Electric Literature is excited to welcome Deesha Philyaw, acclaimed author of The Secret Lives of Church Ladies, to its board of directors.
Much of Philyaw’s fiction centers Black women, sex, and the Black church. The Secret Lives of Church Ladies, Philyaw’s debut short story collection, was published to immediate critical acclaim, and went on to win the 2021 PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction, the 2020/2021 Story Prize, and the 2020 LA Times Book Prize: The Art Seidenbaum Award for First Fiction. It was also a Finalist for the 2020 National Book Award for Fiction, and is being adapted for HBO Max with Tessa Thompson executive producing.
Her next two books, the novel The True Confessions of First Lady Freeman and the story collection Girl, Look, recently sold to Mariner, a division of HarperCollins, in a major deal.
“What excites me most about joining Electric Lit’s Board of Directors,” Philyaw says, “is their unwavering commitment to breaking down barriers for all writers, but especially writers whose voices we don’t often hear from. I’m thrilled to support a publication that takes real, tangible steps toward building a more equitable publishing industry, and helping emerging writers grow their audience.”
In addition to her success as a writer, Philyaw is a proven champion of new and emerging writers. She is a current fellow of Baldwin for the Arts and Kimbilio Fiction, and has recently taught and mentored at Tin House, VONA, The University of Mississippi, and The Periplus Collective. Her commitment to giving back to the literary community and advocating for writers from marginalized communities is well-established, and comes in the form of fighting gatekeeping and opening doors for the writers who follow in her footsteps.
“Deesha’s ability to inspire and energize those around her, in addition to the drive and determination she injects into her own career, is sure to excite our efforts to support and grow Electric Literature. She’s a friend, a confidante, and an endless resource for new ideas addressing age-old challenges. For me, Deesha Philyaw is a literary north star,” says Denne Michele Norris, Electric Literature’s editor-in-chief.
Electric Literature’s connection with Philyaw extends back to 2017, when Norris acquired “Eula” from The Secret Lives of Church Ladies in her capacity as fiction editor of Apogee Journal. Another story from the collection, “When Eddie Levert Comes,” was later published in Electric Literature by executive director and fiction editor Halimah Marcus, and continues to be one of EL’s most read short stories.
“Not only is Deesha an exceptionally talented writer, her passion for giving back to her community is infectiously motivating. We are so fortunate to be able to count on her as a leader and mentor,” says Halimah Marcus.
Philyaw will join board chair Andy Hunter, Electric Lit’s co-founder and founder and CEO of Bookshop.org, and board members Nicole Cliffe, Meredith Talusan, Pulitzer prize-winning author Michael Cunningham, and the vice president and executive editor of HarperCollins, Sara Nelson.
Brando Skyhorse’s new novel My Name is Iris, is a harrowing and, at times, darkly funny exploration of one woman’s complex relationship with her own identity as Mexican American in a slightly fictionalized United States.
Iris (born Inés) is an educated and semi-successful businesswoman. She sees herself as a good citizen, a good mother to her young daughter Melanie, and deserving of a good life. Early in the novel, she leaves her husband and moves into a beautiful new home in a tony suburb. Iris is intent on fitting into a white America that marginalizes her no matter how hard she works. Haunted by the ghosts of her past, Iris struggles to balance the demands of a hostile workplace and single-parenting, and when a strange wall suddenly starts to grow in front of her new house, Iris begins to panic. Although the wall is only visible to Iris and her daughter, its presence exhausts and terrifies her. And when a new law requires citizens to wear a biometric band proving their citizenship status, the illusion of safety Iris has carefully created rapidly unravels and she is forced to make terrible choices to survive.
Skyhorse and I recently spoke via Zoom about his decision to write from a woman’s point of view, the conservative politics of some Latino Americans, and how his new novel reflects the existential dread of living in Trump’s America.
Yvonne Garrett: Your new novel focuses on a woman—Ines renamed Iris—and her desire to build and maintain a specific type of American life. One that she describes as “responsible, college-educated Mexican American.” She has a mantra: “Rules mean structure, structure means order, and order means safety, which means a life without fear.” Can you talk a little about where the idea for the novel came from? And about the decision to write from a woman’s point of view?
Brando Skyhorse: If we could all think back to what was going on in 2016. It’s a lot like now—the T-word —that was being discussed a lot, and I was hearing the word “wall” a lot. The word over that summer had ceased to become this dead noun, it became alive, animated. I wanted to try to figure out a way to respond. I was staring out the window. I saw this wall and I heard this voice and it said, “Can’t you see that the wall is growing?” So for the past six and a half years, I’ve been trying to figure out what that voice wanted, what it’s intent was, what it’s agenda was. That voice ultimately belonged to Iris. And because it was a woman’s voice, I said, okay, I’m going to write this from a woman’s perspective.
I was raised by women—my mother and my grandmother—and essentially this rotating cast of stepfathers, four of whom had been incarcerated or had done some time behind bars. My perspective has always been how a woman runs a household. I grew up learning and, frankly, stressing about all the issues that come with managing a household and trying to raise a kid. And being acutely aware that these were two women who were doing their best to try to raise me in a complicated situation.
YG: In the opening of the novel, Iris states, “Like every Mexican-American we knew, we worked for everything we had and we hated those who expected handouts.” Much has been made in the media about what they call the “Hispanic” vote—as if that’s a monolithic thing—and the conservative “immigrant” voter—not just conservative Cubans in Florida but the “we’re doing immigration the right way” people.
I’ve lived on the Lower East Side in New York City for many years, where all of the Latino/Latinx people I’m in community with are to the left of Left. How different is it in LA? And in your personal experience? I’m also thinking about Iris’s own journey from “not in my backyard” protests to where she is at the end of the novel, but also her husband Alex’s secret evening trips with white racists. I also noticed that a lot of the law enforcement characters have seemingly Latino names.
BS: My experience is that, if you grow up in an environment like New York, you’re used to this multicultural experience. In places like Los Angeles, it can be very easy to get into bubbles: you bubble in a car, you bubble in your neighborhood, you don’t necessarily have to interact with people whose paths you wouldn’t cross, like going into the subway.
There is a strand of Hispanic Americans who pride themselves on the culture of work ethic and the belief that nothing is handed to them. They worked hard for everything that they have, and when they see footage of undocumented laborers or all the stuff that’s run on the television ad nauseum, it’s belittling, it’s insulting, right? They’ve been so far removed from any experience that’s even remotely like that. They’ve invested in America. They believe in America. They have houses. They pay taxes. They’re Americans first, Mexicans second.
I grew up in Echo Park and I remember that election, Reagan versus Mondale in 1984. I was eleven-years-old. I don’t think I ran into a single Mexican American who was voting for Mondale. They were fiercely Republican! Fiercely “God, Country, anti-abortion, this is who I am! This person speaks to my values!” Which is why when we talk about the Latino vote, the Hispanic vote, or whatever, it’s always shocking to me that the Republican Party is like, “We’re gonna make inroads, and we’re gonna talk to Hispanic Americans outside of Miami,” or outside of areas that are ostensibly conservative, and they somehow always miss a step. “Oh yeah, we have your values, but at the same time, you really know your place.” But they don’t! They believe that they are Americans! That they’ve earned the right to shed that part of their identity and that’s something that’s an experience that was very familiar to me growing up, very familiar interacting with people in Los Angeles.
One of my father figures was kind of liberal in certain ways, but also staunchly conservative, anti-gay marriage, and “if you’re gonna come here, you gotta come here the right way!” I was astonished! Do you know who you are? And I guess it’s because you get to have that bubble experience where, essentially, all you see is this curated community, this curated neighborhood, and especially this is where colorism factors in a lot as well.
YG:When the “band” is introduced—Ines’s carefully built life becomes challenging and then impossible—in the grocery store, at work, and so on as racist hate builds. As I was reading, I felt almost overwhelmed with dread and fear: this could happen here, and in some ways it already has.
I was thinking about how in my neighborhood, there was a movement pre-pandemic to boycott “no cash” businesses because they’re inaccessible to the population without bank accounts, who are the most marginalized: the unhoused, people of color, undocumented or low income, but then that conversation disappeared and now they’re everywhere. It might seem like a small thing until you think about how that cuts people off from access and is so much part of a larger oppression. Can you speak about “the band” and Iris’s reaction—first denial, then the desperate decision she makes?
BS: The idea stemmed from thinking about what’s on conservatives’ wish-lists: finding a way to get rid of birthright citizenship. It was a constitutional amendment proposed by Louisiana Senator David Vitter and Vitter’s amendment that basically said, “You can only qualify for citizenship if both of your parents are also citizens.” So, in other words, you couldn’t cross the border, have your kid, etc. I was really fascinated by that idea and wondered if there was a way to connect that idea to technology. And honestly, the technology is already there: Apple Watch, the iPhone. The idea that the band would be sold as something that would actually save the planet—monitoring your garbage usage, monitoring your water usage—all these metrics. Iris’s stance is “just leave me alone. I’m not interested in the politics of the day. I’m not interested in having hard conversations. I can figure out a way to get along and I don’t have to get involved.” What if she had to? By creating this slow burn with this Trojan Horse of an idea that’s going to help society but with a catch. Iris’s stance [has been] “who cares? I’ve got my own concerns. I’ve got my family, I’ve got my daughter to raise, I don’t have time for that.” This is her worst nightmare—it’s like a wave that just lapped up by her door, three feet high and rising, at what point do you decide “I have to care now. I have to take a stand on these things”?
YG: The definition of privilege is when things don’t affect you.
BS: That’s the novel’s central conceit: how much is enough? At what point do you say, “Oh, the water’s up to here now, it’s up to my nose. I gotta do something now!”
YG: There are moments in the novel—she got promoted and now she makes 50% less than her male counterpart—that’s not just a race thing but the reality of being a woman in the working world. And the joy I felt for her when she got her own house away from her jerk of a husband. And then the realization that it’s a total fabrication.
There is a strand of Hispanic Americans who pride themselves on their work ethic and the belief that nothing is handed to them.
BS: That freedom has a cost and that cost has basically been ignoring—again, the way the band was introduced, this was passed by an election, a referendum, a proposition—loosely based on the California process. To me, even though this book doesn’t take place specifically in California, it’s not that impossible for me to believe that this could happen in California, it could happen anywhere.
YG: It’s interesting, when people refer to it as a dystopian novel, I’m like “are you sure? Are you sure it’s not just a few years ahead realism?“
BS: When I was writing this, I could never keep up with what was happening. It became, let me just look at what’s happening now and report accurately to the best of my ability. So, yeah, I wouldn’t say this is dystopic. If you’re asked when this book is set: nowish.
YG: And I think that explains a lot of the dread and fear I felt as I was reading. Now I’m going to shift a little bit and talk about the use of Spanish in the novel. I felt like the use of Spanish increased as the tension ramped up which, for me, really highlighted my own limitations but I also really loved the experience of stopping and looking up all of the words then re-reading. Can you speak a little about your choice to use Spanish particularly in dialogue? And the way that it related to ramping up tension?
BS: As you so deftly pointed out, the use of Spanish increases as the tension builds in the novel. Iris is reclaiming her identity, so more Spanish is coming out. Iris is having to grapple with [the collapse of] her very cultivated facade of “I’m an American and I know Spanish but I don’t need to trot it out— or only for effect, with my friends.” [The use of Spanish] becomes a central key to understanding Iris’s mindset: seeing how Spanish functions in her relationship with her family, the code-switching between English and Spanish.
I tried to make this as representative of my own experience with my own family. My biological father left me when I was three, and I didn’t find him again until I was in my mid-thirties. He’d started over and all of a sudden I had three sisters and they all speak in English and Spanish as the situation demands. My Spanish isn’t great, so if I don’t speak it or hear it for a while, I completely lose it. I loved writing the family sequences in this novel, they capture what I feel like my family situation is now. Someone might be saying something exclusively in Spanish and then translate back in English and then someone else might use English and Spanish together and it feels like home now if that makes any sense.
