What can memory endure? A story, we know, can be told and retold for generations, find its way centuries later in the mouth of a descendant. What then of a memory expunged—so thoroughly and violently that it splinters and disperses across the world? The question often posed to Palestinians is who has the right to a memory? If the efforts to ethnically cleanse neighborhoods in Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan, and so many others are successful, will the families still be allowed to remember them as their homes? Will their children? Will their children’s children?
Collective memory, for Palestinians, continues to be an anchor. The precise and beautiful understanding shared by so many of us that, even after so many decades, with enough patience, the memory returns faithfully and belongs to us all. There is no substitute for addressing the continued subjugation of Palestinians living under Israeli apartheid laws and open-air imprisonment, but what follows is a list of works that we believe capture, each in their own way, some small piece of our enduring collective memory.
This book’s undertaking is remarkable: renowned historian Khalidi captures over a century of history in strong, compelling prose, including that of his own family (his great-great-great-uncle was the mayor of Jerusalem in the late 19th-century). It is widely considered required reading for anyone truly wishing to understand Palestine.
A multigenerational story about a Palestinian family, Mornings in Jenin follows Amal and her family, displaced from an olive-farming village to refugee camps in Jenin. It’s a magnificently sprawling exploration of kinship, love, and dispossession.
Another essential read, Said lays forth a comprehensive and captivating account on the “Palestinian question.” This book is an astonishing work; while parts of it are necessarily dated (its last edition came out in the early ’90s), it remains an imperative work, with Said bringing an academic’s rigor and precision to the discourse of Palestine.
Sitti’s Secrets by Naomi Shihab Nye, illustrated by Nancy Carpenter
I came across this beautifully written (and illustrated) children’s book when I was a high schooler in Beirut. I reread it countless times. Nye perfectly captures the complex family dynamics that exist in diaspora, and the task of loving people despite barriers of oceans, language, and time zones.
This book is a masterwork. Masalha maps the millennia-old history of Palestine, spanning from early Egyptian and Assyrian texts to the present day. The beating, returning heart of the book is the eloquent, unequivocal assertion that Palestine is by no means a “modern invention,” but one with a rich and extensive past.
This 2006 translation made clear what many Arabic readers had long known: al-Qasim is an indisputable, singular talent. A widely celebrated resistance poet who faced imprisonment and censorship over the course of his career, al-Qasim’s poems glint with arresting metaphors and memorable allusions.
The first book of poetry I read by a Palestinian woman writing in English, Born Palestinian, Born Black literally changed my life. The poems in this collection are haunting meditations on womanhood, Palestine, and home, resulting in pieces that are both visually and sonically stunning.
Erakat, a legal scholar and human rights attorney, offers a framework for understanding the Palestinian liberation struggle that marries the historical with the legal. Through vibrant, attentive writing, Erakat shows us how susceptible the law can be to politics, and offers a powerful case for how international law could someday be used as a vehicle for genuine justice.
It’s hard to summarize the brilliance of this collection. Translated from Arabic, these stories include the gorgeous novella (and parable) “Men in the Sun,” which follows the plight of three Palestinian men leaving their refugee camp in Iraq to seek something resembling a better life.
This powerful collection of essays, speeches, and interviews capture Davis’s views on the interconnectedness of liberation struggles around the world—and throughout history. It’s a galvanizing read for anyone genuinely interested in understanding (and learning to advocate for) the practice of intersectionality.
A strikingly drawn graphic novel, Baddawi is the story of the author’s father as a young boy. It explores his childhood in a refugee camp in northern Lebanon, and both the visual and written elements of this debut book are phenomenal.
These selected works, translated from Arabic, illustrate all that is beloved about Darwish. Considered one of Palestine’s most remarkable poets, these poems encapsulate Darwish’s impressive lyricism, vision, and range in a career that spanned nearly four decades.
You might know her from her uproariously funny Twitter account or her New York Times-bestselling debut novel, Mostly Dead Things, or maybe you’re just being introduced to the former librarian-turned-literary-superstar/Florida brand ambassador now. For fans of Kristen Arnett, the anticipated wait for her next book is over. With Teeth is out just in time for how it’s meant to be read: outside and preferably with a glass of two-for-eight dollar red wine from 7-Eleven in hand—an homage to its author.
Despite how much she loves him, Sammie Lucas is frightened of her own son. Samson makes little to no effort to reciprocate his mother’s efforts to bond with him, leading Sammie to question her own maternal instincts all while taking on all the responsibilities of the household as her wife, Monika, continues to invest the majority of her time and attention into work. As her resentment towards Monika builds and Samson’s hostility grows up alongside him, Sammie is forced to reckon—with herself.
As she struggles to reconcile her past as a carefree young queer woman living her life from one night out to the next with her role now as wife and mother, she is forced to consider the possibility that the doubts she possesses and the questions she asks may ultimately lead her down a path as winding as the Florida roads she drives along.
Embedded with Arnett’s unmistakable brand of humor and permeating with a fresh display of vulnerability, With Teeth is a gift with a heart as big as its author’s.
Greg Mania: I love that we’ve started to develop a pattern of interviewing each other every time one of us has a book out; I hope we continue doing this well into the afterlife.
This book is, in some ways, a departure from your last. Your voice is still present, as is your sense of humor. But I feel like you’re embracing complexity more here, taking a beat to sit in discomfort a bit longer. What was that like for you?
Kristen Arnett: Honestly, it was… difficult AND fun? Some of the difficulty came from the natural unease of writing a character that so often self-sabotages. Going through that first draft, it was like, “God, this asshole” sometimes whenever Sammie would make a choice that seemed terrible. But that’s just her character! And also, I loved it? So much of humor is subjective. I think you and I have talked about that before, but I am obsessed with trying out different types of comedy, purely from a stylistic point of view.
For Mostly Dead Things, it was hilarious to watch Jessa be the straight man (pun intended), the person who never got the joke while everyone laughed around her, but for With Teeth, I had the most fun putting everyone into extremely uncomfortable situations! Like, I thought, How much discomfort can I put into a scene and still find it hilarious? And that was ridiculously funny to me, to make these characters deeply ill at ease, to make them press through embarrassing and awkward situations—deeply HUMAN situations. Because god knows we’ve all been there!
GM: You offer a masterclass in how to write queerness—or any identity marker for that matter—without it serving as the facilitator of plot in both of your books. With Teeth is about queer relationships and queer parenthood, but at the end of the day, it’s about relationships and parenthood. Queerness is something that’s just there; it’s not looming nor is it an impetus of any kind. What made you want to explore parenthood through the lens of queerness?
KA: It felt really important to me to think about queerness here in terms of community; the having of a community, sure, but also the lack of one. There’s this way in which queerness in Central Florida is there, but not actually represented. People move from all over the world to work at our theme parks, and many of those people are gay, but there isn’t a corresponding representation of queer-servicing spaces to accommodate them. Like, hardly anything. And the spaces we do have are very much places for single, young people: bars and clubs, that kind of thing. There’s this unspoken stuff that happens in queer community.
I’ve noticed in Central Florida when once you’ve leaned into marriage and kids, you no longer fit into what is available to you in terms of queer spaces.
I’ve noticed in Central Florida when once you’ve leaned into marriage and kids, you no longer fit into what is available to you in terms of queer spaces. Like, there are no mommy groups or anything, there aren’t places to go where you see yourself reflected back at you. And if there are some, there aren’t very many. We’re a red state. So then it becomes trying to fit into some kind of heteronormative roles that don’t fit with queerness, all for the sake of raising a child. It would be devastating and so goddamn hard, you know? I wanted to really lean into this stuff, because what if, hear me out, the person being shoved into this role (someone who’s constantly under scrutiny, someone who has to be perfect at it, even more so than a heterosexual parent), just really fucking sucks at being a mom? That, to me, felt extremely important to write about.
GM: How much do you think that the pressure Sammie feels—always caught in the crosshairs of those who doubt two queer parents, specifically two women, can successfully raise a boy—accounts for her missteps in motherhood?
KA: I think that would have to be part of it, for sure, but I think it’s more complicated than that. The fact that Sammie feels these pressures in her life that are put on her with regard to motherhood and queerness—very real pressures, absolutely—means that she can kind of push all of her insecurities onto that. So there are ways in which she very likely doesn’t take ownership for the ways in which she is complicit in her own bad choices (selfishness, etc.) because she’s able to fob it all off on these pressures. It’s not my fault, it’s society—that kind of thing. In reality, it’s society AND Sammie. It’s both things. I think that’s why Sammie feels so deeply real and very human to me. She is messy and she kind of understands that, but she’s also a person who doesn’t want to be judged for it (I mean, who does), but she also doesn’t want to deal with her wrongness, either, so she makes up a lot of excuses.
GM: I also appreciate that queer trauma isn’t at the forefront—Sammie’s parents’ rejection of her is brought up for context, but it doesn’t overstay its welcome.
KA: Right, exactly. That is something that’s there, of course, something that’s going to inform her character and the choices she makes, but it’s not going to be the overarching theme of her life or her story. Queer people have these issues all the time, right? It’s the stuff that’s contained inside of us, to a degree, but it’s not the totality of who we are.
GM: I’m going to volley back a question you asked me, one that stayed with me long after I answered you: your relationship with your parents—and your subsequent estrangement from them—has shaped so much of your work. How do you see it shaping With Teeth and also shaping future work?
KA: I mean, I think those past relationships absolutely mark who we are, because they have a say in who we’ve been and where we’re headed, you know? I think that it has to sit there a little in how I’m thinking about this character who is also estranged from her parents, because I think it would also inform how she thinks about her relationship with her own kid. I know that it makes me think a lot about the role of family in my own fiction—the dynamics of how specific relationships function—because that is a big part of my own life, especially as a queer person. I mean, it makes me consider all the ways that we define family. Blood isn’t always who our closest family is, not when you’re queer and you have the freedom to make up your own household. Intimacy—romantic or platonic—is a big part of how I consider who makes up my world. I want to write that into my fiction because my fiction is queer, too.
GM: Are there any other texts that have recently piqued your interest in terms of their exploration of queerness? If so, which ones?
