David Foster Wallace - "The Empty Plenum: David Markson's Wittgenstein's Mistress"

Th e Em pty Ple nu m : D avid M ark s on's W ittge ns te in's M is tre s s D avid Fos te r W allace But w h at oth e r ph ilos oph e r h as found th e antidote to illus ion in th e particular and re pe ate d h um ility of re m e m be ring and track ing th e us e s of h um ble w ords , look ing ph ilos oph ically as it w e re be ne ath our fe e t rath e r th an ove r our h e ads ? — S. Cave ll Th e re is nobody at th e w indow in th e painting of th e h ous e , by th e w ay. I h ave now conclude d th at w h at I be lie ve d to be a pe rs on is a s h adow . If itis nota s h adow , itis pe rh aps a curtain. As a m atte r of fact it could actually be noth ing m ore th an an atte m pt to im ply de pth s , w ith in th e room . Alth ough in a m anne r of s pe ak ing allth at is re ally in th e w indow is burnt s ie nna pigm e nt. And s om e ye llow och re . In fact th e re is no w indow e ith e r, in th at s am e m anne r of s pe ak ing, butonly s h ape . So th at any fe w s pe culations I m ay h ave m ade about th e pe rs on at th e w indow w ould th e re fore now appe ar to be re nde re d m e aningles s , obvious ly. Unles s of cours e I s ubs e q ue ntly be com e convince d th at th e re is s om e body at th e w indow all ove r again. I h ave putth atbadly. — W ittge ns te in's M is tre s s (54- 55 ) Te llth e m I h ave h ad a w ond e rfullife . — W ittge ns te in on d e ath b e d , '51

CER TAIN NO VELS NO T O NLY cry out for criticalinte rpre tations but actually try to dire ct th e m . Th is is probably analogous to a pie ce of m us ic th at both de m ands and de fine s th e lis te ne r's m ove m e nts , s ay lik e a w altz. Fre q ue ntly, too, th os e nove ls th at dire ct th e ir ow n criticalre ading conce rn th e m s e lve s th e m atically w ith w h at w e m igh t cons ide r h igh brow or inte llectualis s ue s —

217

218

R e vie w ofConte m porary Fiction

s tuff prope r to art, e ngine e ring, antiq ue lit., ph ilos oph y, e tc. Th e s e nove ls carve out for th e m s e lve s an inte rs tice be tw e e n flat-out fiction and a s ort of w e ird ce re bralrom an à clef. W h e n th e y fail, as m y ow n firs t long th ing did, th e y're pre tty dre adful. But w h e n th e y s ucce e d, as I claim D avid M ark s on's W ittge ns te in's M is tre s s doe s , th e y s e rve th e vital& vanis h ing function of re m inding us of fiction's lim itles s pos s ibilitie s for re ach & gras p, for m ak ing h e ads th rob h e artlik e , & for s anctifying th e m arriage s of ce re bration & e m otion, abs traction & live d life , trans ce nde nt truth -s e e k ing & daily s ch lepping, m arriage s th at in our h appy e poch of te ch nicalocclus ion & e nte rtainm e ntm ark e ting s e e m incre as ing cons um m atable only in th e im agination. Book s I te nd to as s ociate w ith th is INTER PR ET- M E ph e nom e non include s tuff lik e Candide , W itold Gom brow icz's Cos m os , H e s s e 's Th e Glas s Be ad Gam e , Sartre 's Naus e a, Cam us 's Strange r. Th e s e five are w ork s of ge nius of a particular k ind: th e y s h out th e ir ge nius . M ark s on, in W ittge ns te in's M is tre s s , te nds rath e r to w h is pe r, but h is w .o.g.'s no les s s ucce s s ful; nor— particularly give n th e rabid anti-inte llectualis m of th e conte m porary fiction s ce ne — s e e m s it any les s im portant. It's be com e an im portant book to m e , anyw ay. I'd ne ve r h e ard of th is guy M ark s on, be fore , in '88. And h ave , s till, re ad noth ing e lse by h im . I orde re d th e book m os tly be caus e of its e ponym ous title;I lik e to fancy m ys e lf a fan of th e w ork of its nam e s ak e . Clearly th e book w as /is in s om e w ay 'about' W ittge ns te in, give n th e title. Th is is one of th e w ays an INTER PR ET-M E fiction clue s th e criticalre ade r in on w h at th e book 's to be s e e n as on a te rtiary leve l'about': th e title: U lys s e s ' title, its s tructure as O dys s e an/Te lem ach e an m ap (s ucce e ds ); R . Golds te in's Th e M ind-Body Problem (re ally te rrible); Cortázar's H ops cotch (s ucce e ds e xactly to th e e xte nt one ignore s th e invitation to h op around in it); Burrough s 's Q ue e r & Junk ie (fails ucce s s fully (?)). W /r/t nove ls lik e th e s e it's ofte n h ard to s e e th e diffe re nce be tw e e n a title and an e pigraph , e xce pt for q uotidian facts lik e th e latte r's longe r, ove rte r, & attribute d. Anoth e r w ay to invite a k ind of corre s ponde nce -inte rpre tation is to drop th e nam e of a re alpe rs on lik e brick s th rough out th e te xt, as Bruce D uffy doe s in h is s o-called fictionalbiograph y of W ittge ns te in, th e e xe crable 19 88 Th e W orld as I Found It, in w h ich , de s pite loud 'th is -is -m ade -up' dis claim e rs , D uffy brings to be ar s uch an ars e nalof h is toricalfact and allus ion th at th e criticalre ade r can't h e lp but confus e th e h om os e xuality-craze d fictional 'W ittge ns te in' w ith th e re aland w ay m ore com plex & inte re s ting W ittge ns te in. Anoth e r w ay for a nove lto line arize its re ading is to m ak e an inte llectual s h ibboleth s e rve a re pe titive narrative function: e g, in Candide , Panglos s 's continual'Allfor th e be s t in th e be s t of allpos s ible w orlds ' is a ne on s ign out front of w h at is , e xce pt for its e nd, little m ore th an a pois onous ly funny parody of th e m e taph ys ics of Le ibniz.1

1. . . one th at s uccum bs to th e h azard of m os t parody and ge ts th e point of Le ibniz's be s t-of-all-pos s ible-w orlds s tuff w rong, by th e w ay.

D avid Fos te r W allace

219

K ate , th e m onadic narrator of W ittge ns te in's M is tre s s , ge ts a lot of h e r m as te r's re m ark s w rong, too— th e ph ilos oph e r's be tte r-k now n w ords and ide as are s praye d, s k e w e d, allove r th e book , from its e pigraph about s and to th e Tractatus 's 'Th e w orld is e ve ryth ing th at is th e cas e ' to Inve s tigationary s pe culations on adh e s ive vs . m agne tic 'tape ' th at une q uivocally s um m on th e late r W ittge ns te in's conce rns ove r w ords ' 'fam ily re s e m blance s ' to one anoth e r. Contra Voltaire , th ough , w h e n M ark s on's K ate re calls line s & conce pts incorre ctly h e r e rrors s e rve th e e nds not of funny propaganda but of both original art and original inte rpre tation. Be caus e W ittge ns te in's M is tre s s ,2 w /r/t its e ponym ous m as te r, doe s m ore th an jus t q uote W ittge ns te in in w e ird w ays , or allude to h is w ork , or atte m pt to be s om e s ort of dram atization of th e inte llectual problem s th at occupie d and oppre s s e d h im . M ark s on's book re nde rs , im aginative ly & concre te ly, th e ve ry bleak m ath e m atical w orld W ittge ns te in's Tractatus re volutionize d ph ilos oph y by s um m oning via abs tract argum e nt. W M is , in a w e ird w ay, th e colorization of a ve ry old film . Th ough W ittge ns te in's ph ilos oph icals tuff is far from de ad or arid, W M ne ve rth e les s s ucce e ds at trans pos ing W 's inte llectual conundra into th e piq uant q ualia of live d— albe it bizarre ly live d— e xpe rie nce . Th e nove lq uick e ns W 's e arly w ork , give s it a face , for th e re ade r, th at th e ph ilos oph y doe s not & cannot conve y . . . m os tly be caus e W ittge ns te in's w ork is s o h ard and tak e s s o long jus t to figure out on a lite ralleve lth at th e m igranous m e ntalgym nas tics re q uire d of h is re ade r allbut q uas h th e dire e m otional im plications of W 's e arly m e taph ys ics . H is m is tre s s , th ough , as k s th e q ue s tion h e r m as te r in print doe s not: W h at if s om e body re ally h ad to live in a Tractatus ize d w orld?

I don't m e an to s ugge s t th at M ark s on's ach ie ve m e nt h e re cons is ts jus t in m ak ing abs tract ph ilos oph y 'acce s s ible' to an e xtram uralre ade r, or th at W M is in its e lf s im ple. Actually, th ough its pros e & m onotone are h auntingly pe de s trian, th e nove l's diffracte d s ys te m of allus ions to e ve ryth ing from antiq uity to As troturf are a bitch to trace out; and th e conce ntric circularity th at re place s line ar de ve lopm e nt as its plot's 'progre s s ion' m ak e s a dige s tive re ading of W M a ch allenging & protracte d affair. M ark s on's is not a pop book , and it's not de cocte d ph ilos oph y or a D uffy-e s q ue docudram a-of-th e -w e e k . R ath e r, for m e , th e nove l doe s artis tic & e m otional jus tice to th e politico-e th ical im plications of Ludw ig W ittge ns te in's abs tract m ath e m aticalm e taph ys ics , m ak e s w h at is de s igne d to be a m e ch anis m pulse , bre ath e , s uffe r, live , e tc. In s o doing, it pays e m otional tribute to a ph ilos oph e r w h o by alle vide nce live d in pe rs onaltorm e nt ove r th e q ue s tions too m any of h is acade m ic follow e rs h ave m ade into e laborate

2H

e re afte r abbre viate d W M .

