4.30.2010

Maid as Muse




When Harreytte Mullen, at Small Press Traffic, recently gave a talk about the challenges and trauma of exploring her own genealogy, Kevin Killian asked Harryette if she knew about Aífe Murray's Maid as Muse: How Servants Changed Emily Dickinson's Life and Language. He recommended it. Intrigued, I got the book from the San Francisco Public Library, and then was unable to put it down! What a fabulous read.



Murray's book begins with a quote from Ralph Ellison's Going to the Territory:

Having had no adequate models to guide us [as Americans] in establishing what we told ourselves was to be a classless society, it has often been difficult for us to place people and events in proper perspective of national importance. So it is well that we keep in mind that fact that not all of American history is recorded. In some ways we are fortunate that it isn't, for if it were, we might become so chagrined by the discrepancies which exist between our democratic ideals and our social reality that we would soon lose heart. Perhaps this is why we possess two basic versions of American history: one which is written and as neatly stylized as ancient myth and the unwritten as chaotic and full of contradictions, changes of pace and surprises as life itself....Surely there must be some self-descriptive magic in this, for in spite of what is left out of our recorded history, our unwritten history looms as its obscure alter ego, and although repressed from our general knowledge of ourselves, it is always active in the shaping of events.


Murray's Maid as Muse undertakes to explore some of this unwritten history. Wondering "who made Emily's prolific writing life possible" (3), Murray goes on a scholar and writer's journey to explore why, "despite references in Emily's letters [to servants]and scholar Jay Leyda's tribute to them, the Dickinsons' servants were all but ignored in biographies and critical works" (4). Murray discovers that,


when the family employed a maid, Emily wrote more. There was a sharp upswing in her creative production after the long-term permanent maid, Margaret O'Brien, was hired in 1856. For the next nine years the poet steadily turned out some one hundred to three hundred poems a year. With Margaret O'Brien's departure, Emily's output dropped to ten poems the next year. Manuscript scholars thought her great poetic 'drive was spent.' I determined that the numbers stayed similarly low for three and a half years of intermittent maids until Margaret Maher was wooed to the household in 1869. For the rest of her life with the second Margaret (whom the family took to calling "Maggie") until her final illness in 1884, Emily steadily averaged about seventy-five poems and letters per year. Having a permanent maid created opportunity that enabled Emily to identify herself as poet (10).


But Murray's book posits more than this assertion as she seeks to locate Dickinson and her work and the work and lives of the servants with whom she came into contact in their specific social context. Murray tells how two prominent Amherst families--the Boltwoods and the Dickinsons--"staged a many-month tug-of-war over [Maggie Maher's] services" (29); how it was Maggie that Emily was closest too; how it was in Maggie's trunk that Dickinson stored her fascicles, her bundles of finished poems; how Maggie was instructed to and then refused to burn Emily's poetry at Dickinson's death; how the various versions of English that Emily would have heard, including African American vernacular English and the Hiberno-English of Irish immigrants impacted and shaped Dickinson's linguistic experiments.

While there were Native and African American people working in and around Amherst and the Dickinson Homestead, Murray posits that it is the influence and intimate familiarity with her Irish immigrant servants, particularly the maid, Margaret Maher, and long-time Dickinson familiar Tom Kelley (who worked for the Dickinsons for many years and was the chief pallbearer, one of six Irish Catholic immigrant laborers Dickinson requested to carry her coffin at her funeral) that seems to have most affected Dickinson (though Murray also traces the influence on ED of African American speech patterns). Careful to attend to the lives of these individuals (by having done exhaustive library, archival, and in-person sleuthing with descendants and town historians) and mindful of the complexity of Dickinson's shifting prejudices and racism, Murray also provides a rich and engaging examination of a variety of individuals while also revealing the formidable challenges faced by those engaged in various forms of service in 19th-Century New England.

Murray writes:

How did Emily trade on skittishness about her place in the hierarchy to slip in and out of social view or resist poetic or linguistic categories and categorization? To leap boundaries even as she constructed them--to let the Kelleys or Matthews in but keep the "new Black man" (JL 721) out--to refuse adherences to form and genre (which, as composer Gil Evans once pointed out, is a 'merchandiser's problem, not mine') was part of her process. She opened herself to eclectic influences, crisscrossed boundaries, used her privilege to control and challenge as much as she parlayed the means and authority achieved in one artistic medium to another. It should not surprise readers that her politics were conservative but her poetics were not; that she disdained the African American gardener in the 1880s but wrote stunning antislavery verse in the 1860s. She was a figure of her time and class. That she opened herself, indeed, was changed by her close association with poor people working with and around her, is not surprising. She didn't shed her privilege but wore it comfortably.

Where does "the servant's hand" come in? Where does it get pushed away? What is to be made of the fact that Margaret Maher preserved the work in her trunk or saved the poems destined for destruction? As people investigating artistic motivation and process look around the writer's room, they are not just communing with the author and the view from the windowpane over the writing table. There was a woman leaning over the grate and some chance remarks that seeded an idea for a poem. All those quotations in the poems suggest engagement, ongoing conversations, and inspiration from the social world around her as much as the written world she inhabited. That 'social text,' that fleshy real world was inhabited by maids, laundry workers, seamstresses, blacksmiths, tinsmiths, basket weavers, laborers, stablemen--all of whom Emily knew by name. The poet may have traded on stereotypes (what Folsom and Price call vortex words) that telegraphed charged images to her readers. What's to be made of Emily's relationships to the people behind these stereotypes? This was the social context of her art-making, the whole roster of people who make the work possible and 'fuel the fantasy of independence. Ironically, it is this very support that allows the practice of art making to appear as the ultimate expression of individual freedom.

Emily's language was affected by Mrs. Mack's and certainly by that of other servants with whom she regularly spoke or listened to intently. The queen of mimicry took an improvisational page from her servants' books. Even her genius for ambiguity could have found influence among servants for whom the art of evasion and ambiguity were part survival strategy and, at least in the case of the Irish, part of their legal tradition. Genius is believed to be solitary. What would it mean to rethink a body of work--in this case reread poems for class and race--in light of the way Emily's daily life was shared with the working poor of the town?

....

The intimacy of small-town life, its ebbs and flows, dramas and controversies, as well as the intimacy of domestic service, meant that Emily Dickinson was interwoven with Amherst's poor white Yankee community, the entwined Native and African American one, and enclaves of Irish and English immigrants. In the brief glimpses offered, the men and women who spent some of their working lives in and around the Dickinson family are at least partially restored to the written narrative. Whatever their roles at the Homestead and their closeness to the poet, the maids and laborers come from the silent wings until it is so crowded onstage that we wondered why we hadn't seen them all along(215-218).


