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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KW: What did revision look like?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Ex’s Autofiction Has Me Bouncing Off the Walls

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

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

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

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

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

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

“From the world?” I asked.

“Only from you,” she said.

“Is it bad?”

“I don’t like it,” she said.

“You don’t like the book?”

“I don’t like your portrayal.”

“How am I?”

“Smug,” she said. “Insecure.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I’m sorry,” I said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Only in our hearts,” he said.

“Your name is Bruce.”

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

“You do.”

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

“It’s unstated.”

“I like being bald.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

I said, “Intermittent, I think.”

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

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

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

I have never been pregnant.

I do not like children.

I am surrounded by family.

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

I have an oral fixation.

I dislike most people.

I am tired of men.

I am fascinated by the simplicity of erect penises.

I am haunted by my childhood.

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

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

The tense of routine, I write.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She texts back immediately, Boarding school strains credulity.

I write, grad school then.

She writes, You had money in grad school?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jane writes, you’re a bohemian!

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

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

I write, Can anyone with any kind of person?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She said, “Yeah, but basically.”

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

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

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

“I’m sorry for everything,” he said.

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

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

“I’m busy,” I said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I have to go,” I said. “I’m sorry.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Mad at you?” I asked.

“Yeah, how mad at me are you?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I sputter, and wine escapes my nose.

Bruce says, “What are you talking about?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is hard not to consider Theo.

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

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

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

My mother says, “Speak it, Othello.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say, “Is that weird?”

He says, “It isn’t Halloween.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“What’s that from?” I ask.

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

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

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

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

He says, “The neighbor’s.”

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

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

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

Bruce says, “Must be your boyfriend.”

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

I write, What kind of question is that?

She writes, Yr face looks sad.

I write, YOU CAN SEE ME?

Our blinds are pulled; our lights are off.

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

I write, Not sad, just high!

She writes, Fun!

Then she writes, Cocktails soon?

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

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

“Who are you?” he asks.

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

“Who are you?” he asks again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who am I?

I am a reluctant stepmother.

I am a selfish sister.

I am a very private person.

I am addicted to transparency.

I am frightened by infants.

I live the majority of my life in my head.

I want to confess.

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

Lee Mandelo Is Creating Queer Futurity Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NZ: What’s next for you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI Can’t Gaslight Me if I Write by Hand

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

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

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

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

That’s a lot of forgetting.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Wayne Scott and Matthew Nienow are Cultivating a “Safer” Masculinity

What is the story boys and men are told about how to be fathers and husbands, and how does it change when they’ve made big human mistakes? How, in the aftermath of crises—whether it’s addiction, depression, or infidelity—do men reimagine masculine identities that allow them to move more comfortably, peacefully, and safely in the world? 

We, poet Matthew Nienow and memoirist Wayne Scott, are both husbands, fathers, and psychotherapists. Both of us had books published in early 2025. 

Nienow’s book of poetry, If Nothing (Alice James Press, 2025), tackles his struggle with addiction, mental health, and shame through poems that build a new vision of how to be a man moving into accountability. Scott’s memoir, The Maps They Gave Us: One Marriage Reimagined (Black Lawrence Press, 2025), follows a married couple, a straight feminist woman and a queer, bisexual man, with school aged children, as they move down the path toward divorce, only to surprise themselves by falling in love again, creating an unconventional template for their marriage. 

Both of us are trying to form new, evolved narratives around masculinity that break up the patriarchal templates we inherited as boys growing up. Given the resonances and commonalities in our work, we had a recent conversation on Zoom to explore the questions: What does it mean to reimagine masculinity in an era where toxic manhood is glaringly, aggressively dominant across Western cultures? How does shame become a portal to new ways of being? And how are narrative-building and healing connected?


I didn’t know how to be

a friend or a father I didn’t
know what a lover was I stopped


pretending the world was to blame


I was inside with no story
to save me from myself.

Matthew Nienow, If Nothing

In the conventions of marriage, there are good husbands and bad husbands; keepers and exiles; mensches and schmucks. I have been pretending to be a good husband. But because I accept the dark anti-order of things, the way things unravel; because we are married, and I have strayed: I left and now we must divorce.
Because I am a deadbeat. 
Because I am nobody.
I am supposed to leave.

Wayne Scott, The Maps They Gave Us


Wayne Scott: Our books explore vulnerable, emotional aspects of our struggles as men on healing journeys. I’m curious, since your book launched, what have dinner parties been like? Social events with your friends?

Matthew Nienow: For the most part, we don’t talk about my writing. When it comes up, I tend to deflect. Occasionally, there is room to talk about the confusing and uncomfortable parts of publishing deeply personal work.

WS: I get that. With my friends who are writers, folks in critique groups, we talk about it all the time, but with extended family, other friends, neighbors, they don’t know what to do with me. 

MN: I live in a small town. The majority of people in my life know me through other contexts aside from writing. Some of these folks lived through the parts of my life that ended up in the book. Other people are more removed. Sometimes I wonder when running into different people from my past: “Is this person not saying something to me right now, because they feel awkward about what they know from the book?”

WS: Right? Writing my memoir, I worked through a lot of the shame that attached to the experiences in my marriage—like I was trying to spin gold out of these hard experiences. But then if I give the book to someone who asks for it and the next time I see them they don’t make eye contact, the shame comes back full force. “They must feel judgmental about me. It’s too awkward for them to say anything.” Actually, it’s more likely that they just didn’t get around to reading it! 

MN: Exactly.

