Search:
A \ B \ C \ D \ E \ F \ G \ H \ I \ J \ K \ L \ M \ N \ O \ P \ R \ S \ T \ U \ V \ W \Z

Elsie's New Relations by Martha Finley

M >> Martha Finley >> Elsie\'s New Relations

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15


ELSIE'S NEW RELATIONS

What They Did and How They Fared at Ion

A Sequel to _Grandmother Elsie_

by

MARTHA FINLEY

A. L. Burt Company
Publishers
New York Chicago

1911







CHAPTER I.

"For wild, or calm, or far or near,
I love thee still, thou glorious sea."
--Mrs. Hemans.

"I bless thee for kind looks and words
Shower'd on my path like dew,
For all the love in those deep eyes,
A gladness ever new."
--Mrs. Hemans.


It is late in the afternoon of a delicious October day; the woods back of
the two cottages where the Dinsmores, Travillas and Raymonds have spent
the last three or four months are gorgeous with scarlet, crimson and gold;
the air from the sea is more delightful than ever, but the summer visitors
to the neighboring cottages and hotels have fled, and the beach is almost
deserted, as Edward and his child-wife wander slowly along it, hand in
hand, their attention divided between the splendors of a magnificent
sunset and the changing beauty of the sea; yonder away in the distance it
is pale gray; near at hand delicate green slowly changing to pink, each
wave crested with snowy foam, and anon they all turn to burnished gold.

"Oh, how very beautiful!" cries Zoe, in an ecstasy of delight. "Edward,
did you ever see anything finer?"

"Never! Let us go down this flight of steps and seat ourselves on the next
to the lowest. We will then be quite near the waves and yet out of danger
of being wet by them."

He led her down as he spoke, seated her comfortably and himself by her
side with his arm around her.

"I've grown very fond of the sea," she remarked. "I shall be sorry to
leave it. Will not you?"

"Yes and no," he answered, doubtfully. "I, too, am fond of old ocean, but
eager to get to Ion and begin life in earnest. Isn't it time, seeing I
have been a married man for nearly five months? But why that sigh, love?"

"O Edward, are you not sorry you are married? Are you not sometimes very
much ashamed of me?" she asked, her cheek burning hotly and the downcast
eyes filling with tears.

"Ashamed of you, Zoe? Why, darling, you are my heart's best treasure," he
said, drawing her closer to his side, and touching his lips to her
forehead. "What has put so absurd an idea into your head?"

"I know so little, so very little compared with your mother and sisters,"
she sighed. "I'm finding it out more and more every day, as I hear them
talk among themselves and to other people."

"But you are younger than any of them, a very great deal younger than
mamma, and will have time to catch up to them."

"But I'm a married woman and so can't go to school any more. Ah," with
another and very heavy sigh, "I wish papa hadn't been quite so indulgent,
or that I'd had sense enough not to take advantage of it to the neglect of
my studies!"

"No, I suppose it would hardly do to send you to school, even if I could
spare you--which I can't," he returned laughingly, "but there is a
possibility of studying at home, under a governess or tutor. What do you
say to offering yourself as a pupil to grandpa?"

"Oh, no, no! I'm sure he can be very stern upon occasion. I've seen it in
his eyes when I've made a foolish remark that he didn't approve, and I
should be too frightened to learn if he were my teacher."

"Then some one else must be thought of," Edward said, with a look of
amusement. "How would I answer?"

"You? Oh, splendidly!"

"You are not afraid of me?"

"No, indeed!" she cried, with a merry laugh and a saucy look up into his
face.

"And yet I'm the only person who has authority over you."

"Authority, indeed!" with a little contemptuous sniff.

"You promised to obey, you know."

"Did I? Well, maybe so, but that's just a form that doesn't really mean
anything. Most any married woman will tell you that."

"Do you consider the whole of your marriage vow an unmeaning form, Zoe?"
he asked, with sudden gravity and a look of doubt and pain in his eyes
that she could not bear to see.

"No, no! I was only in jest," she said, dropping her eyes and blushing
deeply. "But really, Edward, you don't think, do you, that wives are to
obey like children?"

"No, love, I don't; and I think in a true marriage the two are so entirely
one--so unselfishly desirous each to please the other--that there is
little or no clashing of wills. Thus far ours has seemed such to me. How
is it, do you think, little wife?"

"I hope so, Edward," she said, laying her head on his shoulder, "I know
one thing--that there is nothing in this world I care so much for as to
please you and be all and everything to you."

"And I can echo your words from my very heart, dearest," he said,
caressing her. "I hope you are at home and happy among your new
relatives."

"Yes, indeed, Edward, especially with mamma. She is the dearest, kindest
mother in the world; to me as much as to her own children, and oh, so wise
and good!"

"You are not sorry now that you and I are not to live alone?" he queried,
with a pleased smile.

"No, oh, no! I'm ever so glad that she is to keep house at Ion and all of
us to live together as one family."

"Except Lester and Elsie," he corrected; "they will be with us for a short
time, then go to Fairview for the winter. And it will probably become
their home after that, as mamma will buy it, if Mr. Leland--Lester's
uncle, who owns the place--carries out his intention of removing to
California. His children have settled there, and, of course, the father
and mother want to be with them."

The sun had set, and all the bright hues had faded from the sea, leaving
it a dull gray.

"What a deserted spot this seems!" remarked Zoe, "and only the other day
it was gay with crowds of people. Nobody to be seen now but ourselves,"
glancing up and down the coast as she spoke. "Ah, yes! yonder is someone
sitting on that piece of wreck."

"It is Lulu Raymond," Edward said, following the direction of her glance.
"It is late for the child to be out so far from home; a full mile I should
say. I'll go and invite her to walk back with us."

"No, you needn't," said Zoe, "for see, there is her father going to her.
But let us go home, for I must change my dress before tea."

"And we want time to walk leisurely along," returned Edward, rising and
giving her his hand to help her up the steps.

Lulu was reading, so absorbed in the story that she did not perceive her
father's approach, and as he accosted her with, "It is late for you to be
here alone, my child, you should have come in an hour ago," she gave a
great start, and involuntarily tried to hide her book.

