A Literary Guide to Combat Anti-Asian Racism in America

In the last year, the Asian American community has seen an onslaught of verbal harassment and physical attacks, triggered by the onset of COVID-19—still called “the Chinese virus” by many Americans. Despite the continued violence, however, U.S. media has kept relatively silent on the matter. As Anne Cheng writes for The New York Times, “When it comes to Asian-American grief, do Americans want to know?”

We’ve compiled this list as a way to better understand the deep roots of Asian American discrimination in the U.S. We hope we can help amplify the urgent need to acknowledge anti-Asian racism and the complexity of Asian American identity today. Staying silent exacerbates the portrayal of Asian Americans as the “model minority,” ignoring the violent and potentially fatal consequences of anti-Asian racism. This, in turn, creates internal division within BIPOC communities, de-validates Asian American experiences, and continues to perpetuate the vicious cycle of white supremacy. We’d like to emphasize that we should not look towards increased policing as a way to combat the violence; the U.S. police force—as these books note—is a system that perpetuates anti-Black violence and upholds white supremacy. Combating anti-Asian racism means looking beyond the black-and-white binary of racial discussions in America, and understanding how white supremacy pits minority against minority.

The term “Asian America” itself encompasses a broad array of nationalities and accompanying differences; though we’ve approached this list with an eye towards a variety of perspectives, we recognize we are constrained by our own experiences as Korean American and Chinese writers. While we have tried to include a variety of genres, this is also a limited introduction to an array of books on this topic. However, we hope it offers a starting point to better understand the systematic structures of racism, inequity, and silencing that have let anti-Asian violence in America flourish. If you’re moved to take action against anti-Asian violence and help those who have been affected, here is a site of compiled resources; Next Shark is also a non-profit media source that addresses Asian American issues, particularly those that have gone unseen in mainstream media.

Thank you to Dieu Ho, Matt Chan, Jayne Nguyen, Kiki Nakamura-Koyama, and Dana Nguyen for sharing their book recommendations!

We Gon’ Be Alright: Notes on Race and Resegregation by Jeff Chang

Beginning with “Is Diversity for White People?,” Chang’s collection of essays is a thorough look at how racial inequity functions in America today. Through personal reflection, cultural analysis, and journalism, Chang tackles topics like Ferguson, Black Lives Matter, and the whiteness of Hollywood. The last essay, “The In-Betweens: On Asian Americanness,” addresses the unique predicament of Asian Americans in this country, contextualizing it within the broader discourse of race in the U.S. Chang emphasizes the necessity of Asian American communities standing in solidarity with movements like BLM; as he states in an interview, “I think racial justice impacts us all, and now is not the time to be neutral.” 

Yellow Race in America Beyond Black and White

Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White by Frank Wu

A mix of personal anecdotes, journalism, and legal analysis, Yellow offers an intersectional way of dissecting race beyond Black and white. Wu questions the absence of the Asian perspective in America’s discussion around race and touches on the complex ideas that have led to our understanding of Asian America via the model minority myth, perpetual foreigner stereotype, affirmation action, interracial marriage, and more. 

Yellow Peril! An Archive of Anti-Asian Fear edited by John Kuo Wei Tchen and Dylan Yeats

We may think that jokes about cheap junk being “made in China” are a recent phenomenon. The truth is that this anxiety surrounding Asian influences, or “yellow peril,” has been around in Europe since the Enlightenment. Scholars Tchen and Yeats compile a comprehensive archive of “yellow peril” paraphernalia and offer critical insight into this Western paranoia, shedding new light on the structures of current-day anti-Asian sentiments. 

The Karma of Brown Folk by Vijay Prashad

An homage to W. E. B. Du Bois’s classic The Souls of Black Folk, Vijay Prashad’s The Karma of Brown Folk takes a look at the complexities of being South Asian in America. Prashad gives a complex analysis of the model minority myth, particularly as it is deployed against Black America. He takes a deeper look at both Indian and American history, tracing the ways in which Indian culture and thinkers have influenced American issues, and explores not only how South Asian American identity is defined, but also how Americans define and view themselves.

Racial Melancholia, Racial Dissociation: On the Social and Psychic Lives of Asian Americans by David L. Eng and Shinhee Han

Written by psychotherapist Shinhee Han and critic David L. Eng, Racial Melancholia, Racial Dissociation combines critical race theory with case studies to explore the predicaments Asian American young adults face. Han and Eng take a closer look at Gen X and Gen Y Asian Americans who deal with challenges such as depression, coming out, adoption, parachute children, and a racial discourse in America that excludes Asian America. Eng and Han use psychoanalysis to illuminate the larger social and historical questions and challenges around Asian American identity in our times. Throughout the book, Eng and Han explore and define the concepts of racial melancholia and racial dissociation, taking a closer look at the experiences of loss so many Asian Americans face.

Immigrant Acts: On Asian American Cultural Politics by Lisa Lowe 

Immigrant Acts is a well-researched, nuanced look at how Asian American culture and identity have been constructed in the U.S. today. Lowe offers acute analysis of Asian American texts (such as No-No Boy), legal proceedings, and historical events—including the history of interracial division within Asian America. In order to better understand the systems of inequity—like racism, capitalism, and neoliberalism—that help shape and reinforce anti-Asian violence, this academic study is a must-read.

Minor Feelings by Cathy Park Hong

Minor Feelings: An Asian American Reckoning by Cathy Park Hong

A radical look into the reality of walking through the world as an Asian American, Cathy Park Hong’s Minor Feelings weaves the personal with the political and brings the tough questions around race and identity to the table. The title phrase, “minor feelings” refers to the sense of American optimism that is often forced onto Asian Americans; consequently, Asian Americans often experience a cognitive dissonance that creates a sense of failure. Going beyond the theoretical, Hong grounds us in lived experiences that perhaps create more questions than answers, and opens the table for actual discussion.

Model Minority Imperialism by Victor Bascara

Asian American racialization, economics, and the U.S. empire take center stage in this academic study. Analyzing geopolitical events alongside media representations of Asian America, Bascara tracks how the model minority myth and Asian American assimilation interact with American imperialism. Ultimately, Model Minority Imperialism challenges readers to examine the current-day U.S. empire, particularly how it is rooted in racial exclusion. 

Asian American Dreams: The Emergence of an American People by Helen Zia 

Asian American Dreams looks into the time period when  the Asian population in America grew and Asian American identity began to form. The daughter of Chinese immigrants, Helen Zia was born in 1950s America when there were only 150,000 Chinese Americans in the country. From the murder of Vincent Chin to the LA Riots, this book is a historical and personal account of the events that have transformed Asian identity in America. Zia is also the author of Last Boat Out of Shanghai: The Epic Story of the Chinese Who Fled Mao’s Revolution, a dramatic account of the real-life stories of those who fled China during the Cultural Revolution, when Zia’s family first left for the States.

The Unpassing by Chia-Chia Lin

Chia-Chia Lin’s debut novel The Unpassing tells the story of a Taiwanese immigrant family of six struggling to make ends meet in Anchorage, Alaska. Against the bleak and cold backdrop of Alaskan winter, ten-year-old Gavin contracts meningitis at school, falls into a coma and wakes a week later to find out his little sister Ruby was infected and died. As grief envelops the family, we see the remaining five members of the family struggle to stay afloat, navigate marginalization and alienation, and search for a sense of belonging in a foreign land. What does it mean to lose the ones you love in a place that is not home? What does it mean when there is no home to return to?

No-No Boy

No-No Boy by John Okada 

No-No Boy received practically no public recognition upon its publication in 1957, when Americans wanted to leave behind the atrocities of WWII—including the Japanese American internment and the nuclear bomb. Thanks to the efforts of Asian American writers Jeff Chan, Frank Chin, Lawson Fusao Inada and Shawn Wong who reissued the novel in 1976, No-No Boy is now recognized as a canonical Asian American text, one that deals head-on with the long history of anti-Asian racism.

The protagonist, Ichiro Yamada, refuses to serve in the American army and pledge loyalty to the U.S., remembering how the same country forced him and his family into internment. Because of his “No”s, Ichiro is forced to go to prison; and finds himself the target of his community’s anger upon his return. Okada’s novel examines both the collective and individual trauma of racialized violence against Japanese Americans.  

I Hotel by Karen Tei Yamashita 

This wide-ranging novel centers on “I Hotel”—short for the International Hotel in San Francisco—as a way to explore the Yellow Power Movement in the ’60s. The Yellow Power Movement—started by UC Berkeley students who were inspired by the Black Power Movement—is credited with coining the term “Asian American”. I Hotel is meticulously researched, including memorabilia like pamphlets and news clippings from the era; it is also radical in experimentation as well as content, exploring with multimedia modes like comic strips. Yamashita poignantly conveys the historical struggle for Asian American rights, and the many shifting identities the term “Asian American” can encompass. 

The Leavers by Lisa Ko

Set in both New York and China, The Leavers follows a Chinese American boy whose undocumented mother Polly vanishes one day. Deming Guo—later renamed Daniel Wilkinson by his white adoptive parents—is forced to reckon with what it means to be an “all-American” whose sense of belonging has vanished. What does it mean to belong? Does assimilation mean learning a new language, a new home, a new family, a new house, or a new name? And what happens to the person you used to be?

America Is Not the Heart by Elaine Castillo

America is Not the Heart by Elaine Castillo 

In Castillo’s debut novel, Hero De Vera moves from a politically turbulent Philippines to suburban San Jose. America is Not the Heart explores social inequity and racism amidst the Filipinx American community, as well as what it means to pursue the “American Dream.” Castillo also pays careful attention to the code-switching that often happens for immigrant families; her characters speak Spanish, Tagalog, Pangasinan, and Ilocano. The title nods to Carlos Bulosan’s groundbreaking novel from the 1970s, America is in the Heart, which describes a Filipino migrant worker’s experiences with brutal racism on a California farm. For more books on Filipinx America, check out Castillo’s reading list


About the Authors

Jae-Yeon Yoo is an MA candidate in English at New York University.

Stefani Kuo (郭佳怡) is a poet/playwright/performer and native of Hong Kong and Taiwan. She received her B.A. from Yale and is an MFA Playwriting Candidate at the Yale School of Drama. Fluent in Cantonese, Mandarin, French, and English, she is interested in crafting multicultural, multilingual narratives for an international audience. She has been an awardee of the Jerome Fellowship at PWC, Dramatist Guild Fellowship, finalist for the National Playwrights Conference, Jerome fellowship at Lanesboro Arts Centre, Many Voices Fellowship at PWC, the Working Farm with SPACE on Ryder Farm, Van Lier New Voices Fellowship, NAP Series, DVRF Playwrights’ Program, BRIC Lab, semi-finalist for the Page 73 Playwriting Fellowship, Princess Grace Fellowship, Ground Floor at Berkeley Rep, Scratchpad Series at Playwrights Realm. Her play, Architecture of Rain, premiered at the Iseman Theatre at Yale and received a reading in the DVRF Roundtable and Checkmark Theatre Company series. She has received commissions from the Rubin Museum, Roundhouse Theater Company, and Yangtze Repertory Theater Company. Her play delicacy of a puffin heart was produced with the 2018 Corkscrew Theatre Festival and The Parsnip Ship. Her play on the Hong Kong protests, Final Boarding Call,will be presented as a virtual reading co-produced by WP and Ma-Yi Theater Company in March 2021, and was workshopped as a part of the 2020 Bay Area Playwrights Festival at Playwrights Foundation and the 2020 Irons in the Fire Series with Faultline Theater Company. It was also a semi-finalist for Barrington Stage’ Company’s Burman New Play Award. Her play on the work of Dr. Wu Chien-Shiung, the only Chinese woman to work on the Manhattan Project, will be workshopped and co-presented by the Kitchen and Ma-Yi Theater Company in March 2021. She was a member of Interstate-73, Page 73’s Writers Group, in 2019. Her work in creative non-fiction, poetry, and translation have appeared in The New York Times, China Hands, Yale Literary Magazine, and more. Her poetry has been displayed as an installation piece, as part of Berlin Art Week 2017 at the Centre of Substructured Loss. She is represented as a playwright by Kevin Lin at CAA and Jacob Epstein at Lighthouse Management. (www.stefanikuo.com) 

Lauren Oyler’s Narrator Is Unreliable, but So Are All of Us Online

Lauren Oyler’s debut novel brings the reader down a rabbit hole of endless, mindless scrolling, online identities, and conspiracy theories.

Fake Accounts by Lauren Oyler

Fake Accounts follows the journey of a young woman after she discovers that her boyfriend is running an Instagram account spouting dangerous conspiracies that may or may not have contributed to the election of a dangerous president. Following her disturbing discovery, she moves to Berlin and sets up an account on a dating app, telling her story through a popular contemporary literary structure that she despises but admits is difficult to execute.

In this dark and satirical—at times hilarious—novel, Oyler masterfully describes the feelings that can arise from using social media; from dueling personal identities to screen addiction. 

I spoke with Oyler about performative online presences, and what it’s like as a book reviewer to read reviews on your own work. 


Frances Yackel: Speaking directly to the reader, you mention that the novel is semi-autobiographical. How did the idea for your novel originate?  

Lauren Oyler: It’s more that the character is a version of me projected, it’s not that anything in the book happened to me necessarily. I don’t have any ex-boyfriends who were conspiracy theorists, for the record. But I got the idea in two ways: I really wanted to write a novel about social media and I really wanted to do a social novel, sort of like a dark comedy of manners, about what goes on with social media. Also, my boyfriend at the time, at the end of 2016, wrote an article about Instagram conspiracy theory accounts. And the thing that fascinated me about them was if they actually believe this stuff or were they just doing it for attention. Were they posting to get paid attention to? We couldn’t really figure it out because their motives were just totally inscrutable, and it was unclear just how much of it was serious. And that was an extreme version of what happens online. People are constantly making really dramatic declarations on social media and it’s very difficult to determine how serious they are and if they really believe what they’re saying.

There is a tendency to say that a semi-autobiographical narrator must share all the same feelings and I think that’s not true. My experience writing this was very fun because if I’m writing non-fiction, I really have to think about the things I’m saying and determine if they are actually true, and if they hold water. But when you’re writing a character who’s thinking a lot, you can stick with your extreme impulse and just move on. This is illustrated when she’s at her job as a blogger and she’s saying that she’s the only person in the office who knows how to use a semicolon. I worked at Vice, the office in the novel is sort of based on Vice but I imagine it’s a combination of all the websites that are like that. The character says “I am the only person that knows how to use a semicolon.” That is a feeling that I have had at Vice, at times, but it is not literally true, obviously. So, if I were to say that, it would be mean, because there are people who work at Vice who know how to use semicolons. However, the number is much lower than it should be in my view. It’s sort of fun because you can get into the character and do the persona and I think that fiction is a healthy version of persona construction that goes terribly wrong on the internet. 