While I found myself sometimes wishing Murray would have stopped and spent additional time and space reading more closely, in light of the various linguistic influences she enumerates, some of Dickinson's poems, I can't complain. This doesn't seem to be the main goal of the book. Rather, it provides a speculative, complex, carefully researched and richly imagined tapestry of intertwined lives and the wild poetry these lives made possible.


I am alive-- because
I am not in a Room--
The Parlor--commonly--it is--
So Visitors may come--
(FP 605)




#670

One need not be a Chamber--to be Haunted--
One need not be a House--
The Brain has Corridors--surpassing
Material Place--

Far safer, of a Midnight Meeting
External Ghost
Than its interior Confronting--
That Cooler Host.

Far safer, through an Abbey gallop,
The Stones a'chase--
Than Unarmed, one's a'self encounter--
In lonesome Place--

Ourself behind ourself, concealed--
Should Startle most--
Assassin hid in our Apartment
Be Horror's least.

The Body--borrows a Revolver--
He bolts the Door--
O'erlooking a superior spectre--
Or More--

4.19.2010

Self & The Poem: Lee Hickman to Todd Baron




Todd Baron 2008















Lee Hickman, undated photo by Rod Bradley



Below is an excerpt from a 1984 letter from Lee Hickman to Todd Baron. Baron was living in San Francisco and attending New College while Hickman was in Southern California. The two maintained an ongoing correspondence. Todd read this excerpt at the recent Tribute to Leland Hickman on the occasion of Nightboat Books' publication of Tiresias. You can read about that HERE. When Todd read from Hickman's letter I was struck by Hickman's engagement with the question/problem of the "self" in poetry.It seems appropriate that this excerpt of correspondence should follow the post on Ammiel Alcalay and his argument for reading, rereading and reinterpreting the many versions of "I" and "selves" in the poem.


As to the subject of the “self” in art. What I have written is of course autobiographical, I assume anyone can see that. It is like an autobiography, but since it is a poem, and always remains one, it is a strange form, requesting the reader to respond to it as autobiography at the same time as the reader is requested to question the meaning of the concept of self and the concept of self-writing; the self itself viewed as a kind of text open to transgression, distortion, emendation, fictionalization of our convenient fiction of the self. This is reflexive action by the poem itself, and I assume anyone knows that who reads it. I also assume that any problem it causes comes partly from not having studied the whole book closely and partly from presuppositions about the question of self, as though anyone has a final say on this philosophical and perennial question. In my work so far, I have—in part—and probably a great part—presented my experience of textualizing my experience of textualizing my experience, including the experience of self-interpretation (those ambiguous parameters we are so inconveniently stuck with). The self is indescribable, containing its own contradictions, and unpredictable, yet we live as though those selves are more than fictions: the poem recognizes all this. However, the Leland of the poem is the Leland of the poem, for the poem’s Leland is the will of the poem, and Leland’s poem, like Leland’s self, is not his own. Not his own to interpret, to keep, to will, to kill, to destroy, to debase, to exalt, or to write about. Dynamic & never static, the self is an interpretation requiring continuous reinterpretation and multi-interpretation in order to continue; this is as much to say it does not exist as a closed & bounded entity—and yet—and yet—

………


Yes, art is a criticism of society. Yes, self, whatever it is, is definitely in concert with community, and vice versa. But a self in conflict with itself is in conflict with its community, and presentation of the results of that ongoing conflict in works of art is decidedly a criticism of society. All that needs to be determined is whether or not the particular self is lying. Such a work must question its truth or its falsity—i.e., it must be tiresian, i.e, it must be concerned with true interpretation just as was that soothsayer—such a work must question its origins—i.e., is the self a social construct (and if the social construct in question is a conflicted one, is society responsible? And if so, in what way? And what kind of self can a responsible society hope to create?), or is it a psychological construct only (i.e., something to do with the supposed nature of psyche only), or is it a metaphysical and religious given (i.e., is a deity responsible?). My work constantly questions itself on these matters—I don’t see how it could have been missed by anyone truly concerned to read it truly. That is why I am always so bewildered by criticisms that my poem is merely “confessional” or merely “autobiographical” or merely an exaltation and/or debasement of self by itself. I come out of the Stanislavsky method, Todd, that is why I am concerned with truth and with questions of self, and as a poet it is why I feel it necessary that a reader know just who this “poet” thinks he was and is being. Ergo, my work stoops to tell a little story about a six year old American boy growing into a man and into an old man; but the story is only part of the poem. This of course brings up the question of narrative, but let’s leave that aside for now; it’s all so tiring. (They’re essentially the same question.)

...............


You talk of “pure charge.” Pure charge is the meaning. In a poem, there is no other saying. What is said and how charged it is said are the same thing. As in life, the generosity and intensity of your love is that love, there is no separating them from it. A poem is not an abstraction. It is a product of the body. It is not the fingerprint. It is the fingertip. No poem goes beyond meaning. Meaning is the body. Yr body.


Todd Baron graduated from New College (studying under Robert Duncan, Michael Palmer, Diane Di Prima, et.al) in 1989 with an MA in Poetics. As Yet, his tenth book, will be published by Chax Press this year. He co founded Littoral Books (now defunct) at the utmost urging of Lee Hickman in 1990.


many thanks to todd baron for providing this excerpt.

4.14.2010

Poetry is a Reading of the World: Ammiel Alcalay, Part Two

Ammiel Alcalay: Part Two

Excerpts from Alcalay's "Local Politics: The Background as Foreward" from his book Memories of Our Future: Selected Essays 1982-1999 publshed by City Lights Books:

"...my experience in presenting unknown or marginalized literatures has taught me that an extremely wide net needs to be cast in order to create the conditions through which such work can find a productive space in Amercian culture, a place where poets and writers can get to it and begin relating to distinctly new forms, idioms, sensibilities and experiences as part of their own vocabulary. Casting such a net has meant turning into a kind of full-service bureau through which I could both help create the conditions for reception of works and then carry those works over in a variety of ways. Within these different roles, my work has spanned a range of cultural, political, and historical concerns. As someone barely born here (in larger historical/chronological terms), much of my work has involved the process of both finding and losing my "self" within the gaps I find in American discourse, gaps primarily having to do with either the lack or the suppression of any tangible global political and historical space or consciousness, however these end up getting defined.

