I firmly believe that death is a friend, into whose arms one sinks gratefully when it is time. I also firmly believe in people’s right to end their lives when they desire to. The argument over euthanasia in this country seems to me wrongheaded, approached in the wrong way. The question being debated is whether the populace should grant someone—a doctor or panel of doctors—the authority to decide whether a person may be permitted to die. This removes freedom from the act, which again becomes part of an authoritarian pattern. Every and any adult who expresses the wish to die should be able to obtain the means of death—a prescription, a drug, whatever. Whether people take the drug or not—or when—is up to them. I do not believe that were the means of suicide accessible, great numbers of depressed people would kill themselves in a momentary funk. Suicide is an extreme step, and one must be in an extreme state to attempt it. Moreover, I really wonder about the thinking of people who seem to assume that if death were made accessible, large numbers of people would choose it. We are intelligent enough and strong enough to be in charge of our own lives, and we all, or almost all, cling almost superstitiously to life.
Despite my daily negotiations with death in 1993, I am now deeply gratified at having lived and grateful to whatever enabled me to do so. I have no anger at the medical establishment, which may inadvertently have caused the coma and whose “cure” did cause my present afflictions. There is no malice in it; the medical establishment did for me what it could. That cancer treatment remains at a savage state is not the fault of doctors scurrying to find more benign cures. Individual doctors can be care-less and cavalier, or caring and committed, but the medical establishment as a whole, the huge, indifferent machine, did what it could do, and by some fluke, I survived. It did what it was supposed to do, what it knew to do. Until more civilized treatments for cancer are discovered, treatment will continue to be like playing craps: toss the toxin and see which dies first, the cancer or the patient. My present problems are the payment I owe for surviving such a treatment. That they exist makes my life hard in some ways; that they are not more severe makes my survival sweeter.
Recently, a study was published in the New York Times suggesting that “happiness” and “unhappiness,” whatever the words mean, may be genetically rooted, that people’s level of contentment in life is inherent and remains the same whatever happens to them. After decades of observation, I have come to believe this is true: the things that we believe will make us happy (love imagined to be enduring and heaps of money, say) do so only momentarily, if even that. Love never endures without pain and sacrifice, and money seems to add little to human well-being. Moreover, things we are sure would make us unhappy (physical maiming, economic loss) do not hold our spirits down more than momentarily. The only loss I believe to be a permanent source of sorrow is the loss of loved people, especially children. I used to think that great poverty was catastrophic and that people with disabilities were doomed to misery and deprivation forever. I used to think that people who accomplished much in their lives were qualitatively better off than those who had not. But the most wretched people I have ever known include some of great accomplishment, wealth, and power in the world; and among the lightest-hearted people I have ever met are the utterly impoverished, oppressed, almost enslaved peasant women of India.
Still, like losing a child, a serious illness or disaster is transforming. It changes not just our bodies and psyches but the context of desire. The field from which we choose our desires shifts under our feet; we choose differently, not just because we have changed but because we see different elements to choose among. For me, the change has been profound: my happiness quotient has changed: I am happier than I have ever been, despite my handicaps.
I was never a particularly happy or lighthearted person. As a young woman, I was extremely passionate about ideas and extremely voluble about them. I rejected religion, but took seriously a passage from Revelation:
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked …
(3:15–16)
When I was young, each step I took out of helplessness (for me then the greatest evil) increased my satisfaction in life. Once I had work I enjoyed, I became almost content, despite a miserable marriage. And when the marriage ended, and I had work I loved, I was as close to bliss as I can imagine. Yet I was still driven, idealistically ambitious about human possibilities and angry with the world that exists. Even when I enjoyed my daily life, I lived in the future, where the ideal resided. Living in the future really means one is continually planning it, in an effort to control it—as if by thinking about it, one could make the ideal world come about. This way of being requires a belief in the future—the belief that a future exists and that one will live to see it, or at least will be able to influence it. My illness shriveled the future up and blew it away. Now I do not consider that I have a future (although I may), and I never think about it. I rarely think further than the next day. I plan only for a few months ahead (and that only recently) and always in a tentative spirit. I tacitly (silently) precede every statement of commitment by “If I live … if I am well …”
Losing the future is the best thing that ever happened to me. It altered the context of my desires, which are now limited to the present and the immediate future—that is, a few hours hence. Stuck in the present, I can devote myself to it: to daily pleasure, pleasure in the moment, pleasure in everything (or almost everything) I do. Luckily, my work has always given me huge pleasure, as do my social encounters—my children and my friends. I also love excellent food, and I do my own cooking despite my difficulty with standing for a long time. I move through the day from pleasure to pleasure like a woman walking through the halls of a great art gallery.
I no longer have large-scale desires. I no longer wish for or expect undying love, perfect harmony within my family, a life in which everything is right (which, however absurd it may be, I did desire and kept anticipating before). I have only small desires—for a glass of cold orange juice, a good book, a visit with someone I love. Not only do I have no large desires for myself; I no longer have them for the world. Coming up against the absolute limit of death destroyed my fervent belief that an ideal world could be created if only people would do x and y, believe what is before their eyes, let themselves be happier. It destroyed my absurd and unconscious belief that because I could see the ideal, I had a responsibility to help others see it, to create it. The weight of this responsibility was heavy, and carrying it made me angry. I was also angry because I was frustrated that no matter how simple it all was, it was not happening.
Coming as close to death as I did engraved on my consciousness the understanding that the ideal is not going to happen, that it was always a delusion, the daydream of a willful child, engraved upon my body by yearning and misery and helplessness like the fault tattooed on one’s body by acid-dropping needles that prick it as the sinner is turned around and around on a huge rotisserie, in Kafka’s The Penal Colony. Coming up against failure in so absolute a fashion calmed my anger and cooled my ambition. I am no longer driven. I no longer imagine that I can do much to help bring about the millennium of the humane ideal, or that I can change anything at all. I have relinquished my painful freight. I am free. I am permitted to enjoy myself. I have noticed that my laugh has changed, is more spontaneous, deeper. I am almost serene.
I cannot say I am happy I was sick, but I am happy that sickness, if it had to happen, brought me to where I am now. It is a better place than I have been before. I am grateful to have been allowed to live long enough to experience it.
* Herman cites M. Horowitz, Stress Response Syndromes (Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1986), 93–94. See Herman, Trauma and Recovery (New York: Ba
sic, 1993), 41.
About the Author
Marilyn French was a novelist and feminist. Her books include The Women’s Room, which has been translated into twenty languages; From Eve to Dawn, a History of Women in the World; A Season in Hell; Her Mother’s Daughter; Our Father; My Summer with George; and The Bleeding Heart. She died in 2009.
All rights reserved, including without limitation the right to reproduce this ebook or any portion thereof in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of the publisher.
Copyright © 1998 by Belles Lettres, Inc.
Cover design by Tracey Dunham
978-1-4804-4492-8
This edition published in 2013 by Open Road Integrated Media, Inc.
345 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10014
www.openroadmedia.com
EBOOKS BY MARILYN FRENCH
FROM OPEN ROAD MEDIA
Available wherever ebooks are sold
Open Road Integrated Media is a digital publisher and multimedia content company. Open Road creates connections between authors and their audiences by marketing its ebooks through a new proprietary online platform, which uses premium video content and social media.
Videos, Archival Documents, and New Releases
Sign up for the Open Road Media newsletter and get news delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign up now at
www.openroadmedia.com/newsletters
FIND OUT MORE AT
WWW.OPENROADMEDIA.COM
FOLLOW US:
@openroadmedia and
Facebook.com/OpenRoadMedia
A Season in Hell Page 21