YG: There is a point in the novel that focuses on forged documents. Without overstepping, I’m wondering if you can talk a bit about your own history which you wrote about in your memoir and if that informed anything in the novel?
I wouldn’t say this is dystopic. If you’re asked when this book is set: nowish.
BS: I was born Brandon Kelly Ulloa. Ulloa is a Mexican American name by way of Spain. It was the 1970s, there was a lot of activism in Southern California, all kinds of Power: Brown Berets, Brown Power, Black Power, and the American Indian Movement. My mother decided to re-invent us as American Indians. She reinvented me as Brando Skyhorse and she reinvented herself as Running Deer Skyhorse. I feel like those issues of identity that we’ve been talking about go all the way back in my family for years. Back in the day when you wanted to enroll a child in school, you didn’t need all these documents, you just went and rolled up to the school. So I was enrolled as Brando Skyhorse Johnson. As I got older, documents [became an issue] How do I cash my financial aid checks? I would have to use a little bit of white-out, Xerox some documents, and hand them over to the Bursar. After a couple of years I decided to apply for a formal name change. My name now is legally Brando Skyhorse. But up until that period. it was a very precarious situation. I [was] in this absurd position—I was born in America and I need papers! This informed Iris’s experience of feeling her legitimate status has been de-legitimized and not knowing how to respond.
YG: Iris describes her sister Serena’s activism: “My sister’s urgency and activism never extended beyond what she could do on her phone…” I think we all know armchair activists like this, but later in the novel, Serena knows how to get illegal bands—is her activism as limited as Iris thinks, or is Iris’s view of her sister limited based on her own needs to blend in—and Serena’s refusal to blend?
BS: There’s an evolution in Iris. Iris has lived her life structured, based around absolutes. Because of that experience she had with Brenda, the lesson that she took from that was to live with absolutes and survive. She has a very clear, absolutest view on what Serena is, what Serena does, her approach to the world, and even if Iris may be sympathetic to some of those aims and even at a few points think, yeah my sister actually had a good point there, right? There’s still this sense of—Serena is dangerous because she doesn’t live within the rules and that’s going to cause her problems and then it’s going to cause me (Iris) problems. She’s responding from a selfish standpoint, which is “You’re bringing attention to us. You’re bringing attention to me, you’re bringing attention to yourself. You gotta stop that. You gotta knock that out.” So much of her absolutest position about Serena stems from that sense of you’re causing us to be exposed to scrutiny—don’t do that. You’re young, you don’t know what you’re doing. You don’t know the danger that you’re putting yourself or you’re putting me in. Iris is frequently unaware of the deep implications of what’s happening, but that’s okay, that’s what makes her mindset at times really confusing. These are confusing times and these are confusing situations that I’ve put this character in.
YG: I don’t know how I would respond. I think wow—how much braver and yet more difficult it is for someone like Serena. There is that snide comment that her sister makes, but there is also the reality that Serena does have that connect, she does know—where to get fake bands.
BS: Serena is a survivor in the same way that Iris is a survivor. I hope that one of the things that comes through in the novel is that these two sisters from different generations reconcile and acknowledge that there is no one right way to survive and that survival evolves. It’s different for different people at different ages and what may work for Iris may not work for Serena or vice versa. They’re talking about the [band] amendment and Serena calls it: “You voted for this—didn’t you. You knew what you were doing so why do you want me to have sympathy for you now?” And Iris explains to the reader, I didn’t know what I was doing, I didn’t think it was going to impact people like me. I didn’t want myself to be hurt.
To me, Iris represents where a lot of people are right now in this country. I’m not even talking about Mexican Americans or persons of color. There’s a sense of like—I’m not quite sure where I am anymore and not in an Alice in Wonderland [way]… all of a sudden everything is up for grabs, everything is negotiable in a way that’s startling. Iris one of those characters that doesn’t function well in those kinds of environments. Just tell me what I need to do—she’s even pleading with her sister—just tell me what I need to do to get back to the way things were. It takes her almost the whole novel to get that there is no going back to the way things were. She’s never gonna have the uncomplicated view from her house anymore. It’s like a bell, once it’s been rung you can’t unring the bell.
You can tell a lot about a country by the culture it consumes. The Bush era was defined by a brand of bombast befitting a blundering empire: from 24 to 300, Team America to Talladega Nights, the U.S. in the new millennium seemed intent on both dramatizing and lampooning the nation’s new role as dunderheaded defender of democracy. Trump hasn’t been out of office long—and he may soon be back—but to my mind, his presidential term is best embodied by colorful grifters both real and imagined: Joe Exotic, Kendall Roy, Howard Ratner.
The pop culture of the Obama era, by contrast, betrays an upbeat earnestness that obscures a commitment to the status quo. Those were years when new media companies like Buzzfeed and Upworthy made millions pumping positivity into our feeds. Macklemore rapped about being “on some Malcolm Gladwell shit.” Alexander Hamilton rapped about establishing a national bank. Sincerity was in, irony was out. Obama’s campaign slogan, HOPE—which I borrowed for the title of my second novel—nailed the national mood.
Speaking of novels, many of the most important works of fiction of the era explored questions of identity. Race, gender, history, trauma: the election of the country’s first Black president pushed these topics to the forefront of American life.
In compiling the following list, I’ve limited my scope to Anglophone novels, which means excluding international sensations like My Struggleor My Brilliant Friend. The books listed below are not necessarily the “best” of the era, or even my favorite, but the most definitive—the stories that captured, and in some cases shaped, the culture of America under Obama.
Published months before Obama took office, O’Neill’s postcolonial Gatsby is the story of Hans van den Broek, a Dutch financial analyst, and his friendship with a Trinidadian cricket enthusiast named Chuck Ramkissoon. Chuck introduces Hans to a New York he’s never known before, a city populated by immigrants, hustlers, and strivers. Chuck shares with the forty-fourth president a gift for oratory, a natural charisma, and an unshakable belief in the American dream. That Chuck, who turns out to be a con man of sorts, meets a tragic end, illustrates the interplay of hope and disillusionment that would come to define Obama’s presidency.
“Princeton, in the summer, smelled of nothing.” So begins Americanah, Chimamanda Adichie’s bestselling 2013 novel of star-crossed lovers Ifemelu and Obinze. But Americanah is much more than a love story, tackling heady topics like immigration, identity, and meritocracy with sly humor. (Ifemelu’s blog, “Raceteenth or Various Observations About American Blacks (Those Formerly Known as Negroes) by a Non-American Black” is a perfect vessel for Adichie’s trenchant commentary.) Few books better celebrate, and critique, the notion of America as a “melting pot.” In her introduction to the 2023 edition, Adichie writes of her desire to “contribute to that tradition [of Black American writing], but obliquely, as someone standing outside of American culture, a Black person without America’s blighted history.” In Americanah,she has done just that.
Two of the bestselling books of the Obama era, Gone Girl and Lean In, center on the difficulties facing women trying to thrive in a patriarchal society. One of these books offered practical, step-by-step advice for achieving that goal. The other was Lean In. Granted, Amy Elliott’s advice in Gone Girl involves forging a diary, staging a murder, committing a different murder, and lying about all of the above. But Gillian Flynn’s twisty thriller has more on its mind than revenge. In the book’s iconic “Cool Girl” monologue, Flynn’s Amy upbraids women who spend their lives “pretending to be the woman a man wants them to be.” Like another major Obama-era novel, Fates and Furies, Gone Girl’s dueling perspectives paint a complex portrait of a marriage and male-female relations writ large. (The he-said, she-said narrative structure would take on even greater resonance a few years later, with the emergence of the #MeToo movement.)Why bother struggling to overcome imposter syndrome when you can frame your husband for murder instead?
Love it or hate it, the literary phenomenon known as “alt lit” was an original, organic outgrowth of Obama’s America. Unabashedly sincere and extremely online, the movement coalesced around one writer in particular: Tao Lin. (Nothing screams “Obama era” like the title of Lin’s 2009 novella, Shoplifting from American Apparel—or the fact that the book was sold in Urban Outfitters.) Lin’s breakout 2013 novel, Taipei, can be described as both alt lit and autofiction, another literary movement born—or rather, reborn—somewhere in Brooklyn circa 2009. Like other autofictional novels (Open City, 10:04, How Should a Person Be?), Taipei tracks a period of time in the life of a character who might as well be the author as he goes about the mostly-mundane business of life. Critics were divided on the novel—a critic at the Observer called it a masterpiece, while a critic at the Times said it made him want to kill himself—but whatever your take, Taipei is undoubtedly a book of its time.
While many writers remained committed to sincerity under Obama, holdouts like Tony Tulathimutte and Paul Beatty (The Sellout) delivered the satirical goods. Private Citizens, which follows four recent Stanford grads in San Francisco, was published at the tail end of the Obama era, which might account for its more gimlet-eyed perspective. And while we’re on the subject of eyes, one character, Will, has his surgically removed after a botched surgery to make him less Asian-looking and therefore more marketable for his paraplegic girlfriend’s lifecasting venture. But the wild plot turns and dark jokes all serve the novel’s larger purpose: exposing the outrageous hypocrisies of millennial America.
The historical novel, once considered fusty and stale, was gut-renovated in the 2010s. During Obama’s two terms, novelists (and especially Black novelists) turned history (and especially Black history) on its head in a series of formally inventive books. James McBride’s National Book Award-winning The Good Lord Birdwas a comedic reimagining of the life of John Brown and his raid on Harper’s Ferry. Marlon James’s Booker Prize-winning A Brief History of Seven Killingswas a polyphonic telling of (among many other things) a real-life assassination attempt on the life of Bob Marley. And then there’s Colson Whitehead’s The Underground Railroad, which won pretty much every prize there is. To focus on the premise underpinning Whitehead’s novel—what if the Underground Railroad was, in fact, a functioning railroad?—is to miss his even more audacious thematic gambits, collapsing centuries of oppression into one phantasmagoric journey.
In his 2017 essay, “Considering the Novel in the Age of Obama,” to which this list is indebted, Christian Lorentzen defined four kinds of books that “have been particularly germane to the Obama years”: autofiction, fables of meritocracy, historical novels, and trauma novels. The biggest trauma novel of them all, in every respect, was undoubtedly A Little Life. Hanya Yanagihara’s epic was full of extraordinarily high highs—her four main characters are all some combination of handsome, successful, rich, loving, and glamorous—and unbearably low lows. (A tote bag bearing the names of her protagonists was ubiquitous in Brooklyn for a time, a rare feat for any novel, much less one that features so much physical abuse, pedophilia, and self-harm.) Lorentzen attributes the trauma novel’s success to the relative tranquility of the Obama era, “when American writers had the luxury of looking inward, investigating the systems that formed them, reimagining the romantic days just past, and registering the echoes of personal traumas.” Interestingly, the trauma novel only became more popular after Obama left office. It makes a kind of sense. After 2016, who wasn’t traumatized?
Liz put her father-in-law in the lift, pushed the button, and watched as he was taken away.
Liz, not thinking, carried her father-in-law down the stairs, through the hall, into the living room, where the lift was waiting, placed him inside, pushed the button, and watched as he was taken away.
Liz lifted her father-in-law from his chair to put him in his bed when he spat in her ear, called her a wretch and shrieked with laughter, so she carried him out of his room, down the stairs, through the hallway, where he swiped a portrait of her girls off the wall, into the living room, where the lift waited in the chimney breast, paused as the doors swished open, strode inside, placed her father-in-law in the centre with the greatest of care, pushed the down button, stepped back out, and watched as he was taken away.
Liz, with wretch stuffing her ear like Playdoh, released the locks of her mind and let it do what it most desired; picturing the lift in pin-sharp precision with those sleek chrome doors, the mirrored walls, the sparkling floor and the downward arrow of its button, with the soft chime of its arrival, the swish of the doors opening, the near-silence of their closing, and that great feeling of the endless depth below as the cabin swept down carrying whatever she felt the need to offer: that burnt lasagna, those boxes of wine, the dead mobile phones, a flat tire, the neighbor’s cat, her test results, and, now, her father-in-law, who she carried from his room, down the stairs, through the hall, past the family pictures, into the living room, before putting him inside the lift, pushing the button, stepping out, and watching as he was taken away.
