An Indian Muslim Family Is Torn Apart by Religion, Homophobia, and Politics

Nawaaz Ahmed has a particular talent for fiction that captures the spaces in between distant bodies. When we were both MFA students at the University of Michigan a decade ago, he saw a pair of construction cranes moving high above the street and said, I want to write a short story about those cranes that will never meet. He saw longing in the empty sky between them and, unintimidated by that vast space, he chose to write inside it. 

Radiant Fugitives by Nawaaz Ahmed

His debut novel Radiant Fugitives, described as “a fearless exploration of the clash between identity, sexuality, and religion,” glides across spaces in between disconnected poles—between queerness and Islam, between family and public life, and between politically divided Americans. 

The book takes place in Obama-era San Francisco over the course of five days. It’s the last week of Seema’s pregnancy and the women in her family have come to help. But this is not a joyful gathering—years ago, when Seema came out as lesbian to her Indian Muslim family, she was exiled by her father and rejected by her devout sister, Tahera. Their mother is now terminally ill and so, by her insistence, the three women have come together in an emotionally volatile reunion. 

Those circumstances might constitute a heady enough challenge for some writers to tackle, but in Nawaaz’s work, yet more thickens the stew: the book is narrated by Seema’s unborn baby, Ishraaq. He speaks in precise prose layered through with the poetry of John Keats, Obama’s speeches and verses from the Quran. It’s a tightly plotted—and yet lushly rendered—tinderbox of a novel.

As fellow Muslims and immigrants, Nawaaz and I have often talked about the fraught dissonances that we explore in our fiction. So we were both intrigued by Sanjana Sathian’s recent essay about respectability and the “good immigrant novel.” In our conversation, we talked about the expectations placed upon immigrant and Muslim writers,  and falling in love with characters who don’t always love us back. 


Roohi Choudhry: This is a book of so many layers. There are layers of American identity politics and the dawning of the Obama era. And then, intimate relationships—between a baby and his mother, between sisters, lovers. Poetry is another layer, too. So how did you decide to interlace all these threads? 

Nawaaz Ahmed: The ways that the book deals with various themes and layers have to do with our ways of seeking. Poetry is a way—the seeking of art. Politics is seeking a particular cause. And faith. I saw that as three main ways in which we seek meanings in our life. 

Once we stop believing in God, then what replaces it?

Tahera embodied art and faith. This kind of exploration of what faith does for our selves and what do we do when we have lost faith, or we don’t have access to faith. I mean, once we stop believing in God, then what replaces it? At least at that time, because I was interested in writing, it seemed like art was the one thing that spoke to me directly. And then developing Seema’s character, I realized that art wasn’t speaking to Seema. She had to find something else. She tries to find it in various causes and moves from cause to cause. 

I would have liked to title my book “ways for our searching” but it didn’t work out. I think Radiant Fugitives is the same thing in a way—I see fugitives as being these people searching for something. How do we search for this light in our lives?

RC: Over the years, we’ve talked about feeling pressured to write our complex stories in a minimalist way and feeling constrained by that expectation. And that also reminded me of what Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie says about the danger of the single story. So, has minimalism been a pressure? And how has that affected how you think about the book?

NA: I was definitely trying to capture the complexity of this world. I did not want these characters to become defined by “she’s gay,” “she’s Muslim,” “he’s Black.” I definitely didn’t want that kind of single story for these characters. Because one of the themes of the book is just how complex the world is, how vast the universe is and all these things that are impacting us at any given moment. We are dealing with our personal selves in this very political world. 

RC: That complexity of the universe makes me think about the Sanjana Sathian essay. And this term that she used about minority authors expected to be “cultural tour guides”—she pushes back against the idea. I’ve definitely felt that frustration too: people in workshops saying, “I always learn so much from your work.” So, since you’re showing the world as complex, was it challenging to show all of these complexities without becoming a cultural tour guide? 

NA: There is a tour guide.

RC: Oh yeah? The baby?

NA: The baby is definitely a tour guide, but he’s not the tour guide for “let me explain this culture,” or “let me tell you something about Islam.” But through his eyes, he does lead you to some of these things that I wanted to explore— the role of love, faith, art, politics, causes. 

If I have to be this tour guide, let me be a tour guide to show America to my mother, rather than show the Islamic community to American readers.

The narrator does go into the specifics of various things, but I was hoping that in the ways he approaches the tour guiding, that there were universal things that he was pointing to, rather than this is how you pray. There’s a whole paragraph about namaz that just talks about the various positions. And you could think of that, I guess, as some way of providing information. But I saw it as here is a ritual that has its terms and has its space. The more important part of that is not these particular terms but the fact that all these people are doing it. At least I hope that’s how it comes across. What’s important is that they’re all engaged in this, in this particular time. And there’s a sense of community and a sense of belonging in that.

RC: That’s definitely how it comes across. I’m wondering if the whole cultural tour guide issue is a function also of what gaze we’re writing for. Reading your book, I never felt that this was meant for someone else’s gaze. I never felt that this was not for me. That’s a rare feeling as a Muslim reader. Was that something you’ve been considering as you went?

NA: Four or five years ago, Matthew Salesses asked me, who is your audience? If there is one person you would put at the center, who would it be? And I had to say it would be my mother. The book is written in a way for my mother. And so, there are certain things I do not have to explain. The thing that I had to explain more is the American politics, because that’s what she knows the least about. And of course, a lot of readers, including my editor, resisted. Like, “we know all this.” I’ve had various readers say that. And I felt like that was very important for me to keep in the book because my mother doesn’t know all this. 

And so, if I have to be this tour guide, let me be a tour guide to show America to my mother, rather than show the Islamic community to American readers. I think my focus has been, how do I explain what’s happening in the US? What does it mean to be living in the US as an immigrant? How do I describe that experience to the family that I’ve left behind? That was one of my main preoccupations, rather than the other way around. 

RC: That’s very beautiful and refreshing. Because there are so many other books that might have characters who look like us, but they’re not written for us. So that’s one of the things I love most about your book. 

Going back to that essay, Sathian also talks about this issue of “dirty laundry”—that the white American gaze demands that marginalized writers air their community’s “dirty laundry.” I wondered if that expectation came up for you? 

NA: I’ve been thinking about that, and it has definitely colored the book. And maybe this isn’t the thing for a “true artist” to say, there’s this idea that true artists have to be focused on the telling of the truth and the telling of the truth includes dirty laundry. And I believe in that, to a certain extent. But I also question the use of the word “truth.” The writer has an author’s perspective and that’s what they’re airing, and to call it the truth, I think, is giving it a bit more power than that. 

What was important to me is to describe what is happening, but also, allow the reader to be able to see through other perspectives. So, we can talk about how Islam, for example, deals with homosexuality—I don’t know if that qualifies as dirty laundry. But definitely, it’s there in the book and people may be like, “Oh my god, look at how she’s treating her sister.” That bigotry is definitely there. But it was important to me to use a narrator who will not judge it but will present it giving Tahera as much fairness and respect as he can. 

RC: Yes, and as we’re talking I’m questioning—what is dirty laundry, what does that actually mean for this context? Because I don’t think that queerness is the dirty laundry. And I think that’s an important question for us as Muslim writers to think about, rather than take it for granted or let others define it. Speaking for myself, the dirty laundry to me is Tahera’s reactions. Her bigotry. I could imagine that showing this darker side of the book’s most devout Muslim character might feel really hard in this post-Trump era. There’s a sense in the community of “we’ve gone through enough.” And it feels like there’s a pressure to show very positive aspects of being devout and so then, this whole darker side of religiosity falls to the wayside. 

NA: I think there are two aspects to dirty laundry. One is that I am not airing it. There is already a conception of Islam as being homophobic. In the news, you hear things like what happened with ISIS, the stoning of homosexual men in Iran. There are these things that are already there in the world. And we have to deal with it. 

Also, people in the US might say: “we are not fundamentalist Muslims and we should not be tarred by the same brush.” Then we are slipping into the danger of the single story—that all Muslims are going to be tarred by how Tahera is portrayed. I think the fear of airing dirty laundry seems to come partly from that fear. So, we have that in the background, I think, and I can see why someone here would not want to have the burden of all that on them. 

So, in writing Tahera’s character, you get into this area of how do you not speak for all Muslims. What I tried to do is make Tahera so individual, her reasons for how she acts and even her anger is not just completely based on faith. It stems from her history, it stems from this whole pressure that she’s feeling about how she feels ill-treated in America. To attribute it to just religion or just one aspect of her character is reductive. And these reactions are not only because of religion, but there’s this whole complex world that is putting pressure on the characters, or on us. It’s not like “this is Islam’s dirty laundry,” but this is how we are as human beings. 

RC: I want to talk about Tahera more. I mean, she’s such a difficult character, right? I felt so many emotions towards her. All your characters are complex, but she seems especially so, and I felt sympathy and a lot of resistance towards her. That’s perhaps why I brought her up with that whole dirty laundry thing because as I was reading, I thought, well, the reality is I do know people like her in my family. I can imagine them reacting the same way—like her reactions to Fiaz, or to homeless men on the street—it was familiar and hard. And I wondered how it was to write someone like that. 

NA: The biggest fear that I had is that I was being unfair to Tahera. I needed to be able to see why she acts that way. And I think I put the most amount of pressure on Tahera—she leaves her family, she comes to a place where even her dress is a symbol. And she feels like neither Seema nor her mother would accept her for who she is, as much as she has a problem accepting them. I have a lot of sympathy for that. 

The hope is maybe we’re not trapped in this harsh world where people are always going to be unkind to each other.

The world is not very kind to outsiders. And there is a big backlash in the US—the reaction to Obama, and Trump’s win and evangelical pushback—even though Trump is not particularly religious or moral, we have a huge section of that population supporting him. I think that comes from a sense of being threatened. And of feeling like you have been cast out in some way. And that is something which I wanted for Tahera, too. That kind of outsiderness that Tahera feels when she goes to this liberal neighborhood and this liberal city is part of why she finds herself resisting so many things. And that does not make her likable. 

RC: Still, Tahera is a character whose beliefs are bigoted towards you, the writer. And how is that? To spend years with this woman. I don’t know if I could do it. 

NA: Part of writing the character was to actually deal with it. Deal with the fact that there are people like that— people who I know or love because they are family. One of the reasons to write the book is to explore what that actually means for myself. 

I see Tahera also on a journey in the book. My hope is that if there had been other circumstances, Tahera could grow and make other choices. The hope is that we are all acting out of our best intentions and that we are being derailed in some cases by circumstances. Because if not, the alternative that we are forever trapped in this harsh and ugly world is terrifying. 

The hope is maybe we’re not trapped in this harsh world where people are always going to be unkind to each other. And that there may be some ways in which we can come together. 

Because people change, people do, maybe not in five days. But hopefully over a lifetime. And we have to have that possibility. 

White Audiences Are Obsessed With Black Martyrdom

You might be fooled from the opening of Brandon Cronenberg’s Possessor (2020) that this is a Black woman’s story. The film opens on the immaculately laid braids of Gabrielle Graham’s Holly Bergman as she pierces her own scalp with what looks like a digital meat thermometer. As she adjusts the dials on the strange device, she emotes into the mirror, her face briefly sparkling with joy before it gives way to a long, stifled sob. 

Holly is the only Black character of note in the movie and perhaps that’s why she has remained with me in the eight months since I saw the film. Even though she is only a footnote in Possessor, a movie otherwise full of striking images, it’s her seven minutes of screen time I return to. I watch, over and over again, as this Black woman dressed in an unsophisticated cerulean uniform stabs the man she’s being paid to serve before dying horrifically in a hail of police gunfire.

Holly is the only Black character of note in the movie and perhaps that’s why she has remained with me in the eight months since I saw the film.

Of course when we see Holly on screen it’s not Holly’s character we’re witnessing. It’s a white woman piloting her body—English actress Andrea Riseborough as the mysterious Tasya Vos. Vos works as an elite assassin for a corporate firm that orchestrates murders using a futuristic brain control technology. From a padded bed in a laboratory miles away, she inhabits a stranger’s body, kills the target, and then commits suicide in the possessed body to return to her own. 

In the simplest terms it’s a body swap with only one body, viscerally portrayed with abstract aesthetics and droning music. When things go right, it’s a neatly packaged, if elaborate, scheme. There are no loose ends, a clear motive, and a perpetrator who can’t speak in their own defense—a “clean tragedy,” as former assassin Girder put it. But things never seem to go right.

The possession process is strenuous, with each job taking a clear toll on Vos. Coached by a typically cool Jennifer Jason Leigh as her boss Girder, Vos is said to be unique in her ability to commit hits while maintaining emotional detachment. Each murder is intricately structured, with hours of reconnaissance and prep as the team builds a story. They create a pattern of behavior and a motive so that the death, while tragic, does not provoke further investigation. Vos witnesses just enough of a stranger’s life so that she can imitate it, control it, end it. What makes the possession easier is that her targets are people like Holly: people not important enough to arouse suspicion until it’s too late. 

After murdering the target, Vos-as-Holly is supposed to then shoot herself, completing the possession and reentering her own body. But she’s unable to pull the trigger, her hands trembling on the grip. Here I think I see Holly emerge, wresting control from Vos, resisting this posh, white woman from an unseen Get Out-esque Sunken Place. I imagine Holly acting on one of our most basic human instincts to self-preserve. One of our most ingrained instincts to resist white dominance.


How often Black people become pawns in plans we know nothing about. Was Holly chosen because she was the only Black waitress? Someone already on the periphery of society, someone whose life and death could go mostly unnoticed? Perhaps they found a background scarred with violence or mental illness, one that would align with the narrative they want to create for the assassination. How easy it would be to create a patchwork of a gritty, Black life that could be used to wave away its violent ending. If Holly’s actions were out of character, and one of her coworkers or friends went to the police about her strange behavior, would anything be investigated? 

How rarely Black victims are given the benefit of the doubt. How rarely our murders are called murders, our killers called killers.

How rarely Black victims are given the benefit of the doubt. How rarely our murders are called murders, our killers called killers.

And if Vos-as-Holly failed to execute the suicide, there’s no chance of Holly leaving the building alive. Her Blackness is a failsafe. No Black person is politely escorted out of the building in handcuffs after committing murder. No cops are going to offer her some pizza on their way to a prison cell. Holly points her gun at police who immediately riddle her body with bullets, her body writhing in a haze of visceral gunfire—an image that would be cliche if it weren’t so disturbing. But it’s Vos, skin so white it’s almost translucent, who we see wake up, gasping for breath, in a hospital gown. 

