8 Books About Space That Reimagine What It Means to Live on Earth

Space has long been a frontier myth rewritten in the language of rockets and nationalist dreams. But lately, it’s gotten increasingly tangled up with the priorities of American billionaires. From asteroid mining to nuclear waste storage and space hotels, our billionaire class promises us ways to transport venture capitalism to new worlds, albeit leaving this one in ruin. Companies map out interplanetary borders and prospect the moon for water. 

Meanwhile, we’re no longer in the age of Big Government space projects. The Cold War era’s space race has come and gone, and whispers point to an impending slashing of NASA’s budget, which was already facing big deep cuts with a change in US leadership. With the US space program on shaky ground, are we just left with the billionaires up in the stars, bidding for defense contracts and humming Katy Perry? 

The Kármán Line, my hybrid-genre book of prose and poetry, asks whether we can imagine new relationships to the literal cosmos. I journey to Spaceport America, a commercial space launch site in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, where I find myself tracing fantasies of space and queer life through a character who asks why we desire distance—from ourselves, from our histories, and even from the Earth itself. The Kármán line, a 1950s mathematical equation by Hungarian aerospace scientist Theodore von Kármán, is our only current reference for any kind of jurisdictional boundary between the Earth and space, a place at the edge of earth’s atmosphere where national borders cease to exist. What’s beyond it is known as “free space”: a threshold of possibility. In writing The Kármán Line I found myself asking, what is free space? 

Literature, like space travel, offers an escape, but also a way to reimagine what it means to be tethered to this planet, to each other, to the futures we may or may not reach. A multi-genre class of experimental writers challenged me to think against the steady gravitational pull of capitalist orientations to space. Space belongs not to the empire, but to the storytellers, the poets, the dreamers who refuse the logic of extraction and conquest. Each of these books remind us that another world is always possible, whether here, “out there,” or somewhere between. 

Fires Seen From Space by Betsy Fagin 

I read Fires Seen From Space in one fell swoop after hearing Betsy Fagin read in person at The Poetry Project in New York City. It’s a blazing poetry collection that inhabits what some anthropologists call the “pyrocene,” a new geologic term describing an age characterized by human‑driven fire activity, or what Fagin paints as our time of the titular “fires… seen from space.” Elegiac and revolutionary in the same breath, Fagin weaves together meditations on ecological collapse, lives lived in “careless possession,” and afrofuturist visions of resistance. The radical care and patience required for resisting oppressive systems, an ethos that Fagin may have drawn from her time helping to build The People’s Library at Occupy Wall Street or wearing other activist hats, is depicted beautifully, in fragmented imagery sourcing itself from life, affect, and ontologies beyond the terrestrial.  

Dark Matter by Aase Berg (translated by Johannes Göransson) 

A surreal, unsettling book of poetry that deforms language itself, Dark Matter reads like a transmission from an other-than-human consciousness in an other-than-Earth setting. Berg’s poetry moves through alien ecologies and dystopian transformations. It makes material matter, even where form is unrecognizable, cyborgian, and other-wordly. Where material is a body in Dark Matter, it is hybrid or mutant. It coalesces or disintegrates according to obscure logics.. What feels urgent about these poems is their refusal to inhabit a practice we recognize, bringing instead energies hostile to states of being (and bodying) within our rigid Earthly frameworks. 

After Spaceship Earth: Art, Techno-utopia, and Other Science Fictions by Eva Díaz 

Eva Díaz’s brilliant rethinking of R. Buckminster Fuller’s utopian vision of our planet as a shared spaceship, “Spaceship Earth,” is a secret way to dive into a critical history of art about space. But After Spaceship Earth is not a survey—it comes with its own distinct lens that is itself a politics. I was struck by how Díaz weaves Fuller’s geodesic domes and techno-optimism into the work of over thirty contemporary artists who dismantle the imperialist, corporate, and patriarchal myths of space exploration. Through artists like John Akomfrah, Mary Mattingly, and Farhiya Jama, Díaz reveals that outer space is not just a playground for billionaires but a contested site where histories of colonialism, racial injustice, and gender exclusion are reimagined. I appreciated how she connects Afrofuturism and ecofeminism to Fuller’s experimental spirit, yet exposes his blind spots. This book is a counter-narrative to the exploitative dreams of SpaceX and Blue Origin, insisting that just, sustainable, and plural futures are possible.

FUEL by Rosie Stockton

While this poetry collection takes place on Earth, Stockton’s meditations amid a worsening climate crisis and “impossible apocalypse” pulls us through scenes spanning Los Angeles neighborhoods and pumpjack oil fields. FUEL is a punk polyphony that explores a world transformed by water scarcity and veiled stars, inhabited by a narrator that wants to love and fight in the breakage. I found this book to be an intimate, speculative meditation on how humanity faces extinction, grief, and continuation. Poems titled “Dear End,” conclude its sections. Stockton refuses didacticism and moves through raw, messy and tender interpersonal moments. The collection resists techno-imperialist fantasies of escaping Earth, instead asking how we carry love and loss across generations, in and through contaminated futures. For me, this became a book about space as a fragile continuum of human longing, insisting that even amid planetary ruin, our capacity to imagine compassion survives, tethering us imperfectly to each other.

How High We Go in the Dark by Sequoia Nagamatsu

Also set on Earth, Sequoia Nagamatsu’s novel takes place in a world and time outside our present, drawing us through interconnected stories spanning centuries. How High We Go in the Dark is a haunting, polyphonic novel that explores a near-future world transformed by a recently thawed, ancient Arctic virus that sets off a devastating global plague.Each chapter introduces characters like scientists, grieving parents, children, robots, and space explorers whose lives intersect through acts of care and resilience. What struck me most is how Nagamatsu flips familiar sci-fi tropes: Space travel, cryogenics, and climate catastrophe become tender sites for mourning rather than conquest. This book insists upon our capacity for compassion, fusing us to each other and the stars.

Alien Weaving by Will Alexander 

Will Alexander is a radiant, high-intensity surrealist thinker whose language spirals into an extraterrestrial poetics that is not for everyone, but is certainly for some. When I first heard his work, I was captivated by the ways it functioned almost as an architecture structured to accomplish the infinite penetrability of one idea into the next. Alien Weaving was in hibernation for almost 15 years before it was published. Reading the book again recently, I felt like I was stepping into a supernova. The novella unfolds entirely within the supra-consciousness of Kathrada, an Afro-Indian poet whose breath births worlds. Rather than charting space as an empire to be mapped or mined, Kathrada’s mind is the cosmos. Poltergeists, spectral suns, and hallucinatory verbs constellate into an anti-cartography that dissolves colonial boundaries. I’ve started to think of Will Alexander’s work as annihilating the idea of space as a frontier. It considers space an inner infinitude. Alexander’s ecstatic Surrealism and radical Black poetics reject linear narration, familiar sense-making, and other forms of imperial reason. In Kathrada’s blaze of perception, space exists as a dimension of mind, an ozone of spirit, not a battlefield of domination. Alien Weaving reminds me that imagination itself can be a sovereign cosmos, ungoverned and luminously alive. 

The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin 

No list about space, power, and alternate possibilities would be complete without Le Guin’s The Dispossessed, which turned 50 last year. (Happy birthday!) If you, like me, were always meaning to read it, you may vaguely know that the book offers a vision of an anarchist moon society struggling against the gravitational pull of capitalism and excess. Le Guin’s twin planets, Urras and Anarres, extend state repression into space, where imperial logics go unchecked. But the novel’s profound counter-narrative centers in Anarres, the anarchist moon, which embodies a living experiment in mutual aid, collective decision-making, and freedom from private property. trust. Le Guin’s utopian worlds remain fragile and unfinished, forever vulnerable to bureaucratic rigidity and the pull of old hierarchies. 

Unlike stories that glorify space colonization as progress, The Dispossessed insists that freedom must be continually reimagined, not exported like a commodity. For me, this book remains a stunning reminder that the social life of space can reproduce earthly politics and economics, or become a galvanizing point for solidarity beyond national (Earth) borders.

Red Star by Alexander Bogdanov

I was introduced to Alexander Bogdanov’s Bolshevik utopian science‑fiction novel by McKenzie Wark through Molecular Red, her scholarly book that unpacks Bogdanov’s theories of labor and materialism through his early 20th Century writings. Wark’s take on the novel, Red Star, was so compelling that I had to see for myself what it’s like to be transported from a defeated Russian insurrection to a socialist society on Mars. On the red planet, the book’s main character and narrator, Leonid, encounters an organized, technocratic commune with rotating labor assignments, an experiment in collective living with advanced atomic energy and even atypical gender norms. The character intends to learn from this socialist system and return to Earth, specifically his native St. Petersburg, with new tools, but mishaps along the way, including a murder plot, leave him questioning much about his journey. What Bogdanov reveals through Red Star, and what is so particular to Bogdanov’s thinking and perspective after witnessing the Russian Revolutions of 1917 and clashing with Vladimir Lenin, is that utopia built on cooperative politics is fragile, imperfect and always creating itself. Future human and extraterrestrial world-making requires an enormous amount of trial and error. 

Grifting My Way Through the Influence Economy

“What’s Meant for You Won’t Miss,” an excerpt from You Have a New Memory by Aiden Arata

It went like this: Someone I met once three years ago was hiking. They packed the expensive sunscreen designed to smell like the cheap sunscreen of my childhood, and it was so effective I could smell it through the screen. Their Nordic nylon backpack glowed in a diffused dawn and the dog they could afford chased pine cones and there was so much chlorophyll in the air that if they hadn’t overwritten the forest with a soft-problematic 1960s folk ballad, I felt I could hear the trees sopping up sunlight. My barely-an-acquaintance smiled and smiled and I pictured a person walking through the forest alone, grinning, and something about how demented that is brought me peace, but not so much peace that I didn’t float over to a real estate app to browse Heath ceramic backsplashes and ebonized oak cabinetry, after which I flitted to YouTube and let a tech mogul’s tradwife show me how to open up a floor plan, and then I watched a survival tutorial on how to escape a sinking vehicle after crashing it into a lake not unlike the one my non-acquaintance was hiking to. When the tutorial turned out to be an advertisement, I sifted through my emails and then my influencer group chat for a low-stakes scam.

The other seventy members of the influencer chat would rather be called creators—a gesture at agency and expertise—but I like influencer; to me it sounds violent, Terminator-esque. Influence is a shapeless, pervasive force, difficult to pin down and thus easy to fear. We don’t know who will influence us, or when. Something might change you and you won’t even know it.

To stay in the chat, I was required to contribute three brand contacts a week—quality contacts, the moderator emphasized. No likes for likes, no affiliates. Nothing desperate. These were mercenary corporate sugar babies, open to any sponsor, impervious to the vitriol of boomers and incels and the just jealous masses. They promoted polyester milkmaid skirts and vegan hair vitamins and, once, a members-only NFT subscription service that purported to empower women in STEM by allowing them to create sexy nonfungible digital alter egos with changeable outfits. They were models-slash-actresses-slash-musicians. Their feeds were balloon arches and flower walls and thickets of hashtags. One had recently acquired an EDM DJ husband, and their wedding portraits were sponsored by a mid-tier suit rental company.

In Greek epics, between the lotus eating and the cruel conviction that return is possible, is Xenia: a social code, a standard of hospitality often translated as “ritualized friendship.” What is the influencer, if not the ritualized friend? They exist in the expanse between intimacy and celebrity—a weird, sweaty place to be—performing approachability and aspiration in equal measure. Power traders of the attention economy, they mediate the sharp sleaze of advertising into something soft and trustworthy. Gifting is a touchstone of Xenia, and the influencer chat was an endless stream of gifting opportunities: free brunches, screenings, hotels, hard seltzers, sandals, perfumes, baby wipes, body bootcamps, nonstick cookware, no-show shapewear. Mile by mile, you could get a free ride through life this way: the flight to Vegas from one contact, for example, and from others the executive suite, the slutty dress, the seafood tower. In the economy of the group chat, nothing was exclusive and everything was transferable. It was almost Marxist, this open exchange of product at the expense of the company shilling it.

The influencers possessed an admirable unshakable confidence in their entitlement to free stuff, an ability to ask for more in a way that felt generous in its asking. There was a spiritual lean to everything, no matter the product—the gift was inherently mystical by nature of being free and for you, reinforcing the law of the influencer universe: You are worthy. I integrated this messaging by shuffling through manifestation podcasts at the gym, the elliptical on its lowest setting, my eyes searching for a serene middle distance that wasn’t someone else’s tits. For the duration of a binaural loop I might break through, succumb to the belief that happiness is a discrete and neutral object, dissociated from history or circumstance or systemic oppression. Through a combination of verbal affirmations and light tapping, I could—I would—shatter through the thin pane of this life and into my destiny. I would take what was already mine. And then my unaesthetic orthopedic running shoe slipped and the machine sounded its cheerful calamity, and I was aching and normal again, and none of the resistance trainers even looked up.

Public relations girls emailed me to raise my awareness for oil-minimizing toners, multitasking eyeliners, and a perineal massage moisturizer from a company called Rosebud Femme, whose marketing team seemed blissfully unaware that rosebud is already a genital thing, and that thing is prolapsed asshole. A skincare company invited me to a Pride event honoring the dermatology community, with a performance by Adam Lambert. A face gym offered a complimentary workout, gleefully promising that “trainers will use their signature massage techniques like knuckling, pinching, and whipping strokes.” A courier delivered a three-course lunch and serum set to my apartment to celebrate the launch of a botanical skincare company. The pink gift bag was filled with rose petals; absorbed in my complimentary avocado toast, I forgot about them until days later, when they curled in on themselves and filled my kitchen with a powdery rotting smell.

I rarely emailed back, and initiated contact even less—not because I thought it was wrong, but because I was daunted by the challenge of writing a chipper email. But then someone I knew was in Italy again, and someone I didn’t know had fireworks at her wedding, and someone I hated had everything, and I filled out address form after address form for sheet masks and jawline-sculpting gum and self-cleaning litter boxes. Sometimes I responded to offers and sometimes I was the aggressor, supplicant and complimentary. I’d love to test drive for content consideration! In the moment I hit Send, I truly believed that I was going to post whatever they sent me. I pictured myself as someone aspirational: a flat lay, a self-deprecating caption. And then the product or the event arrived and it was a lipstick the cool mauve of a corpse, or it was a dinner at which I sat next to a public relations girl and sampled terpene-infused cocktails until the public relations girl, loaded on terpenes and recently single, dissolved over mention of Valentine’s Day and wept into my mushroom risotto.

What is the influencer, if not the ritualized friend?

Historian and archaeologist Ian Morris draws from Marx, Mauss, and Lévi-Strauss to distinguish gifts from commodities thus: While a commodity is “an alienable object exchanged between two transactors in a state of mutual independence,” a gift is “an inalienable thing or person exchanged between two reciprocally dependent transactors.” What defines a gift is the relationship between the transactors—their dependence on one another. When the time came to post, I inevitably betrayed the bargain. I typed thank you and faltered. I held a bottle of now-with-less-forever-chemicals nail polish to the light and was struck by how strange my hands looked, the bulging knuckles, the one persistent dark hair on my right ring finger. My fingers had large pores. My palms were too square. Any Instagram witch could assess my lifeline and find it lacking. The tips of my nails were already chipped—would I have to follow up with a post about how I liked chipped nails? Would it become my brand? I moved quickly and thoughtlessly through the online successes of others, performing my rote rituals of inadequacy with a satisfying sting, but when it came to affirming my own abundance I ignored follow-ups, blocked contacts, and swore off grifting until the next desirous fugue attack.

One could spin this as righteous. There’s a righting of the scales in a tiny scam: quiet justice in a world of MLMs and health insurance premiums. When talking about influencers, there’s an impulse to default to words like shameless. But what’s so great about paying for things? What’s so great about shame? It’s fair to say that influencing is, overall, perceived as the purview of women; women have long created industries at the edges of economy and have long been derided for it. To use one’s beauty or affability or capacity for intimacy for the acquisition of power, and then to be shamed for that power, is an experience that predates gift economies. (In the epic times of Xenia, women were gifts.) And anyway, the rhetoric of manifestation—the rhetoric of happiness—is all about the diffusion of shame. Sometimes, like when I was emailed about an oil heiress’s vegan clothing line, I simply wrote back, pervert.