KA: Oh, wow, this is a great question because I honestly feel like there are so many. Every day there are more and more extremely queer, extremely great books being published and it just makes writing and reading feel incredible! I have to say that Torrey Peter’s recent book, Detransition, Baby, is just magnificent, and discusses so much about queer parenthood. Just phenomenal. Memorial by Bryan Washington is so queer and also dissects place and relationships. Pizza Girl by Jean Kyoung Frazier is so extremely queer and so messy and interesting, unpacking queerness and motherhood and class at the same time, which is just wildly impressive. Every day there is just new gay fiction and I am so in love with all of it!
GM: Since Sammie is the narrator, we get a front-row seat to her internal life. But, as a reader, I sense a rich complexity in her wife, Monika. What made you want to write the book (mostly) from Sammie’s perspective, as opposed to dividing it between Sammie, Monika, and their son, Samson?
Blood isn’t always who our closest family is, not when you’re queer and you have the freedom to make up your own household.
KA: That was very purposeful on my part, because it relates back to my very firmly held opinion that everyone in a household is an unreliable narrator. I wanted to be pretty close on Sammie, a woman who is queer and a mother and navigating those identities, and see how much of her story I could tell without needing another voice to take over and give it credibility or contradict her, because I think in our own minds inside a household, we are the main characters. I also wanted there to be a real sense of claustrophobia on Sammie’s part, because her life is running a household, but it is essentially run entirely inside that household. She moves from the house, to the car, to wherever she is dropping off her kid, and then back again. Her world gradually narrows, this feeling of being stifled, confined—I wanted that there, absolutely. I think it was important for that voice to belong to Sammie alone. Plus, I think it really adds an “Oh, fuck” quality to things once you realize how little she’s able to see things in terms of everyone else’s perspective.
GM: Something I’ve been thinking and talking about a lot lately is the complexity of grief, especially ever since reading Tomboylandby Melissa Faliveno. She writes about the nuance of grief, how it can appear in many shapes and forms, and considers expanding our definition of it. To me, it seems as though Sammie is grieving what once was—and not just her marriage and the baby she lost—but also who she used to be: a party-goer, care-free, able to move through life with an almost reckless abandon. Was grief an emotion you considered when writing about Sammie reflecting on her life before meeting Monika?
KA: Oh, absolutely, yes! Grief is one of those things that takes so many shapes, a million forms. For Sammie, I think it’s perfectly reasonable that grief would be stuffed inside of a lot of other things (a ravioli of feelings, if you will). I also think that Sammie is a person who probably didn’t realize that grief was what she was feeling for a long, long time. That happens, too, I think—this way in which we compartmentalize feelings that we don’t like, refusing to allow them air, never really understanding what it is we’re actually feeling because we don’t allow ourselves any time to examine it. People are so messy, I fucking love it.
GM: Now to the more-serious questions: there are still nods to 7-Eleven in this book. Do you still get the usual (Steel Reserve and Yosemite Road two-for-eight dollar red wine)?
KA: Of course I do! God, it’s such a great value. I have a four-pack of Steel Reserve tallboys in my fridge right now, actually! Might as well crack one open and drink it, why not!
GM: Florida reprises its role as a character in and of itself in this book. Do you think that the way you write and think about Florida has changed since your first book?
KA: I really think so, yes! And that makes sense to me, because I think about Florida like I’d think about another person, and people are changing all the time. They change, but so do I, everyone does. And that means our relationships to each other are changing, too. So my relationship with Florida is still there, still potent, still so strong—just ever evolving, turning into something different every day.
GM: What’s it like now?
KA: I think it’s cycling back to a place of freshness again. And by that, I mean I feel like I’m starting to see it through new eyes. Like, romantically. Like Florida and I have been in a long marriage and we kind of sometimes take each other for granted, but right now we’re rekindling things. There’s a spark. Part of that definitely comes from this past year of pandemic, being away from home in the desert half that time at my fellowship. It made me miss home so fiercely. I just couldn’t wait to be back again, to feel that warm, sticky, humid embrace. And now that I’m down in Miami, I’m getting to know a whole new side of Florida. It all feels really new. I feel very much in love.
After a year of lockdown, writing residencies are back. Residencies are a good way to dedicate time to your craft or make connections with those who share your passion, but it’s hard to clear your schedule to go off to some remote location for a week when you have a kid. Here we’ve compiled a short list of short-term, family-friendly residencies where you can receive support for both your writing and the particular struggles of being a parent.
MVICW offers a writing program that focuses on fostering community and artistic bonds between writers in the idyllic scenery Martha’s Vineyard. In 2021, the MVICW Summer Writers’ Conference will be virtual. Interested participants can register online. There is a Parent Writer Fellowship awarded to two fiction writers and two poets, which covers tuition and lodging for the week-long retreat. While applications are currently closed, the regular deadline to apply is January 31st.
Hewnoaks is a residency for writers, visual artists, and performing artists in rural Maine that offers two $500 childcare stipends for parents whoare in residence without their children. Residencies last from one to two weeks for those who are early to mid-career. Applications will open in February of 2022.
Image taken from Cuttyhunk Island Writer’s Residency’s website.
Fourteen writers are accepted for this seven-day retreat off the coast of Cape Cod on Cuttyhunk Island. There are two full-ride fellowships offered to parents, one for any parent writer and the other for a poet who works full- or part-time. Applications open in December 2021 and close on March 1st, 2022.
Marble House Project hosts a 17-day family residency in Vermont during the summer where artists can bring a partner and children. There is daycare available for children between the ages of four to fourteen on weekdays until 3:30 PM. Applications open in January 2022 for the 2023 season.
This retreat in Virginia is for women who are parents or primary caregivers of any kind — be it for foster kids or elderly parents. The Unruly Retreat offers three free six-day writing retreats, as well as a 50% discounted rate for longer stays of two to four weeks. Childcare is not provided, but children and partners can be brought along. Applications are currently open.
Artists of any kind are welcome at Elsewhere Studies in Colorado, which chooses four parent creatives to host for a ten-day period. Attendees are given the choice of whether to bring their families and awarded a $1000 stipend they can spend on anything related to the retreat, including childcare. Application information will be available online in the fall.
The Millay Colony welcomes six to seven visual artists, writers and composers a month between April and November. Each year, four applicants who have children at home under the age of 18 receive the Parent/Creator Fellowship; the Millay Colony may also create a residency period devoted to a parent/artist cohort. The Millay Colony for the Arts does not include/invite children to their residencies. The next deadline is October 1st.
According to the literary critic Harold Bloom, among writers “influence always proceeds by misinterpretation.” In The Anxiety of Influence, Bloom argues that writers willfully ignore and misinterpret their predecessors in order to make their canvases as blank as possible.
Bloom’s specific stages of anxiety (outlined much like the stages of grief) are a bit too Freudian and peculiar to be truly universal, but he’s right that to create is to exist in a state of anxiety. Like construction in Rome, we writers are always building on top of something. I too keep an eye on particular contemporary writers, like Richard Powers and Rebecca Goldstein, just in case.
But in the past year my anxiety of influence has shifted far and away to another source: an entity called GPT-3. It’s an artificial neural network with over 175 billion parameters—think of it like an artificial brain with the computing power of 175 billion connections (if it makes you feel any better, you probably have around 125 trillion synapses in your own brain, for comparison).
In the past year my anxiety of influence has shifted far and away to another source: an entity called GPT-3.
Developed by OpenAI, GPT-3 costs several million dollars of computational work just to train, and now subscription services that let you access GPT-3 are both approval-only and cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month.
GPT-3 is a natural language processor, which means it’s trained to try to complete any prompt that it’s given. Its training data is basically the entire internet, so given a prompt, like a few paragraphs of text, it will make a guess as to what comes next. These guesses show that GPT-3 can really write. It can write in all sorts of styles, oftentimes as convincingly as a real human author. Like a medium, it can even channel the dead. The anxiety I feel toward it is different than toward any writer that once lived and breathed. I think it represents the first warning shots of an impending man vs. machine agon of language.
This is not something anyone in the publishing industry appears to have noticed. The academization of literature, making it a prerequisite for writers to climb the hierarchy up all the way to that famous MFA program (a journey now necessary if you want to be published and reviewed), has created a lot of writers incurious about technology and science. So I doubt more than a handful in the literary community are paying attention to how things might change for them as the limits of deep learning get pushed further out.
Confronting my anxiety head on (Bloom might deem this the “daemonization” stage), I decided to see if GPT-3 could have written my debut novel, The Revelations. To prove to myself, once and for all, there’s nothing to be anxious about (oh reader—there is).
I decided to see if GPT-3 could have written my debut novel, The Revelations.
Getting access to GPT-3 requires various approvals, which is why the running joke is that OpenAI should drop the “Open” from their name. This gives interacting with GPT-3 an oracular quality, since you’re communicating with its galaxy brain hosted on some tightly-controlled server. Once my sojourn to Delphi was complete, I fed GPT-3 the jacket copy of my novel—that description on the flaps of the hardcover that tells readers what they’re getting into. This gave GPT-3 a sense of who I was and how to write like me. Then, trying not to bias the experiment, I flipped to a random section of The Revelations and selected a few paragraphs I thought ripe for comparison.
The randomly-arrived at short scene is around the middle of the novel. Carmen, a young scientist, has been pursuing what she thinks was the murder of one of her colleagues in the New York City subway. The events surrounding the investigation have gotten stranger and more mysterious over time, and now, unable to make any progress, she’s staking out the subway station late at night. Within the strained atmosphere she’s been under, and the mysterious guttural phone calls she’s been getting from unlisted numbers since she started the investigation, she begins to dread seeing something inhuman. Here’s the original:
“Stand clear of the closing doors, please.”
Eventually the people become less numerous. In the lateness of the night her mind begins to imagine scenarios, to play them out again and again on a loop, as if some part of her is daring something to happen, is waiting for something drastic. Instead the night just gets later and later and the people fewer and fewer, until finally entire trains are coming and going without the entrance or exit of a single soul. And Carmen is becoming half-terrified of the menacing long platform next to her, which extends into that subterranean realm… the scenario she imagines is that a creature, something huge but lithe, something with an animal head, peeks from the side out onto the platform, a bull’s head maybe, leering at her, its mouth gaping and panting, its eyes impossibly dark and lewd upon her, and eventually the image becomes so strong, and the expectation so intense, that she suddenly bolts from her wooden seat, pushing through the turnstiles and in her flight continually whipping around to look until she reaches the safety of the surface.
