One of my favorite and often read psychoanalytic articles starts with this line, “Reminiscences of learning by identification and from precepts: A glimpse into the fold between private pain and psychologically charged external fields of reference”. The author, Dr. Maurice Apprey, then takes the reader on a few journeys encompassing the personal/professional, internal/external dialogue, childhood/adulthood memories and ways of being. The voyage he takes the reader on is filled with various affects from the narrator and states of being through an interpersonal lens; all masterfully woven into his mode of storytelling. It’s an easy read exempt of obtrusive jargon and takes just under 20minutes to mentally ingest. The highlight, or rather bright light of the paper that has put this in my top 5 reading materials has to do with Apprey’s gorgeous stylistic way of writing and the naming of his de-idealization of white people from childhood. I felt so deeply connected to what the Ghanian born man expressed, though nothing (that I can remember) in my past resembles his concrete experience. So what does ‘A Glimpse into the Fold’ have to do with this Pulitzer Prize novel, ‘A Confederacy of Dunces’? Not much, but the first line “reminiscences of learning by identification and from precepts” resonated as my professional self could not help but feel a deep sadness for the novels main character Ignatius. What a disastrously unlikeable character.
This was by far the most absurd book I have read in my life. I imagine myself living well into my 80’s *knock on wood*, so it doesn’t say much that I have just come across this fictional piece. In fact, I found myself astonished as I asked friends and colleagues if they’ve heard of this novel before and kept coming across confident “yes” replies. So I dove in, head first rapidly shifting through the pages. I laughed out loud a few times, then found myself exclaiming “what did he just say?!” a couple of times until finally I decided to take in the novel in its entirety a second time around via audiobook. I highly recommend listening to this novel if you have the opportunity, again it’s absolutely absurd, and funny (depending on your sense of humor). A bit of an asterisks to that. My partner listened to this with me via audiobook and was entirely lost and at times put off by the language and attitudes of the characters, she found none of it funny lol. Content warning…. the N word is thrown around a bit within the text. The racial aspects of the times, as this book was written in the 1960’s, accurately depicts the sentiments of [most] southern whites towards Blacks for that era in US history along with the sentiments of [most] cis-heterosexuals towards the gay community. Kudos to the author for not straying away from reality too much, and integrating in racism and homophobia.
It’s the absurdity of the racism and homophobia in this novel that truly set John Kennedy Toole up for grande recognition along with the religious symbolism that was sprinkled in. Queerness ran rampant within the text in such a manner that the reader can opt towards laughter or bewilderment….. possibly both. I found myself struck that the books synopsis reads as:
“Reilly, is an educated but slothful 30-year-old man living with his mother in the Uptown neighborhood of early-1960s New Orleans who, in his quest for employment, has various adventures with colorful French Quarter characters”
Envisioning myself as the synopsis writer for this novel, I’m in front of my mother’s old typewriter, dust is in the air swirling around as I stare out the living room bay window, typing away like the meme’s of cats typing on a laptop in a frenzy:
“30 year old Ignatius, a working class cis-white male in New Orleans is forced to re-enter the symbolic and manifest master-slave workforce dynamic against his will, as the subjugated. His unresolved Oedipus ties to his mother serves as the catalyst to his sloth-like lifestyle in this fictional novel written in the 1960’s by a working class cis-white male from New Orleans who completed suicide before the novel was published”
So here we have this cis-white male, working class roots, writing about a cis-white male, working class roots (it’s implied that he’s straight) and the debacle that manifests from him having to engage in earning income, towards ensuring (in a very hyperbolic manner) that his mother does not get arrested for an unpaid debt. What I imagine Toole was grappling with through the lens of identification with his main character is the desire to stay inside the womb (and write), uninterrupted. Writing, I would like to explicitly highlight, is a form of “working” and so Ignatius was in fact working, just not in the capitalistic matrix of master-slave dynamics that continue to be re-enacted globally. You must engage in the workforce to earn a living to live a respectable life. Respectable here deriving its meaning not from core values but rather the physical material of shelter, food, clothing and the strive towards partnership so that one can procreate towards continuing the human race, or towards not having to take on the full brunt of caring for self. I may be reducing things a bit bleakly. What are we to make of those who refuse to work but have not fallen to the depths of homelessness? Or those who prefer to “stay in the womb” where most things are taken care of for them. Is it considered working if it does not produce a tangible outcome of monetized art or compensation? These are things to be considered. Let me get back to the task at hand in orating my thoughts about the prize winning novel.
Ignatius took the preference towards not competing in the world externally, as he was already the Oedipal victor internally, and a modern day incel. The novel allows us into the fold of an overweened momma’s boy, whom is easy to despise or laugh at. This is where my mind really starts questioning precepts. The US was “built” on the labor of indentured servants and slaves, and quickly ante’d up its devotion to free labor. What is to be assumed about today’s work force and the dissociation from master-slave dynamics? What became of slaves who did not work?! I believe they were killed or sold. I won’t expand on my thoughts about this here but the collective unconscious and our societal views on non-income earning individuals and their lack of place in society is worth heightened curiosity. Without having to pair this system against/to communism I would love to highlight that there will inevitably be people in our society who will not engage in the workplace regardless of gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, able-ness, education or age. Almost by principle they will not work in any system that mimics the original master-slave dynamic that this country is rooted in and continues to enact, while there are MASSES of people who do not question anything that I have just mentioned above, through the lens of unconscious fear of homelessness and destitution.
There is a phenomenal dialogue between Ignatius and Jones in Chapter 11 that I would love to untangle with another brain, just magnificent concerning the level of envy and projection. I needed dark humor and that is exactly what I found in this text.
I newfound hobby of mine is pairing novels with movies, and a great accompaniment to this piece of literature would be the cult classic "Hedwig and the Angry Inch”. Same level of dark humor, absurdity & entertainment, but devoid [kinda] of the racial and religious undertones. Working on the synopsis as we speak
