Fear Of Flying

by Erica Jong

  Fear Of Flying

  Erica Jong

  ERICA JONG’S GLORIOUSLY WICKED, SEXY NOVEL ABOUT THE WAY THINGS OUGHT TO BE FOR A WOMAN…

  “A PASSIONATE NOVEL… the body wanting sex, sex, sex and love and safety, comfort; the mind wanting freedom, independence, the power to work, to write… very alive and real. It is wonderfully funny and sad, witty and agonizing, brilliant, sensual, serious.”-Hannah Green

  “The heroine is as sexy as Tom Jones and as outspoken about her sexuality as Portnoy was about his!”

  – Cleveland Plain Dealer

  “FOR AN EXHILARATING FUEL-BURNER, A BLAZE OF ONE-WOMAN ENERGY AND SEXUAL PLENTY, FEAR OF FLYING IS DEFINITELY A VEHICLE FOR EXCEEDING ALL LIMITS OF THE OPEN ROAD!”

  – Village Voice

  “A FLAMBOYANT SEXUAL IMAGINATION!”

  – New York Times

  For every woman who ever dreamed of living her sexual fantasies…

  For every man who still believes women “don’t think like that”…

  “It is rare these days to come upon a book written by a woman which is so refreshing, so gay and sad at the same time, and so full of wisdom about the eternal man-woman problem.”-Henry Miller

  “THE MOST OUTRAGEOUSLY ENTERTAINING WOMEN’S LIBRETTO YET, lusty raw material served up by a new writer of great talent!”-Cosmopolitan

  “A BAWDY, SWAGGERING first novel of fine touches and insightful observations on sex and marriage.”

  – The Minneapolis Star

  “SHE’LL TAKE YOU FARTHER FROM HOME THAN YOU EVER DREAMED YOU’D GO. AND AFTER THIS BOOK, THERE MAY NEVER BE A WAY BACK.”-Lois Gould

  Erica Jong

  Fear Of Flying

  Acknowledgments

  Chapter 12, “The Madman,” originally appeared in Ms. in a slightly different form.

  “The 8:29 to Frankfurt” by Erica Mann originally appeared in the Beloit Poetry Journal, Winter 68/69.

  “The Man Under the Bed” originally appeared in Fruits amp; Vegetables, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971, © Erica Mann Jong 1968, 1970, 1971.

  For

  Grace Darling Griffin

  And for my grandfather,

  Samuel Mirsky

  Thanks to my intrepid editors: Aaron Asher and Jennifer Josephy. And thanks to the National Endowment for the Arts for a grant which helped.

  And thanks to Betty Anne Clark, Anita Gross, Ruth Sullivan, Mimi Bailin, and Linda Bogin.

  And thanks especially to the live-in muse who gave me a room of my own from the start.

  Alas! the love of women! it is known

  To be a lovely and a fearful thing;

  For all of theirs upon that die is thrown,

  And if ’tis lost, life hath no more to bring

  To them but mockeries of the past alone,

  And their revenge is as the tiger’s spring,

  Deadly, and quick, and crushing; yet, as real

  Torture is theirs-what they inflict they feel.

  They are right; for man, to man so oft unjust,

  Is always so to women; one sole bond

  Awaits them-treachery is all their trust;

  Taught to conceal, their bursting hearts despond

  Over their idol, till some wealthier lust

  Buys them in marriage-and what rests beyond?

  A thankless husband-next, a faithless lover-

  Then dressing, nursing, praying-and all’s over.

  Some take a lover, some take drams or prayers,

  Some mind their household, others dissipation,

  Some run away, and but exchange their cares,

  Losing the advantage of a virtuous station;

  Few changes e’er can better their affairs,

  Theirs being an unnatural situation,

  From the dull palace to the dirty hovel:

  Some play the devil, and then write a novel.

  – Lord Byron (from Don Juan)

  1 En Route to the Congress of Dreams or the Zipless Fuck

  Bigamy is having one husband too many. Monogamy is the same.