FY: By depicting a narrator—particularly a narrator admittedly aware of her audience—who engages so thoroughly with alter egos, you introduce the possibility of an unreliable narrator. Why did you decide to use an unreliable narrator and where do you see this fitting into the unreliable narrator pantheon?

LO: I wanted the point to ultimately be made that there is a sense that a lot of the things she does in her life have no reason and she’s lacking any kind of structure. So she’s constantly throwing things at the wall, trying to see if they work. And it doesn’t really matter what she does, and so I think that the unreliable narrator ties into that by emphasizing that she is just one person, if she’s lying to all these people, it doesn’t really matter—which is sad, and I think that that is what is so alienating about life now, and particularly life online. You’re watching this unreliability take place all the time, and nobody really cares. Somebody can blatantly lie online and people would just let it happen, unless it has to do with a certain type of politics. But often, you’re surrounded by people all the time and you’re just sort of ignored.

I was interested in doing a character who is constructed through her voice and through your relationship with her rather than anything that she is telling you. So that the content of what she’s saying, sometimes it matters and her approach to things is straightforward, but you can’t make assumptions about her based on her background and her childhood and her relationship with her parents and things like that. 

FY: I like what you said about how what we say doesn’t matter, especially because we’re usually hiding behind a screen. By using dating apps, she ends up having to talk to these people face-to-face and she has to face the consequences. But then again, there really aren’t any because she can leave them after the date and never see them again. 

Somebody can blatantly lie online and people would just let it happen.

LO: Yeah, I think she has these fantasies of them realizing what she’s done and finding her out, but they never come to fruition because everyone just thinks she’s bizarre and never talks to her again. Which is probably what we would do if we were faced with someone who was acting weirdly towards us on a date, but not in any kind of extreme way. Hopefully, it’s representing this absurd chaos, that’s also very banal, that’s around us all the time. You know, it’s very hard to make a dent. 

FY: The narrator admits to wanting to be plagiarized in order to feel like her writing is being seen and has made a lasting effect, but when it actually happens she is humiliated. Plagiarism plays an interesting role in the novel as a whole, as the narrator adopts entire backstories other than her own.  Do you believe that imitation is a form of flattery? 

LO: Sure, I do believe it. And I think, too, for the part where she imagines, or wishes someone would plagiarize her, she understands that that’s not going to give her anything. It’s not going to be satisfying in the way that she hopes because, as I see it, it’s a fantasy of being victimized. A fantasy of being put into a situation in which she is unobjectionably good, because if she’s been plagiarized, she’s been wronged. I think that that relates to how she feels about Felix when she realizes that he’s been doing his conspiracy theory accounts, and she thinks “I’m the good one now, I win this interaction. It’s not a difficult interaction anymore. The roles can’t be reversed.” And so, I think when you have lots of mimicry going on, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine who is in the wrong and who is in the right and what are your motives. That’s how I see the plagiarism elements relating to the novel as a whole. In terms of whether it’s flattery, I mean sure, but it’s also kind of cheap. 

FY: This novel is a frightening reminder of the vastly different ways that people use, and abuse, social media; and that an online presence could be (and usually is) nothing like the person behind the profile. Do you think that there is such a thing as an authentic way to engage with Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc? Is engaging with these applications necessarily a performance? 

The internet just makes very explicit all of these terrible impulses that we have.

LO: I think you can go into it with more good faith than the narrator does, and I think that it depends on what you’re like. If you’re someone that doesn’t question things then you’re probably going to the Women’s March super authentically and you’re like “Oh I had a great time” and you’re not really thinking about it. But I think for someone like me, the authentic portrayal is this sort of hyper-analytical, hyper-critical, parsing things from all sides style that if I didn’t do that then I would feel like I was being dishonest in some way. And I think our trouble with authenticity, or our views of what authenticity, is that people think it means something specific rather than that it’s a frame or structure. They think that if you have a tearful confession or an epiphany, like one of these ten epiphanies that we are used to seeing people in movies have, then that’s real authenticity or vulnerability but if I’m being mean, and I’m saying something that I think is really true, then why isn’t that as authentic as me crying about… whatever. 

FY: You write, on dating apps:

“Even the come-ons were illusory, inspired by my virtual persona and not myself, which rendered the paranoid analysis initiated by each private message even more ridiculous, a whole person analyzing a composite’s response to a composite.”

I think this describes how we engage on social media in general, not just dating apps. This is essentially what we do with social media, we interact with curated versions of other people. But then, in your novel, she goes on to show a composite of an imagined person when she meets up with these men in person, breaking down the barriers between social media and real life. In a way, your novel illustrates that we can create a “fake account” of ourselves in person just as easily as on the internet. The boundary between our online self and our in-person self can be dissolved. 

LO: I think so too. And I think that when people hear that the internet is involved, they think that it must be trolling. There’s this rush to compartmentalize the internet as only an internet thing, because the internet just makes very explicit all of these terrible impulses that we have. Certainly, if you develop the things that you care about online, you’re obviously not going to just turn them off when your phone isn’t on. I think there is this wishful thinking, this “I’ll pretend I do not see it” attitude towards social media even though it clearly has all these ramifications in the “real world” all the time.

There are all these interesting things that happen, your physical self interacting with your virtual self, right? You’re having all these conversations all the time. Like “I sound really stupid when I look at my tweets. But when I write them, they seem really funny. I have this sort of burst of emotion that is aided by the ephemerality of it.” But then when you go back and read them you’re like “this totally doesn’t work.” I think the book is full of lots of these moments where you’re seeing your virtual doppelganger in different ways and it’s kind of disturbing. Cause you made it, you know? You have no one to blame but yourself.

FY: The feeling I got while reading the passages in which the narrator goes down the rabbit hole of addictive social applications and endless internet meandering was unsettlingly familiar to the feeling I get when I scroll through my own applications (including dating apps). How has your relationship with social media or your phone evolved since writing about them so intently? 

The thing that I don’t like is people taking the bait and painting me as a negative critic and then reading into that in the book.

LO: It hasn’t changed that much. I really resist learning lessons and growth, so it would be hypocritical if I learned anything about it. I do get the sense when I’m critiquing something that I overcome my obsession with it, so I do think I have this sort of distance from social media and I think—even though I’ve become more public and more people are talking about me—I can look at that much more as a sort of sociological phenomenon that I find very interesting. So, in that sense maybe I have become a little bit more healthy about it. 

FY: I think if I had just written a book about social media, I would have to take a break from it after. 

LO: I want to, I think when I’m done with my publicity, I will probably get off it. Cause I find it really boring and luckily I’m also bored of reading the reviews too. I already know what the book is about, I don’t need to hear your thoughts about it anymore. 

FY: Do you think being a book reviewer yourself has any impact on the way you experience book reviews as an author?

LO: I think I have a much more measured approach, I’m much more prepared. Especially because I write negative reviews sometimes. The thing that I don’t like is people taking the bait and painting me as a negative critic and then reading into that in the book. Of course, you’re supposed to do some of that but also when I review books, I try to look at them really holistically and see what the author is doing. 

An Argentinian Underworld Haunted by the Ghosts of the Disappeared

In Daniel Loedel’s haunting debut novel Hades, Argentina, Tomás Orilla returns to Buenos Aires—“a city made for forgetting as much for nostalgia”—ten years after fleeing the military dictatorship whose regime disappeared upwards of 30,000 thousand political opponents, including Isabel Aroztegui, the love of Tomas’s life. 

Hades, Argentina by Daniel Loedel

This contradictory struggle—between the heavy burden of memory and an urge to sever oneself from the past—animates this powerful, evocative, and intelligent novel.

The Argentina that Tomás returns to in 1986 is a country that has dedicated itself to a collective amnesia with respect to the political violence that seized it from 1976-1983. The Full Stop Law passed in 1986 ended the prosecution and investigation of those accused of political violence during the Dirty War. As such, the victims of the military junta had to go “about their daily lives with the possibility of bumping into their torturers at train stations and random intersections or having to wonder, because they’d been blindfolded back then, if the man giving them a funny look on the bus had raped them.”  

The country rushes to forget; the individual is saddled by memory.

Such is the case with Tomás. He has been living in a purgatorial state for the past decade, numbed by guilt and shame for his own actions during the military junta. These actions and the choices and the conditions that guided them are what immediately awaits him upon his return to Argentina. There, he accepts the invitation to travel to the underworld—Hades, Argentina—to attempt to rescue Isabel. To get to her, though, he must first confront his mistakes and regrets and his own complicity in the face of state-sanctioned atrocities, all of which contributed to Isabel’s death. 

As with so many conversations these days, Daniel Loedel and I conducted ours on Zoom, sipping Argentine wine on a weekday afternoon. 


Julian Zabalbeascoa: You dedicated this novel to your half-sister Isabel, who was disappeared by the junta when she was 22-years old. How long had you been trying or wanting to tell this story? 

Daniel Loedel: Not as long as you might expect. Partly because growing up, she was not talked about very much in my house, both because she was obviously such a painful topic for my father, but also because the silence the dictatorship pushed on people inevitably gets internalized. So there was a lot of silence around it for most of my life growing up, and it was a very slow process of discovering that I needed to know more about her and that her story was one I needed to tell. 

When someone who you never knew—or even someone you did know—was killed in that way, in that unjust kind of way, you have a tendency in fiction to idealize the person, to write them as a hero, as someone sort of pure who an unjust world removed from it. And, yeah, Isabel was heroic in her way. She was very brave, very determined, very morally passionate. But she was not perfect, and she was not pure. It wasn’t until I came to terms with that and tried to write her as a real human being, with all of the faults that come with being human, that I could finally tell her story. The other part of it was that for a long time I was interested in particular in her impact on my father. I grew up with a father who had suffered grief for the entirety of my knowing him, so the story wasn’t yet Isabel’s. It took me so long to really look at it directly, to look at her life directly. 

JZ: Having interred Isabel’s remains in 2019 and now publishing this novel in 2021, has that changed your relationship to your idea of Isabel?

DL: Interring her remains is the biggest thing that changed my relationship to Isabel. I had a lot of fear in writing this book that I was a fraud, that I was plundering her tragic life and death for a story, for an effort at art. That in a world with this much art and social duress this book may not be necessary. Was it selfish? Was I really trying to memorialize her or was I just stealing her story? And I really struggled with that for a long time.

That slowly started to change when I was doing the research and talking to people who knew her, who hadn’t had a chance to talk about her in years. You could tell they opened up. They felt this sense of—not of relief or of being unburdened—but that there’s this pain inside them and they haven’t been giving access to it, voice to it. So it began there.

I started to feel less of a fraud on a trip to Argentina in 2017 when I started to talk to people. [On that trip], I connected with her partner’s brother. He was very instrumental in both the research and in interring Isabel’s remains. And he was so glad to hear from me, because no one on the Loedel side of the family had been at the internment of his brother’s remains in 2013. I was just shocked that people were so glad to finally have a chance to talk about all of this. So that was one part that was helpful. But the actual interment ceremony was sort of the apex of that. So many more people came than I thought would. My father and brother didn’t. It was still too close for them, and there were other logistical complications. But Isabel’s childhood nanny was there, crying. People who didn’t know her were there. There was this sense of urgency of recognizing what had happened to her, recognizing not only her death, but also her life. Of saying what a wonderful person she had been. There’s also that: when you only talk about someone in the tragic terms of their demise, you don’t get to appreciate that she was funny or that she was a good friend. So that moment really made me feel less of a fraud in my relationship to Isabel and therefore less of a fraud in continuing with the effort of the book and putting this out, this kind of tribute to her. It’s not just a tribute. It’s also art, it’s fiction, whatever. But it certainly wouldn’t have been written without her. I felt a lot cleaner, morally. And now that it’s out in the world, to see people engaging with what someone like Isabel’s life and death means has been extremely rewarding.

JZ: Talk about the silence that the victims or their loved ones had to internalize as a result of the dictatorship. In which ways did you inherit that silence and in which ways was this book perhaps a creative response to that?

When someone who you never knew was killed in an unjust way, there’s a tendency to idealize the person, to write them as a hero.

DL: In every way. Unlike, for instance, the Nazis in World War II who were defeated, the military dictatorship in Argentina essentially won. In the sense that, yes, the dictatorship lasted seven years and the junta leaders were put on trial, but the major players in this, the vast majority of them—all the subordinates—were basically given immunity pretty quickly, and they continued to live in society. The resistance, of which my sister was a part, was not only defeated but crushed. There were no remnants really of the Montoneros in Argentina. 

Especially with the type of oppression that the junta used—of disappearance—it also meant people who had lost loved ones often maintained their silence in the hope of getting their loved ones back. So you have this huge combination of factors that winds up meaning that grief and injustice are not really processed, for a very long time. It’s sort of cast to the side.

There’s a shame that comes about for people who, like my family, lost someone who was engaging in the fight. The shame that is both brought on by their own guilt in preventing her from fighting and therefore dying; and a shame in just her choice to literally fight. My sister took up arms against the regime, and, you know, there can be a sense of why didn’t she try to fight back peacefully? If she fought back peacefully, she would have also died. But that shame was a part of it, too. I grew up in a household and in a family, sort of a familial universe let’s say, that had a ton of guilt and shame and denial about what had happened, why it had happened. 

JZ: Hades, Argentina sent me around my bookshelves, and, at one point, to Patrick Radden Keefe’s Say Nothing. In it, he writes:

“Dating back to the Iliad, ancient Egypt and beyond, burial rites have formed a critical function in most human societies. Whether we cremate a loved one or inter her bones, humans possess a deep-set instinct to mark death in some deliberate, ceremonial fashion. Perhaps the cruelest feature of forced disappearance as an instrument of war is that it denies the bereaved any such closure, relegating them to a permanent limbo of uncertainty. ‘You cannot mourn someone who has not died,’ the Argentine-Chilean writer Ariel Dorfman once observed.”

DL: Yes, when someone has disappeared and there’s no funeral and there’s not an openness about the death, I think that is inevitably part of it. Even in the case of my family that knew how she was killed. Isabel’s mother basically figured out the address in which Isabel had been living in hiding. She went to the house, saw that there were bullet holes in the wall, spoke to the landlady who came out wearing a dress of Isabel’s, and she knew what had happened.

Even with that knowledge, the fact that the rights of mourning were taken away means that there is an incompleteness to that death. You know, we finally interred Isabel’s remains in 2019. It was a very long, protracted, and emotionally complicated experience for my family. I don’t know to what extent notions of closing wounds when you bury someone are true. I know that it is impossible to close wounds unless you do bury someone in some way, unless you memorialize them. My father would probably say that even having interred Isabel’s remains 40 years later, the wound is not closed for him. But for other people who were at that ceremony, it might be a little more closed 

And to tie it to the book, I would say that that sense of incompleteness that comes from disappearance—from not having a memorial, from not celebrating a life as it was lived—means that you are forced to look at the past and wish you could change it, to hunt for a ghost as Tomás does in the story. And even with the knowledge of what happened, even when you know what happened, you still feel, I think, that incompleteness, and you search in futile ways to complete a mourning process that is sort of derailed.

