Up in the Old Hotel (Vintage Classics) (87 page)

Gould was so moved by this recollection that his voice broke and his eyes filled with tears and he was unable to continue talking. A few moments later, while he was dabbing at his eyes with a paper napkin and trying to regain his composure, one of the old
bohemians
at the bar came over to him and said, ‘I know how you feel, Joe. It was really quite a shock.’ Gould stared at the old bohemian. ‘What shock?’ he asked. The old bohemian stared back at Gould. ‘Hearing about it,’ he said. ‘Hearing about what?’ asked Gould. ‘Bob,’ said the old bohemian. Then, giving Gould a searching look and seeing that he was mystified, the old bohemian said that a man named Bob Something-or-Other (I didn’t catch his last name), who was evidently another old bohemian and a friend of both of them, had keeled over in Goody’s during the afternoon, while he was sitting at the bar, and had been taken to St Vincent’s Hospital, where, according to a telephone call the bartender had just received, he had died not long after he arrived. Gould was visibly delighted by this piece of news. ‘Well, I must say,’ he said, ‘I think that was very commendable of Bob. In fact,’ he went on, ‘it’s probably the most commendable thing he ever did.’ The old bohemian was taken aback, but a moment later his face changed and he laughed heartily. ‘Poor old Bob,’ said Gould, in mitigation. Then he and the old bohemian became engrossed in an intensely serious discussion about Bob’s age – whether he had hit seventy or was still in his sixties – and I took the opportunity to say good night and depart.

Next night, Gould and I met again in Goody’s. We met at six, and I listened to him until around midnight. We skipped the following night, which was Sunday night. On Monday night, we met again at six, and once again I listened to him until around midnight. I thought that we had agreed to meet at eight on Tuesday night, but when I arrived at eight I found that I had not made this clear to him and he had been waiting for me since six and was so anxious to start talking that he was in a state of agitation. To square myself, I listened to him until Goody’s closed, at four o’clock in the morning. I saw him again on Wednesday night, and again on Thursday night, and again on Friday night. These sessions followed a pattern. Gould would quote from the Oral History while the gin and beer were gradually taking hold, and then he would lose interest in the Oral History and talk more and more about himself, until presently he would give up and talk about nothing but himself. He seemed to think that no detail of his life was too trivial to tell
about
. He would tell about the first time he caught a fish or about the removal of his tonsils, he would tell fatuous family anecdotes, laughing all the while, and he would recall the ins and outs of conversations that he had had long ago with boyhood friends about the mysteries of the adult world. Once, he pointed out several scars on his cheeks and forehead and told how he got each one; I remember that he got a couple of those on his forehead when a Mason jar of stewed tomatoes that his mother had put up exploded. Late one evening, he paused for a moment and asked me if I was tired of listening to him, and I started to be polite and say ‘Oh, no!,’ but weariness made me frank and I said that I was, whereupon he snickered and said that he could sympathize with me but that he had been waiting for years to talk to someone about himself and really go into detail, and now that he had an opportunity to do so he was going to make the most of it. ‘And since you’re going to write about me,’ he said, ‘you can’t help yourself – it’s your duty to listen to me, it’s part of your job.’

After the Friday-night session, which lasted ten hours – it started at 6
P.M.
and ended at 4
A.M.
– I decided that I had become suffciently familiar with a representative group of chapters of the Oral History and that enough was enough and that I wouldn’t listen to him any longer, although it was obvious that he had scarcely got started and could go on for weeks; I simply didn’t have the endurance. I tried to tell him this but found myself hesitating and dissembling, and he interrupted me. ‘If you’re trying to tell me that you don’t want to hear any more,’ he said, a little angrily, ‘you don’t have to apologize. I’m perfectly well aware that I talk too much.’

