by André Alexis
Canadian.’ Which is to say that, to some extent, I excluded
myself, too. In Schomberg, I ended up feeling inadequate, shamed,
cancelled out, as if I only precariously belonged anywhere. So, it
was a relief when Professor Bruno finished his camomile and we
left the Scruffy Dog, heading (at last) for Feversham.
As if Schomberg itself were pleased by our departure, I discov-
ered a wide patch of silk locket ( Carcere Canadensis) as the professor
and I walked back to the car. And I was reminded of how rich in
small wonders Canada is, how rich my country is.
It’s true that silk lockets are common – and classified as a
weed – but I’ve always thought they were a fascinating variant
of the “flytrap” plants that exist around the world. To begin with,
the locket’s appearance when open is like a circular clump of
118
reddish-blond hair, in the middle of which there is a circular
depression, in the middle of which there is a circular blue speck
that smells of butter in the morning and of rotten chicken in the
afternoon. The blue is attractive to flies. But when a fly – or any
insect – touches the speck, the strands of hair knit themselves
into what, when the plant is closed, looks like a small locket.
The remarkable thing is that it takes silk locket .227 of a second
to close the trap, about the same time as it takes someone to
blink, so it’s virtually impossible for the human eye to see the
plant in action.
As with any carnivorous plant, there is something terribly
cruel about silk locket. But when I was a child, it was considered
good luck to find one that had just closed. You could hear the fly
inside the plant, buzzing for some time before it died. And though
I hadn’t done this in years, I searched among the lockets to see if
I could find a noisy one, wasting a few minutes before giving up.
Having lost the morning, we should have headed straight to
Feversham, but the day seemed intent on driving us off course.
As we got into the car and fastened our seat belts, there was a
knock on the passenger-side window. A short, stocky Black man,
his Afro greying in a small circle on his head, repeatedly made
119
the sign for “hitchhike” – fist held sideways, thumb out and point-
ing in the direction of the road. No sooner was he in the back of
car than he began to talk.
– Malky Jenkins, he said. Good to meet you.
– Oh, said Professor Bruno. You’re talking!
– Course I’m talking, said Malky. I can’t be Black twenty-four
hours a day. Besides, I like Schomberg but I love to talk. I’d croak
if I lived here. You guys going anywhere near New Tecumseth?
Malky’s voice was pleasant and he himself was good company.
– What’s a Caucasian individual like you doing in Schomberg?
he asked Professor Bruno.
– Well, said Professor Bruno, Alfred and I were curious about
the town Carson Michaels came from. Do you know her?
– Sure I know her, said Malky. What about it?
– We heard a story about her and …
Malky interrupted him.
– You heard she’s the most beautiful woman around here,
didn’t you? But it’s not true! Carson was okay in her day, but her
sister Kate’s the one. That’s a fine woman! Carson’s one of those
who believes they’re beautiful, and when a person believes them-
self strong enough, they get others to believe them, too. Without
trying! That’s the kind of beautiful Carson was. I just don’t believe
her, is what I’m saying. You can see for yourself, you know. She
works in Coulson’s Hill.
– We were just in Coulson’s Hill, said the professor. I found
her quite lovely.
– Man, I’m not arguing with you, said Malky. What a person
finds beautiful is their own business. I’ll just say, we don’t go to
the same church. But I am observant, where beauty’s concerned.
In the half-hour it took to reach New Tecumseth, Malky must
have talked about a hundred things, but what stuck with me,
distracted as I was with the driving, were his words about Carson
Michaels’s beauty and his talk about the Museum of Canadian
Sexuality in New Tecumseth. The two things were related. At
120
least, they were for Malky, physical beauty being a hidden aspect
of the museum, as far as he was concerned.
Had we been to the Museum of Canadian Sexuality?
No? Neither of us? How wonderful that we could see it for
the first time today!
He highly recommended the place. And, it just so happened,
he worked at the museum. He was a ticket taker and it would
be his pleasure to give us each an employee discount on the
entrance fee.
The thought of visiting a museum devoted to sexuality didn’t
appeal to me at all. I’m not prudish, but I’ve begun to think my
father was right about the “publicizing” of sex.
– What’s the point, he’d ask, of surrendering the most wonder-
ful thing humans have to businessmen and carnies? I just don’t
understand this need to abase the sacred.
The older I am, the more I understand my father’s scruples.
But Professor Bruno’s curiosity was piqued. He couldn’t imagine
what a museum devoted to “Canadian sexuality” would look like.
And, to be fair, neither could I. So, when we got to New Tecum-
seth, the professor decided we should see the place for ourselves.