Liz, the wretch, thought mostly of two things as she carried her father-in-law from his room to the lift: the sleek, slick, decadent elevator itself, in all the granular detail she needed to make it appear, and her plan: to tell Matt that after a brief but bitter argument she had finally triumphed and his father had agreed to be put into The Crescent where the nurses would take so much better care of him, and would understand him, and wouldn’t have eons of toxic history with him, and she’d seized the moment of his relenting, rung the home, got lucky with a spare bed, and had him carted off and settled him in within the space of a single afternoon, knowing full well that Matt would never, ever, ever get around to actually visiting his father, especially if she pledged to do all the visiting herself, while actually spending the time watching Marvel movies at the Plaza and/or volunteering at the food bank with Cathy, where their flirting might actually be able to start taking its promised course, and she was just about to recognize all that as the desperate fantasy it was when her father-in-law whacked the portrait of Bex and Faye off the wall cracking the glass and warping the frame, so her visions redoubled and popped into Technicolor, and when she rounded the corner and entered the living room the lift had never looked so fucking glorious, like the kind you’d expect in a Monte Carlo casino, and as she watched the doors close and snip away her father-in-law’s face, she had a quick but fabulous vision of herself and Cathy, dolled up to the nines, rolling Baccarat dice, getting giddy on cocktails and shagging each other senseless on a water bed in a hotel in Monaco, and that delirious new nonsense gave her face the tiny but vicious smile she was wearing as the cabin sank down and took her father-in-law with it.
Liz, feeling wretched, was tapped and drained by the gob of octogenarian spittle that dashed like come into her ear canal, the little spermatozoan words burrowing at her auditory nerve and ripping their way into her mind, where they met with a knotted egg which opened like a lift, took in the bullet of spit, absorbed it, tasted it, measured and judged it, before plummeting down through the membranes of her body, to the meat of her heart, the pit of her belly, and the molten slag at the soles of her feet, which, in turn, were energized into stomping out of the bedroom, down the stairs, through the hall, into the living room, into the lift, where she set her father-in-law onto the sparkling floor as he made one last desperate grab at her, hands snapping, catching hold of her locket, yanking it off and then pulling the prize to his chest, and she was so lost in her Niagara of fantasies that the nerves of her neck failed to transmit their loss to her brain, and, oblivious, she pushed the button, stepped out, smiled as the doors closed, watched her father-in-law get taken away, wondered for half a glimmer of a microsecond why he too was smiling, before realizing, half an hour later, while stripping his bed and preparing her lies, that her neck was now bare and the locket was gone. The realization shatters her knees and sends her to the floor, and her mind runs frantic trying to create a vision of the lift being sent back up, even if that means it brings him back, but when she thinks she’s done it, struggling to her feet and down the stairs again to the living room, she is faced instead with the chimney breast and its floral wallpaper, its faded wedding picture, its landscape print of Paris, and nothing else.
Liz would think of her mum at such times. She would say, if anyone got the chance to ask, that a red mist would descend and her mind would switch to automatic, and she would think of nothing but the lift. But in truth, her mum was always there. Two very specific moments would appear showing her mum’s polar extremes; opposite moods each as forbidding as the other. First, she would think of the moment her mum found out that Liz was pregnant when the screamed threat of the lift became a sudden reality. Liz was dragged down the steps of the cellar and shown the far wall, in which a lift had appeared where there had been no lift before. It had a rickety grill gate across the cabin and the inside was lit by a dull bulb. Her mum threw open the gate and hissed: is this what you want Elizabeth? Is this what you want from life? while she brought her daughter right to the threshold and waited for an answer that Liz was too scared to give. But Liz was not sent away. Her mum pulled Liz’s Nokia from her apron and threw that in instead, the thing skittering into the corner and losing a slither of screen in the process. Down it went while Liz watched and, months later, at Christmas, when she was showing and everyone was warm and no one minded, she got a new phone off her dad and a glanced apology from her mum, and things were more or less OK again. But the second moment, which came to Liz this time as she carried her father-in-law from the ninth to the eighth step of the stairs, was seven months after the first when Bex was a slumbering newborn in her arms. Mum gave Liz the locket and said life rarely gives easy answers, Lizzie, especially to people like us. The gold was pressed into her palm and the fine chain draped between her fingers. Hold tight and don’t let go, her mum said, before giving Bex such a look as if to say; why have you bothered? Don’t you realize where you’ve ended up? And when Bex and her sister are swiped off the hallway wall by her father-in-law, Liz had one final clear micro-thought which flashed in like subliminal advertising: this is my final moment, my ultimate, because Bex is the age I was, not pregnant but quite active, and when she gets home from college, before she understands that her grandfather is gone, I will give her the locket on its fine gold chain delivered with a much warmer and more heartfelt message, and I will tell her that the lift is hers to use however she wants, and she should be careful, and cool-headed, and calm and considered, but that sometimes she’ll feel wretched and heartless and twisted, she’ll feel like a bitch, a hag, a whore, like a worthless flea, like a failure and a nobody and an unlovable maggot, but that’s just how life is, it has no easy answers, no template, no formula, and sometimes it’s totally fine to grasp that locket and wish for something pin-sharp and clear.
Liz carried her father-in-law from his chair to his bed, tucked him in, wiped her ear, said goodnight, John, closed the door, and walked away.
Since Roe v Wade was repealed in the summer of 2022, those of us who believe in bodily autonomy have been reeling from the cascade of increasingly bad news about reproductive justice in America, as the rights of people who bear children are picked off state by state.
We are fighting—and we need help, not just from lawmakers but from history and literature and art. We need community. I find solidarity in, and draw inspiration from, the stories of fighters who have gone before me and those who are in the thick of the fight today. This is one of the reasons I wrote my own historical novel All You Have To Do Is Call. In researching the women of the Jane Collective who offered safe, but illegal abortions in Chicago in the years before Roe, I felt both electrified and comforted by the heroism of women who took matters into their own hands. Though I started writing long before Dobbs, their story felt relevant and important, and I hope others will feel moved by their activism as well as their profound belief in the strength of people to endure.
Here is a collection of 7 novels about abortion and reproductive justice:
Irving’s 1985 novel, banned in many states, is probably the most famous depiction of abortion in American literature. He tackles abortion from many angles, with Dr. Wilbur Larch performing abortions and his protégé Homer Wells initially refusing to follow in his footsteps, though the novel itself—and its author—are staunchly pro-choice. Irving won an Oscar for his screenplay adaptation, which became a movie starring Michael Caine and Tobey Maguire in 1999. Chillingly, he wrote in a must-read 2019 Op-Ed in The New York Timesthat “If you think Roe v. Wade is safe, you’re one of the reasons it isn’t.”
Picoult is a modern master of deftly handled issue novels that are increasingly banned instead of widely required like they should be. She sets this 2018 heart-pounder in Mississippi’s last standing abortion clinic, where a shooter has taken everyone hostage. This novel probes uncomfortably into our conversations about abortion, racial disparities in maternal health and infant mortality, and gun violence—all while making us care deeply about the diverse cast of characters, one of whom is a pregnant teenager inside the clinic with her police officer father acting as hostage negotiator outside.
Inspired by the true story of the Relf sisters, Valdez tells the story of two young Black women in the rural outskirts of Montgomery, Alabama, who are given unnecessary birth control shots with hidden side effects in 1973. Civil Townsend is a nurse assigned to give the shots but she knows something isn’t right. Because Civil herself had an abortion in her youth, she feels compelled to help; her compassion and inner conviction leads her to the horrible truth of the white-run healthcare clinic. This moving novel explores a troubling historical moment in the fight for reproductive justice through the lens of civil rights.
Outside the Boston abortion clinic of Mercy Street, tensions are running high between the pro-life protestors and the staff and their clients in this most Catholic of American cities. Haigh takes an unflinching look at the social, emotional, and economic costs of all aspects of reproductive justice, from the often heartbreaking counseling that goes on in the clinic to the vagaries of the foster care system. Haigh’s wide lens takes in so much of the nuance of women’s health, motherhood, and “unwanted” children’s lives that it’s impossible to come away unchanged.
This literary tour-de-force follows five women in an America where The Personhood Amendment grants rights to every embryo at the cost of women losing all rights to their own bodies. The novel was extraordinarily prescient when it was published in 2018 and now post-Dobbs, Zumas’s searing work of fiction feels more contemporary than dystopian.
Johnson’s riveting novel, a Reese Witherspoon pick, is about the dire consequences of unwanted pregnancy for young Black women in the 1950s. It alternates between the perspectives of college-educated Eleanor, who desperately wants a baby with her doctor husband in Washington D.C. but cannot carry one to term, and Ruby, who is determined to get a college education and escape her humble beginnings but risks losing it all when she becomes pregnant. Ruby’s aunt tries to procure an abortion for her niece, but the provider has come under scrutiny and fears arrest so refuses the service—which lands Ruby in a horror house for unwed mothers run by iron-handed white nuns. The House of Eve looks into the ways lives can be derailed by the punitive mistreatment of disenfranchised women, and the ways in which many of us blindly support those systems.
This ambitious debut novel braids together three storylines set in 2017, 1971, and 1980 Toronto that provides a broad view of the costs to women, children, and entire families when women don’t have full control of their own bodies. Marshall delves into the so-called “homes” where unmarried pregnant women were forced to give up their children.
In 1971, Dr. Evelyn Taylor is an abortion provider for an organization called Jane (based on the real-life Jane Collective of 1970s Chicago). Through fictionalizing and reimagining the organization, Marshall makes an essential contribution to the Jane lore, which in many ways is like the cycle of Arthurian legends chronicling the Knights of the Roundtable; their story has been and will be told and retold, as the moment the first Jane took up a curette has mythical power on par with Arthur pulling the sword from the stone.
I enjoy fiction that has a vaguely menacing atmosphere. Narratives with the threat of death looming over the characters, and they either are not able to identify the source or they do but face enormous difficulty reconciling their fears. This threat can manifest as ghostly projections of the characters’ unstable mental state. They might see or hear something that isn’t really there and then experience intense loneliness or paranoia due to their limited perspective.
I can’t say for sure that I believe in ghosts, but I do believe feelings of loneliness and despair can be so powerful that the mind, in an attempt to force them out of the body, creates forms or containers for them in our environment. In my debut novella, We’re Safe When We’re Alone, I wanted a narrator who fully believes in ghosts and their power to destabilize the mind. The narrator and his father are the only humans in a purgatory world populated by ghosts, and he fights to hold onto his sanity as the rules of his surreal environment constantly shift to make him doubt his identity.
I’ve found that the novella form is especially suitable for evoking a ghostly atmosphere. It is long enough for the reader to experience several facets of the characters’ psychology, but it is short enough that the unique atmosphere can be maintained throughout the entire narrative. Novellas tend to be taut in structure, with almost no scenes that diverge from the central plot-line. This intense focus over a longish period excels at immersing the reader in a strange world and then bringing them out before the atmosphere loses its magic. In my search for books with this type of atmosphere, I found mainly novellas by women in translation. In these books, grief, violence, death, and loneliness transform realistic settings from all around the world into dreamlike, haunting landscapes.
The Holeby Hiroko Oyamada, translated by David Boyd
After Asa’s husband transfers to a job in the countryside, they move into his family home, and Asa tries to adjust to her new rural life. She is no longer working and has no friends in the area. Other than interacting with her in-laws, she has almost nothing to do and struggles to fill the time during an overwhelmingly hot summer.