220


e m pty e xe rcis e . Th at is , M ark s on's W M s ucce e ds in doing w h at fe w ph ilos oph e rs glean & w h at ne ith e r m yriad biograph ical s k e tch e s nor D uffy's lurid re vis ionis m s ucce e ds in com m unicating: th e cons e q ue nce s , for pe rs ons , of th e practice of th e ory;th e diffe re nce , s ay, be tw e e n e s pous ing 's olips is m ' as a m e taph ys ical'pos ition' & w ak ing up one fine m orning afte r a pe rs onallos s to find your grie f apocalyptic, lite rally m illennial, leaving you th e las t and only living th ing on e arth , w ith only your h e ad, now , for not only com pany but e nvironm e nt & w orld, an incline d be ach s liding tow ard a dre adfuls e a. Put oth e rw is e , M ark s on's book trans ce nds , for m e , its re vie w e nforce d s tatus of 'inte llectualtour de force ' or 'e xpe rim e ntalach ie ve m e nt': w h at it lim ns , as an im m e diate s tudy of de pre s s ion & lone line s s , is far too m oving to be th e obje ct of e ith e r e xe rcis e or e xorcis m . Th e w ays in w h ich th e book is m oving, and th e form alinge nuity by w h ich it trans form s m e taph ys ics into angs t and s o re ve als ph ilos oph y as be ing firs t and las t about s pirit— th e se are enough for m e, righ t now , to th ink of th e novelas one of th e U.S. de cade 's be s t, to de plore its re lative ne glect & its cons ignm e nt by journals lik e th e NYTBR to s m arm y re vie w by a young Carve rian.3 But add to th e nove l's cre dits a dark ly pyrote ch nic ach ie ve m e nt in th e anim ation of inte llectualh is tory— th e w ay W M s o com plete ly de m ons trate s h ow one of th e s m arte s t & m os t im portant contributors to m ode m th ough t could h ave be e n s uch a pe rs onally unh appy s on of a bitch — & th e book be com e s , if you're th e im pote nt unluck y s ort w h os e be lie fs inform h is s tom ach 's daily s tate , a s pe cialk ind of gre at book , lite rally profound, and probably de s tine d, in its & tim e 's fullne s s , to be a q uie tclas s ic. O ne re as on W M w h is pe rs , as both a k ind of clas s ic & an inte rpre tationdire ctor, is th at its ch arm s & s trate ge m s are ve ry indire ct. It's not only a s us taine d m onologue by a pe rs on of ge nde r oppos ite th e auth or's , it is s tructure d h alfw ay be tw e e n s h aggy-dog jok e and de adly s e rious allegory. A concre te e xam ple of h ow th e pros e h e re w ork s appe ars as th e s e cond e pigraph s upra. D e vice s lik e re pe tition, obs e s s ive re turn, fre e -/unfre e as s ociation s w irlin an une as y s us pe ns ion th rough out. Ye t th e y com m unicate . Th is s tudie d indire ction, a s us taine d e rror th at practically com pe ls m is pris ion, is h ow K ate convince s us th at, if s h e is force ne , s o m us t w e be : th e s ubte xtual e m otive age nda unde r th e fre e w h e e ling dis orde r of s h ort is olate d paragraph s , unde r th e flit of th ough t, unde r th e continuals truggle agains t th e s lipping s and of Englis h & th e drow ning-poolof s e lf-cons cious ne s s — a s e ductive orde r not only in but via ch aos — com pe ls com plete & une as y acq uie s ce nce , h e re . Th e te ch niq ue rings as true as a s ong w e can't q uite place . You could callth is te ch niq ue 'de e p nons e ns e ,' m e aning I gue s s a linguis tic flow of s trings , s trands , loops and q uiffs th at th rough th e ve ry m anne r of its form alcons truction flouts th e ordinary cingula of 's e ns e ' and 3viz. Am

y H e m pe lin th e R e vie w 's 22 M ay I9 88 e ncyclical.


221

th rough its de fiance of s e ns e 's lim its m anage s s om e h ow to 's h ow ' w h at cannot ordinarily be 'e xpre s s e d.' Good com e dy ofte n functions th e s am e w ay.4 So doe s good adve rtis ing, today.5 So doe s a s urpris ing am ount of good ph ilos oph y. So, us ually on a far les s e xplicit leve lth an W M 's , can gre at fiction. Th e s tart of W M h as K ate painting m e s s age s on e m pty roads : 'Som e body is living in th e Louvre ,' e tc. Th e m e s s age s are for anyone w h o m igh t com e along to s e e . 'Nobody cam e , of cours e . Eve ntually I s toppe d leaving th e m e s s age s .' Th e nove l's e nd involve s th e us e , not th e m e ntion,6 of s uch a m e s s age : 'Som e body is living on th is be ach .' Exce pt us e on w h at & /or w h om ?It's probably not righ t, as I th ink I did s upra, to callth is nove l's form a m onologue .7 K ate is typing it. It's w ritte n & not s pok e n. Exce pt it's not lik e a diary or journal. Nor is it a 'lette r.' Be caus e of cours e a lette r to w h om , if th e re 's no one e lse at all?Anyw ay, it's s e lf-cons cious ly w ritte n. I pe rs onally h ave grow n w e ary of m os t te xts th at are narrate d s e lf-cons cious ly as w ritte n, as 'te xte s .' But W M is diffe re nt from th e Barth ian/pos t-D e rride an s e lf-re fe re ntialh os ts . H e re th e cons cious re ndition of indite m e nt not only rings true but s e rve s e s s e ntialfunctions . K ate is not a 'w rite r.' By vocation a painte r, h e r tim e at th e type w rite r is th orough ly & te rribly avocational. Sh e is s h outing into h e r typing pape r's blank ne s s . H e r m is s ive is a function of ne e d, not art— a k ind of long m e s s age in a big bottle. I ne e d to adm it h e re th at I h ave a w e ird s pe cular s tance w ith re s pe ct to th is nove l's form as w ritte n. I am som eone w h o tries to w rite, w h o righ t now m ore & m ore seem s to ne e d to w rite , daily;and w h o h ope s les s th at th e products of th at ne e d are lucrative or e ve n lik e d th an s im ply re ce ive d, re ad, s e e n. And W M , in a de e p-nons e ns ical w ay th at's m uch m ore e ffe ctive th an argum e nt or allegory'd be , s pe ak s to w h y I'm s tarting to th ink m os t pe ople w h o s om e h ow m us t w rite m us t w rite . Th e ne e d to indite , ins cribe — be its fulfillm e nt e xh ilarating or palliative or, as is m ore us ual, ne ith e r— s prings from th e doubly-bound panic fe lt by m os t pe rs ons w h o s pe nd a lot of tim e up in th e ir ow n pe rs onalh e ads . O n one s ide — th e s ide a ph ilos oph e r'd call'radically s k e ptical' or 's olips is tic'— th e re 's th e fe e ling th at one 's h e ad is , in s om e s e ns e , th e w h ole w orld, w h e n th e im agination be com e s not jus t a m ore

4cf 'W h o's

on Firs t?' '89 s logan for printadve rts : 'Its e ts th e s tandard by ignoring it.' 6A dis tinction of Fre ge , a W ittge ns te in-e ra titan: to m e ntion a w ord or ph ras e is to s pe ak about it, w / at leas t im plicit q uotation m ark s : e g 'K ate ' is a four-lette r nam e ; to us e a w ord or ph ras e is to m e ntion its re fe re nt: e g K ate is , by de fault, th e m ain ch aracte r of W ittge ns te in's M is tre s s . . . 7Unl e s s you can e m pty your h e ad of connotation and trans late th e w ord lite rally from th e Attic Gre e k — th e n it probably h as a M ark s onian poignancy no oth e r te rm 'd h ave . . . 5cf Audi's

222


conge nialbut a re aler e nvironm e nt th an th e Big Exte rior of life on e arth . M ark s on's book 's firs t e pigraph , from K ie rk e gaard's Concluding U ns cie ntific Pos ts cript, invite s & im pos e s th is firs t inte rpre tation of K ate 's bind & its re lation to h e r 'typing.'8 Th e ne e d to ge t th e w ords & voice s not only out— outs ide th e 16-inch diam e te r of bone th at both birth s & im pris ons th e m — but also dow n, trus ting th e m ne ith e r to th e ins ubs tantialcountry of th e m ind nor to th e trans ie nt ve nue of cords & air & e ar, s e e m s for K ate — as for anyone from a Flaube rt to a diaris t to a lette r-fie nd— a ne ce s s ary affirm ation of an O uts ide , s om e Exte rior one 's w ritte n re cord can not only com m unicate w ith but inh abit. Picas s o, h ark ing to Ve las q ue z as doe s M ark s on to K ie rk e gaard & W ittge ns te in, did big th ings for th e ide a of vis ual artw ork s as not jus t 're pre s e ntations ' but also th ings , obje cts . . . but I can th ink of no lit.-practitione r (as oppos e d to Ne w -Criticalor pos ts tructural th e oris t) w h o's capture d th e te xtualurge , th e e m otionalurge ncy of te xt as both s ign and th ing, as pe rfe ctly as h as M ark s on h e re .9 Th e oth e r s ide of th e pre nom inate 2-bind— th e s ide re nde re d e xplicitly by W M 's ope ning and clos e — involve s w h y pe ople w h o w rite ne e d to do as a m ode of com m unication. It's w h at an abs tractor lik e Laing calls 'ontologicalins e curity'— w h y w e s ign our s tuff, im pos e it on frie nds , m ailit out in brow n m anila trying to ge t it printe d. 'I EXIST,' is th e im pulse th at th robs unde r m os t voluntary w riting— & all good w riting. And 'I EXIST' w ould h ave be e n, in m y ungrace fule ditorialh ands , th e title of M ark s on's nove l. But M ark s on's final ch oice , far be tte r th an h is w ork ing K e e pe r of th e Gh os ts (de e p but not nons e ns ical), is probably be tte r th an m ine . K ate 's te xt, one big m e s s age th at s om e one is living on th is be ach , is its e lf obs e s s e d & alm os t de fine d by th e pos s ibility th at it doe s not e xis t, th at K ate doe s not e xis t. And th e nove l's title, if w e re flect a m om e nt, s e rve s e nds as m uch th e m atic as allus ive . W ittge ns te in w as gay. H e ne ve r h ad a m is tre s s .10 H e did, th ough , h ave a te ach e r and frie nd, one Be rtrand R us s e ll, w h o, w ith h is s tude nt's e ncourage m e nt, be fore th e '20s tras h e d th e Cogito-tautology by w h ich D e s carte s h ad re lie ve d 300 ye ars ' w orth of ne urotic inte llectuals of th e w orris om e doubt th at th e y e xis te d. R us s e llpointe d out th at th e Cogito's 'I th ink and th erefore am ' is in fact invalid: th e truth of 'I th ink ' entails only th e e xis te nce of th ink ing, as th e truth of 'I w rite ' yie lds only th e e xis te nce of 8Th e e p. is 'W h at an e xtraordinary ch ange tak e s pl ace . . . w h e n for th e firs t tim e th e fact th at e ve ryth ing de pe nds upon h ow a th ing is th ough t firs t e nte rs th e cons cious ne s s , w h e n, in cons e q ue nce , th ough t in its abs olute ne s s re place s an appare nt re al ity.' . . . from 'Th e Tas k of Be com ing Subje ctive ' in th e Pos ts cript— m aybe w orth noting th at th e form of 'ch ange ' in th e D anis h is accus ative rath e r th an nom inative , & th at w h at M ark s on re nde rs as 'e xtraordinary' appe ars in s om e oth e r trans lations as 'te rrible' or 'fe arful.' 9 . . . m aybe Be ck e tt in M ol loy. . . . 10Too, 'm is tre s s ' conve ys th e e xq uis ite l one line s s of be ing th e linguis tic be love d of a m an w h o could not, in e m otionalpractice , confe r ide ntity on a w om an via 'love .'


