u n . V e r y p o s s i b l y i t is a l s o a w a y o f a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t t h e r e are m a n y s i t u a ­ t i o n s o u t t h e r e w h e r e p e o p l e h a v e t o a n d are f i g h t i n g f o r t h e i r l i v e s . I n a t h e o r y class o f m i n e last year, a tall, s o f t - s p o k e n y o u n g w o m a n f r o m I r a n t o o k a f i r m o b j e c t i o n to the n o t i o n that e v e r y t h i n g was politi­ cal. S o m e things, she m a i n t a i n e d , were just private discussion, with n o political aspect at all. W e asked her for an example. T h i s is w h a t s h e c a m e b a c k w i t h . " W h e n m y f r i e n d a n d I u s e d to sit a r o u n d i n o u r r o o m a n d a r g u e f o r h o u r s a b o u t w h o was g o i n g to b e e l e c t e d , o r w h a t the o u t c o m e o f s o m e n e w g o v e r n m e n t p o l i c y was g o i n g to b e , that seems t o m e p u r e l y private s p e c u l a t i o n . W h e n , later the same w e e k , I was c r o s s i n g t h e street w i t h m y f r i e n d a n d she was shot d e a d b e s i d e m e b y a s n i p e r o n t h e r o o f across t h e street, a n d I h a d t o r u n a n d t a k e c o v e r i n a d o o r w a y s o / w o u l d n ' t b e s h o t , thatwas p o l i t i c a l ! " G i v e n the s h o c k all o f us i n that r o o m u n d e r w e n t at the apocalypse o f h e r e x p e r i e n c e i n h e r h o m e l a n d , i f y o u w a n t e d t o start d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n w h o was resisting a n d w h o was a revolutionary, I t h i n k all o f us w o u l d have said: Sure. G o ahead. B u t I a l s o p o i n t o u t , t h e y o u n g w o m a n w a s j u s t as s t a r t l e d as w e h a d b e e n w h e n s o m e o n e p o i n t e d o u t that a s o c i a l structure o f laws, behavior, a n d c u s t o m s t h a t prevents p e o p l e f r o m b e i n g s h o t i n t h e s t r e e t w a s also p o l i t i c a l . T o the y o u n g I r a n i a n w o m a n , all politics was evil. A n y t h i n g that was n o t evil was private. T h e n o t i o n that politics c o u l d b e g o o d , a n d c o u l d b e u s e d t o p r e s e r v e a s p a c e o f f r e e d o m a n d c h o i c e w a s as a s t o n i s h ­ i n g ( a n d , f i n a l l y , a s l i b e r a t i n g ) a n o t i o n t o t h i s y o u n g w o m a n as t h e n e ­ cessity f o r g r e a t e r d i s t i n c t i o n a m o n g levels o f resistant p o l i t i c a l involve­ m e n t h a d b e e n to us, w h e n we c o n t e m p l a t e d her experience o f crossing t h e street a n d l o s i n g a f r i e n d t o a b u l l e t i n h e r n a t i v e city. A s gays, i n t h e U . S . w e d o n o t y e t — m o s t o f u s — l i v e i n s u c h a city.

T h o m a s L. L o n g Interview

135

B u t others d o : T h r e e years a g o , at a c o n f e r e n c e o n p o s t c o l o n i a l i t y at Yale U n i v e r s i t y , I d e l i v e r e d a p a p e r " A B e n d i n t h e R o a d " ( s u b s e q u e n d y p u b l i s h e d i n The Yale Journal

of Criticism, S p r i n g 1 9 9 4 , V o l u m e 7, N u m ­

ber 1). M y paper h i n g e d o n accounts o f two conversations with two m e n , a y o u n g G r e e k student a n d a K e n y a n carpenter, b o t h o f w h o m I'd met, years apart, w h i l e c r u i s i n g . O n e o f t h e o t h e r participants was E g y p ­ tian

novelist a n d psychiatrist N a w a l E l Saadawi. W h e n all the partici­

pants h a d a d j o u r n e d f o r pizza, D r . Saadawi c o m m e n t e d to m e , rather offhandedly: " Y o u k n o w , i f y o u ' d given y o u r p a p e r i n m y country, at t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C a i r o , say, b e f o r e t h e a f t e r n o o n w a s o v e r y o u w o u l d h a v e most certainly b e e n a r r e s t e d — a n d quite possibly killed before the week was o u t . " It b e h o o v e s u s t o r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e s t r i d e s m a d e i n g a y l i b e r a t i o n h a v e not o c c u r r e d e v e r y p l a c e i n t h e w o r l d . A n d i f t h a t i s t h e s o r t o f i n ­ sight that a c c o m p a n i e s M s . S c h u l m a n ' s d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n

revolution

and resistance, m o r e p o w e r to her. B u t , r i g h t n o w , C a i r o i s not t h e p l a c e most o f t h e U . S . g a y c o m m u n i t y l i v e s — A I D S n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g . W h i c h is p r o b a b l y w h y t h e r e ' s a g o o d d e a l m o r e resistance here t h a n revolution. A s to t h e r e l a t i o n o f sex t o t h e c r o s s i n g o f class l i n e s , I've a n s w e r e d t h e q u e s t i o n a t s o m e l e n g t h i n m y b o o k Silent Interviews ( W e s l e y a n U n i ­ versity Press: 1995), i n t h e s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d " S w o r d a n dS o r c e r y , S / M , and the Economics o f Inadéquation." Y o u might pursue the topic there. TL:

W h a t i s t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n ' J o e y " i n The Tale of Plagues and Car­

nivals a n d " C r a z y J o e y " i n The Mad

Man.

SRD: N o n e — t h a t I ' m a w a r e o f . J o e y was m o d e l e d o n a h o m e l e s s j u n k y h u s t l e r w h o m I k n e w

during

the early e i g h t i e s . I d e s c r i b e d o u r last m e e t i n g , i n S p r i n g o f 1988, i n " P o s t s c r i p t 3." P a r t o f t h e t a s k I s e t m y s e l f i n t h a t b o o k w a s t o r e m a i n a s a c c u r a t e as p o s s i b l e t o t h e a s p e c t s o f i t t h a t w e r e r e p o r t a g e . C r a z y J o e y was a c o m p o s i t e p o r t r a i t o f several m o r e o r less d e r a n g e d y o u n g m e n , m e t h e r e a n d i n S a n F r a n c i s c o m a n y years before, w i t h a g o o d l y d o l l o p o f fantasy a d d e d — w h i c h suits t h e c r e a t i o n o f a d e n i z e n o f pornotopia. W h a t is i m p o r t a n t a b o u t J o e y is that h e l i v e s — a n d lives A I D S f r e e , at l e a s t as f a r as I w a s a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e . W h a t is i m p o r t a n t a b o u t C r a z y J o e y i s t h a t h e d i e s . A s s u c h , t h e two characters o c c u p y different pivotal p o i n t s i n t h e i r re­ spective novels.

L.

136

Shorter Views

TL: W h a t a r e y o u r t h o u g h t s o n e r o t i c t r a n s g r e s s i o n , s e x u a l d i s s i d e n c e , e m b r a c i n g t h e role o f pariah? H o w are these roles related to carnival? A r e y o u aware o f t h e sexual a n t i n o m i a n i s m often associated with millen­ nial movements, particularly during the Reformation? SRD: I a m , o f c o u r s e , a g r e a t f a n o f t h e " a n t i n o m i a n i s m " o f A n n e M a r b u r y H u t c h i n s o n , w h i c h i n s p i r e d H a w t h o r n e t o h i s Scarlet Letter. ( W h a t A m e r i c a n is n o t ? ) O f c o u r s e , they w e r e n o t really " a n t i n o m i a n i s t s " ("per­ sons against a l l C h u r c h laws") at all. T h a t was s i m p l y h o w they were per­ ceived a n d what they were d u b b e d by their Puritan c h u r c h enemies. W h a t they believed (before they were allslaughtered b y Indians off i n P e l h a m B a y i n 1643, i f t h a t i n d e e d is w h a t really h a p p e n e d ) was that t h e r e w e r e e n o u g h intersecting social discourses i n a c a r i n g a n d n u r t u r i n g society to c o n s t r a i n i t s m e m b e r s ' b e h a v i o r t o t h e g o o d s o t h a t s o c i e t y d i d n o t need official C h u r c h l a w a n d official C h u r c h p u n i s h m e n t s . If anything, they were t h e country's first d i e - h a r d U t o p i a n social constructionists. Are

y o u familiar

with Scott O ' H a r a ' s public

sex journal

O ' H a r a is a n H I V - p o s i t i v e f o r m e r s e x w o r k e r i n t h e g a y p o r n

Steam} industry

t u r n e d writer a n d publisher. I f i n d myself greatly drawn to what h e has t o s a y . (Steam p u b l i s h e d e x c e r p t s f r o m The Mad Man j u s t b e f o r e i t f i r s t c a m e o u t . ) I n t h e m o s t r e c e n t i s s u e ( V o l u m e 3, I s s u e 3, A u t u m n 1 9 9 5 ) , O ' H a r a has all b u t repudiated the "Safe S e x " m o v e m e n t (although n o t all h i swriters have, b y a n ym e a n s ) , with a n article called " G o o d - B y e to the R u b b e r m a n , " i n a way that I a m deeply i n sympathy with.

Says

O ' H a r a q u o t i n g a positive f r i e n d : " I ' m so sick a n d tired o f these N e g a ­ tives w h i n i n g a b o u t h o w d i f f i c u l t i t i s t o s t a y s a f e . W h y d o n ' t t h e y j u s t g e t o v e r it a n d g e t p o s i t i v e ? " T h o u g h I a m H I V negative m y s e l f a n d w o u l d l i k e t o stay t h a t way, I ' m n o t a n d n e v e r h a v e b e e n — a t least n o t s i n c e m y g o o d o l d " m y s t i c a l " e x p e r i e n c e at t h e V a r i e t y i n ' 8 4 — o n e to w h i n e a b o u t it. Y o u ' d have to r e a d the w h o l e article to follow what he's saying. B u t I a g r e e w i t h h i m : N o t t h a t w e n e g a t i v e s s h o u l d b e c o m e p o s i t i v e ( w h i c h is lunatic) b u t w e s h o u l d stop w h i n i n g a n d take responsibility f o r learning to n e g o t i a t e t h e s e x u a l l a n d s c a p e that exists. T h e m i l l e n n i a l context c o m e s close to forcing the elements you're d i s c u s s i n g i n t o a "Salvationist r h e t o r i c a l " c o n t e x t — a n d t h a t ' s p r e c i s e l y the context that they have to b e k e p t o u t of, if they are to f u n c t i o n i n a positive manner. Transgression, sexual dissidence, a n d the role o f the p a r i a h ( n o t t o m e n t i o n c a r n i v a l itself: a c h u r c h - l i c e n s e d c e l e b r a t i o n o f a "farewell to the flesh" before a L e n t e n p e r i o d o f p r o l o n g e d abstinence) m u s t b e r e m o v e d f r o m Salvationist d i s c o u r s e i f t h e y a r e t o b e a n y t h i n g m o r e than a return to orthodoxy.

T h o m a s L. L o n g Interview

137

The Tale of Plagues and CarnivalYvaA i t s t i t l e as e a r l y as 1 9 8 0 , f o u r y e a r s b e f o r e i t h a d a t o p i c . W h e n I r e a d B a k h t i n ' s Rabelais and His World i n 1984,1 a s s o c i a t e d ( a n d c o n t r a s t e d ) h i s n o d o n o f c a r n i v a l w i t h B a t e s o n ' s n o t i o n o f t h e N e w G u i n e a c u s t o m o f t h e I a t m u l n a v e n (Naven,

1958),

w h i c h h a d a l r e a d y b e e n at w o r k i n the N e v è r y ô n tales. I w o n d e r e d i f this n e w d i s e a s e , t h e n s t i l l b e i n g r e f e r r e d t o as t h e " G a y P l a g u e , " w a s w h a t m y story was about. To find out, I wrote i t . .. B y 1986, D a v i d B l a c k ' s S c i e n c e - i n - S o c i e t y J o u r n a l i s m A w a r d - w i n n i n g

The Plague Years: A Chronicle of AIDS, The Epidemic of Our Time ( S i m o n a n d Schuster, 1985) was b e i n g p i l l o r i e d i n t h e gay press, b e c a u s e p e o p l e w e r e b e g i n n i n g t o r e a l i z e t h a t t h e c o n s t r a i n t s m e t a p h o r s s u c h as " p l a g u e " a n d " v i c t i m " i m p o s e d h a d m u c h f a r t h e r - r e a c h i n g effects t h a n h a d b e e n h e r e t o f o r e s u p p o s e d . S u s a n S o n t a g ' s v e r y w e a k b o o k o n A I D S (AIDS and Its Metaphors, a f o l l o w - u p t o h e r e x t r e m e l y s t r o n g Illness as Metaphor) l o c a t e s t h e r a n g e o f m i l i t a r y m e t a p h o r s as t h e f a l l g u y i n A I D S r h e t o r i c — a n d t o tally misses the b o a t . I k n o w that s h e n e v e r saw m y n o v e l . I f s h e h a d , s h e m i g h t h a v e n o t i c e d t h a t t h e controlling m e t a p h o r i c s t r u c t u r e f o r A I D S f r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g w a s : "What m e t a p h o r s h a l l w e u s e f o r i t ? " A I D S has b e e n f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g a t e r m - i n - s e a r c h - o f - a - m e t a p h o r — a n d , i n t h a t s e n s e , b o t h h e r b o o k a n d m i n e f a l l r i g h t into t h e c o n t r o l l i n g , d o m i nant metaphoric structure. Black h a p p e n e d to b e a straight acquaintance o f m i n e . I'd k n o w n h i m o n a n d o f f f o r a n u m b e r years before his b o o k ( o rm i n e ) a p p e a r e d . It was q u i t e a n e x p e r i e n c e f o r h i m t o g o f r o m b e i n g a n a w a r d - w i n n i n g science writer, r e c e i v i n g a g o o d d e a l o f praise f r o m gays i n t h e c o u r s e o f it, d e e p l y i n s y m p a t h y w i t h t h e g a y c o m m u n i t y a n d a p p a l l e d b y t h e r a v ages o f the early years o f A I D S t o , a y e a r later, f i n d i n g h i m s e l f p i l l o r i e d i n t h e gay p r e s s as a n i n s e n s i t i v e p a n d e r o f p l a g u e a n d v i c t i m s t e r e o types. B u t it c o u l d j u s t as easily h a v e h a p p e n e d t o m e . B y 1986, I c o u l d n ' t possibly ( n o r c o u l d a n y o n e else w i t h a s h r e d o f social r e s p o n sibility) have u s e d t h e t e r m " p l a g u e " i n t h e title o f a n y t h i n g h a v i n g t o do with AIDS. B u t , b y p u r g i n g t h e d i s e a s e o f s t i l l another m e t a p h o r , w e w e r e a l l f u r t h e r i n g t h e dominant d i s c o u r s e o f t h e d i s e a s e - w i t h - n o f i x e d - m e t a p h o r . I h o p e y o u r o w n " a n t i - a p o c a l y p t i c " efforts d o n ' t fall i n t o t h e s a m e trap. It's o n e o f t h e t r o p e s t h a t s t i l l k e e p s s o m u c h o f t h e d i s e a s e l i t e r a l l y "unspeakable." B u t i f there is a t r u t h to b e l e a r n e d h e r e , it is that d o m i n a n t

dis-

courses are j u s t that: t h e discourses that d o m i n a t e . T h e d o m i n a n t structure d o e s n ' t p a r t i c u l a r l y care w h o a d d s to it, o r h o w s m a r t — o r e v e n w e l l i n t e n t i o n e d — t h e o n e s w h o a d d t o it are.

138

Shorter Views

T o c o n c l u d e : A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e letter c o n t a i n i n g y o u r list o f q u e s t i o n s h e r e , y o u m e n t i o n a r a n g e o f w o r k s , a f e w o f w h i c h ( e . g . , An­

gels in America a n d The Mystery of Irma Vep) I ' m f a m i l i a r w i t h b u t m o s t o f w h i c h I'm not. L e t m e r e f r a i n f r o m c o m m e n t o n a n y o f t h e m . I d o n ' t q u i t e see h o w , for y o u r purposes, that w o u l d be useful—especially since I don't have the d m e ( o r the energy) to r e t u r n to any o f t h e m f o r a closer l o o k that alone w o u l d give s u c h c o m m e n t the e n e r g y o r a c c u r a c y that m i g h t r e n d e r it so. Y e s , I ' v e r e a d P r o f e s s o r J a c k s o n ' s Strategies of Deviance a n d f i n d t h e w h o l e b o o k q u i t e a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y p e r f o r m a n c e . I ' m h o n o r e d b y h i s at­ tentions. W o u l d y o u m i n d if I sent h i m a copy o f o u r interchange here? H e m i g h t f i n d it o f interest, i f n o t o f use.

—New York City February iççô

Parti Tine Po.itics of i k e Raraiiterarij

L

Neither the First Word n o r the Last on Deconstruction, Structuralism, Poststructuralism, and Semiotics for SF Readers

. . . to dissolve the i n t r o d u c t o r y p r o b l e m , to search o u t a c o m m o n vocab­ ulary a m o n g the debates' discussants, to p i n p o i n t c o m m o n ideas o r pre­ suppositions they share, to locate c o m m o n centers f o r a r g u m e n t , o r to describe

the general

rubric

of

language-as-model-for-all-meaning-

processes that m a n y o f the dialogues have taken place u n d e r m i g h t well b e c o n s t r u e d b y a n u m b e r o f t h e d i a l o g u e s ' p a r t i c i p a n t s as a n a s p e c t o f a totalizing urge, a will to knowledge-as-power, a desire f o r mastery w h i c h has c o m e u n d e r severe c r i t i c i s m a n d i n t e n s e analysis at n u m e r o u s p o i n t s i n t h e s e v e r y d e b a t e s . W e m i g h t e v e n say t h a t a r e c u r r e n t " t h e m e " o f t h e p o s t s t r u c t u r a l i s t w a v e o f t h e s e d i a l o g u e s is t h a t a l l s u c h u r g e s a r e d i s t o r t ­ ing, biasing, untrustworthy, ideologically loaded, a n d

finally

blinding, so

that they must b e a p p r o a c h e d w i t h c o n t i n u o u s o p p o s i t i o n a l vigilance. W h a t y o u , m y h e a r e r s , however, c a n n o t see is t h e q u o t a t i o n s

marks

a r o u n d " t h e m e " i n the p a r a g r a p h f r a g m e n t above. A s easily I c o u l d have put a line through

t h e w o r d , p l a c i n g Theme-—to take a

D e r r i d a ' s 1 9 6 7 b o o k Of Grammatology, a from

the G e r m a n philosopher Martin

figure

figure

from

that D e r r i d a b o r r o w e d

Heidegger—"sous

rature," o r

" u n d e r e r a s u r e . " A r e a s o n f o r this m o v e is that this s a m e c r i t i q u e o f t h e totalizing impulse to mastery holds that even the social process o f consti­ t u t i n g aThenae-is, itself, a n e x a m p l e o f t h e s a m e t o t a l i z i n g u r g e . T h e c r i ­ tique

h o l d s : A " t h e m e " h a s t h e s a m e p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e as a p r e j u d i c e .

