Parenting in the Smog of Industrial London

“On Growing Ferns and Other Plants in Glass Cases, in the Midst of the Smoke of London”
by Daniel Mason

1.

Sometimes, during the night, she wakes to a presence, a creature sliding through the darkness, watching, waiting to descend. She doesn’t dare to look; to move even slightly is to risk waking the child, and it’s for him she knows the ghost has come. There is nothing she can do but remain in utter stillness, beside the boy, so close that she can feel his exhalations on her cheek.

Watching, as his blankets softly rise and fall, and the shadows stir around them, and the dim light plays against the pale blue paper on the wall.

She can hear it then, the boy’s breath quickening as the ghost draws closer. Very faintly, from deep within his chest, the tickling of a wheeze. Just a whisper, but she has become a great student of his breathing, an expert. She knows, then, what is coming. The boy so peaceful now, and yet in seconds, the ghost will be upon him, he will lurch awake, tearing at his sheets, his chest heaving as he throws his covers from the bed. Desperately, she will try to calm him, but to no avail. She will pray: that this attack won’t be the final one, that it will pass as all the others, that the earth will continue on its turning, bringing spring and warmth, the end of winter burning, and perhaps, if fortune smiles, their escape.

A patterning of raindrops at the window . . . a shift in the room’s currents . . . and the wraith halts in its descent. Now, from above, she senses a retreat, the dark smoke whisking back in viscous eddies. Inches away, William’s breath slows again and softens. The wheezing vanishes. For a moment—another hour, perhaps the night—the danger has passed.

The attacks—paroxysms, the doctors would call them, though there was no mistaking the focused violence of the assaults—had begun the previous winter, when the boy was six. For half as many years, since her husband’s accident and death, they had been living with her sister Katherine in Finsbury, in the spare room on the third floor. Elizabeth had not intended to remain with them so long. Her sister had a family, a husband with a growing reputation, and—now that their two sons were away at school—a social life requiring careful cultivation. And yet where was she to go? Beyond some distant relations in Herefordshire, Katherine was her family. And even if Katherine were concerned solely with others’ opinions, it would have been quite indelicate for her to cast her sister out.

Of course, no one had spoken of reputation; these were Elizabeth’s worries, and ones that plagued her mostly in the moments of her doubt. In fact, Katherine had welcomed her with warmth, and Charles, who himself had grown up without a father, treated William with—if not the attention he had given his own children—affection nonetheless. This wasn’t difficult. William was an easy child: thoughtful, quiet, compliant in his studies, with a beguiling deference, as if he had never outgrown the sense of having just arrived in that new, unfamiliar house. As each morning Charles departed early for the firm, the sisters took breakfast together, while the boy ate at a second, smaller table a few feet away. This was followed by an hour of bathing and dressing, and another reviewing his lessons before the arrival of his tutor. In the afternoon, after the man’s departure, William would clamber into his mother’s lap and recount that day’s Latin or mathematics. She had little interest in either, but it didn’t matter, for she was happy just to look at him, so much like her husband, with Edward’s mop of flax-brown hair, and Edward’s arching, impish eyebrows, and a long, sloping neck that gave his high, stiff collar a dandyish air.

And they would read together, or play a game of chess or draughts, or head out into the city to explore. Which was where, that December morning, three days before the turn of the year, the problems began.

Later, questioned by  the doctors, she would wonder if the illness hadn’t started earlier. Certainly, she had heard him wheezing, coughing. Certainly, there were times when, hurtling up the staircase, he’d grown short of breath. But this was London, after all, and at the peak of Industry. Everywhere were forges and manufactories, tanyards, dyers, iron foundries, glassworks, breweries with their plumes of dark, thick smoke. Once, looking over her shoulder at an illustration of Mount Etna, William, age four then, had pointed at the volcanic vents and shouted, “The Docklands!” Who didn’t cough and wheeze? Alone, discreetly spitting into her handkerchief, she found it specked with grit, and there were days, if the potash kilns were burning, that tears ran down her cheeks. Morwenna, the housemaid, often disappeared to distant rooms to hide her fits of hacking. At the butcher’s, in the piles of pink sheep pluck, the lungs of city animals were black and half the price.

At the butcher’s, in the piles of pink sheep pluck, the lungs of city animals were black and half the price.

Had she noticed? the doctors asked. Yes, but in the way she noticed everything about her son. The way he twisted his fingers around one another when he was thinking. The way, when he thought she wasn’t looking, he skipped the page in Robinson Crusoe with the engraving of the savages. The way that, still, in haste, he sometimes put the left shoe on the right. So: yes, a cough, at times, at times a shortness of breath. But this was true for all of them; no, she never believed him to be sick.

December, then, the city sodden with Christmas toddy,  hearth fires lolling the ash of sea coal into the Thames fog, the sugar mills reburning. That day they had been up near Clerkenwell, on an errand, when, passing through the dark exhalations of a forge, William, bundled deep in coat and scarf, began to wheeze. It was an inhuman sound; for an instant, she mistook it for the hissing of a steam valve. But then she turned to see him doubled over, hands on his knees, chest heaving.

She fell to him, skirts pooling across the cobbles.

Another whinny, this equine, and bearing down beneath a whip. She swept her son up and carried him out of the black cloud and through the nearest door, into a tavern, where for the next half hour, beneath a lurid painting of gambling monkeys in cuffs and pirate hats, William slowly, very slowly, regained his breath.

And then he was well, laughing at the monkeys, one of whom, she realized with a start, was rustling a free hand up the frilled skirts of a monkey wench. Time to go! But at the door she paused, gauging the sifting soot that drifted past the window. And if it happened again? she wondered. She didn’t note it then, but that moment marked a beginning. Of a new vigilance, a division of the world, into places where William could breathe and those he couldn’t.

That moment marked a beginning. Of a new vigilance, a division of the world, into places where William could breathe and those he couldn’t.

But how else were they to get back home? She took her shawl and wrapped his head so that only his eyes were visible. He watched her, puzzled. “Because of the smoke,” she whispered, as if it could hear her, too.

The second attack came two weeks later, on Ludgate Hill, in the grey pall sliding from the ranks of terrace chimneys. The third, the following morning, when he leapt over a shattered hogshead in the street outside their house. Both short, mercifully so, the shock of the first onslaught now replaced by a gnawing recognition of a new, tenacious presence in their lives. Still, she said nothing about it to Katherine or Charles. She would not worry them, she told herself. It was a passing cold, an inflammation, perhaps a mild “asthma” he would outgrow. For as long as she recalled, her father, stout and hearty, had regularly suffered a late summer tightness that he spoke of almost amiably as his “little ’heeze.”

There was another shadow to this thought, she knew, which was that she couldn’t trouble Katherine or Charles. That when they had taken her in, it was with the understanding that she would bring no complications. That  her mourning would never pass into hysterics. That the boy, pattering gaily down the stairs, reciting Virgil, would remain a gift, and not a burden, someone who brought joy into their home.

And then the fourth attack, in Bloomsbury, where, on the occasion of William’s seventh birthday, the four of them had made a celebratory excursion to the Museum.

They were in the Egyptian hall when it happened. All morning, getting ready, she had sensed a slight whistle to his breath, but the air was particularly foul that day, an oily coal smoke, dull as aspic, which sifted through the antique glazing of the windows and left a scrim upon the sills. Her own eyes burned as they walked through an amber haze, even Katherine was coughing, and by the time they reached the Museum, all of them were complaining of a soreness in their throats. But the galleries had brought relief, and they were progressing toward the mummies when William, unable to restrain himself, bolted forward eagerly, only to draw up short as if someone had punched him in the chest. Instantly, Elizabeth was at his side, but when she touched him, he pushed her hand away. Palms braced against his knees. Shoulders rigid, eyes wide, nostrils flaring. Even in the dim hall, the cold air, she could see drops of perspiration beading on his forehead, a gathering pallor to his skin.

By then Katherine and Charles had reached them.

William? Elizabeth, what’s happening? But the answer was there before them, sucking at the air, chin jutting like the horrid rictus of a gargoyle, the muscles in his neck pulled taut.

The attack lasted nearly two hours. They moved him from the center of the room and to a bench. A crowd gathered; a doctor was summoned—or promised, for none came. From time to time, a helpful citizen urged the curious to “give the boy some space.” But to Elizabeth, all this was happening as if at a distance. It seemed as though William was so intent on breathing that he was unaware of anything around him, and she was unaware of anything but him. His belly bellowed with each heaving, and when at last the ghost released him from its coils, he gave a cry and crumpled into her lap.

It was dusk when they found themselves outside. There, the smell of heating coal sent her heart into another flurry, yet, thankfully, her son, asleep against her shoulder, didn’t stir.

In a carriage on the way home, the three adults were silent. “We must send for a doctor,” Katherine said at last, but Elizabeth protested. They didn’t need a doctor. It was just the air, she said.

“It’s not the air,” said Katherine. “I breathe the air. There’s something wrong with him.”

Memories now of Edward broken by the calomel purges, retching, pleading for his doctor to stop.

But Charles agreed with Katherine. And he had acquaintances in the Scientific Club: learned, experienced men who would know how to help.

2.

There would be three of them, three learned, experienced men: Watts of Hyde Park, and Moss of Harley Street, and Underwood of the Magdalen Hospital, an expert in diseases of women and childbirth, author of a popular book on physical culture and the raising of boys. One after the other, they climbed the stairs to the nursery, drew out their long stethoscopes from their traveling bags, listened, tapped, prodded, prescribed. The attacks, the fits of wheezing, were indeed symptoms of an asthma, they all concluded, addressing Charles, though they disagreed as to whether it was acute catarrhal asthma or dry catarrhal asthma, or mucous catarrhal asthma, or humoral asthma or pure nervous asthma or symptomatic nervous asthma, or just suffocative catarrh. And then the other possibilities they murmured in lower voices, these words long and Latinate, more like the scientific names for sea creatures than any disease Elizabeth knew. But nothing to worry about, not yet.

Three doctors! The thought of one had frightened her enough; had she known there would be three, she never would have consented. But their  prescriptions, however different, all had the same effect: they only worsened William’s breathing. The niter prescribed by Watts sent her son into fierce fits of coughing, as did the tobacco, the lobelia, the squills. Moss, in turn, dictated increasing doses of laudanum; when she told him, quietly, eyes lowered, that it had reduced her child to a state of confused, hallucinating languor, he thundered that she would rather have him dead. Underwood had nodded sagely when she told him of the others’ failings. Of course: cure must be heroic; they hadn’t done enough! The spasmodic constriction was dependent on an existing irritation of the mucous membrane of the air passages—this must be reckoned with, and forcefully. But she refused his recommendation of a bleeding. And it was only after another attack in late January that she consented to a “mild blistering,” restraining William with a sickening sense of complicity as the doctor ground an azure fly into a gleaming powder and applied it to excoriations on the boy’s bare chest. This did nothing but throw her son into a frenzy. Eyes wide and accusatory, screaming, Mama, stop him, unsure whether he should fight her or seek the shelter of her embrace.

There would be no more doctors, she told herself after this. The first two were proof enough of Medicine’s uselessness; to believe that a third, a fourth, could cure him was lunacy. But Charles—good, kind Charles—persisted. For God, in constructing the world, had not done so with whimsy. In his twelve years as an engineer, Charles had seen nothing less than the forces of nature reduced down to their most basic forms. Monthly, at the meetings of the Club, he listened as mysteries were unraveled: light dissected into her spectra, electricity spawned by the movements of magnets. In comparison, asthma was nothing. Gravity had been conquered; balloons streamed skyward from the fields of Vauxhall. Lyell had explained the shifting of the continents. Herschel had made a map of Mars.

She couldn’t disagree, of course. Charles was the man who let her son stand on a chair and peer into his microscope, who only chuckled when William was discovered to have added his own illustrations to a volume of Britannica, right on the very plates. She couldn’t disagree: she’d seen what happened when Katherine attempted. How kindly and patient he could be! But it was like arguing with Reason itself.

Yet it was more than just Charles’s authority that secured her acquiescence. William’s illness, she understood, had begun to alter the unspoken terms of charity. Her gift to them had revealed itself as something broken. Or worse: a threat. For already, he was transforming their home from a place of hope and optimism into one of constant fear and worry. Into a hospital. Already she sensed a reluctance in her sister to host acquaintances. And how could she, when upstairs there was a child of such fragility that any dinner might be interrupted by a death?

And so it was that when Charles announced the visit of a fourth doctor, an expert in the lungs and auscultation with whom he’d entered into correspondence, Elizabeth said nothing, just reasserted her resolve—there would be no bleeding, no fly, no squills. She would listen, but she wouldn’t let anyone hurt her son.

The new doctor’s name was Forbes. From her window, Elizabeth watched, fist tightening around the curtains, as the carriage pulled up outside their gate that day in early February, and three men in black descended from the cab.

They met in the parlour, a room of fading green wallpaper and green silk-upholstered furniture, where a dim light filtered through the sooted glass. The doctor was removing his gloves as she entered. He was flanked by his two apprentices, young men trussed soberly in sable stock ties, still silvered by the mist. Despite her instinctive antipathy to any man of Medicine, to her surprise she sensed her vigilance yield instantly with this new one. He was tall and older, with Grecian, windswept hair and a calm and quiet to his movements, and she was struck to find herself registering how handsome he was, with concerned blue eyes that studied her as if she were a person of importance. Then Charles directed her to her seat, and Katherine took William to an alcove on the far side of the room.

