osoparavos.com

— Adam Donaldson Powell

____________________________

to Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette:

Threshold

Every creature survives by forgetting.

The deer forgets the wolf.

The flower forgets the frost.

The child forgets the wound.

Only the observer remembers.

And remembrance is a peculiar hunger.

It teaches the eye
to linger
after everyone else has looked away.

To notice
the hand withdrawing
before the smile appears.

The warmth
left in an empty chair.

The perfume
that remains after love has departed.

Seeing asks a quiet price.

Not everyone
is willing to pay it.

_____________________________

Colette and the Inhumanity of Being Human

The senses tell the truth of the moment. We decide what we can bear to hear.

— Adam Donaldson Powell

Few writers have been celebrated so enthusiastically while being understood so superficially as Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette. Today she occupies an almost mythological place within French literature. She was the first woman accorded a state funeral in France. She became president of the Académie Goncourt. She was nominated for the Nobel Prize. Her novels remain fixtures of the French canon, while Gigi entered popular culture through Broadway and Hollywood. She appears, in retrospect, as an inevitable monument.

Yet monuments are poor portraits.

Behind the public image stood a woman whose life resisted coherence almost as stubbornly as it resisted respectability. She was exploited before she became celebrated, scandalized Paris before it admired her, and repeatedly unsettled friends, lovers, critics, and even admirers by refusing to disguise what she observed beneath the polite veneers of civilized life. She possessed an uncommon gift—not simply for language, but for perception. She noticed the minute adjustments of posture before a confession, the smell of fear beneath perfume, the fatigue concealed by elegance, the slow alteration of skin under age, and the curious dignity of animals living without self-deception. More remarkably still, she trusted those observations more than she trusted the moral vocabularies that society habitually imposed upon them.

To call Colette a sensual writer, therefore, is only half true. The adjective has too often encouraged the mistaken image of an author intoxicated by pleasure, beauty, and eroticism. Certainly she delighted in all three. But delight was never her destination. Sensation was her instrument.

She was, in the deepest sense, an anatomist.

Not an anatomist of muscles and bones, nor an anatomist of memory in the manner of Marcel Proust, but an anatomist of embodied existence itself. Her novels dissect the hidden structures of desire through touch, appetite, scent, fatigue, weather, silence, and movement. She discovered psychology not by descending into abstraction but by remaining stubbornly within the physical world.

That extraordinary fidelity to sensory reality became both the source of her genius and the cause of many of her personal difficulties. The same faculty that enabled her to write some of the finest prose of the twentieth century also made ordinary social life unusually difficult. It is hard to participate wholeheartedly in comforting illusions once one has trained oneself never to look away.

Learning the World Through the Senses

The foundations of this sensibility were laid long before Colette entered Parisian literary society. Born in 1873 in Saint-Sauveur-en-Puisaye, Burgundy, she grew up under the influence of her remarkable mother, Sido, whose reverence for nature bordered upon scientific devotion. Gardens were not ornaments but laboratories. Flowers possessed individual personalities. Weather had moods. Animals were neither symbols nor possessions but fellow inhabitants of the living world.

Sido did not merely teach her daughter to admire nature.

She taught her to observe.

This distinction would define Colette’s entire literary career.

Observation requires patience before judgment. One must look before interpreting. Throughout her writing, flowers are first flowers before they become metaphors. Cats remain cats before becoming symbols of freedom. A face is a landscape of changing muscles before it becomes a psychological portrait. This order of operations distinguishes Colette from many of her contemporaries. Ideas emerge from sensation rather than replacing it.

When she married Henry Gauthier-Villars—known universally as Willy—in 1893, this extraordinary perceptual gift encountered the machinery of literary commerce. Willy quickly recognized what his young wife possessed, although he recognized it chiefly as something to exploit. He confined her, encouraged her to write from memory, published the Claudine novels under his own name, and profited enormously from their success while denying her both authorship and financial independence.

This episode has often been treated simply as an instance of patriarchal exploitation. It certainly was. Yet it also revealed something fundamental about Colette herself. Even while another man claimed ownership of her books, the sensibility within those books remained unmistakably hers. Willy could appropriate the signature but not the gaze. The novels already contained the qualities that would define her mature work: extraordinary sensory precision, unsentimental curiosity, and an instinctive distrust of abstraction.

Ironically, exploitation became an apprenticeship. It forced Colette to discover that the one possession no one could permanently steal was the manner in which she looked at the world.

Becoming Her Own Subject

After divorcing Willy, Colette entered perhaps the most misunderstood period of her life.

The music hall is often treated as an interlude between novels, as though she merely earned a living until literature reclaimed her. But the stage was itself an education.

Performance taught her that the body communicates before language begins. Desire announces itself through posture. Confidence can be manufactured through movement. Identity can be worn like costume. The theatre made visible what polite society preferred to hide: that personality itself possesses choreography.

Her notorious performances with Mathilde de Morny—Missy—the exposed breast at the Moulin Rouge, the scandalized audiences, and her openly unconventional relationships have often been narrated as acts of rebellion against bourgeois morality. They certainly scandalized respectable opinion. Yet rebellion was perhaps less their purpose than their consequence.

Colette was not especially interested in shocking people.

She was interested in living experimentally.

There is a difference.

The experiment occasionally produced painful results. Her affair with Bertrand de Jouvenel remains deeply unsettling. Her difficult relationship with her daughter continues to trouble readers. She herself admitted that she lacked many of the sentiments society expected of mothers. Such admissions have encouraged some commentators to portray her as emotionally deficient.