Nobody worries about Vos’s clear affinity for violence, even as she unnecessarily escalates the brutality of her kills. Is this an affinity that’s been exacerbated by her line of work? Is it easier for her to take out her bloodlust on strangers on society’s margins? Or is she just more comfortable embracing cruelty when she’s inside a different body, particularly a body that is culturally viewed as inherently violent? Vos defends her choice to use a knife over a gun as more “in-character” for Holly, but whose character is she talking about? Is she talking about Holly, or herself, or Holly as perceived by Vos and her murderous white coworkers? 

Holly’s death is familiar to me not just because it resembles the long history of police murders of Black people, but also because of her death’s relationship to capital and the workplace.

Holly’s death is familiar to me as an American not just because it resembles the long history of police murders of Black people but also because of her death’s relationship to capital and the workplace. Vos is not operating alone when she possesses Holly but with a team of professionals whose violence has been formalized. What they’re doing isn’t legal but the movie smartly never makes it seem like they are committing a crime. The legitimization of their work resembles extralegal exertions of power that elite classes of white people have maintained throughout history. At a certain point of class and privilege, legality is as irrelevant as ethics. It’s how religious institutions and financiers have maintained rampant and barely-disguised rings of sexual abuse and human trafficking. How lynchings as an act of violence against Black men and terror against Black communities have never disappeared, only evolved.


The main possessed body in Possessor is not Holly, but Colin Tate, played by Christopher Abbott. Abbott is not Black, though it’s easy to read racialization into his character. He’s a fatherless American drug dealer dating a client who is the posh daughter of a successful corporate businessman. He stands out in this Canada-United Kingdom co-production that features a mostly Canadian and English cast. Colin’s relationship with Ava is his tether to the outside world—she gets him his job, his apartment, and his friends—and it’s this relationship that makes him a target. Murders and future tech aside, it’s a typical corporate power grab; Ava’s brother wants their father out of the picture so he can gain control of the family’s rapidly expanding data-mining company. In exchange for the hit, Vos and the firm will be paid handsomely in cash along with, most importantly, a hefty share of the company. If it sounds convoluted, it’s because it is, but the complications just ensure that it’s a mission only Vos could take on.

Colin isn’t a great boyfriend or an upstanding citizen but he’s hardly a kingpin mastermind—rather, his life can be conveniently simplified into a violent archetype. In the narrative that Girder has created, he’s a thug who feels emasculated by his girlfriend, begins to abuse drugs, and kills the family in an emotionally stunted rage. An old dog up to old tricks. It’s a story based on notions of class and criminality that fit dominant social perceptions of a type of poor, young man. 

Perhaps for Vos it was a thrill to literally control a Black body in the way that the Atlantic slave trade or Jim Crow never could.

It’s a remarkable performance from Abbott who truly seems to evoke Riseborough as Colin fades in and out of consciousness in his body. Colin has no language to describe what is happening to him—obviously the nature of Vos’s work is highly secretive—but perhaps he subconsciously knows how to fight for self-determination. With each small act of resistance to Vos’s control, Colin engages in a miniaturized version of a familiar class struggle made all the more grotesque by the literalization of how capitalism takes aim at the body. 

As demonstrated with Colin, the possessed person doesn’t simply disappear under their possessor. So I keep returning to Holly’s brief appearance, wondering what the film would look like if it were about her. What is it like for Vos to occupy the body of a young Black woman? And what is it like for Holly, her subconscious still somewhere in this body that has been hijacked by some white lady she’s never met? It seems fitting that the film opens on Holly’s braids, which she then covers with a cheap, blunt wig—a keen metaphor for her possession. Holly’s mind is just under the surface of Vos’s control, her free will temporarily masked by a synthetic object.

Perhaps for Vos it was a thrill to literally control a Black body in the way that the Atlantic slave trade or Jim Crow never could. Maybe Vos liked putting on this Blackness. Maybe she took this as an opportunity to do all the things that white people on Twitter whine they’re not allowed to do: say the n-word, wear cornrows, misuse AAVE. And then she got to flee the body before she became just another Black girl killed by the police, her death forgotten and uninvestigated. 

If there’s one thing 2020 has made clear, there’s seemingly no amount of Black death and trauma that is unacceptable to white people.

With each job, Vos seems to lose another shred of her humanity. I wonder if, as she discards parts of herself, she gains parts of the lives she briefly inhabits. What if she took some of Holly before she expired in that storm of gunfire? What could be learned from living briefly as Holly, from living briefly as me? I’m not talking about some magical life lesson taken from walking in another’s shoes but something more personal. If there’s one thing 2020 has made clear, there’s seemingly no amount of Black death and trauma that is unacceptable to white people. Besides, Vos is a serial killer. I don’t expect her to learn empathy from two days in a Black woman’s body. But maybe two days inside my mind would be enough to take some of my Blackness with me. Would Vos get my great-grandmother’s lace cookie recipe? Would she, months later, get a whiff of cocoa butter and recognize it as the oil I use on my elbows during the dry winter months? 


The cruelty of Possessor is not in the assassinations. It’s hard to be scandalized by violence in 2021, even when it’s photographed as lushly as it is here. It’s in the plan. The completely architected takeover of one’s body and the prolonged loss of control. In the betrayal by someone who watched you long enough to package your life but not enough to recognize your humanity. In the forcible surrender to some white strangers who have sold your body and played their part in the centuries-old capitalist legacy of trading your kinfolk.

It’s what makes the Sunken Place so existentially frightening. In a world where we, as Black women, are still allowed so little freedom of movement and expression, the idea that we could further have our personhood stripped from us—and that nobody would notice—is horrifying. The total loss of free will is worse than any atrocity that could be rendered on-screen. Holly and Colin are already vulnerable. Alone, marginalized, dependent, poor. They are the easiest to commodify, the easiest to subsume.

Watching Possessor, all I could think about were the generations of Black lives before mine that had been ended because of white greed. 

Possessor is clearly a movie about power and ownership which is why it was so frustrating that this racial reading was not touched on by most of the reviews. They took the film at face value, noting the clever Amazon-esque technologies and grimly sophisticated arthouse imagery. But I had spent the summer screaming Breonna Taylor’s name at protests a few blocks from my apartment in Minneapolis. I’d seen her image become a grotesque meme, a punchline, a song lyric, an object. The commodification of her name and face made me cringe at best, made me feel hopelessly sick at worse—but perhaps, I told myself, this was a way forward. Perhaps if we all knew her name, if her face became impossible to forget, her family could get justice. It could push the needle on the cultural disdain this world has for Black women. Even if it was crass and inhumane, maybe this objectification would be enough to shock white people into recognizing the inherent brutality and white supremacy of a society that values capital above all else. But that didn’t happen. Watching Possessor, all I could think about were the generations of Black lives before mine that had been ended because of white greed. 

So much of the language around Black death—particularly when white people lead the conversation—uses imagery of sacrifice and martyrdom. The belief that Black people, above all, are useful is a pernicious trope of white supremacy. It’s my white acquaintance only-kind-of-joking that I should publicly accuse her historically white company of racism and get them “cancelled.” Her unspoken assumption that I would be willing to endanger my career over a company I didn’t work for so that she could avoid any uncomfortable conversations. It’s the offices I’ve worked in that assume that I alone can, will, and want to solve systemic issues of workplace diversity—for no additional pay or compensation.

And it’s white people who presume they’re well-intentioned using the continuous cycle of Black death to build and sell an anti-racist brand, to give themselves or their white children a quick and soon-forgotten lesson in privilege, to express a sick gratitude that a stranger’s wrongful death has made the world better. All the characters in Possessor are objects, animated by larger issues of power and control to drive a central narrative. But like so many Black characters on screen, Holly has no meaning beyond her death.

Like so many Black characters on screen, Holly has no meaning beyond her death.

If I were a cruder person, and if Possessor were a worse movie, I’d say that Holly’s presence feels like bait. It’s a moment to include in the trailer that will convince an increasingly diverse and international film-going audience that this is not your grandfather’s (or father’s, in the case of Brandon Cronenberg, son of David Cronenberg) lily-white sci-fi flick. Maybe someone on film Twitter will live-tweet that opening scene and invoke the most hallowed names of online cinematic discussion: Jordan Peele. There are plenty of movies from the last few years that have attempted to ride Peele’s specific brand of racial horror to commercial success, although none have been able to grapple with race and villainy with much sophistication (see the recent, much-mocked trailer for Karen). But because Possessor is so good, so effectively chilling, it feels all the more disappointing that Holly gets sidelined and that the trope of the Black character dying first is played completely straight. 

But perhaps these reviewers didn’t contend with Holly because the film doesn’t either. In a film that’s otherwise brimming with ideas, there’s no interrogation of what it means for a white woman to take control of and kill a young Black woman for money. The film presents the murder as Vos visualizes it—a completed job, nothing more. Holly’s Blackness, her humanity, do not meaningfully register to Vos and thus not to the film, and, I suppose, to its white audience members. Instead it’s Vos and Colin’s power struggle that forms the central conflict of the film as the two move through mostly wealthy and almost exclusively white spaces. With a few exceptions of images of her blood-spattered track suit and white sneakers, Holly doesn’t appear again. Like a rock dropped into a pond, her brutal death is just another tiny tragedy that ripples briefly before being swallowed, lost forever. 


Like so much science fiction, Possessor is able to imagine so much but only from within a white gaze. Though the film is able to depict Vos as monstrous, as evil, as a complicated and realized protagonist, it’s unable to depict Holly as anything more than a victim. Her death is a stepping stone for Vos’s character development and growing bloodlust. The first time I saw Possessor, I kept waiting for Holly to return in some way. For any Black person to show up. It doesn’t happen.

Holly’s Blackness, her humanity, do not meaningfully register to Vos and thus not to the film, and, I suppose, to its white audience members.

That science fiction is obsessed with whiteness is not a new complaint, and I’d be remiss to ignore the explosion of Black science fiction in both literature and film in the last ten year. But what I struggle with is films like Possessor, who initially seem invested in portraying racial dynamics but only when it comes to depicting extreme violence. Films where we only seem to exist to be brutalized, to add authenticity, to get killed off because the stakes need to be raised without diminishing the screen time of the white characters.

When I rewatch the film I hope that, as Colin fights for control over his body, he senses someone resisted before him. Like so many others searching for self-determination, he might find that a path has been cleared by a Black woman before him. Maybe, as his hands were unable to pull the trigger and he unsuccessfully tried to regain control of his body, he recognized that someone else had been here before him. 

I find myself hoping that Holly’s resistance has made Colin’s possible. Then I wonder if I’m searching for meaning where there is none: am I making someone a martyr who never wanted to be one? Is it better if she died for no reason? I hope that one of Vos’s victims will eventually completely overpower her and whatever is left of Holly might finally get some rest. As I replay Holly’s seven minutes again and again, I try to tease out the lines of Graham’s short, startling performance. I want to trace when Holly emerges and Vos falls back. I want her to know that someone noticed when she was gone.

A Journalist on Vacation Becomes Part of the Story

Woman on the Riverbank by Juan Gabriel Vásquez

I

I have always wanted to write the story the photographer told me, but I could not have done so without her permission or her collusion: other people’s stories are inviolable territory, or that’s how it’s always seemed to me, because often there is something in them that informs or defines a life, and stealing them in order to write them is much worse than revealing a secret. Now, for reasons that don’t matter, she has allowed me this usurpation, and in return has only asked that I tell the story just as she told it to me that night: without tweaks, embellishments, or pyrotechnics, but also without muting anything. “Begin where I begin,” she said. “Begin with my arrival at the ranch, when I saw the woman.” And that’s what I intend to do here, and I’ll do so fully aware that I am the way she has found to see her story told by someone else and thus to understand, or try to understand, something that has always escaped her.

The photographer had a long name and two long surnames, but everyone always called her Jay. She had become something of a legend over the years, one of those people who others knew things about: that she always dressed in black, that she wouldn’t have a sip of aguardiente even to save her life. Everyone knew she talked unhurriedly with people before taking her camera out of her bag, and more than once journalists wrote their articles based on material she remembered, rather than what they had managed to find out; it was known that other photographers followed her or spied on her, thinking she didn’t notice, and tended to stand behind her in a futile attempt to see what she saw. She had photographed Colombian violence more assiduously (and also with more empathy) than any other photojournalist, and the most heartrending images of our war were hers: the one of an old lady weeping in the roofless ruins of a church that guerrillas had blown up with a gas cylinder; the one of a young woman’s arm with the initials, carved with a knife and already scarring, of the paramilitary group that had murdered her son in front of her. Now things were different in certain fortunate places: violence was retreating and people were getting to know something like tranquility again. Jay liked visiting those places when she could to relax, to escape her routine or simply to witness first hand those transformations that would once have seemed illusory.

That’s how she reached Las Palmas. The ranch was what was left of the 90,000 hectares that had once belonged to her hosts. The Galáns had never left the province of los Llanos, nor did they have plans to renovate the old house, and they lived there contentedly, walking barefoot on the dirt floor without startling the hens. Jay knew them because she’d visited the same house twenty years before. Back then the Galáns had rented her the room of one of their daughters, who had gone to study agronomy in Bogotá, and from the window Jay could see the mirror of water, which was what they called a river some hundred yards wide and so calm it looked like a lagoon; the capybaras swam across the river without being pushed off course by the current, and in the middle of the water sometimes a bored black caiman surfaced, floating perfectly still.

Other people’s stories are inviolable territory, or that’s how it’s always seemed to me, because often there is something in them that informs or defines a life

Now, on this second visit, Jay would not sleep in that room full of someone else’s things, but in the comfortable neutrality of a guest room with two beds and a nightstand between them. (But she would only use one bed, and even had a hard time deciding which one.) Everything else was the same as before: there were the capybaras and the caimans, and the calm water, the stillness of which had been increased by the drought. Most of all, there were the people: because the Galáns, maybe due to their reluctance to leave the ranch except to buy supplies, had managed to get the world to come to them. Their table, an enormous wooden board next to a coal-burning stove, was invariably full of people from all over, visitors from the neighboring ranches or from Yopal, friends of their daughters with or without them, zoologists or veterinarians or cattle ranchers who came to talk about their problems. That’s how it was this time too. People drove two or three hours to come and see the Galáns; Jay had driven seven, and she’d done so with pleasure, taking time to rest when she stopped for petrol, opening the windows of her old jeep to enjoy the changing smells along the road. Some places have a certain magnetism, perhaps unjustified (that is, made up of our mythologies and our superstitions). For Jay, Las Palmas was one of those places. And that’s what she was looking for: a few days of quiet among spoon-billed birds and iguanas that climbed down from the trees to eat fallen mangos, in a place that in other times had been a territory of violence.