Part of the difficulty of working through such a situation is that I feel as if I have embarked upon an enormous journey only to come back to where I started from: in my case, a distinctly American language and American idiom, only to wonder what happened along the way........

Two crucial geographical areas and states of mind on this map have been the Middle East and the Balkans; involvement in these areas has meant confronting deep pockets of resistance to change of any kind, in both expected and unexpected places.....

Poetry, and language perceived or filtered through the sensibility of poetry's value, still resists the marketplace, no matter how hard some may try. As Jack Spicer wrote: 'A poet is a time mechanic not an embalmer....Objects, words must be lead across time not preserved against it...' The connection between words and world, as well as the consequences of such connections, is something we must never lose sight of; as Adonis, one of this century's greatest poets has written:'The writing of poetry is a reading of the world and the things in it, a reading of things charged with words, and of words tied to things....Language, viewed from this perspective, is not a tool for communicating a detached meaning. It is meaning itself because it is thought. Indeed, it precedes thought and is succeeded by knowledge....Poetry, according to this definition, is more than a means or a tool, like a technology; it is, rather, like language itself, an innate quality. It is not a stage in the history of human consciousness but a constituent of this consciousness' (xii-xv).

4.13.2010

Charming Hostess and Ammiel Alcalay at Small Press Traffic





9 April 2010: Friday night. Rushed from sweaty yoga to pick up daughter, bring her home, swallow food (hello family), and then arrive at Timken Hall at California College of the Arts just in time for Charming Hostess and Ammiel Alcalay. I knew nothing about Charming Hostess and had no idea what to expect. This three person ensemble blew the audience away. Charming Hostess consists of the voices of Jewlia Eisenberg (who also plays harmonium)and Cynthia Taylor, with percussion by Michael (whose last name I didn't quite get and isn't listed on their web site. Sorry Michael!) Charming Hostess performed pieces from Bosnian writer Semezdin Mehmedinović's Sarajevo Blues translated by Ammiel Alcalay and a variety of other work, including a song about gender compliance sung in the Judeo-Spanish language Ladino. They then brought the movingly discrepant girl-group sound to the song "Death is a Job." You can hear a recording of this HERE. Powerful and good stuff. Look for them this summer at Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in San Francisco.


After a short intermission, Ammiel Alcalay took the stage. Alcalay has been reading in the Bay Area for the last two weeks, with appearances at Mills College and the Poetry Center. On Friday night, Alcalay began by referencing the introduction for him that CA Conrad wrote and Samantha Giles had just read. Conrad's introduction revisited the incendiary American Thinker 2005 article, "Poetry, Terror and Political Narcissism" in which author Alyssa Lappen writes about Alcalay's work and his criticism of the U.S. and Israel, making the claim that Alacalay is pro-Palestinian and therefore, implicitly, pro-terror and a political narcissist! I think it was Conrad in his intro or either Alcalay himself who suggested that in some ways the American Thinker article represented one of the few public engagements with his work. Because Alcalay's writing is overtly political,contestatory, and wide ranging in its hybrid and multiple forms from journalism, academic criticism, poetry, prose, and translation, Alcalay feels as if his work is in a critical vacuum. People, particularly on the East Coast, according to Alcalay, see his various engagements, his multiple points of attack, as separate endeavors. Alcalay said that on the West Coast, people seem to take a more integrated approach to his body of work.

Alcalay read from several of his books, including Scrap Metal and from the warring factions. Alcalay said that "a lot of my work is a response to my work," and he advocated that writers read critically their own body of work. Alcalay's new book, Islanders, contains writing from thirty years ago. This intervention in his own work proves to be a rich and engaging strategy for re-thinking, re-visioning and re-interpreting one writer's interaction with a complicated and fraught world. Alcalay makes an example of himself, and spoke about historicizing the many versions of "I" and "self" that he is, and has been. Here's a sampling of some of his work. These pieces are from the warring factions. * indicates a page break.

Miró is in The Museum of Modern Art.

Miró is in Sarajevo.

A famous playwright is on stage at Symphony Space and over the air on NPR.

The announcer calls me twice during a break to find
out how to pronounce the name Izeta.

Izeta is Miró's wife.

They have a dog.




It is December 1st, 1993.

*

Certain people say we should always go back to nature.
I notice they never say we should go forward to nature.
It seems to me they are more concerned that we should
go back, than about nature. If the models we use are the
apparitions seen in a dream or the recollection of our
prehistoric past, is this less a part of the nature or realism
than a cow in a field? I think not.

The role of the artist has always been that of image maker.
Different times require different images.

Today, when our aspirations have been reduced to a desperate
attempt to escape from evil, and times are out of joint,
our obsessive, subterranean and pictographic images are
the expression of the neurosis which is reality. To my mind
certain so-called abstraction is not abstraction at all,
on the contrary, it is the realism of our time.

*

Adolph Gottlieb
1947

*

no pyramids dot the skyline



in the seats of power of



this crumbling empire

*


the ghosts of industry eat
this old half city bridge
of nevermore again
eat Glamoć and
Grahovo
eat these years
(pg s 3-7)


suddenly like shapes of living stone clothed in the light of
dreams I tore the veil the shrouds which wrap the world
the frost of death the flood of tyranny a paradise of flowers
within which the poor heart loves to keep the earnings
of its toil a common home stains of inevitable crime
pride build upon oblivion to rule the ages that survive
our remains violence and wrong an unreturning stream
the grief of many graves snow and rain on lifeless things
this is not faith or law opinion more frail or life poisoned
in its wells that delights in ruin as endless armies wind
in sad procession the earth springs like an eagle even
as the winds of autumn scatter gold in the dying flame
we learned to steep the bread of slavery in tears of woe
these faded eyes have survived a ruin wide and deep
which can no longer borrow from chance or change
what will come within the homeless future that gold
should lose its power and thrones their glory that love
which none may bind be free to fill the world like light
whose will has power when all beside is gone faint accents
far and lost to sense of outward things some word which
none here can gather yet the world has seen a type of peace
some sweet and moving scene returning to feed on us
as worms devour those years come and gone like the ship
which bears me in this the winter of the world (89).


Alcalay's bio from the Small Press Traffic blog here:

Poet, essayist, translator, and editor, Ammiel Alcalay returns to San Francisco to read from his new book --and first published novel-- ISLANDERS (City Lights Books, 2010) and to talk with the audience about the concerns of his work as writer, educator, and literary activist.

