Tuesday, March 22, 2022

The hedgehog and the hatchet

  The hedgehog and the hatchet 

Where I am in the book* is at the incident of the hedgehog and the hatchet – where Kolya brings the creature as a gift to the Prince from Aglaya. And he announces, Kolya does, “with impressive authority” that “The plain fact is that she's in love with you, Prince, and that's all there is to it!”
     with impressive authority, when he has in the matter no authority at all. No one does, not even the principles, the Prince or Aglaya, because no one has a clue. There is no predicting where their relationship is going, and there can be no authority where there is no predictability: there are no rules anyone can apply. Everyone is just guessing. Kolya may be guessing right, but that doesn't lend him any authority. A lucky guess is no more than a lucky guess; it doesn’t signal any sort of prescience or any competence at all in the matter.
     But we are all Kolya when we are certain about matters about which there can be no certainty. For instance, the future.

Fyodor’s in Cleveland, where
a post-Cleveland Browns game brawl
allegedly saved the world, 1956.
About the past we are all fabulists. We know that about ourselves, yet, for the most part, we take the stories other people tell us about themselves as the truth. We don’t even stop to think that at least they are abbreviating the truth – because we know that it would take more than a day to tell the whole truth about what happened in a quarter of an hour. We know that the promise to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is so much folderol if not bullshit. It doesn’t matter how intelligent and clever the oath-taker is or how dumb and sincere. Besides which the court specifically doesn’t want to hear the whole truth. Not only doesn’t it have time for it, it doesn’t allow it; the witness is not allowed to answer more than the question asked; he cannot say, “Yes, but ... ” “The answer to the question you are asking is ‘yes,’ but it’s not the right question, is it? – not if you’re trying to get to the truth, or even a reasonable approximation of it. But you’re not, are you?”

 
We are all fabulists, but we are also gullible. What we take to be the truth, not only in court but in conversation, is a tissue of lies of omission, at best! But also lies of exaggeration because we are always seeking to fill in what we have to leave out by making more vivid what little we can say.
     Exaggeration is actually the commonest form of lying. If you don't believe this, watch a football game with one eye and listen to the play-byplay and commentary with the other ear. What do you see? – a ruction of steroid-stuffed jacksanapes beetling about trying to start a bar fight; and what you hear is that the future of the planet is at stake, but these bravest of men have come out to save it; only these wondrous heroes can save us all.

Roz looks in and sees me at the keyboard. “Whatcha writing?” she says.
     “Lies,” I say. “Just more lies.”

                                                                                  03.22.22 
______________
* Dostoevsky's The Idiot.  Continued from here.

Tuesday, March 15, 2022

The pope that was greater than God

 The pope that was greater than God 
Or one of them (one of the popes that was greater than God).

Nils said, “Your pope must have been greater than God.”
     “What do you mean?” I asked. I was going to add, “My ... pope?” But Nils went on, “The Holy Father grander than the Holy Father.” At which point I did manage to squeak in, “My pope?”
     “‘Without knowing a woman, he fathered not one but sixteen,’” Nils said.
     “I hadn’t thought of that. You mean the pope in the farable.”
     “Yes, your pope” Nils said.
     I: “I don’t make this stuff up, you know.”
     Nils: “Of course not.”

He took a breath. He said, “Do you think I could come in?” It was another case where he had just come to the door, tried to open it, and, finding it locked, rung the bell. Then he starts the conversation at the door as if he has already been invited in. And I make a point not to.
     I know that is mean, both as in inhospitable and as in nasty, and I would help myself if I could, but I can’t seem to. I am always shocked: there are people that believe they are welcome anywhere at any time, when they aren’t. They come in when I am thinking how I can keep them on the front porch.
     I must have made the wrong move again; I had stepped back,before I finished my thought. And Nils was inside, taking off his pea coat, and saying, “Tell me what you think of this. I was talking to this guy, a non-believer, and ... ”
     “What does that mean? – sorry to interrupt,” I said.
    
“What do you mean?”
     “Non-believer.”
     “Yes,” Nils said, “a good question. A non-believer as compared to what? you’re saying. Are there any believers really?” He didn’t believe it was a good question; he was just clearing his throat, because the next thing he said was “You don’t have any coffee do you?”