I believe that judgment mistakes honesty for absence.

Colette refused to perform emotions she did not experience. That refusal can appear cold. Yet it may equally represent a rare form of intellectual integrity. Most autobiographical writing quietly edits experience into socially recognizable virtues. Colette almost never did. She described herself with the same observational severity she reserved for everyone else.

That severity came at a price.

She frequently sacrificed approval for accuracy.

Two Anatomists of the Human Condition

The inevitable comparison is Marcel Proust.

They inhabited the same Paris, admired one another’s work, and transformed French prose in complementary ways. Yet they resembled astronomers observing the same constellation through entirely different instruments.

Proust examined experience retrospectively. His great discovery was that memory reorganizes life long after events have concluded. The madeleine is not merely cake but the architecture through which forgotten time returns.

Colette begins elsewhere.

For her, reality announces itself before memory has begun its reconstruction. The texture of fruit against the tongue, the warmth remaining in an abandoned chair, the smell of rain on stone, the changing elasticity of skin—these are not triggers for philosophical reflection but realities possessing independent dignity.

Proust trusted recollection.

Colette trusted sensation.

He excavated consciousness.

She excavated presence.

Their differences reveal two complementary anatomies of human existence.

Proust asks why we become who we are.

Colette asks what being alive feels like before explanation begins.

Neither approach is superior.

Together they map the interior and exterior landscapes of human life with extraordinary completeness.

The Gift That Became a Liability

Every exceptional gift contains the possibility of becoming its opposite.

Colette’s was radical perceptual honesty.

Most social life depends upon selective blindness. We ignore small hypocrisies because relationships require tact. We overlook physical decline because affection softens perception. We permit comforting fictions because communities cannot survive perpetual disclosure.

Colette found such blindness difficult.

She noticed too much.

More importantly, she rarely distrusted what she noticed.

That habit produced incomparable literature. It also complicated ordinary existence.

She could appear unsentimental where others expected reassurance. She sometimes analyzed affection when convention demanded participation. She regarded desire less as moral triumph or failure than as an observable biological force whose manifestations varied endlessly but whose underlying mechanisms remained remarkably consistent.

This was not cynicism.

Nor was it optimism.

It was empiricism.

Like a naturalist cataloguing species, Colette accumulated observations without rushing toward condemnation or absolution. Human beings fascinated her precisely because they were simultaneously civilized and animal, capable of exquisite tenderness one moment and astonishing selfishness the next.

What many readers interpret as emotional distance may therefore represent something subtler.

She declined to simplify complexity merely because simplification was kinder.

The Inhumanity of Being Human

Perhaps the deepest theme running beneath Colette’s life is what might be called the inhumanity within humanity itself.

Civilization teaches us to imagine ourselves as creatures principally governed by reason, morality, and ideals.

Colette suspected otherwise.

She saw appetite preceding philosophy.

She saw instinct surviving beneath etiquette.

She saw age transforming identity despite every effort to deny it.

She saw love behaving less like virtue than weather.

Unlike many writers, however, she neither lamented nor celebrated this condition.

She accepted it.

Acceptance should not be confused with approval. She understood that survival often demanded compromises she herself found painful. She transformed intimate relationships into literature. She neglected certain obligations while fulfilling others with remarkable devotion. She could rescue Maurice Goudeket from imprisonment through determined action while simultaneously maintaining a reserve that bewildered those closest to her.

She was never one person.

She was daughter.

Lover.

Performer.

Observer.

Writer.

Old woman.

Young provincial.

Parisian celebrity.

None cancelled the others.

They coexisted, frequently in conflict.

Her greatness lay not in reconciling these identities but in refusing to pretend they formed a harmonious whole.

Conclusion

Colette’s reputation has long rested upon her celebration of sensuality. Yet this description, though accurate, remains incomplete.

She was not primarily a celebrant of pleasure.

She was an investigator of reality.

Like every great anatomist, she believed that understanding begins by exposing structure rather than preserving illusion. Her scalpel was not steel but perception. Through scent, texture, appetite, movement, silence, and the eloquence of the body, she revealed the hidden architecture beneath human conduct. She showed that people often think with their nerves before they think with their minds, that desire possesses its own intelligence, and that age, love, jealousy, tenderness, and loneliness all leave visible traces upon the body before they become ideas.

This fidelity to perception made her difficult to categorize and occasionally difficult to live with. It also made her one of literature’s least sentimental truth-tellers.

Perhaps that is why she still feels startlingly contemporary.

In an age increasingly tempted to reduce people to moral labels or ideological identities, Colette reminds us that human beings remain irreducibly physical creatures: contradictory, instinctive, vulnerable, and endlessly observable. She asks us not to admire humanity from a distance nor to condemn it from above, but to look more carefully at what is immediately before us.

Few writers have looked with greater honesty.

And fewer still have transformed that honesty into prose of such enduring beauty.

_____________________________

Comment by author on Colette’s fidelity to perception: Fidelity to perception is loyalty to the meeting point between the world and the self.

There comes a point in every remarkable life when survival is no longer the central question. The deeper question is whether one’s way of seeing has remained intact. Colette’s body gradually deserted her. Her freedom contracted to the dimensions of a room, then to a divan beside a window. Yet her perception never capitulated. She continued to observe with the same exacting tenderness the changing light, the movements of her cats, the indignities of pain, and the quiet heroism of ordinary days. The body surrendered by degrees; the gaze did not.

There is a peculiar greatness in such fidelity. Not because it makes one extraordinary, but because it reveals that identity can survive the slow dismantling of almost everything else.