In contrast to Watts and Moss and Underwood,  Forbes had many questions—endless questions, really. He wanted to know about the circumstances of each attack, the presence of similar afflictions in her family and that of her deceased husband, of all remedies attempted and their effects. At first, she was succinct in her answers. She worried that she was boring him. For all her love for William, she could not help wondering why this man, this expert, would devote himself so entirely to her son. There was the fee, of course, and the advantages to be gained from curing the nephew of a man like Charles Nash, just as there was—she apprehended as the exam progressed — a particular antipathy to Dr. Underwood. But it was more than this, for as the visit continued, she realized that Forbes already knew much of the story from Charles, and that he had been enticed there less by fee or fame than by the challenge of a particularly severe case. As if her boy were a specimen, offered up by Charles as currency in the great scientific exchanges. Like a rare fossil or the newest galvanic device.

For a moment, this thought broke her reverie, and Elizabeth looked away. Across the room, out of earshot, William was peering at a heavy volume, his hair falling into his eyes, his tie and jacket painting the very image of the scholar at work. How could anyone suggest he was anything but healthy? But now a new appreciation of the gravity of his condition was dawning. There was no doctor after Forbes, she knew. He was—to use the phrase—the very end. The end, and yet this word now appeared to her not with its usual sense of hopelessness, but rather: destination, even destiny. This man would care for him, for her, for them.

As if with his attentive questions, he was gathering up her fears and sadness and making them his own.

At last, it was time for the examination, and William was called over, asked to undress before a lantern. He was shaking; he, too, recalled the blistering. She drew him to her, stroking his hair, whispering promises that no one would hurt him, never again. She expected the doctor to scold her, but Forbes only smiled gently, without showing his teeth. When they were ready, he began with William’s eyes and nose and mouth, his skin and hair, his nails, pausing only to note faint areas of rash. When at last one of the apprentices removed the stethoscope from its bag, he passed it to his master with the air of handing a scepter to a king. Forbes took it without ceremony, without a glance. It was a wooden tube, burnished with the craftsmanship of an oboe, half the length of those of Watts and Moss and Underwood, which now seemed to have been designed to keep their patients at a distance. As Forbes listened, his head was so close to William that wisps of the doctor’s white hair brushed against the boy’s chest. It tickled. For the first time, William smiled, then let out a nervous giggle, which Forbes silenced with a touch.

Inch by inch, she knew, her son’s lungs were taking form again, in Forbes’s imagination. What could  he see? she wondered. She pictured clouds of exquisite carmine filigree, slowly lifting and falling.

The room was still. The doctor’s eyes were closed in concentration as he asked the boy to inhale and exhale, to take quick breaths and long ones, to cough, to lean forward, lift his arms . . . Watching, Elizabeth at first could only  marvel at the beauty of the child, and her heart swelled with such pride that she reflexively touched her fingers to her throat. Something so perfect couldn’t be flawed or broken. The proof was there in his slight, gently rising shoulders, in the way he looked around at everybody watching him, no longer trembling, now proud to be the object of such interest, a look of amusement on his lips. It was only as the exam proceeded that she let her eyes drift to the doctor. Inch by inch, she knew, her son’s lungs were taking form again, in Forbes’s imagination. What could  he see? she wondered. She pictured clouds of exquisite carmine filigree, slowly lifting and falling. Until suddenly, across this scene, there flashed an image of sheep pluck, coal dark upon the butcher’s floor.

At last, the doctor stopped.

“You may get dressed,” he said. The boy abided, bound into his mother’s lap.

Instead of addressing Charles, Forbes spoke to her. “You have been given, I think, a diagnosis.”

She nodded.

“My assessment is the same. I might add only that while Dr. Underwood, I believe, felt this to be catarrhal asthma, I would emphasize the component of a spinal irritation. But this is a matter only of degree. You have tried, Mr. Nash tells me, everything, save bleeding.”

He must have anticipated her protest, because he raised a finger. “Such a course is not unexpected. There are few diseases less amenable to interference. But there is no need to expose the boy further to such  torments. You may stop.”

She held William closer, needing him near. Should she send him from the room? she wondered. Or would this only frighten him more? Forbes went on. “Perhaps if he continues to decline, we can discuss a treatment. For now, I have great confidence that with the avoidance of inciting stimuli, the asthmatic child may achieve a long life, even in so severe a case. This means stimuli both chemical and nervous. The diet must be bland. He must not be frightened, must avoid pain or overexcitement. He must not laugh too much or breathe too deeply. Above all, he must keep from taking cold.”

She nodded in understanding. This was good, wasn’t it? she thought. He might achieve a long life! There was hope, then. Why did she feel as though she would cry?

Outside the high window, the far side of the street was obscured by haze. Cautiously, she asked, “And if the air itself is a stimulus?”

Forbes nodded, for this was what he was coming to. “Then he must avoid the air.”

The solution, of course, was that they must leave London, and as soon as possible. Quickly, Katherine and Charles fell into making arrangements. Charles had an aunt in Newhaven, in Sussex, by the sea. A letter was sent, an answer received. By good fortune, there was a room to spare; his aunt could use an extra hand, though Elizabeth should understand that life would be simple, without the diversions of the city. As for the boy, there were many such refugees in Newhaven who had found the sea air salubrious. The aunt asked only that Elizabeth comport herself as a widow, and not a woman who was “unattached.”

Listening to Katherine and Charles discuss her departure, Elizabeth sensed a rising enthusiasm; they wished to help, she thought, but they were also relieved to be free of William’s sickness, to return to hosting dinners, unhaunted by the wheezing child in the pale blue room above. And she, too, was relieved, by the prospect of departure, of no longer being a burden to her sister, of building a new life, a simpler life, at last.

Preparations progressed quickly. They would travel by private carriage to the Whale Inn in Southwark, where they would get the morning mail  coach to Brighton, and from there proceed to Newhaven by the coast road. Charles and Katherine would come along. It would do them good to pass a week in the country, they said, though Elizabeth could not help but feel that they were escorting her out. The day arrived, they woke early, bags were hurried to the carriage. William, who had been plied with promises of seashells and shipwrecks, had dressed himself with an extra ribbon around his waist: her natty little buccaneer. He nearly tumbled down the stairs in excitement. Elizabeth wanted to restrain him, to keep him from overexertion, as Forbes had warned. But  it was hard not to feel that their flight was an adventure rather than a doctor’s solemn order. As they entered the carriage, a wind was blowing from the north, clearing the skies ever so slightly, and the street glittered in the light of sunrise. How bright it all was! Columns of yellow tallow glowed in a chandler’s window, green alfalfa dusted the plum tights of the driver, and when they stopped, little boys pushed fistfuls of carnations against the glass. A smile passed between Elizabeth and Katherine. Charles hummed. They were just crossing Blackfriars Bridge, with the factories of Southwark arrayed before them, when the boy began to wheeze.

3.

There have been complications, Charles wrote that evening to Dr. Forbes. The child is too delicate, the coal smoke too pervasive. The trip had to be suspended. Perhaps with summer and the end of winter burning, they could try again.

They were sitting in the parlor, at the same table at which the doctor had carried out his examination. Upstairs, William was sleeping, exhausted; the attack had lasted much of the morning, and they had been forced into another public house to get shelter from the soot. Dazed, Elizabeth watched as Charles folded the letter. How simple it all seemed as he described it! The child was too delicate. And yes, of course, they’d try again.

But the trip had marked a change. Not only by the violence with which the attack descended upon him in the carriage. Not only by the horror of his fishlike thrashing against the walls, the sounds of her sister screaming. Not only by the choking supplications, or the cold in William’s fingers as she grasped his hand.

Instead, the full realization would come later that night, when, at last returning to the room, pausing above the sleeping child, Elizabeth had leaned across the bed to kiss his forehead, and felt the faint thrum of his wheezing on her lips, and understood the ghost, the great constrictor, had followed them home.

Doctor Forbes’s reply was swift, affirmative, and girded with recipes, for inhaled stramonium and a tincture of poppies, to calm the boy and help him rest.

“Summer, then!” said Charles, radiating determination. And they would travel north, and make a great loop and so avoid the mills of Southwark altogether. Perhaps the warmer weather would come early that year. They might even try in May, just three months off.

And Reason had spoken, flexed its muscles. It was simple, a matter of seasons, winds. Why then did she accept Morwenna’s saucers of vinegar, the dried ear of a donkey sent for from Cornwall, the spar stones the maid enclosed in a little bag around William’s wrist? For could he make it to May? Every morning, Elizabeth awoke to find someone thinner, paler. He hardly ate. In her dreams at night—the same dreams that conjured up enchanted corridors coursing through the sulfurous fog—he slurped ravenously at glistening stews. But the doctor had warned against anything rich or salted, and William pushed away the tepid clabber Morwenna delivered to their room. He moved as if his whole body were very heavy. By the time February finally turned to March, sapped by the fits at night, by the poppy tincture, he scarcely left his bed.

She read to him. One by one, she brought out all his favorites: a children’s Ovid, Crusoe, books of science, and illustrated fairy tales. But how different these stories seemed now! Watching him out of the corner of her eye, she found herself wondering what he thought of them: the mocking vision of a crystal carriage, these fables of children consumed by witches, of mothers offering their firstborn to malicious goblins?

These metamorphoses. A girl transformed into a laurel tree, a crocus, a galloping heifer.

A boy into a murmuring brook.

For I saw the sea come after me as high as a great hill, and as furious as an enemy, which I had no means or strength to contend with: my business was to hold my breath, and raise myself upon the water if I could; and so, by swimming, to preserve my breathing, and pilot myself towards the shore, if possible, my greatest concern now being that the sea, as it would carry me a great way towards the shore when it came on, might not carry me back again . . .

Let us read something different, she said to him, but by mid-month, he was sleeping much of the day. Alone then, she tried to turn her mind from the thoughts that rose up from the darkness. The blame was hers: she had done something to deserve this. Other times, she felt the needle shift and point toward him. If he didn’t get so frightened. If he ate the food Morwenna prepared for him. There must be some solution, some secret he knew the answer to, some reason they had been imprisoned in their tower, in their room of pale blue paper, that parody of the sky they couldn’t see. Didn’t he wonder? Didn’t he ask himself why his life had become so unlike that of other children? Was that why he couldn’t carry himself to the window and look out? For she couldn’t bear to see them either, hated them, hated all the healthy. Hated the city, dreamed that a great quake would come and flatten the factories and mills.

Didn’t he wonder? Didn’t he ask himself why his life had become so unlike that of other children? Was that why he couldn’t carry himself to the window and look out?

Oh to be free of such terrible ruminations! But her sleep was increasingly plagued by them, and she could hardly focus long enough to read a book. All she could manage, really, was to thumb, distractedly, through back issues of Katherine’s magazines: women’s journals and literary quarterlies, but mostly a pair of gardening monthlies, which, with their lists of cultivars, and illustrations of planters overflowing with pelargoniums and moneywort, offered, if briefly, an escape:

“A Report upon the best Varieties of Gooseberry.”

“A new Descriptive Catalogue of Roses.”

“A Note upon the Black Corinth Grape.”

And then one day in late March, midway through one of the issues: “On growing Ferns and other Plants in Glass Cases, in the midst of the Smoke of London; and on transplanting Plants from one Country to another, by similar Means.”

William turned. Would she sing to him?

“In a moment, sweetheart. Hush.”

It was but two pages, wedged between an article on Cape heaths and a “Descriptive Notice of the Gardens of Misses Garnier at Wickham,” this filled with exquisite images of rose-lined pathways and trellised garden seats. The author was one “N. B. Ward, Esq.” of Wellclose Square in White- chapel, and his article began with an account of how, for many years an avid gardener, he had long dreamed of nothing greater than to have, in the garden of his London home, an old wall covered with ferns and mosses. Many times he had tried to transplant species collected in the woods, but all had died, killed no doubt by smoke blasting from the nearby manufactories. He had all but given up hope when one day, in a glass bottle in which he was trying to hatch a chrysalis, he spied tiny specks of vegetation, which soon revealed themselves to be a species of Poa and a Nephrodium fern. For the subsequent three years, the plants flourished on his windowsill, dying only when the cap to the bottle rusted and rainwater flooded in. Following this, he had repeated the experiment with over sixty fern species—and here he listed the genera: Adiantum, Aspidium, Asplenium, Blechnum, Cheilanthes, Davallia, Dicksonia, Doodia, Gram- mitis, Hymenophyllum, Lycopodium, Nephrodium, Niphobolus, Polypodium, Pteris, Trichomanes—as well as flowering plants such as anemone and veronica, all with great success. Indeed, he had stayed up one night watching mushrooms growing in one of his vessels, and had kept, for weeks, in a large glass case closed with oiled silk a very happy songbird, a species no longer seen in the city, further proving that the effects of smoke were the same on the leaves of plants as on the lungs of animals, and that even the most delicate species could thrive if protected from the London air. It was simply necessary that the cases be sealed so as to allow for the diffusion of gas but not soot, after which there was no reason to suppose that their Edenic contents could not persist ad infinitum. And one could imagine the many applications, from the collection of fragile specimens in far-off Brazil or Van Diemen’s Land, to the brightening effect that such boxes might have on the dreary lodgings of the poor, provided Parliament rescind the onerous tax on glass and . . .