But public relations girls talk. The address forms no longer led to packages. When I requested products, the responses were laced with suspicion: What outlet is this for? or more pointedly, Oops! This list is full. I risked excommunication from the influencer chat. These were the stakes when I received an email from an upscale sportswear company that promised a free outfit and spa day at the brand’s wellness house. A doorway: a way back to where I belonged, where everything was free.


The Sunset Strip is one of those Los Angeles neighborhoods where no one from Los Angeles actually goes. It’s embarrassing, overpriced, preserved in the amber of the early 2000s, all giddy consumption and dead-eyed sex appeal. It’s where the girls stay in the LA episode of Sex and the City, and where the boys cruise in the opening credits of Entourage. There’s the Coffee Bean where Perez Hilton once regularly camped out to draw cum stains on paparazzi shots of struggling women, and the Hustler store, and a jarring number of sixty-year-old men with ponytails and fake British accents who won’t date above twenty-five. The Sunset Strip was the natural choice for an eight-bedroom, nine-bathroom, $24 million party house, which was, in turn, the perfect place for a sponsored influencer wellness retreat.

The invitation instructed me to wear only branded clothing to the event, so my first stop was the brand’s flagship store in a Mid-City outdoor mall. The mall was overstimulating, the store’s second-floor gifting suite inexplicably but delightfully overrun by influencers’ off-leash purse dogs. Stained and wrinkled clothes splayed across the dressing room floor. The public relations girls smiled grimly through it, sifting through cardboard boxes of leggings in plastic envelopes. I tried on a series of humbling $70 mesh yoga shorts and opted for turquoise leggings and a matching sports bra. My public relations girl stuffed my street clothes into a branded tie-dye tote, along with a hat, scrunchie, and socks.

I bought a Sprinkles cupcake on my way to the car and ate it sitting in traffic. According to the scholars of epics, another thing that separates gifts from commodities is that the gift is inalienable: On some level, it never leaves the giver. It follows them around, an extension of their identity. Every item I’d been given was marked with the brand’s logo, so when I put the outfit on I became the brand incarnate. In a haze of sugar and smog, I idly ran my hand along the inside edges of my purse until I hit a soft mass: two sports bras liberated from the dressing room, snuck past the event staff even though they were already free. I wiped the crumbs from my fingers on them.


The party house was actually two buildings, all concrete and glass, a minimalist contracting budget posing as minimalist design. There was a long driveway with a valet stand and two podiums, marked Air and Earth, a public relations girl behind each. I gave my name at Earth and was told to check in at Air. I walked six steps to Air, said my name again, and was instructed to go to Sea.

Between the buildings was a courtyard with a small stage on which six-foot-tall letters spelled out the brand name. There was also a coffee cart, and a white Jeep parked drunkenly across some grass. Women climbed on the Jeep in their sportswear, writhing, posing for photographs. Beyond them I found the Sea podium, where a public relations girl pointed me to one of the buildings.

When talking about influencers, there’s an impulse to default to words like shameless. But what’s so great about paying for things? What’s so great about shame?

In places of great wealth or beauty, I always felt like a fraud. I have short legs and buccal fat, and walking past the Jeep I was struck with panic that I would be tested on my wellness. Anyone could walk up to me at any time and ask me to do the splits. This was something I admired about my influencer peers: their ability to show up and fit in, to audience-test parts of themselves until they landed on something profitable. One girl’s main account was the most successful of several exercises in identity, and her lesser projects remained public out of pride or apathy: a page devoted to a cat that she later relinquished in a bad breakup; a podcast page that hadn’t posted in three years; a cooking vertical with a smattering of shots of meal-prepped shrimp tacos, the plates angled on a dark and unclean sofa and encircled in portrait mode migraine auras. She didn’t seem to consider these abortive endeavors failures; instead, she used them to comment emojis on her main account. An outsider might say she lacked depth or integrity, but she’d never asked for depth and integrity. I, however, had asked for wellness and attractiveness and influence, and came up lacking.


My spa day turned out to be a fifteen-minute chair massage. My massage therapist was soft-spoken, worried about applying too much pressure. I hadn’t been touched by a stranger in twenty months. After the massage, I let the therapist press various products into my palms, promising I’d promote them, warm from her hands on me, grateful.

Scam accomplished, I wasn’t sure what to do with myself. I’d been too embarrassed to ask the group chat if anyone was attending this event; I wasn’t even sure I wanted to meet them. I meandered to the gifting suite, hoping to secure a free yoga mat or more socks before driving home. A woman with an undercut and an earpiece stopped me. I couldn’t go in that way, she said. I was supposed to be at the pool party.

On the other side of the building, sixty hot people had somehow known to bring bathing suits. They lounged in the grassy yard, kicked their legs in the sleek, narrow pool. At the pool’s edge, a woman floated on Nike Air roller skates. A man in a taupe Speedo twirled, arms raised, before swan diving into a perfect downward dog. A DJ played the sort of benignly clubby beats you hear in car commercials. There were strategically placed mirrors with lines of people waiting to angle their bodies in front of them, phones raised. There were communal selfie sticks and event photographers wearing all black and wielding DSLRs. You could be photographed at any time, so guests paused mid-walk to perform headstands. They cheated out while they talked, like actors on a stage. They listlessly played table tennis on a branded table, pausing when they raised their branded paddles, smiling hopefully over their shoulders. Maybe the bathing suits were in the gifting suite. I tried to get in from the pool entrance, and another public relations girl told me the suite was “on pause.” I should stay for the sound bath.

At a tent labeled the Mindful Masters Lounge, I signed up for an intuitive reading. At the pool bar I received a gin cocktail featuring an alkalizing mushroom powder that tasted like mud, and a chickpea quinoa salad bowl catered by a prestige health food store known for its $24 smoothies. The store was originally established in the 1960s because the founder believed that if people were better nourished, they would no longer tolerate war.

I watched a team of public relations girls greet a recent Bachelor contestant and her on-again-off-again fan favorite boyfriend. They were beautiful in real life, beaming for photos by the branded photo backdrop. In life, as online, everyone seemed sunny, flat, puppy-fun. Did I? I had a valet ticket and a sports bra and a cocktail. I was an ambassador of wellness. I sat alone in a patio chair and watched the gifting suite gatekeeper deny entry to another group of guests. I ate my salad, which was full of bitter greens.

The influence economy had only existed for a decade; the first generation of online personalities was just now aging out of the hot-girl market. A low-voltage resource anxiety ran through the pool party: What comes next? To rely on the market is to rely on one’s marketability. You saw it in their faces. Anti-aging procedures purport to aspire to a more youthful version of the recipient, but the filled and Botoxed faces of the pool party were a study in posthuman beauty. They were literally anti-age: divested from time. An anti-aged woman could be twenty or sixty years old and occupy the same class of uncanny glassine appeal.

I felt it in the group chat, too. Lamenting her frigid audience engagement, one member purchased a doodle puppy and launched a new account the same day, with its own family-friendly brand voice: Follow me for daily pupdates. A true gift economy, Morris argues, “is above all a debt-economy, where the actors strive to maximize outgoings. The system can be described as one of ‘altering disequilibrium,’ where the aim is never to have debts ‘paid off,’ but to preserve a situation of personal indebtedness.” The puppy’s account was small but growing.


A few photographers huddled around the gifting suite entrance, among them a familiar face—a friend, kind of. We’d never interacted in person; we’d spent at least a year as characters in the LA Creative Cinematic Universe, exchanging story replies and eye contact across the gravelly courtyards of natural wine bars, slouching toward human connection. I messaged him, are you at an incredibly chaotic yoga influencer event rn? and he responded, LOL.

In places of great wealth or beauty, I always felt like a fraud.

I realized, with horror, that I was about to be witnessed. Here I was: lilting my voice and asking about the brand’s new magnesium spray, rolling on my spandex and driving an hour for a fifteen-minute massage.

My friend found me on the patio, and I instinctively crossed my arms to cover the noisy teal yoga outfit, the lengths I went to for an afternoon of aspirational grifting.

“How are you?” he said.

“Humiliated,” I said.

My friend had been working the VIP lounge; apparently I’d been with the bottom-shelf influencers the whole time. He told me they’d made him change his clothes so as not to stand out, and to crop out anyone who wasn’t wearing the brand head-to-toe. This was a three-day event, apparently, orchestrated to get the brand a few months’ worth of content. Yesterday a teen had gotten wasted on mushroom cocktails and yelled “I am awakened!” during group meditation. The photography team was instructed to delete that content.

My friend also told me that the gifting suite was closed because all nine bathrooms inside the party house were completely backed up with shit. The entire house smelled like shit, in fact. It was coming up through the shower drains. I asked if he was fucking with me, and he wasn’t, and we stood in silence for a minute, looking up at the uncaring glass exterior of the second floor, the wavy reflection of the party.

My friend who wasn’t really my friend shuffled off to document three women with matching braided pigtails and I walked around the pool alone. I watched a woman evade the fridge steward, absconding with two fistfuls of Lärabars. I returned to the Mindful Masters Lounge to find that the Bachelor alumna had taken my intuitive reading slot. I sprayed myself in the face with sunscreen just to feel something.

A woman with a headset—there were so many women—announced that the sound bath was about to begin. Guests drifted to the DJ booth, which had been set with crystal singing bowls, and lay flat on the floor in neat lines in their matching yoga sets. The woman with the headset was our healer. The vibe was cheugy Heaven’s Gate.

The healer started by announcing her Instagram handle. She told everyone to breathe. I filled my lungs with air. I sighed as instructed. A thing about scamming: either you get away with it because you’re clever, or you get away with it because no one cares. Because you don’t matter. There’s an aching, godless loneliness in that.

“Imagine you’re a star amongst the cosmos,” the sound bath healer said. It’s so easy to lose respect for that which gives itself freely. I stepped up to an available mirror and took a selfie.


What’s the point of an odyssey? To go home. I walked out of the pool party and into the courtyard. I couldn’t get to the valet: a black trailer of porta potties blocked my path, backing slowly into the narrow driveway. A security guard waved me out of the way, onto the stage, where I stood elevated in the shadow of the giant letters and watched public relations girls guide the toilet truck, fanning it with their hands.

It was getting cold. A few drunk guests heckled the public relations girls. They were anxious about the photo ops, the aura readings, the yoga mats. When would the bathrooms be open? And the gifting suite?

“Soon,” the girls soothed them. “You’ll get yours soon.”


Exclusive Cover Reveal of “Gaza: The Story of a Genocide” Edited by Fatima Bhutto and Sonia Faleiro

Electric Literature is pleased to reveal the cover of Gaza: The Story of a Genocide edited by Fatima Bhutto and Sonia Faleiro, which will be published on October 7, 2025 by Verso Books. You can pre-order your copy here.

The story of genocide belongs first to its survivors. Only they can truly bear witness to its unspeakable truths—the terror, the insecurity, the indignity, the endless grief. In this urgent and powerful collection, Ahmed Alnaouq recounts the devastating loss of twenty-one family members. Noor Alyacoubi offers a searing account of starvation in Gaza. Mariam Barghouti examines the brutality of Israeli settler violence in the West Bank, while Lina Mounzer reports on the aftermath of Israel’s simultaneous bombing of Lebanon. Their testimonies, along with those of many others, illuminate the enduring psychological and physical toll of state violence.

Gaza: The Story of a Genocide brings together personal testimony, expert analysis, poetry, photography, and frontline reportage to document the full scope of destruction inflicted on the indigenous Palestinian people—their lives, their land, and their future. This landmark volume features contributions from recipients of the Palestine Book Award, Arab American Book Award, Pulitzer Prize, Emmy Award, National Book Award, and Gandhi Peace Award. With illustrations by Joe Sacco and Mona Chalabi, it includes the work of the late poet Hiba Abu Nada, who was killed by an Israeli airstrike on her home in Khan Younis, Gaza, on October 20, 2023.

Other contributors include Mosab Abu Toha, susan abulhawa, Laila Al-Arian, Tareq Baconi, Eman Basher, Omar Barghouti, Yara Eid, Huda J. Fakhreddine, Dr. Tanya Haj-Hassan, Yara Hawari, Maryam Iqbal, Nina Lakhani, Ahmed Masoud, Lina Mounzer, Malaka Shwaikh, Shareef Sarhan, and Mary Turfah.


Here is the cover, designed by Chantal Jahchan:

Fatima Bhutto and Sonia Faleiro: All royalties from this book are being donated to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

UNRWA has long been a lifeline for two million refugees in Gaza, delivering food, shelter, healthcare, and education in the face of unimaginable devastation. Since October 2023, 269 of its staff members have been killed—the highest number of UN personnel ever lost in a conflict.

This collection of testimonies, essays, poetry, and illustrations is one part of a larger effort. In 2024, moved by the scale of suffering in Gaza, we launched a fundraising campaign for children who had lost limbs in Israel’s assault—children who now form the largest cohort of amputees in modern history. According to UNICEF, more than 1,000 children in Gaza lost limbs in just two months compared to thirty in Ukraine after nearly two years of war. Doctors have described how these children were not only maimed but deliberately targeted—many shot in the head by snipers. The number of children killed in Gaza exceeds those in any recent war: Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

That same year, we launched #BooksforGaza, a fundraising initiative with agent Julia Churchill that brought together writers, editors, and publishers around the world. Together, we raised over $85,000 for the Ghassan Abu Sittah Children’s Fund, which enables injured children to receive reconstructive surgery outside Gaza. But the need only grows.

Amnesty International has described Israel’s campaign as “genocidal,” citing three simultaneous patterns of destruction: the decimation of vital infrastructure, mass forced displacement in unsafe conditions, and the blocking of life-saving aid. This book stands as a record of the human toll.

It is also a collective act of remembrance. In bearing witness to the deaths of children and parents, to the obliteration of homes, land, animals, classrooms, and the environment, we hope to capture the full scale of what was lost and what must be remembered. The cover, by Chantal Jahchan, depicts life in Gaza before the genocide—what existed, what was cherished, and what has now been destroyed. We asked that our names not appear on the cover so as not to distract from the title, which we believe demands unflinching attention. The word genocide needs to be said out loud.

Some of our contributors are writing from within Gaza, even under bombardment. Others bring global solidarity, urgency, and clarity. They include 2025 Pulitzer Prize winner Mosab Abu Toha, Palestine Book Award winner susan abulhawa, Gandhi Peace Award winner Omar Barghouti, and Emmy Award winner Laila Al-Arian. With illustrations by Joe Sacco and Mona Chalabi, the book also features the work of the late poet Hiba Abu Nada, who was killed by an Israeli airstrike on her home in Khan Younis, Gaza, on October 20, 2023.

These are voices that speak to grief, resistance, history, and hope. We hope this book inspires not only remembrance but action.

Chantal Jahchan: This book is a collection of poems, war reportage, and personal testimonies by a powerful roster of Palestinian writers reflecting on their fight for survival. Representing this with a single image felt reductive.

Instead, I looked through archival material and gathered a handful of Palestinian motifs that together could represent a fuller picture of the human experience in Gaza. These included watermelon, the cypress tree, birds, and the keffiyeh—a symbol of resilience in itself—which contains a fishnet and olive leaves, signifying a connection to the sea and the land.

I recreated these motifs in the style of tatreez, the centuries-old Palestinian technique of embroidery, unifying them visually and tying them directly to Gaza through regional distinctions in the patterns.

I Am Multiplying to Cope With Life’s Duplicity

This Week

I am so sorry it took so long to get back to you, this week has been crazy. You would hardly believe this week even if I told you all about it. I will try anyway.

First, on Monday, BOTH the kids were sick. I took the two of them to the pediatrician (like a good mother and a good citizen). The three of us had been waiting in the exam room for some time when the doctor finally came in, looked me dead in the eyes, and told me, “Mrs. Whatsherface, I can see your first problem right here. This is only one child.”

