On pense pour­tant géné­ra­le­ment que ce sont les mots qui sont por­teurs de sens. Une table n’est pas une chèvre. Sans doute. Mais pris iso­lé­ment, le mot table et le mot chèvre n’ont pas de sens par eux-mêmes. On peut traire une chèvre ou se mettre à table. Les chances de traire une table ou de se mettre à chèvre sont inexistantes.

Se mettre en quête du sens d’un mot est une entre­prise incer­taine. Seule la tau­to­lo­gie répond plei­ne­ment à l’in­ter­ro­ga­tion. Une table est une table. Une chèvre est une chèvre. Mais la tau­to­lo­gie n’é­claire en rien le sens de table et de chèvre.

A calm sen­tence like a sto­ry. I used to know a man who had a dog and I fol­lo­wed their steps in the snow, I got into the habit of wal­king just as far as they did eve­ry day. At the same time I also knew a woman whose hus­band had seven guns. I used to know a woman who’s the woman who mar­ried Neil Simon. I like the woman who used to work in the Lenox mar­ket, she never wears boots, then she reti­red. In New England the women are often more exci­ting than the men, Lewis thinks so too, I don’t know why. There’s a tribe somew­here where people say about the men, look how he’s chan­ged since he’s had chil­dren, he looks awful !

I ask are you fini­shed, you seem to want mine. There’s only time left to tell how the floors met the walls and we saw cen­ti­pedes all the time craw­ling across the car­pets which were green beneath the blue glass table which was a mir­ror with a plate of balls on it under the win­dows which on some days we clea­ned but not too well so we wouldn’t fall out like my mother did not but someone else’s mother did and she died but my sis­ter fell out once with a piece of cheese in her hand but she was so embar­ras­sed and asha­med she didn’t tell anyone and just got up after I had alrea­dy tried to com­pare with her how sex for us might be dif­ferent but then we got into trouble again and resor­ted to the cel­lar to tear each other’s hair out and teach tongue-kissing.

The sauce is done. Then I went to visit a girl­friend of mine who was going to a Jesuit col­lege in Syracuse. When I came home Bob met me at the air­port, it was the first time I’d flown and I had fal­len in love with someone and that was Ed. We went back to my house in Ridgewood, this was when I was trying to go to Barnard but it took me two hours to get there. Bob’s mother had given me a wed­ding sho­wer because my grand­fa­ther had given me my mother’s dia­mond ring and she took that to mean we were enga­ged since she was wor­ried any­way I’d get pre­gnant before we got mar­ried, though she was relie­ved that Bob wasn’t queer after all. I didn’t know any­thing about birth control. We had set a date for the wed­ding and arran­ged a recep­tion but the place we were going to have it in bur­ned down. Bob’s mother wor­ked as a maker of wed­ding gowns. So that night in my house I told Bob to watch me sleep because I was afraid to sleep other­wise. In the middle of the night I sat up in bed, he said, and asked him a ques­tion. After that he always unders­tood that I was no lon­ger in love with him. I didn’t know what Ed wan­ted to do but a couple of days later he came to my house and said I want to live with you, meet me in two weeks. The night before I was sup­po­sed to leave I went out with Grace who a while before had been in such a bad car acci­dent she was still wal­king with a cane. We went to a bar and I left with a minor league base­ball player who had an MG, Grace left with some­bo­dy else and we met later at my house. I mis­sed the taxi I had cal­led to make the ear­ly plane but I caught a later one and when Grace woke up in my house all alone my grand­fa­ther mis­took her for me even though she has red hair and he cal­led her Bernie. When Grace left my neigh­bor Tex told her he’d seen the taxi and won­de­red what was going on, he’s the one who had said when my father died, “Who’s that?”

Cette autre parole, qui se détourne avec inso­lence du conte­nu de la culture, n’en uti­lise pas moins les mots et la syn­taxe du dis­cours cultu­rel. Comment pour­rait-il en être autre­ment ? Et, du même coup, com­ment peut-elle échap­per à son orbite ? Par ce pro­cé­dé très simple et très redou­table, bien connu des poètes et des astro­nautes, qui consiste tout bon­ne­ment à la prendre de vitesse.

