Small, not especially
sensuous, not the kind
of shape to give one
power, not a flower,
soft yet sharp, scolded
as smart (not to know it
from what's gone in—
all manner of poison
and men—nor from
the waste come out,
words and in low hours
matter), flirt, pretender,
trying accents on
like dresses, meanwhile
wedded, fitted to
a single tongue, if
pretty, numb, probably
forever scarred
by a teen magazine’s
kissing advice: lips
should form, slow, over
and over, the syllable
peach—
painted, poised,
prone to embarrass me,
site of desperation,
set for combat or allure,
sometimes I think
impossible to hold
naturally, even now
this poem, can’t
help it, can't stand it,
wants to like me,
wants you to want me,
wants you to, needs
you so bad—
I Let You
Because I am sick
of the holy
impenetrable,
I will not call
my body
a temple,
rather render
the cunt
a casino, my
eye in the sky,
my house
always wins—
bring me
your thirsts,
lay them out
like bad bets,
your hand
when you fold,
smokes crushed
to smolder
in ashtrays
keep turning up
empty, forgetting
the hours,
your promise,
your wife. Maybe
another life
could have left
or found me
innocent, humble,
a tabernacle,
a garden
shed, clothes
drying like well-
tended ghosts
on the line,
but I was born
for the taking
of what isn't mine,
what I am
given,
however it's got.
Dolled up, I’m
if you want it,
and as much of as,
your free
roulette round,
your all-you-can
eat, your elite
hotel suite—
I come
at cost hidden
only from who
would not seek:
your golden idol
a cancer of debt,
burnt offering
a country
blown clean
to glass, souvenir
cleaved now
from memory,
language forked
in the mouth
like the crotch
of a root.
What could grow
here, desert built
to wander forever,
heat drunk
for honey, play
money for milk?
—who sold who
paradise, claimed
it was yours if I
named the right
price? To feel
flush, lucky,
loved, is
fleeting, and by
design, who draws
the game up
bound
to lose at its end,
no bigger sucker,
all appetite,
in—
so’s the trouble
with gods
who are hungry
and angry, human:
a story, first,
to devour the sun,
then one to split
the beast’s belly
open—told,
a fortune,
wheel spinning,
but whose?
Who makes
me, who
lets you,
who says
I do
what
I have
power
to.
Last week, the Electric Lit team stayed glued to our phone screens as we tasked our social media followers with anointing the best book cover of 2021.
The tournament was full of close calls determined by razor-thin margins (Mona at Sea prevailed over Black Girl Call Home by just five votes in the quarterfinals) and surprising twists (Nightbitch, a staff favorite predicted to be the winner, suffered a resounding defeat by Crying in H Mart in the very first round) as we tried to guess which cover would appeal the most to our readers—the kaleidoscopic neon pinks of Three Rooms or the tension of the noodle pull gracing Crying in H Mart?
From the Final Four, now we’re down to the two very aesthetically distinct finalists:
We spoke to the designers of Somebody Loves You and The Ghost Sequences about creating their book covers:
Holly Ovenden, designer of Somebody Loves You
Tell us about your design process for this book cover and what you wanted to convey through the artwork?
Somebody Loves You is a beautiful and piercing debut novel, about a young girl called Ruby who decides to give up speaking from a young age. The book portrays a family dynamic which is overshadowed by Ruby’s mother’s mental illness and the way she finds solace in the garden.
Click to enlarge
I wanted the cover to feature the garden weeds that Ruby’s mother becomes obsessed with, as if the reader is peering through the plants into a snapshot of the family’s everyday life. Her mother’s eye and Ruby’s lips slightly open set against a melancholy grey pressurized suburban atmosphere.
Did you have any interesting false starts or rejected drafts you can tell us about?
I worked up three different designs for the cover, the two other directions were photographic, and they decided to go for this illustrated route—which I was overjoyed about!
What’s your favorite book cover of 2021, besides your own?
There are so many to choose from this year. One that I really loved was U.K. design of Kazuo Ishiguro’sKlara and the Sunby Pete Adlington. Such a beautiful and clever package with gorgeous endpapers and also how the design has been so cleverly applied to the backlist covers! Real wow factor! Also, anything book cover designer Anna Morrison creates is always spectacular!
Vince Haig, designer of The Ghost Sequences
Tell us about your design process for this book cover and what you wanted to convey through the artwork?
Undertow’s publisher, Michael Kelly found Olga Beliaeva’s artwork, so the design was entirely led by that—it captures the elegance and ambiguity of Wise’s work to an almost uncanny degree. With an image this strong, my job was mostly to get out of the way and to some extent, all of my final designs de-emphasized the text in favor of the image. It’s a bit of risk doing something like that, but A.C. Wise has a following who would actively look for her work and the image was so strong I was confident that it would draw attention from new readers.
Did you have any interesting false starts or rejected drafts you can tell us about?
I experimented with a more intrusive idea, in which handwritten chalk text was arranged in a circle around the image as though it was part of some kind of ritual the two figures in the painting were taking part in. However this felt like it was adding something to the image which wasn’t necessary and ultimately, it unbalanced it. I kept the chalk hand-lettering, but I kept it separate from the image.
What’s your favorite book cover of 2021, besides your own?
I’m very jealous of Jamie Keenan’s U.S. cover for Keith Ridgeway’s novel A Shock, which takes a simple image from the novel’s first chapter and runs with it. It’s tactile, ingenious and while it cheats outrageously (look at the S!), it absolutely gets away with it because the eye actively wants the visual gag to work.
Drum roll please, here’s the winner of 2021 Book Cover Tournament:
The Ghost Sequences by A.C. Wise! Congratulations to Vince Haigh, Olga Beliaeva, and Undertow Publications.
In some stories about her, the path in the woods splits like a lip. It’s easy to picture if you try—there are birch trees standing close as teeth, dirt packed and hard. The fork in the road flicks quick like a snake’s tongue, with just as much bite to it. Picture it and know that no matter which road is taken, high or low, a witch waits at the end in a house standing on chicken legs, a fence dotted with human skulls surrounding it. Hold that house in your mind. See it loom.
In March of 2014, I read Catherynne M. Valente’s novel Deathless for the first time. I was seventeen and closeted, living in the south, loyal only to fantasy novels and house plants. Women, as familiar to me as the body I saw in the mirror, were the epitome of terror. Every crush I had was a reinvention of the world in which the rules for adoration could not be taught. Instead, they were moments of fearful discovery, of hunger so huge it couldn’t be understood until after the inevitable crash. I kept the reality of my desire close to my chest and felt ashamed in its overwhelming totality.
Deathless introduced me to Baba Yaga, the wizened and cannibalistic witch of Slavic lore known to challenge the naïve protagonists who stumble across her hen hut with seemingly impossible riddles and tests. Maternal in some tales, menacing in others, she’s consistently an enigma—her actions are unpredictable and determined only by the nature of her fickle mood and desires. Throughout Valente’s novel, Baba Yaga is cruel and nasty to the protagonist Marya Morevna while simultaneously easing her into the reality of her choices; one moment threatening to swallow her whole, the next offering her the chance to abandon the idea of power in favor of a home, a mother, a bed and a book and a fire in the hearth.
In those years, I was starved for queer content in media. When I devoured Deathless in a single sitting and reached the line where Baba Yaga is revealed to be queer herself: “Do you have any idea how much I know about men? And women! Don’t look so shocked—after an eon or two of being a wife you’ll want one of your own, too.” I felt seen. I felt found out. I read the line over and over again, filled with sick and private pleasure—at that point in time I was considering that I might be bisexual, an idea that I’d later roll around in my mouth slick as a lozenge until I landed with the hard and sweet concept of lesbianism—and thought, of course. It was only natural that this terror of a woman wanted women to be hers, too. After all, hadn’t the thought of queerness always risen in me dark and fast as a wave, a compulsive violence that refused to be shoved to the corners of the mind?
It was only natural that this terror of a woman wanted women to be hers, too.
Baba Yaga became central to me—a private expression of my own wants and needs, this scapegoat for me to project my fears through. There seemed no safe word for what I was. It was simpler to see her, to want her, to feel her as close to me as a mother unashamed of my awfulness.
It wasn’t until a few years later that I found others drawn to the witch and her prevalence as a morally gray character in folklore, particularly in online spaces dedicated to art and writing. This demographic was overwhelmingly queer and embraced a previously unfamiliar presentation of violent and othered femininity. As a mythical figure, Baba Yaga was Other. She was not the wicked witch I recognized in fantastical readings, nor a wise goddess waiting with an outstretched hand. Her cruelty was demanded of her—her goodness was a reward. Adhering to no standards, she provided a new moral code where isolation was a choice she made to protect herself, and kindness was shown only to those who were deserving.
Baba Yaga’s ambiguity made her difficult to pin down and understand. How do you categorize an unknowable woman? When she came to me, I was locked away in the safe interior of my private world. I found that her selected isolation pushed her beyond the standards of typical “monsters” in lore. Now more than ever, there is an increasingly lesbian desire to be secluded on the outskirts of the world, one that Baba Yaga presented as safe and familiar. I spent years as a teenager dreaming that one day I might live with my best friend in the countryside where nothing was expected of us, our increasingly close and unwillingly toxic relationship pushing the boundaries of typical friendship.