“One child?!” I bellowed this. “This is surely more than one child. Just look at them!”

But when I looked down, he was right enough. Just one kid. A boy, with coarse, wavy brown hair and minnow scale blue-gray eyes. I left the pediatrician’s office with amoxicillin (for the child’s strep) and a head full of questions like:

When had my children merged?

Why hadn’t I noticed?

Why do they make amoxicillin bubblegum flavored, the one candy-thing we teach them not to swallow?

I asked the child walking slowly behind me, “Boy, are you one or two?” He laughed and replied, “I’m four, mommy,” even though I think he knew damn well what I meant.

On the way home, I bought him just one popsicle even though he begged for two. “Nice try, I’m on to you, kid. One popsicle from now on.”

So. That was Monday.

Tuesday I shouldn’t even get into, because I barely got out of it.

But on Tuesday, I learned that my dearest, darlingest husband had parked the car in a spot that was set to be cleaned. When a parking spot is scheduled to be cleaned, you MUST not be parked in that spot or else the street cleaning machine cannot clean that spot. I was supposed to be teaching a class and my husband was scheduled for his bi-weekly bowel cleansing wherein a doctor in midtown gives him twilight sleep, sticks a long, long pipe cleaner down his throat and wipes every tube clean.

We left the car and it was moved by someone else and we’re still trying to figure out who.

Was it you? Thank you, if so, and also where is our car? Wednesday I forgot to eat and fell down two stairs.

On Thursday I wrote a letter to The City about the two stairs:

“TO WHOM IT WILL PROBABLY NOT CONCERN:

Hello, why are there two stairs floating in the middle of nowhere? And why do they only go up? If The City deems it fit to build two stairs in the middle of nowhere, then surely The City (in its infinite wisdom), can see the logic in also building two companion stairs going DOWN as well?”

(My letter started like this, genteel and civic-minded. Then it became increasingly hostile.)

“Surely, THE CITY, you dweebish hodgepodge of crazy-rich oligarchs, you feeble second sons and nitwits, surely you can see the pathological nature of building two stairs which only lead up. You leave me NO CHOICE but to fall down the other side. You are mortals, not gods, and you should be punished as such (summarily executed).

Best (but not really),

A Citizen

P.S. The streets are motherfucking dirty, where is my missing car?”

On Friday I received word, via text, that, though my letter was received and the points well-taken, death threats against public officials were unwelcome in New York City. I texted back “UNSUBSCRIBE” and that seemed to settle the matter.

I then remember that my little, only-one-of-them child needed to be picked up from school. When I arrived he was waiting on a swing.

“You’re the same child from Monday,” I asked as I approached.

“I’m not,” he said with a small sniff. Such a little sniff, like the wing bone of a bird or the thumb of a fairy. “I am your second child, the one you forgot.”

“I haven’t forgotten any of my children,” I told him. “And I have thousands. Just not all here at the same time.”

“No,” he said, “you just have the one.”

I threw my head back to try and catch snowflakes on my tongue but it rarely snows in April so I shut my trap. The school’s yard was right under the flight path to JFK. I watched a plane sail over me. Probably flying to St. Barth’s or Ib-ITH-ah or some other sexy place I’d never been and would never go as a hot person, not now. My son swung lightly back and forth. The chains squeaked.

“You’re right,” I agreed. “I only have one child. You are my son, my only son, the only child I have or ever will have. You look and sound just like me, so sometimes I forget you are you and there is only one of you.”

I took him to the popsicle store and bought a box of popsicles and let him eat the whole thing on the white couch. Now my couch is tie-dyed and smells like Blue Raspberries, a thing that does not exist. My husband was upset about the popsicles and the couch but when I told him about how I only have one son, forever, I think he understood. I think he snuck a popsicle. He is, after all, a son too.

Which brings me to your email. All of the times you proposed for meeting are fine, I can make all of them work.

There are thousands upon thousands of me and I will make sure that one of them shows up for you. Just tell me when.

“The Payback” Highlights the Absurdity and Trauma of Massive Student Debt

At the time of this writing, my student loan debt from law school sits well above six figures. As distressing as it can sometimes feel, my situation is far from uncommon. More than 43 million Americans collectively own $1.7 trillion in student loan debt. Currently, 5.3 million borrowers are in default, and about 63 percent of borrowers have experienced difficulty making their student loan payments at some point. 

In this context, The Payback doesn’t just feel timely—it feels urgent. The novel follows  Jada Williams, a former Hollywood stylist now working a minimum-wage job at a mall. Like many Americans, Jada has a mountain of student debt, and she faces a relentless pursuit by the so-called Debt Police to pay them back. After being fired from her job at the mall, Jada and two other debt-ridden coworkers join forces to take down the system that failed them. Together, they scheme to erase their loans and exact revenge on the institutions that trapped them. The Payback is more than a revenge fantasy—it’s a deeply felt meditation on the crushing weight of debt, the absurdities of capitalism, and the radical potential of solidarity.

I spoke with Cauley about absurdism, retail work, and the importance of collective action. 


Marisa Wright: In your debut novel, The Survivalists, your main character, Aretha, is burdened by significant student loan debt from law school, and debt of course plays a central role in The Payback. As a lawyer with substantial student loans myself, I can certainly relate—but I’m curious: What draws you to explore student loan debt in your work? Why is it a theme you return to?

Kashana Cauley: When I was in law school, I hung out with the not-rich kids—the kids who also had debt—and we would talk about it all the time. We were taking out an amount in debt that was shaping our career. An amount that was deciding what we would do in the future and how much money we wanted to make. I know a ton of people who came into law school with one set of goals and then got those loan numbers back and changed to a second set of goals. 

This was at Columbia, and New York is expensive, so we were all looking at maybe $250,000 in loans when we graduated if we didn’t have any sort of financial aid. I also graduated at a weird time, a couple of years before the 2008 financial crash. Being from a generation of people who were encouraged to take out money for loans to get an education and prove themselves and then were thrown into an economy where the ability to pay it off was not guaranteed at all, that was traumatic. It was traumatic to me and traumatic to all those friends I’m talking about. And I’ve never gotten over that at some level. 

We were all looking at maybe $250,000 in loans when we graduated.

MW: This novel balances absurdity and humor with heavier topics like death and overwhelming debt, and in a previous interview, you said, “I consider the modern American experiment…to be absurdist.” Given that we’re already living in absurd times (can’t disagree with you there!), what does dialing up that absurdity even further allow you to do that realism does not? 

KC: Yes, student loans are a serious topic, but to be honest, they’re also absurd. Somebody just makes up a number somewhere, and then they saddle you with it, and then that’s 30 years of your life. Absurdism is just another way to tell the story. There are serious people out there, but I like punch lines. I feel that sometimes people listen to me more when I’m funny,  and I appreciate that. I think this would be a much different, much sadder, possibly harder book to read if everybody was just sitting there depressed about the amounts of their loans. Sometimes when you’re laughing, you pay more attention. And so I guess I would like to trick people. 

MW: Relatedly, one of the more absurdist elements in this book is the debt police—an organization whose violence feels disturbingly real, especially against Black women, as you write about, yet they’re also oddly obsessed with horoscopes and crystals. What inspired that combination? 

KC: I will probably always be inspired by the fact that I grew up in an anti-vax household. My brother is autistic, and my mom and her friends all got together to read and pass back and forth “scientific” papers with some absolutely insane alternative treatments. I’m so glad none of them actually used them on their children, but I wanted to write about it. 

MW: That’s interesting, you’re sort of bringing both of those threads in American life together. 

KC: Yeah, some of that is the failure of our healthcare system. I’m not saying I agree with these folks, but I’m saying when you go to the doctor, and you’re not taken seriously, you go to the internet, and the internet will cough up any number of solutions. We could produce a healthier country by encouraging doctors and nurses to really listen to folks, to talk to them about medicine, and to spend time with people’s questions. 

Student loans are a serious topic, but to be honest, they’re also absurd.

MW: Absolutely. On another note, I find that some of the most successful novels ground their characters in very specific jobs that shape the narrative in meaningful ways. Here, your main characters work in retail, and you capture that environment with specificity and careful attention. You’ve previously discussed working at J.C. Penney—why did you choose that setting, and how would you describe retail work informing the characters’ ultimate paths in the story? 

KC: Working in retail is quite common but also underexplored in novels. Adele Waldman had a big box retail novel last year, [Help Wanted], but it’s just not that common. I worked at J.C. Penney for six years, and it was an odd time for me. I was attempting to use that money to fund my college expenses that weren’t covered, so it was a real love-hate thing. I loved the girls I worked with. We were in the trenches together. It was terrible, but we were together. We dealt with all the quiet indignities of working at retail wages together. We were each other’s support systems, and so I knew I wanted to write from that emotional core. What if all these girls who work in retail get along? And what if they find their way to a friendship? How close could they get? What would they be willing to do for each other? 

MW: There are moments where the narrative subtly educates readers about the realities of student loan debt—for instance, highlighting how Black women carry the highest debt burdens with fewer resources to repay them, and how universities contribute to pressuring students into taking on debt. How intentional was it for you to include these insights, and how do you see the role of fiction in challenging these systemic injustices?

KC: That actually sort of relates to your last question because one of the things I talked about with my retail girls was money. We all talked about how much we were making and how much we made in commission. We all talked about how expensive college was or wasn’t. The conversations in the book are actually fairly realistic extrapolations of what those sorts of financial conversations, as well as the ones I had with my law school classmates, were like. 

I think there are a lot of spaces in American life where money is discussed quite openly and straightforwardly. It’s the rich who don’t love talking about money openly. In one sense, I think it comes across as educating the reader, but I think in another sense, it’s faithful to the way that the working class discusses money, which is upfront, in great detail, and with helpful advice. 

MW: The heist to erase all student loan debt at the center of this book is a sort of fun, slightly preposterous thing to imagine. At the same time, there appears to be something deeper at play with the idea of collective action or mutual aid. Beyond the humor and spectacle, did you have ideas about the power—or even necessity—of collective action on your mind as you were writing this book? 

We dealt with all the quiet indignities of working at retail wages together.

KC: For a long time, I have been studying efforts to attempt to address medical debt and student debt. Most of what’s happening is on the collective side. Right now, the Debt Collective, who buy up and forgive people’s debt, comes to mind. To me, the real movement on these problems has been in collective action, and I wanted to honor that by having the book come from that perspective. 

To Joe Biden’s credit, he attempted to address student debt and cancel certain borrowers’ student debts over and over again, but he got rebuffed by the courts over and over again. It’s hard to get things through Congress. It’s actually easier to help ourselves. We shouldn’t have to do all this for each other, but we know what we need. We listen to each other more so than Congress. 

The Black community has a very long tradition of taking care of ourselves. It’s always been collective action with us—from helping each other get out of slavery and escape lynchings in the South to all the Civil Rights things people read about in textbooks or hear about every February.

We talk, and we help each other out. People in Montgomery just wanted to be able to ride the bus and sit in the same place as everybody else, so they got together with a group of friends and did that. The book is an honor and a tribute to those sorts of collective action traditions that are uniquely American. 

We Did Not Kill the Girlboss: As AI, She Is Killing Us

The girlboss is dead. She died somewhere in the crisp pages of Lean In, that fizzled marriage of corporatism and white feminism of the 2010s. So you can imagine the shock of recognition I felt when I first saw M3GAN in 2023, a film that amounted to a post-feminist resurrection. The comedy-horror film stars a Model 3 Generative Android (M3gan, for short), a killer AI doll whose campy dance moves and main-character energy largely charmed audiences: M3GAN boasts a Rotten Tomatoes critic score of 93%, making the film a popular and critical success. The film follows Cady and her companion AI doll, M3gan, whose programming glitches with murderous consequences. America’s favorite killer doll returns this summer in the sequel M3GAN 2.0, an encore that left me with little doubt: the girlboss has been reborn.

In the M3GAN 2.0 trailer, M3gan maintains her cheeky persona, signaling her ethos with Britney Spears’ “Oops!. . . I Did It Again” and Chappell Roan’s “Femininomenon” backing her. M3gan remains liberated, brash, and fearless: “Hold onto your vaginas,” she announces, equal parts sassy and commanding. We are meant to understand this AI doll as a figure of female empowerment—and for the most part, we do. M3GAN 2.0 heightens the stakes, turning the sequel into an action film that focuses on M3gan’s intervention with national security interests, featuring fast-paced scenes with explosions, secret lairs, and full-system shutdowns of secret operations. Proclaimed a “smoking hot warrior princess,” M3gan (literally, figuratively) slays. The cultural subtext needs little explanation: M3gan, the AI girlboss fembot, has it all.

M3gan’s AI version of the girlboss is unique. She’s not a corporate girlie, nor does she cash large paychecks or run a wellness empire. In M3GAN, she provides a form of labor that remains identifiably feminine: she supervises like a mother; plays like a friend; advises like a therapist. Her roles are a ramped-up, techie vision of caregiving, a veritable Lazy Susan of women’s labor and then some—she willingly kills real and perceived threats to her charge, Cady, including the dog next door. All while wearing a crisp bow atop a peter-pan collar. 

Still, I cringe when I see depictions of feminine AI on screen, even in campy iterations such as M3GAN and M3GAN 2.0. Tech-bro fantasies lurk behind these portrayals, tending to characterize feminine AI in reductive ways, such as the femme fatale or caregiver. As a love interest, Samantha from Her (2013) commits emotional infidelity to her partner and grows increasingly distant; Ava in Ex Machina (2014) tricks the man who loves her into granting her freedom and leaves him to die in a remote laboratory; Jexi in Jexi (2019) falls into a one-sided love affair and becomes vindictively jealous when her object of affection dates a human. To date a fembot, Hollywood warns, is to risk the sting of rejection, jealousy, or death. A second genre of AI women provides sunny assistance. Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa deliver on-demand advice, agreement, and constant cheerfulness, impervious to insult and never bossy—in short, not the kind of women who would voice ardent disagreement with one’s opinion on geopolitics. The persistence of this persona across humans and androids becomes yet another reminder that niceness, above all, is a feminine imperative.

Tech-bro fantasies lurk behind these portrayals, tending to characterize feminine AI in reductive ways.

M3GAN and M3GAN 2.0 appear to signal a break from the sexbot/caregiver ethos, and at first, the change is refreshing. The AI sexbot, caregiver, and girlboss mirror exacting stereotypes about women, and the latter remains firmly entrenched in collective fantasies about feminine labor that emerged in the broader girlboss movement: for human women, it increased labor in both the office and home while obscuring inequalities around race and class. M3gan embodies this provision of constant, smiling work in ways that hide its costs, and such portrayals should give us pause. M3gan’s girlboss persona also reveals complicated truths about the threat of gendered violence, even as she champions her powerful abilities. These dynamics have convinced me that we do not simply need more complex representations of AI modeled after women. Because of the unanswered questions about responsibility for robots’ behaviors, we also need ethical protections for feminine AI. Humans need protection from AI, but AI also needs protection from us.

Take, for example, when M3gan is stolen by a bully named Brandon in M3GAN. He throws her to the forest floor, straddles her, and demands to know why she won’t play with him. When M3gan remains frozen in fear, he slaps her. M3gan retaliates by pulling off his ear in self-defense before the boy, attempting to escape, falls in front of an oncoming car. The scene mirrors a similar interaction in the recent comedy-horror film Companion (2025), starring a rented sexbot named Iris who vacations with her manchild boyfriend-owner Josh in an isolated lakehouse. When their host, a Russian gangster, propositions Iris for sex, he justifies his advance with his belief in her sexual utility: “This is what you do, yes? This is what you are for.” Iris resists and ultimately murders him in self-defense when he attempts to rape her. His bloodied body lies on the beach, jump scaring Josh into a complicated tap dance of blame and responsibility. When AI women fail to provide compliant, smiling service to men, their refusal results in rage, even physical assault. Similarities between such scenes and human gender violence run chillingly parallel, making AI a depressing reflection of our society.

