I think it's a wonder the friend didn't beat Lowry to death. What a hurtfull remark.

Some are attracted to weak spots as nurses to wounds, they simply have to poke around in it, enemies or not.

Retarded people can be so authentic and original. Some are so pure .
If a person can't see through their handicap he's handicapped as well.

This is the kind of "debate" I utterly despise. Yes, let's all join hands and stand before our retarded children so that we may loathe and expel an individual from our midst. It is good for our team spirit, and we are with many already; one won't be missed!

Lowry obviously *knew* the response he would get; his was the expression of utter grief. He was a total wreck, and not very different in terms of social isolation than the girl. By soliciting a beating and getting one, the analogy between him and the girl would be confirmed; this was his way of showing his sympathy, and his identification with her. It has nothing to do with genius; it has all to do with being alone and rejected by society. He knew he was as little accepted as that girl, but I am not sure if he knew he would be misunderstood so many years later, even after someone spelling it out for the readers of the NYRB, and this blog. Don't you people (as always, with the exception of Jan T) understand anything, ever? Is there no incentive to rise above the mediocrity that produced you?

As for you, Arnon, is it not your job as a writer to side with writers and look down on bourgeois opinions? Or are you effectively installed to represent a philistine doctrine?

Here's the deal, when you have a handicapped/retarded child, you do in fact wonder what you did wrong, excruciatingly so, even though you'd never tell anyone that, let alone amdit it to yourself (so Lowry's comment as to what kind of a man etc, hit home hard). Moreover, you start hating starry-eyed people who tell you "if I were to find out I was carrying a child with Down's syndrome, I think I would keep it." because the truth of the matter is: they have no fucking idea, excusez les mots. Because I do have an idea. I thank you Arnon for understanding that these issues should be left out of the equation. Keep it that way.

I don't know.
Maybe Lowry tried to start a philosophical conversation.
Even as an alcoholic genius you should know that most of the time you can't have philosophical conversations with your neighbours.
Anyhow, as a poem the question of Lowry works really well.

RHCdG, a couple of questions: being an artist isn't an excuse to be rude, is it? Can an artist be rude in your opinion? Is being rude your definition of art?

David

Here is a line that I came across tonight; it's in Dutch; I'll make an attempt at a translation, and then that should answer all your questions.

"Negatief is niet wat ontstellend is, negatief is wat dusdanig beknot, gerasterd, gevangen en gefixeerd is dat het elke vorm van onvatbaarheid als een bedreiging ervaart."

"Negative is not what is disconcerting; rather, it is what is curtailed, fenced off, restrained, and captured to such an extent that it experiences anything that cannot be appropriated as a threat".

Noa

Are you the mother of a retarded child? Or you know someone who is? And they feel sorry for *themselves*? It is that, which ultimately does most to hurt the feelings of their child.

Rutger

The bourgeois opinion would applaud Lowry for being so outspoken and funny and utterly tragic at the same time, the bourgeois opinion would look down on this poor carpenter (not without compassion of course), mind you a carpenter, who didn’t get the beautiful irony of Lowry’s opinion, alone and rejected by society, yes, very much indeed, well you yourself expressed the bourgeois opinion very well.
As to the question if it’s my job to stand with other writers – it depends on the writers and it depends on their opinions and their deeds.

Rutger

Wether your interpretation is right, I don't know, but I like it.

Arnon

You are not making sense.

Rutger

I will do my best to explain myself better.
It’s all about being in on the joke and not being in on the joke. You are in on the joke; at least that’s what you think. The carpenter wasn’t. I stand with the carpenter.
(If the bourgeois has one ambition it’s the ambition to be in on the joke. And more often than not the bourgeois is very much in on the joke, when it gets ugly there is always an escape route, one declares simply that the aggressive, nasty joke was in fact nothing but empathy in disguise.)

