When I was about 14, or between that age and 17, I used to carry around a green pocket folder filled with railway maps of the United States. Also included in my green folder were essays, lists, and advice by wannabe-Beat-poet types (God help them) on the subject of train-hopping. This was my obsession. I had every intent to head out to the train yard in central Austin one day with a knapsack full of the essentials -- a warm jacket, a sewing kit, some beef jerky, a couple of dollars -- and swing myself aboard a moving train. There were only the details -- when, where, how, how not to get my fool self killed by the railyard bull -- to hammer out.
On the front of this folder, in scribbled Marks-A-Lot, was a giant anarchy symbol. The circle around the "A" was slightly oblong, and there were hash marks where I had scribbled outside the lines, but it got the job done.
Now what, one might ask, had anarchy to do with train-hopping?
(And more importantly, perhaps, why would I scribble a 10-inch anarchy symbol on the outside of a folder that I didn't want anyone to find --? since it's discovery, presumably, would have derailed my plans, excuse the pun.)
To the first question at least I can answer only that perhaps both train-hopping and anarchy (whatever that is) held in my mind (at that age) similar connotations of the antisocial, the rebellious, and a sort of creative freedom that I found lacking in my suburban, white high school. The writings the folder held further indicate the truth of this assertion, since these were precisely the motivations to which the Beat Generation bore witness: rebellion, deviancy, creative expression originated in the illicit. Indeed, I can not help but think of the motivations of the Beats as a sort of cultural adolescence of America. The post-WWII morality stimulated this kickback to hedonism, and the congealing of the middle class and suburban ideal to an infatuation with wandering, and with the sexuality of aimlessness.
But God forbid that I should call Cortázar a beatnik. I could call him contemporaneous, and some of the same themes are there, but ultimately Cortázar is infinitely more in control of himself, more self-assured, and more purposeful than Burroughs or Ginsberg or Kerouac, for whom I hold no great brief. Or indeed any brief at all.
No, I bring this all up not to talk about the Beats, but to point out that it is precisely at this age -- 14 to 17, the prime years of lust deluded -- that I would have given this book five stars.
Reading it today -- reading the great reviews of it here on Goodreads before getting to the book itself -- oh, how I wanted to love it. I felt certain I would be inspired by the romance of wanderlust yet again. (And "wanderlust," here, apt. The lust of the wanderer, the sexuality of aimlessness.)
But I wasn't. I even tried for several months after finishing this book to convince myself that I was. But I wasn't. That part of me is dying.
Something has happened between adolescence and today -- my imposture with the world, my varied and variously dissatisfying relations with women -- to render Cortázar's fancies fallow. I am not trying to be a cynic. I am young around here, and there's nothing the elder more eagerly ridicule in the younger than cynicism. It's just that Cortázar's and Dunlop's mock-heroic voyage down the French autoroute from Paris to Marseille strikes me as skeletal. It holds back the flesh from the reader and results disingenuous, if intentionally fanciful.
If there's any one thing to which I can attribute this sensation of incompleteness (besides, perhaps, the excruciatingly obvious -- that only a 15 year-old could believe that a relationship could attain significance by riding a camper van up and down the highway), it's the absence of sex as motivation in the telling. This is not to say that sex does not appear. There are some touching and vivid images of tangled-in-the-sheets in the camper van in pouring-pattering-rain which are, if not sui generis, then perhaps some of the best of their kind.
But sex in adulthood strikes me as a much more devious agent. It's not just a sequence of images within the backdrop of a story. It permeates people's conceptions of what a story even is. There are the men who believe sex is romance, and the men who believe sex is sex and there is no romance. And there are the women who believe romance is romance and sex a simple function of it. And there are the women who call you at 4 am and believe only in sex but their real desires only as obvious as that they will never be attained as long as they call you at 4 am. And there are the women who believe only in sex, and the men there, too. And the men that believe they believe only in sex and those that believe they do not believe. And there are the men who tell themselves stories about love and the women who listen to those self-recitations on a bed pillow and both sides believing without believing and then a lifetime of silence. And there are the men who tell themselves stories about love into the blank pages of a sexless journal and then feel the emptier for it having been writ and continue to write until it's all been emptied and they can't possibly know anything else. And there are the women who never knew anything at all. And the women who seem to know everything, and the men who tell themselves there are women who seem to know everything. And the men who tell themselves they know everything.
And there is Cortázar, who writes so many pages of happy images, of frivolity as a method itself, of a voyage down the autoroute. Here and there, there is sex.
When the truth is so fraught, his omissions left me somewhat untrusting. I felt unsettled.