When she came to me, I was locked away in the safe interior of my private world.
I found Baba Yaga most compelling in my closeted years because I felt that coming out would cause me to lose everything that I held dear, even when it seemed the only possible choice to keep me sane. My relationships dissolved in secret. I couldn’t seek comfort from anyone as my world imploded. I felt unknown, unseen, raw as a wound. Every crush and kiss felt like swinging an axe, wearing down the blade until the cut seemed too deep to reach. Both before and after coming out, it was instinctual to retreat and dig my heels into soft loam, answering those questions of self inwardly rather than splaying them open for public consumption.
But in myth, Baba Yaga embraced the crash. She was hungry and wanting but sought no one out. She waited at the edge of the forest and made a choice when the young girl showed up at her door, begging for help. The decision was clear; eat or assist. But the method was a sharper blade, a different animal. In her earliest tales she was a representation of Mother Nature, a being intertwined with death and rebirth as the deviated norm in Pagan ideology. Throughout the centuries her tale warped into a warning symbol for young girls—she was the future that awaited them if they chose the wrong path. In some stories, she devoured the girl whole. In others, she chased the girl across the countryside, creating rivers and mountains in her wake and bringing new life to the universe. And in one, she gifted the young Vasilisa the Beautiful a guiding light that burned up her wicked family and abusive home. In her assistance there was violence, and in her violence, there was ambiguous respect.
In Carmen Maria Machado’s memoir In the Dream House, Machado speaks of the queer villain in popular media, often reflected only in the margins as excommunicated representations of horror. When posed as an antagonist, Baba Yaga with her wild femininity is undeniably a representation of consequence in folklore. But I found her actions justified, seen in the clear correlation between her cruelty and her hunger, her hate and her desire. Regarding villains like Baba Yaga, Machado writes in her memoir, “They live in a world that hates them. They’ve adapted; they’ve learned to conceal themselves. They’ve survived.”
When posed as an antagonist, Baba Yaga with her wild femininity is undeniably a representation of consequence in folklore.
Baba Yaga’s representation in media has canonically queer roots, ancient and tangled. But there is no celebration in traditional stories. The warning to susceptible women is clear—Baba Yaga gives into her desire, then stands scorned and reviled along darkening tree lines. Yet she’s completely unburdened by a heteronormative world—she seeks only pleasure, only power, only the electric connection between her and another woman, and retreats to revel in her own wants. But as this othered villain, the starved witch is denied her redemption and humanity, and in turn I felt separated from my own.
After coming out, I expected to feel freed—instead, I was more lost than I had been when my sexuality belonged to me alone. In the scrambling rockslide of my identity, I sought a semblance of power. Baba Yaga’s lack of attention to public perception and moral repercussions provided me with a beacon. So much of my desire left me feeling monstrous. Who was I, if not a woman with a womb awaiting a cherry-picked path? My future felt narrow enough to fit through the eye of a needle. It seemed that any choice other than the life predetermined for me was one that would leave me despised, alone, and vulnerable to those around me.
But Baba Yaga is not hated. She is ancient, chaotic, untethered. In establishing that unpredictability, she regains power, cementing herself as a godless creature who owes nothing to the world that reviled her. I felt reflected in the concept that I could exist as something beyond the traditional. Baba Yaga did not demand goodness of me—only the answer most right in the world that I had carved for myself. And my rightness could be subjective and mine, no longer needing to adhere to the presented set of rules.
Baba Yaga did not demand goodness of me—only the answer most right in the world that I had carved for myself.
Through art, I pulled the repeated symbolism attached to Baba Yaga into my work. Her anthropomorphic house standing high on its chicken legs became a character itself as I painted it over and over, a space closed off from all traditional interiors. A skull on a stick took the place of a lamp. Dark water, thin birch trees, and mountainsides as sinuous as a woman lying on her side were common settings for the silhouetted girl I placed among them.
The dark shadowed shape of my character darted through Baba Yaga’s mythological land. That shadow self could perform the strange actions I never felt capable of. She could walk for miles into the wood. She could aim an arrow at a bird in the sky. She could sink into dark water, known only by reeds and snakes. She had choices, and these choices had no consequences—there was no good or evil, only one option or the other without repercussions waiting on the other side.
At times this creation felt like the only true expression of my queerness, despite being lucky enough to be verbally accepted by the people around me. I didn’t feel that I could be open with my family, for fear of being perceived as something twisted and wrong. Though I had supportive queer friends I didn’t entirely understand myself enough to feel seen by them. There was a barrier between my internal and external language—no matter how hard I tried to voice my feelings, the words didn’t fit, never conveyed the truth of me. Through the paintings I could piece together fragments of my own history. I could create a codex of symbols that represented the metaphoric language of my own folklore, with Baba Yaga guiding me along the way and forcing me to make choices that I felt might separate me from the truth of my own body.
It was so easy to look to Baba Yaga and dream of her—wicked with her speech, feeding her desire when the whim presented itself, protagonist and antagonist all in the same moment. In a genre where a moral lesson is typically the point of telling a tale in the first place, she denied logic and thrived as a paradoxical leader. She existed as an example that even if I told the truth and annihilated myself in the process, there would always be power in the choice.
In a genre where a moral lesson is typically the point of telling a tale in the first place, she denied logic and thrived as a paradoxical leader.
In the final pages of Valente’s Deathless, Baba Yaga states that she liked to help a woman most “when her perversity has made me proud.” I spent so much of my life feeling perverse—my wants, my fears, my needs all seeming like foreign thoughts meant for another mind that ended up trapped within my own. But that statement alone was permission for wildness, deviation clicking into place like an igniting gas range where I stepped out of one life and into the next. I could be who I had always been, or I could notch the arrow in a waiting bow and prepare to watch it fly.
Before leaving the older and harder Marya Morevna behind to choose her fate, Baba Yaga asks, “How did she turn out, the woman you might have been?”
By forgiving my desire, I let the woman I might have been walk past me. Her world would be her own. I unfurled the tethered part of me that always felt most terrifying and fell in love with my own lesbianism. It was a beautiful thing when finally considered, sharp enough to hurt when I stared directly at it. I turned my eyes to it and did not look away.
It seems sensible to take the hate of a world and let it turn you into a hag, pull your darkness inward until it is a hard and heavy coal in your throat. But to sharpen it is the challenge. To desire is the challenge. To watch what you want walk through the door and snatch it up is the test of all tests, the mettle in the moment, the deciding factor that declares otherness and turns it into choice. The path splits in the woods. There is no delineation—each dirt road seems to glitter with promise, to grow deeper with a threat. The power is in walking, one step after another, exposed in the dark just waiting to be seen. Through Baba Yaga, we see the beauty in unabashed identity. She wants and she eats and she becomes more ancient than death.
I saw her, and I wanted. I hadn’t permitted myself hunger in so long.
Smoke a frozen Marlboro Red with your best friend. Fall in love (stupidly). Dance in a sweaty gay club in Itaewon. Go on vacation. Fall in love, again (perhaps even more stupidly). Eat frozen blueberries alone. These are some of the many things Love in the Big Citymakes you want to do, inducing nostalgia for things you may or may not have experienced. Sang Young Park’s English debut novel depicts the life of a lonely gay man in Seoul with verve, vulnerability, and a hearty dose of ironic humor.
Like the flashing 24-hour neon lights of Seoul, the prose is filled with exuberance and brilliance; simultaneously, it also illuminates those seemingly insignificant, quieter details, the overlooked corners of life. Young, the first-person narrator of the novel, meanders through jobs, relationships, and life goals. The novel is divided into four sections, loosely centered on Young’s relationships with four different people. Given the title, I was expecting the book to be an exploration of modern urban romance. What I wasn’t quite expecting was how Park also probes at different ways of loving (like the narrator’s friendship with Jaehee) or lack thereof (his tenuous relationship with his ailing mother). Ultimately, for me, Love in the City is about both the absurd comedy and aching tragedy of growing up; more accurately, of growing up and then realizing there’s not really anywhere left to go.
I corresponded with author Sang Young Park and translator Anton Hur over email, where we chatted about the role of humor in Park’s work, the ecology of Seoul, and the current-day movement of queer Korean literature in translation.
Translations from Korean to English in this interview are done by Anton Hur, the translator for Love in the Big City. This interview was produced with support from theLiterary Translation Institute of Korea.
Jaeyeon Yoo: How did you decide on the structure of the novel? Could you speak more about the title idea of “love,” and how it’s explored in the different sections?
Sang Young Park: As you mentioned, this novel is a kind of exploration of the different kinds of love that happens in a city. I wanted to cover friendship and maternal instinct and love between lovers, which includes sexual love as well. We often put all of these emotions under the umbrella of the word “love.” As a writer who enjoys exploring emotions, I wanted to show all the facets of an emotion that is so often reduced to a single word. I think the word “love” is often used in a positive sense, but the love that I’ve experienced hasn’t been unambiguously positive so much as complicated and sometimes even violent. I wanted the main character Young to show the reader the A to Z about love, which is what drew me to the structure I ended up with. It’s because I wanted to show a different kind of love in every chapter that I ended up with four interconnected stories, a composite novel.