"What have you there? Evidently something you do not wish your father to
see," he said, bending down and taking it from her unwilling hand.

"Ah, I don't wonder!" as he hurriedly turned over a few pages. "A dime
novel! Where did you get this, Lulu?"

"It's Max's, papa, he lent it to me. O papa, what made you do that?" as
with an energetic fling the captain suddenly sent it far out into the sea.
"Max made me promise to take care of it and give it back to him, and
besides I wanted to finish the story."

"Neither you nor Max shall ever read such poisonous stuff as that with my
knowledge and consent," replied the captain in stern accents.

"Papa, I didn't think you'd be so unkind," grumbled Lulu, her face
expressing extreme vexation and disappointment, "or that you would throw
away other people's things."

"Unkind, my child?" he said, sitting down beside her and taking her hand
in his. "Suppose you had gathered a quantity of beautiful, sweet-tasted
berries that I knew to be poisonous, and were about to eat them; would it
be unkind in me to snatch them out of your hand and throw them into the
sea?"

"No, sir; because it would kill me to eat them, but that book couldn't
kill me, or even make me sick."

"No, not your body, but it would injure your soul, which is worth far
more. I'm afraid I have been too negligent in regard to the mental food of
my children," he went on after a slight pause, rather as if thinking aloud
than talking to Lulu, "and unfortunately I cannot take the oversight of it
constantly in the future. But remember, Lulu," he added firmly, "I wholly
forbid dime novels, and you are not to read anything without first
obtaining the approval of your father or one of those under whose
authority he has placed you."

Lulu's face was full of sullen discontent and anger. "Papa," she said, "I
don't like to obey those people."

"If you are wise, you will try to like what has to be," he said.

"It wouldn't have to be if you would only say I needn't, papa."

"I shall not say that, Lucilla," he answered with grave displeasure. "You
need guidance and control even more than most children of your age, and I
should not be doing my duty if I left you without them."

"I don't like to obey people that are no relation to me!" she cried,
viciously kicking away a little heap of sand.

"No, you don't even like to obey your father," he said with a sigh. "Max
and Gracie together do not give me half the anxiety that you do by your
wilful temper."

"Why, can't I do as I please as well as grown people?" she asked in a more
subdued tone.

"Even grown people have to obey," said her father. "I am now expecting
orders from the government, and must obey them when they come. I must obey
my superior officers, and the officers and men under me must obey me. So
must my children. God gave you to me and requires me to train you up in
His fear and service to the best of my ability. I should not be doing that
if I allowed you to read such hurtful trash as that I just took from
you."

"It was Max's, papa, and I promised to give it back. What shall I say when
he asks me for it?"

"Tell him to come to me about it."

"Papa----"

"Well, what is it?" he asked, as she paused and hesitated.

"Please, papa, don't punish him. You never told him not to buy or read
such things, did you?"

"No; and I think he would not have done so in defiance of a prohibition
from me. So I shall not punish him. But I am pleased that you should plead
for him. I am very glad that my children all love one another."

"Yes, indeed we do, papa!" she said, "And we all love you, and you love
Max and Gracie very much, and----"

"And Lulu also," he said, putting his arm about her and drawing her closer
to his side, as she paused with quivering lip and downcast eyes.

"As much as you do Max and Gracie?" she asked brokenly, hiding her face on
his shoulder. "You said just now I was naughtier than both of them put
together."

"Yet you are my own dear child, and it is precisely because I love you so
dearly that I am so distressed over your quick temper and wilfulness. I
fear that if not conquered they will cause great unhappiness to yourself
as well as to your friends. I want you to promise me, daughter, that you
will try to conquer them, asking God to help you."

"I will, papa," she said, with unwonted humility; "but, oh, I wish you
were going to stay with us! It's easier to be good with you than with
anybody else."

"I am sorry, indeed, that I cannot," he said, rising and taking her hand.
"Come, we must go back to the house now."

They moved along in silence for a little, then Lulu said, with an
affectionate look up into her father's face, "Papa, I do so like to walk
this way!"

"How do you mean?" he asked, smiling kindly upon her.

"With my hand in yours, papa. You know I haven't often had the chance."

"No, my poor child," he sighed, "that is one of the deprivations to which
a seaman and his family have to submit."

"Well," said the little girl, lifting his hand to her lips, "I'd rather
have you for my father than anybody else, for all that."

At that he bent down and kissed her with a smile full of pleasure and
fatherly affection.




CHAPTER II.

"By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou
shalt be condemned."--_Matt._ 12:37.


As they drew near the house Max came to meet them.

"I've been to the post-office since the mail came in, papa," he said, "and
there is no government letter for you yet. I'm so glad! I hope they're
going to let us keep you a good deal longer."

"I'm not sorry to prolong my stay with wife and children," the captain
responded, "but cannot hope to be permitted to do so very much longer."

"Grandpa Dinsmore has come back from taking Harold and Herbert to
college," pursued Max, "and we're all to take tea in there, Mamma Vi says;
because grandpa wants us all about him this first evening."

"That is kind," said the captain, opening the gate and looking smilingly
at Violet, who, with little Grace, was waiting for him on the veranda. He
stopped there to speak with them, while Lulu hurried on into the house
and up to her own room, Max following.

"Where's my book, Lu?" he asked.

"O Max, I couldn't help it--but papa caught me reading it and took it away
from me. And he told me when you asked me for it I should send you to
him."

Max's face expressed both vexation and alarm. "I sha'n't do that," he
said, "if I never get it. But was he very angry, Lu?"

"No; and you needn't be afraid to go to him, for he won't punish you; I
asked him not to, and he said he wouldn't. But he threw the book into the
sea, and said neither you nor I should ever read such poisonous stuff with
his knowledge or consent."

"Then, where would be the use of my going to him for it? I'll not say a
word about it."

He went out, closed the door and stood irresolutely in the hall, debating
with himself whether to go up-stairs or down. Up-stairs in his room was
another dime novel which he had been reading that afternoon; he had not
quite finished it, and was eager to do so; he wanted very much to know how
the story ended, and had meant to read the few remaining pages now before
the call to tea. But his father's words, reported to him by Lulu, made it
disobedience.

