After a while he [J. R. Ackerley] thought, I’m not describing a presence, I’m describing an absence. This is the tale of an unlived relationship. Who was he? Who was I? Why did we keep missing each other? After another while he realized, I always thought my father didn’t want to know me. Now I see I didn’t want to know him. And then he realized, It’s not him I haven’t wanted to know, it’s myself.

My trip to Egypt and the book that emerged from it now seem to me an embodiment of my own struggle to clarify, to release from anxiety the narrator who could serve the situation and find the story—a thing I was not then able to do.

When Rousseau observes, “I have nothing but myself to write about, and this self that I have, I hardly know of what it consists,” he is saying to the reader, “I will go in search of it in your presence. I will set down on the page a tale of experience just as I think it occurred, and together we’ll see what it exemplifies, both of us discovering as I write this self I am in search of.” And that was the beginning of memoir as we know it.

He is, rather, a man who sets out to document what the narrator of every work of twentieth-century literature has been at pains to demonstrate—that the task is to become acquainted with the stranger who lives inside your own skin, the one who answers when your name is called. Especially when called by your father, if you’re a boy and he is the one you cleaved to from the moment you first drew breath, the one in whose image you think you have been made.

The writing continues to dazzle while the structure falls apart. And rightly so. Because, after all, what difference does it really make—the second and third times around—which comes first? We are in the presence of a man in a trance of self-analysis: a man who will never act on what he knows and therefore is compelled to go on “knowing.