There was more, but by now her fingers were shaking so hard she had to stop.

4.

Bye, baby Bunting,

Mother’s gone a-hunting,

Gone to get a lion’s skin

To wrap the baby Bunting in.

5.

Who of you recall that night in March in 1836? The cold, the mist, the Thames wind sweeping through the alleyways, carrying the knocking of the ships’ hulls, the creaking of the wharfs? Who remembers the way the lanterns winked, the broth that slipped down from the smokestacks? Who heard, among the thousands of footsteps, the patter of a haunted figure, hood drawn closely about her neck? Who saw her hurrying, breaking into a run? Down Bishopsgate, down Houndsditch, down Aldgate, into Whitechapel’s streets?

Did you wonder where she was racing, skin hot, eyes gleaming with tears brought on by weeping, by the sulfur suspended in the fog? Did you think her mad, to brave this night?

Who was there? In Finsbury, in Bishopsgate, in Whitechapel? For someone must have seen her, must have pointed her the way. Was it you who led her? Or did she find it on her own, that house behind the sailors’ church, the windows green with life?

6.

And at the door, a brass knocker in the form of fiddleheads.

The clanking echoed up the stairs.

Silence. Then more knocks, urgent. Then: more lights, footsteps.

“Yes?”

It was a maid, a girl with bright red cheeks, a glow that seemed to emanate from the home itself.

“I wish to speak with Mr. Ward about his cases.”

“Mr. Ward?”

Mr. N. B. Ward, Esq. She realized that she didn’t even know his Christian name.

The girl pulled a shawl more closely about her shoulders. “It’s nearly midnight. Is he expecting you?”

And, bewitched, Elizabeth answered, “Yes.”

But such is the power of enchantment that the girl didn’t question her, led her up a long stairway into a room of such green light as to leave her blinking. There were palms and figs, creepers spilling from their planters, climbing vines and profusions of mosses pressing wetly against their glass enclosures. And ferns, ferns everywhere, suspended from the ceiling, crowding the windowsills, cases upon cases. The maid departed, but  Elizabeth  didn’t even notice. Now, flushed, still breathless from her haste, she drifted through the plants as if dreaming, the words of the monthly intoning like a hymn. Adiantum, Aspidium, Asplenium . . . The narrow path seemed to lead deeper within the grove, until at last she stopped before a great capsule, set on a table and towering nearly two feet above her head. Condensation on the inside of the glass caught the chandelier light, illuminating an explosion of ferns, dark green and emerald, with pale lime stalks curling from their hearts. And in the center of the tableau, and rising from a stone above the rest: a species she had never seen before, frilled, fimbriate, the end of its fronds fine to translucence, its lace hairs glistening with drops of water. Despite the glass that separated her from the plants, she could taste the moisture in the air.

Condensation on the inside of the glass caught the chandelier light, illuminating an explosion of ferns, dark green and emerald, with pale lime stalks curling from their hearts.

From somewhere behind her, she heard two sets of footsteps, then the voice of the maid.

“Here, sir. She says you were expecting her.”

The other didn’t answer. In the reflection in the glass, Elizabeth watched a dark figure approaching through the leaves and vines. It was her moment to speak, she knew, her moment to explain her haste, her breathless midnight pilgrimage, her petition. But now that it was time, the words available to her were mocking. This crystal carriage, this corridor, this lion’s skin. Ashamed by her impudence, her lie, her desperation, she couldn’t speak. For what, in truth, was she to say? That Providence had led her to that issue of the Gardener’s Monthly? That even Ward’s own name seemed to be a sign sent to her, with its suggestion of both a hall for convalescence and a child in another’s care? That together, that very night, they could begin to assemble the house of glass, the crystal carriage, that would transport her son to the sea air where he might breathe? Gently, Reason scolded her with its paternal chuckle, kind but firm. For who, what, had led her there, stumbling through the dark streets of Bishopsgate and Whitechapel? What madness, Elizabeth? Come home.

Deep within her pocket, her fingers released the torn pages of the Monthly and rose to touch the glass.

“Trichomanes speciosum,” said Nathaniel Bagshaw Ward behind her. “From the woods of Killarney — it is the most delicate of the bristle ferns. Can you see how it is thriving?”

My mother turned. My mother could.

We’re All Living in the Bathroom Now

When I was nine, I sat on an Amtrak somewhere in Northwest Montana, melting into my coach seat. Another train had derailed ahead of us and so we’d stopped among tall and dry grass for more than six hours. Every hour that passed seemed to stretch out relentlessly. We began to wonder if we would ever start again, or if we would be relegated to this train car while the world spun outside us. 

My mom and I, in preparation for our trip from Chicago to Whitefish, had packed a case full of movies and a portable DVD player. I’d already finished the copy of Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret my mom had gifted me (this book changed me, she’d said). We were running out of Gilmore Girls, burning through hours while remaining a fixed distance away from our destination.

Our time inside the train didn’t seem to match up with the time outside. The sun trailed across our cabin window and then disappeared. We bought more Maruchan from the dining car and ate it sitting criss-cross-applesauce. When we finally did start moving, we sank into our seats with the knowledge that we’d wasted time, time that hadn’t gotten us anywhere, that hadn’t brought us any closer to anything. Amtrak’s estimated time of arrival no longer mattered—the timetable we’d worshipped was irrelevant. 

We sank into our seats with the knowledge that we’d wasted time, time that hadn’t gotten us anywhere, that hadn’t brought us any closer to anything.

I was mildly disturbed, beyond the taunting boredom, that a whole day had circled the drain. As a young kid, I valued structure; a plan was immovable, and the mere prospect of being late drenched my chest with molten lead. Spontaneity is a muscle I’ve only recently begun to stretch. On the train, time I hadn’t accounted for wedged itself between my Today and my Tomorrow. The control I thought I had over this small chunk of my life had been rendered completely arbitrary—the derailed train didn’t care that I was rapidly approaching my last DVD, or that I hadn’t showered in three days, or that I was anxiously picking at my skin because the conductor hadn’t answered any of my questions.

As an only child, I was content in spells of seclusion. I used to play in my room for hours in the early morning, my dolls bobbing in and out of the patches of sunlight spilling across the hardwood. In college, I spent listless days in my home, cycling through albums and reminding myself to drink water. Some people tell me this is introversion, or because I’m a Taurus moon or something. Either way, it was the choice I relished—to partition myself off from the world, and re-enter it when I was ready. I grew comfortable with inactivity, but that is not the same as enforced stasis. The former wasn’t confinement because I’d sought it out, and I could leave when I wanted to. But I couldn’t leave that train—we weren’t even allowed to stand outside—and there was no telling when I could.


The Bathroom, the first novel by Jean-Philippe Toussaint, follows a man who wishes to be utterly still. The narrator wants to live within a pause; he moves through the world reluctantly, reclining into a fugue state and uninterested in escaping it. He stops people in a hurry and asks them for directions, manufacturing a halt in time where there would normally be none. He is concerned with images of immobility: a broken clock’s unmoving hand, the blocks and lines of a Mondrian print. 

The narrator, craving this stasis for himself, moves his entire life into his bathroom. He reads in the bathtub, eating flaky pastries in the sloping enamel; he leaves occasionally to visit the kitchen, which is being painted by some Polish men, only to return to the soothing space. His lover, Edmondsson, calls his parents because she is worried. Later, upon traveling to Italy from his home in France, he insists on remaining largely within the hotel, while Edmondsson visits art galleries and museums. The narrator is drawn to these liminal spaces, which one is intended to pass through. The bathroom, he says, is “where [he] felt best.” 

I am more of an Edmondsson: I question the point of traveling if not to explore, as I question the point of an entire home if you can live happily within one room. But I understand the ache for things to stop. In high school I experienced bouts of depression, during which I slept on the couch instead of my bed. I was crying one night, unable to stop; I was sad, and my bed was making me sad, and the walls were making me sad, and so was the floor. My mom gathered the blankets and carried them into the living room, spread them over the couch. I slept there for months. Part of the sofa’s comfort was that it functioned in however way I needed it. It was both transient and eternal, always there yet without the pressure of my bed, which seemed to mock me. I could return to my room when I wanted to, when I was ready. 

And I did. I slept in my bed again, and then I moved away and slept in a different bed, and then away again. My periods of sofa-sleeping, as most of my depressive episodes, were marked by lack of control—the world swirled around me and I couldn’t touch any of it. To move into a bathroom, or onto a couch, is not to achieve physical, but emotional stasis. But it’s only a respite when it’s elective. 

I am in some version of the Doldrums, involuntarily sloth-like; nothing is happening, yet everything is.

I wonder what it means to be still, beyond physicality, now. Amidst the coronavirus pandemic, I feel I am in that train car again, time hurtling past me while I can do nothing to catch it. I am in some version of the Doldrums, involuntarily sloth-like; nothing is happening, yet everything is. I cannot piece together one day from another. I can’t sleep on my couch because I don’t have it, but it wouldn’t even matter if I did. The chaos is internal.

Perhaps The Bathroom’s narrator has progressed beyond me. He moves into his bathroom because he knows there is no real reason not to—it makes him feel good. The novel offers stasis as a philosophy of life, and the narrator leans into it rather than running away. Confronted with a character who finds stagnation comforting, my own instincts reveal themselves: I desire pauses only when I know life will resume. 


The Bathroom is unbothered by questions of logic. Separated into numbered sections, the structure subverts traditional narrative. The numbers progress and then stop, only to start again; the last page is the same as the first. There is no order here, no instructions, no true historical timeline. But of course, everything is always happening at the same time. Most traditional novels manipulate time in order to extract order from life—fiction, writing, is distortion in that way. It is satisfying, and often stunning, to see a story unfold ahead of you, every detail accounted for, every word pushing the narrative forward and leading to its inevitable conclusion. The Bathroom does not care for this sequence, even though the reader expects it; indeed, it’s even more effective because the reader expects a linear plot. Instead, it leans on oddness and idiosyncrasy, and its disorder resembles something like life.

From when I was a young reader, I’ve been tempted to consider myself in literary terms. When I was in high school I fell victim to the solipsism of imposing narrative devices on my life: I was the protagonist, every experience was character development. This is unfair—to myself, but also to the world, which contains so many lives, so many experiences that do not follow narrative arcs, that expand beyond an author’s dictation. 

I am afraid of those times from which we can derive no meaning.

Like many writers, I am desperate to feel like my life is worth something, desperate to excavate meaning from events and people. I want to extract sentences from days. I am afraid of those times from which we can derive no meaning. Perhaps we can’t assume ownership over our experience; perhaps all this life we live is ultimately just life. 

For the unnamed narrator, life is an endless cycle of thoughtless action and actionless thought. Typical psychology is removed, and characters’ self-reflection is replaced by instinctive and blunt dialogue. He insults a woman’s dress, mocks a friend’s home decor; he makes decisions without alerting the reader of his motivations. For him, days are inconsequential. Both the novel and the narrator insist on the void, the blissful ignorance of bothersome noise. 

Is that nihilistic? I don’t want to succumb to a void; I want to construct meaning and feel meaningful. But every day feels now to be a replication—I am reminded of Warhol’s “Marilyn Diptych,” the series of silkscreen paintings repeating a publicity photograph of Marilyn Monroe. The image loses potency with every stamp, her face becomes just a whisper of what it was. My days begin and end the same way, bookended by coffee and Klonopin. The space within them is monotonous and eternal.

I have been tricked into thinking that every day carries me forward, that I am someone different now than yesterday, that my skin is new skin every seven years.

This past week has felt like one long day. I read and watch reality television and look forward to dinner and that is it. Due dates pass. I do my homework in my bed and it’s done and I send it along in an email and its entire life is just on my screen in little windows and boxes. I have been relegated to my bathroom; I live inside a train car. I have been tricked into thinking that every day carries me forward, that I am someone different now than yesterday, that my skin is new skin every seven years. I have been tricked into believing this was guaranteed, tricked by illusory progress. I am not owed this promise. I move as the world allows. 

The Bathroom expresses the absurdity of life: that disorder and randomness prevail. The narrator, staring out of his window at a downpour, watches one raindrop as it falls from the sky; he traces its path, calmly awaiting the moment it splatters against the pavement. The novel presses on the illusion that life gets you somewhere—and behind it we find the reality that life leads only to death, that existence eventually hits up against its opposite. We move like raindrops, hurtling toward the ground, and end in immobility. Whatever meaning exists is our own creation, and we can choose whether or not to worship it. 

I know now that I can’t trust life to continue at a particular pace in the same way I can’t trust Amtrak to arrive at a destination on time. It’s futile to move to my couch and plead with the world to stop spinning around me, some facsimile of Dorothy in the tornado. I can’t be promised safety. Every moment, I am vulnerable to depression, a pandemic, my train whining to a pause. No writer, not Toussaint or myself, can truly assume authorial control—for even when we try, we are thwarted by a word’s unruliness, by a number out of order, by a life that rejects reason.

The most dreadful part of being stopped was the not knowing—time dripped slowly on, filling a pool without walls.

Later in the novel, Toussaint’s narrator defines immobility, with which he is enamored, as “not absence of movement but absence of any prospect of movement.” It seems silly, now, to pine for something which has arrived. We wait for so many things: friends, family, farmer’s markets, concerts, a stability that isn’t this labored stasis. On the train, the most dreadful part of being stopped was the not knowing—time dripped slowly on, filling a pool without walls. 