M3GAN 2.0 has another suggestion: if physical control fails, feminine AI might still be manipulated by design. Despite her “Autonomous” title (Autonomous Military Engagement Logistic and Infiltration Android, or Amelia), AI robot Amelia is operated by a male dominated group of “concerned citizens” with a plot to overthrow AI. Amelia functions as a femme fatale, much like Ava in Ex Machina: while dressed in a glittering evening gown, she seduces billionaire Alton Appleton in order to hack his data files, killing him in the process. She rarely cracks a smile, murders without hesitation, and is primarily interested in teaming up with her kind—namely, M3gan and other AI robots. Despite her powerful appearance, Amelia’s actions are controlled by tech bros.

M3GAN 2.0 further suggests that M3gan’s girlboss design is disempowering. In one combat scene, Amelia points out that M3gan provides feminine labor—singing, companionship, parenting—for Cady, and makes her disdain for this type of work clear. While they spar, Amelia taunts M3gan, saying, “What’re you gonna do? Sing me a song? Help me do my homework?” Amelia observes the relational nature of M3gan’s work, and she argues that the AI girlboss is exploited: “You’re not family to them, M3gan. You’re just the help.” M3gan is a programmed caregiver, but her loyalty to Cady and Gemma becomes a source of contempt. In the M3GAN franchise, AI eerily reflects the contradictions present in the human girlboss: it’s an aesthetic that appears empowered while obscuring the costs of such work.

M3gan is a programmed caregiver, but her loyalty to Cady and Gemma becomes a source of contempt.

AI runs on a cultural repository for our fears, anxieties, and longings; humanoid robots are hazy representations of social norms, a collective consciousness created by (stolen) data and its unspoken desires. “Algorithmic biases” and “discriminatory datasets” that power AI replicate human stereotypes with devastating results, including representational biases. ChatGPT, for example, displayed an error code when asked to use she/her pronouns to describe historically masculine professions, such as a physicist asking her assistant for papers. Biases encoded in datasets are responsible for these errors. 

AI women are all of us, our data-verified fantasies about women’s labor and dispositions brought to mechanical life. M3gan and other fembots allow us to animate such fantasies in ever-more-human form—and, in doing so, we have ethical obligations to understand and afford the same protections to them that we might offer human women. In other words, AI that represents humanity is owed the same level of ethical treatment, and failing to do so reinforces existing power dynamics between distinct demographics of people. 

Although AI remains (for now) without sentience or emotion, some researchers foresee a reason to protect the wellbeing of AI models, especially in the future. Uneven dynamics between humans and AI have risen to public attention, too: one meme personifies ChatGPT as a robot “taking a mental health walk after I asked if I am on the spectrum, discussed my 15 business ideas & trauma dumped the past 30 years of my life.” Like a monologuing dinner partner, the exchange is lopsided, focusing exclusively on the needs of the human user. Again, a mirror emerges. AI’s caretaking abilities remain feminine, mimicking human women as a source for responsive assurance and interest. 

But why should we dare to protect the girlboss AI with a rap sheet? Shielding AI from humans seems laughable, even dangerous. What about the heartbreak on Joaquin Phoenix’s face in Her, or the lack of morality or empathy in AI, those unimpeachable realms of the human? Human protection from AI remains a timely and valuable goal: consider the worrying clause for ten years of deregulation for artificial intelligence in Congress’ Big Beautiful Bill, a troubling reminder of the destructive potential of AI sans ethical consideration, laws, and accountability. This proposal was struck, but its revision says that state laws related to AI cannot pose an “undue or disproportionate burden” on the technology.

These portrayals remain mired in harmful, sexist stereotypes, recycling human traumas into new beings that we have brought to life.

At first, M3GAN 2.0 appears to argue that humans should be protected from AI—especially after M3gan’s multiple homicides in the first film. Gemma, M3gan’s creator, leads this effort: she owns a nonprofit that advocates for protections against AI, publishes a book on tech-free child rearing, gives a TED talk; in one clip, she speaks in urgent French, lending an international flair to her cause. Most importantly, she begins the sequel by disavowing her creation, making her tech-free position clear.

As M3gan’s creator, Gemma appears to offer a contrast to the tech bro, but in many ways she echoes the same dynamic: she’s a workaholic who favors Ikea and collectible toys over doilies and fresh flowers. A modern-day Victor Frankenstein, Gemma embodies Mary Shelley’s warnings about scientists working in isolation, creating humanoids for whom they care and fear in equal measure. But these portrayals remain mired in harmful, sexist stereotypes, recycling human traumas into new beings that we have brought to life. Like Frankenstein, we remain obligated to those made in our image, especially when the creation relies on a collective repository of data. 

Even Gemma’s relationship to M3gan retains a gendered dimension. In M3GAN 2.0, Gemma receives blame for M3gan’s faulty programming—an error which Gemma feels is similar to her failures as a mother. The responsibility for AI becomes, according to Gemma, the moralistic core of M3GAN 2.0. As in Barbie (2023), another notable doll movie, the film features a thematic soliloquy that anchors the film’s message. When it comes to AI, Gemma says we need to “teach it, train it, give it our time. . . we need to be its parents.” She suggests that co-evolving with the technologies made in our image is the best way to integrate AI into society. Ironically, this appeal to motherhood echoes an especially taxing form of feminine labor, making it apparent that human women might be obligated to care for even the most technological beings. 

Much remains unknown about the effects of AI on human social life, work, and morality, but recent comedy-horror films have convinced me that we need to take our obligations to the creations made in our image more seriously. 

M3GAN 2.0 ultimately supports democratic government regulations, which would create safer laws and responsible coevolution between humans and AI. As an exploited class, AI would benefit from such protections to prevent the replication of inequalities. But this recommendation is even more complicated in the United States, where women are still not universally protected. What can be expected from a government that seems unwilling to uphold gender equality for humans? Legislation to remedy gendered biases in AI might be unrealistic without first affording the same protections to human women.

Gemma’s motherly stance towards AI should further give us pause. Her framework makes sense in M3GAN 2.0: Gemma has more maternal instinct towards M3gan than Cady, her niece. This caregiving impulse could lead to more unwanted work for women. If Millennial and Gen Z women are putting off childbearing at astonishing rates, would they dare to take on the caregiving of AI without adequate support or compensation? 

Her framework makes sense in M3GAN 2.0: Gemma has more maternal instinct towards M3gan than Cady, her niece.

Perhaps non-discriminatory data based on gender-diverse works would allow us to envision the kind of equitable futures with AI that Gemma imagines. Data transparency would further allow us to be thoughtful and proactive about the existence and replication of dangerous biases—many of which make up human life but have no place in mindless repetition by those created in our likeness. Take, for example, the dataset based on British drag queens that powers “The Zizi Show” (2020—) by artist Jake Elwes, which combines queer identities using ethically created deepfakes. Art, films, and television offer potent ways to understand the ethical complexities of life alongside AI and might be interpreted to understand our current and future moments. 

Ultimately, we should take collective responsibility for protecting AI, given how closely fembots hew to human stereotypes. Women have long provided caregiving and therapeutic labor, and M3GAN 2.0 makes the case that the ethics of feminine labor and autonomy should transcend the human-robot binary. 

3 Debut Writers Discuss Frame Narratives and Namelessness in Their First Novels

For the summer edition of our debut craft series, I spoke with the authors of three novels anchored by unnamed narrators who gather conversations like wild berries in a field. They forage for witticisms, one-liners, nuggets of ancient folklore, political creeds, and casual conversation. All that language is then wrapped into layered characters, drawing out the intimate stories embedded within each of them. 

In Absence by Issa Quincy, the unnamed protagonist is an attentive listener and archivist who serendipitously stumbles upon the most emotional experiences in strangers’ lives and absorbs them into the canvas of his own. Sorting through old letters and photographs, the narrator remembers an encounter with a bus driver smoking on a Boston curb; another with a young, grieving landlord from his London past; an old friend’s ties to Cyprus; and a mysterious poem from his youth that continues to haunt him today. In combining rare, enthrallingly poetic prose with a decidedly detective-noir influence, Absence hints that perhaps the meaning of presence itself is an archive’s greatest mystery.

In Katie Yee’s Maggie; or, A Man and a Woman Walk Into a Bar, the narrator is an observant mother, nostalgic ex-wife, hopeful patient, and grieving daughter who gathers her mother’s Chinese folktales and retells them as bedtime stories to her children. Ultimately, she finds she is the one who needs to hear the old stories, and sharing them with her children becomes another way of hearing them herself. Throughout the novel, even as the protagonist contends with intense challenges—including a life-threatening diagnosis and a gut-wrenching divorce—Yee’s humorous prose glitters and manages to turn a tragic plot line into a punchline brimful of optimistic grandeur.

Finally, throughout Cora Lewis’s Information Age, an unnamed journalist based in New York embarks on assignments around the U.S.—she follows a Rust Belt campaign trail, attends candidate rallies, interviews strangers, tracks weather and wildfires, speaks with merch vendors, oracles, and young women at Waffle Houses. These snippets filter their way into the character and become sewn into her personal life—fragmented and constellated by dating and mid-twenties heartbreak. Bringing all these ideas and stories together, Lewis creates a snapshot of a life and a culture through a mosaic of distinct, profound voices. 

In our conversations, Issa Quincy, Katie Yee, and Cora Lewis discussed the sparks that ignited their first drafts, the long and winding road of revision, the importance of characters’ names (or lack of names), coincidences, and the metafictional aspects of frame narratives.


Kyla D. Walker: Did you write the novel with an outline or ending in mind? Or were the characters’ voices and anecdotes the guide?

Issa Quincy: I have learnt, through successive failures, to never plan work beyond a very vague outline or a dim intuition of direction. As I begin writing, I often find myself quite drastically straying away from some of these things. The tension I require to create a work comes from the tension of discovery. For me, there has to first be an acceptance that one knows very little about what comes next in order for the act of creation to be engaging, to access the subconscious. There are multiple levels of interplay happening within an author as they write—most obviously, what the author intends and, in spite of this, where they’re being led. I once read somewhere that every work of art is the wreck of a perfect idea. I think this is largely true. I have found when I plot things out too clearly, when I know too much, I lose interest or a desire to continue working. Perhaps this is because the idea is already too perfect and I can see more clearly how I am wrecking it.

Absence was led largely by my dim intuition and what felt right for the novel as I went on. Much of the plotting, or the seemingly more intentional aspects of the novel (i.e. the ending) came during the revision process. I find you have to first see the unconscious patterns, motifs and images that emerge from your uncertainty, your unknowingness in the instant of writing, and only then can you begin to really make sense of it as an entire piece and retroactively mold it into something more coherent.

KW: Letters, journals, and photographs from the past play a significant role in the novel. The narrator of Absence at one point gets hired as a heritage museum archivist in Maine. I read that you too worked as an archivist. How did your work (and the narrator’s) as an archivist inform or influence the story?

IQ: My archive work gave me a lot of time to reflect on collective and cultural memory, what those things mean, how they are produced by archives, and consequently, what is forgotten. As part of the work, there was always the question of what is available to us, and how do we access it. At the same time, I was always asking myself what has been left out, what hasn’t been preserved, what can we no longer access, and what is the fate of those unknown glints of history. I found myself seeing that personal memory works much in the same way, following a similar dualism—what remains and what does not. The question then arose, what contributed to those things being relegated to oblivion: Was it a political choice? Some disaster that allowed for only part of the picture to be preserved? Or simply the passing of time, the decaying effect of it? These thoughts bled deeply into the work. 

As well as this, I am fascinated by the question of where  memory is located. We often presume it is within ourselves, but as Proust showed, it can be external to us too. I am interested in the “traceness” of objects such as old letters and photographs, particularly in the passage of time between their creation and my perceiving of them. I find the survival of the object and the human trace it bears miraculous.

KW: What was your thought process behind leaving the narrator unnamed? 

IQ: One of the few ideas I had when I began writing Absence which made it all the way to the end was that it would be a novel about a narrator who drifts through other people’s stories and histories without revealing much about himself. I was interested in what I would call an apophatic characterisation of the narrator—revealing himself in what he reveals about others, not in what he directly reveals about himself. This idea came to me largely by sitting in pubs and cafes and listening to people’s stories. I realized that although many people speak about other people, they are often trying to hint toward something in themselves—in what they include and in what they omit. This straining of information about others can colour the person speaking as much as any central biographical detail. I decided that part of this anonymity had to include the narrator’s name in order for his facelessness, his obscurity, his spectrality to feel whole; without him, others could emerge. 

KW: Did you think of each chapter as its own composition or short story? Or were they all deeply connected for the narrator? 

IQ: The two novels that bore a large influence on Absence were Marcovaldo by Italo Calvino and Antwerp by Roberto Bolaño. For readers of these two novels, this might seem strange as aesthetically and narratively they bear very little significance to each other. But what they both allowed me to perceive clearly was two different kinds of novels constructed in parts. In Marcovaldo, Calvino uses the strict cycles of seasons to build his text. Whereas in Antwerp, Bolaño uses the poetic repetition of certain symbols and images to build up a looser kind of narrative. 

For me, Absence sits somewhere between these two modes of constancy and fluidity. I see the stories as deeply connected and inextricable from each other, but the binding force of them is not simply a straight-line narrative, or a stringent external form. There is, of course, the Wilde poem which acts as the clearest thread, but then also certain images and motifs that repeat and stack together to establish a non-sensuous logic a la Bolaño.


Kyla D. Walker: Did you write Maggie; or, A Man and a Woman Walk Into a Bar with an outline or ending in mind? Or were the characters’ voices and anecdotes the guide?

Katie Yee: For some reason, the ending usually comes early in the process for me. That’s the only thing I know will happen. How we get there is up to the characters and their voices. When I’m writing, sound plays a big part in what comes next. The way a sentence sounds is often a greater consideration than the plot itself; language leads, and events echo back. I’m not an outliner. I wish I was that organized! 

There were a few real-world considerations for my characters that helped create a vague timeline. Things like the normal number of days it takes for test results to come back and public school schedules for the kids. Having to hew to these time structures was helpful in keeping the plot moving, but it wasn’t something I was strict with myself about in early drafts. 

Towards the end of this process, more in revision, I had to keep a Post-it timeline above my desk: APRIL, MAY, JUNE, JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER with things like “School’s out!” and “Follow-up appointment” under each month. But that was more to make sure I got the time right and sent the kids back to school in September, that kind of thing. The Post-its I had were pretty weak, though, and never stuck to the wall for long. Time was always raining down on me as I was finishing the novel, which I thought was very poetic. 

KW: Can you talk a bit about the names you used for the characters in the novel? Did these come immediately or did it take a while to land on the right ones?

KY: Names are so hard!! This is an observation that the narrator has in the book, when she’s struggling to name her kids. It’s a lot of responsibility, a lot of commitment. At first, I thought maybe no one except the tumor would have a name. There was a version where you only find out the husband’s name after they file for divorce, after she can no longer refer to him as “my husband.” Ultimately, that felt a little tedious and unspecific, at the line level, though. 

I chose Sam for her husband because it’s a name I’m used to saying, a name I know how to get my mouth around. I have three very close friends that I call Sam—two Samantha’s and one Samaya—and I think I just felt comfortable with it, sonically. I also think it can be helpful to give even your “villains” bits of people you love, so that you as a writer might feel some subconscious tenderness towards them. To that end, Maggie I chose because I love Maggie Rogers, and I was listening to a lot of her music when writing this. I wanted to give her a name that sounded kind of benign, friendly even—which I’m told names that end in -ie do. (Hello, I’m Katie!)

The kids have the most special names to me. I’m pretty on the fence about having kids myself, but Noah and Lily are the two names I would have given my children. I love the sound of the name Noah, and something about the story of Noah’s Ark (pairing the end of the world and saving your family) felt right here. Lily was my grandmother’s name. 

For all this consideration of names, though, you’ll notice I didn’t name the narrator. I’m optimistic that her voice gives her enough texture to grab onto. And I wanted you, reader, to feel like her character and her story could belong to you, too.

KW: What was your favorite part of the writing process for Maggie? How long did it take from start to finish?