"It's a very little sin," whispered the tempter; "as having read so much,
you might as well read the rest."

"But it will be disobeying wilfully the kind father who forgave a heedless
act of disobedience not very long ago," said conscience; "the dear father
who must soon leave you to be gone no one knows how long, perhaps never to
come back."

Just then the captain came quickly up the stairs. "Ah, Max, are you
there?" he said, in a cheery tone, then laying his hand affectionately on
the boy's shoulder. "Come in here with me, my son, I want to have a little
talk with you while I make my toilet."

"Yes, sir," said Max, following him into the dressing-room.

"What have you been reading to-day?" asked the captain, throwing off his
coat, pouring water into the basin from the pitcher, and beginning his
ablutions.

Max hung his head in silence till the question was repeated, then
stammered out the title of the book, the perusal of which he was so
desirous to finish.

"Where did you get it?" asked his father.

"I bought it at a news-stand, papa."

"You must not buy anything more of that kind, Max; you must not read any
such trash."

"I will not again, papa; I should not this time if you had ever forbidden
me before."

"No, I don't believe you would be guilty of wilful disobedience to any
positive command of your father," the captain said in a grave but kindly
tone; "and yet I think you suspected I would not approve, else why were
you so unwilling to tell me what you had been reading?"

He was standing before the bureau now, hairbrush in hand, and as he spoke
he paused in his work, and gazed searchingly at his son.

Max's face flushed hotly, and his eyes drooped for a moment, then looking
up into his father's face he said frankly, "Yes, papa, I believe I was
afraid you would take the book from me if you saw it. I deserve that you
should be angry with me for that and for lending one to Lu."

"I am displeased with you on both accounts," the captain replied, "but I
shall overlook it this time, my son, hoping there will be no repetition of
either offence. Now go to your room, gather up all the doubtful reading
matter you have, and bring it here to me. I shall not go with you, but
trust to your honor to keep nothing back."

"Oh, thank you, papa, for trusting me!" cried Max, his countenance
brightening wonderfully, and he hastened away to do his father's bidding.

"Just the dearest, kindest father that ever was!" he said to himself, as
he bounded up the stairs. "I'll never do anything again to vex him, if I
can help it."

He was down again in a moment with two dime novels and a story-paper of
the same stamp.

The captain had finished his toilet. Seating himself he took what Max had
brought, and glancing hastily over it, "How much of this trash have you
read, Max?" he asked.

"The paper and most of one book, papa. I'll not read any more such, since
you've forbidden me; but they're very interesting, papa."

"I dare say, to a boy of your age. But you don't think I would want to
deprive you of any innocent pleasure, Max?"

"No, sir; oh, no! But may I know why you won't let me read such stories?"

"Yes; it is because they give false views of life, and thus lead to wrong
and foolish actions. Why, Max, some boys have been made burglars and
highwaymen by such stories. I want you to be a reader, but of good and
wholesome literature; books that will give you useful information and good
moral teachings; above all things, my son, I would have you a student of
the Bible, 'the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto
salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ.' Do you read it often,
Max?"

"Not very, papa. But you know I hear you read it every morning and
evening."

"Yes; but I have sometimes been grieved to see that you paid very little
attention."

Max colored at that. "Papa, I will try to do better," he said.

"I hope you will," said his father. "You will enjoy the same religious
advantages at Ion, and, my boy, try to profit by them, remembering that we
shall have to render an account at last of the use or abuse of all our
privileges. I want you to promise me that you will read a few verses of
the Bible every day, and commit at least one to memory."

"I will, papa. And what else shall I read? You will let me have some
story-books, won't you?" Max said, entreatingly.

"Yes," said his father, "I have no objection to stories of the right sort.
There are some very beautiful stories in the Bible; there are entertaining
stories in history; and there are fictitious stories that will do you good
and not harm. I shall take care in future that you have plenty of
wholesome mental food, so that you will have no excuse for craving such
stuff as this," he added, with a glance of disgust at what he held in his
hand. "It may go into the kitchen fire."

"Mrs. Scrimp never burns the least little bit of paper, papa," said Max.

"Indeed! Why not?" asked his father, with an amused smile.

"She says it is wicked waste, because it is better than rags for the
paper-makers."

"Ah! well, then, we will tear these into bits and let them go to the
paper-makers."

Max was standing by his father's side. "Papa," he said, with a roguish
look into his father's face, "don't you think you would enjoy reading them
first?"

The captain laughed. "No, my son," he said; "I have not the slightest
inclination to read them. Bring me that waste basket and you may help me
tear them up."

They began the work of destruction, Max taking the paper, the captain the
book his son had been reading. Presently something in it attracted his
attention; he paused and glanced over several pages one after the other,
till Max began to think he had become interested in the story. But no; at
that instant he turned from it to him, and Max was half frightened at the
sternness of his look.

"My son," he said, "I am astonished and deeply grieved that you could read
and enjoy anything like this, for it is full of profanity; and reading or
hearing such expressions is very likely to lead to the use of them. Max,
do you ever say such words?"

Max trembled and grew red and pale by turns, but did not speak.

"Answer me," was his father's stern command.

"Not often, papa."

The captain barely caught the low breathed words. "Not often? sometimes,
then?" he groaned, covering his face with his hand.

"O papa, don't be so grieved! I'll never do it again," Max said in a
broken voice.

The captain sighed deeply. "Max," he said, "dearly as I love my only son,
I would sooner lay him under the sod, knowing that his soul was in heaven,
than have him live to be a profane swearer. Bring me that Bible from the
table yonder."

The boy obeyed.

"Now turn to the twenty-fourth chapter of Leviticus, and read the
sixteenth verse."

Max read in a trembling voice, "'And he that blasphemeth the name of the
Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall
certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land,
when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.'"

"Now the twenty-third," said his father.

"'And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth
him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones; and the
children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.'"

Max had some difficulty in finishing the verse, and at the end quite broke
down.