JZ: One of the things I really admire about your novel is how for most of your characters—regardless of the horrendous historic moment they’re living through—their lives in all their ordinariness continue. It’s not hard to imagine, decades from now, our children and grandchildren looking at pictures of us and saying, “Wait, so Trump was president, a national reckoning of systemic and structural racism was taking place, a once-in-a-century plague was decimating the country, insurrectionists were attempting to overthrow an election, and you still went to the lake that weekend?” 

DL: I might have, until 2020, answered this a little differently. I might have said that I felt that this was a very Argentinian phenomenon born out of the fact that they were somewhat uniquely used to military coups and things like that. Not to the extent that the dictatorship of ’76 presented itself, the extent to which it was truly horrific, but when the coup happened there was—to some people anyway—a bit of a shrug of the shoulders, like it’s about time, “We knew this was going to happen.” So it was easy in some ways for people to keep living. And, of course, a lot of the oppression, the torture, the deaths, were happening semi-secretly in Argentina behind closed doors. So some people could easily go on living without awareness of what was happening.

I had a lot of fear in writing this book that I was a fraud, that I was plundering my sister’s tragic life and death for a story, for an effort at art.

But 2020 does shine an interesting light on this, which is that I think people inevitably reset to normal. No matter what is happening around them. Or they try to figure out a way—whether they’re fighting a regime, fighting systemic racism—to still have some sort of fun or a connection with their family or friends or whatever it may be. I also think that it’s from those banal efforts to have fun and just have a nice dinner with your family or whatever that a lot of that kind of oppression and horror can happen in a society so long without much focus on it.

In Argentina, a lot of these torturers—a lot of the people participating in political oppression—were family people. They went home to their wives and kids after a long day of literally torturing people. Some of them, I’m sure, were very loved by their families. It makes you wonder, of course, if that is exactly how things like this happen, which is to say that people with very normal lives can still go on doing terrible things just because they have normal lives. That they enjoy red wine or meat or whatever does not mean that they are not incapable of horrors.

JZ: They’re as much of the landscape as perhaps the torture centers. The novel had me googling various Argentinian torture centers, and what struck me about them was how terrifyingly mundane they were. For Automotores Orletti, it’s not an elaborate nightmare dreamed up by some fevered sadist but simply an old mechanic shop in a residential neighborhood. You’d walk right past it unless you knew to be looking for it. Yet, behind those walls, terrible things were occurring.

DL: Yeah, I think that it’s both a wonderful thing and a terrible thing, the degree to which human beings can get used to anything and acclimate themselves to realities. It’s a great thing in terms of our ability to endure shutdowns during a global pandemic. It’s a horrible thing in terms of what you’re talking about which is people’s ability to either just walk past systemic racism in the U.S. or to walk past what they may know is a torture center in an old mechanic shop, as they bring their kids to school. I think the ability to readjust one’s eyes to whatever is before them is surprisingly powerful and resilient and sometimes for the best, but sometimes definitely not.

JZ: So your book came out less than a week after the insurrection. You’ve got that line. “There was always going to be a coup. This is Argentina.” This is Trump, there was always going to be an attempt at a coup. 

DL: I started writing this book in earnest after Trump was elected. I remember when Trump was elected, my father said to me that he remembered when Peron won in a sort of strange election in the ’40s. Peron was definitely different from Trump in many ways but certainly had some overlap. My father basically said that you felt the door had been opened back in the ’40s. Hades has a lot about what happens when you have one oppressive politician, followed by another, followed by then a coup. These cycles begin to entrench themselves and become normalized. And that’s a slow process that can take 30-plus years, but it gets worse and worse until you end up with a dictatorship like the one that they had in the ’70s. So when Trump got elected, my father said it felt the same way: the door’s been opened. Trump may not be the one who murdered, but down the road there could be another Trump who could get either elected or not elected who could murder thousands. The impulse is there because we are humans, and that impulse was given voice and acceptance by Trump in a way that had not happened before in the U.S. So it made perfect sense in a way that the culmination of his presidency was the literal manifestation of that voice, of a coup attempt.

JZ: There’s a long literary tradition of the map of the afterworld mirroring the national borders of the living. My current favorite example is that episode of The Sopranos where Christopher Maltisanti returns from a near-death experience to report, in a traumatized state, that hell is playing cards in an Irish pub where the Irish win every hand. In your Argentinian Hades, the occasional Uruguayan or Brazilian might wander in, but otherwise it’s a strictly Argentinian affair. How did you go about constructing the map of Hades?

People with very normal lives can still go on doing terrible things just because they have normal lives. That they enjoy red wine or whatever does not mean that they are not incapable of horrors.

DL: Well, for me, the concept of Hades was governed primarily by the concept of the greatest pains you could ever experience or that you did experience in your life, whether that means the pains of what you actually endured or the pains of what you didn’t get to do, you didn’t get to enjoy. It’s sort of similar, right? Clearly Christopher Maltisanti has been in an Irish bar. True pain for people is not fire and brimstone, it’s the wrong choices they made in life. That is, I think, the thing that is most painful for people. I do think that is sort of where the greatest emotional and psychic pain can come from. It’s like looking at your life very closely.

JZ: Exactly. I saw the book as this really exciting take on the idea of eternal recurrence. If you chose well through your life, it’s going to be a pleasure trip, but if you haven’t, as for Tomás, you’re damned to revisit and repeat your worst mistakes. There are these lines from the book: “Is this all hell is, just your life again?” And then, “You’re never done wondering here.” They can wonder, but they can no longer act because they’re defined by the decisions that they took while they were alive.  

DL: This also sort of ties into my personal background in the sense that my father is haunted by regret about what he could have done to save Isabel. Maybe he couldn’t have done anything, but that regret will always haunt him, and he will always relive the choices he believes he made incorrectly. It’s not just true of my father but of many others. I do think that the greatest torment a person can experience is that of a life lived wrong, a life lived incorrectly. Whether that means immorally and having to confront those immoral actions or just making the wrong decisions in a more casual, practical way and seeing your life go off on the wrong track and having to live with that forever is horrible. Conversely, I will say, though, that in reflecting all those choices that seem wrong and that you would do over again, I hope that something the book can show you is that maybe if you relived your life, it actually turns out you made more right choices than you thought you did, more choices that you had to make the way you did.

I don’t know if this is a spoiler, but later in the book the character of the Priest basically tells Tomás:

“In reality, all these things you did that you’ve been haunted by, you really would have done them all again and there’s only one decision that you would have done over differently.”

I think as humans we’re tormented both by the fact that we could have chosen differently and by the fact that we might not have even if given the choice. But I think if we can learn to embrace the latter, we will perhaps be a little better off.

What We Need Right Now Is the Gentle Novel

For those of us who are both responsible and fortunate enough to protect public health by staying home, the past year has raised questions about what we should be reading and watching and listening to during periods of crisis. In the early days, a lot of people I know reached for stories about disease outbreaks, like Emily St. John Mandel’s Station Eleven or Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion. Later, those same people opted for a kind of numbing escape in Tiger King or Emily in Paris. But I have been craving a different kind of experience: in my solitude, I have wanted art that takes pleasure and sociability as its central themes, and that wants to share its pleasures and its community with me. I have wanted the kind of art that I have taken to calling “gentle.”

Gentleness is not one of our more celebrated aesthetic categories, but I want to insist upon its value, especially during historical moments like our own, with overlapping crises and ubiquitous violence. At its best, gentle art can create a fictional space of freedom from the grosser aspects of our world. And it can do so, importantly, without emptying itself out, or becoming like the “ambient TV” that Kyle Chayka recently wrote about for the New Yorker. Gentle art demands, and rewards, our attention. I am, more than anything, a reader of novels, and I was inspired to think of gentleness as an aesthetic category by one particular novel: The Ambassadors, by Henry James.

In my solitude, I have wanted art that takes pleasure and sociability as its central themes, and that wants to share its pleasures and its community with me.

When Lambert Strether—James’s protagonist—enters the scene, he is relieved to discover that his friend Waymarsh is not there to meet him. He has just sailed from the U.S. to Europe, and feels, upon apprehending his solitude, “such a consciousness of personal freedom as he hadn’t known for years.” On the ship, where passengers consorted, “he had stolen away from everyone alike,” and remained “indifferently aware of the number of persons who esteemed themselves fortunate in being, unlike himself, ‘met.’” Unburdened by Waymarsh’s presence, he will now, he decides with a purity of pleasure, give “his afternoon and evening to the immediate and the sensible.”

So much for the novel’s first two paragraphs. In the third, Strether recognizes, and is recognized by, another American in Europe, “a lady,” Maria Gostrey. In the fourth and fifth, he responds to her inquiry—yes, he is meeting that Waymarsh—and is surprised by his own sociability: “It wasn’t till after he had spoken that he became aware of how much there had been in him of response.” In the sixth paragraph, they have laid “the table of conversation,” and by the end of the first chapter Maria has “led him forth into the world,” toward, Strether thinks, “his introduction to things.” In this otherwise meandering novel, Strether’s shift from luxurious solitude to amiable intimacy is remarkably sudden.

The Ambassadors follows Strether as he travels from Chester, briefly to London, and then, for the bulk of the novel, to Paris. He has been sent on a mission by his fiancée, Mrs. Newsome, to bring her son Chad back to America, where the family business awaits him. The orders are clear: time is of the essence; don’t get distracted. The problem is, Strether immediately gets distracted—by Maria Gostrey first, in the third paragraph, but there will be others. In Paris, where “the cup of his impressions seemed truly to overflow,” he finds himself committed not to retrieving Chad, but to “the common unattainable art of taking things as they came.” From the moment he sets foot in Europe, he is just having the best time.

An impartial observer of our cultural landscape might conclude that violence and its effects are the most fitting subjects of “serious” literature, television, and film—that the value of art lies primarily in its willingness to confront the traumatic experiences that all-too-frequently characterize people’s actual lives. Of course, serious art should address real world traumas, but we should not make the mistake of reducing it to trauma, or to a particular politics of trauma. In part, this is because art about trauma can itself be traumatizing or gratuitous. It is also because, in a violent world, it can be difficult to see, as I think James saw, that the absence of violence—the basic fact of co-presence—is no simple matter, and is matter enough for art.     

In a violent world, it can be difficult to see that the absence of violence is matter enough for art.

It seems fairly clear what gentle art is not: it is not violent or traumatic. But what motivates it, instead? The Ambassadors is, I think, James’s gentlest novel, and it gives us a chance to sketch out some of the criteria of this aesthetic category. Strether is “in tune” with Europe: he “floats,” he lingers, he enjoys “slow reiterated rambles,” he works, against a sense of guilt, to appreciate “the full sweetness of the taste of leisure”; he goes to the theater and the museum; he breakfasts at noon. To a high, if not absolute degree, gentle art is about pleasure. This is, in some ways, its most straightforward criterion. But it is not entirely so: for Strether, as we have seen, living for the moment is an “art” both “common” and “unattainable.” You might say he’s having a midlife crisis: his youth, he reflects, was not spent to advantage. “One has the illusion of freedom,” he exclaims to the much younger Little Bilham, “therefore don’t be, like me, without the memory of that illusion.” The pleasure Strether advocates is no simple hedonism: it is an existential effort, Sisyphean.

The second criterion for gentle art is that it finds its drama—its tensions as well as its pleasures—in what Simone Weil calls the “indefinable influence that the presence of another human being has on us.” Strether, James writes, “had wanted to put himself in relation, and he would be hanged if he were not in relation.” With whom or what is not named. With Chad? Yes, but also no, because as the next sentence specifies, he is never more “in relation” than when he stands alone outside a Parisian theater. “In relation” with Paris, I think—or Europe, and with everyone in it. After he is taken in hand by Maria Gostrey, Strether, “pleasantly passive,” never stops entering into relation with, well, everything.

One of the inspirations for The Ambassadors is the simple but amazing fact that people can exist in relation with each other at all. The philosopher and critic Stanley Cavell calls language—language itself, alone—“a thin net over an abyss,” but one strong enough to hold things together. That is what inspires his philosophy: that we are able to avoid the abyss of solipsism. I think there is something similar in James—a sense of wonder at the fact that people can share meaning, that they can not only coexist but affiliate. James is a master of conversations where a shared sense of meaningfulness is like an ethereal substance, one that is somehow connected but not entirely reducible to the words spoken, floating between and around the speakers. Often, meaning is shared wordlessly: a silent glance with Waymarsh “was one of those instants that sometimes settle more matters than the outbursts dear to the historic muse.” Their eyes meet, and somehow, that “indefinable influence” makes itself felt.

But relation is a dangerous game to play, as Strether discovers. Gradually, he shifts from trying to get Chad home for Mrs. Newsome to protecting Chad from Mrs. Newsome. He fails utterly, intentionally, as an ambassador. He is taken in by Chad and his circle, including Little Bilham and the glamorous Madame de Vionnet—with whom Chad is having an affair, although Strether allows himself to be convinced that they are not. When he realizes his mistake, late in the novel, “he kept making of it that there had been simply a lie in the charming affair—a lie on which one could now, detached and deliberate, perfectly put one’s finger.” At the point of Strether’s revelation, readers will likely have already inferred that Chad and Madame de Vionnet have been sexually entangled all along. Our revelation, as readers, is that Strether didn’t get it. The many vectors along which the “indefinable influence” of co-presence, the “thin net” of meaning, travel include misunderstanding and bad faith.

Gentle art can create a space of freedom from the violence of the world, without thereby becoming unserious.

The third criterion of gentle art is that it develops a style that acknowledges and reproduces the drama of putting oneself “in relation”—the sense, captured in Strether’s failure to understand, that successful communication and affiliation are challenging, even stunning, accomplishments. James’s late style is famously and idiosyncratically complex. Part of the pleasure of reading it is in solving the sentences, so to speak. As the critic Ian Watt puts it—in an essay tellingly titled “The First Paragraph of The Ambassadors: An Explication”—there is often “a delayed specification of referents.” Where we are and who we’re with and what we’re doing can be slow in their revelation, a characteristic of Jamesian prose made more demanding by his use of intransitive verbal phrases (in relation with whom?) and a healthy dose of syntactical subordination. One of the things that having a style means—or, as James puts it in his memoir, what it means to “cross that bridge over to Style”—is that one could pick a sentence almost at random to illustrate it: “But it was in spite of this definite to him that Chad had had a way that was wonderful: a fact carrying with it an implication that, as one might imagine it, he knew, he had learned, how.” Here, we see the abundance of pronouns and flurry of commas that makes his prose dense; and we also see the ways in which it is light in the triple, downhill rhyme “Chad had had.” This is what I mean when I say it demands and rewards our attention: we have to work to enter into relation with the text.

