by Simon Okotie
What, then, was this new piece of evidence that had, as it were, come into his possession to suggest that the main advantage of placing his right foot at an elevated position in relation to his left and to use the step that protruded from beneath the gate leading to the area in front of the townhouse as the means of achieving this, in other words by placing that foot – the right – on that step whilst refraining from placing the left at a similar elevated position on that step – leaving, in short, the left foot in its original position, as it were, on the pavement or sidewalk – which was that the key or keys in question, which, remember, he believed to be contained within his right-hand trouser pocket and which he wished to retrieve from that trouser pocket as a precursor to facilitating entry to the area in front of the townhouse by using it or them to unlock the padlock securing the gate leading to that area, would be placed, internally within the pocket this was (but not in relation to the pocket), at a slightly elevated position compared to that in which it or they would have been placed had he not moved the foot on that side – the right – onto the step that protruded from beneath the gate leading to the area in front of the townhouse, a slight advantage – that of the increased height of the keys in relation, most importantly, to the hand on that side – the right – if not in relation to the pocket containing them – that was as it were supported by a subsidiary advantage that he now adumbrated for the first time: that of moving the key, and the pocket, forwards slightly, thereby taking them closer to the gate leading to the area in front of the townhouse, may, in fact, be outweighed, as it were, by the main disadvantage of placing that foot on the pediment in question, if the definition of pediment is broad enough, and his memory and deployment of it accurate enough, to encompass and incorporate the step that protruded (as before), which was that this action on his part would also constrict somewhat the pocket from which he hoped to retrieve the keys that would, he believed, unlock the gate to the area in front of the townhouse as well, he hoped, as the door to the townhouse itself? The evidence, in short, that had, as it were, come into his possession at the moment that he’d placed his foot – the right – in the aforementioned position was, quite simply, that he was wearing a different, tighter pair of trousers to those he’d thought he was wearing when he had initiated this action, meaning that any pocket within those trousers would, upon placing one foot at an elevated position in relation to the other (thereby necessitating the bending of the leg connected to that elevated foot) be more constricted than it would have been had he been wearing his other, looser, trousers, making it more difficult, as before, to retrieve items, such as keys, from that pocket.
What, though, he now wondered, as his hand – the right – finally, with difficulty, entered the upper reaches, as it were, of his right-hand trouser pocket, if the key to the padlock was, in fact, contained in the trousers he’d worn, turn and turn about, one day previously?
4
He pondered, for a moment, whether, in fact, he still had another, looser, pair of trousers and, if he did, where he’d changed from those trousers into the ones he was currently wearing. He must surely, he thought, have a home to go to, as it was so often put, particularly by the landladies of the public houses that he hardly ever had the funds or the inclination to patronise, and one in which he was not only able to change from these trousers into his other pair, or vice versa in the case where he was in fact wearing the other pair and wanted to change into this pair, a home where he must also be able to store this or his other pair of trousers but not both at the same time, since this would imply, in the case where he had no more and no fewer than two pairs of trousers in his possession, that he had gone out without wearing either of them (something he often wondered and worried about when he was actually out on the streets in the course of his investigations but which, hitherto, he had not done – namely, left his home, assuming, for now, that he had one to go to, without having put on either pair of his trousers, or, to put it another way, without having put on either one of his pair of pairs of trousers).
But what if, in answer to the publicly expressed question (a question, moreover, he thought, as he slid the ball of his right foot back towards himself, that was often publicly expressed in the public bar of the public house) of the public house landladies of that land, the one that related to whether the men, typically, therein, did, or did not, have homes to go to, he did not, in fact, have a home to go to? What if, through some misadventure the details of which had, for whatever reason, slipped his mind, he had no home? It would not help him, he thought, to answer the question of the public house landlady in the negative, a question which, as before, must be publically expressed, whether in the public or in a more private bar, in the land that he inhabited or had inhabited at the time the question was posed, and the reason it would not help him to answer in the negative the public house landlady’s question about whether or not he and others therein had homes to go to in the situation where he, in fact, for one, had no home to go to related to the difference, perhaps, between a house and a home, with the latter being a private residence where one could place one’s pairs of trousers, in the situation where one had more than one pair, and also, in that situation, change from one pair to another (or, where one only had a pair of pairs of trousers, which is to say, where one only had four trousers in total, change from one pair to the other pair), whereas a house, and particularly a public house, was not a private place nor was it a residence, except, in many instances, for the pub landlady and her family, were she to have one, as the name implied (and even a private bar in a public house was not private in the sense that a home was private) and would only, in fact, be open to the public between certain circumscribed hours that were in large part dependent on the licensing laws extant in that land at that point in its history.
