Queers Love Comics, and “Grease Bats” Loves Queers

When you meet Archie Bongiovanni, you may feel as though you already know them. The jorts, the stick-n-poke tattoos, the larger-than-the-room laugh that means you always know where they’re standing. That’s because Bongiovanni’s incredibly endearing energy winds up all over the page in Grease Bats, their new slice-of-life graphic novel released by Boom! Studios. Bongiovanni has been drawing the comic strip that became the book, which features a group of queer and trans friends friending around a fictional Minneapolis, for more than five years on Autostraddle. For three of those years, I was their editor, which means I had a lot of questions. I recently caught up with Bongiovanni to chat about the experience of capturing the beating heart of a community on the page. We talked about the magic of trans cartoonists drawing trans characters, the superpower of fiction in addressing problems within marginalized communities, and why so many queer people seem to be so into comics.

Grease Bats

A.E. Osworth: Can you tell me how the idea or inclination for the comic strip that preceded the graphic novel Grease Bats came about?

Archie Bongiovanni: I wanted to draw a story that felt reflective of my life at the time. I first started drawing the story-in my twenties, often drunk, probably horny, making some awesome decisions and the occasional messy ones, showing up for your friends and allowing them to show up for you, here in Minneapolis. I basically conceived Andy and Scout the day after Autostraddle (and you) asked if I’d be interested in a monthly comic. 

AEO: If that’s the case, what made you decide to tackle something fictional, rather than something autobiographical? 

AB: I was working on a lot of personal zines at the time and wanted something fun and reflective of the community I was around. I wanted to play with the dichotomy of two very different characters who loved and adored each other, but ultimately have pretty different personalities. 

AEO: And fiction allowed you to do that in a way memoir didn’t?

AB: Yes, it allowed me to use moments from my life, but I got to play these moments out in characters who’d sometimes react differently than I would have! I got to play with things that happened to my friends or the idea of something—like queer karaoke being canceled because queers were too broke to sustain it at the bar.

Grease Bats allows for nuance; the characters are meant to showcase our variations, not our monolithic identities.

AEO: Was there ever a time you used the power of fiction to address something in the queer community that would have, if you had addressed it in nonfiction, resulted in more resistance? I’m personally thinking about the extreme “cancel culture” that marginalized communities sometimes engage in when it comes to policing their own, but you can take this question in any direction.

AB: I like this comic, which is ultimately about empathy, because so many of my characters feel differently about different things, and it’s not always a clean wrap up but it does end in some understanding and patience for the other. Grease Bats allows for nuance; the characters are meant to showcase our variations, not our monolithic identities. 

AEO: One of the superpowers that I see in your comics is that someone will do something kinda fucked up, and maybe even another character will yell at them for it, but I’ve actually never seen a reader say they hate a character for doing something imperfect. Has that been your experience?

AB: Yup! I think my characters are (at times) really frustrating and frustrate each other and that is the truest thing of life. My pals frustrate me at times, and I know I annoy them at times as well! I’ve done some real dumb shit and there’s a balance of calling someone out on acting carelessly while also allowing them the time and space to act better in the future. And apologizing! My characters apologize to each other all the time. And I think readers like that, knowing that we all biff it sometimes and allowing for the folks we care about to biff it too. We’re imperfect, but learning. My chosen family is family, meaning at times we have the power to really hurt the other’s feelings but we also have the power to push through it together! 

AEO: I want to dive in on genderqueerness if that’s okay. Is that something you’re comfortable talking about?

AB: Yes please!

AEO: As a reader and as a person who edited you for many years, I feel this incredible power radiate from watching a genderqueer artist render a genderqueer body on the page. What does that experience feel like for you? Empowering, totally mundane? Do I have a Romantic-Capital-R notion of this that is entirely unfounded?

AB: Oh it is awesome. I love drawing Andy being over-emotional when being called “sir” at a restaurant then having a crisis because that still means they’re being misgendered. I loved drawing the chapter “A Case of the Floppies” where Scout tries to distract Andy from their dysphoria by playing skeeball. It lets me draw these experiences I have authentically and non-academically, with a good dose of humor.

AEO: What do you mean when you say non-academically?

AB: So much trans and genderqueer discussion is serious. I get to draw it in a way that’s yeah, serious, but also playful! I love being genderqueer, it really comes from a playful relaxed place for me now.

So much trans and genderqueer discussion is serious. I get to draw it in a way that’s also playful!

AEO: Was that the case for you when you started drawing Andy? Or was that something both you and Andy grew into together?

AB: Oh for sure, I was just starting to come out as genderqueer. When I first started this comic, I didn’t go by Archie. And it was definitely something that I got more and more confident in. And I love Andy’s sense of genderqueerness, their love of painting their nails and micro-jorts and crop tops and they really give themself the space to Be Themself. I like that about all the characters. They allow space for them to just be their authentic selves and encourage each other to do the same.

AEO: Is there anything difficult about drawing Andy? And does that come from their particular place in the gender galaxy or from somewhere else?

AB: Andy is honestly the easiest for me to draw because I think and feel so much like them.

AEO: Who’s the hardest?

AB: Gwen and Taylor! I think Taylor is hard because they are the newest character and I have to make sure I’m checking myself about drawing them as a whole character and not just a person in grad school. And Gwen is hard because she is often, by the fault of me and also almost all my other characters besides Ari, put in a caretaking role, which is very reflective of femme folks in queer circles and isn’t fair to them or to Gwen.

AEO: I’m trying to come up with the right question about Gwen, and her femme-ness being exploited as caretaking, and I’m having trouble phrasing it. I want to acknowledge that the struggle is because I’m not femme. Something about whether you feel the need to disrupt this huge flaw in the community, that we often treat femmes as caretakers, or if you want to hold the mirror up to it and represent it accurately?

AB: I think it’s that I feel the need to challenge it and I haven’t had the confidence to draw that comic yet. It’s a little bit because I’m not sure I’m the best one to do it. I try and draw a lot of comics where Gwen is JUST Gwen, but there are chapters like The Job Hunt where she leans into caretaking. She def pushes back though, as seen in Astrology Is Real And Meaningful.

Andy (dark skin, mullet, tank top that says "Pony Play"): I'm sorry, I'm being a jerk, aren't I?
Gwen (light skin, short hair, hoop earrings and choker): Yup.
Andy: I don't mean to discredit this stuff.
Gwen: Yet you continue to do so.
Andy: I totally respect your believe—I DO! It's just HARD for me to believe in anything. EVERYTHING I've ever believed in—from religion to parents to politics has managed to turn against me, my identity, my community. And now I'm just an empty husk of a human believing in nothing but death.
Gwen: ANDY.

AEO: Because it’s fiction, does that mean you can talk about stuff that isn’t necessarily your experience? Is that one of the superpowers of fiction? I always struggle to answer this question myself! I am always mad when a cis person writes a bad trans character. And I’m reading it and thinking, just let trans people tell their own stories! But then I am also mad when a cis author doesn’t even give it a go. This is a real, earnest, hard question to which I am not sure there is a correct answer

AB: I don’t know if there’s a “correct” answer either, but there’s a way I try to guide my work so it has the diverse cast that’s needed to tell queer slice-of-life stories. I cannot forget where I am coming from and how that limits my lived experience and the privileges that come from it. But also, empathy is critical here, empathy and listening. I listen and believe my friends of different lived experiences where their life has challenges and their identity results in assumptions that I wouldn’t face myself.

Also if someone has written a bad trans character I’m always like…do they have trans friends? 

AEO: That answer is almost always no, but it’s not never yes.

So speaking of all these other characters that are a bit harder to access, you mentioned that when Autostraddle first asked you for a monthly comic, you scoped out Andy and Scout first. But in the intervening years and specifically in the graphic novel collected version, the cast got much, much bigger. Can you talk about why it started out with two and why it expanded?

AB: It started out as two because I didn’t trust myself to draw more than two characters and have an audience care about them, especially when the comics only appeared once a month. I was real nervous about new characters but I WANTED THEM so badly. But in my mind I was like “readers won’t care or they’ll forget the next time a comic comes out.” I was wrong on all accounts! I want to introduce more characters soon!

AEO: Do you feel comfortable giving us a teaser?

AB: I want to draw Scout’s new girlfriend and have her be a part of the comic!

AEO: Topic change! Perhaps it is because I came to comics as an adult, but it is my perception that queer people love comics or are more likely to love comics than any other subset of folks. Indulge me in my probably-inaccurate presumptions for a second, do you think that’s true? Is that your experience?

Queers love comics! A lot! I think because it’s an easy medium to see yourself reflected in.

AB: Yes! Queers love comics! A lot! I think because it’s an easy medium to see yourself reflected in, unlike television where there’s SO many people that are involved to dilute or change the story. Perspective comics are often just one person drawing in their studio. And it’s an affordable medium as well.

AEO: Is there anything else you want the folks at home to know?

AB: That Minneapolis fucking rocks! Or at least the queer community here does! 

AEO: Oh my goodness, yes, we didn’t talk about the role Minneapolis plays in the graphic novel! I think it’s often overlooked, but this is an explicitly midwestern queer story. Can you expound upon that a little?

AB: Minneapolis is so active and so busy and there’s so, so many cool people here doing the raddest stuff. There’s the most talented artists and activists that I am privileged to be among! All of the events that happen in the story are based on Minneapolis events (except the ’90’s lesbian floral witch party, that was D.C.).

AEO: That was a real party? Who threw that party? Do we know them?

AB: I was in Brooklyn at a queer event and someone was talking shit about Brooklyn and how the queers there suck compared to Manhattan and they were like “know what I mean?” And I was like not at all, I’m from Minneapolis, and she was like “oh no then you have NO idea about queers then, NONE.” It’s so dismissive and does such a disservice to all the queers working real hard in mid-sized cities or rural areas or basically anywhere that isn’t a gay hub. A lot of praise gets given to queer cities like San Francisco and Portland and the like, and that’s rad, but queer history and community is everywhere and it’s just as vibrant and vital (and sexual and fun!) as anywhere. 

Also I do not know who threw that party. But I did get a giant hickey at that party.

Dawnie Walton Says Trash TV Might Actually Help You Write

In our monthly series Can Writing Be Taught? we partner with Catapult to ask their course instructors all our burning questions about the process of teaching writing. This time, we’re talking to Dawnie Walton, who’s teaching an eight-week fiction workshop at Catapult’s New York HQ. From rigorous, collaborative group feedback to readings by writers who have mastered the trickiest elements of fiction, this course will inspire you and renew your commitment to your work.


What’s the best thing you’ve ever gotten out of a writing class or workshop as a student?

My favorite workshops have all had one thing in common, and in some ways it puts me in mind of the “yes, and…” rule at the heart of improvisational comedy: Everyone in the circle embraces the core terms of your story—its style/genre, for instance, or the makeup of its central characters—and from that standpoint they help you refine and build. Any critique, then, is a nudge toward clarity and the development of meaning, toward more ambition and audaciousness within the context you’ve provided. I’ve left a workshop like this feeling tingly with possibilities, and raring to get back to work. 

What’s the worst thing you’ve ever gotten out of a writing class or workshop as a student?

I really resent when a workshop harps on relatively small, easily fixable problems (an obvious mistake in math, for example). Bringing such an error to the writer’s attention is helpful, of course, but piling on to the degree of mocking is petty. It’s also a failure of the instructor to keep the workshop on track.

What is the lesson or piece of writing advice you return to most as an instructor?

You don’t need to stick to a detailed map or even have a destination in mind before you sit down to start the damn story.

Here’s a goodie from my years yearning to write fiction but intimidated by the how of it: You don’t need to stick to a detailed map or even have a destination in mind before you sit down to start the damn story. It’s okay not to know what you’re driving toward—in fact, I’ve found the not-knowing can lead to more natural narrative movement and open the possibility of characters ending up in those “surprising, yet inevitable” places. (The twin lesson, of course, is that writing is re-writing—the first draft, though very educational for you, will probably be a glorious wreck.)

Does everyone “have a novel in them”?

No, and that’s fine! There are so many beautiful ways to write that story percolating inside you. Maybe you bear down on pieces of it in short fiction, or refract it through poetry, or directly address it via memoir… The point is, you can find the form that feels right for you.

Would you ever encourage a student to give up writing? Under what circumstances?

Give up writing, period? Never. But I might suggest taking a break from one challenging project in order to regain perspective and/or mental health. (Even then, I’d recommend the student write something else, something joyful and untied to expectations, to stay inspired and in practice.)  

What’s more valuable in a workshop, praise or criticism?

It depends where the writer is in the process. Personally, I find praise to be most helpful during early drafting—as in “This knocks me out; give me more of that, please.” In later drafts, when a story has a more definite shape and direction, I’m most interested in criticism about what feels extraneous, what impedes propulsion, etc.  