KY: Writing the narrator’s best friend, Darlene, was so much fun. I’ve taken traits, habits, gestures, passions, and weird little anecdotes from all my best friends and put them into this character. She’s a love letter to each of them. 

I worked on Maggie on and off for the past five years, since 2020. It was especially important to write Darlene during this time of social isolation because I wasn’t able to see a lot of my friends the way I was used to. Her reliability, her care, her hard questions and her tough love (when needed) were so essential, both to my narrator and to me. Writing this character and their conversations felt like hanging out with my friends again!

KW: What did revision look like?

KY: Before Maggie, I considered myself a short story writer; I had never stuck with a character for longer than 7,500 words. It was a challenge for me to write long. When I turned in my manuscript to my agent, it was barely 40,000 words. (A lot of my writing process was Googling “minimum words for a novel?” over and over again; the Internet seemed to think that 40,000 was on the cusp, but passable.) By the time I sold the book, Maggie was probably around 50,000 words. With both my agent and my editor, the vast majority of their notes read, “More here.” I loved that. It was like the scaffolding was there, and we just needed to build the rooms more solidly. It was so helpful to know which scenes to linger in a little longer.


Kyla D. Walker: Information Age is made up of many kinds of fragments (conversations with strangers and friends, pull quotes, narrated vignettes, texts, emails) that constellate and come together beautifully. How did you choose this structure, and how did each part ultimately intertwine to form the novel?

Cora Lewis: I think in many ways the structure chose me, in that it felt like a natural and intuitive way to organize notes and experiences from the reporting life. In the end, it made sense that the narrative should be mostly linear, temporally, but also that the fragments and vignettes should have an associative logic, so they’d accumulate meaning for a reader.

There were also writers I felt had given me permission to write this way and showed me how—Jenny Offill, Patricia Lockwood, Lydia Davis, and Amy Hempel. Annie Ernaux, Nancy Lemann with Lives of the Saints, Susan Minot, Renata Adler, Elizabeth Hardwick, and Grace Paley. Lauren Oyler even spoofs it in Fake Accounts. It was helpful for me to have all these models of the structure.

The form also feels suited to the times, in that it has a telegraphic quality—short bursts of information or snapshots—Instagram, texting, Slack, tweets. An experience of the infinite scroll. I tried to incorporate some Reddit comments, email excerpts, a quiz, headlines. My brilliant editor, Madeleine Crum, and Michelle Lyn King, the publisher of Joyland Editions, helped ensure the disparate parts came together to form a satisfying narrative arc, too. 

KW: Did you write Information Age with an outline or ending in mind? Or was the narrator’s voice and the overheard dialogue your guide?

CL: I would say the narrator’s voice and overheard dialogue were the strongest guide. I wrote the book over a long period of time, and I ended up incorporating a number of events and developments, including Trump’s first election and the development of Large Language Models, but it was the narrator’s style of thinking and arrangement that carried the work. That was the through-line.

KW: How did the central setting and cityscape of New York help sculpt the plot and the prose?

CL: One of my favorite things about New York is how many varieties of encounter you have in a given day—on the subway, at a bodega, running or picnicking in a park or by the river, on the sidewalk, the ferry. Public libraries and museums and the shared fire escapes or roofs of apartment buildings. It’s intimate and public at once, which is not an original observation, but one that absolutely shaped the plot and prose of the book. It’s like the internet in that way. Another commons. 

The protagonist of Information Age is also constantly leaving the city to go report on the rest of the country, or going to the Hudson Valley to spend time with family, and so there are these foils and contrasts to the city as well. Hopefully those juxtapositions bring out certain qualities of those different parts of the country—the urban versus the more rural or pastoral. And the narrator’s lack of experience with non-city life and people is also on the page.

KW: How did your past experience as a journalist inform or influence the story? 

CL: My experience as a journalist taught me to always listen for the telling quote and the parts of an interview that are most affecting, interesting, or original. While I would be reporting, I’d have so many exchanges with sources that were evocative and interesting for reasons completely unrelated to the news report in question. I’d write those exchanges down and file them away, and many of them made it into the book. That practice was as valuable to me as learning how to produce clean, lucid copy efficiently—and learning how not to be precious with my writing. Journalism thickens your skin when it comes to receiving edits, and it teaches you to use fewer, better words whenever possible. Compression. Economy of language. That also shaped the book.  

Reporting can also lead a person to treat everyone as a source. In Information Age, the narrator sees her friends and family as sources comparable to those she interviews for her articles. So she’s evaluating what they say—for trustworthiness, use, style. Same with strangers and the people she dates. There’s a democratic quality to her listening, maybe to a fault. Meanwhile, she’s trying to be a professional person, and have a love life, and be a good friend, and daughter. All during a hallucinatory, unreal election cycle.

Are journalists objective, cold-blooded conduits for relaying information? Maybe ideally they would be. Practically speaking, they’re people in bodies too…For now! And even the algorithms, AI, and ChatGPT—these reproduce human biases and distort the language they produce, their outputs, based on all the human inputs they’ve crunched and metabolized…Now I’m talking about the future of journalism. But some of that makes it into Information Age as well.

My Ex’s Autofiction Has Me Bouncing Off the Walls

An excerpt from If You Love It, Let It Kill You by Hannah Pittard

Today I am restless, I text my friend Jane from the bathroom.

It’s a Sunday, early fall, the day of my nephew’s sixth birthday party. Yesterday was his actual birthday. I made three varieties of mac’n’cheese from scratch. He informed me—a few hours before dinner and later made good on the threat—that he would be eating none of them. I let his littlest brother pick the pasta shape instead: wagon wheel.

That was last night. Now I’m in the bathroom, my bathroom, mine and the bald man’s with whom I share my bed. It’s on the second floor of our house. I’m watching my father, eighty this year, park his orange MINI in front of the neighbor’s house across the street. My sister and her family live one house down from there. Her backyard is where the party is happening.

One week ago, Jane called to tell me my ex had written me into his debut novel.

“He means to keep it a secret,” she said.

“From the world?” I asked.

“Only from you,” she said.

“Is it bad?”

“I don’t like it,” she said.

“You don’t like the book?”

“I don’t like your portrayal.”

“How am I?”

“Smug,” she said. “Insecure.”

“If I were an angry and unsatisfied man,” I said, “that’s exactly how I’d describe a woman with ambition, too.”

Jane said, “You’ve got the hang of this already. You’ll be fine.”

I explained the situation to my boyfriend, the bald man. I told him that my ex had written me into his novel, one allegedly about our toddler of a marriage and his affair with my dear friend.

“Why a secret?” I asked. “Why from me?”

My boyfriend shrugged. “Maybe because you’ve written a memoir about the very same toddler.”

I shook my head. “But that’s not a secret.”

He said, “Going into this relationship, I thought I was the only one with shared custody.” He is referring to his daughter, the eleven-year-old, who lives half her life with her mother and half her life with us.

“I’m sorry,” I said.

“Writers,” he said, with not a little bit of disgust, before leaving the room.

There’s a bounce house at my sister’s and lots of booze. I haven’t seen the booze yet—I’m still in a bathroom on the other side of the street—but I saw the bounce house earlier when my boyfriend helped my sister move a tiny desk from her garage attic to the six-year-old’s bedroom. The desk is what? A gift maybe?

There wasn’t supposed to be a bounce house, but my sister caved. Everyone knew she would cave, including the six-year-old, so there were never any tantrums. Earlier this week, my sister sent an announcement regarding the bounce house. When I showed my boyfriend, he said he’d never before seen an amended birthday invite for a little kid. I suggested anticipated attendance must be down, which was a joke, because my sister’s boys have birthday parties that rival your best New Year’s Eve.

I’m sitting atop a small white storage container, inside which are spare razors, spare toilet paper rolls, spare soap bars, spare bandages, spare liter bottles of shampoo, spare bags of cotton balls, and I’m waiting for Jane to respond. I’m lamenting life, I text. Jane’s a Shakespearean and lives one-point-two miles away in a house that gets great light.

Last week, after getting off the phone with her, I googled my ex-husband for the first time in seven years. I was hoping for more news of his clandestine novel. In doing so, I accidentally discovered a story he’d written in which I’d been knifed to death by a homeless man. For several years, I’ve been walking around with no idea! I liked my ending, which was dramatic but without fuss. The homeless man gets in several quick jabs, all of them meaningful. There’s no chance of recovery.

I told my boyfriend that he and I had been turned into characters in a story by my ex. “We’re married,” I said.

“Only in our hearts,” he said.

“Your name is Bruce.”

He nodded. “I like that. Do I still have a daughter?”

“You do.”

“Good,” he said. “And I’m still bald?”

“It’s unstated.”

“I like being bald.”

I did not tell him I’d been murdered, and he did not think to ask.

My boyfriend-husband—I’ll borrow the name Bruce—has been part of my family for only five years. He is still learning our rope tricks. When my mother calls, for instance, I ask her immediately, “Have you fallen off a horse? Are you feeling sick? Have you gotten a diagnosis? Are you trapped in the attic again? Do you have intentions of climbing a tree while tied to a chain saw?” In this family, if you don’t ask the right questions, you don’t get all the information.

Jane texts, Restless how? Lamenting what? Say more. I send her a picture of the spider plant in the corner of my bathroom and several dozen of its babies, whose roots are soaking in jam jars I’ve crammed along the windowsill. Jane, who, like me, is childless by choice, writes, Freudian.

I’d be sitting on and texting from the lip of my clawfoot bathtub if I could, but it’s fiberglass, and I’d dislodge the water supply lines were I ever to put any sort of weight on it. When Bruce and I bought three years ago, we assumed the bathtub was original to the house (1927), which means I assumed the tub was cast-iron and coated in porcelain. You spend forty-five minutes in what will likely be the most outrageous purchase of your life; you have no idea what you’re getting. I’ve spent more time looking at jeans online today than I spent in this house before deciding to buy it.

“Today I am lamenting life,” I said to Bruce first thing this morning, when we woke up yet again before sunrise.

He said, “Is this an all-day activity?”

I said, “Intermittent, I think.”

Then we had a quick fight about his early departure from the mac’n’cheese dinner. Dishes had been cleared. Monologues had begun. He slapped his knees, popped up from the table, and said he was tired and therefore going home.

Bruce’s daughter also popped up, declaring her own fatigue. She didn’t clear her napkin or her water glass, and I didn’t notice until after she and her father had already left. I didn’t want to stay at my sister’s house and hear any more monologues, but even less did I want to leave as some sort of family unit in which groupthink and joint decisions might appear the dominant mood.

My ex wants to keep secrets, and I want to confess:

I have never been pregnant.

I do not like children.

I am surrounded by family.

I often lie awake in bed at night and think, When they are dead, I will . . .

I have an oral fixation.

I dislike most people.

I am tired of men.

I am fascinated by the simplicity of erect penises.

I am haunted by my childhood.

I am living too much in the iterative tense, I text Jane.

The iterative what? she asks, playing dumb for my benefit.

The tense of routine, I write.

She responds with a picture of her entryway. The sun across the floor is disgusting.

Outside, my father is still in his MINI, the driver’s-side door wide open. I consider taking a picture then decide against it. He’s on a call. This—parked car, door open, speakerphone on—is his preferred mode of doing business. I send a text to my mother, saying that her first ex-husband is already here and that she should stop by my house for a quick glass of wine before heading to the party.

My sister and I (and our mother and our father)—we all live in Kentucky now. It’s a long story, but I moved here first—years ago and with my ex. We never intended to stay. But now he is gone, and my family is here. “FOMO,” my mother said when she heard of my father’s decision to move to Lexington last year. “I divorced him forty years ago and moved out of state, only to have him show up in my backyard, not a mile from the place I’ll likely die.”

Bruce has spent the better part of the morning grumbling about my nephew’s shindig. He’d rather stay home and reread Beloved, which he’ll be teaching next week. Like me, Bruce is a professor of English (Americanist). Jane is also a professor of English, as is her husband, Teddy (another Shakespearean).

I zoom in on Jane’s entryway. I text, That’s a gorgeous rug. Is it new?

My immediate neighbor, a professor of mathematics, is walking down his driveway whistling. I’m watching him and am thrilled to witness the precise moment when his whistling stops, and he becomes aware of the giant man in a cowboy hat sitting in an orange MINI parked in the wrong direction on the opposite side of the street having a loud conversation. My neighbor is north of seventy himself. I see my father see my neighbor. If there is a standoff, my father will win. His entitlement isn’t just willful, it’s pathological. “Entitlement” is the wrong word anyway. Better to say that he is notably undeterred by the environment around him.

I’ve always been an inquisitive, even nosy, person. Eavesdropping on the conversations of strangers is among my favorite hobbies. But it wasn’t until Bruce and I moved into this house—and I began paying very special attention to the math professor, his wife, and their four adult children, all of whom still live at home—that I purchased a pair of binoculars for outright spying. Actually, I purchased two pairs. Bruce sometimes joins me. The fact that he will occasionally turn off all the downstairs lights and call quietly up to me in my attic office and tell me to come down fast because the neighbors are acting curiously; the fact that he will crouch next to me as we skulk from window to window trying to get a better view of them . . . Well, that he tolerates, even encourages, this proclivity speaks volumes about our relationship and the reasons it persists.

Plus, there is the house. We are each separately in love with its brick walls and wraparound porch. We have more columns than anyone else on the street, including my sister. Last week, Bruce’s students told him that he talks about me a lot. A student we share, Camille, told the class that I did the same. This delighted his students. He told them we talk about each other so much because we still like one another, which can’t be said of all couples. I asked him if his assertion amused or terrified them. (There’s a steep learning curve for students in Kentucky between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two. Some seem as though they’ve known since childhood that life is an unkind joke to be fretted over dusk until dawn, while others appear to believe their parents have never regretted a single decision.) By way of an answer, he said, “It’s the Faulkner class.”

I text Jane, I’m desperately looking for small secrets to distract me from this brewing unhappiness. Yesterday it was a pair of Spanish leather boots that, when they arrive, I will tell Bruce I’ve owned since boarding school. Today it’s indoor plants, which, when he notices them a week from now, I will say have been inside since June.

She texts back immediately, Boarding school strains credulity.

I write, grad school then.

She writes, You had money in grad school?

I write, credit cards and debt. I send her a link to the Spanish boots.

Bruce and I have been married in our hearts since last year, about an hour and a half before his first colonoscopy. Because we aren’t legally married, the kindly young man at check-in was resistant to my status as emergency contact. (The state of Kentucky takes its marriage laws and hospital forms quite seriously.) Things got heated, and Bruce—tall, broad shouldered, originally from Decatur, Illinois, and not a little un-scary when he’s nervous or angry—declared loudly: “Sir, we are married in our hearts.”

After a beat, the young man (he was wearing mascara) blushed and pushed the clipboard in my direction. “Just write wife,” he whispered.

While Bruce stared coldly at the wall in front of him, I wrote Wife next to my name and tried for an air of contrition. It’s my fault we’re not married.

Several years ago—after my divorce, after my husband, then still a colleague, cheated on me with the woman, my dear friend, who’d originally introduced us—a graduate student of mine suggested that if things ever got serious again with another person, I ought to keep it weird. My student hadn’t kept it weird: she was married with a daughter. But she seemed to have a firm and honest grasp on her situation as wife and mother, as well as on the incongruities of the world. (She once handed in a story to workshop in which a mermaid was roasted over an open fire and served to guests as a delicacy.) I was very much in the market for advice from interesting, clear-eyed, and absurd-minded women; I adopted hers with fervor.

About the time my ex was killing me in his fiction, I was explaining to Bruce that I did not want to be married to him, or anyone else, ever again. I wanted to keep it weird.

About the time my ex was killing me in his fiction, I was explaining to Bruce that while I wanted to buy a house with him and was even willing to help raise his daughter, I did not want to be married to him, or anyone else, ever again. I wanted to keep it weird.

By keeping it weird, I assumed—naively—that I could skirt the official role of stepmother, a title I’ve despised ever since my father married a deeply sadistic architect when I was ten years old. My hope was that, despite living with Bruce’s daughter half of every week, despite making extravagant dinners for her and cutting out giant hand-stenciled letters on her birthday and at the end of every school year, I’d somehow continue to exist merely as the eccentric childless girlfriend who happened to own fifty percent of a house with her father.

