Pip: Osoparavos.com, where the literary essay arrives with the weight of a state funeral and the precision of a scalpel — which, as it happens, is exactly the right metaphor for today.
Mara: Adam Donaldson Powell gives us a deep examination of Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette — her sensory method, her perceptual honesty, and what it costs to see the world without looking away.
Pip: Let’s start with Colette herself, and the particular inhumanity of being human.
—
Colette and the Inhumanity of Being Human
Mara: The central claim here is that Colette has been celebrated enthusiastically while being understood superficially — honored as a monument when she was actually something far stranger and more rigorous: an anatomist of embodied existence.
Pip: The essay puts it plainly: “Sensation was her instrument.” Not pleasure, not eroticism — those were the surfaces. The instrument was the body itself, reading the world before the mind had time to editorialize.
Mara: And the upshot is that calling her a sensual writer is only half true. The piece argues she was, in the deepest sense, an anatomist — not of memory in the Proustian mode, but of presence. Touch, scent, fatigue, weather, silence. Psychology arrived through the physical, not instead of it.
Pip: That distinction — Proust versus Colette — is one of the essay’s sharpest moves. Proust trusted recollection; Colette trusted sensation. He excavated consciousness; she excavated presence. Two astronomers, same constellation, entirely different instruments.
Mara: The foundations were laid early. Colette’s mother, Sido, treated the garden as a laboratory and taught her daughter not merely to admire nature but to observe it — patience before judgment, the thing before the metaphor.
Pip: Which makes the Willy episode read differently than it usually does. Yes, it was exploitation — he published the Claudine novels under his own name. But the essay notes something sharper: Willy could appropriate the signature, but not the gaze.
Mara: The essay frames it as an accidental apprenticeship. Colette discovered that the one possession no one could permanently steal was the manner in which she looked at the world. The music hall years reinforced this — performance taught her that the body communicates before language begins.
Pip: There’s a poem opening the piece, addressed to Colette, that earns its place: “Only the observer remembers. And remembrance is a peculiar hunger. It teaches the eye to linger after everyone else has looked away.”
Mara: That hunger carries a cost, and the essay doesn’t soften it. The same faculty that produced incomparable literature made ordinary social life unusually difficult. She noticed too much, and she rarely distrusted what she noticed. The piece calls this not cynicism, not optimism — empiricism.
Pip: Like a naturalist cataloguing species, she accumulated observations without rushing toward condemnation or absolution. What reads as emotional distance may actually be something rarer: a refusal to simplify complexity merely because simplification was kinder.
Mara: The author’s comment at the end of the post puts the late-life picture precisely: “The body surrendered by degrees; the gaze did not.” Her freedom contracted to a divan beside a window, yet the perception never capitulated.
Pip: And the essay closes by arguing that’s exactly why she still feels contemporary — in an age that wants to reduce people to moral labels, Colette insists human beings remain irreducibly physical, contradictory, and endlessly observable.
Mara: Few writers have looked with greater honesty, and fewer still have turned that honesty into prose of such enduring beauty.
—
Pip: Perception as loyalty — to the world, to the self, to the meeting point between them. That’s the thread running through all of this.
Mara: It’s a durable question. What we can bear to see, and what it costs to keep looking. More from osoparavos.com next time.
_____________________________
Leave a Reply