By meeting these three criteria, gentle art can create a space of freedom from the violence of the world, without thereby becoming unserious. Strether in Paris is an altogether different proposition than Emily in Paris. You needn’t rush out to get a copy of The Ambassadors to get gentle (though I doubt you’d regret it): I’ve found a similar aesthetic in more recent works like Autumn de Wilde’s Emma. and the novels of Ali Smith, and I’m sure it’s visible in many other works. Such stories offer, perhaps, only an “illusion of freedom”—and it is important to acknowledge that this particular illusion is constrained by the fact that everyone in The Ambassadors is white, and most of them don’t have to work for a living. But these are not necessary conditions of gentleness. What makes gentle art gentle is that it finds the story of co-presence and affiliation in the posited absence of violence. As crises accumulate, don’t go easy on me, but please, be gentle.

Please Just Let Women Be Villains

When the trailer for Cruella dropped, Twitter greeted it with jeers. People mocked it for being too much like The Joker; too much like Disney’s earlier film Maleficent; too much like Warner Brothers Birds of Prey— and contributed tweet after tweet about what an odd choice it was to rehabilitate Cruella DeVil in particular: a character who spent her original 1961 film trying to kidnap and kill puppies to make their skins into a coat. 

This seems far from the response Disney expected. It introduced the trailer with the tag line, “Brilliant. Bad. A little bit mad,” calling to mind the oft-quoted characterization of Lord Byron by his ex-lover Lady Caroline Lamb: “mad, bad, and dangerous to know.” The allusion carefully positions Cruella not as a villain, but a Byronic hero: a talented, melancholy rebel, tragically misunderstood by their society. Cruella’s dialogue also reflects this, as she explains: “From the very beginning I realized I saw the world differently from everyone else. That sit didn’t sit well with some people. But I wasn’t for everyone.” Cruella is not, therefore, a two-dimensional villain who likes to kill dogs and inspired a song that rivals “You’re A Mean One, Mr. Grinch” as a Renaissance blazon of bad qualities. She is a misunderstood #girlboss whose actions will be justified by the film, and whose actions most likely were in reaction to bad things other people did to her first… a hard sell for literally cartoon villain whose name is a pun on “cruel devil,” and who lives in Hell Hall.

Cruella is the reductio ad absurdum of a long trend of redemptive retellings featuring pop culture villainesses.

Cruella is the reductio ad absurdum of a long trend of redemptive retellings featuring pop culture villainesses. These female villains are introduced in two dimensions—quite literally, in many cases. But when given depth and turned from antagonist to protagonist, their narratives take on a curious similarity. These recentered stories aren’t a straight retelling of events, but a complete restructuring of the narrative. We don’t merely get the villain’s perspective; we get her justification. She had to kidnap Dorothy, curse a baby, smuggle a machine gun into a mental asylum, or kill a hundred and one puppies. We, the audience, just didn’t have the whole story. We didn’t know the context of her actions—which exonerate her. And in the end, she really wasn’t punished for her crimes in the end, but redeemed—so you see, she isn’t really a villain! She was just tragically misunderstood. She was good all along. 

We don’t see this sort of reboot with say, Jafar from Aladdin, or Count Olaf from A Series of Unfortunate Events. Even Joker allowed its main character to exist within a realm of moral ambiguity; though it was clear social systems had failed him on every level, the movie makes no apologies for Arthur Fleck’s descent into murder. But when big media conglomerates decide to make their villainesses—their literally cartoonishly evil villainesses—into main characters, they also make them into heroines who repent of their evil ways, while also demonstrating that they were never really that evil after all. 

American culture tends to want to explain away the evil actions of women—mostly fictional women, but sometimes real ones—because female villainy rests uncomfortably with lingering cultural perceptions of women’s purity and virtue. The idea that all women must be innately virtuous took form in the mid-19th century, in the movement towards “True Womanhood,” which historians like Barbara Welter have dubbed “the cult of domesticity.” Building off of the late 18th-century idea of “separate spheres,” which claimed that innate gender differences made men more suited for public life and women for private life, the cult of domesticity provided social regulation for the rapidly expanding American middle class and a sense of social stability in a time of great political, economic, and societal upheaval. Middle and upper-class white women became revered for the domestic labor to which they had been confined: social regulation enshrined as near-religion. Women were the center of the family, the light of the home, and the angel of the house. “True Women,” as Welter put it, were known by their domesticity, submissiveness, piety, and purity. In a case of mingled cause and effect, women showed their mastery of the domestic sphere by displaying these qualities, and the display of these qualities proved that they were naturally fitted for that sphere because they were more pious and pure. Indeed, they were naturally religious and moral. Popular fiction of the time often showed criminal men redeemed by the virtue of a true woman. Their moral fiber was perceived to be so much stronger and purer than their male counterparts that a woman could never really commit a crime, and a woman who did commit a crime must have been tricked into it, or led into it by the bad influence of men. Within this structure, such a woman then becomes “fallen.” And yet the very language of exclusion centers on the angelic nature of woman. She is not bad or evil or a villain, she is fallen, like an angel into hell.

Middle and upper-class white women became revered for the domestic labor to which they had been confined.

More than 100 years later, this idea of women’s inherent goodness has proven hard to shake. The cult of domesticity centered around cis white women, whose virtue is still used as a pretext for violent rhetoric and action against Black and trans people, from whom their purity must be protected. And in fiction, when pop culture focuses on a woman who committed a crime, it’s either a cautionary tale or one of these rehabilitation stories, focused on the idea that the villainess’s fallen state is not her fault and is certainly not permanent. 

This justification (it isn’t her fault she’s a villain) and the means of showing it (recentering a popular narrative around a female villain) reached popular prominence in 1995, with Geoffrey Maguire’s novel Wicked, and with the musical adaptation in 2003. Both the book and the musical reconsider the Wicked Witch of the West from L. Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The witch, whom Maguire named Elphaba, does have a song in the second act of the musical where she makes a conscious commitment to give up trying to be good, but the show goes to great lengths to point out that Elphaba was not born wicked, and though she may make a big show of giving up good deeds, she never consciously chooses to do an evil one. Her greatest sin in the show—animal abuse in the form of magically creating flying monkeys— is something she was tricked into, and her villainous reputation thereafter springs mostly from Elphaba setting herself up as the Wizard’s enemy, and the Wizard mounting an extremely effective PR campaign against her. In the end, Elphaba regains her goodness by playing into stereotypes about her villainy and then completely rejecting her wicked reputation. The Wicked Witch dies because her soul is so unclean, water can melt her; Elphaba lives thanks to a trap door, and gets her “happily ever after” with her love interest, outside of Oz. 

Maleficent, Disney’s first retelling centering on a female villain, likewise uses its reframed narrative to prove the heroine’s inherent goodness but gives her even less agency in her fall from grace. In the original 1959 Sleeping Beauty animated film, evil fairy Maleficent curses the infant princess out of pique at being left out of the baby’s welcome party. This is an enjoyably petty reason for committing a villainous action—who hasn’t wanted to hex someone for a social snub?—but it’s not deep or detailed or justified, because it doesn’t have to be. Maleficent enters the movie a villain, spends the film acting like a villain, and then dies like a villain. By contrast, in Maleficent, the 2014 live-action movie that revisits the character’s early life, she begins in innocence in an almost Edenic forest, and falls in love with her childhood friend, Stephen. Maleficent is a fairy guardian of a beautiful natural landscape and fights only to protect it. But what turns her into a villain, complete with a costume change from earth-toned gauzes to heavy black draperies, is a heavily implied (the film is rated PG) sexual assault by an intimate partner: Stephen drugs Maleficent and cuts off her wings. 

In pop culture, sexual assault is still one of the most common motivators for female vengeance—and, by implication, an acceptable justification for a woman committing a bad or violent action. If Stephen gave her “true love’s kiss” and then cut off her wings, thus proving that true love does not exist, then it is not only appropriate but righteous for Maleficent to curse his baby to die, with the caveat that only true love’s kiss can save her. (Elphaba, at least, chose to oppose the Wizard and thus be branded wicked.) In the end, Maleficent provides “true love’s kiss” herself, and regains her wings, returning her to the angel she really was at heart. 

Harley Quinn, in the 2020 Birds of Prey, also ascribes the heroine’s misdeeds to trauma. The film opens by showing how her father abandoned her and her boyfriend abused her and how this led directly to Harley’s transformation from psychologist helping to rehabilitate villains to becoming a villain herself. Once Harley is free of their influence, however, and has real female friends, she becomes a hero of Gotham. She does not choose to be a villain; the emotional abuse she experienced from the men in her life is the true cause of her crimes. 

They don’t commit evil actions because they want to; they do it because they have been tricked or because they have been so wronged, they have no other choice.

In an odd way, these updated villains have less agency than their initial incarnations. They don’t commit evil actions because they want to, even if the want is extremely petty; they do it because they have been tricked or because they have been so wronged, they have no other choice but villainy— which is more a reaffirmation of a damaging patriarchal stereotype than a refutation of it. But this still leaves us with the fact that the traditional literary and pop culture canon is dominated by male creators, and many of their best female characters are, in fact, villains. If we want to interrogate those traditional, familiar stories by centering the most interesting and compelling female character, how should we do it?

Madeline Miller’s Circe has one good way forward: allow female characters to exercise their agency by consciously choosing to do evil, and then to repent. Circe transforms her romantic rival Scylla into a monster not because she was tricked into it, or because she didn’t know what would happen, or because she was so wronged she had to redress it, or because someone had done something so bad to her it rattled her sense of right and wrong. She did it because she was jealous. She wanted to do it, so she did. Circe’s later regret over this evil deed drives her actions at the climax of the book, where she rights this wrong by killing the monster Scylla’s become. Having chosen to do evil because she wanted to, her choice to do good— again because she wants to—shows her growth and gives her moral journey real weight. 

Circe has the benefit of being a novel, rather than a corporately owned and produced piece of intellectual property. Miller had the creative freedom to rehabilitate her villain in a way that is truly transformative, rather than reinforcing outdated ideas. But the book shows that a villainous character can remain fully culpable—Circe deliberately turned another nymph into a monster and owns it at every opportunity—without being unrelatable, uninteresting, or unsympathetic character. Hopefully the HBO Max adaptation of Circe will preserve what makes it so truly interesting a retelling starring a female villain: its instance on and its acknowledgement of the fact that giving a female character agency means that sometimes the character will choose to be bad. 

Dating After the Worst Day of Her Life

“Exuma”
by Emma Duffy-Comparone

Gina wasn’t big on kids, but on an individual basis, like dogs, they could be all right. So when she got fired from the nursing home where she was the activities director, she decided to become a nanny while she looked for a new job. She interviewed with mothers and asked to hold the babies: Aidan and Hayden and Braden. She cooed and smiled to her molars. She called them honey bunnies. She asked if they were silly billies. She insisted she didn’t mind—No, really, I love it!—when they ripped fistfuls of hair from her head.

“I’ll certainly read them something,” she said, when asked if she liked Dora the Explorer. “I’ll keep them safe.” Parents liked that she was thirty-four. They liked it very much.

A family in town hired her. The boy was nineteen months. His name was Malachi, which Gina thought was unfortunate. She called him Mallie, and Kye, and sometimes Malocchio, but it was only a joke!

He shrieked all day like a bad oboe, and it made her sweat.

Her left pit always smelled worse than her right: it had since middle school. She lugged him around on her hip, the family collie bursting past her on the stairs, and shakily sang, “It’s okay, it’s okay, oh, I know it, it’s okay.” He wouldn’t quiet, not even when bribed with an extra bottle of warm milk, not even when she tangoed to the “Baby Beluga” song for him and blasted her shin on the dishwasher door, not even when she let him suck on his binky outside of naptime—which, the mother told her, eyes wide with disapproval—risked binky addiction.

The shrieking never stopped. Neither did the lime-colored mucus that sat in his eye like a slug.

Now and then she could get a little loose. Sometimes, when he woke up early from his nap, she didn’t go in right away. Not for that long: five minutes, maybe twenty. One day, she grabbed a bottle of vodka from the top of the fridge, shook it like a trophy, and yelled, “Why don’t we just have a big drink!”

Once she gave him the finger.

But she was conscientious! She chopped food twice so he wouldn’t choke. She wiped the green thing from his eye with warm washcloths. She kept him away from her cell phone, for fear of baby radiation. And on a December noon, after a blizzard, she dressed Malachi in his snowsuit (with two hats!) and put his mittens on (before his jacket so they would stay on better!) and propped him in the blue sled she found in the garage. His parents did not encourage her to take him outside. It was too messy, they said. It was too high-maintenance.

It was good snow, the kind that stuck, blown into swells like a frozen sea. A baby had to see that, Gina thought. A baby had to smell it. She pulled him down the sidewalk and pointed to things: ice on branches, little red berries dropped in the snow, a cross-country skier, a shovel in a bank, a blackbird. When she crossed the street, to Prescott Park, where she would build him a fort, a car scissored around the corner, hurtling toward them sideways. As she tried to yank the sled out of the way, she watched a bit of blue vanish under the bumper.

Two hats did nothing, nothing.


It made sense, Gina thought, that she lived in a house wrapped in ivy. She was a gnome. A forest gnome, living on the third floor. A Bertha Mason forest gnome, with a fire escape. Now, in June, the house was disappearing altogether: just a big leafy thing with double doors.

It was a brick Federalist house, down the street from Strawbery Banke, the settlement from 1650, where volunteer actors walked around in elfin shoes and whisked eggs with sticks. When Gina moved in, she had been excited. She had planned to water the flower boxes each morning through the window, like something out of an opera. She had a bright galley kitchen with a pantry. She had a fireplace and a window seat, perfect for quiet, self-possessed reverie. But the flower boxes just had dirt in them, and she mostly ate soup out of a can, and she wasn’t into quiet, self-possessed reverie these days.

She was into TV.

Her friend Joanne came over a lot and watched with her. She worked for the Human Rights Campaign, a nonprofit for marriage equality, and spent her days driving around New Hampshire, badgering pastors. Joanne was gay, or gayish: she wasn’t sure. She liked men fine, but she had begun dating a woman from work. She had sex, she said, but only half of it. She could only receive so far. Couldn’t handle giving yet.

“Surprised the ladies aren’t banging down your door,” Gina said.

Joanne was afraid she’d be bad at it. She wasn’t even a good masturbator. Why wasn’t she a good masturbator? There was something symbolic about that, she thought, some gross deficit of self-awareness. “I’m working up to it,” she kept saying.

“Down, baby,” Gina said. “Work down.”

After work, Joanne brought ziplock bags of homemade soup and pints of lemon sorbet, which she put in Gina’s freezer. She brought movies from the library in tote bags. Sometimes in the bottom was a self-help book or the folded classifieds with a few yellow circles on it.