I envy this narrator, whose stagnation is his own choice. People who are older than me are always saying that years will pass and I won’t notice and all of a sudden I will be their age without blinking an eye. Now all I am doing is blinking and noticing.

The Bathroom reminds me that I cannot trust logic, or expect every day to be meaning-making. The acceleration of the numbered passages presents the illusion of moving forward—through the novel, but also through life—which is why it feels so discomfiting when at the end, we arrive at the beginning. We assume that we will be guided by a logical linearity, that one step will propel us into the next. But though we have moved, through life and through time, we feel still. We have seemingly made no progress at all. 

The Surreal Stories of “Lake Like a Mirror” Show How Power Distorts Reality

Ho Sok Fong is without a doubt one of the most lauded Malaysian short story writers working in Chinese. Since winning her first literary prize in 2002, she has authored two story collections, namely Maze Carpet and Lake Like a Mirror, both published in Taiwan. Lake Like a Mirror is now available in an English translation by Natascha Bruce, who has beautifully captured Ho’s lyrical, evocative style.

I first encountered Ho’s work in its original Chinese as a young adult. The story I read was her first published, “Never Mention It Again,” which she talks more about in the interview below. For as long as I live, I will never forget that story. Ho has an incredible ability to combine poetic passages that invoke raw emotions alongside blunt imagery that sharply criticizes power and political systems in place. At the risk of giving away too much, I’ll mention that the story’s final, arresting scene involves a corpse defecating.

Obviously, I was deeply affected by “Never Mention It Again.” In many ways, it broadened my mind to what was possible with fiction. Perhaps I wouldn’t have tried my hand at writing “political fiction” if I hadn’t read Ho Sok Fong. That seems entirely possible to me. 

I was beyond honored to speak with her on the occasion of her English debut. We talked about multiple layers of translations in her work, the past, present, and potential future of Chinese Malaysian literature, and life as an engineer-turned-writer, among other things. Our interview was conducted in Chinese and translated into English by me.


YZ Chin: What was your involvement like during the process of translation?

Ho Sok Fong: Natascha Bruce will ask me questions, and I’ll give her various details about Malaysia. Sometimes I’ll relay the intentions behind certain passages, especially the subtler ones. Usually we avoid explaining our own work. But when that necessity arises, you then have to re-read the stories, and the process shocks into revival those ideas and memories that were hazy when you first put pen to paper. I think I suppressed and gradually forgot those ideas because they clashed with the commonly accepted speech or ideologies in daily life. For example, if such thoughts, emotions, or intentions are considered unimportant by the literary discourse of the day, they will then submerge into unrecognizable forms—because they aren’t given a place in the existing framework of discussions, they become unthinkable. When I re-read certain stories (such as “March in a Small Town”), I continue to derive different meanings from them, like I’m now glimpsing previously hidden corners. This really moves me. It means that no matter what I comprehend, it is always incomplete, and always capable of transformation.

Therefore, I’m very grateful for Natascha’s translation, which contains a poetic style that is also remarkably clear.

Another type of conversation between us, which was more frequent and very complex, involved Malaysia’s politics, culture, and landscape, especially the trend of Islamization in recent years. For a while I was worried that English readers in the U.K. and U.S. would approach the book through the lens of Middle Eastern Islamic societies. Malaysia’s situation differs greatly from the culture of Islamic governance in the Middle East, especially with the added complexity of our multicultural society, in which Malay citizens make up over half the population, Chinese citizens close to one-fifths, followed closely by Indian citizens, plus indigenous citizens who number even fewer. 

For minorities in Malaysia, no matter how much you love your home country, you will forever be viewed as a guest (tetamu).

Because the country elevates Malay citizens above all others, it has to define who counts as Malay and who doesn’t in order to safeguard their special rights. And because Malay citizens cannot leave their religion, Islam becomes a core definition of “Malay.” On the other hand, if a Malaysian Chinese (or Indian, or other minority) citizen were to convert to Islam, they or their offspring and later generations may enjoy the abovementioned special rights. In recent years, people have come to feel that this has resulted in even more racial animosity. Minorities like Malaysian Chinese citizens feel not only left out by the country’s ruling institutions, but they also sense a vague existential threat; no matter how much you love your home country or assimilate, you will forever be viewed as an outsider, or a guest (tetamu).

Because Malaysia is itself a multilingual cultural landscape, I was astonished to realize that not only was Natascha translating, but in reality translation already happened during my original writing process. For example, Mahua (Chinese Malaysian) literature doesn’t just consist of elegant, pure literary sentences, but instead deploys a mixture that absorbs words from different languages, dialects, and vernaculars. Multiple languages are present in one particular story, “Radio Drama,” which features a character that speaks Malay with an Indonesian accent, though in the story this is still conveyed through Chinese. I suppose we’ll have to wait for a Malay translation of the story to enact a “reverse translation.” Many of my friends say it’s a good thing that the story collection has been published in English, because this allows Mahua stories to initiate conversations across languages.

YZC: Reviewers of the English translation describe the collection as surrealist. Do you agree with that description? If so, what do you think surrealism accomplishes that cannot be done with realism?

HSF: Some of the stories are surrealist, and some aren’t. These stories still take place in a Malaysia familiar to us, not in an unrecognizable alternate universe. But it’s true several stories start bending reality slightly through specific details. I think a surrealist style can twist the surface of a reality that presents as neutral. Then we can see reality as a screen that has been yanked askew, and its seemingly solid surface starts to be pulled apart. Through this we realize that reality can be distorted by power. This isn’t something realism can achieve. Surrealism manages it because it switches the position of observation, retreating from the object of its description—reality. With this distance, it is possible to perform a kind of dissection or experiment on the idea of writing what’s real.

YZC: Many Mahua writers have found success with Taiwanese publishers. Why do you think this is?

HSF: Yes, many writers of our generation who work in Chinese have a pretty intimate connection to Taiwan, from seeking education to finding publication. Many Chinese Malaysians seek opportunities elsewhere because of the marginalization of non-Malay citizens in terms of politics and resource allocation. To Chinese Malaysians, Taiwan has seemed generous with its educational, cultural, and publication resources. Taiwan has one of Asia’s few liberal political systems; it really implements democracy and respects freedom of speech. For that reason, my first story “Never Mention It Again” was published there. The story concerns a Chinese Malaysian contractor who dies and has a funeral held for him by his family. Suddenly religious authorities appear to confiscate his body, and it is only then that the family realizes the deceased converted to Islam before death. In the ’70s and ’80s, there were indeed many businesspeople who converted for the benefit of obtaining special rights. I remember that after the story won a prize in Taiwan, Malaysia’s Chinese newspapers were not allowed to publish the story. Not just the story—even reviews or related discussions were barred from being published.

Malaysia’s higher education quota system alone is agonizing for young people. After graduating secondary school and while applying for spots in universities, they’re suddenly confronted with the violent shock that spots are restricted because of their ethnic identities. They sense that they’ve been relegated to a secondary position by national institutions, that they’re placed in an inferior position fixed before birth. What’s sadder is, this feeling of rage shapes how you see yourself and others. The prejudice beams inward even as it shoots outward. But of course this is well-covered ground.

I want to add that when a person has traveled afar, the experience may prompt them to embrace skills of interpretation and also creativity, regardless of whether they return to their place of birth. They’re having to face down the question of “Who am I?” You could say their self-examination stems from a wish to heal the wounds caused by their position of marginalization. Many who pursued studies in Taiwan threw themselves into local cultural efforts after they returned to Malaysia. They also deviated from previous efforts, which focused solely on the world of Chinese language while maintaining a distance with other ethnicities. It’s not so much an expression of patriotism than a self-awareness that one must interact with one’s surroundings; you know you cannot survive alone; there is a need to rebuild strands of connection with others, be it through artistic creations or other forms of caring. This doesn’t rely on transformation from the country, because the country’s systems may not evolve for a very long time. But in literature, facing outward is itself meaningful. As you’ve brought up: How does a person return home? It is difficult to situate home within the abstract idea of a country. Instead it is in the self, through an immersion in interpersonal relationships and the process of forming intimate emotions with others. 

YZC: Two stories in your collection each have a central character named Aminah. Those stories come prefaced with explanatory notes respectively clarifying Islamic law as enforced in Malaysia, and the prevalence of the name “Aminah.” Were these notes in the original text, or were they added for readers of the English version of your book?

This feeling of rage shapes how you see yourself and others. The prejudice beams inward even as it shoots outward.

HSF: They were added in the English edition. I’d given editors and translators context about Malaysia’s ethnic groups and code of law. Malaysia’s unusual situation may be unfamiliar to readers of the English edition, and so I agreed to explanatory notes under story titles. The additional explanations are meant to emphasize, too, that although the two stories “Wind Through the Pineapple Leaves, Through the Frangipani” and “Aminah” respectively feature a heroine named Aminah, the two characters are not the same person. Their experiences, background, and class are all distinct.

YZC: Since the notes exist only in the English version: Do you think a similar gap in context exists for, say, readers in Taiwan? Or do you think readers in Taiwan, Hong Kong and China are sufficiently acquainted with Mahua narratives?

HSF: Most Chinese story collections come with prefaces, so that’s what a reader would see when they first open the book—sometimes the preface is by the author, and other times it’s by a third party recommending the book. We touch upon various subjects in prefaces; for example, in the original Chinese edition, both I and the recommender Professor Lim Choon Bee brought up “religious conversion,” pointing out the prickly conflict between a nation’s legal code and individual identity. That said, neither of us went out of our way to explain it. We simply expressed ourselves directly, writing as if the reader knows as much as we do. But in reality, I’m not too sure how much comprehension a Taiwanese reader may have.

This may be just wishful thinking, but I assume readers do have background understanding. At first I naïvely thought that as long as readers know about the existence of Chinese Muslims in Malaysia, along with some basic knowledge such as the difficulty of leaving Islam, which requires court approval, then readers would have no problem immersing themselves in the stories. But then again, I don’t necessarily feel I need the stories to be “understood” through such lens. Because the stories’ threads of plot and vignettes are written in a sprawling, loose style, readers may make different discoveries if they read in other ways. There are no fixed answers in the stories.

In addition, unlike in the English publishing world, Chinese publishing seems likelier to add on explanations in the form of footnotes for translated or foreign literature. There were some explanations in the original text of Lake Like a Mirror, mostly clarifying words and phrases unique to Malaysia’s mixing of local languages.

Besides, Mahua literature has a decades’-long history in Taiwan by this point. In the past 20 years, Mahua writers like Zhang Gui Xing and Ng Kim Chew have broadened the perspective of Taiwanese readers toward Mahua literature, and at the same time they have introduced many political and historical topics that intimately affect Chinese Malaysians. In recent years, too, there’s been frequent and deep coverage of Southeast Asia by Taiwan’s online platforms. All of these might have helped.

YZC: You’ve said that Mahua literary journals shy away from addressing political concerns. Do you see this changing in the near future?

HSF: First, I have to clarify that Mahua literature hasn’t always shied away from political topics. I think there was a period of withdrawal during the cold war, and then because of the [Sino-Malay] sectarian violence on May 13, 1969, the Chinese society became warier; it shrunk back. Editorial opinions grew constrained, and activists of all ethnicities were detained, and so politics became detached from what writing that did get published. When I was very young, the literature I absorbed from around me did not encourage reflections of politics or historical memories in fiction, as if these elements would destroy the purity or beauty of literature. With that said, there were those who would still write about politics during those years—but more often it was poetry, more so than fiction or essays.

It wasn’t until I was almost 30 that I could start treating politics as a literary theme, alongside other human experiences like love, illness, and death.

I don’t know what changes the future may bring. It feels like many people are able to sharply express their concerns and opinions toward politics on Facebook. When I was a judge for literary prizes, I would also occasionally read probing stories by young writers that wove together politics, history, sexual desire, gender, marginalization etc. I feel like everyone is mining their own stores of creativity. They want the freedom to express, be it related to politics or not, and they also want ways to broaden their literary sensibilities.

YZC: You used to work as an engineer. Me too. I get this next question a lot, so I’m going to impose it on someone else for a change: Do you think your engineering training has had any effect on your writing style? 

HSF: It’s been a very long time since I was an engineer. I barely wrote a single word during the first two years. At the time, I was working at a factory manufacturing microchips, wearing a white robe every day, a mask covering my face, gloves on my hands, anti-static shoes on my feet. I was suited up like a healthcare worker or an astronaut, my eyes the only body parts exposed to the outside. I could only gauge others’ reactions through observing the expressions in their eyes. As for speaking, I felt like a worker responsible for transporting the corpses of information. Every single moment of speech required an absolute level of accuracy. I had to cover all my bases; I couldn’t leave the tiniest detail out, or make any assumptions. If I realized I’d missed something, I’d have to race back and stop the other person to provide additional information. My god, now that I’m recalling it, that was a nightmare. I worried every day, but how was it possible to not miss a single scrap of information?

