**The following is a short story I’ve been working on over the past month or so.  It’s still rough, but feel free to read and give some criticism.  It starts and ends with a parking spot…

King’s Court

The sun was still sunk below the horizon at six in the morning, nothing more than a distant hum etching away the last vestiges of night. The air was light and cool and most of the apartment windows at King’s Court were inert. Two joggers running apace one another flitted past in a perfect, dream-like synchrony.

I walked up to my truck and put the key into the lock. I paused for a moment. I felt a strangeness, an aberration in my morning routine, edging its way up into my conscious mind.

I looked up. There, at eye level, fixed to the window of my truck, was a sign, crudely constructed from an old pizza box. “Stop parking like a fucking asshole!” it read in heavy, black script. “If you don’t, consider your vehicle fucked!”

I pulled the sign from my window. The tape snarled and left behind crinkled, translucent trails that turned white when I scrubbed them with my thumbnail.

I turned the sign over in my hands and read it again and again till concrete belief could set in. I looked down at the ground, where my front driver-side tire edged slightly over the painted yellow line. I glanced around the parking lot, perhaps hoping for some trace of the author of the sign, but, other than the two joggers, the lot was empty of all human presence. Nearby, there was a Honda, a dusty old Volkswagon, and a Hummer the color of a yellow jacket.

“Shit,” I said. “I don’t have time for this.”

***

We had moved to this apartment complex earlier last year. I lost my job and the bank took the house not too long after that.

I took a new job at a plastics factory called Oldcastle. They had me on a line making bags for grocery stores. The plastic from the machines coated my arms and the smell of burnt plastic followed me home each night. Till I worked at Oldcastle, I’d never given the plastic bags piled up in my storage closet or blowing aimlessly around parking lots much thought. They seemed like a natural and unavoidable part of the landscape. A part of me thought that maybe they’d always been there, or that they had called themselves into being of their own volition. My father once said, “Everything you see in this world has a shitty job behind it.” I guess he was right.

I used to work for a local business installing invisible dog fences. When the economy hit bottom, though, they didn’t have enough work to keep me around.

“I’m sorry,” my boss, Shari, said, her head tilted slightly downward at a grave angle. “In tough times, people don’t buy things they can’t see. They get literal-minded, real quick.”

She promised she’d call me when things picked up, and that was it. I was unemployed for the first time since I was fourteen years old.

After that, my girlfriend, Crystal, and I watched the news every night, helplessly transfixed by the reports of long unemployment lines, people camping in parks downtown, and politicians firing accusations at one another. Before I lost my job, these reports seemed like a far-off thing, a cautionary tale for the rest of us, reminding us to be thankful for what we had. Now, it was an unavoidable reality.

Crystal was the first to say the obvious. “Maybe we could find a nice apartment?”

The suggestion was a small heresy. We’d both lived in houses as long as we could remember. When she said these words, we sensed that we were turning our backs on something unspeakably, indefinably important.

***

We felt like tourists amongst the Craig’s List ads and amateurish Web sites. They were written in a vocabulary that was arcane to us, with phrases like “w/s/g” and “2×2.”

Within a week, we’d become fluent.

The strange thing is, once we started looking, a secret world, one that had always been present but just out of the range of our senses, revealed itself. An invisible network of apartment complexes, advertisements, and “Now Leasing!” signs were everywhere, permeating the very fabric of reality. We saw the entrances to complexes we’d passed daily but never noticed. They had these absurd, regal names, like Gentry Walk, Shady Lanes, Palace Gardens, and Oak Grove Apartments.

I had a dim awareness that now we’d learned to see, we’d never be able to go back to not seeing.

“Oh, look at this one,” Crystal said one day. “King’s Court.”

I looked. The Web site was streamlined with a minimalist, unobtrusive aesthetic. Ambient piano music lilted in the background. Somehow, unconsciously, the site guided us with ease from one page to the next. The pictures of the apartments were subtle but suggestive, the angles precisely calculated to appeal to our sense of space and scale. And the grounds were appealing. Attractive people sautéed in hot tubs, and mothers, fathers and children were frozen around fire pits in various states of perfect, familial bliss.

“Let’s check it out first,” Crystal said, cautiously. “The rent’s a little on the high side.”

***

A young, college-aged girl named Jennifer wearing a pinstriped suit and stilettos whisked us around the apartment grounds in a sleek golf cart.

“There’s the coffee shop,” Jennifer said, “and the club house.” We glanced to our right and saw a building fashioned with a palatial theme, parapets and all. There were even fake shields made from plaster painted with intricate, indecipherable designs hanging on the masonry of the building.

“And there is our sixteen-seat movie theater,” Jennifer chirruped.

“We’ll never need to go anywhere,” I said.

Crystal cast a sidelong glance at me. Before our appointment, we’d talked about maintaining a distanced stance of neutrality. I couldn’t help it, though. Something about that moment, chauffeured around the parking lot like the fucking pope overpowered our agreement. My knees bounced with nervous energy and I rubbed my hands together. Somehow, the wood paneled basketball court and even the cheaply made towers leering into the sky suggested something that I’d given up somewhere in the intervening years, something forgotten and unspoken but something that I thought I deserved.

We balanced our bills, calculated our income, and checked our budget. I convinced Crystal that the apartment was a good deal, and we were moved in a month later.

***

“Ken, do me a favor. Just let it go,” Crystal said to me.

I was standing at the kitchen sink, scrubbing my hands under hot water with a Brillo pad and dish soap.

“What, and let some fuckhead who wants to play Godfather push me around?” I said. “No way.”

“Is this going to be one of your things?”

“What do you mean?”

“You know what I mean. You get fixated on these things,” she said, flouncing onto the couch and flipping on the television. “It’s exhausting,”

I peeled plastic from my forearms. It came off in long, thin strips, like sun burnt skin. When I come home each day, my arms are shiny and smooth, like a mannequin’s.

“Maybe we should just cave and pay for a parking spot,” Crystal said. “Then you wouldn’t have to cram your truck into those compact spots.”

“We can’t afford it,” I said. “You know that. Besides, we shouldn’t have to pay for a spot. The right to park should be guaranteed, inalienable. One person, one spot.”

“Hey,” she said, “did you pay the water bill today?”

“I thought you were going to pay that.”

“No. It’s got to be in by the end of the day.”

“Okay, I’ll pay it. Where’s the bill?”

“It’s in the letter holder. You sure you have enough in your account?”

I nodded, grabbed the letter and my pack of smokes and went down to the leasing office, check in hand.

The day had warmed considerably. I swung past my truck and walked around it, closely looking for any sign of tampering. Everything seemed fine. I’d made sure to pull in nice and careful so that my truck was perfectly situated between the lines. There was only an inch or two to spare on either side and the bed extended a good three feet beyond the parking spot, but all four of my tires were inside the prescribed space.

On the way to the office, I saw Mrs. Owlsey. Mrs. Owlsey was a fixture at King’s Court. She was a thin, spectral figure who sat in a wheelchair, smoking cigarettes, looking out absently, contemplating the mysteries of the universe. Her thinness suggested that she was very ill. We watched over the months as her corporeal substance withered away.

Mrs. Owlsey was sitting in her wheel chair in her usual spot, an empty parking spot by the mail boxes. She gazed out over the town at the foot of the hill and trailed thin blue wisps of smoke into the cross breeze. I skimmed past Mrs. Owlsey on my way to the office, close enough to gaze at the spectacle of her evaporating presence but not too close to have to make eye contact.

The drop box for the water bill was a tiny slit in cheap stonework underneath the apartment complex’s moniker. “King’s Court,” it said, in huge, dramatic, curlicue letters. You had to walk over a cheap, kitschy moat to get to the box.

I dropped the check off and pitched the stub of my cigarette into the bushes.

“Mrs. Owlsey isn’t looking so good,” I told Crystal back at the apartment. “I think she lost even more weight.”

“I wonder how much longer she has,” Crystal said. “We should go over to her place sometime. You know, introduce ourselves, see if there’s anything we can do.”

“Yeah, maybe,” I said, shrugging casually.

***

The days had finally warmed enough to justify pulling our grill from the storage closet. Most places, we’d learned, didn’t allow grills, which was a deal-breaker for us.

The old Weber had accumulated six months’ worth of cobwebs and the valve on the tank needed oiling before it would even turn. I scraped the bars with a grill brush so that the junk and detritus from last summer fell away.

The grill took up a third of our porch, but I was happy to sacrifice the space for a sign of warmer days.

“Do you want potatoes?” Crystal asked.

“Yeah, sure.”

I popped the tops off two IPAs, passed one to her, and settled back into a folding chair. I lit a cigarette. Three stories below, on the sidewalk, a group of kids chattered excitedly and tossed a Nerf football around. One child darted around and between the kids on a small scooter. We sat silently and listened to them play, enjoying the din and clatter of children.

Fluttering waves radiated out from under the grill’s lid and bent the space around it into watery mirages. I sprinkled seasoning on the two steaks and tossed them onto the grill with a sharp, hissing sound.

Crystal went into the house and came back out with the record player. She set a record onto the turn table, gingerly placed the needle into the groove, and settled down next to me. A light, ambient aria drifted out of the speakers.

Beyond the parking lot, steep bluffs rose up above the complex. Wild, untamed brush encircled the top of the hills. Crystal gazed out at them, her brow furrowed in thought. I wondered what she was thinking.

“Hey, did you see the new neighbors?” she asked me.

“No.”

“It looks like a younger couple. I think they had a baby.”

I got up, flipped the steaks and closed the grill lid again.

The children below were playing some combination of hide-and-go-seek and dodge ball. One child buried his head in his arms against the retainer wall at the foot of the hill and counted loudly while the others scattered throughout the parking lot.

I pulled the steaks from the grill and we ate them out on the deck and talked of our plans for the coming summer. We talked about heading up north, to Bellingham Bay, and spending a week fishing, or maybe flying back east to see family. We talked about camping at the foot of Mount Rainier.

The plans sounded nice. We did this every summer, made these grandiose plans, but we almost never did them. When the time came, we were too busy or we couldn’t afford them. Last summer, I had to replace a water pump and a cracked radiator, so we spent the rest of the summer trying to catch up on our bills. It was nice to sit there in the lilting summer breeze and talk about things that would never happen.

We finished our steaks and sat outside, drinking beers and smoking cigarettes. Before long, the sun had started to ebb and the darkness crept in and filled the space between us. Soon, all we could see was the ghostly outlines of the bluffs perched above us.

When the last crimson arc of the sun disappeared, the bugs descended on the complex from the woods, so we retreated inside and watched an old Law and Order rerun, one we’d never seen before.

***

There’s a certain pleasure to moving into a new place. It gives you a chance to find new places for old things.

Crystal and I debated endlessly over the layout of the living room. We tried three or four configurations and discussed at great length the merits of each. To test them, we would rehearse the motions of our everyday lives. I would walk from the bedroom to the living room, or step outside and come back in, hang up my coat, and nonchalantly sit down onto the couch.