JY: The narrator of this book has an irresistible way of talking. I admire the dexterity of your prose, how he’s able to shift between varying moods even within a paragraph; ironic, vulnerable, crass, wistful—he’s got it all. Were there any particular inspirations for his voice?
We often put all of these emotions under the umbrella of the word ‘love.’ I wanted to show all the facets of an emotion that is so often reduced to a single word.
SYP: To be honest, the narrator’s voice includes a lot of my own values and tone. I have what’s basically a cynical worldview but at the same time, I try every day to overcome such cynicism with laughter. I think this attitude comes through in my style.
JY: Yes, I was struck by how the narrator uses dark humor and irony as a coping mechanism, not only for dealing with his medical condition but also for heartbreak, mother-son issues, and financial troubles. Could you talk more about the role of humor in your writing?
SYP: I think life is basically tragic. Everyone has their cross to bear, and it’s how you accept this fact that’s just about the only thing we get to choose. I’ve always thought laughter and humor was my defense mechanism and only weapon. Which is why the characters in my work also have no choice but to laugh in the face of sadness. I may write a bit differently in the future, however.
JY: Speaking of the narrator, I noticed that there are some clear similarities between the main narrator and what we learn of you, Sang Young Park the author. The narrator is referred to as “Young-ah,” studied French, and is an aspiring author, constantly scribbling stories. I read this as intentional emphasis on the act of self-creation/representation—could you speak more about these choices?
SYP: For some novels, making assumptions about the distance between narrator and author takes on a literary and political meaning. I thought about this distance a lot while writing Love in the Big City. This novel is and always will be a work of fiction, and the “Young” in the novel isn’t me. But by adding certain details that I, the writer, happen to be familiar with, I hoped the novel would read with more verisimilitude.
JY: You state in your wonderful essay on K-pop that “the ecology of cities has shaped every aspect of my thinking, writing, and way of living.” Many Anglophone readers won’t be as familiar with Seoul, and I wonder: how would you describe the “ecology” of Seoul, and how has it shaped your fiction? Perhaps a different way of framing this question is: what drew you to write about this city, which is as much of a character in the novel?
In Seoul, the neon signs are on 24 hours a day, you can get a drink at any time of the night, things change very quickly, and you meet all sorts of passionate people.
SYP: Seoul is one of the world’s largest, most populous, and most dynamic cities in the world. I’ve traveled to many cities during my twenties and thirties, mostly to those places referred to as metropolises, and of those, I still found Seoul the most fun. The neon signs are on 24 hours a day, you can get a drink at any time of the night, things change very quickly and it’s always the state of the art, and you meet all sorts of passionate people. I think that’s the Seoul that shines through in my work. Moreover, Seoul is a place where minorities can maintain their anonymity, which makes it extra meaningful in the particular context of my narrative. All these thoughts coalesced to create the city in my novel.
JY: This book also got me thinking about the expectations around growing old(er). Could you talk more about these societal pressures of aging in Korea, which surface throughout the novel, and how these pressures might operate differently for queer people like the novel’s narrator—who already don’t fit into the heteronormative “get married and have a nuclear family” model?
SYP: Things are different now, but just a few years ago, we were very much in the thrall of “nuclear family romanticism.” There was this belief in a “normal family,” and a young man and woman coming together to have babies was considered the ultimate answer to the question of life. This ideology enabled all sorts of violence against anyone who attempted to break the mold of the “normal family,” a violence against not just queer folk like the ones in my book but all individuals.
JY: I’ve been very excited to see more queer South Korean literature surface in the Anglophone world! Do you think it’s a growing movement, or simply that readers are now more aware of the Korean authors that are writing queer literature?
There has always been queer literature in contemporary Korean literature—the first modern Korean short story is a queer story.
Anton Hur: If you’re asking about Korean queer literature in general, I think it’s a combination of both. There has always been queer literature in contemporary Korean literature—the first modern Korean short story is a queer story, and I’ve talked about queer Korean literature at length elsewhere.
But if you’re asking about Korean queer literature in translation, that’s a different story altogether. This latest plethora of queer Korean translations is definitely a deliberate movement on the part of certain Korean translators including Soje, Victoria Caudle, Paige Aniyah Morris, me, and a few others working very much in concert and as a movement. We very deliberately set out to translate outside of mainstream Korean literature and to bring out queer representation into translation. “What gets translated into English” is an extremely political question; note that the generation of translators before us are mostly missionaries or old white academics translating middle-aged cishet Korean men. We basically took out a legal pad, wrote “What would really piss off these dinosaurs?” at the top, and began listing them one by one.
JY: I know you previously translated a short story by Sang Young; what drew you to his writing?
AH: Basically what it came down to was, I read his sentences and thought, “This would lend itself really well to English translation.” Because some authors really don’t, and that’s fine, but Sang Young’s prose was very translation-ready. I asked him no questions during the translation, except one, which turned out to be a minor error that was corrected in printings later than the edition I owned. Because I have a certain style, the author I’m translating has to have a style that combines well with mine. (Translators who don’t think they have a style are either delusional or lifelessly flat.) It’s alchemical, and I know it when I see it. My mind immediately begins to translate the sentences as I read them, and that’s when I know I have a winner.
JY: You did such an amazing job at crafting a distinct Anglophone voice for this narrator! What were some distinguishing characteristics about Sang Young’s prose in Korean, and how did you try to convey these in English?
AH: Thank you! Sang Young’s prose is very Anglo-Saxon. It drips with irony and humor. My instinct was to play this up and almost exaggerate it. I think the book in Korean is more chill than my translation, but I require a work to approach me as much as I approach it. I don’t want my translation to read like an academic exercise, I want it to “work” in English as well. My authors have been very generous in this regard when it comes to translating them. They’re much more interested in what I come up with than me mindlessly adhering to some polite idea of what a translation ought to be.
JY: Love in the Big City is deeply rooted in Seoul, scattered throughout with many local references; how did you choose what to contextualize?
‘What gets translated into English’ is an extremely political question; note that the generation of translators before us are mostly missionaries or old white academics translating middle-aged cishet Korean men.
AH: I feel like Sang Young does extremely well in contextualizing the different places. I recall that whole thing in the book where the horrible pseudo-progressive straight couple thinks Young lives in Apgujeong, and you don’t need a footnote or whatever to explain what Apgujeong means to Korean readers because Sang Young’s contextualization is so clear. So this wasn’t really an issue in this translation, or really any of my translations as I recall. I think we should give readers more credit. I don’t think any reader steps into the world of a book and expects to understand every single nuance of every single thing. We should help the reader, and I feel like I help the reader a lot—some have said I help them to a fault—but readers, on the whole, have been extremely generous in their readings of my translations, especially for Love in the Big City.
JY: What are you most excited for Anglophone readers to encounter in this book?
AH: I just want them to know that queer Korean culture exists. I used to have, say, Korean Americans come up to me and go, my parents say there are no gay people in Korea, and I’d be like, your parents when they lived here were obviously not very observant because there have always been queer people in Korea. There are queers in the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty for effing sake, give them a copy. But now, instead of the Annals, everyone can read Love in the Big City and have a lovely dinnertime book club chat about the topic. I am invested in the narratives that surround Korea and its literature. I think we have a really dynamic and incredible literary culture and it has been my mission as a translator to showcase that and change the colonialist and racist discourse around Korean literature to something that actually matches my lived experience as a Korean reader.
Some years ago, long before I had any writerly visibility, I listened to an audio interview with Elizabeth Strout, one of my literary idols, in which she talked a bit about her philosophy around teaching. At that point she was still a faculty member of the MFA program at Queens University, Charlotte. I had applied there, specifically for the opportunity to work with her, having devoured Olive Kitteridge and then quickly, and rabidly, fallen in love with her entire body of work. But it was her thinking as a teacher that motivated me to apply. Every writer can point to the people and moments that either kept them going, or got in their way—those small encouraging or discouraging moments that have an outsized effect. I can’t find the interview online, but I remember clearly how Strout spoke about keeping her students writing as her primary responsibility: persistence above all else. This was the first time I’d encountered this sort of generosity in my newfound industry. It was welcoming, aspirational in a way. I came away from reading that interview with the distinct feeling that being a writer meant being community minded, a perspective I’d taken to heart during my four years at a liberal arts college with Quaker roots. I didn’t yet understand the many and varied difficulties that accompany the writers’ life, but I promised myself I would adopt the same attitude should I ever make something of myself in the literary world. I would do my best to keep those coming up after me writing.
A year or two later, in graduate school, in the same workshop I wrote about in September’s letter, our professor took the last day of class to reflect on our semester, the publishing industry, and to offer the best advice he could. He told us that literary success (however you defined it) had less to do with talent and more to do with will. He employed an oft-used metaphor: a fleet of racers jumping from a dock into a lake. The successful writers, he said, swam to the other side. Many would turn around—most within months of graduating the program. This had nothing to do with talent, he impressed upon us—it simply had to do with who was willing to keep swimming. I was determined to keep swimming.
My MFA program was my earliest literary gathering place. But in the years since, Twitter has become the writer’s town square. There’s something wonderful about this: a democratization of sorts. Twitter has made literary discourse far more accessible to anyone who’s interested in participating; we are no longer limited to the voices of white, heterosexual, highly educated men speaking from the ivory tower of creative academica—we are Black and brown, immigrant and indigienous, cisgender and trans, and everything along each of these spectrums.