So the night she arrived, there she was sitting under a tube of white light eating meat and chunks of fried green plantain with a dozen strangers who were obviously strangers to each other as well. They were talking about whatever—how the region had been pacified, how there was no longer extortion, and how cattle were rarely stolen anymore—when she heard the greeting of a woman who had just arrived.

Buenas y santas,” she said.

Jay looked up to say hello, as everyone did, and heard her apologize without looking at anyone, and saw her pull up a plastic chair, and felt something akin to recognition. It took a few seconds to remember or discover that she’d met her right there, at Las Palmas, twenty years earlier. She, however, did not remember Jay.

Later, when the conversation had moved over to the hammocks and rocking chairs, Jay thought: better this way.

It’s better that she hadn’t recognized her.

II

Twenty years earlier, Yolanda (that was the woman’s name) had arrived as part of a retinue. Jay had noticed her from the start: the self-restraint of a guarded prisoner, the tense steps, that way of moving as if she were in a hurry or carrying out an errand. She wanted to appear more serious than she actually was, and most of all more serious than the men in the group. During breakfast on the first day, when the table was moved to the shade of a tree from which mangos fell with the dry thud of a bocce ball (and yes, there was the waiting iguana), Jay watched the woman and listened to her speak, and watched the men and listened to them speak, and learned they were coming from Bogotá and that the man with the moustache, to whom the others spoke with meekness and even reverence, was a second-tier politician whose favors the region’s landowners sought.

They called him Don Gilberto, but in the use of his first name, for some reason, Jay detected more respect than if they’d called him by his surname or his position. Don Gilberto was one of those men who spoke without looking at anyone or using anyone’s name, but everyone always knew to whom his words or suggestions or orders were directed. Yolanda had sat beside him with her back straight, as if she were holding a notebook ready to write things down, receive instructions or take dictation. When she settled down on the bench (outside there were no chairs, just a long bench made of planks of wood that all the diners comically had to pick up at once in order to sit down), she had moved her plate and cutlery away from the man’s: two inches, no more, but Jay had noticed the gesture and found it eloquent. In the light that opened between them, in her painstaking wish that they not touch, something was happening.

They talked about the upcoming elections; they talked about saving the country from the communist threat. They talked about a dead body that had floated down the river in recent days, and everyone agreed that he must have done something: things like that don’t happen to people with nothing to hide. Jay didn’t mention the house she’d visited that morning, a half hour’s drive away, where a schoolteacher had been accused of indoctrinating the children, found guilty and decapitated as a lesson to his adolescent pupils; nor did she mention the photographs she’d taken of the pupil whose fate it had been to find the head on his teacher’s desk. She did talk, however, of the music of the plains: one of the men at the table turned out to have written several songs: Jay had heard one of them, and surprised the rest (and surprised herself) by reciting the chorus, some lines with galloping riders and an evening sun the color of a pair of lips. She felt she had called attention to herself, perhaps improperly. She also felt that she’d eased things for Yolanda; that the men’s gazes on Yolanda became lighter. She felt her wordless gratitude.

Before the last cup of coffee, Señor Galán said: “This afternoon there are horses for anyone who wants to ride. Mauricio will show you around and you can see the property.”

“And what is there to see?” asked the politician.

“Oh,” Galán said. “You can see everything here.”

Jay let the hours slip by in a green hammock, alternating between beer and sugary aguapanela, taking catnaps and reading a book by Germán Castro Caycedo. At the agreed time, she approached the stables. There they were: four saddled horses looking at the same point on the horizon. The man who was going to guide them was wearing rolled up trousers and a knife on his belt; Jay noticed the skin of his bare feet, cracked and split like desiccated earth, like a dried-up river bed. The man was tightening girths and lengthening reins as the guests mounted their horses, but he never looked anyone in the face, or his gestures gave that impression: hard cheekbones, grooves instead of eyes. He pointed Jay toward a horse, off on its own, that she thought too skinny; once in the saddle, she felt comfortable on the mount and forgot her objections. When they set off, she noticed that the politician had not come. Yolanda and three of her colleagues were there: the one with the pretentious sideburns, the one with the slicked back hair, and the one with the lisp who spoke loudly (and rather aggressively) to cover it up or attenuate his hang-ups.

The sky had opened up: a yellow light shone in their faces as they advanced across arid land, past skulls of cows and capybaras, beneath the flight of attentive vultures. The heat had eased off, but there was no wind, and Jay felt sweat on her lower back. Every once in a while she caught a vague whiff of something decomposing. There was a wool blanket on top of Jay’s saddle, to soften the rigors of the hard leather, but she must have been doing something wrong, since twice she had tried to gallop and twice she’d felt pain in her pelvis. So she stayed at the back, as if she were looking after the group. Up ahead, Mauricio pointed things out wordlessly, or speaking so quietly that Jay didn’t manage to hear. It didn’t matter: she just had to look in the direction of his arm to see the unusually colored bird, the huge wasps’ nest, the armadillo that caused a stir in the group.

At a certain moment, Mauricio stopped. He gestured for silence and pointed toward a cluster of trees that Jay wouldn’t have called a forest. At the heart of the little wood, its head raised as if sniffing the air, was a deer.

“How lovely,” Yolanda whispered.

That was the last thing Jay heard her say before the accident. The horses and their riders set off again, and what happened next happened very quickly. Jay didn’t notice everything, the sequence of things at the moment they happened, but explanations abounded later: that Yolanda had let go of the reins, that her horse had started to gallop, that Yolanda had squeezed her legs (the reflex of someone trying to keep her balance) and the horse had bolted. This Jay did see: the horse whirled around and took off at an explosive speed toward the ranch, and Yolanda could do nothing but hold onto its neck (she didn’t even try to grab the reins, or she reached for them and couldn’t find them in the midst of her efforts not to fall off), and that was when Mauricio also took off in a miraculous maneuver, something Jay had never seen before, and cut off the rebel horse’s route with his horse, and with his horse’s body and his own body crashed into it and toppled it. It was an unbelievably dexterous movement, and would have turned Mauricio briefly into a hero (the one who nips a dangerous situation in the bud and prevents it getting out of hand) if Yolanda had not been thrown forward in a bad way, if her head had not smashed against the ground, against the dry cracks from which dust-covered stones jutted out.

Jay dismounted from her horse to help (a dancer’s leap) though there was nothing she could have done. Mauricio, however, was already taking a radiotelephone out of a saddlebag and calling the people at the ranch to tell them to send a car, to start looking for a doctor. The fallen horse was back on its feet now. It stood there quietly, looking nowhere in particular: it had forgotten its urgency to return home. Yolanda was also quiet, lying face down, with her eyes closed and her arms under her body, like a little girl sleeping on a cold night.


Later, when Señor Galán took Yolanda to a hospital in the city, there was much debate over the actions of the plainsman. He should not have knocked over the other horse, some said; others argued that he’d done the right thing, because a horse that bolts is more dangerous for its rider the further it’s allowed to run (the speed, the difficulty of keeping one’s balance). They told anecdotes from other times; they talked about invalid children; they said that growing up on the plains a person learned how to fall. Don Gilberto listened to the discussions in silence, with his expression deformed by something that looked less like worry than rage, the anger of the owner of a toy that others have not taken care of. Or maybe Jay was not interpreting correctly. His silence was difficult to read; but during the night, when Galán called from the clinic with the latest news, he looked alarmed. He had begun to drink whiskey from the same glass in which he’d been served aguapanela, lying in a colorful hammock, but not rocking, rather anchored to the tile floor by a foot with dirty toenails. His whole being was a question. The information he’d received did not satisfy him.

Yolanda was in an induced coma. Her left arm was badly bruised, but nothing was broken; her head, though, had received a blow that could have killed her instantly, and which had provoked a hematoma with unpredictable consequences. The doctors had already trepanned her skull to relieve the pressure of the blood, but there was still a risk, or, to be more accurate, it was not yet possible to name all the many risks that might remain. “We’re not through to the other side,” said the man who’d spoken to Galán, perhaps using the same words the doctor had used to tell him. It was one of the members of the retinue, one of the most obsequious and, at the same time, of the least visible, and it was strange to hear him describe the skin broken by the hard earth, the face swollen and darkened. Don Gilberto received the words with a surly grimace and poured himself more whiskey, and Jay thought of the strange form power can take: it is a subordinate—an assistant, an employee—who apprises us of someone else’s fate, someone who matters to us. Maybe that’s what made Jay feel, before the man’s preoccupation, something cold, something distant.

After midnight, now drunk, or talking as if he was drunk, Don Gilberto said goodnight. Jay stayed up a while longer, a while made up of dense silences or prudent whispers, as if the convalescent were in the next room. The man who lisped had also had quite a few drinks and was now trying to get Jay to accept a too-full glass of whiskey. As she pretended to drink it, Jay felt suddenly invisible, for the rest had begun to speak as if she were not there.

“The boss is scared,” one said.

“Of course,” said another.

“She’s not just anyone.”

“It’s Yolanda, and he…”

“Yes. It’s Yolanda.”

“He’ll die if something happens to her.”

“He will. If something happens to her, he’ll die.”

The voices blended together. One voice was all the voices. Jay began to feel weary (that treacherous weariness with which other people’s emotions wear us down). She sank into her hammock and it was as if someone was tucking her in. She didn’t know when she fell asleep.

When she woke up, the rest had all gone to their rooms. They’d turned out the light in the walkway where the hammocks hung, so Jay found herself in a dark place of barely perceptible silhouettes. It smelled of burned oil; the only sound, which filled the night, was the chorus of nameless insects and frogs. A light bulb shining in the distance enabled her to reach the open kitchen, walking with difficulty among sleeping dogs and potted geraniums, and find the fridge: she would pour herself a glass of iced sugar water and go to her room, like everyone else. And the next day she’d ask for news of the other woman, spend the morning around the ranch and take a few photos and after lunch she’d go back to Bogotá. That’s what she decided. But then, as she poured herself a glass of aguapanela at the big wooden table, her gaze sought the quiet river, maybe to see if the caimans came out at night. She didn’t see any caimans, but she did see a silhouette the size of a large capybara sitting upright on the riverbank. Jay walked as far as the wooden fence and from there her eyes, adjusting to the darkness, made out a hat, then a seated man, then that the man was Don Gilberto. Later she would wonder why, instead of going to bed, she had decided to approach the man. Because of what she’d seen at breakfast, perhaps, or perhaps due to the boss’s singular preoccupation?

“Good evening,” she said when she was near him.

Don Gilberto barely turned. “How are you, señorita?” he said without any interest.

Jay knew that he had carried on drinking and fleetingly wondered if it was wise to stay near him. But her nebulous curiosity was stronger that those precautions. The man was sitting in the dirt—on the sparse grass that grew unconvincingly on the bank—his arms around his knees and back hunched over. Jay looked for a space free of capybara shit and sat down without asking if he minded, not beside the man, but close enough to carry on a conversation. At night, the waters reflected the misty moon, and Jay tried to remember the name of the trail of light the moon makes on the sea. But she couldn’t remember, and besides, this wasn’t the sea, but a quiet river in the Eastern Plains, and there was no trail here, rather a slight whitish glow.

Jay held out her hand and said her name.

“Yes, I know who you are,” Don Gilberto said, forcing his consonants, which came out slurred in any case. “The photographer, no? From Bogotá.”

“What a memory,” Jay said. “But politicians are like that, you remember everyone.”

Don Gilberto did not respond to the comment. Jay added: “I’m so sorry about your assistant.”

“Yes,” Don Gilberto said. “What do you make of this little problem?”

Little problem? Yolanda could emerge from the coma with serious mental impairment, or with her motor functions damaged; or she might not emerge from it, remain wrapped in that artificial sleep and not come back to life. That was much more than a little problem, Jay thought, and thought her curiosity had not been mistaken.

“Well, I wouldn’t call it that,” Jay said. “It’s a serious matter. Aren’t you concerned…?”

“I know it’s a serious matter,” Don Gilberto cut her off.

“Of course,” Jay said. “I didn’t…”

“Don’t be preaching to me, you don’t know her,” the man said. “I do. I know who she is and what would happen.”

He didn’t finish his sentence. “Sorry,” Jay said. “That came out wrong.”

“If she dies, she dies on me, not on you.”

“Yes,” Jay said. “Sorry.”

Then the man took an aluminum canteen from between his legs, took off the lid that served as a cup and drank a shot. The aluminum cast a timid flash of white light, like the quiet water. Then, Don Gilberto filled the cup again and offered it to Jay.

“No, thank you,” she said. She thought that accepting a drink might send the wrong signal.

The man drank the shot and put the lid back on the flask. “What do you think will happen?” he asked.

“To her?” Jay said stupidly. “I don’t know. I’m not a doctor. They say in cases like this there can be aftereffects.”

“Yes, but what kind of aftereffects? Do people get left as invalids, for example?”

“I don’t know,” Jay said. “I imagine that it’s possible.”

“Or are they left not right in the head? Confused, say, or with amnesia? Do they forget things?”

“Oh, I see,” Jay said. “You’re worried about what she knows.”

Don Gilberto, for the first time, turned his head (his position didn’t allow him to do so easily) and looked at Jay. In spite of the semi-darkness, Jay saw in his half-closed eyes that sort of drowsiness of someone who’s had too much to drink. No, it wasn’t drowsiness: it was like something had got in his eyes and was irritating them.

“Like what?” Don Gilberto said. “What do you mean?”

“Nothing, nothing,” Jay said. “That she works with you and maybe she has important knowledge, important information. Nothing else.”

Don Gilberto turned back to look at the river. “Important knowledge,” he repeated.

“Yes,” Jay said. “I suppose.”

“Well yes, señorita, I think you’re right,” Don Gilberto said. He poured himself another shot of whiskey in the canteen lid, then another, as if struck by a kind of urgency, and continued talking. “But it’s that one doesn’t know, don’t you think, one doesn’t know what goes on in the head of a person like that. A person who’s had an accident like that. Like Yolanda. My assistant. She’s in a coma, she might come out okay or she might not, right now she’s in a coma. And what happens in her head? What will she remember when she wakes up? Will she not forget anything? Important information, yes. Information from all these years she’s been with me: several now, three or four. In years like these, one finds out many things, my friend. Important knowledge. That might be lost, right?

You said it. Sure, that’s what’s worrying me: that the things she knows will get lost. You think that’s possible? That she might wake up and will have forgotten things, just like that? You think that happens?”

“Yes,” Jay said. “Sadly.”