Born and raised in Boston, is a first-generation American, son of Sephardic Jews who emigrated from Serbia to the US after the second World War, Alcalay teaches at Queens College, New York, and at the CUNY Graduate Center, where he directs Lost & Found: the CUNY Poetics Document Initiative.

He is the author of *After Jews and Arabs: Remaking Levantine Culture* (U. Minnesota), and *Memories of Our Future: Selected Essays: 1982-1999* (City Lights). He is also the editor and translator of *Keys to the Garden*, an anthology of new Israeli writing, Semezdin Mehmedinovic's *Sarajevo Blues* and *Nine Alexandrias*, and *Outcast* by Shimon Ballas (all published by City Lights).


About Charming Hostess, again, courtesy of Small Press Traffic:

Charming Hostess is a whirl of eerie harmony, hot rhythm and radical braininess. Our music explores the intersection of text and the sounding body-- complex ideas expressed physically, based on voice and vocal percussion, handclaps and heartbeats, sex-breath and silence. Explore their awesomeness at their website.

4.10.2010

Jacket Magazine on Bob Perelman







Check out Jacket Magazine's Special Feature on Bob Perelman. Many good articles, including Rob Halpern's piece "Restoring China," which uncovers the local and contextual community that Frederic Jameson's subsequent reading erased.

Read it here.

4.01.2010

Simone White's House Envy of All the World










Here are several poems from Simone White's House Envy of All the World, (I love that title!) recently out from Factory School's Heretical Texts, February 2010.

Simone takes apart place, race, desire, relation, gender, the public and private as they intersect with history and the individual.



it is probably a crime to stand on the corner
just after dawn in a red sweatshirt
in Bedford-Stuyvesant


it is probably a crime
to say


what if song
is poison to me? (from "Nigger Rig" 27-28)





********************************************


Here's what Small Press Distribution has to say about Simone's book:

Is all black desire corrupt? If American aspiration is linked to the desire to have whiteness, be male and make money, what, now, can a decent person want? Family, death, power, Poetry and blackness--each is implicated in a general failure of perfection and subjected to furious lyric rethinking in Simone White's work; a poetry of ideas where "the whole limbic system [becomes] an event," "decorous" and profane, precise and bewildered.

Check it out. You can buy House Envy at SPD here.

If you will be in Philly on Saturday,April 10th, you can hear Simone read with Allison Cobb, Sueyeun Juliette Lee, Kate Schapira and CA Conrad & Frank Sherlock at 8pm at the University of the Arts, Terra Hall Broad & Walnut, 7th Floor,Connelly Auditorium.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If therefore ye be loath to dishearten utterly and discontent, not the mercenary crew of false pretenders to learning, but the free and ingenuous sort of such as evidently were born to study, and love learning for itself, not for lucre or any other end but the service of God and truth, and perhaps the lasting fame and perpetuity of praise which God and men have consented shall be the reward of those whose published labors advance the good of mankind; then know that, so far as to distrust the judgment and honesty of one who hath but a common repute in learning, and never yet offended, as not to count him fit to print his mind without a tutor and examiner, lest he should drop a schism or something of corruption, is the greatest displeasure and indignity to a free and knowing spirit that can be put upon him.---John Milton, Areopagitica

Drop a Schism



Every two seconds, a paparazzo
punches Bernard Madoff in the chest;
and yet he advances. I like his nice spectacles;
I like his white hair and blue hat.


Each disgraced bourgeois in blue
whose belly drags the bottom,
scratched bloody,
beat up by photographers,


all his money taken away,
whose children hold his hand at the perp walk,
Rachel Maddow smirking,
I love a little,


though I want to be reading an old biography of Lincoln,
eating barbecue chips.


Athletic fat bourgeois
grown stinking rich, I want you to know I know
it is the liberty of which we are afraid
gone crazy in your head.


We want to be reading an old biography of Lincoln,
eating barbecue chips. Inexplicably,
we would kick a baby to be near you
or give our baby to your hedge fund


to invest, educate or employ.
Our swelling knees upbraid the center lie,
O blessed avarice
of egg blue final December.


Someone said: "My life had its significance
and its only deep significance because it was part of a Problem;
...the central problem of the greatest of the world's democracies
and so the Problem of the future world." (1)


"Perhaps his needs turned out to be exceptional,
but his existence was exceptional.
Between 1850 and 1900
nearly everyone's existence was exceptional." (2)


After this, who will venture
withdrawal or meditation? Habibi,
take your rest on the downswung
arch globe of my century, for you will never eat


another hot dog. Your mother will not cook it
nor the president of Harvard College
lead the change we have internalized,
Goddamit.


My life had its significance,
notably grim
refutations of crossing the Bronx
some winter afternoon in massive storm,


vague pain in the backside.
Take the wheel, then. Drive us to Connecticut.
I cannot take you through it
slow or fast. The icy liberty


of which we are afraid
percussed interpret curtain
rune glaze'drift


I do not know how I can live
with all these baffled dead
flapping and hooting in the thoroughfare
when some little girl on the longboard makes me cry.


I've got fifty dollars,
which is nothing to be ashamed of.


Sometimes I want to be a suspect,
then think better of it,
like a woman in Whistler's mind
thinking of Whistler seeing her seeing him--


I make a ghastly caryatid
for all this clicking power.
Things drop down on me while I'm sleeping:
iTunes receipts and promises


to do it in the morning.
I do not know how I can live
with just my 'kimbo'd arm to shield me
from the something of corruption in my midst.



(1) W.E.B. DuBois, "Apology," Dusk of Dawn
(2) Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams

*************************************


...at my end was nothing, no one between me and the black room of the world. ---Jamaica Kincaid

Black Room



I hate an unpacified black room,
and next to that, the imbecile who meets them in the night--
dark things alive in dark places.


Un illuminated core of the world
where dark things whole as smoke
whispered down to nothing in the wind of evil


go weighted down by the killed
void and intention joined in the eye,
black cats rudely crouching in dark corners (33).




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Brick in a Bag



he would say that bastard so-and-so
i HATE bilked me out of a million dollars


that was being alive more alive
than oatpaste
offered me as life
repeatedly he forgot who he was talking to


and took back everything
(i should act a little stupid


improve my prospects)
offense not rising


to the level of conspiracy extortion or fraud crucial action of the
inside game
was always moving its nature fleeting


and American
beginning always in a park in Philadelphia


a people without history
walks his tiny daughter


into the Pines and Chestnuts
purporting to straighten the town


since the eighteenth century
what was he even doing there?


i said he had no HISTORY
the identities and roles of his confederates


their places of operation as yet unknown
blank space would grow behind my skin


it tightened around me
WHITE called a brick in a bag (53).