The Museum of Canadian Sexuality was in an old-style
theatre. It looked like the Victoria playhouse in Petrolia but with-
out the clock tower. The building was brick, but it had been
recently painted white, with black trim around the windows and
doors. It looked elegant and compact, almost Quaker-built. Inside,
it was more colourful. Once you got beyond the box office, some
of the walls had brightly coloured images projected on them. For
instance, in the antechamber where we waited for our guide, a
single scarlet tanager feather was projected on our left: bright
red and imposing, about four feet long from tip to crown. On
the wall to our right, directly opposite the feather, there was a
green maple tree in leaf, also about four feet tall.
For five minutes or so, we were alone in the antechamber, the
professor and me. The only sound was the drone of a distant fan.
121
We were eventually joined by a person in a royal-blue pantsuit, a
necklace of thick, false pearls, and dark shoes whose soles were
so high you could have said the person was perched when they
weren’t in motion.
– Is it just you two? the person asked.
– Dear madam, I think it is, answered the professor.
The person looked at him for a moment.
– Are you heterosexual? they asked.
Embarrassed, the professor said
– Well, in general, yes.
– Oh, no judgment, they said. Is your partner also heterosexual?
They both looked at me.
– Yes, I’m hetero, I said.
Though it felt strange having to admit it.
> – I don’t like to ask, said our guide. It’s a bit of an invasion.
And you may not feel comfortable in any of the usual categories.
But I find it useful to know when I’m leading heterosexuals
through the museum. You see, here we don’t pretend heterosex-
uality is the only or most interesting approach to the movable
feast that is sex. But neither do we judge. Your inclinations are
your own affair. You should know, though, that Canadian sexu-
ality includes any number of gratifications. So, if you think you’re
likely to be offended, you can get a full refund at this stage and
we’ll go no further. Are you both okay to proceed?
I nodded to show my assent, but Professor Bruno asked
– What kind of gratifications?
– I don’t want to tell you before we see the exhibits, answered
our guide. It would spoil your surprise. But all the acts depicted
are within the norms of Canadian conduct, if not approval.
Which didn’t exactly put the professor at ease.
– Well, he said, if they’re within the norms …
– Wonderful, said our guide. Now, if you’ll just follow me.
We went through a door, from the quiet antechamber into a
large, darkened room. The ceiling was some thirty feet up, satin-
122
black with dozens of illuminated specks on it, as if fluorescent
rice had been thrown at it and stuck. Around us were four brightly
lit dioramas in glass showcases. But our guide, who introduced
themself as Michael, first pointed to what I took to be a person
standing in the centre of the room and looking up at the ceiling,
as if up at a night sky.
– We’re a country of erotic distances, said Michael. The statue
you see over there represents this, and it stands for all Canadians.
On looking closer, I could see how it stood for many of us. It
was like a sculpture done by Evan Penny, lifelike. But it repre-
sented neither man nor woman or it represented both. The figure
was in a long coat that descended past its knees. The coat was
navy blue and seemed heavy. Beneath the coat the statue, which
had cleavage and notable breasts, was unclothed – or looked as
though it were. It had silky blond hair that fell past its clavicles,
and along its narrow back. But it also had a prominent Adam’s
apple and a tidy black moustache.
Taking me aside, Michael said in a low voice
– This is, of course, our Caucasian model. We have a number
of others, different ages and races. If you’d come yesterday, we
had the older Negro out. I hope you’re not offended. I’m able to
refund your entrance fee, if you are.
I assured Michael that I wasn’t offended, and, reassured,
Michael took us to the first of the dioramas.
I found the first diorama – maybe because it was first – the
most disturbing. In a glass showcase was a hotel room, its walls
light blue. At its centre was a queen-sized bed, well made, its
bedclothes cream-coloured. The floor was a pale, grainy wood and,
to the left of the bed, there was a door. Stencilled on the glass
between the spectators and the diorama were some twenty columns
of numerals and letters neatly organized and clearly legible.
As I was looking at the diorama, Michael gave Professor
Bruno a square of paper and quietly spoke words that I didn’t
catch. The professor’s face reddened and, as if food had gone
123
down his throat the wrong way, he coughed wildly. Making sooth-
ing sounds, Michael patted the professor’s back until he recov-
ered. Michael then came to where I was standing and said
– The most interesting thing about Canadian sexuality is the
theatre of it, don’t you think?
Michael then gave me a square of paper like the one they’d
given the professor.
– These are the permutations, Michael said.