Don Gilberto made an ambiguous noise in his throat: was it agreement, resignation? She could hear frogs; Jay could hear something that might or might not have been cicadas. She looked at her watch and discovered, in the dim light, that it was already past two in the morning. The night had cooled down and there was an uncomfortable note in the conversation with that man, a dissonance or some kind of hostility. Jay’s curiosity came up against the limit of her weariness. She stood up and spoke down toward his hat:

“Well, we’ll see how everything is tomorrow.”

The hat nodded: “Yes. We’ll see.”

Jay began to walk back to her room. The next day she’d go back to Bogotá. The night was blue and black and refreshed by a soundless breeze. She had to be careful not to step where she shouldn’t, and this was frustrating, because Jay would have liked to look up and walk without worrying, take deep breaths and smell the dense odors of the ranch. She took a detour so as not to arrive too soon at her bedroom, to hold onto the darkness of the world, and the detour took her to a corner where a single hammock hung. It wasn’t a social area: more like a private space where (Jay imagined) Señor Galán would take his siestas. She lay down in the hammock and stayed there, swaying in the darkness, and in the darkness she thought over the day’s events: breakfast, the cutlery that Yolanda moved away from her boss’s, the ride that started off so well and then Yolanda’s mistake (dropping the horse’s reins) and the plainsman’s maneuver, that swift and expert maneuver, which in her memory stretched out to allow her to see Yolanda’s face, the expression of anxious gravity that transforms our features in an emergency, in a moment of terror, in a second that is the threshold of something serious. And in her memory Don Gilberto’s face also appeared, even though he hadn’t been there. Jay had jumped down off her horse to help the fallen woman and there was her boss first, crouched down beside her, stretching out his hand as if he wanted to hold her head, but without actually doing so. When it wants our attention, memory tends to resort to distortion or deceit.

“Shit,” Jay said.

A long time later, talking about that day, Jay would leave a gap at this point in the tale. She would explain it by saying that there, in the hammock, she realized something, but she didn’t know or never would know what she’d realized. “Shit,” she’d said quietly, and she said it the way we say it when we drop a glass and it shatters on the floor, or when we remember something important we’ve forgotten at home (and we smack ourselves on the forehead, or slam the edge of our fist against the steering wheel). She would tell about standing up from the hammock and beginning to walk to her room, but halfway there (as she was passing the corridor where she’d fallen asleep in a hammock hours earlier) she turned and stepped down onto the ground of the garden, what the Galáns called the garden, and kicked a fallen mango and slipped between the rails of the wooden fence to go down to the riverbank, to the space where the riverbank began, and confirmed that Don Gilberto was still there, sitting beside the quiet water.

Jay arrived spectrally by Don Gilberto and tried to make her presence known by dragging her feet as she got near. She didn’t sit beside the man, but almost in front of him, in order to see his face better. And then she said:

“Don Gilberto, I’m so sorry. I just found out.”

“What happened?”

Jay thought silence advisable. Don Gilberto spoke again. “What happened? Did Yolanda die?”

“I’m so sorry,” Jay said.

Later she would think of the miracle of the human face, which could transmit more emotions than we’d learned to name with so few tools.

And then she saw it. Jay saw what happened on Don Gilberto’s face, an encounter of emotions, a movement of muscles, and later she would think of the miracle of the human face, which could transmit more emotions than we’d learned to name with so few tools. The one Jay saw, the one that manifested itself in the slanted eyes and the arch of his brows, was relief. It is not impossible that there had not been sadness there first, or consternation, or a fleeting depression, but the depression or consternation or sadness gave way to relief, and the impression was so strong that Jay, who had come to the riverbank looking for that revelation, had to look away, as if ashamed of what she saw.


Shortly before first light, something woke her. A rooster crowed in the distance, maybe on another farm. Jay reached for her watch on the bedside table: she hadn’t been asleep for three hours yet. She felt a draft and noticed then, with her eyes half shut, that the door to her room was open. But she remembered (or thought she remembered) closing it carefully. A dog must have pushed it, she thought, or the wind. She closed it quietly so she wouldn’t wake anyone, and was on her way back to bed when she saw the man.

Don Gilberto was sitting on a plastic chair, his hands on his knees. Jay heard his breathing first and then his words: “Did I frighten you, señorita?”

Jay checked her clothing—full-length pajamas with trousers and shirt—and looked toward the window, toward the door.

“What a shame to frighten you,” Don Gilberto said. Now Jay heard in his voice the drunken consonants. “I wanted to tell you about a snag.”

“Couldn’t you tell me later?” Jay began. “I’m tired, and—”

“No, it has to be now,” the man cut her off. “It’s that I found something out.”

Jay was still standing, a step from the door. She tried to project her voice. “What?”

“That Yolanda hasn’t died,” Don Gilberto said. “Incredible, isn’t it?”

“Ah, yes. I was told.”

“You were told? How strange, eh? Who told you?”

Jay didn’t answer. The rooster, in the distance, crowed again. She could not see Don Gilberto’s face clearly; absurdly, Jay thought of a Francis Bacon painting. Against the white wall, Don Gilberto’s sloping shoulders gave him a melancholy appearance, as if the lie had saddened him, but in his voice (in the alcohol in his voice) there was a willingness to threaten, to cause fear.

“If you knew how little I liked,” he said.

“Look, Don Gilberto, I don’t know what you’ve been told, but I—”

“Being deceived. How little I like being deceived. That’s really nasty, girl.”

Girl, Jay noticed.

“I was told,” she said.

“No, I don’t believe you were. Nobody told you anything. And what a drag, no? What a little problem. What a bitch of a problem we’ve got.”

“It was a mistake,” Jay said.

“You’re fucking right it was a mistake,” the man said. “You just don’t do that kind of thing, honey. Is it going to be up to me to teach you a lesson? Teach you not to do that sort of thing?”

Jay realized she was standing between the man and the door. She moved toward the window to make herself visible, because the first workers would soon be going out, and also because that way she left the way free for the man: like when you open the door and turn on the outside light to lure a moth out of your room.

The man said: “You people just never learn.” And then: “You’re leaving today, aren’t you, girl?” And then: “Yes, you’re leaving today. So I won’t have to run into you again. What a drag.”

He stood up slowly, as if it was hard work carrying the weight of his own shoulders, and walked out into the early morning.

III

“And have you been to Las Palmas before?”

Twenty years later, Jay found herself again facing that woman whose death she had feigned. All day Saturday, crossing paths with her in the walkways and sitting at the same table for breakfast and lunch, she had tried to see in her features some vestige of what had happened. Would that not be carved into her face? Could someone go through an experience like that without her face registering it forever? But what there was in Yolanda’s features (Jay now realized she’d never known her surname) gave nothing away.

She must be approaching fifty, Jay estimated, but there was something infantile in her gaze, something innocent. And now this innocent woman was asking Jay if she had come to Las Palmas before. And Jay didn’t even hesitate.

“Never,” she said. “This is my first time.”

“And do you like the plains?”

“Yes, very much. It’s like another world.”

If Yolanda wanted to play the cliché game, Jay could give as good as she got.

They were on the veranda where the hammocks were, each with a beer in hand, waiting for the cook to tell them dinner was ready. Jay had not sought out this situation, but had planned on sitting beside Yolanda at dinner. It hadn’t been necessary: she found her here, putting insect repellent on her ankles and arms, and asked her for a little; and that’s how they began talking, at first with the fading evening light, then under the white light of a neon tube.

“I come every year,” Yolanda said. “Of course, it’s easy for me, because I live in Yopal. You’re from Bogotá, aren’t you?”

“I am.”

“Oh, I could never live there. It’s so cold.”

“Well, I travel a lot. That helps.”

“For your work, no? You’re a photographer.”

“Exactly.”

“And what kind of photos do you take?”

“Journalism,” Jay said. “I spent many years photographing the conflict.”

“The conflict?”

“The violence, the war. So I’ve been all over the country, from one side to the other.”

“Of course,” Yolanda said. “And what were you looking for? The sites?”

“The sites, yes, but the people as well. The victims of the war, so many of them.” Pause. “But, how strange, I never came to this part of the plains.” Pause. “Nearby, but never over here.” Pause. “There was a lot of violence around here, wasn’t there?”

“Yes, at one time. Not anymore.”

“And nothing happened to you? Or your family?”

“Things are much better now,” Yolanda said.

“Everywhere,” Jay said. “You can’t imagine what it’s like, travelling to places I went ten or twenty years ago for a massacre or whatever, and seeing that it’s so different today. People’s faces change when they’re not afraid. People’s faces say so much.”

“And they don’t mind you taking their photos?”

From the kitchen, an open patio where a skinny black woman moved like she was a whole team, came cooking smells and the sounds of pots and pans. They were going to eat a chicken that the Galáns had instructed should be killed that afternoon. Jay had gone to see the spectacle of the plucking; she hadn’t wanted to keep watching when the cook held the hen down on a board by its neck, and took out a knife.

“No,” Jay answered. “Well, sometimes. But almost never, because first we’ve talked, we’ve gotten to know each other. I can’t stand it when some photographers go around hunting other people’s sadness. I’ve never taken a photo of anyone who hasn’t first told me a story.” Pause. “You, for example. If I were going to take photos of you, first I’d sit down and talk for a good while, until you told me your stories. What had happened to you. What the war had left you.”

Yolanda let out a tiny laugh. “With me you’d be wasting your time. I was fine.”

“Sure,” Jay said. “But that’s strange. Everybody has something to tell.” Pause.

“I’ve never been in this part of the plains, as I said, but I have been near here. In Arauca, near the Venezuelan border. There was a lot of trouble there twenty years ago.”

I’ve never taken a photo of anyone who hasn’t first told me a story.

“Was there? I don’t remember.”

“I knew a woman back then. She’d lived through the worst years without anything happening to her. When the bodies of murdered people floated down the river, she’d see them and sometimes recognize them, but nothing ever happened to her or her family. Later she began to work for a politician, after two, three years, she came to trust him. They traveled together on his campaigns. She became his right hand and he said to her all the time: ‘What would I do without you? I’d die without you.’ That sort of thing. One day, in a hotel in Bogotá, the boss knocked at her door. She opened the door, of course: what else could she have done? At six in the morning. That’s what that woman told me: that it had been at six in the morning. I don’t know why it mattered so much.”

Yolanda was looking toward the darkness, or toward the river that slipped by in silence beyond the darkness. “I think there’s a woman on the riverbank,” she said.

Jay didn’t say anything.

“A few days ago they found a python nearby. We were sitting here on the patio talking, like you and I are, and one of the workers came and told us. The python was looking for food. They found it on the other side of the river, where the woods are. Can you imagine the fear?”

Jay turned toward the river, but she didn’t see anyone. From the other patio, however, came the black woman. “Dinner’s ready,” she said with a sweet smile. She was missing her two front teeth.


The next day, while she was packing, Jay spent a few minutes cleaning her camera. She had several hours’ drive ahead of her; she had to call the police to check the state of the road, if any landslides or accidents had been reported, or if there was no news. But outside it was sunny and the busiest moment had passed, when the workers come to have breakfast with the guests and the smell of their work clothes mixes for a few seconds with the smell of the coffee and the eggs. The house had entered its brief mid-morning quiet spell: everyone had gone back to work and the visitors had gone to see animals and the Galáns were sitting down going through invoices or settling up with a supplier or a client. Jay left her room, camera in hand, and looked for Yolanda. She found her taking a siesta in a hammock and, without warning, took a photograph of her.

Yolanda opened her eyes. “What happened?”

“Sorry,” Jay said. “You don’t mind?”

“But here?”

“Yes,” Jay said. “Right there, why not.”

Yolanda lay back again. Jay gave her a couple of instructions, moved a tin of beer out of the shot and walked around the hammock to find the best light, the best angle.

Yolanda covered her face with her hands; the shutter sounded once, twice. Yolanda asked: “Doesn’t it matter if I’m crying?”

“It doesn’t matter,” Jay said. “Cry as much as you want.”

8 Books That Illuminate the Hidden Histories of Hollywood

Hollywood. It’s one of those locations—it’s hard, somehow, to call it a concrete place—that conjures up all sorts of archetypes: the ruined writer, egomaniacal director, sleazy executive, out-of-control star.

In writing my memoir Always Crashing in The Same Car—a book with elements of criticism, travelogue, almanac, and commonplace book woven throughout—I looked to interrogate some of these archetypes, alongside wider American mythologies of artistic freedom, creative burnout and renewal, success and failure.

One of the problems of being from Los Angeles, or at least the version of Los Angeles that I am from, is the difficulty of disentangling these myths from the city’s more plainspoken and often problematic realities; of separating The Movies—which are as embedded in those realities as politics are in D.C’s—from regular old LA. Visitors can have that problem too.

Here are eight books to help us do so, and to help us understand there’s much more to the movies than just the movies themselves.

Set the Night on Fire by Mike Davis and Jon Wiener

Set the Night On Fire by Jon Weiner & Mike Davis

This magisterial history of Los Angeles in the ’60s—a corny-as-hell adjective, I realize, but absolutely apt in this case—barely touches upon the movies at all. Instead, it focuses on the city’s rich history of activism: the Watts Rebellion, Chicano Blowouts, gay liberation and radical feminist movements, alongside the myriad other currents that reshaped LA during that ferocious decade.

It’s essential (and, it must be said, absolutely riveting) reading, one that lays out as well the city’s long history of racism and redlining, the longstanding corruption and white supremacist brutality of its police department, etc. That the movies don’t really appear in these pages tells you all you need to know about them. Or at least tells you something it’s important never to forget.

Interior Chinatown by Charles Yu

Interior Chinatown by Charles Yu

Yu’s incredible, Pulitzer-winning novel deserves all the accolades it has received and then some. For all its formal daring and inventiveness, its incisiveness and acuity about Hollywood’s problems of representation, the book is also fantastically playful—a straight-up blast to read—and appealingly tender. It’s the latter quality that seals it for me, that element of heart one finds in all of Yu’s fiction, really.

Children of Light by Robert Stone

Children of Light by Robert Stone

If you have to read one book about a screenwriter gone completely off the rails, I’d recommend this one. Stone was a genius, of course—one of the pillars of late-century American paranoid brilliance, alongside Denis Johnson and DeLillo—and all of his novels are amazing, like Joseph Conrad stuffed to the gills with mescaline.