3.19.2010

The Truth About Ted---A Reprint in Honor of Bruce Boone's 70th Birthday










The Truth About Ted (an excerpt from CARMEN)
by Bruce Boone
published by exempli gratia, Berkeley, California, 1984


Bruce Boone recently turned seventy years old (Bon Anniversaire! Bruce!) and in celebration of that, I am pleased to repint here on xpoetics Bruce's 1984 chapbook, The Truth About Ted. Bruce has read this marvelous piece at recent readings in San Francisco and New York, but because the chapbook is difficult to get a hold of (though I think Kaplan Harris has the copy of it that used to belong to Robert Duncan) and because this particular piece has not been reprinted in the recent republication of My Walk with Bob and Century of Clouds, I offer it here, Dear Readers, for your pleasure. I've also posted my close reading of it below. Enjoy!
********************************

Ted didn’t turn out to be what I expected. He turned out to be quite nice. But may I add a bit odd? Easily embarrassed, he would stare in impassive silence for long periods and then, properly encouraged with a solicitous nod or smile and polite question or tow, become brightly loud and voluble. Earlier when I asked, Jonathan said Ted was straight, but Ted’s brand of sociability really suggested something more like camp. Later, as I came to see him often in Jonathan’s company, I wondered if Ted could be straight at all. Ted had the marked interests of a person who was gay, opera for instance. He hung out with gays almost exclusively. He looked gay and acted gay. He talked gay even. So why wasn’t he gay? That was my essential argument to Jonathan, and after some time Jonathan gradually came over to my viewpoint. Yes, Ted was gay, whether he knew it or not. But isn’t self-knowledge a matter of time? Let Ted do things at his own pace, Jonathan advised, he’ll come out when it’s time. Why be push? It’s his life, after all, not yours.

So about the matter of Ted’s sex life, Jonathan and I maintained a stance of polite non-inquiry vis-à-vis Ted. We limited ourselves to speculation. And in the meantime Jonathan and I broke up–we left our place on 18th St. In the city. I chose to go downtown, to what I have since recognized was a terrible little studio in the Tenderloin. Jonathan moved in with a group of musicians in the Fillmore, where he could practice and perform among kindred spirits.

We didn’t stop seeing each other though–and we didn’t stop speculating about Ted. Was he or wasn’t he?–that was the question. If he was, when would he...? and so on. I also discussed the matter with Bob. But at this point, since Bob had only met Ted once, and briefly, my discussions of the ‘Ted question’ with Bob became increasingly abstract and unreal– and began drifting further and further away from the real person Ted. For Bob and me, the issue of Ted’s sexuality challenged our ability to come up with the right interpretation of signs generally. Ted was a test case of our hermeneutic proficiencies. I’d say, Well, Bob, at the opera last night, according to what I heard from Jonathan (that blabbermouth!), apparently Roy had a hot new item about Richard Bonnyng’s boyfriend, and when he told Jonathan and Bernard about that, well, Ted just seemed all ears. So what do you think about that? And Bob would reply–sounds like he’s gay to me, Bruce! Or I could take the devil’s advocate position. Don’t you think it could be a form of politeness?–I’d ask. Straight men can be polite too! Finally our Te discussions became technical exercises, occasions for testing our skills as writers. We wanted to be able to verbalize our perceptions of life’s ordinary events accurately, elegantly and truthfully so t hat other people would applaud us for our socially useful talents. Whatever else it was, Ted’s ‘problem’ was grist for our writer’s mill.

Not that this wasn’t fun. The more complex and detailed (and superficial!!!) our discussion became, the more it seemed to draw out our deepest feelings. These feelings had to do with ourselves, with the community of gay men and in some odd way with the possibilities of human life, happiness generally. Talking about Ted became a way of talking about the things we cared about most–things we couldn’t have talked about honestly and satisfyingly except as gossip. I can’t begin to tell you how good I felt about this aspect of my life. It was wonderful in its own right. Yet I must also tell you this. I now believe that the good it represented was a limited one. Gossip and language–they do have their limitations. And I believe that even the gossiping we did about Ted was an illustration of this. Let me show you why I think so.

One favorite theme– because so incredibly rich– was Ted’s non-stop ability to be embarrassed. His susceptibility to blushing, his capacity to be ‘shocked’– over and over again. There were endless discussions of this. ‘But that proves...!’ I’d say. And Jonathan or Bob would reply, ‘Not at all, it doesn’t prove a thing. It proves the opposite. After all who’s more worldly, straight or gay?’ and so on. In the end each of these ‘proofs’ cut both ways and so didn’t mean much –until a non-language reality could intervene. As it properly did, a little later. How it did is the story of those few phone calls I mentioned earlier.

The first phone call began like this. Jonathan had called me under a transparent pretext–information about a minor problem in the distribution of my book that he thought I should know about. So I knew Jonathan was up to something else. If any of you ever decides he or she wants to sail the inland sea of Jonathan’s mind, I’d counsel you this. Be wary and mind your p’s and q’s, remember to navigate carefully!–I’d say. Do you perchance want to get to point B, now being at point A? Then with Jonathan go by way of C! That’s my advice to you. With Jonathan directness isn’t a good idea. So the day Jonathan called, I correctly followed my own recommendations– deciding to be patient and wait until Jonathan judged it was safe to get to the point. He had been at Cody’s bookstore in Berkeley the other day, he said, with Ted, and had noticed copies of My Walk with Bob lying out on a display table. He decided I’d want to know how sales were doing and want over to take a look. All well and good, I thought to myself as Jonathan was telling me this, but what are you getting at? Jonathan continued. But one of the copies was definitely defective, he said. It had several missing pages, there might have been others. Jonathan thought I would want to know about this so I could replace the copies. I told Jonathan I was sincerely glad to hear that and would certainly make sure the damaged copies were replaced in short order, since Bob and I were planning to go over to Berkeley that weekend. I would replace the defective copies when I was there – but meanwhile, did Jonathan have any other news?