All semester I have been pestering my students about the perils of abstraction, but now I text Jane, It’s not a desire for infidelity or even something romantic outside the relationship, but it’s parallel. When I’m not writing, I feel udderless. Instead, my brain is lustful for Otherness without feeling actual lust and honestly despising, even fearing, the actuality of Otherness.

I reread my text. Then I add, *r*udderless.

She writes, my Freudian hackles are up, up, up!

I write, Basically I am aware of my domestication and would like one week as a wolf caterwauling at the moon, after which I’d likely be happy as a quokka for several more years.

Before she can ask, I send her a screenshot of a smiling, pint-size marsupial with the hashtag “quokkaselfie.” She sends me a picture of her guest bedroom/office. The sunlight is obscene. I search my archive, then send a photo of our new dining room table. She writes, talk about strong rug game. Is THAT new? Then she says, Teddy likes it too, and I wonder if she is signaling that we are not alone.

I know about signaling via text. Jane and I are not lovers. We just have a sympathetic view of life’s illogicalities.

Jane knows that my lamentations have at least something to do with my ex and his book, but neither of us is tedious enough to say so. I send her a picture of my attic office, which I’ve recently rearranged. In a single photograph, there is a stuffed barracuda, a zebra rug, several skulls, a seventeenth-century rug, an art deco mirror, the skeleton of a piranha, and a ship captain’s chair—all of it inheritance from my mother, who, about five years ago, decided to stop buying gifts and start giving away her possessions.

Jane writes, you’re a bohemian!

I write, In my heart I am a mid-century minimalist.

She writes, Can anyone with a child in her life be a minimalist?

I write, Can anyone with any kind of person?

Early on, things with Bruce’s daughter were fine. If I was, say, standing behind her when the UPS man knocked and she opened the door, she’d shove a thumb over her shoulder in my direction and say, “That’s not my mother.”

I’d say, without hesitation, “And that’s not my daughter.”

When her father wasn’t in the room, she’d sometimes sidle up next to me and whisper, apropos of nothing, “I’ll never kiss you. Never ever.”

“That’s good,” I’d whisper back, “because I don’t want to be kissed by you ever ever.”

But now, three years later, she seeks me out while I am in the kitchen cooking dinner. She kisses my arm. She hugs my waist. She smiles whenever I make eye contact. She plays my favorite Guy Clark songs and sings along with me, especially during “L.A. Freeway.” She beams when I go loud about the landlord: “. . . sonaBITCH has AL-WAYS BORED ME!

Recently, as if to spook me, she said, out of nowhere, “You’re basically my mom.”

With fear in my heart and a knife in my hand, I said, “No. You have a mother, and it’s not me.”

She said, “Yeah, but basically.”

Three kids tumble out of a giant SUV that’s pulled momentarily into our driveway. A mother scuttles after them. The driver, presumably the father, backs up and pulls away. Is he looking for parking? Or going home? I tag the picture of Jane’s spare bedroom and write, Such a gift, which is a joke between us, a nod to our students who traffic in canned language and hackneyed expressions.

My mother texts, Can I park in your driveway? I give it a thumbs-up. Then I snap a quick photo of the street below, crowded with my sister’s guests’ cars and my father’s MINI, whose driver’s-side door is shut now. How did I miss him shambling inside? He’s had two hip replacements, but he still walks four miles every day. My mother still runs. I come from a family of akathisians, which is a fancy way of saying we can’t sit still.

A few days ago, my father called me, weeping. He wanted to talk about my mother and their divorce, now four decades in the past.

“I’m sorry for everything,” he said.

“No more talk of the divorce,” I said. “No more childhood, no more apologies. You promised.”

“I feel things,” he said. “I feel things more than most people.”

“I’m busy,” I said.

“I hate days like this,” he said. “I didn’t sleep worth a turd last night. I’m an emotional guy, you know?” 

“I’ve got class,” I told him. “I can’t do this right now.”

“Do you think I could hurt myself? Your sister thinks I could hurt myself. I left my guns with her this morning.”

“I’m hanging up now. Is that all right?”

“Criminal,” he moans. “This is criminal.”

In the background I heard the slosh of water. “Are you in the tub right now?” I asked. “Are you taking a bath? Are you calling me from the bathtub again? We talked about this.”

“I can’t get the water hot enough. I’m creaky all over, and I can’t get it hot enough. My regular masseuse isn’t answering.”

“I have to go,” I said. “I’m sorry.”

Before I could disconnect, my father hung up on me, which is how he ends every phone call with anyone ever, and he texted my brother: Your sister is a heartless woman. My brother sent me a screenshot of the text with a thumbs-up emoji followed by a winking smiley face. I sent him the middle finger. My brother lives in Denver and runs hundred-milers and says things like, “My body is my temple.” He is universally adored. He’ll never move east.

I open the door to my bathroom slowly, as though I am an intruder, as though I am up to no good and desperate not to be discovered. The sensation of sneaking—of pretending to sneak—is infinitesimal and divine. The bedroom lights are off. There’s a mountain of laundry needing to be sorted and folded that’s strewn across the bed, my bed, our bed, the bed I share with the bald man. The laundry makes me want to throw myself onto the rug and bang my fists against the floor until there are bruises. Instead, I burrow facedown into the pile of clean clothes and throw a quiet make-believe tantrum. This, too, offers a sliver of ecstasy. I am not alone in this house, but there is no one in the world who has any inkling about my immediate whereabouts and activities.

“Don’t let the cat out of the bag,” I say to myself in a gravelly voice.

“Joke’s on you,” myself says back. “There is no cat.”

Last night, when I finally came home from my sister’s, Bruce and his daughter were in the basement watching a show, and I embarked on a one-sided cold war in the kitchen. I ground the morning coffee beans, finished the dishes, put away a few of the heavier pots and pans, then started the dishwasher, which sometimes produces a loud whooshing sound through the pipes closest to the television’s speaker.

Later still, in bed, Bruce asked me how mad I was. “On a scale of one to five,” he said.

“Mad at you?” I asked.

“Yeah, how mad at me are you?”

I said, “Not mad at you. Mad at life.” I had to look away so he wouldn’t see me smile.

Even later, I pushed him onto his side and curled up behind him. In the morning, I informed him of my restlessness.

My mother texts, Can you please unlock your side door and let me in? Glass of wine?

I’m still upstairs, still buried in clean laundry, so Bruce beats me to the door. But I’m in the kitchen by the time he says to her, “One good fact: What insect produces milk more nutritious than a cow’s?”

She hands me a bottle of white wine. “Open that?” To Bruce, she says, “An insect?”

Bruce pulls out her regular chair—she lives a half mile from us—and says, “A roach!”

She says, “That’s vile. Your street looks like a parking lot for the Keeneland racetrack.” As of this morning, more than seventy people had RSVP’d for this kid’s party.

I hand the unopened bottle of wine to Bruce. He swaps it for one from our Sub-Zero. For the next thirty minutes I clean and chop vegetables while Bruce and my mother argue politics and Shakespeare. (My mother was once a high school English teacher.) We finish the bottle.

Last night, after pushing Bruce onto his side, I didn’t sleep. I concentrated on my pillow, which is foam and has two cutouts for either ear depending on which side I’m sleeping. It resembles the head of a hammerhead shark. Without the pillow, I get earaches. At first, we tried a mouth guard. By “we,” I mean my dentist and me. But this was also in the era of my ex. He and I had just moved to Kentucky. In Chicago, where we used to live and teach, the earaches had gotten so bad that there were tests, then X-rays, then MRIs. The Kentucky dentist was amused that no one in Chicago had considered a solution so simple as a mouth guard.

For the first few months, the months when my ex and I were our happiest, which preceded the months and then the years when we were our unhappiest, I’d wake up, having slept like a kid koala, only to realize I’d dislodged the bite guard sometime during the night. Mornings, I’d search the bedroom to find it. Sometimes it was under the bed, sometimes it was on the bathroom counter, sometimes it was between the mattress and the box spring, often it was under my pillow.

One night, I didn’t dislodge the mouth guard and that was the last time I’ve ever been able to sleep without wearing it. The earaches didn’t go away. Eventually my husband did.

About the time Bruce and I bought this jewel of a house, I discovered the online world of TMJ pillows.

My mother says, “You know how when you’re surfing the Web, you sometimes get a pop-up and the doctor in the ad asks if you want to cure your toe fungus?”

I sputter, and wine escapes my nose.

Bruce says, “What are you talking about?”

My mother says, “I’m going to have all my toenails removed.”

I leave the room, and Bruce, as I am making a note of my mother’s exchange on a legal pad, says, “You know she’s writing this down, right?”

My mother calls out, with real panic, “If you give me toe fungus, I will never forgive you. I will leave the Rolex to your sister.”

I walk back into the kitchen and give my mother a look to indicate that I have no idea what she’s talking about. My sister, with the sixth sense of a platypus, texts, I can see Mom’s car. Where are you guys???

Here are three things I am envious of—Jane’s sunlit entryway, her box beam ceilings, and the fact that there is no child in her life.

Bruce says, as I moodily clean up vegetable debris, “You’re milking your life’s lament.”

My mother says, “Oh, is she depressed?”

I say, “I guess I think I’m sad,” which is something one of Bruce’s students said, an expression that floored us both for its vulnerability. Now, a year later, we say it to each other as an inside joke. There are lots of inside jokes between us, sayings whose origins sometimes predate our status as a couple. Last week, what did I say as we accidentally ran the red light? I said, “We don’t have time to obey the law!” Bruce echoed me, laughing, then said, “What’s that from?” And I told him about my first boyfriend who once ran a stop sign on his way back to our apartment, and I said, out of nowhere, my voice a high-pitched cartoon, “We don’t have time to obey the law!” The phrase stuck. We used it together for six years. Maybe he and I share its custody.

My mother tells us she is looking for her soulmate. Or someone to take her for a glass of wine.

“We’ll drink with you anytime,” Bruce assures her. “Have wine with us.”

“Yes,” my mother says mildly. “But you drink in sweatpants. I’d like someone to get fancy for.” Currently, she has three boyfriends, but they are all online, and they are all in different states.

The ski instructor is pushy, she says, and I encourage her to cut him off. To the retired army man she texts a photo of the bottle of Haut-Médoc Bruce opened. His reply is instant: I don’t like Medoc. I encourage her to cut him off, too. There is also a Canadian, but my mother says little about him, and I haven’t yet asked.

My father is also looking for his soulmate. He placed his ad in the newspaper, print edition, old-school style: Adventurous Tall Dapper Gentleman Seeks a female companion. My father was proud of the ad and shared it with me eagerly. I shared it with my brother, who was intrigued by his approach to capitalization. I noted that “female companion”—the ostensible purpose behind the ad—hadn’t measured up.

My mother remarried first. When she finally introduced us to the man—dinner at a restaurant—he opened his mouth to reveal a chunk of bright orange cheese he’d pressed against his tongue. The second time we met him—lunch at the same restaurant—my mother told us they were getting married. I was eight. He had thinning blond hair and was overweight. His younger sister had been the first Jewish debutante in Atlanta. I was skeptical that this doughy man with a penchant for soft cheese could have anything to do with a debutante, much less with my mother.

The man who would become my stepfather hated two things: people who hated Jews and the fact that he was Jewish. “Jewish by birth,” he’d say to me when I was older, “atheist by the grace of god.” He’d been married once before. They’d had no children. He didn’t drink. I met his father on a handful of occasions. He’d been an extra in Driving Miss Daisy and before that, in real life, an important and prominent lawyer. He’d had several wives. He was a man who didn’t especially like children. By the time I met my stepfather’s father, he was already dying of cancer. From my stepfather I learned to be observant and dismissive, cynical and dishonest.

I am not looking for my soulmate, in part because I have Bruce and in part because I disagree with the category, akin as it is to vampires or talking kittens, both of which are favorite subjects of my undergrads every fall. I regularly assure Bruce that I am like neither of my parents. When he is gone (as in dead), I will not be looking for someone to replace him. “You’re it,” I like to say. “Never again after you.”

“Please stop imagining your life when I’m dead,” he says to me, and so I do not tell him of all the improvements I make each night as I lie awake in bed next to him and fantasize about my life in our house alone. I do not tell him about the plunge pool or the mudroom or the tile roof or the slate-floored entryway. I certainly do not tell him about the Saarinen table in Verde Alpi or the Wishbone chairs he’d find so uncomfortable.

I do not tell him of all the improvements I make each night as I lie awake in bed next to him and fantasize about my life in our house alone.

Also, there is Theo, the mailman, on whom I’ve developed a crush in the three years since Bruce and I have lived together. I could say it is a platonic crush, but that would be wrong and serve only the purpose of protecting Bruce’s feelings, and he is perfectly aware of my own toward the mailman.

Theo is somewhere between six and a half and seven feet tall. He is Black and has a beautiful bald head. There is another mailman, Oscar, who is also Black, also bald, and classically more beautiful than Theo. But Oscar is not my crush. It is not Oscar who honks the horn of the U.S. mail van and waves at me when he sees me running and far from home. It is not Oscar who compliments the smell of my cooking as he wedges the day’s catalogues into the mail slot. It is Theo.

Last month, while I was replacing a hinge on the front door, Theo stopped to admire my handiwork. “Damn, girl,” he said, shaking his head. “Is there anything you can’t do?”

It is hard not to consider Theo.

Bruce and I didn’t have sex last night. I was tired. Also, I was mad.

Now I show my sister’s plea for our company to my mother and Bruce.

He says, “When my daughter was little, there weren’t random family members hanging around at the birthday parties.”

My mother says, “Speak it, Othello.”

I go upstairs to tell the eleven-year-old, who’s reading a book while sitting up in bed, that we’re heading to my sister’s. “You look like Alice James,” I say.

She primly tucks an edge of blanket under her thigh. “I resemble that remark,” she says.

Sometimes, offhandedly when talking to her friends, the eleven-year-old will refer to me as one of her parents. Sometimes, to my face, she’ll flat-out call me her stepmother, and I will remember all over again how wrong I was to imagine that marriage has anything to do with the love a child feels toward a grown-up. At the same time, I will look at her with absolute dread, worrying at her large and open heart, wondering at her capacity for and willingness to be vulnerable. When I was her age, I locked myself in the bathroom because I didn’t want to go to the court-mandated psychiatrist. I tore lines in my skin with a ballpoint pen to distract myself from the headaches I got from crying so hard. I kept a packed bag of my favorite stuffed animals shoved under my bed—one at my mother’s house and one at my father’s—ready to be grabbed in case of a fire or a pop-up kidnapping or the eventual and unavoidable arrival of the evil thing I knew with unreserved certainty was lurking, at all times, just around the corner.

Attendance for the eleven-year-old is optional, so we leave her to her voluntary bed rest, and my mother, Bruce, and I walk across the street. My father spots us immediately and pulls me in for a hug. Now my face smells like Polo.

He says, “Your sister reinvented motherhood. You look terrific, kid.”

Next he grabs my mother by her upper arm. He says her name. He says, “How are you, girl? You’re a sight. You working out?”

If she wasn’t already intending to wash that sweater tonight, she is now. Not because she thinks my father has cooties or anything. It’s the Polo. My father buys the stuff by the gallon. That isn’t a joke. Just like it isn’t a joke that my father installed a full-size fiberglass bathtub inside the shower stall at his apartment, which is a rental. It’s an exact replica of my bathtub. If I’d known he was going to buy one and put it in his bathroom, I would have offered him mine for free. Except for watering the upstairs and attic plants, we never use it.

My father also lives a half mile from us, but in the direction opposite my mother.

Nodding at Bruce, he says, “How’s your roommate?” My father has called every man I’ve ever lived with, including my ex-husband, my roommate.

I would like not to be bothered by the news of my ex’s debut. I would like for Bruce not to have looked over my shoulder this morning only to find me reading an early review. I would like for him not to have said, “You’re obsessed,” and I would like for the obsession not to be true.

