What Are White Men So Angry About?

Writer Sarah Hagi is said to have originated the highly relatable, often quoted, and even merchandised tweet, “Lord, grant me the confidence of a mediocre white man.” It is a phrase that many women have muttered to themselves in the midst of a bout of imposter syndrome, when some sense of self-doubt creeps in and we wonder, how do white men have the audacity? Where do they get the sheer nerve? 

Ijeoma Oluo in her new book, Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America, takes a deep dive into the motivations, expectations, and the root cause of why so many white men move through our society with extreme confidence and righteous entitlement. Mediocre reveals not only how dangerous it is for women and people of color to be on the receiving end of such entitlement, but how failing to meet the ingrained and deep-seated expectations sowed into the white male psyche for generations has proven to be a tragedy for white men also. Fresh off the success of So You Want to Talk About Race, through a historical, political, and sometimes personal journey, Oluo attempts to answer one of the most mysterious questions of our time: Why in the hell are white men so mad?

I spoke with Oluo about exactly that question, the ways in which America can move away from the white male supremacy design, and if it is human nature to align yourself politically with others like yourself.


Tyrese L Coleman: A central theme is that America is stuck in a system that is designed to uplift and reinforce white male supremacy, and that in doing so, everyone suffers, including white men. I’m curious as to whether or not you think our reliance on this design can or will ever be undone. And if so, will it be in your lifetime?

Ijeoma Oluo: Absolutely. I think it can be done. I think that right now, we are seeing with the changing racial demographics in this country is this mad, really intense effort to entrench these systems, even in non-white spaces. And so that’s something that we’re going to have to work extra hard to resist. 

But what I’m more likely to see in my lifetime is not that the system’s gone, but seeing pockets where we’ve disengaged from it and are working and building. I think it’s gonna be piecemeal and local. The system didn’t just land on us all of a sudden, it was built up, and it’s gonna have to be torn down piece by piece. What I’m hoping people see in this book are the reflections and the choices they’re making in their cities and towns. We can start making better choices in our workplaces, our towns, our churches to start dismantling these systems all over the country. That’s how the system was built. That’s how it could be taken down. 

TLC: Do you think we are moving towards a place where this is actively happening as we sit here right now?

IO: I think that in some places it is. Well, first, I wanna be very clear, there have always been activists, right? And even people within the system fighting to try to do this work for a very, very long time. So, yeah, I do think that we see bits and pieces of it. The “defund the police” effort is a huge part of it, the fight to de-weaponize one of the more violent tools of democracy in this country. We’re seeing it in some school reforms around the country. We’re seeing it even in the election and leadership of people like The Squad in congress, you know? And so I think that it’s absolutely being done. People have been dedicated to this effort for the entirety of human history. 

But if there’s one thing that the book shows is that as hard as some of us may be working, there are other forces working just as hard to try to take back any gains we make. So, it really is going to take a larger level of awareness and a lot more dedication in order for us to make changes last.

TLC: History has shown us that, in times where this country takes steps towards the social and political progress that you mentioned, moving outside of this white male supremacy design, we then take five steps back. For example, we saw this after the Civil War during reconstruction. We saw it in the ’70s and ’80s after the Civil Rights Movement. We saw it with Trump after Obama. What is your take on why this happens? Why do we revert back to the status quo? Is it—and I hate to say this, but for lack of a better word—a comfort level? 

White male identity is—right now and has always been, as far as the history of this country—a reactionary identity, not a proactive identity.

IO: I think there’s a couple of things. One, for people, for many people of color, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a comfort level. But I would say there is a deep fear of the unknown. We have history to show us that pushing too far means the backlash would be even harder or that there’s really a limit to what can be accomplished. And I think that we saw a lot of this in this election where people knew we absolutely needed to get Trump out of office but also, I think that many people of color had this pragmatic idea that white people were only gonna vote for so much. But also, I think it’s really important to recognize that Black America has bought into a lot of these white male ideals. 

But I would also say it’s really important to recognize, and it’s something that I hope that the book can make clear, that white male identity is—right now, and has always been, as far as the history of this country—a reactionary identity, not a proactive identity. And that means that, where it feels like it’s being shifted or pushed or threatened, it’s stronger than it ever is. And what we see is a direct backlash when something is shifting. If your identity is only based, comparatively, on what someone else is doing or what or how much further ahead of others you are, that means that every bit of progress is a threat.

TLC: You use a quote from Woodrow Wilson, “the white men of the South were aroused by the mere instinct of self-preservation.” And that goes to what you were just saying, the self-preservation instinct. Is that driving the reactionary response?

IO: Yeah, absolutely. I think it’s driving not only the reactionary response on the right, but also the reactionary response on the left, where we immediately start hearing that things have gone too far. The immediate fear. Even now, when we talk about why there wasn’t a bigger landslide [during the recent Presidential election] and people are saying, “Oh, well, you know, you said defund the police too much.” “Things don’t center us anymore, so that must be why things are the way they are.” And so it’s not only a response on the right, it’s a response across the board that is incredibly reactionary. And that also doesn’t get investigated, because the moment white male identity isn’t under threat, it goes dormant. No one stops and goes, “Why, why did a Black man get elected and I freak out? Why did that happen?” No one does that. 

So, I think that’s the real danger. But also the fact that we then treat that response as an excuse to not push further. If we don’t push further, we don’t get the backlash. Then what? Well, then we’re stuck where we are forever, right? But people pretend like it’s not a natural response that’s going to keep happening every time we make progress. People like to pretend there’s a way to make progress that won’t threaten white male identity.  And there simply isn’t. So, in order to move forward with a society that isn’t stuck in this design, we have to actually confront the white male mediocrity that is in power. 

TLC: That reminds me of your chapter sections on Biden and Bernie. The theme I got from those sections was that, “white man is gonna white man.” They’re going to align themselves with those that are like themselves. There’s always this argument that we should move away from identity politics but that, in and of itself, is an example of identity politics, especially when you are aligning yourself with the policies and the legislation that help your particular identity. But is that a part of human nature? Isn’t it natural for them to do that?

IO: I would say no. I would say what is natural is to see affinity. And when we pick who represents us, often affinity is what we choose. Whether this person represents our interests and represents who we are. 

But there are two things I think that have been deliberately constructed. One is how white men view community and their best interests. And it’s very exclusive. Who we view as community, who I view is community, and whose futures I tie to my own is important. But also are your definition of well-being, your definition of best interest and what those interests are deliberately constructed to be harmful? That can make a huge difference.

I can look at someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is not Black, and see affinity with her because I can see the way she is fighting for poor communities. And that’s how I consider my community, because my community is about bringing people together and solidarity. It is not about being on top and being more powerful. That’s where the danger is. And politically, that’s what we have with white manhood as a political construct, an identity based on power and oppression. And that means that you can never actually find an identity that reaches beyond that. You can never actually find cooperation or shared interest if it would threaten your power. 

And that’s really the difference. It is completely natural to find affinity with people to say “this is us, and you are you.” But if what defines it means that, even when it’s in your best interest, you can’t expand, you can’t bring other people in, you can’t find shared interest because your interest is always about doing better or having more than, then we have a serious problem, especially in a democracy.

TLC: In thinking about the process of transferring power or equalizing power, you write, “…yes it will offer some real benefits for you, but it will not always benefit you. Sometimes it may seem like justice is disadvantaging you when the privileges you enjoy are threatened.” Do you think that in order to create equality, there has to be a giving up of something in order to benefit others? Or is there another way of looking at it that could make it feel less like giving up? Do white men, in order to come to a reckoning with history, have to do the work of giving up some level of power in order to equalize things?

IO: I think, no matter what, the power has to be given up. When everyone is doing better, you do better, no matter what. We all do better. 

But there isn’t a one for one replacement for an identity built on being better than everyone else. And so that means that it will at times feel like a loss that has nothing to go in its place. And the only way you can value what replaces it, is if you let it go. You can’t hold on. You can’t say, “I’m gonna hold on to this power while I get used to not having power.” It doesn’t work that way. And so that’s the part that’s important. And it’s also important that we recognize this because we can’t keep saying we’re gonna wait until white men are comfortable and ready because that in and of itself is upholding white male supremacy. Their comfort is so important that we’ll continue these systems that are literally killing people because white men aren’t ready yet. We haven’t found a way to convince them yet. That in itself is saying a lot about, respectively, how we value white men compared to everyone else.

TLC: For a long time, the default has been “white” and “male.” For example, when you think about the terms “fiction” and “women’s fiction” to differentiate genres. The fact that one has to differentiate “women’s fiction” means that “fiction” is not for women. But I feel like we’re heading into a world where white men are being specifically identified as “white men,” highlighting them as individuals, whereas before, it felt like they were a conglomerate. 

You write about how angry white men are, and I’m wondering if part of the desperate anger that we see and that you experienced in your personal life as a result of white men is related to a spotlight on them as individuals, so that they’re now being required to show their worth rather than relying on being a part of the default? 

IO: I think of it somewhat in the opposite, which is that there was never any light on the system. The system was fully operating for white men and yet we had this idea that each white man was an individual and never responsible for what he did collectively. We weren’t saying, “We have a white man problem.” It was, “No, no, no, no, no. We have a problem with this one man. And this one man.” Collectively as Black people, we were always saying, “Look, white people are gonna do this shit, right? This is fucked up.” How many times have you been asked if people are racist and you say, “No, you have one racist person. People aren’t racist.” Or asked to seperate? “We’re not all bad.” Even when we talk about the police. “No, we have one bad cop. We don’t have a systemic problem.”

The problem with that is that it absolves white men from accountability. It also stops them from seeing how the system is screwing them over because it’s invisible. The system that they are a part of that is supposed to magically make them all happy, successful and powerful is invisible to that. All they know is that they’re failing. 

I do think we are seeing increased accountability in the last few years. Talking about #MeToo, talking about race. We’re seeing white men who’ve been doing what they’ve always been programmed to do, feeling like they’re being cheated. But not only are they not getting rich and famous, not only do they not feel successful, but now they’re being punished for doing what they’ve been programmed to do. And I think that, for them, it feels incredibly unfair. It feels like they’re being targeted and maligned because, as a society, we have allowed white men to not be responsible for how they participate in systemic oppression. And now that they’re being held responsible, they’re basically like, “Oh, since when?” This is a tragedy. They’re allowed to center themselves because we haven’t moved far enough away from the narrative. It’s still all about these white men. They don’t get that it’s not all about them. 

I think that’s part of what we’re seeing, this mix. White male power got to be ubiquitous for so long. It got to be the air we breathe. And now there’s suddenly some accountability. And I think white men, too, have always been angry and bitter by the failures that have been placed upon them. They aren’t as successful. They’re not as successful and powerful as they were told they should be and because we never talked about the system, they weren’t told why. And so they were told to blame us, blame women, blame people of color. And now, on top of that, they’re like, “I’m already miserable and you want to yell at me for grabbing someone’s ass at the workplace? Since when?” We’re seeing this anger and desperation because they aren’t conditioned to accept responsibility. They have refused to learn how they participated in systems of violence.

TLC: I mean, it’s funny how the stereotype is of an angry Black woman, right? But what I’ve read in Mediocre is the angry white man archetype. I can’t help but think, “What the hell do they have to be so angry about?” They’re still ahead of everyone else when you look at employment, pay, housing, education, everything. That’s what you were just addressing, this unrealistic level of expectation and then being slammed down by reality. Even yet, still, most of the world is like, “okay, and…” 

IO:  I can understand so much about whiteness, but I can’t understand what it would feel like to be 40 and realize that you’re part of an unfair system. You know what I mean? 

We need to recognize that we have been programmed to view harmful white male ideals as leadership and step away from it.

The difference is that white men have been so coddled that they don’t know they can survive this knowledge. They can grow past it. We have. We are living examples of going past the knowledge that this system sucks. We still do what we can. We still care for our families. We still try to find happiness.

But there’s this idea that a white man shouldn’t have to, and they have no practice in it. And I’m sure that’s a huge existential crisis to realize you’ve striven your whole life for something you were never ever, ever gonna get. You know, when I was a kid, no one said to me, “You could be president one day.” But we were told to strive and try our hardest, because we had to take care of our family. Because we had to be something. But not “it’s coming to you.”

