Lew Griffin is back, pulled back into the game of finding missing persons and getting his heart broken all over again, just when he thought he had settled down into a more tranquil lifestyle:
- I need a detective, Lew. A good one.
- I don't do that anymore. Hell, I never did it very much. I sat in bars and drank, and eventually guys I was looking for would stumble by and trip on my feet. I'm a teacher now.
- And a writer.
- Yeah, well, that too. Once you've lost your pride, it gets easier, you know: you'll do almost any damn thing. You start off small, a piece for the local paper, or maybe this tiny little story about growing up, something like that. That's how they hook you. Then before you know it, you're writing a series for them.
I don't know if there's another P.I. that is also a writer, Lew is in a class of his own for me. In the first book in the series (The Long Legged Fly) I have followed Lew Griffin across decades, from an angry youth to a cynical, heavy drinker wreck, finally parking himself in a steady job, teaching kids about the joys of literature and exorcising his demons through the pages of the books he's writing, instead of fistfights and hard liquor. Book one covered his whole lifetime, boiled down to a few hard kernels of truth to be saved from a long history of failures. I was wondering what is left to be said for an encore.
Moth is the answer, and in some ways it is even better than the debut. For one thing, the plot is a lot more focused, with one major case to investigate instead of scattered episodes. For another, Lew is older and wiser, and more articulate about how he views the world around him and how he positions himself in relation to it and to the people he meets. From his teacher's pulpit, Lew is more open about the philosophical backbone of his storytelling and about the way his favorite writers underline and explain the quandaries he is facing. I have labelled the first novel as 'existentialist noir', and an early mention of Camus, followed by Queneau and Bernhard references appear to support my argument.
Whenever things begin to look absolutely, unremittingly impossible and I find myself sinking into despair for myself and the human race, I read Thomas Bernhard. It always cheers me up. No one is more bitter, no one has ever lived in a bleaker world than Thomas Bernhard.
The world Lew lives in not a lot merrier, and now the aged detective has to cope with the loss of its brightest star. The blurb on the back gives a succint resume o9f the main plot:
One of the very few lights from Lew Griffin's dark and violent past has flickered out. His one-time lover, LaVerne Adams is dead - and her daughter, Alouette, has vanished into a seamy, dead-end world of users and abusers - leaving behind a crack-addicted infant and a mystery.
At the request of his rival, the man whom Verne has chosen as her life companion in her last years, Lew walks again through the mean streets of New Orleans, from drinking homes to drug dealers corners, from homeless shelters to a bleak hospital room where a child only a few weeks old is paying the price of its mother's drug addiction. The investigation turns out to be more about the memories of Lew Griffin, the moments and the people that made him the man he is now, the most important among them LaVerne. He will soon journey outside New Orleans, back to the countryside that he left for New Orleans:
The novel's true protagonist, I tell my students, is always time. With the years, it's gotten easier to say things like that without immediately looking over my shoulder or down at the floor. And then, of course, you go on and talk about the flow of time in Proust, about Faulkner's sequestrations of history, about the abrogation of time and history in Beckett.
Time takes Lew back to a difficult relationship with his own father, to a decades long friendship with a New Orleans cop who is now at the end of his tether and is contemplating suicide, to a tentative new romance Lew has going on with another teacher. The plot is revealed in a non-linear way. I am tempted to use the 'stream of conscience' label, but it is closer to a stream of affections and regrets, of feeble hope and bitter disappointments where innocents lose the struggle and all your efforts lead back to the beginning. In order to find Alouette Lew must learn about her past, about why she was separated from her mother, why she later run away from a rich father, why she ended up on the street and a drug addict.
Kierkegaard was right: we understand our lives (to the extent that we understand them at all) only backwards.
I have already noticed in the first novel, and it is made double clear in here: Lew's investigations are personal, they affect him deeply, he cares and he carries the scars of his failures with him over time. His books, his favortite authors might help him understand his plight, but the only consolation is in the rare moments of love from a woman, in the bottle or in the blues albums that he keeps playing in the background of the novel:
Dostoyevsky said that we're all guilty of everything. And while I never could bring myself to accept Christian notions of sin and atonement, there's definitely something to karma. The things we do pile up on us, weigh us down. Or hold us in place, at the very least.
I might have given the impression that nothing much happens in the novel except reminiscing and introspection. It's true there's more than a fair share of this stuff going on, but there are also people to get to know, places to visit, there's bar room brawls and shootouts in gangster hideouts, there's even a rare touch of humor in the way Lew keeps craving and drinking huge quantities of coffee from the start to the finish of the novel. The true story is in the details, in gestures, looks, silences, the kindness of strangers (like the taxi driver who gives a helping hand at three a.m. to a grumpy neighbor), and Sallis demostrates in these details he is more a poet than a crime novelist.
Then I pulled the car to the edge of the lot and sat there breathing in the coffee's dark, earthy smell, feeling its heat and steam on my face, sipping at it from time to time. New Orleans coffee makes most others seem generic, but I was at this moment far, far from home, a wanderer, and could make do.
Besides, for the true believer coffee's a lot like what Woody Allen says about sex: the worst he ever had was wonderful.
I was interested, as I am whenever I read one of these depressing 'realistic' crime novels where the good guys lose and go back in the end to their empty lives, what makes them going on, what gives them strength to continue and to keep their moral compass steady. For Lew there is Laverne, his cop friend Walsh, the equally scarred teacher Clare, a tired nurse, that taxi driver, Camus, Sonny Boy Williamson wailing on his harmonica, Robert Johnson running away from his hellhounds ("Sun goin' down, boy, dark gon' catch me here"), his writing that comes in fits and false starts until that one moment when it becomes compulsive:
An hour later I got up and, sitting naked on the side of the bed, improvising abbreviations in my rush to get it all down, scribbled ten pages of notes.
here's a few of the things I've bookmarked in the text to illustrate the balance between the cynic and the romantic in Lew Griffin, the seesaw of emotio from bright skies to deep darkness:
All that stuff about candlelight and the perfect mate and little bells going off, that's what you believe when you're nineteen or twenty maybe, some of us anyway. Then you get a few years on you and you realize that's not the way the world is at all, that's just not how it goes about its business.
But still, one day there she was.
----
You know those Dracula movies you watch every chance you get, Lewis? How he can never see himself in mirrors? Well, that's you, son - that's all of us. We trip across this earth, work and love and raise families and fight for what we think's right, and the whole time we're absolutely invisible. When we're gone, there's no record we were ever even here.
----
How much of what I've become owes to Verne? I was never able to tell her what she meant to me; never really knew, until it was to late. And yet, somehow in all those years we circled and closed on one another like binary stars, all those departures and partial returns, somehow, in some indefinable manner, we had held one another up, had been able to climb together (even when apart) out of the wastes of our pasts.
----
Here's what I think in higher flights of fancy. Once there existed beings, a race, a species (call it what you will) who truly belonged to this world. Then at some point, for whatever reason, they moved on, and we moved into their places. We go on trying to occupy those places, day after endless day. But we'll always remain strangers here, all of us. And for all our efforts, whatever dissimulation we attempt, we'll never quite fit.
I have saved the best for last, that kernel of wisdom that maybe I could save from all the failures, a short exchange as Lew and Walsh discuss famous last words:
- What would you scratch out, Lew?
- Something from a poem I read a while back, I think: "find beauty, try to understand, survive."