Once in a while, Joanne drew a bubble bath and made Gina sit in it while she kept her company, painting her toenails on the toilet seat or standing in front of the mirror and studying her hair. “Look at this,” she had said last week, pulling at tufts and moaning to herself. “Do you see this?” She took out scissors and began clipping indiscriminately, dropping hunks into the sink. “You know those old wigs with the hanging things here?” She held her fists by her cheeks. “I look like fucking George Washington.”

Now they were sitting on the couch passing a sleeve of water crackers back and forth. Gina liked Channel 3, which didn’t have any shows except a montage of images from the Seacoast to attract tourists—crabs poking in and out of holes, lighthouses, maple trees. You didn’t really watch it. You just had it on.

A lobsterman in waders was tossing traps from his boat, but then the image changed to the shoreline: a mother, a baby squatting to touch a shell.

Joanne lunged for the remote and changed the channel. Jane Fonda from the eighties appeared in a belted leotard. She had  a sweat going, walking in place with five-pound weights. She was asking the women behind her if they were ready for buttock tucks.

They watched it for a while in silence.

“The one in the back,” Joanne said finally. “That’s her step-mother. I think she’s younger than Jane.”

“Which one?”

“The one with the crazy wedgie. Frontal action. What do you call those?”

“Should I be calling them something?”

“Shit, what was it? Donkey something.”

Gina looked at her.

“Or camel—camel toe!”

“Camel toe.”

“Yeah,” Joanne said. She tried to demonstrate with her hands for a minute. Then she stood up and pulled the elastic of her sweatpants up near her chin. “See?” she said, nodding toward her crotch. “Like a hoof.”

Gina chuckled. Joanne was a good friend.

“Thanks,” Joanne said, straightening her pants. “Thanks for laughing.”

After Joanne left, Gina trudged down to the fish market to buy a six-pack of beer. She drank all of it. Her mother called but Gina didn’t answer. She ate Joanne’s minestrone and put the rest of it in a pot; there was something terrible about soup in a bag. It made her think of a hospital—of Ringer’s solution, of blood. She went to bed and tried not to dream, but did.


Joanne’s girlfriend was the manager of the old theater in town, and they needed a projectionist. Gina had worked as one at her college movie theater for a few years after she’d graduated. “This will be good,” Joanne said to Gina, who had used up the last of her savings on rent. “You have to get out.”

Over the past five years, a board of millionaires had sponsored the hall’s restoration and renovation. It had velvet seats and a large rotunda with a mural of cherubs on clouds.

“They recently restored the artwork,” Joanne’s girlfriend said. Her name was Veronica Messenger, and she wore glasses with green lenses. “It was painted in 1914. Isn’t it magnificent?”

“Oh.” Gina looked at all the naked babies on the ceiling. She suddenly could not walk, could not do the left and right of it. She would have to wear a floppy hat to work, with a big brim, so she could see only her shoes. Or one of those suits for beekeepers with the metal face shield. She could wear that.

Or she could wear both and then jump off a roof.

“You know, Veronica,” she whispered, “I don’t think I can work here. I don’t even like the movies. I forgot all about that.”

“Joanne said you were funny,” she said, and motioned for Gina to follow her up the carpeted staircase, which was burgundy and soft. Gina held on to the golden ropes that ran along the walls. She looked at framed pictures of Pavarotti and Sting and Wynton Marsalis. A few retired Nutcracker rat masks hung there, too. At the top of the stairs, people in silver vests were making popcorn behind a counter. They smiled and said hello.

Veronica introduced them: Jerry and Marge. They were volunteers.

“Nice to meet you,” Gina said.

The projectionist’s booth was on the third floor, behind the balcony. The ceiling dipped, and Gina had to stoop. A large copper padlock hung from the door. “Sorry,” Veronica muttered, yanking at it for a second and then fishing in her pocket for a key. “That was Henry’s thing. He was the guy before you. He locked it from the inside.”

“Really.”

“Anyway, the restoration didn’t make it this far. Ran out of money.”

The projector stood in the center of the room. The booth had a leather chair with wheels. Stained cotton poked through a long rip in the back, as if the cushion had been slashed with a knife.

Veronica showed her how to lace up the projector. “We only have one, so we do an intermission while you change the reel. It’s sort of our claim to fame. Increases sales, too, because they liquor up at the bar. Makes a night of it, like a play.”

“Smells like Henry was enjoying a few butts in here,” Gina said.

“I’m sure he was enjoying lots of things in here,” Veronica said. “I’ll get that lock off the door and we’ll clean the place up a bit.”

“It’s all right,” Gina said. “I don’t need anything special.”


Each night Gina arrived early and scurried up to the third floor. She threaded the film in long loops and drags like a big sewing machine. Then she sat in her chair, listening to the quick shudder of film, and watched its beam shoot through the rectangular window, a bright tunnel of dust in the dark.

Sometimes, during a showing, she sifted through broken filmstrips that Henry had saved in a shoebox. Time was frozen in a little square, like a postage stamp, laid out for you to consider. If you liked a moment, you could linger there. Otherwise, you could skip over it. You could cut it out with scissors. You could rewind before you got to it. You could pause it and stay forever in the second before, when you were just pointing to a blackbird in the snow.

You could say, I choose not to watch this fucking movie at all, and put a lit match to it.


Every Wednesday they showed an oldie. On those nights they gave out black licorice and opened up the balcony, where Gina peered out from her booth. She had begun using Henry’s lock on the inside of the door—partly for the novelty of it, partly because she had truly reached gnome status. She decided to embrace the role. Celebrate it. She would wear it like a cloak.

Rear Window was one of her favorites. Grace Kelly had brought slippers in a compact handbag and Jimmy Stewart was breaking out the telescopic lens. Gina thought about getting one for herself. After all, she had begun opening her blinds.

She saw a woman sidestepping past knees toward the aisle. People were standing up clutching popcorn buckets. Gina recognized Malachi’s mother: hair curled in a rock at the neck, shoulders stooped, a smooth little nose. Her husband wasn’t with her. Gina remembered hearing he had moved out and was renting a room downtown over the brewery.

Gina ducked and dropped hard onto her knees. She trembled and held her own hand. There was no one else to hold it. The first reel ended, and the tail flapped as if tied to a bicycle. She rocked on the floor. Five minutes passed, or more. She rocked like that, and rocked. She heard people calling up from the seats. A strong voice was yelling, “Is everything all right in there?” Someone was banging on the other side and jiggling the knob. Henry’s lock bounced. The room was silent for a moment. Then the door was suddenly struck, gave way at the top hinge, and spun crashing into the room. A man was groping for switches: the projector, the house lights.

A pair of pointy blue shoes was asking her, Gina, if she needed a tissue or an ambulance or a drink. Hands were on her shoulders, and when she did not speak, they slipped around her, under her knees, across her wing bones—she felt thin and clumsy, sexy as a hat rack—and lifted her up. She was pulled from the booth and carried down the carpeted staircase, her head bumping the wall, her cheek grazing the hanging witch mask, her long legs emerging from her skirt and dangling— they were so hairy they could be a man’s, Gina realized—over the golden ropes. She grew hot in the face. “Put me down, please,” she said, pushing at the man’s chest, but he only held tighter and continued to walk. “This is really fucking bizarre.” People milling downstairs looked at her, at those legs, perhaps even at her underwear, which, she had absently observed that morning but was now remembering with acute accuracy, had a hole that a tiny hedgehog of pubic hair poked through.

The crowd murmured, taking in all that Gina had become, and parted like water to a prow.


His name was Eric and he looked about forty. He had all his hair, which was black, and a red beard. His chest was wide, which made up for the height he did not have, and he whisked her—he appeared to have whisking issues—down the street to a bar she had never been to, where he called the waitress by name and ordered two fancy-sounding martinis before they even sat down.

“I’ve had them in Exuma,” he said.

“Eczema?”

“No, Exuma. Like, you know, to exhume.”

“Never heard of it.”

“They have these colorful fish there that you can swim with. Parrot fish. They just swim around you. Sometimes you just can’t believe how fucking beautiful the world is. You know what I mean?”

“No.”

“Well,” he said. “It’s the perfect escape.”

They were sitting at their third table. The first one, Eric declared, was too close to the bar and the second had too much light. “You’re very particular,” Gina had said, padding behind him from booth to booth.

The waitress placed their drinks on the table. “Thank you, my dear,” he said. He spoke loudly, with importance. “Let’s take good care of our Gina.” Our Gina. He was an asshole. A whisker, too, a loud one. She would drink her eczema martini quickly, Gina decided, and then crawl out the bathroom window.

Eric was the new president of the theater’s board. He said he had worked for fifteen years as an independent producer for Pixar. Now he had lots of money he didn’t know what to do with, so he funded things.

“That must be nice for you,” Gina said.

“I write these checks, and they want me to show my face. But the movies! It’s all incest and abortions these days.”

“I like those movies,” Gina said hotly. “Those movies are very true to life.” She couldn’t remember the last time she had been in a restaurant. She felt overexposed and paranoid. Her eyes were sore, shot from too much TV. All around her were Grecian-looking busts of women with hair tied at the neck. They were in the window and on pedestals next to plants. She could not stay in this restaurant. She could not stay in this town. She would move to Fort Myers and live with her mother. She would play Bingo. She would become the youngest Bingo player in Florida. Then she would die. She would ask that her ashes be scattered over something ugly, like a parking lot.

“So depressing,” he was saying. It seemed he was still talking about the movies and using his hands to do it. They were big hands. They had touched her back and the skin of her legs. “I mean, Christ, I can have a bad day on my own, no problem. I don’t need any extra help, you know?”

“Sure,” Gina said, drinking with both hands now as if out of a goblet.

“Of course,” he said, winking. “You’ve had a beauty of a day, yourself.” She let the wink slide—the man had hauled her hairy legs down the stairs. “You should eat something,” he said, holding the menu but not looking at it. He was looking at her. When he blinked, it was catlike, imparting meaning that she couldn’t quite interpret.

“I should go,” she said. “Thanks for the drink and before with—with the thing.”

“Don’t go,” he said. “You don’t have to explain. I get like that during my annual physical. Nothing like a finger up your ass when you’re wearing a paper dress. The nurses have to carry me in sometimes.”

“Really,” Gina said. She stared at him.

“I’m joking!” he said. His teeth were so white they were blue, with an impish gap between the front ones.

“I realize that.” She put her drink down hard and it tipped over, breaking. The olive rolled off the table and across the floor like a tiny head.

“Oh, boy, there she goes again,” he teased, grabbing a cloth napkin to push the glass into a pile. Gina took one, too, and ducked under the table to wipe up the floor. She looked at Eric’s Shakespearean shoes. “It’s just a drink,” he was saying from above. “I’ll get you another one. I’ll get you five!”

“Eric,” she said, sitting back up. “You seem to be wearing slippers.”

“Slippers?” He lifted his foot up over the table. They were suede and pointy and baby blue. “These are Prada,” he said, grinning. “I paid too much for them and they can’t get wet.”

“That’s nice,” she said.

He put his leg down and sighed. “Where are you?” he asked. “What can I do?”

“Nothing,” she said. “But thank you.”

“What if I held your hand?”

“My hand?” she said. “Oh.” She set one on the table and looked at it, as if it were something at a yard sale. “That would be all right.”


They spent most of the time at Eric’s place. He was living at the Wentworth by the Sea, a rambling hotel on New Castle Harbor. Teddy Roosevelt had stayed there once, and the royal family. Eric had been working on a divorce for a few years and hadn’t gotten around to finding a real place.

“I’ve grown to love it,” he said. “There’s something cozy about coming downstairs for a real dinner. I never had that as a kid. I just made myself cornflakes and cold cuts.”

He was staying in the Turret Flag Officer’s Suite,  in one of the two towers of the hotel. The second floor had a raised canopy bed with a dust ruffle and lots of crimson tassels. Each of the four walls had a little porthole window. The room had a chaise longue, too. “I just sit in it so I can say I sit in a chaise longue,” he said. “It’s probably from IKEA.”

Sometimes Gina let him come to her apartment. He helped with little things: the dust bunnies churning across the floor, big as Ferris wheels (“Down, girls, down!”), her rank sponges, the laundry under the vacuum. Gina had started a pile of it on the bottom of her closet and used that instead of drawers, wearing the same thing over and over, shaking out the wrinkles once in a while, putting deodorant on the outside to make it smell fresh.

“What do you mean, on the outside?”

“It’s fairly straightforward, Eric,” Gina said one late afternoon, a little edgy from watching him flutter around her house in his fancy shoes. She showed him—lifting her arm, dragging the stick across her shirt.

“Oh, the crime!” he cried, and fell dramatically onto the couch. He brought her down to her basement by the hand. “We’ll do a sock load first,” he said. “We’ll start with white ones.”

She stood there in her bare feet. The basement was unfinished, with a boulder in the middle of the floor. “I don’t think I understand.”

“Take all of your socks and put them in here,” he said. “Socks? Oh, no,” she said. “I just do it like this.” She shoved clothes into the machine. Then she stomped on them with her foot. “Like that. I just put them all in together.”

He washed her windows with newspaper and vinegar. He planted begonias in the flower boxes. He even bought a bergamot candle and trimmed the wick for her. “Burns funny, otherwise,” he said.

“I didn’t know straight men bought candles,” she said, sniffing it for a long time. Then she hugged him, the warm animal of him.

She didn’t tell him about her past and he never asked. “You were a stray cat stuck in a tree,” he liked to say. “You just climbed too high!” He often narrated the story as if she hadn’t been there: “And then I was carrying your beautiful body down the stairs, and I had been working out lately, luckily, so I was only sweating a little. Just the pits!”

Sometimes, when Gina was at work, Eric would sit in the balcony. “All the movies look better when you do it,” he said. He had screwed the door back into place (“That was pretty manly, if I may say so myself”) and brought in an old fashioned fold-up stretcher, which he stuck in the closet, just in case. He thought that was very, very funny. When the movie began to play, he would clap. “That’s my Gina!” he’d yell out to no one, his hand happily dawdling in his popcorn.

Afterward, he would stand at the top of the stairs while she closed up the booth, thanking people for coming: “She has such a touch, doesn’t she?” he’d ask them. They would smile, confused and slightly alarmed, and push their way down the stairs.


Gina grew to like Eric’s tower and its constant sense of occasion: the soaking tub as big as a rowboat, the white-gloved room ser- vice, the bleached sheets, changed too often for them to smell of anyone or anything. She spent more and more nights there and left her clothes in the nineteenth-century chifforobe. At night, she peered out the porthole windows at the harbor and could have been anywhere at all.

Joanne came over to the hotel now instead of Gina’s apartment. If Eric was around, he’d head to the library to give them privacy. Then he came home hours later bearing takeout and little gift boxes of cannoli, and the three of them played gin rummy.

