14 Authors Who Started Out as Booksellers

It is universally-known that if you want to write a book you should read a lot of books, but a piece of unexpected advice for aspiring writers? Work in a bookstore. You can’t go wrong working for a place that pays you to talk about books all day. You learn what’s out there, meet a community of book lovers, and maybe get your big break one day—it worked for all the writers on this list! Here are 14 authors who stocked shelves by day and wrote novels by night (and some who still do).

Jonathan Lethem

Writer of 2018’s The Feral Detective and 2005 MacArthur fellow, Jonathan Lethem has etched himself a place in the hearts of sci-fi and crime fiction lovers. But before he was crafting post-apocalyptic detective stories, he spent over a decade working in Berkeley bookstores like Moe’s and Pegasus Books. Today, he is part proprietor of Red Gap Books, an occasionally espresso-serving bookstore in Blue Hill, Maine. 

Lillian Li

Named NPR’s Best Book of 2018, Lillian Li’s debut Number One Chinese Restaurant invites readers into the Beijing Duck House after its owner passes away, laying bare the fraught relationships of his sons—the restaurant’s successors—and the establishment’s employees. Not only is Li a prize-winning novelist, she also sells books, conducts Q&As and manages the Twitter feed at Literati Books in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Image result for poster

Kea Wilson 

Kea Wilson’s We Eat Our Own came out in 2016 to the delight of horror-seeking bookworms everywhere. Its promise of cannibals, use of vivid detail, and roots in true events has earned Wilson praise from publications like The New York Times and Publisher’s Weekly. Wilson began writing her acclaimed debut during her MFA at Washington University but finished it in between shifts at Left Bank Books in St. Louis as their events coordinator. 

Michael Bible

Michael Bible is the author of absurdist fiction, having penned Sophia and Empire of Light. His newest work The Endless Idiot celebrated its book birthday on August 6th and is out now. Bible also worked for many years at Square Books in Oxford, Mississippi. 

Louise Erdrich 

Inspired by her half German, half Native American ancestry, Louise Erdrich has written nearly 30 novels, poetry collections, and children’s books on the topic of biracial identity. Her works have earned her several awards and accolades including a Library of Congress Prize in American Fiction and bragging rights as a finalist for the 2014 Pulitzer Prize. She is currently preparing for 2020 release of her upcoming novel The Night Watchman and owns Birchbark Books in Minneapolis. 

Image result for poster

Emma Straub 

Book mom to Modern Lovers, The Vacationers, and Laura Lamont’s Life in Pictures, Emma Straub is not only a celebrated author but a former employee of the Brooklyn bookstore BookCourt. When the Boerum Hill staple closed in 2016, Straub teamed up with her husband to open Books Are Magic, a quirky bookstore (it has a poetry gumball machine!) five blocks from BookCourt’s original home on Court Street. 

Image result for turkey

Jamie Kornegay 

Jamie Kornegay made his debut in 2015 with the novel Soil, a story about an environmental scientist whose idealistic plans to establish a sustainable farm go horribly awry. Before Kornegay joined the community of published authors, he was a bookseller, events coordinator, and radio show producer for Square Books. Now, he can be found in the stacks of his own bookstore, Turnrow Book Co. in Greenwood, Michigan. 

Get in Trouble by Kelly Link

Kelly Link 

2018 MacArthur fellow and author of such titles as Magic for Beginners, Pretty Monsters, and Get in Trouble, Kelly Link is notorious for bending the boundaries of genre, mixing fantasy, sci-fi, and horror. She is equally notorious for her love of booksellers, having sold books herself at Avenue Victor Hugo Books in Boston, Massachusetts (now located in Lee, New Hampshire). Link co-founded Small Beer Press with her husband (also a former bookseller!) in 2016. 

The Melting Season by Jami Attenberg

Jami Attenberg 

Jami Attenberg is the author of The New York Times bestseller The Middlesteins as well as the forthcoming novel All This Could Be Yours. Crowned by Kirkus Reviews the “poet laureate of difficult families,” Attenberg was once the fairy godmother of books at WORD Bookstore in Brooklyn.  

Woman No. 17 by Edan Lepucki

Edan Lepucki 

Best-selling author, podcast queen, and Stephen Colbert’s bestie, Edan Lepucki is responsible for the darkly comic If You’re Not Yet Like as well as California and Woman No. 17. She is also a former staffer from Hollywood’s Book Soup

Image result for we the animal 2018

Justin Torres 

Justin Torres’s 2011 debut We the Animals had been translated into 15 languages before being adapted into an Independent Spirit Award-nominated film. He would go on to receive several accolades and fellowships including The National Book Foundation’s 5 Under 35 and a Cullman Center Fellowship from the New York Public Library. Now a professor at UCLA, Torres once worked for the Manhattan staple McNally Jackson

Image result for Flatscreen: A Novel

Adam Wilson 

Known for his coming-of-age narratives and humorously nihilistic writing style, Adam Wilson has two books out in the world: Flatscreen (2012) and What’s Important is Feeling (2014). Wilson’s writing journey came full circle when he celebrated the release of his debut novel at BookCourt—his previous employer! 

M Train by Patti Smith

Patti Smith 

Called the “punk poet laureate,” Patti Smith is a celebrated singer-songwriter, performer and novelist. But, once upon a time, she moved from New Jersey to New York City with dreams of becoming an artist. Her first job in the Big Apple? Brentano’s, one of the grand bookstores that studded Fifth Ave in the 1970s.  

11052304

Martha Southgate

Martha Southgate wears many hats: author, essayist, teacher, and Hamilton-lover. She is also a former bookseller! The third former BookCourt employee on our list, Southgate began working at the bookstore only months before the release of her fourth book Taste of Salt. 

A Conversation with Native Voices at the Center

Editing an anthology, or a collection, is not for the weak. The curation and collation of myriad voices weaving into one another, collectively imbuing a relationship that is both structured and organic, takes focus, tenacity, and patience. Reading Shapes of Native Nonfiction, edited by Elissa Washuta and Theresa Warburton, this cohesion, and the planning behind it, is apparent. Beyond what’s explained in the introduction, with the concept-turned-theme of basket weaving, the pieces populating each section exemplify how materials, through words, come together. I came away from this collection clearly recognizing the intent of both Washuta and Warburton in how “shapes the content (material) enables a move away from a focus on a static idea of ‘Native information’ and, instead, emphasizes the dynamic process of ‘Native in formation.’” 

The trajectory of an anthology can run the gamut, and I found myself enamored as I considered the specificity of form and language in contributions from Terese Marie Mailhot, Bojan Louis, Billy-Ray Belcourt, and Laura Da’ in essays that twine themes or plait formatting, from work that could at once be categorized as anything but nonfiction, yet the truth within the material was so inherent designating it nonfiction was absolutely within scope.

In speaking to Washuta and Warburton, whose friendship and respect for one another as colleagues is as deeply rooted as their joint vision for Shapes of Native Nonfiction, it’s evident why and how this collection packs such a punch while providing space for Native writers to speak in a way that is both uniform and unique to their positions, themes, and stakes in their writing. I was eager to discuss how collaboration and conjoined thinking led to such a fantastic collection that gives Indigenous voices a chance to speak openly, having their pursuits clearly woven into something both daring and relatable. 


Jennifer Baker: Many people I’ve talked to who are editing anthologies have been doing it solo, myself included. But there’s something very different to a partnership. Can you talk a little bit about that for Shapes of Native Nonfiction?

Elissa Washuta: I originally conceived of the very basic idea of this anthology in 2014. And I knew from thinking about it and having conversations with our first editor at University of Washington Press, it was something that I was not going to be able to do alone. I wasn’t actively seeking out someone to partner with on the work. I just put the idea on the shelf and was working on a bunch of other things for years. In the meantime, Theresa and I became friends and were talking a lot about our lives and literature and writing and academia. UW Press inquired again about the anthology and whether I was interested in submitting a proposal. At the time I was not interested in doing it alone, I needed help. And I needed a collaborator. I mentioned it to Theresa and she was really excited about the idea.

Theresa Warburton: I can’t imagine having done this amount of work solo or with someone else who I didn’t trust as much as I trust Elissa. We are very close, that has been very important and you can feel that in the collection. The real foundation of it is our relationship to each other and Elissa’s relationships with other writers. Even though it took us two years to do, it’s actually more than a decade of relationship building that was at the center of this collection.

EW: It sounds hyperbolic to say this, I guess, but I don’t think I could do this with anyone I didn’t trust with my life. I trust Theresa with my life because this is my life. Doing this work. Being part of this community is at the very center of my life. And I had never thought that I was going to enter into any kind of creative or collaborative partnership to make a book. But I knew she was invested, and that there’s something at stake for her too. It’s different than what’s at stake for me, but this work is profoundly important to both of us. Being trustworthy is a quality, sure, but I know from my own work to become trustworthy that it takes hard work to get and remain there. Our separate commitments to that complement each other.

It wasn’t that there weren’t any anthologies of Native nonfiction, but that a lot of them, in both their framing and content, were the same.

JB: There’s been a kind of boon in the publishing world either topically or identity specific when it comes to anthologies. So people may think “I’m gonna do this anthology.” And it really has the potential to sound “easy.” But I also think it’s that realization, and you speak about this in the introduction at length and with such urgency, of “because we haven’t seen this we want to provide this collection, or archival material, to show that this has existed already.” When you have something that’s very specific to craft as well as those writing it from varied and distinctive identities within the Indigenous community, where do you even start?

TW: It wasn’t that there weren’t any anthologies of Native nonfiction, but that actually a lot of them, in both their framing and content, were the same. Like the same book coming out over and over. That was frustrating, not because it was a bad book but because there just seems to be so much more to say. Jenn, you were saying that there can be a sense of flippancy, a sense of “Oh, I’m just going to do an anthology.” But I think a lot of folks, myself included, don’t really, realize what kind of undertaking it is to do that or to craft in an ethical way. We agreed that we didn’t want to call Shapes of Native Nonfiction an anthology, we wanted to call it a collection, because of exactly what you’re talking about. There’s this sense that it’s showing something that’s never existed. It’s very important for us to say this is a collection of things that do exist, but by putting them in a different form we’re hoping people can see how vibrant and sort of essential it is to the field itself. Writing by Native authors is foundational to the field of nonfiction period. So, this isn’t an anthology of Native writers per se but actually a collection of nonfiction that is centering the voices of Native writers. The distinction between those two things was really important to both of us.

EW: The process by which we made the decision to do this and how we conceived of it was so far from casual. Even though we both kind of were a little bit casual, like Theresa said in thinking, “Oh yeah we could do this.” But at the same time—

TW: We were right!

EW: True. We were right. But also I had started thinking of the need for a book like this when I was teaching Native American literature(s) at the University of Washington. The anthologies that were out there were older and had a more anthropological focus on life stories. So I knew that there was a need for a form-focused book. That need remained and grew. And I started teaching nonfiction at the low-residency MFA program at IAIA (Institute of American Indian Arts). I was giving students reading lists, so I was seeing even more that a book like this is needed that is really focused on craft and form. So that was a big thing I was bringing to the work when I started doing it: knowing exactly what my intention was for the book, and exactly what contribution I wanted the book to make. And I had spoken to other faculty about their similar needs. It was very intentional and this brought urgency to the work.