Should students write with publication in mind? Why or why not?

My advice would be to write thinking not of publication, per se, but of your intended reader.

No… but it’s complicated. Most writers (myself included) dream about our work finding a home beyond our own laptops, but I’m hesitant to say writers should be worrying about anything except developing their singular voices. So my advice would be to write thinking not of publication, per se, but of your intended reader—not whoever you imagine to be on the other side of Submittable, but the audience for/about whom you are writing. If you come out of that process with a piece you feel proud to claim, a piece that makes sense to your readers while also engaging their brains and their hearts, you’ve gotten as close to publication-ready as is in your control. 

In one or two sentences, what’s your opinion of these writing maxims?

  • Kill your darlings: Yes, if they are gumming up the works (and c’mon—in the pit of your stomach, you know when they are!). But save those lil babies in a separate file; just because they don’t belong in a particular story doesn’t mean they’re not beautiful, and you never know how they might serve you later.
  • Show don’t tell: Both showing and telling are necessary. My general rule of thumb has been to show what I want the reader to remember, and to tell relevant supporting details. 
  • Write what you know: …and then dig deeper.
  • Character is plot: I doubt it’s true for everyone, but for me, extrapolating on a character — what X type of person might do in Y situation — has always helped generate plot for me.

What’s the best hobby for writers?

I find the visual arts so inspiring, especially photography. When I’m at a gallery or museum studying a portrait, I’ll often hold off on reading the adjacent description—it’s fun making up the story behind the still.

But I also love watching TV, prestige to pure trash. It helps me process modern culture and politics, which are generally central to my work.

What’s the best workshop snack?

I know I’m supposed to prefer something that doesn’t make much noise or mess, but I would be a liar if I did not pledge my fealty to the kettle chip. (There’s an art to eating them discreetly, I swear.)

How to Write a Finite Book About a Neverending War

Like Maaza Mengiste’s well-received first novel, Beneath the Lion’s Gaze, her latest opens in 1974 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. In The Shadow King, readers meet Hirut as she encounters a bundle of photographs that bring on memories of living, and fighting through, the Second Italo-Ethiopian War. From there Mengiste takes us back through the lives of not just the Ethiopian people, but a larger nation, from foreigners to documenters to those in self-imposed exile during wartime.

Image result for shadow king maaza mengiste

In 1935, Hirut is an orphan turned servant to Kidane and Aster; they took her in as a favor to her parents on their deathbed. Kidane is set to follow in the footsteps of his father and lead his community into another war to fight against the ferenji—Italian foreigners. His wife Aster suffers from the loss of their child and the deterioration of her marriage, part of which she blames on Hirut. What transpires in The Shadow King is wide-reaching, tracking the effects of invasion, the expectation of sacrifice, the ways in which those within and on the outskirts of war negotiate their morality and the larger morality of what it means to be “free” not only as a patriot, but as a person. Mengiste weaves a story that’s both captivating and heart-wrenching, invoking descriptive imagery, choral sections, and alternative viewpoints of those at the front lines as well as those fighting beside and behind them. War is not only a fight for land but a fight to solidify the distinctions of power: who has it, who doesn’t, and how it feels to take what you feel you deserve.

Mengiste and I spoke about the ideology of war novels, the experience of regular people (especially women) in wartime, and how she built tension and perspective in The Shadow King by writing from alternating viewpoints. 


Jennifer Baker: The Shadow King is such an intense and threaded story based around the Second Italo-Ethiopian War. Was this a book that was in the works for a while? 

Maaza Mengiste: It was about nine years of research and writing. When I finally got to the draft that I thought might be the end, I couldn’t believe it.

There were moments writing the book when I was terrified that I would not finish. As much as I was determined to get to the end, there was always that nagging thought in the back of my head. What if I didn’t do it? So when I did finish it I was absolutely thrilled.

JB: It’s a pretty brutal story and I always want to ask authors how are they feeling during and after writing. The brutality can be felt pretty viscerally, not only for the reader but you’re living with the characters for nine years. How did you look after yourself during this process?

MM: That’s interesting to me. You’re not the only one who’s mentioned that the book is brutal. I didn’t feel that when I was writing it, partly because I learned from my first book that no matter how much I can imagine about brutality and inhumanity in revolution and war, things were always worse. So I knew that this was really just the tip of the iceberg. And I knew that the things that I had researched, the things that actually happened were far, far worse than anything I put in the book.

I knew that the things that I had researched, the things that actually happened were far, far worse than anything I put in the book.

Also, I want to frame this question of brutality in context with what we have seen in the U.S., with the way the U.S. treats some people. The history in this country, the police brutality against African Americans… I was writing the book during this ongoing period. I was writing it during the 2016 [U.S. presidential] election. That was brutal. And the things that are happening right now with children in cages is brutal. The mass murders are brutal. So I don’t think I’m depicting anything we haven’t seen. But I think that what you’re saying is important. For me as a novelist, it’s about asking how can we move into these spaces of violence and how can we render them in language that helps to convey the cruelty, but maybe also offers a way to complicate our notions of what different kinds of cruelty look like. Something that I was working towards is representing the many nuanced ways that encounters can be cruel, brutal, violent, yet not leave a mark. It’s not simply like a bludgeon hitting you over the head again and again. But maybe the reader’s sense of brutality comes from an understanding that these aren’t just characters, these characters represent real people and we’ve started to know them, and we suddenly see the depth of pain that’s inflicted when nations confront each other through individual bodies.

JB: And also the conflict within ourselves?

MM: Absolutely.

JB:  If we look at the categorization of a “war novel” they’re not exactly self-contained. War is not finite. Shadow King obviously does not come at it this way, so how did you know when and where to end it?

MM: I think that one of the questions I had to ask myself as I was writing the book was: Whose story is this and why do they want to tell it? I had to figure out what the story was in essence. And then once I realized that my intent was not to go through the entire war, then I knew that the story would end when my characters came to some kind of a realization, regardless of what was happening in the war.

And so when certain battles, personal as well as political, ended for them, that’s when the book would end. I had reached a certain point and I said, “I don’t think I can go any further. Neither can they, frankly.” The last chapter is set in 1974, and that also felt like a more natural closing for the book because the real story did not end when the war ended.

JB: As I was preparing to talk to you words such as “sacrifice” and “power” came up for me. And that it aligns to the expectation of sacrifice, especially the women, and it’s not to say the men don’t sacrifice things as well. Yet these expectations of how you support others in time of war, this is what freedom for country is, this is what patriotism means. And it’s all encouraged by a need to sacrifice something for that. Do you think that’s true? 

MM: I think that for the people living during that time there were expectations of obedience and sacrifice, you’re right. The country’s at war and this is just what you do. The idea of loyalty and obedience was deeply ingrained in people. When the emperor put out a mobilization call there was no question: every family sent their eldest to war, every able-bodied man picked up his gun and enlisted. Every woman prepared to follow the army to cook and take care of the wounded. Haile Selassie was a man supposedly ordained by God to be an emperor. He could trace his blood back to King Solomon in the Bible. So when he said “Pick up your weapons, we’re going to fight,” you fight. There was no question about that. And I think with Hirut, one of the things I had to consider was how could she still be so loyal to Aster and Kidane, and to this whole war enterprise, when she herself is under such duress and is being abused. How could she be so obedient when her own self was at stake?

The idea of sacrifice, the threat of death, is constantly there. That is war.

The one thing I had to think about was that I could not place my 21st-century ideals and thinking onto this young girl who has been taught her place in life for as long as she can remember. She was born poor, she was born a peasant, she’s a servant because that’s just the way things are. That’s the way things are meant to be. I can’t place my own thinking onto her. I had to work within her world and within her cultural framework. And women, you’re right, they were told you follow behind the men: you sing these songs if you think anyone is turning back. You encourage them. You shame the cowards. But what many of the women didn’t realize was that they’d be in the direct line of fire because they were not that far behind the men when they were picking up the wounded or picking up the men. It was not only the soldier who was being asked to risk his life. And when women stepped into the front lines as well, they were confirming what they already knew: The idea of sacrifice, the threat of death, is constantly there. That is war. Our bodies become commodities for these nations.

JB: So how did these elements along with following several characters come together to be less of a straightforward narrative?

MM: I started thinking about the books I love. The reading that has completely electrified me. And it’s interesting we’re speaking now just after Toni Morrison has passed away. I remember reading Song of Solomon and realizing that she did this thing with the prose where she layered the brutality in such as way that as I was reading, I was bending into the book. I held it up close to my face so I could re-read the sentences again as though I could peer through the page to figure out what actually happened. Because she had coded language, she had coded the violence into this language that made you stop, re-read, and quite literally decode the depth of cruelty. I was shaken after reading that book, and I wanted to work with that charge that I felt while reading her book as I was writing my own book. 

I was inspired by books that broke form and broke structure in a way I found riveting and challenging and enthralling. One of my favorite texts is Homer’s The Iliad. I’ve always been intrigued by the way that the chorus will step into the narrative and tell another side of the story and the battle scenes in that book are some of the best I’ve ever read. I gravitate towards books in which narrative risks are taken, and I wanted to emulate in The Shadow King. My book follows, in some ways, the form of Greek tragedies that I’ve loved. And then I was also thinking about music and the way that music is so much a part of this war between Italy and Ethiopia. I was looking at Aida, the opera, and thinking about how an Ethiopian might think of that if they were watching it as Italy invaded the country. I mean, let’s put this story into an Ethiopian context: there’s this Ethiopian princess who becomes a slave and falls in love with the man who is killing her people. It’s so politically loaded. I wanted to challenge that and and work with a musical form and also pay homage to the women who were using song as a way to galvanize fighters. Pay tribute to the way that music throughout the war in Ethiopia was really part of battle. People would gather and sing war songs before they went off to fight. I had all these elements running through my head as I was thinking about the structure of the book.

JB: The photos are what really struck me the most. You have the photographer Foto there but actually getting these segments where we are getting the descriptions of the photos and then his being embroiled in one side of this war. As a reader these photo descriptions reminds me that I’m an observer. I don’t know if purposeful or even if you can speak to whether or not that was purposeful.

A minor character asks, towards the end of the book, what war ever really ends?

MM: Thank you for saying that. That was really my intent, to force a reckoning with what we see and what we think we know from what we see. Photographs have shaped, have deformed the way we consider Africans and people from the African diaspora, Black people. These photographs have informed how we think of the West. How we think of colonizers. How we think of white people but also how we think of people of color. I considered whether I wanted to include the actual photographs and I decided to do word images. This way, I could examine some essential questions about what’s seen, what’s witnessed and the differences between those two. I wanted to see if I could capture some of that in the description of the photograph. A physical photograph wouldn’t have allowed me to do that. And part of what I wanted to constantly force the reader to question is whether what they’re looking at is actually what they’re seeing. What’s there? What remains invisible? What do we actually see of those human beings who are photographed and show up in our newspapers and in our social media news? I am hoping to move this kind of close examination off the page, beyond the book so that the next time we look at a photograph, the next time we see something stark and disturbing, we can look at it and say “Is this really what it’s supposed to be? What’s been left out?”

JB: So when it comes to Hirut’s part of the story, was there a particular place you felt comfortable landing with her? Especially since it’s such an evolution for her, she goes through a lot. Everyone goes through a lot, but I feel like we’re rooted in what she goes through.

MM: Hirut’s war did not end when the Italians were ousted in 1941. I wanted to depict a female soldier who understood that while she had helped to maintain her country’s independence, there was another war in which her body was the terrain, the battlefield, and it would not end so neatly. I had to ask myself how she would define the parameters of her own freedom and independence. What did victory mean to her? I knew this would require staying at her character for years after the end of the Italo-Ethiopian war. I think by the time I could envision her in 1974, as an older woman watching other women marching with rifles in a a brewing revolution, I really had some grounding for her, even for her in 1935. I knew I could develop her from a young age, but I had to be able to see her and be comfortable with who she was 40 years after that. A minor character asks, towards the end of the book, what war ever really ends? And I wanted to find an answer through Hirut.  

Victor Hugo’s Most Underappreciated Work Is This Lavish Four-Story House

On the third floor of Hauteville House, a Georgian villa on the British Channel Island of Guernsey, a man’s head, carved from the faux ivory top of a walking stick, hovers ominously above an ornately carved bed. To the right of the bed is a red curtain, which conceals a secret hidden passage. A short flight of stairs behind the curtain leads to a “crystal palace,” a lookout toward the coast of France, with a four-sectioned glass roof. In the center of the room, a white marble statuette on a pedestal, recalling the Roman goddess Diana, is perched incongruously on a footed stove that is also painted white, the figure angelic and solitary against the blue sky visible through the panes. It is as if one is absorbed within the cloudscape, at eye level with celestial bodies. This top-floor enclave is where Victor Hugo slept during most of his period of exile on Guernsey, which lasted from 1856 to 1870; it is a modest alcove where, as on an old ship’s cabin, the furniture folds and disappears into the walls, and a spare twin bed is just enough for a writer absorbed in writing life, a writer thriving in exile. 