223

te xt. To pos it an 'I' th at's doing th e th ink ing/w riting is to be g th e ve ry q ue s tion D e s carte s h ad s tarte d out im paled on. . . . But s o anyw ay, K ate 's s ituation in W M is doubly lone ly. Afte r h aving s pe nt ye ars 'look ing' for pe ople,11 s h e h as lite rally w as h e d up on s h ore , now s its nak e d & in m e ns e s be fore a m anualtype w rite r, producing w ords th at, for h e r & us , re nde r only th e w ords th e m s e lve s 'ontologically s e cure '; th e be lie f in e ith e r a re ade r for th e m or a (m e ta)ph ys icalpre s e nce producing th e m w ould re q uire a k ind of q uixoticis m K ate 's long s ince los tor re s igne d. W h at k e e ps th e title from be ing cute or ove rh e avy is th at K ate re ally is W ittge ns te in's m is tre s s , th e gh os tly curator of a w orld of h is tory, artifacts , & m e m orie s — w h ich m e m orie s , lik e TV im age s , one can acce s s but ne ve r re ally ow n— and of facts , facts about both th e (form e r) w orld and h e r ow n m e ntalh abits . H e rs is th e affe ctles s language of fact, and it s e e m s les s lik e by s k illth an by th e ine vitable m iracle of s om e th ing th at h ad to be w ritte n th at M ark s on dire cts our m is pris ion in orde r to infus e s tate m e nts th at all tak e th e form of raw data-trans fe r12 w ith true & de e p e m otionalim port. K ate 's s pare , aph oris tic s tyle, h e r dire ct & corre ct q uotation of 'Th e w orld is e ve ryth ing th at is th e cas e ,' and h e r obs e s s ive ne e d to ge t controlof th e facts th at h ave be com e h e r inte rior & e xte rior life — allth is s tuff dire cts th e re ade r to run, not w alk, to Ludw ig W ittge ns te in's 19 21 Tractatus LogicoPh ilos oph icus .13 Th e re as on w h y I, w h o am no critic & te nd to approach book s I adm ire w ith allth e h e s itancy of th e blind be fore w alls, fe e lI ge t to as s e rt allth e flat indicative s about K ate 's pligh t above is th at s o m uch of W M s o clearly s e nds one to th e Tractatus for critical'clarification.' Th is is n't a w e ak ne s s of th e nove l. Th ough it's k ind of m iraculous th at it's not. And it doe s n't m e an th at W M is jus t w ritte n 'in th e m argins of' th e Tractatus in th e w ay Candide m arginalize s Th e M onadology or Naus e a s im ply 'dram atize s ' part th re e of L'Être e t le néant. R ath e r W M , if it is any one th ing for m e , is a k ind of ph ilos oph icals ci-fi. Ie , it's an im aginative portrait of w h at it w ould be lik e actually to live in th e s ort of w orld th e logic & m e taph ys ics of W ittge ns te in's Tractatus pos its . Th is s ort of w orld s tarte d out, for W ittge ns te in, to be logicalh e ave n. It e nds up be ing (I opine ) a m e taph ys icalh e ll; and th e w ay its ph ilos oph ic picture ras pe d agains t th e s ort of life and w orldvie w W ittge ns te in th e m an th ough t w orth w h ile w as (I claim ) a

11. . . th ough s h e ne ve r s ays w h at's true : th at it w as at firs t for a particul ar pe rs on, h e r h us band, th e n only e ve ntually for jus tanyone atall.. . 12(data trans fe rre d to h e rs e l f, or h e r s e lf-cons cious ne s s , or to w h oe ve r m ay com e dow n th e pik e , or to both h e rs e lf and s om e one e lse , or to ne ith e r, or m aybe allth at's s uppos e d to be leftth e re is th e s and of Englis h , aw aiting tide s ) 13h e re afte r abbre viate d Tractatus , and th e e q ual ly fam ous 19 53 Ph ilos oph ical Inve s tigations PI or jus tth e Inve s tigations , as it's k now n in th e indus try.

224


big m otivation for th e dis avow alof th e Tractatus re pre s e nte d by h is m as te rw ork , 19 53 's Ph ilos oph icalInve s tigations .14 Bas ically th e Tractatus is th e firs t re alatte m pt at e xploring th e now tre ndy re lation be tw e e n language and th e 're ality' it is language 's putative function to capture , m ap & re pre s e nt. Th e Tractatus 's proje ct is K antian: w h at m us t th e w orld be lik e if language is even to be possible?Th e early W ittgenstein,15 m uch unde r th e s pe llof R us s e lland th e Principia M ath e m atica th at re volutionize d m ode rn logic, s aw language , lik e m ath , as logic-bas e d; and h e vie w e d th e paradigm atic function of language as m irroring or 'picturing' th e w orld. From th is latte r be lie f e ve ryth ing in th e Tractatus follow s , jus t as K ate 's ow n fe tis h for paintings , m irrors , & th e s tatus of m e ntalre pre s e ntations lik e m e m orie s & as s ociations & pe rce ptions form s th e canvas on w h ich h e r m e m oir m us t be s k e tch e d. Th e W ittge ns te in of th e Tractatus ch os e as th e paradigm of language th e truth -functionallogic of R us s e ll& W h ite h e ad's Principia. H is ch oice m ade practical s e ns e , proje ct-w is e : if you're going to try to cons true th e w orld from h um an language , you'llbe be s t off ch oos ing th e m os t pe rs picuous , pre cis e type of language available — one faith fulto W ittge ns te in's be lie f th at th e bus ine s s of language is to s tate facts — as w e llas s e lecting th e m os t dire ct & uncontrove rs ialre lation be tw e e n a language and its w orld of re fe re nts . Th e latte r, I ite rate & s tre s s , is s im ply th e re lation of m irror to m irrore d; and th e crite rion by w h ich to judge th e pe rs picuity of a s tate m e nt is e ntire ly & only its fide lity to th at fe ature of th e w orld it de note s : cf W 's 'Th e s tate m e nt is a picture of th e fact.'16 Now , te ch nically, th e R us s e llian logic th at com pris e s language 's Big Picture cons is ts all& only of 3 th ings : s im ple logicalconne ctive s lik e 'and,' 'or' & 'not'; propos itions or 's tate m e nts ': & a vie w of th e s e s tate m e nts as 'atom ic,' m e aning th at th e truth or falsity of a com plex s tate m e nt lik e 'Ludw ig is affable and Be rtrand is w e ll-dre s s e d' de pe nds e ntire ly on th e truth value of its cons titue nt atom ic propos itions — th e pre nom inate m olecular propos ition is true if & only if it is true th at Ludw ig is frie ndly and it is true th at Be rtrand is dappe r. Th e atom ic propos itions th at are language 's building block s are , for both R us s e lland W ittge ns te in, 'logically inde pe nde nt' of one anoth e r: th e y do not affe ct one anoth e r's truth value s ,

14Eg 'W h at is th e us e of s tudying ph il os oph y,' W ittge ns te in w rote to a U.S. s tude nt w h ile w ork ing on th e Inve s tigations in 19 46, 'if allth at it doe s for you is to e nable you to talk w ith s om e plaus ibility about s om e abs trus e q ue s tions of logic, e tc., and if it doe s not im prove your th ink ing about th e im portant q ue s tions of e ve ryday life ?' 15Sch ol ars te nd to s ch izofy W ittge ns te in, counte rpos ing th e 'e arly' W of th e Tractatus and th e 'late ' W of th e Inve s tigations , Blue and Brow n Book s , & Ph ilos oph icalGram m ar. 16Se e th e Tractatus 2.1512 & .3 & .4;e m ph as is s uppl ie d.


225

only th e value s of th os e logicalm olecules in w h ich th e y're conjoine d— e g, 'Lis ch e e rfulor B is w e ll-h e e led,' `It is not th e cas e th at if B is w e alth y th e n L is ch e e rful,' e tc. Exce pt h e re 's th e k ick e r: s ince language is th e w orld's 'm irror,' th e w orld is m e taph ys ically com pos e d only & e ntire ly of th os e 'facts ' th at s tate m e nts in th e language s tand for. In oth e r w ords — th e w ords of th e Tractatus 's firs t & fore m os t line — th e w orld is e ve ryth ing th at is th e cas e ;th e w orld is noth ing but a h uge m as s of data, of logically dis cre te facts th at h ave no intrins ic conne ction to one anoth e r. Cf th e Tractatus 1.2: 'Th e w orld falls apart into facts . . .' 1.2.1 'Any one [fact] can e ith e r be th e cas e , or notbe th e cas e , and e ve ryth ing e lse re m ains th e s am e .' T. Pynch on, w h o h as done in lite rature for paranoia w h at Säch e r-M as och did for w h ips , argue s in h is Gravity's R ainbow for w h y th e paranoid de lus ion of com plete & m alevolent conne ction, w h ack o & unpleas ant th ough it be , is pre fe rable at leas t to its oppos ite — th e conviction th at noth ing is conne cte d to anyth ing e lse & th at noth ing h as anyth ing intrins ically to do w ith you. Pleas e s e e th at th is Pynch onian contraparanoia w ould be th e appropriate m e taph ys ic for any re s ide nt of th e s ort of w orld th e Tractatus de s cribe s . And M ark s on's K ate live s in jus t s uch a w orld, w h ile h e r obje ctles s e pis tle 'm irrors ' it pe rfe ctly, m anage s to capture th e ps ych ic flavor both of s olips is m and of W ittge ns te in in th e s im ple & affe ctles s but s urre alpros e & s h ort aph oris tic paragraph s th at are also s o dis tinctive of th e Tractatus . K ate 's te xtualobs e s s ion is s im ply to find conne ctions be tw e e n th ings ,17 any s trands th at bind th e h is toricalfacts & e m piricaldata th at are all h e r w orld com pris e s . And alw ays — ne ce s s arily— ge nuine conne ctions e lude h e r. Alls h e can find is an occas ionals ynch ronicity: th e fact th at ce rtain nam e s are s im ilar e nough to be rich ly confus ing— W illiam Gaddis and Tadde o Gaddi, for e xam ple— or th at ce rtain live s & e ve nts h appe ne d to ove rlap in s pace & tim e . And e ve n th e s e fairly th in conne ctions turn out not to be 're al,' fe ature s only of h e r im agination; and e ve n th e s e are none th e les s is olate , lock e d into th e m s e lve s by th e ir s tatus as fact. W h e n K ate re calls, for e xam ple, th at R e m brandt s uffe re d bank ruptcy & Spinoza e xcom m unication, & th at, give n biograph ical data, th e ir path s m ay w e ll h ave inte rs e cte d at s om e point in th e Am s te rdam of th e 1650s , th e only e ncounte r s h e can e ve n im agine be tw e e n th e m is : 'I'm s orry aboutyour bank ruptcy, R e m brandt.' 'I'm s orry aboutyour e xcom m unication, Spinoza.'