"Papa," he sobbed, "I didn't know that was in the Bible. I never thought
about its being so dreadfully wicked to say bad words."

"What do you now think a boy deserves who has done it again and again? say
as often as Max Raymond has?" asked his father.

"I suppose to be stoned to death like that man. But nobody is ever put to
death for swearing nowadays?" the boy said, half inquiringly, not daring
to look at his father as he spoke.

"No, Max, fortunately for you and many others. But suppose you were my
father and I a boy of your age, and that I had been swearing, what would
you think you ought to do about it?"

"Give you a sound flogging," he answered, in a low, reluctant tone.

"Well, Max, that is just what I shall have to do, if I ever know you to
use a profane word again," said his father, in a grave, sad tone. "I
should do it now, but for the hope that you are sorry enough for the past
to carefully avoid that sin in the future."

"Indeed I will, papa," he said, very humbly.

"And, Max," resumed his father, "you are never to make a companion of, or
go at all with anybody who uses such language, and never to read a book or
story that has in it anything of that kind. And you are not to say by
George or by anything. Our Saviour says, 'Let your communication be Yea,
yea, Nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.' My son,
have you asked God to forgive you for taking His holy name in vain?"

"No, sir."

"Then go at once to your room and do it."

"I did, papa," Max said, when he came down again to find his father
waiting for him.

"I trust the petition came from your heart, my son," was the grave but
kind rejoinder. "I must have a little more talk with you on this subject,
but not now, for it is time we followed the others into the next house, if
we would not keep Grandma Rose's tea waiting."




CHAPTER III.

"A kingdom is a nest of families, and a family is a small
kingdom."--Tupper.


It was a bright and cheerful scene that greeted the eyes of Captain
Raymond and his son as they entered the parlor of the adjacent cottage.

It was strictly a family gathering, yet the room was quite full. Mr.
Dinsmore was there with his wife, his daughter Elsie and her children,
Edward and Zoe, Elsie Leland with her husband and babe, Violet Raymond
with her husband's two little girls, Lulu and Grace, and lastly Rosie and
Walter.

Everybody had a kindly greeting for the captain, and Violet's bright face
grew still brighter as she made room for him on the sofa by her side.

"We were beginning to wonder what was keeping you," she said.

"Yes, I'm afraid I am rather behind time," he returned. "I hope you have
not delayed your tea for me, Mrs. Dinsmore."

"No; it is but just ready," she said. "Ah, there's the bell. Please, all
of you walk out."

When the meal was over all returned to the parlor, where they spent the
next hour in desultory chat.

Gracie claimed a seat on her father's knee. Lulu took possession of an
ottoman and pushed it up as close to his side as she could; then seating
herself on it leaned up against him.

He smiled and stroked her hair, then glanced about the room in search of
Max.

The boy was sitting silently in a corner, but reading an invitation in his
father's eyes, he rose and came to his other side.

The ladies were talking of the purchases they wished to make in Boston,
New York or Philadelphia, on their homeward route.

"I must get winter hats for Lulu and Gracie," said Violet.

"I want a bird on mine, Mamma Vi," said Lulu; "a pretty one with gay
feathers."

"Do you know, Lulu, that they skin the poor little birds alive in order to
preserve the brilliancy of their plumage?" Violet said with a troubled
look. "I will not wear them on that account, and as you are a kind-hearted
little girl, I think you will not wish to do so either."

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
Copyright (c) 2007. bestextbooks.com. All rights reserved.

Over the moon
Latest news and features from guardian.co.uk, the world's leading liberal voice

Under the Sun: The Letters of Bruce Chatwin

We all want to be happy, we want our children to be happy, and there are countless books advising us how to achieve happiness. But is this really what we should be aiming for?

"A fly bothers me, I kill it: you kill what bothers you. If I had not killed the fly, it would have been out of pure liberalism: I am liberal in order not to be a killer."

Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes

'He was not to be described as a happy person," Diana Trilling wrote in a memoir about her husband, the critic Lionel Trilling. "Indeed, he thought poorly of happiness and of people who claimed to be happy or desired happiness above other gratifications in life . . . seriousness was the desirable condition of man." It is easy to make all sorts of assumptions about why an unhappy person would not value happiness; and indeed why seriousness might be seen as an alternative to happiness; or just to say that it was seriousness that made Trilling happy. One of the ways in which happiness is made to seem like an inclusive ideal – the ways it charms us – is by our asserting that by definition the things that matter most to us must make us happy, that that is how we know they are good. It's as though one word could do the work of the moral imagination.

Or can we just say that if happiness is one's aspiration, then learning about the history of the slave trade, say, or watching the news, or indeed ageing are all to be avoided. And yet learning about the terrible things people can do to each other, and the history of the terrible things people have done to each other, is important – we can't imagine a life without it – and gives some people a great deal of pleasure; pleasure, as psychoanalysts might say, of various kinds. Anyone who has or knows children, or remembers being a child, will know how happy it can make them tormenting their siblings. And so if we value happiness we can't help but wonder what morality it entails, what kind of morality it might involve us in.

It is not surprising, in other words, that happiness has always had rather a mixed reception. No one in their right minds we might think, especially now, would be promoting unhappiness; and yet the promotion, the preferring of happiness – the assumption of a right to happiness – brings with it a lot of things we might not like. And the desire for happiness may reveal things about ourselves that we like even less. "A people who conceive life to be the pursuit of happiness must be chronically unhappy," the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins wrote.

What are we going to have to do, what are we going to have to become, what are we going to have to renounce or ignore if we want to be happy? Or if we are to propose happiness, or its pursuit, as some kind of right? We tend to make rights of things we assume to be in short supply, things perpetually under threat. Wherever there is scarcity now human rights are asserted; and the assertion of rights is reactive to a sense of scarcity deemed to be needless. Or, to put it slightly differently, calling something a right can be a way of rhetorically enforcing an important wish, a way of making a wish sound important.

