The Penitent (TCG Edition) Read online

  KATH: But, now, he’s the victim?

  CHARLES: That’s right.

  KATH: Why?

  CHARLES: Because they must have a new villain.

  KATH: Who?

  CHARLES: His defense. And the press.

  KATH: They need a new villain?

  CHARLES: Yes.

  KATH: So now it’s not the boy.

  CHARLES: That’s right.

  KATH: It’s you.

  CHARLES: That’s right. It’s me.

  SCENE 2

  Charles and Richard.

  CHARLES: Tell me about the libel case.

  RICHARD: They agree it was a copy editor’s mistake.

  CHARLES: Really.

  RICHARD: And they’ll print a retraction.

  CHARLES: The paper will print a retraction.

  RICHARD: That’s right.

  CHARLES: No, it’s not enough.

  RICHARD: I’d advise you to accept it.

  CHARLES: Some disclaimer at the bottom of page twelve.

  RICHARD: That’s right.

  CHARLES: And they’ve destroyed my reputation.

  RICHARD: They’re a newspaper, that’s what they do. D’you ever read them?

  CHARLES: But it’s libel.

  RICHARD: We would have to demonstrate malice.

  CHARLES: What does that mean?

  RICHARD: Intent to harm. Or reckless disregard. They’ll say it was simply a misprint.

  CHARLES: “Homosexuality as an aberration”? I wrote “adaptation.” Hardly similar words. And that’s a misprint?

  RICHARD: Yes.

  CHARLES: Without evil intent?

  RICHARD: Perhaps it was an unconscious . . .

  CHARLES: I don’t . . .

  RICHARD: The copy editor, for example, they’d suggest, might have been “uneasy with the concept.”

  CHARLES: . . . yes?

  RICHARD: Of homosexuality. It might be a simple “Freudian slip,” or . . .

  CHARLES: You believe that?

  RICHARD: A jury might.

  CHARLES: It’s absurd.

  RICHARD: I understand. But a jury might accept it. The paper? Their bet is: Do you want to go to court, against their battery of lawyers, and unlimited wealth, and have them drag it out forever? Or . . .

  CHARLES: . . . They libeled me . . .

  RICHARD: Or: Are you willing to accept the fiction they intended no harm, call it a draw, and walk away.

  CHARLES: And what do I gain?

  RICHARD: You’ll have acknowledged their power and, so, stilled their enmity.

  CHARLES: But they attacked me.

  RICHARD: They’re in that business. Charles? That’s what they do. You do not, as the man said, pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the carload. You take their apology, it’s cocktail chat for two weeks. It’s a silly mistake, and you’re done. If you oppose them, you’ll be their new animal to torture. And you’ll be on the front page till the end of time. Accept their apology, and let it die. It’s good advice.

  CHARLES: Whoever took good advice?

  RICHARD: You be the first.

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: All right. Yes, I will.

  (Pause.)

  Thank you.

  RICHARD: You’re welcome. And you agree to testify. For the defense.

  CHARLES: What?

  RICHARD: No, you heard me.

  CHARLES: I won’t testify for him.

  (Pause.)

  I won’t testify for the boy.

  RICHARD: You wouldn’t be testifying “for the boy.” You’d be testifying for “the defense.”

  CHARLES: Oh, really.

  RICHARD: Yes. It’s a legal fiction—it’s known as “the law.”

  CHARLES: No, please don’t lecture me.

  RICHARD: It will help get you off the front page.

  CHARLES: Will it indeed?

  RICHARD: Yes.

  CHARLES: How?

  RICHARD: It will establish your bona fides.

  CHARLES: Which were in doubt because . . .?

  RICHARD: What does it matter?

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: No. I won’t testify.

  RICHARD: Charles? You need. To “surrender.” Is that a “blow to your pride”? Yes? I understand. Is it worth it? I think it is. Look, this is a loathsome business. The Law. As is Journalism, and Medicine, for all I know. And my job. Is to help you through it. Whatever your, understandable distress, or rage, or doubts . . .

  CHARLES: About?

  RICHARD: Well . . .

  CHARLES: My doubts about what?

  RICHARD: . . . your treatment, perhaps, your treatment of the boy. I don’t know . . . Your . . .