B o t h the words " t h e m e " a n d "thesis" derive f r o m the G r e e k w o r d TiGevai, t o p l a c e , t o p o s e , t o p o s i t , t o p o s i t i o n , o r t o l e t s t a n d . T h u s t h e i d e a o f

142

Shorter Views

a Theme-is etymologically g r o u n d e d i n the i d e a o f having, o r h o l d i n g to, a p o s i t i o n . I n d e e d , as m y s e m a n t i c a l l y s e n s i t i v e l i s t e n e r s w i l l h e a r as w e p r o g r e s s , t h e i d e a o f p o s i d v i t y , o f p o s i n g , o f p o s i t i o n a l i t y is p a c k e d into—is impacted throughout—the

entire discourse a r o u n d

(that is,

p o s e d o r p o s i t i o n e d a r o u n d ) t h e n o t i o n o f t h e m e / p o s i t i o n itself. N o m a t t e r h o w m u c h w e talk as i f T h e m e s , w e r e objects w e f o u n d p r e s e n t i n , o r p o s i t i o n e d by, a t e x t , t h i s c r i t i q u e m a i n t a i n s t h a t " O t e m e s a r e a c t u a l l y p a t t e r n s t h a t w e a l w a y s i m p o s e on a t e x t ( i . e . , t h e p o s i t i o n i s always a p o s i t i o n w e p o s i d o n ) — a n d always f o r reasons we c a n n o t fully u n d e r s t a n d , that w e c a n n e v e r f u l l y master, that we r e m a i n b l i n d to. W e w i l l c o n f u s e t h e m j u s t the way we c o n f u s e t h e " p o s i t i o n s " w i t h i n the pa­ r e n t h e s e s i n t h e last s e n t e n c e . N o m a t t e r h o w m u c h w e c l a i m t o have f o u n d objective evidence o f one o r another Theme-present i n one o r an­ o t h e r text, the constitutive e l e m e n t s o f that " t h e m e " have already b e e n p o l i t i c a l l y i n p l a c e , i.e., p o s i t e d , b e f o r e w e m a d e t h e b l i n d m o v e o f r e c ­ o g n i z i n g it. " T h e t h e m e i s a l r e a d y i n p l a c e b e f o r e t h e t e x t is r e a d . " ' T h e t e x t r e a d s , i f y o u l i k e , t h e t h e m e is u s . " " T h e t h e m e is h i s t o r i c a l l y s e d i m e n t e d : It is n o t a n a e s t h e t i c a l l y p r i v i ­ l e g e d g r o u n d f o rthe text." . . . to use s o m e locutions characteristic o f the rhetoric associated with structuralist/poststructuralist discourse. P a r a d o x i c a l l y , i f this c r i t i c i s m is c o r r e c t — a n d I feel that it i s — o n e o f its i n e s c a p a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s i s t h a t , r e a l l y , w e c a n n e v e r e s c a p e from t h e matics. T h u s w e m u s t always m a i n t a i n

a n alert a n d severe analytical

s t a n c e toward t h e m . T h i s is w h y y o u w i l l f r e q u e n t l y h e a r , i n d i s c u s s i o n s o f " d e c o n s t r u c t i o n " vs. " t h e m a t i c c r i t i c i s m , " p e o p l e s p e a k o f t h e o p p o s i t i o n between

the two—or

talk

about

a basic

a n d essential

antagonism

b e t w e e n t h e m . ( L a t i n : p o s i t i o n a n d o p p o s i t i o n . G r e e k : thesis a n d antith­ esis.) T h e t h e m a t i c c r i t i c s ' o p p o s i t i o n a l a r g u m e n t sees t h e s e a r c h i n g o u t o f t h e m e s ( a l o n g w i t h t h e i r sisters a n d t h e i r c o u s i n s a n d t h e i r aunts: s y m b o l s , a l l e g o r i e s , a n d m e t a p h o r s ) as t h e p r i m a r y a c t i v i t y o f t h e c r i t i c , w i t h a b i t o f semantic analysis, a b i t o f historical r e r e a d i n g — i . e . , a b i t o f d e c o n s t r u c t i o n — a s a s u p p l e m e n t a r y activity t o c o m p l e t e the j o b , per­ haps t o a d d a critical f o r m t o the search, t o give it closure at the e n d , to p r o v i d e a sense o f c o m m e n c e m e n t at its o p e n i n g . T h e p r o p e r

critical

p o s i t i o n f o r " d e c o n s t r u c t i o n " ( w h i c h i s , a f t e r a l l , almost a s y n o n y m f o r a n a l y s i s ) , say t h e t h e m a t i c c r i t i c s , a d d i n g t h e i r o w n i r o n i c q u o t e s t o t h e t e r m , s h o u l d b e as a n a d j u n c t t o t h e m a t i c s . D e c o n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d b e u s e d t o trace o u t t h e m e s f r o m particularly hazy passages, s h o u l d b e u s e d to c o m p l e t e t h e m e s , to elide o n et h e m e t o another, t o f i x a theme's a u t o n o m y , t o d o , i n g e n e r a l , w h a t d e c o n s t r u c t i o n seems to d o best a n d

N e i t h e r the First W o r d n o r the Last

143

o f t e n e v e n b o a s t s o f : ". . . t o s e e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , " ( t o u s e t h e w o r d s

of

T h o m a s D i s c h ' s p a r o d i e c r i t i c a l essay, b y B u r d i e L u d d , i n h i s s h o r t s t o r y " T h e D e a t h of Socrates") "where n o n e exist." B u t f o r the poststructuralist critic, this o p p o s i t i o n a l tale b e t w e e n them a t i c s a n d d e c o n s t r u c t i o n is a n o l d s t o r y . It is t h e s t o r y o f t w o o p p o s i n g f o r c e s w h o s e r i g h t a n d p r o p e r r e l a t i o n is o n e o f h i e r a r c h y , o f s u b o r d i n a ­ t i o n , o f s u p p l e m e n t a r i t y . It is t h e s t o r y o f t h e b a t t l e o f t h e s e x e s , t h e a n ­ tagonism between m a n a n d w o m a n whose right a n d p r o p e r positionality is f o r w o m a n t o s t a n d b e s i d e , b e h i n d , a n d t o s u p p o r t m a n . It is t h e s t o r y of the essential o p p o s i t i o n between white a n d black w h o s e p r o p e r resolu­ t i o n is f o r b l a c k t o p r o v i d e t h e s h a d o w s a n d f o r e g r o u n d t h e h i g h l i g h t s f o r w h i t e , f o r b l a c k t o w o r k f o r w h i t e . It is t h e s t o r y o f e v i l t h a t f i n d s its p l a c e i n a d d i n g o n l y the smallest o f necessary spices to a pervasive, essential g o o d . It is t h e s t o r y o f n a t u r e a n d h e r c u p - b e a r e r , t h e p r i m i t i v e , p o s i n g a b i t o f r e l i e f f o r t h e r i g o r s o f c i v i l i z a t i o n a n d its f l a g - w a v e r , c u l t u r e . It is t h e O t h e r as t h e l o c u s , as t h e p o s i t i o n , as t h e p l a c e w h e r e t h e

all-important

S e l f c a n i n d u l g e i n a b i t o f p r o j e c t i o n (i.e., c a n t h r o w s o m e t h i n g f o r w a r d i n t o t h e p l a c e o f t h e O t h e r — o r s i m p l y h u r l t h i n g s a t t h e O t h e r ) . It is t h e s t o r y i n w h i c h t h e f r a i l , f r a g i l e , a n d e r r i n g b o d y is p r o p e r l y (as p r o p e r l y , as a n o w n e d p l a c e ) a v e s s e l f o r t h e m a n l y , m i g h t y , a n d o m n i p o t e n t m i n d ; w h e r e m a s t u r b a t i o n (or, i n d e e d , h o m o s e x u a l i t y o r a n y o f t h e o t h e r " p e r ­ v e r s i o n s " ) is a f a l l - b a c k o n l y w h e n r i g h t a n d a u t h e n t i c h e t e r o s e x u a l i t y is not available; w h e r e the great, taxing, b u t finally r i c h literary

tradition,

w i t h its e n t i r e a c a d e m i c a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d a n d s u p p o r t e d c a n o n , o c c a s i o n ­ ally allows us to give p l a c e f o r a m o m e n t to those u n d e m a n d i n g ( b e c a u s e they are w i t h o u t p o w e r to d e m a n d ) diversions (those objects we f i n d w h e n we turn f r o m o u r right place of traditional responsibility) of para­ literary p r o d u c t i o n — m y s t e r i e s , c o m i c s , p o r n o g r a p h y , a n d science

fiction.

It is t h e s t o r y w h e r e t h e c o n s c i o u s a n d s e l f - c o n s c i o u s s u b j e c t o c c a s i o n a l l y d i s c o v e r s (i.e., u n c o v e r s t h e p l a c e of) c e r t a i n i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l , o r e v e n interesting, slips o f the t o n g u e o r s u d d e n j o k e s that c a n b e e x p l a i n e d a w a y b y a n a p p e a l t o a n u n c o n s c i o u s t h a t is l i t t l e m o r e t h a n a s t a t e o f i n a t ­ t e n t i o n . It is t h e s t o r y o f t h e t h i n k i n g , s p e a k i n g , a c t i n g s u b j e c t f o r w h o m t h e w a y t o c o n s i d e r o b j e c t s is as e x t e n s i o n , p r o p e r t y , t o o l ; o f p r e s e n c e s merely o u t l i n e d a n d t h r o w n into relief by the otherwise secondary ab­ sences a b o u t t h e m ; o f the authoritative v o i c e that k n o w s a n d speaks the t r u t h , p r o m p t e d b y a b i t o f s u s p e c t w r i t i n g w h o s e p r o p e r u s e is o n l y as a n a i d to m e m o r y ; o f p r i m a r y c r e a t i v e w o r k that, f r o m t i m e to t i m e , m a y rightly, if respectfully, b e a p p r o a c h e d t h r o u g h s o m e s e c o n d a r y critical a c t ; o f t h e m a d w h o c a n b e h e a r d t o m e n t i o n as t h e y s h a m b l e p a s t a f e w amusing or even s h o c k i n g truths, here a n d there a m o n g their mutteri n g s — t r u t h s that, alas, o n l y t h e s a n e c a n r e a l l y a p p r e c i a t e .

144

Shorter Views

Male/female, white/black, good/evil, civilized/primitive,

culture/

nature, self/other, literature/paraliterature, m i n d / b o d y , conscious/unconscious, subject/object, presence/absence, voice/writing, artist/critic, sanity/madness—these

seeming conceptually egalitarian

oppositions

that c o v e r vast socially e x p l o i t e d h i e r a r c h i e s are, themselves, a "theme; p e r h a p s , till fairly recently, they w e r e the great"thenae-of the West. S o w h e n I p o i n t o u t first the o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n thematics a n d dec o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e n p o i n t o u t t h e h i e r a r c h y t h a t is a s s u m e d t o b e t h e p r o p e r t h e m a t i c (i.e., p o s i t i o n a l ) r e s o l u t i o n to t h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m ; a n d w h e n I g o o n to p o i n t o u t that n e i t h e r that o p p o s i t i o n n o r the s u b o r d i n a t i o n the o p p o s i t i o n c a n b e so easily s h o w n to m a s k really a n swers the n e e d s o f c r i t i c i s m , I a m e n g a g i n g i n a v e r y o l d m o v e — a m o v e that w i l l b e f a m i l i a r to t h o s e w h o have f o l l o w e d the

structuralist/post-

s t r u c t u r a l i s t d e b a t e s o f t h e last years. T h e p o i n t is, t h e p o s t s t r u c t u r a l i s t critic m o r e so t h a n the t h e m a t i c critic m u s t b e aware o f just h o w m i r e d i n themes we already are. W h a t has c h a n g e d for the

poststructuralist

c r i t i c is t h e s t a t e , t h e s t a t u s , t h e o n t o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n o f t h e t h e m e . W h e n a n o b j e c t ' s o n t o l o g i c a l s t a t u s c h a n g e s , i t is n o l o n g e r t h e s a m e o b j e c t — p o s s i b l y it is n o l o n g e r a n o b j e c t at a l l : H e n c e ( w h i c h m e a n s , after

a l l , from here) t h e q u o t a t i o n

m a r k s a r o u n d it; h e n c e t h e

line

t h r o u g h it; h e n c e t h e b a r r a g e o f d e - p o s i t i o n i n g r h e t o r i c p l a c e d o n a l l sides o f i t — h e n c e , i n d e e d , w h a t e v e r i r o n i c m a r k we n e e d to tell us that, f o r a w h i l e a t l e a s t , i t is u n d e c i d a b l e w h a t o u r r e s p o n s e t o i t s h o u l d b e — a description o f irony courtesy o f the historian o f criticism, R e n é Wellek. A"trrenae.is n o w n o l o n g e r o n e a m o n g m a n y c o m p o n e n t s o f a t e x t t h a t we c a n locate h e r e o r there (a c o m p o n e n t s o m e t i m e s present, sometimes

a b s e n t ) ; i t is n o t a c o m p o n e n t t h a t , as w e t r a c e i t t h r o u g h t h e t e x t ,

as w e m a p i t b e t w e e n t e x t s , e x p l a i n s t h e t e x t s i t o c c u r s i n ; i t is n o t t h e c o m p o n e n t t h a t c o n f e r s o n texts u n i t y a n d c o h e r e n c e , n o r d o e s it give t h e m t h e i r s t a t u s as o b j e c t s w o r t h y o f a n a l y s i s ; i t is n o t a c o m p o n e n t t h a t lets us m a s t e r texts, allows us to d i s p o s e o f t h e m (or d i s p o s e o f the parts o f t h e texts i n w h i c h w e r e a d t h e m ) , e i t h e r t h o s e texts w e l i k e ( p u t safely i n t o o u r p e r s o n a l c a n o n ) o r those texts w e d o n ' t l i k e (left safely o u t s i d e it). I n s t e a d a T f r e n a e - b e c o m e s a s i g n , a p o l i t i c a l m a r k e r , a p l a c e to start t h e a n a l y s i s t h a t d i s s o l v e s t h e b o r d e r t h a t a l l o w s us t o r e c o g n i z e it i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . F o r t h e f a c t i s , i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l n o t i o n o f " t h è m e , (as i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l n o t i o n o f fact) there are too m a n y things left out: T o o m a n y tacit presuppositions, too m a n y historical pressures, too m a n y stabilizing situations are j u s t m i s s i n g . T o r e c o g n i z e a n array o f e l e m e n t s w i t h this m a n y g a p s as a u n i f i e d , c o h e r e n t t h e m e is o n l y t o m a r k t h e p l a c e w h e r e we have b e e n m a d e analytically b l i n d , where we have b e e n r e n d e r e d i d e o l o g i c a l l y passive. U n d e r s u c h a n analytic r e g i m e , w i t h their

(old?

N e i t h e r the First W o r d n o r the Last new?) o n t o l o g i c a l status,Themes lose their specificity, their

145

individuality,

their structure, their critical privileges. T h e y n o l o n g e r e x i s t as o b j e c t s , as p r o p e r t y , as t o o l s w i t h w h i c h

the

subject-as-critic c a n m a r k o u t a clear a n d b o u n d e d territory, c a n solve the p r o b l e m s o f the text. ( T h e m e s are n o l o n g e r p r e s e n c e s i n the texts. T h e y are n o l o n g e r objects.) T h e m e s are n o w d e m o t e d to t h e status at least o f states ( w h i c h c a n b e o v e r t h r o w n )

or of kings (who can be de­

p o s e d ) , a n d r e m o v e d f r o m t h a t p o s i t i o n w h i c h c l a i m s t h a t t h e y a r e , as c o n t e n t , absolutely a n d i r r e v o c a b l y a l l i e d to t h e i r p o s i t i o n , g r o u n d e d i n it a n d p a r t o f it. T h e y d i s s o l v e , r a t h e r , i n t o s p e c i f i c , d e c e n t e r e d g a l a x i e s o f p r o b l e m s — a p r o b l e m a t i c , as s o m e p o s t s t r u c t u r a l i s t s m i g h t say. T h e y a r e d i s p o s e d o f as T h e m e s a n d b e g i n t o b e d i s p o s i t i o n s ( i . e . , m o o d s ) .

Almost an Analysis.

W h a t I h a v e d o n e h e r e , I m e n t i o n i n p a s s i n g , is at­

t e m p t to s k e t c h o u t a b r i e f a n d r a t h e r tentative d e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f

the

n o t i o n o f " t h e m e , " i.e., o f t h e o p p o s i t i o n o f t e n c i t e d b e t w e e n t w o m o d e s of criticism, "old-fashioned thematics" a n d "new-fashioned deconstruc­ t i o n . " O n e o f the i n e s c a p a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f this a r g u m e n t , w e r e we to take it f r o m t h e l e v e l o f g e n e r a l i t y at w h i c h w e h a v e b e e n d i s c u s s i n g it t o t h e s p e c i f i c l e v e l o f p a r t i c u l a r e x a m p l e s , is t h a t w e ' d b e g i n t o s e e t h a t much

of

the

"old-fashioned" criticism

looks nowhere

near

as o l d -

f a s h i o n e d as i t m i g h t h a v e w h e n w e s t a r t e d , a n d t h a t m u c h i n t h e " n e w f a s h i o n e d " c r i t i c i s m w i l l b e g i n to l o o k all t o o familiar. B u t I h a v e started w i t h t h i s e x a m p l e — h o w e v e r s k e t c h y — of a. d e c o n s t r u c t i o n b e c a u s e t h i s is one of the most discussed, a n d thus o n e o f the most troublesome, terms associated with poststructuralist discourse. W h a t d e c o n s t r u c t i o n d o e s , i f I c a n h a z a r d s u c h a d e c l a r a t i v e state­ m e n t i n a n a r e a n o t e d f o r its i n s i s t e n t v e r b a l m u l t i v a l e n c e s , is d i s s o l v e o p ­ p o s i t i o n s : I h a v e s a i d t h a t " d e c o n s t r u c t i o n " is a l m o s t a s y n o n y m f o r " a n a l ­ y s i s . " B u t h e r e is w h e r e t h a t " a l m o s t " m u s t c o m e h o m e . T o a n a l y z e ( c o g n a t e , a f t e r a l l , w i t h L y s o l ) is " t o d i s s o l v e f r o m a b o v e , " w h i l e d e c o n ­ struction unbuilds throughout.

It u n b u i l d s o p p o s i t i o n s b y

unmasking

t h e h i e r a r c h i e s t h a t h i d e b e h i n d t h e m . O f t e n , as a n i n t e r i m s t r a t e g y , i t overturns the h i e r a r c h y to reveal the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a n d i n t e r d e p e n d e n c i e s t h e h i e r a r c h y r e s t s o n i n o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n its p o s i t i o n a l i t y , its c o h e r ­ e n c e , its u n i t y . I m u s t s t r e s s , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e r e v e r s a l o f t h e h i e r a r c h y c a n o n l y b e a n i n t e r i m m o v e to h i g h l i g h t the p o s i t i o n a l i t y u n d e r (over?) t h e c o n t e n t . B u t w h e n t h e h i e r a r c h y fixes i n its r e v e r s e d f o r m — w h i c h a l l too frequently h a p p e n s — n o t h i n g changes i n the o p p o s i t i o n a l structure's characteristic organization.

( S u c h reversals are, i n d e e d , o n e way

in

which such hierarchical "oppositions" recoup themselves a n d heal them­ s e l v e s a g a i n s t v a r i o u s a t t a c k s . ) T o d e c o n s t r u c t , t h e n , is t o

de-position

146

Shorter Views

w i t h o u t r e p o s i t i o n i n g . D e c o n s t r u c t i o n sets t h e o p p o s i t i o n a l t e r m s i n m o ­ t i o n — a n d r e t a i n s i t s f o r c e o n l y as l o n g a s t h e t e r m s r e m a i n i n m o t i o n . W i t h a n example before us (the deconstruction o f the opposition b e t w e e n t h e m a t i c s a n d d e c o n s t r u c t i o n ) , w e c a n p e r h a p s say a f e w m o r e things a b o u t i t — a b o u t d e c o n s t r u c t i o n — t h a t m i g h t m a k e this m o s t trou­ b l e s o m e a n d t r o u b l i n g t e r m h o l d still e n o u g h t o . . . t o master? t o t h e m a tize? t o totalize? Certainly not. B u t d o e s o u r e l l i p s i s — o u r s i l e n c e — l e a v e us silent? T h e inflation o f language that characterizes poststructuralist rhetoric, f o r b e t t e r o r f o r w o r s e , b o t h as a style o f t h o u g h t a n d o f d i s c o u r s e ( i . e . , r e ­ s p o n s e , u n d e r s t a n d i n g ) , s h o u l d m a k e i t c l e a r t h a t s i l e n c e is r a r e l y o u r problem. I i t e r a t e : A s y n o n y m o f t h e v e r b t o d e c o n s t r u c t is t o a n a l y z e — w i t h t h e r i d e r that w h a t is m o s t o f t e n a n a l y z e d i n d e c o n s t r u c t i o n a r e those c o n ­ f l i c t i n g a n d self-subverting e l e m e n t s that suggest that f o r whatever we are a n a l y z i n g t o m a i n t a i n itself, it m u s t f i g h t t h e v e r y n o t i o n s t h a t it s e e m s t o b e p u t t i n g f o r t h i n o r d e r f o r that m e a n i n g t o r e m a i n r e a d a b l e at all. T o d e c o n s t r u c t a t e x t is t o u n p a c k t h e m e a n i n g s t h a t h i s t o r y a n d t h e l a n g u a g e h a v e p a c k e d i n t o it, w i t h p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o those m e a n i n g s that c h a l l e n g e those elements that ideology h a s m a d e appear

self-

evident. T h e p r o b l e m arises, h o w e v e r (it has always-already a r i s e n ) , w h e n w e are n o longer " d o i n g i t " — w h e n we are n o t ,right now, deconstructing s o m e t h e m e — b u t a r e t a l k i n g about d e c o n s t r u c t i o n . . . w h e n l a n g u a g e it­ self has t r a n s f o r m e d d e c o n s t r u c t i o n f r o m a nanalytical process we are in­ volved i n to a nobject we are discussing, analyzing, thematizing, a n object that... I h a v e s a i d t h a t " d e c o n s t r u c t i o n " i s almost t h e s a m e a s a n " a n a l y s i s . " B u t I s h o u l d p o i n t o u t that i n a 1983 letter t o his J a p a n e s e translator, w h o was s e a r c h i n g f o r a J a p a n e s e equivalent f o r " d e c o n s t r u c t i o n , " t h e F r e n c h p h i l o s o p h e r J a c q u e s D e r r i d a (with w h o m t h e t e r m is associated) e x p l a i n e d that h e first t o o k u p t h ew o r d to translate a G e r m a n t e r m i n H e i d e g g e r : Destruktion.