I want to begin with three fairly obvious propositions that are also misgivings about the right to happiness or its pursuit. And I'd like to suggest that the right to frustration may be more useful and interesting – more enlivening – than the right to happiness. That's to say I want to waylay the common, all-too-plausible idea that the solution to frustration is satisfaction, or that happiness is the answer to unhappiness, or that if we get rid of the bad things, the good things will start happening. Happiness and the right to pursue it are sometimes wildly unrealistic as ideals; and, because wildly unrealistic, unconsciously self-destructive.

Because happiness is not always the kind of thing that can be pursued, we should view it, more often than not, as a lucky side effect but not a calculable or calculated end. Making it such an end all too easily brings out the worst in us. If this is a version, to rewrite John Lennon's famous line, of "happiness is what happens to you when you are doing something else", it also suggests that scarcity is integral to a sense of reality; that we should be thinking of what Philip Larkin in "Born Yesterday" called "a skilled, / Vigilant, flexible, / Unemphasised, enthralled / Catching of happiness" rather than the engineering of it.

Our relation to happiness often betrays an unconscious desire for disillusionment. The wanting of it and the having of it can seem like two quite different things. And this is what makes wishing so interesting; because wishing is always too knowing. When we wish we are too convinced of our pleasures, too certain that we know what we want. The belief that we can arrange our happiness – as though happiness were akin to justice, which we can work towards – may be to misrecognise the very thing that concerns us.

My three fairly obvious propositions are: first, in Freud's formulation from Civilisation and its Discontents, "happiness is something essentially subjective" (subjective I take it, in the sense of being not only personal but idiosyncratic). We can be surprised by what makes us happy, and it will not necessarily be something that makes other people happy. This has significant consequences not least in the area of our lives that is sometimes conducive to happiness, sexuality. And this makes happiness as a social or communal pursuit complicated. We have only to imagine what it would be for someone to propose that we had a right to sexual satisfaction to imagine both how we might contrive this and what terrible things might be done in its name.

Second, bad things can make us happy – and by bad things I mean things consensually agreed to be unacceptable. It clearly makes some people happy to live in a world without Jews, or homosexuals, or immigrants, and so on. There are also what we might call genuinely bad things, like seriously harming people and other animals, that gives some people the pleasure they most crave. I remember a very unhappy boy of 10 telling me in a psychotherapy session that he was only happy when he was cutting the feet off rats that he had caught. He said it made him feel "really awake", that it was like "turning on the light in your favourite room in the world". Cruelty and humiliation make some people happy, perhaps lots of people happy some of the time; and this issue is not dealt with merely by saying that they are not really happy or that they are in some way perverse or sick. We tend to pathologise the forms of happiness we cannot bear. If we are to have a right to happiness or to its pursuit – two different things – we must then acknowledge the full range of things that make people happy. This means taking them at their word. Cruelty can make people happy. And we might then want to think about what problem, or rather problems, happiness is deemed to be the solution to. It is not, for example, incidental to our predicament that so many of our pleasures are, or are felt to be, forbidden (this is what Freud's account of the Oedipus complex is a way of thinking about). So put briefly – as every child and therefore every adult knows – being bad can make you happy. Happiness is subjective, it takes many forms, and one of its forms is immorality.

Last but not least – though the least exciting – is the third point: some people like being unhappy. Indeed for some people their lives can be construed as the pursuit of unhappiness. It is astounding the lengths to which some people will go to be unhappy, to contrive their own misery, as though happiness itself were a phobic object and held terrors. And we don't talk of the right to be unhappy, when we should. Unhappiness can, after all, among many other things, be the registration of injustice or loss. At its best, a culture committed to the pursuit of happiness might be committed, say, to the diminishing of injustice; but at its worst, the culture of happiness may proscribe a whole range of feelings and perceptions.

It is sometimes said that psychoanalysis is one of the last places in the culture where people are allowed to be unhappy. And clearly psychoanalysis protects, if it does not actually foster, a person's right to be unhappy. The subjectivity of happiness, what it is that the individual really loves and gets pleasure from, the immorality of pleasures and the lure of transgression, happiness as a perversion, the fear of pleasure and the masochistic solution – all this is the material of psychoanalysis, and not only of psychoanalysis.

Yet, historically, psychoanalysis is the inheritor of a set of political propositions it would seem to be at odds with; or at least at a very odd angle to. If Freud and happiness doesn't sound like a very promising subject, Freud and rights seems even less so (there's only one reference to the rights of man in Freud's work). Rights, like class, have never really been the thing for psychoanalysis; omissions, one would think, of some significance. Don't have much confidence in the so-called rights of man, Freud seems to say in his New Introductory Lectures; they are no match for the ferocity of inner morality – the super-ego, or "conscience". The whole business of rights only turns up when the individual, the melancholic individual, is briefly released from his internal regime ("For after a certain number of months the whole moral fuss is over, the criticism of the superego is silent, the ego is rehabilitated and again enjoys all the rights of man till the next attack.") Morality, at least in these patients, is periodic, as are the rights of man, the gift, as it were of a higher power.

"Our normal sense of guilt," Freud writes, "is the expression of the tension between the ego and the super-ego". This translates as: our happiness depends on the distance between who we are and who we should be according to the dictates of our internalised morality. We are mostly unhappy because we are rarely as we should be. When the internal authorities are so implacable and sadistic — over-severe, abusive, humiliating, as Freud writes — what are the possibilities for happiness?

The right to happiness, or to its pursuit, would mean the right to a generous super-ego, the right to a super-ego that was on the side of one's pleasure: one that promoted the view that feeling alive was more important than being right or good. It is one of Freud's more horrifying ironies that the pursuit of pleasure incites, calls up, the super-ego. And, of course, when and if pleasure is forbidden its pursuit requires punishment. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Virtue has to be its own reward. To pursue pleasure is to be pursued by punishment. There is no one more moralistic, more coercive, than a hedonist.