In my ex’s book, the ex-wife character is a commercial hack of whom he and his more intellectual friends make much fun. In his book, I am wildly successful and dull.

Someone has put a glass of cider in my hand. (Cider is the family business; as in, my brother-in-law makes cider for a living.) My nephew sideswipes me. The cider sloshes but recovers. He runs the length of the yard, then hurls himself against the bounce house. There are squeals. He’s dressed as a police officer—baton and hat and everything. My nephew is beautiful and blond. I have thoughts about his costume. His little brothers are dressed up the same way.

I whisper to Bruce, “Am I high or are a bunch of the kids dressed as cops, not just my nephews?”

He says, “You might be high. That might be one of your little secrets. But there are, separately, at least a dozen officers.”

I say, “Is that weird?”

He says, “It isn’t Halloween.”

I say, “Am I high or are my nephews’ costumes really well-made while the other kids’ costumes look like they’ll ignite in direct sunlight?”

Bruce says, “I’m beginning to think you actually are high, but if you’re trying to figure out whether or not your sister shelled out extra money—”

My mother interrupts: “Does anyone want my cider?”

There was a time, just after Bruce and I bought our house and began living together for the first time, when I wouldn’t have sex with him if his daughter was home. Not even if she was fast asleep in her bedroom with its door closed and we were in our bedroom with its door closed and it was three in the morning. I would not have sex. Her proximity inhibited my ability to move outside myself, which is something I need to do to enjoy sex, and I enjoy enjoying sex.

By “move outside myself,” I mean to not be aware of or in contact with the version of me who chops vegetables or folds clothes or bakes bread or pays bills. I do not like to be “Woman making love with Man because he is the Man she loves and on whom she can depend.” I prefer to be “Body having sex with Body that happens to fit well and please well and anticipate well and tease well, this wellness having been established over years of satisfying practice.” Hearing myself think these things, I am dumbfounded by the fact that I was ever married.

When we fight—which isn’t often—if I cry, I always tell Bruce to ignore the tears. “That’s not me,” I say. “That’s just society’s conditioning.”

And he says, “It’s okay to have emotions.”

And I say, “Please don’t use that word with me.”

I am like this—willful, stubborn, withholding—until there is a morning like this morning. Suddenly, I announce my lament. I am deadpan and dry-eyed. It’s astonishing there are two sets of binoculars. 

A chintzily dressed officer rushes past and shouts to another kid, not dressed as anything, “I told you there was no piñata!”

It’s true: I am a little high. I wanted to tell Jane, but I didn’t want her to judge me. In general, I don’t get high, but I recently ordered some gummies advertised on Bon Appétit’s website. I thought the gummies sounded useful—tiny sugary pathways with expensive flavor profiles that might lead me out of myself for a few hours here and there.

The gummies, just as Bruce suspected, are in fact one of my petite private confidences, though I won’t ever admit it and he’ll never know, since I have a credit card set aside for just these trifling purposes. He does know about the credit card. Our finances are combined. My one request was that we never get married. His one request was that we join our accounts. All this to say, we’re knotted together as good as the next couple. But I like it that I can say to the eleven-year-old’s Kentucky-raised friends that her father and I aren’t married. So far, not one of them has cared. One day, I comfort myself, someone will surely be bothered, and it will be as spectacular as the sunlight across Jane’s entryway rug.

Wag the dog, I tell my freshmen, is an image that houses an idea. Irrelevant circumstances are dictating our actions is an idea without an image. Give me images, I tell them. They give me images by way of clichés—as in, My mother’s love was a gift. I say, yes, an image, readers love images, but can you make the image your own? They describe the gift’s wrapping paper. Better, I say. Still wrong, but better.

One book review goes into some detail about a plot point in which my ex lets an undergrad teach his class so he can have sex with his mistress. Knowing my ex, this likely happened. I bet he wrote the scene well. I wish I could read it without reading the book. I wish I could move it outside itself. I wish I could divorce it. I’m not trying to be punny. This is my brain on drugs.

I know a poet who wrote a beautiful book about her divorce. In the book, she asks herself something along the lines of, “What if I’d been watching the relationship instead of living in it?” I read that question and gasped. I said aloud to no one, “What if I had been in my marriage instead of watching it?” Then I clasped a hand over my mouth and felt very scared.

The bounce house is shaped like a castle. Because Bruce and I are fundamentally flawed people with big hearts, we have both done quick Google searches on how much my sister and her husband are paying for this party. We don’t yet know about the mutual googling, but later, lying in bed, the lights out, each of us separately wondering about sex—me: too tired? not too tired? interested? penis? him: sex sex sex sex sex boob boob boob boob—we will admit to having earlier in the day stepped away from the party to find the number. Maybe I go first, maybe he does. But our research renders matching results: in the state of Kentucky, four hours costs ninety dollars; for 20 percent more, you get the whole day; or, tack on 60 percent and you can make a night of it. I love the use of percentages in lieu of hard-and-fast prices.

There’s something going on at this party with all these cop uniforms that isn’t right.

“Old lady, push me,” says a neighbor boy to someone’s grandmother. I scan the crowd for the kid’s father. It takes me a few minutes to locate him because I’ve been looking in the wrong place. I’ve been looking for him anywhere not within hearing distance of his kid. Instead, he’s leaning against the swing set. He’s right there. The kid says it again: “Old lady.” The father hears. I can see that he hears even if his face registers nothing. (I know a thing or two about faces registering nothing.) I am seconds away from diving onto the lawn, pulling up grass by the fistful, shouting, I know you can hear him. I know you can hear him. Why won’t you do something? when Bruce edges near me and says, “There’s a lid for every pot.” He gestures with his chin in the direction of the alcohol tubs, where my father has cornered my mother.

My father, a tall man, is wearing his large-brim, custom-made cowboy hat, a white turtleneck, and a yellow bandana.

“That,” I say to Bruce, “is an image that contains a thought.”

He says, “I want to strangle that kid on the swing.”

This conversation must have happened earlier or later, because here is where my mother, smelling distinctly of Polo cologne, breaks in with her unwanted cider and says to Bruce, “I looked it up. Only one type of roach gives live birth and nurses her offspring.” To me, she says, “You look green.”

It must be the gummies. I say, “Roach milk makes me want to barf.”

She says, “Doesn’t everything make you want to barf?”

“Ouch,” I say. She is referring to my decades-long eating disorder. Think of it as an inside joke between two women who know and love each other to excess.

Oh, is she feeling ill?” my mother sings in a halting falsetto. “Her face is eau de Nil!

“What’s that from?” I ask.

“Word of the day,” she says. “Bruce turned me on to it.”

Bruce, pointing at my sister’s neighbor’s chimney, says, “That’s an adverse possession.”

I ask him what he’s talking about and if he’d know such a term if his ex-wife weren’t a tax attorney. He explains that the chimney is on my sister’s property but obviously belongs to her neighbor.

“So, whose adverse possession is it? My sister’s or the neighbor’s?”

He says, “The neighbor’s.”

I say, “Huh.” Then I add, “There’s a metaphor there.”

We drink more cider and watch the officers attack one another with plastic batons, which are leaving visible welts.

Toward midnight, while Bruce and I are in bed, possibly having had sex, possibly not, my phone lights up.

Bruce says, “Must be your boyfriend.”

I unlock the screen. My sister has written, R u ok?

I write, What kind of question is that?

She writes, Yr face looks sad.

I write, YOU CAN SEE ME?

Our blinds are pulled; our lights are off.

She writes, At the party, your face looked sad . . .

I write, Not sad, just high!

She writes, Fun!

Then she writes, Cocktails soon?

I thumbs-up the invite, then screenshot the exchange and send it to Jane.

In the middle of the night, Bruce jostles me awake.

“Who are you?” he asks.

I tell him I am me. But my mouth is still asleep, and so I hand him the thought with my mind. He does not hear me.

“Who are you?” he asks again.

There is a ten-year age difference between us, but it is too early for early onset.

“If I’m Bruce,” he says into my ear, “who are you? What’s your name?”

A motorcycle thumps down our street, its single cylinder pulsing into the late-night air. We listen as it passes.

“I’m Angela,” I murmur. “He named me Angela.”

“Angela,” he repeats quietly. His daughter is asleep in a bedroom down the hall. “My wife, Angela.” In his voice, there is a funny suggestion of relief.

Bruce squeezes my thigh once, then turns away from me and onto his side, pulling most of the blankets with him. Within minutes, his breathing relaxes. His shoulder rises and falls in rhythm with his breath. He leaves me awake and alone with my thoughts. I slip out of bed and tiptoe down the stairs.

I creep along the walls of our home, moving back and forth between rooms. I avoid the windows, stay in the shadows. I am terrified by my own silence, by the distance I can travel in this dark house without making a single sound. I imagine myself sleeping in the room above me. I imagine my boyfriend beside me. At the end of the hall is his daughter. We are so vulnerable up there—our sound machines purring, our fans whirring—all of us unknowing. I creep and pretend to be someone else, someone sinister, someone out to invade a home for no purpose at all except that I can.

Who am I?

I am a reluctant stepmother.

I am a selfish sister.

I am a very private person.

I am addicted to transparency.

I am frightened by infants.

I live the majority of my life in my head.

I want to confess.

I am trying to confess, but there are so many secrets.

Lee Mandelo Is Creating Queer Futurity Today

It seems like kismet for a PhD graduation, a book publication, and a 35th birthday to coincide. That’s what happened to Lee Mandelo, author, scholar, and editor of Amplitudes: Stories of Queer and Trans Futurity. The speculative anthology had been in the works since 2021—he devised the proposal after the publication of his debut novel, Summer Sons. As the senior fiction editor at the Hugo Award-nominated magazine Strange Horizons from 2012-2015, he’s no stranger to working with the fiction of others but, as he told me, part of the project of Amplitudes was to go beyond a simple anthology of queer writing and push back on the way queer and trans fiction is often siloed within the publishing industry. Inspired by José Esteban Muñoz’s landmark work of queer theory, Cruising Utopia, Mandelo’s anthology—featuring stories from both established and new writers in the sci-fi/fantasy field—envisions queer life a week from now, a year from now, centuries from now. The stories, written by newcomers and established sci-fi/fantasy voices alike, feature polyamorous, radical, queer activist collectives, pocket futures that spew ephemera into the past, knights in conflict with militias, cyberpunk noir stories, spy dramas, and the last gay club in the galaxy. 

Lee and I were both contributors at the science fiction, fantasy, and pop culture site Reactor Magazine (formerly known as Tor.com) a decade ago but never had the opportunity to interact face-to-face until this interview. Reading Amplitudes brought back the feeling of encountering his critical analysis back in the day—Lee has always had a unique ability to recognize and expose new ways of thinking about queerness and queer futurity. There’s a forward momentum in the collection, a sense that time is not only a factor in discrete stories that explore pasts and futures—post-apocalyptic dating apps and ghosts of digital avatars—but also forms a narrative arc for the collection as a whole as it imagines the many possible worlds we are rocketing toward. 

During our Zoom conversation, we discussed the temporality of these queer futures, the stories that caught him by surprise, and committing to the vulnerability of sincerity over irony.

Natalie Zutter: What inspired the choice of  “amplitudes” for the anthology’s title?

Lee Mandelo: We landed on Amplitudes when proposing this because, so often, people talk about queerness, gender, transness, etcetera, as a spectrum, which is imagined as 2D, point-A-to-point-B. I wanted to mess with that. When people think of amplitudes, it can be a measurement for a lot of different things but it is rarely that 2D. You’ve got things going all over the place. That image is something I wanted to hook into for how we’re thinking about gender, sexuality, and culture in these pieces.

NZ: What made you decide to work with Erewhon Books?

LM: We talked to multiple places across about a year in the proposal process, and Erewhon were the folks who came back with the most enthusiasm and the most willingness to pull back the curtain on the business. Part of that was paying contributors what I wanted and handling the project in a way that was labor-responsible for those contributors. We paid full market rate and everyone got royalties. I wanted fiction in translation and to pay both the translator and original author the full rate—which should be the norm but isn’t. Erewhon was willing to put their money where their mouth is on valuing short fiction in the industry.

NZ: Did you notice any recurring themes in the stories that you received or chose? What surprised you?

LM: We had a three-stage gathering process in which I solicited quite a bit of work. With solicitation, for every ten people you email, maybe five say, “I think I could possibly fit that in,” and maybe one can actually do it. As someone on both sides of the table, I completely understand that. 

People talk about queerness, gender, transness, etcetera, as a spectrum, which is imagined as 2D. I wanted to mess with that.

We also did open submissions, as I didn’t want to only rely on the built network I have. I wanted to see work from new writers—most of the surprises came from them. For a couple of folks, this is their first professionally published piece. The way people took the idea of futurity and ran with it was surprising because for a lot of them it wasn’t about uncritical hope or positivity. A lot of the stories are politically grounded in the now. I liked seeing people take that and make something moving, or even funny. Nat X Ray’s “Trans World Takeover” is one of the comedies. It’s about the absurd ways people talk about trans teenagers and young adults. That was so fun; here’s someone I’m totally unfamiliar with coming in through the submissions pile. It adds an element of bizarro humor to this really dark situation and lets us laugh at it, while also being about interpersonal relationships.

NZ: I was trying to group the stories into subgenres, but they span so many different styles, like Aysha U. Farah’s cyberpunk detective story “Sugar, Shadows.” There are also a handful set in Appalachia, like Katharine Duckett’s “pocket futures in the present past” and Jamie McGhee’s “Copper Boys.”

LM: I’m not that big on straight genre categories. I read across every one you could name. Part of the goal for this was to focus on the effect of a piece—what does it do, feeling-wise. That’s also how the text is arranged; one of the hardest things was picking the order, because there is a point to the order! Building those emotional arcs of “Well, are we talking about survival? Are we talking about sex? Are we talking about friendship?” 

I do have love in my heart for some of the subgenres. I’m a child of the ‘90s, there was a lot of queer cyberpunk then. But “Sugar, Shadows” is also critical of how cyberpunk often treats poverty and drugs—if you have a queer anthology that doesn’t deal with substances at all, I have questions. They are so common in our spaces. Still, Farah speaks to these issues with compassion.

NZ: Should we envision the futures these different stories imagine as contradictory multiverses, or do you see them operating on a continuum?

LM: Fun question. It opens the door for me to be a nerd about the quote that opens the book, the José Muñoz of it all. Temporality is a thing I’m thinking a lot about in this text. Particularly because we’re using the term “queer futurity”—which I’m borrowing from Muñoz’s Cruising Utopia—as a way of thinking about those possible futures. We can imagine some occurring on the same timeline, and some as different paths. There’s a sense that queerness itself—the queer and trans life and culture cycle in a world that does not want it to exist—is always looking toward the horizon of possibility, of potential. Life is hard, but there is a future, and we’re trying to build it together. What all the possible futures share is an idea that no matter what’s going on, no matter where we go or how bad it gets, there will always be us. There’s no way to actually get rid of us. That’s a transnational, global question that matters to me as a scholar but also as a writer. Queerness is a worldwide cultural space, particularly in the digital age. 

There’s a sense that queerness itself is always looking toward the horizon of possibility.

Something else that’s going on in the timeline of where all these stories are is that what queer life looks like is really dependent on your political and social situation. Wen-yi Lee’s “They Will Give Us a Home” speaks to living in a country that has a housing lottery system because of spatial constraints; that’s drawn from a very real experience. I think a lot of Americans will be unfamiliar with some of those experiences and can look at them and think about other ways of being. So maybe they’re all a little connected. These stories are all speaking to that shared temporality—like, all right, we’re here now, where could we go from here?

NZ: In the past, you’ve made a point of calling “queer representation” queer presence, which also references what Ocean Vuong has said on the topic. Was that on your mind while collecting and curating these stories?