My MFA program was my earliest literary gathering place. But in the years since, Twitter has become the writer’s town square.
When given the chance to advise writers who are just starting out, I tell them to get on Twitter. I tell them to follow both their peers, as well as the more established authors they admire. I encourage them to keep up with the scuttlebut. Follow the heat, develop a presence and voice, and alongside that work, do the writing that needs to get done. I tell them to pay attention—look for the pearls of wisdom that their literary heroes will drop. I’ve come to believe that amidst the never-ending “should I, shouldn’t I” debate about MFA programs, a well-curated Twitter presence and a year or two of community workshops and national conferences are a legitimate low-cost, and often low-trauma, alternative—particularly for those who might not have access to graduate programs due to systemic barriers. I even have friends who use Twitter as a forum for writing prompts, craft exercises in concision.
But alongside the benefits of Twitter, there is something far more troubling at work. All of a sudden, writers have a vocal and quantifiable audience—and boy do we revel in it. The line between public and private has certainly blurred, if not disappeared altogether. There may be no echo chamber more secure than that of an author and their Twitter followers. All I have to do is say “cat person” or “kidneygate” and an impassioned debate rises from the ashes of the most recent discourse. Serious conversations that explore the boundaries of what is, and isn’t, acceptable artistic practice are vital, but what happens when those conversations devolve from high-minded, intellectually curious rhetoric to personal insults and condescension? What happens when there’s a significant, and often unacknowledged, power imbalance between the loudest voices in those conversations? What happens when that power imbalance incites a virtual pile-on—hundreds, sometimes thousands of likes, retweets, and nasty comments from individuals and trolls alike, often directed at one person whom none of these bad faith actors even knows? What if that person looks up to the author they’ve angered? What if, in a more formal setting, they might someday become that author’s student?
What happens when there’s a significant, and often unacknowledged, power imbalance between the loudest voices in those conversations?
Situations often arise on Twitter that almost certainly would be handled differently if they arose in a classroom. Writers who are still cutting their teeth make mistakes, as do all of us. Unspoken codes of conduct are broken, bad assumptions are made, boundaries are crossed. All of this is part of the learning process. MFA-alternative classes hire writers with a wide-range of experience to teach, and enroll writers with a wide range of experience as students. And social media allows writers with varying degrees of experience some influence. Essentially, writers of all experience levels are teaching each other, online and off.
But appropriate classroom conduct doesn’t only apply to teachers, of course. In my junior year of high school, I took a course called “Ethics and Religions.” Our teacher encouraged spirited debate. And one day, in the middle of such a discussion I called another student’s opinion idiotic. My teacher immediately stopped the class, told me why my classmate’s opinion was legitimate, and made me apologize in front of everyone, before continuing the conversation. There was no structural power imbalance between myself and that student, but my teacher reminded me of what I’d forgotten in my fervor: decency, respect, and good faith. I remain grateful to him for that moment; simultaneously, I hope I never recreate it.
We could ask ourselves to engage in ways that we wouldn’t be ashamed to engage with our students, or our classmates.
If we thought of literary Twitter more like the classroom it’s become, we could raise the level of discourse. We could ask ourselves to engage in ways that we wouldn’t be ashamed to engage with our students, or our classmates. It will, of course, forever remain important to have safe spaces, both private and public—to critique, to question, to vent. To be silly, and to be thotty. But it’s also important that our public spaces maintain room for education, for intellectual, literary, and personal growth. It’s important that we refrain from creating those discouraging moments that have an outsized effect. I want to keep people writing, editing, and criticizing, and play a part in their growth in these areas. I want to keep people swimming to the next shore.
Agnes, my landlady, was standing in front of the building, wrapped in a dark blue shawl that swallowed her thin shoulders, twisting and folding luxuriously around her torso.
It had been a long day at the archives: I’d gone through the illustrations of several books of hours from the northern region. The majority of historiated initials represented women in supplication. I had only gotten up from my table as the archives announced its closing.
Agnes appeared to be looking for something in her bag and I thought she must have lost her keys, but I noticed when I came closer that she was holding them in one hand.
“Back from the archives?” she asked. It was true that I didn’t have much variation to my days but I was nevertheless taken aback. Had she been waiting for me at the door, guessing the hour of my return?
Beneath the blue shawl, she was wearing a wool purple coat. A red scarf was knotted at her neck. Even though the colors were striking, they were also unharmonious, as if she had chosen her outfit in the dark. In fact, her appearance suddenly struck me as disturbed.
She suggested going to the café next door. Hadn’t she been on her way somewhere, I asked.
“Not really,” Agnes said. “I thought I’d just step out for a little and then I ran into you.”
Again, I wondered with some irritation whether she had been waiting for me to come back. Still, I had to maintain a good relationship. Agnes’s husband Pascal was an important scholar in my field—it was through the art history department that I’d found my lodging—and he would most likely be on my dissertation committee the following semester. I had never met Pascal in person; Agnes had come to the city alone, with the intention to paint in the studio above my flat.
“Just a quick coffee,” Agnes said. “But feel free to tell me if you’d rather not.”
Alright, I told her, adding that I’d need to get going soon.
“Did you have plans?” She may have been calling me out, or she may have asked in all sincerity.
Yes indeed, I said. In reality, all I wanted was to be back in my room.
At the café, we took the back table. Agnes ordered a black coffee and asked for milk on the side, though she didn’t pour any into her cup once it arrived. She asked me if I’d had a good day. I was too tired to tell her about my findings at the library. I said that I’d gotten a lot of work done.
“You’re so productive,” she said. “I envy your discipline.”
She, on the other hand, had been distracted all day, fiddling with a painting she’d recently started. In the afternoon, after a phone conversation with her daughter, she’d finally decided to put the painting aside. She would get to work seriously tomorrow, or the day after.
It had happened once or twice before, she told me, that she’d felt so detached from her work and could find no way of relating to it. At those times, too, it had taken a while to make her way back to the surface and see things afresh.
After the birth of her children, when every day passed in a flurry of activity, the small and repeated tasks consuming days and months, she’d come to view her paintings as belonging to another person; someone who probed the world with curious superficiality. In the time that passed, with nothing more than ideas for works and a handful of sketches, she’d begun to doubt that she had anything of worth to communicate.
She’d felt so detached from her work and could find no way of relating to it. At those times, too, it had taken a while to make her way back to the surface and see things afresh.
What did it matter, she wondered, the fruit placed on the table, showing off its angles and colors in a perfect assembly, the landscapes, the interiors, the bodies, and all the forms close to abstraction that provided momentary relief from the world? Her paintings appeared rigid to her, even meaningless, though they had done well in her absence. Her gallery encouraged her to continue on the work she’d been doing before her children were born, as did her husband Pascal. His own research had continued steadily through the children’s births, without the slightest obstacle to his routine. It was Pascal’s idea to hire an au pair—a distant relative of someone at his department—who would live with them for two years and take over the children’s care during the day. Agnes consented, even though what she’d wanted from him was to take a step back and reevaluate their lives, rather than rushing to make things as they had been before.
When speaking of the toll of motherhood, women pointed to the time that was taken from them and never quite given back. But what was lost was also the capacity for selfishness and single-mindedness. Agnes wanted Pascal to share in this loss, for the two of them to let go of their work and to pick it back up in time, after they’d come to terms with the shock of what had happened to them.
The top of Agnes’s head was illuminated by the golden evening light. I noticed that the thin strands of hair, pulled back as usual into a low ponytail, barely covered her scalp.
She brought her coffee cup to her chest, held it there for several seconds.
The au pair, Jana, arrived on a rainy weekend. Standing in the hallway beside her suitcase, she looked as if she would burst into tears. Pascal’s colleague had told them that Jana was more mature than her years; she’d recently graduated from university and was taking some time to decide what to do next. But it seemed to Agnes that the stranger at the door was really just a child. She asked to go up to her room at once. After an hour, she emerged having changed into baggy, colorless clothes, looking as if she’d prepared herself for arduous physical labor. She barely spoke that whole day, though she listened carefully to the instructions given her: what time the children had breakfast, what time they needed to be picked up from nursery school, what they ate for snacks.
Those first weeks, she didn’t join conversations during dinner even though she sat with them the entire time. Agnes supposed the girl must be homesick or very shy; other times, that she despised them.
It was also unclear whether Jana liked the children. Of course, Agnes added, it was naïve to expect real affection from a stranger hired to work for them.
One Sunday morning, Agnes’s son appeared in the kitchen and asked whether Agnes knew that an angel resided on his right shoulder and a demon on his left. If only he focused hard enough, the child continued, he could hear what they were saying. He closed his eyes and stretched his arms in front of him, as if he were walking in his sleep. “It will be a stormy day,” he finally proclaimed. “And then sunny.”
Pascal was reluctant to confront the au pair, insisting that their son had probably made up the whole thing. Anyway, Pascal said, there was no need to cause trouble just as Jana was finally warming up to the family. So, it was Agnes who had to speak to her, when Jana came home after her day off.