“Wait a minute,” Nils said as he followed me back to the kitchen. “You have a Keurig, right?
     “Anyway,” he said, “I get your point: I’m not a believer. Axel’s not though he tries to be. But checking off a list of approved dogma, saying at each check mark, ‘Yes, I subscribe to that one,’ doesn’t make for a believer, does it?” Sitting down at the table. “You – you’re not a believer even if you still insist that Jesus is your friend. Whatever that means. Right? That’s what you’re saying.”
     “Black, right?” I said. He took a sip, made a face, but then said, “Right. Good.” Then:

Dostoevsky
out of focus
as usual

“But let me go on, okay? – I'm telling a story.”
     “Okay,” I said. “But where did you meet this guy you were talking to?”
     “On an airplane.”
     “When?”
     “It doesn’t matter. Listen.”
     “Who? What? When? Where? How?” I said.
     “Not that kind of story,” Nils said. He took another sip of coffee, made another face. Looked at me, making a face. “No. Good,” he said. “You’ve read The Idiot, right? – Dostoevsky.”
     “I’m reading it now.”
     “So, I don’t know where you are – you may or may not have gotten to this and I may not remember it exactly right anyway – but Hippolite, who is dying of consumption reads this hugely long deathbed declaration to the Prince and a bunch of people assembled for his, the prince’s, birthday. I don’t know how they listen to it all, but Dostoevsky is full of these characters that can talk forty minutes at a time, and people seem to put up with it, I guess like we put up with an absurdly long movie.
     “Anyway, at one point, toward the end, I think, Hippolite starts railing about humility: Why should it be demanded of him? He will submit to the inevitable, to death, but why should he be humble about it even if religion tells him to.
     “So, I was trying to explain to this non-believer why the church wasn’t thriving at a time when, as he thought, people were longing to belong to something. That’s what he wanted to know. I wasn’t sure, I said, that this was such a time, especially if belonging required any inconvenience whatever, you couldn’t just zoom in whenever and for however long you desired. Then, I went on that the church, if it followed the movement Jesus began, was a particularly in-convenient something to belong to, because it existed, as a wise man once said, not for its members but for everyone that wasn’t one. If it stood for humility then ... Wait. Let me say it this way, I know you’ll agree: Following Jesus means giving up yourself for the sake actually of anyone else that happens to be passing by or fell off the side of the road.
     “I am utterly incapable of this, so I can't imagine anyone that is. I’d say actually that we end up with The Church, the institution, because the movement that demanded giving yourself up – or just asked for it, or asked that we at least try it – that movement failed. It had to fail, but typically, we couldn’t let it.”
     “We didn’t have the humility to admit we had failed,” I said.

Nils looked at me over the coffee cup he’d just put to his mouth. He tilted his head, meaning he couldn’t quite believe I’d gotten what he was saying, but yeah, that was it.
    “I haven’t gotten that far,” I said. Now he looked at me, meaning wait, what was I saying, now? “In the book,” I said. “I haven’t gotten that far in the book.”

                                                                          03.15.22  

Saturday, March 12, 2022

a horse, a dog, a goat, and the pope

  a horse, a dog, a goat, and the pope* 

A horse, a dog, and a goat went from Bremen to see the pope at Rome, the one with sixteen children though he had never been with a woman. The horse had a religious question the dog had become interested in. The goat had reasons to be away from Bremen for a while. The question had to do with Peter’s dream in the book of the Acts of the Apostles.
     But the pope would not see the three friends, not the first day, not the second, not the third, or the tenth; so the eleventh day they began making their way without an answer back to Bremen.
     On their return, the three friends journeyed by night and slept by day, and as they neared their hometown, they decided among themselves to live out their lives as night creatures. They would hide during the day and come out after dark in disguise, the dog as a fox, the goat as a skunk, and the horse as a mouse-eared bat.
     And so they did.

                                                                                        03.12.22
_______________
 * A farable of of Jesop. A
n online reproduction of the 1887 edition of Jesop’s Farables (with an afterword by me, Ted Riich) is available here.