H e chose the F r e n c h term,

"déconstruction,"

which, t h o u g h rare, has a n u m b e r o f legitimate F r e n c h meanings. A t l e a s t o n e , f r o m t h e Littré d i c t i o n a r y , i s : " G r a m m a t i c a l t e r m . D i s a r r a n g i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f w o r d s i n a s e n t e n c e . " ( C o n s t r u c t i o n , as a g r a m m a t i ­ cal t e r m , is, o f course, t h e n o u n f r o m "to construe," a n d m e a n s "to u n d e r s t a n d . " ) I n his letter to the translator, D e r r i d a writes:

[I]n spite of appearances, deconstruction is neither an analysis nor a critique and its translation would have to take that into consideration. It is not an

N e i t h e r the First W o r d n o r the Last

147

analysis in particular because the dismantiing of a structure is not a regres­ sion toward a simple element, toward an indissoluble origin. These values, like that of analysis, are themselves philosophemes subject to deconstruction. No more is it a critique, in a general sense or in a Kantian sense. The instances of krinein or of krisis (decision, choice, judgment, discernment) is itself, as is all the apparatus of transcendental critique, one of the essential "themes" or "objects" of deconstruction. D e c o n s t r u c t i o n is n o t a n a n a l y s i s , t h e n , b e c a u s e t h e a n a l y t i c a l f a l l o u t is not s i m p l e r a n d m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l t h a n w h a t i s a n a l y z e d ; d e c o n s t r u c ­ t i o n is a n u n p a c k i n g o f m e a n i n g s t h a t , r a t h e r , p r o b l e m a t i z e .

Decon­

s t r u c t i o n is n o t a c r i t i q u e b e c a u s e i t s a i m i s n o t t h e r a p e u t i c : T h e c r i s i s ( K p i o r s — a s w e l l as t h e K p i f e i v o r " c u t t i n g t h r o u g h " ) t h a t o r i g i n a l l y g a v e us t h e n o t i o n o f c r i t i q u e a n d c r i t i c i s m was initially, i n G r e e k , t h e m e d i c a l crisis o f a disease that h a d to b e g o t t e n t h r o u g h b e f o r e t h e b o d y c o u l d r e t u r n to h e a l t h . A n d this sense lingers i n the v a r i o u s cognates: thus o n e criticizes to correct, to restore, to m a k e w h o l e a n d healthy. A n d this is not what deconstruction does. D e r r i d a h a s also s t r e s s e d t h a t d e c o n s t r u c t i o n is n o t a n o b j e c t

(which

c a n b e t h e basis o f a n e l a b o r a t e d d i s c i p l i n e ) . N e i t h e r is it a m e t h o d o l o g y (which c a n presumably b e a p p l i e d promiscuously to any object). H i s most rigorous commentators, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Barbara J o h n ­ son, R o d o l p h Gasché, a n d Paul de M a n (who,before his death, initiated a mode of deconstruction that—to m a n y — s e e m e d even more promiscu­ ously

radical

a n d rarefied

in

t h e ways it o v e r t u r n e d

all

thematic

g r o u n d s ) — a l l o f t h e m , i n t h e ways o f s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e i n g a g o n i s t s — h a v e s t r e s s e d i t as w e l l . A n d , i n a n i n t e n s e l y f u n n y s u r v e y o f " A m e r i c a n D e c o n s t r u c t i o n " (which, h e c l a i m e d , several o f his supporters h a d u r g e d h i m n o t t o p r e s e n t [Memoirs for Paul de Man,

C o l u m b i a University Press,

1986] ), D e r r i d a s e e m s w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t , i n t h e m o s t p r o m i s c u o u s m o v e o f all, the n o t i o n that a n y truly r i g o r o u s analysis m i g h t b e d e c o n s t r u c ­ t i o n , i f o n l y b e c a u s e w h a t d e c o n s t r u c t i o n is i n A m e r i c a is n o w r a d i c a l l y undecidable. In that same letter to his translator, however, D e r r i d a wrote also:

It is not enough to say that deconstruction could not be reduced to some me­ thodological instrumentality or to a set of rules and transposable procedures. Nor will it do to claim that each deconstructive "event" remains singular or, in any case, as close as possible to something like an idiom or a signature. It must also be made clear that deconstruction is not even an act or an operation. Not only because there would be something "patient" or "passive" about it. . . Not only because it does not return to an individual or collective subject who

148

Shorter Views

would take the initiative and apply it to an object, a text, a theme, etc. Deconstruction takes place, it is an event that does not await the consciousness, or organization of a subject, or even of modernity. It deconstructs itself. It can be deconstructed. [Ça se déconstruit.] The "it" [ça] is not here an impersonal thing

that is opposed to some egological subjectivity. It is in deconstruction (the Littré says, "to deconstruct itself [se déconstruiré] . . . to lose its construction"). And the "se" [itself] of "se déconstruire" which is not the reflexivity of an ego or of a consciousness, bears the whole enigma. I recognize, my dear friend, that in trying to make a word clearer so as to assist in its translation, I am only increasing the difficulties: "the impossible task of the translator" (Benjamin). This too is what is meant by "deconstructs." T h e h a p p i e s t r h e t o r i c a l f o r a y i n t o t h e p r o b l e m t h a t I k n o w of, b y G a y a t r i C h a k r a v a r t y S p i v a k ( w h o t r a n s l a t e d D e r r i d a ' s Of Grammatology i n t o E n g l i s h , a n d w h o i s t h e a u t h o r o f In Other Worlds, M e t h u e n , N e w Y o r k a n d L o n d o n , 1 9 8 7 ) , talks a b o u t d e c o n s t r u c t i o n as a m o d e (i.e., a m o o d , a d i s p o s i t i o n ) o f v i g i l a n c e — w h i c h is f i n e , d e M a n m i g h t w e l l have a d d e d , as l o n g as w e t a k e t h a t t o b e a n i n t e r i m d e s c r i p t i o n a n d n o t the d e c o n structive t h e m e . . .

SF: Seizing the Critical Imperative.

T h e practical reason I have n o t

started o f f w i t h definitions o f "signs," "fictions," o r "texts" ( o r even worse, tried to define "structuralism," "poststructuralism," o r "semiotics") is t h e s a m e r e a s o n I w o u l d n o t start o f f a d i s c u s s i o n o f s c i e n c e fict i o n w i t h s o m e i m p o s s i b l e , fruitless, a n d t i m e - w a s t i n g SèTrrrrtion o f o u r g e n r e . (I p l a c e t h e n o t i o n o f " g e n r e d e f i n i t i o n " u n d e r e r a s u r e t o r e m i n d us that, f o r perfectly logical reasons accessible to any bright

fourteen-

y e a r - o l d , a " g e n r e d e f i n i t i o n " is a w h o l l y i m a g i n a r y object o f t h e same o n t o l o g i c a l s t a t u s as u n i c o r n s , H i t l e r ' s d a u g h t e r , a n d t h e c u r r e n t k i n g o f France. "Definitions" o f science

fiction

are i m p o s s i b l e f o r the same rea-

son that "definitions" o f poetry, t h e novel, o r d r a m a are impossible; t h o u g h it is i n t e r e s t i n g to s p e c u l a t e o n t h e h i s t o r i c a l a n d p o l i t i c a l reas o n s " d e f i n i t i o n " h a s p e r s i s t e d as a t h e m e , i f n o t t h e m a j o r s y m p t o m , o f t h e m a t i c S F c r i t i c i s m . ) W h a t w e a r e d e a l i n g w i t h h e r e is a d i a l o g u e , a c o l l e c t i o n o f d i a l o g u e s , a set o f d e b a t e s , a r a n g e o f i d e a s a n d a r a n g e o f thinkers, o f w h i c h o n l y a larger o r smaller fraction can b e o f interest to any particular person. T h i s is p e r h a p s a l s o t h e p l a c e t o a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n : W h y s h o u l d s c i ence

ficdon

readers be interested i n such debates?

I have three answers. T h e first i s s i m p l y t e m p e r a m e n t a l . I t h i n k m a n y o f u s w o u l d

find

our-

selves a n i n t e r e s t e d a u d i e n c e t o t h e b o o k s a n d j o u r n a l s s o m e o f these

N e i t h e r t h e First W o r d n o r t h e Last

14g

debates take place i n f o r t h e same r e a s o n w e are a n interested a u d i e n c e f o r b o o k s s u c h a s S t e v e n W e i n b e r g ' s The First Three Minutes, F e y n m a n ' s QED, D a v i d R a u p ' s The Nemesis Affair,

Richard

Davis a n d Brown's

Superstrings, o r G l e i c k ' s Chaos. A g r e a t m a n y v e r y i n t e l l i g e n t p e o p l e a r e d o i n g some very exact a n d interesting t h i n k i n g i n these fields. W h i l e e a c h o f t h e m a n y d e b a t e s r e q u i r e s its o w n p r e p a r a t i o n , m a n y o f t h e m have, at this p o i n t , t h e i r o w n p o p u l a r i z e r s . A n d it is c o m p a r a t i v e l y easy (as h a r d as, say, l e a r n i n g a n e w c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m : i.e., i t c a n ' t n e c e s s a r ­ ily b e d o n e i n a n a f t e r n o o n , b u t f r e q u e n t l y it c a n b e d o n e i n a f e w 1

weeks ) to arrive at t h e p o i n t w h e r e y o u c a n enjoy t h e w o r k s o f t h e p r i n ­ cipal contenders themselves a n d y o u n o longer have to d e p e n d o n c o m ­ m e n t a t o r s . ( M a n y o f t h e p o p u l a r i z e r s f o r o n e d e b a t e a r e , as w e l l , p r i n c i ­ p a l c o n t e n d e r s i n others.) L e t m e c o n c l u d e this r e a s o n b y n o t i n g that the first v e r s i o n o f this article w a s r e q u e s t e d i n p l a c e o f a G u e s t o f H o n o r S p e e c h at t h e R e a d e r c o n S c i e n c e F i c t i o n C o n v e n t i o n i n 1988, i n L o w e l l , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , w h e r e , as f a r as I c o u l d t e l l , t h e i n t e r e s t i n t h e s e topics was b o t h h i g h a n d s i n c e r e . M y s e c o n d r e a s o n is s t r a t e g i c . I n t h e c o u r s e o f a n u m b e r o f t h e s e d e ­ bates, literature,

philosophy, a n d the political aspects o f b o t h

have

c o m e u n d e r a r a d i c a l c r i t i q u e . A l t h o u g h d e c o n s t r u c t i o n is n o t t h e s a m e as d é m y s t i f i c a t i o n ( a n d y o u w i l l s t i l l find p e o p l e w i t h a f a i n t k n o w l e d g e o f the o n ec o n f u s i n g it w i t h t h e o t h e r ) , a g o o d deal o f démystification has, i n d e e d , g o n e a l o n g w i t h that c r i t i q u e . E v e r y t h i n g f r o m t h e effects of p h r e n o l o g y a n d p o p u l a r science newspaper articles i n the early nine­ teenth century o n thenovels o f Charlotte B r o n t ë to theh i d d e n political a g e n d a i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e l i t e r a r y c a n o n , w h e n , a f t e r W o r l d W a r I, literature

first

b e c a m e a n a c a d e m i c discipline, have, a m o n g these d e ­

bates, b e e n t e a s e d a p a r t i n g r e a t d e t a i l . W h e n it is p u t b a c k t o g e t h e r , lit­ erature w i l l n o t b e t h e s a m e object that it was. ( M o r e a c c u r a t e l y " L i t e r a ­ t u r e " can n o t b e p u t b a c k t o g e t h e r . ) T h e " l i t e r a r y " w i l l n o l o n g e r b e a single, unified t h e m e a u t o n o m o u s l y placeable i n t h e greater text o f Western culture. Marginality a n d marginalizations have been o f pri­ m a r y c o n c e r n t h r o u g h a n u m b e r o f these debates. T h eways i n w h i c h black writing, women's writing, T h i r d W o r l d writing, a n d gay writing have b e e n m a r g i n a l i z e d a n d k e p t m a r g i n a l h a v e b e e n a n d still are b e i n g explored. Now, the traditional thematic critical stance o f the S F a c a d e m i c critic has b e e n (if I m a y b e forgiven s u c h a c r u d e characterization) to shout, " L o o k ! L o o k ! W e ' r e l i t e r a t u r e t o o ! " T h e s e c r i t i c s h a v e b e e n as r e s p o n ­ s i b l e as a n y o n e f o r t h e n e a r t h o u s a n d c l a s s e s i n S F c u r r e n t i y t a u g h t i n 1. [This paper was first drafted in 1 g88. Parts of it have been updated, but others have been left alone for historical interest.]

150

Shorter Views

A m e r i c a n u n i v e r s i t i e s . Is i t s i m p l e i n g r a t i t u d e , t h e n , t o q u e s t i o n j u s t h o w m u c h u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f o u r history, o u r practices, o u r traditions,

and

o u r texts t h e m a j o r i t y o f these classes are p r o d u c i n g — o r c a n p r o d u c e u n d e r a t h e m a t i c p r o g r a m t h a t p r e s e n t s S F as e x h a u s t e d w i t h a n d m a s ­ tered by n o t h a l f a d o z e n t h e m e s that, i n m y o p i n i o n , terrorize

our

genre: " N e w Worlds," "The Alien," "Technology," "Time," "Space," and " U t o p i a / D y s t o p i a " ? H o w e v e r y o u j u d g e it, I k n o w t h a t w h e n I h a v e d i s ­ c u s s e d s c i e n c e f i c t i o n a n d i t s m a r g i n a l s t a t u s , h o w i t h a s u s e d its m a r g i ­ n a l s t a t u s as a p o s i t i o n f r o m w h i c h t o c r i t i c i z e t h e w o r l d , h o w i t h a s o r g a ­ n i z e d i t s e l f d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m l i t e r a t u r e i n e v e r y t h i n g f r o m its m a t e r i a l p r a c t i c e s o f p u b l i c a t i o n a n d p r i n t i n g to the s e m a n t i c c o n v e n t i o n s that g o v e r n t h e r e a d i n g o f t h e s e n t e n c e s t h a t m a k e u p its t e x t s , a n d w h e n I have suggested S F has a p h i l o s o p h i c a l w o r t h a n d a n esthetic beauty that c a n be v a l o r i z e d by intensive analysis, a m o n g critics with m o r e recent al­ l e g i a n c e s , I've o f t e n f e l t t h a t I a m b e i n g h e a r d , t h a t t h e i d e a s I a m p u t ­ ting f o r t h are f a m i l i a r to t h e m . W h e n I talk w i t h t h e m a t i c critics, how­ ever, f r e q u e n t l y t h e i r r e s p o n s e is: " B u t s u r e l y y o u t o o w a n t s c i e n c e f i c t i o n t o b e l i t e r a t u r e t o o . . . " T o w h i c h m y a n s w e r is ( s u r p r i s i n g as s o m e s t i l l f i n d it) I d o n ' t a n d n e v e r h a v e . I d o n ' t e v e n w a n t literature to b e literature. I love t h e m b o t h too m u c h . M y t h i r d a n s w e r is a l s o , f i n a l l y , a p e r s o n a l o n e — t h o u g h i t is p o s i t i o n e d at t h e v e r y i n t e r f a c e o f m y first two. I w o u l d l i k e to see a d e b a t e a b o u t o u r o w n p r a c t i c e s o f e q u a l i n t e r e s t g r o w u p , h e r e , w i t h i n t h e p r e c i n c t s o f sci­ e n c e f i c t i o n — a debate i n f o r m e d by the same disposition toward analytic v i g i l a n c e , w i t h t h e s a m e w i l l i n g n e s s to h i s t o r i f y a n d d e m y s t i f y the vast range

of

sediments, unquestioned

self-evident positions, a n d

givens

u n d e r w h i c h o u r g e n r e , its f a n d o m , its r e a d e r s h i p s t r u g g l e , a l o n g w i t h e n ­ e r g e t i c a t t e m p t s to d e c o n s t r u c t t h o s e o p p o s i t i o n s at w h i c h so m u c h dis­ c u s s i o n o f s c i e n c e f i c t i o n s t a l l s : " t e c h n o l o g y " vs. " s c i e n c e , " " r e v i e w i n g " vs. " c r i t i c i s m , " " p r o " v s . " f a n , " " c o m m e r c i a l " v s . " q u a l i t y , " a n d " c r a f t " vs. " a r t . " F o r these are the oppositions o n w h i c h the c u r r e n t a n d practical pro­ d u c t i o n o f s c i e n c e f i c t i o n rests. T h e s e o p p o s i t i o n s a n d t h e t e n s i o n s they generate create the b o u n d a r i e s the S F text m u s t cross a n d recross, not o n l y a f t e r i t l e a v e s t h e w r i t e r t o m a k e its w a y t h r o u g h t h e p u b l i c a t i o n a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n m a c h i n e r y , b u t w h i c h i t m u s t n e g o t i a t e e v e n a t its i n c e p t i o n a n d a t e v e r y s t a g e o f its e x e c u t i o n . T h e e n d l e s s a n d s t i f l i n g c o n t r a d i c ­ tions, e c o n o m i c a n d i d e o l o g i c a l , o f w h i c h these o p p o s i t i o n s are c o n ­ structed, are the o n e s that all o f us i n science fiction, readers, writers, edi­ tors, a n d critics, c a n o n l y w h i s p e r o f i n the very m a r g i n s o f o u r respective p r o d u c t i v e efforts, practically i n fear o f e x p u l s i o n f r o m the field: Because i f w e s p o k e i n a n y o t h e r way, n o o n e i n t h e f i e l d , w e fear, w o u l d e v e n

N e i t h e r the First W o r d n o r the Last

151

u n d e r s t a n d us. T h e s e are the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s all o f u s — i n the f i e l d — m u s t d e c l a r e o u r s e l v e s b l i n d t o a t e v e r y f o r m a l s t a t i o n as w e n e g o t i a t e o u r w a y a b o u t i n it. T h e d e b a t e I w o u l d l i k e to see w i l l o c c u r w h e n that m a r g i n a l w h i s p e r is s p o k e n o u t a n d i s m a d e a c c e s s i b l e a n d a r t i c u l a t e , t h r o u g h t h e f u n c tion, t h e field, a n d t h e discourse o f science fiction. A n d it w o u l d b e w a r m i n g t o see s u c h a d e b a t e i n f o r m e d b y a n a w a r e n e s s o f t h e l a r g e r f i e l d o f critical debates i n w h i c h a n y critical d i s c o u r s e is e m b e d d e d t o d a y . T h o u g h I a m c o n t r i b u t i n g e d i t o r t o Science Fiction Studies a n d a r e g u l a r r e a d e r o f Extrapolation

(the two A m e r i c a n a c a d e m i c S F j o u r n a l s ) , I

d o n ' t believe that s u c h a debate c a n g r o w u p w i t h i n t h e m . T h e material exigencies o f a c a d e m i a p r e c l u d e i t — o r assure that s u c h a n analytic vigil a n c e will b e h a l f - h e a r t e d at best. B u t I t h i n k b y s e i z i n g the critical i m p e r ative f o r o u r s e l v e s , i n t e r e s t e d a n d i n f o r m e d r e a d e r s o f S F h a v e t h e b e s t c h a n c e t o t a k e as m u c h i n t e l l i g e n t c h a r g e o f o u r h i s t o r y as p o s s i b l e . A t any rate, to m a k e t h e smallest gesture t o w a r d i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e l a s t p a r t o f m y t r i p a r t i t e s u g g e s t i o n (". . . a n a w a r e n e s s o f t h e l a r g e r f i e l d o f critical d e b a t e i n w h i c h , today, a n y critical d i s c o u r s e is e m b e d d e d . . ."), we shall leave science fiction f o r a w h i l e — a l t h o u g h , i n a w h i l e , w e shall return.

The Archaeology of Structuralism.