WS: I reread If Nothing four times. It’s wise and vulnerable. You’re covering ground that feels like forbidden territory, something people are not going to be comfortable with: the unrelentingness of addictions, the ways it hurts family and children. I love this line: “Fuck up / in the most beautiful way possible– / every error a mirror / revealing something you may have been / unwilling to see”. That could have been the epigram for my memoir. We both wrote books about fucking up that we also clearly wanted to make beautiful. What’s beautiful about fucking up?

MN: There’s a risky temptation, especially when you’re talking about ugly or uncomfortable parts of the human experience—shame, betrayal, all kinds of harm—to make something too beautiful, too neat. While in my poetry I’m striving for a certain kind of presentation on the page, I had to work against that impulse at times in order to be true to the messy life underneath the poem.

WS: It’s important not to prettify it.

MN: You don’t want to make it too beautiful which would be somehow false or inauthentic. There is a need for the music to be there, for the beauty to be there, even when looking at off-putting and off-limits topics. For a time, I was a total fuck up, and I caused so much pain. Over the years, I wrestled and stayed with this discomfort and it became the core of the book. An essential element of the human experience, especially if we’re talking about growing and changing and transforming, is to acknowledge the places that we fuck up in our lives, to like really get in there and not just gloss over them: That’s the mirror.

If I give the book to someone and the next time I see them they don’t make eye contact, the shame comes back full force.

I’m remembering early on in your memoir, after you’ve been kicked out of your home. You’re up late and you can’t sleep and you keep thinking about politicians who are unfaithful: 

“They follow a formula. There is an affair, often conducted via the internet, that dark highway of the collective unconscious. Maybe there is an ugly dick pic. The news spills out, often because of sloppy computer use or misunderstanding about the public record of the exchanges. At first the man responds defensively, shocked, testing to see if he can still hide. When facts emerge, he shifts to a more contrite stance. He apologizes. He admits he is human. He asks for forgiveness, A minister stands nearby.”

There’s a recognition that the formula of pat contrition is too simple. There’s no real redemption. There’s no real change. And that was definitely not going to allow me to exist in the kind of life I wanted to live.

WS: It doesn’t reveal anything new or get at any deeper, more complex truth. The idea of errors as mirrors compels us to look at something we don’t want to see. For me, that’s where the fuck up becomes beautiful. It reveals something deeper, truer and messier than what we might want to acknowledge.

MN: That formula isn’t serving our world. 

WS: Closely related to fucking up is talking about shame. I love the last poem in your book, “And Then.” I first saw it in The Missouri Review. “Beneath my shame, / the body / was a raw red thing / untrained in acceptance.” Do we ever transcend the shame?

MN: That was the very last poem I wrote for the collection, after I thought the book was done and had already been accepted. It was one of those gift poems—I had no idea where it came from—and it tied things together in a way that made everything more coherent, more potent. 

There are parts of my past where the shame doesn’t go away because I acted so out of alignment with my values. I never stop feeling bad about it. But because of the way that I show up and have shown up for years and years now, the impact of that shame is smaller, not because it’s less significant, but because my capacity to be with the discomfort is greater. I know who I’ve become, and yet, I keep looking at those parts of myself and my past that I will never be okay with. I don’t know if it’s something you ever transcend, but to continue looking at it is a part of what makes something greater possible, and may allow for people to know us in more complex ways, and to still love us right for all the flaws.

WS: I am reading a book with some other therapists about shame. The writer, Pat DeYoung, refers to “ethical shame.” There’s a type of shame that is part of being human, living in community, that is actually okay. It’s okay for us to feel a certain amount of dissonance when our actions don’t line up with how we want to be. She talks a lot about how it applies to whiteness, white supremacist culture, things that are kind of embedded in us, as white men. If we confront it truly, we will feel what is called an ethical shame. And that’s okay.

This is different from a more chronic shame that causes anxiety and depression and interferes with having healthy relationships. 

MN: I agree with that. The ethical shame is when we’ve acted out of alignment with our beliefs. 

But there is also a destructive shame that comes from a story that our culture supplies us, that tells us there’s something wrong with us. It makes me curious about your relationship with shame. A lot of your memoir explores your challenges to speak to your full identity in a culture that’s constrained by either/or, gay/straight binaries. For your gay friends, during the AIDS pandemic, it feels like a betrayal when you’re in a relationship with a woman and getting married. 

WS: A lot of the queer writers I was reading when I wrote the memoir—Oscar Wilde and James Baldwin, for example—are preoccupied with prisons. The preoccupation with shame and wrong-doing and condemnation is endemic to the queer experience, like a genetic thread of intergenerational trauma. In my experience, growing up, there was a lot of shame before I even got to my marriage, because I did not fit the mold that my brothers fit. I was the Misfit Gay Kid. You had to be quiet and hide if you were going to survive.

MN: You also address the idea of monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy. There’s still a binary there, as in marriage or no marriage, right? Those limitations in language inform the spaces we inhabit in the world, as you consider in your book, noting that certain labels lead to feeling smaller and smaller. I feel like that’s one of the impulses that shame leads to—this feeling of worthlessness and hiding. 

Writing about those experiences runs counter to the shame.

WS: I was talking about this with another therapist who’s really smart about shame. She told me, as soon as we speak about the shameful experience, it’s not shame anymore. We’re in the process of translating it into something else. The visceral, emotional condition of shame is wordless, voiceless, and immobilizing. Shame is actually part of our nervous system’s freeze response. It’s that part of our bodies that helps us shut down when we’re getting close to death. Writing about it—in poetry or memoir—is what breaks it up.

MN: You mentioned when you were sharing parts of the memoir with your partner, you would fall back into the same arguments that were referenced in the text. In recreating or preserving these moments of betrayal or regret, do you have any momentary re-experiencing of that original shame? Even if you think you’ve transformed it, you go back in? 