But in our habitual usage of language, the most interesting things like jokes, poetry, and adjectives are all riddled with misreadings, misplaced context, or hazy definitions, plus the useless, the exaggerated, the twisted, and falsehoods. When I switched careers to become a journalist, I was very happy even though the pay was low. Adjectives made me very happy. That I could continue writing made me very happy. But I realized something through my experience working in the factory: It’s not that people are devoid of creativity or complex feelings, but that they aren’t able to express these things. A large number of people work diligently around the clock, heads down in factories, bending themselves out of shape over microchips. Language deployed for functional use cannot cover our inner emotions. In all of Penang, [Malaysia], thousands upon thousands lead such a life. This is a reality that newspapers and media cannot describe, giving rise to blind spots. I think this is where literature comes in.

How to Turn Real-Life Isolation Into Fiction

Welcome to Read Like a Writer, a new series that examines a different element of the craft of fiction writing in each installment, using examples from the Recommended Reading archives. Each month, the editors of Recommended Reading—Halimah Marcus, Brandon Taylor, and Erin Bartnett—will select a few stories that illustrate a specific technique, style, or writing challenge. 

Certain writers—childless, professional writers—will tell you that being in quarantine is not markedly different from their regular lives. They spend a lot of time alone, they will tell you. They go for walks, they think, they write. No matter your circumstances, whether you lead the “ideal” writer’s life or one of mess and chaos, your writing must be done alone.

The particular isolation of writing has led many writers to concoct stories in which their protagonists are also isolated. In most of these stories, nothing happens, unless you count the protagonist thinking as something happening. (I usually don’t, but these three stories prove that exceptions exist.) Stories with a solitary character can be, but aren’t necessarily, about the condition of loneliness. With the caveat that not everyone who is alone is lonely, and a lonely person can be surrounded by people, the reason these stories are particularly challenging to pull off is that aloneness and loneliness lend themselves to static stories of futile longing. Interactions, on the other hand, lead to plot. Like all of us in our new lives, the characters in these stories have nowhere to go.

At a time when interactions with other people seem like a distant memory, we look at three examples of short stories from the Recommended Reading archives about characters in isolation. In each, there is only one character who is physically present. Pets are permitted, and other characters are allowed to call or radio in, but they cannot interact with the protagonist in person except in memories or flashbacks, even if they remain six feet away.


TV aquarium

Watching Mysteries with My Mother” by Ben Marcus

This story takes the form of an extended intrusive thought regarding the death of the narrator’s mother. Even as he rationalizes away the possibility that she might die, he finds steadily more reasons that suggest that she will die, setting up the tension of the story that takes place quite literally only in his head. Writers are warned against stories where all a character does is sit and think, stories where there isn’t a present thread of action because stories this kind often lack obvious and urgent emotional stakes. But here Marcus clearly illustrates the tense, swirling eddy of anxiety and neurosis that plague us when we are alone with our thoughts. It’s an eerie story to revisit, and I find myself thinking of my own intrusive thoughts and all of the little rationalizations I erect against my anxiety even as I knock them over with still greater worry. The key to Marcus’s story is the escalating intensity and absurdity of the intrusive thought, the subtle echoes and repetitions that build up like an involuntary tic. It’s a dazzling display of the interior narration, as gripping and compelling as any exploding building. – BT

The Adventure of the Space Traveler” by Seth Fried

One way to get around nothing happening in a story with only one character is to make the inciting event—the event that isolates that character in the first place—as eventful as possible. Fried wastes no time doing this, thoroughly isolating his protagonist in the first sentence:

“While repairing a communications dish outside the space station Triumph I, Arnold Barington inadvertently fired his rivet gun into a tank of pressurized gas. In the resulting explosion, Barington was thrown out like a dart into the vacuum of space at roughly five thousand feet per second.” 

For good measure, Fried also breaks Barington’s radio. 

The story is off to an exciting start, but the reader knows that Barington will not survive. (He isn’t Sandra Bullock in Gravity.) Fried must employ methods other than suspense to keep the reader’s attention. He gives Barington a futuristic spacesuit that will keep him alive for 5.6 years and Barington holds out hope that this will give him enough time to be rescued. Just like that there is tension—the tension between Barington’s hope and our discomfort—even if there isn’t suspense. 

Next, Fried solves the problem of plot with the ingenuity Barington wishes he had, bringing to life a mix of Barington’s imaginings and regrets. The infinite void of deep space functions as a darkened theater, the visor of Barington’s own helmet is the screen, where his regrets play out as if they are happening in real time. A similar character might have the same thoughts when facing a more conventional death, but that story would have felt conventional, where this one is possessed by thrilling inertia. – HM

The Duchess of Albany” by Christine Schutt

I’ve been thinking a lot about this line in Maggie Nelson’s Bluets: “It is easier, of course, to find dignity in one’s solitude. Loneliness is solitude with a problem.” For the protagonist of Chrstine Shutt’s story, solitude was what she and her husband practiced in their large home with many windows and their rich, ever-demanding garden. (The protagonist is unnamed, so I will call her “the gardener.”) Dignified and dreamy, the gardener is, as Diane Williams writes in her introduction to the story, “an older woman in extremis.” The problem Schutt introduces in the first sentence—the problem that turns solitude into loneliness—is death. The gardener’s husband, Owen, has died. The garden, filled with his ashes, must still be kept alive. Now, her only companion is their old, dust rag of a dog named Pink, who is always relieving himself in the wrong places. She endures the occasional call from her twin daughters, who prattle on about her vodka habit. 

Schutt creates tension in the story by intermingling the gardener’s memories of her life with Owen with her actions in the present. Often, the only signpost we have to distinguish between memory and contemporary action, is Owen’s presence in the event. For another writer, this kind of story might prove impossible to pull off. But Christine Schutt’s prose is so precise and wry, and the gardener’s interiority so intimately drawn, that you keep reading just to get closer to this woman who wants nothing to do with you. 

By the end of “Duchess of Albany” Christine Schutt shows us that while the experience of losing a beloved is lonely, one is never completely alone in loss. Those memories, for a time at least, are still filled with so much life. Christine Schutt finds dignity there. – EB

How “Saint X” Subverts the White-Woman Tragedy Trope

In her debut novel, Saint X, writer Alexis Schaitkin elevates a juicy page-turner into an incisive cultural commentary that de-centers the white female victim narrative. The novel opens with the mysterious disappearance and death of Alison Thomas, an eighteen-year-old on vacation with her family on Saint X, a fictional Caribbean island. But instead of lingering on the well-trodden drama of the tragedy itself, the author turns a critical eye toward our collective fixations and assumptions. 

“Is it possible to write a story about a dead girl that is not a Dead Girl story?” asked true crime author Emma Copley Eisenberg in a 2018 Paris Review piece. “Is there anything in this genre that can make us more informed, more free, more equal? Or do these narratives simply enable prurient access to women’s bodies and glorify misogyny? […] The difference between the dead girl story that I want to read and one I don’t is the point of view, the characterizations, the hints as to the writer’s priorities that are made manifest in their every tiny choice.” In other words, the power to overcome this trope lies in the well-executed details.

Through narrative, character development and world-building, Schaitkin doesn’t just manage to avoid the Dead Girl story trap, she successfully subverts it. Saint X comprises several characters’ points of view, but primarily alternates between Alison’s younger sister, Claire, and Clive, the Caribbean man and resort staffer who is scapegoated (but not convicted) for the alleged murder. This narrative choice allows the author to highlight the persistent, problematic fetishization of dead white women through Claire, as well as invoke issues of race and class through Clive—and treat both concerns with equal importance.

Schaitkin’s exhaustive, research-backed rendering of the island of Saint X and its inhabitants is key to the novel’s ability to transcend what might otherwise have been a simplistic story about another missing woman. Through the careful portrayal of Caribbean characters and culture, the author calls attention to the ripple effect of one woman’s death on an entire community, from Clive’s internal reflections on how the accusation shattered his life to descriptions of how the scandal stalled the local tourism economy. This is not merely a story about a family devastated by a loss; it’s about the many people affected by the sensationalizing of such a tragedy, from the accused man to the island’s population and beyond. By telling these stories—the ones we don’t usually hear—Schaitkin de-centers and helps to partially dismantle the dominant narrative of the white female victim.

This is not merely a story about a family devastated by a loss; it’s about the many people affected by the sensationalizing of such a tragedy.

Years after Alison’s death, Claire is still consumed by the case; she pores over every related article, book, TV show, film and message board she can find, and even directly references the dead woman trope: “What is the appeal of such stories? You know the kind I’m talking about. All the pretty dead white girls.” Her obsession with Alison’s death is a foil for our own well-documented cultural fixation with the tragedies of white women—both real and fictional, consumed through various mediums. We have an insatiable appetite for true-crime content like last year’s Ted Bundy docuseries and film, the Making a Murderer docuseries, and the Serial podcast, to name a few. We devour fiction books (often turned into films) such as Sharp Objects, Room, and The Lovely Bones—novels by female authors that explore the subject of the missing white woman from victims’ perspectives with a measure of depth and nuance beyond the gruesome details. Our fascination fuels the production of these stories, which in turn fuels the obsession.

It’s not that our interest in the subject is bad or wrong. In fact, crime fiction and nonfiction author Megan Abbott argued in a 2018 Los Angeles Times essay that women’s interest in books about crimes against women could stem from needing a place to process all the real-life violence and trauma to which we’re exposed. The problem arises when the stories reinforce the white female victim narrative without accounting for systemic issues like the driving force of misogyny, the fallout among falsely accused perpetrators, and the bigotry behind disproportionate news coverage and allocation of resources in comparison to deaths among marginalized communities.

How can writers address this? “We need to take into consideration what stories have been told before, what stories have been told to death, and the kinds of messages that we’re sending by reusing these same tropes over and over,” said Alice Bolin, author of Dead Girls: Essays on Surviving an American Obsession, in a 2018 LongReads interview. “It becomes harder and harder to subvert something that’s been used so many times before.”

Schaitkin effectively brings new dimension to the subject by facing its ugly side head-on. Instead of romanticizing Alison’s death, the novel addresses the dysfunction of glamorizing or profiting from these situations, emotionally or financially. Claire candidly examines her own impulse, throughout her life, to exploit the incident, asking: “To what extent was my pain a thing I cultivated, a thing I used? Is it possible that [my] relationships… were little more to me than a platform for displaying my suffering and, in doing so, for shoring up my claim to this tragedy, to the death of a sister I was barely old enough to know?” 

Claire isn’t the only character who capitalizes on the tragedy. Clive’s island friends use their connection to him to sell pricey “behind the headlines” tours. To find relief from the scandal, Clive flees to New York, where he confronts the challenges faced by many immigrants: arduous, low-paying work and poor housing conditions. Having intimate knowledge of Clive’s story makes it all the more heartbreaking when he senses the futility of escaping his past: “He has always thought of himself as a person who avoids trouble and complication at all costs. Yet the facts of his life tell a different story. He wonders if it is his fate to be controlled by people with the tug of stars.” Two of those people, of course, being Alison, for whose death Clive is collateral damage; and Claire, for whom Clive is a vehicle to satisfy her own urge for the truth.

Our ceaseless search for the truth behind these tragedies is beside the point.

Like so many Dateline episodes, Claire’s preoccupation with the circumstances around Alison’s death cannot end without some kind of answer. As with audiences who grow invested in unraveling the truth behind real-life unsolved cases like JonBenet Ramsay or Madeleine McCann, an open-ended mystery can feed the mania. Schaitkin’s decision to give Claire an answer, but one that doesn’t address all her questions, seems to suggest that our ceaseless search for the truth behind these tragedies is beside the point.

In a notably anticlimactic scene, Claire finally tells Clive who she is and asks him for the truth about the night Alison died. And she gets it. But while the reveal is satisfying, it’s not a shocking or salacious revelation—it’s human and sad, and doesn’t tie up every loose end. Readers seeking the traditional payoff of a murder mystery won’t find it in Saint X: Schaitkin wisely avoids a neat resolution, underscoring that what’s at issue is less how or why Alison died, and more the reverberations and implications of our mythologizing of such events.

Why the Hell Haven’t I Been Raptured Yet?

Pending Transaction

The Rapture is here and I’m stuck in the bank customer service line. In terms of temperature, it’s nice. Outside, it is face-meltingly hot. No really, I watched an extremely elderly man’s face cook off. Real Raiders of the Lost Ark shit. Upon arrival, I was momentarily bucked off my mission by the frosty air and the cheeky cardboard family posing in front of their new bank-financed home. Perhaps heaven looks like this. Anyway, I’m here on business. My entire family got raptured, my girlfriend got raptured, fuck, our blue heeler got raptured. I scrutinized my life and deeds. Gave to the poor. Never drunk drove. Stopped a boy from running into traffic. Hell, my dad worked for a pharmaceutical marketing firm and he ascended. So why was I still of this mortal plane?

It occurred to me it might have something do with the bank incident. A few weeks ago I overdrafted and came back to argue with the manager. I was aware I would overdraft, but instead of going negative on the bill I needed to pay (getting one overdraft fee) the bank’s system rearranged transactions to where the bill processed clean and I overdrafted eight times on small purchases. Candy bars and sodas. I was out hundreds of dollars in fees on $23 of original transactions. I tried to be calm as I explained my predicament to the manager. Surely there was something we could do—the punishment was disproportional. The manager was courteous and apologetic; alas nothing could be done. I’m fucked for moneyAnd when payday DOES come, I’m screwed, I said. I guess that’s the nice version of what happened. The manager’s professional attitude and firm stance only escalated my rage, my pain. Was there undue bleeding of my life’s frustration onto her? In retrospect, yes. A security guard was summoned. I only left when he phoned the real police.