F o r this i n t r o d u c t i o n to be o f use, we

must now turn to history—take u p the p r o b l e m o f origins, the p r o b l e m o f f i l i a t i o n (that is, t h e t h e m e o f s o u r c e s a n d i n f l u e n c e s ) , t h a t t r a d i t i o n ally m a k e s u p w h a t we a s s u m e t o b e history. W r i t e r s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as structuralists i n c l u d e t h e s t r u c t u r a l

anthro-

pologist C l a u d e Lévi-Strauss, the psychoanalyst Jacques L a c a n , a n d the Marxist theoretician L o u i s Althusser, a l o n g with lesser k n o w n n a m e s ,

s u c h as G e r a r d G e n e t t e ( a u t h o r o f Narrative Discourse: A Study of Proust), A l g i r d a s G r e i m a s ( a u t h o r o f On Meaning),

a n d M i c h e l Serres (author o f

Hermes a n d The Parasite). I n 1980 a t t h e i r a p a r t m e n t i n t h e École Normale Supérieure, A l t h u s s e r s t r a n g l e d t o d e a t h H é l è n e L e g o s t i e n ( w é e R y t m a n ) , a w o m a n seven years his s e n i o r w h o h a d b e e n his c o m p a n i o n since 1946 a n d his wife since 1976. A f t e r that, h e lived b a c k a n d f o r t h b e t w e e n m e n t a l h o s p i t a l s a n d a n a p a r t m e n t i n t h e n o r t h o f P a r i s , till h i s o w n d e a t h i n 1990

a t a g e 7 2 , h a v i n g m e a n t i m e w r i t t e n a n a u t o b i o g r a p h y , The Future

Lasts a Long Time [L'Avenir dure longtemps] ( 1 9 9 3 ) . L a c a n d i e d i n 1 9 8 1 , leaving b e h i n d a l e n g t h y series o f s e m i n a r transcripts that are still b e i n g e d i t e d a n d translated. L é v i - S t r a u s s is still alive, t h o u g h his last b o o k to b e t r a n s l a t e d i n t o E n g l i s h ( 1 9 8 5 ) i s a c o l l e c t i o n o f essays t h a t a p p e a r e d i n

1983 i n F r a n c e , The View from Afar [Le Regard Eloingné]. B u t a l l t h e s e thinkers

are associated—along with

the great

linguistics

scholar

152

Shorter Views

R o m a n J a k o b s o n (and his realizadon that i n living language metonymy is a m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l p r o c e s s t h a n m e t a p h o r ) — w i t h t h e s t r u c t u r a l i s t phase o f the dialogue. If y o u w i l l take t h e f o l l o w i n g statements o f similarities a m o n g

them

n o t as a p a c k a g e t o p u t t h e m i n , b u t r a t h e r as a p l a c e t o s t a r t f u r t h e r i n ­ quiries that will reveal p r o f o u n d differences a m o n g them, differences t i m e p r e c l u d e s u s f r o m p u r s u i n g h e r e , t h e n I c a n say t h a t , f o r a l l t h r e e , Lévi-Strauss, A l t h u s s e r , a n d L a c a n , l a n g u a g e was a p r i v i l e g e d object i n terms o f their o w n d i s c i p l i n e . A n t h r o p o l o g i s t Lévi-Strauss, after a m o n u ­ m e n t a l s t u d y o f k i n s h i p p a t t e r n s i n p r i m i t i v e t r i b e s , The Elementary Struc­ tures of Kinship ( 1 9 4 9 ) , w h i c h p o s e d t h a t p r i m i t i v e s o c i e t i e s w e r e h e l d t o ­ g e t h e r b y the e x c h a n g e o f w o m e n a m o n g m e n : father, brother, o r u n c l e to h u s b a n d , m u c h t h eway signs are e x c h a n g e d i n l a n g u a g e . A f t e r that h e u n d e r t o o k a four-volume "Introduction to the Science o f Mythology," w i t h t h e o v e r a l l t i t l e Mythologique ('64, '66, '68, ' 7 1 ) , i n w h i c h t h e e l e ­ m e n t s o f m a n y S o u t h A m e r i c a n I n d i a n myths are c o m p a r e d a n d tabu­ l a t e d as i f t h e y w e r e p h o n e t i c p a t t e r n s i n a l a n g u a g e , i n o r d e r t o d e c o d e v a r i o u s d e f e r r e d m e s s a g e s t h a t m i g h t s t a n d r e v e a l e d b e h i n d t h e i r stag­ g e r i n g variety. O n e o f t h e m o r e en passant c o n c e p t s t h a t L é v i - S t r a u s s i n t r o d u c e d t h a t p r o v e d e x t r e m e l y u s e f u l f o r a w h i l e w a s t h a t o f bricolage, as c o n t r a s t e d s p e ­ c i f i c a l l y w i t h " e n g i n e e r i n g . " T h e F r e n c h bricoleur i s a

figure

w h o is n o t

really a part o f t h eA m e r i c a n landscape. T h e closest translation we can m a k e is " h a n d y m a n . " B u t h e is also a p l u m b e r , a c a r p e n t e r , a n d a n e l e c t r i ­ c a l r e p a i r m a n as w e l l . H i s j o b is t o s o l v e w h a t e v e r p r o b l e m s a r i s e . H i s t o o l s are available materials. T h e e n g i n e e r takes a p r o b l e m a n d , a p p l y i n g over­ a r c h i n g p r i n c i p l e s t o it, w o r k s d o w n t o the s p e c i f i c , w e l l - f o r m e d s o l u t i o n . C o n t r a s t i n g l y , t h e bricoleur s t a r t s w i t h t h e l o c a l p r o b l e m , s o l v e s o n e p a r t , t h e n t h enext, u n t i l often rather quirky, Rube-Goldberg-style structures arise, w h i c h nevertheless c a n b e b o t h stable a n d efficient. Lévi-Strauss's observation that, i n spite o f all the d i a g r a m s a n d the dense rhetoric, t h e e f f o r t s o f t h e m o d e r n t h e o r i s t ( s u c h as h i s o w n i n Mythologique) w e r e b e t ­ t e r u n d e r s t o o d as c o n c e p t u a l b r i c o l a g e t h a n as g r a n d - p l a n e n g i n e e r i n g (à la H e g e l ) c a m e t o m a n y a c a d e m i c s w o r k i n g i n t h e a r e a o f t h e o r y as a useful a n d liberating notion. F o r p s y c h o a n a l y s t L a c a n , " t h e u n c o n s c i o u s " w a s " s t r u c t u r e d as a l a n ­ g u a g e . " L a c a n w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a r e - e m p h a s i s o n p s y c h o a n a l y s i s as "the

talking cure," with a concomitant

emphasis o n language—the

patient's, the analyst's—by m e a n s o f a massive theoretical

interrogation

o f h o w l a n g u a g e f o r m s a n d i n f o r m s o u r entire social b e i n g , i n a register h e c a l l e d t h e S y m b o l i c , as d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e I m a g i n a r y — w h i c h is h o w t h e w o r l d a p p e a r s as a s e r i e s o f i m a g e s . ( I m a g i n a r y c o m e s f r o m " i m a g e "

N e i t h e r theFirst W o r d n o rthe Last

153

h e r e , n o t " t h e i m a g i n a t i o n . " ) T h e S y m b o l i c h a s b e e n d e s c r i b e d as t h e critical register i n w h i c h , a l o n e , t h e I m a g i n a r y c a n u n d e r s t a n d h o w it functions

as t h e I m a g i n a r y . W r i t e r s w h o h a v e p r o v i d e d

particularly

interesting e x p l a n a t i o n s o f this a n d o t h e r o f L a c a n ' s difficult c o n c e p t s include Jane Gallup, Shoshana Felman, and Juliet Flower MacCannell. L a c a n was also r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a " r e t u r n t o F r e u d , " that i n v o l v e d pay­ ing meticulous attention to the language o f Freud's o w n writings. O n e o f his m o s t p o p u l a r a n d s t i m u l a t i n g p i e c e s ( t h o u g h m u c h o f it c a n at first seem daunting)

is h i s " S e m i n a r o n ' T h e P u r l o i n e d L e t t e r ' " (that, i n

F r e n c h , o p e n s h i s t h o u s a n d - p a g e c o l l e c t e d w r i t i n g s , Écrits [ P a r i s : S e u i l , 1 9 6 6 ] , a n d w h i c h , i n t r a n s l a t i o n , h a s b e e n t a k e n as t h e c e n t e r p i e c e f o r a

b o o k a l l its o w n : The Purloined Poe: Lacan, Derrida, and Psychoanalytic Read­ ing, e d s . J o h n P. M u l l e r a n d W i l l i a m J . R i c h a r d s o n , B a l t i m o r e : J o h n s H o p k i n s , 1988), i n w h i c h L a c a n traces o u t t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e p s y c h o ­ a n a l y t i c r e l a t i o n t h a t a r r a n g e s i t s e l f a r o u n d a n y " s i g n i f i e r , " as i t f o r m s , r e ­ forms, then forms o n c e m o r e about t h e letter w h o s e contents w e never l e a r n as i t m o v e s a m o n g t h e c h a r a c t e r s i n P o e ' s s t o r y . A f t e r

reading

L a c a n ' s m e d i t a t i o n o n P o e ' s t a l e , W i l l i a m G i b s o n ' s 1982 s t o r y ' J o h n n y M n e m o n i c " b e g i n s t o l o o k p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g , i n t e r m s o f b o t h its similarities t o a n d its d i f f e r e n c e s f r o m t h e P o e . Another

Freudian concept

that

Lacan reinvigorated

(like

Lévi-

S t r a u s s ' s bricolage, i n p a s s i n g : T h e r e i s o n l y o n e 1 9 5 8 e s s a y d i r e c t l y o n t h e t o p i c [ " T h e S i g n i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p h a l l u s , " i n c l u d e d i n Écrit] a n d v a r i o u s o t h e r en passant m e n t i o n s a n d d i s c u s s i o n s ) w a s t h a t o f t h e p h a l l u s . F o r L a c a n t h e p h a l l u s w a s s p e c i f i c a l l y not t h e p e n i s o r c l i t o r i s t h a t c a n s y m ­ b o l i z e it. R a t h e r i t w a s a s t r u c t u r e o f m e a n i n g t h a t , l i k e t h e n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s t h a t f o r m a n d r e f o r m a r o u n d t h e p u r l o i n e d l e t t e r as i t j o u r ­ neys o n its w a y t h r o u g h P o e ' s tale, a n y " s i g n i f i e r o f d e s i r e " m u s t i n ­ h a b i t — a n d t h e s i g n i f i e r o f d e s i r e (that is, t h e s t r u c t u r e t h a t creates s u c h a s i g n i f i e r ) is w h a t t h e p h a l l u s is. U n l i k e t h e c l i t o r i s o r t h e p e n i s , t h e p h a l l u s f u n c t i o n s o n l y t h r o u g h cas­ tration. F r e u d gives a n a c c o u n t o f t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f m a l e h e t e r o s e x u ­ ality that r u n s s o m e t h i n g l i k e this: T h e littie b o y u n c r i t i c a l l y a s s u m e s t h a t his m o t h e r is a n a t o m i c a l l y i d e n t i c a l to h i m s e l f — t h e p r e - p h a l l i c stage. A t a c e r t a i n p o i n t , h e l e a r n s o r n o t i c e s s h e d o e s n o t h a v e a p e n i s as h e h a s . This conceptual violence represents f o r h i m thematernal castration. Fre­ q u e n t l y little boys will a s s u m e , F r e u d n o t e d , that their m o t h e r s have lost their penises o r h a d t h e m s o m e h o w c u t off. T h e i m a g e / c o n c e p t o f t h e penis-that-is-not-there, this p e r c e i v e d a b s e n c e , this d i f f e r e n c e - f r o m - t h e self, w h i c h o r g a n i z e s h i s f i x a t i o n o n t h e f e m a l e g e n i t a l r e g i o n a n d e v e n ­ t u a l l y h e l p s s e x u a l i z e i t , is t h e p h a l l u s — t h a t i s , t h e a l l - i m p o r t a n t nal phallus" i n Freud's theoretical elaboration.

"mater­

154

Shorter Views

A n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f t h e p h a l l u s as a s t r u c t u r e o f m e a n i n g m i g h t b e the traditional progress o f the a r g u m e n t o f feminists a n d feminist sym­ p a t h i z e r s ( s u c h as m y s e l f ) a g a i n s t t h e w h o l e F r e u d i a n t h e o r y o f p h a l l i c s y m b o l s . I n t h e p r e - c r i t i c a l p e r i o d t h e r e is t h e b l a n k e t a s s u m p t i o n that F r e u d ' s t h e o r y o f p h a l l i c symbols associates the various manifestations o f m a l e p o w e r w i t h t h e h a v i n g o f a p e n i s — t h e p r e - p h a l l i c stage o f t h e a r g u ­ m e n t . T h r o u g h l o g i c a n d a n a l y s i s w e r e a l i z e t h a t t h e r e is n o necessary c o n ­ nection between those powers m e n have a n d any particularity o f male anatomy, t h e p e n i s o r any o t h e r part. T h i s represents t h e castration o f the pre-critical v e r s i o n o f the theory. F u r t h e r analysis o f the powers that are associated w i t h m e n p r o c e e d so that we can m a i n t a i n a vigilant cri­ t i q u e o f t h e p o w e r s m e n do e x e r c i s e , as w e l l as e s c h e w t h o s e p o w e r s w h e n we d o n ' t like their results, o r a p p r o p r i a t e those others that we d e s i r e — a n e n t e r p r i s e o r g a n i z e d a r o u n d a r e l a t i o n s h i p - w i t h - t h e - m a l e that is i m p o r ­ t a n t p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e i t is not t h e r e i n a n y a b s o l u t e o r n e c e s s a r y w a y . T h i s absolute-relationship-that-is-not-there

is j u s t as m u c h t h e p h a l l u s as t h e

u n q u e s t i o n e d m a t e r n a l p e n i s - t h a t - i s - n o t - t h e r e : A n d t h u s , t h i s is p r e c i s e l y t h e phallic s t a g e o f t h e a r g u m e n t — t h a t is t o say, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e s e p o w e r s a n d m e n is n o w s p e c i f i c a l l y p h a l l i c , r a t h e r t h a n p r e - p h a l l i c . B u t s o m e p e o p l e a r e still s u r p r i s e d , a n d e v e n t r o u b l e d , t o l e a r n that F r e u d ' s t h e o r y o f t h e p h a l l u s was n o t a theory o f strength b u t rather a theory o f strength subverted, contained, tamed, symbolized (for the p h a l l u s only f u n c t i o n s t h r o u g h c a s t r a t i o n ) , i.e., a t h e o r y o f p o w e r . F u r t h e r t h o u g h t w i l l s h o w t h a t t h e p h a l l i c s t r u c t u r e o f m e a n i n g i s fi­ n a l l y t h e s t r u c t u r e t h r o u g h w h i c h any s i g n i f i e r o p e r a t e s , s t a r t i n g w i t h t h e m o m e n t as t o d d l e r s , s t r a i n i n g a f t e r t h e a p p l e , t h e p i e c e o f c a n d y , t h e t o y j u s t o u t o f r e a c h , w e r e p e a t a n d r e p e a t ". . . a p p l e . . . c a n d y . . . t o y , " t h u s l e a r n i n g t h a t t h e w o r d is n o t t h e t h i n g — a l e a r n i n g t h a t is t h e "castra­ tion" o r splitting o f the concept o f any verbally e m p o w e r e d concept. T h u s , i n its essence, t h e p h a l l u s n o t o n l y has n o t h i n g necessarily t o d o w i t h m e n , i t h a s n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h s e x . Y e s , i t p a s s e s through s e x ; b u t i t p a s s e s t h r o u g h all the p r o c e s s e s o f m e a n i n g w e c a n l o c a t e . R e a l i z i n g t h i s is t h e n e c e s s a r y c a s t r a t i o n , o r d e - m e t a p h o r i z a t i o n , o f t h e t e r m t h a t is n e c e s s a r y f o r i t t o f u n c t i o n . T h a t t h e p r o c e s s w a s first n o t e d a n d n a m e d i n a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f m a l e d e s i r e is itself o n l y a n a c c i d e n t o f t h e p o l i t i c a l fact that, since t h e tale o f A d a m d i s t r i b u t i n g

names in the garden

(which, if I can indulge i n a bitm o r e castration/demetaphorization/dem y s t i f i c a t i o n , i s not t h e b e g i n n i n g o f c i v i l i z a t i o n b u t o n l y a c o m p a r a t i v e l y r e c e n t t a l e about its b e g i n n i n g s , a n d h a s b e e n t h e o r i z e d b y c r i t i c H a r o l d B l o o m to have b e e n written b y a noble w o m a n i n the court o f K i n g D a v i d , t h e " J W r i t e r " o f b i b l i c a l e x e g e s i s ) , w e do l i v e i n a s e x i s t s o c i e t y t h a t p r i v i l e g e s m e n as p r e s u m e d c e n t e r s o f m e a n i n g p r o d u c t i o n . H a d

N e i t h e r the First W o r d n o rtheLast things b e e n different,

155

h o w e v e r , w h a t F r e u d a n d L a c a n d e s i g n a t e as

"phallus" a n d "castration" m i g h t have b e e n called " m u n g beans" a n d "harvesting"; o r "sunrise" a n d "blindfolding"; o r "refuse-placement" a n d " r e m o v a l " — a n d all w o u l d b e equally p r o n e to b e i n g m i s u n d e r s t o o d . F o r r e a l m u n g b e a n s a n d r e a l r e f u s e a r e n o t t h e s a m e as " m u n g b e a n s " a n d "refuse"

i n the psychoanalytic

sense,

since—in

the psychoanalytic

sense—"mung beans" a n d / o r "refuse" can only function through

"har­

vesting" a n d / o r "refuse r e m o v a l . " A n d to t h eextent that, i n their respec­ tive s o c i e t i e s , t h e i d e a o f m u n g b e a n s a n d / o r r e f u s e is a n e x p l o i t e d a n d mystified conceptual n o d e o f power, desire, a n dm e a n i n g , psychoana­ lytic m u n g - b e a n s o r p s y c h o a n a l y t i c refuse b e c o m e s a n i m p o r t a n t , vital, a n d c l a r i f y i n g s y m b o l . F o r t h e s a m e r e a s o n , so m a n y f e m i n i s t s (e.g., L u c e Irigaray, J u l i a Kristeva) h a v e f o u n d t h e p h a l l u s a u s e f u l c o n c e p t f o r a n a ­ lyzing the w o r k i n g s o f t h e patriarchy i n o u r society. L a c a n ' s t h e o r y o f t h e p h a l l u s is a t h e o r y o f d e s i r e , b u t n o t o f d e s i r e as a force o r power located i n o n esubject that impels that subject

toward

a n o t h e r subject o r a n object. R a t h e r it is a t h e o r y a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the subject a n d t h e category that i n c l u d e s desire's object, w h i c h must b e established between subject a n d object-category i f the relation­ s h i p w e r e c o g n i z e as d e s i r e i s t o o b t a i n . A n d b e c a u s e i t a t o m i z e s p o w e r i n t o its constitutive a n t e r i o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , it c a n b e a u s e f u l f a c t o r i n a theory o/power. After resigning (along with four other distinguished colleagues) f r o m t h e o r t h o d o x Société psychanalytique de Paris o v e r a d i s a g r e e m e n t a r i s i n g f r o m personalities a n d

finally

fixing

o n h o w y o u n g psychoanalysts were to

b e t r a i n e d , L a c a n a n d h i s a s s o c i a t e s f o r m e d t h e i r o w n Société Française de Psychanalyse, w h i c h t h e o l d e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s t e a d i l y r e f u s e d t o a c k n o w l ­ e d g e — a l t h o u g h , b y the n e worganization's First Congress, i n R o m e i n

1 9 5 3 , t h e Société Française de Psychanalyse h a d t h e s u p p o r t o f a l m o s t h a l f the student analysts. A t the e n d o f L a c a n ' s address to c o l l e a g u e s a n d stu­ d e n t s a t R o m e , p r e s e n t e d o n S e p t e m b e r 26 a n d 27, " T h e F u n c t i o n a n d F i e l d o f S p e e c h a n d L a n g u a g e i n Psychoanalysis" (the d e n s e a n d difficult l e c t u r e is o f t e n c a l l e d b y t h e n i c k n a m e " T h e D i s c o u r s e o f R o m e " ) , t o ­ ward thee n d o f his lengthy discussion o f the transference m e c h a n i s m , i n a n a t t e m p t t o p r e s e n t a n e x a m p l e o f t r a n s f e r e n c e at its m o s t b e n e f i c e n t L a c a n rereads a text familiar to m a n y E n g l i s h speakers: T h e referent text is, o f c o u r s e , " W h a t t h e T h u n d e r S a i d , " s e c t i o n 5 o f T . S . E l i o t ' s Waste Land. To t h e y o u n g e r a n d o l d e r analysts a t t e n d i n g h i m , L a c a n c o n c l u d e d :

The psychanalytic experience has rediscovered in man the imperative of the Word as the law that has formed him in its image. It manipulates the poetic function of language to give to his desire its symbolic mediation. May that

156

Shorter Views 2

experience enable you to understand at last that it is in the gift of speech that all the reality of its effects resides; for it is by way of this gift that all reality has come to man and it is by his continued act that he maintains it. If the domain defined by this gift of speech is to be sufficient for your ac­ tion as also for your knowledge, it will also be sufficient for your devotion. For it offers it a privileged field. When the Devas, the men, and the Asuras were ending their novitiate with Prajapâti, so we read in the second Brahmana of the fifth lesson of the Bhradâranyaka Upanishad, they addressed to him this prayer: "Speak to us." "Da," said Prajapâti, god of thunder. "Did you hear me?" And the Devas an­ swered and said: "Thou has said to us: Damyata, master yourselves"—the sa­ cred text meaning that the powers above submit to the law of speech. "Da," said Prajapâti, god of thunder. "Did you hear me?" And the men an­ swered and said: "Thou has said to us: Data, give"—the sacred text meaning that men recognize each other by the gift of speech. "Da," said Prajapâti, god of thunder. "Did you hear me?" And the Asuras an­ swered and said: "Thou hast said to us: Dayadhyam, be merciful"—the sacred text meaning that the powers below resound in the invocation of speech. That, continued the text, is what the divine voice caused to be heard in the thunder: Submission, gift, grace. Da da da.* For Prajapâti replied to all: "You have heard me." 3