“You haven’t fucked him yet?” Joanne said.

“Do you feel you’re in a position to ask me that?” Gina said.

Veronica had dumped her. “Do you even like him?”

“Sure,” Gina said.

“The guy’s besotted.”

“I know.”

“I say this with love, Gina,” Joanne said, “but I really don’t see why.”

She would have to sleep with Eric eventually, Gina knew. He had been kind enough not to push it, though she wasn’t sure if she should have been grateful or insulted. She some- times practiced her explanation out loud: “It doesn’t do it for me, really.”

“I’m celibate.”

“I’m emotionally celibate.”

“I’m a eunuch.”

At the top of the tower, they would lie in Eric’s  bed. In the dark he touched her body. He dressed the wound of her, attended to things in silence: a nipple, a knee, the soft coin at the bottom of her spine. At times she gave into it, but then her mind wandered somewhere unsafe—to a tiny coffin packed in snow—and she would turn from him, grateful for the weight of his arms.


On the last Saturday of October, the theater was having its annual sponsorship gala. All of the wealthy art appreciators would be there, with their berets and neutral-colored shawls. Eric, as the board’s president, was in charge of picking the location. He had reserved the Wentworth Banquet Hall downstairs and had spent an agitated afternoon in his tower, rearranging the furniture in his boxers. He would push a couch to the other wall. Then he would stand in the middle of the floor, eating a package of gummy bears, considering his decision. Gina watched this process from the bathroom, where she was filling the tub.

“I liked the couch where it was,” she called over the running water.

“It was all wrong,” he said, his back to her. “If you sat there you felt like you were in time-out!”

“You’re very busy,” she said, lowering herself into the bath. Sometimes it got so hot in there she thought she was going to vomit.

“I know,” he said. He dragged a wingback chair over by the gas fireplace. Then he slumped into it. “It’s just—what if no one has a good time? What if people hate the hors d’oeuvres? They always hate the hors d’oeuvres.”

“All you did was reserve the room, Eric,” Gina said. “Give yourself less credit.” She had put bubbles in the bath. She liked that. She also liked to let her hands float in the water. She let them float like that until she couldn’t feel them anymore, but only see them, as if they were mannequin hands.

The party started at six o’clock. At two, Eric left to pick up his suit from the dry cleaners and do a few other errands. “Will you be okay here?” he asked Gina, standing by the door.

“I’ll be fine,” she said. She was doing a yoga program she had found on TV. She had begun to return to her body a little. It was an old body, tight and dry as a corkboard. She looked at him upside down, framed between her legs, as if he were someone on a postcard.

“You look good like that,” he said, a little sadly, and walked out the door.


At four o’clock, Eric rushed in with his suit in a plastic sleeve and a large shopping bag with two gift boxes in it. “Open them,” he said. She did. Inside were a black dress and a pair of high heels. “They’re just Nine West,” he said, pointing to the shoes. “I wanted to get you Prada, but you would have hated them.”

Gina held the dress up to her body. It had long sleeves and a simple, sweeping V-neck. “It’s beautiful,” she said. “How did you pick it out?”

“I had one of the saleswomen help me. I told her you were no-nonsense. ‘Gray or black!’ I told her. ‘She only wears gray or black. She’s not showy—I’ve never seen her look in a mirror!’” His blue teeth shone.

“Thank you for this,” she said. “It’s very kind.”

“Yeah, but will you wear it?” he said, pulling her to him, grinning. He hummed frantically—something with no melody—and led her in an awkward jig around the bed.

“No,” she said finally. “I can’t go to that thing. I don’t want to be in public.”

“Right,” he said. “You never want to be in public.” He let go of her arms. “Fucking Jesus.”

“What?”

He seemed to be thinking. “You really could consider trying once in a while,” he said finally.

“Meaning?”

“Try—I don’t know! Do you even like me?” He made a face and put up his hands. “I didn’t mean that to sound as whiny as it did.”

“Of course I like you,” Gina said.

“I get hugs. Sometimes I don’t even get those.”

Gina was quiet.

“I don’t know where you are, Gina, but you’re not in the world. You need to be in the world.”

“Don’t tell me where I need to be,” she snapped, running down the spiral staircase. Downstairs, she shut herself in the bathroom. There was a little nook for the toilet with a pocket door. She shut herself in that, too. She put the seat down and sat on it. There was a phone on the wall. You couldn’t even take a shit anymore without being in the world.

Minutes passed. Gina heard a gentle knock on the outer bathroom door. When she didn’t answer, she heard Eric’s feet pad away. Then the phone rang. In the small space, it was as loud as a siren. After five rings, she picked it up.

“Gina?”

“What.”

“Please come. It would mean a lot to me if you were there.”

“It would?”

“Look, I’ll tell you what. Come to the party and I’ll fly you to Exuma.”

“Exuma?”

“Exuma. Remember, with the fish? Tomorrow I’m going to get us two tickets. Forty-eight hours from now you’ll be floating in a turquoise sea, numb from a margarita. You won’t even remember your name!”

“Oh,” she said. She had never liked her name. “That does sound nice.” The nook was growing hot and close, like a tomb. A tomb with a toilet, no less. A toilet with a fancy gold handle.

“Everyone needs an escape, Gina,” he said.

After she hung up, she sat for a long time. An hour, maybe. Then she pulled back the pocket door. In the larger bathroom she stood in front of the vanity. The sink bowls were copper. There was a stack of small white towels. It was the kind of sink you wanted to wash your hands in just for the sake of it.

So she did.


By the time Gina stepped out of the elevator, she was an hour late to the party. She walked into the banquet hall, where people were milling with drinks and greasy napkins in hand. A long table ran along the back wall with silver serving platters. The hors d’oeuvres had been picked down to the nubs— severed shrimp tails, yellow pepper seeds, felled toothpicks with colored hats. Now people were helping themselves to slices of meat, the ribs of its animal bared and open on the table. It made Gina sick—the hostility of it, the shame. She ate a warm square of cheddar and a few grapes with browning navels. Then she situated herself behind an ice sculpture of the Greek masks of Comedy and Tragedy, popping her heel in and out of her shoe, feeling displaced and panicked, like a penguin on a plane. She looked for Eric but didn’t see him anywhere. She smiled at a few people she had never seen before and scanned the room for the booze.

After three glasses of champagne, the roof of her mouth dry-walled with cracker, she finally saw Eric’s back. He was talking to a woman with sexy braids—they were messy and relaxed, as if thrown together at a stoplight. She watched them for a while. Gina didn’t understand those women, those women who could look good like that. Eric was holding up one foot, showing his blue shoe, and they were laughing.

Braids weren’t that great, Gina decided. They were just tails sticking out of your head. It was like saying, I have two assholes on each side of my head. She went back to the elevator, to the tower, to the room with the portholes, straight to the IKEA fucking chaise, where she lounged, and where she drank a lot of wine.


“You never came,” Eric said, at ten o’clock, draping his suit jacket over the plasma TV. He was in a good mood. Gina was under the covers in her dress and shoes.

“I came,” she said. “I came and went.”

“You did?” he said. “You should have found me!”

“Who was that woman?”

“I have no idea. Was there a woman?”

“Braids.”

He thought about that while he took off his tie. “Oh, that was Amy. She’s on the board. She’s a glassblower. She blows glass.”

“Oh,” Gina said. “She blows glass.” She flipped her pillow and smacked it. “Well, in that case.”

Eric turned off the light and got in bed with her. “Can this place make a bed or what?” he whispered, kicking his feet joyfully under the covers. He turned on his side and tried to drape a leg over hers. She felt his foot bump her high heel and then yank back. Then he touched it again, tentatively, and pulled back. She yawned.

“Honey,” he whispered. “You got your shoes still on.”

“I know that, Eric,” she said.

“Oh,” he said. He was quiet for a long time. She could feel him studying her in the dark. Seagulls wailed from the roof. “I like it,” he said. “I think it’s hot.”

“Hot,” she repeated.

Really hot,” he said. He moaned softly and made a show of buffing her shoe with his foot. His leg hair made an animal scratching sound under the sheets.

“No, you don’t,” she said.


When she woke up, Eric was gone. It was four in the morning. Gina got out of bed and looked around. His suit jacket was no longer on the TV. The closet was open. She looked in all the obvious places for a note—the door, the bathroom sink, on top of her shoes—but couldn’t find one anywhere. She could see from the window that his Porsche was missing from its parking spot. She called and called but he didn’t answer. She got back in bed and lay there, stiff and alarmed, until the porthole windows whitened with sun.

At ten, Gina ordered a three-egg omelet, an oily beret on a silver platter. She watched a game show where obese people weighed themselves and then clapped ecstatically.

By two, Eric still had not been in touch. Gina called him twelve times, but he didn’t answer. She drank three beers and fell asleep.

She woke up an hour later, logy and trembling. She thought about Eric’s raucous, solo applause from the balcony, about his quiet humming as he scrubbed her tub, about the way he stroked her fuzzy legs from knee to foot, “with the grain,” he called it. And the more she thought about it, the more she felt she could have tried to let him love her.

Or, for Christ’s sake, let him do a sock wash. Why hadn’t she just let him do a sock wash?

She hadn’t had enough socks. Maybe four pairs. Why didn’t she have any socks?

She wanted to raid T.J.Maxx of their argyles and knee-highs, their low-cuts and hiking wools, and run to him, hold them all up in the air—Wait! I’m here!—like a woman too late for a train.

Gina took off the dress and draped it on the bed. It was five o’clock. She put on jeans and a sweater, stuffed the rest of her clothes in a grocery bag, and closed the door of Eric’s tower room behind her. On the ground floor, she pulled the outer cage of the old-fashioned elevator open, passed two bellhops with their gloves and silver buttons, and stepped through the main double doors.

It was four miles back to town. The road wrapped along the marsh, with its battlefield of cattails. Gina could see touch-me-nots growing in the reeds. Her hands were cold, everything growing cold now, the seasons always lurching into the next: trees had only half their leaves, and soon it would be winter.

It would be winter again.

Gina walked through a section of woods, where the wind had scattered pine needles across the road. She walked on, over the wooden bridge that sang out, the river churning under her, pushing its striped bass out to sea. There were three bridges to town. On the third, the sky offered up its final strip of light. Across the water, Gina saw the old port, colonial houses clustered together on the hill, the steeple of the North Church.

At the outskirts of town, she smelled fruit burning. Jack-o’-lanterns were lit on stoops. Gina had forgotten about Halloween. It was dark now. Groups of masked children fled up the street, clutching buckets and bags and pillowcases, stumbling up stairs and down again, peering at their loot. There were witches and cats and gypsies. There were pirates and ghosts.

Some porches had cobwebs draped from the roof. Cardboard gravestones slouched in the white grass. Gina heard a cackle come from a haunted house somewhere. As she walked farther into town, she saw the quick flicker and dash of flashlights across the trees, silhouettes waiting in front doors with bowls of candy in their arms. Everyone was scuffing through the leaves.

As Gina made her way down her street, she saw the dark windows of her apartment up ahead. The ivy had dropped, baring its brick. As she looked, a group of toddlers ran around the corner. They shrieked, darting around her like quick fish, and as Gina sidestepped out of the way, one little skeleton slammed into her legs and collapsed to the ground.

“Oh!” Gina said.

She dropped her bag and stooped to pick up the little boy. “Oh, buddy.” She set him on his feet and adjusted the bones on his suit. “Are you hurt?” He shook his head. She held his arms for a moment and looked him over. “Are you?” she said. He shook his head again. The rot of crab apples was thick as a hand towel in her mouth. “What hurts?” She pulled him against her breasts. He puffed short candy corn breaths in her ear. “I tried to get out of the way,” she said.

She heard people walking around the corner, laughing. Flashlight beams skimmed the leaves. She clutched the boy. “I’m so sorry,” she said into his neck. “I tried to get out of the way!” She held him gently by the sides of his head and looked at his face. “Honey,” she said. She was weeping now. “Do you hear me?” The boy began to squirm. What happened? Parents were standing around her now, flashlights on her. Is he all right? She gripped his little face. “Honey,” she whispered, blinking into the light.

Why New Fiction Is Making Mothers into Monsters

In a column for The Cut titled “How Am I?” Amil Niazi paints a grim picture of pandemic working motherhood. In the middle of her realistic itinerary piece about care of two young children while balancing deadlines, she writes that a gaping hole opens up in her kitchen floor which is a portal to hell. “Exactly,” one commenter succinctly replies. Motherhood is monstrous this year—an impossible debit when emotions and workloads are already maxed out. The only word that comes to mind is horrific, and the literature that helps me come to grips with this time period weaves in elements of horror.

Motherhood has always suggested emotional disruption in books. The first time I read The Yellow Wallpaper in college, I thought, “impossible.” The fact that I would become dissociated from my body and reality because of the birth of a child felt sexist and ridiculous. Modern feminism wouldn’t allow women to become victims of PPD and despair. The second time I read it, after the birth of my first child, I thought, “too possible.” 

One night, when my son was about two months old, I remember waking up once after hearing him crying on the nightstand by the bed. I groped desperately on the table, my brain wheeling with terror. Had I put my infant son to sleep on top of my books, in a nest of used Kleenex, next to my dusty lamp? My hand grasped the baby monitor, of course, which synced with the one in his room. I remember how my hands shook as I walked to feed him, my hands looking strange even to myself in the shadowed hallway. He was fine—just hungry. I, however, didn’t know how to reconcile the stream of unending terrible thoughts that circled in my brain, not just that night, but every night and almost every day.

Books like these introduce elements of the monstrous or ghastly to question who—or what—mothers become in the act of mothering.

One familiar trope in literature is the “enfant terrible,” seen in The Bad Seed by William March, and more recently in Ashley Audrain’s The Push and Baby Teeth by Zoje Stage. These novels reveal a tension between nature and nurture. Horror like this examines the unknown, terrible potential of children. Horror can also be heightened by seeing peril through the lens of a mother trying to act as a protector (think Bird Box). But the newest and, in my opinion, most interesting trend makes the mothers themselves the locus of horror. Books like these introduce elements of the monstrous or ghastly to question who—or what—mothers become in the act of mothering. Several recent and forthcoming books push against the seams of society to reveal the unreasonable expectations of modern motherhood, especially bonded with female ambition. In this time and place, these questions and the novels that pose them feel even more prescient during the time of their publication than when they were written. Like the narrator in The Yellow Wallpaper, mothers are trapped within their walls, with little opportunity to escape.

The title story in Karen Russell’s Orange World speaks to this moment of incomprehension—of what you become during night feedings and what you’re supposed to do to be a good mother. In this story, Rae, a new mother, seeks support from a group of local moms to help deal with night feedings, because when she goes to feed her child during the night, she must appease a demon as well. This is not a “bad seed” story—the child is not the demon. The demon doesn’t even interact with the child. Rather, this mother—and, it turns out, all the mothers in her circle—have become hellish wet-nurses. The story shook me deeply, because I recognized the mental knots, the bargains we make as parents to wish our children safe. 