The only situation in which answering in the negative the public house landlady’s question, a question that was often expressed loudly, and certainly publicly, regardless of whether it was expressed loudly and publicly in a lounge, private or public bar, was, he noted, as the ball of that foot neared the edge of the step, in the situation where the public house landlady was a single woman with whom there had already been a mutual sexual frisson2 – between him and her, this was – during the course of that evening or a number of evenings or daytimes, depending on the licensing laws extant in that land at that point in its history, to the extent that, when the other punters had gone, singly, collectively, or in droves, to the homes that she – the public house landlady located in a public house that he and she were then, and/or are currently residing in – had enquired about in the public, loud and, most must realise, rhetorical way previously referred to, regardless of the precise nature of the bar in that public house within which the question had been raised, she might invite him upstairs for what’s known as a nightcap. But that situation did not often occur for the simple reason that most public house landladies were married, which is to say that most public house landladies had a public house landlord in tow, as it were, a public house landlord who often left it to their landlady wives to ask their guests, to call them that, and only at the appropriate moment, whether they had homes to go to, since this question was probably easier to take from a woman, given that, coming from a woman it would add something of the feminine touch that was, so often, a large part of what differentiated a house from a home. And it was for this reason that the situation of a single, in the sense of being romantically and sexually unattached, public house landlady having asked the question – of him and others – about whether he had a home to go to and him responding to the question in the negative, having established a romantic and even sexual, although, as yet, unconsummated rapport with that single (in the sense defined) public house landlady during the course of that evening or a number of evenings and afternoons (depending, as before) in the hope of being taken from that public, private, or lounge bar upstairs into the decidedly private lounge or bedroom of the home, note, of that single public house landlady
with, perhaps, the intention of becoming a public house landlord, in time, and having the opportunity then, oneself, of asking whether or not they had homes to go to, in the situation when one did not, for whatever reason, defer the responsibility for asking that question to one’s wife, the public house landlady, was a rare one, he thought, as he lowered the heel of his right foot, which was now, as it were, overhanging the edge of the step, to release, somewhat, the constriction in the equivalent trouser pocket and allow his hand – the right – to plunge, finally, into its depths.
5
Of the two pairs of trousers he seemingly owned, as well as one being tighter than the other, one was more worn than the other, which was not to say that he wore that pair more frequently than the other – it has already been established that he wore the two pairs of trousers in his possession turn and turn about – but to say that that pair (which happened, also, to be the tighter pair) was more worn than the other pair in the sense that they were more worn down, although the fact that they were more worn down didn’t necessarily mean that they had been worn down by him, just because he was now wearing them and had previously worn them. There were a number of possibilities here, as always. One that immediately came to his mind, as the tips of his fingers traced the bottom of that tight, worn trouser pocket, was that they had mainly been worn (in both senses) by someone else or, indeed, a number of people, before they had come into his possession by whatever means, unspecified. The reason that he was sure, initially, that this was the case was the fact that he had acquired them from what is known as a second-hand shop or store. The second-hand here referred, he thought, to the secondary users of the item (which included items of clothing), with the first hand belonging to the initial owner. That was not to say that the hand (and it was never specified which was meant – left or right) of the initial owner of the item was the first hand to have touched the item. That would clearly be ludicrous. The item would have to have been made somewhere, presumably, or, at least would have to have been handled by humans if not by other apes during the process of its finding itself on the back, or in this specific case, encompassing the legs, buttocks and genital area (plus part of the hips and stomach area) of our intrepid investigator who, remember, was investigating the disappearance of his colleague, Marguerite, last seen on the trail of Harold Absalon, the Mayor’s transport advisor, whose disappearance Marguerite had been investigating prior to his own disappearance. It is highly unlikely, then, that even if an animal like a sheep or cow simply shed its wool (in the former case) or skin (in both cases) that this would be shed in a form that could readily be worn by human beings, let alone by other apes, without, that is, some form of higher simian intervention. There was a possibility, granted, of genetic modification to the animals in question, immoral though our investigator thought this to be, designed to ensure that, once a year, or more regularly, they would shed their wool (in the case of sheep) in a form that could readily be used (as gloves, bobble hats, jumpers, pullovers) by human beings to cover all or part of their anatomy without further simian intervention. The case of being able to cover the whole anatomy of one human would be particularly challenging where the item was shed and then donned – he thought first of the elasticated nature of the wetsuit that deep (and more shallow) sea divers wore whilst they were diving, immediately prior to diving and immediately after diving, plus, perhaps, at other times, such as when they were demonstrating to others how to don such an outfit, that is, in the teaching sphere, if they were involved in such a sphere, and perhaps when going to a fancy dress party with an underwater theme, although it would surely be terribly hot to wear such an outfit, especially if dancing were involved, unless, of course, the theme encompassed actually being underwater – perhaps it was a party hosted by a rich benefactor such as a member of Richard Knox’s3 family (or someone who was simply rich but wasn’t a benefactor) and involved time in the swimming pool of their mansion or condominium. However, in the latter case he was satisfied that this would be covered by the initial