I am not one for quotations. I'm not sure if it's because I
don't have the memory for it, or if I'm an inattentive reader (not absorbing
the words well enough to recall them later), or if I'm simply not interested in
repeating others' verbatim. I am in the early stages of applying for a number of
teaching jobs and fellowships, and as I've been reading through countless craft
discussions, cover letters, and teaching philosophies, I am amazed (and slightly overwhelmed) by the
callbacks people make. I have heard from Stegner, Didion, Weil, Mann &
Montaigne, and these quotations seem to evoke a sense of writerly influence, a
sense of historical or cultural weight that I do not connect with.
And, yes, most of these quotations are probably not recalled
from memory—any number of these lines can easily be found with a quick Google
search—but still I am astounded at how so many of my friends and colleagues can
draw so directly from literature, can draw the lines so clearly between their
own ideas and their inspiration while I often find myself describing books in
such vague phrases as "during that one scene on the boat," or
"when the main character said that thing about his sister to the
judge."
And maybe I'm just so troubled by it because, like many of
us, I have no problem quoting movies or television. I can rattle off entire
episodes of Seinfeld or the Simpsons from memory and yet I cannot begin to do
the same with books, even ones that have so significantly shaped me as a writer
and (I would argue) a person. Perhaps it's because television is so passive, or
because it's easier to encounter repetition (I can watch a re-run while eating
dinner, and a half hour sitcom is much easier to repeat than it is to
read a book a dozen times). But still, I am somewhat bothered that my cultural
language comes more directly from TV than it does from the books that mean so
much to me.
I mention this because there is an exception to the rule. There is one phrase,
one image, which I have not been able to shake in the six years since I first
encountered it.
"This is the most miserable in my life."
"This is the most miserable in my life." It has become something of a
mantra.
It comes from Claudia Rankine's wonderful book-length essay Don't Let me Be Lonely. To give some
context: Rankine is referencing a friend who is suffering from Alzheimer's
disease, and in the span between diagnosis and being moved to a live-in
facility, he writes this on his chalkboard, seen above. And perhaps it is the
visual--the extra layer of authenticity, the sharp, shaky letters that seem
sick in and of themselves—that keep these words echoing in my mind. Perhaps it
is because these words are so mimetic of the condition, the missing article
(the most miserable what?), or that
the phrase is pure declaration. It is as if language is breaking down, unable
to capture the grief: that it is impossible for us to completely reach that
headspace until we, too, are the most miserable of our lives.
Most likely, it's the fact that the words are scratched into the surface when chalk
would have been so much easier, more easily erased. And because of that extra
dedication to the words, we are paradoxically met with permanence in the
transitional space of the board, capturing the extent of that misery, the loss
of language so directly tied with the loss of self.
Is it dropping my daughter off at daycare for the first
time? Getting on a bus to go to my shitty job at 5:30 in the morning? When I'm
drinking Mountain Dew and skipping out on my evening run? This is the most
miserable of my life.
Or perhaps it's because of the movement, the cognitive leaps
of the essay. We get a mother's miscarriage and movie deaths and 1-800-SUICIDE
and a picture of breast cancer cells and television commercials and DO NOT
RESUSCITATE and Boogie Nights and
Gertrude Stein and we are only on page six. We get Murder, She Wrote re-runs that I can only describe as haunting. Sections
are interrupted with photos, artwork, the repeating image of a television
screen, the ghost of a profile creeping out of the static.
And this essay is television. It is a flipping of channels,
a deluxe cable package. It is a series of commercials reminding us that we are
alone, depressed. Our medications will save us, but have potentially serious
side effects. We are told by the voices that the world is broken, dangerous. We
are told that the television is the voice that we can trust.
So what can we do when that voice is speaking to white
middle class men ages 18-34? What voice do we trust if we are not a part of a
target demographic?
Abner Louima is sodomized while in police custody. A
post-9/11 world where anyone of middle-eastern descent is treated like Al
Qaeda. "There was a time I could say no one I knew well had died." This is the most miserable of my life.
And so the essay gives voice to a lot of voiceless
situations, it is adding subtlety to the black-and-white, right-and-wrong
representations "as seen on TV." We can see where the loneliness
comes from: the disconnect between TV and reality, between the way the world is represented and the true world. Laugh tracks are added to sitcoms so we never laugh alone, but are we really part of a group when we are separated by glass and light?
Rankine gives me a new understanding of quotation, one I think I can live with: By placing the words in a
new context, by juxtaposing quotation with image and personal experience, each element takes on new new meaning, becomes communal. To quote another is to share knowledge, to connect, to never be alone.
David LeGault's recent work appears (or is forthcoming) in The Seneca Review, The Journal, and Pithead Chapel. He lives and writes in Minneapolis, where he destroys books professionally.
No comments:
Post a Comment