WS: I don’t think I’ll ever feel good about the betrayal in my marriage. It was very injurious. I have tried to make amends with my honesty and the way I show up for the relationship today. We’ve also kind of collaboratively reconstructed our marriage so that it doesn’t require lying, or hiding or secrecy, or anything like that. 

I don’t think my story would have happened if the world hadn’t developed more inclusive ways of talking about queerness.

There’s an acknowledgement that we had kind of set ourselves up to be in a difficult situation. When we decided to get married, the language was very constrained. The word ‘queer,’ in the expansive sense we use today, or LGBTQ+, did not exist when I was younger. This way that bisexual men feel erased when they partner with people of the opposite sex. You were compelled to choose to be straight when you made a vow to be monogamous, which ultimately wasn’t healthy for me as a bisexual man.

MN: At one point you write, “I don’t know how to tell the story of who we are, because I don’t know how to tell the story of who I am”.

WS: I don’t think my story would have happened if the world hadn’t developed more inclusive, more diverse ways of talking about queerness and intimacy.

MN: At one point in the book—you’ve been kicked out of the house, and you’re laying immobilized on a hard hotel mattress—you start thinking about when your father left your family without explanation when you were a teenager. 

WS: I start the memoir with certain stories about who I am, like my perception that my father rejected me, that part of the reason he left my mother and us was because he couldn’t stand having a misfit gay-acting son. And then as an adult, when I was kicked out of the house, I felt this immobilizing shame. It was so hard to get through the cloud of it, to get back home. I realized, “Oh, maybe him not coming home again had nothing to do with me. Maybe he just fucked up really bad and he was debilitated by the shame. But I don’t have to be debilitated by the shame. Actually, I’m gonna figure out some damn way to get back home. But it’s going to be so painful walking through that door again.”

MN: I want to honor you for that work. For me, that is one of the most powerful parts of the memoir. I’m always looking for people who are going to stay for the hard stuff, to dig in when it feels impossible. We don’t have many good public models of this, because we don’t get to see the inside of people’s lives in the same way. And it’s completely counter to the narrative of your experience with your father, too. 

WS: One of the other thematic overlaps between us is this idea of narrative, whether it’s poetry or memoir, as a kind of rebuilding, restoring or healing. You describe addiction as the absence of a coherent story. “I was inside with no story to save me from myself.”

MN: In order for addiction to continue as long as it did, I had to have a story that I was still functional in my life as an addict. Then it became non-functional. But the story that kept me there was so powerful. As my life around the addiction got worse, the dissonance was too great. It wasn’t a story anymore. It was a jumble of lies. 

WS: I love this question you pose: “All the second chances, / what did they teach me, if not to dream / more wildly toward a kingdom in which the king / was not so cruel?” There’s a different fairy tale we can imagine and inhabit.

MN: Without that imagination, it’s like there is no going forward into something different. I don’t shed all the parts of my past, even though I’m so much healthier than I was. I have to be constantly imagining that kingdom. My willingness to do this is strengthened by continuing to look closely at these places of fucking up.

WS: Like me, you are an artist who is also a therapist. How do those two roles you play influence each other?

MN: It’s probably true that most writers have a different way of listening to other people and a different way of hearing. I used to call my practice of poetry “the long listening.” It requires being open and attentive and curious, noticing and tuning myself to the sounds of a conversation. If we’re good at our work, what we hear isn’t just the specific word we say back, it’s the thread underneath and the subtext.

WS: Some of the best training I got as a therapist actually happened in my MFA program. Therapy really is about helping people find a different story, a more creative story that reaches deep, to describe the things that happened to them.

Some of the best training I got as a therapist actually happened in my MFA program.

MN: One last question I want to ask you: What is a safe man in a time when toxic masculinity is lauded? Why is it important to ask this question, as opposed to “what is a good man?”

WS: My friends who are people of color are speaking in my ear right now, reminding me that the best I can do is to be a safer man. I have been too socialized in the ways of white men and their unearned privileges, so I’m always vulnerable to the kinds of toxic masculinity I‘m the first to criticize in other men. I’ll always make mistakes and ruptures, no matter how hard I try. The other day I was doing a workshop with another therapist–she’s Latina and an amazing friend to me–and I said something half-assed without thinking, and she said, “Well, that was some pretty good mansplaining going on right there.” And I realized, Jesus Christ, I did just do that, sometimes it just spills out when I’m tired or not thinking. I’m so glad we have the kind of relationship where she can say something, even tease me about it. Nobody is 100 perfectly intentional in every interaction. And so I think the best I can aim for is to be a safer man.

MN: Agreed! This, for me, goes to the heart of some of what it means to be a safe man: men who are willing to look at the ugliness within themselves, who are willing to be honest about what they see there, and to acknowledge the ways that they hurt others, and then to lean into the work of growing and changing. It’s not a fixed position. It’s not a destination you arrive at, and then you’re done. This is lifelong work.

Searching for Meaning in What’s Been Broken and Repaired

“Kintsugi: Art of Repair”, an excerpt from Wedding of the Foxes by Katherine Larson

The story begins with a teabowl that was shattered. When fifteenth-century shōgun Ashikaga Yoshimasa sent his beloved broken teabowl away to be repaired, he was disappointed to find the teabowl returned with mended seams of ugly metal staples. According to historians, it was more than disappointment. He found this solution unacceptable.

