m&m's in v

[Paul Nightingale]

The story opens with Siegel back in town; yet one never can go back. The
lengthy exposition that follows seeks to impose Siegel on the text and
therefore the reader: by 'impose' I mean we're offered a conventional
protagonist. The narration adopts Siegel's perspective; his career as a
diplomat is haunted by the recollection of Miriam's death, which in turn
invokes Rachel (whose image is transposed into that of a modernist, and
therefore questioning, work of art--cf Zoyd and Mildred Pierce). This
lengthy opening passage seeks to order his experiences, to see 'now' as
the culmination of a series of preceding nows. One might see this as
somehow comforting (life as meaningful, with a recognisable trajectory,
rather than random and therefore meaningless). One might agree that such
retrospection could go on for ever, the story turning into a
thousand-page novel in which Siegel ("thirty years [is] a long time")
never quite makes it to the party. As Lupescu opens the door, the
paragraph ends by completing the action instigated in the first line
("Siegel got to the address ..."); Siegel and Lupescu are juxtaposed
"like slightly flawed mirror images" (the one a representation of the
other, as the Modigliani serves to represent Rachel); and Lupescu,
speaking, offers two separate statements (his own name following a
comment on Siegel's timekeeping).

Lupescu's speech is the first in the narrative present. A few lines
above, the narrative records what Siegel, many years previously, "had
retorted" when Grossmann "taunted him mercilessly"; yet the taunts
aren't given verbatim, independently of Siegel's recollection (are
therefore given the same status as, eg, "Miriam's husband cursing Zeit
the doctor ..." etc). Siegel insists he isn't "a schmuck like
[Grossmann]"; and then Lupescu declares, emphatically, his identity. A
few lines down, he confirms Siegel's status as "Mon semblable ... mon
frere", at which point 'Siegel' finds himself transformed. The long
opening passage positions Siegel as the subject of a given (personal)
history--childhood, army, college, adult employment; from this point
onwards, he becomes the means by which the text announces the stories
told by others, Rachel, Lucy, Debby. The attempt to reassert the Siegel
of the opening pages, ie (conventional) protagonist with a history,
takes the form of further recollections of Grossmann.

Lucy says Lupescu "was going native". Siegel considers it "strange" to
speak of "going native in Washington": clearly one goes native in what
is recognisably an alien culture. It puts him in mind of Grossmann,
whose "gradual degeneration" or "dissipation" is then described in some
detail. This passage takes us back to the story's opening, when
Grossmann was introduced; and Siegel laments the passing/transformation
of the man he had earlier called schmuck. This flashback, therefore,
confirms that the narrative, like Siegel himself, can never go back.

There is one more flashback to come. Siegel's recollection of Grossmann
was triggered by Lucy's description of Lupescu "going native". Similarly
Debby's use of the technical term "melancholia" triggers the
recollection of Professor Mitchell's lecture. The Grossmann passage is
Siegel's final attempt to keep the party at bay; by the time he recalls
the lecture he can only leave the party, so to speak, by offering
information about the Ojibwa: the flashback, impersonal insofar as it
isn't 'about' Siegel, becomes a means to an end, a description of "the
well-known Windigo psychosis". This confirms Siegel's marginalisation;
and sets up the story's ending.