“How did that feel?” she would ask.

“I don’t know. The couch seems to be sticking out too far.”

We’d move the couch over a few feet and push the armoire over next to the TV.

“How about now?”

We wandered aimlessly around Bed, Bath and Beyond, searching for items that fit together in just that right way that would bring some sort of sense of meaning to our bathroom.

After the first week at King’s Court, we’d put the finishing touches on our domestic space. The last of our possessions had found their rightful place in the hierarchy of things. We stepped back and looked at our work like an artist viewing a finished painting for the first time and we felt a sense of accomplishment. Knick knacks and ornaments populated nearly every surface—a ceramic owl, an old-fashioned ship on a wooden pedestal, a tin Coca Cola bas relief of a family picnic.

We thought then that we could live here in this space and start over again, live a new kind of life. Volunteer, work out, eat right. Things were good.

It wasn’t long, though, before a slow but steady litany of annoyances began to pile up.

We noticed the cupboards weren’t big enough to fit all of our dishes, for example. Or the living room wasn’t so spacious once the La-Z-Boy was moved into position.

At first, we danced around these inconvenient realizations. “Huh,” she would say, “that’s strange. I can’t seem to fit these plates here.” And I would say, cheerfully, “That’s okay, you can put them into the hallway pantry.”

It was the parking that finally ended the romance. One night, after working a double at the factory, I couldn’t find a spot. I drove around for almost a half hour, squeezing my truck through the narrow lanes and getting trapped in the arterial dead ends and cul de sacs. The lot was full. Cars were piled up illegally into the fire lanes. After almost a quarter tank of gas, I caught a sedan as it was pulling out and I greedily snatched the open spot before another circling vehicle could take it.

Crystal and I went down to the office the next day to see what we could do.

“You caught us just in time,” Jennifer said. “We’re offering our fall discount on parking. Fifty dollars a month can snag you two guaranteed spots. That’s covered parking.”

I explained to her that we hadn’t left room in our budget for parking.

She listened with a poised, sympathetic face. “I know, sir,” she said, “the parking is a little cramped.”

The realization that we would have to fight the unwashed masses returning home from work each day peeled back the photographic reality the Web site had promised. The flaws that we’d overlooked before were now glaring and unavoidable. We began to regard the small kitchen or the lack of windows through new eyes.

I told my father this on the phone one day. He laughed.

“All you’ve done for the last month is talk about how great your new place is,” he said.

“Yeah, well, I guess I see it a little differently now.”

“You know, your mother and I lived in an apartment once, right after we got married,” he said. “I tell you, the small things overshadow the big ones. Your mother calls it the ‘glow effect.’ You know what got us? The size of the goddamn fridge. It was this beautiful, sleek and sexy, double-doored Frigidaire, better than any fridge we’d ever owned before. But while we were looking at that fridge, we didn’t notice how the front door stuck when you tried to close it or how the drain moved slow or how the dryer would take two or three cycles to dry anything. All we saw was that fridge.”

***

There was a brewery about a mile or so from our complex. Morning Star Brewery, it was called. For the first few months, we hadn’t even known it was there. The brewery was in an unlikely spot, situated amongst a cluster of non-descript, aluminum buildings—an exhaust warehouse, an awning supplier, a chemical fertilizer distributor.

Crystal was the one to notice the brewery. She spotted a sandwich board sitting on the street corner displaying the dinner special for the day—two kielbasa sausages and a pint of beer for eight bucks.

So we crept in one day, cautiously. The chain link gate was open, but there were no signs encouraging or directing us forward. We had the uneasy feeling that we were going into a space where we weren’t allowed to go.

When we entered the industrial yard, we saw, hidden behind the facade of the aluminum buildings and invisible from the road, an expansive, overgrown field littered with the rusting carcasses of old semi-trucks. We inched forward and saw a neon sign tentatively blinking “Open.” We parked the car. Inside, locals lingered on bar stools, hunched forward over their pints. A young, pretty girl greeted us.

We were surprised that, in the middle of this forbidding, artificial landscape, there could be such a warm and jovial space.

I was exhausted after a long day at the factory and Crystal was cooking dinner when I came home—green bean casserole, sweet potatoes, and a small pork shoulder roast. I could smell it cooking halfway up the stairs, and when I walked in, the air steamed my glasses and the fragrance nearly knocked me to my knees.

“Looks great,” I said.

“You want some salad to go with it?”
“Sure,” I said. “I’m starving.”

She chopped some vegetables and I leaned back in my chair and watched the ten o’clock news. There was a segment on homelessness in Seattle. The reporter was interviewing a man who had lost his house in the foreclosure crisis, another hapless victim of the economy, and was now living in a van.

“It’s not so bad,” the man said. “I think of this as a temporary setback.”

“You certainly have a good attitude about it,” the reporter opined. “What’s the hardest part about living in your vehicle?”

“The parking,” he said.

I turned up the volume. “Honey, listen to this,” I said. “We’re not the only ones with parking issues.”

“Most spots in downtown Seattle,” the man said, “you can’t park more than seventy-two hours. You have to move every three days. That gets expensive, especially with gas prices right now. So you spend all this time looking for that perfect spot. You hear stories from other people about this or that spot down on the south side or whatever, but when you go and look for it, it’s the same as where you were before. After a while, it seems like your whole purpose in life is to find that spot, the one where you can park forever and nobody cares. The one where there’s a bathroom nearby.”

Crystal set the plates on the table and placed the food dishes onto potholders. “Dinner’s ready.”

I sat at the table and spooned green bean casserole onto my plate. The news report lingered in the background, the volume down low. I could hear a report on the dangers of over-prescribing penicillin.

“I had a weird dream last night,” Crystal said. She scooped some salad onto her plate. “I was driving a really nice car—a Lamborghini, I think—and the cops were chasing me. Only, it was like I was in a movie. There were all these slow motion shots and quick cuts. I knew that I was an actress, but the chase was somehow real, too. I had all these cop cars behind me and I was whipping through traffic and down back roads. Can you pass me the sweet potatoes?”

I slid the dish toward her.

“The cops eventually catch me after a really long, dramatic chase. One cop walks up to the window and he starts flirting with me. I recognize him—he’s a cop from one of those crime shows we watch all the time, I can’t remember which one—and I agree to go back with him to his apartment if he agrees not to give me a ticket.”

“Where’s this dream going?” I said.

“So I go with him, only his apartment is also where I work. There are clothes racks and mannequins all over the place. He throws me down onto a table and everybody I work with is watching, even the mannequins, so I get nervous and run away. Next thing I know, I’m in jail. I have these papers in my hand. Somehow, I know that I need to hold onto them because they’ve got important information that will set me free. But a girl steals them. The cops tell me it’s okay, it doesn’t matter. If I can walk a straight line for them, they say, I can go free. So they take me out of my cell and make me walk along this yellow line on the floor, but I have a hard time doing it. I keep falling over. Then I wake up. What do you think it means?”

“I don’t know,” I said.

In the background, the news reported on a hit-and-run. “The police released a description of a man today that allegedly opened fire on a car while traveling south on I-5,” the report said.

“I heard about this,” she said. “In Tacoma. Can you believe that? This car full of teenage kids cuts a guy off, so he pulls out a gun and just opens fire. He shot one of them right through the shoulder.”

“Yeah,” I said. “Unbelievable. I hope they catch the guy.”

“Me too. Who knows, though. Maybe they won’t.”

“No way,” I said. “These people always get caught. With technology today, there’s no way to get away with anything. I don’t even know why people still bother committing crimes.”

“That’s not true,” she said. “People get away with things all the time.”

“I saw this forensics show the other day about a guy they caught fifty years after he committed a murder,” I said. “Think of that. Fifty years, and they still got him.”

“Of course they show that story. It makes the cops look good.”

“People always make a mistake somewhere, or leave some piece of themselves behind. Human nature is no match for science,” I said.

“If you believe these shows, yeah, you’d think that everybody is just leaving little traces of themselves behind. Fingerprints, DNA, semen.”

“Maybe we do,” I said.

“I don’t know. I think the whole fingerprints thing is a big myth. My father had a friend who worked in homicide and he’d tell us stories all the time about crime scenes where there just weren’t any fingerprints or any evidence. People don’t always leave traces behind, and when they do, those traces can be so muddled and intertwined with everything else that they’re indecipherable. Of course, they don’t want us to know that.”

“They who?”

“You know, they. The government, the police, whoever. As long as the myth of fingerprints is alive and well, people will behave. But as soon as the old motivator of fear dissolves, it’s total anarchy.”

“But look at the guy they caught fifty years after the fact. The cops show up one day at his grandchild’s birthday party, cuff the guy, and take him away. You know how they found him? He left behind a hair. It took fifty years for DNA technology to catch up with him, but it did.”

“Didn’t that guy kill a couple of cops?” she asked

“Yes.”

“Do you think they would’ve put the same effort into catching him if he’d killed a drifter or something?”

“That’s not the point. The point is, the clues are there, as long as people are willing to look. I’m not talking about politics or whatever.”

“But I am. That’s part of it. The clues don’t matter if you’re not looking. Yes, this guy was caught, but I bet for every guy they catch, there’s two that get away. This guy could’ve lived his entire life without ever getting caught.”

“Maybe, maybe not. Let’s assume he did get away with murder, and he lives out his entire life as a free man. The guilt still had to leave a mark on him. I bet he thought about it all the time and it tore him up inside.”

“I don’t know. Maybe the truth is that he’d forgotten all about it, that after so many years it faded away, the way a dream does when you first wake up in the morning. The truth might be that he lived his life just like any other man. That old man could’ve gone till the day he died, and died perfectly happy, leaving behind a generation to remember him by. And then you get some homeless guy, who’s nice to everybody, and has never murdered anyone, and he dies on the street, anonymous. Think about that.”

“I don’t know if I want to live in that world,” I said.

***

We decided to do a little spring cleaning that weekend. Though we’d only moved in six months ago, the debris of everyday living had begun to accumulate in the drawers and corners of our apartment.

Crystal gathered together the cleaning materials and rubber gloves. I pulled out the drawers, set them on the floor, and sorted through the mass of rubber bands, old batteries, and bottle caps that had worked their way into the drawers.

“You should clean out your truck, too,” Crystal said, picking up the sign that had been left on my window. “Do you still want this?”

“Yeah, don’t throw it away yet.”

“What for?”

“I don’t know. Just hold onto it.”

She looked at the sign, turned it around, and worried the duct tape stuck to the back. A piece of tape came loose.

“What’s this?” she said. She pointed to the upper right-hand corner of the sign. Underneath, where the tape had been, faint and worn but clearly visible, was a name written in blue marker. “Jeff,” it read.

“I don’t know,” I said.

She looked at the name for a minute and furrowed her brow.

“Hey, this is a pizza box, right?” she asked.

“Yeah.”

“Maybe the delivery guy wrote this. Maybe this is the name of the person he delivered it to.”