“I’m not trying to be difficult,” the sunburnt teenager squinted, standing in front of the juvenile fin whale skeleton. “But I just don’t see why it matters.” She looked at the teenager, a ponytailed brunette chewing a hangnail. The heat was ferocious, the tiny creases of her eyelids stung with sweat. This was at the end of the free natural history talk she gave on Sundays at the field station in the northern Gulf of Mexico, after she’d explained the homologous structures of the whale flipper and human arm. “Look here,” she’d gestured to the wooden paddle fixed on the side of the fin whale rib cage (its arches towering above her head). “See how alike they are.” The whale phalanges—stuck through with metal pins—were strewn against the salt-swollen wood like a cupful of dice.

Ashikaga challenged his craftsmen to find a new form of restoration. So they pulled out the staples. Painstakingly mended the seams with layers of tree sap dusted with gold. In this talk, she’d been describing species that were threatened or endangered. Whale species and, in particular, the vaquita, a small endemic porpoise on the verge of extinction. “Suppose,” the teenager had continued, “we didn’t know they existed—if we were unaware of them completely, would it matter, really, if we lost them?” The teenager doesn’t say this flippantly but with a kind of bleary bewilderment. It is the kind of terrifying question—both the significance and the explanation of it— that she will spend her life trying to come to terms with.

The teabowl was again returned to Ashikaga and the art of kintsugi, or “golden joinery,” was born. Each piece unique, not in spite of, but because of the way it was both broken and repaired.

She must have said something to the girl in response, something stark and brittle, though now she doesn’t remember. She remembers instead what she wanted to say: The world is full of secret and invisible machinery, our expression and understanding of which are utterly inadequate. She feels them, of course. Those threads that link the vaquita to the hedgehog cactus at her feet that’s tossing its fuchsia blossoms at the sun. The threads that tie herself to this strange girl asking her a question she feels entirely unprepared to answer. She’s felt them tug at her since she was small.


When she thinks of her time at the field station now, she remembers how she used to drag a thin sleeping mat out onto the porch to sleep. And of the picnic table that held the objects she used for her natural history talks—the fragile ones the children loved to stroke with their fingertips: the sea lion and bottlenose dolphin skulls, the seaweedish-looking egg cases of sharks and rays, the life-sized model of the small porpoise that was quickly becoming a ghost. That particular sound of the palms that shook their fronds at night while the ocean chewed its way up and down the shore.

The Sengoku period of Japan—when the art of kintsugi flourished—is noted as a time of near-constant civil war and social and political upheaval. It was also marked by several devastating earthquakes. Japan straddles multiple fault lines with the densest seismic network in the world. Fractures are part of its elemental substrate.

Her friend HG is making plaster casts of estuary mud from the sea where they met. Recording creatures that have passed, capturing transient marks that will be erased with the incoming tide. This feels to her an apt metaphor—that the change can be nearly imperceptible yet all-encompassing. How we may inhabit a new kind of being or expanse yet, in a moment, be brought back to selves that we have left behind or outright discarded. Like standing in a room of broken statuary. Rows upon rows of frozen objects, some of them truncated, maimed. Some of them still scraping their way across the floor. If we can’t leave those selves behind, she thinks, how do we integrate them? She thinks about her own selves. The she that is the third-person excavator of memory’s shifting constellations; the I that writes letters at night to Japanese authors she’ll never meet.

In Arts of Living on a Damaged Planet, the authors explain, “The winds of the Anthropocene carry ghosts—the vestiges and signs of past ways of life still charged in the present. [. . .] Our ghosts are the traces of more-than-human histories through which ecologies are made and unmade.” She is reminded one day on a walk with her children that the mourning dove eggshell they have found could be thought of as another smaller, intimate teabowl.

According to Kyōto kintsugi practitioner Kiyokawa Hiroki, “The fractured part where kintsugi is applied becomes a new landscape in itself.” In this landscape, an artifact’s unique history is honored. “Our imperfections,” he says, “can be the birth of something new.” There are times that this metaphor seems almost like a living thing to her—a cipher to be captured and held close like a rare and lovely moth. And then there are times when she finds toilet paper piled up so high inside the toilet bowl it resembles a wedding cake, and her pockets are full of mangy gift-feathers and Band-Aid wrappers, and while she’s brushing the children’s teeth, there’s a voice inside of her that’s sobbing and little fragments of poetry burning in incandescent images that she can’t decipher, much less write down. There are times during the COVID-19 pandemic that she falls asleep in her clothes for the fourth night in a row.

Carlo Rovelli, the Italian physicist, argues that a human being is not a being at all, but a process, “like a cloud above the mountains.” This echoes the Buddhist idea that there is, in fact, no permanent self to cling to. What’s the difference between the self and a ghost?


She remembers one day at the field station when a pickup truck pulled up. A Mexican government official had confiscated the carapaces of sea turtles—he didn’t say from where. “I didn’t know where else to take them,” he said. “I thought you could use them to teach.” She remembers what it felt like as she helped unload them from the truck. It was like standing there watching someone cut the throat of an elephant. There are seven species of sea turtles. Six are counted as threatened or endangered. Most of the carapaces were still spongy in places where they hadn’t been scraped clean of meat. The smell of mute, rotting things. Flies all around.

History must be recognized in a way that gives the breakage meaning.

“Grief is a path to understanding entangled shared living and dying,” Donna Haraway tells us. “Human beings must grieve with, because we are in and of this fabric of undoing. Without sustained remembrance, we cannot learn to live with ghosts and so cannot think.” Sometimes when the house is very quiet at night, empty of the sounds of young children, she thinks about the ghosts of things. The ghosts of previous selves. The future ghosts of birds.

The methods of repair fall into three distinct categories:

Crack, the use of gold dust and resin or lacquer to link broken pieces, usually appearing as a running vein or seam of gold.

