Saturday, July 19, 2014

L'enfer est les autres: On the virtues of solitude and other people

Chop Suey--Edward Hopper
 Buried in a story in the New Yorker this week, a woman mentions she had emailed a man she had never met, about an issue connected to the use of the Internet,  and he replied at  3AM and either that night or some other they met in a bar, and talked for 5 hours and became "almost best friends."

Which made the Phantom think: Is there anyone he could actually sit down with, in the same place, without becoming terminally squirmy, and simply talk for five hours and not get bored, disappointed, and want to leave after one or two hours?

In his whole life?

Maybe, when he was younger and the person in question was a woman with whom he had not yet slept, and the conversation, which may have ranged over a wide variety of topics, still was, on some level, about whether or not they would go to bed.

But what about just talking ?

A college roommate, who the Phantom never talked to after college, would spend at least 5 hours every night in the lounge of the Humanities Reading Room, a space separated by a glass wall from the reading room, and in the lounge, in the mid 1960's you could smoke and take a "study break." 

But for the roommate it was always break, never study. He talked about Sartre and Camus, in whatever language he felt like that night--he was fluent in French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese and he seemed able to pick up new languages talking to the cabbie on the way in from the airport.  He never seemed to actually study. The Phantom felt superior to this slacker, who only talked, but of course that was then. 

Now, the Phantom thinks, what a remarkable person--he was unfailingly kind to the Phantom, whom he very rarely saw because the Phantom was always at the library, and they would  nod to each other, when the Phantom came down from the stacks to use the bathroom in the lounge. 

One of the women this roommate talked to was an intimidatingly brilliant and quite exotically beautiful young lady--Japanese father/ Austrian mother--and this coed, hearing the roommate's description of the Phantom as someone who never talked to anyone, just studied, expressed an interest in going on a date with the Phantom.

When the Phantom got home that night, he knew something was very up. His roommate often sat around the room with a few friends, smoking, talking about Andre Gide or whomever, but when the Phantom got home at eleven, the friends knew to clear out, and the roommate joined them in someone else's room. The Phantom needed to be in bed by eleven-thirty, so he could be at the library the next morning, when it opened.

But this night, nobody moved. "Eva wants to go out with you," the roommate said, in very pregnant tones.  He explained that every red blooded male on campus would give his right arm to have a date with Eva and now the Phantom had this golden opportunity and nobody was leaving the room until the Phantom placed the call. The Phantom saw this could be a prolonged debated and he calculated he could ask her out and bail out later, so he walked down the hall to the pay phone at the other end, flanked by his guard and placed the call. Fine, I've got the date, now get out of my room.

As it turned out, for a variety of reasons, the Phantom did go on the date--he was a junior in college and had never gone on a college date, although he had had girlfriends in high school.  He talked to Eva for at least five hours, at a play, afterwards on the patio of the dorm, but he could not get as much out of her as he wanted. She kept deflecting the questions back to him and he had the distinct impression she learned much more about him that night than he did about her. 

This may have been partly because, early on, when she asked him about his hermit life and why he hadn't dated in college, he replied, honestly, he was not at college to have a good time. He was at college to get past college and into medical school. A girlfriend, any friend, would be a distraction and require time. There would be time for people, later. 

She gave him an appraising look and said, "Well, that sounds like a plan."

As it turned out, that one date did more for the Phantom's academic success than any single event in his college career, ironically enough. The one time he carved out to not be studying on a Saturday night, and it bought him more academically. During the intermission at the play, the Phantom, with his Asian looking date, ran into his organic chemistry lab instructor, a Nigerian, black as night, who was there with his girlfriend, a Swedish blond, another grad student, who would be the Phantom's organic chem lab instructor the next semester. So, there we were, all chatting amiably, the only racially mixed couples at the Trinity Theater in Providence, Rhode Island that night. Thereafter, the Phantom never got less than a 95 on any organic chemistry lab.

The Phantom could never be sure, but he thought Eva probably had something to do with his election into Phi Beta Kappa--Eva had been, of course, elected as one of the very few juniors into that honorary society.  

The Phantom never saw Eva after that night, not even in the library. He heard she had a boyfriend, a poet, by her senior year. 