The paper was thick, the size of a playing card, and on it, in
fluorescent ink, were printed the meanings of the symbols and
numbers that were on the glass of the dioramas. I immediately
understood the professor’s embarrassment. Most of the symbols
stood for “protrusions” or “declivities.’ The rest of them stood for
types of motion. Equipped with this chart, it was possible to
translate the “notations” on the glass, if you wished. So, I could
now see that a previously indecipherable string of symbols –
α × 2 non-m, 3 × χ non-m – represented what is called “soixante-
neuf.’ In this way – that is, by way of symbols and numbers – the
geometry of penetration and accommodation was dealt with as
exhaustively as possible. This desire for completion – which was
a desire for inclusion – accounted for the sheer number of “nota-
tions” stencilled on the glass. Meanwhile, penetrations and accom-
modations accounted for, the theatre of the Canadian sexual
imagination could be given its due with the dioramas.
Knowing the meanings of the symbols did not ease my discom-
fort. If anything, it made things worse. From the moment Michael
gave me the “chart of correspondences,’ I wanted out of the
museum. I stayed for Professor Bruno’s sake. Having overcome
his embarrassment, he seemed intrigued by the exhibits.
The second diorama in the room was a representation of a
historical scene, a botanical one. It was a faithfully rendered
field of fire-lions ( Taraxacum angustifolium), among the most beau-
tiful plants native to our country. The fire-lions seemed to go
on for miles in all directions with, in the distance facing the
124
spectator, a border of willows whose light green crest was like a
small, kind idea.
– This field, said Michael, represents a field of fire-lions from
the 1500s. It’s here, not far from Saguenay, that Jacques Cartier
and a handful of his men are rumoured to have engaged in a
spontaneous orgy amongst themselves, under the influence of
what we now know to be the aphrodisiac contained in fire-lions.
After writing a discreet account of what happened, Cartier wrote
in his diary: “Nous ne sommes pas sortis indemnes”.
Michael here looked at Professor Bruno and, as if anticipating
some learnèd reproach, said
– There are other accounts of this incident. One of Cartier’s
own men wrote that the Iroquois had warned them about the
field and had told them in the plainest way what would happen.
I’d never heard of this orgy among Jacques Cartier and his
men, but if they’d wandered into a field of fire-lions, they would
not have been able to help themselves. And you’d have thought
this episode would, at least among botanists, be known. It isn’t.
But the professor asked no questions about the fact of Cartier’s
predicament. Instead, he and our guide discussed Cartier’s diary
entry, its vagueness. As far as Professor Bruno was concerned,
“ne pas sortir indemne” – to not get away without consequences
– could mean any number of things, not necessarily an orgy, as
we in the twenty-first century understood the term.
Michael’s
counter-argument was that, knowing what we do about the effects
of fire-lions, it would be unusual if Jacques Cartier and his men
had not engaged in some form of drastic sensuality. Besides, the
explorers were young Europeans whose very idea of a “new world”
would have included the notion of unchecked sensuality. When
you added to that the explorers’ own accounts, however vague
they sometimes were, it tilted the argument in the museum’s
favour, although, admittedly, there were historians who disagreed.
Professor Bruno seemed more interested than convinced.
– Well, I suppose that’s a viable argument, he said.
125
I was not interested in either side of the argument, not inter-
ested in the historical record, not interested in the sexual activity
of men who’d been dead for centuries. My thoughts were uniquely
– maybe desperately – about the fire-lions. I was grateful for
them. They were, ironically, a distraction from the museum.
I’d never seen a field of fire-lions – I still haven’t – but
whoever did the diorama must have been something of a botanist,
so accurately were the plants made.
Though I appreciate how unlikely and wonderful it is that a
plant should be both an herbal ecstasy and a natural Viagra, what
caught my imagination, where the fire-lions were concerned, was
the fact that a plant should evolve to look as if it were on fire: its
leaves flame-red and streaked with yellow, its floating tufts (like
dandelion seeds) rising black and grey from hidden seed heads.
It’s with plants like this (fire-lion, royal candles, bee balm, butterfly
weed …) that I feel the land’s desire for joy, its willingness to play
with us, to frustrate, to fool, to delight, to leave perplexed. Profes-
sor Bruno and Michael had moved on to the next diorama, but I
stood for some time before the field of fire-lions, admiring the
plants themselves and the willows in the distance.
126
After that, I looked over at the third diorama – a white icefield
with a jagged white cliff for background and a full-sized orange
tent in the foreground – and decided I didn’t want to see any
more. Professor Bruno and Michael were waiting for me in front
of the showcase. Each seemed pleased with the other’s company.
Not that the professor was happy per se. When I’d caught up to