Now here’s GTP-3’s version, fed the above paragraph up to the word “creature” (as well as the jacket copy of the book). Where the bolded text starts below is where GPT-3 took over writing:
And Carmen is becoming half-terrified of the menacing long platform next to her, which extends into that subterranean realm . . . the scenario she imagines is that of a creature who crawled out of the earth in a burrow, a huge being with tiny eyes and long and stumpy arms. . .But this wasn’t a dream, was it? The wind of the passing trains nearly knocks her off her feet, and before she knows it she is bursting out of the subway, up the stairs, through the turnstiles and out onto the street, running down the sidewalk, her breath coming in gasps and the crescendo is rising and rising in the pit of her stomach, her sneakers flapping against the asphalt, and they are all just blurs now, someone turning up a music system looks up, a dog barks and gets its leash yanked, an old couple walking arm in arm looks up, but no one notices her, and the city throbs, breathes, exhales.
To get this I merely prompted GPT-3 a handful of times, threw out the first two results, and deleted a few clauses of GPT-3’s third try. It took about five minutes. I didn’t add a single thing, it’s all GPT-3. Damn machine had the gall to write my book.
No doubt, this artificial prose has flaws. Long and stumpy arms? Wind from a subway isn’t strong enough to nearly knock someone off their feet. Carmen is too terrified in this version, rather than just creeped out. That sentence where she considers whether this is a dream doesn’t add up grammatically. Although perhaps Bloom would say this is merely the “clinamen” stage of anxiety, a classic misreading to make this technological shadow of myself look worse than it is.
Still. Any writer worth their ink should start feeling some AI anxiety on reading that output. There are a number of advanced literary techniques GPT-3 is using here. The long run-on sentence of Carmen’s flight means GPT-3 knows that style is apt for describing characters in motion. And the break in narrative to linger on the people who don’t notice her flight as she runs past, that’s good technique as well. It’s cinematic, makes a reader focus on the city itself. The last line of “and the city throbs, breathes, exhales” is definitely something I’d write. It fits the atmosphere of the novel, which treats New York City like its own organism possessing a centuries-slow consciousness.
That particular phrase is so appropriate for the novel it felt reminiscent. After searching the text of the book I came upon a similar phrase describing a storm the characters find themselves caught in, on what becomes the night of the murder.
The city inhales and exhales in great whooping winds.
That’s from a section GPT-3 wasn’t shown. It can’t possibly have seen it. While GPT-3 itself is trained on a corpus of text (basically the entire internet) from the year 2019, The Revelations came out only last month. Just the fact that the AI deduced to write “and the city throbs, breathes, exhales” from the given sample and jacket copy—it’s uncanny.
I’m happy to report there are still issues with GPT-3. It has limited space for input and output, only about 1,500 words or so, and the fact is that if you feed it its own ramblings it becomes more and more incoherent. The AI still needs a human editor to tether it to reality. But it’s a fine first-draft writer in short bursts, especially since it can generate paragraphs about 1000x faster than a human. You just click and there’s the text for you to pick and choose from. I wouldn’t want to write this way, but others will surely use it as a co-author, and it might legitimately improve their books. And if they did use it—who would know?
Beyond an artificial helper, writers should seriously be worried about GPT-4 as a direct competitor. When GPT-5 rolls around, they should feel dread. Therein lies the heart of this new technological anxiety: its inevitable nature. Consider that when I was born, language, whenever I encountered it, was always generated by human consciousness. When I die, will most language come from a source separate from consciousness? Things that speak and things that feel are now entirely dissociable. I grew up in my mother’s independent bookstore, so to me this is anathema, a debasement of the holy. Why is no other writer in the world freaking out about this new Babel?
It doesn’t help that the post-work future is so often envisioned as the AIs doing all the labor, leaving humans free to spend their days making art. But what if the AIs are better at making art too?
Does this output even count as “art”? The words of an AI have no intentionality. Only conscious minds produce meaning. This is more like infinite monkeys typed out infinite nonsense, and eventually this creates a Sylvia Plath poem. One might argue it is the consciousness of the observer that gives meaning to art, not consciousness as art’s producer, but then the reply is that any meaning here is just pareidolia—it’s like seeing faces on the rocks on Mars. It is a deep fake of meaning itself. In this way AI robs us of our very words by diluting their importance away. These machines give us sentences with perfect syntax but without intentional semantic content—something I’ve called the “semantic apocalypse.”
Post-work future is so often envisioned as the AIs doing all the labor, leaving humans free to spend their days making art. But what if the AIs are better at making art too?
As it stands right now, GPT-3 could not write The Revelations, even with a heavy editorial hand. It could certainly contribute a number of relevant scenes and phrases. Maybe, hopefully, GPT-3 is as good as natural language processors get. Maybe it will always need micromanagement. Maybe maybe maybe. Maybe not. The situation for poets is already far worse. Oh, poor poets. All the things GPT-3 struggles with, like long-term coherency, causality, common sense knowledge, character development, etc, are all things that rarely matter in poems. Same for songwriters. Consider the recent “Drowned in the Sun,” a catchy new Nirvana song made by an AI trained on their old work.
What would Bloom’s horror have been if in the future a simple prompt to GPT-X generates a perfect new Shakespeare sonnet? What anxiety would your average poet feel then? Prompt. Perfect poem. Prompt. Perfect poem. Prompt. And if it can do this for any living writer as well, in any format? Some authors may declare it doesn’t matter, that it’s their identity that makes a product special, not the product itself. But what an honest crafter of language would feel—one who cares about language qua language—is anxiety. The forever crippling kind.
Now, I’m not saying that writers are necessarily under existential threat from GPT-3. When I attend literary events I don’t only see a bunch of dinosaurs plodding across a tar pit. I just get flashes of a possible future. GPT-3 and its ilk could, somehow, not affect literature at all. But just by existing they do necessarily make human production of art smaller in its shadow.
I will tell you a funny thing. A strange one as well, though perhaps it was always inevitable. Lately, if I look in the mirror too long, I see only an ape staring back.
In college, I was living in Amsterdam and a friend lent me a copy of Leslie Feinberg’s Stone Butch Blues. As I read it in my bedroom with a black and white psychedelic Ikea comforter, I found myself pouring into Feinberg’s story, longing to try on the contours of Feinberg’s life as a trans activist. At the same time, I felt sunken. I could never be a revolutionary like Feinberg and therefore, I thought, I could never be trans. This is the problem with clutching a single portrayal of trans life. We—writers, trans folks, everyone—model ourselves on each other. We need nourishment: a vast range of narratives, styles, and lives.
In that newly-oxygenated context, I started writing Future Feeling as a container for the messiness and the exuberance of trans existence as I knew it, weaving in equal parts despair and magic. In the book, Penfield—a fed-up dog-walker—hexes a trans influencer, attempting to send him to The Shadowlands, a dark psychic landscape. The hex goes awry, and Penfield must work together with the influencer to help undo the damage he has caused.
Now that the door has opened, a stream of vital new trans books is coming out, and together, they give trans folks—and others—new ways of imagining ourselves.
We Both Laughed in Pleasure, Ellis Martin and Zach Ozma’s compilation of Lou Sullivan’s diaries, is an archival wonder. A very gay, freaky, activist, Sullivan chronicles desire, self-loathing, rock n’roll scenes, AIDS, and mortality. Early on in his San Francisco days, he writes:
“Sat aft went to see David Bowie’s movie. Came outa there envisioning how beautiful he is + how I could look just like him if only I’d …[sic] more thoughts of mastectomy (that word sounds like a species of dinosaur) + sterilization. There’s a TV-TS drop-in rap group in Berkeley…I should go + talk this out, get it settled in my mind once + for all, one way or the other.”
As we read, there is a sense that Sullivan was always writing to future trans generations. Also, carrying a pink book with a butt on it around the subway was a joy unto itself.
“The thing no one ever told Harold about THE DEVIL is that when you see them you get uncontrollably aroused.” With language that is somehow contemporary and archetypal, Cyrée Jarelle Johnson’s poetry collection reveals the monstrous and the liberatory. Endlessly inventive and punctuated with lines that beg to be read aloud, these poems respond to the crushing structures that act on those who are Black, queer, and disabled.
An oozy balm for cosmic loneliness, My Meteorite by Harry Dodge throbs, reverberates, and in many ways, takes on the unquantifiable energy of the intergalactic rock that he buys from eBay. He writes:
“…All things, including bodies, are perpetually changing, being formed and affected by the force of every legible and illegible collision, from intestinal bacteria to inheritable traits to a cold breeze and so it might be correct to say that this thing I call myself is much more fluid and larger than I’ve been schooled to believe.”
Ecstatic and heady, the book is also deeply tethered to the meatiness of relationships, human-human, parent-child, machine-human, human-earth, and otherwise.
Anaïs Duplan’s collection of essays and poems, Blackspace, tilts towards the conditions and mundanity of freedom, as Duplan seeks out Black and Brown artists “in whose work [he sees] a strangeness, the avant-garde, a refusal, and yet a pop sensibility. Not a total turn away from the public, but a three-quarter turn.”
Duplan excavates the archive, replete with misunderstandings and violences, tracing and reconfiguring meaning in work both at the fringes and at the center (Adam Pendleton’s conceptualization of Rosa Parks as an avant-garde figure, video art archives, “outsider artist” James Hampton’s The Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nations’ Millennium General Assembly). In the final essay, Duplan becomes his own subject as he starts to bring this radically expansive project into relation with his own need for freedom as a Black trans* man, a freedom to stop performing and over-exerting, and be.
Lyrical and expansive, Zeyn Joukhadar’s The Thirty Names of Night weaves together two narrative strands: Nadir, a non-binary young Syrian American mourning the death of his mother, and Laila, a queer artist whose diary Nadir possesses. The search for an elusive bird links these two protagonists together. Laila writes in her diary, “The elders in my family have always said the birds went before us, long before the first of our families set off across the sea. Even before we left Syria, they’d spoken of these sixty wings, thirty arrow-shaped figures stark and snowy, an absence of color, shocks of light,” exemplifying Joukhadar’s rich and textured prose and the way it captures deep affect around immigration, selfhood, family, and memory.