On the following Monday, which was June 29th, I started writing the Profile of Gould. On Tuesday, around noon, Gould telephoned and said he was worried about the facts concerning his family background that he had given me, and wanted to come up and interpret them for me. There were subtleties involved that I might miss, he said, since he was a New Englander and I was not. He came and stayed until deep in the afternoon, but he didn’t interpret any facts; he simply talked some more about himself. On Wednesday, bright and early, he telephoned and said he had spent most of the previous night going over our talks in his mind, and had been
shocked
to discover that he had forgotten to tell me a great many very important things. He said he wanted to come up and give me this additional information. I told him that I was sinking and suffocating and drowning in information, and begged him not to tell me anything else until I had finished writing the first draft of the Profile and he had read it. He could point out the gaps in it then, I said. On Thursday, in the middle of the morning, the receptionist came in and said that he was outside and wanted to see me. ‘He says it’s very important,’ she said. I asked her to tell him that I had gone to a funeral. He sat in the reception room for an hour or so, and then left a note for me with the receptionist and went away. ‘It is my recollection that I told you the title of the Greenwich Village part of the Oral History was “An Infinitude of Bushwa,”’ he wrote in the note. ‘After much thought, I have decided to change this title, and I felt that I should inform you of this decision at once. The new title is “The Bughouse Without Bars, or Descents by Day and Descents by Night Into the Intellectual Underworld of Our Time.” If you have occasion to refer to this part of the O.H., please keep this in mind.’ On Friday, he telephoned, and I lied to him. I told him that I was going on vacation and would be away for two weeks. During these two weeks, I came to my office early and left late, I had no interruptions, and I finished writing the Profile. Then I did go on vacation.

Soon after I returned, early in August, Gould telephoned. By that time, the Profile had been put in proof, and I asked him to come up and read it. He read it slowly and carefully, and said he was pleased with it. ‘Is there anything in it you want me to change?’ I asked. ‘Not a word,’ he said. Next day, he came in and said he thought that a paragraph having to do with his knowledge of sea gulls should be made much longer. ‘People are going to want to know a lot more about that matter.’ he said. Two days later, he came in with a similar suggestion about another paragraph. Three days after that, he came in with a similar sugestion about still another paragraph. He got in the habit of coming in at least once a week and trying to talk me into adding a few sentences here or a paragraph there. He never tried to get me to change anything; he just wanted me to put more in. On the majority of the days that he
didn
’t come in, he telephoned me. The sound of his voice began to make me wince.

The profile of Gould was printed in the issue of
The New Yorker
for December 12, 1942, under the title of ‘Professor Sea Gull.’ The day before this issue went on the newsstands, I had to go down South, because of the sickness of a relative. I ran into some bad luck down there – I was thrown from a horse jumping a ditch and dislocated a shoulder, and while I was laid up from that I had pneumonia – and it was over three weeks before I returned to New York City, it was after the first of the year, in fact. When I got back to my office, there was a pile of letters on my desk from readers of the Profile. There were forty-five addressed to me, and seventeen addressed to Gould in care of me. Among the letters addressed to me was one from Gould himself.

‘I have always had a feeling of being way ahead of my time,’ Gould wrote. ‘Consequently, I have always taken it for granted that the importance of the Oral History would not be recognized until sometime in the distant future, long after I am dead and gone, but now, thanks to your little piece, I am beginning to see signs that it may happen in my own lifetime. Strangers passing me on the street used to look at me with reactions ranging from bafflement to outright hostility, but now a steadily increasing number of them seem to know who I am and look at me with respect, and every now and then one of them stops me and ask questions about the Oral History. Serious and sensible questions. And people who really know me and have known me from old are beginning to look at me in a different light. I’m not just that nut Joe Gould but that nut Joe Gould who may wind up being considered one of the great historians of all time. As great as Froissart. As great as John Aubrey. As great as Gibbon. I have even noticed a change in the Village radicals. One of them who has been cutting me dead for a long time spoke to me the other day. He was patronizing, but he spoke. “I know that you don’t intend any such thing,” he said, “but the Oral History may very well turn out to be a sort of X-ray of the soul of the bourgeoisie.” “What makes you think you know what I don’t intend?” I asked him. It may also interest you to learn that
the
countermen and waitresses in the Jefferson Diner have begun to kid around with me again. When I go in there now, they call me the Professor or the Sea Gull or Professor Sea Gull or the Mongoose or Professor Mongoose or the Bellevue Boy, just as they used to, and I don’t know why, but that pleases me. Sometimes, when they are kidding around, ignorant people like that have a kind of inspired audacity that is very cheerful and infectious. It lifts one’s spirits. Book ignorant, that is. On some matters, I wish I knew one-tenth as much as they know. I still make the rounds of the places on Sixth Avenue, but I have a new hangout – the Minetta Tavern, at the corner of Macdougal Street and Minetta Lane, in the Italian part of the Village. The Minetta is an old-fashioned neighborhood bar-and-restaurant that attracts a few tourists now and then. The proprietor wants to encourage this, and he and I have reached what you might call an unspoken agreement. I sit at a table in there from late in the afternoon until around nine, ten, or eleven at night and work on the Oral History and give some Village atmosphere to the place. I am the resident bohemian, the house bohemian. In return, he sees to it that I get the table-d’hôte dinner free of charge so long as I order spaghetti and meat balls or something like that for the main course, and if I have to I can get by on one meal a day. Also, there are always people around who will buy me a beer or a glass of wine or if my need is great a Martini. Also, while talking to tourists and explaining the Oral History to them, I manage to pick up quite a few contributions to the Joe Gould Fund …’