In the “crystal palace,” standing before a small black table, Hugo wrote the novels L’Homme qui Rit (The Man Who Laughs), and Les Travailleurs de la Mer (Toilers of the Sea), and a multitude of poems. He also wrote the first part of a three-volume epic poem entitled La Légende des Siècles (The Legend of the Ages), which contains many clues to Hauteville House: a game of opposition and contrast, of shadow and light. “Hugo,” explains Hauteville curator and director Gérard Audinet, “arranged his house as a kind of autobiography, with many references to his personal life, his Parisian status before exile, and to his works.” The references are most evident in inscriptions in wood and stone, which appear in unexpected places high and low throughout. Hugo’s son Charles once referred to Hauteville House as an “autograph on three floors and a poem in several rooms.”

Secret passage and “crystal palace.” (Photo courtesy of Visit Guernsey)

Hugo fled France in 1851, his vocal opposition to the reign of Napoleon III having made him a target of the regime. Louis-Napoleon, the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, had been elected legally, a seeming populist advocating for universal suffrage. However, once in office, he manipulated elections and stifled a free press, installing himself as the third Emperor of France via coup d’état. In 1852 Hugo arrived in Belgium, and then traveled to Jersey, the largest of the Channel Islands, before eventually settling on Guernsey in 1855, at age 49. From his upstairs loft as well as from his expansive garden, Hugo could see Castle Cornet, a 13th century fortress in St Peter Port’s southern harbor, as well as the surrounding Channel Islands, and beyond those, the coast of Normandy. Writing further clarified and strengthened his political ideals, such that when Hugo was granted amnesty to return to France in 1859, he refused, pronouncing, “I will return when freedom returns.” Hugo continued living in Hauteville House until France’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, which resulted in the fall of the Second Empire. 

Hugo’s grandchildren and great-grandchildren gifted the home to the City of Paris in 1927 and billionaire François Pinault, who has described Hugo as “a universal voice of conscience and an enemy of oppression in every form,” recently financed a major renovation, overseen by Paris Musées. Now, Hauteville House is an intact legacy of a complex and pluralistic worldview, a literary object that embodies and breaks down the fundamental psychic conflicts between man and himself, man and society, and man and nature that Hugo examined in the writing he completed on Guernsey. In addition to La Légende des Siècles, L’Homme qui Rit, and Les Travailleurs de la Mer, Hugo completed Les Misérables at Hauteville House in 1862, an examination of class, power, dehumanization, and the inalterable human capacity for goodness and redemption that he’d first began in 1845. His time in exile reveals, writes scholar Patricia A. Ward, “an interest in the collective movement of humanity,” and a belief in an apocalyptic, revolutionary future, in which the individual, ultimately, achieves integration in society.  


Hugo purchased Hauteville House, the only home he ever owned, with the proceeds from a book of poems entitled Les Contemplations, a meditation compelled by the unexpected death of his daughter Léopoldine at age 19. Ultimately, Hugo recomposed every single facing, designing every room to be a different act, scene, or universe; the tension on the lower floors leaks out in carved apertures and glazed windows and unexpected gaps that permit light in ceilings and stairwells, ultimately giving way to the ethereal upper floor. 

La Légende des Siècles, the poem that is also a kind of key to Hauteville House, moves from the Biblical era to a modern utopia; parallels between the epic and the house’s decor, says house administrator Odile Blanchette, symbolize “the omnipresence of the human figure, the biblical references, Manichaeism, references to Justice and Liberty, and poems dedicated to the punishment of those who abused their power against innocents, as Napoléon III.” The first series of La Légende, published in 1859, writes Ward, indicates “how completely the opposition between progress and political oppression dominates Hugo’s interpretation of the medieval period.” 

The master bedroom on the second floor, which conceals the passage to Hugo’s real bedroom, is medieval, romantic, and dramatic. This room emerges from  a similarly dark “gallery of oak,” the two adjacent chambers occupying the width of the second floor. Hugo’s garden, an homage to the garden of his childhood on Rue des Feuillantines in Paris, and a model for the garden on Rue Plumet in Les Misérables, is visible from the windows below. The room is ornate and enigmatic, decorated between 1857 and 1859 with inscribed pillars with thick, winding grapevines, twisted bedpost columns, leatherwork studded with nails, a depiction of the sacrifice of Isaac on the footboard, a depiction of Dionysius carved into the headboard. The macabre tiny carved head, which is mounted on a minuscule wooden pedestal atop an elaborately carved oak headboard, only appears to be the head of a bearded and vital man when viewed from the left; on the right, the head is carved to look like a skull, its eye socket vacant, its cheek a concave hollow. Hugo etched Nox Mors Lux on the at the top of the headboard, the Latin for Night Death Light—he writes in Les Misérables, “Is there not in every human soul; was there not in the particular soul of Jean Valjean, a primitive spark, a divine element, incorruptible in this world, immortal in the next, which can be developed by good, kindled, lit up, and made resplendently radiant in which evil can never entirely extinguish?”

Bedroom featuring intricately carved wood on the walls, ceiling, bedposts, and headboard
The master bedroom. (Photo courtesy of Visit Guernsey)

The dark palette of the bedroom and oak gallery complements a red drawing room on the first floor, bedecked in crimson damask, where wooden figures holding high torchères are posed on theatrical wooden pedestals. These spaces reveal, in some measure, Victor Hugo’s examination of the obstacles toward human progress, which might, as he describes in Les Misérables, “keep a poor man forever between a lack and an excess, a lack of work, and an excess of punishment.” In his vitriolic 1853 book of poems, odes, anthems, and songs rebuking the Second Empire, Les Châtiments (The Punishments), Hugo writes, “The heaviest burden is to exist without living.” In Hauteville House, Hugo created symbolic visual forms that contrast day and night, light and shadow, good and evil, beauty and darkness, work and dream, life and death, using dismantled and reassembled old chests, recombined Gothic elements, Flemish tapestries and Turkish rugs, mirrors, lacquer panels, Delftware, mahogany furniture, and decorative Japanese and Chinese porcelain. Artisans, carvers, and draftsmen created large-scale woodwork based on Hugo’s drawings and imagination. He built fireplaces to resemble cathedrals. He built a room made entirely of tapestries, the heavy textiles serving as walls and banquettes, one draping the ceiling, and one placed in front of a glazed window so that, like the beggar’s coat in Les Contemplations, light could pass through the seams and holes in the fabric.

These rooms all, ultimately, do eventually give way to light—in the blue room, adjacent to the red room, light strikes a mother of pearl table and two gloriously bright porthole mirrors with gilded frames, and luminous, shimmering tapestries embroidered with silver and gold jet beads. The counterbalance to darkness, for Hugo, was an unyielding belief in the limitless goodness and immutable potential within the human spirit. Early on in Les Misérables, Jean Valjean gazes at the bishop who has offered him shelter as he sleeps, before absconding with his silver, “The souls of the upright in sleep have a vision of a mysterious heaven, a reflection from this having shown up on the bishop. But it was also a luminous transparency, for this heaven was within him; this heaven was his conscience.” Later, he writes, “…cities produce ferocious men, because they produce corrupt men; the mountains, the forest, and the sea render man savage; they develop the fears, but yet, do not destroy the human.”   

Ornately decorated red room in Hauteville House
The red room. (Photo courtesy of Visit Guernsey)

In conceiving the fate of Jean Valjean, sentenced to five years of prison for filching a loaf of freshly baked bread, and ultimately to nineteen years for repeated attempts at escape, Hugo questioned, “What becomes of the handful of leaves of the young tree when it is sawn at the trunk?” In July 14, 1870, Hugo planted an oak in the long middle passage of the back garden at Hauteville House. He installed a pond, the “Fontaine aux serpents,” that came from the Place Royale, and a bench built so he could look to the coast of France.  

On August 5th, 1870, Hugo left Guernsey and waited in Brussels with his mistress, Juliette Drouet, for the declaration of the French republic. Hugo would come back to Guernsey three times after that, the longest visit between 1872 and 1873, to finish his last revolutionary novel, Ninety-Three, published in 1874. His final visit would last from July 5th to November 9th, 1878. The decoration of Hauteville House, particularly the large carved oak pieces and painted panels, was finished after 1864, explains Audinet. In later years, repairs and improvements, for the rugs in particular, were necessary due to deterioration. The Paris Musées completed a comprehensive renovation, which exactingly preserves Hugo’s decor,  in April of 2019. 

Inscription incised in wood, reading "la fin du seigneur."
Inscription reading “La fin du seigneur” (“the end of the priest”). (Photo courtesy of Amy Beth Wright)

For a writer, perhaps the most haunting and moving relics in the house are Hugo’s inscriptions, scraped and poked into wood and concrete: the names of the great writers who stirred him and of mythological and Biblical figures that shaped the cycles of imagery in his texts, and passionate declarations of his most fundamental beliefs. Above the dining room entry, he inscribed, “Life Is An Exile, Exile Is Life.”  On the dining room chairs, “Hope is my strength.” On a wall bench he etched, “The End of the Soldier,” “The End of the Priest,” “The End of the Lord”—symbols of the demise of the “ancient regime,” or monarchy, explains Audinet. A great inscription over the fireplace speaks of the Virgin and Christ as a wish for the advent of the Republic, reading in part, “The people are small in your sacred arms, o liberty.” On the underside and interior of benches and recovered pews, there are names: Luther, Christ, Moise, Job, Isaie, Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, Moliere. And, in the garden, on a rear stone wall, is the phrase “Immensité dit l’être, éternité dit l’âme.” This is from a poem in Les Contemplations entitled  “Magnitudo Parvi,” which can be translated to mean, “the magnitude of small things.” Addressing Léopoldine, Hugo meditates on eternity, and the cosmos. Translations differ slightly, but perhaps the most apt is, The soul claims eternity, the being claims immensity.

It is through these inscriptions, and in conceiving of Hauteville House as a total work of art, that Hugo claimed for himself a notion he penned in Notre-Dame de Paris (The Hunchback of Notre Dame), “architecture is thought written in stone.” In his fifteen-year exile, Hugo exercised the kind of limitless freedom of individuality and creativity that he believed possible for humanity at large. What is left behind at Hauteville House is not just a complex and symbolic décor, or abundant evidence of Hugo’s modernity, but also a fearless and avant garde kind of self-expression. Hugo gave his inner life an external structure, a kind of sculptural identity, which is now the legacy of a fiercely original humanitarian and artist. 

This Is Your Brain on Clarice Lispector

“The Egg and the Chicken”
by Clarice Lispector,
Translated by Katrina Dodson

In the morning in the kitchen on the table I see the egg.

I look at the egg with a single gaze. Immediately I perceive that one cannot be seeing an egg. Seeing an egg never remains in the present: as soon as I see an egg it already becomes having seen an egg three millennia ago. — At the very instant of seeing the egg it is the memory of an egg. — The egg can only be seen by one who has already seen it. — When one sees the egg it is too late: an egg seen is an egg lost. — Seeing the egg is the promise of one day eventually seeing the egg. — A brief and indivisible glance; if indeed there is thought; there is none; there is the egg. — Looking is the necessary instrument that, once used, I shall discard. I shall keep the egg. — The egg has no itself. Individually it does not exist. Seeing the egg is impossible: the egg is supervisible just as there are supersonic sounds. No one can see the egg. Does the dog see the egg? Only machines see the egg. The construction crane sees the egg. — When I was ancient an egg landed on my shoulder. — Love for the egg cannot be felt either. Love for the egg is supersensible. We do not know that we love the egg. —

When I was ancient I was keeper of the egg and I would tread lightly to avoid upending the egg’s silence. When I died, they removed the egg from me with care. It was still alive. — Only one who saw the world would see the egg. Like the world, the egg is obvious.

The egg no longer exists. Like the light of an already-dead star, the egg properly speaking no longer exists. — You are perfect, egg. You are white. — To you I dedicate the beginning. To you I dedicate the first time.

To the egg I dedicate the Chinese nation.

The egg is a suspended thing. It has never landed. When it lands, it is not what has landed. It was a thing under the egg. — I look at the egg in the kitchen with superficial attention so as not to break it. I take the utmost care not to understand it. Since it is impossible to understand, I know that if I understand it this is because I am making an error. Understanding is the proof of error. Understanding it is not the way to see it. — Never thinking about the egg is a way of having seen it. — I wonder, do I know of the egg? I almost certainly do. Thus: I exist, therefore I know. — What I don’t know about the egg is what really matters. What I don’t know about the egg gives me the egg properly speaking. — The Moon is inhabited by eggs.