Th e bas ic argum e nt-th rus t h e re is th at M ark s on, by draw ing on a de finitive atom is tic m e taph ys ics & trans figuring it into art, h as ach ie ve d s om e th ing 17th is

conne ction-urge m ore fundam e ntaland s cary th an th e h um anis tic s yrup of H ow ards End's 'O nly conne ct': th e latte r re fe rs to re lations be tw e e n pe rs ons , th e form e r to th e pos s ibility of any e xtracranialunive rs e atall.. .

226


lik e th e de finitive anti-m e lodram a. H e h as m ade facts s ad. For K ate 's e xis te nce its e lf is th at of an atom ic fact, h e r lone line s s m e taph ys ically ultim ate . H e r w orld is 'e m pty' of allbut data th at are lik e th e h oles in a re ticular patte rn, both de fine d & im pris one d by th e e pis te m ic s trands s h e k now s only s h e can w e ave . And w e ave s h e doe s , cons tantly, unable to s top, s e lf-cons cious ly m im ick ing Pe ne lope of th e Attic antiq uity th at obs e s s e s h e r. But K ate — unlik e Ulys s e s ' legit m is tre s s — is pow e rles s e ith e r to k nit intrins ic patte rn into or to dis m antle w h at h e r m ind h as fabricate d. Sh e e nds up, in th is re s pe ct, not Pe ne lope but both Clyte m ne s tra & Agam e m non; th e Clyte m ne s tra w h om K ate de s cribe s as k illing Agam e m non 'afte r h e r ow n grie f,' th e Agam e m non 'at h is bath , e ns nare d in th at ne t and be ing s tabbe d th rough it.' And s ince no th ings pre s e nt conne ct e ith e r w ith e ach oth e r or w ith h e r, K ate 's m e m orialproje ct in W M is s e ns ible & ine vitable e ve n as it re inforce s th e occlude d s olips is m th at is h e r pligh t. Via h e r m e m orial proje ct, K ate m ak e s 'e xte rnal' h is tory h e r ow n. Ie re w rite s it as pe rs onal. Eats it, as m ad van Gogh 'trie d to e at h is ow n pigm e nts .' It is not accide ntal th at M ark s on's nove l ope ns w ith th e Ge ne tic pre pos itional 'In th e be ginning. . . .' It is ne ith e r colorfultic nor auth orialpre te ns ion th at th e narrator's 'irre ve re nt m e ditations ' range from clas s icalpros ody to D utch oils to Baroq ue q uarte ts to 19 th -ce ntury Fre nch R e alis m to pos t-As troturf bas e ball. It is not an accide nt (th ough it is an allus ion) th at K ate h as a fe tis h for fe e ding th e w arp & w oof of tragic h is tory into fire s — s h e is th e final h is torian, its trage dian and de s tructor, cre m ating e ach page of H e rodotus (th e 1s t h is torian!) as s h e re ads it. Nor is it cute or cas ualth at s h e fe e ls 'as if I h ave be e n appointe d th e curator of allth e w orld...,' living in m us e um s and placing h e r ow n paintings ne xt to m as te rw ork s . Th e curator's job— to re call, ch oos e , arrange : to im pos e orde r & only s o com m unicate m e aning— is m arve lous ly s yne cdoch ic of th e life of th e s olips is t, of th e s urvivals trate gie s appos ite one 's e xis te nce as m onad in a w orld of diffracte d fact. Exce pta big q ue s tion: w h e nce facts , if th e w orld is e m pty? D alke y Arch ive Pre s s 's jack e t copy for W M de s cribe s th e s olips is m of th e M is tre s s as 'obvious ly a m e taph or for ultim ate lone line s s .' And K ate is inde e d aw fully lone ly, th ough h e r inge nuous announce m e nts — 'Ge ne rally, e ve n th e n, I w as lone ly'— are les s e ffe ctive by far th an th e de e p-nons e ns ical facts via w h ich s h e com m unicate s is olation's m e aning— 'O ne of th os e th ings pe ople ge ne rally adm ire d about R ube ns , e ve n if th e y w e re not alw ays aw are of it, w as th e w ay e ve rybody in h is paintings w as alw ays touch ing e ve rybody e lse '; 'Late r today I w illpos s ibly m as turbate '; 'Pas cal. . . re fus ing to s it on a ch air w ith out an additionalch air at e ith e r s ide of h im , s o as not to fall into s pace .' Th ough for m e th e m os t affe cting re ndition of h e r s ituation is K ate 's funnys ad de s criptions of trying to play te nnis w ith out a


227

partne r,18 probably th e m os t fe cund s ym bols of K ate 's dam nation to a w orld logically atom ize d in its re flective re lation to language as bare data-trans fe r conce rn th e narrator's obs e s s ion, m arve lous ly Am e rican, w ith prope rty & e as e m e nts & h ous e s . Th e follow ing e xce rptis conde ns e d: I do notbe lie ve I h ave e ve r m e ntione d th e oth e r h ous e . W h at I m ay h ave m e ntione d are h ous e s in ge ne ral, along th e be ach , but s uch a ge ne ralization w ould not h ave include d th is h ous e , th is h ous e [unlik e K ate 's ow n] be ing now h e re ne ar th e w ate r. Allone can s e e of itfrom [m y] uppe r re ar w indow is a corne r of its roof. . . . O nce I did be com e aw are of it, I unde rs tood th at th e re w ould also h ave to be a road leading to itfrom s om e w h e re , of cours e . Ye tfor th e life of m e I w as notable to locate th e road, and for th e longe s ttim e . . . . In any cas e m y failure to locate th e road e ve ntually be gan to be com e a w h olly ne w s ortof pe rplexity in m y e xis te nce . (88-89 )

It's of cours e te m pting, give n th e book 's criticalim pos ition of W ittge ns te in as re fe re nt & m ode l& love r, to re ad K ate 's lone line s s as its e lf an inte llectual m e taph or, as jus t a function of th e radicals k e pticis m th e Tractatus 's logical atom is m its e lf im agine s . Be caus e , again, w h e nce and w h e re fore th e allim portant 'facts ' w h ich , for both W ittge ns te in & K ate , th e w orld 'falls apart into'19 but doe s not com pris e ?Are facts — ge nuine e xis te nts — intrins ic to th e Exte rior?adm itting of counte nance only via th e frailtie s of s e ns e -data & induction?O r, w ay w ors e , are th e y not pe rh aps pe rve rs e ly de ductive , products of th e very h ead th at countenances th em as Exterior facts & as such genuinely ontic?Th is latte r pos s ibility— if inte rnalize d, re ally be lie ve d— is a track th at m ak e s s tops at s k e pticis m & th e n s olips is m be fore h e ading s traigh t into ins anity. It's th e latte r pos s ibility th at inform s th e ne uras th e nia of D e s carte s 's M e ditations & s o birth s m ode rn ph ilos oph y (and w ith it th e dis tinctive ly m ode rn 'alie nation' of th e individualfrom allw h oles both natural& s ocial). K ate flirts w ith th is Carte s ian nigh tm are re pe ate dly, as in: W h at h appe ne d afte r I s tarte d to w rite about Ach illes w as th at h alfw ay th rough th e s e nte nce I be gan to th ink abouta cat, ins te ad.20 Th e cat I be gan to th ink about ins te ad w as th e cat outs ide of th e brok e n w indow in

18pl us continualre fe re nce to bunch e s of te nnis balls bouncing allove r th e place m ade m e re alize te nnis balls are about th e be s t m acros copic s ym bolth e re is for th e flux of atom is tic fact. . . 19 Tractatus 1.2 20Since I can't find any m ore grace fulpl ace to s tick it in, let m e invite you, w ith th is line as e xe m plar, to s e e anoth e r coolform alh orizon-e xpans ion M ark s on e ffe cts in W M — th e m ode of pre s e ntation is les s 's tre am of cons cious ne s s ' th an 's tre am of cons cious utte rance '; M ark s on's te ch niq ue h e re s h are s th e as s ociative q ualitie s of Joyce an s .o.c. but diffe rs in be ing 'dire cte d'; at w h at or w h om it's dire cte d be com e s th e nove l's im plicit, or anti-, plot, & accounts for a 'narrative m ove m e nt' th at's les s line ar or e ve n circular th an s piral.

228


th e room ne xt to th is one , at w h ich th e tape fre q ue ntly s cratch e s w h e n th e re is a bre e ze . W h ich is to s ay th at I w as not actually th ink ing about a cat e ith e r, th e re be ing no cate xce ptins ofar as th e s ound of s cratch ing re m inds m e of one . As th e re w e re no coins on th e floor of R e m brandt's s tudio, e xce pt ins ofar as th e configuration of th e pigm e ntre m inde d R e m brandtof th e m . (62)

Th e th ing is th at th e painte d coins th at fooled R e m brandt, & R e m brandt, & Ach illes , too, are all jus t lik e 'th e cat' h e re : M ark s on's narrator h as noth ing left e xce pt 's ounds of s cratch ing'— ie m e m ory & im agination & th e Englis h language — w ith w h ich to cons truct any s ort of Exte rior. Its flux is th at of K ate 's ow n h e ad; w h y it re s is ts orde r or population is attributable to th e ve ry de s pe ration w ith w h ich K ate trie s to orde r & populate it: h e r s e arch 's fe ve re d path os e ns ure s dis s atis faction. Note th at by page 63, afte r th e s h ine of m e taph ys icals crupulous ne s s h as fade d, K ate goe s back to talking about th e unre alcat as 're al.' Th e big e m otionalth ing is th at, w h e th e r h e r tre atm e nt of linguis tic cons tructs as e xis te nts is out of touch w ith re ality or s im ply an ine vitable re s pons e to th e nove l's re ality, th e s olips is tic nature of th at re ality, as far as K ate 's conce rne d, re m ains unch ange d. A doublebind to m ak e K ie rk e gaard, Sh ak e s pe are & W ittge ns te in allproud.

Still, as I re ad & appre ciate W M , m ore is at s tak e for K ate in counte nancing th e pos s ibility th at h e r ow n 'e rrors ' are allth at k e e p th e w orld e xtant th an q ue s tions of m e taph ys ics or e ve n of m adne s s . K ate 's pre tty s anguine about th e pos s ibility of ins anity— jok e s about h aving be e n m ad, be fore , at tim e s , 'tim e s out of m ind.' Actually, w h at are finally at s tak e h e re s e e m to be is s ue s of e th ics , of guilt & re s pons ibility. O ne of th e th ings th at putative ly s o torture d W ittge ns te in in th e tw e nty ye ars be tw e e n th e Tractatus and th e Inve s tigations w as th at a logically atom is tic m e taph ys ics adm its e xactly noth ing of e th ics or m oralvalue or q ue s tions about w h at it is to be h um an. It's h is tory th at W ittge ns te in th e pe rs on care d about w h at m ade th ings good or righ t or w orth w h ile. H e did th ings lik e volunte e r for th e Aus trian infantry in 19 18 w h e n h e could & s h ould h ave 4F'd out, lik e give h is h uge pe rs onal inh e ritance aw ay to pe ople (R ilke am ong th e m ). A de adly s e rious as ce tic, W ittge ns te in live d h is adult life in bare room s de void of e ve n a lam p or coccyx-ne utralch air. But it w as no accide nt th at th e Tractatus , ve ry m uch th e product of th e s am e Vie nna th at birth e d '. . .tw o of th e m os t pow e rful and s ym ptom atic m ove m e nts of m ode rn culture : ps ych oanalys is and atonal m us ic, both voice s th at s pe ak of th e h om e les s ne s s of m ode rn m an,'21 ne ve rth e les s its e lf birth e d th e Vie nna Circle & th e ph ilos oph ical s ch ool of Logical Pos itivis m th e Circle prom ulgate d: a ce ntral te ne t of Pos itivis m being th at th e only utterances th at m ade any sense at allw ere th e w ell-form ed

21Se e W il liam Barre tt, 'W ittge ns te in th e Pilgrim ,' in Th e Illus ion of Te ch niq ue , D oubleday '78.


