1
To the Reader, Sincerely
DAVID LAZAR
Non men che saver, dubbiar mâaggrada.
DANTE, INFERNO XI
For it is myself that I portray.
MONTAIGNE, âTO THE READERâ
Come here often?
Weâve both been around the block a few times. In fact, I think I may have even seen you loitering in my back pages. I donât hold it against you. Itâs like the old joke: weâre both here, after all. My apologies if that sounds slightly salacious. But just as Montaigne wished he could appear naked, and worried that heâd be cast into the boudoir, itâs that desire to be raw and that need to cook, wanting to blurt out everything and wanting, too, to be discreet, that creates the maddeningly necessary friction for essays. Itâs that thinking about what you think you thought. Raw rarely wins.
I want something from you and you want something from me, and Iâm not trying to just be chivalrous when I say I know I owe you a good time, in the broadest sense. What I want from you is more complicated, reader. Youâre mostly doing a great job of giving me what I need just by being you. I know that sounds hackneyed: âJust be yourself.â And of course, to a certain extent, youâre my invention, whether you like it or not, the monster to my Frankensteinâor âsteen,â depending on my mood. Potato, potahto. But if we call the whole thing off, we must part. Keeping all of this in mind, I think itâs fair to say you can read me like a book. But even as Iâm imagining you, youâre (with a little help) imagining me. Which is to say, dearie, old pal of mine, that the thing about whistling in the dark is, âYou just put your lips together and blow.â
Reader, I divorced her. And she me. And perhaps Iâm looking for a surrogate, a perfect other, perchance at least a friendly friend to while away the hours conversing with. After all, I spend so much time talking to myself, writing little concertos of prose in my head, that after a time, having spent too much time walking around the city and thinking in concentric loops, layering idea upon idea only to have them evaporate like the lightest of brain soufflĂ©s, it seems to make sense to write them down. I try to tell myself that the story I tell is real, but really, what would that really mean, other than that I really mean what I say? Nevertheless, I think, Iâve always thought, that intention counts for something. Isnât that recherchĂ©? Wasnât intention nine-tenths of the law in some places?
Iâm sincere, in other words. Whether or not Iâm honest is a judgment that shouldnât be self-administered. Iâm sincerely sincere. Iâve always loved the song in Bye Bye Birdie, âHonestly Sincereâ:
If what you feel is true
Really feel it you
Make them feel it too
Write this down now
You gotta be sincere
Honestly sincere
Man, you gotta be sincere
If I didnât have a dash of modesty, Iâd be entirely and wholly sincere! Iâm even sincere about the things I say that are slightly less than sincere, but which I try to sincerely slap myself around a bit for having been insincere about. Itâs one of the ways I can show you that Iâm being reasonably honest. Itâs also a sincere display of how flawed I am. Look, if I told you I was thirty-nine, and then told you I was fifty (donât roll your eyes), youâd think I was a bit of an idiot, but at least youâd know I had a self-correcting mechanism. But Iâd take everything I say with a grain of salt if I were you. And I mean that sincerely. Iâm fifty-six, by the way. You could look it up.
If I really just wanted you to like me, Iâd tell you a story. It would be a story of adversity of some kind, and I would be the protagonist. It would arc like crazy, like Laurence Sterne on Ritalin, and Iâd learn something really valuable from my experience. But who knows where an essay is going to go? Really. Iâd be a defective essayist if all I did was tell stories. Sincere stories. Like the one about walking out of my house yesterday. I was feeling my age as summer bled into fall on a day that was really too nice for such a metaphor. A guy who was working on installing a new wrought iron fence outside (I love wrought ironâpartly because I love the way it looks, and partly because of âwroughtâ) told me he liked my style. âThanks!â I said, thinking I was so smart to have bought that â50s vintage jacket online last week for fifteen dollars. Then the fine fellow said, âYou look like Woody Allen.â
I was taken aback. I had never been told I looked like Woody Allen. Iâm not sure I want to look like Woody Allen. I donât mind sounding a bit like Woody Allen. It comes with the territory: Brooklyn Jewish, and he was an enormous influence on me. But, look? So I said, âIâm sorry, did you say I looked like Errol Flynn?â And he said, âYeah, thatâs right, but not from The Adventures of Robin Hood but from The Modern Adventures of Casanova, in 1952, when he was dissolute.â
I made that last part up. Forgive me? He really did say I looked like Woody Allen.