Piece method, where the shape of a missing fragment is filled in completely with gold or a gold and lacquer compound.

Joint-call, where a nonmatching ceramic fragment of a similar shape replaces the missing fragment of the original vessel, giving the vessel a “patchwork” look.

When teaching her students poetic forms in graduate school, she realized how little she understood about the nuances of haiku. The skill of their compression, the “kireji” (cutting word), the punning, the symbolic sophistication of seasonal references. She studied them. Then haibun, tanka, renga, sedoka, haikai. Fiction writers followed: Ōe and Kawabata; Abe, Tanizaki. Decades of her life steeped in Japanese writers and metaphors. Literature—and this is not an exaggeration—that has kept her afloat. She thinks of Deborah Bird Rose exploring the idea of “reciprocal capture.” Rose says, “For philosopher Isabelle Stengers, ‘reciprocal capture,’ is ‘an event, the production of new, immanent modes of existence’ in which neither entity transcends the other or forces the other to bow down. It is a process of encounter and transformation [. . .].”

Because of the pandemic, she teaches her daughter, a fourth grader, about tropical rainforests and other biomes at home. But between the words ecology and mutualism and symbiosis, other words creep in. Deforestation, habitat fragmentation, sea level rise, ecocide, ecocatastrophe. Her daughter builds a rainforest habitat out of a small cardboard box. Makes bromeliads from tiny scraps of tissue paper and cuts out a three-toed sloth to hang on a vine. In her report, she writes, The beaks of adult toucans can be blue, orange, yellow, green, fuchsia, and white. They are like living forest rainbows. Her daughter tells her that during mating season, certain toucans toss fruit back and forth as a courtship ritual.

It’s been asked: Did the life of the bowl begin once it was shattered? She doesn’t particularly like easy metaphors for suffering. Finds it quietly abhorrent when people speak of being “enlarged by suffering” or “given the opportunity for suffering’s gifts: empathy, sensitivity to the pain of others, a sense that impermanence means we must live deeply, and not anesthetized.” Not because it isn’t true but because it seems reductive. What she loves is metaphor that contains space for both insight and the inscrutable. You can say, for example, that history must be recognized in a way that gives the breakage meaning. You can say that beauty can be made more whole. Or you can say that a whale is a mirror above treetops. The self is a kingdom of air.


When she was pregnant and so sick she spent months broken on the tiles of the bathroom floor she read, sentence by single sentence and with terrible clarity, Mishima Yukio’s Sea of Fertility tetralogy. Some of the loneliest books she’s ever lived. She remembers having to lie down on the floor the one time she went to Target to try to buy maternity clothes. Under a wall of enormous bras. The carpet—a palpitating blue—was stained with something indescribably filthy. Her partner had to leave her there to find a wheelchair. Most days, she couldn’t shower without help. Most days, she couldn’t stand without help.

Another story of the beginning of kintsugi mentions a bowl that was shattered, and a clever guest, Hosokawa Yūsai, knowing the host’s hot temper, quickly intervened by improvising a poem about the bowl whose deftness dispelled the host’s dark mood. Language was a part of the mending. Even now, this story is a part of the mending. Mending is a thing that continues.

Discovering Japanese women writers was another revelation. Enchi Fumiko, Miyamoto Yuriko, Nogami Yaeko, Uno Chiyo. Notice that she’s writing their full names and didn’t with the others. She hadn’t realized how underrepresented they were— if she’d talked to someone that happened to have read Kawabata, they wouldn’t know Sakiyama Tami, Nogami Yaeko, or Ozaki Midori. She began to dream of writing a book in which small fragments of certain stories could slip in. Not in her voice. But more like joint-call pieces. As the writers themselves had written them.

Vulnerability. Mistakes. The history of what’s been broken and how we managed or didn’t manage to mend it. The word nagori can be translated as “remnant, traces, memory.” In those last two weeks of October, the nagori-no-chaji tea ceremony in which the mended objects are not just displayed, but used, involves savoring the last tea leaves collected the previous November. It is a time to let go, to enter the sadness of passing even as one recognizes the old season must die before the new one begins. To live alongside ghosts is to live in recognition of their warning. And in honor of their remembrance.

If she hadn’t been in the police station filing the paperwork for her stalker. If the officer hadn’t shown her the stack of papers that was a single night’s domestic violence calls—many of them repeats, she was warned. If she hadn’t decided then and dragged her mattress down the street to the dumpster in the middle of the night to dump illegally because it was too stained with cat pee to give to anyone. If she hadn’t had to drive across the country and into another to get as far away as possible. She would have never arrived at the field station. She would have never started this life. This self would have become a different self.


She met her friend HG in that country of whale bones and palms. HG had driven to the field station as part of a project to clean the curio cabinets and set them up as an educational exhibit. Together, they pulled black widows and their messy webs out of the cavernous spaces. Hung mako shark jaws against the wall. When they sat for a break at the picnic tables in the courtyard, the ones where the sea wind gusts through, they noticed a jumping spider. It followed their conversation, swiveling its head when each of them spoke, as if listening in. They would remember it always as a sign. Like being inducted into the secrets of the ruins at Delphi.

To live alongside ghosts is to live in recognition of their warning. And in honor of their remembrance.

Chanoyu, or “Way of Tea,” practitioner Christy Bartlett explains, “Mended ceramics foremost convey a sense of the passage of time. The vicissitudes of existence over time, to which all humans are susceptible, could not be clearer than in the breaks, the knocks, and the shattering to which ceramic ware too is subject. This poignancy or aesthetic of existence has been known in Japan as mono no aware, a compassionate sensitivity, an empathetic compassion for, or perhaps identification with, beings outside oneself.”