TW: I think one of the reasons we came together in this way is because of that sense of urgency. How Elissa and I met was that Amazon recommended her book to me. So we say Amazon set us up.

JB: Amazon did one thing right.

TW: I brought her up to Western Washington University because I was teaching at the time. I was teaching a grad class and an undergrad class, so I brought her up to give a talk. She read an essay and then she read from her book. And I remember from her Q&A that some of the questions that people asked were so focused on very personal information, questions about cultural practices or being raised off-territory. I thought, “Wow, they really don’t have the framework for engaging with what she’s saying.” There were no questions about craft. There were no questions about what she was doing as a writer. You’ve read Elissa’s work, she does such compelling, important things. Elissa, you’re such a tight writer. Your essays turn on a pin. And since some of those questions were from my own students, I remember thinking that I had obviously not given students the framework they need to adequately engage nonfiction in this way. And we have a strong creative nonfiction program at Western, so I knew that students were getting some of that discussion of form in that field, but it was clear that was really not connecting to work by Native authors. Elissa and I started talking about these things after this event.

EW: There was one way in which that question and answer session was different, Theresa, it was how you shaped the Q&A. After a particularly personal question was posed by an audience member, you said something like, “I’m gonna step in here and I’m gonna ask some questions about craft.” In teaching Native literatures as a creative writer, I had felt like there was this divide that I was trying to navigate. In my teaching, in the language around the way craft was spoken about by writers, about how craft was spoken about by literary scholars. The way you approached that Q&A, and how I soon learned you approach the rest of your work, helped me see how these areas of study could come together. I carried that with me when we began talking about doing the work together. And it’s something we still talk about how we needed to come together as bringing creative writing and craft study and literary studies together in framing this book.

JB: I read and reread this line in your introduction, “the essay is the work of feeling and thinking,” about what elements we seek to find in the essay and how much the essay is, depending on the person, narrowly defined. How much does form come into play when we’re looking at the thinking and feeling and the way that material is actually structured? Is that something that is continually defined?

EW: I’m thinking about how, when I was sort of making my shift from fiction to nonfiction writing, a work that was really influential to me was Short Talks by Anne Carson. Which I read in a fiction class, before I ever wrote personal essays. It was excerpted in a fiction anthology. I’m pretty sure Carson considers it poetry. And I think it’s been labeled as essay. But I was so interested in the way style and form felt like the real subjects of that book.

I feel super committed to the essay as my vessel for thought and feeling. There’s understanding I can’t get to without writing the essay.

I feel super committed to the essay as my vessel for thought and feeling. I can understand my own thoughts and feelings through going to therapy or talking to a friend or just thinking. But the essay is its own separate way of knowing, way of thinking, way of dealing for me. There’s understanding I can’t get to without writing the essay. When we talk about the essay as an exquisite vessel in our intro—specifically, the form-conscious essay as an exquisite vessel—that’s what I think we’re thinking about, the way form allows the essay to be this absolutely beautiful sort of material object that is a container for thought, feeling, identification of kinship, connection, and lineage and all these things.

TW: Part of teaching Native literature in the field as a non-Native scholar has really challenged me to think about how typical genre categories—like poetry, fiction, memoir, the novel, nonfiction—where they come from and how they’re applied and how this seems to value certain kinds of writing over others. When it comes to Billy-Ray [Belcourt]’s piece, who I think is most well-known as a poet, but with his new book and this piece that is really blowing those categorizations wide open. I’m also thinking mostly about Ernestine [Hayes]’s piece that we open the book with: a more traditional literary scholar might say it exists between or across genres, somewhere on the edge of fiction and nonfiction. But what we’re trying to do in this collection is to consciously think through how such categories are related to non-Native cosmology and non-Native ways of thinking of form. And, then, to recognize that trying to pigeonhole certain writers in these ways does a disservice to their work. So, when we got Billy-Ray’s piece we thought “yes, nonfiction piece absolutely.” Especially the formal ways it takes place on the page. And the way it uses slashes. But I think some people would call that poetry too and I don’t necessarily think that’s wrong. One of the things we’re interested in, though, is how these ways that Native writing gets rigidly categorized does a disservice to the actual work.

EW: I feel super committed to nonfiction because looking at these essays and then practicing essay writing. I feel super committed to the idea that the essay can do so much more than just kind of transparently tell us about something and explain something to us, and show all its cards. I feel like the essay can be so many things and it can do a lot of the things that fiction can do and can do a lot of the things that poetry can do. And it will take all sorts of different shapes. And that’s the beautiful thing that makes me feel committed to the essay as a way of serving us a container for my real experience.

Borders Are Black Holes Where Ideas Go to Die

In September 2016, fellow author Todd Miller and I took an investigative trip to the Middle East trailing a labyrinth of state-corporate border intrigue. As writers focusing on U.S.-Mexico borderlands issues, we had already written an sleuth piece exploring two sides of a trinational U.S.-Mexico-Israel security project called Global Advantage, which is headquartered in Southern Arizona at the publicly funded Tech Parks Arizona, a business incubator on a 1,345-acre research park that offers its homeland security clients a manufacturing base in Sonora, Mexico. To us, the combination of innovation and manufacturing functions as a multinational assembly line where NAFTA free trade policies grease the working parts of an emergent homeland security border apparatus. 

The one recurring commonality that flagged us for suspicion? Books.

Living on the U.S.-Mexico border, we’re both accustomed to the arbitrary powers of discretion wielded by border and customs agents. On this trip, we took painstaking efforts to cooperate at every turn of security check-points and their accompanying infrastructure of armed guards, customs clerks, metal detectors, X-ray conveyer belts, and—as we’d find out the hard way—nondescript plainclothes officers mixed in tourist crowds far outside formal border crossing point zones. In other words, “the border” followed us everywhere we went.

Despite our precautions, the trip was punctuated, at times, by confrontations with paranoid or obtuse agents on the look-out for whatever seemed leery to them from one moment to the next. The one recurring commonality that flagged us for suspicion? Books.

Books Across Borders

We experienced the phenomenon of books as potential national security threats first at the Israeli-controlled Sheikh Hussein Border Crossing while we were returning, circuitously, from Amman, Jordan to the city of Ramallah in the Palestinian West Bank, where we were based most of the trip. We traveled this slightly longer, roundabout route back to Ramallah because locals told us it would take less time than the crowded Allenby Bridge crossing, which took half a day to get through.

I had no premonitions as we walked the long banal distance from the gate to the port building. The nearby Sea of Galilee lay somewhere out of sight; that day the dry midday heat, in the thick of midsummer, granted not even a wisp of breeze. The blistering sunshine overhead sapped my energy. I could feel then that we stood at the pinnacle of anthropogenic climate change. Later, figures came in from the World Meteorological Organization to confirm that that 2016 summer had achieved the hottest earth temperatures on record. (Until July 2019 broke all records as the hottest in modern history.) Droughts east of the Jordan River, the ground over which we then trod, are projected to double by 2100 in what is already the fourth driest country on earth where freshwater access reaches below levels of “absolute scarcity” as defined by water scientists. Climate change may not be so clear from the bird’s eye view of daily weather patterns in one’s locale, but taken together globally, the drastic increases of cataclysmic climate events like flooding, draughts, and wildfires are displacing more and more people. These new climate refugees, averaging 21.5 million per year, will inevitably encounter borders—in a manifold bordered world in the 21st century where 15 border walls that scarred the earth in 1989, have multiplied to 70 walls today. These latest targets of greater border policing were on my mind as we attempted to cross yet another border.

Inside the port building, which was typically empty of crossers that day, the cooler temperature gave us some momentary relief before what happened next. Uniformed Israeli border guards had waved Todd through the port, ahead of me, and ushered him outside the building. No sooner was Todd out of sight then one of the soldiers stopped me after searching my backpack, apparently discovering some high-interest items. As I craned my neck to see what objects piqued his concern, he pulled out all the books I carried for the journey: some pamphlet reports from an Israeli-Palestinian research organization, Who Profits, whose staff researchers we interviewed the week prior; Dan Senor and Saul Singer’s Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle; Jeff Halper’s War Against the People: Israel, the Palestinians, and Global Pacification. And a copy of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. The guard stacked the books neatly on the static conveyor belt and walked over to his colleagues, where they huddled for what seemed an extraordinarily long time, seldom looking my way but otherwise rapt in their conversation.

The guard stacked the books neatly on the static conveyor belt and walked over to his colleagues, where they huddled for what seemed an extraordinarily long time.

Todd later said he didn’t know what to do as he waited for me outside. What if they detained me long into the night, as they sometimes do?

Many months later, we reflected on that moment from a downtown Tucson ice cream shop out of sight from the nearest checkpoint that lay only a few miles away outside of town. The 102-degree June heat above the Sonoran Desert acted as an open-air kiln. Todd’s two-year-old son William sat between us, nodding his shiny bobs of curly blonde hair and babbling his own contributions to the conversation. We compared memories from the cluster of border zones in the Middle East where, like the US-Mexico border and others throughout the world, authorities can ultimately target anyone for suspicion—where border guards can say (or not say) whatever they want to justify their actions. 

Everywhere we looked during that Middle East trip, there were people, including ourselves, caught, in varying degrees, in the omniscient border netting. There was a solitary man at Jordan’s border who seemed to hold himself up by one hand placed palm down on the customs window counter that resembled a theatre box office. His tapping finger perhaps counted the hours he quite possibly had been waiting to cross. I’ll never forget when Todd and I waited within the juggernaut Qalandia security checkpoint in the occupied Palestinian West Bank—stuck suspended on the road between Jerusalem and Ramallah in a chaotic place where time slows and space is walled off. Locked under its weight we seemed to move a few steps per hour among the antsy families and desperate workers all waiting, packed together in narrow rows of caged pens that evoke imagery of hogs in a factory farm. Those privileged few of us who can even get out of the West Bank through the Allenby Bridge crossing into Jordan face the endless lines of stalled buses that, when they do get going, must pass military guard posts stationed by heavily armed soldiers on the narrow road to Amman, Jordan.

In any of these situations, regardless of your citizenship status or racial profile (though many are more frequently targeted than others), border agents may think you’re a member of an armed group or they simply don’t like the way you think about the world. As if borders are a place where ideas go to die.

But not all ideas. That’s where particular books, like those contained in my bag listed above, enter the equation. Oftentimes, border zones cultivate a discriminating sense of taste in their guards about what kinds of books interest them, often in accordance with the national worldview for which the guards are hired and trained to keep watch. Being more traveled than me, Todd had been ready for this global border trend, having gleaned a wisdom through researching his growing stack of published books on the topic that sent him weaving in and out of borders all over the world and their labyrinthine, bee-hive bureaucracies. “The guards looked at my books, too,” Todd said. “But, actually, in my case, I purposefully brought a book—I forgot what it was—but it was a book that wouldn’t raise any suspicion—”

Border zones cultivate a discriminating sense of taste in their guards about what kinds of books interest them.