For the last few years everyone Iâve met has been telling me I look like Lou Reed. I donât see it. I was in one of my favorite bars in Chicago, the Berghoff (essay product placement), and a man was staring at me. He finally made his way to my table and said, âExcuse me, I donât mean to bother you, but are you Lou Reed?â I said, âNo, Iâm John Cale.â He said, âWhoâs John Cale?â I mean, how can you possibly know who Lou Reed is without knowing who John Cale is? Itâs like walking up to someone and saying, âAre you Oliver Hardy?â âNo, Iâm Stan Laurel.â âWhoâs Stan Laurel?â
In any case, I wasnât even sure of how I felt about that. Lou Reed was great looking, although a bit older than I; he was getting a bit weathered . . . and do I have to look like a Jewish New Yorker in the arts? Whatâs the connection between Woody Allen and Lou Reed? Whoâs next? Mandy Patinkin? Harvey Fierstein? Hey, what about Adam Brody?
Look, reader, Iâm sincerely not trying to look for things to complain about, but part of bedecking myself is the confusion and profusion of identities âIâ shuffles through. Surely you have some version of this? Donât you have some walk-in closet of self or selves? I do have some version of a Fierstein shirt, a Patinkin suit, I suppose, especially when Iâm being shticky. When my persona is shticky. When itâs less so, I like to think Iâm closer to
Me and my shadow
Strolling down the avenue
Oh, me and my shadow
Knock on the door is anybody there
Just me and my shadow
You might call me a self-made man. Hello to the essay Lazar, goodbye to the talker-walker Lazar. The former has inscribed the latter, imbibed the latter, put him through a meat grinder, and feasted. Iâm self-immolated, a phoenix. Rise, he said. Or: Monty Python: I write rings around myself, logically, if not impetuously. (Donât you wish John Cleese had written essays?) The spirit of Whitman is in the essay: we enlarge ourselves even as weâre talking about our pettiness, our drawers, our moths, our doors. The âIâ that takes us along (remember that terrible song âTake Me Alongâ?âbad songs stay as long as delightful ones) does so because weâre attracted to the way it vibrates or concentrates, clicks or skiffles. The essay voice is a boat that can carry two.
And no voices are alikeâmy own jumpy, interruptive style, which might not be to everyoneâs taste, will be seen as a flaw or a defect by some, and by others as the only dress in my closet. But let me tell you that I think that I, like most essayists, want to be known. That this âcreatedâ voice youâre hearing (created voice, creative writing, creature of the night!), this persona, this act of self-homage and self-revelation, occasionally revulsion, frequently inquisition or even interdiction, actually is tied very closely to the author. Since Iâm frequently my subject, to say the âIâ who is writing isnât quite me is slightly fatuous; which âIâ is the more sincere, the more honest self? That one? The ontology of essay writing involves a conversation with oneself, and one, after a while, exchanges parts back and forth so that writer and subject become bound, bidden, not interchangeable but certainly changeable. I become what Iâve created, and want to be known as that.
For Montaigne the wanting to be known was partly due to the loss of his soulmate, Ătienne de La BoĂ©tie. At one point Montaigne offers to deliver his essays in person. I like that idea, reader. Weâve lost the telegram, after all. Wouldnât you like to open the door and have Mary Cappello or Lia Purpura hand you a personalized essay? âEssay, Maâam,â might just enter the lexicon. Iâd write you one. I could come over and read this one to you, if you like. Like Montaigne, I think Iâm in search of company, and I talk to myself in essays as a way of finding it. So youâre really very close to me. A matchbook length, a cough, a double-take away.
At the end of his invocation âTo the Reader,â his introduction to his Essais, in 1580, Montaigne bids farewell. Itâs a double joke. Heâs saying goodbye because, in an extension of the modesty topos, he has urged the reader to not read his vain book of the self, his new form: the essay. He is also bidding adieu to the pre-essayed Montaigne, the one who isnât self-created, self-speculated, strewn into words and reassembled, if so. A playful gauntlet. And he is invoking the spirit of his death. To write oneself is to write oneself right out of the world. Itâs the autothanatological moment: âwhen they have lost me, as soon they must, they may here find some traces of my quality and humor.â
Montaigne says his goal is âdomestic and private,â and so it may have been, at first, though Montaigneâs literary ambitions start seeming more and more clear as the essays lengthen and grow more complex, as Montaigne takes more risks with what he offers of himself. And my own, I ask myself, in the spirit of Montaigne. What are they? Iâd say theyâre twofold: (1) to write the sentence whose echo doesnât come back; (2) to be known, in some essential way, without sucking the air out of the mysterium.