They all wondered what she did on those days, slipping out before breakfast and not appearing until dinner was off the table. Agnes didn’t think the girl had any friends. The shops in town were closed. She imagined Jana sitting alone on a bench, wandering aimlessly around town, just so she could be by herself.
The anecdote about the angel and demon, Jana said, was something she’d heard when she was a child herself. The children weren’t even scared, she insisted. But as Agnes explained to her how such a story would no doubt be startling, would deform out of proportion into a nighttime army of chimeras, Jana began to nod. Alright, she said bitterly, she’d never tell such stories again. In fact, she would never tell the children any stories but only read from the books that Agnes selected.
“That’s not what I meant,” Agnes said, though she was aware that the argument had already shifted off track.
From time to time, Agnes went into Jana’s room with renewed determination to act motherly, to soothe out whatever troubles the girl harbored. She told Jana that she wanted to know more about her and tried to recount amusing anecdotes from her own day. The girl sat silently at the edge of her bed, cheeks flushed crimson, as if she were being unjustly scolded. She answered all of Agnes’s questions without offering anything more, as though determined not to reveal any part of herself—out of fear, or stubbornness, it was hard to tell. It was on one of these evenings that she asked Jana, having gotten nowhere in conversation, whether she could paint her portrait.
“She was extraordinarily beautiful,” Agnes said to me. “Did I already say that?” She swirled the pitcher of milk on the table then finally poured a few drops into her empty coffee cup.
For some reason, they all took pride in the girl’s beauty, as if Jana had chosen them as friends; as if her good looks meant something about them as well. To Agnes’s surprise, Jana agreed immediately to having her portrait painted. The following day, she sat in front of the easel, hands stacked on her lap. She posed as still as a rock, like she were a trained painter’s model, her eyes fiercely introverted.
Agnes worked slowly, over several weeks, building outwards from Jana’s eyebrows, which formed a slight crease above her nose, her wide, tinted cheeks, her pursed, proud mouth. The face, as it emerged, did not so much reflect her beauty as it did her reserve, the frown of suspicion as Jana studied her painter.
“She gave me the chills,” Agnes said. She added, also, that the girl thrilled her.
In the two years she lived with them, Jana always had a project to which she dedicated herself with discipline: memorizing monologues from plays, looking through art books, reading dated classics she couldn’t possibly have been interested in. If the children wandered into her room during her free time and asked to participate, she would firmly ask them to leave. It was admirable, Agnes and Pascal remarked, how seriously she took on the task of educating herself. Pascal lent her books and sometimes sat with her in the evenings quizzing her, delighted by the girl’s dedication to whatever he gave her. Jana was more at ease around him, even joyful.
Agnes had noticed, when she went into the girl’s room to bring her flowers or fresh linen, that Jana painted watercolors in a small rectangular notebook, the pages crammed full of sketches. There were the objects of her room, the neighborhood streets, drawings of children that resembled Agnes’s son and daughter.
Agnes looked up from her cup and studied my face as if she were looking into a mirror. “Perhaps she was the reason I went back to painting seriously,” she said.
Not necessarily because of the time Jana afforded her, but out of rivalry with the young stranger in her household, who spent almost as much time painting as Agnes did. Eventually, Jana began working on larger sheets and later on canvases, all of which she propped up around her bedroom, perhaps for Agnes to see. She was annoyed with the girl for painting so much, considered it dishonest, maybe because Jana had gotten the idea from her, or because she’d never asked Agnes for help.
“You’d think,” Agnes said, “that she was in competition with me.”
Still, she continued, it was a happy time, those two years of living with an au pair. This was when they settled into the rhythms of being a family, with an order to the way they lived their lives. In the presence of an outsider, their dinners were livelier, their affections softer. They teased each other and made up endearments, hoping to enchant Jana and catch her attention. Agnes remembered that at that time she even set the table with greater care, thinking to light candles, put out cloth napkins. She might prepare casual desserts, though this was not standard in their family, or cook something involving ritual and various steps—a pitcher of sauce on the side of soup, shells to crack, a recipe from fleeting seasonal vegetables—as if they had always enacted these traditions. Pascal was engaged, the way he was around students, and more charismatic than Agnes had ever known him to be at home. And whatever Jana might have felt about them, it was always clear that she watched them greedily.
In the presence of an outsider, their dinners were livelier, their affections softer. They teased each other and made up endearments, hoping to enchant Jana and catch her attention.
Something else, Agnes now remembered, was that Jana began to dress like her. It didn’t happen all at once, nor was it unexpected. Agnes had given the girl many clothes—ones that no longer fit her, others that she considered too youthful. The first time, she asked Jana to look through some bags and take whatever she wanted from them before she brought the rest to the charity in town. The girl took everything. Agnes was flattered, and assembled more things. Jewelry, scarves, bags. There were items she gave Jana even though she still wore them. Agnes felt satisfaction in her own generosity and the acknowledgment of her good taste each time
Jana accepted her things. But her generosity, she added, was no different from her pride. It was not out of kindness that she gave Jana those things, but a pretense of it.
The girl wore Agnes’s clothes in surprising configurations, with pieces that had never belonged together. She made them eccentric yet alluring, as if she were playing the role of Agnes in a film.
It was during this time that Agnes began her series of portraits, starting with Jana, then her husband and children and other acquaintances who sat for her. She no longer had any interest in professional models; she only cared to discover the people she knew through her paintings. But the cold and expository style of these works, whose faces were made up of a network of bulging veins, had worked most startlingly for the portraits of the au pair.
Their friends often observed how much Jana had changed while living with them, from a shy, unremarkable child to an assured young woman. She should be grateful to Agnes and Pascal, they said. By this time, Pascal had convinced Jana to apply to the art history department and had more or less arranged for her admission. It happened abruptly that their life together came to an end and Jana moved to a campus dormitory to start school. Within days of her departure, Pascal found someone to take her place as a nanny. The children were upset for a day or two, but quickly adjusted to the older woman who came several days a week, bringing them home from school and preparing their snacks before leaving in the early evening, when Agnes would be done with her work in the studio. Jana didn’t come over for dinner, or for weekend outings.
Agnes had learned that the essence of a relationship often became apparent with separation. In Jana’s case, it was evident that the girl had been neither family nor a real friend.
Once or twice, Agnes had seen her on campus. She had grown at once fuller and finer, though she looked no more confident than that first Sunday afternoon when she’d stood, forlorn, on their doorstep.
One time, Agnes had cycled past Pascal and Jana, eating lunch at a park adjacent to the campus. They were glowing, Agnes thought, immersed in what appeared to be an animated conversation. Or perhaps it was simply the ease they had in each other’s company. For a moment, it seemed that Agnes was watching two strangers. She hadn’t known that the two of them kept in touch, though she probably could have guessed it. She didn’t stop to say hello.
Agnes looked down into her cup, with its shallow pool of milk.
She was remembering all this, she said to me, because of a conversation she’d had with her daughter. On the phone this morning, her daughter mentioned that the topic of the au pair had come up in therapy. Agnes was skeptical of the things that emerged at her daughter’s therapy sessions, which often suited her daughter’s immediate needs and urges particularly well, but she was nonetheless startled by this particular memory.
How was it, her daughter asked, that this young girl had lived with them for so long even though Agnes deplored the girl’s presence? And why had Agnes never said a word about it, choosing, instead, to be willfully blind?
I asked Agnes what her daughter had meant by that.
“You see,” Agnes said, “I was just as puzzled. She was on the verge of tears on the phone, but I didn’t really know what exactly she was referring to.” She kept her eyes lowered on the cup. “There was nothing she could have witnessed,” she added. “I’m quite sure of that.”
Her daughter, now crying, went on to say that what she remembered most of all was the terrible constraint of that time; the fear that her mother might suddenly be angry, even though she appeared so calm. The fear that their lives might shatter. It was only now, her daughter said, that she could look back on those years and wonder why Agnes had chosen to react as she did—silent and resentful—knowing that this would only hurt her own children.
“She couldn’t bring herself to speak very clearly,” Agnes told me, “and I didn’t want to push her.”
Before hanging up, her daughter asked whether Agnes remembered the way she used to calmly fold her napkin in the middle of dinner, then suddenly excuse herself. What did she want to say to them in those moments, as she and her brother waited in trepidation for a disaster that never arrived? And she wondered now, with the therapist’s probing, about the au pair’s disappearance from their lives, the smooth arrangement of her removal without a scene.
“But it wasn’t a disappearance at all,” Agnes insisted, like she were trying to convince me as well. “The girl had figured out what she wanted to do with her life and she got some help from Pascal to achieve it.
“Surely you know how these things go,” she said, “when professors pull a few strings.”
It sounded, I began, as if Agnes had left out a part of the story. My voice was cool, measured. I wanted to go on, to get at the heart of something—what was it exactly? Curiosity, irritation, a wish for accountability or an urge to be cruel.
As if to prevent me from speaking, Agnes raised her hand.
“I know you have plans for the evening,” she said. Then all at once, she summoned the waiter.
In his debut collection,I’m Not Hungry But I Could Eat, Christopher Gonzalez explores the lives of young, fat, and queer Puerto Rican men. In these stories, men hunger not just for consumption but for communion—with friends, lovers, siblings, a cat.