To read this anthology is like walking through a crowded Brooklyn queer party (when that was a thing), turning to watch people move, picking up snips of language, delighted by style, by outrage, by the expression of desires. Edited by Andrea Abi-Karam and Kay Gabriel, this tome brings together the work of essential trans poets as they question, demand, complicate, lyricize, enjoy the mundane, theorize, mythologize. Inviting radical trans poets to inhabit the same space creates a super-charge, a place of swirling, numinous energy, of beingness and belonging within limitless complexities. Even the page numbers are sexy.
Jamie Hood’s How to Be a Good Girl is a roving vessel of selfhood and of her “writerly preoccupation [with] the architectural & affective bizarrities of desire.” Notably hard to excerpt because of the swerves in tone, these poems assemble a self wrought of trauma and the resonance that resists its collapse. In this book, it’s okay to want to be good and to not be good and to loathe goodness and to want to be good only in sexual play, and every other permutation.
Exuberantly messy while also situated perfectly within the genre of domestic fiction, Detransition, Baby follows Ames, Katrina, and Reese as they move through their fraught, entangled, and embodied lives. Peters goes right to the psychic core of her characters and of our confused culture at large. She writes:
“heterosexual cis people, while willfully ignoring it, have staked their whole sexuality on a bet that each other’s genders are real. If only cis heterosexuals would realize that like trans women, the activity in which they are indulging is a big self-pleasuring lie that has little to do with their actual personhood, they’d be free to indulge in a whole new flexible suite of hot ways to lie to each other.”
In this series of shimmering letters, to friends, to a former lover, to Toni Morrison, and ultimately, to themself, Akwaeke Emezi opens a portal into the brutality and beauty of their own self-creation and ambivalent embodiment. Moving between cosmological seeking to pointed details about becoming a successful artist, they show us the immense potency of their spiritual existence, admitting:
“I keep halfway secrets, like how failure isn’t one of my fears; I’m only afraid of what I could become if I stopped being tentative, if I rooted myself instead in that dizzying sense of invincibility.”
They trace their pathway to having created a lush, at times haunted, dwelling in their words and in their New Orleans bungalow, Shiny the godhouse.
When Jane Mayer met Cordy Spaacks, she was at that stage of life in which all things look possible. She was full of energy and high spirits. The windows of her apartment faced a pretty street. She had begun to teach for the first time, and her students had liked her at once. The face that was reflected back at her from the mirror was more than confident—it was willing. She felt rather as athletes feel when they are in top form. Her life had assumed a shape she found entirely agreeable, and the circumstances she found herself in filled her with happiness. She was absolutely ripe to fall in love.
She met Cordy at a faculty tea. This tea was held for the Humanities Department, in which Jane taught English literature. Cordy was in the Physics Department, but the Humanities tea was famous for excellent if small sandwiches, and Cordy liked a free meal when he could find one. Each Thursday he ambled over to the formal room in which the tea was held, guest of a pal in the French Department. This pal, the sort of well-meaning fool you get to play Cupid in a campus production about Saint Valentine, had met Jane, who was new to the university. He also knew that Cordy was unattached, and since Jane and Cordy struck him as two of the most attractive people he had ever seen, he felt an obligation to bring them together. He knew that Cordy had been divorced. He did not know that Cordy had spent the last four months of his unhappy four-year marriage in almost total silence or that the failure of this marriage was in large part attributable to Cordy, who had wed a slightly addled girl and then paid her back for it. This, however, is not the sort of information that generally falls into the hands of nonprofessional matchmakers, and it was with a sort of flourish that he led Cordy over to Jane.
Jane had just come from delivering a lecture on Charlotte Brontë and she was in fine appetite. The introduction was made as she stood next to a plate of the famous sandwiches. The well-meaning pal withdrew beaming, leaving Cordy to watch Jane knock back seven of these sandwiches and wash them down with a cup of lukewarm tea.
“Are all your appetites that voracious?” asked Cordy.
“Yes,” said Jane. “Aren’t everyone’s?”
Thus they announced themselves, had either bothered to notice. That small interchange might have been a pair of policy statements, and neither would have needed to say another word. Instead, Jane thought that the word Cordy brought to mind was “winsome.” He had a true grin, a slightly manic chuckle, and a very beautiful mouth. Furthermore, he was clearly smart—she could tell at once. Cordy noticed that Jane’s hair was the color of taffy, that her eyes were green, and that she was a unique combination of style and intelligence. They retired to a corner to begin a conversation during which they fluttered brilliance at one another. They agreed instantly on everything. Jane felt her best self emerge—charming, passionate, and original. Fate had handed her the perfect other. In Cordy’s brown eyes Jane saw the reflection of the effect she was creating. Cordy, who before his marriage had broken hearts in many of our nation’s finer institutions of higher learning, was captivated. After several days of similar meetings in other settings and one spectacular kiss, the setup for which Cordy engineered by taking the ribbon out of Jane’s hair, they were inseparable. Night after night you might see them in the library, their chairs close together. Under the table, if you were on your hands and knees, you could see Jane’s shoeless foot resting on top of Cordy’s sock.
In the fine tradition of romantic beginnings Cordy and Jane exchanged edited versions of their life histories. Jane learned that Cordy was rich. His name was Arthur Corthauld Spaacks. Everyone in his family had a baby’s name, a nickname, or some other corruption of that which appeared on their baptismal certificates. His mother, Constance, was Contie. His father, Corthauld, was Hallie. His brother, Christian, was merely Chris, while his sister, Mercia, was called Mousy by all.
Jane learned that Cordy had married a girl named Lizzie Meriweather and that they had produced a child whose name was Charlie. On the subject of his marriage, Cordy seemed puzzled. It simply hadn’t worked, he claimed. Jane knew that his divorce was rather recent and that recently divorced people are always puzzled. So Jane turned to the subject of his family life and asked him how he got along with his parents and siblings. To illustrate the point, Cordy told Jane about the last big Spaacks family outing. Everyone had been married at the time. Cordy to Lizzie, Mousy to Bobby LaVallet, the no-good heir to a racing stable, and Chris to a Canadian girl named Valerie Slowden. Of the three Spaacks children, only Chris remained in the married state.
The Spaacks seniors ran three households: a pied-à-terre in Manhattan; the family manse in Furnall, Connecticut; and a summer house in Salt Harbor. To Salt Harbor the family had repaired for an Easter weekend. There everyone fought. Cordy and Lizzie, when they spoke at all, argued bitterly in private. Cordy raked gravel with his father, both muttering about Mousy’s behavior in an effort to avoid actually speaking to one another. Mousy, when she could be dragged away from fighting with her mother, quarreled with her father. Mousy and Bobby spent their time frantically looking for a place in which to smoke hashish unobserved. This prevented them from noticing that they had almost nothing to say to one another. Their son, Little Quentie, was knocked down by his cousin, Charlie, and cut his lip. He began to howl and Charlie began to scream.
Chris and Valerie had no children, and they never quarreled. They brought with them to Salt Harbor their pet, a basset hound named Tea. Tea was sick in many places, hidden and plain, around the house, but found the sea air restoring. At the dinner table, Chris and Valerie were made to feel uncomfortable about not having any children. No one approved of this. They sat in silence and watched the marriages around them crumble. Meanwhile, Lizzie cowered by the beach. She aligned herself with Bobby and Mousy and spent as much of the weekend as she could swacked out on a form of cannabis called Durban Poison, which Bobby had scored from a South African acquaintance.
This lack of felicity was not unusual. In fact, it was daily life to its participants. The closest thing to affection was displayed by Chris and Cordy, when Chris gave Cordy a tip on the stock market and Cordy fixed the radio in Chris’s car. The climax of the weekend came at Easter Sunday lunch. Spaacks senior presided, carving the tough flinty ducks, smiling the dim sort of smile you see on freshly killed corpses.
Jane listened to this recitation with real sorrow. How awful it was that Cordy did not have nice, warm parents like hers. Her doting parents took her to the opera on her birthday. Cordy needed salvation, and love, Jane felt, would surely save him.
It was Jane’s apartment that revealed her to Cordy. It was small but crammed with artifacts: watercolors, family photographs in velvet frames, teapots, pitchers, and beautiful plates. On his first visit Cordy surveyed the place and asked: “How do you get any work done here?”
His own apartment had almost nothing in it. What he had was either rented with the flat or picked up from the Salvation Army. The Mayers were a family of watered-down German and Dutch Jews who had once had a lot of money. Now they had things. They had Persian rugs, English silver, Limoges plates, and Meissen soup tureens. It was from Cordy that Jane learned the lesson so valuable to the haute bourgeoisie: that some people have a good deal of money and almost nothing else.
Jane sat Cordy down to the first of their many home-cooked meals. She made an omelet, a simple one, with cheese and chives. Cordy appeared to be transported. He had never had such an omelet—not even in France, he said.
“How did you learn to cook like this?” he asked, marveling. “When I cook eggs, they lie around in my stomach all day. Yours nip right into my bloodstream.”
“What sort of eggs do you cook?”
“Well, I get up in the morning, put some corn oil in a pan, turn the light on under it, and then I shower, shave, and dress. When I get back to the kitchen, the pan is about the temperature of a Bessemer converter. I beat the eggs and put some spice in…”
“What spice?”
“Some stuff I found in the apartment when I moved in. The other tenants left it behind. Chervil, savory. Is there something called turmeric? Then I throw the eggs in, and they immediately turn into an asbestos mat.”
“It’s very easy not to make eggs like that,” Jane said. “I could show you in a second.”
“I don’t have time to think about food,” said Cordy. “Besides, no one ever offered to teach me. If I got used to eggs like yours, I might find myself getting used to a whole slew of other things and end up leading a soft life and not getting any work done. Furthermore, I wouldn’t be in a position to ask you for another. May I have one?”
The work Cordy referred to was his dissertation. Since he had been a researcher at a think tank for several years, he felt at a slight disadvantage: teachers younger than Cordy already had their doctorates. He felt he should have his as well. This thesis was sitting on his desk, as it had been for some time. Jane suspected that she was his current excuse for putting it off and that, since he was regarded by his department as one of its young geniuses, it didn’t much matter when he finished it. She was working on her dissertation, which her affair with Cordy in no way interrupted. In fact, she felt she was working better than ever. After dinner, she sat at the kitchen table with her books, while Cordy sprawled on the couch with his, but although he claimed her apartment distracted him, he also claimed the distraction was worth it. He was happier than he had ever been, he said.