***

We went down to the brewery to take a break from the cleaning. The lot was nearly full. I wedged my truck into a tight spot and walked around and opened the car door for Crystal. The door would only open a foot or so.

“So chivalrous. My knight in shining plastic,” Crystal said, brushing my arms with her fingertips.

We sat down at the bar and ordered two Midnight Ales. A flat screen hung above the bartender. The game was on. The Mariners were playing the Yankees. It was the eighth inning and the Yankees were up by five.

“Fucking Mariners,” a man seated next to us said. “Every year, I get my hopes up, and every year, they let me down.” The man shook his head back and forth in exaggerated sweeps and tossed a few kernels of popcorn into his mouth. “I’m no fair-weather fan, though.” He said this with an indignant snort and tilted the bottom of his cup back toward the ceiling. “How are you folks doing this afternoon?” the man said to us.

“Good,” Crystal said.

“The name’s Joseph.” He extended a hand forward. His face was wide and friendly.

“It’s nice to meet you, Joseph,” I said.

He scowled. “Do you really mean that? Is it really ‘nice’ to meet me?” he said in a stern but inviting way.

“I guess it’s just something I say,” I said. “Have you been a Mariners fan long?”

“Yeah, I grew up watching them,” he said.

“Did you grow up around here?” Crystal said.

“Sure did. Born and raised. What brings you folks down here on a Sunday evening?”

“Just catching a break,” she said. “Cleaning.”

“Ah,” he said. We chatted amicably for a few moments—about the brewery, about the Mariners, about the weather. Crystal asked him what he did for a living.

“I work for the city,” he said.

“Oh yeah? Doing what?”

“Do you know those cameras they put on intersections? The ones that snap your picture when you run a light?” he said.

“Yes.”

“I maintain and install those.”

“So you’re kind of like a Big Brother, huh?” I said.

He laughed and said, “Yeah, I guess you could say that. It’s funny—if you could go back in time, to the sixties, and tell my past self that I would someday work for the Man, I never would’ve believed it.”

“It can’t be all bad,” I said. “I mean, do you at least get to see the pictures?”

“Sure do. You wouldn’t believe some of the things I’ve caught on camera. People driving naked, people dozing behind the wheel. This one time, a few years back, I got a nice snapshot of a man running a light and you could just barely make out the back of a woman’s head, face-down in the man’s lap.”

“No shit,” I said.

“Oh yeah. Do you folks live nearby?”

“Just up the hill,” Crystal said. “King’s Court.”

“Ah, King’s Court. I’ve done some contract work there before. Nice place. Do they treat you like Kings?”

“No. The parking sucks and the rent’s too high,” I said.

“I live in an apartment, too,” he said. “You know what’s really amazing about those places? It’s a marvel of modern social engineering, really. They’ve figured out how to pack hundreds of people into a small space with total consideration for utilitarian economy, and to do it without the thing they fear the most.”

“What’s that?” I said.

“People getting together. People talking. That’s the scariest thing that can happen, in their eyes.” The bartender set another mercurial pint in front of him. He snorted again and took a sip.

“They who?” I said.

“Not that they need to worry,” he continued. “People are never going to start talking to one another anyway.”

“Why not?” I asked.

“Because. Look around. You’ve got flashing images in every corner of your eye, telling you to buy this, you deserve it, go ahead, take that vacation. If you sell people their reflection, they’ll never stop looking in the mirror.”

Joseph pulled a deck of cards out of his pocket. “Anyway, I don’t mean to get all doom-and-gloom. You folks want to see a magic trick?”

“Sure.”

He set the deck of cards down in front of me, face down, and moved them around.

“Pick a card,” he said.

I did—the three of spades.

He shuffled the deck again and pulled out another card, seemingly at random.

“Is this your card?” He showed me the king of hearts.

I shook my head and laughed.

“You sure?”

I nodded. “Looks like you need to work on your magic trick a bit more,” I said.

“Look again,” he said.

I glanced at the card in my hand. What had previously been the three of spades was now the king of hearts.

“Holy shit,” I said. “How’d you do that?”

Joseph laughed. “A good magician never reveals his tricks.”

“Not even a hint?” I said.

“Distraction,” he said. “People are easy to distract. Easier than they realize.”

“He’s full of shit,” another man, further down the bar, said.

“Shut up, Henry,” Joseph said. “Hey, when are you going to buy me that drink?”

Joseph moved further down the bar, his deck of cards in hand, and proceeded to show Henry another card trick. We settled back and watched the rest of the game.

The Mariners lost. The Yankees swept them, ten to three. The post-game show came on. Two men in suits analyzed slow motion footage from the game. The bartender turned the volume down and the jukebox cut in right in the middle of “Paint It Black.” We bought another round, drank it silently, and paid our tab. We said a quick goodbye to Joseph and left.

***

The next day I took the sign down to Roundtable Pizza. The place was mostly empty, except for the back room, where there was what looked like a birthday party. A frenzy of young children zoomed around in chaotic, disorderly loops. The adults sat at the center of the disarray, quaffing pints of beer and seemingly ignoring the children.

Behind the counter was a frumpy, disgruntled woman. Her hair was messily pent up and writhing around loosely in a way that reminded me somehow of a Claymation Medusa from an old movie I’d seen when I was young.

“Hi, welcome to Roundtable Pizza, the last honest pizza, what can I get for you today?” the woman said. She said the words with the intimate, tired familiarity of having said them hundreds of times before.

“I’ve got a strange question, actually,” I said. I dropped the cardboard sign on the counter between us. She picked it up, cautiously, and read it. Her eyes widened.

“This box is from here, right?” I said.

She nodded. I pointed to the name written on the back. “Can you tell me about this?”

“Sir, I can assure you that no one working here would’ve ever written this.”

“I’m not accusing anybody. I’m just wondering about this name. Do your delivery men write the names of the people you deliver to on the box?”

She shook her head back and forth to toss the loose, serpentine curls out of her face. Her hair seemed to shift and squirm with each toss of her head. “Yes, sir.”

“I’m just trying to find the guy who wrote this,” I said.

She breathed out deeply and her demeanor changed. A heaviness seemed to flow out of her. “Well, this guy’s an idiot, huh?” she said. “Leaving his name behind like that.” She turned the sign over in her hands a few more times. “Some jerk left a sign on my car a couple weeks ago,” she said. “He saw a fleck of paint on his side panel and thought my door had nicked his.”

“Ridiculous,” I said.

“Ridiculous,” she agreed. “People are so angry. Did you hear on the news, about that hit-and-run?”

“Yeah, I heard about that,” I said. “They still haven’t caught the guy.”

“What’s wrong with people?” she said.

“You know what I think it is?” I said. “I think people feel safe, anonymous, sitting behind the wheel, chugging Big Gulps, shooting down the highway in their giant, two-ton ego machines.”

“Well, good luck finding this guy,” she said.

***

I went to the leasing office to talk to the staff, sign in hand. Jennifer listened carefully as I told her the story.

“Do you think you could look up his name?” I said. “Maybe tell me which apartment he lives in?”

“Sir, we can talk to him for you.”

“That’s fine, but I’d like to talk to him,” I said.

“No, sir, I’m afraid I can’t condone that,” she said in a calm but tersely bureaucratic way. Her facial expression was implacable. I could see that I was getting nowhere. I thanked her and left.

I went back to my apartment and spent the next couple hours doing Google searches and prowling the Internet. I found a Web site called “People Finder.” The site had testimonials from its users with touching stories that could’ve come straight out of a Hallmark movie. “Brothers unite after 66 years apart,” one read. “Long-lost lovers find one another after three decades,” read another. “With the click of a mouse, our people search database will explore millions of records to bring you the results you are searching for,” the site promised.

I tried a few searches. I entered “Jeff” in the “First Name” field. I entered the city, state, and zip code.

A few names came up, so I narrowed the search field to “King’s Court.” A second later, a single name and address showed up: Jeff Redwick, in apartment B-202. He’d previously lived in Redmond, Spokanne, and before that, Butte, Montana.

I heard the door open and the sound of keys hitting the table. Crystal was home from work. She walked into the room.

“What are you doing?” she asked.

“Check this out,” I said. “I found the guy’s name.”

“Still?” she said. “Are you still obsessing over this guy?”

“I’m not obsessing. It’s not right, what this guy did.”

“He didn’t do anything wrong, except maybe act like an asshole. And as far as I know, that’s still not illegal.”

“It should be.”

“Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you’re the one being an asshole? That maybe you really do park badly?”

“Don’t defend him,” I said.

“Well, what now?”

I held up a sign I’d made from poster board. “Touch my truck and fucking die!!!” it said.

“Oh, that’s nice,” she said. “That’ll teach him. Do you even know what he drives?”

“No,” I said. “But I know where he lives. I figured I could keep an eye on his apartment, wait till he leaves one day, and trail him to his car. Then, I’ll sneak out late one night and stick the sign to his window.”

“Great. Now you’re a stalker,” she said.

“Stalking’s not illegal,” I said.

***

I crawled out of bed later that night. Crystal stirred a bit, but I quietly slid on my shoes and slipped out the door before I she could wake.

The evening was cool and silent. I shuffled around the grounds, looking for a place where I could stand and wait. I lingered under the carports, stood next to the mailboxes, walked around the playground. Everywhere I went I felt conspicuous. I lit a cigarette to give my presence some semblance of legitimacy and purpose to any outside observers.

Apartment B-202 was on the other side of the parking lot, up a flight of stairs. I found a spot on a grassy hill that gave me a perfect sight line of the door.

About fifty yards from where I stood, three teenagers—a girl with two boys on either side—sat on the back of a Buick and passed a bottle in a brown bag back and forth. The two boys were nudging the girl playfully with their elbows. She laughed piercingly into the night.

I waited there for a half hour, but it wasn’t long before the cold nighttime air cut through my thin sweater and my teeth were jouncing off one another. I pulled my hood over my head and shoved my hands deep into my pockets.

Redwick’s apartment was dark. I could see the pale blue flicker of television through the sliding glass door. It seemed he was settled in for the night.

I looked around the lot and tried to figure out which car belonged to Redwick. An old run-down Volkswagon with a bumper sticker that read “Free Tibet.” A minivan with a “Baby on Board” sign suctioned to the back window. A Chrysler with a “Jesus was a liberal” sticker parked next to a jacked-up, F-150 with a chrome fetish. The F-150 had a sticker that read, “I’ll keep my guns, money, and freedom. You can keep the change.” Freedom of speech, it seems, was alive and well at King’s Court. The parking lot was a veritable marketplace of ideas.