White men were told they could be president someday. No matter what. Even if your kids hate politics, don’t pay attention to anything, is a total asshole. There’s still someone telling them that they could be president someday, and they will become president someday.

And there’s almost a cruelty to it—the lie that’s told to white men—because only so many of them can be president. Only so many of them can have their own company. Only so many of them are gonna be rich. There’s limited resources in the system that siphons up the majority of profits for business owners and investors. So it is a childish, oversensitive place that white male America often finds itself in. And I don’t know what it’s like, and I can’t imagine what those growing pains are because it’s just a luxury that so many of us never had.

TLC: What can those of us who aren’t white men do to help move our society forward so that everyone benefits? Specifically, how can we disrupt the design? 

IO: One is we have to be really aware of where we uphold it. This is where we do the self-audit and say, even for me as a Black woman and in Black culture, where do I define success as a dude, putting on a suit and talking a particular way instead of accomplishments that may be divorced from white supremacy and patriarchy? Where am I spending my money? What am I consuming? What am I supporting? What conversations am I having around that to free myself and my family and my community?

But then also it’s really important for us to look at systems that were born in these ideals and then continue to uphold the status quo and fight for change. Starting in your school district and going through your kids textbooks and see what’s in it. Look at school funding. Look at teacher recruitment. Look at what we can do at a local level because, obviously, that’s where the impact of everyday life is but it’s also the breeding ground, the training ground for our national politics. 

These national politicians don’t just appear out of nowhere. They come up through the systems and are told what to expect. I think it’s important that we look at our systems and say, “Okay, you know what? Maybe I can’t influence what’s happening in D.C., but I can influence what’s happening in my city council. I can take a look at what’s being promoted there. I can look at what businesses I’m supporting locally. I can look at what I’m saying to my kids about terrorism and manhood and how it’s being defined. I can have those conversations.” I think that that’s really where we have to start doing the work. 

And then, of course, where we do have power on a national level, where we can vote and support and make our voices heard, we have to. We have to really check ourselves and recognize that we have been programmed to view harmful white male ideals as leadership, and we have to learn to recognize it and step away from it.

A Coming-of-Age Novel that Weaves Ugandan Folklore and African Feminism

For girls growing up in India, there are several names used for our vaginas: susu, nunoo, and perhaps most tellingly, “shame-shame.” As in, “Close your legs, your “shame-shame is showing.”

Across the ocean in Uganda, there is another set of names that carry similar echoes; for example, “ruins” or burden”—as in, “Did you wash your burden properly?” This failure to name female bodies straightforwardly is not a third-world problem (what on earth is a “hoo-ha”?), but the forms that this naming takes tells us something about the way society views girls and women: forcibly infantilizing, shameful, dangerous. 

The question of how women’s bodies are articulated in “a patriarchy that cannot make up its mind whether to fall on its knees in worship…or flee the crisis” is at the heart of A Girl is a Body of Water. In Jennifer Nansubuga Makumbi’s expansive coming-of-age novel, we follow Kirabo as she makes her way from rural Uganda to urban Kampala—a deeply embodied experience in which the language surrounding her body plays a crucial role. For example, Kirabo’s favorite aunt calls her vagina “your flower,” while a girl at her missionary boarding school terms it “her beautiful.” But as one woman astutely reflects: “Worship, persecution, where is the difference?”

In many ways, it is this lack of difference that Kirabo and the women in her life—from her grandmother to her stepmother to her missing biological mother—must contend with at every turn. In Makumbi’s sweeping intergenerational tale, “history s[i]ts on everything, howling,” producing layers of complexity that resist the postcolonial impetus to make oneself legible to empire. Makumbi is quoted elsewhere saying: “I don’t write for a Western audience. If I can understand Shakespeare, you can understand me.”  

This, to me—to many of us—is everything. 


Richa Kaul Padte: I’d love to start by talking about stories! Kirabo, the protagonist, is an avid storyteller, and the book opens with her as a young child in rural Nattetta, desperate to narrate a tale to her family one evening. “Unfortunately, tradition was that she could not start her story until the audience granted her permission,” so she waits for the customary “Kin, you were our eyes” from her grandfather to before she begins. 

I’m curious: who, if anyone, gave their permission for you to begin A Girl is a Body of Water—and conversely, was there anyone’s silence you ignored?

Jennifer Nansubuga Makumbi: The thing about the novel, Richa, is that unlike the oral folktale, permission is not given at the point of writing: it is given later. And Richa, this is a silencing you cannot ignore. You can write all you want but they are waiting. And that is what is so cruel about the novel. You labor for years, draft and redraft with all sorts of hopes, and then you are stopped at the gates. I suppose Kirabo would say it is similar process, though, since we saw her trying out her story on the goats, then on Grandmother, and then Giibwa her best friend, only to be stopped by the teenagers.

The thing about the novel is that its reception is not as immediate as that of the oral tale, where displeasure, shock, pleasure, or rapture are transmitted instantly. You see it and feel it and, in its absence, where necessary, edits are done on the story. With the novel, permission is given at the gates of the agent and then of the publishers. And boy, they fell silent when I arrived with this manuscript in 2003. No gate was opened. I went back and rewrote it and tried again in 2005, but gates were firmly locked. I rewrote it again and tried in 2008 but it was a resounding no. 

At that point, I put it away and focused on my second novel, Kintu, which was allowed in at the agent’s gate but declined by the publishers. It won a manuscript competition in 2013 and got published in Kenya in 2014. It came out in the USA in 2017. My third book, a collection of short stories called Let’s Tell This Story Properly, was published second. All that time, I had the manuscript for A Girl is a Body of Water. It must have looked on while newer books got published and wondered why. 20 years after I started writing this novel, the gates opened, but it was because of the other two. As you know, the reception of the novel is not only delayed, it is at a distance, through reviews, sales, and word of mouth. At the same time, reading, unlike listening to a story, is a weird activity; it [happens] in private and in isolation, it’s very individualistic. Unlike a storyteller, for the author, reaction may come long after you have moved on to another story. 

RKP: I’m really interested in the different ways of knowing you explore. There’s a moment when two girls (I don’t want to give too much away!) are learning to read and write: “[One] confessed that out of the five vowels, she liked e the most. It was quiet and unassuming. i was loud. a was haughty…[The other girl] nodded; vowels having personalities made perfect sense.” It’s the same with numbers. 2, 5 and 8 can “be trusted” because they are female. “As for 4, they are female and male at the same time, but I don’t know why.” This is the kind of story that is easily converted into a charming rural anecdote, but here it feels like a deeply contextualized way of knowing the world. What, according to you, is this context? 

JNM: This way of knowing is of childhood, the way a ten-year-old understands and interprets the world around her, where everything is seen as having a consciousness, a personality. But it is also skewed by the Ganda culture and their way of understanding humanity, and most importantly, a feminine context—the way a little girl interprets the world of numbers and the alphabet through gender. It betrays how she looks after and protects herself in that world. It is a world that has not yet been boxed into the binaries of male-female/man-woman, but it has already been biased in its way of looking at masculinities. 

In my writing, especially in my first novel, Kintu, I am keen to demonstrate that there are so many ways of knowing and ways of appreciating the world around us. But because the West has a monopoly on science, on interpreting the world to humanity and to showing how to be, we have limited ourselves to cerebral ways of knowing and have suppressed others. But I think, recently, the world is opening up to other ways of being and knowing.

RKP: You write: “only a woman knows how to love a woman properly,” and the relationships between women form the beating heart of your book. But it is not a just or equal heartbeat. Giibwa, Kirabo’s childhood best friend and the daughter of a laborer, says: “not all women are women. Some women…are men. You go to school, get degrees, then get jobs and employ women like me to be women for you at home.” Using the analogy of a human hand she goes on to say: “for me the problem is not that the male finger rules the hand; it is the fact that the four female ones are not equal.” 

Living in India, where the caste system renders women brutally unequal, Giibwa’s metaphor really struck me. And I wonder: in the face of this daily, oppressive reality, is the idea of intersectionality an academic pipe dream—one in which, as Nsuutu says, “these women will find out that the women they are trying to save are an obstacle”?

Oppressed people hurt themselves not only because they have internalized their worthlessness, but because they are so close to each other that they can reach out to harm and to heal.

JNM: Richa, you say, “But it is not a just or equal heartbeat.” And my immediate answer is: How can it be? How can oppressed beings not turn on each other? They are all they have! Turning on each can’t be helped because they need relief, to release the tension of oppression. And since they cannot turn on the oppressor, they turn on themselves to relieve this tension. Look around you, Richa, and see how much the oppressed turn on themselves. And this is not just about women. All oppressed people hurt themselves. They hurt themselves not only because they have internalized their worthlessness, but because they are so close to each other that they can reach out to harm and to heal. And yet because they suffer together, only they know how to love a fellow oppressed being. The problem is that this oppression is not operating in isolation. There is capitalism dividing them, pitting them against each other too. This exacerbates an already bad situation.

RKP: “The British took the natural clock out of the sky and chopped the day into twenty-four hour segments.” In turn, “Ganda months, which had…depended on the moods of the seasons, were being replaced by the static European calendar.” The Western construction of time—the 24-hr day, the 7-day week—has developed alongside a drive toward efficiency and productivity. But as Jenny Odell asks, “Productivity that produces what?” 

Ganda time, where “the day…started with dawn and night with dusk,” is so clearly linked to the real productivity of farming and going about life without electricity. But British time is linked to manufactured productivity, such as the implementation of a massive imperial project. Which makes me wonder: are daylight savings a reassertion of the sky’s natural clock, or a continued effort to bend nature in the service of power? 

JNM: Uganda is located on the equator. The sun rises and sets around the same time all year round. Night and day are equal all year round; that is, twelve hours each. Before I traveled to Europe, I had no real sense of long nights and shorter days or vice-versa, even though we had studied this in geography. Now that you mention it, manufactured productivity makes sense, especially when you think of it in terms of “the day” being 24 hours as opposed to the demarcations of day and night. With the 24-hour “day” working shifts have become normalized regardless where they fall, regardless when they start and stop. Then the world is in production all 24 hours. Then bodies can be moved about around the clock in productivity. Bearing in mind that moving hours back and forth was about the farmers being given that extra hour in summer, it is all about productivity. I have always wondered why they could not just have a longer working day in summer and shorter working days in winter, but I dismissed it as the limitation of an equatorial understanding of time.

RKP: Widow Diba reflects: “All my life I never, ever saw strife among our [five] mothers. Often, we did not know who was whose mother; it did not matter because they loved us equally.” But “in the city, among the educated, the family had been restructured — by Christianity, colonialism, and an emulation of the West. What I love about your text, though, is that it never presents the tension between traditional and modern ways of being as clean-cut dichotomies. For example: nuclear families lose the support of the clan system, but they also lose, or at least attempt to shed, its tight control. Was this resistance of easy categorization your intention at the outset, or did it evolve as you developed the novel’s world? 

When you live in cultures that were colonized, in a world where Western culture is on the rampage, you have no idea where tradition starts and where modernity stops.

JNM: There is nothing I hate in literature like the trope “Tradition vs. Modernity.” I don’t know how readers manage to make such distinctions. When you live this life in cultures that were colonized, in a world where Western culture is on the rampage, you have no idea where tradition starts and where modernity stops. It is life. For example, Christianity has become Africanized, as I show in Kintu, by imbibing traditional modes of worship and beliefs. Yet, Christianity should be modernity in Africa but it is now looked at as tradition, especially as the West becomes less Christian. English is our national language and indeed, in most African countries, a European language tends to be one of the official languages, to the extent that there are local Englishes in most countries unique to their localities. Again, English should be modernity but the way we speak it becomes local. Think about it, Richa, in Western writing, do you see any tension between local and foreign? Non-Western food and practices are presented as parts of a Western life. Besides, the West has tradition and modernity [as well], but somehow these distinctions are not pointed out.

