I’ve found that memoirs are difficult to talk about in polite company: Beyond theory, how do I treat as separate entities the life and the text used to evoke that life? Yes, the “right” thing to do would be to separate the two—or to judge only the text, if it gives justice to the life—an unnatural move, in my opinion, when both are so intertwined and so essential to each other. Can I say one has had a unremarkable life, but the writing makes me breathless? Or can I say that the writing is nothing spectacular, but the life led has sent shivers through me? Or can I say that, in the space of a two hundred or so pages, I managed to see-saw between both opinions?
In his A Preparation for Death, sometime-writer Greg Baxter recorded a few years’ worth of dangerous excesses and personal decay, the climax of nearly a life’s worth of disillusionment. There is a lot of bad juju going on in here, and we witness Baxter’s crumbling: how he’s making a mess of work, his family, his liver, his lungs, and more than a handful of sexual encounters. This isn’t the high life, no—Baxter is so out of it that he can’t even seem to consider enjoying himself.
If anything, the life he led is a decadence so profane [or deliberately profaned] that it had such the potential to kick me in the solar plexus—but then Baxter decided to do a disservice to himself, making him, well, loser-ly. Although Baxter’s honesty is laudable—if only more writers could be so brave, so ruthless to themselves!—overall, the book feels like a desperate attempt to structure his ennui. It’s a life both blah and unbelievably decadent, a dichotomy he failed to capture in his writing.
Two voices here, then. First, the one-tone brusque pathetic-ness that was like sludge: I found that I was not interested in his life of monotony when he couldn’t strike a balance between a voice that reflects the experience and a voice that invites the reader to stay with him—any reader at all, regardless of whether that reader would end up liking this book or not. Such dispassion! It would have been chilling if Baxter managed to convey—categorically—that this dispassion has bled through every facet of his life, that of course it would be in his autobiography.
Moreover, in this kind of life, it’s unsettling to have such a no-nonsense exposition. But it’s damnable when it repeatedly gives way to [the second voice:] moments of Utterance, the I will say something quotable, and I will intone it thus. I loved those moments at first, because I like words—but eventually, with the monotonous debauchery, the I am not even interested in my own life kind of telling, the sudden appearance of a Grand Statement About Life was just so goddamned annoying.
Okay, then, okay. Yes, Baxter has led a crappy life—but that doesn’t bother me. Yes, Baxter has railed at literature, consider himself among its rotten fruit—but that doesn’t bother me. Yes, there is a lot of drinking and cigarettes and sex and lackluster living—but that doesn’t bother me.
That he resolved to disclose the darkest aspects of his life and risked the judgment of multitudes—that he’s peppered his autobiography with manifestos both hardy and hollow—that he rallied against writing using writing itself as his weapon—only to end up with a disparate and still lackluster attempt to bring dignity to his pathetic-ness, only to fail to write the best way that he can to give justice to such an honest venture—that is what bothers me.