Friends 

The Phantom was right about one thing that night--there would be  time for people later. In medical school, in New York City, the Phantom had friends and time to enjoy them, sitting around on call rooms, in the Emergency Room, on the wards, talking. 

But talking for five hours, to one person?  One hour, maybe.

When the Phantom met his wife, they talked and talked.  Friends said they were "chatty." But it was more than chatty. She had opinions, and judgments which the Phantom thought were forcefully put and well defended.  There have been a few other people--his brother and his brother's wife--but, for the most part, the Phantom has not met many people who were worth more than a hour.

Every Thanksgiving, the Phantom hikes up Mount Major with his sons, and they talk the whole way up and back, but that is not like sitting across from someone for three hours, in one place.

The Phantom's wife dragged him off to Italy once--under protest. But there in the piazzas, the Phantom saw Italians sitting around outdoor tables over small cups of coffee and tiny pastries, just talking. Those Italians talked for hours, into the night. (When they worked remains a mystery.) And, of course, the Phantom could not understand what they were saying, but they seemed absorbed, not angry, not agitated, just interested in what they were talking about.   
Connect and Die
In college, the Phantom felt vaguely superior to students who seemed afraid to be alone, who seemed to need contact with other people. The Phantom was secure in his solitude and read Walden and other accounts of solitary life. 

In Lady Chatterly's Lover,  Lady Chatterly spies Mellors, the game keeper, washing up outside his cabin. She watches him, fascinated, from the woods, entranced by a man who lives alone and who seems fine with that.  Her world is one of too much company--her husband, who depends on her, his friends, her friends, her family. She never has time for herself.  But this man, living alone in the woods on her husband's estate, has quite a lot of time for himself. And she envies him that, and she respects his independence. 

In "Huis Clos," Sartre's play about three people locked in a room for all eternity, they come to understand, "Hell is other people."  Of course, Sartre did not mean it that simply--he was talking about the angst of seeing yourself through the eyes of other people, a process of depersonalization.  But the point holds--either way you think of it.

And that is the human condition:  Women (or men or simply other people)--can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.


17 comments:

  1. Phantom,
    Really? You have, "for the most part not met many people who were worth more than an hour"? I notice most of the people worthy of more than an hour of talking time before you start to inwardly yawn are related to you. Is that, by chance, a prerequisite to being interesting? So, did you ever hear what happened to your well versed, socially adept roommate? Perhaps he's holding court in some Italian cafe...sounds like a pretty good pastime to me...
    Maud

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh no, even Maud is beginning to suspect you have some socialization problems. Time for a little self exploration. Perhaps your "chatty" wife can offer some insights and suggestions!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maud and Anon,

    Well, that "worth more than an hour" certainly attracted some flack.
    Not an elegant phrase.
    Of course, people are "worth" more than an hour in cosmic terms. But really do either of you sit and talk with someone, other than your children, for more than an hour and remain engaged?
    I can do things with people for hours--play baseball, hike, bicycle, but actually sitting, say at a bar or at a dinner table, one on one? Usually, there is a group. Dinner parties can go on for hours without loss of interest, but one on one?
    Maud, do you sit across from someone and just talk for more than an hour? Do you not need to be at least walking in the neighborhood, distracted by other things, coming back and forth into focus on your friend?
    It still astonishes me to think of those people I saw in Italy, one on one, at a table, going on and on for hours.
    Listening to some 20 something talking on her cell phone from Washington to New York in the train, and what is she talking about? Yikes! It's enough to make you consider walking between cars and just leaping out.
    I cannot believe I am so alone in this. Why, then are there Quiet Cars on Amtrak?
    I'm not saying I cannot be in the company of someone for hours on end, but we are not usually talking that whole time.
    Well, maybe you're right: it's just my own problem.
    You can inform me.
    That may be a benefit of a blog.

    Phantom

    ReplyDelete
  4. Do you really find it easier to talk to your children for an hour than to another adult? Does it not occur to you that talking with your child is not two people of relatively equal status talking as contrasted with talking with another adult. The whole dynamic is different - is that why you find it easier and/or more appealing? Time for a little more introspection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aon,

      My now grown children give me all I can handle.
      I'm not sure when talking to them, for me, was indistinguishable from talking with any other adult.
      They have their own perspectives and experience.
      I think they made the leap to equal status around age 12.
      I've been looking up, ever since.