Widow Diba romanticizes the old times when some women were happy to marry a man with other wives because this gave women a break from marriage and motherhood, which was hard work and there was no divorce. On top of that, women did not fall in love with their husbands—these were arranged marriages and so women were not so possessive. But there was another dimension to polygamy. Women who loved women were able to make their husbands marry women they loved and created a harem for themselves. This is why it was Diba’s mother who found wives for her husband. But men had no idea they were being used. They imagined they had “good” wives. Polygamy, in this case, was a sanctuary for women who loved women. Christianity had no business ending it. 

What I Learned About Writing from Making Sound Effects for Movies

Sound effects lie somewhere between language and music. Film sound is story-driven, subtextual, and often assembled from unusual sources—and like writing, it’s full of information and emotional cues. It’s also immersive: when a sound track has been crafted well, the audience doesn’t realize they’re being carefully guided. The starship, the magic, and the mythic creature gain another level of realism. The theater room itself becomes a whole environment I can transport the listener into: the mystical tunnels in Onward, the desolate alien wasteland of Titan in Avengers: Endgame, or up among the clouds in Big Hero 6.

My work as a sound designer has cross-pollinated into my fiction, where I use the same tools in both to craft the wondrous unknown—particularly important in sci-fi and fantasy where unusual concepts are the norm. In my writing, I want to fill the space between the words and the reader, wrapping them up like I would in a theater and making them forget where they’re sitting. That means recognizing that manipulating the meaning of language isn’t enough. You also have to consider how it sounds, and the effects those sounds work on the reader’s body and brain.

Film sound is story-driven, subtextual, and often assembled from unusual sources—and like writing, it’s full of information and emotional cues.

Renowned sound designer and picture editor Walter Murch calls music “embodied sound” which is experienced directly, without a code of meaning between sound and listener. On the opposite end of the spectrum lies speech, “encoded sound,” which is filtered through the code of language. Sound effects, Murch says, are centaurian: half language, half music.

When we hear a door or a gunshot or a train, we receive both the coded information that implicitly tells us what the thing is, and the direct emotional experience of the sound. In film, for example, the sound of the Morag Temple Vault door in Endgame tells the listener instinctively that the door is old, made of heavy stone, and situated inside a cavernous space. At the same time, the sound embodies emotional qualities: this same door can be made to sound funny, frightening, or forlorn. My job as a sound designer is to manipulate the listener’s emotions while also tapping into this instinctive code to quickly convey information about a scene.

But writing is all language, all encoded, which would seem to mean that I’m missing the “embodied” part of Murch’s equation. I can give a reader information, but I can’t rely on a raw sensory experience to manipulate their emotions. However, if the opposite end of the spectrum is music, then I can leverage the musical elements in writing: cadence, rhythm, dynamics, and the oral sounds of the words themselves.

In the opening lines of “Steering the Craft,” Ursula K. Le Guin says, “The sound of the language is where it all begins. The test of a sentence is, Does it sound right?” Storytelling has been primarily oral for so much of history, inseparable from the sound of it, if not also accompanied by actual music or singing. Musicality and energy is just as much a tool in prose as it is in poetry. Le Guin notes that many writers outgrow their oral/aural sense of what they’re reading or writing, but that it’s easy to cultivate, learn, or reawaken.

Aurally driven as I am, I can’t help but work with the physical elements of language—the sounds and silences creating rhythm and relationship—as well as the pure information of it, in the same way I would for film. The aural motion and texture of words, linked together into cadence and rhythm, gives us the same immersive effect that I’ll carefully craft in film sound, evoking not just meaning but raw emotion as well.

When I’m figuring out what sounds to use in a movie, the emotional resonance always comes first.

When I’m figuring out what sounds to use in a movie, the emotional resonance always comes first, before I consider the material mechanism at work. I’ve created the sounds of magical abilities for both Pixar and Marvel, but they have very different tones. The magic of Ian Lightfoot in Onward is cool and fun, but not too silly or dark, while the magic of Wanda Maximoff in Captain America: Civil War is violent, powerful, and beautiful. For the emotion of Ian’s magic, I’ll reach for materials like chimes and sparklers and fire poofs. Wanda’s magic is built from ripping textures, explosions, and scraped metal. In writing, I create similar emotional palettes with my word choices: one magic might pop, sparkle, whoosh, and fizzle, while another may scream, thunder, rip, sizzle.

Evocative choices must then be layered or strung together in an evocative flow. For example, the writing cadence I’ll use in an action scene is the same way I think about rhythm and blocking in film. In Nophek Gloss, a spaceship chase through the narrow avenues of a gigantic station is paced how I would use sound, attentive to things like movement direction and building tension up to big impacts. I’ll find spots for a silent beat or literal breathing room, or choose a different sense or a bit of dialogue to vary the pacing of the physical action and keep the audience engaged. I read aloud, pay attention to snags and bumps, and shape the silences and white spaces of the story into rhythm.

Rhythm extends from sentence to scene to the story as a whole, where we aim to interleave big, vibrant moments with subdued, understated ones. These dynamics balance character development and action, and include emotional dynamics for a balance of scenes that make you cheer, others intensely sad, and some that are filled with joy. This creates a wave of narrative dynamics that carries the audience along no matter what form that storytelling takes.

If an explosion or realization needs impact in writing, I’ll slow the moment first to carve out a dip for the intrusion to enter into.

Trying to fill up every moment with energy will make each beat start to lose impact. A quiet sound before a louder one is going to make the loud one hit harder by virtue of contrast. A stretch of silence before a sudden explosion draws the audience’s focus in rather than dulling their attention with continuous loud beats. Sentence length and the white space of a page can perform similar dynamics. If an explosion or realization needs impact in writing, I’ll slow the moment first to carve out a dip for the intrusion to enter into. We find this same sort of dynamic performance in oral storytelling, maneuvering the audience’s emotions, but too often it gets left out in written prose.

Though these twin tools of music and language are useful across genres, they’re especially important for science fiction, where we want to encourage readers to suspend disbelief in the unreal.

For science fiction and fantasy films, much of my job is to create the sound and feel of things that can’t be recorded with a microphone: aliens, fantastical creatures, superpowers, and advanced technology. A frequent request I get is that something should sound “like nothing we’ve ever heard before.” Such a sound doesn’t exist, but what the directors are really asking for is a sense of wonder. We want a sound that is not novel but unexpected for whatever the event is.

Since I can’t venture out and record a magic blast or starship engine, I need to think outside of the box and reach for nonliteral source materials to manipulate into a sense of wonder. Often, the dissonance of using unexpected recordings or words on purpose—ingredients that are “wrong” from a literal perspective—actually engages the audience’s subconscious more, creates a feeling of otherworldliness, and suspends disbelief.

Since I can’t venture out and record a magic blast or starship engine, I need to think outside of the box.

What if I use ice crackling recordings to create the sound of fire? It matches what the eyes see and sounds “correct,” but the brain knows something’s slightly off. I could have used sparklers for the sound of the fiery sparks of Doctor Strange‘s magic portals, but instead I used ingredients like ice and metal, a dissonance that makes it sound all the more magical.

In writing, this is commonly called “unexpected but inevitable,” a sense of satisfaction from a believable surprise. This term is usually reserved for plot twists and finales, but I believe it works equally well at the sentence level. I often seek unexpected verbs and sideways analogies that are more evocative than the literal thing. What if the wind combs through the grass instead of blowing through? Maybe I need a sharper word, that the wind rakes or cuts. Softer, it might purl or whisper.

An author playing against expected feelings can create an emotional surprise by avoiding the obvious emotion and digging deeper or sideways for what Don Maass calls a “third level emotion.” This extra bit of challenge asks readers to engage further and ignite their own feelings about the story..

Suspension of disbelief is especially important in sci-fi and fantasy films with heavy visual effects, helping added CG elements feel real and substantial. Sonic details can bring a shot to life. In sound, I’m often trying to give the audience a sense of what something feels like, but my only tool to do that is through what you hear. For Iron Man’s nanotech suit in Endgame, I layered metallic and liquid textures into high-tech synthesized sounds to give the reader a feel of the suit’s mass and movement.

The two mediums of sound design and writing seem different on the surface, but share a space between language and music.

Writing also aims to convey multiple senses, with only language and sound as the tools to do so. Beginner authors often default to describing visuals, while areas like touch, sound, scent, and taste are underutilized. Sensory variety and detail is not only a powerful tool to bring far-flung worlds to life, but also conveys subtext well. My protagonist, Caiden, can squeeze a bunch of his morphcoat in his fist as it transforms to scales that cut his palm, and I don’t need the word “angry.”

Until I heard reactions to the unusually immersive and sensory style of my prose, I hadn’t considered how big an effect my experience with film sound has on not just the sound of my prose but my word choices and dynamics. The two mediums of sound design and writing seem different on the surface, but share a space between language and music. Both are storytelling with sound, grounded in principles of immersion, abstraction, emotion, and keen narrative focus.

Le Guin reminds us, “The primary way you feel and control the rhythm of your prose is by hearing it—by listening to it. Lively, well-paced, flowing, strong, beautiful: these are all the qualities of the sound of prose, and we rejoice in them as we read.”

Is There Still a Role for Literature in 2020?

Dear reader,

Every year, we re-evaluate what makes literature exciting, relevant, and accessible, and recalibrate our role in furthering that mission. We hope you’ll support Electric Literature’s work with a year-end contribution today.

Wouldn’t it be convenient if literature’s value was self-evident, and the argument for why it must be supported didn’t need to be made? But year after year, global and national events call into question the relevance of reading, of writing, of creative expression, of work that is created and experienced in solitude. What is literature’s value in a pandemic? In the face of rampant injustice and racially motivated violence? In a brutally divided, tribalistic electorate?

We ask these questions every year, as we think about the role of literature in general—and Electric Literature in particular—in helping us face national and global challenges. And at first glance, it’s hard to make the case that literature is what we need. A lone book cannot solve a country’s entrenched racism, or crisis of empathy. It cannot explain Trump voters, or reverse  the climate crisis, cure addiction and disease, or even really heal pain. Literature cannot solve society’s problems anymore than it can single-handedly fix society’s mistakes.

Literature is not the antidote to the news. It is the news’s complex, variegated shadow,

What literature can do is reflect and observe these experiences in ways that are startling, illuminating, insightful, and personal. What you do with that reading experience is up to you. Literature is not the antidote to the news. It is the news’s complex, variegated shadow—the countless volumes of human experience that get reduced to ten-word headlines. 

If you don’t know why literature matters, if you haven’t felt that truth in your bones every day of 2020—whether or you read more than ever or were often too distracted to focus—then I am not going to be the one to convince you. If you know, you know. 

But I can tell you that Electric Literature plays an essential role in keeping literature exciting, relevant, and inclusive, when every force threatens to convince us otherwise—whether that’s reductive dialogue about literature that treats art like a zero-sum game, or a publishing industry that has silenced marginalized voices for decades.

The point of our mission is that it is a moving target. What is relevant, exciting, and inclusive changes year to year and must be renegotiated. In publishing, there can be no resting on our laurels. As the world changes, we must respond. We must change what we read, and what we write. 

Every day this year, Electric Lit worked to provide a platform for writers who have been historically excluded from the literary conversation, on topics that you care about. We supported debut novelists who published into the toughest marketplace for books in recent memory, and we elevated extraordinary short stories, flash fiction, and poetry by writers who deserve your attention.

We know there are many worthy organizations vying for an end-of-year contribution, and we understand if there are other causes that you’d like to support. Many of you have already given to Electric Lit this year, either as members, donors, or attendees of our virtual events, and we are immensely grateful for your support. But if you are able, and you believe in literature’s intrinsic value and want to see us continue to fight for its rightful place in our culture, please make a donation today. 

Gratefully yours, 

Halimah Marcus

Executive director, Electric Literature

Survival Strategies for Unsupervised Children

“The Hands of Dirty Children” by Alejandro Puyana

We’re called the Crazy 9, but there are not always nine of us. We were nine before la policía took Tuki. We called him Tuki because he loved to dance all weird. Every time he heard the tuki-tuki of electronic music, he flailed his arms and raised his knees like some sort of strange bird. Tuki was funny but a little mean. I miss him, but not too much.