As she becomes lost and depressed in this alien environment, she encounters a strange dark creature, follows it to a river, and then falls into a hole. After she manages to get out of the hole, she experiences more bizarre incidents that cause her to question if the things she sees and feels are real. The isolation she experiences in her new home leads her to interact with one of the most chilling characters I’ve ever read, an old man who loves to water his plants, even in the dark. A moment that is completely ordinary and yet I’m unable to fully understand why I am so haunted by it.
Love by Hanne Ørstavik, Translated by Martin Aitken
Vibeke, a single mother, and Jon, her son, have moved to a small town in northern Norway. The novella takes place over a single night as Vibeke goes off on her own to pursue a love interest and Jon wanders around his neighborhood and meets unusual strangers who might possibly put him in danger.
The novella is told in third person, but the point of view switches between Vibeke and Jon’s consciousness from paragraph to paragraph. The effect can be disorienting at first, but once the reader is used to the shifts, the point of view highlights how neglectful Vibeke is since she rarely thinks about Jon while Jon is constantly thinking of her. As the night drags on, the cold and the dark heighten the atmosphere of peril, and the characters struggle against the loneliness that presses in on them.
Fever Dreamby Samanta Schweblin, Translated by Megan McDowell
The novella is structured as a dialogue between Amanda who lies dying in a rural hospital clinic and a boy named David. He asks her questions about the events that occurred in the past few days while she was on vacation with her daughter. He pushes her to figure out the important details that she missed, and his urgency forces the reader to turn the pages to see if we can spot these key details that led to Amanda’s demise, thus building an atmosphere of dread.
The main narrative takes place once Amanda meets her neighbor, Carla, at the vacation home, and she tells Amanda a menacing story about how she saved her son, David, from an unknown illness. Carla’s story prompts Amanda to fixate on keeping her daughter safe, but as the days pass she is forced to confront her own failures as a mother.
Minor Detailby Adania Shibli, Translated by Elisabeth Jaquette
The first half of the book takes place during the summer of 1949 and focuses on Israeli soldiers who set up camp in the Negev desert. After the war that led to the displacement and exile of the Palestinian people, these soldiers are here to murder any Bedouins who are still in the area. They find an encampment and capture a Palestinian girl. The second half fast forwards to the present and focuses on a young woman who reads an article about these murders in the Negev desert and sets off on a road trip to uncover more details around the tragedy.
The soldiers’ indifference to the suffering of the girl, along with the overwhelming heat and the bodily illnesses that the officer suffers, build up so much vivid tension that ends up spreading into the present day and haunting the reader as we follow the young woman, desperately hoping that she’ll find some answers to make the injustices of the past less devastating to behold. But of course the book offers no easy answers. Instead, the author leaves the reader with images of the humanity of victims who have been erased from public records.
Space Invadersby Nona Fernández, Translated by Natasha Wimmer
A group of childhood friends grow up under the Pinochet dictatorship in 1980s Chile. One day a new classmate, Estrella González arrives at their school, and they quickly grow fond of her and bring her into the group. However, her father is a government officer in the regime and ends up committing violent crimes against members of the opposition. Afterward, Estrella withdraws from school and disappears with her family from her friends’ lives.
As the children turn into adults, they are haunted by dreams and questions about Estrella’s fate. The constant threat of violence from the dictatorship pervades the atmosphere, but what makes this book remarkable is the friends’ insistence on remembering the innocence of their childhood bonds. No matter how much their environment tries to crush their humanity, they speak in a lucid, dreamlike language that strengthens their devotion to one another.
A Korean writer arrives in a European city for a residency and reflects on the loss of her older sister, who died right after being born. This city was nearly destroyed in World War I but recovered from the ruins. As the narrator wanders this landscape, she sees the snow and the gray sky and feels haunted by the past. A historical and personal one.
The book is broken into short chapters titled after white objects. The objects relate to the loss of her older sister or to her current surroundings. The author describes them with clear poetic language that illuminates the character’s sorrow. By the end of the book, the color white haunts the reader the way it does the narrator, and we’re left feeling that grief can be as beautiful as it is devastating.
The narrator recalls her experiences in a boarding school located in postwar Switzerland, specifically her obsessive relationship with a new student, Frédérique. The narrator’s voice is harsh, forceful, lyrical, and magnetic. Most notably she describes the relationship as one in which she “had to conquer [Frédérique],” and she feels the close presence of death in the environment, stating “There is a mortuary look somehow to the faces of boarders, a faint mortuary smell to even the youngest and most attractive girls.” The narrator’s fixation on death darkens the spirit of her relationships and strips away the innocence of girlhood at this boarding school, revealing the cold, desolate systems of control at the center.
Kitchenby Banana Yoshimoto, Translated by Megan Backus
After Mikage’s grandmother dies, she is taken in by her friend Yuichi and his mother Eriko. The three of them grow close and form a makeshift family. Eventually Mikage moves out and tries to create a life of her own. However, she learns about a horrific tragedy that befalls Eriko, and she returns to support Yuichi through this difficult period. Unfortunately, they are not able to connect as easily as they did in the past, and Yuichi plunges into the abyss of grief. Yuichi’s deteriorating mental state charges the atmosphere with dread, and I feared not only for his well-being but also for Mikage as she searches for him and attempts to bring him out of the darkness. The beauty of the novella lies in the compassion the characters show to each other even as the presence of death hovers directly over them.
In the opening pages of David Diop’s Beyond the Door of No Return, Michel Adanson, a renowned botanist, is dying. He thinks about a bush fire he started on the banks of the Senegal River years before, and remembers the way the trees split open violently and creatures, in their attempts to flee, emitted sounds of terror. Having spent his life dedicated to the work of cataloguing the flora and fauna of Senegal on behalf of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, he wonders, maybe for the first time in his career, whether the “burning trees must have screamed curses in a secret plant language, inaudible to men.”
As he dies, he reckons with what will survive him. His botany records, his collections, his drawings, the work he neglected his family for, will be washed away. Incapable of sharing his interior life with his daughter, Aglaé, even as the end of his life approaches, he hides a series of notebooks in which he reveals his journey to find a woman named Maram, who had been sold into slavery but was rumored to have escaped. When his daughter discovers them, she learns about a great love—and loss—in her father’s life, one that he kept a secret.
The novel, told from a series of different perspectives—Michel Adanson’s narration and his notebooks, Aglaé’s memory, Maram’s testimony—encourages readers to consider the power of story; reckon with discrepancies between oral histories and the written accounts of colonists that are later received as truths; and think deeply about the capacity for healing that the natural world contains, as well as the harms inflicted on the environment through colonialism. I corresponded with David Diop, who won the 2021 International Booker Prize award for his novel At Night All Blood Is Black, about these themes and more by email in an interview translated from the French by Jonathan Woollen.
Jacqueline Alnes: One of the main figures in this story, Michel Adanson, is based on a real historical figure, a Frenchman who traveled to Senegal in order to study the flora and fauna. What did you learn from examining Adanson as a historical figure?
David Diop: Michel Adanson was one of the first French scholars to travel to Senegal. He went at age 22 and was there from 1749 to 1753 with orders from his masters, the Jussieu brothers, who were members of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris. His intent was to pioneer the description of flora and fauna, so that he could become a member of the Academy himself later on. He never reached his goal, which was to rigorously classify the three kingdoms of life in opposition to what was set down by the Swedish scientist Linnaeus. Nor did he ever publish his Natural History of Senegal, rough sketches of which can be found today in the Museum of Natural History in Paris. Found among those sketches, as the Senegalese historian Ousmane Seydi has studied, is the first French-Wolof dictionary. Michel Adanson learned Wolof, a prevalent Senegalese language, because he had come to realize that the usual translators didn’t know how to translate the words of people, male and female, with knowledge of the Senegalese plants’ medicinal properties.
JA: In the novel, Adanson is a man obsessed with his amassed collection of specimens, so much so that he neglects his wife and child. The irony, at the end of his life, is that his encyclopedias are unfinished and unavailable to the public, and his daughter knows nearly nothing about him as a person. What intrigues you about his fervor for cataloging at the cost of so much else?
In real life, this illusion of control of our own destinies doesn’t exist.
DD: Michel Adanson’s A Voyage to Senegal was published in 1757, four years after he returned home. It’s the first volume in his endeavor to write a Natural History of Senegal. Natural history is a crucial piece of this encyclopedic dream of his to plant stakes around the world through description. Its many fields of knowledge include botany, geology, ornithology, ichthyology and conchology, astronomy, and even a form of proto-ethnology since the planet’s non-European societies are also being broached as objects of study. To name every plant, every animal, every society, is to seek mastery for Western man over nature and all its creations. The naming act is a corollary to the drive to subordinate nature to mankind: “To make oneself master and possessor of nature,” to take Descartes’s formulation, is above all to measure, to quantify, to classify.
Michel Adanson suggests that it was during his trip to Senegal that he conceived of his life’s project, of which the Natural History of Senegal was but a minor part, the project being a super-encyclopedia of life that would unite the three realms: mineral, vegetable, animal—the “Universal Orb.” The title of this mega-encyclopedia—for the sake of which Adanson attests to having described tens and tens of thousands of “existences,” to use his term—refers to the objective of circumscribing the world into a kind of totalizing circularity. It’s something that he’ll never achieve, though he tried to until the end of his life. As an old man, he’ll keep soliciting Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte to finance the volumes of his Universal Orb. On the botanical level, his highly complex method posits the combination of a whole string of plant characteristics far more plentiful than what Linnaeus had proposed. But this method claiming to form a rational thesis about the world is called upon to renew itself every time an unheard-of plant or animal, unclassifiable under the old frameworks, emerges from some corner of the Amazon, Asia, or Africa. And that’s the tragedy of Michel Adanson’s intellectual life, continuously occupied with feeding the method for his thesis, for a world that’s impossible to circumscribe. Despite insistence from academics and friends of his in the European naturalist community, who begged him to publish the vast amounts of data he already had so that the thesis could be preserved and might inspire future scholars, Michel Adanson invariably refused, claiming he hadn’t finished. Death got the better of his hemming and hawing in 1806.
I like lives like Michel Adanson’s, lives consumed, absorbed, by some great impossible project, lives emblematic of the human mind’s thirst to sort the world into dictionary entries.
JA: This type of cataloging feels inextricably linked to colonization, and we see, throughout the novel, the types of harm inflicted on people and the natural environment in the name of “exploration”; the fates of the two seem interconnected, though Adanson seems more willing to recognize that plants have been harmed over people. (At one point, he laments that the “corpses” of trees are taken “so far from their mother Africa.”) And what did this novel reveal to you about the sinister ways colonization can ripple through the lives of people, places, and environments?
DD: Michel Adanson, by the mid-1700s, is already sensitive to the disappearing ebony forests exploited by Europeans since the 1500s. Awareness of mankind’s overexploitation of nature is nothing new. It felt that in my novel, through Michel Adanson, a man of the Enlightenment, a Cartesian, I could point to the negative impact that trade in raw materials from Africa has had on the environment and on the well-being of local populations. Maram Sack isn’t just a young woman Michel Adanson falls in love with, she’s also an emblematic character representing a nature different from his own. If Adanson is seeking to puncture nature’s mysteries in order to appropriate them, Maram as a healer is seeking nature’s conciliation, its cooperation. They’re two opposed visions of the world, which meet in Michel Adanson and Maram Seck.
JA: As much as Adanson tries to name and to know, it is clear there is a level of knowingness that he is never privy to. At what point does an outsider’s curiosity become a kind of violence? And how does language—or the imposition of language—factor into that?
We’re assailed by so many compromises due to happenstance in our daily lives, and we’re always so different from what we believe ourselves to be.
DD: One of Michel Adanson’s strengths is that, unlike with Linnaeus’s system of nomenclature, he wished to preserve the names of the African plants he was indexing. His thinking was that it wasn’t appropriate to give the plants Latin names, that the desirable thing was for the world’s memory banks to open up to non-European languages. For example, he wanted the baobab to go by its Wolof name, “Gouye” and not “Adansonia digitata” like Linnaeus advised as a form of paying homage. The Senegalese style of naming plants and animals wasn’t approved by the Academy of Sciences in Paris, who criticized him accordingly. But Michel Adanson says of the Wolof language, to anyone who wishes to hear it, “that it is gentle and vibrant.”