An hour went by. The moon boldly strode into the sky and haloed everything in a warm glow. From the corner of my eye, I saw a flicker. I looked and was stunned to see Mrs. Owlsey, arrested in a beam of moonlight, parked in her usual spot. I hadn’t noticed her before and I wondered how long she had been there. In the moonlight, she looked like an apparition, unnatural and still, and yet, there was something very natural and right about her presence, as if she were exactly where she belonged, a creature of night. To pass the time, I watched her for some time, silently fascinated by the way the moonlight played off this strange, dream-like figure. The moon was fully overhead and I didn’t know how much time passed. I’d stared at Mrs. Owlsey so long that she had become a white blur. I could hardly tell where she ended and her wheelchair began. Something about her presence struck me so deeply that I thought about going down there and striking up a conversation, but her distant, emaciated aspect in the deathly glow of the moon frightened me.

The teenagers were in motion. One of the boys pitched the now empty bottle into a cluster of bushes and the three of them capriciously threaded their way through the parking lot, under the pools of light cast by the halogen lights, around the mailboxes, past the parked golf cart. One of the boys climbed into the cart and gripped the wheel and wrenched it back and forth. The other hopped on the back bumper and jumped up and down. The cart bounced and the shocks cried out like a dying animal. The girl laughed. After a minute or two they grew bored and headed off again.

From my vantage point, I could see that they were heading toward Mrs. Owlsey. I approached from a side angel under the cover of some trees to get a closer look. They walked only a few feet in front of me, unaware of my presence, laughing and stumbling along.

When they were twenty paces from Mrs. Owlsey, they stopped and huddled together. They whispered back and forth indistinctly.

“Hey,” one of the boys shouted out at Mrs. Owlsey, “the handicapped spots are over there.”

The girl slapped the boy’s arm and said, “You’re such an asshole.” The three entwined arms and darted off down the sidewalk. I watched until they disappeared.

I looked at Mrs. Owlsey closely for any sign of change in her demeanor, but she was the same unperturbed, stoic, distant Mrs. Owlsey.

I felt a sudden urge to step into the moonlight and talk to her. I strode forward, as if in a dream, aware of my actions at a distance.

“Hey,” I said.

She didn’t respond or move.

“Are you all right?”

She looked in my direction but still said nothing.

“Those kids, those assholes that were bothering you. Are you all right?”

“I’m fine,” she said.

“I can do something about it, if you want me to,” I said. “They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that.”

“They’re just kids,” she said. “They don’t know any better. I make them nervous, and they don’t know how else to deal with it.”

I nodded and lit another cigarette. We stood there a few moments, silent.

I said, “You know, I see you out here a lot.” I waited for a response, but there was none, so I continued. “I’ve known for some time that you’re sick.” I held up my cigarette and said, “I guess I should quit smoking these, huh?”

She looked at me. “I am sick, but not because I smoke. I didn’t start smoking till the doctors told me the news. I figured it would be nice to have something to blame it on.”

“How much longer?” I said. “I mean, if you don’t mind me asking.”

“Who knows? The doctors keep telling me another month, and then a month goes by, and they say another month. Any day now, really.”

“You know, my girlfriend and I could help you out, if you ever needed it,” I offered.

She shook her head. “I’ve got an in-house nurse, and she helps me with shopping and cleaning and other errands.”

“I’ve wanted to talk to you for some time, but I never felt like I could come up and talk to you.”

“Why’s that?” she said. “Do I make you nervous, too?”

“No. Well, maybe that’s it, but I don’t think so. It’s more like, I don’t know, I don’t want to accidentally cross some line I’m not supposed to.”

Mrs. Owlsey nodded. “Sometimes you can’t help it.”

“You never know how people are going to react, though,” I said. “People get mad for silly reasons.”

“They do,” she said. “They get mad when people cross the line, but they never seem to get mad at the people who drew the lines in the first place.”

“My dad told me this story once,” I said, “about a hunting trip.” I was unsure of where the story was coming from or where it was going. “He was camping up in the UP for a few days, hunting for deer. On the second day of his trip, he shot this big buck, right through the lungs, but he missed its heart. So the thing darts off into the forest, fast. My father and his friends spend the next three hours tracking the thing through the brush and snow. He keeps losing the trail and picking it up again, losing it and picking it up again. Every now and then he’d see some blood in the snow. Finally, he finds the buck in this small grove, hunkered down and breathing fast. Its chest wound is bleeding real bad and it can’t even move, so he shoots it through the head with one clean shot and kills it. They have to haul the thing all the way back to camp on some sort of makeshift sled.”

Mrs. Owlsey looked at me with widened, aware eyes. The dramatic moonlight deepened the shadows on her face. “Why are you telling me this story?” she said.

“I’m sorry,” I said. “I don’t know, exactly.” I thought about it for a moment. “When my father told me that story, there seemed to be something so invigorating, the nearness of life and death in that moment. I feel like I’ve lost that nearness.”

“Is that what I am to you?” she asked. “A museum exhibit? A reminder of your own mortality? That’s a little narcissistic, don’t you think?”

I didn’t respond right away. I weighed my words carefully in my head and shifted my weight back and forth. I said, “Maybe. I didn’t mean to offend.”

“Those kids didn’t offend me, and you’re going to have to try pretty hard to top them,” she said.

She sunk back sullenly into her chair and her mood turned taciturn again. When my cigarette was done, I told her it was nice to meet her and headed back to my apartment. As I walked away, I glanced back over my shoulder and saw her poised there, like a marble statue, frozen in that single moment of time.

***

I never talked to Mrs. Owlsey again. I continued to see her on my nightly patrols over the next week, and I continued to watch her and wander what she was thinking about as she gazed out at the hills in the nighttime.

Then, one night, just after midnight, Jeff Redwick emerged from his apartment. He was middle-aged and tallish with a scraggly beard and he wore an oil-stained flannel. He bounded down the steps and climbed into his car, a used Honda Civic, started the motor, and fled off into the darkness.

The next day at work, several people called out. We were behind on our quota for the day, so I stayed late to get the line back up to speed. I was busy most of the day, but all I could think of was the sign waiting at home. Tonight, I told myself, I’d put the sign on Redwick’s window, and the universe would be balanced again.

When my shift was up, I threw my overalls into my locker and took a route through the back area of the factory in order to avoid my co-workers. The sun was bright and people were out on the roads. The traffic was thick and I impatiently wove from one lane to the next. I thought of the cameras nested in the little metal boxes and eyed them with caution as I powered through stale yellow lights.

As I approached King’s Court, I could sense something amiss. I pulled into the lot and saw a crowd that had formed outside one of the buildings. The complex was a boiling cauldron of emergency response vehicles loosely scattered around the parking lot. I stopped in the middle of the road, threw my truck into park, and flipped on the hazard lights. I ran up to the scene and elbowed my way through the crowd of restless soccer moms, hyperactive children, and semi-concerned fathers. The lights from the vehicles skittered along the sides of the buildings and created a disorienting carnival effect.

I saw Crystal standing in the crowd of strangers. I worked my way up to her.

“What happened?” I asked. “Did someone get murdered?”

“No,” she said. “It’s Mrs. Owlsey. She passed away.”

The cops had sealed the perimeter around Mrs. Owlsey’s apartment. “Police Line—Do Not Cross,” it said. I watched the yellow police tape flicker in the wind. Two paramedics lingered around the entrance to Mrs. Owlsey’s apartment and spoke casually with an officer.

“The funeral is on Saturday,” Crystal said. “I talked to her sister, before you got here. I think we should go.”

“We didn’t really know her, though,” I said. “Wouldn’t it be strange?”

“Probably. But I feel like we should go.”

After the cop cars and ambulances left, a profound silence fell over the parking lot. I lingered outside, unsure of what to do next. I looked over at the space where Mrs. Owlsey would sit for hours and hours, thinking. The spot was empty. There was no trace of her ever having been there. I began to doubt the reality of that late night conversation in the moonlight. It seemed too strange, too far removed from everyday experience, to be real.

I smoked a cigarette, walked down to the mailbox and swung past Mrs. Owlsey’s spot en route. I put in my key and opened the mailbox. It was empty. I shut the tiny metal door, locked it, and headed back.

I saw Jeff Redwick, in his Honda Civic, round the corner and pull into the lot. He parked in the same spot where Mrs. Owlsey’s would sit and threw the car into park. A flare of rage jolted through my gut and I wanted to tell him he had to find someplace else to park. I couldn’t force the words up into my mouth. Instead, I walked past and made eye contact with him. I nodded and said a cursory, “Afternoon.”

I went back up to the apartment. Crystal was watching the news.

“Coming up, survivors tell the harrowing tale of their last few moments aboard the Concordia,” the report said. On the screen were pictures of the enormous cruise ship, tilted lazily over into the azure water. The footage looked photoshopped, I thought.

I took the two cardboard signs from off the table and tore them into pieces and tossed the pieces into the recycling bin. I dropped down onto the couch next to Crystal and put my arm around her.

“What time is the funeral again?” I said.

I had an arch-nemesis in grad school.  His name was Matt Brown.   Matt Brown was a whisky-drinking Irish poet.  I knew that I wouldn’t get along with him after the first conversation we had.  Within five minutes, he had told me that Quentin Tarantino was the downfall of mainstream culture; that students were ignorant idiots whose brains had been watered down by too many years of television; and that as a literary theorist, I should be thankful that there were poets like him around to give people like me something to do.

I’m not writing this blog as a polemical rant against my arch-nemesis.  In fact, I respect Matt Brown and I think he’s a good poet.  And I think everybody should have an arch-nemesis, an opposing bizarro-other to balance one’s equation of selfhood. 

Instead, I want to confront the antagonism that we theory-minded folk sometimes encounter.  And I wonder:  Is he right?  Should I thank my lucky stars that there are Matt Browns in this world to shine their beacons of light into my uninspired, darkened corner?

The argument frequently goes that we theorists follow two paces behind greatness, biting at its heels.  I picture this argument as something like the langoliers from the Stephen King book about creatures that eat up dimensions left behind by our world: An ugly necessity.  And maybe not even that necessary.  Theory fanatics are parasites, I have been told, taking without giving back to the more vital creatures in the intellectual and artistic landscape.  As if to draw the battle lines, writers like Robert Frost and Tim O’Brien and other artists (Andy Warhol, for example) have at various turns attempted to make their works resistant to the greedy, clutching fingers of theorists.  (It didn’t work.)

Are we theorists really that bad?  Sure, we annoy the piss out of people because we throw around words like “carnivalesque” and talk about how Baudrillard’s idea of the simulacrum could engender an interesting interpretation of Inglorious Basterds.  (“Can’t you ever just watch a movie for fun?” people have said to me.)  I get why we’re not liked.  And even, to an extent, I get the absurdity of some literary theory.  Psychoanalysis, for example, is especially prone to lunging at shadows.  One essay I read in grad school argued that because a girl held an umbrella in an upright position in one scene, the umbrella clearly must represent the repressed phallus.  (Isn’t that obvious?)

It’s moments like these that give us theory heads a bad name. 

Maybe if only people understood us a little better, we could change our public image (or lack thereof).  So, a little introduction.  Modern literary theory has its roots in a school of thought called “formalism.”  Formalism (also known as New Criticism) paid extra close attention to the form and structure of literature.  The formalists were obsessed with metaphor and irony, and they believed that one could study a piece of literature in total isolation from its culture, its author, and even its reader. 

