“‘If
you’re going to turn into a pig, my dear,’
said Alice seriously, ‘I’ll have nothing
more to do with you. Mind now.’”
—Lewis
Carroll, Alice's
Adventures in Wonderland
| URSULA1 |
So,
Julia, you think this little piggy poem is funny? |
| KRISTEVA |
I didn’t
say it was funny. I said that it presented an antinomy
which is deeply imbedded in unclaimed psychic structures
which are themselves problematic of a time indissociable
from space and rhythmed by accidents or. . . |
| URSULA |
Well,
that sounds pretty funny to me. You know, I said
what you said to David2
the other day and he found it pretty funny too.
In fact he said you should be made to eat your words
someday. |
| KRISTEVA |
You
probably thought what I was saying was “funny”
as you put it, because I was interested in the notion
of castration with which this poem deals, and... |
| URSULA |
Ha!
Did you say castration? Ah, you make me all fire
and fat! I shall melt away to the first woman, a
rib again, unless. . . |
| KRISTEVA |
Urs,
you’re drooling on my theory. I said “castration”
because, as you can’t help but have noticed,
Buchanan, in lines 18 and 20 refers to “natur’”
and “cratur’”. Now, as you may
recall from Wycherley’s Restorationally sexist
and filthy play, The Country Wife, the
word “creature” is used to describe
Horner’s feigned situation as a eunuch. I
am semantically. . . |
| URSULA |
You
mean the pig ain’t got no. . . |
| KRISTEVA |
I am
reading the “cratur’” as “creature”
and when the final “e” is eliminated,
cut off, left. . . |
| URSULA |
Jees,
the pig ain’t got no bloody b. . . . . |
| KRISTEVA |
Let
us not be smutty, Ursula. |
| URSULA |
How
do you know it’s a pig, anyway? |
| KRISTEVA |
Castration,
as you can see in both Freud and Lacan, implies
a radical operation which separates sign and syntax.
. . |
| URSULA |
I once
met a man called piggy
Who had a helleva time with his thiggy,
He took up an axe, and he. . . |
| KRISTEVA |
Enough!
You asked me over to talk about this poem because
of your symposium on écriture feminine.
Now, I’ve many other pigs to fry besides this
one, and if you’re not going to. . . |
| URSULA |
Sorry.
But doesn’t Buchanan say in line 7 that we
have, here, a “carcase complete”. Now,
I do know a thing or two about castration. David
and I, just the other day, were talking about Daniel
Knockum’s sad state, and, well, he certainly
doesn’t have anything like a “carcase
complete”. Now, if this little piggy here
is, as you say, merely a “cratur’”,
a mere. . . |
| KRISTEVA |
A mere
sign of a pig? |
| URSULA |
Yeah,
a mere sign of a pig, then the whole poem slips
from its firm anchoring, and we’re left with
a melange of floating images—“juicy
meat”, “snowy lard”, “gent”,
“cocker”. . . |
| KRISTEVA |
It’s
“corker”, not “cocker”. |
| URSULA |
What
is? What do you mean? |
| KRISTEVA |
You
said “cocker” instead of “corker”. |
| URSULA |
Didn’t! |
| KRISTEVA |
Did!
Now, when we’ve only, in fact, got the mere
sign of a pig in this poem, then we’re really
dealing with a sort of dictatorship of parts, a
deeply vertiginous crossing of the other. |
| URSULA |
The
other what? |
| KRISTEVA |
Part,
of course. |
| URSULA |
Part
of what? |
| KRISTEVA |
Pig. |
| URSULA |
David
is insisting that the pig is pre-lapsarian in its
indifference to figs. In the first stanza, he says,
when the pig “cares not a fig” the allusion
is to a little known Dürer print in which a
pig lies at the feet of Adam and Eve who are wearing
fig leaves over their parts. The pig’s own
nakedness, and indifference, he says—Jees,
David loves to really tear into figs—indicates
a capacity to depropriate unselfishly, without appendage,
without principal “parts”. He doesn’t
give a rat’s ass for propriety! |
| KRISTEVA |
Then
what does it mean when, in line 16, Buchanan writes
“he always keeps doing his duty”? |
| URSULA |
How
the hell should I know. You’re the one claiming
the poor bugger ain’t all there. You’re
the one making such a big thing about “natur’”
and “cratur’”. You tell me! Besides,
this is only David’s idea, and he ate the
bloody fig in the first place. |
| KRISTEVA |
No,
we mustn’t interiorize the central separation
of the sociosymbolic contract Buchanan has proposed
in her representation of bad cess. |
| URSULA |
Of what? |
| KRISTEVA |
Bad
cess. Line 20. It reads “breathe out bad cess”.
The image here of economic life, and the pig’s
obvious castration, signifies a post-capitalist
context wherein the very sociosymbolic contract
between pigs and taxes, between pigs and mortgages
(line 28), between pigs and labour (rooting, looting,
digging—the references are everywhere), between
pigs and an idea of the aesthetic, is ruptured.
Twice in the poem, Buchanan reminds us that the
pig is “no beauty,” that this particular
“natur’” is. . . |
| URSULA |
I generally
like pigs, actually. |
| KRISTEVA |
. .
. is denied a flight, symbolic or otherwise, “dans
ce ciel de midi”. |
| URSULA |
What?
Between “cess” and “ciel”,
what are you. . . |
| KRISTEVA |
It’s
from a work by Jean Genet. |
| URSULA |
Didn’t
he also have a bit of “natur’”
problems? |
| KRISTEVA |
Precisely.
When Genet writes “A midi, sous un ciel pur,
la nature entière me proposait une enigme,”
then we are at the very heart, semantically, semiotically,
idiotically, of the matter. |
| URSULA |
Which
is? |
| KRISTEVA |
This
piggy ain’t got no b. . . . |
| |
Who
is being smutty now! |
| KRISTEVA |
Well,
we have to consider that, as Derrida put it, “la
glu de l’aléa fait sens”. |
| URSULA |
You
bet your sweet bippy, Julia! All of this now certainly
“fait sens.” Will you be able to present
your paper to the symposium on écriture
feminine? The Academy would be most grateful.
Many of my fellow “Projectors” at Lagodo
have been holding Buchanan’s poem up to careful
scrutiny, and I’m convinced your exegesis
will help us make a unicorn. I’d like you
to give your paper after the one we’ve scheduled
on a project for extracting sunbeams from cucumbers
and its relevance to gender blurring. Following
you will be Cark talking about “The Apple
at the Fair: ‘les glas de la signification.’” |
| KRISTEVA |
It’ll
be a pleasure. |
Notes
- Ursula
Gilt, a noted specialist in Pigs and Pig Discourse,
studied in Bartholomew Fair. Several Government Grunts
later, she was awarded a Fellowship in the Academy
of Lagado where she serves as the Director of Piggiology
and écriture cochon. She has been
described by Justice Overdo as “the sow of enormity.”
[back]
- Not
identified. [back]
|