So I’m here to make amends, to give a sincere apology, under the theory my dramatic scene-making and outward rage is what’s preventing me from joining my family. Ahead of me, a middle-aged man is finalizing his transaction—what looks like a full withdrawal of funds. The teller smiles and thanks him.  

“Can I help you?” the teller asks. I chew the air a bit, summoning courage to right my wrongs. 

“Yes. Is the manager here?”

“Let me see.” The teller steps to the back office and returns. “She will be with you in a moment.”

We wait in awkwardness. The teller is all grins, and is freshly clothed and groomed. I briefly consider making a joke, some weather we’re having huh, but this person remains earthbound too, so it might not be best to call attention to the whole Rapture thing. Besides, once I meet the manager, I’ll be absolved and none of this will be my concern. I feel like a genius almost, figuring out the rules while other people go about their lives amid a collapsing world.

The manager joins us at the counter. Her eyes shrink. You again, they say. Curtly she asks, “What can I do?”

“You may not remember me. A few weeks ago, I came to speak with you, and I was a real ass. I wanted to offer my apologies. With everything that’s going on, it’s important to make amends before it’s too late.”

Oh, I remember you. I cried. You insulted me. The rest of that day was a loss, me-wise.” 

“Hence my apologizing.”

“I had such anger towards you. We get …unpleasant customers time to time, but you were the absolute worst. I had fantasies of strangling you. I was sick the whole night.”

“Yes, and I am sorry. You have to admit though, what the bank did was unfair. And you could have done something, I know you could have. However, let’s not relitigate the situation.”

“Sir, seeing you…I forgive you. I’m unsure of your intentions, but I forgive you, truly. You had a bad day. That made my day bad. I forgive you and I apologize for my angry thoughts of violence.” 

With that absolution, I gritted my teeth. Would the ride to heaven be like a Star Trek transporter, near instantaneous? Or would I rise into clouds, a long vertical journey where I could contemplate my blissful eternity? Would I get to meet God? That’d be pretty fucking sweet.

Instead of any elevation, I see the manager glow golden, angel trumpets fluttering around her. The light and the sound intensify to a painful degree. The teller and I duck—from what?—and with a quaking pop, the manager is gone.

“How’d that asshole get into heaven?” the teller asks. 

Defeated, I go outside and sit on the bank’s steps. The heat bullies my uncovered arms and face. I remember then I had a bad habit in college of asking for water cups and then getting soda at restaurants. 

Every Pixar Movie Is Really About How We Tell Stories

At the heart of every great Pixar movie is a story about storytelling. Films like Toy Story, Monsters, Inc., Up, and most recently, Onward, aren’t just master classes in what intricate character-driven plotting can look like. If you study them closely, you can see they are also stories about the very act of creating a narrative — about how stories help us understand our past and guide our future. Hidden in these colorful tales about toys and monsters, fishes and emotions, widowers and wizards, are lessons about how we tell stories not (or not just) “in order to live,” as the oft-quoted line from Joan Didion goes, but in order to make sense of our lived lives. 

Pixar’s entire oeuvre began with a story about a toy. No, not that one. Toy Story would come later, but in 1986 John Lasseter directed Pixar’s first short film about a Luxo lamp playing with a small beach ball. With its playful and photorealistic take on an office lamp, Luxo Jr. kicked off decades’ worth of computer-generated tear-jerking tales. Except when Lasseter first began working on the film that launched Pixar as we know it, he was focused almost exclusively on making the pair of Luxo lamps at the heart of the short (one big, one small; one obviously a parent, the other a little kid) look as real and move as realistically as he could. It was only when he showed it to a number of animators at an animation festival that he was informed, quite simply, that he needed to have some story driving the short—otherwise it would all just be an impressive if rather dull motion study.

Buzz Lightyear’s realization that there’s no script he can follow, that he’s now in charge of his own story, is a profound one.

The drive to focus on story became a guiding principle at the Emeryville-based company for decades to come. Luxo Jr. taught Pixar that it was only through story that inanimate objects, no matter how expertly rendered, could truly be brought to life. Toy Story was both an extension and a self-conscious examination of that same idea. Plot-wise, that 1995 film is about how a Space Ranger named Buzz Lightyear has to learn he’s not, alas, a leading character of an intergalactic sci-fi plot but a toy stuck in a child’s bedroom, subject to a young boy’s whims rather than some action-driven script. His inability to cope with such a revelation, despite cowboy ragdoll Woody yelling “YOU—ARE—A… TOY! You aren’t the real Buzz Lightyear! You’re… you’re, you’re an action figure!” in exasperation, is what drives much of the comedy and the pathos of the film. Buzz’s realization that there’s no script he can follow, that he’s now in charge of his own story, is a profound one. 

For 25 years Toy Story has served as a template of sorts for many of the projects that Pixar has produced. From Marlin and Dory swimming their way to Sidney in Finding Nemo to Miguel and Hector traveling through the Land of the Dead in Coco, there is no more common a Pixar trope than a double hero’s journey, one obviously first put forth by the buddy comedy duo of Buzz and Woody trying to find their way back to Andy in Toy Story. But those pairings, which now also include the Lightfoot brothers at the center of Onward, are prime examples of Pixar’s most enduring storytelling concern: these are all self-aware narratives about how difficult (and funny and emotional and heartbreaking) it can be to be to figure out what kind of story you’re in. A film like Monsters Inc. is, at its core, about what it takes to decide you’ll no longer be a monster in a nighttime horror but a jokester in a comedy instead. The Incredibles, borrowing as it does from comic book lore while subverting it, centers on whether a superhero story can be shoehorned into a family comedy. The clashing of genres is at the heart of Pixar. It’s not just Woody’s Western versus Buzz’s Space Opera but Marlin’s drama to Dory’s comedy; it’s WALL-E’s retro romcom to EVE’s dystopian sci-fi.

The key understanding that stories rule our lives, and that genres help us figure out who we want to be, sounds like too lofty a tenet for an animation company. But Pixar’s films bear this out over and over again. Take Inside Out. Boasting arguably Pixar’s most conceptual premise, the film imagines a world inside our head where five emotions (Joy, Sadness, Disgust, Anger, and Fear) jockey for control of our every move. In Riley’s head and for much of her life, it’s been Joy (Amy Poehler) who’s had control of her life and her memories. But coinciding with a move to San Francisco, her inner life takes a turn when Sadness (Phyllis Smith) inadvertently disrupts her “core memories” (which were all joyful; yellow in the film’s visual parlance) and risks turning her into a moody, emo teen. Much of the film concerns Joy and Sadness’ journey back to Riley’s control room where Joy hopes to return the young girl back to the sunny, playful daughter she used to be. In the process, though, the film advances a fascinating theory about how the stories we tell about ourselves inform who we are. In a key moment in the film Joy looks back at several of Riley’s joyful memories only to find out that were you to let one play for longer, or re-frame one in light of her move, they’d become sad memories. 

These are all self-aware narratives about how difficult (and funny and emotional and heartbreaking) it can be to be to figure out what kind of story you’re in.

For all intents and purposes, the film depicts memory (here, colored orbs that taken together make up a person’s personality) as a storytelling machine. Joy may wish to make Riley’s life a laugh-filled, happy comedy, but her time with Sadness teaches her that such an endeavor is not just impossible but implausible. In order to tell a coherent story about one’s life, you need both laughter and tears — and sometimes some anger and disgust and some fear for good measure. Above all else, Inside Out is a story about what writing a good biography entails — not just choosing what memories to cull and exult but how to frame and edit them to better make sense of the person you’re trying to capture. But the same can be said of a film like Up, which is both about what it means to grieve and to move on as it is about what it means to realize your own domestic life with your wife was an adventure all along. Seeing Carl (Ed Asner), towards the end of the film, look at the photo album his wife left him is to see him recast his life with her anew, to retell their story together to himself in a different light.

With its blue-skinned, pointy-eared protagonists, Onward is set in a world that seems to already exist within a storybook. But the more the film explains its inner workings, the clearer it becomes that the story of Barley and Ian Lightfoot follows not a storybook but a rulebook. For Onward is quite openly structured like a Dungeons & Dragons campaign. Chris Pratt’s Barley is obsessed with “Quests Of Yore,” a fantasy tabletop role-playing game that, in his eyes, merely documents the kind of magic that was once all over his world before centaurs and wizards and cyclops and the like (all of whom populate the film) left all of it behind to lead a thoroughly modern life where highways and skyscrapers have replaced winding paths and magic castles. For Barley, the “Quests Of Yore” cards carry with them a history many others, including his family, would rather ignore. It is through them that he figures out where he and his brother Ian (Tom Holland) are to go should they wish to correct the spell that was supposed to bring back their dad for a day, but which left them with just their father’s lower body to bond with. 

Ultimately, as with many a Pixar film before it, Onward reveals that this was a story about the stories we tell ourselves.

Barley treats their situation like a quest, one he’s trained for his entire life. He encourages Ian to let him take the lead as they hunt for an adventure map, seek out a rare gem, and try to fend off a dragon to hopefully get the rest of their father’s body to reappear in time before the spell wears off. In the film, “Quests Of Yore” structures the storytelling: with every new twist in their adventure Ian slowly levels up his wizarding powers while Barley’s increasingly bizarre hunches about where to head next (based off of “Quests Of Yore” cards) eventually do land them exactly where they need in order to fulfill the spell’s specifications. Together they’re player and Dungeon Master; the one following the other’s lead, all the while acknowledging that they are in a campaign that’s invisible to everyone around them. This latter bit is what constantly gets them in trouble; only they know the rules of the game they’re playing, everyone else (including their mom) thinks they’re crazy. But ultimately, as with many a Pixar film before it, Onward reveals that this was a story about the stories we tell ourselves. The movie’s tear-jerking third act depends on Ian revisiting his early childhood memories and framing them anew. Echoing Inside Out and Up, the film reminds viewers that one’s memories are stories for the taking. What you choose to remember and, more importantly, how you do so is ultimately what decides what kind of story you’re in: Ian’s flashbacks force him to reconsider what it means to think of his personal narrative as an orphan story rather than, as Onward initially frames it, a brotherly tale. 

During Pixar’s early years there was one motto repeated by its filmmakers: “Story Is King.” Taken on its own, this sounds like the kind of pithy platitude often spouted at (but not by) creatives. But over its 25-year run, Pixar has proven time and time again that story really is king—not just for the filmmakers, but for all of us. In films like Toy Story, Inside Out, and Onward audiences have gotten to see what a crucial role storytelling plays in all of our lives. The reason a space toy, an embodied emotion, and now a wizard-in-the-making have so endeared themselves to us is because the question that drives their stories is not too different from that which drives our lives: what kind of story am I writing for myself?

The @PublishrsWeakly Twitter Account Is Calling Publishing to Task

The elements of Book Twitter are usually pretty predictable: unbridled and sometimes smug love for literature, self-promotion, subtweeting. There are hot controversies (spine-in books, anyone?) and baffling debates about the merits of The Catcher in the Rye once a quarter. You can practically set your watch by it. But this week literary Twitter got a lot more interesting when the parody account @PublishrsWeakly (that’s “weakly,” with an a) began racking up followers. The account was started in March but first tweeted on April 20. They caught our attention with a viral tweet calling for publishers, most of whom are based in New York City, to allow employees to continue working remotely in order to diversify the workforce. (For a brief, exhilarating moment, we thought the real Publisher’s Weekly social editor had gone rogue—or not that rogue, maybe? After this piece went up, Publisher’s Weekly reached out to note that the magazine had published an op-ed making the same point.) After gaining 3,000 followers in a day, the account, which is operated anonymously by an “out of work bookseller” and someone who works for indie press, seems to be shifting from parody to activism. 

We talked to the anonymous minds behind @PublishrsWeakly, and we also reached out to Publishers Weekly for comment. Two-Es Weekly passed on the letter they’d sent to the parody account once they became aware of it, which we’re quoting with permission here (we’ve removed contact information):

Publishers Weekly-with-an-e here. We’re reaching out today to say that we recognize that publishing is not above parody, and neither are we. Our only request is that you change your logo to something that isn’t so confusing for readers, as we imagine your goal is to rally support and not to trick people. We see the subtle change to the PW logo that you’ve made, but it’s still likely to cause confusion, especially considering the flow of content that people are seeing on Twitter and particularly because a lot of people now follow us both.

We also want to reiterate that we welcome your opinion in the pages of Publishers Weekly, either as an op-ed or as part of a reported story about dissent toward PW’s #BooksAreEssential campaign. We’d be happy to have you talk with a reporter via DMs so as to ensure your anonymity. 

The Publishers Weakly writers stress that they’re answering collectively, and the Electric Lit questions were written collectively as well, so read on for some hot collective-on-collective action.


EL: The perception that people get into publishing out of passion and commitment is often used as leverage to exploit them (“none of us are in this for the money”). But at the same time, a lot of independent and nonprofit publishers really are working with too few resources, out of a sense of cultural duty; they have the freedom to sign books without (as much) regard for commercial viability, but that means they literally do not have the money to do better by staff. What are the ethical obligations of independent publishers? Is there any way for a publisher to be both ethical and solvent? How do you find money to pay people without turning art completely into commerce?