JA: You so deftly skewer colonialism even while writing from Adanson’s perspective. What was it like writing about this subject matter from a first person point of view, from a character who seems, in so many ways, to remain unaware of the ills he is perpetuating?
DD: The novel can be a wonderful staging device for the complexity of the human soul’s motivations. So, on the one hand, in his will, Michael Adanson sets aside some gold louis so a couple of his French friends can feast at his funeral like, and I quote, “the Black wise men and philosophers of Senegal.” And on the other hand he publishes a dissertation about the Compagnie du Sénégal’s interest in furthering the slave trade on the island of Gorée. Using “I” allows me to translate that complexity without actually expressing an anachronistic value judgment on the character.
JA: As a novelist and scholar, what interests you about story? And what power do stories hold?
DD: For me, what literature can do is seize hold of history and make it its own thing. Through some kind of transversal of the emotions at play in their literary work, writers can sensitize the reader around subjects or historical periods to which they otherwise would have remained indifferent. Literature moves where history explains.
JA: There is so much in this novel about narrative and the way stories shape us. For example, Adanson, in the novel, laments at one point that it is “too late to dictate the story of his own death” and also admits, “to what extent the opinion we have of ourselves depends on where we are and to whom we are talking.” What interests you about the intersections between identity and story? And what happens when the stories we tell ourselves prevent us from recognizing the ways we are harming others?
DD: Another power that the novel has is to give meaning, direction, and coherence to the lives of fictional characters. In real life, this illusion of control of our own destinies doesn’t exist. We’re assailed by so many contradictory feelings, so many compromises due to happenstance in our daily lives, and we’re always so different from what we believe ourselves to be, so that only the retrospective accounts we’re able to make about our lives seem to give them any meaning. Michel Adanson sees that “the more he writes” about Maram’s life, “the more he becomes a writer.” In other words, he gives Maram’s life meaning by recounting it and thus prevents her from escaping him again. But at the same time, by recounting Maram he’s recounting himself as well. Michel Adanson is discovering himself just as much as his daughter Aglaé will discover him by reading his secret notebooks.
For Michel Adanson, to write is to retrieve another self he thought he’d lost, and to find himself back in Maram’s company one last time. He carries her voice inside him. He can still see her with her loving eyes, like Orpheus turning to face Eurydice right at the moment when he thinks, wrongly, that the two of them have conquered death.
JA: What do you hope readers take away from this novel? And what do you take away from it, after writing?
DD: I would like readers to find additional reasons to shed their prejudices, as perhaps Aglaé will have done by reading her father’s “secret notebooks.” The start of the novel, relating how Aglaé discovers the writing Michel Adanson intended her to find in a secret drawer, is indicative. To read this story, Aglaé needed to prove that she deserved it. If she had neglected the shoddy furnishings his father bequeathed to her and the few memories they had in common, this manuscript hidden in a writing desk would never have been read, not by her, not by us over her shoulder. There are still far too many stories, perhaps, gathering dust in drawers of history no one has had the time or curiosity to open. To overcome your prejudices, you have to want to. Wisdom isn’t given, it has to be sought.
About the Translator:
Jonathan Woollen is a French-to-English translator from North Carolina, currently living in Brooklyn and working in publishing. Previously, he ran in-store events at Politics and Prose Bookstore in Washington, DC.
I feel badly for my husband—for men in general—because they’re left out of so much of human life. It’s more common to talk about the ways in which they have it better—and God knows those abound, I’m not dismissing them—but recently I’ve been thinking about the ways in which they don’t. We all understand, more or less, how a man’s body and mind function. But I believe a man can live an entire life in this world and know nothing about the warm, vaginal smell of a women’s restroom stall after someone else has used it—how it’s repulsive yet also inspires a weird fellow feeling, a sense of intimacy. They know we tweeze our eyebrows, but they don’t realize that many of us have nipple hairs that we also tweeze out—they can grow long, it’s impressive, half a thumb’s length or more. My best friend and I used to compare our longest ones and marvel. I’ve seen clips online of these machines they’ve made that men can strap on to feel what it’s like to have terrible period cramps, but that seems crude to me, unless they make a machine that can also approximate the emotional malaise.
Years ago, when I was pregnant and living in California, some older female friends—professors at the university where I got my doctorate—explained that, after childbirth, my vagina would bleed for days. I would have to wear pads in my underwear and, when I peed, use a bottle to squirt water onto my crotch to sanitize it. Given the fragility of the postpartum crotch, I would also be given a stool softener, to make my poop come out more gently, and maybe a laxative, too. This worried me.
I was also worried—I told them—that I wouldn’t love my child. On internet forums, I’d read a lot of women’s posts about loving their child while they were still in the womb, and I felt nothing like that, I felt only a lump expanding and hardening inside me. One of the professors, Whei, my former adviser, said she didn’t love her daughter while pregnant, either, and didn’t even love her much when she first came out. She seemed like a total stranger, an alien. Whei’s love developed only as her daughter grew older—in fact, developed in proportion to her daughter’s age, such that her love for her daughter, now eleven, was greater than it had ever been.
After Anand arrived, I remembered Whei’s comments. He lost weight after being born. I was taking too long to begin lactating, and Anand didn’t seem to like the taste of the formula we tried feeding him instead. He would bawl at the sight of the bottle. On the third evening, I was sitting in a rocking chair trying, and failing again, to nurse him. I really had to use the bathroom—the stool softener, the laxative—but I didn’t want to put the baby down, and I hadn’t yet figured out I could just bring him with me to the toilet. So I stayed put and eventually realized I was pooping my pants. I called for my husband in a panic, handed him our bawling infant, and ran, bowlegged, to the toilet. That night, my husband began tearing up—“I’m scared that something’s wrong—I just love him so much!” he said. I was scared, too, but of Anand, almost as if he were someone else’s child who had been forced upon me. Feeling this way worried me, but knowing that Whei had felt a version of it, too, made me feel better.
It’s menopause that has me thinking about all of this—or rather, perimenopause. Until recently, I didn’t even know the term. I learned of it only when a couple of my friends—in Eugene, Oregon, where we’d been living—started experiencing it. None of them understood what it was at first. All three thought they were going through a midlife crisis, a breakdown of form and spirit. When they tried to go to bed at night, they’d squirm in the sheets, unable to find comfort, or else they’d fall asleep fine only to awaken feverish and filmed in sweat. It felt connected to a spiritual unsettling. One of them, Darienne, a high school teacher, confided that she was contemplating quitting and starting over as a pastor. The second, Wathana, wanted to get divorced and move to London, where she’d studied abroad in college and met her first love. The third, Clarisse, still loved her career—she was a wildlife biologist—and had no interest in physically uprooting herself. She seemed happiest of the three. But for the first time in her life, at the age of forty-six, she was experiencing baby fever. She and her wife had chosen not to have children. They had met relatively late, when most of their friends’ children were already school- age, and the prospect of starting from scratch, having to find a sperm donor or adopt, exhausted them. Now she found herself swooning into every stroller that she passed in the park, radiating want. But she knew it was probably too late.
Darienne was the one who figured out what was going on with all of them, through her gynecologist, and she told the others. They went to their own doctors, who stopped short of positive diagnoses but generally supported the shared hypothesis. The problem with perimenopause is that there’s no test to determine its onset—it’s identifiable only later on, when your periods start coming several months apart. Later, on our text thread, Clarisse sent a link to an academic article she’d come across, noting that women in their forties commit suicide more than those in any other age group, and an underappreciated culprit might be perimenopause itself. Darienne sent an exploding- head emoji, Wathana a skull. I sent four sparkle emojis; I was being sarcastic, and I also felt like it would be false of me, not being perimenopausal yet, to have as intense a reaction as the others.
But that was several years ago. Now I’m in it myself—skull emoji—or, at least, I believe I might be. It started when we moved to Iowa City. My husband had gotten a teaching position here. We both earned doctorates in cultural anthropology, but while he went into teaching, I consult on films, mostly documentaries. I had high cholesterol for the first time in my life—an established sign—and I’d been weighed down lately by an unnameable regret I’d never experienced before. Iowa City’s summers are hot, and climate change has recently made them worse. One afternoon, the three of us tried to go strolling downtown, but the heat was insufferable. Anand was about to start kindergarten. He grabbed my dress in his fist, trying to get my attention—something he does all the time, I don’t mind—and I suddenly felt as if my personal space had been completely annihilated. “Stop touching me!” I snapped.
Passersby gaped. I felt awful for being irritable. I apologized to him, but I couldn’t move on, I couldn’t stop thinking about it. It felt linked to the regret I’d been experiencing, though I couldn’t understand quite what one had to do with the other.
Perimenopause, I thought. My husband was skeptical. He thought the high cholesterol was from the habit I’d recently developed, of cooking Indian breakfast: dosa, pesarattu, upma. Previously I’d eaten fruit and yogurt. He thought I had been irritable with Anand because of the heat and because, since moving, we had been spending all our time with our son, with no preschool and no friends to call for playdates. He also pointed out that I’ve felt a similar spiritual foreclosing each time we’ve made a big change in life, I felt it when we married and again when we became parents. I said—with some irritation—that this was different. I told him about Darienne, Wathana, and Clarisse. He said their experiences had nothing to do with mine.
But I thought they did. I hate to suggest that a characteristic is the exclusive domain of one particular sex, but I believe women experience life more communally than men do. We arrive at the answers to life’s questions together. Maybe it’s because we have higher levels of oxytocin, the bonding hormone. When one woman asks another, before heading out for a walk together, “Should I wear sneakers or sandals?” the second recognizes it as a legitimate question, one meant to integrate both women’s consciousnesses in figuring out an answer. But when I ask my husband a question like this, he’ll respond, “I mean, wear sneakers if you think sneakers make more sense, and wear sandals if you want to wear sandals.” If I press him—asking, for example, “Well, what kind of shoes are you wearing?”—he’ll answer but will add that his own decision should have no bearing on mine.
I didn’t mention all of this to my husband. I’d told him about the hypothesis before. Now I said only that I missed our friends. He said he missed them, too. He hoped we would befriend some of the colleagues he’d met while interviewing—another anthropologist and her economist husband, a sociologist, a couple in the African American Studies department. He also suggested that I meet people online in those Facebook groups for newcomers or parents. Normally I would resist that—it irritated me, the thought of ordering up a friend online—but I did join, and one morning, in the parents’ group, I noticed a post from someone named Fernanda. She looked close to my age—in her forties. By then, kindergarten had begun, and I was at home alone all day, on Zoom meetings, while my husband went to campus. Fernanda had written about having recently moved with her family to Iowa City, to be closer to her sister. She hoped to find a friend with whom to check out the Colombian café that had opened near campus.
We met the next morning at the café. Fernanda wore a ribbed tank top—what we used to call a wife-beater—and had a detailed tattoo of a cross on her bicep. But she wasn’t as tough-looking as that makes her seem; she had a soft- featured face and immediately launched into chatting, her face close to mine, as if we were already friends. She said, “I’m glad we came, it’s really pretty, with the decorations, isn’t it?” Plastic greenery and flowers hung from the ceiling and sprouted from centerpieces on the tables, but it wasn’t kitschy, it was well arranged and festive.
“I didn’t know about this place,” I said.
They had just arrived from Nashville, she said—that past weekend.
“We also arrived not long ago—a month ago,” I said. “It’s different here, it’s not like the Northwest, where I’m from. There’s lots of vegetation in the Northwest.”
“Colombia, where I’m from, is like that,” she said. “It’s super-green there.”
“But the river’s good,” I said. “I’m glad there’s a river. Someone told me that if you go north, almost to Minneapolis, you can go rafting.”
“I want to try rafting!”
“Me, too!” I said—and the promise hung in the air, that maybe, if we became friends, we could go rafting together.
We ordered coffees and churros.