The egg is an exteriorization. To have a shell is to surrender. — The egg denudes the kitchen. It turns the table into a slanted plane. The egg exposes. — Whoever plunges deeper into an egg, whoever sees more than the surface of the egg, is after something else: that person is hungry.

Whoever plunges deeper into an egg, whoever sees more than the surface of the egg, is after something else: that person is hungry.

An egg is the soul of the chicken. The awkward chicken. The sure egg. The frightened chicken. The sure egg. Like a paused projectile. For an egg is an egg in space. An egg upon blue. — I love you, egg. I love you as a thing doesn’t even know it loves another thing. — I do not touch it. The aura of my fingers is what sees the egg. I do not touch it. — But to dedicate myself to the vision of the egg would be to die to the world, and I need the yolk and the white. — The egg sees me. Does the egg idealize me? Does the egg meditate me? No, the egg merely sees me. It is exempt from the understanding that wounds. — The egg has never struggled. It is a gift. — The egg is invisible to the naked eye. From one egg to another one arrives at God, who is invisible to the naked eye. — The egg could have been a triangle that rolled for so long in space that it became oval. — Is the egg basically a vessel? Could it have been the first vessel sculpted by the Etruscans? No. The egg originated in Macedonia. There it was calculated, fruit of the most arduous spontaneity. In the sands of Macedonia a man holding a stick drew it. And then erased it with his bare foot.

An egg is a thing that must be careful. That’s why the chicken is the egg’s disguise. The chicken exists so that the egg can traverse the ages. That’s what a mother is for. — The egg is constantly persecuted for being too ahead of its time. — An egg, for now, will always be revolutionary. — It lives inside the chicken to avoid being called white. The egg really is white. But it cannot be called white. Not because that harms it, but people who call the egg white, those people die to life. Calling something white that is white can destroy humanity. Once a man was accused of being what he was, and he was called That Man. They weren’t lying: He was. But to this day we still haven’t recovered, one after the next. The general law for us to stay alive: one can say “a pretty face,” but whoever says “the face,” dies; for having exhausted the topic.

Over time, the egg became a chicken egg. It is not. But, once it was adopted, it took that name. — One should say “the chicken’s egg.” If one merely says “the egg,” the topic is exhausted, and the world becomes naked. — When it comes to the egg, the danger lies in discovering what might be called beauty, that is, its veracity. The veracity of the egg is not verisimilar. If they find out, they might want to force it to become rectangular. The danger is not for the egg, it wouldn’t become rectangular. (Our guarantee is that it is unable: being unable is the egg’s great strength: its grandiosity comes from the greatness of being unable, which radiates from it like a not-wanting.) But whoever struggles to make it rectangular would be losing his own life. The egg puts us, therefore, in danger. Our advantage is that the egg is invisible. And as for the initiates, the initiates disguise the egg.

As for the chicken’s body, the chicken’s body is the greatest proof that the egg does not exist. All you have to do is look at the chicken to make it obvious that the egg cannot possibly exist.

And what about the chicken? The egg is the chicken’s great sacrifice. The egg is the cross the chicken bears in life. The egg is the chicken’s unattainable dream. The chicken loves the egg. She doesn’t know the egg exists. If she knew she had an egg inside her, would she save herself? If she knew she had the egg inside her, she would lose her state of being a chicken. Being a chicken is the chicken’s survival. Surviving is salvation. For living doesn’t seem to exist. Living leads to death. So what the chicken does is be permanently surviving. Surviving is what’s called keeping up the struggle against life that is deadly. That’s what being a chicken is. The chicken looks embarrassed.

Surviving is what’s called keeping up the struggle against life that is deadly. That’s what being a chicken is.

The chicken must not know she has an egg. Or else she would save herself as a chicken, which is no guarantee either, but she would lose the egg. So she doesn’t know. The chicken exists so that the egg can use the chicken. She was only meant to be fulfilled, but she liked it. The chicken’s undoing comes from this: liking wasn’t part of being born. To like being alive hurts. — As for which came first, it was the egg that found the chicken. The chicken was not even summoned. The chicken is directly singled out. — The chicken lives as if in a dream. She has no sense of reality. All the chicken’s fright comes because they’re always interrupting her reverie. The chicken is a sound sleep. — The chicken suffers from an unknown ailment. The chicken’s unknown ailment is the egg. — She doesn’t know how to explain herself: “I know that the error is inside me,” she calls her life an error, “I don’t know what I feel anymore,” etc.

“Etc., etc., etc.,” is what the chicken clucks all day long. The chicken has plenty of inner life. To be honest, the only thing the chicken really has is inner life. Our vision of her inner life is what we call “chicken.” The chicken’s inner life consists of acting as if she understands. At the slightest threat she screams bloody murder like a maniac. All this so the egg won’t break inside her. An egg that breaks inside the chicken is like blood.

The chicken looks at the horizon. As if it were from the line of the horizon that an egg is coming. Beyond being a mode of transport for the egg, the chicken is silly, idle and myopic. How could the chicken understand herself if she is the contradiction of an egg? The egg is still the same one that originated in Macedonia. The chicken is always the most modern of tragedies. She is always pointlessly current. And she keeps being redrawn. The most suitable form for a chicken has yet to be found. While my neighbor talks on the phone he redraws the chicken with an absentminded pencil. But there’s nothing to be done for the chicken: part of her nature is not to be of use to herself. Given, however, that her destiny is more important than she is, and given that her destiny is the egg, her personal life does not concern us.

Inside herself the chicken doesn’t recognize the egg, but neither does she recognize it outside herself. When the chicken sees the egg she thinks she’s dealing with something impossible. And with her heart beating, with her heart beating so, she doesn’t recognize it.

Suddenly I look at the egg in the kitchen and all I see in it is food. I don’t recognize it, and my heart beats. The metamorphosis is happening inside me: I start not to be able to discern the egg anymore. Beyond every particular egg, beyond every egg that’s eaten, the egg does not exist. I can now no longer believe in an egg. More and more I lack the strength to believe, I am dying, farewell, I looked at an egg too long and it started putting me to sleep.

The chicken who didn’t want to sacrifice her life. The one who chose wanting to be “happy.” The one who didn’t notice that, if she spent her life designing the egg inside herself as in an illuminated manuscript, she would be good for something. The one who didn’t know how to lose herself. The one who thought she had chicken feathers to cover her because she had precious skin, not understanding that the feathers were meant exclusively for helping her along as she carried the egg, because intense suffering might harm the egg. The one who thought pleasure was a gift to her, not realizing that it was meant to keep her completely distracted while the egg was being formed. The one who didn’t know “I” is just one of those words you draw while talking on the phone, a mere attempt to find a better shape. The one who thought “I” means having a one-self. The chickens who harm the egg are those that are a ceaseless “I.” In them, the “I” is so constant that they can no longer utter the word “egg.” But, who knows, maybe that’s exactly what the egg was in need of. For if they weren’t so distracted, if they paid attention to the great life forming inside them, they would get in the way of the egg.

I started talking about the chicken and for a while now I have no longer been talking about the chicken. But I’m still talking about the egg.

And thus I don’t understand the egg. I only understand a broken egg: I crack it on the frying pan. In this indirect way I give myself to the egg’s existence: my sacrifice is reducing myself to my personal life. I turned my pleasure and my pain into my hidden destiny. And having only one’s own life is, for those who have already seen the egg, a sacrifice. Like the ones who, in a convent, sweep the floor and do the laundry, serving without the glory of a higher purpose, my job is to live out my pleasures and my pains. I must have the modesty to live.

I pick up another egg in the kitchen, I break its shell and shape. And from this precise moment there was never an egg. It is absolutely essential that I be a busy and distracted person. I am necessarily one of those people who refuse. I belong to that Masonic society of those who once saw the egg and refused it as a way to protect it. We are the ones who abstain from destroying, and by doing so are consumed. We, undercover agents dispersed among less revealing duties, we sometimes recognize each other. By a certain way of looking, by a way of shaking hands, we recognize each other and call this love. And then our disguise is unnecessary: though we don’t speak, neither do we lie, though we don’t speak the truth, neither must we dissemble any longer. Love is when we are allowed to participate a bit more. Few want love, because love is the great disillusionment with all the rest. And few can bear losing the rest of their illusions. There are people who would volunteer for love, thinking love will enrich their personal lives. On the contrary: love is ultimately poverty. Love is not having. Moreover love is the disillusionment of what you thought was love. And it’s no prize, that’s why it doesn’t make people vain, love is no prize, it’s a status granted exclusively to people who, without it, would defile the egg with their personal suffering. That doesn’t make love an honorable exception; it is granted precisely to those bad agents, those who would ruin everything if they weren’t allowed to guess at things vaguely.

Few want love, because love is the great disillusionment with all the rest. And few can bear losing the rest of their illusions.

All the agents are granted several advantages so that the egg may form. It is no cause for envy since, even certain statuses, worse than other people’s, are merely the ideal conditions for the egg. As for the agents’ pleasure, they also receive it without pride. They austerely experience all pleasures: it is even our sacrifice so that the egg may form. Upon us has been imposed, as well, a nature entirely prone to much pleasure. Which makes it easier. At the very least it makes pleasure less arduous.

There are cases of agents committing suicide: they find the minimal instructions they have received insufficient, and feel unsupported. There was the case of the agent who publicly revealed himself as an agent because he found not being understood intolerable, and could no longer stand not being respected by others: he was fatally run over as he was leaving a restaurant. There was another who didn’t even have to be eliminated: he was slowly consumed by his own rebellion, his rebellion came when he discovered that the two or three instructions he had received included no explanation whatsoever. There was another, eliminated too, because he thought “the truth should be bravely spoken,” and started first of all to seek it out; they say he died in the name of the truth, but in fact he was just making the truth harder with his innocence; his seeming bravery was foolhardiness, and his desire for loyalty was naive, he hadn’t understood that being loyal isn’t so tidy, being loyal means being disloyal to everything else. Those extreme cases of death aren’t caused by cruelty. It’s because there’s a job, let’s call it cosmic, to be done, and individual cases unfortunately cannot be taken into consideration. For those who succumb and become individuals there are institutions, charity, comprehension that doesn’t distinguish motives, in a word our human life.

He hadn’t understood that being loyal isn’t so tidy, being loyal means being disloyal to everything else.

The eggs crackle in the frying pan, and lost in a dream I make breakfast. Lacking any sense of reality, I shout for the children who sprout from various beds, drag the chairs out and eat, and the work of the breaking day begins, shouted and laughed and eaten, white and yolk, merriment amid fighting, the day that is our salt and we are the day’s salt, living is extremely tolerable, living keeps us busy and distracts us, living makes us laugh.

And it makes me smile in my mystery. My mystery is that being merely a means, and not an end, has given me the most mischievous of freedoms: I’m no fool and I make the most of things. Even to the point of wronging others so much that, frankly. The fake job they have given me to disguise my true purpose, since I make the most of this fake job and turn it into my real one; this includes the money they give me as a daily allowance to ease my life so that the egg may form, since I have used this money for other purposes, diverting the funds, I recently bought stock in Brahma beer and am rich. All this I still call having the necessary modesty to live. And also the time they have granted me, and that they grant us just so that in this honorable leisure the egg may form, well I have used this time for illicit pleasures and illicit pains, completely forgetting the egg. That is my simplicity.

Or is that exactly what they want to happen to me, precisely so the egg can carry out its mission? Is it freedom or am I being controlled? Because I keep noticing how every error of mine has been put to use. My rebellion is that for them I am nothing, I am merely valuable: they take care of me from one second to the next, with the most absolute lack of love; I am merely valuable. With the money they give me, I have taken to drinking lately. Abuse of trust? But it’s because nobody knows how it feels inside for someone whose job consists of pretending that she is betraying, and who ends up believing in her own betrayal. Whose job consists of forgetting every day. Someone of whom apparent dishonor is required. Not even my mirror still reflects a face that is mine. Either I am an agent, or it really is betrayal.

I have tried to consider things this way: that much has already been given me, that they have granted me everything that might be granted; and that other agents, far superior to me, have also worked solely for something they did not know.