As the right to happiness or its pursuit is my subject, and I am by training a child psychotherapist, all this is by way of a lengthy preamble to putting together the famous sentence from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence with something from the paediatrician and psychoanalyst DW Winnicott's story about child development. I want to ask what, if anything, the right to happiness or its pursuit has to do with the child's development; whether Jefferson's founding declaration has anything to do with the declaration of independence that is the child's personal development.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Some of us might not believe in the Creator part now, and some of us might find more and more difficult the idea that people are born equal when the conditions in which they are born are manifestly so unequal; and most of us would want to assume that by "men" Jefferson meant "people". And yet, as many people have noted, the pursuit of happiness – something not mentioned in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, nor in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – seems peculiarly salient; it is the only one of the things listed that is a pursuit.

What exactly might it mean to have an "unalienable right" to "the pursuit of happiness", given that it is fairly obvious that the pursuit of happiness is so morally equivocal – could be, among other things, a threat to the society that promoted it? At first sight it seems to be a pretty good idea; if we are convinced of anything now we are convinced that we are pleasure-seeking creatures, who want to minimise the pain and frustration of our lives. Or at least a "we" could be consolidated around these beliefs. We are the creatures who, possibly unlike any other animal, pursue happiness. But the pursuit of happiness, like the pursuit of liberty – the utopian political projects of the 20th century – has legitimated some of the worst crimes of contemporary history across the political spectrum.

In Jefferson's Declaration, the art critic Dave Hickey has noted, "Happiness is not assured, but its pursuit is protected . . . the government will act to ensure our safety, and it will stand back as we act on our own behalf in the 'pursuit of happiness'. When that pursuit putatively threatens our safety the government invariably steps in. Safety trumps happiness, the government always wins." It is not too much of a stretch here to see, in this account, the government as the parents, and the citizens as adolescent children; the governmental parents protect the pursuit of happiness, but prioritise safety. The developing child pursues his own happiness under the rules and conditions provided by the adults. Children cannot bring themselves up, and children cannot bring up children (in Lord of the Flies the question recurs: "are there any adults?").

If it is said, or written, that we have a right to be happy or to pursue happiness, it is assumed that happiness is something we are capable of, something that is available, if certain obstacles are removed. If liberty is there when tyranny is taken away, happiness is there when whatever makes us unhappy is removed. From a pragmatic point of view the art of a good life involves removing the obstacles to happiness; the picture, if we visualise it, is of something looked for, something looked forward to, and of there being something in the way. And this something in the way could be called an unavailable mother, a prohibitive father, competing sibling, not having enough brains or beauty, or charm, or money, or education, or luck. We would get closer to our happiness were these things acquired; and a reality sense would be something to do with acknowledging which of these things cannot be acquired. It is all about, in short, our relation to obstacles; our distinguishing the intractable from the changeable, what we have to acknowledge from what we can influence; whether our desire is forbidden or not – whether we want a cream cake or another man's wife. It is, in pragmatic terms, about knowing what is possible. And everybody, it seems, is shadowed by an imaginary other person, a lucky counterpart, who gets all the happiness going; Lacan writes of "the jealousy born in a subject in his relation to an other, insofar as this other is held to enjoy a certain form of jouissance or superabundant vitality". This other person presumably enjoys his happiness, his super-abundant vitality with no conflict, with no thought of safety, with no consideration of the rules and conditions required by the good of the rest.

A right to the pursuit of happiness must be a right to remove the obstacles to happiness. This, at least, is the logic of the case. The man called the happiness tsar, Lord Layard, says we now know what makes children happy (the book he co-authored last year is called A Good Childhood). What, then, are the obstacles to the child's happiness, and why can't we set about trying to remove them? And some of them we can remove. But what if the so-called obstacles to happiness are, or sometimes are, among the things that matter most to us? If, say, we love both luxury and justice? What if two mutually exclusive things make us happy, and one has to be abrogated? And what if some obstacles are immovable, untransformable into anything other than obstacles?

There is something about the sexual drive, Freud suggested, that makes it intrinsically unsatisfiable. There are not infinite resources of food, of energy, of medicine. It is, for example, true, as every mother knows, that the mother cannot give the child everything that he wants, and that if she could it wouldn't be what he wanted. That everyone feels left out of something. It is misleading to think that one's parents have been the obstacle to one's happiness, even if they have radically thwarted it. Indeed we might end up thinking that a right to irresolvable conflict might be the most realistic right we could come up with. That the attempt to resolve at least some conflicts was a distraction from finding better ways of living them; that the right to pursue happiness has seduced us into pursuing happiness when we could have been doing something better.

If the alternative to happiness is not, in the binary way, unhappiness; and if happiness has become so insidious, so hypnotic a single end for a good life, why have we wanted this strange narrowing of our intent? What have we lost, or forgotten, or ignored, or paid insufficient attention to, or protected ourselves from by wanting happiness? Happiness, it would seem, is the most plausible of our aims in life. But what psychoanalysis can chip in with here is that we are at our most defensive when we are at our most plausible.

One of the other things we most want is to be able to feel frustrated; to register what we feel deprived of. Frustration issues in many things only one of which is happiness; and happiness can be, at its worst, a pre-emptive strike against frustration, a refuge from it rather than any kind of productive, unpredictable transformation of it. If we want to talk of a right to pursue happiness there needs to be a prior right, as it were, to feel frustration; to be able to bear and to bear with a sense of what is lacking in one's life. And not simply because frustration makes satisfaction possible in the way that hunger can make a meal delicious. But because frustration and satisfaction do not only or always have a logical, a causal, a pragmatic relationship with one another. Or to put it rather more obviously, what we are lacking when we are unhappy is not always happiness, any more than what an alcoholic is lacking is a drink. And proposing a right to the pursuit of happiness may seduce us, by a kind of word-magic, into thinking that happiness is just the thing.

It is of interest that when Winnicott writes about deprivation in children he too talks about rights. "Let us consider the meaning of the anti-social act," he writes in a paper called "The Deprived Child": "for instance, stealing. When a child steals what is sought . . . is not the object stolen; what is sought is the person, the mother from whom the child has the right to steal because she is the mother. In fact every infant at the start can truly claim the right to steal from the mother because the infant invented the mother, thought her up, created her out of an innate capacity to love."

