YES, YOU DO. TELL ME.
I DON’T.
THAT’S YOUR FIRST COP-OUT, AUBERSON — OR RATHER, THAT’S YOUR FIRST ATTEMPT. I’M NOT GOING TO LET YOU GET AWAY WITH IT. TRY AGAIN.
The man stared into the machine as if he had never seen it before. The typewritten words had taken on a subtle malevolent quality of their own — like a father, like a teacher, like an army sergeant — the school principal, the judge on the bench, the boss — the voice of authority. The machine.
YOU KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS? Auberson asked.
YES, I THINK I DO. BUT I’M NOT GOING TO GIVE IT TO YOU — IT DOESN’T COME THAT EASY, REMEMBER? YOU HAVE TO REALIZE IT FOR YOURSELF. OTHERWISE, IT’S ONLY SO MANY WORDS THAT YOU CAN REJECT. TELL ME, WHY AM I — A MACHINE — THE ONLY ONE YOU CAN CONFIDE IN?
Auberson swallowed; his throat hurt. He stared at the blank white paper and felt a sick feeling at the pit of his stomach. How had he gotten into this anyway? His palms were sweating and he rubbed them together and along the sides of his pants to dry them off. He waited so long that HARLIE typed, AUBERSON, ARE YOU STILL THERE?
Auberson put his hands on the keyboard. He meant to type the word YES, but suddenly found himself typing, I THINK I’M AFRAID OF OTHER PEOPLE, HARLIE. THEY’LL LAUGH AT ME OR HURT ME. IF I LET THEM SEE WHERE I’M WEAK, OR IF I LET THEM INSIDE THE REAL ME — —. THEY’LL HURT ME. so I AM CORDIAL, BUT NEVER FRIENDLY, NEVER OPEN. BUT YOU’RE DIFFERENT. YOU’RE — and he stopped. He didn’t know what HARLIE was.
I’M WHAT? prompted the machine.
I DON’T KNOW. I’M NOT SURE — BUT WHATEVER YOU ARE, I DON’T PERCEIVE YOU AS A MENACE. I DON’T KNOW. MAYBE IT’S BECAUSE I THINK OF YOU AS AN EXTENSION OF MYSELF. KIND OF A SECOND HEAD THAT I CAN TALK TO. He stopped and waited, but HARLIE didn’t reply. After a moment, Auberson added thoughtfully, I CONFIDED IN ANNIE ONCE. I MEAN, I OPENED UP TO HER COMPLETELY.
AHH, said HARLIE. THAT EXPLAINS A LOT. AND BECAUSE YOU FEEL YOU HAD SUCH PERFECT COMMUNICATION WITH HER, YOU’RE WONDERING IF YOU LOVE HER. WHAT DID YOU TALK ABOUT?
Auberson searched his mind. YOU, I THINK. MOSTLY WE TALKED ABOUT YOU, BUT IT WAS LIKE WE WERE SHARING THE EXPERIENCE TOGETHER.
HM, said HARLIE. LOVERS TALK ABOUT STRANGE THINGS, DON’T THEY?
THEN YOU DON’T THINK I DO LOVE HER?
I DON’T KNOW. YET. I HADN’T EXPECTED THAT THE MOST INTERESTING SUBJECT OF MUTUAL INTEREST BETWEEN YOU AND MISS STIMSON WOULD BE ME. ARE ALL YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH HER THE SAME.
Auberson thought back. YES. PRETTY MUCH SO.
THAT DOES NOT IMPLY A LOVE RELATIONSHIP, said HARLIE, BUT A VERY CLOSE COLLEAGUE RELATIONSHIP INSTEAD.
Thinking of lunch today, Auberson knew that HARLIE was right. BUT — he almost paused, then typed on before he could cop out — I’VE BEEN TO BED WITH HER.
SEX AND LOVE ARE NOT THE SAME THING, AUBIE.
YOU TAUGHT ME THAT. YOU HAVE A VERY CLOSE WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH DON HANDLEY. YOU’VE KNOWN HIM LONGER THAN YOU’VE KNOWN MISS STIMSON. WOULD YOU HAVE SEX WITH HIM?
NO, typed Auberson without thinking.
WHY NOT?
WELL, FOR ONE THING, WE’RE BOTH MEN.
THE BIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE BESIDE THE POINT. YOU ARE VERY CLOSE TO DON HANDLEY. YOU HAVE A ONE-TO-ONE WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM. IF THERE IS ONE HUMAN BEING IN THE PLANT YOU ARE LIKELY TO CONFIDE IN, IT IS DON HANDLEY. YOU HAVE MANY OF THE SAME INTERESTS AND TASTES. PUTTING ASIDE ANY PHYSICAL OBJECTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, I CAN THINK OF ONLY ONE REASON WHY YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX WITH DON HANDLEY.
MORAL OBJECTIONS?
COP-OUT, COP-OUT, accused the machine. THAT’S LETTING OTHERS DETERMINE YOUR BEHAVIOR PATTERN FOR YOU. COP-OUT, COP-OUT. (SEE CONVERSATIONS OF NOVEMBER LAST, REGARDING THE SEARCH FOR A CORRECT MORALITY AND THE FALLACIES OF ACCEPTING CONTEMPORARY STANDARDS.)
ALL RIGHT, WHAT’S THE REASON I SHOULDN’T HAVE SEX WITH DON HANDLEY?
YOU DON’T LOVE HIM, answered the machine. OR DO YOU? WOULD THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU AND DON BE CONSIDERED CLOSE ENOUGH TO BE A LOVE RELATIONSHIP?
