Discussion about this post

User's avatar
M. A. Istvan Jr.'s avatar

On "Hypocorism"

This narrative, titled "Hypocorism" and framed by an epigraph from the Gospel of Thomas, is a dense, transgressive, and philosophically charged case study of a man's intellectual and emotional surrender to a taboo relationship. The story meticulously documents the final stages of his psychological resistance crumbling, not through external force, but through the active, persuasive agency of his younger partner.

The Architecture of a Failed Ethic:

The central tension revolves around the narrator's self-imposed rule: no full sexual consummation until the teenage girl, "baby girl," confides in a trusted third-party adult. This condition is presented as a bulwark of ethical integrity, a way to navigate the profound power imbalance of their age gap. However, the narrative reveals this rule to be a fragile intellectual construct, a form of elaborate self-tantalization rather than a true moral safeguard. The narrator, a disgraced ethics professor, is paralyzed by hyper-analysis, paranoia, and a hypochondriacal fear of his own motives. His "love" is a constant, anxious negotiation between his overwhelming desire and his need to see himself as a good man.

The Inversion of Power and Agency:

A critical element of the narrative is the radical inversion of expected power dynamics. The narrator is emotionally weak, haunted by jealousy, and intellectually exhausted. The girl, by contrast, is a figure of immense strength, maturity, and pragmatic wisdom. Forged by a life of hardship, she is the emotional anchor of the relationship. It is she who reassures him, who demonstrates intellectual prowess in their philosophical discussions (independently articulating a Leibnizian argument for God), and who ultimately directs the course of their intimacy. She is not a passive object of desire but an active, desiring subject who resents the rule even as she respects his discipline, seeing it as proof that he is "solid" in a world of undisciplined men.

The Collapse of Resistance:

The narrator's moment of potential epiphany—his realization that he must "let her go" for her own good—is fleeting and entirely self-centered. It is an intellectual conclusion about the nature of a "higher love" that is immediately and completely overwhelmed by the reality of the girl's desires. His attempt to reframe their dynamic into one of paternal guidance ("Be the ancestor of your future happiness") is a desperate, last-ditch effort by his mind to maintain control. The narrative makes it clear that this intellectual posturing is no match for the physical and emotional reality of their connection.

The Final Surrender:

The ending is not one of renunciation but of capitulation. The narrator's brief resolve to "let her go" dissolves when she responds not with relief, but with nurturing affection ("nuzzled like a cat"), which only "solidified his resolve" to stay. Her final question, "You ever heard of ‘DDLG?’" (Daddy Dom/Little Girl), is not a tragic reminder of their dynamic, but the final key that unlocks it. It is the explicit articulation of the very role-play and power structure their relationship has been implicitly building towards. Her question is an invitation, a granting of permission, and a final, authoritative dismissal of his ethical anxieties. The implication is not that he walks away, but that he gives in. The "hypocorism" of the title is thus fulfilled not in a tender nickname, but in his complete and total surrender to the role she has assigned him, ending his internal philosophical war and embracing the transgression he has so painstakingly analyzed.

Expand full comment

No posts

Ready for more?