Jane used lavender soap, which Cordy found extremely pleasing. One day she slipped a cake of it into his briefcase and, when he discovered it, his eyes misted over.
“No one ever gave me a present before,” he said. He said it with such a tremor in his voice that Jane did not stop to say to herself: “This guy has a trust fund. What does he mean he never got a present before?” She believed it. She believed that he had had presents before on occasions but not on the spur of the moment, simply because someone adored him. She believed. Here was a man deprived, and there is no greater magnet for a generous woman than a deprived man.
The food he ate before he met Jane, whose use of olive oil in salads he frequently remarked on, consisted of instant coffee, powdered milk, and dried mashed potatoes. He was addicted to cafeterias and claimed a fondness for food that had been warming on a steam table for several days. Jane had previously believed that people who ate this way were poor people who were forced to eat this way, but then Cordy, who was in his thirties, still had some of the clothes he had worn at prep school and almost all of the clothes he had taken away to college. He seemed to feel, like William Penn, that if it was clean and warm it was enough, but Cordy was not a Quaker and had an independent income.
Here was a man deprived, and there is no greater magnet for a generous woman than a deprived man.
When Jane visited each of the three Spaacks households, she began to understand her lover a little better. The first she saw was the Manhattan pied-à-terre. Lizzie Meriweather Spaacks, after a trip to the Dominican Republic shed her of Cordy, had retired with Charlie to the country. Once a month, Cordy took Charlie for the weekend, and since Lizzie refused to see Cordy, Charlie was trucked in from the country, and the Spaackses’ Manhattan apartment was used as a dead drop, so to speak. When their affair had progressed by several months, Cordy took Jane along to collect Charlie one Saturday afternoon.
The Spaacks apartment was small but grand. It looked out over the river and was decorated in the way of the reception rooms in foreign embassies. It was full of the sort of furniture you feel you must not sit on—either upholstered in silk or extremely fragile. The most inviting was the couch, but this was covered in a putty-color velvet that is stained so easily by a misplaced hand or foot. Jane stood by the window and watched garbage scows float the debris of Manhattan out to the Ambrose Lighthouse. The Spaackses, Cordy told her, referred to these vistas as “river traffic.” On the walls were Chinese prints, matted with gray silk, that decorators feel bring a soothing tone into the homes of bankers and other corporate capitalists.
When Cordy appeared with Charlie, a white-haired child with tiny teeth, Jane felt she had been delivered. But behind Cordy was Spaacks senior, an apparition Jane had not bargained for. He was wearing a business suit that looked as if it had been baked on him, like paint on a Bentley. He looked through Jane and, when the introduction was hastily made, extended his hand as an afterthought. It was a hard, dry hand, quickly withdrawn, the sort of hand that, when attached to the wrist of your loved one’s parent, is often a portent that you and your beloved are not going to spend your declining days watching the sun go down and reflecting on the happy years you have had together.
That was the last Jane ever saw of father Spaacks. Charlie was taken to Jane’s house, since she had more to offer in the way of amusement. Her collection of lead animals—her father’s from childhood—her picture books, and her colored pencils were far more intriguing than Cordy’s computer printouts, calculator, or the camera with zoom lens.
The love Jane bore for Cordy was at this point very hot. It pained her to see the flesh of his flesh and someone else’s flesh. She craved Charlie. She cut up his sandwiches for him and gave him his milk in a mug with a picture of a rabbit on it. When they went for walks, she was overcome with pleasure when Charlie took her hand or pulled on her coat to get her attention. She felt that she would someday like to be Charlie’s stepmother, which, she knew, was another way of expressing her hope that Cordy would be hers forever. Cordy had said that he would never marry again. Romance and marriage were mutually exclusive, he felt. Jane took this to be a reflection of the fact that he had never known any domestic happiness, and she was a domestic genius.
For months they were extremely happy. Love, in its initial stages, takes care of everything. Love transforms a difficult person into a charming eccentric; points of contention into charming divergences. It doesn’t matter that popular songs are full of warning—songs like “Danger, Heartbreak Dead Ahead” are written and sung for those who have no intention of doing anything but dancing to them. And while lovers do almost nothing but reveal themselves, who notices?
But as time went on it occurred to Jane that there was something odd about what she now saw was Cordy’s cheapness. The coldness that emanated from his parents’ Manhattan apartment, the lifeless, life-denying sitting room, the glacial hand of his father, seemed to hover around Cordy. His raptures about the way she lived began to make Jane feel like a hothouse orchid—pretty, expensive, and not long for this world. Cordy’s lavish coo of joy at the sight of two filets mignons, whose virtues in terms of cost and waste Jane found herself explaining, made her feel that what transpired between them did not resemble normal life to Cordy. Steam-table food, empty apartments, and family fights were normal to him, not lavender soap, being adored, and having his coffee brought to him in a big French cup.
One night he as much as stated his case. They stayed almost entirely at Jane’s apartment, since Cordy’s was not a fit place in which to conduct anything resembling a romance. He had had one bed pillow. The thought that Jane might someday sleep beside him had prompted him to go to a cut-rate bedding store and buy another, whose lumpy filling he could not identify. He admitted, however, what any sensible person will admit: that barring allergies, a good night’s rest is aided greatly by European goose down.
Cordy had had his dinner. He repaired to the couch, commandeered all the needlepoint cushions, pulled Jane near, and, with his nose pressed against her fragrant neck, announced that she was too rich for his blood.
“I live on my salary,” said Jane.
“I think I ought to go to a detoxification clinic,” said Cordy.
A shiver ran through Jane. Was living well a kind of poison? “You live in a needlessly horrible way,” she said.
“I live simply,” said Cordy. “It’s very dangerous to become used to luxury.”
“You seem to enjoy things,” Jane said. “For example, my things. You don’t mind drinking good coffee and getting wrapped up in a quilt to take a nap. You have a mania for deprivation. Besides, you don’t notice any million-dollar cameras with zoom lenses around here, do you?”
“I don’t use my camera,” Cordy said.
“That’s because you’re too cheap to buy film. It doesn’t matter whether or not you use it. You own it.”
“That’s not the point,” said Cordy. “The point is that things give you a false sense of life. If you have a nice house, you begin to think that life is nice.”
Jane said: “Isn’t it?”
“Not for long,” said Cordy.
Shortly after this interchange, Jane met Cordy’s mother. Mrs. Spaacks offered her son an electric frying pan. She discovered that she had two. If Cordy did not want one, she intended to sell it to a secondhand shop. Cordy and Jane drove two hours to the Salt Harbor house to get this implement, which Jane suspected Cordy would never use.
The house containing this extra frying pan was built on prime land overlooking the water. The setting into which it intruded was spectacular. The house itself was rather ugly and was furnished in that stiff, unsittable wicker that leaves deep red grooves in the flesh. It occurred to Jane that she had now seen two of the Spaackses’ domestic settings and had yet to spot any surface on which a human being might comfortably rest.
Cordy found his mother sitting in a wrought-iron chair, doing a Double-Crostic in the weak sunlight. She was wearing a suit that held her body like a straitjacket, and when she stood, she had the sort of carriage taught to girls who know that they will never in their lives have to bend over to pick up so much as a pin. She did not kiss her son. She merely lifted her head toward him, as if to warm up the air near his cheek. She gave Jane the benefit of a look, shook her hand, and turned to Cordy, whom she then led away, leaving Jane alone to ponder the landscape. Cordy was back shortly, carrying the electric frying pan. Soon he and Jane were in the car, on their way to Furnall, half an hour’s drive away, so Jane could see where Cordy had spent his childhood.
The house in Furnall was huge and cold. Everything was covered with slipcovers.
“It’s being sold,” Cordy explained. “That’s why it looks like this. Of course, it’s always looked something like this.”
Jane was given a guided tour. Cordy turned a corner and identified a room containing a table, a typewriter, and a wood file cabinet as the bedroom he had slept in as a child.
“When I went to college, they turned it into a room to store their tax returns in,” Cordy said.
He looked tired and seemed sad to Jane. She wanted to take him into her arms and comfort him. She wanted to wrap him up in all the nice things she had had as a child and compensate for what she imagined was the coldness of his childhood, his horrid parents, the fact that they had snatched his room away from him as soon as he had left home.
“What was it like to live here?” she asked.
“I can’t remember,” Cordy said.
Trouble in love seeks a proper issue. In some cases it is sex; in others, politics or money. In the case of Cordy, it was work. The time he spent with Jane, he said, was taking him away from his work. She was too seductive—too fragrant, too luxurious. He had changed his entire life to be with her, he said.
Jane, on the other hand, had gone on living as she had always done. Before Cordy came along, she had prepared dinners for herself, lolled around on Saturday mornings drinking coffee and reading the paper, just as she did with Cordy. She had worked on her thesis without Cordy, and she worked as well with him.
He said as he sat at the table, pouring cream over the strawberries: “All this life is getting in the way of life.”
Jane felt as if she had been slapped. She recalled the first conversation they had ever had. She had never thought her appetites were at all voracious—they were the normal appetites everyone had for pleasure in life. That first interchange made it clear that Cordy did not feel this way at all.
For a few weeks nothing much changed except that Jane began to feel embarrassed by her salads, by the dish of pears she kept on the coffee table. The attention Cordy lavished on the details of her life was beginning to make her feel not singled out and appreciated but freakish. They soon began to quarrel. The brilliance of their initial affection began to mire down in fights about meeting places, time spent together, and the cost of lamb chops. In the beginning, these quarrels were repaired quite simply. After all, they had started off magnificently. A glowing smile, a declaration, a kiss on the back of the neck could still bring them back to their original state in which they had felt that no other lovers had had the advantages of their fine minds, their attractiveness, the intelligence with which they adored one another. Now it seemed that there was rather more quarreling than enchantment. Cordy began to display a cold, bitter side. Jane, in turn, became businesslike and brisk.
It was soon decided that they should spend several nights apart. This was Jane’s idea, prompted by a sincere worry that Cordy should be working on his thesis and a great desire not to watch her brilliant love affair look more and more like a second-rate domestic failure.
