Sections
  • Back


Home | Army of the Future | Either/Or (no fish)

Either/Or (no fish)

Don’t get lost. It may seem like a big ocean, but it is all water. Exactly the same. Every drop. Once you realize this you’ll never be lost again.  

We are to believe, so the story goes, that a man, a victorious hermit, became attached (for reasons unknown) (i.e. by fancy) to a certain escritoire which he saw in a shop, and he made it a point (from that moment forth) to see this escritoire whenever possible. Although it was quite out of his way, whenever possible, he would visit this desk.   

Although he had no use for it, he desired it. He made an offer (easily refused) for something less that what the desk was worth. This was his idea of fate – if he was intended to have the desk, perhaps the shopkeeper would sell it to him for much less than it is worth, because this desk was, somehow, he felt, meant for him.  

A roll-top antique. A fine desk. But something more. He was drawn to it. Time passes, he continues to visit the desk. He pays the full price. He takes it home. He hopes that this desk will act as a reminder of this strange, extravagant behavior. He has no need for this desk. He bought it from a desire. An extravagant desire for an unnecessary escritoire. 

It is important to note that all of the details -- the whole story of this man, the shopkeeper, the escritoire – are an invention. A cover up!  

Just wait, it goes deeper.  

Victor Eremita, as the story goes, bought this desk and brought it home and placed it in a prominent spot to remind him of his strange, extravagant behavior. And then one day he is to go on a trip. And he is always on time, but this particular time he falls asleep. He falls asleep and when the taxi arrives he is not ready, and being the type of man that is always ready this is a shocking embarrassment for him. So he hurries. His travel money is in the desk. In the drawer of the escritoire. But he has misplaced the key. He cannot find it. 

He is never late. He is in a rush. The reminder of his extravagant behavior. His money is in the drawer. He is never late. He must open the drawer.  

He gets a hatchet -- a hatchet! -- and the desk is assaulted. Split open. However – however -- the drawer does not give. Instead, something unexpected happens – a secret compartment. Delightful! A secret compartment is revealed containing papers. Letters. Essays. And unexpected discovery. A revelation. Treasure!  

He quickly puts the papers into a case – a pistol case. A pistol case! And he takes his “pistols” out to the country.  

(Such an in-depth cover story. The very best kind. The very best.) 

Out to the country he goes, and everyday his hosts suppose that he’s going off to practice shooting. (An impending duel, perhaps?) But he is reading the secret papers – which he deems to be authored by two parties: the papers of A and the papers of B. He deduces from the handwriting two separate authors, and furthermore he deduces an order to the letters of one of the authors – the “B” in this story – due to the fact that one letter presupposed the other.  

And why such a cover up? Can these papers possibly be so dangerous as to require such mysterious authorship. 

And he, Victor Eremita, call himself merely the editor of these papers. He claims to have found them in the desk, which he was mysteriously drawn to, in a secret compartment, which he discovered one day while hurriedly attacking his new desk with a hatchet, and he took the papers to the country in a pistol case and separated them into the papers of “A” and the papers of “B” (and there were, in fact, others of questionable authorship…)  

Of course, we must recall that this is all a cover story. All of these papers – the A, the B, and the questionable authorships included – were all written by Victor Eremita (which is not even his real name) and he invented it all: the desk, the hatchet, the pistol case, a secret drawer, the papers of A, the papers of B, and the others of questionable authorship.

And why would he do such a thing?   

He did not want to interfere. The ideas, he felt, should be considered without consideration for the man who put them to paper. Therefore: the necessity of a cover story. The ideas which follow this intricate scenario are not ideas which need be attached to any man. 

Don’t get lost. It may seem like a big ocean, but it is all water. Exactly the same. Every drop. Once you realize this you’ll never be lost again.  

Don’t breathe if you’re under water. You’re no fish. Don’t forget that! It’s good advice! Know thyself – you’re no fish. You may swim in the water, but you can’t breathe it, my friend. That is the truth. Breathe your own air. 

(If you’re still following, you’re doing well. This too is all part of the cover story.) 