I feared we would be seven soon. Ramoncito hadn’t been feeling well, throwing up everywhere. He smelled really bad because he pooped his pants the other day and hadn’t been able to find new ones, so we didn’t like to stand next to him. Or sometimes we made fun of him and yelled, “Ramoncito, pupusito!” and everyone laughed and laughed and laughed, but inside I wasn’t laughing too hard; inside I felt bad. When the others were asleep, I pinched my nose with my finger and thumb and went to Ramoncito. I used to bring him something to eat too, but the last two times he threw up right after, so I didn’t bring him food anymore—why waste it, is what I say—but I still asked, “How are you feeling, Ramoncito?” and “Is there anything I can do, Ramoncito?” My voice sounded funny because of the nose pinch, and sometimes he smiled. Before, he would talk to me a little, but now he didn’t talk much. He could still walk around and go with us on our missions, but he was very slow. His eyes were sleepy all the time, and they looked like they were sinking into his skull. But we also laughed at him because he’s the youngest, only seven and a half, and everyone always gives the youngest a hard time. I was the youngest before Ramoncito came along, but even if Ramoncito didn’t last much longer, the others wouldn’t treat me like the youngest because I was the one that found the knife, and I’m the best at using it.


Here is what the Crazy 9 love.

We love our name, and we won’t change it, even if we are really eight, or seven—we love it because it sounds crazy and because we scrawl it all over the place—when we find spray cans, or markers, or pens.

We love the knife. We found it one night after running away from the lady who wouldn’t give us any money, so we pushed her and took her purse. As we gathered to inspect our loot on the banks of the Güaire River, I pulled it from a secret pocket, shiny and dangerous. We love to take turns and unfold the blade from its wooden handle and scream, “Give me all your money!” but we are just practicing. I carry the knife most of the time because I found it, but also because I can throw it at a tree and almost always get it to stick, and I can also throw it in the air and almost always catch it by the handle without cutting my hand.

We love Pollos Arturos, it’s everyone’s favorite, but we almost never get to have any, because if the guard sees us he screams and chases us away—but sometimes we will beg and someone will give us a wing. One time Ramoncito got a leg, but that was before he was throwing up. He got a leg because the youngest always does the best begging. But we have rules in the Crazy 9, so we didn’t take the leg away from Ramoncito. He ate it all by himself.

We love going to the protests. We don’t go to the front too much because that’s where the police fight the protesters—the protesters wear their T-shirts tight around their faces, or they make gas masks out of junk, or they wear bicycle helmets and carry wooden and zinc shields with the colors of the flag painted on them; they throw mostly rocks at the police, but sometimes they shoot fireworks at them. One of them holds the cohetón parallel to the ground—aimed straight at the line of men in their green uniforms and their plastic shields and their big shotguns—while another lights the fuse. They only let it go when the whistling is loud, and we think they might be holding on to it for too long, long enough for it to explode in their hands, but then we see it fly like a comet straight into the green and plastic wall of soldiers that stands down the road. We always cheer when we see that.

Sometimes we stand next to them and yell at the police. We wrap our T-shirts around our faces and scream “¡Viva Venezuela!” and “¡Abajo Maduro!” and jump and throw rocks. It’s fun, except for when the tear gas comes and we have to run away or else cough and cough and cry and cry. But we mostly stay at the back of the protests because we can beg or steal better. Because the women are there, or the older men, or the cowards that don’t want to fight in the front, like us. The begging is good at the protests. The lady will see us and tell her friend in the white shirt and the baseball cap with the yellow, blue, and red of the flag, “Our country is gone, isn’t it? Poor child. I swear, chama, I don’t remember it ever being this bad!” That’s the moment when I try them, and most of the time I get a few bolivares. But we have rules in the Crazy 9, so we always share the money we get from begging or stealing.

We love each other. We say “Crazy 9 forever!” and exchange manly hugs. I love that feeling you get when you hug someone and you mean it. But it also makes me remember things I don’t like remembering, so let’s not talk about that.

We love mangos! Mangos are our favorite because they are sweet and they are free. We walk down the nice streets, the ones that have the big trees on them, and I pull the bottom of my shirt away from my tight belly, and Ramoncito follows me, placing mangos from the ground inside it, the ones that aren’t nasty. After we are finished, when my shirt is as filled as the grocery bags the rich ladies carry when we beg outside the Excelsior GAMA, we walk all bowlegged and tired to an alley and eat mangos until night. We eat until our whole faces are yellow and mango hair grows between our teeth. We eat until each of us has a mountain of mango pits, and all we can smell is the sweet rot of the mango slime, and the flies start to go crazy. But that was before, when Ramoncito could still walk behind me and pick up mangos. When there were mangos to pick up. Now the mango trees give nothing but shade. And now we are very hungry.


There’s a dumpster in Chacao that is the best dumpster. It is hidden in an alley behind the old market. It is the best because there’s usually good food and there are also juice boxes and liter bottles of Pepsi that sometimes have some liquid still in them. One day we filled a whole Pepsi bottle with all of the remainders—it tasted a little bit like orange and a little bit like Pepsi, and I told the rest of the guys, I told them, “When I grow up I’m going to invent drinks. And the first one is going to be orange juice and Pepsi, and I’m going to call it the Crazy 9,” and everyone agreed that it was a great idea as we passed the bottle in a big circle.

When we woke up, Tomás, who is our leader because he is the oldest and the fastest, told us, “We are going to our dumpster today.” Whenever he talks I stare at his upper lip, with thin strands of black hair sprouting like seedlings. And it’s not the only place where his hair is coming in. When it rains, we all get naked and wash ourselves and our clothes. He’s the only one with hair down there. Well, a few of the others have some, but Tomás has at least three times as much.

It was a pretty morning, with rays coming down at us from between the openings of the highway bridge above. They made columns of light so thick I felt the urge to climb them. It felt nice after the cold night, so cold we huddled together—all except Ramoncito because Comiquita, with his cartoon-looking face, said, “Not Ramoncito Pupusito, he stinks!” We could hear the birds, even through the rumbling of the cars that rolled above us. The river was high and running fast. I liked it like that because it didn’t smell as bad. It was still brown and had trash floating on it, but if I closed my eyes and just listened to the water and the birds, I could pretend I was anywhere else.

It was a long walk to the dumpster, and Ramoncito didn’t look good. His cheeks sank into his face, his skin was flaky, like when you have mud on you and it dries and you can scratch it off with your fingernails. I sat next to him, and I didn’t have to pinch my nose anymore, because I had gotten used to the smell. I said, “Wake up, Ramoncito,” and I stroked his hair as he moaned. Ramoncito’s fallen hair tangled around my dirty fingers.

“Wake up, Ramoncito!” I pushed him harder, and he opened his eyes and looked at me. I knew he was angry, because I had seen that look on many faces. Every time a security guard chased us away. Or after we took the woman’s purse with the knife. But mostly before all that— before the Crazy 9—when my mom stumbled home early in the morning. Her eyes scratched red and tired. And even though she didn’t talk, she would stare at me. And I could hear her think, I hate you. I hate you. I wish I could go back and shake her and yell, “You don’t have much time left!” I wonder if she would have changed then, enough to like me, or at least enough to stay.

Ramoncito’s look changed quickly though—from anger, to pain, to pleading. He was like a little dog begging for scraps. I’ve always wanted a dog, but we have rules in the Crazy 9, and dogs are not allowed. Tomás says all dogs do is eat and eat, and we don’t have enough to share. And it’s true. But it’s also true that Tomás got bitten in the ass by a dog a while back and he’s scared of them, so I think there’s more than one reason for that rule. I helped Ramoncito up to his feet, and it was so easy. I crouched behind him and put my arms under his armpits, my chest resting against his back, and then just stood up. It was like lifting a bag full of bird bones. For a second I felt like I was so strong, like maybe I should be the leader of the Crazy 9. But it wasn’t that I was strong, just that Ramoncito was so light.

“No, chamo, let’s leave Ramoncito behind,” said Tomás, and the rest of the boys nodded their heads in agreement. “He’s only going to slow us down,” Tomás said, and then Pecas repeated Tomás’s words like he always did. “Yes, he’s going to slow us down, déjalo.” His voice broke as he spoke, some words deep, others as high as a little girl’s.

But I didn’t leave him. I told him, “Ramoncito, put your arm around my shoulder and try to keep up, okay?” and I ignored what the others were saying. Stuff like, “Ramoncito Pupusito smells so bad,” and, “He will throw it up anyway.”

So the Crazy 9 marched. The old market was about two hours away, but with Ramoncito it would take longer. We started on Avenida Bolivar. I liked this street because it had more people than trash. Everyone had somewhere to go. On a Wednesday morning no one walked just to enjoy it. I liked Saturdays and Sundays better, when I could see kids with their parents strolling along the wide avenue. I could imagine how it would feel for one of my hands to hold balloons or a cold raspado with condensed milk and for my other hand to be held by someone other than Ramoncito. But there were no kids except for us on Wednesday mornings. It was all busy grown-ups.

Ramoncito and I lagged behind, and for the first time I noticed how the Crazy 9 moved. They were a swarm of brown boys, brown from their skin and brown from their grime and brown from their stink. They were fast and wired, and people parted as they took over the whole sidewalk.

Everyone who walked past them turned around to watch them. The businessmen patted their pockets and jackets, the ladies rummaged through their purses to make sure no small hands had slid in. They formed a moving cloud of jokes and laughter and dangerous grins. Salvador, in his patched-together flip-flops and old Chicago Bulls cap, sprinted out of the cloud and quickly rummaged through a trash bag, looking for an easy bite, and then ran back to the rest, as if pulled by a rubber band. Tomás blew kisses at the younger, prettier women heading to work at coffeehouses or office buildings, and the other boys joined in, as I would have if I’d been with them and not holding Ramoncito up. “Mi amor, you are looking pretty today,” Tomás yelled—a wink and maybe a hand on his crotch, but I couldn’t be quite sure from way back.

As we neared the end of Avenida Bolivar—the rest of the Crazy 9 almost out of sight and with no intent to wait for us—I told Ramoncito, “Look, Ramoncito! It’s the Children’s Museum!” and I pointed at the huge logo of a boy riding a rainbow. He had long curly hair and a big smile. By the front doors we saw a group of little kids, younger than Ramoncito, in their red school shirts.

They formed a line, one behind the other, waiting to go in. They were happy and moved their heads around in awe and excitement. Two teachers tried their best to herd them. One little girl kept walking away, distracted by a planter full of flowers, or a pigeon eating trash, and I wanted to scream and say, “Little girl, obey your teachers! They’ll get mad at you and slap you!” but I didn’t, and the teachers never got mad, they just gently pushed her back in line and placed her hands on the shoulders of the boy in front of her. Her eyes still followed the pigeon, but she held on to those shoulders. The teacher was so gentle. Her hands must have felt so soft and clean.

I looked at my own hand. The one that wasn’t holding up Ramoncito. My nails were long, the tips of them as black as wet dirt. My palms were covered in stains, a landscape of brown and black. When I opened my hand and pulled my fingers apart as much as they would go, the landscape cracked and revealed the cleaner tone of my own skin, hiding underneath.

And then I heard the rumble, which shook me and gave me purpose. It came from deep in my belly—a wet groan so loud that Ramoncito could hear it. “I’m hungry,” I said. “Me too,” he said.

We turned onto Avenida México, which was narrower and dirtier. It led to Museum Square and then to Parque los Caobos, my favorite place in the world. We arrived at Plaza Los Museos, large and round, with its tall palm trees. Street vendors eyed us and no longer fell for our tricks. Today was no trick, of course, because Ramoncito was really sick, but many times one of us would pretend to be in peril or pain, or cause a scene, while the others snuck behind the vendors and stole their things. We are so crazy.

We walked past the plaza, past the Natural History Museum with its tall columns. “Let’s go see the elephant statue!” I told Ramoncito, and he smiled and the color came back to his face, but it might have just been the sun shining through the tall canopy of the caobo trees, brightening Ramoncito’s cheeks with specks of light.

The temperature was colder in the shade, with the breeze rushing through tree trunks. It smelled like wood and dirt—but the good dirt, the kind you want to stick your hands in and feel for worms. I wanted to run through the boulevard that split the park in two, veer off into the brush and pick up a stick and go hunting for dinosaur.