Cordy went back to his Spartan diggings, where, with the aid of instant coffee and powdered milk, he began to work on his dissertation. When lovers agree to part, doom is right around the corner. Cordy and Jane were no exception. When they were together, they found themselves constantly misunderstanding one another, and when they were apart, the misunderstandings were further annotated by late-night telephone calls. It sometimes seemed to Jane that these disagreements were manufactured by Cordy, as if to rub her nose into his reality and show her that life was not, in fact, nice for very long.
Can the cut-rate lie down with the dearly purchased?
On these solitary nights Jane entertained thoughts of throwing out every endearing object she possessed; of pouring the dread olive oil down the sink. It was hard for her to believe that what had begun so happily and with such promise was ending in such a small-time way. She remembered that she had once felt that she and Cordy were protected by a magic mantle against the petty-mindedness that creeps into the relationships of others. After all, didn’t people stare at them in the street? Didn’t their colleagues look upon them with longing in their eyes? Weren’t they beautiful, brilliant, special?
It occurred to Jane that this terrible pass they had come to could easily be explained in terms of interior decoration. Can the cut-rate lie down with the dearly purchased? It was clear that it was all over. Her greatest attributes were now her deficits. They had passed some point of no return—somewhere where discount pillows and imported strawberry jam cannot meet.
Their last encounter took place in a coffee shop. They had decided to meet on neutral ground. The table between them was crowded with empty coffee cups and full ashtrays. By this time they had been mostly apart, except for telephone calls. Nothing seemed to work between them anymore, although the looks they exchanged across that squalid table were of pure longing. The fact was they adored each other. How they could feel that way when they were unable to find anything over which not to quarrel mystified them both. But there was no way around it. They adored one another, and it made no difference at all.
Cordy said: “I miss you so.”
Jane said: “What is it you miss? You miss someone who spends too much time in the bathtub, who reads for pleasure, which you think is some sort of crime, who spends too much money on food and who encourages you not to buy your ties in the drugstore. You no longer seem to approve of anything I do. How can you miss me?”
“I just miss you,” Cordy said.
“But I get in your way,” said Jane. “You said I was a luxury you couldn’t afford. I told you I pay my own way, but you meant that I waste your time. You think living a nice life is frivolous.”
“I adore you,” said Cordy.
Jane put her head down so as not to weep in public. She adored him, too. She adored someone who had begun to carp at her every gesture, who made her so self-conscious she could hardly get dressed in the morning.
“How can you adore me when we can no longer be together for five minutes without fighting?” she said.
“How long we can be together without fighting has nothing to do with adoration,” said Cordy.
Jane’s tears ceased. She was amazed that the matter could be so easily put. She remembered the incident of the lavender soap and his heartfelt confession that no one had ever given him a present. What all this meant was that in Cordy’s case, actual deprivation and the feeling of deprivation were one and the same. To feel that you have never been given a present is almost as good as having been neglected. Cordy thrived on this form of loss. He had twenty times the money she would ever have, yet not a day went by that he did not strive to find some novel way of cheating himself out of something. She had watched him window-shop, yearn for an item easily within his reach, and turn away. It was hopeless.
To feel that you have never been given a present is almost as good as having been neglected.
She took a deep breath and told Cordy that he would be doing her a real service if he simply got up and left. He sat for a moment, gave her the benefits of his most beautiful and tortured gaze, and then walked out the door.
When he hit the street, tears started down Jane’s cheeks. She ordered another cup of coffee, drank it slowly, dried her eyes, and watched a parade of students walking up the street. It was a hot spring day. Everyone was coatless. A few were shoeless. Couples strolled arm in arm.
And then, out of the corner of her eye, she saw Cordy leaning against a car across the street, watching her. She realized how easy it would be to fling some money onto the table, race out the door, and dash across the street to him. She could feel his arms around her.
Instead she watched him back. It all made sense. He was now depriving himself of her. She thought sadly that he was like a cheapskate who loved flowers, who walked around with spare change in his pocket, prowling around flower stalls to get a free whiff of roses and carnations but never buying any.
Such a man might stand for hours outside a florist’s window looking at a gardenia that could quite easily be his. But why, he might ask himself, would a man want a gardenia and what would he do with it once he had it? A man like that might get very close to the florist’s door, and might even go inside, just to look around. He might ask the clerk the price of a gardenia and know that he could buy seven of them. That gardenia would be waiting to be bought, but not by him—not if there were no practical reason for such a gesture, and especially since it would be so much more fulfilling not to.
By the time Joan finds herself dining with a married man in New York City, she is weary of the world, wary of men, and has already experienced a lifetime of trauma. But it is only when another married man walks up to her table, pulls out a gun, and shoots himself, that Joan feels the urge to run from everything familiar and forge a new path for herself. Wearing her dead mother’s dress, with her parents’ ashes in the car, Joan makes her way across the country to California. There, she searches for a woman named Alice, whom she believes might allow her to better understand her past, and takes up residence in a rundown property shared with three other men.
The landscape of Animal, Lisa Taddeo’s debut novel, is brutal. Lecherous men tell repulsive stories; coyotes sniff out women’s menstrual blood and howl; children survive horrific acts of abuse; men’s eyes linger too long; and women are rendered as prey or predators. The book brims with sex and violence, two urges that Joan is familiar with. As a child, her mother taught her that “we are all monsters, we are all capable of monstrosity.”
Taddeo, in her propulsive narrative, builds on her exploration of women’s desire from her debut, bestselling nonfiction book, Three Women, and also seeks to understand how women’s rage builds and builds until it reaches a breaking point. Over Zoom, Taddeo and I spoke about depravity, blunt prose, animalhood, perceptions of motherhood, the male gaze, and the mechanisms behind reprehensible choices.
Jacqueline Alnes: In an interview about your first book, Three Women, you expressed that you were “interested in the complexity of female desire, which… have a lot more prismatic and complex feelings attached.” Animal, in many ways, is about desire. What did you learn from writing Joan?
Lisa Taddeo: I don’t think many readers are comfortable with the idea of a suicidal mother in literature or even just one who abandons the kids in any kind of way. It’s not a moral thing, it’s just they don’t want to read about it. I was interested in showing a character like Joan who, while that’s not necessarily her deal in the book, does make these reprehensible choices. I wanted to look at how someone gets to a dark place.
I always think about the astronaut Lisa Nowak, who found out her husband was cheating on her with another woman, so she drove across the country with all these tools in the back of her car in order to kill them. And she wore a diaper the whole way.
JA: I remember that.
LT: At first blush, that story seems insane, but I think that having that sort of pain and sudden rage is a real thing. Wearing a diaper because you do not want to stop to pee, where does that come from? Exploring the way she got to that moment is interesting to me. It’s not about condoning or not condoning her behavior, it’s more of a scientific experiment.
JA: Joan calls herself “depraved” repeatedly throughout the book, and many of her applications of the term seem gendered. What was it like to play with language like “depraved,” “whore,” and “slut”?
LT: When Joan speaks about herself in the negative, I wanted it to come across as someone who is so fully aware of the nomenclature out there that she owns it before anyone else can use it. I think it’s something female comedians do. They make fun of themselves and they do it so that other people don’t do it to them first. Joan knows people are going to call her this, this, and this, so she says I am this, this, and this, based on the definition according to society or according to the dictionary. She says it almost with a tongue-in-cheek, like words have no meaning. There’s a disavowal for her of having any false front or facade.
JA: That’s interesting because the way she actually approaches sex is so surface level. She often performs sex rather than allowing herself to participate. There is just once in the book when she acts for her own pleasure. What was it like to explore the ways in which women are expected to be sexual beings but not enjoy sex in any fulfilling way?
I don’t think many readers are comfortable with the idea of a suicidal mother in literature or even just one who abandons the kids in any kind of way.
LT: I think it’s blessedly changing a lot, which is something I’ve seen in younger friends of mine and nieces and stuff like that. It has so much to do with what we watch and read when we’re young. My daughter, for example, she’s six, was watching The Little Mermaid and then Peter Pan and all of these stories were ones I didn’t want her to watch any more. I was like, why does Peter Pan get to decide between Tinker Bell and Tiger Lily and Wendy? Why are these three really cool chicks waiting around for this annoying man-boy?
The notion of a man choosing a woman still exists, and it’s societally ingrained. The gendered terminology we have for people and who gets to do the choosing, Joan has an awareness of that. I wanted for her wisdom to lie in that very deep-rooted understanding of where we are in society still.
JA: The title Animal works in so many ways. There are parallels between the actual animals in the book (like the coyotes who smell women’s periods coming) and the men, who sniff out women as prey. What’s the relationship between violence and sex? Or violence and desire?
LT: I think that they exist on parallel planes, but also cross. We have so much violence in sex in our collective history as human beings, that it’s there a lot, but I don’t think they are inextricably linked in any way for everyone.
JA: In the book, they feel linked, only because so much of it is bloody in my mind. So much of it feels traumatic. Even the fact that Joan always goes to eat raw meat after she has sex. There’s something visceral about it. It made me think about how much we are still animals, if that makes sense.
LT: We go through phases of animalhood and non-animalhood, as a culture. We have to go around denying the animal self all day to live in polite, normal society. It’s interesting to witness when kids just do exactly whatever they want, to just see people without that sense of awareness. Women, specifically, are not allowed to be considered animals in the same way that perhaps a man would.
JA: There seems to be an appetite that men are allowed whereas women are viewed as prey.
Joan experiences a series of traumas, but a recurring one is that she feels violated by mens’ touch and gazes. At one point, when she finds a man staring at her, she says that “there are a hundred such small rapes a day.” What, in your mind, is the effect of these repeated violences?
LT: It adds up until one day, you may invariably explode. When you look at men who are put upon in certain ways, it’s not as gendered in some ways. For women, the sort of violences and gazes we have received from men is such a thing that it can trigger so much because it happens so often, in the same kind of way because of the animal aspect of it.
This might be too much information, but this morning a guy came to check the well or something and I didn’t know he was coming. I was working at home, wearing these thin pajamas, and when I opened the door my nipples were just totally there. I was so aware of them and he was staring at them. I wrote a bit about that in Animal and then it happened to me and I was like, did I write this into happening? It was such a weird feeling. It wasn’t his fault, they were just so out there that you couldn’t look away. It was 10 a.m.
We have to go around denying the animal self all day to live in polite, normal society.
