Walking along those streets that weren’t streets and seeing those structures that were either about to become, or to cease being houses, Delia and I were intrigued by the nature of our surroundings. The places we visited, our daily strolls, the passing seasons and the labors of man, and change in general; all this helped prove the reign of the permanent over the variable. Still, we couldn’t help but sense the theatricality of those cycles, especially given the regularity with which we frequented those spaces. Here or there, day or night, every place we left felt like a theater set receding behind us, eager to dissolve, sleep, or pause until Delia and I decided to give it life again by returning. This was our impression, which was real, though it ultimately proved false or mistaken. The visits I make now from time to time in the hope of recovering something are a belated indication that this was not the case, that nature did not dissolve or fold in on itself when we abandoned it. The truth is that everything seems more or less the same, recognizable and precise in its simple, natural way. As I said at the beginning, it is unsettling that geography does not change, despite the passage of time; there is something essential about it that remains forever. Many travel diaries and novels, even those that are hundreds of years old, retain an evocative fidelity: there is that tree, that column still stands, the bridge that greets the traveler, the inn that bids him farewell, the marks of the landslide that buries him. The swelling of the river repeats itself, as do the signs of the labors of man. Delia and I saw all this, too; neither of us would have denied the independent existence of reality, and yet we didn’t feel the need to believe in it, because every new day and the repetition of every night felt like the first to us. At the same time, by a predictable process of deduction that followed a simple order and an unconscious logic, if every time was the first, there must have been one right before it that had just faded into nothingness. This is why I said before that I never waited for Delia; she was always there, like a heartbeat, being sensed and fading away until the appointed time came and she appeared, small, lovely, and all-encompassing as she was, at my side. Sometimes, as she slept for those few minutes in the shack in the Barrens, I would bury my face in her armpit, also hirsute, into her intoxicating scent. They were categorical smells, strong and differentiated. There was the scent of her body, of course, the most astounding I’ve known: to say that hers was an animal scent would hardly express it; it blended the smell of a beast in the wild with the sweat of a hard day’s work. Her scent could be broken down in several ways, and by breathing each of these in, I felt I had accessed a truth that otherwise would have remained hidden. I found traces: the fabric of her uniform, a substance she worked with in the factory; I even recognized the aroma of a meal, which mixed with and was altered by the taste of her skin. I could hide in the forest of Delia’s armpit, I thought. To say nothing of that other, denser, foliage between her legs. Insofar as it centered on abundance, my admiration might seem primitive or elementary, but quantity was only a pretext for my amazement; the truth is that I was transfixed by it as by proof of the divine. I was astonished by the copiousness of Delia’s hair, which managed to expand beyond the territory assigned to it, and also by the dark density of the hair itself, which covered her skin so completely that my first response was to wonder what was hidden underneath. And then there was its coarseness, the way it stood on end with the lightest touch like, I don’t know, like fine-gauge wire. So it is, I thought as Delia slept, distant from herself: we are replaced by our parts, the fragments better represent the whole of each of us…
The material proof of this can be found in the pieces that passed through Delia’s hands day after day. Each object retained something of her, a quality that would always be a part of it. I’m not talking about anything allegorical or conceptual, but rather something that was absolutely concrete, though it left no perceptible mark. It was the fact of having been created, at least in part, by Delia’s labor. On the average morning she went to work at the factory, she undressed in the narrow hall that served as a changing room, taking off the clothes she had on under her uniform, and walked to her station to carry out the task assigned her. On that morning, as on any other, Delia was resolved to leave a part of herself behind in the fragments and very purpose of her work. Without Delia’s sacrifice — represented by her time, her effort, her energy, her meager wages and her part in the collective labor of the factory — without that sacrifice, there was no way production could go on. It was the mark left by all workers. In this case it was Delia who lived on in the commodity, however intangibly. Like a negative halo, made of shadow. In that darkness was hidden everything Delia and the other workers had not received and had not done in order to be able to give life to the object — along with everything, of course, that they had done and received, not only so that it could take on all the properties and qualities of a product, but also so that it could become a piece, fundamental to some, of the economic puzzle of everyday life. All those who aren’t workers recognize this; they perceive, like an anonymous sign or a warning, the mark of the proletariat on the things they own and use. It is an inescapable addition. And yet it’s not an addition, but rather an essential part. Delia knew this, of course. Even if she was unable to argue the point, she understood it through practical knowledge, through experience. This is why objects had a particular nature for her. To give an example, there is the extreme case of the skirt and the fluid nature of property, or the more mundane one of giving up her bus fare home in order to pay, indirectly and symbolically, the weekly installment on a bar of soap. Being unique, objects proliferated through invisible marks; each one was multiplied by the number of instants in a day, a lifetime, and was translated into signs that were often contradictory. The essential nature of commodities was to have a long and complex history, which was, paradoxically, interrupted at their moment of realization; that is, when they became commodities as such. Later, this history lived on in people through these reappearances and symbolic loans. Perhaps this was the source of the collective attachment to objects — the fact that they retained the marks of other ways of being used and handled, both unknown and essential, without which they would lose their true value.