E v e n as i t s u g g e s t s t h a t l a n g u a g e h a s n o m e a n i n g o f i t s o w n , b u t o n l y t h e m e a n i n g s w e h e a r i n it, t h e p r o j e c t i o n o n t o t h e t h u n d e r o f t h e m o r a l i m ­ perative to treat ourselves a n d o u r fellows w i t h respect a n d c o m p a s s i o n is, f o r L a c a n , F r e u d i a n t r a n s f e r e n c e at its b e s t . F o r t h e t h r e e S a n s k r i t terms, E l i o t so f a m o u s l y p r o v i d e d the m e a n i n g s : c o n t r o l , give, sympa­ t h i z e . B u t h o w e v e r o n e r e a d s t h e m ( w h e t h e r w e r e a d t h e m as m o r a l i m ­ p e r a t i v e s o r as d e m o n s t r a t i o n s a b o u t l a n g u a g e i t s e l f ) , c e r t a i n l y t h e y m a r k out the field i n w h i c h the intricately a n d endlessly c o m p l e x recom­ p l i c a t i o n s o f L a c a n ' s l a t e r e l a b o r a t i o n s o n t h e s u b j e c t t h a t is a l w a y s s p l i t , t h a t i s n e v e r w h o l e , a n d t h a t is i t s e l f c o n s t i t u t e d o f t h e i l l u s i o n o f its o w n e x i s t e n c e w i l l strive to f u n c t i o n . C e r t a i n l y the structuralist t h i n k e r w h o t u r n s o u t to have h a d the m o s t l a s t i n g i n f l u e n c e , t h e t h i n k e r w h o is l e a s t k n o w n o u t s i d e t h e d e b a t e s 2. Let it be understood that it is not a question of those 'gifts' that are always supposed to be lacking in novices, but of a gift that is in fact lacking to them more often than they lack it. [Notes outside square brackets are Lacan's; those inside are the translator's or SRD's.] 3. Ponge writes it: réson (1966) [In his Pour un Malherbe. 'Resound' is 'résonner in French: réson is a homonym of raison.] 4. 'Soumission, don, grâce'. T h e three Sanskrit nouns (damah, dânan, dayâ) are also ren­ dered "self-control"; "giving"; and "compassion" (Rhadhakrishnan), the three verbs, "con­ trol", "give", "sympathize" (T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land, Part V; "What the Thunder Said"). 1

N e i t h e r the First W o r d n o r the Last

157

t h e m s e l v e s , is L o u i s A l t h u s s e r . A l t h u s s e r w a s a M a r x i s t t h e o r e t i c i a n . F o r A l t h u s s e r , M a r x w a s p r i m a r i l y a r e a d e r o f o t h e r w r i t e r s ' t e x t s . I n Lire le Capital ( " T o R e a d Das Capital," a c o l l e c t i o n o f five n e a r - b o o k - l e n g t h e s says b y B a l i b a r , R a n c i è r e , M a c h e r e y , E s t a b l e t , a n d A l t h u s s e r , w h i c h

first

a p p e a r e d i n two v o l u m e s i n Paris, 1965: the B a l i b a r a n d A l t h u s s e r c o n t r i b u t i o n s h a v e b e e n t r a n s l a t e d b y B e n B r e w s t e r a s Reading Capital [ N L B , L o n d o n , 1972]), Althusser a r g u e d that M a r x d e v e l o p e d a n e w level o f analytical reading: A c c o r d i n g to Althusser, earlier economists a n d political theorists r e a d e a c h o t h e r only i n terms o f what e a c h said. E a c h t h e n p r o p o s e d his o w n ideas against that r e a d i n g . B u t M a r x ' s writings o n earlier theorists presented a " d o u b l e

reading," Althusser maintains, i n

w h i c h M a r x reads what the other e c o n o m i s t said, then proceeds to read what h e left out, h i s tacit p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s , t h e h i s t o r i c a l pressures o n h i m , t h e stabilizing institutions h e was i n v o l v e d with, t h e aspects h e r e pressed o r was b l i n d t o , thus a l l o w i n g M a r x t o g o o n t o s h o w the c o n t r a dictions w i t h i n t h e " r e s t o r e d " text, a n d to speculate o n t h e significance o f the two texts o f the way o n e c o m m e n t s o n t h e o t h e r — a vigilant, a n a lytic e n t e r p r i s e i n w h i c h I h o p e y o u c a n r e c o g n i z e t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s t o t h e d e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e n o t i o n o f t h e m e as I ' v e a l r e a d y p r e s e n t e d i t . A n o t h e r i d e a f r o m A l t h u s s e r ' s 1969 essay " I d e o l o g y a n d

Ideological

S t a t e A p p a r a t u s e s " (Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, M o n t h l y R e v i e w Press, N e w Y o r k , 1 9 7 1 ) that has r e c e i v e d m o r e a n d m o r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f late is t h e i d e a o f " i n t e r p e l l a t i o n " — a n d t h e q u e s t i o n o f h o w w e a r e i n t e r p e l l a t e d as s u b j e c t s b y t h e p e o p l e , i n s t i t u t i o n s , a n d o b j e c t s a r o u n d u s . ' T o i n t e r p e l l a t e " is a n a r c h a i c v e r b that m e a n s ( i n b o t h E n g l i s h a n d F r e n c h ) "to b r e a k i n o n " i n t h e sense o f " t o i n t e r r u p t . " A s w e l l , it m e a n s " t o p e t i tion,"

o r as A l t h u s s e r s u g g e s t s , " t o h a i l . " T h e p r o c e s s o f " i n t e r p e l l a t i o n "

o r " h a i l i n g , " c l a i m s A l t h u s s e r , c r e a t e s u s as s u b j e c t s . A l t h u s s e r w r i t e s :

[T] hat very precise operation which I have called interpellation or hailing . . . can be imagined along the lines of the most commonplace everyday police (or other) hailing, "Hey, you there!" Assuming that the theoretical scene I have imagined takes place on the street, the hailed individual will turn around. By the mere one-hundred-andeighty-degree physical conversion, he becomes a subject. Why? Because he has recognized that the hail was "really" addressed to him, and that "it was really him who was hailed" (and not someone else). T h e q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a r o u n d " r e a l l y " a n d t h e i t a l i c s o f really him s u g g e s t t h e sous rature m a r k i n g w i t h w h i c h w e b e g a n . I n d e e d , A l t h u s s e r u s e s t h e m precisely because the o n l y "reality" we have access to at a n y g i v e n m o m e n t is b u i l t u p f r o m m y r i a d p r e v i o u s h a i l i n g s , n o t o n l y f r o m i n d i v i d u a l s b u t f r o m advertisements, institutions, a n d even objects i n t h e l a n d s c a p e , so

158

Shorter Views

that, i n effect, we are "always-ready" ( a n o t h e r c o m m o n

structuralist/post-

structuralist l o c a t i o n u s e d b y A l t h u s s e r ) i n t e r p e l l a t e d b y o u r society at any given point.

(Fritz L e i b e r ' s 1949 S F story " T h e G i r l W i t h

E y e s " w a s t a k e n u p b y M a r s h a l M c L u h a n i n h i s 1 9 5 1 Understanding

Hungry Media

as a d r a m a t i c i n s t a n c e avant la lettre o f t h e w a y i n w h i c h a d v e r t i s e m e n t s " h a i l " u s . I t is e q u a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g t o d a y f o r t h e s a m e r e a s o n . ) T h e a s s u m p t i o n o f a reality b e y o n d o u r p e r s o n a l , always-mediated ex­ p e r i e n c e o f i t — w h e t h e r it be a reality o f matter a n d energy that science suggests o r a reality p u r e l y o f ideas a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s that p h i l o s o p h e r s f r o m Plato to Berkeley a n d some c o n t e m p o r a r y philosophers o f mathe­ m a t i c s s t i l l b e l i e v e i n — i s theleap

into metaphysics. A n d because we can­

n o t n e g o t i a t e t h e w o r l d w i t h o u t a s s u m i n g it is really o n e t h i n g o r t h e other, we are always w i t h i n o n e m e t a p h y s i c a l system o r a n o t h e r . L a t e r c o m m e n t a t o r s o n A l t h u s s e r have p o i n t e d o u t that t h e way i n w h i c h we have always-already b e e n h a i l e d has a great deal to d owith any i n d i v i d u a l i n s t a n c e o f h a i l i n g : O n the streets o f N e w Y o r k , f o r e x a m p l e , a well-off a n d well-dressed white m a l e will b e / b e c o m e a very different sub­ ject f r o m a h o m e l e s s black w o m a n i n a tattered coat, w h e n hailed by the same, "Hey, you there!" f r o m thesame policeman. But f o r all three

o f these thinkers,

C l a u d e Lévi-Strauss, Jacques

L a c a n , a n d L o u i s A l t h u s s e r , i n t h e i r s e p a r a t e d i s c i p l i n e s , l a n g u a g e is t h e m o d e l t h e y u s e t o d e s c r i b e w h a t is m e a n i n g f u l i n t h a t d i s c i p l i n e . O n e o f t h e insights m o s t b r u i t e d a b o u t f r o m these debates is that "the o r i g i n is always a c o n s t r u c t . " T h a t is e q u a l l y t r u e f o r m y suggestion o f A l t h u s s e r ' s r e a d i n g o f M a r x ' s r e a d i n g m e t h o d s as i t is t r u e as a m o d e l f o r D e r r i d a ' s d e c o n s t r u c t i o n — t h o u g h y o u will f i n d it suggested b y a n u m ­ b e r o f o t h e r c r i t i c s as w e l l , i n c l u d i n g F r e d r i c J a m e s o n , w h o s e e a r l y b o o k s

a n d p a p e r s (Marxism

and Form [ 1 9 7 1 ] , The Prison House of Language

[ 1 9 7 2 ] , a n d t h e t w o - v o l u m e c o l l e c t i o n o f h i s essays, The Ideology of Theory [ 1 9 8 8 ] ) a r e s t i l l a fine i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e first w a v e o f t h i n k e r s i n t h e debate if w e c a n separate t h e m f r o m those thinkers like M a x Weber, E m i l e D u r k h e i m , V l a d i m i r P r o p p , a n d M a r c e l M a u s s — n o t to m e n t i o n M a r x a n d F r e u d — w h o c a m e before t h e m a n d f r o m w h o m they learned ( a n d o n w h o m t h e y b u i l t ) a n d w h o s e Political Unconscious ( 1 9 8 1 ) h a s b e ­ c o m e r e c o g n i z e d as a n i m p o r t a n t c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e d e b a t e s . B u t a l l that I c a n really d o h e r e is p o i n t o u t o t h e r o r i g i n s that have b e e n c o n s t r u c t e d f o r d e c o n s t r u c t i o n , w i t h theclear suggestion that each o f t h e s e o r i g i n s h a s , i n d e e d , its o w n i d e o l o g i c a l n u a n c e , a n d v a r i o u s p a r ­ ticipants i n the debates have frequently e m b r a c e d m o r e than one, a n d that f r o m time to time antagonisms i n the debates might b e illuminated, at least f o r a p e r i o d , i n t e r m s o f a p a r t i c u l a r o r i g i n c h o s e n . T h e G e n e v a - b o r n linguist, F e r d i n a n d - M o n g i n d e Saussure (1857-

N e i t h e r the First W o r d n o r the Last

159

1 9 1 3 ) , a n d t h e n o t e s o n h i s Course in General Linguistics t h a t s o m e o f h i s students t o o k d u r i n g h i s classes a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f G e n e v a

between

1907 a n d 1 9 1 1 a n d , a f t e r h i s d e a t h , p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 1 6 h a v e f r e q u e n t l y b e e n c i t e d as a s o u r c e f o r s t r u c t u r a l i s m / p o s t s t r u c t u r a l i s m .

Saussure, Peirce, and Semiotics. S a u s s u r e i s c i t e d m o s t f r e q u e n t l y f o r a n u m b e r o f i m p o r t a n t i d e a s as w e l l as f o r p r i v i l e g i n g h a l f - a - d o z e n - p l u s t e r m s f u n d a m e n t a l t o t h e d e b a t e ' s r h e t o r i c : parole ( l a n g u a g e a s a s e t o f p o s s i b l e u t t e r a n c e s ) , langue ( l a n g u a g e a s t h e s y n t a c t i c a l a n d s e m a n t i c rules that m a k e utterances c o m p r e h e n s i b l e ) , sign (that w h i c h consists o f a signifier a n d its s i g n i f i e d , a n i d e a a n d t e r m s S a u s s u r e b o r r o w e d f r o m the Stoic p h i l o s o p h e r s o f a n c i e n t G r e e c e ) , signifier

(the perceptible

part o f thesign), signified (the intelligible part o f thesign: the concept t h e s i g n i f i e r i s a s i g n of), s y n c h r o n i c ( t h e m u t u a l r e l a t i o n o f e l e m e n t s [ o r signs] at t h e s a m e h i s t o r i c a l m o m e n t ) , d i a c h r o n i c ( t h e successive rela­ tion

o f e l e m e n t s [ o r signs] over t h e c o u r s e o f t i m e ) . H e r e are four o f Saussure's most frequently cited ideas: (1)

T h e l i n g u i s t i c s i g n is a r b i t r a r y — t h a t is, t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e

signifier

a n d the signified

in words

(Saussure called t h e m

"sound-

i m a g e s " ) is s u c h t h a t a n y s o u n d c o m b i n a t i o n c a n b e a s s i g n e d t o a n y m e a n i n g a n d that relation will obtain until s o m e t h i n g c o m e s a l o n g a n d makes a reassignment (either o f the signifier o r o f the signified). (2) P h i l o l o g y s h o u l d b e s e p a r a t e f r o m l i n g u i s t i c s . T h e s e p a r a t i o n s h o u l d b e the separation o f s y n c h r o n i c elements (linguistics) f r o m d i ­ achronic elements

(philology).

(3) L a n g u a g e i s a p l a y o f p u r e d i f f e r e n c e s — t h i s l a s t i s a n o t i o n

hard

to c o n v e y i n a s i n g l e p h r a s e o r a f e w s e n t e n c e s . G e n e r a l l y , h o w e v e r , S a u s s u r e ' s p o i n t was t h a t w h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e s o u n d " b " is its d i f f e r ­ ences f r o m t h e s o u n d s " c , " " d , " a n d " f " — a n d , i n g e n e r a l , its d i f f e r e n c e s f r o m all other possible sounds. Thus, differences i n sounds b e c o m e m e a n i n g f u l i f o n e c a n establish " m i n i m a l pairs" f o r t h e m : e.g., i n s p o k e n American English thedifference between the voiced a n dunvoiced " t h " is m e a n i n g f u l b e c a u s e t h a t d i f f e r e n c e a l o n e d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e m i n i m a l pair "ether/either," with their different meanings. (4) H u m a n l a n g u a g e i s a s u b s e t o f a m o r e g e n e r a l s y s t e m o f s i g n s b y which nature's creatures c o m m u n i c a t e with each other o r read the w o r l d to b e l a i d o u t i n a c e r t a i n way. T h e s t u d y o f this m o r e g e n e r a l s y s t e m o f signs is s e m i o t i c s . A l l f o u r o f these ideas have h e l d c e n t e r stage f o r v a r i o u s p e r i o d s i n the structuralist/poststructuralist

d e b a t e s . It was t h e last o f t h e m , h o w ­

ever, t h a t was t o p r o v e m o s t f e r t i l e w h e n it was r a d i c a l l y r e v e r s e d b y R o ­ l a n d B a r t h e s i n h i s b r i e f b o o k The Elements of Semiology ( 1 9 6 4 ) .

16o

Shorter Views

T h e A m e r i c a n philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce

(1839-1914),

w h o s p e n t m a n y years, b y t h e b y e , l i v i n g i n M i l f o r d , P e n n s y l v a n i a , the so­ c i a l a n d e s t h e t i c c e n t e r o f s c i e n c e fiction d u r i n g t h e fifties a n d s i x t i e s , d i d a great deal o f w o r k o n semiotics i n the tradition o f Saussure—without ever h a v i n g e n c o u n t e r e d Saussure's very brief r e m a r k s o n the topic f r o m t h e Course. I n h i s s e a r c h f o r a g e n e r a l i z e d s e m i o t i c s , o f w h i c h

human

l a n g u a g e was o n l y a subset, P e i r c e d i v i d e d signs i n t o three categories: i c o n s ( i n w h i c h t h e s i g n i f i e r , h o w e v e r a b s t r a c t l y , p i c t u r e s t h e s i g n i f i e d , as i n various r o a d signs for turnoffs a n d m e r g i n g highways), indices

(in

w h i c h t h e s i g n i f i e r h a s a m e a s u r a b l e r e l a t i o n t o w h a t is s i g n i f i e d , s u c h as t h e h e i g h t o f t h e m e r c u r y i n a t h e r m o m e t e r t o t h e a i r t e m p e r a t u r e o r the p o s i t i o n o f the h a n d s o n a c l o c k to the t i m e ) , a n d s y m b o l s (in w h i c h t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e s i g n i f i e r t o t h e s i g n i f i e d is a r b i t r a r y , s u c h as i n n o n onomatopoeic spoken words or written Arabic numerals: Onomatopoeic words Peirce considered ironic). F o r all the initial s e e m i n g elegance of his semiotic trichotomy, Peirce f o u n d as h e p u r s u e d i t t h a t t h e r e w a s s o m u c h o f t h e a r b i t r a r y l u r k i n g i n b o t h the i c o n i c a n d the i n d e x i c a l s i g n , o r that so m a n y i n d e x i c a l o r iconic elements c o u l d enter into the m o r e c o m p l e x organization of sym­ b o l i c a l s i g n s ( s u c h as A r a b i c n u m b e r s h i g h e r t h a n t e n , o r i n t h e r h e t o r i ­ cal

figures

o f p o e t r y a n d literature), that, after g e n e r a t i n g several differ­

ent subsystems o f semiotic taxonomies (again, frequently divided

in

three) he f o u n d the whole process dissolving into what he called "unlim­ i t e d semiosis"—semiosis m e a n i n g r o u g h l y " t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s i g n s , " a n d " u n l i m i t e d s e m i o s i s " b e i n g his t e r m f o r "signs u s e d to i n t e r p r e t o t h e r signs that are u s e d to i n t e r p r e t o t h e r signs that are u s e d to i n t e r p r e t .

.."

T h e p o i n t was, however, that P e i r c e ' s e x p l o r a t i o n (carried out sporad­ i c a l l y u n t i l h i s d e a t h ) t o o k p l a c e u n d e r w h a t I've c a l l e d S a u s s u r e ' s f o u r t h a s s u m p t i o n : H u m a n l a n g u a g e is a s u b s e t o f a m o r e g e n e r a l s e m i o t i c system. B u t it was n o t u n t i l t h e a d v e n t o f R o l a n d B a r t h e s that substantial p r o g r e s s w a s m a d e i n t h i s t i l l - t h e n r a t h e r m a r g i n a l field o f s p e c u l a t i o n .

The Advent of Barthes.

I n 1960 R o l a n d B a r t h e s p u b l i s h e d a l o n g a n d e x ­

c i t i n g e s s a y as a n i n t r o d u c t i o n t o a n e w e d i t i o n o f t h e m o s t f a m o u s a n d most

academically revered classical F r e n c h playwright, J e a n R a c i n e

(1639-1699).