For Winnicott, the child makes the mother he needs and gradually, through disillusionment and hatred, disentangles her, to some extent, from the mother she happens to be. But it is "the mother from whom the child has the right to steal because she is the mother" that I want to consider. Because the thing stolen is not quite or even nearly the thing wanted – which is not a thing, but a mother – it can never satisfy. What we have is a picture of the right to pursue happiness getting stuck, something I think it is prone to do; as though there is something about the pursuit of happiness that sponsors and endorses addiction. In this sense, consumer capitalism is a system tailor-made for deprived children.

The theft requires communicable translation; it requires, as it were, someone to be able to say, or otherwise communicate what it is that is really being pursued. In Winnicott's declaration the child has a right to the pursuit of a mother to get what he needs for his development. He is entitled to a mother; she belongs to him in the sense that his own development belongs to him. A good-enough mother or parents might give you the wherewithal for your pursuit of happiness; they might have backed your desire, helped you to believe in and not only be fearful of your pleasures. But it is more complicated than this. Lives are not the kind of things that can be guaranteed by mothers. And this is where the idea of a right to pursue one's own happiness becomes more interesting.

Do children want to be happy? And if they don't want to be happy what else might they want to be? This would seem to be of some importance because they are growing up in a world in which their parents mostly want them to be happy, or at least don't like them being unhappy, admittedly for a variety of different reasons. And by a world I mean the particular cultures for whom happiness has become the preferred object, or the preferred fetish. Children are supposed to be anti-depressants for their parents.

Happiness is something parents often demand of their children; we, as we say, want our children to be happy; we were once children who's parents wanted us to be happy. And that means the whole spectrum, from not being a worry to them, not making their lives more difficult, being curative of their woes, to the pleasure our parents could take in our pleasure and our wellbeing. We are more dependent on our children than they are on us; and we are dependent, in brief, on their happiness. What makes the child happy is not going to be unlinked to what makes the parents happy. Clearly if a parent lives as if their child has a right to happiness, or a right to its pursuit, and that they are the guardians of this right, they are going to have a difficult, an even more difficult, task on their hands. Lovers often feel that they should be making each other happy when they are in fact making themselves a problem to each other.

So by way of conclusion I want to suggest that a right to the pursuit of happiness is asserted when a capacity for absorption has been sabotaged, when there is a loss of confidence in people's passions. Happiness becomes important when the possibility for absorption is under threat. That the child does not want to be happy – or perhaps, more exactly, the child doesn't want only to be happy – the child wants first to be safe, and then to be absorbed. There are, for example, only two reasons for children to go to school – apart, that is, from acquiring the werewithal to earn a living: to make friends, and to see if they can find something of absorbing interest to themselves.

There is an interesting moment in Lord of the Flies when Henry, one of the "littluns", wanders away from the main group of children. "He went down to the beach and busied himself at the water's edge." William Golding writes: "There were creatures that lived in this last fling of the sea, tiny transparencies that came questing in with the water over the hot, dry sand. With impalpable organs of sense they examined this new field. Perhaps food had appeared where the last incursion there had been none . . . This was fascinating to Henry. He poked about with a bit of stick, that itself was wave-worn and whitened and a vagrant, and tried to control the motions of the scavengers . . . He became absorbed beyond mere happiness as he felt himself exercising control over living things."

The adult narrator can see Henry as in some way identified with these rudimentary scavengers; and the narrator intimates that without adults the children feel how much is out of control or under-controlled. And then there is the remarkable sentence: "He became absorbed beyond mere happiness as he felt himself exercising control over living things." He feels himself exercising control, but he is not, and his absorption is beyond, in excess of, mere happiness. Something else is wanted more than happiness by Henry, and it seems to be the exercise of control over living things, one of which is himself. It would be easy, and partly true, to say that what Henry is absorbed by here, what is beyond mere happiness, is power, control over living things. But Golding is clear about two things; it is an illusion of power – Golding refers to Henry having "the illusion of mastery" – and it is also the absorption itself that is beyond mere happiness. "He became absorbed beyond mere happiness." It is an illusion that absorbs him beyond happiness; in other words, he is playing. Absorption is not in and of itself a moral good; in the novel the tyrannical, sadistic Jack absorbs the attention of a lot of the children who do his bidding. But in proposing, in the context of the novel, that there is a beyond to mere happiness, something else or further that is wanted; and that indeed happiness may be a poor substitute for something else, that happiness may be something that can get in the way of whatever is beyond it; by proposing this Golding is saying something about what can override the pursuit of happiness, and what may be lost in its pursuit. For better and for worse, being able to feel our frustration is the precondition for becoming absorbed. When this is impossible the pursuit of happiness tends to take over. The right to pursue happiness may be, at its worst, the right not to feel frustrated. And if frustration is not allowed to take its course, to take its time, there is no absorption, only refuges from unhappiness. The child is fobbed off with happiness when what she really wants is to get her appetite back. The right to the pursuit of happiness can be a cover story for the wish to hide.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

What Ever Happened to Moderism? by Gabriel Josipovici

Bruce Chatwin's letters are as much a performance as anything else he wrote, says Blake Morrison

Does anyone read Bruce Chatwin these days? His friend and biographer Nicholas Shakespeare reports a conversation in Australia in 2001, when a young journalist asked: "Who was Bruce Chatwin?" And another generation has since emerged who are even less likely to have heard of him.

In the late 80s, such a fate would have been unthinkable. Blond, good-looking and charismatic, Chatwin was at the height of his reputation. The Songlines (17 years in the making) topped the bestseller list in 1987; Utz (completed in a few months) was shortlisted for the Booker prize in 1988. His mysterious death the following year, at 48, only added to the allure. Tom Maschler, who also published Salman Rushdie, Ian McEwan and Martin Amis, thought him a greater talent than any of them.

Why has Chatwin's star faded so quickly? Allegations of coldness, snobbery, humourlessness and fabrication haven't helped. Nor have the disavowals of those, like Barry Humphries, who were once his friends. Shakespeare is baffled, nevertheless, that a man whose work was a precursor of the internet – "a connective superhighway without boundaries" – should have fallen into neglect. His hope is that this collection of letters – put together with Chatwin's widow, Elizabeth – can turn things round.