      Mad Dog

      Delete
  5. Equal for you perhaps, but not likely equal for them. I'm virtually certain they still see you as their father, which is certainly makes it different for them to talk with you than to talk with any other adult. Why don't you ask them about this - it will fill up part of the hour.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Phantom and Anon,
    Surely my point was never to call in to question the Phantom's socialization skills and the fact that you find your family the most interesting people to talk to is a wonderful thing actually; there are plenty of people for whom the opposite is true and that has always struck me as sad... and c'mon Anon, lighten up on the Phantom, he didn't say he preferred talking to his sons over other adults, but rather, in addition to other adults-nothing wrong with that... I just wasn't initially sure why, Phantom, you found the other .999999999% of the population, those you were not related to, so lacking in the ability to say anything of interest after an hour. Now I see that length of time can be extended for you, provided some activity is involved-walking, biking, badminton, jump roping- something to break things up a bit..I agree five hours would be a stretch- but to your question, have I ever talked to someone for a few hours, the answer is yes-and no, I wasn't bored. Granted, that doesn't mean I could talk in such length with anyone and everyone-that would not be the case.... Do you think the issue for you could be, in part, not the conversing, but your lack of interest in sitting still for such an extended length of time, no matter who you are talking to?...Of course you are not alone in your reluctance to talk on and on for hours... I don't happen to share that reluctance-spending a few hours sitting around talking with an interesting friend wouldn't be difficult...one more reason I think I'd really like Italy...
    Maud

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maud,
    Agree with every sentence.
    What comes of writing without much editing.
    Of course, any person on the planet is "worth" more than an hour.
    I've always hated that phrase, "His net worth," which sounds like some sort of ultimate judgment of a human being but really means how many dollars he commands.
    And yes, in my case it's the sitting directly across someone without throwing a ball to him/her or walking up a mountain while talking.
    Sure did stir the pot, though, didn't it?

    Phantom

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maud,
    You had it right the first time - not sure why you backed off. Phantom's inability to talk without doing something else - throwing a ball, hiking - sounds a little child-like. Ever see little kids play near each other but not with each other - does that sound like a "conversation" with the Phantom. He should be able to connect a little better - even with people to whom he is not related - don't you think? Actually, a blog is a way to share his thoughts without having to actually sit and talk with anyone. Interesting, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon,
    Oh I didn't back off, I clarified-there's a difference...
    Maud

    ReplyDelete
  10. Maud,
    You clearly had the Phantom's attention - and that was the chance to effect a little change. When you "clarified" he relaxed and the chance was lost.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon,

    Actually, I did not hear from you that you have sat down, across the table, from a person and just talked for four hours at a time. Maud says she has, but I suspect she is the exception, among Americans. I would not accept a dinner or talk over beers at a bar as the same thing as what I described those Italians capable of doing: Sitting across from one another, at a table with only a cup of Expresso talking about whatever it was they were talking about.
    Have you done this in the past year with anyone? Not dinner. Not drinks. Just talk?

    I watch Americans, in Portsmouth, Washington, even New York. They do not spend that much time with other people in this sort of one on one. I could be wrong, but I have not heard from you or anyone else, apart from Maud, Americans do this.

    Phantom

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, actually, I did spend three hours talking with one person last evening. Admittedly, it was over dinner but mostly talk - we had to keep shooing the waiter away because we wanted to talk, not order or eat. (Have you ever spent three hours even with dinner involved?).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon,

    Often.
    Dinner with waiters, or even as a dinner party does not count.
    Talking one on one. Huis Clos. No event. Just talk.

    Phantom

    ReplyDelete
  14. For the record, I said a "few" not "four"..
    Maud

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maud,
    For those who are keeping track, how many is "a few"?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon,
    Enough already.
    Oddly, this particular posting not only attracted the banter visible in "Comments" but it set a new Phantom record for views, ten times the previous high.
    And the title is in French (mostly)!

    Phantom

    ReplyDelete