Being in on jokes is a mechanism of distinction. I often think of exchanging certain ironic remarks as being equivalent to dog’s sniffing each other’s asses, to see what breed the partner in conversation is.

Arnon

I appreciate your elaboration but my understanding of bourgeois moral is different than yours. It might help to explain *why* you stand with the carpenter. Is it for the reason Noa supplied? Or, do you believe the girl needed defending against a total drunk who was at least as retarded (albeit in another way) as she was? Do you not think the carpenter 's reaction is a tad over-concerned, and short-sighted?

I think Dries has a point in saying that being in on jokes is a mechanism of distinction. But I don't think that we should let a dominant ideology pass for a "joke". The girl's otherness, and Lowry's, are the cause for their being expelled ("left out of the equation"). In my understanding, it is the bourgeois community that does the expelling, and it's writers who may then feel a concern, regardless of how successful they are.

Rutger

If Malcolm Lowry had said this to an influential book critic or an important publisher my reaction would have been different.

Arnon

I would hope that *their* reaction would be different (from the carpenter's) as well. Cheers,

Rutger

I bet their revenge would have been more subtle and painful. But sometimes even influential critics and important publishers let you down.

Arnon

You are insisting on revenge, which is a petty bourgeois sentiment. I would urge you to rise above it.

Noa

Just out of curiosity: did you win your case?

Margot - ongoing, it'll take a year or two. Brazil is a good antidote for now (unless I get dengue, in which case ultimately the *nouveau riche* got the better of the *bourgeois*.)

If something is funny or not is also determined by culture. The following, on topic, joke was chosen the most funniest in the UK in 2002, while it was less appreciated elsewhere:

A woman gets on a bus with her baby. The bus driver says: “That’s the ugliest baby that I’ve ever seen. Ugh!” The woman goes to the rear of the bus and sits down, fuming. She says to a man next to her: “The driver just insulted me!” The man says: “You go right up there and tell him off – go ahead, I’ll hold your monkey for you.”

Friends of mine taught me a new word the other day: pigment-handicapped for the coloured people.

I tend to make fun of the mentally and physically challenged. I 'm one, so it gives me the right.-, isn't it?

Rutger

I’m not insisting on revenge at all. Please read more carefully before posting your comments. And whether revenge is a bourgeois sentiment is doubtful to me, but that’s not the question here. The question is whether your psychological characterization of Malcolm Lowry is apt and whether his remark to this particular carpenter is worth defending as “his way of showing sympathy” for the retarded kid.
Anyhow be assured that this comment is my way of showing sincere sympathy for you.

Arnon

What I did was not a psychological characterization of Malcolm Lowry but rather a structural analysis of the whole situation, an assessment of similarities, analogies, and differences. What is most important, however, is to find the *drain*, i.e., the body (usually a human) that is "left out of the equation", and made to dispose of an excess discourse after the debate is concluded.

In our case, it was the retarded girl. Here is an unhappy man, a drunk; there is another one, her father. They beat each other up, and it doesn't matter who gets most of the beating when they part; after all, their dispute is settled no matter what. But *what about the girl?* I believe that is what Malcolm Lowry meant to say in the first place. He knew about the Noa's in this world, those that would prefer to leave her "out of the equation", e.g., because she is goddamn pure, authentic, and innocent. Why else do you think he drank? He sided with her; perhaps he used a roundabout way of expressing it, but what are the options for a drunk to make any sense at all?

It's late; I'm tired. Have a good night.

Rutger

Your literary CSI strikes me as unfortunately pedantic.

Rutger
Is it the bourjeois arrogance of an artist in his intellectual uniform that makes you use words as "utterly despise"?

Oscar W

Whatever you perceive in me is something you are going to have to live with while I am here.

Helen

Was it you who wrote the words, "Retarded people can be so authentic and original. Some are so pure. If a person can't see through their handicap he's handicapped as well"?

I thought that was such an original observation. You are right, they are an example to us. Thanks for leading the way!

Wauw .... You're cynical?