“It was a tourist book,” I reminded him. I remembered that book well. It was the kind of orientalist travel guide written to function as training wheels on a cultural tricycle; to hold your hand in a foreign country, warning you about any counter-intuitive customs and instill in you an arsenal of healthy suspicions. For example, I brought multiple pairs of shorts, knowing the desert weather was comparable to Arizona. On our first day in Jordan, Todd took one look at me and—in his mischievously assailing humor—recalled an analogy he read in the book that classified apparent tourists like me: In Jordan, the book warned, wearing shorts in public was like wearing a skimpy bathing suit in Baltimore in the dead of winter. Later, while wearing those same shorts, I would be accosted by the Jordanian secret police, causing me to wonder what about me, to them, might have looked odd.

“Right, a tourist book,” Todd recalled, “and I also had just a novel, which I positioned at the top of my bag.” A wry twinkle gleamed in his eye as he said, derisively: “The fact that the guards went straight for the books as if they were going straight for a weapon, is quite telling. ‘My word is my weapon,’ as the proverb goes. And the fact that they took out your books,” he continued, “some of which described a worldview that was different from the dominant government narrative, is very important when it comes to this kind of bordered world, where the gap between ‘innocent’ and guilty’ is whether you’re compliant or not compliant; between who’s considered a threat and who’s not considered a threat. And a criterion that’s being used is that you’re singled out and interrogated for books!”

In a sense, a border becomes a kind of black hole; not only fragile human bodies but everything from cultural norms to established principles of democratic order seems patted down and stripped bare. The natural laws that define up and down, the moral metrics that define right from wrong become a valueless abstract theory whose credit is not accepted there as currency. We’re passed from palm to palm by the arbitrary whims and authoritative directions of border agents.

A border becomes a kind of black hole; everything from cultural norms to established principles of democratic order seems patted down and stripped bare.

Todd and I spoke about these things, reflectively, in a place where the only disturbances came from the hustle and bustle of a downtown thoroughfare. William took another lick of his butter pecan and the clatter of street traffic waved in and out as patrons opened and closed the door to the ice cream shop. In the deluge of crowded noise, Todd relived the feeling of waiting for me outside the Israeli port of entry all those months ago. “It’s also scary, too,” he said, “because, in that kind of situation, you don’t know what’s going to happen. I was waiting for you—probably only for 15 minutes but it seems longer when you’re waiting for your friend who’s not coming out and you’re wondering what happened.” His voice deepened pitch. “A startling thing about borders is that you can disappear into the system for a long time.” Recalling a shocking headline that posted earlier in the day, we both knew whom he meant.

One of those “disappeared,” French-Canadian citizen Cedella Roman, had recently emerged from her own black hole border nightmare. Her frightful story made headlines, unlike so many other hapless detainees who lack immigration status. At a convention of police and sheriffs in 2008, former executive director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, James Pendergraph told his audience: “If you don’t have enough evidence to charge someone criminally but think he’s illegal,” he said, “we can make him disappear.” 

So when Roman accidentally crossed the Canadian border into the United States while on an exercise run off the beachside near where Canada meets Washington State, agents from Customs and Border Protection, the parent company of U.S. Border Patrol, intercepted her when she strayed off, detaining her over a two-week timespan. But even by definition of state citizenship norms, once a citizen produces a passport, as Cedella did immediately when her mother frantically rushed to the detention facility with her papers, people like Cedella are supposed to be beyond suspicion by border officials who, time and again, nevertheless racially profile dark-skinned people like her. Todd bounded in astonishment, reacting again to the story just as when he first read it hours before. “Two weeks in CBP custody,” he remarked, “just because she jogged across the border and didn’t realize she was in another country.” The case of Cedella Roman is not the only one; many northern borderlands citizen residents, white or brown, have endured similar arbitrary detention stories.

The way border spaces act as a vacuum of political freedom elicits a dark, isolating feeling.

Gone, too, down the border void often are intrinsic political rights such as due process, even the longest-held tenants of modern social democracy which stretches back 1000 years to the Magna Carta. My brief detention at the port near the Sea of Galilee, Cedella Roman’s longer detention in the Washington State/British Columbia borderlands, and countless others who are held for many months, even years, seemed to culminate in Todd’s mind as a realization dimmed his facial features. “One of the things you always hear growing up in the U.S. is that you’re innocent until proven guilty. In a border situation, it almost feels like the opposite. You’re guilty until proven innocent.”

The way border spaces act as a vacuum of political freedom elicits a dark, isolating feeling. The rules are not explicit—or if they are, they’re hidden, and there’s no protective authority to intercede on your behalf. I felt it in my bones as I stood there submissively in the air-conditioned Israeli port building, my head bowed, next to the conveyor belt displaying my guilty stack of books as the border guards conferred about what to do with me. 

A Diary in Detention

Back at the Israeli port, Todd waited outside wondering how long I’d be held. But for me, what kept coursing through my mind was the similar tense encounter I had with the Jordanian secret police just days earlier. In between endless interviews and fatiguing day-trips to the Syrian border, Todd and I had taken a sightseeing walk from our hostel to the Roman Theatre, a historical landmark in downtown Amman. I sat writing in my diary on one of the giant stone steps at the base of the amphitheater. Just after I finished the line, “I miss my friends,” listing several names for whom I planned to bring some small trinkets, a shadow fell over my pages and I looked up at a group of three young men in plain-clothes pants and t-shirts, standing over me. They had me cornered, blocking every possible direction I could walk away, and demanded I show them my notebook and what I was writing.

They identified themselves as government agents. I didn’t have much cause to believe them until one of them reported with Jordanian military soldiers nearby who stood guard at the archway entrance. By then I had showed them my notebook pages while clutching deftly onto my knapsack. Not far away I saw Todd near the entryway standing helplessly, wondering what was going on. I shrugged at him quizzically.

Black holes, by their nature, cancel our assumptions and understanding about how the universe works.

Then, just as curtly as the men had approached me, they said I was free to go. I asked them, in English, why they detained me. They replied they thought I might graffiti the ancient theatre stonework, disregarding the fact that my writing utensil of choice was a blue-ink ballpoint pen. Todd greeted me outside. I told him what happened. His reply: “Let’s get out of here. Seriously.” We quickened our step and spent part of the day looking over our shoulders.

Back at the Israeli port of entry now, I remembered Todd’s words from the amphitheater. I wanted to be out of there so that Todd, who was still waiting outside trying to guess when I’d show up, could say those words to me again: “Let’s get out of here.” After a while, the Israeli border guard gave me back my books and, just as tersely as his Jordanian counterparts, sent me on my way.

Todd and I should be used to these experiences, since this sort of thing happens at U.S.-Mexico crossing points as well. But the more it happens to you—enduring nebulous security delays or mind games from laconic border guards—the more it reveals the reliable uncertainty of boundary enforcement. 

Black holes, by their nature, cancel our assumptions and understanding about how the universe works. Black holes are a place where all bets are off; where nothing, neither particles nor even light, can escape.  Like black holes, 21st century border policing has a quailing, forbidding quality from which seeking refuge is, naturally, the sensible move. They’re fundamentally undemocratic spaces that defy autonomy, self-determination, human rights, collectivization. But unlike natural black holes, border black holes are ultimately unnatural (a social construction) and, therefore, subject to change if enough people muster the political will to rethink their necessity and dismantle them.

Elisa Wouk Almino Thinks Novels Are Overrated

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 Elisa Wouk Almino, who’s teaching an online workshop about arts and culture writing in September. A literary translator, Wouk Almino often teaches for Catapult about getting started translating fiction, but for this class she’s drawing on her experience as the senior editor of Hyperallergic to help students write about books, art, music, theater, film, or dance in a way that’s compelling and motivating.


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

The freedom to write whatever I wanted to. I had been so used to assignments and being told what to write about that it was truly revelatory to participate in a workshop. I was given the space to think about what I wanted to explore in my own writing and discover what it is that matters to me. 

When something is unclear or confusing it is often a sign that you (the writer) are confused. 

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

When an instructor is visibly unenthused to be teaching and seems minimally involved in their students’ writing and progress. Students can tell! And it makes workshop less productive. 

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

Be as clear as possible. I should note that I work primarily with nonfiction writers and literary translators, though I personally think clarity is a gift across genres. Susie Linfield, who was the director of my graduate program, always pushed me to be very clear about what it is I wanted to say in my essays. She wrote questions and comments in the margins like, “What does this mean?” and “I can’t picture this.” She helped me to realize that each word in a text matters. Also, when something is unclear or confusing it is often a sign that you (the writer) are confused. 

Does everyone “have a novel in them”?

We all have stories to tell. But there are so many different ways to express them and they don’t always have to involve writing a novel or writing at all. I don’t think everyone has to tell their story through a novel. Honestly, the form can be a bit overrated! 

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

I have sometimes encouraged writers to explore different formats of writing that are better suited to their strengths. For instance, some writers are better at reporting than criticism, and vice versa. But I don’t think anyone needs to give up on writing altogether—what a sad thought! If a student has the drive to write, they should listen to that. I also very much believe that writing is a skill that can be worked on and will improve with practice. 

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

I think both are essential. You won’t take the criticism well unless there is praise in there too. 

I don’t think everyone has to tell their story through a novel. Honestly, the form can be a bit overrated!

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

I am generally against this. I remember workshopping one of my pieces and one fellow student asking me where I could publish “this kind of essay” (by “this kind” she meant an essay that didn’t seem to have any contemporary peg). She had a point. But today it is the essay I refer to the most—I’m constantly pulling out ideas and excerpting it in pieces I publish. Workshop is a space to see where your writing will go. I think it’s a better bet to figure out which publication is a good fit for your writing after you’ve explored it, rather than try to fit your writing to a publication. 

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

  • Kill your darlings: Sure, though sometimes I find it’s hard to identify your “darlings.” The sentence that draws a little too much attention to itself, that is just one thought longer than it needs to be, that has one too many adjectives—yes, cut that. But sometimes you land that sentence that feels just beautiful and right—don’t cut that. 
  • Show don’t tell: This is a good one, but as an editor and teacher of art and culture writing sometimes I think writers should tell a bit more—i.e. get to the point and say what they want to say, rather than dance around it with description. 
  • Write what you know: I increasingly think about this one. I think you can write about something you don’t know as long as you do the homework to learn about it. But as with anything you write about, I think you need have some kind of connection with your subject. 
  • Character is plot: Agreed! 

What’s the best hobby for writers?
Anything that involves slowing down and observing the world around you. 

What’s the best workshop snack?
I am a fan of libations. As for food, avoid the crunchy and smelly (unless it’s extremely delicious).

The Beginning of Our Quest for Your Mother’s Missing Body

Felipe was surprisingly quick to agree to the plan, as if his sole ambition in life had always been to recover Ingrid from the other side of the cordillera. I, on the other hand, had my misgivings. Or if not misgivings, exactly, I felt unnervingly removed from it all, as if I couldn’t even imagine the journey, as if it were a scene from a road movie that I would never play a part in. But Felipe was dead set on going, and even though I was the one who’d always dreamed of traveling, it was he who went places and my job to follow him, to find out for my mother when he’d be back. He wasn’t to go out alone. My mother had warned me as much when his Grandma Elsa died and Felipe came to live with us in Santiago. It was an old promise (and the old ones weigh twice as much as the new ones), and Felipe took advantage of it. Incapable of staying put in one place for more than   a couple of weeks, he would vanish from the apartment, forcing me to come up with all kinds of stories to cover for him: “he’s in the bathroom, Mother,” “he’s sleeping,” “he’s lost his voice.”

