Crystal Hana Kim Doesn’t Want to Write the ‘Perfect Korean’

Crystal Hana Kim is the debut author of If You Leave Me, a sweeping, poignant story of war, love, and the gifts and bindings of family. Set in Korea during the 1950s and ‘60s, If You Leave Me is told from five perspectives, but its heart is Haemi Lee. As a young woman, Haemi is pursued by two men: Kyunghwan, her dearest friend and fellow refugee at a camp in Busan, and his cousin Jisoo, a chivalrous, older man from Seoul, who can offer her family the security they need to survive the brittle poverty they’ve faced during the war.

After Haemi chooses between these two men, a story far larger than a love triangle unfolds. The novel follows Haemi through orphanhood, motherhood, and marriage. Kim is uncompromising in her portrayal of the imprint the war leaves on Haemi, and, ultimately, the lives of her daughters. Epic in its scope, yet sensitive to the textures of daily life, If You Leave Me is immersive, heartbreaking, and wholly memorable.

Kim and I know each other as recent debut novelists, graduates of the Columbia MFA program, and fiction writers committed to writing women, their inner lives, and troubled contexts. We talked about literature on bad mothers, the pressure of representing one’s place of origin, and how to tell a story that is true to the complexities of character and history.

Naima Coster: What was the seed that started If You Leave Me?

Crystal Hana Kim: I had always loved writing about women, particularly women pushing against social and cultural constraints. I loved writing about mothers and daughters, and one of my earliest short stories was actually from the perspective of Solee, who is a character in If You Leave Me that readers will encounter much later in the narrative. And of course, I grew up hearing my grandmother’s stories about the Korean War — her stories were part of me for a very long time, and so when I decided that the pieces of fiction I had written could become a novel, I started with the Korean War.

I did a ton of research because I wanted to make sure I was getting these details right. I read texts about the war and about Korean history, of course, but I also wanted to get the feel for everyday life, so I pored over photographs and watched movies and documentaries. I wanted to transport the unfamiliar reader and immerse them in sensory details so that they could imagine themselves right alongside my characters.

I grew up hearing my grandmother’s stories about the Korean War — her stories were part of me for a very long time, and so when I decided to write a novel, I started with the Korean War.

Coster: Was there anything in particular that you found in your research that was especially generative for you?

Kim: The City History Compilation Committee of Seoul published these huge books full of pictures of Seoul, broken up into ten-year periods. Those photos were helpful because they included images of schools, homes, marketplaces, and more. I checked out the whole collection, spanning about 60 years, and studying all of the photographs helped me to see how dramatically Korea had to rebuild itself after the war.

Coster: I was so invested in the lives of your characters, and their interiors. It’s an astonishing feat given how very many people we’re following. My first novel is also told from multiple points of view, but I juggled only two voices: a mother and a daughter. There are five points of view in If You Leave Me. Was there anything that surprised you about the way the voices ultimately share the novel?

Kim: I’ve always loved polyphonic novels. I think various perspectives can show us a richer picture of each person’s life because we see how everyone views each other, how everyone reacts to life events. I always knew I would alternate between Haemi, Kyunghwan, and Jisoo. For me, Haemi is the main character, but in order to understand how society viewed women and in order to fully develop Haemi’s love triangle with Kyunghwan and Jisoo, I knew I needed all three voices.

As I said before, I had written a short story from Solee’s perspective already as a standalone piece, so it was an easy decision to incorporate her voice into the narrative. I thought having Solee’s perspective could reveal how the next generation has been affected by this war, by Haemi and Jisoo and Kyunghwan’s choices throughout the years.

A Child’s Story About a Love Triangle

Coster: How did Hyunki, Haemi’s brother, make it into the novel? He was one of the characters whose point of view most surprised me, but his story is so moving and central to the story of the larger family.

Kim: Hyunki came last, actually. I realized that this brother-sister relationship is integral to the whole novel, and that Hyunki would be the perfect vehicle to show a different side of Haemi. I also thought he could show a different side of the political context in Seoul in the 1960s.

I love Hyunki — I mean, I love all my characters — and I feel a great tenderness toward him. He’s so young and hopeful and naive, and I think he in many ways shows what could have been possible for Haemi, in terms of receiving an education, if she had been born during a time with greater gender equality.

Coster: That different side of Haemi seems really crucial. I wondered whether Haemi might be considered “a bad mother.” I am fascinated by stories that are sensitive to the pressures of motherhood and the way we see mothers. How do you see your book fitting in — or not — to the literature about “bad mothers”?