A few months ago they brought plastic replicas of the great beasts into the park. There was a tall one with a crest on her head, she looked like a chicken with no feathers; there was a fat green one with spikes on its back (but the spikes didn’t hurt, we knew because we surfed down its spine); there were brown ones and red ones; little baby ones hatching from plastic eggs; and there was the big ferocious one eating a stupid fat one that got caught. The short ones were already starting to wear out because on weekends the parents lifted their sons and daughters and gingerly placed them on the dinosaurs’ backs. They took out their phones and started snapping photos. But all the parents were working today, and all the sons and daughters were at school. We have no school, and we are no sons of nobody.

I helped Ramoncito walk to the statue while my mind stalked reptiles. Its gold glinted through the thick greenery as we rounded the dense bamboo, until finally his huge head greeted us. It always shocked me, his size, the way he sparkled. His ears were open, like the wings of some gold-scaled dragon. His trunk fell, curving gently inward, between two massive tusks. The elephant walked in the middle of a large shallow pool, the water lapping at his wide ankles. Only his front left foot was visible, stepping on a small hill of rocks that came out of the water.

Ramoncito let go of my shoulder, taking a few short steps toward the edge of the pool. He knelt on the ground and placed his elbows on the rim, so he could rest as he stared at the statue.

Ramoncito looked like he was praying. I stood next to him and put my arm around his shoulder. “He’s so beautiful,” Ramoncito said. “Do you think they’re mean in real life?”

I didn’t know. I knew that there were people who rode them, or at least I remembered a story my grandmother once told me about that. My abuelita never said if they were nice or mean. But I knew Ramoncito wanted to hear a good story, so I told him, I said, “They are the nicest of all animals, little boys ride their tusks like swings and fall down their trunks like slides and run races through their fat legs.”

He climbed on the edge of the pool, weak and unsure, but I didn’t pull him back, and without taking off his beat-up sneakers he walked into the shallow water. It came up to his shins, and every time he shuffled closer, the water rippled and traveled all the way to the pool’s edge in tiny little waves. Ramoncito placed his hand on the elephant’s haunches and stroked him kindly. He whispered something to him and rested his hollow green cheek on its golden surface. I was mesmerized by Ramoncito and his massive pet, this gentle giant, and I knew what I had told him was true. That somewhere far away someone like Ramoncito—someone like me, maybe—hung from an elephant’s tusk or took a shower from his trunk. But the spell was broken by a yell coming from the other side of the bamboo.

“Hey, you! Boy! Get out of there right now!”

Ramoncito’s body spun so fast that his weak legs couldn’t hold his balance, and he fell ass first into the water with a big splash. I could see the policeman heading toward us in a sprint. He was big and ugly, with a thick black mustache and hair coming out from wherever his clothes didn’t cover his skin. He held a wooden club in his right hand, and even from the other side of the pool I felt his anger in the way he gripped the handle.

I jumped into the pool quickly and ran to Ramoncito to help him up. He was sobbing, saying, “Sorry. I’m sorry.” But all I wanted was to get us out of there. The bottom of the pool was slick with green gunk, and as I pulled Ramoncito my feet flew from under me and I landed right on the small of my back, which sent a ping of sharp pain all through my spine. I tried to push my legs and pull Ramoncito’s weight toward the edge of the pool, but in the confusion I couldn’t see the man anywhere—just the huge elephant towering over us both. I wanted him to come to life, to swerve his enormous head, and lift his heavy feet, and shelter us under his golden belly. To blow his trunk at the hairy man, yelling, “You don’t mess with the Crazy 9!”

But he didn’t do anything. I felt the man lift me up. The elephant’s four massive feet stood still, indifferent to the waves from our thrashing as Ramoncito and I tried to escape the man’s grasp.

My arms and legs dangled, and I felt the collar of my shirt tighten around my neck. A big hole in my right sole let all the water that had gathered in my shoe out in a stream. I reached up with both hands and tried to pry the man’s fingers open, but they seemed made of cement. I kicked my feet as hard as I could, finding only air, water dripping everywhere. Ramoncito had slipped from his hold, and I saw him crawl to the roots of a caobo.

“¡Quédate quieto, coño!” the man screamed, but I kept wriggling. I felt his breath for the first time. It carried the warmth of fish empanadas and strong coffee. Finding no way to loosen his grip, I jabbed my fingernails into his hand, but instead of releasing me, he slammed me hard against the ground.

It was like all the air had been sucked from the world. I opened my mouth and tried to gulp in life, but my insides were a dried raisin. The back of my head felt wet, but it wasn’t the same kind of wet as the water from the pool. It was warm. Sticky.

The policeman stood like an angry ape above me. His hat had fallen on the ground, revealing all his features. A thick stubble covered his face, starting just bellow the eyes. His ears were big and meaty. His nose wide and crooked in the middle. The only place not covered in hair was his balding dome. He held his hand up to his mouth, sucking on the wound I had caused. When he removed it to talk, I could see a trickling of blood on his lower lip.

“Motherfucker, hijo de puta.” He spit blood and it landed next to me. “I hate street children, all you fucking do is make my job harder. Why can’t you just fucking disappear, huh?” He took a step toward me, but my breath had not come back yet, and my vision started to blur. I tried to crawl away but was too weak.

“Now I probably have to get a shot. God knows the filth you have in those fingers.” He lifted his booted foot and pinned my leg down. It felt like my shin would split in two, and for the first time since he had thrown me to the ground air rushed into my lungs, only to escape again in a scream. I didn’t cry, though.

The pain sharpened my thinking and I remembered the knife. I always kept it in my right pocket. My hand searched for it and couldn’t feel the wooden handle, the small metal dots that felt cold when you gripped it tight. It wasn’t there.

And then I heard Ramoncito. “Let him go!” he screamed, and stood in front of the huge man, his legs spread apart, his arms stretched out away from his chest, his two bony hands holding on to the knife—a stick figure facing off against a giant. “The Crazy 9 never give up. Never surrender!” he screamed, tears falling down his face.

The man released the pressure on my leg, but I knew why. He lifted his club and walked toward Ramoncito. The policeman’s eyes fixed on the knife and nothing else. I stood. As the man swung the weapon, I rushed him with all my strength and flung my body at him. It felt like running into a wall, but the club missed Ramoncito. He remained on his feet, holding on to the knife, and I was back on the ground, recovering from the impact.

Ramoncito was really crying now. Sobbing. But he wouldn’t move. He clung to the knife so tightly that his whole body shook except for his hands and the blade. They remained perfectly still. Park people had started to gather around. Not a lot, but a few. One woman walked toward us. She was old, her skin the blackest I’d ever seen. She had kind, sad wrinkles across her face. She wore a gray shirt and a beautiful long skirt with colorful flowers stitched on it. Two golden disks, as bright as the elephant still towering above us, hung from her ears.

“Stop!” she demanded. And the man did. He stopped and looked around as if he had awakened from a dream. His chest rose and fell quickly, but his eyes had moved from me and Ramoncito and scanned the faces around us, especially the woman’s. “Have you no shame?” she asked him softly, and I could see the man affected by her words. She knelt by me and held the back of my head. “They are just children,” she said to him. And the man finally lowered his club and let it hang from his side, the leather band clinging to his strong wrist. And I could see something happening to his face. Some transformation. Like he felt sorry for us all of a sudden, or sorry for himself, or sad at himself, rather. I didn’t have a word for it, but it felt like that one time I stole a box of leftovers from the old homeless man, and he didn’t even have the strength to yell at me. When I sat down to eat the food all I could see were his milky eyes looking at me. I ate the food, but felt really bad eating it.

Ramoncito dropped the knife. He was still so afraid. He mouthed a silent, “I’m sorry,” and ran off the way we had come. I have no idea where he found the strength. It was probably fear fueling him.

The woman sat me down and inspected my wounds. “Me llamo Belén,” she said, and she kissed me on the forehead. We sat together at a table and we talked as the dizziness passed. I wanted to go after Ramoncito, but Belén’s kindness held me near. She cleaned my wounds with an embroidered handkerchief and clean water from a plastic bottle. We shared her lunch of hard-boiled eggs, tomatoes, broccoli, and sweet plantains. “I can get you help, you know?” she said. “There are places that can take you and your friends in, people who can care for you, feed you.” But I also saw how thin she was, I could recognize her own hunger behind the eyes. I recognized it because I saw it every day on the faces of my friends, because I could feel it inside of me. It had already been a sacrifice to share the little she had. Plus I had heard stories about these places that take kids like me in. They were never good stories.

“I have to go find Ramoncito,” I told her. And she didn’t try to stop me. She didn’t push. “Vaya con Dios,” she said. And as I walked away I heard her say, “I’m here most afternoons, come see me if you change your mind.”

My torn T-shirt and my shorts had already started to dry, but every time I took a step my wet shoes sploshed and left a wet footstep on the boulevard leading out of Parque los Caobos.


So I searched for Ramoncito. I went back the way I came. It hurt a bit to walk because of the bump in my lower back, but I also felt stronger from my lunch with Belén. I was having fun using my tongue to free the little bits of food from my teeth, and there was one piece of plantain that made me smile because it was pretty big. I asked the newspaper vendor in Avenida México if he had seen Ramoncito go by. He said he had seen a young boy walking sleepily about thirty minutes ago. He checked his pockets as I walked away, fearing my tricks.

When I got back to our spot, Ramoncito was there. He was lying in a patch of sunlight, dirt and debris all around him. He lay on his side, like he was a little baby, or still in his mama’s belly, and he faced a little yellow flower that sprouted next to him. His eyes were wide open. But when I called out, “Ramoncito!” his eyes didn’t move. His body didn’t move. He lay frozen.

I knelt next to him and shook him, and his eyes remained open like he was still staring at that little flower even though he now faced me. “Ramoncito! Ramoncito! Don’t play games,” I told him. I thought it was all just a bad, stupid joke, so I pinched his nose and counted to ten, to twenty, to thirty, to forty, and then I knew that he was dead because no way Ramoncito could hold his breath for that long. And then I let his head drop on my lap. And I told him how much I liked him, and how he had been such a good friend, and that the Crazy 9 would never be the same without him. But I didn’t cry. I didn’t even have one tear come down, even though I felt that lump in the throat I always feel when I think I’m going to cry, like I swallowed a rock that didn’t want to go down all the way.

Now I’m here with dead Ramoncito. I think maybe I should wait for the rest of the Crazy 9 to come back and help me, but I don’t know when they’re coming, or even if they’ll come at all. We have sleeping spots all over, and sometimes when we go to our dumpster we stay in the Metro station with the nice lady who lets us in after they close. And also they’ve been so mean to Ramoncito, maybe he would want it just like this. Just the two of us.

There’s a wooden pallet that floated to our spot four days ago. Tomás told us, “I’m going to build a boat with this, and then I can sail all down the Güaire. I can bring my line and hook and I can fish and bring us back food,” and we all liked the plan, so we’d been collecting supplies, more wood and nails and an old hammer so we could make him a boat that would last. But Ramoncito is more important than the boat, I think, and I don’t care if Tomás gets mad at me. So I carry Ramoncito and put him on the pallet—well, I’ll call it a raft now, because it floats. I pick the yellow flower and tuck it right behind his ear and I tell him, “Ve con Dios, Ramoncito, you were my best friend,” and I kiss him on the forehead. He tastes like dirt and old sweat, like rotting mango, like salt, like the sound my knife makes when it sticks to gray bark, he tastes like Tomás laughing in the wee hours, like sour milk, like Belén’s hard-boiled eggs, like my grandmother’s voice telling me stories before bed, like loud police sirens in the night, like a piece of meat found in a trash bag that I know is starting to rot but I eat anyway, he tastes like my mother’s hand after she’s slapped my face bloody, like a white crane flying low skimming the brown river looking for fish, like the bubbles in a just-cracked can of Pepsi, like the boy that got hit in the head by a tear gas canister and just lay there, like the sharp end of a belt, like a limp mother with a needle in her arm, he tastes like Pollos Arturos, he tastes like loyalty, and like a brother.