Yet I sleep the sleep of the righteous because I know that my futile life doesn’t interfere with the march of great time. On the contrary: it seems that I am required to be extremely futile, I’m even required to sleep like one of the righteous. They want me busy and distracted, and they don’t care how. Because, with my misguided attention and grave foolishness, I could interfere with whatever is carried out through me. It’s because I myself, I properly speaking, all I have really been good for is interfering. What tells me that I might be an agent is the idea that my destiny surpasses me: at least they really did have to let me guess that, I was one of those people who would do their job badly if they couldn’t guess at least a little; they made me forget what they had let me guess, but I still had the vague notion that my destiny surpasses me, and that I am an instrument of their work. But in any case all I could be was an instrument, since the work couldn’t really be mine. I have already tried to strike out on my own and it didn’t work out; my hand trembles to this day. Had I kept at it any longer I would have damaged my health forever. Since then, ever since that thwarted experiment, I have tried to consider things this way: that much has already been given me, that they have granted me everything that might be granted; and that other agents, far superior to me, have also worked solely for something they did not know. And with the same minimal instructions. Much has already been given me; this, for example: every once in a while, with my heart beating at the privilege, I at least know that I am not recognizing anything! with my heart beating from emotion, I at least do not understand! with my heart beating from trust, I at least do not know.

But what about the egg? This is one of their ploys: while I was talking about the egg, I had forgotten the egg. “Talk, talk!” they instructed me. And the egg is fully protected by all those words. Keep talking, is one of the instructions, I am so tired.

Out of devotion to the egg, I forgot it. My necessary forgetting. My self-serving forgetting. Because the egg is an evasion. In the face of my possessive adoration it could retreat and never again return. But if it is forgotten. If I make the sacrifice of living only my life and of forgetting it. If the egg becomes impossible. Then—free, delicate, with no message for me— perhaps one last time it will move from space over to this window that I have always left open. And at dawn it will descend into our building. Serene all the way to the kitchen. Illuminating it with my pallor.

7 Lesser-Known Cyberpunk Novels to Help You Prepare for Our Horrible Future

You’ve got your mirror shades and your fingerless gloves, but you’ve already worked your way through Neuromancer and Snow Crash and all the other books by white men about electronically-enhanced renegades on the World Wide Web (or whatever they’ve got instead of the Word Wide Web in the cyber-retrofuture). If you haven’t gotten your fill of capitalism-ridden technodystopian hellscapes from those books plus, you know, living in a capitalism-ridden technodystopian hellscape, try moving on to some of these lesser-known cyberpunk novels.

Misha, Red Spider White Web

Misha’s characters live on the fringes of her violent, polluted techno-dystopia. Her main character, Kumo, is a struggling artist, financially tenuous but deeply principled—the enemy here isn’t just corporate interests, as with most cyberpunk, but artistic sellouts. Oh, and there’s also a cult and a serial killer!

James Tiptree, Jr., The Girl Who Was Plugged In

It sounds like a Black Mirror episode: a teenager comes to after a suicide attempt to find that not only is she still alive, but she’s been given cybernetic implants that allow her to remotely control a brainless, beautiful clone. When the clone becomes a celebrity, we’re left wondering: seriously, why hasn’t this been a Black Mirror episode yet?

Madeline Ashby, Company Town

The city-sized oil rig where Company Town takes place is a cyberpunk setting—there’s nanotech, there’s robots, there’s cybernetic implants. But Hwa, the main character, isn’t a cyberpunk hero: she’s actually the last fully-organic person on the rig, having refused all augmentations. So when someone starts murdering people (and targeting Hwa), she only has her own fighting skills and natural toughness to protect her.

Wilhelmina Baird, Crashcourse

A thief, an artist, and a sex worker sign up to act in a “cybercinema” movie where the audience can feel the emotions of the characters on screen. It’s a little queer, a little (okay, a lot) anticapitalist, and a little metafictional—are the intrigues and adventures the trio gets caught up in just part of the plot of the film?

Raphael Carter, The Fortunate Fall

The mysterious Raphael Carter wrote only this one novel, which Bogi Takács described on Tor.com as “a book in which queer post-Soviet women attempt to immigrate to a Wakanda that develops sentient bitcoin. For love.” Do you honestly need to hear more? Okay, well, there’s also a huge Russian conspiracy and echoes of reality TV (the main character has a camera implanted in her head so an audience can tune into her sensorium).

Lisa Mason, Arachne

After the Big One, San Francisco is an island, but it’s still a seat of technological innovation—in this case, mind links that allow transactions to move at the speed of thought. Carly, a tough young lawyer, is thrown into a tailspin when her telelink crashes and she discovers that she’s being targeted by artificial intelligences trying to steal human (sub)consciousness.

Cindy Pon, Want

In a near-future Taipei, wealthy people can afford special suits to protect themselves from the deadly pollution and disease that plagues the underclass. Jason Zhou is determined to expose and destroy the corrupt CEO of the Jin Corporation, which manufactures the suits—but in trying to infiltrate the world of the rich, he falls in love with the CEO’s daughter. This one’s YA, but if a week of watching Greta Thunberg has taught us anything, it’s that young adults have a better grasp of our imminent dystopia than any of us.

Emotions Are Like Little Gremlins

There are very few Etgar Kerets in the world. I mean this literally. At the end of our conversation on his new book Fly Already, Etgar Keret explained to me why this is so. Keret, his last name, means “urban,” and was chosen by his father when no one could pronounce his last name. In Hebrew, names are imbued with meaning. His wife is Poetry. His son is Heart. And Etgar? Etgar is Challenge. So his name is Urban Challenge. “Which is a fucked up name to give to a child,” he said. We both laughed. 

Fly Already by Etgar Keret
Buy the book

But also, of course, this makes sense. Etgar Keret’s stories are, in one way, about the challenges of language. His stories, which are often short but never thin, are filled with the robust ways language, that duplicitous partner we go through life with, cheats on us and lies to us and confuses the hell out of us. But we depended on it. And love it, even. In the titular story “Fly Already,” for example, a man and his son are on their way to play catch when the son spots a man, standing on the edge of a tall building. The father immediately knows what the man’s actions communicate. “He wants to fly,” the son says. The father screams up at the man “Don’t do it!” And the son screams back “Fly already!” But the man on the ledge can’t quite hear what either of them are saying. It’s funny and horrifying. Both statements, of course, are ridiculous prayers up into an impossibly complicated situation. Neither statement will properly address the man’s suffering. And yet. Could either push him off the ledge? 

Fly Already is a collection that pinpoints that triangulation, again and again, between hope, horror, and humor in our everyday lives. It’s a dynamic collection of stories that will make you laugh, gasp, and cringe. It is a collection filled with all the mystery, devastation, and collective rewards of being human and trying to explain it to one another. 

Over the course of a WhatsApp conversation, Etgar Keret and I discussed the “usefulness” of stories, how he writes them, and why his readers in Mexico truly understand what his stories are about.  


Erin Bartnett: I wanted to start off by talking about the writers in your stories. Whether it’s a writer held hostage by people who want him to tell a story (which is the case in the title story of your collection Suddenly, a Knock at the Door) or a story about a writer whose friend wants him to write a story that will get him laid (in “Todd” from this collection) there’s definitely a tension between the writer and reader.

So I’m curious: what do you think is the relationship between why you write stories, and why people read them? Are they operating at opposing purposes? Or are both experiences about trying to figure something out? 

Etgar Keret: When I sit down to write, I’m trying to figure out what’s going on, how I am feeling, where this story is heading. Many times when I write stories, one of the main questions I raise is “why in the hell am I doing it?” There is something very weird about writing stories. It’s kind of a greed around words, that people can sit down and say “there was a guy” when there was never a guy, and “he went to work” when he never did, and at the end something kind of happens but nothing ever really happened. I could be doing something useful. I could be watering the garden, I could be making myself a scrambled egg. Why am I sitting down and writing stuff that isn’t real? So I think that in many of my stories, at some kind of a deep layer, they are about the function of story in our lives. Stories can do so many things. In a story you can figure out what you’re feeling, you can yearn for something. You can admit something shameful that you’ve had on your mind. You can empathize with somebody who isn’t like you. 

I think that both in “Todd” and “Suddenly, a Knock at the Door” there’s an interaction between a writer and a potential reader—or, not even readers—“the market.” They demand that you manufacture something for them. But like everything, this can also be seen as some kind of an internal dialogue; it’s the relationship between writer and reader, but also the relationship between a guy and a part of the guy that demands that he write. When “Todd” was published (in Electric Literature!) I was told then it resonated a lot with people who write. I think that story for me, is about the functionless nature of story. Stories have no angle. When you write them, you don’t get anything out of them. I think that’s the nature of fiction. You cannot harness the energies. You cannot channel them. You cannot make the story go where you think it will be beneficial for it to go. 

EB: Another way I saw that question being investigated was in stories that had to do with these “useful” technological innovations in your stories. In “Tabula Rosa,” “Window,” and “GooDeed” especially, there’s a blurring of the line between a person and a commodity. The question of what we are “worth” to one another. What inspired these stories? 

EK: Well, I think that there are two contradictory answers.  I think that through technology you can actually create analogies for things that already exist in our lives. I wrote stories about clones or androids, but basically those stories are really about how people will always try to feel good about people who are like them, but they feel it’s okay to exploit them, too. So if write a story about people who are mean to clones or mean to androids, it could be very relevant to the region I live in, where there are occupied territories in which so many people have liberties and protections that others don’t. So technology helps you make the story more into a fable and less politically-specific—which is something that tends to put the reader in a certain mode I don’t like. 

I really feel like I understand less and less the dynamics of the world. It’s the elderly writer syndrome. 

The other answer is I feel that I come from a very specific generation. When I was in high school there were already very slow and bad personal computers. I played Atari. So many pixels. I would make fun of elderly people who couldn’t use ATM machines properly. (I really lived in a time when ATMS were introduced to my town.) I had been in the “before” and “after” for this kind of technology, but at the same time, I now have an elderly-person mode, because when I was young, when technology was introduced, it was there to stay. ATM machines, microwaves—you learned it, and you knew that for the next 60 years, you’re going to defrost vegetarian schnitzel with it. While, for example, my son already lives in a world where he’s already learned apps and things that he knows in a couple of years will become obsolete. 

I really feel like I understand less and less the dynamics of the world. Not just the technical aspects of it, but in general the way that things go. There used to be some kind of level to the amount of bullshit that people could put out in the world. There was a threshold. I admit when I saw my Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying on election day the Arabs are going on buses and Israel is under threat—when 20% of our population in Israel is Arab? I said “Okay, this is not going to slide, this guy is finished. Nobody in the world will shake his hand.” And then you see that nothing really happens and you realize that you don’t totally understand the ropes. The world has changed. And you’re not really on top of things. 

So in my stories, to talk about technology is really to talk about characters who live in a world that they don’t totally figure out, not because they don’t know how to press the buttons, but because they can’t understand how the social structure has evolved. How the right and wrongs of what you can do and what you can’t do evolved. I must say that I feel in this position a lot. I feel I am less in touch with the world around me. It’s the elderly writer syndrome. 

EB:  So do you think this kind of alienation from the present affected your writing? What changed for you while writing this collection? 

EK: One change that I see in my book is that my stories take place in different continents and different times in a way that seems very natural to me now. I think that in the past, it would feel strange to write stories that took place in the Midwest. Now, even though I’ve been to the Midwest and I was in Iowa City for 8 months, I think that even the stuff that I don’t know—nothing seems distant, in a sense. And it’s not only geographic, it’s the future that doesn’t feel that distant. You know you just type “www.future.com” and you see the future! And if you pay for the prime subscription, then you’ll even see the distant future! 

EB: Children, particularly in the stories “Fly Already,” and “Dad with Mashed Potatoes” present these simultaneous and totally different realities in language. They aren’t any less “real” or “true” than the realities of the adults in the stories. Where do you find this language? What do children’s perspectives lend to a story’s truth that an adult cannot? 

EK: Well, I think that for me, in a strange way, it’s not only as natural but more natural to write from a child’s perspective than from an adult’s. In my earlier collection I would write many stories from children’s perspectives, and I have urged myself to do so less because I wanted to write from adults to be closer to my own problems. But still, I get along with children much better than I get along with other adults. When you’re a child, if you go into a kindergarten you’ll see like 30 crazy little guys running around and they’re all kind of extreme, and they’re overly individualistic. And then they’re indoctrinated. You learn that if you take a poop on your table, then it gets you into trouble and you stop doing that. And the kids who aren’t doing that as much look normal now. There is something about that indoctrination that is bubbling up. You are less what you feel like doing and less your imagination and less stuff that doesn’t make any sense and more studying to be a dentist

My emotions are like the gremlins. They hide down in the sofa, but sometimes you see cookie crumbs. Evidence that they’re there, but you’re not sure.

I’m almost 52 years old but when I wake up most days I don’t even know what I’m going to do. Which is not a very grownup kind of life. I feel like this five-year-old guy who got away. The one who got under the kindergarten fence and went outside and grew a beard and a mustache and he’s 52 years old and he’s still in kindergarten. 

