Response to Ginzburg's "He and I"

I didn’t know what to expect when I began reading this essay and was surprised at its tone and style, which Lopate calls “deceptively plain” (422). I thought perhaps the first few paragraphs would serve as sort of a stylistic introduction, but the essay continued on in its straightforward, simple manner with little varied sentence structure. But Ginzburg is still able to show the character of the relationship between herself and her second husband, Gabriele Baldini (422).

Or does she show the character? I admit that when reading this essay I grew a little bored because of its predictability. By this I mean that Ginzburg never strays far from her “he is good at everything and I am bad at everything” thesis. Lopate calls this persistence “patience and sensitivity,” and while I do see that, I would also say that the effect is one of twisted narcissism (perhaps too strong a word). The “I” in the essay degrades herself incessantantly while simultaneously aggrandizing and belittling her husband. This evaluation probably stems from the very black-and-white writing style (He is___ but I am ___). I left the essay thinking that “he” was annoying, cruel, and even hypocritical and that she was self-absorbed and limp.

These reflections seem harsh. I did, in fact, enjoy reading the essay. It floated on in a poetic manner, and I did feel some connection to the narrator, especially at the end. I had to read the last sentence twice when she asks if the memory of her and her husband when they were young was actually them. Here Ginzburg poignantly reflects on how, not only memories, but people change, morph, or fade as we grow older.