Notability, though, this short story doesn’t allow for the full examination of the woman as mother—she is in many ways sexless and primarily a caretaker. Like “Orange World,” The Upstairs House by Julia Fine introduces us to a new mother; unlike Russell’s short story, The Upstairs House includes a sex scene with a ghost. Fine’s heroine Megan Weiler struggles to balance new parenthood, the desire to finish her dissertation, and the ghosts who inhabit the roof apartment above hers—the ghosts of Margaret Wise Brown and Brown’s lover, Michael Strange. Megan, like many new parents, wrestles with the new identity she has as a mother. When she meets Brown’s ghost behind a mysterious door on the roof of her building, one of her initial thoughts is, “Can this ghost babysit for me?” 

Horror interlaced with the fantastic can teach us clear lessons about how little women are allowed to want in motherhood.

Like only truly good fiction can, Fine weaves the hilarity and horror, and in a truly original story she explores the ways that we lose ourselves in parenthood, academia, and unhealthy romantic relationships. Fine braids texts throughout this work—snippets of the dissertation, scenes between Wise Brown and Strange as they begin their love affair. Society ostracized Wise Brown and Strange in different ways for this lesbian relationship. In Fine’s novel, Strange’s ghost haunts Weiler’s apartment, demands recognition denied to her in life while in some ways threatening, and in other ways, seducing Weiler. Weiler recognizes, but doesn’t recognize, the life she lives. Is she truly being haunted or is it a heightened PPD? Fine doesn’t provide easy answers. Weiler is allowed to be a woman—a woman wanting. Wanting what? Sleep, sex (perhaps), but most assuredly to understand her reality. 

Horror interlaced with the already-fantastic can teach us clear lessons about how little women are allowed to want in motherhood. Fairy tales often take darker turns, twisting away from reality to help the reader better understand their world. Two 2020 short story collections twist these stories to reveal new truths about modern womanhood. Amber Sparks’s And I Do Not Forgive You features ghosts and mothers who worship saints, cults and forgotten wives of famous figures. Mothers lose their anonymity in Sparks’s work, often to reveal dark secrets that they aren’t ashamed of. With arguably the best cover of 2020, Animal Wife by Lara Ehrlich weaves a rich variety of stories with one central beating heart: womanhood, in sickness and in health, in youth through old age, but mostly in fear and in fierceness. The title story, and its corresponding “Animal Wife Revisited” bookend the collection and mark the clearest and starkest views of motherhood and wifehood and its horrible transformations, with callbacks to Leda and Zeus. The aforementioned “animal wife,” it is suggested, had been a swan, then captured and forced into domesticity. Ehrlich allows the reader to see the perspective of the daughter from this arrangement, as well as the wife herself, and as she explores in her ongoing series Writer Mother Monster, she questions which is the more unnatural transition: animal or mother?

The forthcoming Nightbitch by Rachel Yoder answers this question. The nameless “every-mother” narrator is a former artist/gallery employee-turned-stay-at-home-mom after the birth of her child. Her dizzying first 30 pages so aptly describe the conundrums that come from early parenthood, especially in terms of breastfeeding, that my chest ached. When our every-mother turns into a dog while her husband is away on business, readers must choose to buy into Yoder’s vision of a strange half-truth. The nameless every-mother engages with the local Mommies group at the library. Just as the nameless narrator is rudderless without art, multilevel marketing schemes become a substitution for these women’s previous ambitions. Through Yoder’s prose, the reader comes to understand the strange hungers that our every-mother feels for raw meat as keenly as the MLM lifestyle. Nightbitch is a satirical swipe at the failed “have it all” lifestyle that so many Gen X and millennial mothers assumed was possible. By its conclusion, readers have to wonder: what is the “all” that we were promised to have, and who is the “we” that gets a chance to obtain it?

Notably, these modern works are by white women, typically the first to reap the benefits from feminist movements toward equality in pay and better childcare support systems. It is easier to mourn the lack of opportunities outside of the house, especially those which feed your personal ambition, when society supported that ambition tacitly to begin with. Though all written before COVID hit, these stories feel even more prescient with the rapid expulsion of women from the workforce and the unequal balance of duties at home during the pandemic. Though not trapped at home with ghosts, women are haunted by the gap year (and counting) that many were forced into.

The system is untenable, and mothers cannot continue to live this way.

Ancient texts are full of demons blamed for the events that happened in a family’s life: madness, marital strife, and the strife of young parenthood. An external force is always easier to blame for the problems at home. What I appreciate about these literary works is that there is no enfant terrible, no possessed child. It is not the child’s fault that society has gutted or failed to implement systems to help caretakers. It is not the child’s fault that the default caretaker in a heterosexual relationship is presumed to be the mother. In these stories, the children are just children. The mothers are eely, and their characters reveal the holes that mothers are allowed to fall through: holes in mental health care and child care and sexual satisfaction. The system is untenable, and mothers cannot continue to live this way.

In a Twitter thread talking about motherhood during the pandemic, Amber Sparks wrote, “Honestly the more I talk about it the more I feel I lose personhood and become just ‘a mother’ but if I don’t talk about it I feel like I’ll never have any personhood again.” Though none of these books speaks directly to religion, there is something holy about the shared experience of terror of the unknown in new parenthood. We are the monsters, and we are not happy.

How to Convey the Refugee Experience Without Resorting to Refugee Tourism

The project of American Dirt was noble: make the migrant experience compelling and relatable for those who might otherwise turn away. The prose is slick, the story structured. The only problem––well, one of many cited as the novel’s infamy snowballed––was how far the writer was from the migrant experience, despite a marketing campaign that positioned her as an expert. Author Jeanne Cummins has Puerto Rican ancestry, but had not made it part of her identity before American Dirt, previously identifying explicitly as white. To convey her emotional stake in the topic, she cited fears that her immigrant husband would be arrested and deported; according to a Vulture postmortem in January, publishing staff at Macmillan were later shocked to learn he was Irish.

What would have happened to this project—compellingly conveying the migrant experience—if someone from inside the story held the pen? A new autofictional novel by the Iraqi writer and former refugee Hassan Blasim gives us an alternate model. God 99 (translated by Jonathan Wright) seeks to counter the “refugee tourism” that critics ascribed to American Dirt. It depicts these tourists in the form of a character named Heidi, who is described as “full of ambiguous feelings towards the refugees” with a tendency to speak “about them as if they were a homogenous mass, not individuals with differences.” But it’s those individuals, not Heidi and her ilk, who are the focus here. Blasim recomplicates stock images of cages and orange life vests by portraying a multitude of ex-refugee characters––a techno DJ, a video game developer. Complex characters require a complex home; Blasim does not adhere to the narrative structures held dear in commercial and book club fiction. Instead, he deliberately sidesteps Western storytelling conventions to reveal the intolerable randomness of pain––how, for example, stopping to help an injured fellow migrant might result in another’s death. Instead of trying to appeal to Midwestern housewives, God 99 asks readers to tolerate living without resolution. It is a limbo analogous to that of many refugees, one foot in their new country, the other one lifted, ready to return to a home that might never again exist.

God 99 alternates between two genres, internet journalism and the epistolary novel. In alternating chapters, a translator of Romanian literature emails an Iraqi writer in Finland named Hassan Owl (a stand-in for the author, Hassan Blasim). Her missives are printed without Owl’s replies, leaving the reader to imagine his interiority. Omitting Owl’s replies adds to the realism of of the text; in an actual inbox, one is mainly confronted by the words of others. This mirrors the situation of refugees, who are often spoken to and on behalf of by journalists, governments, and NGOs. Refugees are left with little space to speak, or are granted space with the expectation they stick to a certain kind of story. Owl cynically and realistically describes how a blog project called “God 99” takes off after refugees came to Europe in large numbers: “The doors of finance opened up here in Finland, because the migrants or refugees might have voices, faces, and stories to tell. I received a reasonable grant because of the disaster.” 

God 99 asks readers to tolerate living without resolution. It is a limbo analogous to that of many refugees.

That blog forms the other half of the novel. Interviews are presented as they would have appeared online, with Owl’s questions in bold, followed by stories from other refugees or people in the places refugees have left behind. One of the interviewees is Owl himself, sometimes referred as Mr. Palomar, a name taken from Italo Calvino’s novel by the same name. Mr. Palomar is structured as an expanding triptych, with three chapters per subsection and three subsections per section. The mathematical composition attempts to fit reality’s complexities into neat and regular units. God 99, while also aimed at coming to grips with philosophical concerns, also acknowledges the act’s impossibility––that no number of stories, even 99, could contain the multiplicity of refugee experience.

The splitting of a protagonist into two characters is employed elsewhere in fiction about escapes: Viet Thanh Nguyen’s The Sympathizer shifted point of view from first to third person to reflect the dissociation that occurs when people are subjected to extreme pain. A dual self also reflects the split identities of immigrants: how they balance multiple homes, tenses, and languages in a single body. This duality is also part of the act of writing, which is as much Blasim’s subject as the refugees themselves. A writer creates on the page a second self, one to hold stories too difficult for the writer to bear. “Writing brings relief,” Owl/Palomar says in an interview with himself. “It is the indirect revenge of those who find shame unbearable and who use words to rebel against themselves and those like them.”

Maintaining two selves is an effort, one sometimes abandoned through assimilation, the act of wholly embracing the new self at the expense of the old. One of the saddest things I’ve ever heard from a former refugee was her admission that she had stopped dreaming in her native tongue. The United States had infiltrated her down to her dreams. In lieu of integration, God 99 presents disintegration as a thing of beauty. One of the interviews concerns a recluse who invents wooden models that make unrelated sounds, such as a fish that brays like a donkey; the nonsensical creations sell like hotcakes. The idea that the fractured and illogical might be desirable is an ongoing hope for those writing at the margins, who often have difficulty forcing their experience into forms like three-act structure because of the way reality works, as well as gaps in memory brought on by trauma. 

A dual self also reflects the split identities of immigrants: how they balance multiple homes, tenses, and languages in a single body.

Blasim appears to enjoy not only remaking narrative, but snatching the narrative away before the reader can grasp it. One character speaks from the dead, a detail revealed at the end of a multi-page interview that recasts all the text that came before. Another interviewee walks off before finishing her tale. One describes a story told by his father: “It was a rambling, incomprehensible story, full of internal and external twists and subject to something called the disease of forgetfulness among humans. Betrayal, bloodshed, secret chambers, screams, and eyes waiting in the dark for hope or death. I felt a little dizzy and I didn’t really understand any of it.” Blasim’s fictional refugees refuse to fulfil the reader’s desire to consume their stories. Joan Didion writes that we tell stories to live. But do stories sustain, or do they suffocate? Blasim writes about how refugees must, after arduous physical journeys, undertake the final labor of persuading “the people and animals” that they deserve to stay: “If they’re convinced, you stay. Otherwise they’ll deport you to where you came from, and you have to try to reach the same place again, or go somewhere else.” In a capitalist society, refugees are sold safety in return for a perfect, polished narrative. But this final labor never quite succeeds; the novel is peppered with mentions of racists and other intolerants roaming Finland, people recognizable to anyone who has turned on Fox News.

God 99 references one form of narration from within: the traditional oral storytelling once popular in some Iraqi cafes. But after the fall of Saddam Hussein, international news became more widely available, and new media eclipsed older forms of exchanging knowledge: “The country was so full of news, pictures, analyzes and celebrities that people could no longer tell what was real and what was imaginary. The stories were distorted again, but in a different way. This time the truth was drowned out in a deluge of news and images.” Blasim replicates this deluge in his interviews, which seek to needle closer and closer to the truth. 

The idea that the fractured and illogical might be desirable is an ongoing hope for those writing at the margins.

Yet the act of storytelling, even by someone from within, can be handicapped by its tools; language can obscure even while pretending to reveal. An elderly woman, whom one character is trying to kill through heart-stopping tales in a strange reversal of Scheherazade, comments on the state of Arabic literature, which she claims is constrained by the limits of formal written Arabic (incidentally, also the language of the news). “Standard Arabic brings exaggeration, idealism and romanticism to literature that belongs to an environment that for many centuries has been torn apart by violence, ignorance and injustice!” she says. “It’s not the language of their emotions, their worries or their joys.” In other words, as soon as people begin writing in formal Arabic (or English, or any other colonial language), their project is already doomed. Instead, the fictional translator wants writers to use colloquial Arabic, which is usually reserved for contexts like text messaging and which varies across populations; a Moroccan would therefore write in a different language than a Yemeni. To be more authentic, writers must assert their difference.

In arguing for that difference, God 99 paradoxically shows how similar the refugee experience is to others. “I didn’t understand how you are supposed to carry on after your peace of mind had been stripped away, the way skin is stripped away by fire,” says one. “My memory sounds like an electric razor,” says another. Such thoughts might sound familiar to those who’ve survived other disasters: an attack, a hurricane, the death of a child. It is from the inside that people are most able to identify aspects of their stories in common with others, rather than what sets them apart. “When you lose your home and your sense of security you become sensitive, lazy, and suspicious of everything, your willpower breaks down and your ability to think properly is distorted,” says an interviewee. “Aren’t humans in general really migrants who carry around shattered fragments of their peace of mind deep inside them?”

The Poems of “Ghost Letters” Erase Boundaries of Language

Baba Badji’s new poetry collection, Ghost Letters, begins in English, but quickly defies the category of “Western” or “American”: One by one, other languages—French, Arabic, Wolof—join the fold. His technique of mixing languages on the page not only reflects his personal background, but also imbues the poems with a diasporic resonance that complicates the themes of heritage, homeland, race, and trauma. 

Badji, a Senegalese American poet, translator, and scholar, beautifully waves images from his childhood together with scenes of contemporary life in America. Many of the poems, written as letters, address various “Ghost Mothers”—women both real and imagined—who haunt Badji’s collection. “I have nothing but Ghost Mothers and a thick accent resembling a baobab trunk,” Badji writes. “I have nothing, but a thick accent. Its western beat. A Rabbi’s Challah bread. The blessing.” Lines from these poems have nestled into my brain and stayed with me long after I finished reading the collection.

These ambitious poems move through the trauma of being an outsider; the beauty, pride, and pain of Blackness; and the unceasing desire to belong with both clarity and compassion. Each piece is a seedbed for different languages, religious experiences, and voices to flourish.

I spoke to Badji—whom I first met when we were translation students at Columbia University—about his collection and how the poems are inspired by his personal history and the current landscape of America.


Shoshana Akabas: I want to start out by talking about language. One of the most remarkable features of your collection is the number of languages intersecting in every poem. And of course, each language plays a different role, which comes out in lines like, “I dream in Wolof and write in English”. Can you talk a little about the different languages in the collection and why you chose to include them?