If I’d had a say in the matter, the three of us wouldn’t

have gone anywhere, especially not right away. Had it been up to me, I would have drawn the apartment curtains to block out the horrible symmetry of the streets, the cement-coated trees, the children already accustomed to the ash, building castles out of it. I would have told Paloma to be patient.  Her mother certainly wasn’t in a hurry. But I couldn’t persuade her to let me stay behind. “Two days at most,” she replied when I tried to convince her that I had to be in Santiago and asked her to understand (“my mother, Paloma, mine”).

Still undecided, I walked for a few more blocks before eventually resolving to go with them, to see the city from above and then come straight back. I’d ask my mother to lend me her car and we’d take the mountain road.

“Sounds simple enough,” Paloma said as we strolled through Forestal Park, Felipe whistling at the dogs who in turn were barking at a perfectly still Mapocho River. Only once we’d all agreed to the plan did Felipe come out with the real obstacle.

“And where will we put the body?” he asked, freezing on the spot.

“My mum,” Paloma corrected him with a little punch

on the arm (an unbearable caress). “My mum, Felipe. Stop referring to her as ‘the body.’”

But Felipe wouldn’t let it drop and walked right up to Paloma.

“Your mother’s dead body, Fräulein. Her body,” he said, biting the air a centimeter from her face (and a fine powder settled on their shoulders, making them look hatefully alike).

This was precisely the problem: Ingrid was dead. The image of a coffin tied to the roof of the car seemed reason enough to call the whole thing off, but within barely a couple of blocks, those two had come up with the solution.

The Hogar de Cristo funeral home was just about to close—the steel roller shutters were gliding down to the ground—when Felipe ran ahead, stuck out his foot, bent down, and banged on the door until a man dressed in black reluctantly came to attend them. He led us from a dark reception area (eight seats, a screen, a solitary weeping fig) to a room arranged in a maze of identical cubicles with office chairs and ergonomic keyboards. Felipe began talking before even taking a seat. The man listened keenly but soon lost his patience when he realized what our plan was. He pulled away in his chair, stood up, and pointed to the door. 

“Are you out of your minds?” he asked, brandishing a catalog of funeral services. “We don’t rent by the hour, sonny. Prices are per service. This isn’t a motel, and it isn’t Rent-A-Car.”

Felipe and I left the place in stitches. Paloma, on the other hand, was gnawing her nails, red with rage. I tried to calm her down, to touch her, but this only made her walk faster, storming ahead as if we might find another funeral parlor around the corner. Which is, in fact, what happened. In the middle of Avenida Vicuña Mackenna, almost unrecognizable under a blanket of ash, we found a hearse parked up waiting. (“Always prepare for the worst,” the man covering his car the night before had said.) I crossed the street, incredulous. It had to be a mirage. But Felipe was only too happy to dispel my doubts.

“Mercedes-Benz, 1979,” he said before striding toward an

old, single-story colonial house, its brickwork cracked from past earthquakes and the windows clad in dark iron bars. 

Above the doorframe, hanging on a single nail, a sign read, “Fun al O tega & Ort,” and just beneath, “Fifty ears

with you i your grief.”

The man who opened the door was young, tall, and slim, his face pockmarked by years of adolescent acne. He left us standing on the doorstep while he eyed us up. On seeing Felipe he stood up straight and held out his hand in a robotic gesture.

“I’m deeply sorry for your loss,” he said in a somber voice while nodding his head.

He was extending his sympathy to Felipe. Not to me, and not to Paloma. The aggrieved party was Felipe, who returned the man’s greeting through pursed lips, clearly fighting back the giggles. They stood there like that, as if they didn’t know how to snap out of that gesture, those mechanical condo- lences, and it occurred to me then that they were flirting, that their handshake had gone on longer than was necessary.

It was cold in the house, and as we walked in I heard a man singing along to a cumbia track in the room next door. An intense smell of fried food pervaded the hallway, making my eyes smart and forcing me to take a few steps back to get some air (onions or ash, there was no alternative). My attention turned to a living room with a tall ceiling and five coffins arranged in the middle of it. Cracked and dirty paintings of flowers hung on the walls. Felipe moved in to read the inscription beneath the image of calla lilies.

“We provide traditional wreaths, inside pieces, rose wreaths, teardrop casket sprays, and floral pillows,” he read out with a snicker. “I guess the pillows are to make the stiffs more comfortable?”

Paloma either didn’t hear or chose to ignore him. She was staring at the wood of a casket, appreciating it, stroking it with the tips of her fingers as the young man reeled off a list of characteristics from memory.

“Superior, hardy wood,” he said, rocking from side to side like a pendulum by the door. 

We were interrupted by a creaking floorboard and the appearance of Ortega Senior, taller than his son but also quite large, with a steady gaze and thick eyebrows weighing down on his eyes. He came over, dragging his slippers and meticulously drying his fat, calloused hands on a tea towel. He gave Ortega Junior a slap on the back (a pointed thump, which put a stop to the latter’s swaying) and told him that it was a matter of experience, he must watch and learn how to get it right, before adding that his son had no doubt messed it up again. I didn’t understand what he was talking about until he entered the room properly. He looked at us one by one, checking us over, then pinched his eyebrows together into a single line. 

“I’m so sorry for your loss, young man,” he said confidently. Next, and in sequence, he took Felipe’s hand firmly in his, stroked Paloma’s arm, and finally took my hand as if it were a baby bird, nestling it inside his own with heart-rending tenderness. “My condolences to you both,” he said, his eyes welling up.

We all mumbled thank you in unison.

Ortega Senior listened to Paloma without interrupting her. He nodded as she explained what had happened at the consulate, the forms, the plane diverted to Mendoza.

“I’m German,” she explained. “I’m just visiting. Help me,” she begged in a sugary voice.

Her story, told without pauses, sounded ludicrous, and I had the distinct sense that I was locked inside a dream. Ortega, however, seemed more than happy to hear her out, and he didn’t consider her cause to be hopeless. He only added, with galling solemnity, that he too would want to be buried in his patria, that anybody, all of us, would want to be buried in our patria. 

“You’ve done the right thing,” he told Paloma, and he disappeared for a moment, again dragging his slippers.

When he came back he was carrying a set of keys and a cushion under his arm.

“So you can all sit up front,” he said. “It’s bad luck to ride in the back of the General,” and he handed the cushion to Felipe, who was still spellbound by Ortega Junior. He seemed shorter and skinnier now, as if the mere presence of his father had shrunk him.

Together, father and son accompanied us to the door, and, once outside, Ortega Senior handed me the keys and looked at me doubtfully, his eyebrows hanging low over his puffy, bulbous eyes. I thanked him and sat at the wheel. Paloma took the other window seat and Felipe squeezed in between us. It was that simple: we would pay him on

our return and call if there were any problems. I wound the window down to get one last look at him and he took the opportunity to repeat, giving the hearse a couple of little dusty pats, that I should drive carefully.

“Careful with the clutch, it’s a tricky one. The General is getting on a bit now, although he hasn’t failed me yet.” (Failed, I thought, pondering that failure.)

The General was cramped inside, or at least the front compartment was, the part reserved for the living. Felipe could barely squeeze his long legs into the space between the two front seats, meaning they thumped against the gearbox no matter what position he sat in. Hanging from the rearview mirror, a toy Dalmatian and a photo of a young Ortega Junior swung to the rhythm of the vehicle, first watching then turning their backs on us. Only Paloma seemed comfortable, her legs scooped up onto those rough, threadbare seats and her eyes glued to the rearview mirror, where five, maybe ten cars had lined up in a tailback, of which we were at the front. They followed us in an orderly fashion with their headlights on.

The moment we set foot back inside my apartment, something felt wrong again. I blamed Paloma, who was adamant that it was a bad idea to tell my mother about our trip (and I counted four round halos where the mugs had been, seven cigarette butts in an ashtray, and the eight and a half blocks to cover). Paloma thought it best for us not to disclose our plans: my mother would only worry.

“She doesn’t tend to, how can I put it, take things lightly,” she said, proposing that we only tell her what we’d done afterward, once we’d come back with her (and by “her” she meant her dead mother, and by “what we’d done” she meant repatriate her, if there was such a thing as a patria to return to).

I could barely keep up with the conversation. It was only a short trip and she was sure that my mother, too, would want Ingrid to be buried in Santiago. She’d be proud of us for getting her back: it was the kind of thing she would have done (the  kind of thing that was worthwhile). It’s a good idea, I told myself, but I couldn’t shake the image of my mother cleaning the magnolia leaves, wiping each blade of grass, removing the dust now settled on the acanthus and paving stones. I pictured her shaking the trees and sweeping the floor, only to sweep it again, and once more. I pictured her dialing my number on repeat, wondering, exasperated, why I wasn’t picking up, what was taking me so long, why I’d forgotten about her. I saw her, stubborn as she was, dialing again, her breath misting up the mouthpiece, asking why I hadn’t picked up earlier, what I was up to, where I was going, why Mendoza, for how long?

“For exactly how long, Iquela? Don’t lie to me,” she would say. “What could be so urgent now when all you ever do is waste time?”

So much wasted time.


I left Santiago without leaving, or without believing that  I was really getting out. The ash was coming down even heavier as we made our way out of town and toward the foothills. Behind us, the road disappeared in a cloud of dust. Crouched on the floor to my right, Felipe was humming a vaguely familiar tune, which I soon recognized.

“The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round . . .”

He had put on his little-boy voice and was reliving the memory of being in the back seat of the car, banging my mother’s headrest euphorically (“shush now,” “seatbelt,” “calm down, Felipe”). It was always the same. First he would tell me to sit right back in my seat.

“Let’s try something, Ique, let’s play hangman,” he would whisper in his little-boy voice, so that only I could hear it. And I would shrug my little-girl shoulders, convinced that he was about to pull out a pencil and pad and that our game would entail guessing the right vowels or burning at the stake. But Felipe never wanted to play that hangman; he wanted to play the version he’d invented himself, back in Chinquihue, which is why he would pull out a pencil and a long piece of black thread from his rucksack. 

“Stretch out your fingers, Ique. But don’t move,” he’d say, splaying my short, stubby fingers.

With my hand resting steadily on his knees, palm facing upward, on each of my fingertips Felipe would painstakingly draw two black dots for eyes, a circle for a nose, and a straight line for the mouth: five mean-looking faces. Then we’d switch roles: now it would be my turn to draw figures on his fingers. I’d give them little ties and curls, and together we’d snicker, wave our hands as if saying goodbye, and tickle one another. And then came eeny, meeny, miny, moe. 

“. . . if he squeals, let him go, eeny, meeny, miny, moe!”

One of Felipe’s fingers (the selected one) would come to the front, and the other fingers would bow in solemn reverence while my hand (my five obedient soldiers) took hold of the thread, the long rope, and tied it firmly.

“Tighter, Ique, tie it tighter,” he would say (his voice revitalized, high-pitched; impossible, that voice).

And I would watch as the blood built up at the tip of his strangled finger, those drawn-on eyes bulging as the thread cut deep into the top joint, a head on the brink of bursting, and our stifled laughter, because we mustn’t make a peep, that’s what my mother would say, “Stop that racket, for heaven’s sake, there’s a special bulletin.” (The drums, the gross persistence of those drums.)