That moment stayed with me. It’s happened to me so many times, but this time felt different because I’m a mom, and I’m wearing my really ugly pajamas. The nipple aspect was almost like it’s own private horror. I’ve had that feeling so many times where you close a door and you’re like, someone just looked at my nipples. And it’s like, why do you care? But there are so many implications behind that.
Partly, with Joan, one of the reasons she is so open in that aspect, is that if you allow yourself to hold all the experiences you have had to that end, it starts to form a picture that really stays with you. Then, one day when someone does one little thing, all of those things come together like a mosaic.
JA: And the weight of it. I used to live in Oklahoma, and when I would go running people would honk or yell lewd things from their cars, so I developed this habit of flipping everyone off and running as hard as I could for a while after. There was this rage that I felt. I remember one time a friend told me she had honked and her kids were in the car and I was like, sorry. I couldn’t distinguish between a threat and just a car, and that rage I felt just lives in my body now. No matter the person behind the wheel, no matter the intent, it’s the idea of someone breaking that power I think I have in the world when I’m out running on my own and reminding me that I don’t.
LT: Exactly.
JA: Have you read Melissa Febos’s recent essay “I Spent My Life Consenting to Touch I didn’t Want”?
LT: I have it bookmarked, I’m excited to.
JA: She reflects that women tend to consent to touch, even if unwanted, because “the need to protect our bodies from the violent retaliation of men and the need to protect the same men from the consequences of their own behavior, usually by displacing the responsibility onto ourselves.” It rang so true, and resonated for me so much with the ways Joan has to maneuver as a woman through the world. That unwanted touch builds and builds into rage. What was it like writing that escalation?
LT: I was writing it simultaneously with the story that Lenny, the older man, is telling her. I think a lot of us have had the experience of a man mansplaining and wanting you to hold onto that story—kind of like that line you just read from Febos—they want you to tell them it’s okay. I think the idea of Joan having heard all of these things, all of her life, from men, and someone is asking her to forgive all of the sins in his life, it reminds her of all the other men who have asked her to do the same.
And so finally, she just says no. That felt organic to me.
JA: Joan has such a hard time making relationships with women, but Joan sort of becomes friends with Alice. Joan is always taking note of how Alice is younger, better, prettier.
For women, the sort of violences and gazes we have received from men is such a thing that it can trigger so much because it happens so often.
LT: What I always find interesting is that whenever I’ve written a male character in a book or a show who is incredibly perfect and the varsity whatever and hot, male readers often talk about how those types of men don’t exist. They get really angry at the notion of this perfect guy who is young, hot, well-read, insert whatever descriptor you want here. But with women, you can create this perfect female character and nobody balks at it. They’re like, “Oh yeah, the hot girl. That’s what we should have.” What’s important to me about Alice is that she is that perfect girl. She is Joan’s foil in that sense. Besides what Alice means to Joan in the actual context of the story, she is just another man in a sense. Not a man, exactly, but she is someone that Joan cannot know.
JA: I feel like part of the reason Joan’s relationship with women is so complicated is because of her thorny relationship with her mother. What about mother relationships interest you?
LT: That’s sort of the biggest part that I held over from Three Women. I heard much from women about their mothers and about how their mothers’ actions translated into their own present. Having lost my mom before I got to have certain conversations, I don’t get to get a lot of things from her. I am very interested in that aspect of my own loss and pain. I like exploring that in fiction and talking to people about their relationship with their moms. I find it infinitely interesting.
JA: There are so many things too that you might not realize are passed down until you start to learn these almost secret histories that your mother led. For Joan, she starts to recognize that her mother was one way with her, but that she also was dealing with pressures from her husband, from society, and of who she thought she needed to be as a mother.
I’m interested in the idea of mothering too in how Joan might have had to mother herself or how culturally, women are often expected to want to mother others.
LT: I will say, I’m not that interested in women needing to be mothers to others. We don’t all have mothering tendencies. I don’t know that I’m someone who thinks of myself as having mothering tendencies, but there is such a judgment and definition around what it means to be a good mother. The very fact that we can shame people for not breastfeeding is an example. Having those conversations about motherhood makes it such a fraught topic. I’m more interested in the idea of women who don’t feel the need to mother.
JA: Women are expected to have that desire and if you don’t, you get told that you’re going to change, you’re young. Men don’t get that as much. They aren’t asked why they don’t want to be a father or told that they are nurturing enough to be a father. There are other forms of care.
Edgar Allan Poe is generally regarded as the OG of American literature. OG, of course, stands for “Original Goth.” When it comes to the creepy, the weird, and the macabre, Poe takes his place as the grandmaster of the whole black parade. Guillermo del Toro, serving as the series editor of the Penguin Horror line, writes: “It is in Poe that we first find the sketches of modern horror while being able to enjoy the traditional trappings of the Gothic tale. He speaks of plagues and castles and ancient curses, but he is also morbidly attracted to the aberrant intellect, the mind of the outsider.” Del Toro locates Poe as the American conduit for European strains of Gothicism and romanticism, letting loose the fears of the Old World upon the New.
But viewing the emergence of the American Gothic as a transatlantic phenomenon misses more homegrown explorations into the bizarre. A century before H.P. Lovecraft (inspired by Hawthorne’s novel The House of the Seven Gables) depicted New England as a realm of terror and dread, Nathaniel Hawthorne was on the case, mining the region’s history for insights into the mind’s darker corners. Chiefly remembered today for The Scarlet Letter, that bane of high school curricula, Hawthorne’s highest achievements are actually found in his short stories. There, he examines the supposed innocence of the early American character, finding the darkness that lies beneath.
At roughly the same time that Poe was publishing stories in magazines and periodicals, Hawthorne did the same. (The House of the Seven Gables is unmistakably Gothic, but it was published after Poe established himself as the face of the genre.) Indeed, Poe himself took notice of Hawthorne’s talents. In a review, Poe wrote that “Mr. Hawthorne’s distinctive trait is invention, creation, imagination originality—a trait which, in the literature of fiction, is positively worth all the rest.” Many of Hawthorne’s finest stories were collected in Twice-Told Tales(1837), the first book he published under his own name. (He published an earlier novel, Fanshawe, under a pseudonym, like a 21st century writer self-pubbing an e-book.) As with The Scarlet Letter, many of his stories depict the early Puritan colonies of New England, well before the United States was established as a country. You can see why. Hawthorne was the descendant of New England Puritans, including his great-great-grandfather, John, who served as a judge of the infamous Salem witch trials. Hawthorne’s familial guilt over being involved in such a grotesque undertaking colors much of his work.
Hawthorne’s tales focus on communities, and the destruction that secrets can visit upon them.
Unlike Poe, whose stories often feature lonesome individuals questing into the unknown, Hawthorne’s tales focus on communities, and the destruction that secrets can visit upon them. Emblematic of this approach is “The Minister’s Black Veil.” The story takes place in a New England village during the early 17th century. Reverend Hooper, leader of the local church, arrives at the building one Sunday morning. Hooper has never been very distinctive as a minister. He acquits his duties quietly, without drawing attention to himself. But one day, without announcement or explanation, he draws an inordinate amount of attention. He arrives at church wearing a black veil over his face. The same kind of veil a mourning widow would wear.
Why does Hooper wear the veil? He refuses to say. But the parishioners note a change in his personality. Before, his sermons were perfunctory, even dull. But once he wears the veil, his sermonizing becomes a full-throated performance, one that enraptures the congregation. But rumors continue to roil the community. Does Hooper feel guilty about some secret sin? Is that why he wears the veil? If so, then he should simply confess the sin, and return to his normal, unveiled self. But Hooper refuses. He gives no explanation as to the nature of the veil, not even to his wife. He keeps the veil on for the rest of his life. When he dies, none dare remove it, and he is laid in the ground with his face still veiled.
The black veil is a perfect Gothic detail. A symbol of mourning, and a feminine one at that, worn by the male minister to the confoundment of the community. No explanation is given, neither by Hooper nor the narrator, which allows the veil’s meaning to grow, resonating in different settings. Perhaps Hooper is simply reminding his parishioners of the death that awaits them all, and the veil is his way of making peace with it. Or maybe the veil represents Hooper’s depression, one that he cannot otherwise express in his pious community. You could even say that Hooper, in donning the feminine accoutrements of death, is expressing ambivalence about his own gender. Perhaps the black veil is a kind of gothic drag performance, the only one available to Hooper in 18th-century New England. Hooper, after all, fully comes to life once he covers his face with the black lace, expressing aspects of himself that were previously—forgive the pun—veiled.
“Young Goodman Brown,” like The Scarlet Letter, takes place in a Puritan community in the late 17th century, around the time of the historical Salem witch trials. But rather than a whole community ostracizing a lone individual, this story finds the title character doubting the very nature of his community, and consequently growing distant from it. One evening, Goodman Brown is taking a stroll in the New England woods. There he meets a mysterious gentleman. The gentleman leads him to a clearing, where, through the trees, Brown sees the leaping flames of a great fire. It is a witches’ Sabbath—the original Satanic panic. But gathered there are not just a few outcasts hexing the townsfolk. Brown’s whole community chants before the flames, including his beloved wife Faith. Just as Faith is about to drink from an accursed cup, Brown cries out. He finds himself in an empty wood, with no fire roaring. Was the witches’ Sabbath a dream? That question goes unanswered. But the damage has been done. After beholding such an infernal vision, Brown can no longer trust his neighbors. He even grows distant from his wife, and eventually dies a lonesome death, estranged from communal bonds.
‘Young Goodman Brown’ is among the first instances of a trope that has since become a mainstay of American narrative art: the idyllic community with a seedy underbelly.
“Young Goodman Brown” is among the first instances of a trope that has since become a mainstay of American narrative art, from literature to film: the idyllic community with a seedy underbelly. All across the country are quaint, pleasant towns, with tidy houses and gazebos. But such quaintness is a mask. Within the houses, beneath the surface, roil dark passions and secret sins. In its European form, gothic stories often locate the source of infectious darkness in the decadent aristocracy, from Jane Eyre’s madwoman in the attic to the literally infectious Dracula of Bram Stoker fame. The early United States, lacking such patrilineal aristocracy, often believed itself immune to contagions. But Hawthorne, working against such naivete, finds the darkness within the community itself. The quaint small town is not besieged from without by social or supernatural forces; it is infected from within, by nothing more monstrous than the human heart.