Baba Badji: I’m originally from Senegal and growing up, I would speak in Wolof and in other African dialects like Manding and Diola. So, you would have your family speaking Wolof, and you have friends who you play soccer with who do not speak Wolof, so you play soccer in a different language. Or you go and play outside in different languages. You learn these languages as a young kid. And they stayed with me. I was really lucky to have not forgotten the Wolof. 

In a sense, the Wolof is my way of reaching out to my roots. Without the Wolof in the poem, the poem becomes a European poem or a Western poem. Without the Wolof in a poem that also doesn’t have French, that poem strictly becomes an American poem, whatever that definition is (I’m still trying to figure out what is an “American poem”). But for me, a diasporic poem or a universal poem has to have Wolof, has to have English, and has to have French together. And what happens when all these worlds meet in one text? Does it allow the text to travel across the Atlantic? Does it force the poem to move around the diaspora? 

SA: As a fellow translator, I’m curious if your translation background helped you approach this multilingual project? 

BB: Oh, absolutely. I feel that I’m always translating, even when I’m reading, when I’m writing, when I’m thinking. And in a sense, this is almost like a confession: when you write in English, you are thinking in French, or you are thinking Wolof. But the style of writing is different. So, this is where translation comes as a space for freedom to allow you to express yourself the way you want to express yourself. But definitely translation is a big part of my work. Translation has been sort of like the backbone. My creative artistic devices are basically sealed in theories and methods of translation. Because every line you read, even when you read newspapers, you read a line you wonder, how do I write this in French, or does this word really exist in French or in Wolof? 

SA: You use the word confession — that strikes me, because so many of the poems are in letter form and feel confessional. What drew you to that structure?

The Wolof is my way of reaching out to my roots. Without the Wolof in the poem, the poem becomes a European poem or a Western poem.

BB: I started working on these letters, and then I thought about how letters are really important spaces to express oneself, whether it’s love, whether it’s fixing a relationship, whether it’s forgiveness, whether to discover oneself, right? The only way, I think, to recover the past is to return to the correspondence—in those spaces we find so much. And I flip it, so in these letters, the main figure is the ghost mother. Every letter is written for “ghost mother.” And for me, this is a way to reach out to the motherland. The letters actually are a way of corresponding or linking the Diaspora to a ghost mother figure, and it is me confessing to that powerful figure that I’m still working with, and I think I’ll always be working with. I suppose there’s a sense of freedom, too, in the letters: that only you know what you are telling to that person.

SA: You mentioned that some of these poems were written many years ago in an MFA workshop, but some of the poems reference very recent events. How did you go about interweaving the past and the present in these poems?

BB: We’re always told when a poem is done, that poem is put away, but that’s an idea I’m trying to challenge. You can always return to those lines and change them and speak about today. You can always feel present in a poem, and I wanted to link the past in the present. I always take notes, so a lot of these poems were “done” and then when I went back to my notes.

There’s one poem where I’m reaching out to what is happening today in America, a poem where I mention Abner Louima, “Bush Boy’s Nationalized Hymn.” This poem was written a long, long, long time ago. But then I was just looking through my notes on Arbery, Amari, and Zari. And then Théo Luhaka and Adama, they rhyme in the end, and I thought about how everything that’s happening to the Black body is actually linked. So, we have this really brutalized awful event that’s happening in France, not far from Paris. And then you have another crazy, crazy situation that happened actually in New York, years ago, so I thought Briana, Sandra, and Abner Louima, they actually rhyme too, and I was like, this would be really nice to put together and see: Do we hear these ghosts? And for me, every single person in this book is a ghost. Whether it’s Floyd, whether it’s Sandra Bland, whether it’s Breonna Taylor, whether it’s Abner Louima—and these people don’t know each other, but I’m just trying to tell people: When you read these poems, you can do the work, and you can see why these people are related.

SA: What you mentioned about drawing connections and starting a conversation really goes back to the idea of the correspondence, right? Even the parts of the collection that aren’t in letter form still felt like letters. As you’re quoting Baldwin and Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, it feels like you’re writing back to them, in a way.

BB: Absolutely. That is one of the big knots I’m trying to untangle in my personal creative work and in my criticism, because the only way to reach out to those people is to write back to them. When we write to our heroes this way, it’s like reaching out to them, and it’s meaningful when you read a poem and the ending lines are Baldwin’s lines.

SA: The idea of “reaching back” connects to the themes of “return” and “belonging” which seem to echo in your work. I wonder how your experiences have informed how you think of home and belonging?

BB: Those themes are really important for the work, in the sense that I’m still trying to define my home. I am an American citizen, but it is a very complex fate. I think Henry James said that being an American is a very complex fate. So what is home for me? I’m Senegalese, I’m Black. But, my adopted mom is Jewish. We’re not afraid to talk about race at home, but, you know, I’m a Black man, I have hair, I have an MFA from Columbia, I’m getting a dissertation done. But I’m Black, so when I walk into a store right now, or walk on the streets, people don’t see that. All they see is, Oh he’s a Black man. So you become regularized by the gaze. In a place where you’re supposed to call home. The place where you’re supposed to belong. So, to tell you the truth, every time, before I leave my studio or my apartment, I have to calculate everything I have to wear for the gaze not to disturb my day, or my way of thinking—whether I’m going to the park, whether I’m going to a bar, whether I’m going to see a friend. You always feel that you want to belong, but I’m just speaking for myself, there’s always a question.

All they see is, Oh he’s a Black man. So you become regularized by the gaze. In a place where you’re supposed to call home. The place where you’re supposed to belong.

It’s crazy, whenever I return from international travel, when I hand my passport to the security guard, the TSA folks will say “welcome home.” It’s so powerful, but then you question that, too. So home, belonging, exile. For me, those are really important themes in the sense that it allows me to push my artistic creativity. It allows me to push the boundaries and question things, and criticize things. I love America so much. It’s a very complex relationship, too. I always criticize America, or the idea of being American, the idea of being French. So those themes are really gonna be questions for the rest of my life.

SA: I also see the theme of belonging with the religious references in these poems. You’ll mention the Quran and Jesus in the same stanza or line, and the image of the braided challah comes up a few times. How do these different religious traditions coexist or overlap for you?

BB: I just mentioned my adoptive mom is Jewish, and I was beaten to attend the Quranic school in Senegal. I’m not religious, by the way, but I pray to something. I pray to the Rabbi, I pray to Jesus, and I pray to Allah, because I know the Quran. My religion actually is my poetry. I don’t do it because it’s cool, because it’s hip, because it’s smart; I do it because it heals me, as sad as that sounds. I’m exhausted after finishing this book. In this particular space, it leaves you with something—whenever you go back to the poem, you are at peace.

When you think about religion in general terms, it can be violent, it can be scary, it can be sexist, and people have used religion to brutalize other folks. But for me, that sense of not knowing and reaching out to these people, whether it’s a rabbi, whether it’s Jesus, whether it’s the Quran… Pope Francis comes into these poems, he’s a very important figure. And he’s a very important figure in my general work. I think the sense of freedom he portrays heals me. The sense of freedom that Jesus portrays heals, and the sense of freedom the Rabbi gives heals me, as well.

SA: That’s interesting, because you don’t often hear that religions are not mutually exclusive.

BB: Exactly. And this is also my way to start a conversation. It’s beautiful when we allow people to explore religion in this sense. So write a poem and put Jesus in there, put the Rabbi in there, and put the Quran in there. That’s what I’m trying to do with the church and the mosque—those two spaces are symbolic. They portray peace, for me. 

SA: That’s beautiful. I guess my last question is: What do you want readers to know about the collection? 

BB: They should be patient with the book because it’s dense. And also they should not be afraid to read it however they want to read it. There is no specific way to read this book. You can start with the notes, you can start from the front, you can start from the middle.

9 Novels About Gossip

There’s nothing like pulling up a chair and settling yourself in for a good gossip with a friend whom you can always rely on to spill the chai. And let’s not forget the pleasure of finding an empty seat at a café, occupying your hands with a beverage, and opening your ears to the full range of tattle that comes your way. In a past life when we could wander freely, you may have experienced the privilege of being in the right place at the right time, of hearing stories about people you didn’t know and would never meet, unadulterated opinions, and confessions that were thrilling even when they were mundane, simply because they were not yours. 

My debut novel The City of Good Death opens with a dead body being pulled out of the Ganges, and the moment gives life to a strand of gossip that weaves itself into the city of Banaras, twisting with threads of other stories and tightening around the city, from the crowded steps of the ghats to the bustling market stalls. And while sometimes the gossip can be amusing and harmless, some of the tales passing from one mouth to another generate a momentum that obliterates the line between truth and fiction. 

These days, I wonder if the limitations of texting, video chatting, and phone calls mean we’re also losing out on the joys of gossip in its most unadulterated and spontaneous form. Until it’s safe enough for us to once again become conversation voyeurs, here are nine books to quell your appetite for a good gossip.

The Mothers by Brit Bennett

The Mothers by Brit Bennett

A chorus of women narrate the events of Brit Bennett’s debut novel, closely following the lives of three young members of their church’s congregation. Under this collective gaze, Nadia, Luke and Aubrey grow up—each carrying a personal burden that follows them into adulthood as they form attachments with each other, as well as deep secrets that threaten to crack open the carefully structured community that watches them. As the chorus notes,

“All good secrets have a taste before you tell them, and if we’d taken a moment to swish this one around in our mouths, we might have noticed the sourness of an unripe secret, plucked too soon, stolen and passed around before its season.”

Our Mutual Friend by Charles Dickens

Our Mutual Friend by Charles Dickens

In classic Dickens fashion, this sprawling novel introduces us to characters up and down the Thames, from the spoiled Bella Wilfer, betrothed to a man she’s never met, to Bradley Headstone, a doomed schoolmaster who falls in love with Lizzie Hexam, the waterman’s daughter who helps her father troll the river for dead bodies. Throughout, members of the upper echelons—dubbed as the collective Society—compete to be the one to pounce on the juiciest story and be the final word of judgement, as they do with the huckster Veneering:

“…Society will discover that it always did despise Veneering, and distrust Veneering, and that when it went to Veneering’s to dinner it always had misgivings—though very secretly at the time, it would seem, and in a perfectly private and confidential manner.”

Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel García Márquez

Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel García Márquez

After revealing the title’s death scene in the opening pages, Márquez proceeds to tell us each of the events leading up to and after the fateful moment Santiago Nasar is stabbed by the Vicario brothers to avenge their sister’s deflowering. Far from being a secret plot, the murder is openly discussed by the entire town, in a case of gossip taken far less seriously than it needed to be:

“The Vicario brothers had told their plans to more than a dozen people who had gone to buy milk, and these had spread the news everywhere before six o’clock.”

The Mercies by Kiran Millwood Hargrave

After a storm kills all the men on a Norwegian island in 1617, the women left behind have only themselves to rely on. While they grieve, some get to work manning the fishing boats, others take care of storing winter provisions—and a handful decide to busy their tongues with whispers that quickly ignite into something uglier. Taking inspiration from a real-life storm that preceded the 1620 witch trials, this book is a dark and brooding exploration into how women can shift roles, form bonds, and light the match that sets the whole thing ablaze. Gossip takes a dark and sinister turn, as one character observes:

“But now she knows she was foolish to believe that evil existed only out there. It was here, among them, walking on two legs, passing judgement with a human tongue.”

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith

Whenever I find myself losing enthusiasm for reading or for writing, I pick up Betty Smith’s classic, and it never fails to instantly revive me. Covering Francie Nolan’s life from age 11 to 17, the novel shines when it indulges in its many side-story diversions that keep the neighborhood humming with a constant buzz of chatter—as when Francie’s mother has an encounter with a notorious killer:

“…the neighborhood forgot the murdering pervert. They remembered only that Katie Nolan had shot a man. And in speaking of her, they said she’s not one to get into a fight with. Why she’d shoot a person just as soon as look at them.”

A House for Mr. Biswas by V. S. Naipaul

A House for Mr. Biswas by V.S. Naipaul

I was on a writing residency when, after a few days of feeling uninspired, I picked up this classic Naipaul novel and instantly fell into the world of Mohun Biswas and his quest for a home and a life of his own in postcolonial Trinidad. This book sparkles with wit and humor and some of the most effervescent gossip I’ve had the pleasure of reading, from neighbors ribbing neighbors, family members side-eying their own, and brothers-in-law warning our title hero against the perils of siding with the wrong crowd:

“‘These Aryans say all sorts of things about women,’ Seth said. ‘And you know why? They want to lift them up to get on top of them. You know Rai was interfering with Nath’s daughter-in-law? So they asked him to leave. But a lot of other things left the house when he left.’”

1259911

December Stillness by Mary Downing Hahn

All my Mary Downing Hahn stans, put your hands up. From Doll in the Garden to Time for Andrew, I spent my grade-school years tearing through Hahn’s oeuvre—yet the one that remains with me years later is December Stillness, a frank exploration of a teen’s coming of age as she tries to befriend a traumatized Vietnam veteran. As Kelly McAllister tries to get inside Mr. Weems’s head, she must contend with an unsympathetic community more intent on labeling the man with increasing paranoia:

“‘He could be a psychopath,’ he said. ‘The kind who pulls out a gun and shoots everybody in sight.’ The woman gasped and clutched her books to her chest. ‘Good lord, I never thought of that.’”

Okay for Now by Gary D. Schmidt

Doug Swieteck has just moved to upstate New York when word gets around that he’s the brother of a likely criminal, and he quickly finds himself trying to forge his own way in a place where everyone around him has already decided his character. Trudging against the tide of gossip isn’t easy—as Doug says,

“That’s how it is in a small town like stupid Marysville. All you have to do is spit on the sidewalk, and the whole town figures you’re the kind of guy who might commit homicide, and everyone in your family is likely just the same.”

But he keeps on, aided by a librarian who ignites an interest in Audubon’s Birds of America, in this wonderful story of growing up during the Vietnam War. 

Palli Samaj: The Homecoming - Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Prasenjit  Mukherjee • BookLikes (ISBN:8171675603)

Palli Samaj: The Homecoming by Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, translated by Prasenjit Mukherjee

Perhaps you’ve seen the Bollywood sob-fest that is Sarat Chandra’s Devdas, wherein the title hero turns to the bottle after societal pressure separates him from his true love. Similar themes emerge in the lesser known Palli Samaj, the tale of an engineer who returns to his home village hoping to coax it into modernity, only to fall in love with his widowed childhood sweetheart and invite the wrath of the community’s moral police. The book plunges the reader into the unforgiving world of village gossip from its opening pages:

“‘I have forgotten nothing, Benimadhab! Tarini had wanted to get his son married to my Rama…he got Bhairav Acharya to conduct some black magic on this poor girl so that within six months of her marriage she was widowed…. That scoundrel has died in as horrific a manner as he deserved….’”