I let the raft go. It starts slow, but as it gets farther away, into the middle of the brown river, it goes faster and faster. And then I don’t see him. I imagine the river taking him farther and farther from me. Away from the Crazy 9. Maybe El Güaire will take him all the way out of the city and he will arrive in some beautiful meadow, with flowers, and real elephants, and mango trees that always have fruit on them.

New Poetry Collections that Highlight the Diversity of Latinx Identity

The pandemic made 2020 a difficult time for acclaimed and emerging poets to share and promote their work. In spite of, or perhaps because of that, it has been wonderful to see community- and coalition-building among poets and writers who want to support one another by offering their time and services leading free virtual workshops, creating resources for emerging poets, and participating in mutual aid movements. 2020 has thrown into stark relief the many ways that this year is difficult for everyone, and disproportionately difficult for marginalized writers. But in response, poets and artists continue to demonstrate that the ways that we build community have to be reimagined, and that we can connect across virtual spaces in sustainable and innovative ways. 

But coming together as a community doesn’t mean erasing our differences. This year, it’s also been exciting to see poets of Latin American, Caribbean, African, and Indigenous descent challenging “latinidad” as a homogenous label (in contrast, for instance, to news articles about courting the “Latino vote,” as if that’s one thing). Instead, Latin American, Black, and Indigenous poets are writing about the specificity of their experiences, especially breaking down their relationships to immigration, gender, and queerness, and showing that there is not one Latinx experience, and not one story.

The BreakBeat Poets Vol. 4: LatiNext Anthology edited by Felicia Rose Chavez, José Olivarez, and Willie Perdomo

This anthology, the fourth volume in the BreakBeat Poets series, is a vast and beautiful compilation of poets whose work provides an array of experiences from the U.S. and Latin America. There are innumerable poems in this collection that are stirring and require further reading, but one of my favorites is “In Another Life” by Janel Pineda, who imagines a reality separate from but tied to our own in which the violence of U.S. intervention and civil unrest in El Salvador never happened and her family and community had what they needed to thrive. Other poems that I enjoyed were Mauricio Novoa’s poem “Dandelion Graves,” Samuel Miranda’s “We Is,” Julian Randall’s “Translation” and Elisabet Velasquez’s “Everybody Loves Cardi B But.” 

Catrachos by Roy G. Guzmán 

In Guzmán’s debut collection, they chronicle immigrant experiences with the state violence of U.S. immigration authorities, coming of age as a queer person in Honduras and in the Catholic church and communal solidarity with playful and inventive lyricism, incorporating references to paleontology, music and pop culture in their poems. A series of poems entitled “Queerodactyl” in the book depict a creature that seeks to survive in the face of violence and extinction, imagining queer people’s resilience as both necessary and mocking the excavation and study of this resilience, saying in one of these poems, “Who will, in the end, exhume our myths conclusively?” 

A Homegrown Fairytale by Suzi F. Garcia

In A Home Grown Fairy Tale, Garcia reimagines the Wizard of Oz and Dorothy’s story as a queer love story where fantasy, sensuality, and magic inform the voices of the poems. One series of epistolary poems in the chapbook entitled “Dear Dorothy” imagines a queer lover speaking to Dorothy about her experiences, imploring Dorothy to see the elemental magic in her being. Garcia’s work evokes accepting one’s power in the fables and fairytales that shape us.   

Thrown in the Throat by Benjamin Garcia 

Benjamin Garcia’s debut collection won the National Poetry Series. Thrown in the Throat is a rich space that honors the textured beauty of queer sex and the resilience of undocumented and migrant peoples against state violence where family is both refuge and the people who can hurts us the most. In his poem, “Huitlacoche,” Garcia writes, “Tongues make mistakes, and mistakes make languages,” showing the evolution of how we name pleasure, violence, and our own identities. 

Despojo by Tatiana Figueroa Ramírez

This chapbook’s dedication begins, “These poems are for the ones who need a cleansing, a stripping, a removal, un despojo of the vibrations holding them back from living in their true light.” That is what Despojo is, a cleansing, but also a space to mark what needs to be cleansed, from the hurt of familial pain, sexual violence, medical trauma, and racial violence. Figueroa Ramírez’s work honors her Afroboriqua roots and her own connection to ancestral legacies to inhabit her most true self. 

What Remains by Claudia Delfina Cardona

What Remains is Cardona’s first book and winner of the Host Publication’s Fall 2020 Chapbook Prize. This collection is a love letter to San Antonio, Texas, where Cardona grew up. Cardona’s writing is cinematic, transporting the reader into the poems’ pulsing, beating heart filled with the impulsive desire to connect, to love, and to be recognized in the heart of another. Cardona even curated a playlist, “Pinwheel of Light: A Playlist for What Remains” to accompany her book, giving readers an entire immersive experience.  

The Fire Eater

The Fire Eater: Poems by José Hernández Díaz

The prose poems in Hernández Díaz’s debut chapbook take the reader on many surreal journeys into the brief and magical lives of characters such as a skeleton in a graveyard, a seagull, a jaguar, and others set in the backdrop of the poet’s native L.A. Each poem tells a story about its subjects and lays bare their nature. One of my favorites is, “Not a Wall,” in which a man writes a scathing letter to a wall reminiscent of the U.S./Mexico border wall to strip it of its power. 

Inspired By Beyoncé's Black Is King: Creativity from Across the African  Diaspora | The New York Public Library

Hoodwitch by Faylita Hicks 

Hoodwitch—the debut from poet, performer, and community organizer Faylita Hicks—is a powerfully tender collection of poems that honors the care that Black women and femmes give to one another and the need to protect them from police violence, patriarchal violence, medical trauma, and grief.  These poems celebrate the beauty of Black femme sexuality, love, queer motherhood, and ownership of one’s own body and destiny.

Guillotine by Eduardo C. Corral

Guillotine, Eduardo C. Corral’s second collection of poetry, is just as striking as his first collection, Slow Lightning. Corral explores and embodies both the interior voices of migrant peoples crossing the desert border and those in power who would displace or attack them. This collection depicts loss and love through an immigrant experience where unrequited queer desires are weaved through the poems.  

The Most Spectacular Mistake by Anatalia Vallez

Vallez’s debut collection is an ode to self-discovery, to tenderness, and to understanding how the lineages of love, pain, and traumalive in the body. In these poems, knowing this means to unwrap the hold of patriarchal and colonial violence from this body to love oneself more deeply with an ancestral knowledge that is inextricable from the self. “How to Have a Good Cry” is one of my favorites from this collection, and I read it when I need a reminder to be tender with myself. 

How Ireland Used Shame to Silence Unwed Mothers

Folktales are powerful because of their purpose: they teach moral through warning. This is what could befall you, they say, this is what happens to badly behaved girls. The S. Thompson Motif-Index of Folk Literature itemizes the following categories: Girl carefully guarded from suitors; Girl carefully guarded by mother; Girl carefully guarded by father; Girl carefully guarded from suitors by hag. All four motifs are attributed to several mythologies including Irish. Except for the last one. The origin of “Girl carefully guarded from suitors by hag” is specifically Irish.

In Republic of Shame: Stories from Ireland’s Institutions for ‘Fallen Women’, Caelainn Hogan brings together the history and the personal stories of the mother and baby homes of Ireland. The homes were run by the nuns of the Catholic Church and served as depositories for women pregnant out of wedlock. Some of the homes were laundries, some were repurposed workhouses from the famine, and a surprising number survived into the early 90s. As Hogan notes, however, the system sounds centuries older to 21st-century ears. Medieval, practically. The history has enough gravesites, unnamed dead, and persecuted women that it sounds like a horrifying folktale.

With Republic of Shame, Hogan’s task was to bring the history of the mother and baby homes into the realm of the present. To this day, women from the homes are trying to locate the children taken from them, and adults are still searching for their birth mothers. The legacy of the homes could be as invidious as the system was if it remains hidden by the same force—shame. Just this week, the Irish government voted to keep the archives of the mother and baby homes locked for another 30 years, leaving hundreds of people without answers, which in some cases means an identity.

Hogan spoke to me about the personal quest of her investigation of the homes, and two of the system’s most disturbing motifs: silence and female virtue. 


Lucie Shelly: Given the volume of material and history, and how much is still unknown, how did the process of writing this book differ from your usual reporting and journalistic writing process?

Caelainn Hogan: I became, in some ways, a guide within the narrative to take people through what was a large scope of history—from the Magdalene Laundries back in the 1700s to the present day. That includes the ongoing legacy and the continued search for answers and investigations, so it was both a lot of research, and a moving news story.

I was encouraged to put myself within the narrative—to bring a level of transparency which connected disparate issues. It’s quite personal from the beginning. Across the road from my house was the provincial house of the Daughters of Charity, which is the religious order that ran the biggest mother and baby home in Ireland. Growing up in Ireland, being from Ireland, the laundries were something I knew about but I hadn’t realized this issue was so close to home literally. When I started to talk to people, I realized how many people I knew were directly affected. Using myself and my experience of discovery as a guide was a way for me to bring an immediacy to the narrative. 

My generation’s perspective is that the mother and baby homes are a thing of the past, but it has an ongoing impact. I was born in 1988, a year after illegitimacy was abolished in Ireland. I spoke to a friend’s mother who was sent to a mother and baby home, also in 1988. That alternative, that could have been my mother’s life. That had quite a deep impact on me. 

LS: The process of consciously trying to narrativize a tragedy is often a moral complication for journalists. Janet Malcolm put it more starkly and said—I’m paraphrasing—that good journalists know what they do is morally indefensible. But I wonder if drawing on your personal experience and using yourself as a guide mitigated that issue? 

CH: From the outset, I wanted to include my own experience, for the sake of transparency as well as narrative. I wanted to write this as an Irish woman from a generation that was sort of straddling a time: when we were born, the institutions were still operating. But most of us grew up thinking of them as something of the past. We grew up in an Ireland where divorce was just being legalized, contraception was just being legalized. So, we were conscious of that and I think still living with the impact of the homes, but we’re also the generation that saw Ireland change very rapidly and we feel part of that. I wanted to capture the cultural context which includes my own experience. I wanted to show my experience of coming to terms with this alarmingly recent past and understanding how it continues to impact lives, to admit to my own ignorance even when it affected people I knew, to realise there were institutions around the corner from the house where I grew up that I never knew about, a system built on secrecy but all around us still. So, in terms of narrative, it took the shape of a quest. I wanted to find out more about these institutions that impacted the lives of people I know. 

As for journalism being “morally indefensible”… Without a news story reported by Alison O’Reilly breaking around the world about the deaths of children in Tuam and the pressure this put on the Irish government, an investigation into this system of institutions might never have happened. Reports I read while researching the book quoted religious sisters admitting that records were falsified. As journalists, as writers, I think the burden is on us to do the work necessary to interrogate our motivations and approach, to realise our own preconceptions, to do better in the ways we create space and document.

I remember speaking with a sex worker rights activist who ran a community organisation in New York about the media guide they developed. She emphasised that journalists should be more aware during interviews of whether a question is crucial to the story or if they are asking out of personal curiosity or a sense of exoticism. Some people might expect speaking about trauma to automatically be cathartic or empowering. In reality it is usually exhausting for the person reliving that experience and can be retraumatizing. I write at the end of the book that I don’t believe anyone can give another person a voice. If you believe you are giving someone a voice, you might actually be silencing them in ways you don’t understand. 

LS: I’d like to talk about the generational perspectives of the topics you write about. There’s a section in which you mention a woman from Tuam, Teresa, who really captures the generational spectrum. “There were vast differences from her mother’s generation, when nothing was spoken about, to Teresa’s generation trying to put together lists of names of the dead, to her daughters’ generation now growing up in a town marked by the discovery. ‘My own girls ask, how did ye let this happen?’” The daughters’ question suggests a lot has changed, but as recently as 2018 in Ireland, the life of a foetus was more protected than the life of a mother. Adoption law still protects the anonymity of the mother—which means many people don’t have access to their birth information purely because they were born out of wedlock. Do you think the revelations about the mother and baby homes have really led to great change? 

I don’t believe anyone can give another person a voice. If you believe you are giving someone a voice, you might actually be silencing them in ways you don’t understand.