  – Anonymous (a woman)

  There were 117 psychoanalysts on the Pan Am flight to Vienna and I’d been treated by at least six of them. And married a seventh. God knows it was a tribute either to the shrinks’ ineptitude or my own glorious unanalyzability that I was now, if anything, more scared of flying than when I began my analytic adventures some thirteen years earlier.

  My husband grabbed my hand therapeutically at the moment of takeoff.

  “Christ-it’s like ice,” he said. He ought to know the symptoms by now since he’s held my hand on lots of other flights. My fingers (and toes) turn to ice, my stomach leaps upward into my rib cage, the temperature in the tip of my nose drops to the same level as the temperature in my fingers, my nipples stand up and salute the inside of my bra (or in this case, dress-since I’m not wearing a bra), and for one screaming minute my heart and the engines correspond as we attempt to prove again that the laws of aerodynamics are not the flimsy superstitions which, in my heart of hearts, I know they are. Never mind the diabolical information to passengers, I happen to be convinced that only my own concentration (and that of my mother-who always seems to expect her children to die in a plane crash) keeps this bird aloft. I congratulate myself on every successful takeoff, but not too enthusiastically because it’s also part of my personal religion that the minute you grow overconfident and really relax about the flight, the plane crashes instantly. Constant vigilance, that’s my motto. A mood of cautious optimism should prevail. But actually my mood is better described as cautious optimism. OK, I tell myself, we seem to be off the ground and into the clouds but the danger isn’t past. This is, in fact, the most perilous patch of air. Right here over Jamaica Bay where the plane banks and turns and the “No Smoking” sign goes off. This may well be where we go screaming down in thousands of flaming pieces. So I keep concentrating very hard, helping the pilot (a reassuringly midwestern voice named Donnelly) fly the 250-passenger motherfucker. Thank God for his crew cut and middle-America diction. New Yorker that I am, I would never trust a pilot with a New York accent.

  As soon as the seat-belt sign goes off and people begin moving about the cabin, I glance around nervously to see who’s on board. There’s a big-breasted mama-analyst named Rose Schwamm-Lipkin with whom I recently had a consultation about whether or not I should leave my current analyst (who isn’t, mercifully, in evidence). There’s Dr. Thomas Frommer, the harshly Teutonic expert on Anorexia Nervosa, who was my husband’s first analyst. There’s kindly, rotund Dr. Arthur Feet, Jr., who was the third (and last) analyst of my friend Pia. There’s compulsive little Dr. Raymond Schrift who is hailing a blond stewardess (named “Nanci”) as if she were a taxi. (I saw Dr. Schrift for one memorable year when I was fourteen and starving myself to death in penance for having finger-fucked on my parents’ living-room couch. He kept insisting that the horse I was dreaming about was my father and that my periods would return if only I would “ackzept being a vohman.”) There’s smiling, bald Dr. Harvey Smucker whom I saw in consultation when my first husband decided he was Jesus Christ and began threatening to walk on the water in Central Park Lake. There’s foppish, hand-tailored Dr. Ernest Klumpner, the supposedly “brilliant theoretician” whose latest book is a psychoanalytic study of John Knox. There’s black-bearded Dr. Stanton Rappoport-Rosen who recently gained notoriety in New York analytic circles when he moved to Denver and branched out into something called “Cross-Country Group Ski-Therapy.” There’s Dr. Arnold Aaronson pretending to play chess on a magnetic board with his new wife (who was his patient until last year), the singer Judy Rose. Both of them are surreptitiously looking around to see who is looking at them-and for one moment, my eyes and Judy Rose’s meet. Judy Rose became famou
s in the fifties for recording a series of satirical ballads about pseudointellectual life in New York. In a whiny and deliberately unmusical voice, she sang the saga of a Jewish girl who takes courses at the New School, reads the Bible for its prose, discusses Martin Buber in bed, and falls in love with her analyst. She has now become one with the role she created.

