The Return of Wordplay

The way this blog post came about is as follows: I was doing something I’d never done, which was to play with Siri on my iPad. I was asking it things like “Show me a picture of Sam Neill” and “Play me the theme music from The Illusionist.” Then I graduated to facetious searches like “What’s the price of tea in China?” and “What is most Americans’ opinion of the CIA?” The first facetious search brought me an explanation of the derivation and meaning of the expression rather than an actual price (shoot, and there I was hoping to fool Siri into giving me a literal answer). The second facetious question brought back the following article: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/oct/10/the-science-of-spying-how-the-cia-secretly-recruits-academics.

What started as playing around turned into something else as I read this article and thought about some of my experiences in academia, which include attending conferences. It also took me back to my reading of Ian McEwan’s novel Sweet Tooth, an eye-opening look at the methods used by British intelligence to recruit an unsuspecting writer to their ranks. The scariest thing about all of this is the deviousness of the methods used, which included a plant whose job was to subtly (very subtly) encourage the writer to express the type of views the spy agency wanted. His “handler” ended up falling in love with him, which didn’t prevent her from doing her job. Just imagine, you’re tooling along, doing your own thing (you think), when you find out that not only are you being used by the powers that be but that your lover, the closest person to you, is spying on you (while loving you at the same time, or so she says).

It so happens that I was also reading Theodora Goss’s novel, European Travels for the Monstrous Gentlewoman, which got me to thinking about the CIA in the first place. In this novel, a group of young women who have been victimized by the scientific experiments of such men as Drs. Moreau, Rappaccini, and Frankenstein end up banding together to fight the scientific society that has sponsored this research in the past and threatens to do so again. I started to stop reading the novel because I couldn’t tell where the author was going with such characters as Lucinda Van Helsing, who requires blood to feed (well, don’t look so squeamish—it doesn’t have to be human blood) and Count Dracula (and he’s one of the good guys). In this age of coded messages, fake news, and double entendres, one sometimes fears even to blink lest someone across the room mistake it as signal for God knows what. (It really is that bad. I take this opportunity to tell you in no uncertain terms that what I wear or what I eat or the way I walk has nothing to do with you.)

Maybe I’m wrong: maybe all the intelligence agencies, even the FBI, use these same methods. I can’t say that I can distinguish the methods of one agency from another, or even the methods of other countries’ spies from ours. I suspect a lot of them work in much the same way. My point is how horrifying I find all of this stuff. I can see subterfuge probably has its uses when you’re fighting crime, but it has no business intruding on the lives of private citizens. And yet, so much of what I read in this article seemed unsettlingly familiar to me.

How many times have I gone somewhere and had people talk to me as if they already knew me, dropping some small fact that they should have had no way of knowing? How often have I noticed someone sitting near me behaving erratically, with exaggerated movements or unnecessarily loud conversation as if everything depended on their getting my attention? How many years did I live in fear and discomfort due to the strange actions of my neighbors, who rode roughshod over my right to privacy and seemed not to recognize boundaries (up to and including a locked door)? How many times have I come out into a parking lot at night to face bright lights trained directly on my car? How many times have I noticed strangers lurking nearby? How many times have I been in fear of my life? How much has the quality of my life gone down over the last ten years? (Drastically—the normal life I remember from the past is as a distant dream.) How much time have I lost, how many things have I missed doing, how many people have I missed seeing, as a result of the way in which my life seems to have been hijacked with no explanation.

I’ll tell you what I have been doing: working at Home Depot and living in my car. Yes, I suppose I am a bit overqualified, but one thing I like about it is that I am dealing with tangible, verifiable objects. If someone is looking for a cabinet, I can point them in the right direction; I know where the shims are; I can explain the difference between an agitator and an impeller in a washing machine. When people ask me about these things, I answer them. The problem is I often feel that the conversation I’m having with them is not the same one they’re having, or think they’re having, with me. If you’re planning to come to Home Depot, let me save you some time: I sell appliances there, and that is ALL I do. I have no knowledge of any state secrets or any inside information on any crime investigations that may be or may have been ongoing. I have heard some strange rumors about things that may have occurred at my former place of employment, or more accurately, rumors of rumors. I have no actual knowledge and don’t want any; if you have information, take it to the authorities (of which I am not one).