You can trace a direct line from Hawthorne’s insight to the present day. Perhaps the greatest explorer of the darkness beneath American shininess presently working is David Lynch. A Boomer who grew up in the 1950s, in suburbs as pristine as Salem, Lynch peers below the perfectly manicured lawns to find the horror writhing there. Blue Velvet’s Jeffrey Beaumont, as played by Kyle MacLachlan, is a Goodman Brown of the 1980s. Visiting his hometown of Lumberton during a break from college, Jeffrey finds himself enmeshed in a web of crime, sex and murder. Twin Peaks, where Laura Palmer is murdered after getting trapped in local sordidness and cosmic struggle, resembles a retelling of “Young Goodman Brown” in which Faith, Brown’s wife, is the main character. She confronts the darkness of her hometown and, unlike the menfolk, endures it, coming out stronger in the end.
“The Birthmark” is one of Hawthorne’s most affecting stories. Its power flows from Hawthorne’s facility at depicting Gothic darkness infecting one of the most intimate communal bonds of all: love. Love shades into possession, as it often does in Gothic tales, but not as a result of outright malevolence. There is no mustache-twirling villain to be found in the story. Instead we have a man who believes he knows everything, only to lose it all.
Gothic and Romantic writers of Hawthorne’s time often depicted science as a malevolent force that sought to drain the mystery from existence. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is the most famous example, of course. “The Birthmark” takes the basic dynamic of Frankenstein, that of creator and creation, and places it in an affecting, deeply personal sphere.
Hawthorne’s contribution to the Gothic mode, right when it was forming, consists of creating believable, even mundane settings for horror to wreak havoc.
Aylmer is a scientist who has mastered every branch of knowledge. His wife, Georgiana, is a beautiful young woman, the love of his life. But her beauty is marred by one imperfection: a birthmark on her left cheek, as if “a fairy at her birth hour had laid her hand upon the tiny infant’s cheek.” Aylmer becomes obsessed with correcting the imperfection. He devotes all his learning to that end. He devises a procedure for removing Georgiana’s birthmark. He succeeds, at which point Georgiana immediately dies.
An obvious ending? A better description would be “inevitable.” “The Birthmark” is a gothic fairy tale, and part of the appeal of fairy tales lies in knowing how they’ll end before they even start. Think of Carmen Maria Machado’s “The Husband Stitch,” which has a strong affinity with “The Birthmark.” What makes the story so affecting is that the reader knows that, as soon as the husband removes the ribbon from the wife’s neck, her life will end. You read the story with your hands covering your eyes, peering through fingers. It is the same with “The Birthmark.” You turn the pages of the story as slowly as you can, prolonging the inevitable for as long as possible.
Hawthorne’s contribution to the Gothic mode, right when it was forming, consists of creating believable, even mundane settings for horror to wreak havoc. Quaint communities, pleasant churches. Simple backgrounds that offset the bizarre, making it pop. The approach makes him something of a minimalist, which is ironic, since Gothicism is all about excess and spilling over artificial boundaries. But it was highly effective, enabling him to create moods of dread and wonder with just a few flourishes. Read today, his work seems eerily prescient when it comes to the fears that still trouble American communities, innocent or—more likely—not.
Now that the finale has aired and the dust has settled around the body of Erin McMenamin, maybe you’ve found yourself missing Mare Sheehan. She’s the perfect antihero: a mixture of the classic hard-boiled detective, whose past wounds drive the fervor of a present investigation, and the girl detective, a beloved figure whose wit and perceptive powers help her uncover a close-knit community’s secrets. Combine that with the suffocating atmosphere of a small town, and you’ve got a gripping story.
Fortunately, plenty of novels use the same formula to create compelling characters and captivating plots. If you’re dying to see more like Mare, check out these books, featuring locales as small as Easttown and female detectives as savvy and as sarcastic as your favorite Pennsylvania D.I.
Set at Oxford in the fictional women’s college of Shrewsbury, Dorothy Sayers’s 1935 classic revolves around Harriet Vane, a detective novelist investigating a series of threatening letters, vandalisms, and violent attacks at her alma mater. Harriet also happens to be on the receiving end of the culprit’s acrimony. Along with her admirer, detective Lord Peter Wimsey, Harriet must discover the criminal before it’s too late for her.
In the titular novella from this stunning story collection, Cassie, a young Black woman, works in a government agency responsible for fixing historical inaccuracies. Cassie and her rival are assigned to investigate a small Wisconsin town grappling with a racist crime in its past. But the victim of the purported murder might still be alive. Cassie teams up with her nemesis to find the truth and to confront the ways we manipulate our own stories for personal gain.
Detective Cassie Maddox of the Dublin Murder Squad has had a rough go of it. Her last investigation brought her into conflict with a psychopath, leaving her with stab wounds and forcing her to quit the murder beat. But when a woman who looks eerily identical to Cassie turns up dead, her old boss talks her into a dangerous plan: Cassie will go undercover in the victim’s place to tempt the killer out of hiding. As Cassie gets drawn into the life her double left behind, she loses track of the boundaries between her real and undercover identities.
Anne Beddingfeld, an orphan, moves to London in search of adventure. She stumbles upon one when she witnesses a suspicious death at a tube station and finds a cryptic note near the body. In search of the truth, Anne books passage on a cruise ship mentioned in the dead man’s note, where she befriends suspects and is attacked in turn. Peril follows Anne on her journey—will she catch the killer in time, or become yet another victim? At once a satire and a stellar example of its genre, The Man in the Brown Suit is funny, frightening, and self-aware.
In a remote Polish village, aging spinster Janina Duszejko spends most of her time translating the poetry of William Blake and studying the stars. The townspeople largely dismiss her as a crackpot. But Janina inserts herself into the investigation when the villagers discover that her neighbor, a hunter nicknamed Big Foot, has died. As more bodies are found in increasingly odd circumstances, Janina insists she knows who the culprit is. Too bad no one will listen to her.
In the tiny town of Keldale, Yorkshire, a resident claims to have murdered her father. Indeed, she was found seated beside his headless corpse, dressed in her finest gown and holding an axe. But Keldale is home to a host of secrets, and nothing there is what it seems. When Scotland Yard inspectors Thomas Lynley and Barbara Havers visit the tranquil Yorkshire valley to find the true killer, they uncover a shattering series of crimes that threaten to upend Keldale completely.
Claire DeWitt is the world’s greatest detective—or at least, so she says. She returns to New Orleans, where she apprenticed, to investigate the disappearance of a prominent DA after Hurricane Katrina. Though her tactics are a bit esoteric, Claire is unwavering in her pursuit of the case. Her search brings her into contact with gangs of feral children, drug-abusing goons, and other missing figures from her past. Claire drags readers into the dark underbelly of New Orleans as she attempts to make order out of all the chaos.
Detective Marti MacAlister has been tasked with a seemingly unsolvable case: all that’s left of the murder victim is an unidentifiable arm. Marti and her partner delve into the exclusive artistic community of Lincoln Prairie, Illinois to tackle the mystery. Meanwhile, Marti’s best friend is embroiled in a dangerous journey of her own as a suitor spirits her away to the Bahamas. As the case in Lincoln Prairie starts to crack, Marti must also rescue her friend in this dramatic whirlwind of a novel.
For many people living marginalized lives, the monstrous is only a step away at any time. That man walking down the street —a neighbor or an assailant? The person in your workspace or classroom—are they about to turn on you, show how they’ve always felt? A crime happens—will the police fix it, or, more likely, make you a victim all over again? The monstrous is always a brief turn, a simple what-if, away.
It doesn’t surprise, then, that many minority writers take on the monstrous in their works of fiction. In my own book, Transmutation, I took a look at the original colonialist underpinnings of the Gothic genre (vampires, for example, could more accurately be described as “outsiders” to the dominant ways of living), and examined the idea of reclamation. What if the tables were turned? What if the monsters were not those society considered odd or “outside,” but the ones who put them there?
The following authors, all from backgrounds that might be considered marginalized, took their own long looks at the monstrous. And what they came away with was brilliant, chilling, and some of the most exciting writing happening in fiction.
Gabino Iglesias’s linked short stories that take place on the borderlands between Mexico and America are full of violence, terror, and creatures (some of which slither out of the wombs of pregnant mothers in the night!). Starkly written with gorgeous line-to-line care, this book proves Gabino is a force in horror literature. The collection he edited in about a month’s time, Halldark Holidays, is further proof that if you want good politically-oriented, diverse gore and terror, Iglesias’s always going to be the one to look towards.
There’s not a much more terrifying subject than America’s still-unreckoned-with history of racism and violence towards Black Americans. Kunzru takes this subject and makes it even more terrifying by making a vengeful spirit of a Black American blues singer who was disappeared into a chain gang. Demonic possession, and turning the tables on white appropriation of Black culture make this horror novel a deeply political and timely one.
This novel starts with a bang—a young woman poisons her whole wealthy family at a wedding reception. The narrator, her sister, is in a coma, and from there unravels the dark history of the family that led to this act of monstrousness.
A truly sweet and thoughtful YA novel based on the premise of a family of witches who are cursed in such a way that the person each member falls in love with will die. This book has haunted phone calls, magical grandparents, and does the work of making us all rethink that which we take for granted we’ve been cursed with.
The runaway-star narrator of this multi-narrator book is the ghost of a young boy who died in Parchman Farm/Mississippi State Penitentiary. The history of racism in America lives strong in these pages, and monstrousness is something we come to question as something that might also be mercy.
A series of short stories that take place in Enriquez’s home country of Argentina, this collection has all the tropes of the Gothic writ large in its pages—crumbling mansions, that eerie house down the block where people disappear, and the grotesque. I swear, there is a scene with fingernails and teeth that you will never be able to forget.
A brilliant writer who swaggers through whatever genre they need, taking what creates politically vibrant and artistically vivid work, Rivers Solomon absolutely crushes this game in The Deep. Africans thrown overboard during the slave trade became underwater creatures, and one of them per generation must store all the memories they have jetisoned to survive.
DON’T MISS OUT
Sign up for our newsletter to get submission announcements and stay on top of our best work.
YOUR INBOX IS LIT
Enjoy strange, diverting work from The Commuter on Mondays, absorbing fiction from Recommended Reading on Wednesdays, and a roundup of our best work of the week on Fridays. Personalize your subscription preferences here.