In the title story, a young man eats more than he can stomach to support a distraught friend. In “Little Moves,” Felix attempts to process the death of his older sister, whose strongly held views on masculinity he is still trying to escape. In “Juan, Actually,” an unnamed man’s ride home from a party is disrupted after he’s roped into helping his Uber driver transport the courier he hit to the hospital. Each character in this collection is vibrantly rendered—it’s easy to imagine the lives of these characters outside the bounds of their stories, to wonder what aspects of them would be revealed in other contexts, with other people.
I first met Gonzalez on Twitter, after a literary magazine I read for published one of his short stories (“What You Missed While I Was Watching Your Cat,” included in the collection). I had already been a fan of his writing, how his stories negotiated yearning and humor and sadness and intimacy, and how each line of dialogue felt perfectly attuned to the character speaking it. I was struck by the sincerity he brought to every conversation, whether it be about oat milk, Raúl Esparza’s run as Bobby in Company, or equity in the publishing industry. After knowing Gonzalez as both a friend and a writer, there was no book I looked forward to more this year than I’m Not Hungry But I Could Eat.
I spoke with Gonzalez about the relationship between identity and desire, hookup apps, and the responsibilities of personal growth.
Matthew Mastricova: The inclusion of the author’s note about these characters’ identities fascinated me, partly because I felt these stories explored the tension between how people identify and how people act. Was this something that you aimed to explore?
Christopher Gonzalez: I don’t think an identity is at all an indication of how we actually move through the world. I think it’s a way to find community. It’s a way to label experience, but within those labels, within those identities, there’s just so many types of experiences that overlap and are contradictory, and I’m interested in how we self-identify and how we also move through the world can be contradictory. Whether the character M in “Enough for Two to Share” claims to be straight, but is clearly at least DL, if not bisexual. It doesn’t matter, but he puts up a front for whatever reason and I think people are just walking contradictions all the time. Even for the narrator of that story, he’s out but he sort of plays along with this role of being someone who’s slinking around in the shadows.
MM: I was struck by the types of sex writing in this collection. There’s a section in “Tag-a-long” where there’s this litany of shitty hookups and it made me think a lot about the ways in which sex is often framed as this great release of tension or desire.
There’s a thin line between preference and prejudice and toxic fucked-up attitudes about what you’re entitled to during sex, and I think it’s all sort of murky on the apps.
CG: Sex can be so fraught. I’d say many of the characters in this collection are freshly out of the closet in some way or another, and I feel like hooking up, especially in New York City, can be a very fraught experience. I think for a lot of queer men many of those initial sexual experiences were brought about by the apps and by this filtered communication and distancing so you’re having sex with people you don’t fully know, and I think that’s a very difficult thing. It’s interesting to me that we can string together a personal sexual history based on empty hookups, and in those spaces, we navigate them with all of our identities. I don’t think I really get into the way fetishization happens on the apps in the collection, but when you’re a fat Latinx person, those identities can yield certain types of friction.
MM: Do you think the friction between identity and desire is amplified by apps or is it something that apps have just made more explicit?
CG: Apps are so fascinating to me because apps like Grindr present themselves as almost a Candyland, but within that, there is room for somebody’s fantasy being somebody else’s nightmare. If somebody has a fetish for fat bodies, the person who is fat is on the receiving end of that. I think a lot of us resign ourselves to “this is the only way I can find or have sex or have connections with other people” through these apps that are toxic, so I think maybe both [amplified and made more explicit]. People feel they can be more forthright with what they want, but there’s a thin line between preference and prejudice and toxic fucked-up attitudes about what you’re entitled to during sex, and I think it’s all sort of murky on the apps.
MM: I think about the ways in which like how people signify their identities on apps where it’s not just “I’m looking for a hookup” but “I’m specifically looking for this body type or this ethnicity,” which results in a situation where one’s desire becomes their identity, which is desiring another’s specific identity. As shown in “Enough for Two to Share,” this erases the humanity of the person being desired.
CG: Yeah, you become somebody’s plaything. And I think for some people there are spaces and contexts where you can be into that, but I think there’s a fatigue when that becomes the dominating experience in your sex life, where you’re only desirable because of these traits, but only in these specific situations and it’s only about sex and never progresses to anything beyond that.
I just think it’s exhausting, and I think for the narrator in that story, what’s exciting about the whole interaction for him is that it’s happening very much in the present. You don’t really get the context of what his sexual history is before that night, but in that brief aside you get the feeling that he’s been around the block because he knows how specific types of guys tend to treat guys like him. There’s something exciting about hooking up with someone in an organic way and also that the power dynamic has shifted in his favor.
MM: Do you think the power of explicit sex in a story has a different weight than just the description of it?
It’s more about the action and the persona of being fat, rather than how you feel about your own physical appearance.
CG: Yeah, for sure. I think explicit sex allows you to reveal character in a way that describing it doesn’t. I think it’s less about the sex itself, even if that’s what’s at the surface; it’s about desire and need, which aren’t always inherently sexual. In this context, there is this element in what these characters both feel they need and what they feel they’re getting out of this moment with each other. In the moment they might feel one way, but after there’s gonna be a different light on [that experience]. I purposefully ended before the after. I end that story quite literally on the cusp of a connection in literal body contact.
MM: There’s this tenderness in “Enough for Two to Share,” where fatness is acknowledged in the context of a spontaneous queer meetup but not as a roadblock and without being fetishized or being made the totality of who they are.
CG: Maybe the author’s note was a cheat, in a way, where I could say these characters were fat and then not have to worry about how to get that point across in every single story. [My fatness] isn’t on my mind 24/7, but it comes up, right? And it comes up in sex, which feels like a very natural organic way to mention it, in settings where there’s food, in settings where you feel on display in any way.
M was in no way fetishizing [the narrator]. It doesn’t come up in that way. The narrator also doesn’t dislike his own body, it’s just his body yields these different responses in different sexual encounters. So to have one where he’s allowed to be the more dominant person, where I feel like sometimes when you’re shorter and fatter, there’s this submissive persona that’s projected onto you—it was important to mention his fatness. There’s this tenderness in the way they kiss and it highlights what’s been lacking in other interactions. There would have been no way to write this story without mentioning his body.
For all the stories, it was important to me that these characters were seen as fat men, even in contexts where their body wasn’t particularly highlighted because I think, you know, the reader can’t look away and be like “these fat guys are fucking.” You have to see them fully as that in every story, whether it’s something sexual or not. I didn’t write any moment of particular excessive self-love for the body because that didn’t feel true for any of these characters. I think many of these characters do like their bodies. They’re negotiating liking their own bodies and how they feel in certain spaces in those bodies, and I think there’s a tension there. I think this goes back to your earlier question about contradiction and tension between identity and how you act.
It could very well be that the narrator of the titular story has no problem being fat, but in that specific setting, where you’re aware of your own binging and how this is a practice of, in one sense, being the fat friend who’s always down for a meal and how you have to live up to that. Maybe there’s a part of that that’s pretty shitty and it’s more about the action and the persona of being fat, rather than how you feel about your own physical appearance. I think it’s just a constant negotiation. I could have learned to like my body more than ever, but there are still situations that might bring me back to that mental space where I don’t or didn’t love it as much.
MM: I feel like there’s an expectation, especially amongst queer app users, where people on the DL are less willing to be intimate, but in my reading this was the most emotionally intimate of the stories.
On the apps or a one night stand you can open up, because you won’t have to worry about the ramifications. If you go in being like I’m probably never gonna see this person again, you can immediately let your guard down.
CG: What initially draws them together in the narrator’s mind is that they’re both Puerto Rican, and it sort of ripples out from there. I think they’re both incredibly honest with one another in a way that I think is more difficult when you’ve known someone longer. Ideally, you should be able to vocalize frustration or more difficult emotions with people who you’re closer to, but there’s something built into an interaction that occurs on the apps or a one night stand where I feel like you can open up because you won’t have to worry about the ramifications of having done so, whether that’s conscious or not. I do think if you go in being like I’m probably never gonna see this person again, you can immediately let your guard down without worrying about it later.
MM: What is it about the people close to us, or even just people we know, that keep us from asserting the dignity we deserve?
CG: I think for the characters, there’s always the fear of losing these connections for being fully authentic because if those connections were based on a version of you that wasn’t fully authentic, then I think there’s a fear for them that the minute they sort of assume their true identity or whatever you want to call it, it won’t be well received.
In “Better Than All That,” Justin of course wasn’t out in high school and is in love with his former best friend, but I think there’s that idea of is he actually worried that they’ll be homophobic or is he worried more that he will be revealed as having been a fraud to some extent. And I think there’s room for both. But if your relationship with someone has been built on even a hint of falseness then I think there’s a fear, rational or not, that you can lose it by “coming clean,” so to speak.
MM: Do you think that’s part of the reason the characters in “Here’s the Situation” and “That Version of You” cling to these shitty friends?
CG: I think that’s part of it. I think there’s comfort in those connections for them even though they’re deeply toxic or unhealthy. Something I was interested in exploring in the collection is that these characters are in their early-to-mid-20s and there’s something very formative about those relationships. What happens when you try to break free of them? A lot of these characters are afraid to be their authentic selves, because they’re afraid of losing those connections. Then there’s the question of what comes next after I’ve decided to end this thing. And we don’t really get to see that in any of these stories.