I think that it is even justified biographically by my parents, who are both Holocaust survivors. My mother lost her parents in the war and my father said he never had a normal childhood, so when they raised us, my mother always said that she didn’t know how to raise children because as a child she grew up in an orphanage where all the grownups were trying to steal her food and sell it in the black market, so the grownups were enemies. I think the way that our parents raised us, was also a very child-like way. The idea was “you be a good person, and if the school gives you trouble, I will come and you tell me what to say and I’ll lie to the teacher and everything will be okay.” In my family there was a rule that if it rained, we didn’t go to school. My mother said “with all due respect, they don’t teach you anything important enough to get wet for.” So I would stay home and do all kinds of stuff and then my mother would write me a note. It was really standard procedure. 

EB: Yeah, I read in an interview you did with Words Without Borders in which you said that “there is something about the beauty of childhood: you either get stuck in it or get detached from it. Childhood is something that cannot survive.” 

EK: You know, my father had a rule that, every seven years max, he changed his profession. And sometimes during my life we’ve been bankrupt and we’ve been pretty rich and we’ve been poor. When we would go out and I would see a pair of shoes I would say “Mother, are we rich now?” And my mother would say “No, actually, this year we’re poor.” But the reason my father did it is because he said he survived the Holocaust. And he was so grateful for that. He said “I don’t want to live one life, I want to live many lives. I want to do stuff that I want to do, I want to fail, I want to do stuff I’m not good at, too. I want a taste of everything.” And when you grow up like this, it’s very difficult for you to accept one career. When I went to university, they asked me what do you want to learn, I said “everything.” And actually, I spent five years in university and I learned math and I learned biology and I would go to history class. When people said “Yeah, but what are you going to do when you grow up?” I said, I don’t know, maybe some rich guy will give me money.” So I moved to plan B. 

EB: I am reading these stories in English translation. I wonder, the longer your stories have been circulating around the world (now in 45 languages) are there things you’ve noticed that get lost in particular languages? Or found in others? Concepts, sure, but emotional truths, too? How do you work with your translators? 

EK: Well first, I try to communicate with my translator as much as they have the patience to communicate with me. I think it’s very individualistic in that way. Some translators are more into asking questions and others don’t want to communicate too much. I think that translation is really kind of co-writing in a sense because languages don’t function the same way. It’s very strange. I can give you all kinds of examples. You want an example?

EB: Yeah, sure!

EK: So I have a story about a real estate guy this woman comes to and she says I want to buy an apartment because I am asking for a divorce from my husband because I caught him cheating on me. And he goes around and shows her apartments, but as he goes, he realizes that she didn’t randomly reach him, she came to him because apparently he’s the guy who found the apartment that was the love nest of the young woman and her husband. So she comes and sees apartments but at the same time she wants to get some information about this girl. And the real estate agent wants to be polite and nice and discreet, so there is a struggle between them. And now I’ll teach you something about the Hebrew language. In Hebrew, we don’t have an “it” form—everything is either masculine or feminine. So as they go she says to him “Is she beautiful?” And he says “Not only is she beautiful, you’ll have your own parking.” Because an apartment in Hebrew is feminine. So how do you translate that to English? You can’t! You need to reinvent it. 

You don’t have the ‘craft’ of telling a story– it’s like the ‘craft’ of farting. We’re born with it.

We have this notion that we have language and content and language is like a glass and we can pour content from one glass to another and it’s fine. But it’s not this way. I know that when my stories go to another language, they’re very dependent on translation. My mother, for example, feels really strongly and truly believes that my works in Polish are funnier and more emotional. And I wouldn’t be surprised because my Polish translator, she’s an amazing person. Just the fact that the stories go through her veins makes them better. And I can tell you that of the countries that I’ve been published in, the ones that are most successful are the ones with translators who were the most open to dialogue. 

I think for me the interesting thing is the meetings with the audiences that can be very very different. One of the countries I’m most successful in is Mexico. And my Mexican publishers are very good friends, I really like them. When I went to Mexico, I did a book signing. And I think the third person who came was this big guy with a big moustache and I signed his book and he asked me something in Spanish. And I understood the basic kind of “May I do this…” question. And I always say “Si.” Because you don’t think someone’s going to say anything like “May I hit you on the head” or something… So I was standing and said, “Yeah, sure.” And he hugged me! And it was very nice, a very nice hug. And then as people got in line, every few people, they would ask me and hug me. I said sure because I really like to be hugged. And I did readings in other places in Mexico, and the readers hugged me after the reading, too. So I said to my publisher, “You know, it’s a very beautiful cultural thing. In the U.S. they would ask me how much money I made out of the book or did I sell the film rights, and here people really just want to hug me! It’s really beautiful that Mexican readers have these kind of traditions.” He said “No, it’s not a tradition. They only hug you! They don’t hug any of our other writers…” So I said “Why do you think they hug me?” He said, “Maybe because they feel like you need a hug.” And I thought to myself, you know, it makes sense. I think that if there is one thing that my stories have in common, if you put them next to a candle, the words “I need a hug, desperately” would appear. In all of them. But this is something that only happened in Mexico. 

It is kind of amazing that I can write a story about something that happened to me when I was ten years old in a town in Israel, and somebody in China will say I read this story, I cried and told my boss I quit my job. Whoa. These emotions and energies that move through channels to all kinds of places in such a unique and weird way, but nevertheless a truthful one. Because when I was ten years old in my hometown, I wanted to quit my job, too. [Laughs.] No. But I really wanted to leave school and this guy who read it in China, he got it. So I think there is something really beautiful and comforting—to go back to the hugs—because I’m afraid to say, I really don’t think it gets any better than getting a hug. It’s not as if we’re going to live forever. 

EB: When you write a story, you’ve explained in previous interviews, that you want the labor to be submerged. So, maybe this is an American-y craft question that’s inherently contradictory, but how do you go about doing that? 

EK: You know again, I think that for me, writing is better than doing nothing. I mean in the sense that I like doing nothing, but writing is even better. Because I think that for me, when I write those stories, it’s really a feeling of weightlessness. When you talk about “craft,” it sounds like a very responsible word. Everything that I do in life, I do responsibly. There’s always some kind of built-in anxiety in life experiences. It doesn’t matter if you’re crossing the street or you’re scrambling an egg or you’re trying to explain to your child what transgender is. You always know you can fuck up. You know you can do something that will not work well, that will be misinterpreted. But when you write stories, you’re safe. You’re safe. You just write stuff that you feel and that doesn’t seem to make any sense but sometimes you’re lucky and at the end it does make sense. So the act of writing for me, is more like sitting in a jacuzzi. I’ve never sat in a jacuzzi. But it kind of feels like sitting in a jacuzzi, I think. 

EB: Okay but so what happens if you end up somewhere in the middle and it doesn’t make any sense? Do you ever get lost in the middle? What do you do when that happens? How do you find your way again? 

EK: My emotions are like the little creatures, the gremlins. All the time they hide down in the sofa, but sometimes you see cookie crumbs. Evidence that they’re there, but you’re not even sure that they are really there. And so the beginning of the story is like, you see this creature, and you grab it by its tail. And then it starts running around and you hope it will stay and the shape that you make in your house, the trail of broken furniture—that is basically the story. So you grab it by the tail, but many times it’s too quick or it goes under the piano and you hit your head on the piano and you let go. And I think that this happens more often than the times where you’re really able to hold onto it. 

I have a bunch of stories that, when I’m unable to realize or figure out what it’s about, I give up! That’s what I do! I’m a quitter. I say “Fuck it. You don’t want to be written? I won’t write you! Go find another poor bastard who will write you.” And I totally forget about them because in the fit of writing I don’t know how to sweat and struggle. When I edit, it’s a different story. But when I write I say, “Okay! It’s no fun, I’ll go and watch Family Guy instead.” 

But some of those stories that you lose somewhere in the middle, they kind of reemerge years later. You try to write something else and you say “Ah! You know I’m actually trying to write that old story.” Some kind of character or a phrase that you had and suddenly it reappears in this setting and now it does make sense and it has this kind of old wine or old cheese quality that it’s really suddenly matured. And it falls into place. 

What I’m really saying is that I think the most important thing for me in the writing is to have no feeling of attachment or ownership. I think that there is something about accepting the fact that you are not in control and accepting the fact that there are times when you sit at the computer that will just count as time that you didn’t watch crappy TV or eat things that aren’t good for you, so it’s good anyway. But you will not have anything to show, and you accept that that’s okay. 

That’s why I really don’t like terms like “writer’s block.” When people say “writer’s block,” it’s kind of like “Excuse me. This Tuesday I did not write. I want to speak to the people in charge. It’s outrageous. It’s all because Donald Trump is president. If Obama was president I would write every day.” Like, who the fuck ever promised you that you’d be able to write? Say thank you, kiss the keyboard and bow. You didn’t write? Go and do something useful with your life. 

Storytelling for me is not a craft, because every person you know, everyone who lied to you has told you a story. And so many people have lied to you. You will never figure out how many. And so, you don’t have the “craft” of telling a story—it’s like the “craft” of farting. We’re born with it. The great storytellers and writers in the world never learned craft. They just had a strong urge to tell a story. And it was so strong that they forced people around them to listen. And this urge was contagious. Many times, this kind of creative writing class process replaces that urge with some kind of professional certificate. Writing is like making love. Who wants to make love to a professional? 

EB: Well, I mean knowledge is good in both, for sure. But that idea seems liberating in a lot of ways, too. 

EK: Yeah, but for me writing should be liberating! Like the idea of the suffering artist? No, it’s the suffering human being. And the only difference between an artist and a human being is that maybe an artist is a human being who is a little bit more aware. When you realize that all people are suffering, then there is something actually liberating, that makes you suffer less about it. It’s like those people who say “I hate writing, I hate it…” You hate writing? Go sell something useful like most people on this earth. Nobody forces you to write. 

Ann Patchett Gets Inside a Man’s Head

Ann Patchett’s 13th book is a testament to building a life under adverse circumstances. The Dutch House follows the lives of siblings Danny and Maeve Conroy, starting in the late 1960s when their relatively poor family moved into what was called The Dutch House with their parents, Cyril and Elna. The book’s title comes from the prominence and importance of the house, outside of which Maeve and Danny regularly sit to reminisce about their lives. It’s these conversations that drive the narrative forward, as does the twist of an ending.

For the Conroy family the house itself comes to them lavishly furnished, complete with portraits of the previous owners’ ancestors and with hired help, Jocelyn, who had been looking after the property since the previous owner died. Unfortunately, Elna leaves not long after they move in because she’s uncomfortable amongst such luxury and would rather help the poor in India. After she leaves, it’s just Cyril, Danny, and Maeve, plus Jocelyn and her sister Sandy. The three women become Danny’s surrogate mothers, and this caretaker role of women to Danny is central to the way Patchett looks at relationships, family, and the privileges afforded men. 

Ann and I chatted about The Dutch House, the choice to write from Danny’s perspective, and the ways in which car conversations differ from face-to-face conversations. We also discussed the way Danny is catered to by all of the women in his life. 


Sarah Boon: Your press release focuses heavily on the fact that The Dutch House is written in first person, and I’m curious about the emphasis on this and why you chose to write as Danny, not as Maeve.

Ann Patchett: My decision has a lot to do with [my previous book] Commonwealth, and the fact that it was an autobiographical novel. I’d always said that I’d never write an autobiographical novel, but it went really well and I really enjoyed it. So I thought, “what else did I say I’d never do?” I said I’d never write another first-person novel because I did that when I was young and didn’t want to go back to it. I’m always looking for something challenging, and I had it in my mind that first-person was really easy because that was where I’d started. But that was a long time ago, and now it’s really hard. I hadn’t done it since 1993. Everything is a muscle: you use it or lose it, and it took me some time to get it back.

Plus, the book really lent itself to first-person, and it never occurred to me to write it in the first person of Maeve. I mean, it really is a book about Maeve as seen by Danny. And since it’s a first-person novel narrated by a man, the male gaze was all I had to work with.  

SB: It’s fascinating to me that the Conroys buy this house but they keep everything in it from the previous owners—including the portraits. I got the sense that they were squatting until the real owners returned. What was your rationale for having them keep the house as it was when the previous owners lived in it?

Since it’s a first-person novel narrated by a man, the male gaze was all I had to work with.

AP: The Conroys were so poor at this time, it wasn’t as if they had their own stuff. Cyril walks into this house that’s completely furnished and gorgeous. He wouldn’t know anything about putting a house together, so I think for him it was just wonderful. It was a whole ready-made package and way of life, including wealthy ancestors. The portraits were quite beautiful, they were very well painted. I don’t think that Cyril would look at such beautiful paintings and say “oh, I have to get rid of those.” He does have the idea that he’s going to have his and his wife’s portraits painted. Of course, it doesn’t work out, and he ends up with only a portrait of Maeve.

