30 March 2013
Again I return to Philip Roth. Would he were living next
door rather than down on the shelves in my basement!
I consider these passages now from The Human Stain, the final volume of the
American trilogy that began with American
Pastoral and here concluded. Zuckerman is imagining Coleman and Faunia
alone in Coleman’s house one lovely summer evening, “each of them protecting
the other against everyone else—each
of them, to the other, comprising everyone
else. There they dance, as likely as not unclothed, beyond the ordeal of the
world, in an unearthly paradise of earthbound lust where their coupling is the
drama into which they decant all the angry disappointment of their lives.” There
they dance, naked, both savior and destroyer of each other. At this point of
the narration Zuckerman knows that both Coleman and Faunia are dead, and he
asks, “Who are they now?” And he responds: that in death they are the essence
of singularity. Nothing affects them and they can affect nothing. They are
beyond care and caring.
“Who are these drastically unalike
people, so incongruously allied at seventy-one and thirty-four? They are the
disasters to which they are enjoined.” That description stops my breathing. One
meaning for the word ‘enjoin’ is “to join together.” In a related sense ‘enjoin’
can also mean “to attach oneself to.” Given the relationship that exists
between Coleman and Faunia these definitions make sense: the relationship
between Coleman and Faunia represents for each an attachment to something in
the world that is actual and real. In the world filled with lies, deceptions
and ignorances, to make anything more of their relationship is to render it
false. “He’d said to her, ‘This is more than sex,’ and flatly she replied, ‘No,
it’s not. You just forgot what sex is. This is sex. All by itself. Don’t fuck
it up by pretending it’s something else.’” Coleman was looking for some
transcendent meaning to their relationship and Faunia would know it only for
its immediacy and physical reality.
I can accept this definition, of ‘enjoin’;
however, the OED notes that this meaning of the word ‘enjoin’ is obsolete. I do
not suspect that Roth had carelessly chosen the word ‘enjoined,’ because in
this context its use is not customary. He must have searched for the perfect
word.
The second definition for the word
‘enjoin’ is “to impose (a penalty, task-duty or obligation.” In contemporary
terms the OED suggests that this definition of ‘enjoin’ means “to prescribe
authoritatively and with emphasis (an action, a course of conduct, state of
feeling, etc.).” In this sense of ‘enjoin,’ the relationship between Faunia and
Coleman is somehow prescribed, mandated, authorized: but who, I wonder, has
issued the order? And for what reason?
And a third definition of enjoin
means “to prohibit, forbid a thing; to prohibit a person from a person or
thing.” In this instance, the relationship of Coleman and Faunia is one comprised
of two disasters—and
Zuckerman wonders what life isn’t in the end a disaster—a relationship
to which they are forbidden but in which they engage nevertheless. Forbidden,
I suspect because two disasters joined can lead to no good. That engagement
will lead to their violent deaths. Why are lives disasters? And Zuckerman
answers: “Because we don’t know, do? How what happens the way it does? What
underlies the anarchy of the train of events, the uncertainties, the mishaps,
the disunity, the shocking irregularities that define human affairs.” Any
attempt, Zuckerman says, to assume knowledge renders experience banal and is
mere platitude: like the statement ‘everything will be alright,” when in fact
we just don’t know. “What we know is that, in an unclichéd way, nobody knows
anything. You can’t know anything.
The things you know you don’t know.
Intention? Motive? Consequence? Meaning? All that we don’t know is astonishing.
Even more astonishing is what passes for knowing.”
And so I look out this morning at
what I don’t know and understand completely how I can only be a disaster
because I act with very, very limited knowledge, and even what I believe I know
is suspect. In our relationships we are the disasters to which we are enjoined.
Zuckerman, of course, has opted
out, and that is one answer.
1 Comments:
I find the visceral part of me responding to your post...especially the last paragraph. I want to understand how you can perceive yourself as a disaster yet still continue in this world! I haven't yet figured out how to do so.
Post a Comment
<< Home