As to what is revealed, in the Elegies, by Inter-Dialogism
and Inter-Dialogic interactions— the leap of the consciousness of an individual
into another’s consciousness, and then out again— we have seen that all
Inter-Dialogic revelations are merely partial. No one can see or reveal anyone
else’s brain in totem. But partial revelations are also conduits to revelations
of irony— that what is revealed, what emerges on the surface, might be
contradicted by something unseen, once the one consciousness is repelled out of
the other. A case in point, of irony emerging from Inter-Dialogism in the
Elegies, is 420:
I.
The Junior Prom deposited me (and fifteen
others) on the floor of her basement. I could
barely see daylight at the time, and at three in
the morning I began to prowl. I was too scared
to turn on any lights. She emerged like a mermaid
from seaweed. I needed comfort, she enjoyed my
need. We had gone out— she was bitter. The whole
dialogue happened in shadows. No one was hooking
up in the other room, either. You spiteful little princess.
II.
Whether off the bathroom counter
or the back of your hand, darling,
your unusual vehemence that
winter night, cob-webbed by
half-real figures, was animated by an
unfair advantage, which stooges threw
at you to keep you loopy as you
died piece-meal. All I had
was incomprehensible fury and a
broken heart— when I hit the floor
at four, you were getting ready
to play fire-starter, opened
the little snifter, curled your finger
twice in the right direction; darkness—
The way part one of the Elegy concludes— “You spiteful little princess”—
suggests the emergence of a duality. As is also applicable to Roberta in the prose context of Equations #12, the heroine/anti-heroine of the poem is a spiteful little princess— yet, if she were only
that, if she were a one-dimensional character with no dynamism built into her
consciousness (as it is obvious elsewhere that she is not), would she be worth writing about? The same applies to the
hero/anti-hero in 261; we know he brings his dare-devil streak to the surface,
and that he reacts negatively to the Elegiac Protagonist pulling rank for his
status as an artist in Cheltenham; yet the way 261 concludes establishes a kind
of parity, so that the Elegiac Protagonist has ways and means of insinuating
that there is more to this character than meets the eye. The surface level or
layer of the character is then riddled with ironies, and the potentiality of /for drama, through shocks and surprises, as was true of Psyche in the early Aughts. Intuition is a key to these revelations—
what Inter-Dialogic interactions reveal to intuition, the hidden depths of
another’s consciousness, are what make the figures in the Elegies, hopefully, both
compelling and dramatic. If I have succeeded, bombast has been avoided, as well; and the avant-garde principal against sentimentality and sickly preciosity upheld, even as narratives are established.
The aforementioned intuition is not just the writer’s, or the Elegiac
Protagonist’s; it is something to be held and to function in the consciousness
of the reader as well. How the reader reacts to the dramas in the Elegies
depends on what intuitively strikes him or her as interesting or provocative.
As to what the dire battle is in 420, and whatever else the spiteful little
princess might be hiding, the leap can be made also into what the Elegiac
Protagonist wants from her here— what kind of comfort, physical or emotional,
or both— and back into the position that she has certainly leapt into his
brain, seen what she has seen and then been repelled back out again, and then
acted accordingly, and spitefully. Does she have reason to be tiny-minded and
spiteful? Readers need to act on their hunches and expand their consciousness
into this frozen moment, and live out part of the drama between the two brains
for themselves. Then, they can begin the labor of establishing, if they care to, who is more
spiteful, and tiny-minded, amidst the Noir-consonant darkness.
Post a Comment