But

instead of

talking

about

characters,

motivations,

p s y c h o l o g i c a l subtleties, a n d stylistic r e f i n e m e n t s o f l a n g u a g e , B a r t h e s w r o t e a b o u t t h e p l a y s as i f t h e y w e r e g e o g r a p h y , a r c h i t e c t u r e , o r g e o m e t r y :

[O] ne might say that there are three tragic sites. There is first of all the Cham­ ber: Vestige of the mythic cave, it is the invisible and dreadful place where Power lurks . . . the Chamber is contiguous to the second tragic site, which is

N e i t h e r the First W o r d n o r the Last

161

the Antechamber, the eternal space of all subjection, since it is there that one waits. The Antechamber (the stage proper) is a medium of transmission; it partakes of both interior and exterior, of Power and Event . . . Between the Chamber and the Antechamber stands a tragic object which expresses both contiguity and exchange: the Door. Here one waits, here one trembles. To enter it is a temptation and a transgression . . . The third tragic site is the Exte­ rior. Between Antechamber and Exterior there is no transition; they are joined as immediately as the Antechamber and the Chamber. This contiguity is expressed poetically by the "linear" nature of the tragic enclosure: The pal­ ace walls plunge down into the sea; the stairs lead down to the ships ready to sail; the rampants are a balcony above the battle itself . . . In effect, B a r t h e s s u p e r i m p o s e d a l l R a c i n e ' s d o z e n plays o n e o n t h e other, t h e n dealt p r i m a r i l y w i t h those patterns that were r e i n f o r c e d b y the s u p e r i m p o s i t i o n . W h e n t h i s essay, a l o n g w i t h t w o o t h e r s o n R a c i n e , w a s p u b l i s h e d as a b o o k (On Racine i 9 6 0 ) , B a r t h e s w a s t h e s u b j e c t o f a n e w s ­ p a p e r attack b y a l e a d i n g F r e n c h philologist f r o m t h e S o r b o n n e , Ray­ m o n d P i c a r d , w h o d e c r i e d B a r t h e s ' s a p p r o a c h as m e c h a n i s t i c , s c i e n t i s t i c , a n d , i n a l l its o v e r - i n t e l l e c t u a l i s m , w i t h o u t f e e l i n g o r sensitivity t o t h e great F r e n c h plays. B u t i n 1964 B a r t h e s p u b l i s h e d a b r i e f b o o k

that

s e e m e d t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e t h e v e r y s c i e n t i s m o f h i s a p p r o a c h , The Elements of Semiology, as w e l l a s , i n 1 9 6 6 , a n a n s w e r t o P i c a r d , c a l l e d Criticism and Truth. M e a n w h i l e , a s c h o l a r e x c i t e d b y B a r t h e s ' s s e m i o t i c c o n c e r n s , G i l l e s D e l e u z e , p u b l i s h e d a b o o k that r e m a i n s twenty-five years later o n e o f t h e m o s t b r i l l i a n t a n d p e n e t r a t i n g s t u d i e s f r o m t h e p e r i o d , Proust and Signs

(1964). W h i l e F r e n c h academic circles were b e i n g polarized b y the B a r t h e s / P i c a r d d e b a t e , o t h e r s w e r e b u s y p o i n t i n g o u t that, save f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r flavor o f t h e r h e t o r i c , t h e sort o f g e o m e t r i c a l c r i t i c i s m B a r t h e s was p r a c ­ ticing o n R a c i n e was n o t very far f r o m w h a t v a r i o u s m a v e n s o f F r e n c h ac­ a d e m i c c r i t i c i s m s u c h as G e o r g e P o u l e t h a d b e e n d o i n g i n h i s essays f o r m a n y years, i n w h i c h h e h a d a n a l y z e d " t h e s p a c e " o f B a u d e l a i r e , M a l ­ larmé, a n d Valéry. A s well, it b o r e a n u m b e r o f rhetorical r e s e m b l a n c e s to t h e w o r k o f s o m e o f t h e m o r e e c c e n t r i c , i f s t i l l e s t a b l i s h e d , c r i t i c s , s u c h as G a s t o n B a c h e l a r d (The Poetics of Space, The Psychoanalysis of Fire). I n s h o r t , the p h i l o s o p h i c a l split b e t w e e n t h e o l d a n d t h e n e w was largely m a n u f a c ­ t u r e d b y t h e o l d e r critics. T h o u g h t h e rhetorical split was certainly e n ­ c o u r a g e d i n all ways b y the n e w e r o n e s — a p a t t e r n t h a t c o n t i n u e s

through

t h e c u r r e n t d e c o n s t r u c t i o n / t h e m a t i c s p l i t , as I ' v e a l r e a d y s u g g e s t e d . T h e s a m e y e a r D e l e u z e p u b l i s h e d h i s P r o u s t study, B a r t h e s r e l e a s e d (as

I m e n t i o n e d ) The Elements of Semiology ( 1 9 6 4 ) . Elements of Semiology m a d e the first m a j o r a d v a n c e o n P e i r c e ' s w o r k t h r o u g h a reversal o f Saussure's

1Ô2

Shorter Views

f o u r t h a s s u m p t i o n : H u m a n l a n g u a g e is a subset o f a m o r e g e n e r a l semi­ otic system. T h a t r e v e r s a l m o r e o r less h i n g e d o n t h e f o l l o w i n g a r g u m e n t .

Instead

o f m a k i n g t h e c o n c e p t u a l f i e l d g e o g r a p h i c a l a n d z o o l o g i c a l , let's m o v e the a r g u m e n t

( B a r t h e s suggests) to t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p l a n e . H u m a n l a n ­

g u a g e is t h e m o s t c o m p l e x s i g n s y s t e m t h a t n a t u r e / c u l t u r e h a s p r o d u c e d . L e t us assume f o r the p u r p o s e s o f a r g u m e n t that all the simpler semiotic systems that o n e finds t h r o u g h o u t h u m a n cultures a n d t h r o u g h o u t t h e a n i m a l w o r l d utilize s e m i o d c principles that, s o m e w h e r e o r other, can b e f o u n d w i t h i n — a n d c a n b e d e s c r i b e d w i t h — t h a t r i c h e s t o f sign systems, l a n g u a g e . E v e n i f h u m a n s d o n o t i n d u l g e i n birdcalls o r leave c h e m i c a l scents b e h i n d t h e m , the abstract p r i n c i p l e s that m a k e these signs intelli­ gible to the birds, lower m a m m a l s , insects, a n d plants w h o e m p l o y t h e m , however blindly, must b e contained somehow i n h u m a n language for language to be able to describe the process at all. S o f o r B a r t h e s , i n s t e a d o f l i n g u i s t i c s r e s i d i n g as a subset o f a m o r e generalized a n d c o m p l e x semiotics, "semiology" (Barthes's term) n o w e x i s t e d as a s u b d i s c i p l i n e o f l i n g u i s t i c s . U n d e r t h i s r e v e r s a l , a n u m b e r o f the p r o b l e m s that h a d u n d e r m i n e d Peirce's various trichotomies

now

s e e m e d n e g o t i a b l e — m o s t f a m o u s l y a n d successfully, b y t h e Italian me­ dievalist p h i l o s o p h e r a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y social critic, U m b e r t o E c o , i n h i s A Theory of Semiotics, first t r a n s l a t e d i n t o E n g l i s h i n 1 9 7 6 . B u t o n c e a g a i n f o r B a r t h e s ( a n d f o r E c o ) , l a n g u a g e is t h e p r i m a r y m o d e l f o r t h e particular area o f m e a n i n g e a c h explores—areas that for Barthes w o u l d r a n g e f r o m t h e c a p t i o n i n g s y s t e m o f F r e n c h haute couture p h o t o g r a p h y

(The Fashion System 1 9 6 7 ) t o h i s i m p r e s s i o n s o f a v i s i t t o J a p a n (Empire of Signs 1 9 7 0 ) , t o t h e w r i t i n g o f h i s o w n a u t o b i o g r a p h y (Roland Barthes by Roland

Barthes 1 9 7 5 ) a n d h i s r e f l e c t i o n s o n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f d i s ­

course a n d b e h a v i o r d u r i n g a love affair—certainly, we begin to suspect

b y t h e e n d o f t h e b o o k (A Lover's Discourse 1 9 7 7 ) , o n e o f h i s o w n . B u t to j u m p straight f r o m B a r t h e s t o E c o is to a b r i d g e the debate f a r too violently.

History Intervenes. 1 9 6 6

marks an important year for

structuralist/post-

structuralist debates i n A m e r i c a . At J o h n s H o p k i n s University, i n O c t o ­ ber, a n international array o f scholars, m a n y o f t h e m F r e n c h , m e t f o r The margin is frequently a privi-

w

h

a

t

w

a

s

t

o

b

e

t

h

e

first

o

f

m

o

y

e a r s

o

f

leged position in these debates,

eight international seminars o nT h e L a n -

Much of interest goes on in the

guage o f Criticism a n d the Sciences o f

margins of a seemingly more

Man, s e l e c t i o n s o f w h i c h w e r e

eventually

centered discussion.

p u b l i s h e d a s The Structuralist

Controversy

(eds. M a c k s e y & D o n a t o , J o h n s H o p k i n s , B a l t i m o r e a n d L o n d o n , 1972).

N e i t h e r the First W o r d n o r the Last

163

F o r those t u r n i n g f r o m popularizers to p r i m a r y statements b y D e r r i d a , L a c a n , L u c i a n G o l d m a n , a n d R e n é G i r a r d , this v o l u m e ( a l o n g w i t h t h e s p e c i a l 1 9 6 6 i s s u e o f Yale French Studies, r e p u b l i s h e d as a D o u b l e d a y A n ­ c h o r B o o k , Structuralism,

edited by Jacques E h r m a n n , N e w York & Gar­

d e n City, 1970), w i t h its i l l u m i n a t i n g d i s c u s s i o n b y t h e d e b a t e p a r t i c i ­ p a n t s , is b o t h i n v a l u a b l e a n d i n d i s p e n s a b l e e a r l y r e a d i n g . C e r t a i n l y t h e s e conferences b e g a n to b r i n g a n awareness o f these otherwise

primarily

E u r o p e a n discussions to A m e r i c a . E a r l i e r that year, M i c h e l F o u c a u l t ( a f o r m e r s t u d e n t o f A l t h u s s e r ' s ) h a d p u b l i s h e d h i s f o u r t h b o o k i n P a r i s , Les Mots et les Choses ( The Order of Things, V i n t a g e , N e w Y o r k , 1 9 6 8 ) . T h e b o o k w a s b o t h d e n s e a n d l y r i ­ c a l — a s w e l l as p r o f o u n d l y s y s t e m a t i c . It p r e s e n t e d i t s e l f as a g e n e r a l " a r ­ chaeology" o f the c o n c e p t o f representation a n d a study o f t h e changes r e p r e s e n t a t i o n u n d e r w e n t d u r i n g t h e a g e o f F r e n c h C l a s s i c i s m , i.e., t h e seventeenth a n d eighteenth

c e n t u r i e s . I n t h e c o u r s e o f it, F o u c a u l t

traced o u t a n intricate shift i n the g e n e r a l c o n c e p t o f the sign ( r e p r e s e n ­ tation must o c c u r b ym e a n s o f signs), t h r o u g h a tripartite archaeology o f three different fields: t h e transformation o f t h e early S c i e n c e o f W e a l t h into the m o d e r n idea o f economics, the transformation o f the o l d no­ tion o f Natural Philosophy into the m o d ' ern idea o f biology, a n dthe transformar

tion o f the G e n e r a l G r a m m a r o f C o n d i l l a c

w

„,.,.., ,. While we sit discussing the | .» o

r

d

j

p

o

w

e

r

w

o

r

k

s

i n

s i

e n c e

(Foucault)

a n d the seventeenth-century g r a m m a r i a n s of Port Royalle into the m o d e r n i d e a o f p h i l o l o g y a n d linguistics. B y p l a c i n g this a c c o u n t o f F o u c a u l t h e r e , b y starting n o t w i t h his ear­ lier work, but with his f o u r t h b o o k (and third major contribution), I a m very conscientiously trying to p r o d u c e t h e effect that F o u c a u l t ' s p o s i t i o n i n the overall debate was, a n d r e m a i n s since h i s d e a t h f r o m A I D S i n 1984,

that o f a dauntingly erudite intervention i n what, f o r all t h e inter­

n a l d i s a g r e e m e n t s , is o t h e r w i s e a l l t o o e a s i l y r e d u c e d t o a k i n d o f t h e ­ matic—yes, I c a n use the w o r d t o o — a t h e m a t i c that, at least w i t h o u t F o u ­ cault, centers almost entirely o n l a n g u a g e , literature,

a n d primitive,

"exotic" cultures, a n d very little o n history a n d t h e c u r r e n t practices o f Western m e n and women. I m m e d i a t e l y F o u c a u l t was c a l l e d a structuralist. I m m e d i a t e l y h e c l a i m e d , at l e n g t h a n d w i t h c o n v i c t i o n , that h e was n o such thing. H i s n e x t b o o k , The Archaeology of Knowledge, w a s a w h o l l y t h e o r e t i c a l , e x t e n d e d " p o s i t i o n p a p e r " o n t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f his w o r k till t h e n ; it c o n ­ c l u d e d with a n outline o f w h e r e these principles m i g h t take h i m i n t h e future. A n d o n e t h i n g b e c a m e , w i t h this b o o k , very clear: F o r a l l F o u ­ cault's l u c i d a p p r e h e n s i o n o f the debates u p till now, t h e semiotic thrust

164

Shorter Views

o f The Order of Things w a s a n e c e s s a r y a c c i d e n t , r a t h e r t h a n h i s o w n c e n tral c o n c e r n . T h e i m p r e s s i v e a n d l u c i d d e v e l o p m e n t o f F o u c a u l t ' s w o r k is s u c h a c o m p e l l i n g narrative that it was finally a b l e t o r e p l a c e t h e s i m p l e r n a r r a t i v e m a n y w e r e t e m p t e d t o t e l l a b o u t i t , i.e., t h a t h e w a s t h e l a t e s t , m o s t i m p r e s s i v e c o n t r i b u t o r o f a n e w c h a p t e r t o a n o l d story.

The Double Text. T h e s t o r y t h a t r e p l a c e s i t w a s , i n f a c t , a d o u b l e s t o r y . T h e first p a r t i s s i m p l y t h e s y s t e m a t i c p r o g r e s s i o n o f h i s s u b j e c t m a t t e r . F o u c a u l t ' s first m a j o r b o o k , Madness and Civilization

( 1 9 6 1 ), a t t e m p t e d

to trace, i n those s a m e classical c e n t u r i e s , the way the m a d c h a n g e d their p o s i t i o n i n s o c i e t y , as w e l l a s t h e c h a n g e s i n t h e w a y m a d n e s s i t s e l f w a s p e r c e i v e d . T h e " o r i g i n , " t h e " t h e m e , " o f Foucault's story has b e e n rec o u n t e d m a n y times. If we c a n k e e p i n m i n d that the s e c o n d part o f the story—the of

theoretical

progression

Foucault's work—develops

pre-

cisely to analyze, to d e c o n s t r u c t

if

you will, to show the illusions a n d presuppositions and assumptions we blindly follow (and that presumably he once followed)

that m a k e it s u c h

a n a p p e a l i n g story, s u c h a n easy n a r rative, t h e n

t h a t story is w o r t h r e -

c o u n t i n g b o t h f o r its s e d u c t i o n s a n d f o r its insights. E n d e m i c throughout E u r o p e during the M i d d l e Ages, leprosy underw e n t a s p o n t a n e o u s ( a n d t o this day, largely u n e x p l a i n e d ) r e m i s s i o n at the end

o f the fourteenth

century.

In

m o s t m a j o r cities, t h e largest b u i l d ings by far were the leper hospitals— Bicêtre

in

Paris,

Bedlam i n L o n d o n . B u t with

a n d Charrington

these

great buildings n o w all b u t empty, w e come "Great

to the seventeenth Confinement,"

century's

where

the

government rounded u p all the u n sightly o f P a r i s — t h e poor, t h e h o m e less, t h e d r u n k , t h e u n e m p l o y e d , t h e m a d — a n d i m p r i s o n e d t h e m i n these same, huge, dank buildings. O v e r the

Centered around Moorcock's New Worlds, the British New Wave of the 1960s was largely anti-theory, which, in retrospect, seems only a continuation of the generally antiintellectual current that has run through the history of science fiction—as well as an expression of the gentlemanly British distrust of anything too abstract (a classist attitude toward the sciences, which were associated with the rising education of the nineteenth century English working classes), an attitude shared today, however much headway some of these debates sometimes seem to have made, by the majority of American university English departments, incidentally. Nevertheless, in 1967, while I was in London I received a report of a meeting that Langdon Jones, then assistant editor of New Worlds, held of New Worlds writers, in which the program of the magazine was discussed. Three conventions of science fiction were located. (1) The Generous Universe: In a world where no one survives a plane crash, in a solar system with only one oxygenated planet, science fiction was still full of spaceships crash landing

N e i t h e r the First W o r d n o r the Last next years, o n e by o n e , the v a r i o u s categories of indigent were returned to t h e s t r e e t s a n d t o f r e e d o m . N e w laws w e r e p a s s e d e i t h e r to p r o v i d e for, o r to c o n s t r a i n t h e m . T h e o n l y o n e s to r e m a i n c o n f i n e d w e r e t h e m a d — who,

until

the

Confinement,

had

b e e n a l l o w e d to w a n d e r free, o f t e n to starve, o c c a s i o n a l l y to b e sent by b o a t f r o m c i t y t o city, b u t s t i l l o u t as a v i s ible part o f the social tapestry. W i t h the n e w situation, however, the insane asylum was n o w socially i n place—as well, the m o d e r n c o n c e p t o f " m a d n e s s " was p o s i t e d , a c o n c e p t t h a t h a d as m u c h t o d o w i t h a s s u m p tions

about

medieval leprosy

asso-

ciated with the buildings i n w h i c h the m a d were n o w h o u s e d (their new pos i t i o n ) as i t d i d w i t h t h e w o r k e t h i c , w i t h visibility, a n d w i t h all the T h e m e s of

the C o n f i n e m e n t : M a d n e s s ,

like

m e d i e v a l leprosy, was b o t h a n illness and a punishment from G o d ; madness,

like

m e d i e v a l leprosy, was

a

price paid for a certain behavior, a b e h a v i o r t h a t c o u l d j u s t as e a s i l y h a v e b e e n o u r p a r e n t s ' b e h a v i o r as o u r own

in

childhood;

madness,

like

m e d i e v a l leprosy, h e l d a n a m b i g u o u s status

between

illness,

sin,

and

c r i m e — a l l ideas that are slightly displaced,

but

not

fundamentally

changed, by Pinel's great humanitarian move, when in

the

nineteenth

century he took the chains f r o m

the

m a d at B i c ê t r e ; i d e a s w e c a n still t r a c e in Freud's own theories of psychoa n a l y s i s as w e l l as i n

the

common

prejudices of c o m m o n people.

165

on planets in which everyone walks away unscarred from the wreck into a landscape with a breathable atmosphere, with amenable flora and fauna, and civilized beings . . . (2) Linear Intelligence: In a world where the reigning math genius at any given university is eighty pounds over- (or under-) weight and can't keep his shirt buttons in their right holes, science fiction presents a world where a genius in one field is invariably a genius in all, often has a black belt in karate, and can negotiate with total suavity any social situation w h a t s o e v e r . . . (3) History Responds to the Individual: In a world where no social progress seems possible unless groups of people work long and hard together, science fiction continually presents a universe where one man is capable of changing the course of history... These were the conventions of science fiction, of course, that New Worlds was not interested in promulgating in its pages. As praiseworthy and productive as that program was twenty-five years ago, I would propose, however, that a meaningful theoretical reading of science fiction begins when we start looking at such works as Asimov's Foundation series, Brunner's The Whole Man, and Russ's We Who Are About to... as at once accepting of, and at the same time rigorously critical toward, these conventions, an examination that will reveal both the acceptance and the critique as intricately related, so that these conventions are not allowed to sediment into "themes" but are opened up into the complex and serious problematics these and other SF writers treat them as.

T h i s i s t h e s t o r y , as I s a i d , m a n y p e o p l e s t i l l t e l l o f F o u c a u l t ' s

first

m a j o r w o r k . It is c e r t a i n l y a w o n d e r f u l , c l a r i f y i n g s t o r y . B u t i t is p r e c i s e l y

166

Shorter Views

Since deconstruction frequently deals with oppositions, the texts it tends to privilege are philo­ sophical or argumentative texts. While deconstructions of poetry or fiction have been done, clearly it works best when even these texts—or elements of these texts—are considered as enunciative rather than sugges­ tive or descriptive. We might say, then, that deconstruction begins in the area of nonfiction. Paradoxically, though, the result of deconstruction is almost al­ ways to highlight the fictive na­ ture of the nonfictive text de­ constructed.

the story that the rest o f his w o r k analyzes w i t h great v i g i l a n c e , that t h e rest o f h i s work

dissolves

a n d deconstructs. T h e

story, o f c o u r s e , is t o o s i m p l e ; i t leaves o u t t o o m u c h . It m u s t b e r e a d c a r e f u l l y a n d h i s t o r i c a l l y f o r i t s r e p r e s s i o n s a n d its g a p s . A former student o f Foucault's, Jacques Derrida, wrote a thirty-three page exam­ ination o f what h e took to be the philo­ sophical u n d e r p i n n i n g s and limitations o f Foucault's b o o k , " T h e C o g i t o a n d the His­

t o r y o f M a d n e s s " (Writing and Difference, trans. A l a n Bass, C h i c a g o , 1978); a n d i n the next e d i t i o n o f h i s o w n book,

Fou­

c a u l t t o o k o n D e r r i d a ' s c r i t i q u e as a p h i l o ­ sophical challenge.