229

data-trans fe rring propos itions of s cie nce , th us th at cons ide rations of 'value ' s uch as th os e of e th ics or ae s th e tics or norm ative pre s cription w e re re ally jus t a confus e d m is h m as h of s cie ntific obs e rvation & e m otive utte rance , s uch th at s aying 'K illing is not righ t' re ally am ounts jus t to s aying 'K illing: Y UCK !' Th e fact th at th e m e taph ys ics of th e Tractatus not only couldn't tak e account of but pre tty m uch de nie d th e coh e re nt pos s ibility of th ings lik e e th ics , value s , s pirituality & re s pons ibility h ad th e re s ult th at 'W ittge ns te in, th is clear-h e ade d & inte llectually h one s t m an, w as h ope les s ly at odds w ith h im s e lf.'22 For W ittge ns te in w as a q ue e r s ort of as ce tic. H e did de ny h is body & s tarve h is s e ns e s — e xce pt not, as w ith m os t m onk is h pe rs onalitie s , s im ply to e njoy a cons e q ue nt nouris h m e nt of th e s pirit. H is big th ing s e e m s to h ave be e n de nying h is s e lf by de nying, th rough h is e s s ays at ph ilos oph icaltruth , th e th ings m os t im portant to h im . H e ne ve r actually w rote anyth ing about th e exq uisite tensions betw een atom ism & attendant solipsism on th e one h and & dis tinctive ly h um an value s & q ualitie s on th e oth e r. But, s e e , th is is e xactly w h at M ark s on doe s in W M ; and in th is w ay M ark s on's nove l s ucce e ds in s pe ak ing w h e re W ittge ns te in is m ute , w e aving K ate 's obs e s s ion w ith re s pons ibility (for th e w orld's e m ptine s s ) gorge ous ly into th e ch aracte r's m andala of ce re bralconundrum & s piritualpove rty. O f th e m any s pe cular vantage s W M de m ands , K ate 's ce ntralide ntification w ith th e 'fact' of h is toricalpe rs onage is w ith H e len of Troy/H is arlik — th e Face Th at Launch e d 1000 Sh ips & th e body th at lay be h ind th e Trojan W ar's im pre s s ive cas ualty-count.23 And th e ve h icle for th is ide ntification w ith H e len is a dis tinctive ly fe m ale s e ns e of 're s pons ibility': lik e th e Iliad's H e len, K ate is h aunte d by th e pas s ive s e ns e th at 'e ve ryth ing is h e r fault.' And K ate 's re pe ate d atte m pts at de fe nding H e len agains t th e ch arge of ins tigating e xactly w h at e m ptie d Ionia of m e n h ave a com pulsive & s h rill ins is te nce aboutth e m th atbe s pe ak too m uch prote s ting: I h ave alw ays h arbore d s ince re doubts th at H e len w as th e caus e of th at w ar, by th e w ay. A s ingle Spartan girl,afte r all. As a m atte r of fact th e w h ole th ing w as unde niably a m e rcantile propos ition. All ten years of it,24 just to see w h o w ould pay tariff to w h om , so as to be able to m ak e use

22D r. Jam e s D . W al lace , unpublis h e d re s pons e to h is s on's crie s for h e lp w ith W ittge ns te in's M is tre s s & Tractatus Logico-Ph ilos oph icus . 23Al s o true th at K ate ide ntifie s clos e ly w ith Pe ne lope , Clyte m ne s tra, Eve , Age m e m non, & particularly Cas s andra, th e m ad proph e te s s w h o w arne d about arm e d m e n ins ide e m pty gifts . But I'm th ink ing Cas s andra's im portance is m ore a function of K ate 's s e lf-cons cious ne s s about h e r ow n ide ntification w ith H e len and fe m inine culpability, aboutw h ich m ore be low . 24(th e s am e pe riod of tim e K ate s pe nt trave rs ing th e ancie nt & m ode rn e m pty w orlds , flopping in m us e um s and 'look ing' for pe ople)

230


of a ch anne lof w ate r. . . . Still, I find it e xtraordinary th at young m e n die d th e re in a w ar th at long ago, and th e n die d in th e s am e place th re e th ous and ye ars afte r th at. (59 , cf 8-9 , 22)

Is s ue s orbiting H e len & fe m ininity & guilt m ark a s ort of trans ition in th is nove l& its re ading. H ave I ye t m e ntione d th at a notable fe ature of W ittge ns te in's M is tre s s , m ale-w ritte n, is th at th e nove l's com pos e d e ntire ly of th e w ords of a fe m ale ch aracte r?And it is in te rm s of ge nde r & auth e nticity, I th ink , th at M ark s on's book be com e s at once leas t pe rfe ct & m os t inte re s ting. M os t 19 88is h . M os t im portant as not jus t a lite rary trans pos ition of a ph ilos oph ic pos ition but also a trans ce nde nce of re ce ive d doctrine . H e re D e s carte s & K ant & W ittge ns te in ce as e be ing ove rt criticaltouch s tone s and be com e s pringboards for a flaw e d, m oving m e ditation on lone line s s , language & ge nde r. Se e , H om e r's H e len is 'guilty' finally not be caus e of anyth ing s h e 's done but be caus e of w h o s h e is , h ow s h e appe ars , w h at s h e look s lik e ; be caus e of th e e ffe ct s h e h as , h orm onally/e m otionally, on m e n w h o're re ady to k ill& die ove r w h at th e y're m ade to fe e l. K ate , lik e H e len, is h aunte d by an uns pok e n but oppre s s ive s e ns e th at '. . .e ve ryth ing is h e r [ow n] fault.' W h at e ve ryth ing?H ow clos e is s h e to th e H e len s h e invok e s ?25 W e ll, firs t off, it's e as y to s e e h ow radicals k e pticis m — D e s carte s 's h e ll& K ate 's ve s tibule— yie lds at once om nipote nce & m oraloppre s s ion. If Th e W orld is e ntire ly a function of Facts th at not only re s ide in but h ailfrom one 's ow n h e ad, one is jus t as R e s pons ible for th at w orld as is a m oth e r for h e r ch ild, or h e rs e lf. Th is s e e m s s traigh tforw ard. But w h at's les s clear & w ay rich e r is th e pe culiar s lant th is om nire s pons ibility tak e s w h e n th e re s pons ible m onad in q ue s tion is h is torically pas s ive , pe r- & conce ive d as an obje ct and not a s ubje ct— ie w h e n one is a w om an, one w h o can e ffe ct ch ange & cataclys m not as an age nt but m e re ly as a pe rce ive d e ntity . . . pe rce ive d by h is torically active te s tos te roids w h os e glands pos itive ly gus h w ith age ncy. To be an obje ct of de s ire (by h irs ute ch aracte rs ), s pe culation (by h irs ute auth or), one s e lf th e 'product' of m ale h e ads & s h afts is to be alm os t Clas s ically fe m inize d, les s Eve th an H e len, 're s pons ible' w ith out fre e dom to ch oos e , act, or fore be ar. Th e [m y] te rribly blank e t as s um ption is th at re ce ive d W e s te rn pe rce ptions of w om e n as m oralage nts divide into th os e of H e llenic & th os e of Evian (Eve -is h ) re s pons ibility; th e claim I can s upport is th at M ark s on, de s pite h is w ors t inte ntions , m anage s to trium ph ove r 400 ye ars of pos t-M iltonic tradition and to pre s e nt th e H e llenic as th e m ore poignant— ce rtainly m ore appos ite — s ituation of w om e n in any s ys te m w h e re appe arance re m ains a 'picture ' or 'm ap' of ontology. Th is pre s e ntation s e e m s ne ith e r pre - nor

25Evide ntl y

pre tty clos e for re ade rs : ove r h alf th e re vie w e rs of W M m is nam e d th e narrator H e len.


231

pos t-fe m inis t: it's jus t darne d im aginative , inge nious e ve n; and as s uch — de s pite s om e failure s of auth orialvis ion & ne rve — flie s or falls on its ow n m e rits . Th e de gre e of s ucce s s w ith w h ich M ark s on h as h e re re nde re d th e voice & ps ych e & pre dicam e nt of a fe m ale, pos t-Pos itivis t or oth e rw is e , is a ve xe d is s ue . Som e of th e fiction I try to w rite is in fe m inine voice , and I cons ide r m ys e lf s e ns itive to th e te ch nical/political problem s involve d in 'cros s w riting,' and I found th e fe m ale pe rs ona h e re com pe lling & re al. Som e fe m ale re ade rs on w h om I've fois te d W M re port finding it les s s o. Th e y obje cte d not s o m uch to th e voice & s yntax (both of w h ich are gre at in W M in a w ay I can't de m ons trate e xce pt by q uoting lik e 20 page s ve rbatim ) as to s om e of th e balde r w ays M ark s on goe s about continually re m inding th e re ade r th at K ate is a w om an. Th e cons tant re fe re nce s to K ate 's m e ns e s , for e xam ple, w e re cite d as clunk y. M e ns truation doe s com e up a lot, & for re as ons th at re m ain narrative ly obs cure ; and if it is n't a clunk y allus ion to Pas s ion or m artyrdom th e n it's an e q ually clunk y (be caus e both uns ubtle & otios e ) re m inde r of ge nde r: ye s , w om e n are pe rs ons w h os e vaginas re gularly blee d, but re pe ating & dw e lling on it re m inds one of bad s cie nce fiction w h e re alie ns are m ak ing continualre fe re nce to cranialante nnae th at, w e re th e y & th e narrative voice truly alie n/alie n-e m path ic, w ould be as unq ue s tione d & q uotidian a fact of life as e ars or nos e s or h air.26 Pe rs onally I'm ne utralon th e m e ns truation point. W h at I'm ne gative on is th e particular s trate gy M ark s on s om e tim e s e m ploys to try to e xplain K ate 's 'fe m ale' fe e lings both of ultim ate guilt & of ultim ate lone line s s . Th e re alis tic or ch aracte r-bas e d e xplanation is not, th ank God, jus t th at K ate 's be e n left in th e e m otionallurch by alls orts of obje ctifying m e n, ps ych ic abandone rs w h o range from h e r h us band (various ly nam e d by h e r Sim on or Te rry or s om e tim e s Adam ) to h e r final love r, univocally called Lucie n. Th e proffe re d e xplanation is rath e r th at, back in th e h alcyon pre -Falldays w h e n th e w orld w as h um anly populate d, K ate be traye d h e r h us band w ith oth e r m e n, & th at s ubs e q ue ntly h e r little boy (various ly Sim on or, gulp, again Adam ) die d, in M e xico, pos s ibly of m e ningitis , & th at th e n h e r h us band left h e r, about te n ye ars ago, 'tim e out of m ind,' at th e s am e ps ych oh is torical point at w h ich K ate 's w orld e m ptie d and th e dias poric q ue s t for anyone e lse

26Th is

is not m y analogy, but I can't th ink of a be tte r one , e ve n th ough th is is n't all th at good; but I s e e th e point & trus t you do— it's one of th os e alarm -be llis s ue s w h e re th e narrative voice is clearly com m unicating to a re ade r w h ile pre te nding not to, as in dialogue lik e 'Lord, Cragm ont, th e ve rm ilion of your M O TH ER tattoo is look ing e ve n m ore lurid agains t th e de ad-w h ite of your pris on pallor now th at th e circulation's re turne d to th e legs you s m as h e d trying to outrun a 74-car grain train in D e catur IL th at balm y ye t s om e h ow also ch illnigh t in 19 79 '— `clunk y' is about th e be s tanalys is for s tuff lik e th is .