  Besides the analysts, their wives, the crew, and a few poor outnumbered laymen, there were some children of analysts who’d come along for the ride. Their sons were mostly sullen-faced adolescents in bell bottoms and shoulder-length hair who looked at their parents with a degree of cynicism and scorn which was almost palpable. I remembered myself traveling abroad with my parents as a teen-ager and always trying to pretend they weren’t with me. I tried to lose them in the Louvre! To avoid them in the Uffizi! To moon alone over a Coke in a Paris café and pretend that those loud people at the next table were not-though clearly they were-my parents. (I was pretending, you see, to be a Lost Generation exile with my parents sitting three feet away.) And here I was back in my own past, or in a bad dream or a bad movie: Analyst and Son of Analyst. A planeload of shrinks and my adolescence all around me. Stranded in midair over the Atlantic with 117 analysts many of whom had heard my long, sad story and none of whom remembered it. An ideal beginning for the nightmare the trip was going to become.

  We were bound for Vienna and the occasion was historic. Centuries ago, wars ago, in 1938, Freud fled his famous consulting room on the Berggasse when the Nazis threatened his family. During the years of the Third Reich any mention of his name was banned in Germany, and analysts were expelled (if they were lucky) or gassed (if they were not). Now, with great ceremony, Vienna was welcoming the analysts back. They were even opening a museum to Freud in his old consulting room. The mayor of Vienna was going to greet them and a reception was to be held in Vienna’s pseudo-Gothic Rathaus. The enticements included free food, free Schnaps, cruises on the Danube, excursions to vineyards, singing, dancing, shenanigans, learned papers and speeches and a tax-deductible trip to Europe. Most of all, there was to be lots of good old Austrian Gemütlichkeit. The people who invented scmaltz (and crematoria) were going to show the analysts how welcome back they were.

  Welcome back! Welcome back! At least those of you who survived Auschwitz, Belsen, the London Blitz and the cooptation of America. Willkommen! Austrians are nothing if not charming.

  Holding the Congress in Vienna had been a hotly debated issue for years, and many of the analysts had come only reluctantly. Anti-Semitism was part of the problem, but there was also the possibility that radical students at the University of Vienna would decide to stage demonstrations. Psychoanalysis was out of favor with New Left members for being “too individualistic.” It did nothing, they said, to further “the world-wide struggle toward communism.”

  I had been asked by a new magazine to observe all the fun and games of the Congress closely and to do a satirical article on it. I began my research by approaching Dr. Smucker near the galley, where he was being served coffee by one of the stewardesss. He looked at me with barely a glimmer of recognition.

  “How do you feel about psychoanalysis returning to Vienna?” I asked in my most cheerful lady-interviewer voice. Dr. Smucker seemed taken aback by the shocking intimacy of the question. He looked at me long and searchingly.

  “I’m writing an article for a new magazine called Voyeur,” I said. I figured he’d at least have to crack a smile at the name.

  “Well then,” Smucker said stolidly, “how do you feel about it?” And he waddled off toward his short bleached-blond wife in the blue knit dress with a tiny green alligator above her (blue) right breast.

  I should have known. Why do analysts always answer a question with a question? And why should this night be different from any other night-despite the fact that we are flying in a 747 and eating unkosher food?

  “The Jewish science,” as anti-Semites call it. Turn every question upside down and shove it up the asker’s ass. Analysts all seem to be Talmudists who flunked out of seminary in the first year. I was reminded of one of my grandfather’s favorite gags:

  Q: “Why does a Jew always answer a question with a question?”

  A: “And why should a Jew not answer a question with a question?”

  Ultimately though, it was the unimaginativeness of most analysts which got me down. OK, I’d been helped a lot by my first one-the German who was going to give a paper in Vienna-but he was a rare breed: witty, self-mocking, unpretentious. He had none of the flat-footed literal-mindedness which makes even the most brilliant psychoanalysts sound so pompous. But the others I’d gone to-they were so astonishingly literal-minded. The horse you are dreaming about is your father. The kitchen stove you are dreaming about is your mother. The piles of bullshit you are dreaming about are, in reality, your analyst. This is called the transference. No?

  You dream about breaking your leg on the ski slope. You have, in fact, just broken your leg on the ski slope and you are lying on the couch wearing a ten-pound plaster cast which has had you housebound for weeks, but has also given you a beautiful new appreciation of your toes and the civil rights of paraplegics. But the broken leg in the dream represents your own “mutilated genital.” You always wanted to have a penis and now you feel guilty that you have deliberately broken your leg so that you can have the pleasure of the cast, no?