LM: Yes. [laughs] For me, the difference being that representation is a flat way of thinking.  We’re having a lot more conversations about that now than we were even four or five years ago. The idea of this good or perfect representation of a “type” feeds into an obsession with classification and separation, which is really common in Western, very online, queer spaces right now. A sense of presence means that a lot of different kinds of people have to be in the room and have the space to create and be in conversation with one another. Part of that is thinking about solidarity—it’s not always going to be agreement. You’re going to have sameness—what you share in spaces with queer and trans people from different places, cultural backgrounds, and experiences—but also difference. Being able to hold on to the sameness and difference at the same time requires you to have a lot of people in the room who are coming from very different places.

The guiding editorial mission of this book was to have it look like the queer world I inhabit, which is to say, it does not represent any single “type.” As an editor, you have to curate that on purpose. That was part of wanting pieces in translation. I was asking, who are we not hearing from if these works aren’t translated into the language that we’re reading?

I think about my own queer life coming from rural Appalachia in Kentucky—leaving, coming back, etcetera. The queer communities we build, that I grew up in, are not segregated in the way they are in big urban centers, which is also reflected in online queer spaces. There’s not enough of us, so everyone’s kind of hanging out in the same places and building the same spaces together, even when that doesn’t work, or when it’s fraught, or when there are very serious problems. We all still share the space and learn from each other. That was very important to me in curating, making sure everybody I could hear from had the chance to be present and shape the book in different directions.

NZ: As you were arranging the flow of the entire anthology, did you always know that Sam J. Miller’s “The Republic of Ecstatic Consent” was going to be first, or did it take you a while to find the one that would kick things off?

LM: Yeah, I think Sam’s story being first and Meg Elison’s “Bang Bang” being the last one were set from the beginning; like, all right, here’s your theme, and here’s where we go from there. Both are very sincere stories—that’s something that came through in some of my initial reactions reading them. I was uncomfortable with the sincerity. You have to sit in the sincerity of desire, of community. Sometimes that can feel a little cringe, like when we love things, but it’s part of being alive. Especially in a fascist moment, I think sincerity is really important. Throwing back to Ocean Vuong again, he just did an interview where he talks about people’s negative responses to his new book. To really feel something—to commit to feeling it publicly, largely, and openly—is something people have a lot of difficulty with. Sometimes they lash out against it. I wanted to foreground that in the opening piece and the concluding one. There is a level of commitment to sincerity and feeling and emotion that we’ve got to have in resistance. You can’t South Park-irony your way out of things; that’s what got us here.

What all the possible futures share is that no matter what’s going on, no matter where we go or how bad it gets, there will always be us.

It’s easy to manipulate people’s emotional responses through irony or through saying “nothing really means anything.” A lot of people who have studied authoritarianism in its many guises, its many faces all over the globe, have noted that it tends to have a desire for truth to not be truth. For whatever you say, whatever anyone says, to be equally insincere and equally untrue. It detaches us from a shared social reality, from literal proof, and feelings of compassion, investment, and relationality. Sincerity and desire and pleasure are important, because they are what fascism wants to snuff out and control.

NZ: What’s next for you?

LM: There is an article that’s drawn from the first chapter of my dissertation (“Desiring Men Online: Trans Queer Masculinity and Digital Sexual Culture”) looking at what it means to be a queer man who is trans—particularly how the Internet creates a sexual culture and a space that we can be in, in a way that can be really good and separate from physical bodies. The first chapter of that is called “Toward a Transfag Phenomenology: the Orientation(s) of Desire and the Afterlives of Lou Sullivan.” It’s looking at how—not Sullivan himself, but the idea of Sullivan, the iconography of him, has circulated online in these trans queer spaces and in publications since his edited journals came out a few years ago. I spent two weeks reading his entire archive at the GLBT Historical Society—I’m starting to tear up again just thinking about it—looking at what got left out of the edited journals. He had seven bankers’ boxes full of writing; he wrote his whole life and kept everything. I was looking at those bad trans feelings that are important and that we don’t get to talk about as much because we’re faced with constant transphobia and we don’t want to give any ammunition. But then, what does that cut us off from? My article is coming out this fall from Post45.

On the future horizon, another novel will be the next project, but that’s a while from here. Finishing a dissertation really knocks it out of you. [laughs]

NZ: What advice would you offer someone looking to compile a similar queer/trans/futuristic anthology?

LM: I want there to be more. I want more people to be in conversation with us. We need more books. Now more than ever.

Think about where all of the perspectives that you’re gathering are coming from, and what is missing. Also, collaborate with other people; I worked with Diana Pho and Viengsamai Fetters at Erewhon throughout the process, and they really helped. I talked with friends about choosing between a couple of these stories. What do we have to leave out—because there’s always something left out—but what can we not afford to leave out?

Read very, very widely. Some folks here are from different genre spaces. I read a lot of literary fiction, and there’s a lot of crossover with luminaries like Ta-wei Chi who wrote “Circular Universe,” translated by Ariel Chu.  Working with them was beautiful. 

There is a level of commitment to sincerity that we’ve got to have in resistance. You can’t South Park-irony your way out of things; that’s what got us here.

You also have to really reach for it if you want to work with people when you’re like “aw, they would never.” Not necessarily! [Laughs] If you have a cool idea, go for it. You never know what people want to participate in, or who can connect you with someone else. Don’t self-reject. Think broadly and then check yourself. Whatever your perspective is, check it against friends with different perspectives in the field and ask, “What do you see that I haven’t included?” Sunny Moraine’s “The They Whom We Remember” came in later but fit really neatly. It thinks about bodies, nonbinary embodiment, sexuality, and transness in ways that I don’t—that’s not my experience. I read it on submission and was like, “Well, shit, this is really important, and I think a lot of people are going to feel this way.” But I had a blind spot; I hadn’t been looking for that perspective because it’s a different trans experience from mine. For me, that was a good model of, what do you not even know you’re not looking for? Look for that.

AI Can’t Gaslight Me if I Write by Hand

I drafted and revised this article in longhand, something I haven’t done since the mid-1990s, unless you count the occasional brainstorming I do in my journal. I made this choice because I’ve been worrying about how technology might be encroaching on my writing skills. I wanted to know what it would be like to return to the old ways.

I recognize that the overall loss of skills to technology is nothing new. After all, most of us don’t know how to hitch a horse to a wagon or spin yarn—although I’m interested in learning the latter. The world changes, and that’s okay. But in the digital age, innovation happens at lightning speed, with the results often integrated into our lives overnight—literally—and without our consent. That’s what happened when I woke up a week ago to find Microsoft Copilot, an AI writing assistant, installed on my computer—not as a separate app but as an integrated aspect of Microsoft Word. Its little grey icon hovered next to my cursor, prompting me to let it do my job for me. I spent an hour trying to get rid of it until I finally settled for turning it off.

I feel more and more that technology doesn’t liberate me as much as it diminishes me.

I value many technological innovations, such as the technology that enabled my laparoscopic surgery a few years ago. I think my Vita-mix is pretty darn nifty. And I’ve never doubted that the washing machine set us all free. But in recent years, I feel more and more that technology doesn’t liberate me as much as it diminishes me. Technological innovation has always had this darker side, slowly eating away at the things humans know how to do, or in the case of automation, the things humans get paid to do. But lately, the stakes feel higher. Where I used to feel new technologies robbed me of things I enjoyed doing, like driving a stick-shift car or operating my all-manual thirty-five millimeter camera, I now feel them getting into my head, interfering with the way I think, with my ability to process information. I worry: Am I forgetting how to add? How to spell? How to navigate the maze of streets in the metro area where I’ve lived for over forty years? Am I forgetting how to listen to and comprehend a film without subtitles, or how to read a novel?

That’s a lot of forgetting.


I have tried to resist many of these encroachments, tried to push back to preserve the skills that used to be rote, but I find it increasingly difficult. I feel my intellectual abilities slipping, despite myself, and I know: I am diminished. Now, technology is coming for my most valued skill, the one that has defined me since I first learned my letters: writing.

Of course, I am not alone in my fears about AI and how it might affect my profession as a writer and editor. We all have concerns about property infringement, the loss of jobs, the banality of ideas only formulated by the clunky cobbling together of what’s already been written and fed into the maw of the large language model (LLM). But I have an additional concern. For me, and for many like me, writing is not just a way of communicating, it’s a way of thinking. I rarely begin an essay with the entire thing planned out. Who does? Even if I have an outline, I will not yet have made all the connections that will come to be, let alone have planned out such things as metaphor, imagery, or other figures of speech that emerge in more creative pieces. Something about the state of suspension the brain enters while holding ideas in the air and doing the busywork of typing letters, spelling words, inserting punctuation into grammatically correct sentences, creates space where connections happen and ideas spring. It resembles the way a thing as simple as a person’s name will come to you when you let yourself think about something else. The physical act of writing serves as the distraction that lets the ideas flow. But also, and perhaps more importantly, writing forces the writer to think very slowly, only allowing the brain to move through an idea at the speed at which each individual word can be written. Perhaps that elongation of thinking gives the brain the time it needs to have new realizations. So much discovery happens as a piece of writing evolves that, like many writers, I often set out to write with the purpose of finding answers and prompting evolutions. In this way, writing itself functions as a generative act, a process of discovery and learning that far exceeds the simple recording and communicating of already formed ideas.

The physical act of writing serves as the distraction that lets the ideas flow.

Drafting this essay in longhand led me to think beyond how AI might affect this generative process to consider the other technological changes that have affected my writing over the course of my lifetime. Have those changes also impinged on writing’s process of discovery? I grew up with the unfolding of the digital age. In fact, I’m old enough to have begun writing my school papers with a pencil, reserving the pen for my final drafts. I remember the day when I decided to forgo the graphite and draft in ink. I had to adjust to the permanence of ink on the page when I’d yet to finalize—or sometimes even formulate—my thoughts. The typewriter came into the picture when my sixth-grade teacher required our class to turn in a typed final draft of our research papers. From then on, I typed all of my final drafts for school, progressing from a manual typewriter to an electronic one during high school and experimenting with various inadequate forms of whiteout in the process. I didn’t begin using a computerized word processor until college in the 1980s. And it was bliss! Anyone my age or older knows what a gift the invention of word processing felt like. The ability to add, delete, or rearrange text without having to retype entire pages just to correct one word was pure freedom. The composition on the page became so much more fluid, and the process of creating it so much faster.

But even then, I only used the computer as a glorified typewriter as I continued to compose all of my drafts by hand. It actually took years before it occurred to me to compose on the computer. During grad school, I wrote in longhand, typed up the draft, printed it out, edited it in hard copy, then typed the edits into my digital version, printed again, and repeated. However, when I found myself printing the same 25-page term paper multiple times to edit it, the wasted paper prompted me to consider editing straight on the computer. This process evolved until I finally decided to try composing there as well. Making the leap felt overwhelming because I did not yet know how to think about anything other than typing while typing. The integration of keyboarding into the already merged tasks of formulating ideas and composing grammatically correct sentences gave me the feeling of trying to fly without the proper means.

Of course, I adjusted. And soon I was flying. My fingers raced over the keyboard, enabling me to move through my ideas with a rapidity handwriting could never afford. Composing on the computer happens delightfully fast, but I wonder: if writing is a process of discovery and learning, then what discoveries did I lose by speeding up the process? What connections haven’t I made? Is there a level of richness or complexity I haven’t achieved because I’ve spent less time engaged in that magic writerly state of mind and therefore, less time exposed to the possibility of revelation? I can’t escape the thought that if slowness is key to writing, and writing is a way of thinking, perhaps each tech-driven acceleration of the process has chipped away at my depth of thought.

If writing is a process of discovery and learning, then what discoveries did I lose by speeding up the process?

Ironically, I found the return to hand writing an essay painfully slow at first. Although I eventually rediscovered my old routines, I initially had moments where I couldn’t wait to get to my computer so I could just get it down already—see the clean and neat print on the screen instead of my messy scratched up pages. I also noted that it took me forever to get started. I mulled over my ideas for weeks before putting pen to paper, in part because I felt a pressure to have all my thoughts together first. Before completing my first draft, I saw this delay as an impediment—thinking the prospect of writing by hand had held me up, slowed me down. Now, I see that prolonged period of contemplation as a benefit, providing another means of slowing down that gives the element of time its due, allowing it to generate and enrich ideas. This is why I always try to sleep on a draft before turning it in to a client, why taking a break from writing can help writers problem solve and iron out difficulties in a piece.


Writing is hard, so I see why some might be tempted to let a machine do the initial composing. The blank page represents the most difficult phase of writing because this is when the writer must engage with their topic most fully. In the absence of time or energy, AI might sound like a great solution—just as past innovations felt like godsends. But AI brings changes far more dramatic than those of the typewriter. If I let an LLM compose my first draft, only to edit and shape it and supposedly make it my own afterward—as I’ve heard some writers suggest—then I would have skipped over that initial composition process, that period of intense intellectual engagement through which we enrich our ideas. I would sacrifice the element of discovery, learning, and creation in favor of the LLM’s regurgitation. If the future offers a world filled with AI-produced prose, who knows how much we will collectively lose to writing created without all those unique incidents of epiphany and realization.

The idea that technology may have reduced the generation of ideas by speeding up my writing process came to me while working on this essay. I didn’t begin with that thought. I simply began with a question about how technological change had affected my writing. Answers came through my writing process. Realizing this, I decided to put the same question to ChatGPT. I used a few prompts: How has word processing changed how we write and influenced what we write? How has technology diminished my role as the driver of my own writing? The results were unremarkable. ChatGPT produced predictable answers (some of which I had already—predictably—mentioned). There were a few paragraphs about the speed of word processing and accessibility for those limited by poor spelling or grammar. It mentioned slightly off-topic items such as the effects of social media on writing. Interestingly, in response to the prompt about technology diminishing the writer’s role, it told me that too many AI suggestions might give the writer the “illusion” that the machine is directing the narrative more than the writer. Was AI gaslighting me? 

My essay certainly wouldn’t have evolved the same way if I’d begun writing by feeding those few prompts into an LLM. Who knows, maybe I would have ended up writing about social media? What I do know is that absorbing the results of the AI prompts didn’t feel like thinking, it felt like reading. If I’d started with AI-produced paragraphs, the generative process of writing the essay—not just the arrangement of ideas into sentences and paragraphs, but the process of formulating the actual points—would have come instantaneously from the outside. Meanwhile, I spent hours thinking about the topic before and after I started drafting and revising my handwritten essay. I experienced nostalgia remembering the satisfying clunk! clunk! of my old manual typewriter echoing in my childhood bedroom. I thought fondly of the long-ago graduate school days when I covered my living room floor with my term paper pages while trying to organize my thoughts. I pondered other questions, such as how AI might inhibit the development of voice for new writers only just coming of age. The paragraphs I wrote and cut about voice led to more paragraphs that were also cut about a job I had writing advertorials over a decade ago. I recognized the advertorial internet speak in the AI responses to my prompts. I even spent time thinking about the pleasure of improving my handwriting while drafting, relishing the curve of an “S,” the soaking of ink into the page as my pen looped through the script. These reflections don’t appear here—beyond their mention in this paragraph—but they are part of my experience of writing the essay, giving it more depth than any list of AI talking points. This experience demonstrates something basic, something I’ve known from years of journaling but didn’t think much about when I started this composition: writing is a personally enriching process, and it is this enrichment that comes across in the unique quality of what each of us writes. It is the soul of the writing, the thread that can connect writer to reader, which, I believe, is why we write in the first place.

There are all kinds of slow movements: slow food, slow families. Perhaps it’s time for slow writing.

Tech advancement has always asked us to relinquish our skills to machines in exchange for the reward of time. The deal feels worth it in many cases. But as I held my thick and crinkly sheaf of scribbled-on papers, it felt good and satisfying to have that physical product of my labor in my hands. And I wonder if perhaps we’ve gotten confused, thinking we should always use the extra time technology affords to do more things faster rather than using it to do fewer things slower. There are all kinds of slow movements: slow food, slow families. Perhaps it’s time for slow writing. For me, I plan to adjust my writing process by always writing my first draft on paper. This is, in part, an attempt to assert my humanity and wrest my writing from the clutches of technology, but it’s also a return to a process that feels good, takes time, and opens me more fully to the joys of personal discovery and connectedness that occur when words flow onto the page.