Already have a subscription? Log in
Lydia Davis is an American writer known for her concise and precise prose. Over a career spanning several decades, she has published nine short story collections, one novel, three books of essays, and one lyrical, book-length document of the behaviour of a group of cows in the field next to Davis’s house. She is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Man Booker International Prize and the MacArthur Fellowship. Davis’s extremely spare treatment of language has sometimes produced stories only one sentence long, while her experimental approach to form means that stories can consist of – for instance – a series of questions, one side of a phone call, or a medical report. Across all her work, Davis’s voice is perhaps most clearly recognised in her attention to the shape and texture of everyday communication, profoundly alive to its often-absurdist humour. For this concordance, Davis responded to five words drawn from her fiction, casting light on a long career built from an uncommon and ingenious relationship to words and how they are wielded.
“BORED”
I have many thoughts about boredom. In fact, a friend of mine whom I encountered by chance, today, at a “repair cafe” – some people know perfectly what that is and some have never heard of it – was just talking to me about boredom. She thought no one should be bored – there is always some useful way to spend your time. She was indignant. But I also offered to her that boredom is sometimes useful. I find that if I am slightly bored doing something, or reading something, I might have a good or interesting idea about something else. In other words, slightly bored means slightly distracted. The thing you’re doing, or reading, is not quite interesting enough to take all your attention, so your mind is wandering a little, but maybe in an interesting way.
As for animals, despite what I said about the cows, I don’t believe animals feel boredom. They may feel the need of a change, as in the case of the cows, they may feel they “used up” whatever occupation it is that they were engaged in, and now they want to move on, but I think, from watching the cows and other animals (such as my cats), they have a much greater capacity than we humans do for simply sitting still, or lying still, without needing to be entertained in any way at all. I admire that and sometimes try to emulate it. Perhaps that is what practiced meditation can achieve.
“HUNTER”
The first four stories come from the same period of about one year, a long time ago, when I and my then-partner were caretakers of an old stone house in the country in the south of France. My stories then reflected the landscape and people around me, and this included hunters. It was a culture of hunting which included the hunting of songbirds, such as thrushes, which were eaten. We were also taking care of two dogs at the time, lovely golden labs, the handsomer of which disappeared in early winter. We always suspected that he was either shot, poisoned or taken by a hunter.
The last story was written where I live now, 40 or 50 years after the first. In the interim I lived in places where I did not think about hunters, since hunters and hunting were not part of the culture around me – New York City, Southern California. Now I live in the country again, though a very different country, and I hear target practice from the field across the road almost every Sunday. A friend’s husband kills one deer every year and they eat venison, though she does not particularly like it. I think deer are beautiful, but I don’t object to a skilled hunter taking down a deer – skilled so that the animal does not die in pain. Deer are seriously destroying our forests, unfortunately, by eating the undergrowth so that no new trees come up, so I don’t mind seeing their numbers reduced. Another friend, when he was young and living with his single mom, had to go out hunting if they were to have enough to eat. So, living now in a culture where hunting is a regular, practical thing, I do not see the hunter as menacing. He (usually but not always a he) is menacing only when he is clumsy, or greedy, or uses nefarious means to take his deer, such as putting down bait, firing from his vehicle, hunting at night.
“FISH”
Certainly in the first two stories, the fish represent something troubling for me – they are both living creatures with their own needs, desires and drives, and also our prey, what we plan to eat in cooked form. I am troubled by the idea of causing fish pain. It is easier to find a bunny lovable than a fish, and eating rabbit is not as common in our culture. Chickens make good and personable pets, too, but we both keep them as pets and also eat them, though most (but not all) people who eat chicken are not eating their own. I don’t eat either chickens or bunnies. For a while I ate fish without worrying about it. Then I began realizing that they have sensitivities, like mammals and birds, and habits, preferences, plans. I’ve recently learned that fish have more intelligence and abilities than you would think: one kind of fish, maybe trout, can distinguish jazz from classical music. Certainly researchers now know that fish feel pain. They learned this by observing “avoidance behavior” in fish.
As for repetition of the word “fish,” I have just realized that I was repeating the word quite frequently in the last paragraph. I’m not sure why.
As for the fish in the other stories above, they play a smaller part. They are present more anonymously, or featurelessly, as prey, as livelihood or as rather surreal aspects of the scenery (fish swimming in the branches of trees). I have more sympathy for the taking of fish as one’s livelihood than for sport fishing, which seems needlessly cruel. Throwing a fish back after hooking him or her is not an innocent or harmless form of fishing. The wound in the fish’s mouth can become infected and it causes pain at the very least. If it is “fun” for the fisherman, it is extremely unpleasant for the fish.
“DUNG”
The first story here, too, comes from my time in the south of France, where the countryside around us was indeed dotted with ruined stone farmhouses, one with a mulberry tree growing up within the tumbling walls. I was told that if a house was standing empty for a while and he had no use for it, the owner would have its roof removed so that he would not have to pay taxes on it. Thus the house would fall into ruin all the faster.
I think I like the word “dung” because it is strong, Anglo-Saxon, reeking of the farmyard. I like the words “farm,” “yard,” “farmyard,” and – although less – “reek,” also.
I wrote “Cockroaches in Autumn” in a very different place, New York City, specifically Brooklyn, where one’s companions in an apartment were quite likely to be cockroaches. I did not know the word for an insect’s excrement then. I do know it now, but only to recognize it, not to call it forth just at the moment. What comes to mind, incorrectly, is “scat,” which is the word for excrement when one is tracking a mammal, and maybe also a bird, I think.
A dung-soaked cow’s tail is something I am quite familiar with, in memory. I went to a boarding school where working in the barn in the early morning, for one semester, was expected of every student. So early each morning, for that semester, in the warm barn after a walk through the cold pre-dawn, I was faced with a great deal of rather liquid dung – on the concrete barn floor, in the runnels behind the cows, and on the hoofs and tails of the cows. I don’t remember that this bothered me terribly, or at all. We showered every morning after barn duty because the smell that lingered in our hair was otherwise very strong.
“SPECIAL”
I think I am intrigued by the hollowness of the word “special”. It has probably been so overused generally that it has lost all meaning or has acquired the opposite meaning – not at all special, extremely commonplace. The first story is sad, I find. We are certainly all special, in one sense – because we are all individuals – but we often don’t seem very special to ourselves. Or the word “special” is proposed as being accurate and then, as in the first story, but also in the second, we have a little trouble discovering in what ways the person or the thing is special – special meaning different from other people, different from other chairs.
I’m enjoying rereading the third quoted passage, about jury duty. I remember so vividly how it worked that day – how those people were “special” for just a little while, until they weren’t special anymore. How we were all being judged, judged by a set of people qualified to judge us, and we had no way of appealing. If we were no longer considered special in a good way, we had to accept the judgment. It was a fascinating experience. In the next extract, I think I enjoyed the abrupt contrast between the chickens being “special” pets until they were not only not special anymore, but beheaded. Yes, there is menace in that, particularly if you see this – which I did not intend – as an analogy to a political situation in which – and this has often happened – an advisor to a dictator, for example, is in a powerful and special relationship to the dictator until, abruptly, he too is beheaded. And in the last extract, I’m sure the name “Jane” and the word “cane,” both of which were in the real situation, made me think of the very first books I so loved as a first- or second-grader in school. People think the Dick and Jane books were boring for kids, but no, they weren’t – what was exciting was learning to read. ◉