F o u c a u l t h a d a r g u e d ( i n p p . 5 6 - 5 9 o f t h e F r e n c h e d i t i o n o f Madness Civilization, a p a s s a g e n o t i n c l u d e d i n R i c h a r d H o w a r d ' s t r a n s l a t i o n

and

a n d a b r i d g e m e n t ) that there was a discursive system i n place b y the e n d o f t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h a t e x c l u d e d m a d n e s s i n a p a r t i c u l a r way, a n d t h a t , i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f h i s f a m o u s cogito ergo sum as a d e c i s i v e s t e p in t h e pursuit o f truth, the great F r e n c h p h i l o s o p h e r R e n é Descartes ( 1 5 9 6 - 1 6 5 0 ) w a s e n t a i l e d i n t h a t e x c l u s i o n . D e s c a r t e s is g l i b l y b u t i n ­ s i g h t f u l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a c h i l d ' s e n c y c l o p e d i a f r o m t h e fifties i n m y

p o s s e s s i o n (The World Book Encyclopedia, v o l . 4, p . 1 9 5 9 [ C h i c a g o , 1 9 5 3 ] ) as f o l l o w s : " D e s c a r t e s a s s e r t e d , f i r s t , t h a t , a s a l l e x i s t i n g k n o w l e d g e r e s t s o n a n u n s t a b l e f o u n d a t i o n [ t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e s e n s e s ] , t h e first step is to d o u b t e v e r y t h i n g that c a n b e d o u b t e d . T h e o n l y fact that h e c o u l d n o t d o u b t w a s t h e f a c t t h a t h e w a s d o u b t i n g . H e r e a s o n e d t h a t t o d o u b t is t o t h i n k , a n d t o t h i n k is to exist. H e e x p r e s s e d his c o n c l u s i o n i n the saying Cogito ergo sum [I t h i n k , t h e r e f o r e I e x i s t ] . " ) I n " T h e C o g i t o a n d t h e H i s t o r y o f M a d n e s s " D e r r i d a turns t o a pas­ s a g e f r o m D e s c a r t e s ' f i r s t Meditation, i n w h i c h t h e h a l l u c i n a t i o n s o f m a d ­ men,

t h e d r e a m s o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r himself, a n d , i n a n o t h e r passage,

t h e i m a g i n a t i v e i m a g e s o f p a i n t e r s a r e c o n s i d e r e d as m o d e l s f o r d o u b t ­ f u l r e a l i t y . H e a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e is a r h e t o r i c a l l e v e l ( t h o u g h D e r r i d a d o e s n o t c a l l it this) e n t a i l e d w i t h the w o r k i n g o f l a n g u a g e itself i n w h i c h a n y e x c l u s i o n is a l w a y s - a l r e a d y b a s e d o n a n i n c l u s i o n , w h i c h is a l o n e w h a t a l ­ lows t h e e x c l u s i o n t o take p l a c e — a n d that this, i n effect, b o t h r e d e e m s Descartes a n d sabotages Foucault's project o f speaking f o r the other. B y f a i l i n g t o a c k n o w l e d g e that the o t h e r is a l r e a d y a part o f us, precisely i n the rhetoric o f the sentences that we speak to banish the other, Foucault

N e i t h e r the First W o r d n o r the Last

167

( c l a i m s D e r r i d a , b y t h e e n d o f h i s l e n g t h y e x e g e s i s ) is s i m p l y d e n y i n g t h e inclusion o f the other i n the same way that those he accuses o f e x c l u d i n g the other, Descartes a m o n g the accused, are d o i n g . In his response, " M y B o d y , T h i s Paper, T h i s F i r e , " w h i c h h e a p p e n d e d t o t h e n e w F r e n c h e d i t i o n o f Madness and Civilization i n 1 9 7 2 , F o u c a u l t a r g u e s p e r s u a s i v e l y : N o , t h e r e r e a l l y is a d i s c u r s i v e l e v e l a t w h i c h s u c h a n e x c l u s i o n w a s i n e f f e c t i n t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y . B e c a u s e i t is n o t i n e f fect i n t h e same way today, w e ( a n d D e r r i d a ) miss t h e r h e t o r i c a l details that betray it. W h a t ' s m o r e , D e r r i d a ' s r e a d i n g o f t h e passage f r o m t h e first Meditation d o e s n o t just i g n o r e t h o s e d e t a i l s b u t r a t h e r h i n g e s o n m i s r e a d i n g precisely t h o s e d e t a i l s — a s w e l l , t h e r e a d i n g r e m a i n s b l i n d t o m a n y o t h e r s u c h details: D e r r i d a ' s r e a d i n g o f Descartes, F o u c a u l t argues, confuses Descartes' p r e s u m e d thoughts about a n extravagant d e m o n stration (madness) with his very different thoughts a b o u t t h e n e e d f o r a n accessible d e m o n s t r a t i o n ( d r e a m i n g ) ; it hinges o n D e r r i d a ' s failure There are many other facts t o w h i c h appreciate subtleties i n t h e d o u b t is plainly impossible, a l t h o u g h o r i g i n a l L a t i n (the difference, f o r these are g a t h e r e d f r o m t h e same source e x a m p l e , b e t w e e n insani [ t h e i n [the senses]: e.g., t h a t I a m here, sitting sane/"lunatics," who hallucinate] by the fire, w e a r i n g a w i n t e r coat, h o l d ^ . ing this paper in my hands, a n d so o n . . , . . , ... , „ , A g a i n , these hands a n d my w h o l e b o d y of-their-mind/ madmen, who h o w can their existence be d e n i e d ? U n have n o judicial rights]; it hinges less indeed I likened myself t o some l u n a o n the failure o f the translation tics, w h o s e brains are so upset by t o p r e s e r v e t h e r u p t u r e i m p e l l i n g persistent melancholy vapours t h a t they ^ , ^ ^ firmly assert t h a t they are kings, w h e n , „ . .„ t

o

a

n

d

a

m

a

e

s

n

t

e

s

/

d

e

e

m

e

n

t

h

e

t

e

s

n

[

t

t

h

h

eo

s

e

e

u

t

r

really they are miserably poor; o r t h a t they are clad in purple, w h e n really they are n a k e d ; o r t h a t they have a head o f pottery, o r are p u m p k i n s , o r are m a d e o f glass; b u t t h e n they are m a d m e n a n d I should appear n o less m a d if I t o o k t h e m as precedent for my o w n case. - R e n é Descartes, First Meditation

m a d m e n ( sed amentes sunt isti p e r h a p s c l o s e r to: "but wait a m o m e n t — t h e s e are m a d m e n " ) ; a n d i h i n g e s o n , i n o n e case ( w h e n ^ , ,. . , . , P S g Pinters), a t

b

o

t

a

P

h

h

s

a

s

r

a

a

r

£

e

s

e

o

a

d

e

n

l

a

y

l

l

n

e

x

t

a

w

l

n

t

b

t

o

m

a

n

o

t

h

s

l

e

r

h

i

n

t

h

e

t

r

a

n

a

"

tion a n d n o t i n Descartes' Latin. F o u c a u l t w r i t e s : " [ I ] n e r a s i n g t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s " b e t w e e n t h e way i n w h i c h D e s c a r t e s c o u l d t h i n k a b o u t m a d n e s s a n d t h e way i n w h i c h h e c o u l d think about d r e a m i n g b y the conventions o f the time, rather than s i m p l y l o o k i n g a t , as D e r r i d a s e e m s t o b e , " w h a t " " D e s c a r t e s " " w r i t e s " about both, Descartes a n d his ideas are stripped o f their historically spec i f i c d i s c u r s i v e f o r m a t i o n s . "[I] n b r i n g i n g t h e t e s t o f m a d n e s s a n d t h a t o f d r e a m i n g as c l o s e t o g e t h e r as p o s s i b l e , i n m a k i n g t h e o n e t h e first, f a i n t failed draft o f the other, i n a b s o r b i n g the insufficiency o f the o n e i n t h e u n i v e r s a l i t y o f t h e o t h e r , D e r r i d a is c o n t i n u i n g t h e C a r t e s i a n e x c l u s i o n . "

i68

Shorter Views

W h a t F o u c a u l t is g i v i n g u s is t h e discursive structure, t h e historical f o r m s , a n d t h e m e t a p h o r i c system t h r o u g h w h i c h , specifically i n seven­ t e e n t h c e n t u r y F r a n c e , s u c h n o t i o n s as m a d n e s s , d r e a m i n g , a n d d o u b t c o u l d b e t h o u g h t ; this is t h e d i s c o u r s e that c o n s t r a i n e d Descartes f r o m d o u b t i n g ( t o r e c a l l t h e World Book) t h a t h e d o u b t e d . ( T h a t i s w h a t m a d ­ m e n a r e e x t r a v a g a n t e n o u g h t o d o ; that is w h y t h e m a d m u s t b e excluded as v a l i d e x a m p l e s o f d o u b t . ) I t w a s a d i s c o u r s e t h a t i n v o l v e d s p e c i f i c r e l a ­ t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n states t h a t d i s l o c a t e t h e f i x e s o f c e r t a i n l y : d r e a m i n g , m a d n e s s , truth, d o u b t , a n d (later) artistic (painterly)

imagination.

Derrida's attempt to deconstruct theopposition here between exclu­ sion a n d inclusion n o t only ignores the historically demonstrable

form

o f t h a t e x c l u s i o n b u t , i n this c a s e , d i r e c t l y m y s t i f i e s a n d o b s c u r e s it. I n t h e f a c e o f s u c h a n a r g u m e n t as h i s t o r i c a l l y a n d t e x t u a l l y g r o u n d e d as F o u c a u l t ' s , t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y w i d e r a n g e t o w h i c h D e r r i d a h a s a p ­ p l i e d what are often highly similar arguments begins to look like those a r g u m e n t s ' greatest weakness. T h e force o f Foucault's a r g u m e n t makes u s , I t h i n k , n o t q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r D e r r i d a ' s i s r i g h t ( y e s , l a n g u a g e does w o r k t h e w a y D e r r i d a h a s repeatedly d e m o n s t r a t e d that it d o e s ) , b u t rather question to what extent his a r g u m e n t can r e m a i n interesting i n a case w h e r e p r e c i s e l y t h a t d i s c u r s i v e e c o n o m y F o u c a u l t is s e e k i n g t o u n ­ earth has b e e n i g n o r e d / r e p r e s s e d . I n s u c h a situation, isn't any reading, e v e n o n e as p a t i e n t as D e r r i d a i s o f t e n w i l l i n g t o u n d e r t a k e , m o r e o r less d o o m e d t o b e c o m e i m p l i c a t e d i n t h e r e p r e s s i o n itself? D e r r i d a h a d a l r e a d y c l a i m e d t h a t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g hors du text ( o u t s i d e the text), i n a n attempt to begin to encourage readers to consider the m o s t distant a n d distinct m a t e r i a l still to b e related to any g i v e n text b y relations o f intertextuality. B y a rather suspicious revoicing o f Derrida's text (suspicious f o r one w h o , as d o e s F o u c a u l t , i n t h e s a m e p a r a g r a p h , c l a i m s D e r r i d a i s c a u g h t i n a system that r e d u c e s discursive practices to textual traces, elides events p r o d u c e d b y those discursive practices, a n d invents voices b e h i n d texts to a v o i d h a v i n g t o analyze the way subjects are i m p l i c a t e d i n those d i s c o u r s e s ) , F o u c a u l t r e v o i c e s D e r r i d a ' s e x h o r t a t i o n t h a t n o t h i n g i s hors du text. D e r r i d a u s e d t h e p h r a s e i n t h e s e n s e t h a t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g t h a t c a n n o t b e related to t h e text b y a n inclusive w e bo f intertextuality,

a

p h r a s e t h a t h a s s e r v e d h i s s t u d e n t s as a n e x h o r t a t i o n t o e x a m i n e t h e h i s ­ t o r y a r o u n d t e x t s a l m o s t as m u c h as t h e f o l l o w e r s o f F o u c a u l t . W r i t e s F o u c a u l t , D e r r i d a is c u r r e n t l y the m o s t g l o r i o u s representative o f a w e l l - d e t e r m i n e d p e d a g o g i c system that "teaches t h e p u p i l s there is n o t h i n g o u t s i d e t h e text, b u t t h a t i n it, i n its g a p s , its b l a n k s , a n d its si­ l e n c e s , t h e r e r e i g n s t h e r e s e r v e o f t h e o r i g i n ; t h a t i t is t h e r e f o r e u n n e c e s ­ sary t o search elsewhere, b u tthat h e r e , n o t i n the words, certainly, b u t i n

N e i t h e r the First W o r d n o r the Last

169

t h e w o r d s u n d e r e r a s u r e , i n t h e i r grid, t h e ' s e n s e o f b e i n g ' i s s a i d . A p e d ­ agogy that gives, conversely, t o t h e master's v o i c e t h e l i m i d e s s sovereignty that allows it to restate t h e text indefinitely." N o o n e w h o h a s r e a d D e r r i d a c a r e f u l l y c o u l d say t h a t a n y s u c h N e w C r i t i c a l - l i k e r e d u c t i o n o f texts has b e e n t h e g e n e r a l f o r m o f D e r r i d a ' s own work; n o o n e w h o has r e a d carefully t h e w o r k o f t h e best critics i n ­ spired b y his e x a m p l e (Barbara J o h n s o n , Gayatri C h a k r a v o r t y Spivak, R o d o i p h G a s c h é , N e i l H e r t z . . .) c o u l d s a y t h a t h a s b e e n t h e r e s u l t o f D e r r i d a ' s enterprise; rather, just t h e o p p o s i t e . N o r c o u l d a n y o n e seri­ ously think that D e r r i d a o r h i sarguments were s o m e h o w b l i n d to the fact that i n t h e d i s c o u r s e o f W e s t e r n p h i l o s o p h y t h e o r i g i n is a t r a d i t i o n ­ ally p r i v i l e g e d c o n c e p t , p r i v i l e g e d b e c a u s e , i n t h a t t r a d i t i o n / d i s c o u r s e , s o m e t h i n g o f b e i n g is p r e s u m e d t o b e i m m e d i a t e l y a n d t r a n s c e n d e n t a l l y present at ^ o r i g i n . (As often h a p p e n s i n these debates, i n o n e respect the scholars h e r e are talking past e a c h other.) F o u c a u l t ' s a r g u m e n t is, nevertheless, a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m i n d e r o f j u s t h o w this c a n , i n d e e d , h a p p e n , i f o n l y provisionally, t h e m o m e n t o n e ' s historical v i g i l a n c e slips. T h i s was o n e o f t h e great m o m e n t s o f t h e debates. B u t it sidesteps w h a t is, I b e l i e v e , a n e v e n m o r e i m p o r t a n t c r i t i q u e t h a t F o u c a u l t h a d a l ­ r e a d y l e v e l e d a g a i n s t h i m s e l f i n 1 9 6 3 , t w o y e a r s a f t e r Madness and Civil­ ization f i r s t a p p e a r e d i n F r a n c e . T h i s c r i t i q u e w a s , h o w e v e r , h i s t o r i c a l , rather than philosophical: O n e c o u l d n o t explore the idea o f the " m a d " and the "mentally ill" until one h a d a g o o d handle o n the development o f t h e i d e a o f " i l l n e s s " itself.

F o u c a u l t ' s n e x t b o o k , The Birth of the Clinic (Naissance de la Clinque, 1 9 6 3 ) , w a s a b o u t p r e c i s e l y t h a t c o n c e p t , as i t u n d e r w e n t i t s o w n c h a n g e s o v e r the s a m e classical p e r i o d . H o w , asks F o u c a u l t , d i d illness shift f r o m a geographical organism

( a n entity that m o v e d t h r o u g h

countries, i n ­

v a d e d c i t i e s , fixed i t s e l f o n n e i g h b o r h o o d s , a n e n t i t y w i t h a l i f e c y c l e o f youth a n d strength a n d d e c l i n i n g weakness), to a n entity that c e n t e r e d on, and

finally

l o c a t e d itself w h o l l y w i t h i n , t h e b o d y ?

T h e o p e n i n g passages o f F o u c a u l t ' s b o o k s t e n d t o b e as a r r e s t i n g as the h o o k s c o m m e n c i n g the J a m e s B o n d ties.

films

o f t h e sixties a n d seven­

The Birth of the Clinic b e g i n s b y q u o t i n g a m i d - e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y

doctor n a m e d P o m m e , w h o describes

P s y c

his treatment o f a n hysterical w o m a n by m a k i n g

h e r "take

baths

ten or

twelve h o u r s a d a y , f o r t e n w h o l e »u » T I . u c u u m o n t h s . T h e results of s u c h a ghastly ' regimen? P o m m e saw " m e m b r a n o u s tissue l i k e p i e c e s o f d a m p p a r c h m e n t . . . p e e l away w i t h s o m e slight d i s c o m -

h o a n a l y t i c criticism in these d e -

bates has generally b e e n conservative—tending

t o bring

conflicting

criticisms in line w i t h each other, t e n d i n g t o s h o w h o w t h e text antici„ ... . . pates its o w n criticism. It seems only

0

t

o

n

a

v

e

b

e

e

n

u

s

e

d

w

i

t

n

a

n

y f

o

r

c

e

f

o

r

texts w h e r e a u t h o r i t a t i v e readings have already s e d i m e n t e d — m a k i n g it

170

Shorter Views

fort, a n d these were passed daily with the urine: the right ureter also p e e l e d away a n d c a m e o u t w h o l e i n the same way." T h e same t h i n g o c c u r r e d w i t h the intestines, w h i c h , at a n o t h e r stage, "peeled

off

their

internal

tunics,

w h i c h w e saw pass f r o m t h e r e c t u m . T h e oesophagus, t h etongue, a n d the arterial

trachea also p e e l e d i n d u e

course; a n d the patient either h a d re­

somewhat problematic for use in sci­ ence fiction. Feminists have particu­ larly espoused this mode of critical discourse, however. Certainly it re­ mains open to exploration. But it seems to me that too little of this crit­ icism has borne in mind what I've often considered the most important of Foucault's exhortations: "We must get rid of the Freudian schema. You know, the interiorization of the Law through the medium of Sex."

jected different pieces by vomiting o r by expectoration." A m o d e r n m e d i c a l r e a d e r o f t h i s r e p o r t m u s t find i t s o m e b i z a r r e c o n ­ c o c t i o n o f w i l d fantasy a n d i m p e n e t r a b l e m i s a p p r e h e n s i o n . Yet, f r o m a h u n d r e d years later, F o u c a u l t gives a m e d i c a l r e p o r t that, b y m o s t m o d ­ e r n s t a n d a r d s , reads l i k e a m e d i c a l r e p o r t . W h a t , a s k s F o u c a u l t , h a p ­ p e n e d b e t w e e n t h e two? W h a t w e r e P o m m e a n d t h e many, m a n y r e ­ spected doctors o f t h e time w h o wrote similar reports, seeing? H e does n o t a s k , y o u u n d e r s t a n d , w h a t we w o u l d s e e w e r e w e g a z i n g o n t h e p a ­ t i e n t i n t h e i r s t e a d . W h a t , h e a s k s , c o n s t i t u t e d their gaze—a t e r m

Fou­

c a u l t , as d i d m a n y film t h e o r e t i c i a n s , b o r r o w e d f r o m L a c a n . B u t e v e n at t h e e n d o f this study, f o r a l l t h e q u e s t i o n s that w e r e r e ­ s o l v e d , m o r e w e r e left o p e n . E c o n o m i c s , b i o l o g y , a n d t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o f l a n g u a g e study, as e a c h h a d u n d e r g o n e its o w n c h a n g e s , h a d t o b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t so that even t h e e x p a n d e d argument, a n d certainly theoriginal one, were sim­ ply vacuous without such considerations . . . T h i s w a s The Order of Things—which

is w h e r e w e c a m e i n . A n d the daz­

z l i n g o p e n i n g h e r e is a l u m i n o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f representation i n Velazquez's painting,

Las Meninas

(The Maids-in-Waiting,

1656; also

k n o w n as The Royal Family), a p a i n t i n g w h i c h , d e s p i t e i t s d e c e p t i v e l y u n ­ troubled surface (unlike t h e self-referential play r a m p a n t i n m o d e r n w o r k s , n o t h i n g and i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a r e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s h o w n ) , is a nearly Escher-like visual construct; a painting o f a painter painting a painting o f animals a n d h u m a n s , n o b l e a n dc o m m o n , whole a n d de­ f o r m e d , w h i l e a k i n g a n d a q u e e n ( P h i l i p TV a n d M a r i a n a , the r e f l e c t e d subjects o f the painting) a n d courtiers a n d c o m m o n e r s observe h i m a n d what

h e observes f r o m

mirrors,

through

doors, from

the darkened

frames o f other paintings, and presumably from thesmall "cabonet" o f the P r a d o castle, w h e r e the ten-and-a-half by n i n e f o o t portrait o f the In­ f a n t a M a r g a r i t a i n a s t u d i o o f t h e E s c o r i a l was

finally

h u n g , t h e several

positions collapsed o n e into the other before a frame containing a n i m a g e the artist a l o n e c o u l d n e v e r have o b s e r v e d .

