Somebody Telling Somebody Else A Rhetorical Poetics Of Narrative

Oct. 16 Movie tickets for wife and self 1.20

Oct. 18 Theatre tickets for steno and self 16.0 0

Oct. 19 Ice cream sundae for wife .30

Oct. 22 Mary’s salary 75.0 0

Oct. 23 Champagne & dinner for Mary & self 32.0 05

In 2017 what stands out in this text, besides the amazingly low prices and sala-
ries, is its deep reliance on gender stereotypes and heteronormative assump-
tions. Sacks noted the stereotypes but didn’t dwell on them. I find them more
troubling, but I am also optimistic that my readers don’t share them. In any
case, Sacks asked us to write the ending. I’ll pause here and invite you to do
the same.

WHAT DID YOU come up with?
Our suggestions in 1973 were about various ways to resolve what we
regarded as the unstable triangle involving the record keeper, his wife, and the
stenographer. The most common proposal was for an entry such as “October
30 Retainer for divorce lawyer 100,” although some of my classmates proposed
entries that gave more agency to the record keeper’s wife. None of us, however,
anticipated the final entries Sacks wrote on the board:

Oct. 25 Doctor for stupid stenographer 375 .00

Oct. 26 Mink stole for wife 1,700.00

Oct. 28 Ad for male stenographer 1.50

Total expenses for month $2,321.90

Sacks then engaged us in a discussion about the inferences we drew from
these entries, a discussion that led to a consensus that the record keeper paid
for an abortion, that he bought the mink out of guilt, and that he advertised
for a male stenographer so as not to succumb to temptation again. (Today
we’d probably have added “or so as to make sure that the next stenographer

5. I’m using the version of the story used by Ralph Rader in his 1974 Critical Inquiry e ss ay,
   “Fact, Theory, and Literary Explanation,” and reprinted in Fact, Fiction, and Form (though I
   have added the title, which I believe Sacks also used). I know that Rader and Sacks had dis-
   cussed the story and no doubt influenced each other’s takes on it. Sacks’s treatment of it in class
   was in line with Rader’s discussion of it in his essay, so what I say here applies to Rader’s com-
   mentary as well. But since Rader didn’t agree with Sacks about the psychological implications
   of generic distinctions, and I want to get at something that I see as crucial to Sacks’s argument
   for those implications, I’ve chosen to keep my focus on Sacks’s teaching of the story.

38 • CHAPTER 2