That night after work, I put the letters to Gould in my pocket and went down to the Minetta Tavern. Gould was sitting at the most conspicuous table in the place – it was up front and across from the bar and visible from the front window, on Minetta Lane – and he was busily writing in a composition book. I gave him the letters, and he looked at them with suspicion. Then, after reading a few, he got into a state of excitement and began ripping them open and glancing through them and murmuring appreciatively to himself. All the letters were complimentary in one way or another. One was from a woman in Norwood who had been in his class in high school. It was written in pencil on ruled paper, it was six
or
seven pages long, it contained news about a number of people Gould said he had not heard of since he’d left home, and it was very friendly. Gould’s face shone as he read it. ‘Your old home is still one of the nicest-looking places in Norwood,’ the woman wrote. ‘People my age and older call it the old Dr Gould house. It is now a rooming house for teachers and nurses and widows and women in general of the better class living alone. Do you recall Mrs Annie Faulkner? She owns it and runs it. Her capacity is eighteen women. Inside it looks pretty much the same as when you lived there. Some of the furnishings are the same, such as that big tall mirror in the front hall with the gold cupids on it. If I remember right, you had some relatives living in Boston and other places in Massachusetts who were very well fixed, and sooner or later maybe one of them will leave you a little something and if this ever happens (and you know as well as I do such things do happen in widely related old families like yours full of old maiden aunts and cousins who might just as well leave it to you as to their dearly beloved old cats or dogs or the Christian Science Church the way they’re always doing it) why don’t you come on back up here and buy back the old house and live part of the year anyway in Norwood? I was very proud to read about the history book you are writing, and I heard others say the same, and someday I predict there will be a statue of you in Norwood …’ Several of the letter writers had enclosed dollar bills. ‘Buy yourself a drink on me,’ they wrote, or something to that effect. One, a Harvard classmate, had enclosed a five-dollar bill. Another, a retired Navy officer, had enclosed a check for twenty-five dollars. The retired Navy officer wrote that he spent a huge part of his time sitting on the pier of a crab-picking plant near his home, in Annapolis, Maryland, watching sea gulls and listening to them. ‘I love sea gulls very much the way you do,’ he wrote, ‘and I sometimes feel that I, too, can understand their language.’

I told Gould that I hoped he would write these people and thank them.

‘Write them!’ he said. ‘I’m going to get busy tonight and try my best to start a correspondence with each and every one of them. Maybe I can persuade some of them to become regular contributors to the Joe Gould Fund.’

Gould went over to the bar to show one of the letters to a man he knew who was standing there. The composition book in which he had been writing was lying open on the table, and I looked at it. On the first page, in big, careful capital letters, was
‘DEATH OF DR CLARKE STORER GOULD. A CHAPTER OF JOE GOULD
’
S ORAL HISTORY.’
I reflected that this was the fourth version of this chapter I had seen. When he returned, I said, ‘I see you’re still working on the chapter about your father’s death.’ This made him irritable. ‘Is there anything wrong in that?’ he asked. ‘The other night, I got into a discussion about this very thing with Maxwell Bodenheim and some other old bohemians in Goody’s. Max knows from perpetually looking over my shoulder that I’ve been working on my father’s death for years. He knows I keep putting it aside and returning to it. And he was making fun of me for spending so much time on it. ‘Don’t tell me you’re still trying to bury your father,’ he said to me. Max himself has written a whole shelf of books – a whole shelf of novels, that is; a whole shelf of no-good novels; a whole shelf of
long
no-good novels – and he thinks that gives him the right to tell everybody else how to do. I told him that all I’m trying to do is write an account of the matter that will be a little masterpiece and last forever. That’s all. “Quality,” I told him, “not quantity.” I told him that that little five-line poem I once wrote on the death of the
Dial
was worth more than all his claptrap novels put together. “One five-line poem that’s perfect of its kind,” I said, “is worth more than any number of huge, formless, shapeless books.”’