  CHARLES: Do I have doubts about “my treatment” . . .?

  RICHARD: The boy. Under your care. Committed a crime. That must feel dreadful.

  CHARLES: Yes. It does.

  RICHARD: I’m sure it does. But the boy. Though he was in your care. Was not in your control. Isn’t that right? Isn’t it?

  CHARLES: Yes. That’s right.

  RICHARD: He was acting. Independent of you. And in spite of whatever aid, or treatment, or “direction” you might have given him. In spite of it. Not because of it.

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: That’s correct.

  RICHARD: He was out of control.

  CHARLES: I . . .

  RICHARD: . . . he was out of your control.

  CHARLES: That’s right.

  RICHARD: That’s all they’re going to ask you. On the stand. “Is it not possible his actions were those over which he had no control?” It’s called the “benefit of the doubt.” Is it impossible his actions were the result of conditions over which he had no control?

  CHARLES: How the hell would I know?

  RICHARD: You just told me that’s the case. The history is clear.

  CHARLES: No one wants the history. They want a case made for the defense.

  RICHARD: And can you not in conscience make that case? Isn’t that the case for psychiatry? Wouldn’t you testify? For that? That the boy suffered? Obviously he suffered. He came to you. You treated him.

  CHARLES: I don’t know what I did for him. I listened to him. I made notes. I said, “What does that make you think of.” That’s what analysis is. It is “nonintervention.”

  RICHARD: And, so, it’s not “treatment”?

  CHARLES: How did I “treat him”? His “mental illness.”

  RICHARD: And then, what is mental illness?

  CHARLES: I don’t know. It’s a “disruption of the spirit.”

  RICHARD: But that’s just giving it another name.

  CHARLES: Yes. That’s right. And it’s doing something else.

  RICHARD: Which is?

  CHARLES: It’s a “confession of humility.”

  (Pause.)

  RICHARD: You’ve testified before.

  CHARLES: I did.

  (Pause.)

  RICHARD: They’ll turn on you.

  CHARLES: I don’t know but that I don’t deserve it.

  RICHARD: Well. I know you’re hurt. You’ve been shocked. And I think you’ve been brutalized. And you’re confused. And angry. All I can offer you is legal advice. Which is, I swear to you, best calculated to relieve the legal portion of your burden.

  (Pause.)

  Agree to their retraction. This is the best advice you’ll ever have. Let it blow over, and it will.

  CHARLES: And if it doesn’t?

  RICHARD: We’re talking about a suit for damages. My advice is based upon the legal merits. Of the suit. I advise you, strongly, not to pursue it.

  CHARLES: I agree to accept their apology?

  RICHARD: They’ll say correction. And we’re done.

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: All right.

  RICHARD: You agree, it was a regrettable misprint. With, of course, no intent to malign.

  CHARLES: All right.

  RICHARD: And that the case, itself is a tragedy. For all concerned.

  CHARLES:
I don’t understand.

  RICHARD: Isn’t it?

  CHARLES: No; where, where do I agree to that?

  RICHARD: In your statement. In their paper.

  CHARLES: Wait. They want me. To make a statement. In their newspaper. Clearing them? Is that what they’re offering?

  RICHARD: They’re offering you: space in which to make a statement. You may use it to clear them and to clear yourself. That’s their apology.

  CHARLES: To “clear myself”?

  RICHARD: Yes.

  CHARLES: Of what?

  (Pause.)

  No. I won’t do it.

  SCENE 3

  Charles and Kath.

  KATH: But I don’t understand it.

  CHARLES: Do you want me to tell you again?

  KATH: Richard said . . .

  CHARLES: When did you see Rich . . .?

  KATH: He told me the “facts.”

  CHARLES: . . . the “facts.”

  KATH: I understand the “facts.” But I can’t understand what you’re doing.

  CHARLES: When did you see Richard?

  KATH: Why should I not see him?

  CHARLES: It’s not, Kath. I beg your pardon. That you shouldn’t see him. But, I assume, it was in connection with the case.

  KATH: I . . .

  CHARLES: Or that you discussed the case.

  KATH: Why should we not discuss the case?

