Caricatures
Bathsheba
“I had a lover once, her name was Bathsheba. She was a happily married woman. I began to feel as though we were crewing a submarine. We couldn’t tell our friends, at least she couldn’t tell hers because they were his tool. I couldn’t tell mine because she asked me not to do so. We sank lower and lower in our love-lined coffin. Telling the truth, she said, was a luxury we could not afford and so lying became a virtue, an economy we had to practice. Telling the truth was hurtful and so lying became a good deed.”
Bathsheba – Her names “Daughter of the Oath”. Bathsheba was seduced by David who was mesmerized by her beauty. Her personality was distinctly passive in regards to her relationships with her husbands, son and stepson. Bathsheba was married to a soldier, Uriah the Hittite. David had an adulterous relationship with Bathsheba in which she became pregnant. This affair cost Uriah his life when David could not force him to leave his fighting troops and come home to have sex with his wife so the coconspirators could pass the child off as Uriah’s. After Uriah was murdered, David married Bathsheba and the child from that union died.
Indicative of Bathsheba’s name in the text she had taken the oath of marriage and was also a happily married woman. Just as Bathsheba and David had to be co-conspirators in their story, it felt as if the Narrator and Bathsheba were coconspirators in their story. They had a secret relationship just as Bathsheba and David did. David tried to abandon his responsibility to Bathsheba, and tried to get Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband, to come home from a war and have sex with his wife so they could blame this pregnancy on him. Uriah’s loyalty to his troops and the code of ethics won out. David eventually had Uriah murdered. As David’s and Bathsheba’s relationship sank deeper and deeper into lies until Uriah was murdered, so did the Narrator’s and Bathsheba’s relationship sink until lies became a good deed. They continued to sink into the lie of the relationship even after Bathsheba’s and David’s baby died. Perhaps the Narrator’s and Bathsheba feared what would come out of the truth about their relationship, either the husband would find out or perhaps something between them would flare up. Eros is not love; it is that beautiful erotic thing that we sometimes get confused with Agape. The coffin is a hiding place, a place of protection for what these two people held priceless, themselves. I feel that the Narrator has given us a brawl between truth and lies, David lost his child, our Narrator has not yet found ‘self’. “…’I intended to tell you before we left but I forgot.’ I looked at her, sudden and sharp. I hated that ‘we’. ‘Yes,’ she went on, ‘Uriah got NSU from a woman he slept with in New York. He slept with her to punish me of course. But he didn’t tell me and the doctor thinks I have it too. I’ve been taking the antibiotics so it’s probably all right. That is, you’re probably all right. You ought to check though.’”
Girlfriend
“I had a girlfriend once who was addicted to starlit nights. She thought beds belonged in hospitals. Anywhere she could do it that wasn’t pre-sprung was sexy. Show her a duvet and she switched on the television. I coped with this on campsites and in canoes, British Rail and Aeroflot. I bought a futon, eventually a gym mat. I had to lay extra-thick carpet on the floor. I took to carrying a tartan rug wherever I went, like a far-out member of the Scottish Nationalist Party. Eventually, back at the doctor’s for the fifth time having a thistle removed, he said to me, ‘You know, love is a very beautiful thing but there are clinics for people like you’ Now, it’s a serious matter to have ‘PERVERT’ written on your NHS file and some indignities are just a romance too far. We had to say goodbye and although there were some things about her that I missed it was pleasant to walk in the country again without seeing every bush and shrub as a potential assailant.”
The Narrator seems to need some independence here just as the Scottish Nationalist Party campaigns for an independence from the United Kingdom; and the Narrator desires independence from this relationship. The other thing that is striking is that this ‘girlfriend’ has no name. “To pronounce a name is in some sense effectually is to create or present it.” For this person the Narrator saw no purpose or forgot the young lady’s name, an essential part of the person is missing. There was nothing to set her apart from the other women except where they had sex, not even that they had sex set them apart. Like so many women in the Bible who have no names, hence they were deemed unimportant, so should we deem this “girlfriend”? Or should we just reckon she really did not exist? After it is all said and done, the only thing we really know about this individual is she loved sex out of doors. We don’t know anything about what she looked like, her favorite color, what she did for a living – nothing. I wonder is that because the Narrator is stretching patriarchal family values or is it queer theory assuming again that sexual identities are fluid and the name is not necessary or is not having a name secondary to her sex life?