SB: A lot of the action in the book revolves around Danny and Maeve sitting in a car outside the house. How did you keep the narrative moving forward when every time they come back and sit in the same place in front of the house?

AP: Because they’re reminiscing or talking about ideas. When they’re young [and poor] they’re almost stalking the house, they’re hurt and angry [at having been kicked out]. But as they get older, and their lives get more full, parking in front of the house becomes a space in which they can relax, let down their guard, and talk about what they really want to talk about. At one point Danny says “I’m not from the Dutch House, I’m from the street outside of that house. That’s where my life has really consistently taken place.” So it doesn’t strike me as strange that the story would move forward easily while two people are sitting in a car talking because they’re talking about things that really matter to them. 

When you’re in a car and you’re talking, you’re not looking at one another. It’s like therapists always say, if you want to have a really important conversation with someone, go for a walk. It apparently is the least threatening way to have a conversation because you’re both looking forward but you’re also engaged in another activity. Of course, being in a car is not going on a walk, but there is that side by side and you’re stuck in place and you know what the rules are…it’s a good place to talk.

When I first started writing this book I started with a scene of Danny and Maeve in their 20s sitting in a parked car in front of the Dutch House. I didn’t keep the scene and I didn’t write the book that way. But after I wrote it, I thought “oh this really works, I like them here. I’m going to keep coming around and using this as a motif.”

SB: Much happens in the late 1960s/early 1970s, though the book also covers the present day. During this time, Maeve hides her diabetes, doesn’t admit to her formidable math talents, and works at a frozen foods company. She’s fierce and focused, but she works behind-the-scenes to help Danny. Was it difficult to write such a strong character who sublimates her own desires to help her brother? 

AP: It’s funny, because now that you’re saying this I’m thinking that really is my sister. I didn’t base Maeve on my sister, but your description of Maeve would be a good description of my sister. She is smarter than I am, she has way more talent than I do. She always puts her energy into promoting other people. She used to work on political campaigns, which to me is the ultimate in putting your intelligence behind somebody else. She puts an awful lot of time into her kids and into other people. But when you think about it, most people do. If you’re working in a law firm, you’re working on other people’s problems and issues, if you’re a doctor you’re helping other people, etc.

In my life, all of my intelligence, talent, and energy goes into something that’s completely me. I also put all of my energy into one thing as opposed to 20 different things. I never for a moment questioned that someone who was smart and opinionated and independent, like Maeve, would work on behalf of other people. 

SB: Danny is fairly oblivious. He doesn’t realize that Sandy and Jocelyn are sisters. He treats his wife carelessly, and is happy as long as she’s there to make his life easier in some way. Like his father, he buys her a house she doesn’t like. Was that intentional, to make Danny into a younger version of his father—so much so that, when he sees his stepmother again, she thinks he is his father?

AP: Yes, on all counts. Danny is like so many men that I know, and really like and care for. He’s smart, he’s happy, he’s a pleasure to be around, and he’s a good guy. But he is oblivious. He has no idea that his world has been built on the foundation of these women who support him. 

Danny is like so many men that I know. He has no idea that his world has been built on the foundation of these women who support him. 

There’s a terrible sentence near the end of the book, when Danny’s back at the Dutch House and he’s in the kitchen with Sandy, and he says something like “it was so nice to be back here with the table and the clock and Sandy and the coffee.” And that’s what it’s like for him, Sandy might as well be the table or the clock, as he expects her to be in that landscape. But he doesn’t understand that there’s anything wrong with thinking like that. 

SB: He’s the main male character in the book since his father dies early. And it’s all the women around him who are helping him, propping him up, pushing him forward, etc. 

AP: Yes, and everybody is thinking how wonderful he is. And he is! But I also just put a lot of my general annoyance into his character. 

SB: I’m thinking about when Jocelyn/Sandy/Fluffy look after Celeste and her kids, they constantly tell stories about the Dutch House, and it turns out that everyone has a different perspective on the same events. Do person-specific stories run through your books? That everyone has a story to tell about the same event, and that story might differ depending on who’s telling it?

AP: That certainly is something that’s very interesting to me. It’s also interesting how I can misremember something. I’ll be so sure about something that happened, and then I’ll get some piece of evidence—a letter, a photograph from childhood—and I’ll think “oh, I didn’t remember it that way.” 

I was in downtown New York on September 11 with a very good friend, and years later we talked about that day. But it was as if one of us had been in Iowa and the other in Arizona, as our memories were completely different. We were side by side all day long, seeing exactly the same things, but it was such a traumatic day, and trauma really messes with your head and your ability to see things clearly and to remember. And so the answer is you never know—you never really do know what happened.

Danny is very interested in that—he’s always trying to dig into stories and figure out what the real story was, even though he doesn’t have any more access to it than anyone else. He’s oblivious in some ways but he’s also very smart. He learns things like chemistry. Then he moves on to buildings, auctions, and property rights. He’s very good at things that are important to him. He can figure out how to make money without having any money—it’s extremely clever and it took him years to work it out. 

But in terms of emotional, interpersonal relationships he’s clueless. And yet, how many men do you know that you could say that about? “Oh, he’s really good at business and the things he’s interested in, but he’s not so great at reading the emotions of the person who’s in the room with him.” That’s pretty standard for a lot of men. I don’t think Danny’s in any way exceptional, I don’t in any way think he’s a bad man or just an oblivious man. I just think he’s a man. 

The 20 Best Debuts of the Second Half of 2019

It is next to impossible to read every debut book that comes out in a single year. Even for me, a person who has dedicated the year to reading as many debuts as humanly possible and interviewing newly-published authors for my website Debutiful. Every month, my to-be-read pile grows larger and larger, teetering precariously on my side table. 

On that note, let me start with a mea culpa: last time I curated this list I left off a book that has turned out to be one of my absolute favorites of the year. I hadn’t yet read In West Mills by De’Shawn Charles Winslow, an extremely well-written book that also featured one of the most memorable characters of 2019.

All of this is to say, that this reading list may have gaps, but it is a starting point. Here you’ll find emerging writers whose books promise illustrious careers to come. From novels and memoirs to short stories to essay collections, these are the books I can’t stop talking about with friends, writers, librarians, and booksellers.

Here are the 20 best debut books of the second half of 2019.

July

A Prayer for Travelers by Ruchika Tomar

A Prayer for Travelers by Ruchika Tomar

On the surface, Tomar’s story is about a missing woman in the Nevada desert. The book shifts back and forth in time to weave secrets and truths into a gripping plot about the quest to find a friend who has mysteriously vanished. A Prayer for Travelers digs beneath the surface to explore the harshness of living in a suffocatingly small desert town.

Marilou Is Everywhere by Sarah Elaine Smith

Marilou is Everywhere by Sarah Elaine Smith

Another story about a missing girl, yet this one takes a completely different angle. In Smith’s debut, a young girl named Jude disappears and her alcoholic mother mistakes another girl named Cindy for her daughter. Alone and seeking attachment, Cindy slips into the role and loses herself in this new world. Hauntingly bleak, sure, but there’s an underlying hopefulness in Marilou is Everywhere

Image result for goldfinch

We Love Anderson Cooper by R.L. Maizes

Funny and quirky. Those are the best words to describe the debut collection from Maizes. The collection is about the everyday lives of characters who are outsiders. The excitement in this short story collection doesn’t come from explosive plots; instead, they come from the quiet day-to-day decisions the characters make. (Read an excerpt here.)

August

A Particular Kind of Black Man

A Particular Kind of Black Man by Tope Folarin

A Particular Kind of Black Man is a coming-of-age story about a Nigerian American who grows up in Mormon country Utah (a state with a grand total of 1.12% African Americans residents). The novel explores the unreliability of memory and the inheritance of mental illness, and questions what it means to be “the perfect black man” in America.

Image result for yellow house sarah broom

The Yellow House by Sarah M. Broom

Broom, an acclaimed journalist, turns her pen on her own family history. The story begins with a yellow house in the 1960s where a prosperous life was all but guaranteed. It ends on land the house stood now, now deserted and devastated after Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans. But, as Broom writes, it wasn’t just Katrina’s doing that upended the yellow house. It was also years of systematic failure at the hands of the city, the state, and the country.

Hard Mouth by Amanda Goldblatt

Goldblatt’s introspective novel is for those wishing Phoebe Waller-Bridge and Henry David Thoreau were friends. In Hard Mouth, a snarky woman retreats into the woods after her father announces that he will not seek treatment for his terminal cancer. In a ramshackled cabin in the mountains, she struggles to survive in the wilderness, alone only with the company with an imaginary friend. Hilarious and thought-provoking, Goldblatt’s debut offers a dark twist on the search for escape.

Black Light by Kimberly King Parsons

Black Light by Kimberly King Parsons

The stories that fill this collection are spellbinding. Parsons finds something off-kilter in the mundane and runs with it. Black Light is a lot like Texas: everything is big, bright, and bold. (Read an excerpt here.)

Trick Mirror by Jia Tolentino

Trick Mirror by Jia Tolentino

The New Yorker writer is already well-known for her sharp observations on, well, everything—whether it’s the epidemic of high schoolers juuling or exploring the cult of athleisure brand Outdoor Voices. This collection of essays takes a magnifying glass to self-delusion from unpacking why we love consuming grifter stories to analyzing the performative identity of being on the internet. Jia Tolentino’s wit and self -reflection shines through her writing.

The Other's Gold

The Other’s Gold by Elizabeth Ames

Ames’s debut is a welcome addition to the canon of novels that begins with friends meeting in college and then continues to follow their ever-changing relationships with each other at as they enter different stages of their lives. Each chapter of the novel is dedicated to one of the quartet’s mistakes (the Accident, the Accusation, the Kiss, and the Bite) and explores how our lives collide with force and meander away from one another; sometimes with an explosion.

September

9781945814938_FC.jpg

Bloomland by John Englehardt

Since I first read Englehardt’s book about a fictional mass shooting at a college, there have been at least a half-dozen mass shootings in America. I say at least because we’ve become numb to these tragedies. The novel takes that numbness head on as it follows characters affected by the shooting in second-person chapters. Englehardt deconstructs the aftermath of a mass shooting and analyzes America’s gun epidemic with a keen eye.

The Secrets We Kept by Lara Prescott

The Secrets We Kept by Lara Prescott

It has been quite the year for the literary spy novel. The year kicked off with Barack Obama-approved American Spy by Lauren Wilkinson. Months later, Prescott uses the true story of a CIA plot to use Doctor Zhivago to influence Soviet Russian citizens to reconstruct the spy genre once more. Prescott takes history and turns it into something new and exciting. 

October

product image

Ordinary Girls by Jaquira Díaz 

In Diaz’s memoir (it shifts tenses and uses flashback almost like a novel), you’ll find an almost too-Hollywood-to-be-true story. Ordinary Girls chronicles Jaquira Diaz’s coming-of age as her family who moves from Puerto Rico to Miami. “A closeted queer girl in a homophobic place,” her unstable life and drug use led to juvenile detention. Upon release she drops out of school and marries before enlisting in the military. Through it all, you’ll read a queer biracial woman’s quest to discover her place in the world.

44174335

There You Are by Mathea Morais

There You Are is a romantic ode to music and how it shapes us. The novel takes place in the 1980s and 1990s and uses two strangers’ shared love of music to explore race and history as they fall in love. This charming book is perfect for those who like a story driven by the complexities of a relationship without getting too cheesy. 

44307231

Holding On To Nothing by Elizabeth Chiles Shelburne

The characters in this debut are flawed and complex. Set in the Appalachian, these characters want nothing more than to escape their unfulfilled lives. However, mistake after mistake keeps them stuck in their rural Tennessee town where they learn to cope with their realities. There is a sense of grime and grit on every page of Shelburne’s work. 

Image result for wild game book adrienne brodeur

Wild Game by Adrienne Brodeur

I have never been so captivated by so many memoirs in a single year. All stuck with me for many different reasons. This one because of the twists and turns that makes it read like a bone-chilling thriller. A teenage Brodeur becomes a confidante for her mother, who begins an affair with a family friend. The romance has tragic consequences that an older Brodeur must grapple with years later. Wild Game is a breathless story about love, lies, secrets, and destruction.

November

On Swift Horses by Shannon Pufahl

On Swift Horses by Shannon Pufahl

Pufahl’s period novel explores the queerness of 1950s American West. She provides a new insight into a period often nostalgically retold over and over (mostly by and about straight, white men). On Swift Horses follows Muriel, a  young wife who secretly works as a waitress at a horse-racing track and Julius, her gay brother-in-law, who goes on a quest to find his lover.

