The Pilgrimage That Never Was
Justin E. H. Smith stages a conversation between a daughter and her father that cuts to the bone of why writers visit the places where other writers lived. The piece follows Belgian novelist Daphné Tamage on a road trip down Highway 1 with her beekeeper father, searching for the physical traces of Henry Miller and John Fante. What emerges is not a travelogue but a philosophical dispute about whether literature needs geography to matter.
The Father's Skepticism
The father cannot comprehend his daughter's quest. He sees no value in visiting a house where nothing happened except that someone once lived there and wrote books. Justin E. H. Smith writes, "Son génie est dans ses livres, non?" The father's logic is unassailable: genius resides in the text, not the address.
When they reach Point Dume, where Fante once lived, the father grows uneasy. Armed security signs dot the lawns. The houses are lavish. Justin E. H. Smith puts it plainly: "Il a été pauvre, mais il a travaillé pour Hollywood et il est devenu riche. C'est le concept du rêve américain: partir de rien et atterrir ici." The father does not accept this. He asks why she wants to see the house at all.
"Tu veux voir un lieu où quelqu'un a écrit qu'il a tué des crabes mais où, en vérité, il n'a pas tué de crabes?"
This question — about the crab massacre scene in Fante's La Route de Los Angeles — becomes the piece's central tension. The daughter wants to stand where Arturo Bandini supposedly killed crabs. The father sees only absurdity.
The Daughter's Defense
Justin E. H. Smith gives the daughter a sophisticated reply. She argues that literary pilgrimage is about accessing a kind of intoxication that only writing can transmit. Justin E. H. Smith writes, "Cette liberté qu'il s'accorde est tellement inouïe, son débordement si tonitruant en toi, que tu pressens que l'écriture offre une sorte d'ivresse inatteignable autrement que par l'écriture, et qu'elle ne se transmet que par la lecture."
The pilgrimage is not about the place itself. It is about touching the myth. Justin E. H. Smith explains: "À la fin de sa vie, Fante ne voyait plus rien, et avait été amputé d'une jambe. Mais alors patratra, voilà que Charles Bukowski le sort de l'anonymat à la fin des années 70, et que toute une génération le redécouvre presque quarante ans plus tard!" Fante became the writer he imagined himself to be. That transformation is the myth worth approaching.
Critics might note that this defense circles back to the same problem: if the myth is in the text, why drive to Point Dume? The daughter admits she never felt Fante's soul speak to hers there. Justin E. H. Smith writes, "Non, aucune n'était venue. La seule chose qui venait à moi, en ce moment, était les relents du pot d'échappement d'en face."
What the Father Sees
The father offers a competing epistemology. He loved fishing only after catching his first trout — not before. Justin E. H. Smith writes, "Moi j'ai aimé la pêche à partir du moment où j'ai attrapé ma première truite. Pas avant." For him, experience precedes imagination. For the daughter, imagination precedes experience.
When the father spots a coyote in the darkness, he does not need to write it to make it real. Justin E. H. Smith closes with this quiet victory: "Tu n'as pas eu besoin de l'écrire pour le faire advenir." The coyote exists without literary consecration.
Critics might argue the piece never fully resolves this dispute. The father's position — that reality needs no writing to validate it — stands unrefuted. The daughter's claim that writing protects us from reality's insufficiency remains assertion, not proof.
Bottom Line
Justin E. H. Smith has written a piece that honors both positions without declaring a winner. The father sees the world directly. The daughter sees it through literature. Both are valid. But the piece itself — this conversation, rendered so precisely — suggests that writing does add something: not reality, but the lantern that carries it across distance and time.