For reasons I couldn’t understand, he seemed to want to continue talking about his afternoon in Berkeley at Cody’s bookstore–with Ted. While they were there, Jonathan said, Ted started skimming my book in the hopes– he added– of finding some kind of gossip about people he knew. Like Aviva, Jonathan’s sister. Or Laurette, whom Ted remembered from Jonathan’s concerts and musical get-togethers. Basically, Ted just wanted to know what I would say about them. He finished looking through my story as Jonathan browsed in the Italian literature section. Later, when they had left, Ted told Jonathan he was a little shocked at the part in my story about the supposed new boyfriend that had come to Jonathan’s concert on Laurette’s arm. Did this mean, he asked Jonathan, that while Bruce and you were together you were seeing someone else– another man? Jonathan tried to explain things but Ted insisted on continuing this line of thought, resolute in knowing the facts whatever the cost. Now Ted hadn’t read the whole story while he was in the bookstore, so he hardly could have realized that my narration of my feelings about Jonathan and language took place in a period of time that followed my breakup with Jonathan. Ted expressed his fears of Jonathan’s potential ‘adultery.’ He became alarmed at the prospect that Jonathan might have been ‘unfaithful.’ Had Jonathan–Ted then asked directly– been seeing someone? The question surprised Jonathan. It didn’t make any sense. Though ignorant of the facts of the situation, Ted’s apprehensiveness remained genuine.

Illustrating his fears, Ted then told Jonathan an anecdote about a former room-mate of his, Ted’s, who had just gotten back from New York City. The room-mate told Ted about having the best seats in the house while seeing “Evita” with a friend. But there was something suspicious in his friend’s story, Ted pointed out. Ted attempted a roundabout way with Jonathan. The seats, he exclaimed, cost $50.00 each!–with the sense that this fact would speak volumes to Jonathan. When Jonathan remained clearly perplexed at this, Ted became more straightforward. By implication, he asked Jonathan, wouldn’t that mean the friend was really more like a patron? When Ted asked his friend how in the world he could manage something so expensive, the friend had winked broadly drawled– well, I just made sure to give him a real good time later on. When Jonathan came to this part of the story, I couldn’t help but laugh. Jonathan was laughing too, it was such a completely ludicrous picture of what evil in the world might really mean. But Ted’s own analysis was rather different from Jonathan’s and mine. Taking the story at face value, Ted insisted that the dilemma was a real one. He was completely crestfallen by the cynicism it represented. Was this, Ted wanted to know, how people really behaved once they leave the protective environment of family and friends, when they take up life on their own in the big city? Was this what it meant to be an adult?– to be mature? As Jonathan repeated this anecdote to me on the phone and described the anguish on Ted’s face, I felt waves of sympathy gushing up inside me. I felt a respect hard on its heels–then something like admiration. Didn’t the story show Ted’s first encounter with the Cash Nexus and his human horror before it? Didn’t it show, too, by implication, Ted’s high estimate of the opposite of this, a truly human and socialized way of behaving? For Ted’s sake, I wanted to think so. But I had to be candid with myself. It isn’t exactly, I thought, as though Ted has really been tested by life itself. And I persisted in this direction. Would Ted survive real trials? What would happen to Ted once he came out for instance? In gay life there would be two choices open to him. Forgetting idealism, he could become a shallow person and choose to live a life of fantasy. Or, deepening his experience of life with sex and the understanding of good and evil, he could become wise, strengthening his first idealism with power and adult comprehension. Which of the two paths would Ted take?–I asked. But until Ted actually did come out, wouldn’t these possibilities remain academic? And Ted was certainly taking his time about it. The coming out, that is. But as Jonathan pointed out, it was his life, wasn’t it?

As I told you, my expectations were for the best. But there was also the other side of the coin. What of Ted’s well-known passion for Sir Walter Scott for instance? Would literary romance take him to, can we say, the community function of love, friendship and sociality? Or – and this alternative was equally possible– would Ted’s Sir Walter Scott infatuation lead to a taste for superficiality, frivolity? To furbelows, to Offenbach for instance? (The prospects recede into infinity.) Well, history itself will be Ted’s judge, I remarked airily.

But as fate would have it, the mystery of Ted’s sexuality cleared up sooner than anyone imagined. About a week after my conversation with Jonathan, Bob called to remind me of our projected trip to Berkeley. It was time to see how our books were doing in the bookstores there. How many Family Poems, how many My Walk With Bobs should we take to Serendipity for instance? What did I think? And how many copies to Cody’s? – our best outlet! There was Sand Dollar – but was it really worth going all the way to North Berkeley? Questions about the business end of our writing careers. Questions I didn’t particularly want to deal with. Neither of us did. By default we were distributors of our own books, as well as being our own publishers, publicists and critics, reviewers, etc. We had chosen to go our own way in writing, not becoming part of the various ‘schools’ in our area, and the understandable consequence was that none of these schools was anxious to publish us. What would have been their interest in promoting our writing? But meanwhile bob and I were pretty much on our own. If we wanted to be read, we would have to take on most of the drudgery of the business side of things ourselves. So we had become, in our own modest way, small time business men. I hastened to allay a guilty conscience with solacing precedents. Hadn’t Rimbaud become a first class business person n Ethiopia? –I’d ask –forgetting for the moment that that was when Rimbaud stopped writing. And who – I’d continue rhetorically – was more spiritual in their innermost self than Rimbaud! Even the Pope runs a Bank of the Holy Spirit, I’d remind Bob. Was this what we had to look forward to in the future? Trudging from store to store, selling literature– heart to heart chats, transcendental yearnings of human nature, edifying counsel on politics – at $3.50 a copy! Not very edifying, is it? – I told Bob skeptically. Bob responded by pointing out that it wasn’t very likely that this was what fate really had in store for us; we really did have better prospects that this ahead of us. And, anyway – didn’t I have items of interest for him from other fronts? What about Jonathan’s recent activities for instance? Bob had neatly segued us into another field of action.

If Bob was trying to steer our talk into less negative areas, I was certainly willing to go along with him. Our conversational energies were lagging. News of Jonathan might be a change for the better. Who could be sure anyhow? Maybe the ship of our changed fortunes was just out of sight over the horizon line, even now about to come in. How many literary committees and agents were at this very moment in furious competition to see which one could heap larger sums of money on us, shower us with high honors, traditional prizes, co-opt us with nationally distributed trade editions! To have continued our speculations about a future of poverty and lack of recognition would in fact, I realized, be tantamount to soliciting it. It would be the equivalent of declining another, better future –of rewards and recognition –substituting this one for the brighter one that we knew was actually to be ours. So why tempt fate, I thought, and turned to the subject at hand. Actually, I told him, there’s quite a lot of news about Jonathan. Bringing bob up to date on the topic of Jonathan’s successes, I mentioned the concerts, critical acclaim, reviews and notices –then Jonathan’s plans for the Bruges Competition. Then I mentioned Ted again. ‘Ted!’ – Bob said with alacrity. ‘How that fateful name keeps recurring!’