Montaigneâs address to the reader occurred when doing so was still a relatively new, a reasonably young rhetorical move. According to Eric Auerbach, Dante seems to have been the first writer to establish an intimately direct poetic address to the reader. Dante then plays with this form, using it a structuring device, tossing off asides. And Montaigne quotes Dante in the essays. This dynamism is epistolary, liberating and seductive. Sotto voce. Let me whisper in your ear. Itâs just the two of us. Come on, you can tell me. Or rather, itâs okay, I can tell you. The confession. After all, Iâm writing about myself, and my subject is really important, right?
Except: Reader, she saysâgrabbing me by the shoulders, telling me that what she needs to tell me is more important than anything thatâs ever been toldâI married him. And you thought comedies ended in marriage? In my triad of great addresses to the reader (meaning me, in the place where you are now), Charlotte BrontĂ«âs direct address will always be for me the most stunning, the single most relational moment, perhaps, in literature. âReader.â And for the moment itâs your name. Call me Reader. And as a male reader, and as a male adolescent reader, my response was always: You should have waited for me.
Addresses to the reader are not, you see, just about intimacy. Theyâre also secretly about infidelity.
Reader, comrade, essay-seeking fool, blunderer upon anthologies for whom the book tolls, when I said, âI divorced her,â Iâm sorry for the lack of context, but really what I wanted to talk about here wasnât her and me, that was a bit of a feint, but you and me. You know Iâve been missing you. Since we last met, across a crowded essay, Iâve really been thinking about nothing but you. Well, you and me, and me and you. Letâs go for a little walk, shall we? Flaneur and flaneuse, or flaneur and flaneur. I might even let you get in a word or two.
Baudelaire must have breathed Montaigne. And his âAu Lecteurâ or âTo the Readerâ (also the title of Montaigneâs invocation) is almost like Montaigne inverted, Montaigne through the looking glass. Actually, Baudelaire and Charles Dodgson were contemporaries, which makes a kind of perverse sense. If you look at some of the language, some of the phrasing of âAu Lecteur,â you find a Montaignean sensibility, if not a Montaignean tone: âIn repugnant things we discover charmsâ; âour souls have not enough boldnessâ; âOur sins are obstinate, our repentance is faint.â But whereas Montaigne is only suggesting, via a modesty trope, that his readers may be wasting their time (not really), Baudelaire is saying (Hey, you!) weâre going to hell in a panier Ă main, which means, ironically, that we need to listen to his brotherly jeremiad. âHypocrite reader, my brother, my doubleââthe antithesis and the brother (and sister) of Montaigneâs and BrontĂ«âs addresses. Theirs are seductive in their close (reading), one-on-one asides to us, just us. They need an intimate, we feel, and so appeal to our need for intimacy. We need what they need. But so does Baudelaire, because who else would dare say that to us? Heyâyou! Yeah, Iâm talking to you! I remember being shocked by that, the audacity, someone daring to say that to me. He would have to . . . know me pretty well. My brother, my double? Push, pull.
Depending on my mood, I could tell you that there are better things to do than reading essaysâgoing for a walk, watching a movie, throwing a rubber ball against a stoop. But at other times, perhaps when Iâm treading across Charles Lambâs âA Bachelorâs Complaint of the Behavior of Married Peopleâ or Eliza Haywoodâs The Female Spectator, Nancy Mairsâs âOn Not Liking Sexâ or John Earleâs Microcosmographie, I feel like telling you that there may not be anything better to do, that in fact youâre wasting your time reading novels, or going to plays, looking at art (I canât ever speak against the moviesâI just canât), or doing the things you do to keep yourself alive. You should just read essays and live on the delight. The delight of Stevenson, Beerbohm, M. F. K. Fisher. But modesty tropes are worthwhile, so part of me wants to tell you: Go for a walk.
So, reader. Reader. Darling reader. Thereâs something I want to tell you. Itâs a story, but itâs more than a story. Itâs what I think about whatâs happened to me. To us. And where I might be headed. We might be headed. It involves movies, books, walking around if itâs not miserably cold, and your occasional willingness to laugh at my jokes. Together, we might be able to cobble together an essay. We can assay! Iâd love it if you really thought you knew me.
CODA
Montaigneâs âTo the Reader,â less than a page, contains much of the internal friction and frisson of the creation of the essayâs persona. Itâs full of play and a theoretical masterpiece in miniature. âTo the Readerâ has been my inspiration, and has inspired and intrigued essayists for 435 years. So I wanted to join Montaigneâs along with a couple of my other favorite readerly salutations and try to let them breathe in my own question mark as lasso out to whoever might find or be looking to find that note of connection in the voice of reader and writer, writer and reader, who in the essay play a game, at times, of musical chairs.
2
Of Liars
E. J. LEVY
Lying is indeed an accursed vice.
MONTAIGNE, âOF LIARSâ...