,
« Le pont suspendu » Un pri­vé à Tanger
, , ,
p. 121
You look like an occa­sio­nal­ly violent man
not in charge of an altar
not in charge of an impor­tant altar, anyway
not one that is about fan­cy deities
just a plain neigh­bo­rhood for the dead

please give me
spare change and your word that I won’t be mis­sing in a year

– as is the cus­tom, two humans make a humanity
,
« But Rooftops Did All the Work » Heaven is all goodbyes
, , ,
p. 114–115

1. Notes Toward a Theory of the Crush, Crush’s Discourse, Ma Vie en Crush.

2. Tableau vivant of extant crushes with pos­si­bi­li­ty of sexual consum­ma­tion deter­mi­ning centrality.

3. Tableau vivant of for­mer crushes, all asleep on the floor.

4. Hidden track of emba­ras­sing crushes on an other­wise unlis­te­nable album.

5. Regarding the crush of never-to-be-lovers, these sub­ca­te­go­ries : the never-to-be-lovers of who is alrea­dy spo­ken for ; the never-to-be-lovers of geo­gra­phi­cal impos­si­bi­li­ty ; the never-to-be-lovers of sexual incom­pa­ti­bi­li­ty ; the never-to-be-lovers of the nar­cis­sism of small dif­fe­rences ; the never-to-be-lovers of asym­me­tri­cal desire.

6. Some spe­cies of crushes : the crush of inter­sec­ting research inter­ests, the crush of good poli­tics, the crush of great poems, the crush of proxi­mi­ty, the crush of lack of proxi­mi­ty, the crush on who you’ve never met, the crush on whoe­ver sits next to you and begins to talk, the crush on the high­ly infor­med gos­sip, the crush on who leads with cruel­ty and ends with affec­tion, the crush on who leads with affec­tion and ends with cruel­ty, the crush on whoe­ver you are content to observe, the crush on who you think could use a lit­tle more edu­ca­tion, the crush on a figh­ting spirit.

7. And what are the ter­ri­to­ries beyond the ter­ri­to­ry of the crush ? Romantic love ? Sex ? Friendship ? Apathy ? Literary jour­nals ? Unsent emails ? Armed cells ?

the stu­pid logic of dinner

We were not inno­cent. Our edu­ca­tion was autho­red by our senses. Our lamb­ness was writ­ten into our bodies with the vio­lence of the world as it is, yet our inter­est in unders­tan­ding the lamb’s edu­ca­tion, in the lamb’s way of kno­wing, began to take the form of the bird of prey’s pur­suit. We were at once for­med by grudge and nar­ro­wed by desire. In eve­ry­thing we wan­ted, all we acqui­red, and in how we could not want, how we could acquire nothing, we were simul­ta­neous­ly lamb and bird of prey.

Our mixed nature was not inno­cent. No mat­ter how much pre­da­tor-like acqui­si­tion of the predator’s way lear­ning acts upon a lamb-inter­ior, a lamb still appears to all who see it like a lamb. The lamb might be a dou­bly conscious lamb, but the bird of prey’s stu­pid logic of din­ner remains, for the time being, the logic of the world.

History is full of people who just didn’t. They said no thank you, tur­ned away, ran away to the desert, stood on the streets in rags, lived in bar­rels, bur­ned down their own houses, wal­ked bare­foot through town, killed their rapists, pushed away din­ner, medi­ta­ted into the light. Even babies refuse, and the elder­ly, too. All types of ani­mals refuse : at the zoo they gaze dead-eyed through plexi­glass, fling feces at the human faces, stop having babies. Classes refuse. The poor throw their lives onto bar­ri­cades. Workers slow the line. Enslaved people have always refu­sed, poi­so­ning the feasts, abor­ting the embryos. And the dili­gent, flam­boyant jay­wal­kers assert them­selves against traf­fic as the first and fore­most visible, dai­ly les­son in just not.

Saying nothing is a pre­li­mi­na­ry method of no. To prac­tice uns­pea­king is to prac­tice to being unben­ding : more so in a crowd. Cicero wrote “cum tacent, clament”—“in silence they clamor”—and he was right : only a loud­mouth would mis­take silence for agree­ment. Silence is as often conspi­ra­cy as it is consent. A room of other­wise live­ly people saying nothing, sta­ring at a figure of autho­ri­ty, is silence as the inchoate of a now-ini­tia­ted we won’t.

Sometimes our refu­sal is in our staying put. We per­fect the loi­ter before we per­fect the hustle. Like eve­ry other todd­ler, each of us once let all adult com­mo­tion move around our small bodies as we ins­pec­ted clo­ver or floor tile. As teens we loi­te­red, too, requi­red “secu­ri­ty” to dis­lodge us, like how once in a coun­try full of free­ly roa­ming dogs, I saw the pri­ma­ry occu­pa­tion of the police was to try to keep the dogs out of the public foun­tains, and as the cops had moved the dogs from the foun­tains, a new group of dogs had moved in. This was just like being a tee­na­ger at the mall.