Kim: I’m fascinated by stories about “bad mothers” too. There’s this expectation that a mother is only good if she gives everything of herself, if she has no desires or needs or goals of her own. I wanted to push against that, to complicate how we view mothers as much as possible so that we can break free of this dichotomy between “good” and “bad” motherhood. Haemi to me is a complex woman, which means that she is a complex mother, sister, lover, daughter — just as we all are.

I think Haemi is trying her best with the resources that she has. I think that some days, motherhood feels like a prison to her, and on other days, the love she has for her children is all that she needs in the world. I don’t think there is such a thing as a “bad” or “good” mother, really, so I hope that the literature on motherhood we have right now continues to expand to show mothers of all kinds, during their most difficult moments as well as the easy, exuberant moments.

There’s this expectation that a mother is only good if she gives everything of herself, if she has no desires or needs or goals of her own. I wanted to push against that.

Coster: I think in both of our novels, the mothers are fighting to be seen just as women and people with ambitions and interiors and lives outside of their roles in the family system. It’s that struggle that makes them dynamic and interesting.

Kim: Yes, I saw Mirella, the mother in your book, struggle in the same way that Haemi struggles! They are both pushing to be seen and heard beyond their roles as mothers, and both are constantly ignored.

Coster: I was struck by how both love interests, Jisoo and Kyunghwan, adore and also hurt Haemi. And yet, I found myself consistently rooting for Kyunghwan, her childhood friend, from the beginning to the end. What were you hoping for as you wrote the love triangle, and is that different than what you ultimately decided on for Haemi in the book?

Kim: I’m hopeful that readers will empathize with all three of these characters not only in terms of this love triangle, but as survivors of war. I’m hoping readers will feel both love and frustration for them all. The choices they make are so representative of their personalities, which in turn shows how they have been shaped by the violent circumstances of their teenage years.

I think Kyunghwan represents the most romantic choice, so I’m expecting readers to root for him the most. I’ve actually already heard from other readers who said they were rooting for him too! But I also do hope readers understand and care for Jisoo as well.

I personally don’t think Haemi needs either of these men in her life. But whether or not Haemi realizes this and whether or not readers see this is not up to me. Though I created Haemi, I had to follow her character and the choices I knew she would make, even if I, as a person, would disagree with those choices.

I personally don’t think Haemi needs either of these men in her life. But whether or not Haemi realizes this and whether or not readers see this is not up to me.

Coster: Speaking of readers, I wonder whether you felt any representational pressure as you wrote to recover themes or ideas that are important to you, your family story, your sense of Korean history?

Kim: Ah, yes, that representational pressure. One of my uncles told me to make sure I was making the Korean people proud, to make sure I wrote about us in a positive light. But as a writer, my goal is to delve into the mindset of my characters, not to use them as vehicles to represent some idealized version of the “perfect Korean.” I understand where my uncle was coming from — there are not many novels written about the Korean people, my parents and uncles and aunts have experienced racism here in America, so why not write about the Korean people in a positive way? I get that, completely. But as a writer, my goal is to create as rich and moving a story as possible, and in order to do so, I need to write characters that are complex, full of ambiguity and depth.

I did, at the same time, want to make sure I represented this particular time in Korean history, as experienced by these particular characters, as accurately as possible.

As a writer, my goal is to delve into the mindset of my characters, not to use them as vehicles to represent some idealized version of the “perfect Korean.”

Coster: Why do you think If You Leave Me is already resonating with people?

Kim: I think a lucky confluence of events have helped my book get some early recognition. Korea has been in the news lately; people are curious to learn more about the Korean War, and fiction is an enjoyable way to learn more about history. We are in a moment where fiction about and by marginalized voices are being taken seriously and are being actively sought out by readers. We are talking more openly about motherhood and what it means to move through a patriarchal world as a woman. And of course, all of these themes are explored through the lens of a love story. And who doesn’t love a good love story, right?

‘We The Animals’ Takes Queer Children Seriously

Homosexuality and childhood make for strange but necessary bedfellows. To talk about queer children is to enter into decidedly prickly territory. Far right fears of homosexuality are couched in pleas to save the children, while “It Gets Better” campaigns insist on drawing a straight line between hormonal teenagers experimenting with same-sex desire and well-adjusted gay men. Amidst all of this emerges the figure of the queer child, at once a retroactively created image (i.e. “I’ve always known since I was a kid”) and a seemingly conceptual impossibility (what does it mean, after all, to talk about sexual orientation before puberty?). Justin Torres’s novel We The Animals and its film adaptation refuse to dance around such a debate. Instead, the semi-autobiographical story offers a portrait of a young Latino boy exploring his sense of self and coming to terms with how different he is from his older brothers, his abusive father, and other boys he knows.