232


alive in th e w orld at allcom m e nce d, a s e arch th at led K ate to th e e m pty be ach w h e re s h e now re s ide s & de claim s to no one . H e r be trayals & h e r s on's de ath & h us band's de parture — allude d to ove r & ove r, albe it coyly— are th e Evian diagnos is of h e r trans gre s s ion & m e taph ys ical dam nation; th e y're pre s e nte d, w ith an ins is te nce im pos s ible to ignore , as K ate 's Fall27 acros s ge nde r, a Fallfrom th e grace s of a com m unity in w h ich s h e is both age nt & obje ct28 into a pos t-R om antic, W ittge ns te inian w orld of utte r s ubje ctivity & path ological re s pons ibility, into th e particular inte llectual/ e m otional/m oralis olation a 19 88 U.S. re ade r as s ociate s w ith m e n, m ales alie nate d via age ncy from an Exte rior w e h ave to obje ctify, us e up, burn th e page s of in orde r to re m ain s ubje cts , ontologically s e cure in s h ie ld & s h aft. Allth is s tuff I find fe cund & com pe lling, a pre gnant m arriage of Attic & Ch ris tian re ductions of w om e n. But th e de ath of h e r s on & s e paration from h e r h us band are also in W M pre s e nte d as a ve ry particular e m otional 'e xplanation' of K ate 's ps ych ic 'condition,' a pe culiar re duction of M ark s on's ow n to w h ich I k ind of obje ct. Th e pre s e ntation of pe rs onalh s tory as pre s e nt e xplanation, one th at th re ate ns to m ak e W M jus t anoth e r m adw om an m onologue in th e O ph e lia– R h ys tradition, is obliq ue & e ve r artful, but s tillprom ine nt & ins is te nt e nough to m ak e it h ard [for m e ] to blink its inte nt: Pos s ibly [I w as not m ad] be fore th at. [W h e n I w e nt s outh ] To vis it at th e grave of a ch ild I h ad los t. . . nam e d Adam . W h y h ave I w ritte n th ath is nam e w as Adam ? Sim on is w h atm y little boy w as nam e d. Tim e out of m ind. M e aning th at one can e ve n m om e ntarily forge t th e nam e of one 's only ch ild, w h o w ould be th irty by now ?(9 ) 27cf in

th is re s pe ct:

Afte r h e k ne w th at h e h ad fallen, outw ards and dow n, aw ay from th e Fullne s s , h e trie d to re m e m be r w h atth e Fullne s s h ad be e n. . . . H e did re m e m be r, butfound h e w as s ilent, and could notte lloth e rs . H e w ante d to te lloth e rs th at s h e leapt farth e s t forw ard and fe llinto a Pas s ion apartfrom h is e m brace . Sh e w as in gre at agony, and w ould h ave be e n s w allow e d up by th e s w e e tne s s , h ad s h e notre ach e d a lim it, and s toppe d. Butth e Pas s ion w e nton w ith outh e r, and pas s e d be yond th e lim it. Som e tim e s h e th ough th e w as aboutto s pe ak , butth e s ilence continue d. H e w is h e d to s ay: s tre ngth les s and fe m ale fruit. — w /e m ph as is s upplie d, from Valentinus 's AD 19 9 Plerom a, part of th e Ne oPlatonic Gnos ticis m th at functions as a m e taph ys ical counte rpoint to th e antiide alis m of th e Tractatus , & s ignals nice ly M ark s on's artis tic am bivalence about w h e th e r K ate 's bind is ultim ate ly H e llenic or Evian. 28th is com m unity be ing noth ing oth e r th an s e xuals ocie ty as l im ne d by th e m ales w h o w rote s cripture & e pic, th e s e m ales th e m s e lve s inte rpre te d & trans figure d by M ark s on. . .


233

As a m atte r of fact I be lie ve it w as w h e n I w e nt back to M e xico, th at I [ge s s oe d a blank canvas & th e n s tare d at it for a long tim e & th e n burne d it]. In th e h ous e w h e re I h ad once live d w ith Sim on, and w ith Adam . I am bas ically pos itive th atm y h us band [Sim on/Te rry] w as nam e d Adam . (24) Th e re is no longe r any problem in re gard to m y h us band's nam e , by th e w ay. Eve n if I ne ve r s aw h im again, once w e s e parate d afte r Sim on die d. (52) Alth ough probably I did leave out th is part be fore , about h aving tak e n love rs w h e n I w as s tillAdam 's w ife . (225)

I'm told Sh iite w om e n w alk s w addled & ve iled in de fe re nce to th e ir re s pons ibility to be invis ible & s o k e e p poor bare ly-k e e ping-it-toge th e r m ales from be ing m adde ne d by e xpos ure to fair s e xuality. I find in W M th e s am e com plex & s cary blend of H e llenic & Evian m is ogyny— H e len e s s e ntially guilty as obje ct & Eve guilty as s ubje ct, te m ptre s s . Th ough I pe rs onally find th e H e llenic com pone nt m ore inte re s ting & a be tte r e as e m e nt into conte m porary politics , I find M ark s on's vacillation be tw e e n th e tw o m ode ls narrative ly jus tifie d & ps ych ologically ne at. It is w h e n, th ough , h e s e e m s to s e ttle on th e Evian as both ch aracte r-arch e type & narrative e xplanation— as th e argum e nt trace d s upra & be yond indicate s — th at h is W ittge ns te in's M is tre s s be com e s m os t conve ntionalas fiction. It is h e re , too, th at for m e th e nove l falte rs te ch nically by be traying its auth orial pre s e nce as th orough ly m ale, outs ide K ate & /or w om anh ood ge ne rally. As in m os t cutting-e dge e xpe rim e ntalfictions , too, th is te ch nicalflaw s e rious ly atte nuate s th e th e m atics . It s e e m s ve ry inte re s ting to m e th at M ark s on h as cre ate d a K ate w h o dw e lls s o convincingly in a h e llof utte r s ubje ctivity, ye t cannot, finally, h im s e lf h e lp but obje ctify h e r— ie by 'e xplaining' h e r m e taph ys icalcondition as e m otional/ps ych ical, re ducing h e r bottled m is s ive to a m ad m onologue by a s m art w om an drive n m ad by th e cons e q ue nce s of culpable s e xualage ncy, M ark s on is bas ically s ubs um ing K ate unde r one of th e com parative ly s tock rubrics via w h ich w e guys appare ntly m us t organize & proce s s fe y m ys te ry, fe m inine path os , Stre ngth les s & Fe m ale fruit. K ate 's Fall, os te ns ibly one into th e gh as tly s piritual m anife s tation of a m as culine ly logic-bound tw e ntie th -ce ntury m e taph ys ic, be com e s , unde r a h ars h re ading, little m ore th an a(n ine vitable?) s tum ble into alie nation from th e h e roine 's role— h e r s e lf— as m oth e r, w ife , love r, be love d. Unde r th is re ading, K ate 's e m pty s olips is m doe s not ge t to be com e a k ind of grim inde pe nde nce from obje ctification: K ate h as rath e r s im ply e xch ange d th e role of re alw ife of re alm an for th e part of none xis te nt m is tre s s of an abs olute ge nius of obje ctification29 indis pos e d tow ard h e te ros e xualunion. And I found it w e ird th at m any of th e fe m ale re ade rs w h o dis approve d th ings lik e W M 's m e ns truation-cue s as 'ringing false ' ne ve rth e les s approve d 29 'Th e

w orld is e ve ryth ing th atis th e cas e . Th e w orld falls apartinto facts .'