I have not volunteered to work undercover, for any agency. I have not gone underground to write an investigative piece. I am not participating in a sting. I am not a candidate for the witness protection program, having witnessed nothing but a lot of B.S. and unconscionable behavior from people who seem certain they’re doing nothing wrong. I’m not planning on disappearing. I’m not insane (though it’s a miracle I’m not). I’m not getting married. I’m not looking to start a new life under a different name. I’m a writer and quite fond of my own name. I take experiences and use my imagination on them. I would object to having my work used, if I knew that was happening.

I’m looking to hold whoever is responsible for this mess to account and possibly to break their nose as well (the two goals not being mutually exclusive). My advice is not to act as if you know me if you don’t, not to pretend to be acting on my behalf, and not to call yourself my friend if you’re not. I have a long memory, and I don’t forget things.

I did finish Miss Goss’s book, and once I thought I saw where she was going with it, I approved. I believe her point about the need for personal autonomy and the importance of self-determination in one’s own life is a very salient one, though I winced at many points in the novel (a vampire is a vampire, people, no matter how nice his house is). Many of the characters are endearing, “freakish” though they may be. I suppose their state can be taken as a metaphor for many things, including the right to be different. I myself am an INFP, which means I’m used to being misunderstood. I used to think it was a tragedy, but I’m now inclined to think it a great blessing, as are perhaps one or two other of my other personal characteristics. People always think they have you figured out: they never do.

Buddy Holly's Glasses

I checked out two library books a couple of weeks ago and read them back to back. Both were novels, one by an American and one by a Briton. I was deep into the second one when I came across a character described as having Buddy Holly glasses. This was an interesting coincidence because the first novel also had a character with Buddy Holly glasses. Synchronicity or accident?

It's not an earth-shattering coincidence, but it was odd enough. What are the chances of bringing home two unrelated novels and finding that same descriptor? Not great, I would guess. There was no obvious connection between the books, but it got me thinking about possible reasons for the use of the same image by different authors.

In David Guterson's The Other, the glasses belong to Rand Barry, the wealthy father of John William, a dropout, rebel, philosopher, and Gnostic. Neil Countryman, who narrates the story, is John William's best friend, aiding and abetting him in dropping out of society and out of sight to a precarious backwoods existence. Rand Barry's glasses are described this way: "This style of glasses . . . has waxed and waned, but mostly they've functioned as a comic prop or as a prosthetic for the elderly urbane, sometimes appearing on the faces of mods or dissonantly on generals hauled before the press."

In Ian McEwan's On Chesil Beach, the glasses belong to a minor character named Harold Mather, who has them broken by a street punk as he and the story's protagonist, Edward Mayhew, are walking down a London street in early 1961. His glasses seem less likely to be an affectation (Mr. Barry sports his in 1974), and in any case, suit his character, a hip but nerdy university student who has "an important jazz record collection . . . [and] was hilarious in formal student union debates."

While Guterson describes Barry as a somewhat anxious and uncomfortable figure, despite his wealth, and McEwan's Mather is in his element as a successful and well-regarded intellectual, both scenes describe the removal of the glasses, in one case by the wearer himself and in the other by a violent act. In different ways, both characters are hapless. Barry thinks he's about to be attacked by his son's friend, whom he does not at first recognize, and removes his glasses in a sort of nervous gesture. Mather has them knocked from his head but brushes the incident off, becoming upset with Edward for coming to his defense.

Is there any larger theme in the novels that might connect these seemingly minor incidents? Both novels deal with loneliness, alienation, and the tension between societal norms and the individual. Mr. Barry, as John William's father, is the focus of much of what John William rebels against, and he's not unaware of the role he plays, at least to some degree. Nervously removing his glasses in Neil's presence almost comes across as an unconscious attempt to unmask himself, a futile but poignant gesture in light of his estrangement from his son. 