This one follows said screenwriter, Gordon Walker, to Mexico, where he plans to oversee his own adaptation of Kate Chopin’s The Awakening. To say this plan goes to hell would be an understatement. In a sense, this novel includes all the archetypes—not just ruined writer, but egomaniacal director, out-of-control starlet, and many others—but Stone’s vision is so grand and fevered it transcends nearly everything and arrives (like Malcolm Lowry’s Under the Volcano, which may be this novel’s closest cousin) at a place I wouldn’t hesitate to call “religious.”

The Devil Finds Work by James Baldwin

The Devil Finds Work by James Baldwin

This book-length essay on the writer’s own encounters with the movies—as a child, as a critic, and as a fan—is one of Baldwin’s less-frequently-read books, I suspect, which is a shame.

Beginning with his first boyhood vision of “Joan Crawford’s straight, narrow, and lonely back”—and then chasing that with images of Tom Mix serials, Randolph Scott’s appearance in 1936’s The Last of the Mohicans, all the way through the well-intentioned liberalism of ’60s films like Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?, and even The Exorcist—Baldwin goes for the jugular here. Or maybe it’s better to say that the jugular—Hollywood’s soft and depressingly white underbelly—is already exposed and Baldwin merely filets it carefully in a protracted flight of memoir and criticism that is as relentless, as merciful, as unbending, and as beautiful as his best work always is.

To discover how deeply Baldwin loved the movies is a surprise. To discover that they were not always so capable of loving him back is, alas, less so.

Rhinestone Sharecropping by Bill Gunn

One of the best novels ever written about the movies is not currently in print, alas. Bill Gunn’s genius ought to be household knowledge. Instead, sadly, it’s a semi-concealed secret.

Gunn appears as an actor in Kathleen Collins’ great, recently rediscovered, movie Losing Ground. His work as a director, or some of it at least (1980’s two-part Personal Problems and his 1973 avant-vampire flick Ganja and Hess), has appeared on The Criterion Channel. But his 1970 feature Stop (only the second ever to be directed at a major studio by a Black filmmaker) remains in the vaults after it was shelved, and both his novels are difficult to find. Rhinestone Sharecropping is the better of the two: an unsparing, strange—and oddly rollicking, for all its fury—story of a Black writer’s attempt to navigate the studio system in writing the story of a famous football player. (It is unsurprising to discover the novel is autobiographical, based on Gunn’s own engagement with a 1977 Muhammad Ali biopic called The Greatest.) NYRB, are you listening? This and Gunn’s other novel, All the Rest Have Died, deserve to be reintroduced to a much wider audience.

Suite for Barbara Loden by Nathalie Léger

Léger’s gorgeous, elliptical and unshakable novel—is it a “novel?”—about Barbara Loden was an enormous inspiration for me as I wrote Always Crashing in The Same Car and remained always to hand on my desk. Loden, if you don’t know, was an actress and filmmaker who wrote and directed one indisputable masterpiece, 1970s Wanda, before dying in 1978. Wanda itself is essential: a spare, atmospheric drama about a coalminer’s wife and a bank robber, about a kind of blank, hardscrabble existence the movies usually ignore.

Léger’s book interrogates not just the film, but Loden’s life, the life of a preternaturally gifted female artist adrift in the brutally masculine world of sixties and seventies Hollywood. In a way, that life is a stand-in for an entire generation of female artists (Polly Platt, Carole Eastman, Toby Rafelson, many others), some of whom I write about in my own book. And yet it remains, like every great artist’s—and like Léger’s book itself—sui generis: a work like no other. 

Zeroville by Steve Erickson

Steve Erickson is one of the greatest writers Los Angeles has ever produced—one of America’s living greatest—and with this novel, he tilts his hand at the vaunted “New Hollywood” of the 1970s.

As is typical with Erickson, he psychedelicizes it, funneling it through the life and mind of Vikar, a hulking savant with a tattoo of Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor on his shaven head who steps off a bus in 1969 and straight into the world of the Manson murders, John Milius, Brian DePalma at the beach: the wild world of Hollywood at its most creatively fruitful. What alters history and renders it anew is Vikar himself and his gnostic, almost religious vision of a hidden movie, one that exists, frame-by-frame, tucked inside every other film that’s ever been made. Incredible.

A Year in the Dark: Journal of a Film Critic 1968-1969 by Renata Adler

A Year in the Dark by Renata Adler

Renata Adler’s first book was neither a novel nor a collection of her journalism, but rather this: an account and an assemblage of her year spent as a house film critic for the New York Times. Adler was, by her own admission, an improbable candidate for the job, and she happened to drop in for what is now considered an absolute watershed year in American cinema: 1968.

Hindsight has a tendency to render aesthetic judgments obvious—to make it seem as if our later consensus about any work of art was the one any savvy person would have reached in the moment—and so it is mesmerizing to watch a critic as acute and gifted as Adler wrestle with Kubrick’s 2001, with Yellow Submarine, with films by Godard and Pasolini and innumerable others at their point of release.

Adler’s writing, naturally, ranges way beyond the movies, as she writes about spring’s civil unrest in France, about the protests that rocked the Venice Film Festival later in the year, and also restores a powerful sense that both art and our judgment of it is shaped by the politics of its time. What is urgent, what is playful, what is strange and what is tedious might appear one way in 1968. But it is something else entirely, often wonderful indeed, that greets us here in 2021.

The Anxiety of an Expiring Work Visa

In YZ Chin’s debut novel, Edge Case, Edwina, a Malaysian woman in New York City, comes home one day to find her husband has left her. As the novel progresses, she sifts through the memories of their relationship to understand all the ways their paths diverged and things fell apart. Seems simple enough. But against this backdrop, Chin’s protagonist encounters larger life uncertainties—a toxic workplace, an overbearing mother, but most of all, an expiring work visa that if not converted into a green card, will mean the end to the American life she has built.

The so-called, “skilled” immigration—where an immigrant moves to the US later in life via a work visa—is a harrowing but dull landscape of forms, delays, and visa stamps. Yet in Edge Case, Chin shows us that the monster here is not overt violence, it is simply the unknowable threat of expiring paperwork, and being beholden to unworthy corporations and immigration officers who hold one’s visa, and quite literally one’s life, in their hands.

I chatted with Chin over Zoom about the antagonism of the green card application process, why writing by writers of color is always presumed autobiographical, and what it means to become an Asian American writer.


Vanessa Chan: Edge Case explores the subject of so-called “skilled” immigration—the protagonist Edwina is seeking a green card to extend her life in the US. This is different than the more commonly written about American immigration story, where an immigrant comes to the US as a child, and faces discrimination growing up in white supremacy. Can you talk about those differences and what it took to show this on the page?

There is a shadow of alternate realities that certain kinds of immigrants live with that not everyone understands.

YZ Chin: I had an OMG moment when my first book, Though I Get Home, was published, and I saw it shelved under Asian American fiction. It’s not that I disagree with the categorization, it’s just that I realized I had never thought of myself as an Asian American. That got me thinking, what does it mean to be an Asian American writer? What do I know about Asian American literature? I started wondering to myself, if I am an Asian American writer, what are my contributions to Asian American literature? I’m an immigrant yes, but I don’t fully understand all the nuances of growing up Asian American in the US. Still, I do understand what it’s like growing up a minority. I’m a second-generation Chinese immigrant in Malaysia. I understand being a minority, and sometimes being unloved or being an outsider. It is interesting to port the context of being one type of immigrant to another type of immigrant and trying to fit that into the book was almost a second coming of age for me as an immigrant—going from one to the other. Also, sometimes immigration can feel like regret. One wonders: did I make the wrong choice in staying vs. going back? Or should I not have left? There is a shadow of alternate realities that certain kinds of immigrants live with that not everyone understands. When I got pregnant I told my husband, “There’s an American in my stomach.” 

What I found really comforting is that Shirley Geok-Lin Lim, whom I love, is an Asian American writer who is also Malaysian. She has this lovely poem called, “Learning to love America” and it’s beautiful—the last couple lines are, “because it is late and too late to change my mind / because it is time,” and that helped me think about this. 

VC: One of the reasons skilled immigration is not written about is because it’s dry and full of paperwork. But you did a really good job in Edge Case making it accessible for people who are unaware of the process.

YZC: Exactly. It’s not that you live here a certain number of years and you automatically get citizenship, which is what some people told me they thought this kind of immigration was like. There are so many things outside of your control. It all feels like an amorphous thing you’re up against, but there’s no one to fight. It’s a PDF file, it’s paperwork. But it is such a big deal.

VC: Ultimately this is a novel about microaggressions. While there are some big, frightening scenes where the characters feel powerless, the violence is not overt. It’s more simmering, and you feel a sense of worry and panic. What draws you to writing about that simmer?

YZC: Withholding the catharsis is parallel to immigration. You can’t kick and punch a PDF file. You can’t rebel against green card paperwork. The first time I applied for an H-1B work visa, I didn’t get past the lottery stage because of the cap on the number of work visas issued. When I was informed that I lost the H-1B lottery, I couldn’t take my anger out on anything. It was just zeros and ones telling me, “Nope sorry, we don’t want you.” There’s a lot of pent-up frustration in the immigration process already, which I thought was interesting to reflect as the central conflict in the main character’s life. The character is caught in many uncertain states because uncertainty is the main ingredient in this kind of green card-beholden immigrant’s life.

VC: A lot of this book is about leaving—a husband leaving his wife, a woman does not want to leave the United States. Can you talk a little bit about why departures inspire you?

YZC: Growing up, both my paternal and maternal sets of grandparents are from China. But they don’t really like to talk about why they left. Was it poverty, was it really difficult in China, were they just seeking adventure? Because of these four people’s decision to leave, I was born in Malaysia. You wonder, what if they had decided to stay, what would I have become?

And as far as myself, at 18, I received a government scholarship to study overseas. When you apply, they give you choices, select the top three countries you want to go to. The US was my last choice. I actually wanted to go to New Zealand. This was before Lord of the Rings, but I had this romantic idea of what New Zealand was like, with rolling meadows and tall cliffs. So I put New Zealand first, Australia second because it’s next to New Zealand. Then I put the US third because I was born on the Fourth of July. That’s literally why I am sitting here talking to you. All these years later I wonder, did I really make the choice to leave, or was the choice made for me? That’s maybe what Edge Case is about—people making decisions when it doesn’t seem like they have much of a choice.

VC: Another theme of the novel is Edwina’s fraught relationship with food—from the struggle she has with being called fat by her mother, to how her emotional unraveling is defined by her failure to stay vegetarian. She even meets her husband at a gathering where food is the central convener. What is your relationship to food in literature?

YZC: I notice that in America a lot of great writing by writers of color involves beautifully linking the relationship to food to cultural heritage, and that is great. But a side effect of that is that there are reader expectations where, if you are a writer of color, then food is the way to connect with you. You could go to a party, and someone asks where you’re from and you say, “I’m from Malaysia,” and they go, “Oh I love Asian food.” To me as a new Asian American, it’s a strange experience. I also don’t want to write what some people have called tour guide fiction—where you write about where you’re from and you describe every food and smell in painstaking detail—it can be very exoticizing. With this novel, I was trying to think of a way in which someone’s chosen identity was disrupted. Edwina chose to be a vegetarian, something she felt passionately about. What does it mean to not only lose that part of her chosen identity, but to be actively sabotaging it? I wanted to have her think, am I still me if I am not a vegetarian anymore? 

VC: What part of your brain did you pluck Edge Case from? Did you always have an inkling of what it was going to be?

YZC: After writing my first book, which is set in Malaysia, I remember giving a public reading and after, a white man came up to me and said, “I can’t imagine living in a place like that,” because my first book is about political prisoners. That comment really stuck with me because I hadn’t intended to frame Malaysia as the most horrible place in the world. 

All these years later I wonder, did I really make the choice to leave, or was the choice made for me?

People also started saying, “What’s your next book about? Are you going to write about the US or Malaysia?” It was a weird question, as though those are my only two choices. I heard the implication being “When are you going to write about American stuff that is interesting to me, the American reader?” These things sat with me, and a cheeky writing voice started coming to me when I wanted to address those questions. Then the main arc of the book became clear—someone is in the process of losing someone that they very much love and is in the denial. All of these things, stir them into a pot, and in the end, here we are. 

I will say, there’s this burden of representation. Of course, we don’t always need to write likable Asian characters, but it’s always something I worry about publishing in the US because you are publishing to a default audience that may not have all the context. You don’t want to write tour guide fiction but you also have that burden of explaining. I also want to point out that though I did work in tech and go through the green card process, Edge Case is not autobiographical.

VC: It’s funny you mention that the novel is not autobiographical. Because that’s an assumption that a lot of white writers make when encountering work by writers of color—as though every grief in the book is culled from our lives, as though we have no imagination.

YZC: I was so shocked when people came up to me assuming my first book was autobiographical. It’s about a woman who gets thrown into prison, who is not me! If that happened to me, I would’ve probably written a memoir! People just assume. In fact, people are very opinionated about what I should write about! Like, “Oh you should write about my life!” Or, “Oh you speak Mandarin, you should write about this Tang Dynasty poet.” It’s a weird writer problem. No one goes up to a software engineer and says, “Okay, here’s what you should code.” 

VC: I read your wonderful essay on LitHub about how even though you are multilingual in the way many Malaysians are, you chose to claim English as yours in your writing even though it is a “colonizer’s” language.

YZC: I speak Mandarin. I speak poor Cantonese. And I speak Malay, though my Malay used to be much better. I went to an SMJK (C), a Chinese language medium school in Malaysia. I read a lot of Mandarin literature growing up. So when I read English books, they felt like an escape from my real life because they felt so far away and impossible. In a way, writing in English afforded me a sense of freedom. Writing in Mandarin, I feel like the shadows of my parents reading what I wrote because Mandarin is their best language. For English, especially when I first started out, it was important for me to feel like, “This is just for me. This is my special, secret thing.” With English, I don’t have to answer to anyone or have any expectations weighing down on me before I finish anything. So, English ended up being where I felt more creative. 

VC: The novel is written in an unusual form, a first-person direct address. Why did you choose this?

YZC: The overt addressing allows the character to engage in personal mythmaking. We all do this. When you talk to a therapist, you’re not being objective with yourself. You’re trying to present yourself a certain way—you may be seeking absolution or trying to justify your action—whatever it is, you cast yourself in a specific light. In Edwina’s case, she doesn’t know who she is anymore, but she wants to present confidence, so it’s her way of crafting this myth about herself. She gets to tell a stranger who is she is, and it’s vital for her emotional resilience to do so.

VC: Timewise, the book is set after Trump was elected, which was a very specific choice especially as it relates to immigrants. Can you share more about this choice? 