PW: This is a multi-part question that’s going to require a multi-part answer. And we wouldn’t be staying true to ourselves if we weren’t confrontational right off the bat, so:

Saying that independent and non-profit publishers are working “out of a sense of cultural duty” is somewhat of a bad faith argument. As it currently stands, the publishing industry largely serves the interests of the wealthiest higher-ups, and that is the entire reason for any financial strain on publishers without the capital of a corporation. The larger publishers could easily take the risks that smaller publishers do. The only reason for smaller presses to be working with less is because that’s simply how the system has been engineered to function. You see it multiple times a year, the major publishers using the small ones as testing grounds, making the people who are working with less take the risks. Once an author at an indie press proves themselves with things like awards, or cult status, the big publishers will dangle a larger book deal in front of them to try and steal them away. Small presses only work with less because it’s in the corporate publishers best interests to keep it that way. 

The only reason for smaller presses to be working with less is because that’s simply how the system has been engineered to function.

Secondly, why ask us about the ethical obligations of independent publishers? The implication there being that we hold them to some kind of higher standard than their larger counterparts. The real question should be: “what are the ethical obligations of publishers.” 

The easiest way for a business to be both ethical and profitable is to educate the employees on what they deserve. A happier employee will do better work, and you can achieve these things through things like unionization, a collective understanding of the value of the work that you are doing. Value both in monetary terms, and in terms of importance. Every worker has the legal right to form a union, and it is shameful that people in our industry — the heads of Skyhorse, for one — should feel so comfortable firing those who’ve attempted to unionize.

It should be expected (required) that publishing staff should become acquainted with not only the perspectives of booksellers, but perspectives of workers in distribution and transit. How much money could be saved if we were to look to the workers actually handling the goods being shipped? Publishers wouldn’t have to spend so much money on marketing (and, ahem, Amazon ads) if there were more conversations with booksellers about what people actually want to read, or what the communities would actually need.

And finally, on the subject of “how do you pay people without turning art into commerce”: It’s not entirely just about financial compensation. It’s about our dignity and our rights as workers. Give people healthcare and sick pay and a living wage and then we can talk about the finer points of value and commercial vs. purely artistic output. Furthermore, to some extent, the major publishers have already done exactly that: turned art into a business. And yet they’re still finding ways to mistreat the people at the bottom of the ladder. Crazy how that happens.

Give people healthcare and sick pay and a living wage and then we can talk about the finer points of value and commercial vs. purely artistic output.

EL: Do people with a stake in publishing—readers, authors, booksellers—have an expectation that the industry will live up to some kind of higher ethical standard than other industries? Where does this expectation come from? Is it naive?

PW: There’s an elitism to publishing that stems from the product it produces. Books are “art,” books can “change the world,” and therefore publishing is necessarily good and just, that we’re all doing noble work, when that’s not exactly the case. Publishing is a business like any other, and so that comes with the trappings of many other industries, i.e. wealth inequality, mistreatment of workers, and racially segregated workforce, often determined by the disparity in wages. Publishing is an industry that very much believes in paying one’s dues, and then once those dues have been paid, they expect you to turn around and uphold that same system. You’ve been underpaid, or made to do the work of multiple people, or just otherwise stepped on, but at the end of the day your offices are on 5th Avenue. Becoming a part of the upper levels of the system is seen as compensation for what you are subjected to in order to get there. Publishing celebrates its own existence. This elitism is pervasive throughout the entire industry, even in the bookstores. The term “bookseller” seems aimed to elevate people above the average retail worker.

Obviously many of these issues are not unique to publishing, they’re systemic and pervasive to culture as a whole, but publishing is a small and closed ecosystem, which makes change a more immediately attainable goal.

EL: Has Publishers Weekly been in touch with you? (Is PW even the biggest offender here, or did you just like the pun?) Have you gotten hate (or support) from other, more unexpected sources?

We finally heard from Publisher’s Weekly about 48 hours after the account started, and they were surprisingly cordial. The only thing they asked of us was that we change the icon for the Twitter account, lest it confuse readers. We were never trying to produce chaos or spread misinformation, so we were happy to do so if it meant the continued existence of our avenue for critique.

Publishing is a business like any other, and so that comes with the trappings of many other industries.

While it quickly became about critiquing the industry as a whole, the account started as a way to send up Publisher’s Weekly’s #BooksAreEssential campaign. One of us is a currently out-of-work bookseller, and using the language of the COVID-19 era, saying that books are an essential service, seems to imply that the industry is willing to put people’s bodies on the line to sell a $14 paperback, and there’s no universe in which that is in any way justifiable. And as a side note, we would like to express our absolute solidarity with the workers in the Amazon warehouses for exactly that reason. They should be protected, and furthermore, allowed to unionize.

EL: If you had a manifesto, what would be some of the key tenets?

PW: There are some of the basic tenets of your average manifesto: fair pay; health insurance; and a wider number of voices being heard. Otherwise, a big thing we are interested in is transparency. There’s a sort-of samizdat Google doc that’s been circulating among the Big Five publishers simply called “Book Money.” It’s an anonymous spreadsheet where people contribute what their particular role is at which particular publisher and what they get paid for their particular role. That kind of knowledge is important if we are ever going to compensate people correctly. If you Google, say, “Penguin Random House CEO salary” the best numbers you can find are estimates. The estimates state that the PRH CEOs make about $250k per year, and that’s almost certainly lower than the reality of their salaries, especially once you factor in bonuses. We need that kind of transparency for two reasons: first, to galvanize people to make a change, and second to make sure that the changes that do get made are ones that result in a more level playing field.

Also, stop publishing war criminals, fascists, pedophiles, race scientists, and people guilty of sexual harassment and assault. This is not censorship, it’s just common sense. We don’t care how recognizable a name might be, and how many books that might sell. Certain things are just genuinely harmful and should not be given a platform.

EL: Do you have any strategies for turning this Twitter account into “on the ground” organizing? What do you hope to accomplish or change?

Our goals are to turn publishing into a more equitable and inclusive industry. One where top-down wealth does not drive the decisions that get made.

PW: We do, yes. We were contacted very early on by an organizer who is looking to build up a network of book industry people who are interested in reforming the industry. In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, this would take place in the form of digital meetings and town halls, which would be held from the privacy of one’s own home, away from the eyes of employers who might be less than sympathetic to the cause of changing the industry. Our goals are to turn publishing into a more equitable and inclusive industry. One where diversity is a standard, rather than something to be achieved. One where top-down wealth does not drive the decisions that get made.

You can find the link for how to organize with us in the pinned tweet at the top of our account.

EL: On a scale of “together we can make a difference” to “burn it all down” where do you fall?

PW: It’s a 50/50 split, honestly. We hope to use this as a platform to make real change in the industry, but we cannot deny that everyone loves to see a brick get thrown every now and then. 

EL: Give us some juicy publishing blind items.

PW: The average assistant-level publishing employee makes roughly $35,000 per year before taxes, even if they work for a multinational corporate publisher (Macmillan, S&S, Hachette, HarperCollins—and they’re union! ). At smaller publishers, it can be even worse, and at smaller publishers, it’s less likely that employees have adequate health insurance. For example, one of us has worked at a small publisher for four years, and they pay enough to pay rent and eat, but I also cannot remember the last time I saw a dentist (they do not provide dental insurance). My copay for every doctor’s visit is $50.

Corporate publishers beware, we are out there somewhere, watching.

The average bookseller makes minimum wage, equaling roughly $31,200 per year, and their employer typically does not provide benefits. Unionized bookstores are incredibly rare, and only now is there starting to be any kind of shift toward booksellers understanding the value of their labor. McNally Jackson in New York voted to unionize last year. And Elliott Bay Book Co. in Seattle flat-out established their own union, the Book Workers Union. There are guides online on how to organize and form a union. Booksellers are stronger together.

As for other blind items, you’re just gonna have to stay tuned to our Twitter feed.

EL: Do you plan on remaining anonymous? Want to break news here and reveal yourselves?

PW: We do intend to remain anonymous. We made the decision to open up our messages for people to submit their own complaints, things that they wish that they could say without fear of consequence. This is no longer just the two of us, it’s dozens of people’s voices that are simply being filtered through us. There’s a certain amount of trust that comes with that, and revealing ourselves could give people pause about sharing what’s on their minds. If nobody knows who we are, there’s an added layer of security for people who are trusting us to amplify what they have to say because it would be harder to trace some particular opinion back to a specific person in a specific office. So corporate publishers beware, we are out there somewhere, watching.

Support Indie Bookstores Without Leaving Your Home

For the past six years, Independent Bookstore Day—billed as a “one-day national party that takes place at indie bookstores across the country”—has taken place on the last Saturday of April. (That’s tomorrow!) It’s usually a fun, light-hearted, occasionally raucous spring day where book lovers go on a crawl, buying books and collecting stamps at bookstores in their local community. Sadly, an IRL celebration isn’t possible right now, but that just means your local indie needs you more than ever.

A lot of stores are doing curbside pickup or selling through their own websites or Bookshop—but what if your quarantine TBR pile is already out of control, or your lockdown brain just can’t cope with anything over 240 characters? Fortunately, you can still wear, drink from, write on, smell, or dress your baby in cool merch from indies across the country. (And after you’ve bought all your bookstore swag, store it in a Read More Women tote bag festooned with some of our edit note pins to support EL too!)

Indie bookstores closed down to help keep people alive. If you can swing it, let’s return the favor.

Books Are Magic, Brooklyn, New York

Cobble Hill bookseller Books Are Magic has tons of cool swag, and this isn’t even the store’s first political-ish merch (see, for instance, the Melt the Guns tote, benefiting Everytown for Gun Safety). But it’s probably the most topical bookstore tee you could acquire, and buying it supports not only Books Are Magic but the Book Industry Charitable Foundation.

The Ripped Bodice, Los Angeles, California

Now is the time to finally declare your trollophood with this cheeky cap from romance-only bookstore The Ripped Bodice. (True trollops will also want to cozy up in a Ripped Bodice robe over their lingerie.)

IMG_8076.jpg

Twenty Stories, Providence, Rhode Island

There are plenty of candles that purport to smell like books, but how many hand-poured candles demonstrably benefit indie bookstores? These exclusive Twenty Stories candles come in four literary scents: Americanah (tobacco and vanilla), Leaves of Grass (sweet grass), Feel Free (ocean mist), and Beloved (lavender).

Split Rock Books, Cold Spring, New York

Yes, the target audience for this “Born to Read” onesie can’t read yet—but by the time we’re out of lockdown, who knows? We keep hearing that Shakespeare wrote King Lear in quarantine, so if your infant can’t use this opportunity to learn to read, maybe they never lacked the time, just the discipline.

Book Moon, Easthampton, Massachusetts

We love pretty much all the merch from Pulitzer-nominated slipstream author Kelly Link’s bookstore, but for straightforward messaging you just can’t beat this bumper sticker (also comes in a square sticker and a shirt).

Politics and Prose, Washington, D.C.

We’ve all got a little more time to read now, but compared to the number of books out there, it’s still so little time. Juice up to keep reading well into the night with these diner-style coffee mugs—you still won’t finish reading all the books, but you might get a bit closer.

Tattered Cover Bookstore, Denver, Colorado

You know that thing where you’re like “oh no, I’m finally getting sick, my throat is dry and I feel flushed and awful” and then ten minutes later you realize you just need to drink a glass of water? Yes you do. But you can banish the experience by always keeping a water bottle to hand, perhaps one of these stylish jobbies from a nearly 50-year-old Denver bookstore.

Left Bank Books, St. Louis, Missouri

Is lockdown leaving you hungry for human connection? Reach out to a friend by writing a note on this beautiful art nouveau postcard inspired by Left Bank’s late, beloved cat Spike.

Lost City Books, Washington, D.C.

After nearly 40 years in D.C.’s Adams Morgan neighborhood, used bookstore Idle Time Books was purchased, rebranded, and reopened as Lost City Books—more or less just in time for coronavirus. Fortunately the shop got a very cool logo to go with its cool new name, so you can stock up on totes, mugs, shirts, and these handmade pins.

Words Are Power

Changing Hands, Tempe, Arizona

You’re not just supporting a venerable Tempe indie with this shirt—you’re supporting the very concept of language, plus an extremely fly ’70s aesthetic (the same era when Changing Hands opened!).

Thank You Books, Birmingham, Alabama

Birmingham’s Thank You Books is just happy you’re here—and you’ll be equally happy cozied up in a “Thank You for Reading” sweatshirt, truly the best possible work-from-home uniform. (Or try one of their plastic bag–inspired tees, which will surely induce nostalgia now that we’re not going to the corner store all the time.)

Women and Children First, Chicago, Illinois

Celebrate 40 years of this Chicago feminist bookstore—and help them make it to 41—with an inspiring tote featuring women and others using books to help lift each other up.

Spectator Books, Oakland, California

You’ll have to DM Oakland used bookstore Spectator Books on Instagram to get your hands on (or get waitlisted for) these wildly cool illustrated tees, but what could be more worth it?

buy-native-tote-bag-1-1.jpg

Birchbark Books & Native Arts, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Birchbark Books, owned by National Book Award winner Louise Erdrich, specializes in literature by Native and Indigenous writers (including signed books by Erdrich herself). The shop also sells art, jewelry, and other handiwork by Native Americans. We especially like this beautiful, functional tote, a handy carrying case for all your books by Native authors or all your prints by Native artists, or why not both.