CH: Another woman mentioned in the book is Noelle Brown, an adoption rights activist. She speaks about adoption rights as an equality issue. I think that’s a really powerful way to think about it because, it’s true, we have people in Ireland who were adopted and don’t have equal rights to their birth information or even their original birth certificate. There are so many ongoing barriers to information for people who were born in these institutions, and for the mothers who were essentially incarcerated and want access to the records held on them. I think the breaking of silences around what happened in the mother and baby homes has been a catalyst for the sort of movements for equality that we’ve seen over the last few years, but I think there is still a lack of awareness of the ongoing inequalities that people face, this culture of silence and shame. 

There’s still a culture of silence around adoption in Ireland, especially when it comes to adoptees accessing their own information. Our adoption laws were always intended to keep it as secret as possible. It’s surprising that they’re presented as protecting the privacy rights of the mothers—almost every woman I’ve ever spoken to who had her child taken from her for adoption, who was sent to these institutions, they have only ever wanted information and answers. These are women who have spent years searching for their children. 

And yes, there are those who haven’t, who still keep it a secret from their husbands and other children. But that’s not because they stopped thinking about their child. It’s often that there’s still this shame. That’s the biggest reason for the ongoing silence. There’s still a culture of silence that needs to be broken. Putting the rights of the mother and child in competition with each other only serves the culture of silence—much more than it serves the mother. 

The decision to search and trace is very complicated. That was very important to the book. But in the experience of the women I spoke to, at least, the reality is that so many of these mothers spent their entire lives thinking about what happened to their child.

LS: The book really interrogates this “shame-industrial complex.” I’m interested in the role silence played in that complex—in the many kinds of silences, really. For instance, there’s the silence of the ashamed, and the silence of the oppressor. Did you perceive a difference in how these silences are perpetuated?

CH: Funnily enough, when it came to speaking with religious sisters who worked in the institutions, I was surprised by how eager many were to talk. On an institutional level, there’s a very pervasive silence. And the minute lawyers got involved, conversations shut down. 

But on a personal level it was different. I spoke to a woman who worked as a midwife in St. Patrick’s which was the largest mother and baby home in Ireland. She was a religious sister with the Daughters of Charity. She spoke to me about her memories of the women, very detailed memories. One woman coming in with two corsets on to hide her pregnancy, another woman who brought in a map so she could pretend she was off in Norway when really she was in an institution in Dublin giving birth in secret. This midwife remembered so much and shared these memories and stories, and yet I remember getting a call from a nun high up in the order to say, oh that you know that woman’s memory isn’t very good. 

I was constantly told by people within the church that I was only hearing one side, and that the media was representing this history in a very one-sided way. And yet when I went and tried to get the other side, I faced silence on an institutional level. Some nuns were eager to give their experiences but there was too much of a hierarchy. So, that was a real insight, I think. Even within these congregations, silence is imposed.

LS: I was wondering if we could talk a little bit about the idea of female virtue. There’s an idea that in post-colonial nation building, the new national identity is often staked on female virtue. How do you think Ireland’s post-colonial history factors into the mother and baby homes? 

CH: Well, look at the way “‘Kathleen ní Houlihan”’ came to represent this whole image of Ireland, a woman to be rescued or defended, being assaulted—invaded by colonial forces. It was in the nationalistic literature and art of the [1916] Rising, the country as a woman’s body being occupied. In the 30s, when [Eamon] de Valera oversaw the writing of the new constitution, he had this vision of Ireland being a land of “comely maidens” in their homesteads. It’s still within our constitution, the part that says the women’s place is in the home. It was meant to be taken out, there was meant to be a vote on it and there hasn’t been yet. 

Every mother and baby home would have an image of the Virgin Mary, in the grotto of penitence. That was the ideal woman, a Virgin Mary.

But you can see where Ireland was trying to create a new national identity that was in every way opposed to Britain, and that was primarily done through this association with the Church. A Catholic nation, a moral nation. One in which women went from being active fighters, activists within the Rising to comely maidens that were meant to stay at home. Women becoming pregnant out of wedlock defied that image. The system of institutions was to hide away anyone who defied or undermined the ideal image of what Irishness was in the eyes of the state and church. That meant mothers and babies—any other people, too. Mental institutions were used the same way. 

Every laundry or mother and baby home would have an image of the Virgin Mary, of course in what looks like the grotto of penitence. That was the ideal. The ideal woman was a Virgin Mary.

LS: You note that a 1924 report stated one in every three illegitimate children born alive was dying within a year. I’m interested in this report because it suggests awareness, which is to say, complicity. To my mind, there is intentional complicity and ignorant complicity, but it seems like the two kinds can do the same amount of damage. What kind of role do you think complicity has in silence, institutionalism, and the shame-industrial complex?

CH: I think it’s shocking how quickly these institutions became normalized. I’m still surprised when I go through reports on mortality rates within the homes and the fact that those rates were raised during the very first years the system was operating. It was no secret. The children were dying and at much higher rates because of the conditions and very little was done about it. You see even the way that the [famine] workhouses were repurposed from the workhouse system imposed by Britain. The likes of Tuam and St. Patrick’s were in former workhouses, places which separated children as well. So, we took over that system, we gave it to religious orders who really perpetuated that environment. In other words, it was never a secret, people in positions of authority knew the realities of the conditions within the institutions and they knew children were dying at disproportionate rates. There was just a sense that these lives didn’t have as much value as the lives of others. 

I don’t know if you could call it complicity, but it’s absolutely culpability and the effect of stigma that allows you to normalize some lives having less value than others. There was also a sense that these children were immoral and delicate, the children born of an immoral relationship were somehow physically vulnerable. It was as if their deaths were seen as inevitable because they were born “illegitimate”. A deeply internalized discrimination towards these children, instilled by the Church’s dogma about sex outside of marriage being a terrible sin, was replicated in politics and law. 

In terms of complicity, I think it’s hard, again, for my generation to understand the deep influence of the church people at that time, where the church was really the ultimate authority. People didn’t question. 

LS: Our generation is talking a lot about how social oppressions are systemic. Racism and sexism are deeply woven into society but there aren’t physical institutions in the same way Catholicism has churches. How do you think institutional power presents nowadays?

CH: Eliza Griswold did a great piece recently for The New Yorker on crisis pregnancy agencies, religious crisis pregnancy agencies that were given funding for doing ultrasounds and operating the reproductive health care even though really the whole intent of their operations was to prevent women seeking abortions. So, we’re seeing the rollback of rights. In the U.S., there’s the strong influence of the religious right. In Ireland, the Church does still have influence over us. I think it’s 90% of primary schools are still owned by the Church or denominational. 

Private organizations were profiting off the institutionalizing of people. We see that worldwide—this sort of treatment of marginalized people is normalized.

Look at systems like Direct Provision in Ireland where we have normalized the institutionalization of vulnerable people. That, to me, shows how a harmful system grows and is accepted for so long. Private organizations were profiting off the institutionalization of people. And I think we see that worldwide—this sort of treatment of marginalized people is normalized, it becomes acceptable. There are so many parallels—think of the forced separation of families in the U.S. 

I think that was the most surprising thing about the legacy of the religious run institutions in Ireland: how normal they were considered. It wasn’t a completely secret system that no one knew about, it was just seen as the way things were done. The people sent to those institutions were seen as people deserving of that discrimination. In order for discrimination to be systemic, it has to be normalized. 

LS: Do you think spending so much time immersed in this material has improved your ability to see contemporary parallels? How has it felt being steeped in this story for so long?

CH: I think one of the main things it showed me was the lengths to which people will go to protect an institution. When it comes to church and state, that is the purpose of silence, to protect the institution. And, I say this in the book, that doesn’t do them any favors.

I also saw how institutions grow and then have to be sustained. And yes, there are endless parallels. It’s the same with Direct Provision, and you could say private prisons in the U.S., and other carceral, for-profit institutions. The lengths people will go to when there’s an incentive to keep an institution running is shocking. No matter what the damage is. 

With the Church today, you see the same sort of stigmas and discrimination. During the World Meeting of Families a few years ago, there was a Catholic bishop who said contraception removes a woman’s right to say no to unwanted sex and blamed homosexuality for a “contraceptive mentality.” The Catholic hierarchy still seeks to influence state policy and law. 

With systems like emergency accommodation, we are still warehousing vulnerable people for profit. It’s a way to hide people away. The ongoing moralizing and pathologizing, taking away agency from people—it’s a way of taking away power and giving it to someone who thinks they know better. I think that’s probably the core of how the mother and baby institutions developed in the first place. 

This Bestselling Novel Is Confronting Argentina’s Crisis of Violence Against Women

On August 24, 2014, in the early hours of the morning, Melina Romero disappeared after celebrating her 17th birthday at a bowling alley in her hometown of Buenos Aires. Her body was found a month later in a nearby suburb, near a stream, wrapped in a trash bag. In Argentina, the crime was remarkable, in part, for how unremarkable it was—Romero’s rape and murder joined a long list of women brutally killed by men who were often their intimate partners, a crime known as femicide. Months after Melina’s death, the femicide crisis in Argentina would boil over into a countrywide catharsis of outrage.

Six years after Romero’s death, as the ongoing femicide crisis continues to roil Argentina, Eartheater (translated by Julia Sanches), a debut novel inspired by the crisis and written by the Argentinian writer and feminist activist Dolores Reyes, has become a surprise bestseller and injected new energy into efforts to end systemic partner violence in Argentina. Reyes dedicates the work to the memory of Melina Romero and Araceli Ramos—another victim of femicide—who were buried near the school near where she works, and to all victims and survivors of femicide. Since its publication in 2019, the novel has roiled the conversation around intimate partner violence and the continued unsolved murders of women in Argentina.

For Reyes, the story started during a writing workshop, where a colleague’s story included the phrase “the earth of the cemetery.” As she heard these words read aloud, Reyes had a vision of a slight young girl with long hair, crouching low to the ground, eating earth. It is a scene that also opens the novel: during her mother’s funeral, a teenage girl, known only as Eartheater, is so overcome with mourning that she begins to eat the dirt from her mother’s grave. “The earth devouring you is dark and tastes like tree bark,” she says. “It pleases me and reveals things and makes me see.” What she sees is a vision of her mother’s death—her father beating her mother.

Eartheater is bullied at school for her strange habit. When a teacher—Señorita Ana—goes missing, the girl eats earth from the school’s courtyard and has a vision during art class: “I’d drawn her as the earth had shown me: naked, her legs spread-eagle and kind of bent, so that she looked smaller, like a frog. Her hands were behind her, tied to the posts of an open warehouse with the words ‘PANDA JUNKYARD’ painted on it.” The drawing leads to a meeting with the school principal, and a search of the junkyard, where authorities find Señorita Ana’s body. Afterward, Eartheater’s aunt, her only caretaker, becomes so unnerved by this power that she abandons the girl and her brother, Walter. They drop out of school and, even as Eartheater tries to block out her discomfiting powers, bottles of earth start appearing in their front yard, each one left by a desperate person in search of a missing loved one.

Since its publication in 2019, the novel has roiled the conversation around intimate partner violence and the continued unsolved murders of women in Argentina.

Even amid a global crisis of intimate partner violence, particularly against women, the situation in Argentina stands out as especially dire. According to the United Nations, as of 2018, a woman is murdered every 32 hours in Argentina—often the culmination of weeks, months, and even years of daily abuse and violence. In 2015, after the heinous murder of a pregnant fourteen-year-old, Chiara Páez, who was beaten to death by her boyfriend and then buried in his grandparents’ yard, journalist Marcela Ojeda tweeted, “Actresses, politicians, business leaders, community leaders, are we not going to raise our voice? THEY ARE KILLING US.” In response to Ojeda’s tweet, protesters organized a march on the capitol in Buenos Aires. This small march grew into a protest of 200,000 women and a sweep of other national actions, all under the viral hashtag, rallying cry, and nascent social movement #NiUnaMenos (insisting on “Not One Less” woman kept alive). Spurred on by a machismo culture that condones the harassment and ill-treatment of women, ineffectual or apathetic handling of cases by the police, and weak and poorly applied laws against intimate partner violence, Ni Una Menos has grown into a broad-scale movement not only fighting for the eradication of femicide—and the full prosecution of its perpetrators—but also for greater enfranchisement for all Argentinian women, including the right to have access a safe and legal abortion. In Reyes’ novel, while a seismic social movement like Ni Una Menos is absent, the circumstances of it remains: unable to turn to politicians or the police to prevent these deaths or, in their aftermath, to find closure, the families of the missing women and children instead form their own network and process for seeking justice. In this case, their route runs through the supernatural powers of a teenage girl, who soon becomes the only recourse for the victims’ families.  