And in those two stories, it’s complicated by the fact that both narrators are in love with, or have at the very least strong feelings towards, their friends. I think for people who are scared to put themselves out there or find someone who’s actually available, it’s almost easier to languish in this connection that you know won’t ever be more than what it is rather than trying to seek out something where you’re uncertain about the result. That was one of the major through lines I was working through in this collection—wanting to change your situation but being completely terrified and debilitated by the idea of doing so. Which is why, I think, each story ends for the most part on this subtle shift where you know something has changed. It might not seem that big, but for those characters it’s massive.
MM: In “Better Than All the Rest,” the main character has literally forgotten how he performed his identity while in survival mode. Do we have a responsibility to others in changing?
CG: I think our personal journeys and self-growth will always result in the relationships around us shifting in one direction or another. I think we are all capable of enacting unintentional harm, and that, to me, is more interesting than intentional cruelty—casual cruelty or, in the case of “Better Than All That,” this cruelty that was a means of survival. It was a tool that played into homophobia and internalized homophobia, but had actual consequences.
That was one of the major through lines in this collection—wanting to change your situation, but being completely terrified and debilitated by the idea of doing so.
As far as what our responsibility is to others, I think the difficult thing is to acknowledge when harm has been done. I think sometimes it’s harder to do when your main goal was self-preservation, but I don’t know what [being responsible to others] looks like, to be honest. I don’t know if that’s apologizing, if that’s owning up to it. I don’t know if that’s extending kindness in a situation later in life that echoes a situation where such harm was enacted, but I think for all these characters who wish to grow, for all of us, I think there has to be recognition of what it took to get there, and what it took isn’t always sunshine and rainbows.
It’s a terrible way to put it, but so often we’re like “I’ve gone through a lot to get to where I am,” and that’s true. I think we all have that moment where we’re like ”Wow, I’ve grown as a person,” but I think in order to grow sometimes we’re just a little unaware of who we might have stepped on, or we’re so focused on our own insecurities or fears we didn’t realize somebody else needed help. And I think it’s complicated.
MM: I think one of the interesting tensions of writing identities with fidelity is that, as you said earlier, you’re not always aware of every facet of your identity at once. I was particularly interested in your approach to writing bisexuality and bisexual characters.
CG: It was something that, as I was writing the book, came up with first readers of the stories being like “Well, it was a little unclear. Maybe he’s gay, maybe he’s—” and part of me being like “Maybe it actually doesn’t matter whatever the label is.” They’re bisexual because they are and I didn’t feel like it was necessary to unpack that. And of course in “Tag-a-long” there’s that moment of “Well, it must be easier to date because you’re bisexual.” Part of writing this book was taking the piss out of those interactions I’ve had, those invalidating experiences. There’s nothing in “Blank White Spaces” that would suggest explicitly the narrator is bisexual. The person he’s longing for or has had this intense relationship and breakup with is a woman,m but I think if you were to write another story about that character, maybe it would come up that he has had feelings for men or maybe it wouldn’t.
Going back to the author’s note, part of it was also a level of defensiveness. I’m not going to justify their sexuality in any way. It was very important to me for readers to not see the character in “Packed White Spaces” as straight. A big part of the collection is just these characters who are feeling unseen in their full complexity and [sexuality is] one facet of their character, even if it’s not a part of that story. There are stories where it’s a conscious choice to mention it specifically because a character has had many relationships, like in “Juan, Actually,” but that’s the thing! There’s no one way that bisexuality works, and the idea that just because somebody has had more experience with men doesn’t mean they’re any less bisexual.
As a queer New Yorker who enjoys making bad choices for good stories, with queer friends who also regularly make and support bad choices for good stories, there is a fundamental joy that comes with reading the 2021 wildly popular novels Detransition, Baby by Torrey Peters and One Last Stop by Casey McQuiston. There we are, on the page, reproduced: messy choices and nontraditional chosen families; the hookups—oh the hookups!—and the strange New Yorker-ish weaving into someone’s life for a short time by way of their fascinating apartment. In these novels, the queer joy reads like a sunny Saturday at Jacob Riis Beach; like a 24-hour diner across from a techno club where queers dressed in leather harnesses order food; like walking into your local pub where they remember you and your order.
As a writer, I felt only happiness for the inclusion in Peters’ and McQuiston’s glorious stories. There it was, nothing scrubbed: the sex work, the shitty apartments, the Daddies, the subway makeouts, the indulgent prose—all of it so antithetical to what publishers claim the market wants. As a reader, I latched onto the characters who looked, talked, and thought like me: Jane, the hot Chinese American lesbian featured in One Last Stop who is covered in zodiac animal tattoos, enjoys talking to strangers, and rides the Q train; and Katrina, the biracial cis woman in Detransition, Baby who has a Chinese mother, is fed up with heterosexuality, and works in advertising. There’s some of me in both of them—a hot (indulge me, please) Chinese American queer tired of heteronormative institutions, with arms slathered in tattoos, unfortunately working in advertising, thriving happily and messily in New York City, living by the Q train, enjoying befriending strangers despite the New Yorker stereotype.
Though neither Katrina nor Jane are what Gen Z and literary lingo call the main characters of their novels, the plots entirely hinge upon them. They are essential. In Detransition, Baby, Katrina accidentally becomes pregnant with Ames’s baby, and together they work with Ames’s ex Reese to explore the possibilities of three-way co-parenthood. In One Last Stop, Jane is displaced from the 1970s into the current 2020s, where she is time-stuck on the Q train. She meets and falls in love with August, who, armed with a healthy side of pancakes and drag queen adventures, helps her break free into the present.
Without Katrina and Jane, there would be no Baby, no Q train romance, no novels—novels which rely on their bodies. Detransition, Baby is structured by the amount of time that has come before or after conception inside Katrina’s body, and Ames and Reese, the two protagonists, only reunite and reflect on their past after finding out about the pregnancy. In One Last Stop, August, the heroine, begins to blossom once she embarks on a journey to rescue Jane’s time-stuck body, a body whose strength is reliant on August uncovering more of Jane’s past. Despite Katrina and Jane’s importance to their respective storylines, we are never directly given their perspectives or personal histories. We only learn about them through the ears and eyes of Ames, Reese, and August—the white main characters. Yet Katrina and Jane’s bodies are tools for the plot and the other white characters’ growth.
Despite Katrina and Jane’s importance to their respective storylines, we are never directly given their perspectives or personal histories.
Despite the joy I felt reading these novels, I can’t help but reflect upon how Detransition, Baby and One Last Stop are two more popular stories in which Chinese American characters are reduced to plot tools, to objects of affection—the body, and the body only. I am acutely aware of this reduction in novels, in history lessons, in current day events. How could I not be, when so much of our history reveals our bodies’ disposability on the railroads, in the cotton fields, in the Gold Rush? When even our proud and much-loved literary journals are titled with names like The Margins, showing where our bodies and stories reside in the literary landscape? When our elderly are beaten up in the streets like their bodies are nothing but punching bags?
In fiction, the writer weaves certain characteristics and happenings into the plot to help the reader understand the character and their motivations. As the novels progress, we learn, through conversations and events, more about Katrina and Jane’s lives. Katrina is divorced; traumatized by the remains of her miscarriage she had to flush down the toilet; a girlboss-type advertising executive who, to Ames’s surprise, is rather freaky in bed and grew up in rural Vermont with hippie parents. Jane is—as described by the book’s sleeve—dazzling, charming, mysterious, impossible; a punk rock lesbian; a wanderer in every sense of the term until she becomes stuck in time; a leather jacket wearer; the kind of charismatic person diner sandwiches are named after.
While both women are lovely full-fleshed characters, their backstories are only seen through the white protagonists, making Katrina and Jane’s centrality to the storyline wrenchingly painful to read. Because when I reflect on the things that make me lose my grasp on my own body, from the debilitating eating disorder I suffered from 2015-2019 that left a gaping black hole in my memory; to the subsequent club drugs I did in an effort to dance away the calories on weekends; to the daily smothering of my cigarette cravings; to the strangers who grab my arms to examine my tattoos without permission—all of these attributes and happenings in my journey made and make my body feel like it’s not mine.
Throughout these experiences, I was technically the main character. This was—and is—my life! These were all my choices, yet I felt like the side character to my own main character experience, because I was never fully in control. I was beholden to whatever constructs and judgements seemed more important than what made me feel at home in myself.
I was beholden to whatever constructs and judgements seemed more important than what made me feel at home in myself.
I am mostly sober now by choice. I am enamored with my life’s queer messiness, and I dance to K-pop in my apartment and techno in clubs, not because I want to lose calories but because I truly do enjoy it. Perhaps most importantly, I spend my time doing what I want—my choices are conscious because I am now aware of what makes my body mine. There is such joy in agency, a freeing sensation that comes with reclaiming a body, discovering what Melissa Febos calls “the bounty of time“—time spent reading and writing and ruminating and making art, instead of “orienting to the desires of others, profoundly obscuring my own.” These bounties are free for us to explore on a personal level, but also help expand our notions of what we can do and have, from the kind of art we make to the chosen families that support us making it—aspects of queer life explored in Detransition, Baby and One Last Stop, and in recent greater cultural discourse.