234


M ark s on's provis ion of K ate 's os te ns ible 'm otivation,' h e re . Th ough I'm com ing to acce pt th at it's th e pe trifie dly s tandard criticalline w /r/t fiction th e s e U.S. days : re ade rs w ant s torie s about ve ry particular pe rs ons w ith ve ry particular q ualitie s in ve ry particular circum s tance s w h os e ge ne s is m us t on s om e leve l be pe rs onally-h is toric & ps ych ological as w e ll as 'm e re ly' inte llectual or political or s piritual, pan-h um an. Th e 's ucce s s ful' s tory 'trans ce nds ' its th orough going individuality/idios yncracy by s ubs um ing th e pe culiaritie s of ch aracte r & circum s tance to ce rtain broad arch e type s & m yth ope iae inh e rite d from Jung or Sh ak e s pe are or H om e r or Fre ud or Sk inne r or Te s tam e nt. Particularity birth s form ; fam iliarity bre e ds conte nt. R are ly is our uncritical inh e ritance of e arly W ittge ns te inian & Logical Pos itivis t m ode ls s o obvious as in our acade m ic & ae s th e tic pre judice th at s ucce s s fulfiction e nclos e s rath e r th an ope ns up, organize s facts rath e r th an unde rm ine s th e m , diagnos e s rath e r th an ge nuflects . Attic m yth s w e re , ye s , form s of 'e xplanation.' But it's no accide nt th at gre at m yth os w as m oth e re d by th e s am e culture th at birth e d gre at h is tory— or th at K ate divide s h e r re ading- & burning-tim e be tw e e n clas s ical trage die s & h is torie s . To th e e xte nt th at m yth e nrich e s facts & h is tory, it s e rve s a Pos itivis t & factual function. But th e U.S.'s ow n e xpe rie nce w ith m yth -m ak ing & m yth -w ors h ip — from W as h ington & ch e rrie s to Jack s on & h ick ory to Lincoln & logs to dim e nove ls & W e s t as w om b & s oul's th e atre to e tc., e tc. to Pre s ley & D e an & M onroe & W ayne & R e agan— an e xpe rie nce th at inform s & infe cts th e ve ry ph ys ics of re ading, today— confirm s th at m yth is finally com pe lling only in its oppos ition to h is tory & data & th e cingulum of Jus t Th e Facts , M a'am . O nly in th at oppos ition can s tory e nrich & trans figure & trans ce nd e xplanation. K ate 's idios yncratic/form ulaic 're al' pas t in W M is n't w e ak as an e xplanation; it is for m e w e ak & dis appointing be caus e it's an e xplanation. Jus t as it w ould h ave be e n w e ak & dis appointing to h ave 'e xplaine d' & particularize d K ate 's fe e lings of is olation & im pris onm e nt, not via th e ide a th at th e typing h ands s h e h olds out in s e arch of com m union form th e ve ry barrie r be tw e e n Se lf & W orld th e y're trying to puncture , but, s ay, by plunk ing h e r dow n via s h ipw re ck on a de s e rte d is land á la TV's Gilligan or Golding's flylord s ch oolboys or th e Police 's top- 40 'M e s s age in a Bottle.' I'm s truggling to m ak e clear, I th ink , th at it's its ow n m as culine ly pre judice d im pe rfe ction th at illum inate s h ow im portant & am bitious W M is as an e xpe rim e ntalpie ce of late -'80s lite rature . As a w ould-be w rite r I lik e h ow th e nove linve rts re ce ive d form ulae for s ucce s s fulfiction by s ucce e ding leas t w h e re it conform s to th e m m os t: to th e pre cis e e xte nt th at K ate is pre s e nte d h e re as circum s tantially & h is torically uniq ue , to jus t th at e xte nt is th e nove l's m ons trous pow e r atte nuate d. It's w h e n K ate is leas t particular, leas t 'm otivate d' by s om e artfully pre s e nte d but s tandardly dige s tible Evian/Valentinian/pos t-Fre udian traum a, th at h e r ch aracte r & pligh t are


235

m os t e - & affe cting. For (obvious th o th is s e e m s ) to th e e xte nt th at K ate is not m otivationally uniq ue , s h e can be allof us , and th e e m pty diffraction of K ate 's w orld can m ap or picture th e de s acralize d & paradoxicals olips is m of U.S. pe rs ons in a cattle-h e rd culture th at w ors h ips only th e Trans pare nt I, of guiltily pas s ive s olips is ts & s k e ptics trying to w arm s oft h ands at th e com pute r-e nh ance d fire of data in an Inform ation Age w h e re re ce ive d im age & e nforce d e ros re place active counte nance or s acralm ys te ry as e nds , value , m e aning. Etc. Th e fam iliar bitch & m oan th at M ark s on's nove l prom is e s & com e s clos e to trans figuring, dram atizing, m yth ologizing via bland bald fact. I th ink finally th e re as on I obje ct to W M 's atte m pt to give K ate 's lone line s s a particular 'm otivation' via re ce ive d fe m inine traum a is th at it's jus t unne ce s s ary. For M ark s on h as in th is book s ucce e de d alre ady on allth e re ally im portant leve ls of fictionalconviction. H e h as fles h e d th e abs tract s k e tch e s of W ittge ns te inian doctrine into th e concre te th e atre of h um an lone line s s . In s o doing h e 's capture d far be tte r th an ps e udobiograph y w h at m ade W ittge ns te in a tragic figure & a victim of th e ve ry diffracte d m ode rnity h e h e lpe d inaugurate . M ark s on h as w ritte n an e rudite , bre ath tak ingly ce re bralnove lw h os e pros e is crys tal& w h os e voice rive ts & w h os e conclus ion de fie s you not to cry. Plus h e 's also, in a w ay it'd s e e m for allth e w orld h e doe s n't k now , produce d a pow e rfully criticalm e ditation on lone line s s 's re lation to language its e lf. Th ough of cours e any w rite r's re alm otivations are fore ve r occult & obje cts of at be s t lucid im agining, it's s afe to point out th at th e pos t-atom is t m e taph ys icalpe ripe ty th at is L. W ittge ns te in's late Ph ilos oph icalInve s tigations articulate s ph ilos oph icalconce rns & as s um ptions s o diffe re nt from th os e of th e e arly Tractatus th at th e PI am ounts to les s a re nunciation th an a k ind of infanticide -by-bludge on. For M ark s onian purpos e s , th e th re e im portant blunt ins trum e nts , ne ar-diurnal diffe re nce s be tw e e n 'e arly' & 'late ' W ittge ns te in, all conce rn W 's e nduring obs e s s ion w ith language -& -re ality q ue s tions . O ne . PI now tak e s as paradigm atic of th e language w ith w h ich ph ilos oph e rs ough t to be conce rne d not th e ide alabs traction of m ath -logic, rath e r now jus t ordinary day-to-day language in allits ge ne ralw ooline s s & ch arm .30 Tw o. Th e PI's W ittge ns te in e xpe nds m uch e ne rgy & ink arguing agains t th e ide a of w h at's be e n called 'private language .' Th is te rm is th e Pragm atis t W illiam Jam e s 's , w h om W ., not an e ne m y to w e lcom e , accus e d of look ing fore ve r 'for th e artich ok e am ongs t its leave s .' But PI's conce rn to s h ow th e im pos s ibility of private language (w h ich it doe s , pre tty m uch ) is also a te rrible anxie ty to avoid th e s olips is tic cons e q ue nce s of m ath e m atical

30Ve ry coole l aborations on th is s ort of m ove are obs e rvable in J. L. Aus tin's H ow To D o Th ings w ith W ords & Stanley Cave ll's 'M us tW e M e an W h atW e Say?'

236


logic as language -paradigm . R e call th at th e truth -functional s ch e m ata of m ath -logic & th e dis cre te facts th e s ch e m ata picture e xis t inde pe nde nt of s pe ak e rs , k now e rs , & m os t of alllis te ne rs . PI's ins is te nce — as part of th e book 's m ove m e nt aw ay from w h at th e w orld m us t be lik e for language to be pos s ible & tow ard w h at language m us t be lik e give n th e w ay th e w orld in all its babble & ch arm & de e p nons e ns e actually is — th at th e e xis te nce , nay th e ve ry ide a of language de pe nds on s om e s ort of com m unicative com m unity 31 ... th is is about th e m os t pow e rfulph ilos oph icalattack on s k e ptic-/ s olips is m 's bas ic coh e re nce s ince th e D e s carte s w h os e Cogito W ittge ns te in h ad h e lpe d to s k e w e r. Th re e . Th e finalbig diffe re nce is a ne w & clinical focus on th e ne ar-Nixonian trick ine s s of ordinary language its e lf. A te ne t of th e PI is th at profound ph ilos oph icals tuff can be accom plis h e d via figuring out w h y linguis tic cons tructions ge t us e d as th e y are , & th at m any/m os t e rrors of 'm e taph ys ics ' or 'e pis te m ology' de rive from acade m ics ' & h um ans ' s us ce ptibility to language 's ph arm ak opia of trick s & de ce ptions & cre ations . Late W ittge ns te in is fullof gre at e xam ples of h ow pe rs ons are cons tantly s uccum bing to th e m e taph ys ical'be w itch m e nt' of ordinary language . Ge tting los t in it. Eg, locutions lik e 'th e flow of tim e ' cre ate a k ind of ontologicalUH F-gh os t, s e duce us into s om e h ow s e e ing tim e its e lf as lik e a rive r, one not jus t 'flow ing' but doing s o s om e h ow e xte rnalto us , outs ide th e th ings & ch ange s of w h ich tim e is re ally jus t th e m e as ure .32 O r th e ordinary pre dicate s gam e and rules , attach e d s im ultane ous ly to, e g, jack s & gin rum m y & s oftball& O lym piade , trick us into a s pe cious Platonic unive rs alis m in w h ich th e re is s om e trans ce nde ntally e xis te nt fe ature com m on to e ve ry m e m be r of th e e xte ns ions of 'gam e ' or 'rule' in virtue of w h ich e ve ry m e m be r is a 'gam e ' or a 'rule,' rath e r th an th e fluid w e b of 'fam ily re s e m blance s '33 th at, for W ittge ns te in, pe rfe ctly jus tifie s th e attach m e nt of appare ntly univocal pre dicate s as noth ing m ore or les s th an a type of h um an be h avior— rath e r, th at is , th an any s ort of trans ce nde ntal re alitym apping. W ittge ns te in, by life 's e nd, conce ive d m e aningfulh um an brainactivity (ie ph ilos oph y) as e xactly & noth ing m ore th an '. . a battle agains t th e be w itch m e nt of our inte llige nce by m e ans of language ' (PI 1, 109 ). Th e PI h olds th at pe rs ons m us t or at any rate do live in a s ort of linguis tic dre am , aw as h & e nm e s h e d in ordinary language & th e de ce ptive 'm e taph ys ics ' linguis tic us age & com m unication am ong pe rs ons im pos e s . . . or cos ts .

31cf PI I, 23. . . 32Tach yons & caus al ity violations & th e Supe rpos ition Principle allcom plicate W 's point q uite a bit, and actually th e re 's ve ry inte re s ting s tuff s tarting to appe ar in indus try m ags about de e p affinitie s be tw e e n ordinary-language te m porallocutions & cutting-e dge q uantum m ode ls . . . butanyw ay you ge tth e ide a. 33th e fam ous & infam ous Fam ilie nah änlich k e ite n (no k idding)— cf Th e Blue Book 17 & 87 & 124 or Ph ilos oph icalGram m ar 75 or PI I, 67. For e q ually fam ous s tuff on gam e s & rules s e e PI I, 65-88.


