Saturday, August 8, 2009

The Haunting "I": Self-Singing, Ego-Stroking Rhetoric

In his recent reflections on the late Frank McCourt's influence on American memoir writers, poet, novelist, and critic Jay Parini observes that the memoir has "always been the central form of American literature." As evidence for this sweeping claim, he points to the writings of Governor Bradford (Of Plymouth Plantation), Benjamin Franklin (his "fabulous autobiography"), Henry David Thoreau (Walden), Mary Antin (Promised Land), and Booker T. Washington (Up From Slavery), as well as to "any of a thousand wonderful immigrant memoirs from the 19th and 20th centuries." "[T]his has been our most essential form," he continues, because, in his words, "the United States has always been about singing one's self, as Walt Whitman might say. The individual stands in for society. His or her story is rapidly taken as democratic."

Sometimes, though, this cultural tendency to sing the self is simply ego-stroking masquerading as life writing. Such is the case with Jack Olsen's "I": The Creation of a Serial Killer, the aptly titled, self-promoting, and disturbingly vivid biography of Keith Hunter Jesperson, a.k.a The Happy Face Killer, which I recently read (enough of it, anyway, to get a view of Jesperson that has been haunting me ever since) to get some background for my forthcoming review essay of Melissa G. Moore's Shattered Silence: The Untold Story of a Serial Killer's Daughter (which will be active on the other side of this link Monday morning).

The major problem I have with this book isn't necessarily its voyeuristic engagement with Jesperson's psychopathology, its visceral descriptions of his killings, or Olsen's fragmented and journalistic style (of which I am not a fan at all), though these are enough for me to tell you to stay away---far, far away---from the book, unless you're really that interested and just have to know more. No, the most chilling thing about it for me is Jesperson's complete disregard for anyone but himself, a characteristic reflected in his blame-bending, ego-stroking rhetoric. His language (which comes through sections of autobiographical writings layered between sections of Olsen's research-based narrative) refuses compassion and is all about justifying his increasingly twisted "I"---the paradoxically self-loving and self-loathing psychopathology that informs and affirms his animalistic version of the world.

By the time I'd skimmed my way through two-thirds of the book, I was sick of combatting his violent rhetoric, his rhetoric of violence, his ego-infused language, in my attempts to find some common rhetorical ground upon which I could exercise compassion toward him---and I closed the book because his words made me sick and, more so, it made me sick that I couldn't see his humanness struggling beneath those layers and layers of words. Sure, there's struggling involved in his story, though not with any sense of compassion or decency on Jesperson's part, but I'll spare you those strangling details.

In short, through my experience with this text, I caught wind of a rhetoric I don't have the language or the compassion to penetrate and diffuse right now, perhaps ever. And, I must admit, the prospect of this impenetrability, which I see reflected more deeply in Lucifer's persistent "I," has me chilled, at times, to the core.

9 comments:

  1. .

    Have you read JCO's Zombie? Scariest book I've ever read. Inspired by Dahmer.

    Looking forward to your review.

    ReplyDelete
  2. .

    Incidentally, I meant to ask, is the connection to Lucifer your own? Because it is a striking one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I haven't read Zombie, but if it's inspired by Dahmer, I can only imagine the chill factor.

    And, incidentally, yes the connection to Lucifer came to mind as I considered Olsen's title and remembered the verse I linked to from Isaiah.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Reading about these people always makes me wonder what their place in life (mortal/immortal) really is.

    And, as always, the Prodigal Son comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mojo:

    Maybe I'm just a bit dense this morning, but explain? To which part of the Prodigal Son, specifically, are you referring?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow. Very interesting post here that I need more time to explore.

    Luisa sent me here. Hi!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Isaiah link is fascinating. This brings a new light on the concept of I taken too far.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm glad you stopped by Eowyn. You're welcome back anytime.

    I like how you say that: "the I taken too far"---because the "I" is something we all need to balance, isn't it? (Just thinking out loud.) Thanks for that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tyler, I'm not sure sometimes why these people (psychopaths, serial killers, whatever) are here. I have theories and speculations.

    Most days I wonder what, if any, control these people actually have over their actions. If, once they make ONE CHOICE, they're doomed to follow that path.

    It makes me wonder about their eternal fate.

    It makes me wonder if there are far deeper layers to the Prodigal Son (coming home contrite at last, being welcomed back into the fold) than that which we (Christian religions in general) tend to apply to ourselves.

    That makes no sense to anybody but me. I apologize in advance. LOL

    ReplyDelete