You’re no fish. Don’t breathe the water. If you’ve ever known anyone who has drowned, this may seem heartless, but I say they should have known better. We’re no fish.

 

SHARE: DIGG Add to Facebook Add To Any Service! Reddit this
All Comments require admin approval.

Subscribe to comments feed Comments (4 posted):

zerofoks on 02/02/2004 18:21
avatar
"The ideas, he felt, should be considered without consideration for the man who put them to paper."

And what if the papers were about the man who wrote them? What if the papers were his own diaries, what if this whole cover story is his own diary? And would a diary be so different from any other work of the mind? Does it not always just tell of its own experience, whether by adressing the supposed audience as "Dear diary" or "Beloved Elizabeth" or anything else?

Are the papers not by him? Or is the cover story he made not about him? Is it that which he wants to admit or that which he wants to deny? Because I once got told that freedom and innocence depend on each other, but then so do mortality and the solitude of being a person. If he admits the one, he admits the other.

But he wanted the ideas to be considered without the man who wrote them to be considered, to be text-immanent, so to speak. But there is only so much one can do with such an analysis of a text because there is just so much another person is and understands.

He denies the person, he denies the rightful place of the person as the creator of the ideas. Thus he denies the mortal constitution of their creators, he makes the ideas immortal and relates them to God.

He, himself, as he discloses himself against the concept of personal authorship, begins talking to himself as if he was talking to God. He is confusing God and himself. He is considering himself not mortal anymore. His parable's moral is that others, who cannot pacify themselves with this should have known better.

I don't think I like his denial. I think he denies more than he can, and maybe that makes him able to dive deeper into this world of water, but I can guarantee that there will be parts of this world (and for lack of a better word I will be calling them oceans, that is to say: worlds within worlds) that he will never see or experience or understand.

When I was a little kid of maybe six years, I had an ever reoccuring dream: An evil magician had set the whole world underwater, everybody had drowned and only I had survived, sliding through the deep oceans in some kind of air bubble that had mysteriously been set up around me. I saw dark places, morays, creatures of unbelievable malice nature and such and I was scared, scared for my air bubble to burst. Probably scared to get lost, I admit.

But I am not lost. I have understood and hence found myself: I have exactly my place, here in space and time, being able to walk through the one and generally experiencing the other. I am growing in some places and in others I am already decaying. I see all kinds of entropies unfold around me. I am mortal and mortality is the essence of the drops of this watery world.

I do not consider myself better because of this, just different. Majorly different, since I do obviously not have nor fully understand the reasons of Victor Eremita (probably an anagram of "A crime over tit"). I do not have his reasons and thus I do not possess his neccessity for his denial. I am not judging him.

I am judging him as an author whose work is available. And thanks for that, I would love to read a sequel!
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
zerofoks on 02/02/2004 18:23
avatar
Sorry about the missing paragraphs. I included them, but they obviously didn't show up (this comment thing needs a preview option). Anyhow, maybe somebody can fix this OR delete this and tell me how to submit it with working line breaks OR we can just leave it how it is, contemplating its beautiful imperfection.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Anti-Midas on 09/02/2004 02:43
avatar
Were I ever to pen a story (which I do, but I wouldn't ever admit it), I have this desire to make everything autobiographical. Not actually about me, but to a: go make it happen to me after I've written it (I could use more murder mysteries in my every day banality.) or more likely b: to sign it as one of the characters. To actually send it off to the publishers with the name of one of the characters as the author, and go through the whole rigamarole of secret bank accounts and post office boxes and tax evasion and whatever else one has to do in this day and age to convince someone reading the silly thing that the story is REAL and VALID and shouldn't ever be judged or considered as fiction or non-fiction or weighed against the author's other work, that the story should just simply BE and EXIST and that should be it and eat it. Maybe I'll start signing my work "Found on the Bus."
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
tjbyuph bfuelwmr on 16/02/2008 02:06
avatar
xjahtm ckmdglx wlcnsai qnkseldv lhbncaegf tjvwbpgn bljmhy
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
total: 4 | displaying: 1 - 4

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Newsletter
Email:
  • email Email to a friend
  • print Print version