As indeed it did. I had from Jonathan, I told Bob, a wonderful story of sexual realization– or maybe non-realization? depending on how you took it. And if the story doesn’t improve you, I sad pertly– why, be sure, bob! – it will amuse and delight you with its many knotty dilemmas and rare paradoxes, etc. You will certainly know more about the human heart by the time you are done. ‘The human heart!– mused Bob –‘that dark and chambered place whose sere, ancient secrets. And what comes next...?’

Bernard comes next. He was a lover Jonathan had had some time after Jonathan and I broke up. They had a relationship that lasted maybe a month, if I remember correctly. Then there got to be difficulties. So the romance part stopped between Jonathan and Bernard, but they continued to be friends. “Sound like anybody else you know?’ – I asked Bob. ‘Sounds like everybody else I know,’ –he replied. The friendship continued on the basis of what they had in common, I told Bob. For instance – music! Here I paused. ‘Do you see? Do you begin to get the drift?’ Bob allowed as he didn’t. Would I be clearer please? Then –‘Opera!’ –I shouted triumphantly. You see, I proceeded to explain to Bob, Bernard naturally would begin to meet others in Jonathan’s circle of friends. And just as naturally, especially those wonderful musical evenings of coffee and pastries and watching Joan Sutherland TV specials, wouldn’t this group of friends include in a particular way, especially and above all – Roy? Don’t you see it yet, Bob? – I asked my friend querulously. But Bob was getting restless. He asked me to come to the point. I wanted to be modest, but the glories of the thing were beyond me. ‘The point!’ – I fairly shouted. ‘But it’s Ted, isn’t it?’ I could hear Bob’s heavy breathing on the phone, so I knew the first realization of the thing was already on him. It was all so truly wonderful! ‘Such a simple solution can scarcely be imagined’ – I commented. ‘What,’ I questioned candidly, at last beginning to be sure of myself, ‘can be more appropriate...’ Bob sighed, ‘Nu?’ Then he had it fully. ‘...than that Bernard, to put it simply for, Bob....will bring Ted out!’

I heard Bob whistling softly in tribute to my daring. Then together we checked off the list of possibilities. Common friends like Jonathan and Roy for instance? Yes! Many. Common interests then? Uh huh. Opera and more opera! Well, how about a common age? You could say this was true – on condition that Bernard, being older only slightly, would sometimes get to be in the ‘older and wiser’ role, just to add spice of life. At the other end of the line, 5 blocks away in his house on Clipper St., I heard Bob’s response. He weighed his words carefully. ‘It adds up, Bruce,’ Bob says to me calmly, ‘and I think you’ve hit paydirt this time.’ ‘Well, it’s darn nice of you to say it,’ says I sweetly in my most straightforward Cybill-Shepherd-in Taxi Driver voice. ‘But seriously, Bob’ – I continue–‘it figures all the way around except for one tiny thing. A possibility is one thing, a marriage something else. A whole nother ballgame. Everyone I talked to –Jonathan, everyone! –agreed my calculations were brilliant; it was so clear, Ted and Bernard were to be the couple of the season. Logical and necessary, no? So I thought too. But we all forgot one thing which is after all maybe the most important.’ Meaning what – asks Bob, still in synch with me, step by step in my argument. ‘Meaning love, meaning chemistry, meaning whatever you want to call it.’ Silence on Bob’s end. ‘When Bernard finally gets up his courage to ask Ted the big question, well, that’s exactly the moment Ted chooses to slam the door right in Bernard’s face.’ More silence, Bob’s breathing. ‘And naturally, Bob, the explanation of this involves a bit of a story....would you like to hear it?’ – I ask Bob. ‘I think I would, Bruce,’ says Bob.

Well, here’s the story I got from Jonathan I tell Bob. And the surprising thing is, it shows Ted isn’t gay after all. Or that’s the implication anyway. But the way things stand now, unfortunately, we may never know the truth. Remember Rashomon, that 50s Japanese movie where there were all these possible versions of the story and you couldn’t say any one of them was the right one? ‘Uh huh,’ says Bob, ‘it reminds me of Ed. You never know what version he would tell you. Ed was like the movies. Visual that way.’

‘Here’s the way this story goes, Bob. It seems several months ago Bernard and Ted meet for the first time, and – as Bernard later tells Jonathan – he, Bernard, was quite impressed with Ted, right off. Ted has the looks Bernard goes for in a big way. And too, Ted’s smart, and Bernard likes that too. Then another thing, as it turns out, there was also their consuming and mutual love of opera.’

‘That’s a lot, Bruce– but do you think it’s enough to build a relationship on?’

‘Well, let me tell you Bob, according to Jonathan, this Bernard is one of life’s go-getters. Every day, up at dawn with 100 chin-ups, that’s for starters! For breakfast he has yogurt, just plain yogurt, that’s all. Not even the kind with fruit on the bottom. Maybe a thin slice of bread, but never butter! Don’t you think that’s impressive?’ Bob grunts a non-committal, ‘un hun.’

On top of that, I continue, Bernard’s learning how to be a court reporter and will probably make a lot of money in the future. In other words, I explain, Bernard’s an eligible – a very, well, man-about-town. So Bernard has this bee in his bonnet – he just has to ask Ted out on a date. But first – as a kind of ‘permission’ is my guess – he decides to check in with Jonathan, he needs to see if the idea is viable in Jonathan’s view, he and Ted being such good friends. Jonathan the prudent! He doesn’t exactly tell Bernard yes, and he doesn’t exactly tell him no. He just gives Bernard Ted’s phone number, and that’s that – more or less. Bernard gets going on his project right away. He calls Ted up that night. ‘How would you like to get together after work sometime and have a drink or two with me?’ But imagine Ted’s consternation! Is this a formal invitation to go out with a man, just like women do? Ted’s taken aback. What can he say? Being a person of good breeding, he doesn’t know how to deal with Bernard’s brashness. All this time of course Ted’s supposed to be straight. But Bernard’s assumption to the contrary is getting to Ted. He has to say something. So what answer does Ted give Bernard? Here’s what he says, literally. ‘I think you and Jonathan have something in common you don’t share with me.’ It’s a strange answer, isn’t it? Ted implies he’s straight, not gay. But if it’s what he implies, it’s not what he says. So there Bernard is, right back where he started on square one– and Ted’s sexual direction remains as unclear as ever. Altogether an enigmatic situation, don’t you think? – I comment to Bob. We grow silent momentarily.