I’m continuing to embrace my body agency, which makes reading Katrina and Jane’s lack of it all the worse. Both characters are aware of their lack: when discussing their shared parenthood, Katrina points out to Reese and Ames that she could simply become “some vessel … to grow his ex-girlfriend’s dreams inside.” And during a fight with August, Jane emphasizes that “she’s not just a fucking case to be solved,” though Jane’s memory and existence is directly dependent on August’s goodwill. Katrina and Jane’s recognition of their potential autonomy happens in conjunction with their failure to seize it. Their warring inner states remind me of my own past failures.
To be clear, I know neither of these novels intended to focus on Chinese American characters or Asian American angst (or joy!). Those would be entirely different books. And I wholly enjoyed both stories—Detransition, Baby is a wonderful, vulnerable novel about trans women, detransitioning, gender constructs, and the failure of traditional heteronormative structures. One Last Stop is a fun and sexy New Adult romance novel meant to make the reader squeal rather than reflect. I know fiction should not be judged by how much the reader can “resonate” with its characters, and I am not arguing that white writers should never write across difference. I also know that nearly everything and everyone mentioned must primarily serve the main characters in novels, especially novels based upon Western empire craft expectations for fiction.
Therefore, it is simply, truly, the sheer delight of reading these two novels which compels me to analyze Katrina and Jane through the lens of my own life. The relegation of these Chinese American characters’ bodies into tools, into objects, is precisely why I cannot let go of them. I have seen us become objects far too often. I want so much more for Katrina and Jane, for myself, for my community. I want us to free ourselves from the weight of narratives we have been cursed to live under. Our bodies deserve autonomy. Our bodies deserve our selves.
The relegation of these Chinese American characters’ bodies into tools, into objects, is precisely why I cannot let go of them.
Perhaps my wanting is why I adore Chinese American retellings of popular tropes, especially in the frontier genre. They represent a reclamation of agency, especially during a time in history when our bodies were used as tools to build railroads, pluck cotton, and mine for gold. We have been recently blessed with a wealth of what Lavinia Liang calls the “Eastern Western“—Asian American Westerns, or what Shing Yin Khor calls, the Asian yeehaw agenda, from C Pam Zhang’s How Much of These Hills is Gold, to Khor’s The Legend of Auntie Po, to the Cinemax/HBO’s Warrior television series—three works of art featuring queer Chinese American characters. But aren’t these kinds of retellings the greatest sort of corrupted freedom? To take on someone’s culture and wear it as a costume, draped over the body you own completely?
At the end of One Last Stop, Jane is no longer time-stuck, her body freed from the subway. She and August embark on a road trip to find Jane’s long-lost family. August is given everything she ever wanted: a beautiful girlfriend, a new chosen family, a renewed relationship with her mother. But Jane’s only support system is the girlfriend who released her, and though Jane is excited about the possibility of finding her family, it is likely her parents are dead and her siblings old—a depressing reality disguised as a happy ending. One Last Stop asks the reader to imagine what will happen to Jane and August on the road. How will their relationship blossom as they travel? Will Jane reunite with her family? Will she be able to adapt to the contemporary timeline she now finds herself in?
It is unfair to me that we got so many pages of August’s past and present, yet only as the novel ends are we given a storyline centering Jane that does not hinge upon August’s collaboration or Jane’s static body. The reader is left imagining the possibility of Jane’s freedom, of the Chinese American queer now free to move. But I no longer want to imagine a queer Chinese American character or self that is free. I want to read, write, and live as a queer Chinese American whose body is free, and whose novels are entirely their own.
I remember traveling in the north of Sri Lanka, two years after the civil war, in areas where some of the worst fighting had taken place, and seeing yellow caution tape cordoning of large tracts of land. Signs warned in several languages of land mines. Later, I sat, safely ensconced in a Colombo café, as the leader of an NGO showed me pictures of women, protected by nothing more than plastic visors, crouched over piles of dirt and sand with implements that looked surprisingly like the kinds of rakes and hoes you find at a local Home Depot. The work clearing the land of mines, she told me, would likely take two decades.
I started working on my latest collection, Dark Tourist, after that 2011 trip as a way of exploring aftermath. Once the fighting has stopped, the ceasefire arranged, the peace treaty signed we turn our attention to the next conflict, too often ignoring the repercussions of the trauma and the attempts to heal. I wanted to explore the ways that grief both marks us and also the ways we manage to survive, to persevere, and to reckon with and make stories of our memories.
I have over the course of writing about Sri Lanka, about my family’s immigration to North Carolina, and my own struggles with recognizing and learning to live and find joy in my queer identity, turned to other writers as models. The following books are extraordinary in their scope, their willingness to unflinchingly face brutality, and their attempts to reckon with the toll of war and conflict—particularly on women. Some of the books explore the impact of conflict on individuals who are trying to manage deep traumas. Others document the impact on generations one or two decades removed from the fighting. All the works are testament, to the need for fiction, creative nonfiction, and poetry to document and give voice long after the journalists and the NGOs decamp to other hot zones.
Anuk Arudpragasm’s novel A Passage North begins with an invocation to the present:
“The present, we assume is eternally before us, one of the few things in life from which we cannot be parted.”
The novel goes on to carefully unravel that opening assertion. The present of the protagonist, Krishnan, is impinged on by multiple losses: the death of his father in a bombing during the height of the civil war; the estrangement of a lover, an activist who refuses to return to Sri Lanka; the imminent death of his aging grandmother; and his duty to her former caretaker. As Krishnan undertakes the titular voyage, the novel transforms into a meditation on loss and grief and also a reckoning in the ways his sorrow often blinds all of us to the suffering around us.
In a reversal of the traditional immigrant story, Thi Bui, in her graphic memoir, sets out to understand why her parents, both refugees from Vietnam, have failed her and her siblings. Bui’s delicate ink wash drawings provide a careful and detailed reconstruction of her father and mother’s experiences during the Vietnam war and their losses: the separation from family members, exile from home, the death of a child. As the memoir progresses, it becomes clear that Bui’s intent is not merely to document but to reconstruct, to revision, and finally, with deep care and compassion, to make her parents’ story truly part of her own.
Lina Ferreira Cabeza-Vanegas genre-bending essay collection combines Colombian myth, the history of the country’s nearly five decades of civil war, and personal history. But the heart of the collection is Cabeza-Vanegas herself. Her fierceness and resourcefulness manifest itself not just in her will to survive and tell the stories of her family but in her determination to go beyond the newspaper clips and forefront and make visible a history that is too often ignored or reduced to clichés about drug trafficking and guerilla war.
A young schoolgirl slices away pieces of her body. A young woman steps through the doors of a house and is never seen again. A feral boy eats his neighbor’s cat alive in front of her. Each of the fabulist horror stories in Enriquez’s collection is deeply rooted in the aftermath of Argentina’s decades of dictatorship and the Dirty War. What makes the stories remarkable is the way that Enriquez shifts subtly between the fantastical and the real creating stories that unsettle not simply because of their graphic depictions of violence, but because it becomes hard to tell what is real and what is the result of trauma to psyches that have been warped by decades of exposure to war and to terror.
Korea
Grassby Keum Sek Gendry-Kim, translated by Janet Hong
In this graphic novel, Gendry-Kim recounts the story of Lee Ok-Sun, a former Korean “comfort woman.” Gendry-Kim stays close to her source material providing a recounting of Ok-Sun’s early childhood, to her parents’ choice to put her up for adoption in hopes that a new family could give her a better life, to her kidnapping at the age of 15 by the Japanese Army and her experience as a sex slave. Gendry-Kim’s clean, elegant black and white drawings renders Ok-Sun’s story without editorializing or sensationalism. The result is both a masterwork of literary journalism and a testament, a gifted artist ceding her extraordinary talent to give voice to someone who otherwise might not be seen or heard.
The ten stories in Okparanta’s Lambda award-winning collection split between Nigeria and America. Civil war and unrest mar and mark her protagonists’ lives forcing them to make choices and accept strictures out of fear of reprisal in a culture that accepts violence as part of life. The assault at the heart of “On Opeto Street” reveals the truth of a husband’s devotion to his dutiful wife. The protagonist of “America” lies in order to build a new life in America with her female lover only to come to regret her untruth. The child protagonist of “Fairness” inflicts a deep cruelty on a family servant out of a mistaken need to meet a standard of beauty. Throughout the collection, Okparanta’s portraits are deeply empathic and felt, recognizing the ultimate dignity of her characters in the face of inhumanity.
Israel
Minor Detail by Adania Shibli, translated by Elisabeth Jaquette
The first half of the novel, set in Israel after the 1948 Nakba, focuses on a brutal reconstruction of a now nearly forgotten war crime. The second half follows a young researcher trying to uncover the truth. Part war narrative, part detective story, this novel is ultimately a smart, brutal, and occasionally witty deconstruction of the illusion of boundaries: those drawn on a map and those that make us believe we are civilized and morally superior. Minor Details is a slim novel but profoundly ambitious. The final, surprise ending also hinges on a careless gesture, one that upends everything that comes before it.
Child holding the steering wheel. Text reads: I hope I can drive before my kids do.
Click to enlarge and scroll.
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.