But despite being called upon to act, Eartheater is herself a resistant heroine. Initially overwhelmed by the pain and mourning from her own mother’s death, as well as the trauma caused by her previous visions, at first Eartheater simply ignores the jars and bottles of earth that appear. Each one bears a name and, sometimes, a picture of the missing, and as the jars accumulate she instead tries to wash away her guilt and suffering through familiar teenager methods: she drinks, plays video games, hooks up with boys, and buys cotton candy at the covered market . As she says, “Beer was a blanket hug that covered me from top to bottom.” She and her brother Walter, who live together in adown-and-out and impoverished suburb of Buenos Aires, both have a keen sense of their limited future—as orphans and dropouts, there is little to work for or aspire to besides enjoying each day as much as they can. Even so, desperate people continue to track Eartheater down and beg her to help find their missing loved ones and, eventually, she concedes.

There is a version of Reyes’ novel that one can imagine being well-suited to the streaming era: a paranormal police procedural where a young girl, who can commune with murdered women through eating earth, is paired with a swashbuckling cop and, together, they bring justice to the serial killers and domestic abusers of the world, one hour-long episode at a time. But in place of fantasy, Reyes’ novel is more hard-boiled, grittier, and embedded in the reality of a failing system. The cop she does fall in with, Ezequiel, is self-interested—only coming to her to help find his cousin—as well as disinterested in much more than himself . The people and bodies that Eartheater does find lead to little closure or justice. After she tells one family that their son, who has disappeared, was not kidnapped but instead died in an accident, the family refuses to believe her, the mother instead insisting, “I’m gonna tell the other women not to let the kids out on their own. Someone might steal ’em.”

There is a sense that Reyes’ novel is itself a warning against wish fulfillment.

There is a sense that Reyes’s novel is itself a warning against wish fulfillment, and while the stymied justice for these murders is a motivating factor for a movement like Ni Una Menos, the violence is itself the result of much deeper and more sinister cracks in the social fabric. Even if, like Eartheater, you could know who caused a woman’s disappearance or death, it is no guarantee of justice, and in Argentina, such disappearances continue to have a fraught and painful legacy. The country is still grappling with the history of one of the worst military regimes in South American history, infamous for the national reorganization process, el Proceso, that resulted in the disappearance and murder of over 30,000 people during the 1970s and ‘80s. In Eartheater, the grief of disappearance is palpable. As the girl examines her yard full of bottles, she realizes that “. . .no earth tasted alike. No child, sibling, mother, or friend was missed like another. Side by side, they were like glimmering tombs. At first, I used to count them and arrange them tenderly, occasionally stroking one till it let me savor the earth inside it. That was how I usually felt. But right then, I despised them. They weighed on me more than ever. Altogether, they exhausted me. I felt the bottles piling up on me. The world must be larger than I’d imagined for so many people to have disappeared in it.” In the end, the burden of this crisis falls not on the institutions meant to address it or the people meant to solve the crimes, but on a poor girl living in a poor neighborhood, the very sort of girl, perhaps like Melina Romero, at risk of disappearing herself.

As readers, we have a clear desire for justice in a novel about crime. We want to solve the case, and for the missing women and their families to have peace. But that is not the story that Reyes is telling. Throughout the novel, Eartheater continues to be haunted by the ghost of her former teacher, Señorita Ana, imploring her to keep searching. “What about me? What about everything you promised?” Ana says. To which Eartheater responds, “I don’t want to anymore, Ana.” Ana is insistent: “But you could find them. Have them locked up. For me. They’ll keep killing, out there. Don’t you get it?” But there is no resolve in Eartheater to keep going, no desire to fight crime and bring about justice. Instead, she and Walter flee the city, overwhelmed and fed up with what’s been asked of them. “I can’t deal with the people or the earth anymore,” she says. “I’m done with dead people.” As she finds—the power of knowing, of having an answer to the question, isn’t enough. Solving the crime, and even catching the criminal, isn’t enough, not in a society complicit to women’s suffering and with those in power failing to act. For Reyes, these are the things that can’t be solved by the supernatural, but instead only by a wild, full-throated roar for change.

I Am Eating America Clean

i too do not like a party too childreny

I too do not like a party

Too childreny

Because then I think

How many will my witch eat

And will she be too bloated

When the sponge of passion

Fruit and lemon cream

Is hoisted up the altar

With its crown of fire

Obviously there are more seriousy problems

When a party is childreny

The drinking songs are all fucking wrong

The slippers shrink and my foot

Must be crammed like walnut meat

The virgin sacrifice is poorly received

My witch eats her weight in feelings

I drown my sandwich in donkeys blood

All that rich food

None of my bottoms fit right

I must walk about nakedly twelve days

The children laugh and rub a butter on me

They believe a body like me

Will not happen to them

O but they have tasted the cursed food

The costco sheetcake

Fit for a mormon family reunion

The costco chickenbake

With the blood of a caesar dressing

We jump into the air in unison

When we land the earth ruptures darkly

The blind honey of a melon

new dawn fades

Quite obviously I am living the american dream

Snakes pour from the heads of my daughters

Amnesia spills out of our pockets

The eternal in me recognizes

The eternal in your keep

It is a reading of all my trespasses

It is your forensic accountant

It is my foam and honey

Of the petri plate

Igniting a sentient mohawk

For the psychoanalyst

She slips on the gloves but

The gloves are not sterile

Or even physical because

The work is not of this world

She must reach into my dinosaur brain

That shit is deep oil

Which is why her symbolic gloves

Go fingertip to forearm

Obviously I am eating america clean

It falls from meat

Like the bones of a slow-cooked creature

It is the home of free shipping free relocation

To be unfree in this home is brave

It is a home of pillars and no roof

And voices falling from the bone

10 Literary Podcasts to Listen To if You Miss Life Before Quarantine

Remember 2019, when quarantine was only a word you heard in sci-fi movies? When getting out of bed in the morning wasn’t an activity that caused burn out? When you had IRL plans sometimes? This year has been rough, and we don’t blame you if you don’t have the mental capacity to actually read a book. Fortunately, we’ve compiled some podcasts that’ll make you feel like a bookworm while also reminding you of the world before COVID. Dig into these podcasts even if you don’t have the energy to dig into the stack of novels that’s been growing on your nightstand. 

Sentimental Garbage

Listen to if you miss: Wearing real pants and going to bars to eavesdrop on strangers as “research” for your “novel”

If you’re looking for a podcast that digs into your favorite fiction by women and offers it the same literary merit that most people offer Moby Dick or Shakespeare, look no further than Sentimental Garbage. Host and author Caroline O’Donoghue interviews her guests about their favorite chick-lit books, and then digs into the novels to discover what makes them work. Anyone who’s ever wanted their English class to ditch Dickens for Devil Wears Prada should check out this podcast.

The Stacks - The Stacks Podcast — Coming April 4th | Listen via Stitcher  for Podcasts

The Stacks

Listen to if you miss: Talking about books over oat-milk lattes with your coolest friends

Described as “a smart, bookish brunch with the literary pals you’ve been waiting for,” The Stacks is a podcast hosted by Traci Thomas that’s part book club, part conversation with a friend, and part writing masterclass. Thomas meets with guests who range from authors to actors to community organizers, and they discuss all kinds of books—from classic favorites to highly anticipated new releases. Listeners can expect to hear guests talk about their publishing experience, reading habits, and guilty pleasure books, as well as thoughtful literary criticism. 

Deadline City

Listen to if you miss: Meeting up with your writing group in whoever’s living room has the comfiest couch

New York Times best-selling author Dhonielle Clayton and award-winning author Zoraida Córdova have joined together to create a podcast about all the things nobody ever told you about being a writer. Whether you’re curious about navigating the publishing world, editing your novel, or just staying interested in writing, this podcast offers an in-depth look at what it takes to write a book, and what happens after your first publication.

Hey YA | Listen via Stitcher for Podcasts

Hey YA

Listen to if you miss: Feeling happy, hopeful, or optimistic 

Anyone who reads young adult (YA) literature knows how much fun these books can be. If you’re looking for books that are a little more playful than the stodgy literary classics, be sure to check out this podcast from Book Riot. Hey YA offers recommendations for YA books, the latest news about YA fiction, and interviews with YA authors. If you’re looking for book lists for horror enthusiasts, aspiring witches, political activists, or people with short attention spans, Hey YA has what you need.

You’re Booked

Listen to if you miss: Going to parties just to snoop around a stranger’s apartment

Listeners looking to discover how teenaged bookworms became world-renowned authors will love this bookish podcast. Host Daisy Buchanan interviews a different author every week to snoop around their bookshelf and find out which books mean the most to them, which books inspire them, and which books just look good on the shelf. If you’ve ever wondered how a reader becomes a writer, you should listen to this podcast.

Say More

Listen to if you miss: Lying on the floor of your apartment after a party, talking to your best friends about things that straddle the line between petty and existential

This podcast isn’t really about books, but it is hosted by two internationally-renowned poets, Olivia Gatwood and Melissa Lozada-Oliva. In Say More, Gatwood and Lozada-Oliva interview each other, their friends, and experts about things they have a lot to say about. Although they don’t talk exclusively about writing or literature, Gatwood and Lozada-Oliva look at their topics and guests through the lens of a poet—which is to say, they flip the subjects on their head and break them into a million unexpected pieces. Topics include: sharks, prison abolition, gay porn, YouTube makeup tutorials, and cancel culture. 

Bonnets At Dawn - S3, Episode 1: Wives and Daughters Part 1 | Listen via  Stitcher for Podcasts

Bonnets at Dawn

Listen to if you miss: Going to the library and spending a few hours wandering between the shelves

Every week hosts Lauren and Hannah get together to discuss the work, lives, and legacies of women writers from the 18th, 19th, and 20th century. Some of these authors are well known, like Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters, some are authors you may not have thought of in a while, like Beatrix Potter and L.M. Montgomery, and some are authors you’ve probably never heard of, like Sarah E. Farro and Sarah Piatt. The hosts are often joined by experts and academics to dig even deeper into the worlds of these women writers. Whether you’re a Charlotte, an Emily, or maybe more of an Anne, you’ll love Bonnets at Dawn.

Storybound - Introducing The History of literature | Listen via Stitcher  for Podcasts

Storybound

Listen to if you miss: Going to the movie theater, sitting in a comfy seat, eating popcorn, and listening to other theatergoers murmur in the dark

This literary podcast invites acclaimed authors to read their favorite short stories. The twist? These readings are designed to be radio-theater productions that fully immerse readers in the world of the story. Using original music and sound design, Storybound invites listeners to engage with authors on a whole new level. 

The Talking Book Podcast | Listen via Stitcher for Podcasts

The Talking Book Podcast

Listen to if you miss: Attending readings and chatting with authors at your favorite indie bookstore 

The Talking Book Podcast is the creation of indie audiobook recording studio The Talking Book. It’s great for listeners looking for interviews with their favorite underground authors, plus discussions of the editors’ favorite essays, excerpts, poetry, and fiction. If you’re yearning for the days when you could wander the small-press section at your neighborhood bookstore, you’ll love this podcast.

James Murua’s Literary Podcast

Listen to if you miss: Book club meetings with friends who always pick the best reads

James Murua’s blog has been called “the leading blog in African literature,” and his podcast is no different. James Murua’s Literary Podcast gives voice to African and Black authors, while also covering African literary news. Every week, Murua interviews a different African author, both newcomers and award-winners, and keeps listeners updated with the African and Black literary scene. Anyone looking for the literary news beyond the white-centric Western monotony will be thrilled to find Murua’s podcast.