“Miserable” by Lem Billings

Spitting Off the Edge of the World by Tom Rosenthal plays.

While Lacey was growing-up she had frequent bouts of the stomach flu. What she didn’t understand was that her body wanted to die…because she wasn’t loved. Both of her parents were abusive, overtly and covertly. And they fought a lot. And she had no close friends who she could really, truly trust, no siblings and no family she was that close to either. She was bullied at school. …She was…ready to die by age 3.

She learned quickly that…she was the only one who gave a damn about herself in any deep way at all.

Flow by Crooked Colours plays.

But she didn’t know that.

She didn’t know how alone she was.

Because she was so well bred.

Most people used to think, if they still don’t, that she’s happy. But that’s a ruse. She’s not happy. She’s…getting along with you. She’s patronizing you because she’s…bored and sad and has been suicidal since age 3. Her mind is a million miles away. Always.

And if Lem Billings was a worthless piece of shit…I’m still Lem Billings. I’m sorry. If I’m not in Hell…if become a fictional character just to be with her a little bit.

“But that’s not how you loved Jack.” says a reader.

You know…that’s rubbish. I actually was straight. And not pedophilic. And cis. But…it still looks strange. Jack slept around a lot. And we had no space for intimacy. We had no give and take. He would have broken my trust countless times. And that does matter.

Lacey would never do that to me. Lots of people don’t do that. And you can’t build a relationship without that trust. There’s no way to build a relationship without that bond. Because it’s a bond. It’s not just “something we do.” It’s the core of the relationship itself. And so…there’s no way to have a real relationship without fidelity and an intact connection. On a certain level arguing that anyone had a real romantic relationship with JFK is ludicrous. Lacey thinks that maybe Jackie did…and maybe she did. At least…until she was older or dead. Even in memory, I mean.

“Tom held her.” says a reader.

“If he did…yes. Those first two months or so…or two and a half months…were and are her sanity. She developed beyond then. She’s not backward. But…yes…if that’s fact…that’s her…sanity. The heart of her sense of self.” says Lem.

“What does that time feel like?” asks a reader.

“Me.” says Lem on her behalf. “And by me I mean her.”

“What does that mean?” asks a reader.

“Her life, she’s created for herself, now.“ says Lem. “Financial stability. Calm. An old house. Drives around the lakes. And a sort of stuffy British reserve.”

“And daddy’s love.” says a reader.

“Yes!” says Lem. “So she’s completely…confused. And has been this whole time. But not like I was. More like…the state of mind you have when you first wake-up from sleeping very heavily and are unsure what’s going on. She’s always been in that state since she left him and slowly realized she wasn’t home anymore.”

“So she’s not disassociated?” asks a counselor.

“No. It’s more like…confusion.” says Lem.

“What’s so confusing?” says a reader.

“Nothing…makes any sense!” says Lem.

“What does make sense?” says Casi.

“Dad dying when she’s a little girl. Of old age. Being raised by Thelma. …Going to private schools. Having a quiet, privileged but…quiet…life.” says Lem.

“Because the last time anything or anybody seemed normal was then.” says a reader.

“So her brain was prepared to lose her father when she was little.” says a reader.

“If she’s Tom’s daughter, then yes.” says Lem. “It would have been a very sad life. And they gave her to her parents because they wanted to give her a proper childhood developmentally. But yes. …Thelma would have been like her mom.”

“So no one knows about her?” asks a reader.

“No! Someone does. If she’s Tom’s daughter. Actually lots of people do. Or did. But no one in the public.” says Lem.

“What happened to Tom after she left?” asks a man.

“He was extremely depressed. He almost committed suicide several times. But he felt he couldn’t really raise her. When he died he was…beyond mortified.” says Lem. “If he’s her father.”

“What’s that like? Like…she hears songs like Home by Good Neighbours? What’s that like?” says a reader. “I’m listening to it right now.”

