Sex Lives of Animals Without Backbones

As many of you may recall, the epigraph seemed to make very little, if any sense to use when we first started reading Lorrie Moore’s Self-Help. Now, however, having finished the book, quite a bit more light has been shed upon these cryptic, super-random seeming quotes.

“‘The purpose of this book is to direct attention to the various ways in which non-backboned animals reproduce… Some animals reverse sex, some shoot stimulant darts at each other, and some lose an arm while mating.

-Haig H. Najarian

Sex Lives of Animals Without Backbones’”

This quote is quite intriguing just because very few people tend to think about the sex lives of invertebrates in their free time. It seems to draw back to a very common theme throughout Self-Help, however. Many of the stories were about relationships, and the various ways to approach, maintain, or destroy them. The first story, “How to Be an Other Woman”, tells us about how to be a mistress. This could be seen as an alternate to the traditional monogamous marriage, even if it is immoral. We also see a divorced family, in “A Kid’s Guide to Divorce”, a family that is being torn apart by a terminal illness and “rational suicide” and a family with a mother and father with some obvious strife, in “What is Seized”. As there are variations in ways to reproduce in the above quote from the epigraph, so there are various kinds of families and dynamics in the stories of Self-Help.

“‘If you start to shake hands with someone who has lost an arm, shake his other hand. If he has lost both arms, shake the tip of his artificial hand (be quick and unembarrassed about it).

-The Amy Vanderbilt Complete Book of Etiquette’”

This quote, while equally confusing and seemingly unrelated to anything the book could be about, has a subtext to it as well. If presented with an awkward situation, simply do things that make logical sense for the given scenario. This can draw, somewhat cynically, a parallel to “Go Like This”, which presents what the narrator thinks of as a logical way to deal with a terminal illness, her own “awkward situation.” While the rationality of this decision can draw some moral debate, it’s really only about what the narrator thinks that matters.

“‘Give some bones to the dogs and bury the rest around fruit trees…

                                                                -Phyllis Hobson

                                                                Butchering Livestock at Home’”

Now that I’ve shared my thoughts about the first two quotes of the epigraph, I’d like to leave one to you all. What do you think of this, possibly the hardest quote to draw a parallel to? Any thoughts?

Peter and the Unnamed Narrator

In the last few days, we have seen lots of depictions of African Americans and their lives in Baldwin’s writing. We have seen a black family with children playing on a rockpile, the same family going on a spiritual revival, drug addicts and their loved ones, a struggling actor, and a re-assimilating singer, among others. With all these characters, none struck such stark contrast as the last two. Peter from “Previous Condition” and the unnamed narrator from “This Morning, This Evening, So Soon” stuck out to me as two very similar people in two very different situations, and, as such, being treated very differently.

It’s immediately evident that there are some similarities between Peter and the narrator from “This Morning, This Evening, So Soon.” They are both black men, are in a similar line of work, both have close relationships with white women, and their two stories both center around the struggles associated with racism against them. The main difference, then, is the environment they have to deal with. Peter is in America, and the unnamed narrator is in France. With this geographic difference, everything changes in the way these two men are treated. On one hand, Peter is already struggling as an actor, then has additional problems from being a black man. He is kicked out of his apartment simply for being black, with no other discernible transgression. On the other hand, the unnamed narrator is also black, but not discriminated against for that reason. Instead, he is a successful singer who is recognized and respected in France. On page 182, Vidal provides a possible reason as to why there may be this distinction between Europe and America. He says “Perhaps it is because we, in Europe, whatever else we do not know, or have forgotten, know about suffering.”

Another interesting similarity between these two stories is that both principal black characters have a close relationship with a white woman. The unnamed narrator is married to Harriet, and Peter is very close friends with Ida. These relationships also demonstrate the apparent disparity in racist perception in Europe vs. in America. While the unnamed narrator is free to argue with his wife in public without so much as a strange look, Peter and Ida attract all the attention in a restaurant when he loudly exclaims after being whacked with a fork.

As was also brought up in class, Europe is definitely not free of racism, but, based on these stories, it certainly seems to be less of a problem. 

For Esmé – with Love and Squalor

“‘Really,’ she said, “I wasn’t quite born yesterday, you know.’”

I find this a perfect example of the kind of tone we can expect from Esmé throughout her appearance in the story named for her, For Esmé – with Love and Squalor. She is sweet and not insulting, but sassy enough to retort when she knows she’s being lied to. She is mature and nuanced, but childish enough to outdo herself in terms of sophistication. All these qualities and contrasts immediately endeared Esmé to me, as I’m sure was true for many of you, too. This was also the case, it seems, with Sergeant X. Even before he met her, he was taken with her “sweet-sounding, sure” voice. As soon as he meets her in the café, something else appears in the story that demonstrates to me how taken Sergeant X is with Esmé.

As soon as Esmé and the Sergeant get to talking, the story cuts out almost all of the Sergeant’s dialogue. It’s replaced instead with descriptions of what the answer contained. This, to me, demonstrated the extent to which the Sergeant went to extol Esmé and show that she was the true star of the story, not himself. After all, the story is called For Esmé. Rather than record his own responses, he wants to show how precious he finds this charming little girl he met. Thus, he just cuts himself out of it as much as he can as to not distract from the truly important character.

We also talked in class about how well the Sergeant acts with the children. In taking the initiative to strike up a conversation with Esmé after he came to her children’s choir rehearsal, he went further than most adults about to be shipped out for war would have. He interacts pleasantly and appropriately with Esmé, not being harsh when she asks extremely personal questions (“Are you very deeply in love with your wife?”) or letting on that she doesn’t know exactly what certain words mean, despite her confident use of them. It becomes especially evident to me that Sergeant X puts a lot of effort into being kind to these children when Charles comes into the picture. Not only does he play along with Charles’ riddle and his very childish amusement with it, but Sergeant X is immediately distraught when he offends Charles for no particular reason. This shows that he cares about Charles’ hurt feelings, even if they were hurt for no reason at all. Then, when Esmé and Charles part ways from Sergeant X, he repeats the riddle in a perfect way to again raise Charles’ spirits and rectify whatever he did to upset Charles previously.

Sergeant X became a very likable character to me through the way he treated Esmé and Charles. I loved seeing how he interacted with them both, and loved seeing his continual kindness, patience, and self-abasing attitude towards the children he reached out to after choir practice. Did you all interpret his narration and actions the same way I did? Was Sergeant X as likable to you as he was to me?