I asked where she was living. She wrinkled her nose, shook her head. “It’s terrible,” she said. “It’s one of those buildings that looks like this”—with her hands, she made the shape of a box. “It’s all brick. There’s a courtyard, but the grass is yellowed and flat, it doesn’t feel inviting, even Isabella—our daughter—doesn’t want to play on the playground there, she said it frightens her, though when I asked her what about it was frightening, she couldn’t explain.”
I said we were living in an apartment complex, too, and that I hated ours as well. Everyone kept their blinds down, and it gave the impression no one else lived there. “There’s a pool, though—you should bring Isabella, she can swim with Anand, they’ll have fun,” I said.
“I wish we had a pool,” she said. The problem was that her sister—who had chosen the apartment for them—had been too selective for too long. She had gone to see some apartments before this one and rejected them for various reasons—too dark, too small of a kitchen, too noisy. She selected this one, in the end, despite its flat character and sad courtyard, because they had to settle on something before school began. “We have an expression in Colombia,” she said, “that the longer you take to choose, the worse it turns out.”
‘We have an expression in Colombia,’ she said, ‘that the longer you take to choose, the worse it turns out.
She and her husband—Alejo was his name—had recently gone through a traumatic experience. Afterward, Nashville felt claustrophobic to them. They decided to each make a list of the top ten places in the world they wanted to live, and then choose the one they were both excited about. But when they showed each other their lists, none of their cities matched. In the end, they settled on Iowa City, where her sister lived, because it was a place they could both live with. They thought it would be good for Isabella to be near her cousins, who are close to her age, and Alejo could get work at the company where her sister works—they make farm equipment, and Alejo has relevant experience, having worked with cars. Fernanda doesn’t work; she worked a lot when she was younger, but now she’s a stay-at-home mom. “Americans are obsessed with being productive and earning, they believe you’re not ‘contributing’ if you’re not working, but I just want to exist. I don’t mind existing.”
I told her I needed to learn from her. I explained that I feel anxious if I’m not working—I work a lot. She asked what I do, and I told her about the documentaries—about how I might travel for a week at a time to, say, the Galápalagos or the Maldives, to help filmmakers shoot their documentaries in an accurate and sensitive way.
She laughed. “We’re not talking about the same thing, then,” she said. “I’m talking about regular work—work—like fixing cars, building farm machines, harvesting fruit, taking care of babies or old people. Work.” She said that’s what she got tired of. She wants to be happy—that’s all she’s trying to do in life, to manage to be happy—and she’s found that she feels most happy when she’s caring for her daughter, her husband, their small life together. They’re poorer because of it, but she and her husband feel it’s worth it. “That must sound so simple, I must sound so dumb,” she said.
I said it didn’t; she didn’t.
Our coffees and churros arrived. I asked if she and her sister were close. They didn’t get along during their twenties, she said, but now they’re close. I asked what happened to bring them closer. She said that, in general, they’re super-different. She has a temper—Fernanda’s sister. She’s also a lesbian and a hardcore feminist. On the spectrum of feminism, Fernanda herself is half-feminist, but her sister is really hardcore. She believes that the patriarchy forces us to shave our legs, while Fernanda believes that she shaves her legs because she feels like it. Alejo told Fernanda, when they were still dating, that he wanted a wife who would stay home with their children, and she said—because for her it was true—that she wanted the same. But when her sister sees her washing the clothes, cooking, putting Isa to bed every night, she criticizes her for not sticking up for herself. She—Fernanda—looked at me and said we don’t know each other well, she doesn’t know how I feel. I wondered, privately, whether I was a half- feminist or a hardcore one. I’d like to consider myself to be on the most feminist end of the feminism spectrum. I work—I work a lot. My husband and I spend equal time with Anand. But then, I shave my legs and don’t feel conflicted about it.
I shrugged; “I shave my legs,” I said.
“Okay, my sister would say the patriarchy made you do it,” she said. “She reads a lot, she thinks a lot—she tells me I don’t think enough. For me, I don’t want to think too much. If you think too much, you can’t exist—the world is difficult; you can’t think about that all the time, or you can’t exist.”
Fernanda and her sister grew closer—Fernanda said—when the situation happened. She said it like that—the situation happened. I said her sister must have been supportive then. She said it wasn’t quite that. Her sister experienced a loss, too, it was something they went through together, and that’s what made them close. Afterward, her sister realized that she might lose Fernanda as well. She insisted to Fernanda that she must hold on, she must live.
I thought she was waiting for me to ask what happened—she had brought it up twice by that point. But I hesitated, and Fernanda continued. She said her sister is married to a woman she’s been with for decades.
They met in Colombia at the age of nineteen. Fernanda’s sister-in-law-to-be was backpacking there and went into a bar where Fernanda’s sister was working at the time as a bartender. “Do you see all this?” Fernanda said, gesturing at her tattoos. “This is what my sister looks like—but she’s got more than me, she’s really butch. I used to admire her so much when I was a teenager—she’s one year older than me—so when she started getting tattoos, when she cut her hair short, I copied her. I didn’t understand that she was doing it because she was a lesbian.”
The eighties and nineties were a turbulent time in Colombia, she said, so, growing up there, she and her sister never met foreigners. The only one they knew was a Frenchwoman married to a Colombian man, who was a client of Fernanda’s mother, a seamstress. Fernanda’s mother had grown up in a family descended from great wealth, but they themselves weren’t rich. The maternal line had lost its wealth when Fernanda’s grandmother had fallen for someone her parents didn’t approve of. “He was a doctor, but he was Black,” she said. “I mean, I shouldn’t say ‘but,’ I don’t mean it like that, I mean that, for that time, it wasn’t common. She was white, and he was Black.” When they started having children, Fernanda’s grandfather decided that only the first child belonged to him, the rest belonged to the church—that is, he wouldn’t support any of the children after the first one. That left five of them in all, including Fernanda’s mother, who he ignored. Though her husband was a doctor, Fernanda’s grandmother had to work as well to support them, and she ended up becoming a seamstress, which was how Fernanda’s mother learned the trade.
Fernanda’s mother—the youngest of the children—wanted to go to college, but then she met Fernanda’s father. They decided she would work as a seamstress to help put him through college. He was studying environmental engineering, he wanted to work with trees. But then he became abusive. He also decided he didn’t want to work in the forest after all, he wanted—Fernanda smiled darkly—to dig for gold. He left them and moved to the forest to try to find gold, and there he met and fell in love with a seventeen-year-old girl.
When she learned of his affair, Fernanda’s mother filed for divorce, a big deal at that time. She was ostracized by the other mothers at Fernanda’s school—she was not only divorced but was Black, a double fault. “I don’t know if you’re familiar with Colombia, but it’s really racist there,” she said. “There’s racism in the US, but it’s different—in Colombia, it’s worse. Or maybe not worse, but different.”
I told her that I’d been to Colombia once—to Medellín.
“Medellín—that’s where I’m from!” she said. “What did you think of it?”
I told her the truth—that it was much more beautiful than I’d expected. I’d heard only of drugs and guns and jungles. But Medellín sits in a valley surrounded by big rolling hills covered with tropical trees and flowers. I explained that I was an anthropologist and had been in Medellín advising on a TV show about poor and working-class people around the world, in occupations that have been newly created by globalization.
“My God, an anthropologist,” she said. “You must be really intelligent—and here I am talking and talking and talking like an idiot.”
She didn’t seem like an idiot. She came across as intelligent, attuned to the subtle workings of the world, an essential but ineffable quality in my field. I wondered whether she actually believed she wasn’t intelligent.
I told her about my time in Medellín. I had been helping with a television series about off-the-beaten-path tourism, scouting for people to interview in a neighborhood called Comuna 13—a place that used to be violent but has since turned into a destination of sorts, with graffiti tours and shops selling Comuna 13 magnets. For the episode, we featured a tour guide who had been raped at gunpoint at the age of twelve. Her parents opposed abortion, so she had the child, and that child—the fact that she loved her and needed to keep her alive—saved her. She believed her daughter had been a miracle sent from God. “Next to Him, we are like mindless little frogs,” she said. From my training, I knew not to question out loud the implication that her rape had been an act of God. “It’s impossible to understand the life He has given us,” she said. “He hears us praying, and it sounds to Him like, croac, croac, croac.”
I love talking to people who believe in God. I love their perspective, it sounds like a poem to me, their religious language. I admire their willing submission to that which is most mysterious in life. I told Fernanda this.
While Fernanda’s mother struggled to pay the bills and look after her two daughters, her father lived near the gold mine with his new wife and children. He would forget Fernanda and her sister’s birthdays all the time; at Christmas, he would call and tell them, “I’ll be there soon!” and then wouldn’t show up. Fernanda spent her whole childhood waiting for him, and then, at the age of sixteen, stopped waiting. “But what were we talking about before that?” she said.
I said she’d been telling me about meeting foreigners.
“Right,” she said. The second foreigner was Helen—her sister’s wife. Helen’s visit was in the nineties, after the government decided they needed to make Colombia more inviting to foreigners—tourists, like Helen, but also businesses. Soon Americans started being sent by their companies to open up Colombian branches. Fernanda met one of the first to arrive—not long after her sister met Helen—and fell in love. He was forty-three; she was eighteen. She thought her father had been a pervert for marrying a teenager—but her sister had recently fallen in love with Helen, and Fernanda had been feeling lonesome and envious.
I asked if he spoke Spanish.
“A little, not much, but he had a translator,” she said. “We communicated through her.”
“You fell in love by communicating through a translator!” I said, interested in understanding how such a thing could happen—the logistics of it, the practicalities.
She fixed me with a worldly look—it reminded me of a look my older sister might have given me, in middle school, when explaining how romance actually functions. “I fell in love because I thought he was handsome,” she said. “This will sound racist, but he was so white—and his eyes were blue, and his hair was light blond; no one’s hair looks like that in Colombia.” He treated her super- well, too, buying her all kinds of expensive gifts; she’d never experienced anything like it. “Imagine if an alien landed on earth, and he was so special and unusual, and he chose you,” she said. “It was like that—I had my own alien.”
When he had to leave Colombia and return to the US, he proposed marriage, so that she could go with him. She asked if I’d read a certain children’s book about the mouse and the stone.
I said I hadn’t heard of it.
She seemed surprised. “Oh, you have to read it, it’s by a famous author—but now Anand is too old for those books,” she said.
In the book, she said, a mouse who lives on an island finds a big, unusual stone. He brings it to the other mice, and they decide—because he found such a special stone—to name him king of the mice. One day, the mice are going for a walk on the island, and they round a corner, and they find a beach full of stones that look exactly like the one that the first mouse found. Then the first mouse’s stone—and the first mouse himself—become ordinary again.
“You were the mouse,” I said.
“I was the mouse!” she said. “I moved to the US and looked around, and I realized my American wasn’t special—he wasn’t bad-looking, but he was average; a lot of people were pale, blue-eyed, and blond, and many of them were handsomer than him. He was a normal stone.” At first she still loved him. But over time—not only because he wasn’t special, but also because he got stressed at work and started to drink too much, first one margarita each night, then two, then three—she started to have doubts. On top of that, before they’d married, he’d said he didn’t want children, and she agreed—but now, after marriage, having reached her mid-twenties, she realized that she did want children after all, she wanted three or four. He said he would do it under duress, but they would have to give up their carefree lifestyle, and he would resent her for the rest of their married lives. That was when she decided to divorce him. A couple of years later, she met Alejo and, poof, suddenly had a whole new life.
She abruptly flung out a hand as she said this—she gestured a lot in general—and knocked her coffee over; it spilled onto the table. We cleaned it up with napkins from the dispenser. The incident broke our conversational spell. I looked at my phone—a couple of hours had passed. Fernanda asked for the check and took it; “you can pay next time,” she said, and I thanked her and agreed.
But after paying, she lingered, as if she wanted to talk more.
I asked, then, if Isabella was an only child.