Back in the present, the cordillera was looming over us like an apparition. I said something to the others about how dark the sky was, the fields buried under a carpet of ash, the wind’s texture now visible somehow: a gray shroud over Santiago. I had to pinch myself to believe that I was really leaving. It’s a trip, it’s real, I thought, putting my foot down to the max and feeling another flutter in the pit of my stomach. Felipe was engrossed in a pile of newspapers and Paloma had taken charge of the map, as if she’d been planning to rent a funeral car and cross the cordillera ever since she was back in Germany.

“Take Route 5 northbound, then Route 57 heading for Río Blanco and Guardia Vieja.”

I followed her instructions until I noticed the incorrect names, the altered distances, the geography of a bygone city (she was directing us out of a city from another time).

We stopped for petrol a couple of kilometers before the border. The pump attendant was killing time, dozing beneath an awning with his legs stretched out and a newspaper for a hat. Felipe got out to buy something at a vending machine (one coin, two coins, he himself an automaton), and the guy leapt up and gave Felipe a peculiar kind of bow. Once again, the condolences were for him. Then the attendant came over and, giving the hearse a once-over, even peering into the rear window, he asked after the coffin (the corpse, the sarcophagus, the casket, the house). He didn’t seem particularly interested in the answer. He’d spent the whole day on his own and wanted to talk.

“It’s dull as hell, imagine. So you guys are heading up to the snow, are you? You’ve never been to the mountains? Seriously? Just go, you’ll see. It’s really something,” he said and then gazed upward, hypnotized by those ash-cloaked peaks.

The curves in the road were getting tighter and I regretted having given in to Felipe’s pleas. Now I was the one crouched on the cushion and he was behind the wheel. The photo of Ortega Junior was swinging from side to side, as was I, barely managing to keep my balance. The road was one interminable zigzag and my heart was in my mouth as Felipe took each curve without braking.

“Don’t you girls slip into a trance now,” he said as we climbed that never-ending corkscrew. 

We couldn’t laugh. With her right hand, Paloma was clutching the door handle. Her left one was resting on my shoulder, either to stop herself from toppling sideways, or to stop me from rolling around on the floor. After a dozen or so curves, she couldn’t take any more.

“Let’s stop for some air,” she said. “I feel sick.”

From the roadside, perfectly still, the valley of Santiago stretched out before us, a sunken basin between the mountain peaks with the odd light dotted around. The road we’d just come from showed not a trace of either the hearse or us; the ash was falling so heavily that it was impossible to leave tracks. Paloma was struggling to breathe and had covered her nose with one hand, holding on to my arm affectionately with the other. Or perhaps it was merely to prevent herself from collapsing. If she’d only taken a few deep breaths she might have been able to calm down. Neither Felipe nor I had any trouble breathing that thin air. He wandered off in the direction of a cave that had somehow managed to cling onto some snow, even after the heat of the preceding days. He moved swiftly through the ash, just as he used to dash along the beach when we were children, ripping his clothes off despite my mother’s cries of “No, Felipe! Put your clothes back on right this minute. The flag’s red, it’s not safe!” Felipe would strip off and run bone naked into the waves, hurling himself at the sea the only way he knew how: like a wild animal. His wasn’t a dive for swimming, but more like an attempt to drive his scrawny body into the spray,  or rather the waves: to pierce them. I pictured Felipe running—sprinting at lightning speed— across the black, pebbly sand of Chinquihue, picking his feet up off the ground as he reached the water’s edge, taking off. With his legs still in the air, his body gradually disappeared into the water, until the inevitable happened; until, from where I stood waiting (from the dry shore, from the obedient shade of the shore), I could no longer see anything but his hands, his fingers breaking the waves that in turn broke him, tossing him into a whirlpool, swallowing him up for fifteen seconds (fifteen seconds exactly, which I counted, terrified), until he emerged again shaking and spitting. He was soon back again, tumbling into the water, slicing through it until, eventually, he came out, numb, breathless and blue, his eyes sore and his teeth chattering, telling me how wonderful, how refreshing the water was.

Felipe approached the cave where the eternal snow held on, completely impervious to the ash, and from there he shouted back that there was still some left.

“Come and see! I’ve never touched snow before,” he said with his back to us.

Then he turned to face us and held out his arms, smiling. His hands were cupping a horrible gray mush, slushy droplets of which were dripping through his fingers.

I pleaded with Felipe for us to get back on the road. It was getting dark and the ash was driving me mad, sticking to my skin. I wanted to make a move before I got stuck there, buried in the stuff. Felipe glared at me, challenging me to put up with fifteen minutes of ash on my shoulders. After some time trying to persuade him I managed to get us all back into the hearse: Felipe annoyed, Paloma indifferent, and I calmer, although my sense of relief was short-lived. The road was a black horizon. Most of the streetlights had burnt out and the route to Uspallata had become impassable. We had no choice. Felipe came off the main road and, heading deep into the valley, getting lost there in the middle of the mountains, he stopped the car and turned off the lights.

Night fell for the first time.

Toni Morrison Gave My Own Story Back to Me

This piece was originally sent to subscribers of Sweater Weather, a newsletter about literature, culture, and feelings.

Last week, I went to the local indie theater to see the new Toni Morrison documentary. I was attending with a friend, but he had gone to use the restroom and so I was left in the quiet dark waiting for the trailers to begin. We had arrived early because the theater was hosting a talkback discussion following the screening, and we anticipated that there would be a bit of crowd.

I guess I should explain that this is a town of writers and readers. I came to Iowa City two years ago to study fiction at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, and while my experience in the program itself was overwhelmingly one of hostile negativity, the city has always been a really wonderful place to be a writer. Everything in this city, even the films, intersect with the reading life. Curiously, it was the same night as one of the Democratic presidential debates, so the crowd was a little attenuated. Still, I was grateful to have gotten a good seat thanks to my friend’s early arrival. I watched as familiar faces came through the door, and ducked low under the sweep of the projector even though it was only displaying a list of donors to the theater and some brightly colored announcements about local programming. People I know from the program and from around town, from the cafes I visit arrived one by one, sometimes in groups. In a curious way, that quiet, dark room in which we were all waiting was a perfect cross-section of the two years I’ve spent in Iowa. There were only about, what, maybe twenty or so people there, but with the exception of maybe five, I had seen or spoken to all of them. We weren’t strangers exactly, but we weren’t the sort of people who could, while waiting to watch the same movie about a revered writer and cultural icon, say hello.

The man to my right leaned to his right and asked his neighbor, “Do you know anything about this author?” “Oh, uhm, I think so. She like. Wrote a book, right? Blue Eyes? Or Songs of Solomon.” I gasped. The man said, “Is she still alive?” “Mmm,” the other person hummed, and then quietly, as if with a shrug, they said, “Oh, I don’t think so, right?” “Oh, I don’t know,” the man said. I wanted to turn to turn to them and said, “She is alive. She is very much alive. How do you not know anything about Toni Morrison? How? Blue Eyes. Get out of here.”

To summarize her is to miss the point entirely. It’s like trying to describe the sun by looking at it.

I think of this story today because when I woke up this morning and opened Twitter, the first thing I saw was a news article saying that Toni Morrison had died. I couldn’t believe it. I simply could not believe it. It seemed like one of those entirely made up, impossible things that sometimes appear online. It seemed like something that could never be true by virtue of its mere commonness. Dead was never a word that could ever possibly apply to Toni Morrison. I had been dreading her death for so long that I had ceased to be able to fathom it. And here, on a random, ordinary Tuesday totally torn from any kind of grounding context, I was being told, via the same platform that conjured a joke about 30–50 imaginary feral hogs just 15 hours before, that America’s greatest living novelist was no longer living.

I feel like Toni Morrison is the sort of writer about whom only the foolhardy and the brilliant dare to speak. It seems impossible to sum up not only her work but what her work has meant to us because it is impossible. She cannot be summed up. She cannot be summarized. To summarize her is to miss the point entirely. There is no superlative that can capture it. It’s like trying to describe the sun by looking at it. You can’t.

But here is one concrete way she changed my life. There was a time—when I was an undergraduate and all the years before that—when I let other people dictate the terms of my work and my life. What I mean is that I let other people’s concerns shape the concerns of my stories. When my white friends told me that I should only write real stories about real people, about straight, white people, I listened. I only wrote stories about white men and their white male feelings. And when I dared to write about queer love or queer friendship, the determining gaze was always the white, heterosexual one. That is, my characters suffered and strived for the approval of their families and friends. Every part of their lives was dictated by a set of values determined by the culture in which I was embedded. And I didn’t recognize this as a problem until I encountered the classic 1990 interview in which the following exchange between Bill Moyers and Toni Morrison unfolds:

BILL MOYERS: I don’t mean this to be a trick question, it just occurs to me, though, is it conceivable that you could write a novel in which blacks are not center stage?

TONI MORRISON: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: You think the public would let you, because the expectations are you made such a… you’ve achieved such fame and made such a contribution by writing about black people in your novel that they now expect you to write about black people.

TONI MORRISON: I will, but I won’t identify them as such. That’s the difference. […]

I think when I was younger (and in previous essays on the topic), what struck me about this exchange was Morrison’s response to the question at hand. But it was only later that I realized that she was doing what she always did best: answering the question that was not asked. As in, who was Bill Moyers to ask her this question, a question that would never be put to a white author. I think Morrison later called this a sociological question rather than a creative or artistic one. It had never occurred to me that my work could do anything other than seek to answer the sociological questions that swim uppermost to the mind of a white reader’s mind in response to my work. I had just accepted a kind of narrative of myself that was not made by me or people like me, but had been handed out like cheap, bad food in a cafeteria line.

I had just accepted a kind of narrative of myself that was not made by me or people like me.

That’s the magic of Toni Morrison. Once you read her, the world is never the same. It’s deeper, brighter, darker, more beautiful and terrible than you could ever imagine. Her work opens the world and ushers you out into it. She resurfaced the very texture and nature of my imagination and what I could conceive of as possible for writing and for art, for life.

I’ll end with my favorite line from Sula, and one of my favorite lines from all of American literature, one I think about every day: “It is sheer good fortune to miss somebody long before they leave you.”

Pick up Sula or Song of Solomon today. Spend some time in the company of real, true greatness. We were lucky to have her, to still have her, because she lives in her work, and in the world she made possible.

Sigrid Nunez’s “Mitz” Is a Story About Virginia Woolf’s Pet Monkey

In the summer of 1934, Virginia and Leonard Woolf visited their friends, the Rothschilds, for dinner in Cambridge and came home with a pet marmoset. Mitz, a sickly, kitten-sized monkey, soon became a staple of the Woolf’s household, even famously traveling with the couple to Germany where she “saved them from Hitler” by providing a distraction during a Nazi parade. 

Image result for poster
Buy the book

Mitz: The Marmoset of Bloomsbury has been called a biography of the Woolfs’ unusual pet but, as ever, Sigrid Nunez’s work defies attempts at a simple synopsis. In the author’s witty and fiercely intelligent hands, this novella weaves together fiction and excerpts of actual memoirs, diaries, and letters to become a retelling of Virginia’s last years, a philosophical exploration of the relationship between humans and animals, and a portrait of the greater Bloomsbury set whose members, like Vanessa Bell and Vita Sackville-West, saw their worldview paling against the rise of fascism in Europe.

