Imagine you’re plagued with what I term subjective detective syndrome. This is a disease most appositely relating to the discovery of an unbeknownst piece of media, esoteric and celebrated in small communities. It strokes your ego ever-so-slightly that you’ve read this book that seemingly no one or their mother has heard of. The Catch-22 is that you feel a genuine enthusiasm for said book and know no one will ever read it. Jernigan by David Gates isn’t the kind of novel that’s Reddit-popular or highbrow in its prompting an upward jerk of noses at literary dinner parties. It is actually unheard of. When you read it, though, it is clearly the marquee headline for what should have been a canonical, laudable literary career; though, by this time, a book positing its main character next to Holden Caulfield and Warner Herzog in its summary was likely losing the popularity contest. And this was 1991. Imagine if this was published today, and there’s the rub—it wouldn’t be. This is what makes books like Jernigan so edifying for me. Who knew that I would have to dig so fervently to find a book about an alcoholic white guy and his relationship with his son in late-80s America?
I found Jernigan to fit in cozily to my current favorite literary subgenre. These are narratives about male alcoholics with cinder blocks tied to their feet, sinking in suburban and self-inflicted despair. This is the lineage of Hard Rain Falling (my favorite read of the year), and Fante’s Ask the Dust: recalcitrant males who consciously, happily inflict pain onto themselves. Jernigan is one of the most extreme examples of this, a seminal entry point into this subgenre because of its refusal to explain itself or testify as meritorious. I don’t highlight the book’s refusal to explain itself as an acerbic attribute to its narrative, a much-used throwaway line in perfunctory literary criticism. The book literally refuses to explain itself, and with a main character who consciously subjects himself to a submergence in alcoholic spirits, why should it?
What captivated me most about Peter Jernigan’s alcoholism is that Gates presents it as a lifestyle, not a condition. It is a conscious choice made so autonomously that the character never, or rarely, feels the need to defend himself. Jernigan drinks and drives like others get up in the morning to brew coffee, which he also does. He’s also incredibly well-tempered for a drunk: his “outbursts” are paper cuts—he punches with limp wrists, hurling self-important, manufactured jargon and smart-ass cultural references. While other reviewers dismiss this as if to display the impossibility of his ego, it’s more disturbing when you swallow just how well-adjusted his body has become to never-ending gin-binges. If humans are 50 to 70% water, Peter Jernigan is a walking gin-and-tonic. I kept picturing him with a little cocktail umbrella attached to his hair like the coruscating butterfly clip of a five year-old girl. That is to say that the guy has achieved a horrifying equilibrium with his own destruction; it’s almost Buddhist.
I read many reviews proclaiming that the main character of this book is so unlikable, is an—literary critics love this term—“unreliable narrator,” which is akin to remarking that the sky is blue and we live on planet earth. The guy is an alcoholic, and, you’d think that a reader picking up this abstruse of a book would comprehend that from its wildly disorienting beginning. I find our ability to elicit selective sympathy as readers really telling of where we are culturally. Everyone has different struggles and fiction is inclined to teach sympathy, so why—just because this guy is white and middle-aged, a smart-ass at best—can’t we at least feel sympathetic while witnessing his self-destruction? I still feel affected by the book, witnessing the impacts of Peter’s alcoholism on his son, but that doesn’t mean I sympathetically sidestep the main character completely.
Additionally, Peter Jernigan is not as unlikable as the reviews make him out to be. Sure, he’s a wise-guy, intellectualizing everything in his warpath to avoid an iota of self-reflection and contact with his own emotionality; but, by the way people write about him, you’d think he commits a murder-suicide at the end of the book, offing his girlfriend, her daughter and his son. Really, the only person he kills is himself, internally. It’s clear that even in his stupor, he cares about his son, Danny, a great deal, infinitely paranoid about his hypothetical drug usage behind closed doors, cognizant of his cigarette habit.
Danny is perhaps the most compelling aspect of the entire book, a product of late-80s cultural zeitgeist. He’s obsessed with the guitar, his sexually and psychologically scarred girlfriend and seemingly nothing else. You would expect this character to be a stark and offensive contrast to Jernigan’s older age (in a typical sitcommish fashion), making it all the more heart-wrenching how innocuous this boy is. He serves as both witness and martyr, his whole role in the book to be an accessory for his girlfriend, who he loves with all his might. You would expect Jernigan to dismiss and despise his son, and even though he speaks terribly of him via intrusive, interior thoughts: he doesn’t. He looks at snowflakes falling alight his head toward the end and notes “[my wife] and I had made this beautiful boy.” Here is a revelation of nascent clarity, a sobering epiphany that breaks through all that gin-soaked cynicism and misanthropy, even if for just a moment.
The book is so fractal and hard to track, unapologetically nonlinear as tribute and simulacrum of Jernigan’s alcoholism: it unravels at its beginning with one of the most physically and geographically disorienting interstices, a motif you think will resolve itself and dovetail beautifully by the book’s end. It doesn’t, because Jernigan’s life doesn’t dovetail, and it surely isn’t beautiful. It drinks itself sick until it points a gun at the people it once loved until it drives away. And perhaps that’s the most radical, offensive and detestable thing Jernigan does: leave, without the excuse that he’s going out for milk. He never needed an excuse.
On the book’s last page we’re in a recovery program, (inexorably, because we don’t even know how he got there, that’s how nonlinear this book is) it’s like the entirety of the book was a manuscript he’d been writing for his recovery program. He’s still unable to say the de facto alcoholics A.A. statement: “I’m So-and-so and I’m an alcoholic. I’m Such-and-such and I’m a drug addict. I’m Somebody Else and so forth and so on…When it comes around to you, you have to give them something, if only name and spiritual disease…So what I’ve figured out is this. I stand up and say: Jernigan.”
It is a genius finale and a disorienting ending sentiment. The last name is so distinguishable and unique that, before I read the novel, I had no idea that it was a name. It sounds so catchy that it could be a concept or an adjective for all I knew. The structure itself is inebriated, lurching forward and backward, losing time, blacking out entire sequences. Gates doesn’t give you the A.A. chip of satisfaction and relinquishes narrative sobriety because Jernigan never achieves it until that final, devastating frame. And even then, we don’t know if it’s newfound fervor or folklore.