Now, I am under the influence at the moment of an essay entitled "The Most Prevalent Form of Degradation in Erotic Life"; as you may have guessed, I have bought a set of the
In the "Degradation" essay there is that phrase, "currents of feeling." For "a fully normal attitude in love" (deserving of semantic scrutiny, that "fully normal," but to go on-) for a fully normal attitude in love, says he, it is necessary that two currents of feeling be united: the tender, affectionate feelings, and the sensuous feelings. And in many instances this just doesn't happen, sad to say. "Where such men love they have no desire, and where they desire they cannot love."
Question: Am I to consider myself one of the fragmented multitude? In language plain and simple, are Alexander Portnoy's sensual feelings fixated to his incestuous fantasies? What do you think, Doc? Has a restriction so pathetic been laid upon my object choice? Is it true that only if the sexual object fulfills for me the condition of being degraded, that sensual feeling can have free play? Listen, does that explain the preoccupation with
Yes, but if so, if so, how then explain that weekend in Vermont? Because down went the dam of the incest- barrier, or so it seemed. And
Or was it only the colorful leaves, do you think, the fire burning in the dining room of the inn at Woodstock, that softened up the two of us? Was it tenderness for one another that we experienced, or just the fall doing its work, swelling the gourd (John Keats) and lathering the tourist trade into ecstasies of nostalgia for the good and simple life? Were we just two more rootless jungle-dwelling erotomaniacs creaming in their pre-faded jeans over Historical dreaming the old agararian dream in their rent-a-car convertible-or is a fully normal attitude in love the possibility that it seemed for me during those few sunny days I spent with The Monkey in Vermont?
What exactly transpired? Well, we drove mostly. And looked: the valleys, the mountains, the light on the fields; and the leaves of course, a lot of ooing and ahhing. Once we stopped to watch somebody in the distance, high up on a ladder, hammering away at the side of a barn-and that was fun, too. Oh, and the rented car. We flew to Rutland and rented a convertible. A convertible, can you imagine? A third of a century as an American boy, and this was the first convertible I had ever driven myself. Know why? Because the son of an insurance man knows better than others the chance you take riding around in such a machine. He knows the awful actuarial details! All you have to do is hit a bump in the road, and that's it, where a convertible is concerned: up from the seat you go flying (and not to be
1. Promise, Plum, that you'll never ride in a convertible. Such a small thing, what will it hurt you to promise?
2. You'll look up Howard Sugannan, Sylvia's nephew. A lovely boy-