  CHARLES: Be . . .

  KATH: What else have I to discuss?

  (Simultaneously) Do you think it was dis . . .

  CHARLES (Simultaneously): I . . . no, I’m sorry, go on.

  (Pause.)

  Go on.

  KATH: Did you think it was “disloyal”? To discuss the case with him?

  CHARLES: I . . . I don’t know.

  KATH: Well. He’s the only . . . Now? He’s the only person I can talk to, without . . .

  CHARLES: Apart from me . . .

  KATH: Either, all right, encountering scorn . . .

  CHARLES: . . . yes . . .

  KATH: Or . . .

  CHARLES: Or pity?

  KATH: Yes, or “pity.”

  CHARLES: . . . for living with me.

  KATH: Yes, pity for living with you, I’m sorry. I don’t feel it. I . . .

  CHARLES: What do you feel?

  KATH: I’m confused. As there are those, not friends, not close friends, but “acquaintances” or . . . Yes. Or friends, who, you see, cannot decide . . .

  CHARLES: Yes? . . . Who . . .?

  KATH: When they see me. If they see me on the street, or . . . Because, where can they go?

  (Pause.)

  When they see me.

  CHARLES: I’m sorry.

  KATH: Or decide. Whether to talk to me. Perhaps you know; I think, though, that you don’t know. Because . . .

  CHARLES: . . . I’m sure.

  KATH: Because it’s your choice. So perhaps you can live with it. It’s not my choice. You, at least have the satisfaction . . .

  CHARLES: . . . Kath.

  KATH: Of what, of “standing up” . . . of “standing up for . . .”

  CHARLES: Yes.

  KATH: . . . if that’s . . . But other people. Might wonder, you see . . .

  CHARLES: Yes.

  KATH: Or “cross the room.”

  CHARLES: I understand.

  KATH: As if I didn’t see them. And wonder. About my loyalties.

  CHARLES: And, you’d be forgiven . . .

  KATH: For?

  CHARLES: For being torn. By feelings of disloyalty. If that’s what you feel?

  KATH: I don’t know what I feel.

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: I’ve always treasured. Above all things.

  (Pause.)

  KATH: What?

  CHARLES: Your loyalty.

  KATH: . . . No.

  CHARLES: But I understand, yes, I have. Kath. You’re intensely loyal.

  KATH: I don’t think so.

  CHARLES: No, it doesn’t mean “without doubts” . . .

  KATH: Well, that’s me.

  CHARLES: Or “without regrets.”

  KATH: It doesn’t mean “without regrets”?

  CHARLES: No. It means “loyal in actions.”

  (Pause.)

  KATH: But I have disloyal thoughts.

  CHARLES: Of course you do. Everyone does.

  KATH: You don’t.

  CHARLES: I’m sure that I do.

  KATH: No. You’re better than I.

  CHARLES: Hardly.

  KATH: Of course you are. How can you say you’re not? Your, your, your behavior in the case.

  CHARLES: “The case.” How is that loyalty?

  KATH: I don’t know.

  CHARLES: But you said it was “loyalty.”

  KATH: You’re loyal to your “Oath.”

  CHARLES: Is that how you understand it?

  KATH: Am I wrong?

  CHARLES: But I’m not loyal to you? . . . That’s what you feel? Is that right?

  KATH: I don’t know what I feel.

  CHARLES: Because I put you here. You didn’t sign on for . . .

  KATH: . . . I married you . . .

  CHARLES: This “beating . . .”

  KATH: That’s true.

  CHARLES: Of course it’s true.

  (Pause.)

  KATH: I’m not sure. That I believe in . . .

  CHARLES: . . . in me?

  KATH: In what you’re doing.

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: Is that disloyalty?

  KATH: And the people that I see, for none of them are neutral . . . how can they be neutral?

  CHARLES: People can withhold judgment.

  KATH: Show them to me. Charles, because I haven’t seen them. And I doubt that they exist. Because they . . .

  CHARLES: . . . There is . . .

  KATH: . . . wait. They. Our “friends,” our . . .

  CHARLES: . . . all right.

  KATH: They have to live.

  CHARLES: . . . with you . . .

  KATH: No. With each other. And so they have to choose. How to treat me. And it’s driving me mad.