Formalism’s attention to form makes sense.  In the 1950s, when New Criticism was at its height in American universities, college was becoming increasingly professionalized and technologized.  Throughout the centuries, college, in the Kantian sense, had a liberal arts agenda.  Philosophy, literature, and art were seen as indispensable parts of education and inseparable from the journey toward enlightenment.  However, in the post-industrial age, education has become increasingly specialized.  To run a nuclear plant, for example, one needs a great deal of knowledge, training, and experience in one narrow category.  In the face of such specialization, the English field found itself in danger of extinction.  The study of literature just wasn’t practical enough for the needs of the modern economy.  Who needs to read some dusty old Shakespeare play, anyway?  (Today, we see this attitude to an even greater extreme—especially with the rise of the technical college.)  Enter Northrop Frye (no relation).  Northrop Frye wrote a book, Anatomy of Criticism, in which he attempted to create a professional body of knowledge for the literary critic.  Thus, the field of literary theory became a specific set of skills, strategies, and concepts.  (I’m oversimplifying it a bit, but you get the gist.)

The ghost of Northrop is still felt.  The first year of most English grad school programs is a gauntlet of theoretical terms and concepts.  The incoming student body must become indoctrinated in the professional practices of the discipline, after all, or else the discipline will shrivel from lack of funding (like the philosophy department).

As a result, the student who goes to grad school to support a nasty reading habit finds himself awash in countless “isms”–Marxism, structuralism, post-structuralism, feminism, postmodernism, etc., each with its own way of looking at a text.  The one thing that is lost, though, is the individual’s reading experience.  (The one theory that places the reader center stage, reader-response theory, is skipped over in almost every lit theory course.  Admittedly, though, this could be because post-structuralism does a better job at the same thing.)  There is no discussion about what makes a text good or bad, how it makes one feel, or how beautiful a passage might be.  Little discussion about craft and style, narrative pacing, surprising insights, clever storytelling strategies, and so on.  Only the unflinching sclera of criticism, whose job is to assign meaning based on a set of literary algorithms. 

English majors doing math?  There’s a scary thought.

Some don’t adapt too easily to the jolt.  For me, though, my first experience with lit theory wasn’t so soul-crushing.  (Not at first, anyway.) I took a pre-grad class at Western Michigan University called “Practical Literary Criticism.”  (The first day of class, our instructor, Jon Adams, said that the name was misleading—there was nothing practical about what we would be doing.)  I felt each day after I left the class that the world looked a bit different.  The theorists that we had read each opened my doors of perception just a bit more.  Like any good learning experience, I felt mad after leaving the class—mad because I hadn’t learned these ideas before.  “How did I make it this far without learning about post-colonialism?” I wondered.  So many pieces and fragments of my experience up to then fell into place.  I spent the next few months cornering a fellow nerd at a party, drinking entirely too much, and applying postmodernism to punk rock, or Althusser’s definition of ideology to beer ads, or the concept of the Kafkaesque to getting put on hold when calling the bank. 

I tell this story to humanize the theorist.  We lit theory folks are often cast as bloodless, calculating, and mechanical, a different breed from the “real folk” and too far removed from reality to even do so much as tie our own shoes.  But it’s not true.  There’s real passion and energy to the scholarship that others might not see if they have never been part of a community of newly initiated scholars.  Perhaps I’m romanticizing it a bit, but the English folk in a grad program, in my experience, are a rowdy, beer-sodden lot. 

Okay, maybe there’s some truth to the stereotypes about theorists.  Yes, theorists are willingly arcane.  They couch their ideas in impenetrable prose—not to hide their ideas from the masses, necessarily, but to prove that what they do deserves to remain in the hallowed halls of academia.  And yes, theorists are especially bad at appealing to an audience.  They write incredibly dense dissertations on incredibly narrow topics that no other human being would or should ever care about, and they willfully, masochistically, do everything they can to eliminate all other possible readers, as if reaching a broader audience were a carnal sin.  

So I get it.  It makes sense.  But to all theory-haters, and to my arch-nemesis, let me just say that we theory-ites aren’t really doing anything that different.  Both creative writers and theorists hold people as the subject of study.  We both want to know why people act the way they do, what happens under the surface and out of sight, how the classifications constructed by society—race, class, gender, age, whatever—shape how we see ourselves and how we see others, and, grandly, what it all means.

The only difference is the theorist’s answers look a little different.  And I agree that perhaps theorists need to rethink their approach and strip away the layers of dense prose.  As Orwell argued in “The Politics of the English Language,” such language is not designed to clearly communicate its meaning; it is meant to hide it.  I’ve been guilty of attempting to prove my competence once or twice with leaden words (hell, probably at least twice in this essay alone).

I propose that theory, when it is at its best, uses the full vividness of language and creativity of the author.  Its attention to tone and style is masterful.  Look at the sarcasm of Derrida, the taunting call of Baudrillard, or the astute pen of Freud interpreting Shakespeare.  Ultimately, the works of these theorists do what any good work of art does:  It allows us to see something that had always been there, under the surface, waiting just out of sight, beckoning.

Hesher is a film about a boy, TJ, who recently lost his mother in a car accident.  The boy’s father, Paul (played by Rainn Wilson), is an empty, sallow husk, emotionally depleted and languishing away after the death of his wife.  The death of TJ’s mother and the emotional crippling of his father does nothing to halt the inexorable challenges of adolescent life for TJ.   The film follows the boy through a challenging teenage landscape of austere teachers, pimple-faced bullies, and inattentive, bovine, social-climbing students. 

Things change, though, at the introduction of Hesher into TJ’s life.  Hesher is the archetypal metal head with black, stringy hair and a cigarette perpetually poised on his lips.  He stalks around in his tattered jeans, usually shirtless.  A large tattoo of a middle finger runs down his back. 

The metal head is, in terms of modern mythology, both hero and anti-hero.  Hero, because he reasserts the individual as supreme; anti-hero, because his rejection of the status quo threatens the precarious balance of a de-individualized, bureaucratic society.  The metal head is a devoted disciple of the arcane cult of metal; his music is designed to punch through the ambient and banal noise of everyday life and to reassert the individual onto the center stage through shock, antagonism, and mechanical ferocity.

It is in this sense that the film borrows the image of the metal head.  Hesher is less so a profile of the heavy metal dude in his natural habitat (like, say, the cult classic Heavy Metal Parking Lot) and more so a narrative device used to give expression to TJ’s repressed Id.  Through Hesher, the film gives vivid visualization to TJ’s turbulent internal psycho-drama that is set in motion by the death of his mother.  Through the course of the film, TJ must confront, embrace, and ultimately “defeat” his Id, in the form of Hesher, if he is ever to become psychically whole again. 

In Freudian theory, the human mind is split into three parts:  The Id, the Ego, and the Superego.  The Id is man’s base, primal self.  It is this part of the self that acts on self-preservation alone and is the root of most anti-social tendencies.  The Superego, on the other hand, is the domain of law and conscience.  It is the part of the self that obeys social customs and puts the interest of others first.  In the Freudian topography of the human mind, the Ego is in constant battle with these two forces.  Too much Superego leads to repression and a loss of the self; too much Id results in self-destructive and anti-social behavior.  The Ego must learn to strike a balance between the poles of the Id and the Superego or else face destruction, neurosis, and banishment.  Freudian theory offers compelling insight into the psychological drama in this film. 

Hesher is everything that TJ is not but would like to be.  Hesher is unrefined, crude, and vulgar.  He is large and powerful, stalking around the set like a penned tiger.  He never censors his words or his wants, and he always acts with purpose and clarity.  When Hesher moves into TJ’s home, his first act is to climb a telephone pole and hook up pirated cable.  Hesher wordlessly climbs the pole, opens a box, makes a connection, climbs down and saunters back into the house, shirtless, flopping down onto the couch, lighting a cigarette, and flipping the channel to a porno.  “Now you have more channels,” he says. 

One day, while escaping on his bike from the clutches of a bully, TJ first meets Hesher.  TJ cuts down a back road to evade his persecutor, but the road is filled with potholes.  TJ’s front tire catches and throws the boy headfirst over his handlebars.  TJ is so enraged that he picks up a rock and tosses it through the plate glass window of an abandoned house.  Hesher, who had been squatting in the house, emerges and grabs the boy by the throat, dragging him through the sand into the house.  A cop, likely drawn by the sound of smashing glass, pulls up outside.  “You just fucked me,” Hesher says to the boy.  Hesher picks up a homemade explosive and tosses it through the window.  It explodes and sends a cinematic plume of dust through the window as Hesher walks toward the camera in slow motion.

If taken literally, the scene is pure Hollywood spectacle.  Hesher’s slow-motion walk is stylized after all badass movie figures, from Clint Eastwood onward.  On a psychoanalytical level, though, the significance of the scene emerges.  It is TJ’s powerlessness in the face of the bully that triggers the emergence of Hesher.  When TJ allows his anger expression, the act of rage literally awakens his Id.  When this happens, his Superego is close behind, in the form of a cop out on patrol.  In the battle between Superego and Id, the Id wins dramatically in this scene. 

The awakening of TJ’s Id is inevitable.  The trauma of the loss of his mother has presented a severe crisis to his selfhood and has threatened to undo him.  TJ has no choice but to deal directly with Hesher; he can no longer repress this part of his psyche.  But the confrontation with the Id is fraught with danger.  Hesher is an unstable, anarchic force in TJ’s life.  On the one hand, Hesher functions as a sort of wish-fulfillment for TJ; on the other, Hesher is a dangerous presence that often gets TJ into trouble.  TJ has no control over Hesher, even when Hesher is supposedly acting in TJ’s best interest.  While in school, for example, the bully, Dustin, tells TJ to “suck my cock.”  Hesher, who always seems to be on TJ’s periphery, listens in on the conversation while leaning against a wall.  Later, the bully’s car has the words “suck my cock” along with a crude illustration of a man giving himself fallatio inscribed in black spray paint.  Presumably, Hesher has acted on TJ’s secret desire for retaliation, an action TJ could only wish to do.  Hesher’s actions get TJ into trouble, though.  When the bully discovers the graffiti, he chases TJ with his car, knocks him off his bike, and proceeds to mercilessly beat him.

The conflict between TJ and Hesher comes to a head over a cashier named Nicole (played by Natalie Portman).  I would argue that the cashier comes to represent TJ’s blooming sexuality and his confused guilt over his mother’s death.  TJ clearly has desirous feelings for the cashier.  In one scene, TJ stands and amorously watches the cashier from afar as she rings a customer up.  Hesher, standing behind TJ, asks if he wants to “poke her.”  “It’s okay if you want to poke her, dude,” he says.  Hesher is acting the part of TJ’s Id, the unrepressed, unrefined sexual drive, giving TJ permission to act on his desires.  However, TJ is still in a state of limbo between his sex drive and his conscience.  Thus, TJ cannot act on his sexual desire for Nicole.  Instead, Hesher acts on TJ’s behalf and sleeps with Nicole.