I spoke with Nunez over email about researching for “non-fiction fiction,” her interest in animals, and the way that Mitz—just issued in a third edition by Soft Skull Press—has, like its namesake, found an unsettling relevance in current affairs.


Carrie Mullins: Mitz is such an interesting, weird, and wonderful piece of Woolf history. It strikes me as one of those stories that, as a writer, you might hear and think, I should do something with this, though most of these inevitably get set aside. What made you pursue the project?

Mitz is a story in which a pet is an important character but is also about a famous literary couple and a portrait of their world.

Sigrid Nunez: Many years ago a children’s book editor got in touch to ask if I had any interest in writing a children’s book, and I thought it might be fun to write about the Woolfs’ pet monkey. So I wrote three little chapters, which the editor didn’t like. “You can’t write a children’s book that doesn’t have a child in it,” she said. Which of course isn’t true, but that was that. Sometime later the editor of my first two novels heard about this abandoned project of mine and asked if I’d consider writing Mitz’s story as a novel for adults. I had read Flush, Woolf’s mock biography of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s cocker spaniel, and I decided to try something similar: a story in which a pet is an important character but which is also about a certain famous literary couple and a portrait of their world.

CM: As you tell the story of Mitz’s life with the Woolfs, you weave in pieces of actual memoirs and diaries. Choosing these texts must have been no mean task given how much is written by and about the Bloomsbury group. How do approach research for a project like this? I’m also curious about your relationship to the research once you have it. As Hilary Mantel said, “There’s historical time—the fixed chronology—and then there’s novel time—the way the chronology is handled,” so though Mitz is loosely structured by the animal’s lifetime, you’ve had to make choices about what to focus on.

SN: In fact, it was all pretty straightforward. Before I even began writing Mitz I had already read Virginia Woolf’s diaries and letters and Leonard Woolf’s autobiography as well as several biographies of Woolf and other books about Bloomsbury. So I was very familiar with the group and their world, and I knew where all the references to Mitz were to be found. I went back and looked more closely at the relevant material and constructed a mostly chronological narrative that covered the four years that Mitz was a part of the Woolfs’ household. Of course I had to invent many parts of the story, but on the whole there is more nonfiction than fiction in Mitz.

CM: In many ways Mitz is a simulacrum of Virginia: their shared love and dependence on Leonard, their anxiety, their aversion to being dressed up and put on display, whether in a shop window or as the head of a literary society. We often think of dogs resembling their owners, but in this case, it’s a monkey. Can you talk a little about this connection?

SN: I wouldn’t want to carry a comparison between a literary genius and her pet monkey too far, but in the book I do imagine Virginia joking about how much she and Mitz have in common. They both have nervous dispositions and delicate health, both are extremely curious, and both are in love with Leonard. Also, as I say, they share a mischievous side, and they both have claws. But this thing about dogs resembling their owners is, according to my own observations, largely a myth. I don’t know why it is so often stated.

CM: Your most recent novel, The Friend, is about a woman who is asked to care for her friend’s dog after he dies, though she soon finds herself caring about him as well. In Mitz, the Woolfs say they don’t want to be the kind of people who get sentimental about their pets, but they clearly have loving relationships with Pinka, Sally, and Mitz that includes the occasional anthropomorphizing. Both novels explore the relationship between humans and animals and, by extension, the question of how much animals know and feel. What interests you about this relationship?

We too are facing the rise of far-right regimes around the world and the threat of human suffering on a scale such as has not been seen before.

SN: Everything. Animals are a great mystery to human beings. We know they have feelings and we have ways of interpreting certain signs and behaviors of theirs, but because they don’t have language we really don’t know what goes on inside their heads. I have always loved animals and been fascinated by them. I believe that companionship with animals is something that greatly enhances a person’s life, and I think many, many people would agree with me. And a person can have a profoundly loving relationship with an animal without being at all sentimental about it. But about the anthropomorphizing in Mitz, that of course is my doing, not theirs.

CM: Mitz is in conversation with Flush, Virginia Woolf’s biography of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s cocker spaniel. Sometimes you overtly nod at Woolf’s book—was Mitz a snob?—and at others there is simply a beautiful, Woolf-like description of nature or cadence to the sentences. How much did you want to directly interact with Woolf on the page?

SN: I didn’t really think of myself as interacting with Woolf, even though I owe a large debt to Flush as model and inspiration. But because Mitz is a historical novel, it was important that the era I was writing about be reflected in the book’s style. And of course I was reading a lot of Woolf at the time, so inevitably something of the rhythm of her prose got into my own.

CM: Mitz was originally published in 1998, but reading it now, I find it feels incredibly timely. The shadows falling over Bloomsbury in the 1930s are familiar, especially the feeling that we are being swept towards violence by men’s hubris. Did our current cultural climate influence your decision to reprint the book? Has your own reading of the work changed?

SN: Current events didn’t play any role in the decision, but with The Friend getting so much attention it seemed like a good moment to bring out a new edition of Mitz. I’ve found that readers who liked The Friend also seem to like Mitz. As for my own reading of the book, I can’t point to anything in particular that’s changed. I agree that the dismay experienced by the characters in Mitz feels disturbingly familiar. We too are facing the rise of far-right regimes around the world and the threat of human suffering on a scale such as has not been seen before.

How to Understand the Great Haunted Houses of Literature

As award-winning horror writer Stephen Graham Jones writes, there are two types of haunted houses in fiction: Stay Away Houses and Hungry Houses. That is to say, houses that don’t want visitors or occupants and houses that very much do. In either case, the best haunted houses are not merely locales for the supernatural to occur—they themselves are characters, subtly animate, with their own fears and desires.

The Hotel Neversink
Buy the book

The titular house in my new novel The Hotel Neversink is something of a hybrid, a Stay Away/Hungry. Loosely based on the real Winchester House in San Jose, California, in my novel the Neversink is conceived and constructed by an eccentric turn-of-the-century tycoon, George Foley, who wants a vast space to house his huge imagined future family. Despite that family never materializing, he continues building until his death, and the rambling mansion becomes locally famous as “Foley’s Folly.” In this sense, the mansion is a Stay Away House. It never wanted to be filled, and the terms of its haunting are set when the building is repurposed as the Hotel Neversink and filled with unwelcome visitors.

But it is also a Hungry House. As it grows in fame as the preeminent Catskills resort, families bring children prone to disappearing within its depths. A labyrinth of hallways and secret passages, the hotel is irresistible to curious kids, partly due to their having read some of the same ghost stories that provided its inspiration in real life. Here then, are some of its predecessors, notable haunted houses, taxonomized as Hungry or Stay Away:

The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson

Hill House: The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson

Hill House is the modern horror genre’s original Hungry House. When a paranormal researcher invites a group of people with supernatural experiences come to Hill House, it quickly becomes evident that the house is indeed haunted and bent on possessing Eleanor, an unstable young woman. The intertwining of deteriorating character psychology with place in The Haunting of Hill House is masterful and iconic.    

The Shining by Stephen King

The Overlook: The Shining by Stephen King

Building on Jackson’s model, King’s Overlook is the Hungry House par excellence. Jack Torrance and his family are lured there by economic need, but the hotel does the rest, driving him insane and eventually killing him. The hotel’s controlling hunger is relatively muted in the film, changing the book’s ending in which the Overlook causes Jack to destroy his own face, battering himself into servile unrecognizability.

Image result for amityville horror jay anson

The DeFeo House: The Amityville Horror by Jay Anson

Allegedly based on a true story, The Amityville Horror is perhaps the archetypal Stay Away house. The Lutz family buys a large Dutch Colonial in the Long Island town of Amityville for a song, after the previous tenants, the DeFeos, were murdered by son Ronald DeFeo. The Lutzes think they’re getting a bargain, but they don’t bargain for the supernatural hostility they’re about to encounter. It turns out the house has the good sense they lack, as voices from beyond entreat them during a blessing to “Get out!”

Image result for burnt offerings book

Allardyce House: Burnt Offerings by Robert Marasco

Burnt Offerings features a foreword from Stephen Graham Jones and is frequently cited as an influence on Stephen King’s The Shining. The Rolfes, a young Brooklyn couple, jump at the chance to escape the miserable city summer, when they find a country home to rent for a measly nine hundred bucks. The only catch: they have to prepare meals for the elderly Mrs. Allardyce, and also that the house itself is very hungry. 

We Have Always Lived in the Castle by Shirley Jackson

Blackwood House: We Have Always Lived in the Castle by Shirley Jackson

Another entry from the estimable Ms. Jackson. The Blackwoods’ house, while not strictly a haunted house in the traditional sense, is the site of a great family tragedy that has resulted in the ostracization of the remaining Blackwoods—Merricat, Constance, and Julian—from the village. The power of trauma, social disapprobation, and secrets comingle to create a de facto Hungry House, the titular castle that the girls cannot—and do not want to—escape, and that seems will keep them forever in the end. 

The Turn of the Screw and Other Ghost Stories by Henry James

Bly House: The Turn of the Screw by Henry James

When a governess takes a job at an English country manor, she finds herself in a house with a dark history, and two charges, Miles and Flora, who may secretly be communing with ghosts. This one is a Stay Away House—a job the governess should never have taken at a place she should have left the second she saw that strange figure atop the house’s tower. 

Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte

Wuthering Heights: Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte

This is perhaps an odd entry, but Wuthering Heights occupies dual status as a literary and gothic classic, and its titular manor is both figuratively and literally haunted by the intensity of Heathcliff and Catherine’s doomed love. Though its appetite might be borrowed from Heathcliff, Wuthering Heights is hungry, drawing Catherine’s daughter Cathy over and over until in a ghoulish echo of the past, she is forcibly wed to Heathcliff’s son, Linton.   

Image result for patrick melrose book series

Saint-Nazaire: The Patrick Melrose Novels by Edward St. Aubyn

Saint-Nazaire is another composite Stay Away/Hungry. In the first book, Never Mind, which takes place in the late 1960s, the Melrose family’s French chateau, animated by the evil of David Melrose, is a Stay Away house of horrors, the locus of both child abuse and the world’s worst dinner party. Thirty years later, Saint-Nazaire has become a kind of Hungry House—representing both a lost innocence and a lost inheritance—that the grown Patrick Melrose finds almost impossible to escape.

Jia Tolentino’s “Trick Mirror” Unspools the Chaos of the Internet

Jia Tolentino’s essays are that rare thing: they maintain the clarity of critical distance while discussing the world in which the writer is immersed. The pieces in her new collection, Trick Mirror: Reflections on Self-Delusion, were written during a period when, as she says in the introduction, “American identity, culture, technology, politics, and discourse seemed to coalesce into an unbearable supernova of perpetually escalating conflict.”

Trick Mirror by Jia Tolentino
Buy the book

The essays place the disciples of Lululemon in the same frame as heroines from Greek mythology. They consider the internet’s refraction of selfhood: the self as “the last natural resource of capitalism,” as something to be weaponized, as a state of constant performance. They retrace the falsified Rolling Stone story of a rape at UVA, Tolentino’s alma mater, and they revisit the author’s stint on a reality TV show as a teenager. They talk about drugs and religion and music and scamming. In short, they take the chaotic blaze that is the current era and disperse it into something illuminating. 