Bob deals well with silences. I think he supposes– correctly–that my silences have a life and meaning of their own, and if I drift off sooner or later I’ll return.

I continued. I told Bob Bernard had been palpably upset by Ted’s unfortunate remark, as much by the phrasing of it as by its substance. Could Ted possibly suppose he was being tactful with his dumb way of putting it? was the thing–whatever it was–that Jonathan and Bernard had in common a disease maybe? a joint checking account? a set of fine Lennox china? Bernard’s dander was up. To put it bluntly, if Ted was straight his answer was insulting. And if he wasn’t, well, why didn’t Ted just come out and say he didn’t want to go out with Bernard? Ted’s answer seemed evasive and–coquettish. So here comes Bernard’s counterattack. He’s not going to suffer in silence. Nor is he prepared to see Ted smirking at him in the future! – even if this is, given Ted’s sentimental character, a rather unlikely proposition. So here is what our Bernard then tells Ted. He tell him, ‘I’m not just interested in your body, you know, I’m also interested in your mind.’ It was as if Ted was, oh, I don’t know, a chorus girl, a starlet, anything. You get my drift– all the stereotypes of sexism coming out. Think of Marilyn Monroe reading Shakespeare. All the reporters crowd around thinking they gotta ask her opinions on the Bard or else they won’t get an interview ’cause they’re not taking her seriously. Does offense deserve counter-offense? Ted was certainly right to feel a little objectivized. So he just leaves Bernard dangling. Bernard extricates himself as he can. He makes a few more polite remarks for the record, hangs up. And that’s it, I tell Bob. That’s the story. Bernard and Ted are like most stories, they never really conclude. Just end.

Bob said that could be true all right because it reminded him the time he and Ed went to Murray Edleman’s workshop for gay couples. Wasn’t that in 1974 Bob asked me– checking out my memory– or was it later? I wasn’t sure, so I asked Bob if that was about the time I was in Berkeley with Jonathan. But Bob thought it was later. Anyway, he continued, this was a retreat– a time when you really face the issues of your life together. What happened was, each couple stood up and complained about this or that, whatever in their relationship. It was assumed you’d be better people for airing your dirty linen or nagging each other. When Ed’s turn came, he said that what he wanted most with Bob was to feel he could go out into the world and do what he wanted to do and always know that Bob would be his home. Bob says he was really moved by this statement of Ed’s. Bob told the group that this was one of the most beautiful things he had ever heard. ‘I noticed,’ says Bob, ‘that everybody’s jaws had dropped open when they heard me.’ Bob says he’s telling me this story to corroborate my own incomplete story of Ted and Bernard. ‘It took years to understand that story,’ says Bob. ‘One of the many hidden agendas in the weekend was for me to learn how to assert myself and make demands. First I had to understand how selfish Ed was. That’s when I realized what the open jaws meant.’

I thought Bob might be pulling my leg. Couldn’t he change his mind about Ed again? I told myself I’d shelve this issue. What did I know about whether life concluded or narrations did? Wasn’t it the same either way?

As events proved, it wasn’t actually. About two months later I get an unexpected call from Jonathan. He says there’ve been some new developments in the Ted situation. Do I want to hear them? Naturally. So I get the details from Jonathan and pass them on to Bob at the next opportunity. Recently, it seems, Ted had been feeling like a show in the city. Iolanthe, for instance– one of his favorites– and by the Lamplighters. He phones Jonathan–doesn’t everybody love Gilbert and Sullivan? How about going with me tonight? But, Jonathan can’t go with Ted that night, he’s got a rehearsal. Ted’s so, so, so disappointed. He’s been studying all week long and it’s a weekend! Doesn’t he deserve a break in his work-week as much as anyone? Jonathan considers this. Sly Jonathan! He admits Ted has a point. You know, Ted–says J.– Bernard just loves Gilbert and Sullivan. Why don’t you see whether he’s doing anything tonight? Maybe he’d want to go along with you. Besides–continues J.–he mentioned particularly wanting to see Iolanthe. Well, what do you know? Maybe I should call up Bernard. Maybe you should, replies Jonathan. Jonathan the wise. Ted one of life’s innocents.

So he does; they do. Go out, that is. Naturally it’s a set-up. But it’s in the best interests of all concerned. And a happy ending is predictable from the outset. So, after they see the show together, Ted and Bernard take a walk. What’s more ordinary? They find a park bench. They sit down. What do they talk about? Who knows. But in my own mind I give them completely conventional lines. I make them say what couples have said to each other in such circumstances from time immemorial. ‘I’ve admired you for a long time, you know, and I think you’re really very attractive. ‘I hope you’ll forgive my being so anxious the first time you phoned me.’ ‘Isn’t the park lovely tonight? There’s a full moon and you can see all the stars.’ Canzonetta sul aria. But you’ll come, won’t you?–says Mozart’s count. Does he know? Susanna’s as nervous as Almaviva. It’s a Marriage of Figaro– in the distance you can hear the plashing of fountains. Not far away is Bernard’s house, and that’s where they plan to go. ‘”Donne, vedete s’io l’ho nel cor.” Sound of violins, falling cadence. My only comment is this– God give them the night of happiness they deserve. People should get whatever happiness they can from life– because what else is the point. Of anything?–I conclude abruptly. That’s it, Bob. The story of Ted’s coming out.

On Bob’s end, a short silence. ‘I suppose that means Ted was gay all along....’

‘Obviously.’

‘But the story still seems to lack something....you’re not keeping something back, are you, Bruce?’

‘Well, there is a detail. Though I don’t really know if I should add it since it’s so completely banal. It takes some of the magic out, I’m afraid. Anyway, here it is. A few months after Ted got out of college he went to the baths. One that was nearby. Does that interest you, Bob? And he got his first blow job. In the steamroom, it was. And for all I know gave one as well–though that wasn’t part of what I heard. I wanted this to be a romantic story,’ –I told Bob– ‘and here it is turning into a story about a quickie in a public bathhouse! How embarrassing! It’s the opposite of the ending I wanted. There goes courtship, nice and slow, and spiritual. There goes roses. And what do you have, instead? A college blow job!’

Bob laughs. ‘You have to let life define your stories, Bruce–instead of the other way around.’

I told Bob I’d think about this. And I did.