When TJ discovers the sexual liaison between Hesher and Nicole, he is outraged.  TJ’s anger is, on one level, an expression of jealousy.  However, if we take the stance that Hesher is in fact a part of TJ’s psyche, and not a free acting agent, then the sex scene takes on a different significance.  TJ’s anger toward Hesher is less so jealousy and more so shock and revulsion at TJ’s discovery of his own taboo desires. 

To further complicate the claim, I would draw the viewer’s attention to the intentional link the film creates between Nicole and TJ’s mother.  In two separate scenes, both TJ’s mother (in flashback) and Nicole straighten TJ’s tie.  This seemingly insignificant gesture, I would argue, is intended to create a visual bridge between Nicole and TJ’s mother.  TJ’s affection toward Nicole, then, reflects an oedipal struggle in TJ’s subconscious.  TJ must resolve his affection for his mother and overcome his infantilized desires by separating his love for Nicole from his love for his mother.  When he catches Hesher in bed with Nicole, however, TJ cannot handle the sight of his own taboo desires because he has not yet reached a resolution in his crisis. 

The traces of the oedipal struggle are especially apparent in the flashback scene.  Though TJ’s mother is nothing more than the presence of an absence throughout the entire film, we are shown what occurs in the moments leading up to his mother’s death.  The family is heading to a wedding.  One moment, they are driving along, singing a song together, unified in familial bliss; in the next, a car T-bones the family vehicle, killing the mother instantly. 

There are several important clues to notice in this flashback scene.  First, note that the family is heading to a wedding.  If we are to take the approach of the Oedipus complex, then the wedding functions vicariously in TJ’s head as an expression of his secret wish to marry his mother.  The other important clue is given by the song played in the moment before his mother’s death, “Why Must I Be a Teenager in Love?”  The name of the song is itself charged with meaning, for it represents both TJ’s dawning adolescence and his infantilized love for his mother.  TJ is at a crossroads and must resolve the crisis quickly.  Further, the lyrics from the song are telling.  The songs says that “I’m so afraid/ That we will have to part.”  TJ does not wish to move forward into adolescence.  Then, “One day I feel so happy/ Next day I feel so sad/ I guess I’ll learn/ To take the good with the bad.”  It is at this moment that another car runs into them, killing the mother immediately. 

TJ feels guilt at his mother’s death, as if the very taboo wrongness of his desire was responsible for his mother’s death.  Hesher fulfills TJ’s secret infantilized desires, but when TJ becomes consciously aware of them, he cannot bear it.  The denouement of the film, then, revolves around TJ’s ability to “take the good with the bad” and solve this crisis.

Guilt is one part of the oppressive force of the Superego, which plays a strong counteracting force to the Id throughout the film.  The film clearly presents evidence that TJ lives in a world where the Superego has come to overpower the Id, and thus, the individual is in constant threat of breaking down.  In TJ’s case, the death of his mother has presented a significant threat, which, I would argue, prompts the reification of his Id in the form of Hesher.  TJ must embrace and figure out how to tame and direct the expression of his Id, or else face complete dissolution.

In the face of such absolute grief, the bonds and laws of society seem arbitrary, ridiculous, Kafkaesque, even.  In particular, TJ has multiple interactions with the owner of a towing company which took the family car to the junkyard.  TJ attempts to buy the car back from the owner, but the owner refuses.  The owner is completely unsympathetic to TJ’s situation and cites unblinking rules and regulations to block TJ’s attempts.  (Tellingly, the bully is an employee at this towing company, cementing the bully’s role as representation of the cruel indifference of the world to TJ’s needs.)  Further, the social devices in place for his grief are lackluster and ineffective.  TJ and his father regularly attend a grief support group, but the support group is portrayed as a trivial farce.  TJ’s father refers to the people in the group as “losers.”  The scenes of the support group are shown as alien, cold, distant affairs. 

Both TJ and his father must figure out how to break social convention and confront their grief in an appropriate way.  It is through Hesher that they are finally able to do so.  When TJ’s grandmother dies, Hesher shows up to pay his final respects.  I would argue that the grandmother’s funeral is an echo of the mother’s funeral.  TJ and his father are reenacting psychological traumas again and again.  They will be trapped in this loop until they figure out how to escape.  TJ gets up to speak on behalf of his grandmother, but is unable to find any words.  Hesher shows up at the funeral and steps in for TJ, delivering the speech that TJ wishes (but would never be able) to deliver.

The impromptu eulogy is, in true Hesher form, crass, socially inappropriate, and direct.  Hesher tells a story of how he lost his left testicle, concludes that he is thankful that he still has his right testicle and that his “dick still works.”  Hesher then delivers the best line in the movie:  “You lost your wife.  You lost your mother.  I lost my nut.”  The message to TJ and his father is that they should be thankful for what they still have. 

Hesher’s speech, first of all, taps into the castration complex.  Fear of damage to the genitalia and the neutering of the Id is made apparent, but while damaged, Hesher, and thus TJ, have made it through their ordeal mostly intact. 

Second of all, Hesher’s unorthodox eulogy allows TJ and his father to escape the stymying constraints of the American grieving process.  Hesher breaks all the social conventions of a funeral.  He is drunk.  He swears constantly.  He talks about his genitalia.  He is violent and confrontational toward the priest.  Hesher vicariously allows TJ and his father to express their grief and thus mend their broken psyches in a way that society normally would not allow. 

Hesher’s final act in the film is to break one more cultural norm: he wheels the casket out into the street and goes for one last walk around the block with Grandma.  TJ and his father join in. 

After the funeral scene, TJ’s father is different.  He has shaved his beard and regained his earlier aspect.  While the pain still is evident, it is clear that both TJ and his father have begun their recovery.  Hesher, though a dangerous and threatening presence, represents a necessary but unsavory aspect that TJ needed to confront.  In doing so, TJ regains the balance between his Id and Superego and safely navigates the psychological crisis of his oedipal struggle, the death of his mother, and his forward thrust into adolescence.

The Jungle is a story of Jurgis and Ona, two Lithuanians immigrating to the city of Chicago at the turn of the 20th century.  Jurgis and Ona, like the many other unwashed masses passing through Ellis Island at this time in history, come to the land of opportunity for a better life.  Instead, they wind up in a place called Packingtown, a self-contained city built around an endless array of slaughter houses and meat processing plants. 

When Jurgis first arrives, he is gapes in amazement at the whirring gears of capitalism, the fantastical promises of signs in the shop windows, and the sheer size and scale of the whole operation of feeding and building an empire.  He immediately throws himself into his work with the arrogance and naiveté of youthfulness but, as time passes, Jurgis’ good nature is ground to a meaningless stub.  The façade of the Promised Land is worn thin and, eventually, ruptures, leaving Jurgis nothing more than a craven animal, his wife and son dead, wandering the streets and desperately clutching at whatever crumbs fall from the tables of the rich capitalists. 

I had been meaning to read The Jungle for quite some time, so when my grandmother sent me a copy of Sinclair’s book, I read through most of it in a single weekend.  The version my grandmother sent me was Sinclair’s original, uncensored manuscript, a full five chapters longer than the published version and unavailable for nearly eighty years.  Though I’d never read the published version, the introduction explains the omissions from the original manuscript.  Most cuts and revisions were aimed to tone down the “ethnic” descriptions of Lithuanian culture and customs and to water down the overt socialist, anti-capitalist message.  (Such omissions would explain Sinclair’s famous lament:  “I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.”  In other words, the socialist message was lost amidst the lurid details of the poor sanitary conditions of the meat that Americans were consuming.)

Though The Jungle is more than a hundred years old, the text endures into modern consciousness because of its frank political commentary.  The book itself offers a compelling insight into the corruptions of early twentieth-century capitalism, the dangers of monopoly, and a too-often-forgotten history of this country’s bloody labor movements.  More than a history lesson, though, the book transcends the ephemeral concerns of the politics of the moment and speaks to the deeper and ongoing struggle of man against man and of the natural tendency in any society of wealth to slowly accumulate around the few rather than the many. 

Still, despite the many merits of the book, I couldn’t help but notice as I read that the book clashes with my own sensibilities as a modern reader.  Sinclair’s style relies heavily on hyperbole, black-and-white exaggeration, and heavy-handed pathos to evoke the reader’s emotions for Jurgis and Ona.  For a modern reader such as myself, inoculated against cheap marketing appeals and bred on the detached cool of such writers as Hemingway and Bukowski, Sinclair’s style at times makes me wrinkle my nose uncomfortably. 

Of course, perhaps detached subtlety wasn’t the point.  One could argue that subtlety is the domain of the privileged ones who can afford to couch their messages in metaphor and of the repressed ones who must use the veneer of metaphor as a survival mechanism, a device for obscuring their message from the censoring panopticon of the state.  Instead, Sinclair’s plain descriptions and direct appeals could have been intended to deliver an unfiltered message to the reader. 

Still, my lingering concern is that the book sacrifices the individual for the sake of the political.  By and large, the characters are caricatures, lacking real depth, interiority, and psychological complexity.  One will notice, for example, the lack of dialogue between Jurgis, Ona, and their extended family and house mates or the simplicity in their motivations.  It is possible that Jurgis, Ona, and the other characters are nothing more than props for Sinclair’s overt socialist agenda. 

Is this a bad thing? 

Yes and no, I would say.  All books communicate some sort of point, political or otherwise, through their various quotidian details.  By focalizing a story around a character, an author can use plot, character, and dialogue to offer critical political commentary.  But the very power of the fictional nature of a text comes from the fact that we are given a closer and more subjective look into politics.  When the character is simply used as a puppet for political agenda, the fictional story exploits the reader’s natural desire for subjective experience in order to trick them into buying a political point of view.  I would argue a work of art must and should be political, but must add more complexity and nuance to politics.  Politics, after all, is always a generalization, the exact opposite of the concrete. 

Perhaps, though, Jurgis and Ona’s lack of depth is an intentional literary device.  Abram Maslow argued that humans had five levels of needs that had to be fulfilled in to reach psychological transcendence:  Physiological needs, safety needs, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.  Jurgis and Ona, however, are perpetually exposed to horrific conditions of poverty, disease, and injustice.  They must expend every iota of energy at their disposal simply to survive.  Thus, Jurgis and Ona never make it past the first level of Maslow’s hierarchy.  In this way, Jurgis and Ona’s lack of depth is not a literary oversight, but a commentary on how the exploitative nature of society can straitjacket its populace’s humanity by reducing people to their base animalistic nature. 

The deeper issue here, I think, is of the tension between the book’s political dimension and its aesthetic function.  On the one hand, subtlety in craft and style is the mark of literary artistry.  On the other, such subtlety may only obscure and dull the sharp edges of the book’s political commentary.