Inge
“I was in the last spasms of an affair with a Dutch girl called Inge. She was a committed romantic and an anarcha-feminist. This was hard for her because it meant she couldn’t blow up beautiful buildings. She knew the Eiffel Tower was a hideous symbol of phallic oppression but when ordered by her commander to detonate the lift so that no-one should unthinkingly SCALE an erection, her mind filled with young romantics gazing over Paris and opening aerograms that said Je t’aime.…I thought I loved her and then came the pigeons….She forbade me to telephone her. She said that telephones were for Receptionists, that is, women without status. I said, fine, I’ll write. Wrong, she said. The Postal Service was run by despots who exploited non-union labour. What were we to do? I didn’t want to live in Holland. She didn’t want to live in London. How could we communicate? Pigeons, she said.”
This episode in the text was really humorous which I found to be some balance to the more serious women the Narrator writes about. Inge name means god of Ing, which is associated with the god of fertility, is an anarcha-feminist which is a difficult thing to accomplish alone let alone she is also a hopeless romantic. But since romance is about a somewhat frustrated psychological quest, or impossible dream or passionate love thrown against a setting of impossible social or economic or psychological odds this seems to be fitting for Inge. I found it totally hilarious and easily saw the romance in it. It can be considered romantic to think of destroying what man has deemed important “scale an erection”, and equally as funny to cancel it because one thinks of young lovers in Paris. Though Inge is difficult to believe, and obviously has chosen a difficult way to communicate, I think I like her because she is so unbelievable. I also note that I stated that Inge was unbelievable not the Narrator. The Narrator is still objectifying women and their bodies. Inge is a pair of breasts – no more – no less as to why the Narrator did not leave.
Second Woman – No Name
“I had bought a new flat to start again from a nasty love affair that had given me the clap. …this was emotional clap. I had to keep my heart to myself in case I infected somebody. …The clap-giver was still with her husband in their tasteful house but she’d slipped me L 10,000 to help finance my purchase. Give/Lend was how she put it. Blood money was how I put it. She was buying off what conscience she had. I intended never to see her again. Unfortunately she was my dentist.”
This seemed odd to me that our Narrator could and would be bought. I also find it odd for someone who has had successive lovers to now want a reprieve from sexual activity in particular. I say sexual activity because that is where the Narrator took it, and then used the street name clap rather than the term gonorrhea. Of course, if left untreated gonorrhea will affect joints, spreads throughout the body and will even affect the heart valves. The flat was not cared for, but neither was the Narrator. The Narrator’s anger is oozing through the cracks. Not to mention Bathsheba did come to the Narrator with a case of clap which was a negative for the Narrator. This makes the Narrator unreliable in one instance it is an emotional clap, later there stands a possibility of real physical clap.
Jacqueline
“I considered her. She had no expensive tastes, knew nothing about wine, never wanted to be taken to the opera and had fallen in love with me. I had no money and no morale. It was a marriage made in heaven. We agreed that we were good for each other whilst sitting in her Mini eating a Chinese take away.”
May God protect or supplanter that is what Jacqueline means – Jacob. Change had been discussed and the Narrator thought there was change, but that is not what Jacqueline saw. “I thought you’d already changed. You told me you wouldn’t do this again. You told me you wanted a different life. It’s easy to hurt me.” At the very beginning there was simplicity and ordinariness, but not love. Jacqueline came at the end of a relationship with the clap giver. They agreed there would be no joy, but somebody forgot to tell Jacqueline to guard her heart. Somebody forgot to tell the Narrator settling does not work it only prolongs the inevitable. They forgot to tell that the next woman will be a married woman and maybe even the next. Perhaps this is where Narrator found comfort with women who could only step into a Phileo love. Even Jacqueline’s love was Phileo – it had conditions strapped to it - which the Narrator had changed or would change. Then the Narrator finds agape with Louise, an unconditional love that wanted the best for Louise, there was a committed service kind of love. Though I believe the competition between Elgin and Louise made the prize more endearing people like to win the hunt you know.
I believe the narrator is as reliable as many of us would be when flitting in and out of relationships. It seems to be easier to live in a fantasy and have relationships fit around that fantasy than to live in truth and have to really transform. Who did I see when I awakened this morning? Who was I at mid-day? When it is time to go to bed is there anything in me that I could have done better or changed, not for the betterment of someone else (though that is important) but what can I change to make life better for me. If it is an attitude that could stand a change – then change it. If it is negative thinking that needs to be changed, work on thinking positive a bit at a time.
I believe the Narrator was definitely in love with Louise. But how do you do love when you have not known love in that manner. How frightening it must be to come face to face with the unknown and be helpless against it. Maybe the Narrator will have more to give away next time around with some one else. I believe that there are three parts to us humans, a physical side, a spiritual side, and a psychological side. There are all different, but all in one person. I also believe those are all shown at different times in our lives. It does not mean that we are unstable, just that a different side is being shown. If we really got down nitty and gritty of our thoughts – believe me, no one would recognize most of us!