She thinks of how it’s an invisible language, the language of species. When one studies ecology, one studies relationships between living and nonliving things. What it meant to her was that one studies the invisible in order to make it more visible. The astonishment of which she sometimes has to hide. Like the time in her botany class when the TA chastised her poetic language. He’d circled the phrases with red ink, explaining that a lab report was no place to describe that under the microscope the chloroplasts had seemed to tumble around like green, sentient pearls.

She’s been teaching her daughter haiku: Matsuo Bashō and Kobayashi Issa. Still, she is startled when one late night she reads this haiku of Katō Shūson:

I kill an ant

and realize my three children

have been watching.

She, too, feels inexplicably ashamed.

Items for the nagori-no-chaji tea ceremony are carefully curated. To drink from a bowl that has been cared for by another is to recognize a lineage to which one belongs. To recognize in a single moment both rupture and continuity. Inheritance.

Her favorite is a teabowl from the eighteenth century. Arita ware. A joint-call where a fragment of a bird from another teabowl has been spliced into the broken section of the bird of another. When she looks at the fragile veins of gold that mend that joining, she thinks of words like palimpsest. She thinks of breakage and repair as the intimate history of an object. Sometimes, she thinks of her own body as a bird’s.

This is not just metaphor—one of the genes involved in human language has a homolog in the song genes of certain birds. We share DNA in common with zebra finches, sea urchins, daffodils.


Her daughter has broken her favorite pot: one with hand-drawn marks that look like waves. For a while, she keeps the pieces in a little pile above the washing machine. There are kintsugi kits one can buy off the internet, but one morning, after looking at the pieces, so many pieces, she takes the pieces outside and throws them in the trash. She almost immediately regrets the decision, and as she stands there with her wild hair and ratty pajamas (her neighbors always seem to catch her in her ratty pajamas) she thinks she could do it—she could be that crazy person who empties out and then digs through her entire trash and finds each piece—but the whole thing has an air of finality, of something that’s already been unequivocally and quietly decided, and even though she knows that she will likely regret it, she walks back to the house instead.

As a child, she was terrified of fire. Of the house beginning to burn as she slept. That she would wake trapped in flames, hearing the screams of her family—she couldn’t make it out of the fire to reach them. She’d lie awake in darkness that felt malignant, felt it skim her body like oil. Even at the time, it embarrassed her to have such a secret, dramatic anxiety. In her family, drama was frowned upon. They were pragmatists and stoics. They were not burning alive in lakes of fire.

And yet. Once she woke and the house was filled with the smell of smoke. When she screamed, her father came crashing from the bedroom and into the kitchen. On the stove was a pot of bones her mother had left on low heat, wanting to sterilize before giving them to the dog. The smell of singed bones: like having your lungs stuffed full of burnt sand.

Collectors became so enamored of the art form that some were accused of deliberately smashing valuable pottery so that it might be repaired with golden seams. Were there ever pieces that once broken, they realized they could not mend? There must have been.

She wants to believe that the extinction crisis can be slowed, halted. She wants to believe that something can be born out of it that does not negate the understanding of the damage that’s already been done. Yet she secretly fears the tipping point at which the cascade will produce an uncontrollable unraveling.

They say some of the teabowls would simply fall apart and then again be remade. Those many hands, those many ghosts, those many years.


One studies the invisible in order to make it more visible.

“We have never been individuals,” biologist Scott Gilbert tells us. “If most of the cells in the human body are microbes, which ‘individual’ are we? We can’t segregate our species nor claim distinctive status—as a body, a genome, or an immune system. And what if evolution selects for relations among species rather than ‘individuals’?” She thinks again of the golden threads. Of entanglements. She thinks of her nine-year-old daughter’s haiku:

Raindrops so shiny,

And delicate on pavement The worms and snails slide.

Bartlett says, “One of the most deeply held values in the tearoom is that of collaboration, of multiple hands producing a seamless whole in which each individual contributor still remains distinct. [. . .] In this bowl, we can see the hand of two artists, the original potter and the later lacquerer who brought [. . .] remarkable sensibility to the way in which the repair is highlighted.” The plaster casts HG is making contain the tracks of hermit crabs, shorebirds, waves.

Maybe that golden thread of repair reminded Ashikaga of a river. Or the asymmetrical silhouette of a leaning mountain. Whatever it was, in its gold-seamed brokenness, Ashikaga found he loved the teabowl differently—more deeply than he had before.

When she teaches her daughter about mollusks, she shows her a video of the tiny blue orbs that line the edge of a living scallop. “Most people don’t know,” she says, “that scallops have eyes.” And later, with her son at the tide pools she used to wade into drinking her morning coffee, in whose hand she places a still-dripping clam. “Or that Venus clams have nervous systems. Hearts.”


Exclusive Cover Reveal of “Let the Moon Wobble” by Ally Ang

Electric Literature is pleased to reveal the cover of Let the Moon Wobble by Ally Ang, which will be published on November 11, 2025 by Alice James Books. You can pre-order your copy here.

In poems born of intense loneliness, grief, anger, and uncertainty at the convergence of multiple apocalypses: a raging pandemic, a worsening climate crisis, multiple global uprisings, and ever-persisting violence, Ally Ang’s Let the Moon Wobble asks and seeks to answer the question: what makes the end of the world worth surviving?

Ang’s debut considers multiple speakers’ journeys through concurrent apocalypses: the COVID-19 pandemic, the climate crisis, and the rise of fascism. These poems span a wide range of forms and poetic traditions, full of humor, lyricism, and endearing absurdity. They emerge from the speaker’s need to process their emotions and feelings of helplessness. As Ang aches for connection to their communities and lineage in a time of unrelenting isolation, their poems plumb the depths of grief and rage against the systems and institutions that aim to repress and kill queer people of color.

