This interview needs to begin with an apology. Millet was a very gracious and intelligent subject and I, your not anywhere near humble enough interviewer slash jerk was distracted, busy, and slow as hell. I even managed to lose one of her answers.
But it's a good interview. She's very good, anyway. We discussed her amazing little novel My Happy Life.
The book that I thought
about when I was reading My Happy Life was Candide by
Voltaire. In Candide, Voltaire satirizes the philosophical
belief that we live in the world God made for us, and because of
that, it is the best of all possible worlds. He does so by torturing
the hell out of his protagonist, while allowing said tortured schmuck
a shocking inability to feel the many lumps he takes as a clear
indication that the world just isn't as perfect as he has been led to
believe.
Here's what I found to
be a really interesting contrast between the books: Candide
has the voice of Voltaire ringing out loudly, page after page. You
can never get past the fact that he judges the
best-of-all-possible-worlds philosophy as completely bonkers. It's
right there from the beginning to the end. The narrator of My
Happy Life—as tortured as Candide—is (as you
said in an interview I saw with you recently) incapable of any
judgment. And giving the book's voice to that sort of narrator by
using first person, you've hamstrung your own ability to make
judgments in any overt way.
But, when I read the
book, the narrator's disposition, the way she seems thankful for
every physical experience as an experience unto itself without larger
implications (like psychological scars that would follow her
forever—though she has plenty of physical scars), it occurred
to me that the book was an argument for the philosophy that this is,
in fact, the best of all possible worlds.
So, am I off base? Any
arguing with Voltaire going on here?
I was a fan of
Voltaire in high school and you're dead-on, My Happy Life was
partly inspired by Candide, which left an imprint on me. But
as I get older, I have a little more sympathy for Leibniz, whom he
was lampooning. The assertion that this is the best of all possible
worlds wouldn't be my own, exactly, but it's more intriguing and
complex than Voltaire lets it be. In My Happy Life the
narrator is utopian and dystopian at once: I wanted to suspend her in
a place without judgment. But not for the purpose of ridicule. The
book looks at subjectivity that doesn't judge, sure, and at the
social and personal perils of that, but it does so less to offer up a
political argument or theology than to try to let a reader feel the
beauty that can emerge out of empathy—out of, in this case, a
boundless empathy whose underpinnings are less rational than
instinctive.
Recent Comments