category of actual diving or the precursor or preamble to such an activity. It was, then, first, the elasticated nature of the wet- (and let us not forget the dry-) suit that he felt would not particularly lend itself to genetic modification in sheep, cows – in short, in any animal whatsoever. The reason he thought this was unlikely he would come back to in due course. Firstly, though, he couldn’t help noticing that he had moved across an issue that may confuse lesser mortals than himself – that is people with lesser intellectual and imaginative capacity than he was capable of – indeed capable of but also demonstrating in this speculative outpouring. It was this: in using the terms wet- and drysuit he wanted to ensure that this was not taken in any way to relate to business suits. Of course the fact of wearing a wetsuit (or its dry equivalent, if the drysuit can be referred to in that way) did not preclude one from doing business. In fact, even when someone was wearing a wetsuit it would not preclude them from doing business, at least not in all environments that one could think of. Consider, for example, the following scenario: a dive instructor wishing to buy a dive shop from its current owner and, having just returned from a dive, she encounters the current owner as he is walking along the beach, or along the line of shops which contains the shop in which he has a business interest. There is nothing to stop her, in this scenario, to our investigator’s mind, from engaging in business with the current owner just because she was wearing a wetsuit; in fact, her sporting of a wetsuit may help her in her business interest – it may demonstrate to the current owner of the dive shop, whether it needed demonstrating or not, that the potential purchaser has an interest in diving, at least to the extent that she was willing to wear a wetsuit (that would be the only evidence that the vendor would have of the potential purchaser’s interest (in diving, that is), unless, of course, he had embarked on the diving trip that the potential purchaser had just returned from and seen the potential purchaser actually diving, or had previously been on a diving trip with the potential purchaser). But that is a very different situation, note, from the banker in the city going to a business meeting in the city in a wet- or even drysuit (assuming the latter’s specifically nautical connotations are taken as read, ‘taken as read’ being the form of words that our investigator perhaps fears most of any form of words that he can think of). In that situation he was sure that it would not be possible to do business, even if all of the other people in the business meeting knew that the man or woman in a wet- or drysuit before them had an interest in diving; indeed, even if they knew that s/he had a business interest in diving; indeed, even if the meeting was about the purchase of the dive shop which has been so clearly elaborated upon in the scenario previously alluded to – that is the city banker in question and the potential purchaser of the dive shop were one and the same person (male or female or indeterminate); none of this would make it possible for the city banker/potential purchaser to do real business in the city in a wet- or drysuit as opposed to the conventional uniform of conventional business in the city, which is, of course, the business suit.
In fact it is difficult to imagine any business being conducted in a city where any rubber item of clothing is being worn by any of the parties to that business. At least, to the extent that items of rubber clothing are visibly being worn by the parties to a business meeting he felt that doing business would become increasingly difficult. In other words, to express it more clearly, the ineffectiveness of a business meeting qua business meeting was directly proportional to the surface area of visible rubber clothing being worn at that meeting. He wanted, furthermore, to ensure that one didn’t go away with the thought that this was the only factor in the effectiveness of business meetings – there were many others. Indeed, he now realised (in fact, this thought had dawned on him as the previous thought was unfolding, but he had not been able to think this current thought whilst the previous thought was still unfolding for fear (albeit unconscious) of impeding the previous thought from unfolding in full) (but now the current thought, i
n expressing this ‘bridging thought’ if one can express it in that way, has been lost, so the unconscious care that he had lavished on the initial thought is somewhat undercut by the loss of the current thought, as it was previously known but which should now be known as the next thought, or nascent thought, should it reappear in nascent form in his mind, which he hopes it does, to distinguish it, that is, from the current thought (previously known as the ‘bridging thought’, which, in taking so long to unfold has taken over from the previously current thought in all-including-name) that (ah! it’s there again!) even if the rubber clothing in question is not visible (which is not to say that it is invisible, just to say that it is not visible to the meeting attendees – it is underneath other items of (non-rubber) clothing, say, or underneath the meeting room table) that does not mean that its ability to undermine the conduction of effective business is diminished. In fact, he thought, it may impede more in its invisibility (as defined above) than in its visibility, depending on the item of rubber clothing in question. Granted, the wearing of a gimp suit on full display would stop any business meeting in its tracks – that much is clear. But consider, for a moment, the difference between donning a pair of rubber underpants versus the donning of a rubber belt at the meeting in question. It may be that the other attendees at the meeting do not even notice the rubber belt and that the donner of said belt forgets he or she is wearing it. Then business can be conducted without any impediment, at least without any impediment arising due to the presence of the rubber belt in the meeting. Compare this with the discomfort probably being felt by the wearer of rubber underpants on, say, a particularly warm summer’s day in a meeting room without air conditioning. Would you not say, he wondered, as he discovered that the key to the padlock was not, in fact, contained within that right-hand trouser pocket, that the effect on the psyche of such discomfort on the effectiveness of their performance at the meeting, and therefore on the business of which they were a part, would be greater than the more visible item of clothing, namely the belt? Satisfied that this rhetorical question brought this particular diversion to a satisfactory closure, he felt that he really must bring his reflections back to the point at hand, which was what exactly?