YZC: I remember posting on social media when the first Muslim ban happened, about how outrageous it was. And a lot of my Malay Muslim friends said, “Oh biasalah, we always get detained at the airports.” That really got me thinking about how this degradation is something they just accept as part of existing. Which of course ties back to how much will you take to get a green card and what will you let slide in order to pursue your life in a different country? Setting the novel after the Trump election meant there was more at stake. That was the point people started having awareness of the kinds of indignities that immigrants go through. 

7 Short Stories About the Inner Lives of Athletes

The 2020 Tokyo Games will be defined by many things—the anachronism of its title, the risk of superspreading, the welcome absence of Matt Lauer—but, hopefully, these Olympics will also be remembered for bringing mental health to the forefront of popular discourse.

Simone Biles’ “twisties.” Michael Phelps’ commercials for Talkspace. Noah Lyles’ transparency about antidepressants. All repeat the same refrain: Athletes—no matter how strong, fast, or high-flying—have feelings, too. But in their superhumanity, these competitors, pressured to perform for the entertainment of the masses, are relegated to an almost subhuman status.

Encompassing everything from the grueling quotidian to the triumphantly sublime, these seven short stories affirm athletes’ humanity, capturing them in all their flawed glory.

Lady Leopard” in Joyland by Drew Calvert

After a spine-fracturing fall during the 1980 Olympic Trials, Jesse Munns’ gymnastics career was over. But 15 years later, he’s coaching Angela Torres, a 16-year-old phenom with a legitimate chance to reach the heights he never did. Calvert’s characters vault—literally and literarily—off the page: Jesse and his fanatical love of the sport, Angela with her shrewd intellect and burgeoning outside interests. By contrasting their outlooks, Calvert illuminates the dangers of hanging one’s self-worth on athletic success.

Running” in SmokeLong Quarterly by R.S. Thomas

This summer, Sunisa Lee not only made history as the first Asian woman to win the Olympic gymnastics all-around title, but she also helped lend visibility to her Hmong American community in Minnesota. In this flash fiction piece, the residents of a Native American reservation hope for a similar outcome: that their high school track star, Bobby Riley, can put them on the map. Unlike Lee’s American Dream success story, however, Bobby’s Olympic dreams are wrecked by racism and violence.

Futures” in The New Yorker by Han Ong

Welcome to the world of tennis’ minor leagues: no coaches, no big-name sponsors—just low-ranked players trudging from tournament to tournament, hoping to rack up enough ATP points to qualify for a Grand Slam.

Every year, for a mid-level tournament in La Jolla, California, a wealthy business tycoon hosts one of these aspiring pros, offering food and lodging in return for private lessons for his 18-year-old son, Toby. Acquainting himself with each athlete that circles through his home, Toby comes to understand the resilience required to last in the sport—and deems himself unready for the task.

Superking Son Scores Again” in n+1 by Anthony Veasna So

Superking Son is “a regular Magic Johnson of badminton,” but lately, his attention has been elsewhere—removed from the court, where he’s supposed to be coaching the high school team, and funneled into keeping his Cambodian grocery store afloat. Enter new transfer student Justin: rich, Mustang-driving, and a bravura badminton player in his own right. Tension naturally arises, as members of the badminton team find their loyalties divided between Superking Son and Justin, culminating in a shuttlecock showdown between the two.

But So doesn’t give us an epic moment; instead, he foregrounds just how pitiful the scene is: a man-child trying to strong-arm a kid, seeking to recover his ego at all costs. Superking Son, previously buoyed by the apocryphal tales of his athletic prowess, has nothing left but the weight of trauma and adult responsibilities.

The Freak Winds Up Again” in One Story by Jenn Alandy Trahan

The narrator of “The Freak Winds Up Again” is not an athlete, but she’s a little bit obsessed with one: baseball pitcher Timmy Lincecum. Sitting at the bar of a Buffalo Wild Wings, she looks on in awe as Timmy throws a 148-pitch no-hitter; in pride as she points out that, as a fellow Filipino, he looks like he could be related to her. Later, she makes her boyfriend’s roommates watch the replay.

Grieving the loss of her brother to suicide, the narrator finds solace in Timmy’s accomplishments, as well as in Timmy’s baseball origin story—how he watched his older brother pitch in their backyard and wanted to be just like him. On and off the field, Timmy gives the narrator hope.

Meshed” in Clarkesworld Magazine by Rich Larson

In the near future, most top athletes are “meshed”—fitted with neural implants that allow viewers to see what players see, to feel what players feel, to travel beyond the confines of mere vicarious experience. But when Oxford Diallo, a Senegalese basketball prodigy, refuses the mesh, the Nike agent assigned to recruit him resorts to dirty tactics. Through its speculative elements, Larson’s story dissects the boundaries of parasocial relationships, shining a light on our culture’s commodification of athletes’ bodies.

L. DeBard and Aliette” in The Atlantic by Lauren Groff

Olympic swimmers training during a pandemic… I know, I know, it’s difficult to see how this story is relevant to our current moment. In truth, though, “L. DeBard and Aliette” is far less concerned with the nitty-gritty of drills and races as it is with the intrigue of its title characters’ clandestine love affair. But while the swimming itself may take a backseat to personal dramas, Groff’s narrative offers another picture of elite athletes. Between the contests lost and medals won, athletes live and love and hurt like anyone else.

Electric Literature Announces New Editor-in-Chief

Electric Literature’s new editor-in-chief is Denne Michele Norris, who previously served as Fiction Editor at Apogee Journal and Senior Fiction Editor for The Rumpus. She co-hosts the popular podcast Food 4 Thot, which was recently named one of four “Dating Podcasts To Make You Feel Better About Your Life” by the New York Times. Norris is the first Black and openly transgender woman to serve as editor-in-chief of a major U.S. literary publication. 

“It’s a dream come true to lead and represent a publication with such an impressive history,” said Norris. “Electric Lit has long been a platform for stories that are rarely told, and even more rarely amplified. I look forward to keeping Electric Lit at the forefront of the literary zeitgeist and publishing work of the highest caliber that critically and beautifully examines our ever-evolving cultural context.”  

Norris is a proven champion of new and emerging voices. As Fiction Editor at Apogee Journal in 2017, Norris selected and edited “Eula,” the first published story in Deesha Philyaw’s acclaimed 2020 short story collection, The Secret Lives of Church Ladies. As Senior Fiction Editor at The Rumpus, multiple stories she edited were awarded the PEN Robert J. Dau Prize for Debut Short Stories. An accomplished writer, she has been awarded fellowships from MacDowell, VCCA, Tin House, and the Kimbilio Center for African American Fiction, and her own stories have appeared in McSweeney’s, and American Short Fiction. 

“Denne is certain to electrify our mission to make literature exciting, relevant, and inclusive,” said executive director Halimah Marcus. “There are so many people already having important conversations outside the literary establishment—Electric Literature is a home for those people, and they will feel even more welcomed with Denne at the helm.”

“I’m thrilled to have Denne’s unique combination of editorial acumen and stylish wit as head of the Electric Lit team,” added board member Meredith Talusan. “That she also has intimate knowledge of many marginalized communities both within and outside literary circles makes her the perfect person to invigorate EL’s editorial priorities.”

Founded in 2009, Electric Lit is an independent publishing nonprofit with an annual readership of five million. Everything we publish is available for free online, including two weekly literary magazines and daily book coverage. Work published in Electric Lit has been recognized by Best American Short Stories, Essays, Poetry, and Comics, The Pushcart Prize, and the PEN/O’Henry Prize, among others. Authors published in Electric Lit range from the debut and emerging to the critically acclaimed, and EL has been an early champion of writers such as Marie Helene Bertino, Clare Sesnovitch, Kiik Araki-Kawaguchi, Helen Phillips, Riane Konc, Kawai Strong Washburn, and editor-at-large Brandon Taylor.


Among our most influential articles are: the essays “Men Recommend David Foster Wallace to Me” by Deidre Coyle, “There’s Nothing Scarier Than a Hungry Woman,” by Laura Maw, and “What I Don’t Tell My Students About the Husband Stitch” by Jane Dykema; an interview with Ted Chiang about the sci-fi elements of the pandemic; the #metoo short story “Someone is Recording” by Lynn Coady; and a genre-bending interview/performance piece with and by Carmen Maria Machado. Our readers also look forward to an annual list of books by women of color by R.O. Kwon, an advice column by Elisa Gabbert and John Cotter, and investigations of unfinished literary works by Kristopher Jansma.

“Labyrinth” is Another Word for “Bathhouse”

For much of my childhood, I had the same dream several times a week. It began with standing in front of a door in our dining room that in real life led outside but had long been painted shut. In the dream, though, it opened into a much grander house, a palace really, though also a maze, its rooms possessing no discernible order. It was long abandoned, everything dusted over from years of disuse, and though there were no people in the house, occasionally a kind of ghostly flicker, like a hologram, would stutter about for a few seconds in a way that was not so much frightening as uncanny.

The dream did not have much plot. Mostly I wandered, and though the layout varied night to night, the end point was always the same, a tall Vitruvian hall with a dais, on top of which was a wooden chair. Between me and the seat, however, were dozens of ghostly flickers and, unlike during the rest of the journey, here they clearly could see me—indeed, watched me intently. With trepidation, I would thread between them: it seemed a defining characteristic of the dream both that none ever moved toward me and that on any given night they were infinitely capable of doing so, with it being unclear what would happen if they did. Invariably, though, I would reach the other end of the room, mount the dais, and sit in the chair. Then I would wake up.

In some primitive way, the dream was preparing me for queerness—a life of navigating spaces that, while banal for most, are mazes for queer people, spaces where our desires are forever too grand and our fathers turn out, more often than not, to be minotaurs. But those dreams also instilled in me the quirk of feeling as though all stories of people lost in mazes are stories about me—and that, to some degree, the reverse is also true: that all people lost in labyrinths are queer.

But then COVID happened, and the world felt like a literal labyrinth: we all went into our houses and could not find the doors out again. I found myself drawn with new obsessiveness to literary depictions of queer mazes, and in particular to three novels released during the pandemic that are each set in and around labyrinths. In Susanna Clarke’s Piranesi, a man lives in a maze of galleries filled floor to towering ceiling with allegorical statues and tries to satisfy the only other person in the universe. In Aaron A. Reed’s Subcutanean, two college friends become lost in their basement of ordinary but discomfitingly endless rooms. And in Erin Morgenstern’s The Starless Sea, the protagonist finds himself descending into an endless library, searching for his missing love.

With the exception of Reed’s novel, which was nominated for a 2021 Lambda Award in its strange-attractor genre category (science fiction, fantasy, and horror), none of these books has necessarily been talked about as a gay book. Morgenstern’s narrative is about two men Fate literally needs to fall in love with one another, but it was not marketed as a gay book and has not, so far as I can tell, been embraced as one either. And on its surface, Clarke’s novel is not gay at all. But when the three are read together, a new perspective snaps into place, in which each can be understood as a story in which a labyrinth serves as an extended metaphor for the perils of queer desire.

Queer is of course a messy, imperfect term, and I use it in both a capacious and a narrow sense: on the one hand, I am interested in how Clarke, Reed, and Morgenstern contest the tyranny of an erotics that is purely heterosexual and procreative. In their novels, the labyrinths generate erotic obsessions with objects, with architecture, with doppelgangers, with allegories and Platonic ideals—all of which is, broadly speaking, queer. In the more narrow sense of queer, these novels also all center the erotics of male homosexuality, in ways that speak—sometimes adoringly, sometimes skeptically—about the potential of love between men.

These stories are not conventionally queer, but then again, how else to talk about an erotics of desiring a book or a random point in space?

These novels are not without precedent. Indeed, there is a considerable shadow canon of queer-proximate literature about labyrinths, and all three novels owe rather obvious debt, in particular, to Jorge Luis Borges. And while Borges’s fiction is rarely read as queer, it should be. In Borges’s surreal landscapes, there is rarely more than a nascent sexuality, but the stories are full of what we might call desiring spaces. In “The Library of Babel” (of which Morgenstern’s novel could almost be called fanfic), people wander an infinite library in search of the book that will complete them. In “The Aleph,” one of the few Borges stories to even mention women, the true erotic fixation is a secret point in space. In the story, an acquaintance of the narrator finds, hidden in his otherwise unremarkable basement, a small mystical sphere of light through which it is possible to instantly view everything in the universe, jumbled up like “a splintered labyrinth.” These stories are not conventionally queer, but then again, how else to talk about an erotics of desiring a book or a random point in space?

Granted, I am also of a generation—the last, perhaps—in which gay literature was still spare enough that we were obliged to read queerness into whatever we could, the library its own maze of paths we would pursue as far as they would take us toward the center of our own experiences. In this essay, I continue to read in that defiantly queer way, jumbling literary criticism, memoir, and interior life—not only because I think we gain little by holding them apart, but also to advocate for the value of queer reading as a uniquely unruly, labyrinthine way of engaging with texts. If this way of reading now seems less like a necessary survival skill—we don’t have to imagine queer texts anymore because they’re relatively abundant—there’s still both value and pleasure to be derived from reading in a way that is freely associative, sly, and rangy. To understand queer labyrinths, I’m compelled to troll through my own maze of associations. 


In Clarke’s Piranesi, the entirety of the universe, so far as the titular character knows, is an unmappably vast series of ornate rooms. This building (if we can call it that) is divided into three floors: a middle realm where Piranesi mainly lives, an upper realm swathed in clouds, and a lower level that is flooded. Other than these elemental differences, the levels are all the same, an endless grid of linked rooms, every room barnacled with niches in which statuary is tucked.

Piranesi’s name for the universe is “the House,” and he’s not being arch; austere and incommodious as it may appear, Piranesi thinks it is the best of all imaginable homes. This is partly because he believes the House provides for him (with an abundance of fish, sea vegetables, and eggs). But the House’s provision is also aesthetic and spiritual: Piranesi finds its endless, and endlessly varied, statues both beautiful and edifying, since he is convinced that each possesses a unique allegorical or didactic meaning onto which he maps his inner life.

Because so much of the novel is about Piranesi desiring the approval of the only other person who exists, Piranesi dramatizes one of the quintessential queer experiences.

Besides a score of human skeletons that Piranesi reverently cares for, the only other person in the universe is the Other, a vain, manipulative, obviously malevolent man whom Piranesi nonetheless adores. Though an avid diarist, Piranesi has significant memory problems, and so the precise nature and origin of his friendship with the Other are impossible for him to recall. Piranesi is aware, though, that the Other is both a scientist and impeded in that endeavor by his fear of becoming lost in the maze. To collect data about its reaches—including a distant room he believes is key to unlocking “a Great and Secret Knowledge”—he depends upon Piranesi. The Other has quite evident hatred for the House; he is interested in it only because of what he hopes he might gain from it.