Trick Mirror is Tolentino’s first book, but many will know her work from The Hairpin, where she got her start while still pursuing an MFA, or from Jezebel, or from the New Yorker, where she is a staff writer. All of these essays are new, though, and the writing is the kind to which you will look, and look again. On a WiFi call across an ocean and a five-hour time difference, Tolentino and I spoke about what the internet has done to writing, to identity, and to feminism.


Lucie Shelly: Before we dig into individual essays, I thought we could talk about the collection as a whole. To me, it read concentric. I felt it started with this heartbeat essay, “The I in Internet.” That brought so many of the major themes: selfhood, self-delusion versus self-actualization, and feminism—all framed by the internet era. The other essays and ideas seemed to ripple out from there. How did you conceive the arrangement?

Jia Tolentino: I tried two different arrangements. There were certain considerations, like I didn’t want all of the essays that were about women to be together. I didn’t want all the essays that are like here are all the different ways that all of these things are horrible and unbearable—the internet essay, the scams one, and the one about the UVA rape story, for instance—I didn’t want those to be too close together. It started to make sense to put the internet essay first because it introduces the central contradiction that I thought would carry through the book. The internet is the one idea that would be relevant to basically anyone reading the book. I think that the internet has become the governing structure through which you come to know yourself, but that also dilutes what you know about yourself. 

LS: That makes sense. After that first piece, I started noticing so much language around identification, reflection, self-delusion. In the introduction, you announce this triangulated function of writing: for you, it’s a way to shed your self-delusions, it’s a, well, I’m going to use the word “compulsion”—

JT: I’d use the word compulsion.

LS: Okay, so there’s this idea that writing brings you away from your self-delusions, that there’s a compulsive need to get away from them. The internet is a fertile place for self-delusions, though. How do you reconcile writing to define yourself, and writing for the internet? 

Men get to live on a plane of human existence and women are confined to live in this domestic world.

JT: Well, I think that there are two different ways of defining yourself—the two ways that come up in the book. The first one I talk about in the internet essay, about how the internet magnifies opposition and encourages you to define yourself and engage with a sort of designated opposition in an unhealthy way. The sort of thing we see with Bari Weiss: everyone was dunking on her on Twitter and that is making her career—the same way that me writing about her is doing the same thing. Right?

LS: Right. But I wonder how that refracts through an idea you bring up in “Pure Heroines”: entrustment. In that essay, you explain that entrustment is a principle, or rather, a mental framework of principles of the Milan Women’s Bookstore Collective. Reading from your text, the women “recognized that the differences between their stories were central to their identities, and in doing this, they also created these identities and affirmed this difference as strength.”

JT: So I think that that’s a way of defining yourself against something or someone in a way that strengthens those things. The Milan Women’s Bookstore Collective, their framework of entrustment—it’s not defining yourself through opposition, it’s defining yourself through difference. Opposition hardly enters into it. That’s the crucial difference. I quote from a meeting where someone says, “We’re not all equal here.” That scene, in a way, is the beginning of whatever freedom anyone is able to obtain. It’s complicated, but it’s very important to me. I knew as soon as I read that book of theirs. I was like, “This is the framework I’ve been waiting for my whole life.” Something that always, always for them leads towards freedom and self-definition.

LS: I’m so glad you mentioned freedom. I’m Irish but I was born in the U.S. and lived there a long time. I find that with identity, the American mentality finds it very difficult to acknowledge difference without making it a problem.

JT: Right. It’s this language of performative tolerance rather than an idea that tolerance should be a precondition. 

LS: Exactly, so it was such a relief when I was reading your piece on this—that difference was a freedom to these women.

Once you’re at a certain privilege level, it’s a luxury to be off the internet. The real thing is to be able to be off the internet with no adverse consequences.

JT: Yeah it’s tricky because there are plenty of cases in which your difference from someone has already been framed as a problem. I think it makes sense that identity politics in America are like this. America’s entire national identity is structured around the narrative in which we welcome difference—and the reality in which we often punish deviation from the rich white American. There are so many people for whom their difference has been made a real structural problem, but I also think that there’s a way in which—as I talked about it in the internet essay—there’s a way in which acknowledging difference has become the endpoint, rather than the beginning. And there’s a way in which there are more freedoms available to us that enter the discourse.

LS: To move direction a little, I feel like in the internet era, the contemporary essay often descends into navel-gazing even though we have so much access to so much more, if that makes sense. The self exploration that happens is entirely inward looking. Your essays, to me, did a lot of self exploration, but remained outward looking. They had such a scope of history, of literature, of feminist movements. You talk about blogging in its earliest days, and you began your career at The Hairpin and Jezebel, two venerated homes for essays on the internet. I’m curious about your thoughts on the essay in this day and age, specifically the feminist essay. 

JT: I think that, in general, the climate for writing is not great. From the purely economic standpoint, the constraints are severe and so publications have a hard time breaking even and making money. Conditions are not conducive to the type of writing that people want to do or the type of writing that people want to read. When I started writing, there were a lot of places that a person who had never written anything before could try something and it would get edited pretty well and it would get read by a decent amount of people and I don’t think that there are a lot of places like that anymore.

LS: Yeah, there aren’t many. (This very website is a rare gem!) And if they do exist, survival is tricky.

JT: Before, in the days of like xoJane, you would feel like there was this glut of essay writing, especially personal essay writing—especially personal essay writing by women. But it’s not like that anymore and I think that’s kind of a pity. I wrote a piece a while back called “The Personal Essay Boom Is Over” and it got interpreted as me saying the personal essay itself is over. I was like, No. I started out writing personal essays. I still write them. I edited them nonstop for four years. I love them. But there are ways in which economic incentives complicate things. Like the fact that publications were mostly publishing women who would get paid $150 to write something really personal. That wasn’t great, but it was a system that I partook in and that I love and now there’s a lot less of it and it’s kind of sad. What I always say about essay writing on the internet is that the biggest trap is when people start and finish an essay on the same thought. That’s a thing that a writer should try to avoid. The whole point of an essay is to push yourself a little bit further than where you were when you started.

LS: I’m sure you’re doing a lot of talking about your very personal essays at the moment. Do you think that that will have an effect on how you approach your writing going forward?

JT: I don’t think so. This book is new and people who read it will know a lot about me is in here. But I have always written like this—it’s the way my personality is. The fact of being an open book is just a fact of how I live in general, so writing like that is a pre-existing tendency. That being said, that Houston essay is incredibly personal and incredibly intimate and at the same time, there is so much about that time and there’s still a lot that’s hidden. You could write really intensely about five percent of your life and it will create the illusion that you have shown 100 percent of it, but actually there’s still a lot that’s hidden and I’m conscious of trying to take advantage of that. If I’m going to write about something in my life, I’m really going to get into it. But there’s a lot that’s off-limits and always will be. Or maybe not a lot, but there are things that are never going to show up in my writing.

LS: I’m thinking of that reference you make to Rebecca Solnit about her response to the question of how to be a good woman. She says it’s not so much about how to be a good woman, but how we deal with that question, how we refuse to answer it. I wonder if there is something to be gleaned from that for writers. Like you have to be a good gatekeeper of yourself if you want to be a good essay writer. Otherwise, it can lead to over-exposure or preachy writing. You let yourself be subsumed by your reader.

Self-presentation is not limited to the internet. We’re doing it anytime we enact any form in real life.

JT: Right. And related to the question of essay writing on the internet is just how to be on the internet in general. “Being on the internet” implies a huge waste of time. It sort of asks people to constantly be operating on a framework of “Am I good or am I bad?” and “How good am I?” and “How bad am I?”  That’s a question that you can sometimes feel people answering in their writing, but where it’s like, you don’t have to—nobody cares. I don’t need you to be good. I don’t need you to be bad. This shows up in criticism too. People are like, “Okay, just tell me is this thing good or is this bad?” That’s rarely the most interesting question and that is not a question I allow as a first principle. 

LS: Right, right. I happened to be reading your collection in tandem with this book by Marguerite Duras, The Lover, and in the context of your work, this line jumped out at me: “When you’re being looked at, you can’t look. To look is to feel curious, to be interested, to lower yourself. No one you look at is worth it. Looking is always demeaning.” And I don’t really know how I feel about that, but on the internet, we’re so conscious of being looked at, of the need to self-curate, but it’s so easy to forget that everyone is curating themselves as heavily. 

JT: I never forget that. People are always saying, “You gotta remember that Instagram’s not real life.” Like, obviously not. Are you kidding me? That’s never been a struggle that I’ve had, needing to remember that the internet’s not real life. It’s always been quite clear to me. At the same time, I think that I’m almost exactly the same online as I am in real life. The reason the internet is so interesting is because you can watch people. You get to watch people in this much narrower purview than in real life where it’s three-dimensional. Self-presentation is not limited to the internet. We’re doing it anytime we enact any form in real life, anytime. But on the internet, you watch people do it in these really prescribed spaces and it’s interesting. You get to watch people diluting themselves in real-time. It’s kind of amazing. 

LS: I’m thinking now of your essay “Reality TV Me” about being on a reality TV show—that great line you have that when everything is framed as performance, it’s impossible to perform. 

JT: Yea, yea, yea. So that’s why I like the internet—because it’s so artificial that it’s actually easier to be yourself. Like being on reality TV. I was always worried in real life in high school thinking, “Oh, why am I acting different around her than I am around him?” Then I grasped that the self is a product of the circumstances we put it in. I reference what Erving Goffman says in the internet essay—the self is an effect that comes off, it’s not this essential, fixed thing. I think that the internet is a structure that shows that over and over and over. 

LS: In that same essay, you mention that your partner is one of these people that makes a real effort to exist outside of the scaffolding of the internet, thinking about #TBT as something completely wrong. 

JT: Truth be told! It was so funny. He’s like an 80-year-old man, it’s incredible. 

LS: So we know that we live within the system. As you write, we have these platforms that are difficult to regulate even if we try not to live on them, but what is the price of really not participating in that world? Is there a price that he feels, perhaps?

You could write really intensely about 5% of your life and it will create the illusion that you have shown 100%, but actually there’s still a lot that’s hidden.

JT: Oh, not at all. He doesn’t feel a price at all. I do think that, obviously, participation in the internet depends on who you are. For example, if he were in the gig economy, which he’s not, he would need to participate in the internet. He might need to maintain an Instagram profile to show potential employers that he’s normal, or he might need to be constantly available via some internet platform, no matter what that is. There are a lot of people who do pay a price for not being comfortable with technology. The internet is the primary thing that connects to financial stability, or to the possibility of employment.

I think we’re going to see this great wave of digital detox as wellness. The real privilege will be to turn off your phone for a week. I don’t think the people who do that pay any price. Once you’re at a certain privilege level, it’s a luxury to be off the internet. The real thing is to be able to be off the internet with no adverse consequences. He’s still on his phone, he still has to be on his phone for work, but I think it’s working out great for him. 

LS: It will definitely become a luxury to be off the internet. Brian Appleyard had a piece recently about how most of the bigwigs in Silicon Valley send their kids to these device-free schools. 