N e i t h e r the First W o r d n o r the Last

171

T h e n e x t b o o k , The Archaeology of Knowledge, t h e " p o s i t i o n p a p e r " w e have a l r e a d y m e n t i o n e d , was p u r e l y t h e o r e t i c a l . It r e p e a t e d f r o m t h e earlier b o o k s why F o u c a u l t h a d f o u n d it necessary to l o o k n o t o n l y at the history o f t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f r i g h t k n o w l e d g e (i.e., k n o w l e d g e c u r r e n t l y still a c c e p t a b l e ) b u t h a d t o p a y as m u c h a t t e n t i o n t o h i s t o r i c a l w r i t i n g s t h a t s t r i k e u s t o d a y as l u n a t i c ( t h e a s p e c t o f h i s w o r k t h a t m a k e s it a n a r c h a e o l o g y r a t h e r t h a n a h i s t o r y ) : T h i s was t h e o n l y w a y h e c o u l d d i s c e r n t h e r a n g e o f t h e s y s t e m — t h e épistèmé—which

is t h e syn-

chronic organization of thought in a given period. M o r e

important,

Foucault n o w expressed his dissatisfaction with the archaeological m e t a p h o r — a n d t h e i d e a o f a n épistèmé t h a t w e n t a l o n g w i t h i t — a b a n d o n i n g it h e r e f o r a n e w t h e o r e t i c a l battery o f g e n e a l o g i e s , e n u n ciations, discourses, a n d The traditional notion of the sign is that of "the signifier of the signified," a signifier that leads to a signified, a word that connects to a thought, a sign that cleaves to a meaning. Derrida has suggested that we take the model for the sign, however, from writing: "the signifier of the signifier," a signifier that leads to another signifier, a written word that leads to a spoken word, a sign that leads to another sign. Thus our object of analysis always becomes some form of Peirce's unlimited semiosis. Under such an analytic program, the beginnings and ends of critical arguments and essays grow particularly difficult. The "natural" sense of commencement and sense of closure the thematic critics consider appropriate to, and imminently allied throughout, the "naturally" bounded topic of his or her concern now is revealed to be largely artificial and overwhelmingly ideological. Thus the beginnings and endings (as well as the often easier middle arguments, once we are aboard) of our criticisms must embody conscientiously creative and political strategies.

(which

means

both

disposatifs

dispositions

a n d apparatuses). In the terminal chapters h e a n n o u n c e d a set o f possible future

projects h e might

undertake. T h e n e x t b o o k t u r n e d , as h e ' d suggested it m i g h t at t h e close o f The Archaeology, t o h i s t o r i f y a n o t h e r institution: jails. Conceived by the English philosopher

Jeremy

Bentham,

the

P a n o p t i c o n (the b u i l d i n g i n w h i c h all can b e observed, usually f r o m a central tower o r station) h a d b e e n modified for the construction o f hospitals. Foucault h a d t o u c h e d o n t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e i n The Birth of the Clinic. B u t t h e P a n o p t i c o n h a d b e e n used in a m u c h purer form forthe construction

of

jails—including

our most famous penitentiaries i n America

(for the detention

of

penitents, o f course), Alcatraz a n d Sing Sing. Tracing

t h e shift

from

public

t o r t u r e t o h i d d e n d e t e n t i o n (i.e., f r o m p u n i s h m e n t i n f l i c t e d o n t h e b o d y o f the c r i m i n a l a n d observed bythe c o m m o n p u b l i c to the disciplines inflicted o n the "soul" o f the presumably penitential prisoner a n d o b s e r v e d b y o n l y t h e p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s ) , Discipline and Punish w a s F o u c a u l t ' s n e x t a n d g e n e r a l l y m o s t p o p u l a r b o o k . B u t w i t h it, t h e o r i g i n a l story o f

172

Shorter Views

t h e d e t e n t i o n / c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e m a d w a s n o w s o t h i n a n d e m e n d e d as to b e u n r e c o g n i z a b l e . I n Discipline and Punish t h e o p e n i n g m o v e i s a d e v a s t a t i n g e y e w i t n e s s account o f a public drawing a n d quartering, complete with melted lead, h o t wax, a n d e v e n t u a l b u r n i n g at t h e s t a k e — m u c h o f w h i c h , w i t h ropes b r e a k i n g , a r m s r e f u s i n g t o p a r t f r o m t h e s t i l l - c o n s c i o u s b o d y , as t h e t o r ­ turers with their pincers simply were , , n o t s t r o n g e n o u g h t o s t r i p t h e t e n - f the central practice of a Great dons f r o m the criminal, didn't work o r Tradition (variously defined) to was e v e n m o r e c r u e l l y inefficient. T h e y 9ivictim wasa sixteenth-century noble Practices-political art. paralit, , , , . . . . . erary art, popular art, women s art, T

h

e t r a d i t i o n a

m

o

d

e

f

o

r a

r

h

r

t i s

t

n

a

t

0

w

h

i

n

a

l

who h a dattempted regicide. Against

c

h

b | a c k

this a c c o u n t , F o u c a u l t poses, f r o m n o t

t

a

h

r

t

f

a

r m

o

r

e

then the daily schedule f o r prisoners . 1 • -, , T-. % i n F r e n c h jails. H o w , F o u c a u l t tries to

a

r

t w

o

r

k

Having Slaughtered My Mother, My Sister,

g

e

a

a

y a

r

e

r

m a n

t

o

t

r e g i o n a |

e

a r t

m a r

_

T h | r d

Today all art is marginal; and a

sanctimonious busywork that was b y

A s u b s i d i a r y v o l u m e , / , Pierre Riviere,

r

World a r t . . .

a h u n d r e d years later, t h e p i o u s a n d

answer, d o e s o n e p r a c t i c e give way, o r transform, into the other?

e

appropriate model for any i s t

h

a

t

w

h

c

h

t a k e s

l a c e

i n

| P the margin of another margin. Thus , u

t

h

e p a r a

i t e r a r y

a r t s >

s u c h

a

s

s c i e n c e

fiction, may become a privileged model for analyzing the ways in w

n

i

c

n a t e d

h

'

a l 1 a

a

n

r

d

t i s

produced, is dissemi-

f u n c t i o n s

-

My Brother. . . , w h i c h F o u c a u l t e d i t e d a n d c o n t r i b u t e d t o , g r e w o u t o f a s e m i n a r F o u c a u l t c o n d u c t e d a r o u n d t h e first c a s e i n F r a n c e w h e r e psychiatric e v i d e n c e was effectively b r o u g h t i n to c o m m u t e a d e a t h sen­ tence to life. T h e c o m p i l a t i o n brings together n u m e r o u s d o c u m e n t s a r o u n d a m u r d e r i n 1835, i n w h i c h a "near-idiot"

eighteen-year-old

French peasant wiped o u t his mother and h e r children, w h o m h e be­ lieved w e r e d e s t r o y i n g t h e quality o f his father's life. T h e b o o k i n c l u d e s depositions f r o m doctors, lawyers, a n d various witnesses i n t h e small c o m m u n i t y , testimony f r o m thetrial, a n d various newspaper accounts o f the time. Various participants i n the seminar, i n c l u d i n g Foucault, con­ t r i b u t e s e v e n t e r m i n a l essays i n w h i c h t h e y d i s c u s s t h e r a n g e o f p r o b l e m s s u r r o u n d i n g t h i s t r a g i c d o s s i e r — t h e c e n t r a l d o c u m e n t o f w h i c h is t h e forty-page p a m p h l e t the y o u n g "near-idiot" m u r d e r e r wrote, explaining his situation, his motives, a n d his c o n v i c t i o n that h e ' d p e r f o r m e d his act aware that d e a t h w o u l d b e his r e t r i b u t i o n . Shortly after c o m p l e t i n g the piece, Riviere c o m m i t t e d suicide i n jail, w h e n h i s death sentence, over his protest, was c o m m u t e d . N o w F o u c a u l t t u r n e d t o still a n o t h e r project, also m e n t i o n e d at t h e e n d o f The Archaeology, a

five-volume

history o f sexuality. O n l y the intro­

ductory v o l u m e a p p e a r e d i n t h ef o r m initially outlined. T h e e n d o f the i n t r o d u c t o r y v o l u m e , The Will to Knowledge, p r o m i s e d t h a t t h e r e m a i n i n g

N e i t h e r theFirst W o r d n o rtheLast four volumes o f the w o r k w o u l d d e a l with the m e d i c a l invention o f "perversion," the "hysterization" of , , .. ,. , . . . women s b o d (i.e., t h e p n o n t i z ing o f women's reproductive function), a n d the control o f children's sexuality. i e S

It w a s ' a l o a d e d list. It w a s a w o r k . . . . . . . . . that p r o m i s e d insights, i f n o t inspi-

173

The signifier o f t h e signifier . . . T

h

e

m a r g i n o f the m a r g i n . . . Can a discussion o f such topics as w e are r e v i e w i n g here t a k e place anyw

n

j

e

r

e

j n t

h

e S F p

r

e

d

n

c

t

s

o

t

n

e

r

t

h

a

n

a

t

margins? The New York Review of Science Fiction, w h e r e this piece n o w appears, is itself—like all f a n z i n e s — t s

m a r

i n a l

t o

t h e

s c i e n ^3~^5> The Archeology of Knowledge, 163, 171, 172; The Order of Things, 163,170; Madness and Civilization, 164; "My Body, This Paper, This Fire," 167; Birth of the Clinic, 169, 171 ; Discipline and Punish, 171 - 7 2 ; The Will to Knowledge, 172, 173; "What Is an Author," 18 l

1

Foundation (series) (Asimov), 165 Frankfurt Group, The, 23 Frazier, Sir James George, 35 Freud, Sigmund, 15, 19, 21, 24, 25, 34, 129, 153-55. 165. 176 Gaiman, Neil, 359-72; Sandman (series), 359 Gale (friend), 80, 84-85, 87 Gallop, Jane, xi, 153 Gass, William, x, 113 Gay Fathers group, 95-96 Gibson, William, 153, 213-15, 272, 278, 348; contemporaries of, 214; and cyberpunk, 279-80; "Aliens," 213; Burning Chrome, 273; 'Johnny Mnemonic," 213; Neuromancer, 182, 213 "Girl With Hungry Eyes" (Leiber), 158 Goffman, Irving, 50 Greece: and discursive structures, 31; trip to, 101; as postcolonial country, 101-6; and homosexuality, 107 Greenblatt, Stephen, x Guin, Ursula Le. Seehe Guin, Ursula Hacker, Marilyn, 80, 87-88 , 90, 91-92, 95.3*9 Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 12 Hamlet, 28-29 Heidegger, Martin, 141, 146, 173 Heinlein, Robert, 119 Hitchcock, Alfred, 24 HIV/AIDS. S^AIDS Hogg (Delany), 294, 295, 296 Holland, Sean, 43 Hopkinson, Nalo, 116 Huxley, Aldous; Brave New World, 325 Irigaray, Luce, 155, 179 Jakobson, Roman, 17g JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), 50 Jameson, Fredric, 158, 178 Jewel-Hinged Jaw, The (Delany), 317 Joel (summer camp friend), 71 - 73, 74 Johnson, Barbara, x, 168, 174, 179; The Critical Difference, 180

Index Jonas, Gerald, 127 Judy (friend), 80, 85, 86, 87, 88 Jung, Carl Gustav, 24 Kermit, S. L., 125 Kristeva, Julia, 155 Kundura, Milan, 112 Lacan, 15, 151-53, 156, 158, 163, 170, 173, 179, 184; on the phallus, 15256; Ecrits, 153; "The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psycholoanalysis," 155; "Seminar on 'The Purloined Letter," 153, 179 Le Guin, Ursula, 6, 8-11, 277, 286-87, 315; Always Coming Home, 327; The Dispossessed, 321-22, 324, 326 Leiber, Fritz: "Girl With Hungry Eyes," 158 Lesbianism, g5 Levi-Strauss, Claude, 151-52, 158, 173, 178-79 Literary Theory, An Introduction (Eagleton), 413 Literature and Evil (Bataille), 306 Long, Thomas, 123-38 Lowe, John Livingston, x MacCannell, Juliet Flower, 153 McCloud, Scott, 224-38; on a definition of comics art, 267-70; Understanding Comics, 224, 244-45, 4 7 - 5 > 25258, 259 McLuhan, Marshal, 158 Mad Man, The (Delany) ,126, 128-33, 136; reviews of, 128; 311 - 12 Man, Paul de, 112 Man Without Qualities, The (Musil), 206 Mapplethorpe, Robert, 24 Marilyn (friend). See Hacker, Marilyn Marx, Karl, xxx, 157, 158 Merril,Judith, 373-76; GunnerCade, 373; Outpost Mars, 373; Shadows on the Hearth, 376; "That Only A Mother," 376; The Tomorrow People, 376 Metamorphoses of Science Fiction (Suvin), 260 3

1

463

Michel, Jean-Claude, 116 Mine Shaft, The, 49, 50 Mirrorshades: The Cyberpunk Anthology (Sterling), 280 Monad, 8 - 9 , 11 Morrison, Toni, 6, 9, 10 Motion of Light in Water, The (Delany), 87, 3!3 Myth of Superman, The (Eco), 178, 258 Nevèryôn (series) (Delany), 127-28; reviews of, 127 Nebula Award, 90, 117 Nemesis Affair, The (Raup), 149 Neuromancer (Gibson), 182, 213 New England Journal of Medicine, 43 New Worlds (Moorcock), 164 New York Review of Science Fiction, 173 New York Times, 43 Nova (Delany), 344 O'Hara, Scott, 136 Origins of Totalitarianism (Arendt), 411 Othello, production of, at Triangle Theater, 388-95 Paglia, Camille, 35 Palmer, Ray, 93 Peck, Dale, 384-87; Now It's Time To Say Good-Bye, 384 Peirce, Charles Sanders, 159, 160 Perkins, Michael, 377-83 Plato, 8, 24 Poe, Edgar Allen, 153 Poetics of Space (Bachelard) ,161 Pornographic publishing, classics of, 295 Possession (Byatt), 353-58 Pound, Ezra, 241-42 Psychoanalysis of Fire (Bachelard), 161 Purloined Poe: Lacan, Derrida, and Psychoanalytic Readings, The (Muller and Richardson), 153 QED (Davis and Brown), 149 Quine, W. V. 57 Rampersad, Arnold, xi

464

Index

Reading by Starlight (Broderick) ,213 Red (street person), 5 9 - 6 5 Red Man (Robinson), 225 Robinson, Frank; The Power, 92-93 Robinson, Kim Stanley, 120; The Novels of Philip K. Dick, 225; Red Mars, 225 Rose (prostitute), 5 8 - 6 5 Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 174 Roussel, Raymond, 14, 15, 18, 31, 36, 173 Russ, Joanna, 286 Saunders, Charles, 116 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 158-59 Shakespeare, William, 28 Shaw, George Bernard, 22 Shepard, Lucius, 120, 272 Silent Interviews: On Language, Race, Sex, Science Fiction and Some Comics (De­ lany), 135 Smith, Cordwainer, 287 Sontag, Susan, 137; Illness as Metaphor, 403; "Notes on 'Camp'," 8g; On Pho­ tography, 405; The Volcano Lover, A Ro­ mance, 399-407 Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, g8, 148, 169; In Other Worlds, 180 Spinrad, Norman, 92 Stars My Destination, The (Bester), 183 Starboard Wine (Delany), 216 Stephen Crane (Beer), 201 Sturgeon, Theodore, 33, 207-8 Suvin, Darko, 261-62, The Metamorphoses of Science Fiction, 260 Tale of Plagues and Carnivals, The (De­ lany), 123-24,125,126

Terminal Identity (Bukatman), 213 Toomer, Jean, 425 Tom (street friend), 4 6 - 4 7 Tourist, A New Theory of the Leisure Class (McCannell), 188 Trouble On Triton (Delany), 315 - 44 Understanding Comics (McCloud), 22425, 244 Understanding Media (McLuhan), 158 Utopia and Revolution (Lasky), 181 Volcano Lover, A Romance, The (Sontag), 399-407 Varley, John, 272, 348; The Barbie Mur­ ders (a.k.a. Picnic on Nearside), 276; Blue Champagne, 277; Millenium, 277; The Ophiuchi Hotline, 275; The Persis­ tence of Vision, 273; Titan (trilogy), 276 Wagner, Richard, 22, 131,411-12 Watt, Ian, x Whitman, Walt, 134 Wilson, Edmund, 17g Willis, Connie, 120 Wolfe, Gene, 288 Zelazny, Roger, 272, 282, 286; Bridge of Ashes, 275; Doorways in the Sand, 275; The Dream Master, 275; Fourfor Tomor­ row, 273; "He Who Shapes," 182; "Home is the Hangman," 274; Lord of Light, 274; This Immortal, 274; Today We Choose Faces, 275

About the Author Samuel R. Delany is a professor of English at the State University of New York at Buffalo. His many books include the Return to Nevèryôn series, Dhalgren, and Trouble on Triton, reissued by Wesleyan University Press; Atlantis: Three Tales ( 1995), and The Motion of Light in Water ( 1987). His most recent books include Time Square Red, Time Square Blue (1999), and a graphic novel with artist Mia Wolff, Bread & Wine ( 1999).

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Delany, Samuel R. Shorter views: queer thoughts & the politics of the paraliterary / by Samuel R. Delany. p. cm. i s b n 0 - 8 1 9 5 - 6 3 6 8 - 4 (alk. paper). — i s b n 0 - 8 1 9 5 - 6 3 6 9 - 2 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Delany, Samuel R.—Authorship. 2. Homosexuality and literature—United States—History—20th century. 3. Gay Men's writings, American—Histoty and criticism—Theory, etc. 4. Science fiction, American—History and criticism—Theory, etc. 5. Politics and literature. I. Title P S 3 5 5 4 . E 4 3 7 Z 4 7 5 6 1999 814'.54—dc2i

99-16781

LITERARY

CRITICISM

/

CULTURAL

THEORY

I n Shorter Views, H u g o a n d N e b u l a a w a r d - w i n n i n g a u t h o r S a m u e l R. D e l a n y b r i n g s h i s r e m a r k a b l e i n t e l l e c t u a l p o w e r s t o b e a r o n a w i d e r a n g e o f t o p i c s . W h e t h e r h e is e x p l o r i n g t h e d e e p l y felt issues o f identity, r a c e , a n d sexuality, u n t a n g l i n g the intricacies o f l i t e r a r y t h e o r y , o r e x p l i c a t i n g t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s itself, D e l a n y is o n e o f the m o s t l u c i d a n d insightful writers o f o u r time. T h e s e essays cluster a r o u n d t o p i c s r e l a t e d to q u e e r t h e o r y a n d q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e p a r a l i t e r a r y g e n r e s o f s c i e n c e fiction, p o r n o g r a p h y , c o m i c s , a n d o t h e r s . R e a d e r s n e w t o D e l a n y ' s w o r k will find this collection o f shorter pieces an especially g o o d introduction, w h i l e t h o s e a l r e a d y f a m i l i a r w i t h h i s w r i t i n g will a p p r e c i a t e havi n g t h e s e essays b e t w e e n t w o c o v e r s f o r t h e first t i m e . "This important collection demonstrates [Delany's] passion and intelligence, a n d his d e d i c a t i o n to p u r s u i n g difficult questions a b o u t w r i t i n g , t h e o r y , t e a c h i n g a n d s e x u a l i t y . " — P u b l i s h e r s Weekly " D e l a n y always s e e m s to b e e v e r y w h e r e at o n c e . A t o n e m o m e n t writing s o m e o f the m o s t fulfilling prose ever a c h i e v e d by an A m e r i c a n s p e c u l a t i v e fiction w r i t e r , at a n o t h e r t a c k l i n g t h e m o s t k n o t t y t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s w i t h i n d e c o n s t r u c t i o n , a n d at y e t a n o t h e r p r o d u c i n g f r a n k , h o t , o u t r a g e o u s l y d e l e c t a b l e essays o n h i s life as a N e w Y o r k e r , a g a y m a n , a n d a B l a c k A m e r i c a n . D e l a n y ' s n e w e s t c o l l e c t i o n , Shorter Views, g i v e s o n e p e r h a p s t h e c l e a r e s t s e n s e o f h o w all t h e s e a s p e c t s o f D e l a n y ' s w o r k o p e r a t e b o t h w i t h a n d against o n e another." — R o b e r t F. R e i d - P h a r r , J o h n s H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y Samuel R. Delany, b e s t k n o w n as t h e a u t h o r o f s c i e n c e fiction a n d fantasy novels, has also p u b l i s h e d m a n y b o o k s o f nonfiction, including semiotic studies o f literature a n d a v o l u m e o f memoirs. H e is c u r r e n t l y P r o f e s s o r o f C o m p a r a t i v e L i t e r a t u r e at t h e University o f Massachusetts, A m h e r s t .

Wesley an University Press P u b l i s h e d bv University Press o f N e w E n g l a n d Hanover and L o n d o n

—•

C o v e r illustration: J o h n D e l G a i z o

W^^^^F

TÊÊ

«11 1 1 1