237

Th e above s um m ary is pre tty crude . But, actually, s o, on th e s urface , is W ittge ns te in's M is tre s s 's us e & re cons titution of th e PI's s e m inalne w pe rs pe ctive . M uch of th e ove rt m as te r/ m is tre s s re lation h e re again involve s re s e m blance -as -allus ion [s ic]. Line s in th e nove llik e 'Ups tairs , one can s e e th e oce an. D ow n h e re th e re are dune s , w h ich obs truct one 's vie w ' are cons cious e ch oe s of th e PI's 'A ph ilos oph ical problem h as th e form : "I don't k now m y w ay about."'34 Also h e avily allus ive (s om e tim e s jus t plain h e avy) are K ate 's prolonge d m us ings on th e ontologicals tatus of nam e d th ings : s h e (as w ould w e all) s tillre fe rs to th e h ous e s h e burne d dow n as a h ous e , but s h e k e e ps w onde ring in w h at w ay a de s troye d h ous e is s tilla 'h ous e ,' e xce pt in virtue of language -h abits from tim e out of m ind. O r, e g, s h e w onde rs about q ue s tions lik e 'W h e re is th e painting w h e n it is in m y h e ad ins te ad of on th e w all?'& w h e th e r, w e re let's s ay no copie s of Anna K are nina s tille xtant (unburne d) anyw h e re , th e book w ould s tillbe called Anna K are nina. O r m arve ls at facts lik e 'O ne can drive th rough any num be r of tow ns w ith outk now ing th e nam e s of th e tow ns .' A little of th is narcis s is tic e ch oing goe s a long w ay, and M ark s on is s om e tim e s tire s om e , allus ive ly, on th e s urface . Again, th ough , th e m is tre s s lik e th e m as te r invite s you/m e dow n: w h at's ponde rous on th e firs t pas s ope ns up late r. It's tos s -offs lik e th e las t jus t above th at are m os t inte re s ting as invitations , les s allus ions to a ge nius th an gauzy pre figure s of M ark s on's ow n m e ditations about & around s om e of th e th e m e s dom inant in PI. W h at firs t s trik e s one as h e avy or ponde rous re fine s its e lf afte r tim e into a fragile note of re s ignation— ie w e lts ch m e rz as oppos e d to naive té or h ubris — in m os t of K ate 's s pe culations on th e w ay a nam e te nds to 'cre ate ' an obje ct or attribute 35; albe it on th e oth e r h and a tw inge of e nvy w h e ne ve r s h e counte nance s th e pos s ibility of th ings e xis ting w ith out be ing nam e d or s ubje cte d to pre dication. W h y th is battle occupie s K ate & e ngage s th e re ade r h as partly to do w ith th e actuale th icalpain th at w e m ay as s um e filled th e long s ilence be tw e e n th e Tractatus & PI, but it's also attributable to an original&

34PI I, 123, a

profound little offe ring m e aning rough ly to point out th at w e are now & fore ve r 'dow n h e re ' in language , ins ide it, on ground-leve l, & th us h ave no be tte r a vie w of th e Big Picture th an s om e one e arth bound in contras t to s om e one aloft w h o can look dow n at th e e arth bound guy & th e te rrain around h im , dis ce rning patte rns agains t back drops of oth e r bigge r patte rns , s e e ing th e m as patte rns of s om e th ing large r ins te ad of as th e -bound m an's te rrain, m aze , w orld, total.. . 35note in pas s ing th at th e m e s of nom ination-as -e nfranch is e m e nt, pre s e nce -as privilege , also run th rough m uch of th e fe m inis t th e ory w ith w h ich th is nove l's auth or re ve als h im s e lf fam iliar. . .

238


de e ply s m art e xploration by M ark s on of s om e th ing th at m igh t be called 'th e fe m inization of s k e pticis m .' W h ich is probably a bad te rm to s tart th row ing around in th is late inning, s ince itre q uire s de finitions & s o on;th is is alre ady pre tty long. But re callto th is abs traction's am bit pre nom inate s tuff about H e len & Eve & Cas s andra & th e Tractatus , plus th e longly dis cus s e d s e cond h alf of th e double bind th at cingulize s s olips is m : radical doubt about not only th e e xis te nce of obje cts but of s ubje ct, s e lf. K ate 's te xt, ack now ledge d w ith in its e lf as w riting, is a de s pe rate atte m pt to re cre ate & s o anim ate a w orld by nam ing it. Th e atte m pt's de s pe ration unde rlie s h e r ne ar-path ologic obs e s s ion w ith nam e s — of pe rs ons , pe rs onage s , figure s , book s , s ym ph onie s , battles , tow ns & roads — and it accounts for w h at M ark s on com m unicate s s o w e llvia re pe tition & tone : K ate 's e xtre m e ups e t w h e n s h e can't re m e m be r— 's um m on,' 're call'— nam e s w e lle nough to m ak e th e m be h ave . And h e r atte m pts at ontology-th ru-nom ination are a m oving s yne cdoch e of pre tty m uch th e w h ole h is tory of inte llectuale nde avor in th e w h ite ly m ale W e s t. Sh e , no les s th an w as W ittge ns te in, or K ant, or D e s carte s , or H e rodotus , is w riting a w orld. Th e inge nious poignancy of M ark s on's ach ie ve m e nt h e re is th at K ate 's m ode rnly fe m ale vantage , in cons piracy w ith th e ve ry de s pe ration th at unde rlie s h e r atte m pt at w orldm ak ing,36 re nde rs h e r proje ct doubly doom e d. D oom 1 is w h at's e vok e d on s urface : s k e pticis m & s olips is m . Ie , th at th e re is no 'w orld' to s e e its e lf m irrore d in K ate 's te xt is unh appy e nough ; but in W M , K ate 's m e m oir its e lf is 'w ritte n in s and,' its e lf s ubje ct to th e 'de te rioration'37 & dry rot th at is s uch a dom inantre curring im age in th e loops of re collection & as s e m bly h e re . I'm going to s h ut up righ t afte r I m ak e th is ide a clear. I'm pre tty s ure W ittge ns te in's M is tre s s is an im pe rfe ct book . Que s tions of voice , ove r-allus ion, & 'e xplanation' ge t to be pus h e d as ide , th ough , be caus e of th e nove l's te rrific e m otional& political/fictional& th e ore ticalach ie ve m e nt: it e vok e s a truth a w h ole lot of book s & e s s ays be fore it h ave fum bled around: (at leas t) for th e m ode rn fe m ale— viz th e fe m ale w h o unde rs tands h e rs e lf as both fe m ale & m ode rn— both s ide s of th e s olips is tic bind:

36ie , s h e 's

doing itfor m e ntals urvival,notfor inte re s tor acclaim or te nure . . . k e e p w aiting for fe m inis t th e oris ts to s tart talking about de te rioration as a te xtualph e nom e non; it w ould be th e s ort of w ry jok e th at capture s truth s : 'de te rioration' is e s s e ntially 'de cons truction' m ade pas s ive , obs e rve d rath e r th an pe rform e d, th e re ade r th e ultim ate 'abs e nte e ' in th e pos t-s tructuraltote m of abs e nce : one of th e th ings K ate 's s tory unpack s is th e te rrific pow e r of w rite r-as -w itne s s , utte rly pas s ive , unh e ard: it m igh t be th is , m ore th an w h at's argue d in m y finalparagraph , th at's s k e pticis m 's fe m inis tvis h na. 37I


239

If I e xis t, noth ing e xis ts outs ide m e But If s om e th ing e xis ts outs ide m e , I do note xis t38 am ount to th e s am e th ing— dam nation to gh os tline s s am ong gh os ts , curating a plenum of s tatue s , m is tak ing e ch oe s for voice s . And, too, h e re both binds force on th e s ubje ct jus t w h at h e r ow n dram atic pre dicam e nt force s on K ate : a k ind of parodic m as culinization, one in w h ich th e R om antic Que s t for th e Abs e nt O bje ct, a de s ire for attainm e nt w /r/t w h ich unattainability is th at de s ire 's bre ath & bre ad, re place s an ability to be -in-th e -w orld as ne ith e r ce nte r nor ciph e r, ne ith e r all-re s pons ible nor im pote nt, part of one gre at big Fam ily Lik e ne s s . M ark s on's K ate 's s udde n los s of inte re s t in roads once s h e 's found th e m & in data once s h e 's 'm as te re d' (!!) it is jus t as clunk y & im pe rfe ct & h um an & re alas , s ay, Ste ndh al's rus h to w ind up Ch arte rh ous e th e m inute Fabrizio finally nails Clelia. . . . And K ate 's valuation, finally, only of w h at's uns aid, unre ad— burning page s once s h e 's re ad th e m , je ttis oning fam ily once s h e 's 're s pons ible' for th e m ; probably e ve n fue ling h e r e pis tle w ith th e doom e d/de licious k now ledge th at it's h e ade d tow ard noth ing— s um m ons pe rfe ctly, again, th e te rrible & m oving finalpre s cription of th e m as te r's Tractatus . Th is , loos e ly trans late d, is 'Anybody w h o unde rs tands w h at I'm s aying e ve ntually re cognize s th at it's nons e ns e , once h e 's us e d w h at I'm s aying— rath e r lik e s te ps — to clim b up pas t w h at I'm s aying— h e m us t, th at is , th row aw ay th e ladde r afte r h e 's us e d it.'39 Th is pas s age , lik e m os t of W , is only indire ctly about w h at it's re ally about. It w h is pe rs & plays . It's re ally about th e plenitude of e m ptine s s , th e im portance of s ilence in te rm s of s pe e ch . M ark s on nails th is ide a (from m y m ale p.o.v.); K ate 's m onograph h as th e q uality of s pe e ch les s ne s s in a dre am , th e cold m ute ne s s urge ncy e nforce s , a ps ych ic s tutte r. If it's true h e r ladde r goe s noplace , it's also true nobody's going to th row e ith e r book aw ay.

38I w on't w as te anybody's tim e s h outing about w h at a m arve l ous inve rs ion of th e Cogito & O ntologicalArgum e ntth is is . 39 Tractatus 6.54

29 4


CAR O L BO O TH O LSO N dire cts th e Unive rs ity of California-Irvine W riting Proje ct. Sh e h as w ritte n tw o book s on com pos ition and criticalth ink ing. SUSAN PO Z NAR is com pleting h e r Ph .D . in Englis h at North Carolina State Unive rs ity. ILAN STAVANS is a M e xican w rite r w h o te ach e s at Colum bia Unive rs ity and at City Unive rs ity of Ne w York . H e is th e auth or of th e nove lTalia y e l cie lo and a collection of fictitious book re vie w s , and is curre ntly as s e m bling an anth ology of Je w is h -Latin Am e rican fiction. E VELIN E. SULLIVAN publis h e d h e r firs t nove l, Th e D e ad M agician, las t ye ar. Sh e te ach e s te ch nicalw riting atStanford Unive rs ity. JO SEPH TABBI h as re ce ntly publis h e d articles on W illiam Gaddis in M ode rn Fiction Studie s and Am e rican Note s & Q ue rie s . Th is fallh e joins th e faculty of M arq ue tte Unive rs ity. D AVID FO STER W ALLACE is th e auth or of Th e Broom of th e Sys te m (a nove l) and Girlw ith Curious H air (s h ortfiction). STEVEN W EISENBUR GER is th e auth or of A "Gravity's R ainbow " Com panion and num e rous articles on Am e rican fiction, and h as re ce ntly com plete d a book on s atire . H e te ach e s atth e Unive rs ity of K e ntuck y. LESLIE H . W H ITTEN, JR ., a form e r s yndicate d journalis t, is th e auth or of s e ve ralnove ls, m os t re ce ntly Th e Los t D is ciple. H e h as also publis h e d poe try and trans lations of Baude laire . H EID I Z IEGLER te ach e s Am e rican lite rature at th e Unive rs ity of Stuttgart. Sh e is th e auth or of a m onograph on Joh n Barth and e dite d th e innovative anth ology Facing Te xts : Encounte rs be tw e e n Conte m porary W rite rs and Critics .

David Foster Wallace - "The Empty Plenum: David Markson's Wittgenstein's Mistress"

Recommend Documents