We should be aware that our criteria for literature are heavily determined by the modernist movement.  Modernism posited that one of the chief determining characteristics of the literary is psychological complexity.  This is the result of the impact of Freud’s theories on the authors of the modernist movement.  In literature, this is often referred to as the “surface/depth model” (or “iceberg theory”).  Put briefly, the iceberg theory states that the “visible” part of one’s personality is only but a small portion of a character, like the 10% of the iceberg that is above water, whereas the unconscious and “invisible” part of the individual is the most important, mysterious, and hidden part of a character, like the 90% of an iceberg below water.  It is from this hidden part that most of the character’s motivation radiates.  A character with “depth,” in these terms, is a vast arcade of overlapping desires, fears, complexes, and neuroses, all jockeying for position within the arena of the individual. 

This surface/depth model has defined most modernist literature.  Take Hemingway, for example.  When you read a Hemingway story or novel, the first thing you will likely notice is the detached, simplistic, stark, staccato nature of his prose.  For Hemingway, most of the meaning in his story is implied, beneath the surface.  What is on the page is less important to a Hemingway story than what is not on the page. 

Imposing a modernist agenda onto The Jungle may only soften its political edges.  When I, as a reader, wish for more literary complexity and subtlety, perhaps I commit the same sin as the New Critics, who climbed inside their texts, shut the door, and waited out McCarthyism, racism, and the Cold War behind their veil of metaphor. 

The blatancy of the political message is most pronounced in the final five chapters cut before publication.  In these chapters, Jurgis stumbles upon a socialist meeting.  He is so moved by the speaker at the meeting that he goes backstage to meet the man.  As a result of his meeting with the keynote speaker, Jurgis finds an entrance point into the underground socialist movement.  He is quickly hired by a prominent man in the socialist party.  While working for the man, he encounters many of the philosophers and thinkers working to educate the masses and free them from their chains of ignorance.  Jurgis goes on to travel from door to door, spreading his newfound message with evangelical zeal. 

It could be argued that the publishers cut these five chapters because of their dangerous political implications.  On the other hand, the literary craft of these chapters is especially abominable.  Jurgis fades into the background; he becomes only a narrative device through which Sinclair can deliver his socialist message in glorious, rapturous tones.  The fictional dream of the story is broken. 

When I read these five chapters, I was reminded of Hemingway’s critique of Richard Wright’s book, Native SonNative Son is a story about a black man named Bigger Thomas.  Bigger finds work as an assistant to a rich, philanthropic, white family.  One night, Bigger helps the daughter of his employer, who had been drinking all night, up to her bedroom.  As Bigger is tucking the nearly unconscious girl into bed, the girl’s mother, who is blind, enters the room.  Bigger, who is deathly afraid of being caught in the bedroom of a white woman late at night, puts a pillow over the girl’s mouth so that she will not attract the attention of her mother.  Bigger accidentally suffocates the girl. 

Wright’s purpose is to show how society constructs its racial narratives and how those narratives constrain, shape, and direct our experience (like self-fulfilling prophecies).  In this case, the dominant narrative at work is the rape plot.  The rape plot, whose vestiges can still be seen in our culture today, is the belief that all black men would like to have sex with white women and are likely to rape white women if white men do not protect and defend their women’s chastity (one of the stated goals of the KKK).  Essentially, the rape plot was a cultural expression of the white fear of black men and their virility as well as the fear of miscegenation (not to mention, likely, the expression of white guilt over having enslaved and raped many black women during and following the years of slavery). 

Like Sinclair, Wright spends an enormous portion of the latter part of his book using the narrative as an excuse to deliver a polemical Marxist diatribe.  Bigger’s lawyer, Max, addresses the court before Bigger’s sentencing.  Max speaks for nearly thirty pages, plying the jury with Marxist appeals. 

Hemingway believed this scene in Native Son to be one of the most egregious moments in all of literature because it so thoroughly ruptures the fictional dream with political lecture.  Though Hemingway likely never read the original manuscript of The Jungle, chances are Hemingway would say the same to Sinclair. 

And yet, I think the modern reader should remember that at times story, narrative, and literary craft can be used to distract and detract, a case of the aesthetic turned anesthetic.  Perhaps, to pull us out of our own fictional dreams, we need to be stripped of our own defensive narrative devices, left bereft for a moment to fend for ourselves in the harsh daylight of economic reality. 

And in this way, Sinclair’s novel succeeds brilliantly.

In 2010, Gary Bauer, former Reagan adviser and proponent of conservative values, delivered a speech to the Family Research Council (http://www.ouramericanvalues.org/mediaVideo.php?movie=post15).  In this speech, Bauer addressed many issues—the “Obama” recession, the direction of a post-9/11 America, and Reagan’s biblical shining city on the hill—but there is one point in his address in particular that struck me.  It starts with the famous passage from the Declaration of Independence, the one that all Americans know very well:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

The use that Bauer makes of this passage, though, deserves close attention.  Bauer evokes this passage and goes on to claim that liberals do not fit under the protective umbrella of this American dictum.  Why?  Because liberals are moral relativists and therefore cannot believe in the concept of absolute, self-evident truth.  “What’s true for you isn’t necessarily true for me,” he sarcastically states in a derisive, mock-imitation of liberals. 

Bauer’s rhetorical appeal here is wholly flawed but interesting to me.  It is easy for this claim to quickly slip past, but if we slow down and look closely, an array of assumptions reveal themselves.  I’d like to break down these assumptions and the source of their rhetorical power, for a few reasons.  First, I believe Bauer’s point of view is representative of a common conservative argument and, therefore, is worth closer consideration if we are to understand the nature of what Thomas Frank calls the “two nations.”  Second, I think Bauer’s argument is an example of how emotional connection, association, and jingoism are used for political ends in lieu of logic and reason.  It goes without saying—or, it is a self-evident truth—that such political appeals are dangerous to a democracy.  Citizens of a Jeffersonian democracy should be aware of their source of power and their pernicious effects.  Finally, Bauer uses the very dictates of a free and open society in a McCarthyistic fashion to inscribe certain beliefs as pro-American and others as anti-American.  I hope the reader of this blog, despite his or her political leanings, can at least agree that there is a vast difference between “I disagree with you” and “What you say is anti-American.”

An essential tenant of conservative dogma is the importance of a central cultural core that binds a nation together.  I can see the merit and appeal in this claim.  Yes, it is important for a culture to have ties that bind.  And relativism seems to be the opposite of national cohesiveness. 

Bauer makes a simple mistake in his take on relativism, though, a mistake that my students also sometimes make when they are first learning critical, philosophical, and ethical discourse.  His mistake is in overextending the claim of relativism to an absurd (and inaccurate) final conclusion, a conclusion stretched so thin that it loses its sharpness and resolution: “All cultures are different, and that’s okay.”  If stated this way, the argument for relativism is easily overturned with only a few questions: 

What about the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, for example?  When a woman is beaten as punishment for driving a car, is this simply a cultural difference? 

What about China’s human rights record? 

Would you have posed the same argument in defense of Nazi Germany? 

Okay, the reductio ad hitlerum approach probably takes things a bit far, but I think it gets an important point across.  Inflexible dogmatism, whether it be steeped in conservatism or liberalism, is dangerous because it strips real and complex socio-cultural issues down to only their shadows. 

I would make the case that moral relativism does not automatically engender complete and total nihilism.  In fact, the exact opposite is true.  Though I am no expert in philosophy, it seems to me that relativism requires as its foundation a belief in self-evident and absolute truths.  For example, look at the valuing of human life.  All societies by necessity share this fundamental value or truth.  Such a statement requires little proof.  If any society did not value human life, then it would not and could not exist.  The value of human life is necessary to have human life.  This statement is so obvious it is a truism, wrapped up neatly like a balanced math equation.

Where things get dicey, though, is in the application and interpretation of these universal values.  Yes, all cultures value human life.  This is a fundamental truth of human society at all levels.  But what about capital punishment?  Does public execution mean a society does not value life?  Well, no.  Though I disagree with capital punishment, one could argue that societies that engage in such punishment (America being one) do so to discourage the sorts of behaviors that break the universal valuing of human life.  The difference is not in the value itself, but in its interpretation.

In order for relativism to work, a certain belief in absolute truth is a necessity.  Moral and cultural relativism is not a denial of universal truth but an acceptance and affirmation of it.  If I believe only my culture and way of looking at the world is correct, then I do not believe in universal human truth.  I believe in tribalism.  I believe that my people are the chosen people and that only we have access to such insights.  From this point of view, everyone else is a heathen, a gentile, a pariah to human decency.  However, if I believe that there is such thing as universal truths that extend across cultural lines, then I am more likely to allow for other cultures to have their own way of interpreting and expressing these universal truths.  This is an act of faith.  It is easier for me to assert my viewpoint on the world.  It takes an act of faith to believe that another group of human beings share important core values with me.  This is the nature of moral relativism:  Not nihilism, but an affirmation of shared, universal, self-evident values. 

When Bauer pits moral relativism against the Declaration’s self-evident truth, the connection is misleading.  In fact, the truth that the founders were reaching toward had at least the nascent traces of relativism.  They did not say that all Americans are created equal, or that only people of Western European descent.  Interestingly, there was a conflict between the prevailing belief system about societies at the time and the Declaration’s famous claim.  Historically, anthropological beliefs about other societies lent itself to cultural exceptionalism. It was believed that all societies could be held to the same standard and that some were better than others.   Western European society in particular represented the apex of human achievement.  All other cultures could be measured from this touchstone and placed vertically in a great chain of being, all societies placed on the chain according to such criteria as how closely these cultures’ writing systems, religious systems, moral systems, technology, etc. measured up to Western European standards.  But such exceptionalism directly conflicts with the philosophical statement that all men are created equal.  The philosophical conclusion that the founders were heading toward, then, was slightly out of sync with the prevailing notions of the time.  Such lag between beliefs, though, is the nature of humanity’s slow and uneven slouch toward enlightenment. 

Bauer is not using the Jeffersonian passage literally.  He is not considering its philosophical or historical context.  He is not even considering it in context of the actual Declaration (a point we will consider in a moment).  Instead, Bauer is using this passage associationally.  The passage has been so oft-repeated that it has come to assume a certain rhetorical sway in its very delivery, and Bauer taps into this weight for his own political ends.  The passage, through its repetition, has come to have its own meaning and power in the listener’s mind, a sort of “seemingness,” or, as Colbert would have it, “truthiness.”  Its truth is premised on the contours and feeling of its authenticity and truth.  All Bauer has to do is set up the listener’s expectations and preconceived notions like bowling pins for a dramatic knock-down.  He does this by placing two previously constructed things next to one another—a well-known phrase from the constitution and a commonly hated aspect of liberal beliefs—and asks the listener to draw black-and-white distinctions between them.  The act of drawing this distinction is an emotional one rooted in the patriotic function. 

The appeal to “seemingness,” though, is not without its problems.  Bauer seems to suggest that all truths that “seem” true are self-evident, and it is in their very “seemingness” that they acquire their facticity.  It is a “The proof is in the pudding,” common sense argument. 