Like Borges’s stories, Piranesi contains little we might easily call sexuality. But because so much of the novel is about Piranesi desiring the approval of the only other person who exists, Piranesi dramatizes one of the quintessential queer experiences. If, like me, you grew up queer in a small town and became convinced you were in love with the only other queer person you knew, then you have likely known what it feels like to be Piranesi: that is, lost in a labyrinth in which the only other inhabitant does not love you back, or is unworthy of your love, or, as turns out to be the case for Piranesi, only wishes to further ensnare you in the labyrinth. Equally quintessential is the experience of finding, as Piranesi does, that leaving the labyrinth is a life-or-death choice in which one’s preferences barely figure.

In addition to being a book that speaks to the experience of queer dissatisfaction, Piranesi is also a book about queer aesthetics, specifically those of the domestic realm. In his 2015 essay “What Was Gay?”, J. Bryan Lowder quotes Edmund White’s States of Desires: Travels in Gay America (1980) on the subject of gay domestic spaces: “The apartment treated as a stage set—dramatically lit, designed to be taken in all at once and from the entrance—remains a gay apartment, whether the décor is . . . cluttered comfort or austere emptiness.” Lowder continues by citing Neil Bartlett’s paean to Oscar Wilde, Who Was That Man?: “Our rooms are not decorated to announce our occupation or our family status; they are not really ‘domestic’ interiors. They need reflect nothing but the tastes of their owner, the pleasure he takes in his life, his ability to choose and arrange his possessions.”

Piranesi can be read as a moral allegory about queer experience, which is of our aesthetics only being valued when they can be put to some profit.

Putting White and Bartlett’s insights together, gay domestic spaces are those that have forgotten that they are meant to be houses, inverted in such a way that the aesthetic veneer meant to make a house pleasing instead becomes the house’s raison d’être, it’s functionality as a house rendered secondary (if that). One can live in a gay house, but only in the way that forest animals will eventually move into an abandoned building: by making the best of it, and always aware it wasn’t made for you.

It is in this way that we can call Piranesi’s House a gay House: that it only barely contains the necessity to sustain his life is both beside the point and the point. Piranesi’s is an aestheticized House, one he interacts with principally as a memory palace, perceiving its statues as an externalization of his thoughts, feelings, and desires. So far as Piranesi is concerned, the principal function and pleasure of the House is thus as a mirror of his taste. The Other does not share a love of Piranesi’s House, and has only instrumental interests in it, believing it may contain some great power he can exploit. The novel can therefore be read as a moral allegory about queer experience, which is of our aesthetics only being valued when they can be put to some profit.


Reed’s Subcutanean is a garden of forking paths, in addition to being about one. Reed trained as a digital game designer, and his novel was conceived for print on demand, with each copy slightly different based on parameters set by an algorithm, though he made a major concession to the exigencies of bookselling by producing a static version for stores (permutation 36619). That version even contains instructions for how the reader can download their own unique version. For my part, I read Subcutanean version 01893, which was serialized on the online comics platform tapas.io while Reed was fundraising to self-publish the finished text.

In the novel, best friends Orion and Niko are students at an unnamed liberal arts college somewhere in small town U.S.A. They are living together—just as friends!—in the sort of decrepit housing that inevitably springs up around such universities because college students (read: their parents) will pay top dollar for anything north of a hovel. Though perhaps originally Victorian, the house has now been swaddled in generic 1970s décor—deep-pile beige wall-to-wall carpeting, “wood” paneling, fake-bronze sconces escaped from a Dark Shadows set.

Gay Ryan is in love with straight Niko in the way you only can be when you are queer, twenty, living in a shitty college town, and your straight friend is the first person you’ve ever found hot who has also been nice to you. That is: utterly without hope, and so marrow-deep that you will spend the rest of your days trying to catch that high.

And then a dark miracle: the pair discovers a secret of such bizarre magnitude that sharing it fuses their lives. Beneath Ryan’s bed is a hidden staircase, and at the bottom of it is a labyrinth of bland, functionless, abandoned halls and rooms that would be boring were they not also impossible, a non-Euclidian maze of staggering magnitude. The pair dubs this labyrinth the Downstairs.

Many of the rooms in the Downstairs resemble bedrooms: a closet, sometimes a bedframe, a bare light hanging from the ceiling. In this, the Downstairs evokes the gay bathhouse, with its obscured corridors emptying into uncountable identical rooms, differentiated only by the fractal desires they transiently house. Decimated by the AIDS epidemic (though many continue to cling on, especially outside the U.S.), their function as places to cruise for gay sex has mostly been transferred to apps such as Grindr, another garden of forking paths in which every hall opens into a gesturally furnished bedroom, often of disquieting strangeness. This connection between the Downstairs and cruising haunts is driven home by the fact that the labyrinth is accessed via stairs under Ryan’s bed, where it is stashed like pornography. And it is certainly not accident that the boys’ name for it is also a suitably puerile euphemism for genitals—as in, “What’s he got downstairs?”—which synchs with their telluric, coltish sexualities. Like the Downstairs, whatever is there is still emerging, uncomfortably so.

Gay domestic spaces are those that have forgotten that they are meant to be houses.

At first, exploring the Downstairs seems like a lark. Sure, its spaces don’t really make sense, and there’s no way it could really all fit under the house—but it also seems harmless. And for Ryan, at least, it also possesses something like the appeal of a cheesy horror movie for a night out, as an excuse (metaphorically speaking) to bury your face in your date’s shoulder: if exploring the Downstairs is something Niko wants them to do together, Ryan is certainly not going to say no. Soon enough, though, the Downstairs takes on a sinister cast, when it becomes clear that there are other people down there and those people look, well, exactly like Ryan and Niko.

Though this unwelcome discovery makes the Downstairs much more threatening, it doesn’t make it any less interesting, and Ryan at least becomes obsessed with trying to understand its nature. From a local historian, he eventually learns that the house was built over a mystical spring, the capping of which somehow commenced the labyrinth’s branching realities. When, toward the novel’s climax, it turns out that the Ryan and Niko doppelgangers thrown up by the labyrinth number not in the single digits, as the boys’ have previously supposed/hoped, but in the millions, the labyrinth’s spring begins to resemble a perverse Fountain of Youth—not one that offers the ability to grow wise inside an ageless body, but rather one that continuously dispenses the same twenty-something naifs, a fathomless horde perpetually incapable of reciprocating love.

This seems to offer a critique of gay life as a kind of island of misfit toys—stunted boys who never achieve manhood—and recalls that another word for labyrinth is dungeon, a term Reed surely had in mind as a game designer: in video games, a dungeon (specifically a “roguelike” dungeon) is a special kind of randomly-generated level that doesn’t advance the plot but allows players to level up by fighting enemies, and which usually resets after each play. If the Downstairs is a dungeon in this sense—a kind of plotless diversion for trigger-happy boys—it is also a dungeon in the way that the word is used in gay and BDSM culture to denote a sexual playground, a place designed for the exploration of forbidden desires. For if Niko and Ryan’s Downstairs is another case of a gay house that has forgotten how to be a house—that has lost its mind—it is also a desiring catacomb.

Ryan is a hesitant would-be student of such desires, taking a clearly erotic—if inchoate—interest in the Downstairs’ doppelgangers (including those of himself). Most especially he hopes that the labyrinth will eventually disgorge a Niko who reciprocates his desires, and while he seems earnest about his love for his particular Niko, there’s reason to suspect he is capable of some surprising flexibility in this. That the first doppelganger Niko to articulate a sexual interest in Ryan is also a psychopath who confesses the intent to murder him while they fuck encapsulates the novel’s tense perspective on queer desiring spaces—Grindr, cruising haunts—with which the Downstairs is in some senses homologous.

The labyrinth’s spring begins to resemble a perverse Fountain of Youth—one that continuously dispenses the same twenty-something naifs.

Any broad critique of queer life is tempered though by the fact that the Downstairs only ever produces doppelgangers of Niko and Ryan: whatever is happening is only happening to them, forever. This is reinforced by the fact that no other character in the novel is capable of sustaining an interest in the Downstairs, despite Niko and Ryan’s efforts to introduce them to it. Moreover, it turns out that the novel’s Niko and Ryan prime are in fact not from our universe at all: they have crashed into our world when they exited the labyrinth the wrong way, and clearly do not belong here.

These details, which place Niko and Ryan inside a bubble of reality, offer insight into how queer love between lonely young men is prone to take two forms, often sequentially: one in which their joyful merging is so complete that it becomes its own culture; and another in which their entropy fractures them into an infinity of pained variations. In the labyrinth, all things are possible, until nothing is possible.


In a novel I am writing but don’t know how to finish, two queer men are exploring a labyrinth together. Unlike in most queer labyrinths, these men are not lost: one of them—more than a person but not quite a god—can navigate it quite well, having been exploring it for the better part of half a million years, though its existence preceded him and he has no better than a guess as to its origin. It is also impossible to become truly lost in this particular labyrinth: all you have to do is fall asleep and you will wake up back where you started.

Everyone who enters the labyrinth sees it slightly differently—as a network of torchlit caves, as a hotel, as a U-store-it—but these differences are only cosmetic. Always it is a system of tunnels or halls, arranged identically for all, along which are openings that, when stepped through, transport the explorer to somewhere on Earth. Their arrangement bears no obvious logic: portals proximate to one another routinely go to opposite ends of the globe; some go to quite important places but many more lead to the absolute middle of nowhere. The labyrinth appears to be infinite.

In the labyrinth all things are possible, until nothing is possible.

In other words, like the majority of systems for organizing information, it makes absolutely no sense—or the original sense has been long forgotten, the system repurposed through too many iterations. But a skilled user may nonetheless do quite remarkable things with it.

The more-than-man’s partner is a human who is learning, as some small number of human’s can, how to access the labyrinth and travel via it. The labyrinth can only be entered one way, by pushing one’s arm into thin air and opening space like a tent flap. As with so many aspects of queer life, to be capable of doing this, you must first have been shown the way by someone else. The trick to it is mainly knowing it can be done in the first place, fused with a kind of bullish determination. Some people just have the knack, most don’t.

Also like queerness, to navigate the labyrinth requires a small blood rite. This is because you can mark your passage, leaving notations on the walls, but only one implement will do: the distal phalange—that is, the final, smallest bone—of a pinkie finger. This bone must be offered freely by the person who first brought the visitor to the labyrinth, and it must be given inside of the labyrinth by slicing or ripping the finger open and pulling it out. It is a bloody thing, even for a near god.

As is so often the case, by necessity this rite takes place too early in their relationship and threatens to upend everything. Even if you know intellectually that it will heal back, watching someone rip off the top of their finger—for the sole reason that they wish you to prosper—asks for a gamble of flesh in return, no matter how much the person says otherwise.

The more-than-man and his partner come into view now, heads inclining toward one another in hushed conference as they round a corner, scratching notes into the wall with a bone still so fresh it is pink. They are not lost in the labyrinth, but I am.


The Starless Sea by Erin Morgenstern

In mythology, labyrinths often have a monster at their center, trapped there and trying to get out. In Morgenstern’s The Starless Sea, the monster has been exiled from the labyrinth and instead of brooding in its center now polices its perimeter, trying to keep everyone out. Although to call this antagonist a monster is too simplistic: she is, rather, someone willing to do terrible things to protect something she loves. That this something happens to be an infinite labyrinth of books representing all of human imagination—a suitably Borgesian objectum sexuality—fits with the general mood of Morgenstern’s story, in which all of the love interests are in some sense allegorical. The major driver of the plot is a vexed love affair between Time and Fate, a dilemma made only slightly less abstract for the fact that the novel literalizes these as people.

The same can be said for the love between the novel’s hero, Zachary, and his rakish beau, Dorian, a relationship which is rigged from the start. That election plays little role in Zachary and Dorian’s love is clear early in the novel: the novel’s commitment to predestination is signaled when Zachary finds a book in which his life story has already been written down. This uncanny discovery sends him on an adventure, so like the video games he loves, to understand the book’s origins, setting him in the path of Dorian, who has spent his adult life studying the library labyrinth and who has his own intense relationship with a particular book.

As the novel reaches its conclusion, Dorian and Zachary travel down and down into the dark of the labyrinth. The sequence demonstrates an astonishing narrative mastery of volumetrics: as the boys descend through ancient cities long crumbled to dust, further down into the titular sea and terrains more dream than fixed spaces, readers may find themselves internally disordered, in the best possible sense, by the vastness that Morgenstern conjures.

At the very bottom of the labyrinth, Dorian asks an innkeeper whether his wife is the Moon. The innkeeper is resolved: “The moon is a rock in the sky. . . . My wife is my wife.” But this isn’t right: as the reader knows, the innkeeper’s wife is in fact the Moon.

If we take the Moon to stand for a tidal kind of inevitability, being married to it is a dilemma Dorian and Zachary know too well. If their love for one another never seems adequately accounted for by the novel, it is perhaps because the characters’ affections are almost moot: theirs is, in the truest sense, an arranged marriage. If your relationship has been planned by Fate since the beginning of the world, for her own purposes—as Zachary and Dorian’s turns out to be—then your love was not of your own choosing.

Maybe it never is. Still, I think we can ask what Morgenstern accomplishes by constructing her novel around the choice, made by a mythological being, to instrumentalize queer longing in this cruel way, in which the madness and suffering of the lovers are necessitated by their ends, like a kind of hunger games.

Like queerness, to navigate the labyrinth requires a small blood rite.

I imagine Morgenstern’s answer to this question would be that she wanted to tell a story in which gay love triumphs over all, and by making that love fated, she meant to set homosexual desire on equal footing with heterosexual love—a kind of “Love Is Love” polemic. And it’s likely that Morgenstern had to fight for her gay characters: as a bestselling fantasy novelist, the marketing pressures on her must be tectonic, and one can well imagine that her press would have been well contented with another novel of heterosexual longing, like her wildly successful debut, The Night Circus (2011). In fact, Doubleday, which published The Starless Sea, more or less proceeded as though it weren’t a gay novel: nothing about the promotional copy makes it clear that the novel is principally about two men fated to love one another.

At the same time, by valorizing queer love as a fated love, the novel subtly aligns with the version of the gay rights movement that has given us Born This Way—that is, the idea that homosexuality must be accepted by society because it is innate, biological, and therefore homosexuals are blameless: they couldn’t be otherwise if they tried. That this ideology currently reigns supreme in queer politics is not to say that it is a perfect or even comfortable fit for many queers. Indeed, Born This Way has given rise to a responding queer skepticism, espoused by those who doubt that sexuality is predestined, and who, more to the point, remain unconvinced of the need to hitch desire to the North Star of biological determinism.