Image result for fiesta de los años 80

American Grief in Four Stages by Sadie Hoagland

The sadness in Hoagland’s debut story collection is both reassuring and jarring. Some say it is comforting to know others are going through what you’re experiencing yourself. But maybe it’s just painful. In these 15 stories, Hoagland offers these intimate moments of trauma, fear, loneliness, and lusts. 

Image result for Jakarta

Jakarta by Rodrigo Márquez Tizano, translated by Thomas Bunstead

Short and anything but sweet. Set in a post apocalyptic society devastated by a viral epidemic, this dystopian novel hecks in under 160 pages and can easily be read in a day but don’t expect a light read

December

Image result for harvey straight talk no chaser

Africaville by Jeffrey Colvin

This novel follows three generations of a family who live in Africaville, a Canadian town settled by former slaves. Spanning the Great Depression to the 1980s, Africaville shines a light on the lives of Black Canadians.

Such a Fun Age by Kiley Reid

Such a Fun Age by Kiley Reid

This novel about race and privilege is the book we all need to read as the 2020 election years approaches. Such a Fun Age follows Emira, a young black woman who is accused by a security guard at an expensive grocery store of kidnapping the white toddler that she was babysitting.

William Wordsworth Saves the Internet

About the year 1700, in London and other spots in the West, there was a lot of excitement about a new mode of communication, where information came so rapidly that people imagined they were interacting with each other in a virtual space. Fueled by new technologies of cheap paper-making and mass printing, and enabled by laws that permitted the spread of information, hundreds of newspapers, broadsheets, magazines, and little bound books were suddenly on offer. In this world of print, people could interact freely on topics ranging from politics to winemaking to books they liked. There were many names for that imagined space, and one really good one that eventually emerged was the beautiful-sounding phrase, the republic of letters

For the people of this time, the word “republic” was understood in its original Latin meaning—literally “thing” belonging to the “people”—but in an age of ever-stronger monarchies, the word had a sense of rebellion and subversion to it, too. As some modern social historians, such as Jurgen Habermas, have said, the imagined democracy of talkers eventually produced actual ones. But these virtual spaces also invited all sorts of ways to waste time, share rumors about celebrities, and make nasty comments about other members of this republic. In other words, this was the beginning of the internet—not the internet of wires, wireless signals, HTML interfaces, and screens, but the internet of information and interactivity. Habermas, as well as dozens of cutting edge social scientists and theorists of mediated communication, would say that in fact the older virtual space of the 18th century was not only as fully interactive as it is today, but actually had a bigger impact on politics and society. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Gentleman%27s_Magazine_1731.JPG

Information in the 1700s could spread incredibly quickly, and there was almost no limit on the sorts of things you could read about.  For instance, in the Gentleman’s Magazine of 1736, there were stock prices, death notices, weather, ship landings and details on their cargo, high tide, low tide, news, speeches in Parliament (transcribed from memory!), and most popular of all, tales of domestic disputes, adultery, murder and the adventures of handsome highwaymen upon the public roads. All this in one paper, and usually within mere days of the event, sometimes hours. If that wasn’t fast enough, you could get news of a fire at midnight, or a shipwreck of the morning earlier by means of broadsheets, large single sheets of the hottest, latest news hawked by young boys roaming the streets of London at all hours. And the reach of the virtual space may have been broader than it is today.

The reach of the virtual space may have been broader than it is today.

The accessibility to information was widespread, reaching all social classes (including illiterate people—who made up about 40% of the population).  If you couldn’t afford a broadsheet or you couldn’t read, often someone from your family or neighborhood would bring a Gentleman’s Magazine or Spectator home and would read it out loud and in public places. Locals grew fond of those readouts and went to certain spots in the city to hear the latest.  In Paris, as the historian Robert Darnton has shown, the news was sung daily under the famous Tree of Cracow, and so both literate and illiterate were caught up every day. And in comparison to today’s short-form communication, which both caters to and creates ever-shorter attention spans, conversations did not just come in the form of sniping, but also in vigorous discussions in salons and coffeehouses, in a bewildering range of genres. Looking in the Gentleman’s Magazine or the Female Spectator (published by the leading critic and torrid romance novelist Eliza Haywood), you see political and social commentary in poetry, songs, limericks, articles, dialogues, and letters to the editor numbering in the hundreds. Many of the debates—say, over whether Shakespeare was appropriate for children, or whether slavery was a sin upon all of society, or the growing scourge of addiction to gin, or election tampering—were quickly adapted in different forms, including children’s books, abridged and simplified editions sold for pennies, or lurid visual prints. Just take a look at the open-air bribing going on in William Hogarth’s hugely popular artworks, “Gin Lane” and “Canvassing for Votes”:

Hogarth's "Gin Lane," an engraving of a chaotic urban street scene
William Hogarth's "Canvassing for Votes," a painting showing opposing politicians both trying to bribe the same man

As the 18th century went on, the stream of information got faster but it also got deeper, as conversations along the virtual highways and byways became more serious and more substantial. Following the major periodicals of the time (which numbered in the thousands), you see fewer death row confessions, fewer tales of insane asylums and highwaymen, and more theorists, critics, scientists and philosophers taking to the new medium. People like Benjamin Franklin, and the philosopher and cultural critic David Hume appeared in the pages of these publications, followed by the philosopher of “sentiments” and economics Adam Smith, the brilliant educator and women’s advocate Mary Wollstonecraft, and her friend Thomas Paine, and even neo-conservatives like Edmund Burke. They all wrote their books and did it well, but they also went directly to the public by publishing in periodicals, writing neat little essays, publishing life hacks (Franklin’s almanacs), and writing hundreds of opinion pieces and reviews (Wollstonecraft’s day job). These publications could be in the public’s hands within days, and that included writing, typesetting, illustrating, printing, advertising, and finally selling. The turnaround time for an idea to become published writing beat most print matter today, and the spread of news through yelling, singing, gossiping added another dimension of speed, urgency, and drama to the words sent around. 

But as the stream became a river and the river became a torrent, people were seriously starting to worry. By the 19th century there were concerns about the spiritual and physiological effects of getting too much information too quickly. For instance, Henry David Thoreau wrote this in his famous book On Walden Pond

Hardly a man takes a half-hour’s nap after dinner, but when he wakes he holds up his head and asks, “What’s the news?” as if the rest of mankind had stood his sentinels. After a night’s sleep the news is as indispensable as the breakfast. “Pray tell me anything new that has happened to a man anywhere on this globe” — and he reads it over his coffee and rolls, that a man has had his eyes gouged out this morning on the Wachito River; never dreaming the while that he lives in the dark unfathomed mammoth cave of this world, and has but the rudiment of an eye himself.

This sort of thing is what drew him to his refuge in the cabin by the pond. People were plugged into the global torrent of information but missing out on the voices of actual streams, rivers, and lakes, the deep and rich voice of a forest breeze, and the chance to have a conversation that didn’t have something to do with the war we were in at the moment or the daily foibles of whatever city, state, or federal administration was in power.  

The best lines that I have read about the issue are by William Wordsworth, in his tremendous poem, The Prelude, an endless piece which traces how the young boy gathers a lifetime’s worth of strength and wonder, first by wandering in nature, then by understanding the deep generosity of friends and a brilliant sister, and finally by heeding the lyric of his own mind. At one point Wordsworth is reminiscing about the early years of the French Revolution, after the first flush of excitement and possibility. In his recollections, he had begun to lose faith, as early excitement about the fall of the ancient system turned to anxiety about the increasingly violent politics of Paris. Wordsworth remembers one fellow in particular, whose life was in disarray, and perhaps in danger, too, but in his quandary, he wasted even more time, so to speak, online:

His temper was quite mastered by the times, 
And they had blighted him, had eat away
The beauty of his person, doing wrong 
Alike to body and to mind: 
[…]
A ravage out of season, made by thoughts
Unhealthy and vexatious. At the hour, 
The most important of each day, in which 
The public news was read, the fever came, 
A punctual visitant, to shake this man, 
Disarmed his voice and fanned his yellow cheek
Into a thousand colours, While he read,
Or mused, his sword was haunted by his touch
Continually, like an uneasy place
In his own body. 

The pathetic fellow he’s talking about is a royalist who’s been sidelined by the Revolution of 1789, waiting at an undisclosed location with his other friends, yearning for a chance to go back into Paris and do something, anything to stop the course of this chaotic revolution. The young men hang on all the latest news, which is delivered daily by a messenger. All he can do while listening is finger the butt of his sword. Being exposed to the news daily, and then subject to the feelings that the news arouses in him has altered his face, his posture, and his mind. He is visibly changing before Wordsworth’s eyes. He is obsessed by the information, and as he ingests it, he diddles his sword, a metaphor for the potential snuffed out by an obsession with information rather than a commitment to action. 

It is an internet beneath the internet, the space of cultural memory and its primary vehicle, poetry.

But what is Wordsworth’s alternative? Strolling through the forest and dreaming about lyrical things? This would be the clichéd version of Wordsworth, the quintessential Romantic, a version that is so wrong in so many ways. I think Wordsworth is leaving another alternative on the table, a kind of access to another web, a deeper web, the oldest virtual space of all. It is an internet beneath the internet, the space of cultural memory and its primary vehicle, poetry. But rather than use poetry in its classical function, Wordsworth intended to create a poetry of the people, listening to common folk and attempting to capture their accents and stories in a stripped down, sweetened poetry. Lots of scholars and others in the expert class say he failed at this, and that all he did was rarefy what was already a rich and colorful canvas handed to him by the brilliant, contentious, visceral eighteenth century. Maybe yes, maybe no. But Wordsworth and poets like him, including William Blake, Charlotte Smith, and Coleridge, did show a way forward for the internet of their time—a way of listening hyper-attentively to what was local, different, and personal and letting those voices crowd out the automatic, the updated, and the urgent. In The Prelude, Wordsworth has a grand vision of what poetry can be, and that’s certainly not a droopy, musing, self-indulgent expression of “feelings,” in which people with the strongest feelings make the strongest poetry, which is utter nonsense. Poetry for Wordsworth is the exercise of the body and mind, where words embody exploration and then words become the chunks of sound and sense that the poet sculpts into everlasting, lovely shape. All through The Prelude, William is climbing, swimming, horseback riding, chatting all night with strangers, walking the charged air of Paris during the Revolution, crowding the entrance to Parliament at a protest, walking the long sands of Wales and Cornwall, reading with a mind on fire, and thinking deeply about how all this can bring him into communion with us as we read him. That’s what he brings to the table in contrast to a resentful young man playing with the handle of his saber. 

Wordsworth wasn’t the only one to attempt to save the public space for richer conversations, nor was he the most committed to following the truer voices of the people. Poets such as William Crabbe, who had spent their lives ministering to the working classes out in the sticks, dedicated long, beautifully wrought work to their experiences. A poem like The Village shows the possibilities of talking very concretely about lives far outside the glamour of London society: 

Thus groan the old, till, by disease oppressed,
They taste a final woe, and then they rest.
Theirs is yon house that holds the parish poor,
Whose walls of mud scarce bear the broken door;
There, where the putrid vapours, flagging, play,
And the dull wheel hums doleful through the day;
There children dwell, who know no parents’ care,
Parents, who know no children’s love, dwell there;
Heart-broken matrons on their joyless bed,
Forsaken wives, and mothers never wed;
Dejected widows with unheeded tears,
And crippled age with more than childhood-fears;

It’s not just that Crabbe’s poetry proudly avoids the musing, lazing, privileged perspectives of the famous Romantics, nor that he’s writing about the poor. Plenty of people wrote about the poor and, to keep on my rant about the power of the 18th-century “internet,” plenty of working class people were read very widely in British and American magazines. Crabbe, writing late in the century, still expected there to be the virtual space of The Gentleman’s Magazine and the periodicals by freshly minted commentators like Eliza Haywood in 1750, or in the vein of the bold new political writers like Mary Wollstonecraft in her two Vindications, one for “men” (1790) and one for “woman” (1792). The implication of Crabbe’s literary labor and well-wrought address to readers is that a social message could be couched in the form most attractive to the people of his time, and might change things. But Crabbe could only do this because he himself had been in these spaces, and had felt those feelings, been with those people. Of course, such writers are with us today as well, and they are also available on the internet, but I guess Wordsworth’s and Thoreau’s point was that these voices are always in danger of being crowded out, displaced. None of these worries are new, nor is it new to tell someone to take a break, walk in the woods, talk to real people, unplug. But what is valuable about the first internet is a vision of how complete, how imbued with power and substance it could yet be.