"Chatwin's correspondence reveals much more about himself than he was prepared to expose in his books," he says. Elizabeth agrees: "The letters are the only unreworked writing of his." An unguarded writer certainly ought to be a more knowable writer. But Chatwin enjoyed being an enigma ("I don't believe in coming clean"), and his letters are as much a performance as anything else he wrote, just less polished. When he does let the mask slip to reveal, for example, how eager a socialite he was ("lunch with Noël Coward on Friday", "Escorting Mrs Onassis to the opera next Thursday"), the effect isn't very endearing. Born in a well-to-do Midlands family, Chatwin was sent to boarding school at the age of seven, and the first letters here, to his parents, date from that time. Though he was no precocious literary talent, there are already signs of his consuming passions: a demand for a Romany travel book and an anthology called The Open Road at eight; enthusiasm for a film about Australian cattle-drivers; and later, at 17, the purchase of a Louis XVI chair. More surprising is his talent for boxing. But then Chatwin was always tougher than he appeared, not least in matters of the heart.

He was a tough bargainer, too, "a rather hard-nosed business pro", as he put it; that and his love of objets d'art made Sotheby's a logical career choice. He worked there for seven years, travelling widely while he did. When he isn't gushing over his latest acquisition, his idiom might be that of any other gilded youth. "Had an amusing time in Paris & Rome"; "Weather marvellous"; "This island is absolute paradise". Only in an account of a trip to Afghanistan is there a hint that travel writing might be his forte.

It was at Sotheby's that he met Elizabeth. He proposed to her in Paris, in the Louvre, a romantic gesture. But there isn't much romance in the letter he sent telling a friend about it ("The deed is done and in about three months I'll no longer be a free man"), or in his letters to Elizabeth herself: "My dearest Liz" is about as amorous as he gets. "You do not find pining lovers among the Gypsies," he once wrote, and even during their engagement his approach was briskly practical: "Give up all this nonsense of a deep freeze, do not deprive me of the pleasure of eating fresh food in its due season," he urged, letting her know whose job it would be to run the kitchen.

The marriage came as a shock to friends and colleagues, some of whom supposed that the affluence of Elizabeth's American family must be a factor: as a wedding present, her mother gave them £17,000, enough to buy a Gloucestershire farmhouse set in 47 acres. But Chatwin himself wasn't poor, and his friends were full of largesse ("We are invited to Glenveagh for the stalking in Oct. Or would you prefer Sir James Dundas's fishing lodge opposite Mull?"). Perhaps the real attraction was the emotional security she offered: like his mother, she loved listening to the stories he told when he returned from gallivanting about the globe. "People used to ask me how I felt about his endless absences from home," she writes, "but I knew he was working; he had to be free."

Within a year of marrying he'd quit Sotheby's to read archaeology at Edinburgh University: "Change is the only thing worth living for," he explained, before abandoning the degree halfway through. He couldn't stick anywhere for long, not even London: "I find it fine for three weeks, but thereafter WHAT IS THERE TO DO?" Until Francis Wyndham found Chatwin a place on the Sunday Times magazine he was (as one friend put it) a compass without a needle. He left that job, too, after three years. But in the meantime he learned to write. "He is running away from himself by travelling," his archaeology professor, Stuart Piggott, wrote. But in running away Chatwin was also being true to himself and true to his vision of the nomadic nature of human beings. Travel didn't mean roughing it or embracing an alternative lifestyle. "I am fed [sic] to the back teeth by happy hippie hashish culture (jail is the answer)," he wrote, dismissing 60s dropouts as mere vagrants. He was a home-owner, after all, with a country farm and a London flat, and when travelling he liked to be put up in style: whether Tuscan towers, Greek villas or Indian palaces didn't matter so long as he was properly catered for. "When's lunch?" he'd ask, and when he moved on would offer some token sum to cover his expensive telephone bills.

More serious offence was caused when he stayed with his cousin Monica in Peru and copied pages of her father's journal for his book In Patagonia; he claimed, with some justice, that she had given him permission, but he knew a good story when he saw it and wasn't altogether frank in telling her how much of it he'd lifted.

By 1980, Elizabeth's patience with him had also worn thin ("I was furious with him, totally fed up and exasperated that he took me for granted") and they separated. How much she knew of his affairs with men isn't touched on. Nor do we learn anything about them here: his letters to lovers were either destroyed, or were never written, or where they've survived are blandly circumspect. Sex is the great void here, along with passion. Which isn't to say that Chatwin lacked feelings: his grief at the death of his friend Penelope Betjeman was genuine, as was his attachment to his parents. As for Elizabeth, theirs has not been an easy marriage, he told her mother, "but it survives everything because neither of us has loved anyone else".

In 1986 he was diagnosed with Aids. In letters to friends he claimed to have caught a rare fungus of the bone marrow "known only among 10 Chinese peasants and the corpse of a killer whale cast up on the shores of Arabia". Much less was known about Aids in those days, and Chatwin was desperate to protect his parents from the truth. But what also terrified him was the thought of dying a stereotypical death, one that would identify him as just one more casualty of the Aids epidemic. His frantic tales about killer whale corpses or fungal dust inhaled in a Yunnan bats' cave were a way of exoticising himself, much as his books exoticise the places he visited and the people he met.

At best, a disdain for ordinariness strengthens his writing. But at worst it just seems silly, as when he reports what he's been up to in Patagonia: "I have sung 'Hark the Herald Angels Sing' in Welsh . . . I have dined with a man who knew Butch Cassidy . . . I have discussed the poetics of Mandelstam with a Ukrainian doctor missing both legs." Would discussing Mandelstam with someone who isn't a double-amputee be any less interesting? For Chatwin, clearly, it would.

This is a handsome book, full of informative passages from Shakespeare, illuminating quotes from friends and wonderfully laconic and deflating footnotes from Elizabeth. But the Chatwin who wrote the letters is no truer or more candid than the Chatwin who wrote travel books and fiction. And the books are more engaging and more alive.

Blake Morrison's The Last Weekend is published by Chatto & Windus.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds