Packing up my mom’s apartment I came across a book review she’d saved from February 22, 1998. The illustration alone makes it worth saving: a giant, Blue Meanies-style head wailing in a pram. The book in question is The Beast in the Nursery, by Adam Phillips. The review is by Stephen Greenblatt. I haven’t read the book yet, which sounds so lame about something that came out 13 years ago, but what can I say? I’m a slow reader. I do not exaggerate when I say J reads five books to my one. I read book reviews the same way I once read Lucky magazine, so I can shop without spending money. I actually tagged pages with those “Yes” and “Maybe” stickers they provided. Tagging turning out to be a surprisingly good proxy for buying. I neutralized my desire by acting on it, and even the most inane action would do. Plus, cheap! I think the magazine would sell even better if they gave you a “NEVER” sticker too.
With reading, as with fashion, I feel like I’m perpetually working toward something rather than through something. The matter at hand, the outfit or paragraph at hand, is rarely the right matter. I always think I should be better or differently dressed, or farther along in the book. Which is weird, because with reading, I’m also always afraid of losing what I have. If it’s a book I love, I’m afraid of losing my pleasure in it by getting ahead of it, as though if I read too fast I might outpace my enjoyment. Certainly I don’t want to outpace my understanding. I do not skim. I do not know how to skim. I do not know how to extract the wheat.
Oh no. I’m afraid this is one of those moments of distressing extrapolation. I’m afraid in life generally I do not know how to extract the wheat. A teacher I loved in college confessed during an Elizabethan drama seminar that the previous night his wife had caught him counting the pages to the end of Henry VI Part 3. I remember being charmed and a bit shocked by this glimpse into privacy and domesticity. You mean you aren’t just a giant head elongated by ideas wobbling around campus on vestigial lemur feet? I also remember thinking, “Page flipping merits spousal joshing? Here is a whole different kind of person from my kind of person. Here is a person who is successful at his work because his tasks absorb him.”
That last characterization must come from my 35-year old self, not my 19-year old self. Absorption strikes me as a distinctly middle-aged goal, and I’m pretty sure my college categories were limited to Fascinating and Boring. But I did understand, even at that age of sweet and furious convictions, that I was the sort of person who spent the time she should be reading in counting the pages left to read, and the time she should be absorbing material in speculating about what level of attention qualified as absorption.
In any case, that moment from seminar stuck with me, so, in the spirit of Phillips and therapy, let’s assume it’s important. But what does it have to do with the book review? Greenblatt defines Phillips’ thesis as follows: sad adults have lost their curiosity. Like Hamlet, they feel “How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable / Seem to me all the uses of this world.” The job of the therapist, then, is to restore curiosity. Adults are all dying to get back to the state of frenzied curiosity your average kid feels about a trip to the zoo. That sounds fair enough to me. I think for most of us, curiosity depends on the conviction that whatever you discover in your investigations will not harm you. I read an article a few months back about the mother of two boys with a vicious form of muscular dystrophy. She spent an enormous amount of time and energy trying to direct attention and funding to the disease, as do many parents in her position. The remarkable thing about this woman was that she remained an activist even after both her sons died in their late teens. Even after her first, desperate, protracted investigation revealed a problem she could not solve, a problem that caused her terrible harm, she remained curious and hopeful.
For the rest of us, I suspect absorption makes curiosity possible. Absorption in a single task limits curiosity blow back. Comic books often use the trick of cramming ever more panels and speech bubbles into the pages as the issue progresses. The reader gets increasing amounts of information and visual stimulation, but each individual panel gets smaller and less significant. Usually the last page of the issue is a stand-alone page rather than a spread. You have to turn the second page of the previous spread to see it, and there’s something about the physical act of turning the page, that momentary delay before the inevitable outcome, that makes you catch your breath. What you see when you turn the page is a single, blown-up image, totally out of scale with the art on the preceding pages. Often the image is of the hero or villain of the moment, or sometimes just one body part, a face or a hand. Sometimes, if it’s an outer-space comic, the image will be of a planet, a huge, spiny, malevolent alien world, or maybe an enormous fireball speeding toward a tiny, imperiled Earth. If there is any text at all, it’s just a single word or line. It always blows my mind, even when I’ve seen the trick a hundred times.
Having your mind blown in comics is good. Having your mind blown by suddenly confronting a problem of enormous scale isn’t so good, but that is where curiosity inevitably leads you. Most of us learn to limit our inquiries to problems with discernible boundaries, though how badly we need the boundaries depends on mood. When my problems congeal into an immense and boulder-like mass, all I want to do is watch dumb formula TV like The Gates or Supernatural and do crosswords. An actual grid! When the world seems more like a teeming hive full of interesting bees, I’m able to take some risks and chase some bees.
It’s when the world seems like a massive ball of string that you wind up like Hamlet. Having a parent die is like walking along the road and looking down and seeing the end of a rope. You pick up the rope and start to follow it, and at first you are like, huh, long rope, and then gradually you realize that the rope is everything, the road under you and the sky above you and the town in the distance ahead of you and you yourself. You are unraveling the thread of existence! You can drop the rope, but it doesn’t make any difference because you have seen how all things are connected. And then how natural, because you are sad and tired, to see the world as infinitely sad and tired.
That’s what’s so strange about all this. It is our natural human impulse to see connections between things, but the connectedness of everything is what overwhelms and defeats us. Greenblatt talks about “a problem with which Phillips repeatedly grapples but that he cannot resolve: psychoanalysis is an integral part of the culture that kills, or radically diminishes, the curiosity that its practitioners hope to enhance.” He goes on to say: “In a critique of Anna Freud, Phillips acknowledges that ‘psychoanalysis – as both theory and practice – can . . . dispirit people by making them better able to endure their ungainly fit with the culture.’”
This is the part of the review that finally makes sense for me of the idea that adults want to regain the curiosity of childhood. It isn’t curiosity we want, exactly, but the freedom of unlimited desire. As kids we could want everything precisely because we knew so little about anything.
So here we are, such weary adults, afraid of what we might discover only because we can imagine so much.