Focusing overmuch on this dilemma of fated queer love risks downplaying the novel’s radical queer potential, though. For if Zachary and Dorian are plotbound, their way of dealing with that constriction is ultimately to detonate the plot. After all, if you find yourself ensnared in a labyrinth, one solution is to destroy the labyrinth (curious that this seems to occur to so few!).

This anarchist approach to solving the labyrinth stages within the novel the tension between gay rights and gay liberation. As a movement, gay liberation emerged from the aftermath of the Stonewall Riots, and was predicated on the belief that a queer utopia would be one in which all oppressed people were free and equal. Intersectional even before the word existed, gay liberation sought, as Michael Bronski explains in Boston Review, to end white heteropatriarchal tyranny over sexual minorities, women, people of color, the poor, colonized peoples, and children, among others.

After all, if you find yourself ensnared in a labyrinth, one solution is to destroy the labyrinth (curious that this seems to occur to so few!).

Gay rights, on the other hand, aimed at gradual improvement, mainly for middle-class gays and lesbians, using a legalistic framework that sought discrete goals: an end to employment and housing discrimination, the eradication of laws against sodomy, and finally marriage equality. I say “finally” because for many gay rights advocates, most especially affluent white gay men, the success of the marriage equality movement marked the functional end of gay rights as a politics. Gay liberation had no such clear end point—there are always utopias within utopias—but obviously lost in the court of public opinion. That said, the boundary between the two movements was never rigid: as Martin Duberman points out in Has the Gay Movement Fail? (2018), many gay liberationists were willing to help with a gay rights approach, even if they continued to nurse more radical hopes.

If The Starless Sea starts out as a novel told in a gay rights mode, one in which gay love can be mainstream—as useful for the purposes of Fate as any other kind of love—its conclusion becomes a story of gay liberation when Zachary’s actions lead to the destruction of the library. Reluctantly, he embraces the need for a new world. And while Fate steers him toward this choice, its import exceeds her power to control: the new world that results is one even she cannot predict the nature of. In the novel’s concluding pages, the immortals wonder about the shape of the labyrinth that the couple have built in the ashes of the old one.

It isn’t a perfect solution. But if the only possible shape of the universe is a labyrinth, at least it can be one of your own queer design.


After my partner and I moved into an 1890 Queen Anne in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, I became obsessed with researching the house’s previous inhabitants. We knew that the prior owner, Terry, had been a gay man—in fact, the neighborhood had, since at least the 1980s, been something of a gayborhood, albeit coyly.

We soon learned from our neighbors, and then from online records searches, that Terry had bought the house in the late 1970s with his partner, Bill, a cast-off (or cast-out) scion of one of those ancient New England families whose names still index everything from streets to schools to theaters.

We were able to piece together a story: that Bill was a hospital nurse when the first wave of HIV hit Boston, and was among the few who didn’t balk at caring for AIDS patients. He did some of the earliest lobbying in the state for the rights of people with the virus, and began using their house—our house—to run a support group, and perhaps hospice, for HIV+ men. In 1993 he died from complications of AIDS, but not before becoming an uncloistered Anglican monk, filling the house with veritable clouds of church incense and religious apotropaia. After Bill’s death, Terry—an avid gardener and classical music nut (the house became a maze of vinyl record stacks)—lived alone here for another twenty years. The house came with a great deal of his furniture, and once in a while we find something that makes him feel profoundly present—for example, the table with a hidden drawer that held only his license, condoms, and a box cutter, a kind of plus ça change about how close pleasure and danger always are for queers.

I have no interest in leaving the labyrinth; I want to go further into it and become lost; I will probably die here.

Like many houses of sufficient age, ours contains a number of oblique features. These include a spring beneath a hatch in the basement that fills seasonally with sweet water, and a maze of defunct cast-iron pipes, running throughout the walls, meant to gather rain from the rooves and dump it directly into the stormwater system, and which sometimes still sighs like an entombed calliope. This is to say nothing of the crawlspace that loops the finished areas of the attic like a backstage and which has no discernable function beyond its subtraction from thereby rectangular rooms.

Knowing of the house’s many peculiar features did little to insulate me from the vertiginous sensation of learning that an unknown number of sick queers had sought, and apparently found, succor in our home. And that they were drawn there by the ministrations of a gay man named Bill, which is also my partner’s name. In the one photo I have found of him, this other Bill even looks passingly like my Bill—similar beard, nose, and kind set of the eyes. Maybe I only want to see it, but I can’t unsee it, this family resemblance.

In Lost in the Funhouse (1968), John Barth reflects on how many different versions of us there must be in the multiverse, how many ways we each could have been: “It’s as if they live in some room of our house that we can’t find the door to, though it’s so close we can hear echoes of their voices.” That is what this set of discoveries felt like, as though our house had yawned and suddenly had more rooms than before. In each was a Bill, either giving or taking refuge.

I have no interest in leaving the labyrinth; I want to go further into it and become lost; I will probably die here. I am trying to find each of the rooms into which my love’s multiplicities have gone. I may never find all of the doors, but I will keep searching the halls.

Trauma Doesn’t Follow a Linear Narrative

In the 20 years after spending a tumultuous summer in Marbella, Spain, Arezu has remained largely quiet about what happened, as if silence might protect her. Instead, two decades after leaving, she realizes that her perception of herself and her past are nearly unreachable because of the ways she has tried to distance herself. In the hopes of reclaiming her narrative and working toward some form of healing, Arezu must confront the painful memory fragments from a predatory relationship she endured at the age of 17 between herself and Omar, who was 40 at the time.

Accompanied by her best friend Ellie, a pro-Palestinian Israeli-American scholar, Arezu returns to the site of her pain: a neglected apartment in Marbella given to her by her estranged father. The apartment’s surfaces begin to bleed and morph, carrying with them dark echoes of the past. Arezu, with Ellie’s support, begins to shine a light on what has haunted her.

In Savage Tongues, Whiting Award and Pen/Faulkner Award winner Azareen Van der Vliet Oloomi’s third novel, Van der Vliet Oloomi asks questions that resound with the themes of her previous work: How do geopolitical and historical traumas map themselves onto people’s bodies and morph across generations? How can people, women especially, process trauma when there is no specific language that might hold their experiences? And what does it mean to bear witness to someone else’s pain?

Over the phone, Van der Vliet Oloomi and I spoke about agency, decolonizing the idea of plot, the harm caused by binaries, and the beauty of female friendship. 


Jacqueline Alnes: Arezu, 20 years after experiencing immense trauma, expresses that she needs “to shine the light of language onto the dark vaults of my life.” So much of Savage Tongues is about language: the lack of language to describe trauma, the loss of a mother tongue, the difficulty of translation and what is lost in the process. I’m curious to hear how you felt exploring these gaps (and successes) in language, particularly in relation to trauma, as you wrote.

Trauma changes our relationship to language.

Azareen Van der Vliet Oloomi: Trauma changes our relationship to language, especially when someone is leaning into it, like Arezu does. She wants to understand how she became who she is and differentiate between the parts of trauma that are personal and the parts of it that are geopolitical and historical. Especially as a woman, she has a hard time finding language to talk about her body, the sites of pleasure in her body, and also the ways in which it was weaponized against her. Her return to Spain with her best friend Ellie, who is also a writer, is a way of excavating that site of trauma; the tool she is using is language. Once she has language, she has the necessary distance she needs to carry on. 

JA: The word “distance” you just used is interesting to me, as the novel feels the opposite of that, only because we feel so close to her trauma the whole time. It feels like humidity, impossible to get off your skin.

AVdVO: It’s a very close-up book.

JA: What compelled you to write toward the trauma?

AVdVO: The question that I’m asking in the book is: How does trauma live inside our bodies and our consciousness? Our memory of trauma is so chameleon-like. The structure of a memory is also like an amoeba, constantly changing. It can be manipulated. What I’m interested in exploring is how every phase of Arezu’s life as she’s gotten older has caused the memory to shape-shift. It’s always organic and alive, not fixed in time. That’s the mercurial energy of trauma, but also of memory. 

We don’t have an appetite anywhere in the world culturally for intense female interiority or intersectional female interiority. We get tons of books written by men full of interiority, hundreds of pages that we are all hungry for, and it’s because we were taught to develop an appetite for that kind of thinking on the page. I love so many of those books, and at the same time, the work of doing and capturing the inner life of a woman is so important. I wish there was more of that kind of literature in the world.

JA: The structure of the book allowed for that interiority. Even when Arezu would leave the apartment or try to escape, her memory would circle back to the site of trauma. Did that structure come easily to you?

We don’t have an appetite anywhere in the world culturally for intense female interiority or intersectional female interiority.

AVdVO: The circling back is also what allows the novel to span different centuries and continents. Arezu has gone with Ellie to the apartment in Marbella specifically to conduct this kind of somatic reconnaissance healing work. The novel is told in a span of just seven days, so it seems they would always have to be stuck within the architecture of this place and yet, I needed a way to travel mentally to occupation in Palestine to politics in Israel that connect with Ellie’s identity, and the ways that the regional politics of Iran and Lebanon and Palestine connect historically, and how those political contexts were alive in the subtexts of the relationships between the characters. In order to move across such a broad space, I did really have to be anchored in a specific site.

JA: Arezu at one point explains that “I hadn’t once been able to produce an outline or a novel that was distinctly plot-driven. The word itself— plot—seemed problematic to me, artificial.” Plot is also “a territory with distinct boundaries, with a frontier designed to contain the story.” What is your relationship to plot as a writer?

AVdVO: I’m very aware that the way we think of what a good story is is completely informed by the narratives of the nation-state and the history of political modernity. Political identity is shaped by nationalism, and nationalism has informed what a successful narrative arc is for people, which in turn has informed what we believe a successful narrative arc is for a story. In the American landscape, this is a very action-driven nation that also blatantly exercises all sorts of historical amnesia, doesn’t recognize genocide, settler colonialism, and doesn’t really contend with the legacies of slavery. It’s all about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and getting things done.

Aesthetically, books that move forward with force and speed, where lots of things happen and the characters have lots of control over what’s happening, are considered books that are masterful or excellent. They align aesthetically with the ideal of the powerful political subject. 

What I’m interested in is undoing that. What does it look like if the characters don’t always have the authority to fully control their destiny because of historical or political circumstances? How does temporality or spaciality change when that happens? That’s where reflection and meditation acts as a means of structural or aesthetic decolonization for me. 

JA: It also reminds me of the closure or triumph narratives that we privilege. It was difficult and beautiful to read a narrative where we could live in the trauma and know that the trauma was going to be woven into the fabric of Arezu’s life her whole life, but also know she would work toward healing. 

AVdVO: Yeah, and that she doesn’t wish it were otherwise. I think that’s truly being in a position that’s empowered, but not one that’s in denial or fearful of pain. She’s not fearful of sadness and grief. She can lean into it and be in freefall for as long as she needs to. There is so much richness in that kind of pain.

JA: Is part of dismantling binaries part of your aim in writing? Omar is clearly predatory in so many ways, but part of Arezu’s healing comes from her ability to consider him as a whole person and think about the political and historical legacies that have led him to where he is. 

AVdVO: I have a fraught relationship with binaries. I’m a hybrid body. I’m half Iranian, half British, born in America, left, and came back as an immigrant who happened to have a passport many years later with a mother who was up for deportation at some point, without documents. For me, binaries are reductive and controlling and not in touch with the full nature of human life. 

This is a novel that, for me, is a love letter to my queer family and my chosen family. It’s right there in the dedication. There are characters in the novel who are in the process of transitioning. There are characters who are Jewish Israeli and pro-Palestinian. It’s flying in the face of any kind of binary.

JA: So much of this book felt like erasing harmful, manmade boundaries between people, identities, and places, and getting a glimpse of what it would look like to have a more fluid relationship between them. 

AVdVO: Those boundaries cause so much suffering. They are there to give us a false sense of security, but really, who is ever in control? Being okay with the very untethered nature of life is such a hard thing to practice, but I wrote the book in that spirit. The narrator is lightyears ahead of me in that regard. She’s self-reflective to a fault but also, as a person who got to write her, I’m envious of her freedom.

JA: The things you imagined in the novel were things I wanted to see in reality. Did you feel hopeful writing it, imagining these possible futures?

AVdVO: I do feel there’s a lot of hope in the book. Female friendship is so powerful and having that one female friendship in a woman’s life can be one of the greatest love stories of all time. It makes each person more resilient.

JA: And, as the book suggests, I think that sort of intimate friendship allows each person to bear witness to the other’s pain. Arezu questions her agency throughout the novel, wondering where her desire begins and ends, and wonders about the border between pleasure and pain. Could you share what it was like considering the idea of agency, both on the level of the individual and culturally? 

What does it look like if the characters don’t always have the authority to fully control their destiny because of historical or political circumstances?

AVdVO: The way that Arezu’s sexual trauma is completely interlinked with her sexual fantasies, and the way that she still desires Omar and the way she loathes herself for desiring him. Whose agency is operating there? Is it Omar’s agency over her? Or her agency over him? I don’t think there’s a clear answer. Speaking about boundaries and fluidity, I feel that our reality is created through collective experience and the interdependence we have with the people that surround us. I don’t think that even agency is completely individual. 

Arezu has the agency and the courage to look at what happened to her, and that’s huge. That’s a place where I feel she has clear boundaries and phenomenal willpower. 

JA: Choosing to put into language this experience is an act of agency, too. 

AVdVO: Absolutely. And as a woman, having the language to talk about one’s body, that’s taking a lot of agency back.

JA: I usually think of homes as places we can live in or put things on the walls, as if they are passive, but the apartment kind of has—I don’t want to use the word agency again —but has a power to speak back in a way I usually don’t associate with place.

The apartment itself is vital to this book, as is Spain. What is the role of place, both in a literal and abstract sense, in allowing us to access different parts of our identities, memories, pain, histories and joy?

AVdVO: Landscape is really important to me. Place has an enormous effect on consciousness and our mood, and the way we perceive who we are and our identities. Different landscapes can change the parameters of our sense of reality or our sense of what’s possible. It’s so evocative and physical and pleasurable to write landscape, and we exist in landscape 24/7. For me, again, it’s a place where the boundaries are really blurred; I can’t think of a character as separate from a landscape. 

How we interact with the nature that we are raised in, or even the artificial material world, that affects your sense of time and sense of reality enormously. Landscape is like another language that we speak.