Coursing through Let the Moon Wobble is the deep desire for wildness, freedom from convention and constraint, and to be seen; the speaker often takes up so much space that they’re impossible to ignore or erase. Ultimately, where we land is in a place of hope and possibility where what’s “freshly broken” can give way to blooming. Let the Moon Wobble is a testament to the ways queer joy and community can fuel resistance and allow us to imagine radical new ways of being.


Here is the cover, designed by Tiani Kennedy with artwork by Katherine Bradford:

Ally Ang: In 2023, I saw an exhibit titled “Flying Woman: The Paintings of Katherine Bradford” at the Frye Art Museum in Seattle. I wasn’t familiar with Bradford’s work prior to seeing the exhibit, but I was immediately taken with her lush, bright colors; the dreamy, often eerie way she uses light; her cosmic settings; and how she renders people in a way that is both warm, with a sense of community and affection between her subjects, and distant, abstracting their features. I didn’t actually see “Swimmers Outer Space,” the painting that graces the cover of my book, at the Frye that day, but Bradford’s work stayed with me long after I first encountered it. When my press asked for suggestions for artists whose work I wanted to consider for cover art, Bradford quickly came to mind.

To encapsulate the spirit of Let the Moon Wobble, I knew that my ideal cover would be something colorful, whimsical, and celestial. Because so much of the book is grounded in connection—between the speaker and their self, their ghosts, their community, and the world around them—it feels fitting that the cover features people in communion with each other and with nature. Yet the moon, large and luminous and full, is undoubtedly the focal point of the painting. While the poems in the book are not directly about the moon, the moon appears as an image in many poems, and I think of it as a central figure of the book, even when it is merely an observer. 

I also adore how otherworldly the cover image is: as the title “Swimmers Outer Space” indicates, both the moon and the body of water that the swimmers are in appear extraterrestrial, as though the scene takes place on another planet. In Let the Moon Wobble, the speaker often imagines and yearns for a different world from the harsh, dismal one we currently inhabit, and this image feels like a portal into a dreamlike alternate reality that exists in the realm of play and imagination. 

Finally, in terms of design, I love how the title text is curved and off-center, mimicking the shape of the moon. It feels like the title is another celestial body that fits into this surreal landscape (or spacescape). I’m very grateful to Katherine Bradford for allowing me to use her painting, and to Tiani Kennedy for turning it into such a beautiful book cover.

Tiani Kennedy: To be able to design a cover using one of Katherine Bradford’s work of art was an honor and I’m grateful to Ally Ang for choosing a piece that’s both vibrant and complex. The swimmers seem on the edge of the earth, not exactly swimming, but reaching out to the moon longingly as if begging to be saved. It’s that same longing that’s echoed in Ang’s collection as they grapple with making sense of the senseless and what it means to exist in a body that society deems an “other” all while emerging defiant and standing firm in one’s desire. I wanted the art to be the focal point, to be a window into what readers would experience as soon as they opened the book. As a result, I opted for minimal typography and introduced the title in the shape of a half-moon to create yet another layer of movement without distracting from the painting.

My Strengths Are Primarily Avian

Brut Force

At last, I'm accepting the efficiency of having
the chest of a bird; why didn't I follow finches
first? My strength is mostly found in flapping:
forget rabbit sprints: flailing will make me rich
or force other walkers into the street grinning,
but what if I treat each person as a possibility
of love, declare it like a cicada's sexy keening?
Like my dog, as my hope rises, so does anxiety:
Scientists can't explain planets as hot as the sun;
at least we know what close friends want (psych)!
Oh, metrics: count a hundred meteorites in one
hour, a hundred mosquitos, or a hundred fireflies;
instead, we must smear moth meteorites atop
the car's soft rooftop (just love in a new form)

The Only Deals Are Two for One

Why start the next great American novel 
when you can read the contraindications
on a bottle of Tylenol; it’s part of the effort
to live the dream: to live pain-free, to pass

time productively, in spite of inflammations
that we either haven’t quite become inured
to, or which we’ve endured till its familiarity
becomes a craving; the “vroom” of another

blended Vitamix bromide is its own reward,
an audio massage felt in the chest, or even
the pointless sharpness of the smoke alarm,
testing automatically, in the coffee shop for

hours, first because no one can turn it off,
ultimately left on at the patrons’ demand.

7 Love Triangle Novels That Are About More Than Romance

I’ve never much cared for the phrase “love triangle.” At best, it feels reductive—a term that flattens a complex web of multi-dimensional relationships into a simple geometrical shape. At worst, it’s a trope. So, while writing pitch material for my debut novel, Slanting Towards the Sea, I was surprised to discover that when I distilled the plot down to its central conflict, it took the shape of a triangle. Perhaps not a traditional one—my novel traces the complications of unconventional, contemporary relationships—but a triangle none the less. 

Slanting Towards the Sea is the story of two young college students, Ivona and Vlaho, who at the turn of the millennium in a newly democratic Croatia—a country in the midst of profound change itself—marry, divorce, and remain emotionally entangled. When new partners enter their lives, unexpected friendships develop between the exes and current lovers. Bonds form that are as surprising as they are precarious, until the unusual closeness forces a reckoning for all involved. Obviously, I hadn’t set out to write a love triangle. I was drawn to exploring different territory altogether—the stubborn persistence of love long after a relationship has ended; the challenges of coming of age in a country that’s still figuring itself out; and the slow, often invisible ways that family, culture, and childhood experiences shape what we believe we’ve chosen for ourselves. But, out of that rich context, a triangle is what emerged (or arguably, two triangles with a shared base). 