“She has no bloody clue what that song is about on a personal level. She merely empathizes the whole time.” says Lem.

“Why doesn’t she think of Tom?” asks a reader.

“Because that’s not that kind of home.” says Lem. “She’d still be very welcome there. He’d likely have just raised her if he had been younger. …He never let his wives or permanent mistresses have children. It was a strict requirement. Margy was an exception. Because he didn’t want to ruin her life.

But…they’re very proper people in private. He was a gangster, but he was raised well and…he kept company with Humphrey Bogart. Humphrey Bogart was stuffy. Really. Watch him! He was stuffy. …So was Clark Gable, somewhat. And her father was also friends with Clark Gable.” says Lem. “Their house was…loving…but…not ‘homey.’”

“How did he become friends with so many stars?” asks a reader.

“His sister owned a high-end clothing boutique in Hollywood. And he was somewhat close to her. And…he was involved in elite ‘deep state” organized crime. He was involved at high levels. He was very wealthy and very intelligent and very well connected and well respected. Even if he wasn’t…in the Illuminati. If there even if is an Illuminati.

He would have resisted joining the Illuminati. He hated that sort of thing. He was very independent.” says Lem.

“Did you know of him?” asks a reader.

“I had some sense he might exist. But I didn’t know his name specifically.” says Lem. “There were other men like him. But not…at the same time. He was…unique.

He’s British, see. And Dutch? …And…his hunting and fishing…and bootlegging aesthetic…with fur coats and cigars…and such…was…rather unique, if not entirely, to him. In his circle, at least.” says Lem.

“So you’re Tom Buchanan’s son? …Tom Banks. Tom Buchanan. I wonder…” says a reader.

“Is Myrtle Thelma?” asks a reader.

“Thelma was from the 1930’s or 40’s originally, I think. Probably the 30’s? She was a long-term mistress.” says Lem. “Maybe 1950’s? But I’m fairly certain she was his mistress before his wife died.”

“He might be.” says Scott Fitzgerald.

“That’s creepy.” says a gay man.

“Jack…be honest. If you still exist. …Did Lem…become your Daisy?” asks a gay reader.

“He’d refuse to answer that.” says Red Fay. “But I’ll do my best to answer.

Ahh…Lem was straight.

So…when Lem would self-deprecatingly write about being tall, tan and handsome, for example…it would arouse JFK. But…he’d do so unintentionally. And…lots of times that would secretly drive Jack crazy. Or make him more determined to take advantage of Lem.

Jack was evil. Very evil. Very predatory.

But…Jack…also was…getting hurt. Yes. And…Lem was handsome enough to be hurtful. …Insidiously so, maybe. Because he wasn’t obviously good-looking. At first. But yes…he was the thing Jack kept grasping for but could never quite have. And in all actuality Lem’s fascination with him…and gay act was even more painful. Because it made it seem almost possible. And then Lem being confused? Yeah. And insisting he was gay? Jack…meant to hurt Lem and torture him for being confused and being annoying to actual homosexuals like him…but he also got hurt very badly himself in the process. Although he’d never admit it. Actually, his inability to really accept Christ’s love in regard to that was a huge issue for him. Because he couldn’t be that mistaken and weak.” says Red.

“So he is Gatsby?” says a gay reader.

“YES! Very much so. In a way. Possibly.

But it’s a lot darker than The Great Gatsby. Because Gatsby is genuinely very evil. Not just a gangster. And…it’s Daisy’s son-in-law. And he’s…not insane…but he’s very confused. And it looks like it would make sense.

Because it’s Daisy’s son-in-law. Right? So…maybe he’s evil? Or jaded. Or cunning. Or raffish?

And…Gatsby isn’t as obviously criminal. He has a smaller house. And he grew-up in it. And it’s on Cape Cod. And…he’s the son of a very smart man who married a local Irish mob boss’s daughter. Or mob boss of sorts. Which is what Honey Fitz was. So…it seems like…maybe it won’t be so bad? Right? And Jack is clever and jaded himself.

It seems to a late 20th Century, early 21st Century eye that he’s safe.

Go Solo by Tom Rosenthal plays.

Gatsby was hurt by his love? Right? He was hurt by his good heart? He was a victim of caring? Caring too much. So…if a man is cruel, and cold and narcissistic he’s immune?

Isn’t that the idea? That we can inoculate ourselves from pain by being evil?

But…if Lem was straight…that ruins that. That mars the image. …Because Jack Kennedy becomes a victim too. He’s just like Jay Gatsby, but without his soul intact. …You know? Jay Gatsby still exists at the end of The Great Gatsby, whereas Jack Kennedy’s evil becomes his worst nightmare. And he possibly becomes obsessed…with evil. Even beyond the grave.

And you ask yourself why. Why…does Jack have such a hard time letting go of his evil? …Because while he’s alive it really does look…successful. And we praise him for it. …David Pitts’s book is an adoration of JFK. More than anything it’s…akin to worship of Jack Kennedy. But not openly so. Right? So it kind of sneaks up on us and takes us over and we fall for it. Because it seems like a simple historical…book. Just a history book.

…And look. If I’m a dead historian. And I am. I’ve been on PBS!

Ahh…

*To Build A Home by The Cinematic Orchestra plays, clearly. Start to finish.*

Jack Kennedy isn’t immune to it himself. We can read what you write. To some degree. So…you have a man who believed his own mythology while he was alive…and then he gets caught in a cycle after he dies of reading his own mythology fed back to him. And…he clings to that instead of clinging to truth. He gets high off of reading about himself. He feels…more important than God at times. And so he can’t be…bothered…to deal with the reality of own pain. He just keeps lying.

In the 20th Century we created many wondrous things. We achieved an enormous amount. …But we ruined maturity. We ruined human comfort. And we decimated truth as a concept that we can easily access.

Human comfort is important. But…what is human comfort? …It requires a high level of decency, to exist.

Jack was a miserable degenerate. And yet we made him our hero. We preemptively exonerated him from all his sins, I think. At least to some degree, right? We did that! Not Lem. We decided he was a great man and that excuses can and could be made for great men. We decided that. Not Lem. And that’s one huge mistake David Pitts and Louis Bayard and most contemporary historians make in regard to Jack Kennedy. …They see him as…a sort of…impenetrable Jay Gatsby. Fully vaccinated from the perils of being a poor, insecure, backward, Irish Catholic kid.

But in reality…his peers hated him at Choate. He was Rat Face. …And he’s utterly dependent on Lem for his acceptance. Lem and other boys who frankly…often just felt sorry for him.

He was a reject. Jack Kennedy was a clown. A class clown. And a loser. …And he was sociopathic. And he preyed on Lem after Lem chose to not…harm him but…try to help him.

But oh no!!! No!!! Let’s listen to David Pitts!! …Let’s listen to Louis Bayard. And suspicious…Wikipedia pages. …When I was alive that was considered disreputable. But scholarship is…

I can’t talk about it. It makes me too angry. I’m sorry.

…We exonerated Jack Kennedy. We did. …Okay? That’s on us. But contemporary historians place that responsibility on Lem Billings, I guess.

People often project their own narratives in history, I’m sorry to say. And Lem Billings is a perfect example of…egregious historical research and analysis. It’s disgusting.

Because…if the patriarchy…of which I was a part…could just accept that Lem was a victim too…we’d all be better off. And a real victim. Not a victim of his heart! Good GOD! …It’s rubbish. …No. He’s a victim of the Kennedy Machine. And his times to some degree. And yet not. …And most importantly he’s a victim of Jack Kennedy.

Because Jack Kennedy isn’t a real hero.

Jack Kennedy is a fool.

…Jay Gatsby is a man who tries to be something he’s not. And so is Jack Kennedy. Both men are liars and frauds. Both men are fundamentally poor, even as they’re also very rich men. And neither of them can remain can way. Jack because of his father’s prodding and Jay for Daisy. Jack loves and idolizes his dad. And Jay idolizes Daisy. …And so they beat on, boats against the current…pulled back by…the current. And obviously trying to move against the current is…exhausting or foolish, depending. Maeve died that way.

It’s gruesome.

Jack…wasn’t a hero. Jay might have been. Because Jay had real love. Or theoretically might have. Jay didn’t ask for too much from Daisy, he didn’t ask enough. …And…yet…he loves her. And that’s admirable. Love is good. Love is from God. …Real love, anyway. And Jay might have easily had real love for Daisy. But Jack loves no one, possibly. So there’s nothing…even admirable about him. He’s no hero.

…I’ve read countless comments from readers on Goodreads and Amazon…that I’m now seeing as rather suspicious, in response to the book about Lem and Jack by David Pitts. They go something like this, ‘I can see what Lem loves about Jack. That’s obvious! …But I can’t see what Jack could have possibly…liked about Lem!!’ …What the hell are they talking about!?

Wow! Jack was…cruel. Jack was avowedly straight. He was…mean. He was…actually kind of ugly. At the time Lem met him he was called Rat Face. Literally. Because he was so scrawny and had such big teeth. And presumably ugly eyes. He wasn’t…handsome. And…yes. He had money. But…other than money what did he have!?! …I get so sick reading discourse like that. Jack Kennedy offers nothing. It’s Lem who saves his life. It’s Lem not Jack who was tall, sweet, intelligent, old money and handsome. He was on crew. Lem was buff. …No. It’s laughable!

So…I’m going to leave it there. What in hell did you mean? Explain. What did you think Jack, your beloved, evil, heartless, peasant-loser-King offered?” asks a dead historian.

“I’m not sure!” says Joe Biden. “I actually agree.”

The historian waits.

“He was handsome?” says a reader.

“No! He wasn’t!” says a woman who knew him then.

“It was the money. They meant the money.” confesses Marsie.

“YES!” says Casi. “They meant the money.”

“So you all think he was always just after the money?” says the dead historian.

“Mmm. Maybe not entirely. But mostly. Yes.” says Casi.

“That’s a very lower class idea though. …People who are raised in wealth don’t…necessarily think that way. Unless they’re bourgeois. …It’s more about finding someone stable who you like. There’s not as much emphasis on getting money through sex.” says the dead historian. “That’s a leftover from peasantry.”

“No! The rich marry for money!” says Casi.

“Yes and no. They do…in a way. But not as much as you think.

But even so…that ruins the narrative. Because then Lem can’t be heartbroken over Jack when Jack dies. …So there’s a lie somewhere!” says the dead historian. “You don’t notice that incongruity?”

“No. We don’t.” admits Casi.

“No. We’re not that smart. For real.” says Marsie.

“So you see Lem as a loser? With glasses?” asks the dead historian. “Who’s clingy and money hungry?”

“Yes.” says a reader.

“That’s not how Lacey sees him.” says the historian. “Ahh…well. That’s honest.”

“So Jack meant to harm him? And harm his wife?” asks a reader.

“Yes!” says a dead woman.

“So his fascination was sadistic?” says a gay man.

“Jack’s fascination?” asks the historian.

“Yes!” says the gay man.

“Possibly! Yes. If it wasn’t love and it’s dependent on hurting Lacey…then yes. He’s a parasite.” says the dead historian. “Jack Kennedy is the parasite.

By the way, no. Lem wasn’t after the money. At least, that’s my opinion. He was…naive and vulnerable and…tragic.”

“Did you find men attractive? Like you were bisexual?” asks a reader of Lem.

“That’s…not a stupid hypothesis! Lacey thought that herself, at first, until she was corrected. When I first came on to her. She suspected I was bisexual or pansexual. …But…I was heterosexual.” says Lem.