  CHARLES: Kath . . .

  KATH: I can’t . . . when the phone rings. I pray it’s a wrong number. Or a telephone solicitor, or . . .

  CHARLES: . . . I’m so sorry.

  KATH: Someone who . . . someone . . .

  CHARLES: Who doesn’t know who you are.

  KATH: Who, no, who doesn’t know who you are. I’m sorry. I don’t even know what I’m apologizing for, but I can’t . . . I . . .

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: How can I help?

  KATH: You can’t help.

  CHARLES: Would you like me to explain it again?

  KATH: No, I understand it. I think maybe I understand it. I just hate it.

  CHARLES: What would you like me to do?

  KATH: I . . . Charles. You’re so much more intelligent . . .

  CHARLES: . . . that’s not true.

  KATH: And . . . You tell me, that it’s a question of “morality.” But I don’t understand it. Abstractly . . .

  CHARLES: I . . .

  KATH: But. But . . .

  (Pause.)

  And you’re so “good.”

  CHARLES: Am I good?

  KATH: Better than I.

  CHARLES: Hardly.

  KATH: No. You talk about your “oath.” I don’t even understand what an “oath” is.

  CHARLES: You know what an oath . . . You’re saying. Of course you understand the nature of—You married me, you . . .

  KATH: Wait, Charles.

  CHARLES: You took that oath and kept it; and you’re a perfect wife . . .

  KATH: No, I’m not perfect.

  CHARLES: You’re human. We’re all human, of course, and . . .

  KATH: Charles.

  CHARLES: . . . one, one aspect of intimacy is that: It tests us. In . . . it proves us. In the old sense. It exposes us to trauma. We have taken an oath, and, so, when tempted . . .

  K
ATH: I can’t walk down the street, Charles, or pick up a newspaper. Without seeing your name.

  CHARLES: At some point. It will be over.

  KATH: I don’t see it.

  CHARLES: After the trial.

  KATH: How will it be over? Who will be my friends?

  CHARLES: . . . you’d lose your friends? . . .

  KATH: I have . . .

  CHARLES: But you’ve done nothing.

  KATH: I know I’ve done nothing. But whatever I do . . .

  CHARLES: You feel whatever you do is wrong.

  KATH: No. I know it’s wrong.

  CHARLES: Because you feel that you’re disloyal. And everyone shuns you. Because of me. And to wish for their acceptance is disloyalty. And you’ve done nothing wrong. Except to marry me. And be a good wife. And now you’re being punished. And have thoughts of abandoning me. Is that correct? That might be correct, Kath? But they’re just thoughts.

  KATH: I don’t know that you’re right. In what you’re doing.

  CHARLES: Is it enough. That I know what I’m doing is right?

  (Pause.)

  All right. Then, the question is: “Who can advise you?” Where can you go for help. All these years. You came to me. As I did to you. And now you can’t come to me in this, because, to you, I am the cause of your . . . Your trauma.

  KATH: Yes. That’s right.

  CHARLES: No, that’s a terrible position.

  KATH: Yes. It is.

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: You saw Richard.

  KATH: Would you prefer I didn’t see him?

  CHARLES: I would prefer you do those things which bring you comfort.

  KATH: Do you mean it?

  CHARLES: I would do anything. To comfort you.

  KATH: Then drop all this fucking nonsense. Drop it. Make your statement . . . Go to the court. Say what they want, give them whatever they want.

  CHARLES: I can’t do that.

  KATH: Why not?

  CHARLES: They might, they might demand the records. They . . .

  KATH: Why shouldn’t you give them the records?

  CHARLES: Because they’ll just keep escalating their demands. First . . .

  KATH: Give them the records. Why couldn’t you give up the records?

  CHARLES: Because they’re confidential. Or else anyone . . .

  KATH: . . . I . . .

  CHARLES: The boy . . .

  KATH: I don’t care about the boy . . .

  CHARLES: Whatever he may have done. He came to me for help. With the understanding. That our interchanges would be priv—

  KATH: I don’t care about the boy. Didn’t you hear me? He’s nothing to me, and he’s nothing to you . . . And there’s nothing you can do for him.