I encountered a similar shock while researching comp titles. As it turns out, many of my favorite novels also center around tripartite dynamics, though I’d never thought of them as “love triangle books.” In these novels, central tension is rarely drawn solely from having to choose between two people. Instead, the “triangle” serves as a lens for exploring deeper questions of identity, longing, and morals. Often, the true conflict lies between two versions of the self, like in Lily King’s Writers & Lovers; between past and future, as depicted in Miranda Cowley Heller’s The Paper Palace; or the pull of societal expectations against the desire for personal freedom I see in Giovanni’s Room by James Baldwin. Sometimes the focus isn’t even on a single decision itself, but the quiet reckoning with paths that were taken, and their complicated aftermath. I’ve come to realize that the emotional geometry of a love triangle is fertile ground for exploring these and so many other themes. This is a collection of some of my favorite love triangles in literary fiction.

The Paper Palace by Miranda Cowley Heller

On an August evening, behind the cabin in Cape Cod where her family has spent every summer for generations, Elle makes passionate love to Jonas, while their spouses chat inside. Over the course of the following day, Elle has to decide whether to remain married to her loving husband, Peter, or to give in to her lifelong desire for Jonas. But the choice between the two is more complex than meets the eye. As Elle takes us back in time, disclosing generational cycles of problematic divorces, family dysfunction, and child molestation, we begin to better understand the real stakes of Elle’s decision.

Hello Beautiful by Ann Napolitano

William Waters is a college student with a tragic past who meets and falls in love with Julia Padavano, a decisive and ambitious fellow student at Northwestern University. But Julia doesn’t come alone; she is one of four sisters, and a member of a tight-knit Italian family. While at first it seems like Julia’s drive and clear vision for the future are exactly what rudderless William needs, when tragedy strikes, it isn’t Julia who can understand him, but her younger—and closest—sister, Sylvie. The emergent love between William and Sylvie will spur an epic betrayal and cause a rift between sisters that will ripple through generations. Hello Beautiful explores the strength of three different kinds of bonds—sibling, romantic, and motherly––asking which is the strongest, and what happens when they’re stacked against one another.

Writers & Lovers by Lily King

In this gorgeously written adult coming-of-age story set in 1990s Boston, Casey Peabody is one of the few people from her college days still pursuing the dream of publishing a novel and leading a creative life—and paying a hefty price to be doing so. Broke, working a low-paying job, and living above her obnoxious landlord’s garage, Casey is neck-deep in debt and grieving her mother’s passing. When she meets Oscar, she is drawn to his children first—having recently lost their own mother, she can relate to them on an intimate level, and soon it seems that she will finally slip into the balanced, reasonable, safe life that has always eluded her. But then she meets Silas. Unreliable, grieving the sudden loss of his sister, he is a heartbreak waiting to happen. As Casey’s life gets more complicated, so does her decision: should she finally wave the white flag and opt for a safer, more predictable, adult life, or should she keep vying for the unapologetic, full life she’s always dreamed of, despite the slim odds?

Small Pleasures by Clare Chambers

Set in 1950s London, Small Pleasures is a gem of a novel that follows local newspaper journalist, Jean Swinney, on a task to investigate one woman’s claim that her daughter is the product of a virgin birth. But as Jean interviews the woman in question, Gretchen Tilbury, and her lovely family—the exact kind Jean has always coveted—she finds herself pulled into their life, and falling in love with Gretchen’s soft-spoken, kind-hearted husband, Howard. With sensitivity and wit, Chambers explores the power of self-denial, and why it’s often easier for us to settle for less, than strive for the full scope of what we really want from life.

Dream State by Eric Puchner

In Dream State, Charlie Margolis asks his college best friend, Garrett, to officiate his wedding to Cece, the woman of his dreams, at his family’s idyllic estate in Montana. The request is more than symbolic—it’s Charlie’s way of offering Garrett a lifeline as he grapples with the aftermath of a devastating accident he can’t forgive himself for. In the days leading up to the ceremony, Cece and Garrett form an unexpected connection, and within weeks of the wedding, she leaves her new husband for his best friend. What follows is a sweeping family saga, with Charlie, Garrett, and Cece at its center. The consequences of this choice unravel slowly and painfully, irrevocably shaping their lives and the lives of everyone around them.

Fault Lines by Emily Itami

Mizuki is a housewife in the bustling city of Tokyo. Despite seemingly having it all—a lovely home, two adorable children, and a hardworking husband, Mizuki is lonely and crumbling under the weight of everyone else’s needs and expectations while ignoring her own. On a rainy evening out on the town, she meets Kiyoshi, a handsome, successful restauranteur who sees her as she used to be before assuming her domestic persona: fun, interesting, full of life—a person she herself has forgotten. As the two get closer, it becomes clear that Mizuki will have to make a painful choice between abandoning her family, or returning to the gray oblivion of domestic dissatisfaction.

Leaving by Roxana Robinson

Sarah and Warren fall passionately in love during college, but the relationship ends over a misunderstanding. Now in their sixties, a chance meeting at an opera house brings them back together, and the passion reignites instantly. While Sarah is divorced and ostensibly free to start a relationship, she hesitates to reclaim a chance at love after being devoted solely to her children for so long. Warren, on the other hand, has no such reservations. But when he tries to leave his apathetic, dull marriage, his adult daughter steps up to defend her mother. Ultimately, Leaving asks whether there ever comes a time when parents’ needs outweigh the duty to their children, and where the line lies between obligations to family, and the right to pursue personal happiness.