She said yes, but she blanched a little as she said it, and I recognized the expression, I’d seen my mom make it when someone asked if I was her only child and she was deciding whether to explain that she’d had another daughter, who had died.
Before Isabella—Fernanda said—she and Alejo had another daughter, but she had died at only three months old, of sudden infant death syndrome. Fernanda had been the one to find her, in the morning.
Afterward, she wanted to die; she made herself stay alive only for the sake of her mother and her sister and, of course, Alejo.
“I’m Catholic,” she said, a bit self- consciously. “I know there are a lot of problems with the Catholic Church—but I grew up Catholic, and I still believe in it.”
“That must have helped you a lot when that happened—the situation,” I said.
She said it was complicated. She still believed, she said, because she had to believe. If she didn’t believe, it would be intolerable—she would have to accept that she wouldn’t see her daughter in Heaven—therefore she had to believe. I said I could understand that. I thought—but didn’t tell her—about how, because I don’t believe, I have to accept that my sister is not in Heaven, that I won’t see her again.
I told her that I understood loss, that my sister died when we were young. I said this for several reasons. First, she had been so candid, and I felt I should be as well. Second, as I mentioned, I had been reminded of my mom when she paused before telling me about her other daughter. And third, having grown up with a sister who was my guide in this life, and then having lost her, made me feel acutely the loneliness of being an only child. My entire life since, I’d been traversing the world searching for sister-shaped people to fill the space she had left. Here I was, before this relative stranger, doing it again. I didn’t say all this out loud, I only mentioned my sister’s death, but I could quickly tell, from her expression, that she didn’t feel that it was at all comparable to her loss. She was right. I added that I didn’t mean to suggest it was similar, that it was a completely different experience.
My entire life since, I’d been traversing the world searching for sister-shaped people to fill the space she had left.
And, to return to the topic at hand, I asked if Isa knows about her sister. She said yes—there are photos of her in the house, and they celebrate her birthday and visit the place where she’s buried. It’s better to talk about all this, she said, not to keep it repressed. But it’s possible to remember too much—that, too, is true. They left Nashville because they couldn’t bear all the reminders. “I don’t know if you’re like this,” she said, “but, for me, when I had her, I imagined the life she would have, I pictured her growing up and going to the aquarium, playing at the playground—”
“—and when you saw other children—”
“—no, that still happens—when I see an eight-year-old girl, I think, That’s the age she would have been. I mean that we couldn’t stay there and keep seeing those places. That’s why we came here. But I’m not sure that it’s helping. Not yet.”
“And have you thought about maybe—”
“Oh God, no, no, I can’t, I’ve thought about it—but I’m forty-five, and I’m reaching perimenopause—”
I nodded. “Me, too, and it feels like—”
“Time ran out?”
We sat in silence for a moment. Then she stood, and I did the same, and we went together out of the café and toward our cars.
“Men, in their forties, are in their prime,” I said as we walked. “It’s not fair.”
“Oh, but it’s hard for them, too,” she replied forcefully. “It’s worse for them.” I laughed. “No, really, it is,” she said. “I feel badly for them—for men.”
When their first daughter died, their female friends consoled Fernanda by allowing her to talk about her daughter—and her grief—all the time. But when Alejo went out with their male friends, they only joked and discussed sports and other superficialities, and when Alejo brought up their daughter, the others changed the subject.
She said that men experience the same feelings—woe, misery, terror—but are not allowed to share them, whereas women gain strength from sharing ourselves; it’s what allows us to keep living despite all that we suffer—knowing that we’re living it together.
“I’ll give you an example,” she said. She said her mom had little in common with Alejo’s mom—Alejo’s mother was rich and conservative, and Fernanda’s poor and open-minded—but they both were ahead of their time in adventurousness. Once, on a joint family vacation, they had all rented a boat and taken it to a secluded area near lots of small islands. Everyone had been squabbling, but the water was cool and clear, and Fernanda’s mother suggested they swim to one of the islands. The island wasn’t that close, it would be a significant swim. Fernanda’s mother-in-law agreed immediately. All the younger people—Fernanda and her husband, her sister and her wife, her sister-in-law and her husband—jumped in along with the matriarchs.
Quite quickly, Fernanda’s mother-in-law took the lead. She was really fit, despite her age and having had three bouts with cancer. In her elder years, she had become a fitness buff. She swam far ahead of the rest of them, toward the island—a small, inviting island, with palm trees—but then, suddenly, she stopped in the water and started waving her arms to get their attention. Fernanda thought she was drowning. Her mother-in-law had put her palms together and was pantomiming something. She was shouting, too, but they couldn’t hear her. Then they realized what she was saying: “Rayas, rayas, cuidado”—stingrays, stingrays, careful. They shouted back, “Okay,” gave her the thumbs-up, and continued, but before long, they understand what she had been talking about—there weren’t just a few stingrays, there was a blanket of them below, so thick you couldn’t even see past them to the sea below. “We should return, all of us,” Alejo said, and Fernanda agreed. They tried to call Fernanda’s mother-in-law back, but she said she was fine, she was going to continue on to the island, they could pick her up there in the boat.
Then, to their surprise, Fernanda’s mother said she would continue on as well. Fernanda begged her not to. It was incredibly dangerous, she said, and Alejo’s mother was more fit. But her mother turned to her with a challenging air, one of intense confidence: “I might not go to the gym, but my body has been working for my whole life—I’m as strong as anyone,” she said. Fernanda was shocked—she couldn’t respond. Her mother took off and caught up with her mother-in-law, while the rest of them turned around and went back to the boat.
“And then what happened?” I said. “Did they get stung?”
“They made it to the island, we picked them up, they were fine!” she said.
We laughed.
We had been standing in the parking lot for a while by then, neither of us making the first move to leave. I wondered aloud what her mother had been thinking at that moment that they’d all turned and gone back to the boat—watching her children and their spouses in retreat. Her mother-in-law, too—what had she been thinking? Fernanda said she wondered about that as well, and that later that night, when they were all sitting together in the hot tub outside the hotel, she asked them. Fernanda’s own guess was that, after years of caring for others—their useless husbands, their squabbling children—it felt nice for them to escape for a minute, that facing the stingrays, dangerous as they could be, was better than having to return to all that drama in the boat.
But her mother-in-law said she hadn’t thought much of anything at all. “Only—I’d gone this far already, and maybe it was dangerous, but it was also really beautiful. I didn’t want you all to get hurt, so I was glad you turned around. But I wasn’t afraid for myself. I’ve had many, many chances to die before—all that cancer—and I’ll have many, many chances to die again. I didn’t know when I’d get to travel here again, maybe never, and it’d be a shame to stop when I had gone this far.”
“That’s it, then?” I said.
“That’s it, that’s all she said about it.”
“What about your mother?”
“She said that once she saw my mother-in-law going ahead, she was inspired and thought she could do it, too—and how unexpected and beautiful an experience it had been, how blessed, how lucky it felt to be in God’s light.”
If a dystopia is a place where everyone, or at least someone, lives in abject misery and terror, then most cows, fishes, forests, and humans, right now, today, are living in completely non-imaginary dystopias. The human species’ ravenous egocentrism is the landfill on which such hells are built. The landfill, in turn, consists of dregs of a crumbling but toxic myth; that tall and ancient tale according to which Homo sapiens are the world’s born rulers with the right to consume everything that exists. In the anthropocentric attitude are the social values which enable humanity’s crimes against not-just-human life. Without a thought for the majority of Earth’s inhabitants which, because they are not human, have little to no say in their own fate, our ecocidal behaviors have made an incurable mess of Earthbound existence.
In my novel The Box, the dominant entities are neither humans nor humanoids, not even animals, but limbless, mindless, voiceless things. The human characters stumble and squabble, create and steal and love and die, because ordinary things like cabinets, packages, trains, and snowflakes are the way they are. People exist at things’ mercy, empowered by them and powerless against them. Where characters’ ability to make changes to their world, or even to perceive what is happening around them, is curtailed and overwhelmed by the weather and an unintelligible trinket-size box—such a story’s central actors are not its humans. From their various points of view, their vulnerability makes their world a hell.
The diverse narrative voices of The Box are inspired by literature in translation from around the world, including some of the books on my list. Written in Asia, Eastern Europe, and the southern Americas, some of these dystopias don’t seem especially wretched, at least at first. But in these visionary works, attempts to conquer all existence in the name of anthropocentrism—whether with wars or industries, whether capitalist or communist—must fail. Instead, worlds themselves are the agents of change and wielders of power: humans subsist at the mercy of the plants, animals, buildings, chairs, particles, weather patterns which comprise the worlds they live in and create their inner worlds. World and character become mutually porous, with the result sometimes that language spills out of familiar structures into overwhelming lists, fateful fragments and recursions.
The Taiga Syndrome by Cristina Rivera Garza, translated from Spanish by Suzanne Jill Levine and Aviva Kana
A failed detective tracks a runaway couple to the taiga, Siberia’s fabled forest. The woods seem to infect people with madness as if through some black magic or undiagnosed toxicity—or as if being hacked to pieces for industrial resources has driven the land itself insane. Children turn wolfish, feral, possessed by a compulsion to run away and keep running. So vast is the forest that there’s nowhere to which humans can escape and hope to survive. Garza’s narrative is full of gaps, fragments, broken lines; like the taiga itself, it generates more shadow than clarity. The former Soviet Union, especially the Siberian province, is a popular model for dystopias in several languages.
The Factoryby Hiroko Oyamada, translated from Japanese by David Boyd
The factory seems the opposite of dystopian: a workplace prestigious and welcoming, manufacturing popular everyday products. But to three highly qualified new hires, the place embodies a massive inside joke: seemingly intelligible, absolutely nonsensical. In fact, colleagues communicate primarily in inside jokes, so the general jollity is a perfect hell for newcomers. The newbies are given mind-numbing busywork, the obvious pointlessness of which destroys their self-esteem even as everyone around them seems content. It’s as if a city’s worth of intelligent humans is being fattened up on ennui and empty jokes. But to what purpose? Has it anything to do with the bizarre birds, reptiles, and rodents which exist only on factory premises? On what does the factory feed?
Radiant Terminus by Antoine Volodine, translated from French by Jeffrey Zuckerman
Dregs of the Second Soviet Union flee to the Siberian wilderness when a century of fighting ends in near total annihilation. Almost nothing survives the nuclear catastrophe, a result of the war and widespread over-exploitation of nuclear energy. Zombies, glowing almost-corpses, post-communist witches—leftovers of the once dominant human species—eke out a sub-existence as prisoners of feral plants and radioactive garbage. As scraps of Soviet rhetoric redden their memories, Volodine buries the characters in lists of weeds and detritus. The world’s invisible rulers are winds and airborne dreams, moods of insane nuclear cores imprisoned in abandoned reactors. Nuclear particles, ubiquitous and without mercy, determine who survives, how they suffer, even what they are.
The Besieged Cityby Clarice Lispector, translated from Portuguese by Johnny Lorenz and Benjamin Moser
The city of São Geraldo eases into the twentieth century, gradually replacing horses with automobiles and small-town sleepiness with urban bustle. Not dystopia but progress, so it seems. But as São Geraldo becomes all asphalt, noise, and scaffolding, the city molds Lucrécia into what she cannot bear to be: a cog in the machine, or rather, oil for the men who build and constitute the growing capitalist machine. As Lispector describes with characteristic obliqueness, Lucrécia understands much more than she realizes: she intuits her damnation to a life of ornamental thinghood. Trapped within the trinket that São Geraldo wants her to be is the animal she is at heart: the wild horse for whom “progress” has no place.
Baron Wenckheim returns from Argentina, fleeing debts and other difficulties, to the bleak Hungarian township of his birth, which everyone else is trying to escape. The town celebrity flees as far as the outskirts, defends his weedy shack with a shotgun. Nobody else gets any farther. Krasznahorkai’s interminable sentences flood the characters in their personal voids. Soon the Baron yearns for exile; but for one reason or another, escaping his hometown just isn’t possible. The train never comes, there’s no gasoline, the buildings and infrastructure are crumbling; everybody is oppressed by decrepitude, poverty, incompetence: accomplishing anything at all is next to impossible as the overabundant absences of things make the town a prison.