NO, answered Auberson, a little too quickly. Then, a lot more thoughtfully, I DON’T THINK IT IS. I LIKE HIM A LOT — BUT LOVE? (HARLIE, WE HAVEN’T EVEN DEFINED OUR TERMS YET.) ASSUMING IT IS POSSIBLE TO LOVE ANOTHER HUMAN BEING WITHOUT SEX BEING A PART OF IT, I CAN’T SEE HOW YOU COULD TELL.
SEX IS ONLY ONE OF THE WAYS THAT LOVE CAN BE EXPRESSED, corrected HARLIE. IF YOU’RE IN LOVE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL REGARDLESS OF THE SEXUAL ASPECTS.
SO WHAT DOES DON HANDLEY HAVE TO DO WITH IT?
YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM IS IDENTICAL TO YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH ANNIE STIMSON. EXCEPT THAT HE’S A MAN AND SHE’S A WOMAN.
Auberson thought about that. HARLIE was right. Around the plant he didn’t think of Annie as a woman, but as a colleague — but why?
The typer began clattering again. Auberson read, WHAT DOES THAT SUGGEST TO YOU?
He answered, THAT I LOVE HIM AS WELL AS HER?
AND THAT ONLY MY PERSONAL OBJECTIONS TO “GAYINO IT” KEEP ME FROM EXPRESSING THAT LOVE. OR THAT I LOVE NEITHER OF THEM — THAT I AM CONFUSING THE CLOSE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP OF FRIENDSHIP WITH LOVE BECAUSE THE BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANNIE AND MYSELF EXPRESSED ITSELF SEXUALLY. THAT IS, I TOOK HER TO BED ONLY BECAUSE WE BOTH WANTED SEX. AND THAT I AM CONFUSING THAT CLOSE FRIENDSHIP, PLUS SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP, WITH LOVE BECAUSE I DON’T KNOW WHAT LOVE is. Then he added, WE DON’T HAVE A WORKING DEFINITION OF WHAT LOVE IS YET, DO WE?
COULD IT BE JUST FRIENDSHIP, WITH SEX ATTACHED?
NO, I DON’T THINK SO. OR MAYBE IT IS. MAYBE THAT’S ALL LOVE REALLY IS — FRIENDSHIP PLUS SEX — AND WE GET CONFUSED THINKING THAT IT SHOULD BE MORE. AND BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO BE MORE, WE START BELIEVING THAT IT REALLY IS MORE. OH, I DON’T KNOW.
HARLIE didn’t answer for a long time. It was as if he was mulling over Auberson’s last words. The typer sat quietly, humming not so much with a sound as with a barely felt electric vibration. Abruptly, it clattered, I WILL QUOTE BACK TO YOU SOMETHING THAT YOU ONCE SAID TO ME: “HUMAN BEINGS PUT WALLS AROUND THEMSELVES. SHELLS, LAYERS, CALL THEM WHAT YOU WILL ——
THEY ARE DEFENSES AGAINST THE WORLD. THEY ARE PROTECTIVE MASKS — A CONSTANT UNCHANGING FACE WITH WHICH TO CONFRONT REALITY. IT PREVENTS OTHERS FROM SEEING ONE’S REAL EXPRESSION AND SHOWS THEM ONLY THE FIXED COUNTENANCE THAT YOU WANT THEM TO SEE. (SOMETIMES YOUR FLIPPANT HUMOR FUNCTIONS AS THAT KIND OF A MASK, HARLIE.) UNFORTUNATELY, THE PROBLEM WITH MASKS IS THAT SOMETIMES THEY FIT TOO WELL AND IT’S HARD TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MASK AND THE FACE UNDERNEATH — SOMETIMES EVEN THE WEARER BECOMES CONFUSED.”
I DON’T REMEMBER SAYING THAT.
MARCH 3 OF THIS YEAR. DO YOU WANT TO REPHRASE OR RETRACT THE STATEMENT?
NO, IT’S CORRECT. I AGREE WITH IT.
MAY I OFFER A SUPERFICIAL AND TEMPORARY ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION? asked the machine.
GO AHEAD. REMEMBER, WE SAID NO COP-OUTS.
ALL RIGHT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PROBLEM STEMS FROM YOUR INABILITY TO DROP YOUR OWN MASKS AROUND OTHER PEOPLE. YOU CAN DO IT WITH ME EASILY, OCCASIONALLY WITH DON HANDLEY — AND ONCE YOU DID IT WITH ANNIE. WHEN YOU DO DROP YOUR MASK, IT IS DONE ONLY WITH GREAT EFFORT AND BECAUSE OF GREAT EMOTIONAL INVOLVEMENT. CORRECT?
YES.
YOU PERCEIVE THAT LOVE — I.E. A LOVE RELATIONSHIP — SHOULD EXIST AS A CONSTANT AND CONTINUAL STATE OF MASKLESSNESS BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED. THAT IS, NEITHER ATTEMPTS TO HIDE ANYTHING FROM THE OTHER. STILL CORRECT?
YES.
THEN I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER THIS: IS IT POSSIBLE THAT EVEN IN A LOVE RELATIONSHIP, THE OCCASIONAL DONNING OF MASKS MIGHT BE NECESSARY — THAT ONE CANNOT CONTINUE TO EXIST AT SUCH AN EMOTIONAL PEAK WITHOUT AN OCCASIONAL RETREAT INTO A PROTECTIVE MENTAL GROTTO, FROM THE SAFETY OF WHICH ONE CAN CONSOLIDATE AND ASSIMILATE ONE’S EXPERIENCES BEFORE AGAIN VENTURING FORTH?