Riffraff, Providence, Rhode Island

Your bookstore cafe is so 2000-and-late. Riffraff bookstore bar is living in 3008 by selling wine, cocktails, and beer alongside books—when it’s open. When it’s not open, please content yourself with this minimal but striking t-shirt.

Word Bookstore, Brooklyn, New York

Is this not basically what all bookstore swag is really saying? Just come out and say it, imo, if you can say it with a super-soft, beautifully-designed shirt.

Literati Bookstore, Ann Arbor, Michigan

You say you don’t need another tote bag but the LOGO. Is. SO COOL. Give in! Give in to the tote! And prove yourself a true member of the literati by stuffing it full of other totes from bookstores, presses, and literary magazines.

WhiteWhale_shirt.jpg

White Whale Bookstore, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Is it Moby-Dick? Is it a large sperm whale plummeting to the ground next to a bowl of petunias? Is it one of the many other literary whales who are escaping us just now? We think this striking, surprisingly adorable whale logo from Pittsburgh’s fresh new indie is whoever you need it to be right now.

Raven Book Store, Lawrence, Kansas

Lots of shops have hats. Some even have beanies. But a beanie with the name of the shop intarsia-ed right in—that’s something special. You know you haven’t washed your hair in three days, so make sure everyone else doesn’t know by covering your shame with this stylish cap.

Care Packages

Need some book recommendations? Astoria Bookshop (Queens, New York), Loyalty Bookstore (Washington, D.C.), Magic City Books (Tulsa, Oklahoma), and a few shops already on the list above are offering curated care packages and book bundles delivered to your door.

A Victorian Ghost Story About the Constraints of Patriarchy

In The Unsuitable, a Victorian woman, Iseult Wince, believes that the ghost of her mother—who died in childbirth—lives in a scar on her neck. In Iseult’s mind, her mother berates and encourages her, but ultimately always tries to control her. Iseult finds the only way to quiet her mother’s voice is through self-harm: wounding herself with scissors, hatpins, and penknives. “Iseult was not interested in healing. She was interested in what was underneath, what was inside.”

The Unsuitable

In Iseult’s external world, her overbearing father tries to control her in a more traditional, patriarchal way: by marrying her off. Iseult meets a string of unpleasant suitors, whom she refers to as “The Unsuitables”—”the never-ending parade of dull men who marched through the house with their insipid parents”—ultimately becoming engaged to a man with silver skin. Iseult navigates familial, social, and possibly supernatural disasters with violence, dark humor, and a fair amount of self-knowledge, realizing that “each choice was the devil’s choice: continue to live with her father, or be sold to a stranger.”

I thoroughly enjoyed the novel, and was looking forward to speaking with the author. Almost immediately after I finished reading, the Covid-19 pandemic began to take hold in the United States. By the time I called Molly Pohlig at her home in Brooklyn, the global situation was vastly different. Discussing coping mechanisms and mental health in the context of literature comforted me. While quarantine and sheltering-in-place are new experiences for most of us, mental health moves in tandem with the changes in our world. Over the phone, Pohlig and I talked about self-harm, oppression, quarantine, and 19th century fiction. No matter the state of the world, at least we have cold, hard, immutable facts: Thérèse Raquin would be better with vampires.

Please note that self-harm is a major theme both in the book and in the conversation.


Deirdre Coyle: So let’s just start on a real dark note. When I first read stories about Victorian and turn-of-the-century women’s self-harm practices (something I’ve done a lot of research on, for normal reasons), I was struck by these women’s ingenuity. Women swallowing needles, found full of sewing instruments, using prayer books to hammer pins into their chests. Iseult is similarly inventive in hiding her self-injury, and while people often think about period-appropriate language, or costuming, rarely do most people think about period-appropriate self-harm techniques.

How did you put yourself in that world, to imagine the kinds of things a Victorian woman would have done to enact, and then to hide, her behavior?

Molly Pohlig: I maybe didn’t even think that much about it, maybe a little bit about the period. But I thought a lot about how, if you’re a woman, many things you do will not be noticed. There was that whole theory, for a long time, that Jack the Ripper was a woman. Because she could have walked around covered in blood, and people would have been like, “Eh, it’s a lady. Whatever.” Iseult is sort of an invisible person, even to the people that she lives with. Unless [self harm is] something that’s happening, it’s not maybe something people would have been on the lookout for. The thing about women in those days is so much of their everyday lives was brutal and punishing. You’re being laced into a corset every day, horrible things are happening to your insides, and you just figure out how to bear things and make things as tolerable for yourself as possible in whatever way you can. 

Navigating the world is hard enough as a woman without pounds and pounds of clothing.

Also, there was so much fabric in those skirts. Once, when I was a kid, my sister was trying on my mom’s wedding dress. I was like 7, and she was getting married, she’s 22. I was in a very bad mood, and no one was paying attention to me, so I crawled in between the skirt and the crinoline and no one knew where I was for about 5 minutes. Having that amount of props, that you have to live with every day, is fascinating to me. Navigating the world is hard enough as a woman without pounds and pounds of clothing.

DC: I love the attention to sartorial detail in describing Iseult’s clothes, and how they hide (or fail to hide) her scars. Do you have a secret Pinterest board of Victorian outfits?

MP: No, [but] I think that I’ve watched more than my fair share of costume dramas. I probably don’t know as much as I should about the actual clothing. I love the idea of research, but I probably don’t do enough of it. I also didn’t want to get lost in technical details of what people were wearing. But I wanted clothing to be an unhappy thing for [Iseult]. I didn’t want her to be like, “Oh, I’m gonna put on a dress, I feel great!” In the one scene where she does get a new dress—in a color, which is so totally foreign to her—I wanted her to be someone who just really had no connection to what women at the time were supposed to be enjoying. Clothes and doing their hair and being paid attention to, these were all things that she was like, “No.” The worlds don’t really overlap. I wanted to show a little bit of that, but mostly I just wanted her to be out of place where she was.

DC: Iseult says at one point, “Why must pain be painful? Why couldn’t it be soothing instead?” Which I thought was sad, of course, but it’s really beautiful, and it reminded me of—going back to these turn-of-the-century self-harm cases, there’s this one case that I think about not infrequently from 1913, where a Dr. L.E. Emerson reported on a patient who cut herself, and the doctor wrote that “There are two kinds of courage or endurance: the ability to bear spiritual distress or agony, and the ability to bear physical pain. The patient was not afraid of pain, but she was unable to bear mental anguish.” Would you apply that to Iseult—unafraid of pain, but unable to bear mental anguish?

MP: Totally. This is something I’ve been through—certainly not to the extent that she [self-harms]. To me, when I’m stepping outside of it, the biggest problem is that you cannot see mental anguish. There’s a line that I’ve quoted before in an essay, but I love it so much, even though it has nothing to do with self-harm. There’s a kids’ book called Skinnybones that I really loved when I was a kid, and there’s a part when [the main character’s] best friend punches him in the arm, and he’s walking home, and he keeps looking at it to see if he’s bleeding. And he says, “If something hurts this much, the least it can do is bleed a little.”

DC: That’s beautiful.

MP: I was, like, 13 when I started [self-harming], and I think that what I was trying to do was just be like, “This hurts. I know you can’t see that this hurts, so I’m going to prove to you that this hurts.” There’s a weird form of release in it. That mental/emotional pain, you can’t get at it. You can’t touch it. You can’t ferret it out in any way. So I think making it a physical pain does make it more tolerable in some ways.

DC: I also was a teen cutter, and I think there’s this element of control, which certainly comes through in the book. Iseult is trying to control the voice of her mother through her self-harm and it’s a really interesting… I want to say balance? That’s not quite right.

MP: It makes me a little bit nervous, because I don’t want to be seen as “advocating” for self harm in any way. I wanted more to try and explain it, because I feel like the way we usually see self-harm depicted is in, like, a Lifetime movie, and it’s poorly handled. I wanted to address it in some way that didn’t seem like, “Oh, I’m a rebellious, emo teen.”

DC: “I’m the goth character on Degrassi.”

If you’re a woman, many things you do will not be noticed.

MP: ‘I’m gonna put it on my Tumblr, and all my friends are gonna be like, “Oh god, how could you, we love you so much!”’ And then they’re like, “I’ll stop!” And it’s so, so not like that. I also wanted to depict an adult doing it, because I think there’s a misconception that it is a pre-teen/teen girl sort of a thing, and you get better and it goes away. I hate the feeling of it being seen as “acting out.” This is going to sound really dorky, but it’s more like “acting in.” And that’s the other thing I’ve talked to a few people about it, and one reviewer wrote to me, and she said she had self-harmed, and she said, “I didn’t feel triggered by it, I felt understood.” I think for people who have done it, it’s somewhat comforting to be able to talk about it and not feel nuts.

DC: I certainly felt that way, too. The way that Iseult talks about self-harm is…relatable. You can see how she’s feeling trapped, and has so few options for coping mechanisms. There’s another line where she says, “When the blood had rushed out with the removal of the scissors [from her skin], all of her usual anxiety had whooshed out of her with it.” And I was like, yeah, that’s what I remember. Again, I’m also certainly not advocating for self-harm, but in the work, as you said this other reviewer wrote, it didn’t feel triggering to me, but it felt well-understood.

MP: Thank you.

DC: So shifting to Iseult’s triggers: Iseult has a lot of conversations with the ghost of her mother, Beatrice, throughout the book. To me, Beatrice’s voice really teetered between sounding like a disparaging inner voice that could be in anyone’s head, regardless of the time period or situation, but then it’s coupled with very specific information that implies it truly is a ghost. Did you always know you wanted this balance of the reader wondering if this is in Iseult’s head, or if this is a real ghost, or did it shift at all during your writing?

MP: I think I wanted the reader to doubt whether she was mad or not. I knew some of the key things I wanted to be in the book, and I knew how the book was going to end. I didn’t really have an idea of what was going to happen in the middle, I sort of just wrote through until I got to the end. And I don’t think I’ve decided what the truth was. I want it to be like, “What the fuck!” at the end, and for people to be unsure. I want it to be like, even if it is made up, even if [Iseult] is mad, she’s still sane. You can have the duality of both of those things in you. I don’t think a person is all mad or all sane. And I don’t know, I wouldn’t say I believe in ghosts, but I wouldn’t say I don’t believe in ghosts. You know?

DC: I mean, I love an explicit ghost story, and I love a non-explicit ghost story.

MP: I remember the first time I read The Turn of the Screw. I was just like, “This is the most wonderful thing ever written, and I don’t even know what’s happening.”

DC: The atmosphere of The Unsuitable is so well-realized, with the descriptions of the cloying clothes, and the suitors, and the way breaches of decorum threaten not only Iseult’s social standing but also her family’s love. Were there any particular works of 19th century fiction or gothic fiction that you read for atmospheric inspiration?

MP: I didn’t go back and read too much, but I’d read a lot in the past. If I read something while I’m writing, I can get a little too close to it, so I generally read things a little farther away. But definitely The Turn of the Screw, Wuthering Heights. I have to say, I’m a real Wuthering Heights girl. What else? I really like Thérèse Raquin by Zola.

DC: So dark. I love that book.

MP: When I was kid, my sister had me read the first paragraph in a bookstore and it’s like, “The only light that filtered down was dirty, evil light.” And I was just like, “This is amazing.” Have you ever seen the Korean movie Thirst?

DC: Yes! I love that movie.

MP: It’s the only way to make that book better.

DC: Add vampires.

MP: I know. It’s perfect.

DC: I think vampires should be added to more 19th-century fiction.

MP: Absolutely. But I feel like maybe Zola’s probably been a big influence on my writing. It’s something about the way he writes about miserable things, that it’s the unexpected details that are the most miserable. Have you read Germinale?

DC: I haven’t!

MP: So that one’s about French miners and it’s horrible, they’re grindingly poor, and there’s a cave-in, and they’re all starving to death and trapped with a dead body. But the most miserable part in the book is when they’re talking about coffee. At the beginning of the month, they get all of the food delivered, and the coffee’s great. But by the end of the month, they’re just running the grounds through again and again, so it’s just light brown water. I was just like, “Oh, that’s so much worse than the rest.” That’s the kind of detail that really, really gets me. The things you don’t necessarily think about.

DC: This is the kind of thing I worry about now, when we’re all in quarantine: what if the coffee runs out? My last couple questions are quarantine-related. Iseult’s dead mother and living father both oppress her in very different ways. If you had to choose between the two, who would you rather be quarantined with?

MP: Ooh. I think…the father. Because I feel like you could get a little bit of a break with him now and then. You could make him real mad, and he would huff off. With the mother, that would be more like, wakes you up at 2 in the morning to say, “We’re out of beans!” Yeah, I’d rather be quarantined with Mr. Wince.

DC: That would have to be my answer, too—a living person who can just walk away. So at one point, Iseult says “What an absolute dream. To be alone, but without oneself.” Extremely relatable. Also relevant to the time we’re living in now, when the blessings of introversion have become very apparent, at least for me. How do you think Iseult would fare during quarantine season? I kind of feel like she’d be okay.

MP: I feel like she would largely be okay, but I feel like it could also take one small incident, and she’d be out the window. It’s that feeling where—I mean, I hope other people are feeling this sometimes, and it’s not just me—it’s just me [in quarantine], but there are still moments where I can humiliate myself in this strange way. I think we’re all, for better or for worse, the most ourselves we’ve ever been right now. It’s a little frightening.