The Memory Policeby Yoko Ogawa, translated from Japanese by Stephen Snyder
Things are disappearing from the island. Birds, roses, calendars, stamps, ships, perfume. In the instant of something’s vanishing, everyone immediately forgets what it was and how it made them feel. Then they forget that they’ve forgotten. It’s as if, for example, maps never existed; as if the very idea of maps never occurred to anyone. The extinctions are deliberate: things are disappeared. Humans who forget to forget are arrested by the Memory Police. If your cat fails to unhappen when, by methods unknown, mysterious authorities decree the disappearance of “the cat” as concept, species, and memory, then someone will come for poor kitty, you needn’t worry—just as long as you forget.
City of Torment by Daniela Hodrová, translated from Czech by Véronique Firkusny and Elena Sokol
This is the Prague that no one wants to remember; the dingy Prague of poor people whose role in history is to be mowed down. It’s the Prague of living things: the swivel chair as portal to other Pragues, the tailor’s mannequin and stone angel yearning for love. It’s also the Prague that refuses to finish dying. Ghosts populate the pantry in the apartment where a woman relives her abandonment again and again. The living are trapped in spirals of déjà-vu or obsessed with the non-place between their Prague and the ghosts’. Faintly shimmering is the Prague that might have been, where events that did not happen are almost happening. Or are the Pragues of imagination and reality becoming confused?
On the communist side of the Berlin Wall, a disillusioned factory worker wanders in the garbage dump which, ever expanding, has already engulfed the forest and neighboring village. Shadowy “garbagemen,” a red-faced vulturine figure in black rags, and hosts of mannequins outcast from shop windows populate the dump, voicelessly haunting one another. The longer our narrator spends in the dump, taking up a sort of residence among the junk, the more the junk infects his outlook with junk’s existential (dis)qualities. Everything in existence starts to resemble waste and wasting: East Germany thrown out of the world like so much trash; history itself is time’s cremated castoffs; storytelling, for our narrator, is but a “routine of crossing out words.”
In another future haunted by the former Soviet Union, Koreans fleeing a pandemic migrate en masse into Russia via Vladivostok. The refugees are overwhelmed by the vastness of the land, the deadly cold, the monotony of the flat and treeless view, and above all the sense of hostile emptiness pervading the region. It’s internal, too, this emptiness, for the characters have lost everything; emptiness infects their very voices with terseness and bleak repetitions. The remnants of a city, which seems to be destroying and rebuilding itself at the same time, turn out to be the splitting image of the 1930s’ Soviet gulags, complete with senseless slogans extolling forced labor.
Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, translated from Russian by Olena Bormashenko
Capitalist extractivism is in full swing in the North American city beside the Zone: a garbage dump left behind by extraterrestrials. On the aliens’ technological detritus, the city’s humans grow rich. Cars no longer need gas or electricity: simply place upon your dashboard a “spacell” or “perpetual battery.” Like living cells, spacells reproduce by division. Many things of the Zone conduct themselves as living things, even as they cannot be. Antennas, as if for televisions, grow hair and defend themselves with violence. Corpses and dismembered limbs acquire “autonomous viability.” Gravity itself seems to grab things and eat them. The Zone curses those who visit: disaster follows them everywhere (hence the city’s emigration ban), and their offspring outgrow their humanity, becoming who knows what.
What I love most about the plethora of literary podcasts on air these days is that each podcast feels like entering a niche corner within the larger literary community, and taken together, the many literary podcasts available reveal just how vibrant, intelligent, and robust the world of writers and readers really is. Lately, I’ve found myself turning to literary podcasts when I need a lift in my own writing and reading life. On top of giving my eyes a much-needed break from staring at my laptop screen, listening to smart, creative people chat about books is a failsafe strategy for re-energizing my own creative sensibilities. There is something contagious about good literary conversations, the way they inspire an itch to write, to read, and to move through the world with a deeper appreciation for the power of story, of words.
Whether you’re a die-hard bibliophile in search of your next read, a writer seeking some inspiration for your work-in-progress, or simply someone who enjoys the soothing cadence of spoken words, there’s a literary podcast for you. From thoughtful, in-depth author interviews to hilarious discussions of airport bestsellers, this roundup of twelve literary podcasts is sure to provide joyful, high-quality literary content for the next few months.
With episodes clocking in around two hours, Between the Covers is a long-form literary radio show that I recommend often to my fellow literary nerds craving deeper insight into exceptional books and their authors. Hosted by David Naimon, the conversations on Between the Covers forgo small talk and get right to the beating heart of the work and writer in question. Full of sharp observations, craft musings, and capacious questions that probe the more mysterious aspects of artistry and storytelling, this podcast is high-quality conversation from start to finish. The most recent episode featuring Major Jackson is, among many things, an intimate discussion about the past, the way Jackson’s poetry and prose has evolved over two decades, and how selfhood is inherently related to others, to lineage. “Part of the tension of being a writer,” Jackson says, “is writing within a tradition, writing in relation to a tradition, and writing against that tradition.”
Released every Wednesday, The Stacks is “your literary best friend, your virtual book club, your one-stop-shop for everything books.” Host Traci Thomas chats with a wide range of guests including writers, film stars, community leaders, and publishing professionals. Every chat is composed of two parts. Part one is a casual conversation with the guest about their current reads, what’s in their TBR pile, and happenings in the world of books and pop culture. In part two, Traci and the guest discuss The Stacks Book Club pick (September is Monsters: A Fan’s Dilemma by Claire Dederer). This podcast is so welcoming and accessible, and each episode feels like a warm, soul-nourishing coffee date with friends.
Ursa Short Fiction celebrates outstanding short stories and is perfect for listeners who love short fiction or are looking to better understand what makes a great short story great. Hosted by award-winning writers Deesha Philyaw and Dawnie Walton, this podcast is a fantastic addition to the literary podcast world for the way it champions the often commercially overlooked genre of short fiction, unpacking and celebrating the form’s power while also highlighting the work of underrepresented voices. Episodes feature a single short story, story collection, or interview with a short story writer. Philyaw and Walton are brilliant, passionate hosts who geek out about their love for short fiction in a way that is illuminating and contagious.
Meditative and perceptive, the Poetry Unbound podcast is made up of short episodes in which a single poem is read and then thoughtfully discussed, inviting listeners to delight in the beauty and power of poems. The host, poet and theologian Pádraig Ó Tuama, brings such care to each episode, his love for poetry felt in his reverential readings and rich commentary that highlights craft choices, theme, and the questions or reflections that each poem stirs up. Episodes include small breaks of calming instrumental music, which allows listeners the time to sit with the words and their own thoughts. This podcast feels like taking fifteen minutes to enter the chapel of poetry and let the loveliness of language wash over you.
Hosted by Emily Davis-Hale and Lauren Wethers, Reclaiming Jane is all about discovering new ways to interpret old texts. This biweekly podcast ushers listeners through the Jane Austen canon and offers updated lenses through which to view these widely-studied novels. Davis-Hale and Wethers have created a space where everyone and anyone can engage with the Austen canon: “If you’ve ever felt like you’re not ‘allowed’ to like Jane Austen – whether because her work is too white, too academic, or too straight – we’ve been there. And this podcast is for you.” From Sense and Sensibility to Northanger Abbey, Davis-Hale and Wethers are thoughtful and hilarious guides through the world of Austen, providing listeners with all the hot literary takes, historical context, and pop culture references you didn’t know you needed.
If you’re an avid reader looking to take your reading life to the next level, queue up Reading Glasses because this podcast filled with reading tips and tricks is exactly what you need to level up. Hosts Brea Grant and Mallory O’Meara discuss bookish problems big and small, episodes exploring topics such as how to organize your bookshelf, the best and worst reading positions, and strategies for making a respectable dent in your ever-growing TBR while also maintaining a busy schedule (and buying more books). Light, fun, and practical, Reading Glasses recognizes there’s actually a lot more to reading than just opening any ole’ book.
Hosted by celebrated novelist Marlon James and Riverhead Executive Editor Jake Morrissey, Marlon & Jake Read Dead People is easily among my favorite literary podcasts. True to its name, this podcast features Marlon and Jake candidly discussing the dead writers they love and hate, delving into important questions such as “Would The Confessions of Nat Turner have been better if Zora Neale Hurston had written it?” and “Were members of the Bloomsbury Group actually total bores?” On top of being laugh-out-loud funny, what I especially love about this podcast is that you get to listen to a writer and editor react to the same material, seeing where their opinions align and where they diverge. Marlon and Jake’s rapport is fun, dynamic, and brutally honest (they stick to dead writers for a reason!)
Returning September 19th with new episodes released every Tuesday, this podcast features LGBTQ guests who discuss the queer books that saved their lives with the authors who wrote them. Past featured authors include prominent queer writers such as Carmen Maria Machado, Alison Bechdel, Greg Louganis, and many more. It’s not often that readers get to sit down with the person that penned a book that significantly impacted them, but host J.P Der Boghossian has created a space where readers and writers can meet and talk openly about representation and the many ways queer books helped them navigate obstacles that accompany being queer. Honest and heartfelt, This Queer Book Saved My Life is a testament to the power of representation, the way seeing yourself on the page can help you feel a little less alone.
Featuring interviews with writers and artists such as J Wortham, Sarah Thankam Mathews, and Morgan Talty, Thresholds delves into transformative experiences: the crises, revelations, setbacks, and breakthroughs that served as formative moments in these artists’ careers. Host Jordan Kisner (and as of Spring 2023, temporarily Mira Jacobs) guides these free-ranging conversations with tangible curiosity and care that allows for real vulnerability about life, change, and art making in all its joys and frustrations. This podcast pulls back the veil of success to reveal the full human behind the art.
Emmy-award-winning producer and author Nikesha Elise Williams invites black writers, poets, playwrights, and storytellers of all kinds to discuss their artistic journey and help demystify the publication process. Williams is a wonderful, thoughtful host who allows each guest to bring their full story and self to the conversation, which leads to free-flowing discussion that is always deeply engaging. In a fascinating recent episode, guest Lori L. Tharps sheds light on the pros and cons of working as a ghostwriter, which results in a rich conversation about credit, ownership, and how writers are viewed (and often undervalued) by larger society. Black and Published is transparent and motivating, showing listeners there isn’t one way to be a writer.
Hosted by Adam Vitcavage, the champion of debut authors, Debutiful is a podcast where listeners can discover exciting debut authors. Each episode features a single writer and provides a deep-dive into their upcoming book as well as their writing process, inspiration, the many joys and obstacles that accompany publishing a book, and general, thought-provoking conversations about the writing life. Recent episodes have featured Tom Commita, Nicole Cuffy, and Rita Chang-Eppig. In addition to always being a fun and uplifting listen, the podcast is a fantastic way to support new voices and make sure you have tomorrow’s literary superstars on your radar.
If Books Could Kill is centered on a hilarious yet ultimately insightful premise: revisiting “the airport bestsellers that captured our hearts and ruined our minds.” You’ve likely heard of books such as Freakonomics and Atomic Habits, but have you considered exactly why they dominate bestseller lists? Hosts Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri invite listeners to join them in thinking more deeply about the popular books society has embraced with open arms, acknowledging what these books get right but more often skewering their empty philosophies, missteps, and our culture’s chronic habit of celebrating books that maybe aren’t always worthy of celebration. Delightfully irreverent, this podcast will force you to re-see the self-help genre, big publishing, and societal book trends.
DON’T MISS OUT
Sign up for our newsletter to get submission announcements and stay on top of our best work.
YOUR INBOX IS LIT
Enjoy strange, diverting work from The Commuter on Mondays, absorbing fiction from Recommended Reading on Wednesdays, and a roundup of our best work of the week on Fridays. Personalize your subscription preferences here.