In the case of Harold Mather, it's Edward who takes the damage to the glasses seriously. While Harold takes the incident in stride, Edward enacts a macho revenge, seeing the matter as a point of pride. The lack of respect for his friend "justifies" his violent reprisal. When I first read this scene, I was surprised that Harold grew upset with (and dropped) his friend over the episode, which seemed to express little more than Edward's instinct to protect. By the end of the novel, I was seeing the incident as evidence of an unfortunate impetuosity, an adherence to a macho code that precludes a more nuanced approach to situations. It was Harold who lost his glasses, but Edward who lacked the ability to "see."

The glasses are in both cases part of a persona relatively easily dropped, in one case deliberately, and the other by accident. Authenticity is achieved to different degrees by Barry and Mather and their counterpoints, Neil and Edward. Mr. Barry seems to realize that his son's friend knows more about his son than he does, even if the realization does him little good. To what extent does he "see" that his son rejects everything he stands for? Harold, on the other hand, sees enough, even without his glasses, to make him reassess his friendship with Edward.

More than aids to vision, more than parts of a mask, the glasses act also as reflectors, as mirrors in which the other character sees himself. For Neil, as he recounts the scene years later, complicated questions of love, loyalty, complicity, and guilt are reflected back. For Edward, an image of who he is as a young man, not yet deepened by experience, chastens him but fails to foster inner change. In one case, the reflection reveals greater depths, while in the other, what shows is mostly an image shaped by social norms.

Why Buddy Holly's glasses? Because of Holly's untimely death, they carry associations with tragedy and early loss that seem to foreshadow later events in both novels. Certainly, the image of Buddy Holly, in conjunction with the character of Rand Barry, an aerospace executive, is both incongruous and apt. For Mather, who seems comfortable with himself as a man despite some physical drawbacks, the glasses are more of a mirror cracked, in which Edward sees, but does not recognize, himself.

What's in a Weekend?

O for a Muse of fire.

I started a new book this week -- this time, it's a novel. It's a story I've tried to write before, without success, but this time, having already written another book, I may be able to bring it in for a landing. I now know that doing something daunting one time can be enough to break up your mental reservations about what you are and aren't capable of for good. Actually, that's one of the themes of the book.

It's not exactly true to say this is my first novel, because I did finish one during National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo) about seven years ago. That was my first novel, and if it wasn't stellar (or even remotely publishable), it was a fun exercise in creativity. With only a month to work in, your fingers really have to blaze to meet the deadline, and the speed is freeing in and of itself. There's no time to edit, ponder, or second-guess. Whatever comes into your head is what ends up on paper. It's a great way to show yourself that you can produce a story with a beginning, middle, and an end, but it's very unforgiving as far as allowing you an "out" if you start down an unproductive plot line.

I'm intrigued by limitations. Haiku are my favorite kind of poems to write because I like having to get it just so in a few simple words. My new novel has a built-in limitation in that it tells the story of a single weekend. No tortured, extended Proustian remembrances here -- my challenge will be to try to relate how one weekend can change your life, even if it does so in a different way than you imagined it would. That's another of its themes, the disconcerting experience of looking for one thing but finding something else that may in the long run be more valuable.

Patience, ambiguity, the seizing of the moment, the fallibility of the heart, truth, illusion . . . all of these play a part in my story. Actually, it may be more of a fable, something you can read in less time than it takes the described events to unfold. I'll play with it and see where it goes. Unlike some other stories I've started in the past, I already know the ending of this one. I've sometimes thought that not knowing where a story is going can be one of the most exciting inducements to write it, so that you can find out what happens. I think there are times when that's true. This time, though, having the plot sketched out lets me concentrate on how to tell the story, which to me, in this case, is a much more interesting prospect.

Ian McEwan's novel Saturday, which tells the tale of a series of game-changing events occurring in the course of a single day, comes to mind as a literary example of how much life a single day can hold. As I recall, it revealed how a number of seemingly inconsequential events led to completely unforeseen and devastating consequences. A bit of an existential nightmare, that one, but very well told. Mine will be more light-hearted than that and deals with intentionality instead of chance. Rather than leave you shuddering, I hope to leave you smiling.

So far, I've enjoyed the writing. As always, the process of putting things into just the right words is exciting, frustrating, painstaking, difficult, and liberating. I may be at it for a while, but this time there's no rush.