Henri Michaux, 1935

Henri Michaux. 1935.

 

As men­tioned before, I once wrote an incred­i­bly bril­liant essay about Camus’s Meursault and Michaux’s Plume. Lost it. Nothing as tragic as a car crash. Nothing as dra­matic as get­ting it stolen in Paris. It’s just gone.

So, any­way. Thinking about Camus and Michaux and Joyce’s Leopold Bloom made me think about the con­nec­tions between the char­ac­ters. Yet again. Along comes Charlie Chaplin into the mix, and another mem­ory. Of see­ing his statue in Ireland, in Waterville by the sea. County Kerry. The Ring of Kerry. One of the most beau­ti­ful places on earth. This pic­ture doesn’t speak to that beauty, of course. Only to Chaplin’s pres­ence there.

Statue of Charlie Chaplin. Waterville, Ireland.

So the char­ac­ters are the same and wildly dif­fer­ent. There is a sense of indif­fer­ence in com­mon. In Camus’s great novel, The Stranger, that indif­fer­ence (with Meursault) is gen­er­ally mis­read and may not be the case at all. With Michaux’s Plume, since the char­ac­ter is largely an absurd man­i­fes­ta­tion of the uncon­scious, we can’t be sure about any­thing. But we can speculate.

Plume is an every­man like Leopold Bloom, but he’s also extra­or­di­nar­ily dis­in­clined to care about most of what goes on around him. Bloom did care, espe­cially about Molly, and later Stephen. But was absent-​​minded about this and that. Plume, on the other hand, does what we all wish we could do a thou­sand times a day. He cap­tures the relief and release we all feel when we can just say, “to hell with it all, I’m going back to bed.” It’s one of the most sat­is­fy­ing feel­ings on record. Of course, some of us might use dif­fer­ent words to express that relief.

Plume is often involved in vio­lent things, crazy things, tragic, heart break­ing things, and doesn’t seem to care. Perhaps a car­i­ca­ture of exis­ten­tial­ism before its day. At least before its day in France. Perhaps a car­i­ca­ture of nihilism, which some mis­take for exis­ten­tial­ism, at least its effects.

Did Meursault care about killing the Arab? Did he care about his mother’s death? And in one poem, A Tractable Man, did Plume care that his house was stolen, that his wife berated him for let­ting it hap­pen, that the train oblit­er­ated his wife, that the judge con­demned him for not car­ing about that? Did he care that the exe­cu­tion was set for the mor­row? No. He wanted to sleep, just to sleep, per­chance to dream his way out of the book, out of Michaux’s mind. Perhaps to rebel like the char­ac­ters in Flann O’Brien’s great novel, At Swim-​​Two-​​Birds.

Irony is vio­lent in cer­tain writ­ers. They are vio­lently ironic. There is also often a mas­sive split between their own per­sona and their char­ac­ters. It is gen­er­ally not a good idea to think of the author as writ­ing about him­self or her­self nec­es­sar­ily, auto­bi­o­graph­i­cally, in most cases. For instance, even though Michaux has a char­ac­ter whose main traits are his com­pli­ance, obse­quious­ness, sleepi­ness, goofi­ness and indif­fer­ence to his fate, he (Michaux) actu­ally led a very active, vig­or­ously pro­duc­tive life. And Camus? Though Meursault kills with­out rea­son, Camus was a cham­pion of jus­tice, for the oppressed, a fighter for human­ity his entire life.

It’s absurd that I’m writ­ing about two fic­tional char­ac­ters while Rome burns, implodes, explodes. But I really, really don’t care.

 

 

Related Posts: