I noted yesterday that there is a strong association in popular novels between black coffee and working-class backgrounds, one that links the bitter black brew to hard work and diligence. Those characters who insist upon it--and who are not seldom depicted as deriding more complicated coffees or refusing to fuss with them--are often the more experienced, senior characters, those who know how things work and are utterly reliable, even if they are not necessarily the most pleasant to be around. Black coffee is thus related strongly to getting things done and to the rock-solid underpinnings of the groups with which many popular novels concern themselves.
I also noted yesterday, however, that black coffee serves as an acknowledgement that the characters in question do not suffice on their own. Because it is seen as more "pure" than other coffees, black coffee is not generally associated in popular novels with drinking because of its flavor; the coffee drunk by the workhorse characters is, in fact, usually described as being nigh-undrinkable for anybody else. (I believe I speak to this in another post to this webspace, here.) Instead, it is drunk from need--and because it is drunk from need, rather than desire, it falls into a different category than other drinks. It begins to bespeak insufficiency on the part of its drinker.
The thought arises that any need bespeaks insufficiency, and all characters have needs. They must eat, for example, and the thought that they do not suffice because they need to have a meal now and again does not seem a good one. But there is a difference. Food is necessary; people will die who do not eat. Coffee, much as it may be enjoyed or relied upon, is not necessary. Life does not depend on it; those who do not drink it will not die from its lack. Thus, while addressing some needs does not make a character insufficient, coffee remains something that can be read as indicating its drinkers are not equal to the challenges that face them.
As one who drinks no small amount of coffee--indeed, one who emptied a cup while writing this--I can speak to the matter. A lack of coffee for many of us accustomed to drinking it imposes headaches that no aspirin or acetaminophen will remove. I find myself sluggish both in body and mind, unable to do much that I would otherwise do because I cannot work as quickly as I ought to work (especially with how much work continues) and because I cannot work with as great a quality of work as I usually evidence (which I invite my readers to interpret for themselves, favorably or otherwise). Others I have known have made similar reports, and if our testimonies are anecdotal, I am not aware of any whose experiences of drinking coffee and then not argue against ours.
I am sure there is more to be said about the matter, but I need to refill my cup now. Perhaps I will return to the topic tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that in some cases, the implication is that the coffee is needed in the same way food is. If the workhorse weren't able to work beyond their normal limits, then those dependent on them would die or be out on the street or face some other grave hardship. The lack of cream, sugar or other additives is a result of needing to maximize the energy kick from the coffee consumption, and for many, that difference in energy boost level can mean the difference of having food on the table or not. Or at least it's perceived that way. Also, having coffee additives is a luxury that many workhorse types can't afford. Not only do they cost more, but they decrease the portability of the coffee while increasing the amount of time and energy needed to prepare it.
ReplyDeleteI think I speak to the portability of additives in the previous post (http://folgha.blogspot.com/2016/02/201602100616.html), noting that "going out into the Texas Hill Country on summer mornings did not reward taking along cream." So, to that point, yes, certainly.
ReplyDeleteBut the more central point of "normal limits" is the thing I mean to get at. Because the "normal limits" do not suffice, the *character* does not suffice--or the person. And what it says about the structures that depend on those characters and people that they depend upon the insufficient bears more explication. But, again, this is a thing I do not necessarily want to suss out in this medium, since I have an idea about a paper, and treating the idea online in much greater detail might make the paper more problematic than it already would be.