JT: Exactly! The people who invented these devices—it’s sort of how like Juuling is banned in San Francisco where the company’s based.

LS: Can you describe how you start, how you move from idea to page? How do you know when something is finished?

JT: I research things for as long as I can get away with, and then I start when there are no more good excuses to not start. It helps to remember that the first sentence you write, the first paragraph, probably the first day’s worth of writing at a bare minimum (at least on an essay of the sort of length I was doing for the book) will almost always be discarded—it’s just there to get you closer to what will actually stick, and you can’t get there any other way. And I think I know something is finished when I’m no longer uncovering anything new at all. 

LS: Maybe I’m reaching here, but in “Pure Heroines,” your essay about portrayals of female protagonists in literature, you reference De Beauvoir’s comparison of transcendence and immanence. In literature, the female protagonist is portrayed as “the long-suffering, selfless, socially embedded heroine, being moved in many directions.” Male protagonists are portrayed as “autonomous, ego-enhancing hero[s] single-handedly and single-heartedly progressing towards a goal.” I think the same could be said of women and men in relation to the internet, or certainly new media. It seems like the imminent way of living is to live within the systems of the internet.

JT: Yea, maybe. Men get to live on a plane of human existence and women are confined to live in this domestic world.

How Women Writers Are Reinventing Freud

A college professor of mine put it bluntly: “Marx lost, Freud won” in the implicit race to be the 20th century’s seminal influencer of cultural thought. In particular, texts like Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, The Interpretation of Dreams, “Mourning and Melancholia,” and “Beyond the Pleasure Principle” have inspired countless authors and scholars of literature, spawning an entire field of literary theory. This symbiotic relationship between psychoanalysis and literature is echoed in Freud’s own narrative style. He once observed of his career, “Like other neuropathologists, I was trained to employ local diagnoses and electro-prognosis, and it still strikes me as strange that the case histories I write should read like short stories and that, as one might say, they lack the serious stamp of science.” With these case histories, full of twist endings and inappropriate touching, he pioneered a new literary subgenre, guilty of as much self-delusion, fabulism, and autoeroticism as any patient’s monologue.

Every author can be given a psychoanalytic reading, but for decades, famous writers from all corners of the globe have acknowledged an affinity for and debt to Sigmund Freud. But today, a number of female authors are refracting Freudian concepts and power dynamics through their own work in a way that feels new. Contemporary writers like Lidia Yuknavitch, Carmen Maria Machado, Olga Tokarczuk, Siri Hustvedt, Leslie Jamison, and Esmè Weijun Wang have cheered me more than a dose of Cymbalta. These authors have embraced or rejected Freudian hijinks, sometimes doing both within the same book. In their novels, short stories, and memoirs, I divine a rupturing of the male-dominated culture that has persisted since the early days of psychoanalysis, when women’s stories were swapped among male doctors like trading cards and shared at public conferences, where the audience received them with laughter, titillation, or jeers.  

Female authors are refracting Freudian concepts and power dynamics through their own work in a way that feels new.

I root them on in part because I dreamed of wrangling power from my own psychiatrists for years. Involuntarily committed several times as a child for anorexia and suicide attempts, I was subjected to clumsy cognitive behavioral techniques in the benighted 1980s, as were my fellow inmates. (One of my roommates was hospitalized for “gender confusion”; I almost don’t want to know what the doctors thought they meant by that diagnosis thirty years ago.) In one psych ward, the psychiatrist who led my treatment team ordered me, like he did all of his patients, to put my life story on paper, and then scolded me in group therapy because I only turned in two pages. Never mind that I was eleven years old. At that tender age, I was already being shown that my words while committed were performances for and the property of others. Just as it was during Freud’s era, psychiatric treatment is still a process of narrative appropriation. In that context, I would have given anything to stash books by these women under my regulation pillow.  

The one I would have cherished most would have been Dora: A Headcase by Lidia Yuknavitch. It was high time someone turned the tables on the troubling gender dynamics of Freud’s case histories, and no one was more suited to the job than glorious disruptor Yuknavitch. There’s no way around it: Some of Herr Doktor’s behavior toward female patients was downright icky. He routinely stroked and hypnotized ladies like Dora, Frau Emma, and Fraulein Elisabeth as he tried to decode their stories. In Dora, Yuknavitch retells the story of Freud’s most famous analysand from the young woman’s point of view. That point of view is raunchy, honest, and pained. As the protagonist Ida/Dora puts it, “Seventeen is no place to be. You want to get out, you want to shake off a self like old dead skin . . .I’m not sick. I. Just. Need. Out.” Yuknavitch’s women are never passive, never patient—even when they are patients.

Ida appropriates Freudian discourse for her own ends in sessions with “Siggy” at the same time that Yuknavitch updates her character’s language to the present. After relaying a dream, Ida observes, 

He thinks it’s remarkable. He rubs his hands together. He’s way into it. God. I can see him revving up his interpretation jazzy jizz. And yep, just like I think he will, he goes straight for the jewel case. And just like I knew he would, he says it’s a vag.

But Ida isn’t solely a teenage cynic. She’s an artist, secretly recording Siggy for an experimental film. The intersection of art, violence, and radical healing is a preoccupation of Yuknavitch’s work, and in this novel, the tropes of psychoanalysis serve to underscore it. In a scene in Dora, Ida and her friends spy on Siggy’s engorged penis in an ER, and one character remarks that the view through the camera “looks like we’re looking through a vag.” For Yuknavitch, a cigar, or any phallic object, isn’t just a cigar, nor is a jewel case just a vagina. They’re all catalysts for art, and art offers more potential for healing than any talking cure.

No less interested in carnal pleasures, Carmen Maria Machado doesn’t explicitly mention Freud in her short story collection, Her Body and Other Parties, but the book could be read as a reinterpretation of the female id and uncanny. In the bravura story, “The Husband Stitch,” which opens the collection and previews its concerns and consternations, desire itself is uncanny, that thing both familiar and utterly taboo, and dangerous enough to get a woman locked up. The narrator confesses, 

I once heard a story about a girl who requested something so vile from her paramour that he told her family and they hauled her off to a sanatorium. I don’t know what deviant pleasure she asked for, though I desperately wish I did. What magical thing could you want so badly they take you away from the known world for wanting it?

The danger, the wording suggests, lies not just in what the woman wanted but how much she wanted it. But Machado’s characters, while walking the tightrope that divides surrender from violation, aren’t drawn to analysis or other forms of self-help. Instead, they want the world to expand to encompass their id. What they too often find, though, is that the world is filled with millions of ids in the form of sexual predators and other aggressions.

Flights by Olga Tokarczuk

Some contemporary female authors bring Freud into their own work in a more experimental, playful way. One of the most intriguing is Olga Tokarczuk, the sui generis Polish writer, who reinterprets Freud’s theories as narrative possibilities. Tokarczuk has said in interviews that reading “Beyond the Pleasure Principle” was for her “the first step to becoming a writer.” In her hybrid book Flights, whose English translation was published last year to much-deserved acclaim, the opaqueness of Freud’s most challenging text is reborn as a chorus of dream voices, with each disparate story reifying both the human and the narrative subconscious. Characters disappear and materialize, go mad, and lose parts of themselves figuratively and literally, just as we do in our dreams. 

The men and women in Flights are haunted by the past and cycle compulsively through the present, similar to both Freud’s idea of repetition compulsion in “Beyond the Pleasure Principle” and how he described the unproductive response of melancholia to loss in his 1917 essay, “Mourning and Melancholia.” One character, a wife and mother named Annushka, runs away from home to ride the subway on endless loops through Moscow, perhaps in the hope of epiphany or release: 

She shuts her eyes. When she opens them again the world has skipped from place to place. Right at dusk, revisiting the same place once again, she sees just for a moment, just for a few instants, the low sun break through from behind the white-blooming clouds to illuminate the apartment buildings with a red glow, but just their tips, the highest floors, and it looks like giant torches being set alight.

If those two essays of Freud’s were reinterpreted as a ballet, the cast of Flights, fleet creatures of obsessions, repetition, and pleasure, would dance right through it. The Polish title of the book, Bieguni, evokes travel by foot, and specifically, that of a peripatetic Russian mystical sect. But the English title gives us a hint about Freud’s impact on the author; for Tokarczuk, his words are not constraint, but dizzying flight.

Finally, while Freud may not be a wellspring for the stream of powerful memoirs about mental illness, addiction, and neurological disorders published in the past decade or so, he is undoubtedly an influence on them in some ways. Siri Hustvedt is one such memoirist and novelist who is thoughtful when it comes to his work. She takes from him what she needs and discards what she doesn’t. Since her doctoral dissertation on Charles Dickens, Hustvedt has incorporated Freud’s ideas into both her fiction and nonfiction. Trauma and the unconscious are key players, and the main character of her novel, The Sorrows of an American, is a psychiatrist. In The Shaking Woman or A History of My Nerves, Hustvedt analyzes her own seizure disorder. Midway through the memoir, she comments on Freud’s description of the psychic wound implicit to melancholia in “Mourning and Melancholia”:

Reading the essay again made me say to myself, Yes, there is something here. And yet I don’t suffer from the feelings of worthlessness Freud attributes to melancholics who berate themselves fiercely and seem utterly joyless. I am not depressed. There is, however, in my mourning a blur of betweenness or a partial possession by a beloved other that is ambivalent, complex, and heavily weighted with emotions I can’t really articulate.

One of the things I enjoy about her work is this equitable assessment of psychoanalytic touchstones. Writers like Hustvedt remind us that Freud had some truly groundbreaking ideas, including the one I believe to be his most insightful: that our inner lives are narratives, and those narratives can either help or hurt us.

Image result for shaking woman or a history of my nerves

However, female memoirists are also helping to push the field of psychiatry, and especially our culture’s understanding of it, beyond what Freud could have imagined in his times. For example, Leslie Jamison’s The Recovering: Intoxication and Its Aftermath and Esmé Weijun Wang’s The Collected Schizophrenias might have shocked him with their fresh insights. In these memoirs, Jamison and Wang do not shrink from chronicling their own experiences with alcoholism and schizoaffective disorder, respectively, nor from critiquing gender bias, racism in treatment of drug addiction, and other constructs that Freud had never considered. Yet one could argue that there might be no mental illness memoirs nor even A.A. meetings without Freud’s talking cure and the resultant normalization of speaking publicly about psychological trauma.  

In the final analysis, Freud was perhaps less a doctor than an influencer.

In fact, I wonder if today’s cultural moment would exist in its most brazen form without him. In the final analysis, Freud was perhaps less a doctor than an influencer. He grandfathered a culture of sharing our most private thoughts and deepest desires with strangers that underpins social media today. Were he alive in 2019, he’d likely make the most of it to spread his theories, cigar in mouth, and connect with like-minded souls. At the same time, he would possibly be taken aback by the ingenuity and wisdom with which Yuknavitch, Machado, Tokarczuk, Hustvedt, Jamison, and Wang have responded to his framework and seized their own cures. We’re entering a new era in which women make art out of both their diagnoses and their healing. 

As much as they are demonstrations of the power imbalance of Freudian psychoanalysis, these diverse projects are also proof of authoring’s strange alchemy. That is, when you tell your story to a psychiatrist, he often claims it as his. But when you share your story with the world, it becomes all the more yours.