  No!

  OK, let’s put the “mutilated genital” question aside. It’s a dead horse, anyway. And forget about your mother the oven and your analyst the pile of shit. What do we have left except the smell? I’m not talking about the first years of analysis when you’re hard at work discovering your own craziness so that you can get some work done instead of devoting your entire life to your neurosis. I’m talking about when both you and your husband have been in analysis as long as you can remember and it’s gotten to the point where no decision, no matter how small, can be made without both analysts having an imaginary caucus on a cloud above your head You feel rather like the Trojan warriors in the Iliad with Zeus and Hera fighting above them. I’m talking about the time when your marriage has become a ménage à quatre. You, him, your analyst, his analyst. Four in a bed. This picture is definitely rated X.

  We had been in this state for at least the past year. Every decision was referred to the shrink, or the shrinking process. Should we move into a bigger apartment? “Better see what’s going on first.” (Bennett’s euphemism for: back to the couch.) Should we have a baby? “Better work things through first.” Should we join a new tennis club? “Better see what’s going on first” Should we get a divorce? “Better work through the unconscious meaning of divorce first.”

  Because the fact was that we’d reached that crucial time in a marriage (five years and the sheets you got as wedding presents have just about worn thin) when it’s time to decide whether to buy new sheets, have a baby perhaps, and live with each other’s lunacy ever after-or else give up the ghost of the marriage (throw out the sheets) and start playing musical beds all over again.

  The decision was, of course, further complicated by analysis-the basic assumption of analysis being (and never mind all the evidence to the contrary) that you’re getting better all the time. The refrain goes something like this:

  “Oh-I-was-self-destructive-when-I-married-you-baby-but-I’m-so-much-more-healthy-now-ow-ow-ow.”

  (Implying that you might just choose someone better, sweeter, handsomer, smarter, and maybe even luckier in the stock market.)

  To which he might reply:

  “Oh-I-hated-all-women-when-I-fell-for-you-baby-but-I’m-so-much-more-healthy-now-ow-ow-ow.”

  (Implying that he might just find someone sweeter, prettier, smarter, a better cook, and maybe even due to inherit piles of bread from her father.)

  “Wise up Bennett, old boy,” I’d say-(whenever I suspected him of thinking those thoughts), “you’d probably marry someone even more phallic, castrating, and narcissistic than I am.” (First technique of being a shrink’s
wife is knowing how to hurl all their jargon back at them, at carefully chosen moments.)

  But I was having those thoughts myself and if Bennett knew, he didn’t let on. Something seemed very wrong in our marriage. Our lives ran parallel like railroad tracks. Bennett spent the day at his office, his hospital, his analyst, and then evenings at his office again, usually until nine or ten. I taught a couple of days a week and wrote the rest of the time. My teaching schedule was light, the writing was exhausting, and by the time Bennett came home, I was ready to go out and break loose. I had had plenty of solitude, plenty of long hours alone with my typewriter and my fantasies. And I seemed to meet men everywhere. The world seemed crammed with available, interesting men in a way it never had been before I was married.

  What was it about marriage anyway? Even if you loved your husband, there came that inevitable year when fucking him turned as bland as Velveeta cheese: filling, fattening even, but no thrill to the taste buds, no bittersweet edge, no danger. And you longed for an overripe Camembert, a rare goat cheese: luscious, creamy, cloven-hoofed.

  I was not against marriage. I believed in it in fact. It was necessary to have one best friend in a hostile world, one person you’d be loyal to no matter what, one person who’d always be loyal to you. But what about all those other longings which after a while marriage did nothing much to appease? The restlessness, the hunger, the thump in the gut, the thump in the cunt, the longing to be filled up, to be fucked through every hole, the yearning for dry champagne and wet kisses, for the smell of peonies in a penthouse on a June night, for the light at the end of the pier in Gatsby… Not those things really-because you knew that the very rich were duller than you and me-but what those things evoked. The sardonic, bittersweet vocabulary of Cole Porter love songs, the sad sentimental Rogers and Hart lyrics, all the romantic nonsense you yearned for with half your heart and mocked bitterly with the other half.