I have some frustrations with the way that the phrase “common sense” is used in political discourse to justify conservative arguments.  Common sense is a collection of beliefs, thoughts, and ideas that make sense according to the prevailing winds of the time.  Therefore, common sense is anything but eternal and stable.  What “makes sense” changes over time.  Many of the great thinkers—Newton, Einstein, Copernicus, and the like—were thinkers who were able to escape the all-encompassing net of common sense of their time. 

Conservatives do nothing to hide their scorn for intellectuals, and I think much of this scorn comes from the way that intellectuals question common sense.  Of course common sense is central to conservative beliefs, for conservativism, by its very definition, appeals to what has made sense in the past.  Interestingly, I think the founders, when they penned their ideas, were going against the common sense of their time.   It is only through time that their beliefs have become orthodoxy, and thus have come to acquire the ring of common sense.  (Bill Maher makes the case that the founders were in fact intellectuals—polyglots, philosophers, statesmen, and inventors, one and all.) 

Bauer is conflating the phrase “self-evident” with common sense, and I think this is a mistake.  In fact, the “self-evident truth” was anything but common sense.  Instead, I think we should look at why Jefferson decided to use this particular phrase.  To do that, we need to understand the rhetorical situation of the Declaration of Independence. 

The first part of the Declaration is the most often quoted, but the declaration is not only a philosophical manifesto aimed at founding a modern concept for human rights.  The Declaration is also a persuasive document, and one that steeps its claims in evidence (the last half of the document is simply a list of the America’s grievances against the King).  It is a document designed to create reasons and support for America’s break from Britain as a rational decision rather than one based on Old World, Machiavellian power plays, an ethically defensible founding of the New World, and an attempt to throw off the chains of the Old World—and of the “common sense” of the time.

The very fact that Jefferson uses the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” indicates that this phrase itself is the justification for the particular truth that all men are created equal.  The phrase “self-evident” is a philosophical justification.  Bauer, on the other hand, seems to suggest that his value system—of conservatism, of family values, of Christianity, etc.—needs no justification.  His entire semiotic system of common sense, belief, and seemingness is self-evident.  Therefore, the next “logical” conclusion would be that anyone holding a different view of truth or holding a different truth from that of Bauer and his party ideals is false (and not just false, anti-American!). 

I know one common conservative caricature of the liberal is the dry, pedantic, bloodless intellectual.  Obama receives such condemnations on a regular basis, made all the more stark by our current president’s contrast with W’s shoot-from-the-hip, gut-checking, swaggering veneer.  Any conservatives who happen to read this blog may think the same of me, but I don’t mean to attack emotional patriotism by any means.  I actually think that emotion is an important aspect of critical thinking and should be part of the process.  The French-driven enlightenment got it partly wrong (and the Vulcans, fictional heirs of this movement, did, too).  Critical thinking and reason without emotion are awash at sea without a north star or frame of reference.  Emotion tells us what we value.  However, what I do take issue with is when our emotions overpower and take the place of our critical faculties.  They need to be joined together, not pitted against one another. 

The dangers of associational thinking abound.  Associational thinking asks the listener to make a connection; once that connection is made, you derive “rightness” from the weight of this connection and its “seemingness.”  It is correctness by dint of recognition.  It does not ask the listener to follow a chain of logic but instead only the chain of one’s own assumptions, experiences, and ideas.  Associational thinking is based on the assumption that the things you already know have been, are, and always will be true.  It is the straw man fallacy at its finest.  The straw man fallacy occurs when one sets up a generalized caricature of an opposing argument and proceeds to knock it down, therefore creating the illusion that one has defeated the opposing argument.  The argument that is defeated, though, is all smoke and mirrors and has little or nothing to do with the actual argument.  This tactic is a sneaky and under-handed tactic, a huckster trick designed to win political favor.  And this is exactly what Bauer is doing here. 

I don’t take issue with Bauer’s critique of liberals or his conservative beliefs.  If Bauer believes that liberal beliefs will lead this country in the wrong direction, fine.  A free and open exchange of ideas is the mark of a healthy democracy.  I am not here to gather liberals to march on the doors of conservatives with torches and pitchforks, nor am I trying to whip conservatives into a mouth-foaming frenzy.  I only take issue with the portrayal of liberals as “anti-American.”  For me, there is a difference between “I disagree with what you say” and “You hate America.”  The line between these two must be understood if we are to keep an exchange of ideas open, and if we are to learn the lessons that Senator Joe McCarthy (unwittingly) taught us.

Within the past decade, I believe that we have witnessed a renaissance in television, the moment at which the form has finally come to realize its full range of exciting possibilities and potential.  Shows like Six Feet Under, Breaking Bad, Curb Your Enthusiasm and others of this ilk have taken the serial format of television to new heights.  All of these shows challenge and amuse in profound new ways.

I for one am happy to see television finally take a bold step in this new direction.  Though I do not want to downplay the many shows I watched and loved growing up, I was frustrated even then, as a child, by the insulting illusion of character development and frustrating static recursiveness of the standard sitcom.

Of course, any art form requires a certain amount of time to mature.  Take cinema, for example.  At its outset, the cinema theater was nothing more than a traveling curiosity, peddled around the country by dubious hucksters in grimy jalopies reveling in exploitation and sensationalism.  And the films themselves were a long shot from anything resembling artistry or complexity; people gathered in tents to watch a train in motion or an elephant get electrocuted.  It wasn’t until several decades into the moving picture age that something like Fritz Lang’s Metropolis was even remotely possible.

Of all of the new shows to come out of this stunning new artistic direction in television, though, the most important for me is Dexter.

When my fiance and I first discovered the show, we became dangerously obsessed.  We compulsively watched one episode after another, stopping only to begrudgingly shuffle off to work, and often on too little sleep, our eyes lacquered over by the cool blue glow of the television.

On one level, our obsession made sense.  Fans of the dark and disturbing humor of Harold and Maude and the deadpan, suffused irony of The Royal Tennenbaums, this show fit our sensibilities in a way no TV show had managed to do before.

On another, though, I had (and have) serious questions about our obsession.  And for good reason:  It is difficult to watch Dexter without feeling a certain sense of guilt or, if not guilt, then a delightful and complicit sense of wrongness.   The show is perverse, inside-out, and anti-social, to say the least.  But did we take to the show because it echoed our own anti-social tendencies?  Or was it because of the complex interweaving story lines and surprising character depth?  Was it both?  And more disturbingly:  No matter how compelling the writing, should we even watch the show?

One particular episode of a new show on PBS called “America in Primetime” explores the Dexter question.  In the episode, an interview with the actor that plays Dexter, Michael C. Hall, is juxtaposed with the creators of The Wire, Tom Fontana and David Simon.  Hall is a little more ambiguous in his answer to the Dexter question, but for Fontana and Simon, Dexter goes too far.  They believe that no show should ask its viewers to identify with a serial killer, let alone to see the act of killing as some sort of cathartic act.

Of course, The Wire is not exempt from frank and disturbing portrayals of violence.  And Fontana and Simon are acutely aware of this in the interview.  Fontana explains that he believes violence is a core component of the human condition.  Portraying violence in itself is not necessarily wrong, he says–just so long as it serves a particular purpose.

I agree with Fontana and Simon on this last point.  Though the ghostly traces of puritanical moralism are still embedded within our society, we could not–and should not–totally remove violence from our culture.  Even our most hallowed texts and stories are filled with riveting violence.  Take Shakespeare, for instance.  I went to the Shakespeare Theater in Chicago to watch a rare production of Troilus and Cressida for an undergrad seminar.  The production was one of the most violent things I’d ever seen in my life and would put most Hollywood action thrillers to shame.  The last third of the play was nothing more than sword fights, execution, backstabbing, and so on.  And lest one back up moralistic claims by turning to the Judeo-Christian tradition, I say one only need flip through the pages of the Old Testament–with its glorified descriptions of warrior kings like David and Solomon, not to mention God’s frequent and fiery wrath–to see that religion isn’t exempt, either.  (Mark Twain once said, [T]he truth is, that when a Library expels a book of mine and leaves an unexpurgated Bible lying around where unprotected youth and age can get hold of it, the deep unconscious irony of it delights me and doesn’t anger me.”)

Violence is a necessary component of culture–pop and otherwise–because we couldn’t fully understand what it means to be human without it.  Humans are so endlessly interesting to philosophers because they are capable of the most selfless acts of love and the most base acts of cruelty.  And both of these possibilities, to one extent or another, are present within every person.

Where the producers of The Wire get it wrong, though, is in the purpose of violence in Dexter.  Studies abound in the frequency of violence on television.  By the time a child is five, she has seen thousands of murders, shootings, and violent acts.  These acts, though, are often banal, stylized, and neatly packaged for the viewer.  The viewer is asked to sit back with her Big Gulp and bucket of popcorn and enjoy the show.  Death on the screen looks so effortless, and antiseptic.  Not Dexter, though.  Dexter is on the surface no worse than the old west icons, the swaggering Clint Eastwoods living and dying by the gun (incidentally, The Wire self-consciously draws from the old west motif frequently to the same effect–to get viewers to question this mythical archetype).  What Dexter does, though, is ask us to identify with the rebel outlaw and then question our sympathies with him.  The show allows us our perversity, but does so at the cost of also asking us to be reflective about it.  Rather than allowing us a distanced admiration of the outlaw, Dexter forces us into close, intimate quarters with our heroes–and ourselves–and we may not always like what we see.  In any other show, when we watch a showdown at noon and a man–innocent or guilty–is left lying in his own pool of blood while the “hero” calmly walks away, in slow motion and with a cigarette poised on his lips, we are not asked to question our passive, consensual participation in the act.  The movies and television shows in American culture let us get away with murder, just so long as we pay the door fee.  Dexter, though, lets us get away with everything and nothing at the same time.

Aside from philosophical problems with Fontana and Simon’s critique, I also take issue with a more pragmatic problem lurking under the surface.  The producers of The Wire demonstrate a fundamental lack of faith in the viewing public when they say Dexter has gone too far.  It is not the job of television producers to determine what we should or shouldn’t watch, or what is or isn’t too far.  The very fact that they make this assertion indicates an assumed role of guardian that television producers falsely believe they hold.  I say let the people decide.  I have a profound faith in the essential goodness of human beings, a faith that outweighs an equal and opposite realization of the fundamental insanity of people that is also present, though to a lesser degree.

Don’t get me wrong:  I enjoy the debate that Fontana and Simon raise.  I also commend PBS for creating a show that takes pop culture seriously enough to present it as debate rather than emptily echo its virtues in the style of so many VH1 specials and pop culture reminiscings.  But this is exactly my point.  Without Dexter, I would not be writing this.   Ultimately, though, I believe the only difference between Dexter and so many other shows and films is in the relationship it asks us to have with violence.  Dexter hasn’t changed the American outlaw, renegade, or hero (anti- or otherwise); he has only asked us to pull off his mask and look into his face, for better or for worse.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.