We the Animals

Torres’s young queer boy is the latest of a budding roster of kids in contemporary literature and cinema that focus on what queer identity looks like before sexual maturity. From Alison Bechdel’s lesbian childhood in the graphic novel turned Broadway musical phenomenon Fun Home to Jeffrey Eugenides’ intersex child protagonist in Middlesex, from Pedro Almodóvar’s queer noir about abused young boys La mala educación to Moonlight’s take on a bullied black boy in Miami, 21st century artists have finally let go of treating gender and sexual identities in children as a taboo. What makes We The Animals such a fascinating addition to this budding canon is that it doesn’t frame such childhood explorations of queerness in terms of adult identities. We never meet the grown man that this young boy becomes.

The novel, for example, opens with an epigraph about the wildness of young boys. “Now a boy is of all wild beasts the most difficult to manage,” Plato informs us. “For by how much the more he has the fountain of prudence not yet fitted up, he becomes crafty and keen, and the most insolent of beasts.” That’s why it is necessary to bind him with many chains. Like all good epigraphs, the Plato quote both frames and illuminates the story that’s to follow, where Torres will introduce us to three wild young boys who must grapple with the chains that shackle them. Our guide is a six year-old boy who, despite wanting to anchor himself in the first person plural of the novel’s title, finds himself slowly veering away from his two older siblings. He knows there’s something markedly different about him and that self-awareness makes him a crafty narrator of his own story, even when the events he describes rankle precisely because he’s so nonchalant about them — he’s inviting us into his world and violence is sudden but not uncommon.

We The Animals is that rare book that tells the story of childhood trauma not (just) from the vantage point of hindsight, but with the immediacy of childlike awe. Torres’s language captures the wide-eyed wonder of kids all the while hinting at the dangers they may not even recognize as such. Take the opening lines of the book: “We wanted more. We knocked the butt ends of our forks against the table, tapped our spoons against our empty bowls; we were hungry.” Invoking the rhythm of a nursery rhyme — this could very well be the first lines of a Dr. Seuss book — this percussive chant immediately keys us into the unruly world of the “animals” of the novel’s title. You can hear the loudness of it all (director Jeremiah Zagar makes this all too central in his filmed adaptation; the same lines open the film in voice-over). But beneath the raucousness of these boys is the tragedy that undergirds their everyday life: their hunger isn’t (just) a metaphor. These are growing boys who spend their afternoons raiding the fridge and later still neighboring yards in search of food, any food. Their parents, we soon learn, are too busy, too indifferent, too broken, too drunk to take care of them. It’s no coincidence that “Paps” (Raúl Castillo) bears a tattoo that reads “mala crianza” (“bad parenting”).

What makes We The Animals so fascinating is that it doesn’t frame childhood explorations of queerness in terms of adult identities.

This is where Zagar’s adaptation improves on Torres’s slim tome, especially when it comes to exploring the book’s protagonist and his precocious sexual awakening. By making Jonah (Evan Rosado) older than he is at the start of the novel (he’s about to turn seven — or “six plus one,” as Ma tells him), yet younger than he is at the end (where his teenage hormones lead him to cruise at a truck stop), We The Animals makes the boy’s sexual curiosity a key part of his childhood. On screen, his desires feel both lurid and chaste: he’s enamored with a loner teenager he meets who shows him and his brothers porn; he finds his father terrifying yet all too alluring; he knows his sensitivity has no place in the macho masculine world of his Puerto Rican father’s household. But he also has no language for it.

Torres’s narrator is an observer, an audience, the kind of boy who thinks he’ll blend in better if he disappears into the background. Only, as he soon discovers, his roving eyes require him to jot down what he sees. He spend his sleepless nights chronicling in a secret notebook all that takes place in the “dreamtime” world he and his brothers have conjured up in their living room and backyard. In Torres’s book, the prose we’re reading (“Paps stood to piss and we saw his stout, fleshy dick, the darkness of his skin down there and the strong jet of urine, long and loud and pungent”) has the confessional tone of a young boy’s diary-like entries, even as it remains unclear whether those entries are exactly what we’re reading.

In the film, Zagar captures that hyper-awareness of everything around Jonah — not to mention his artistic drive to re-create what he sees — in a series of animated sequences that spring out of doodles Jonah draws as companion pieces to his writing. We see him start to fill that notebook, tucked away under the mattress he shares with his two brothers, with drawings that further depict what’s going on his head. Furious red squiggles pour out of black and white stick figures, bloody encounters between Ma and Paps turned into near-abstract sketches; blue crayon scratches become the lake where he feared he was gonna drown earlier that summer; increasingly R-rated content (all very phallic, of course) begins to take shape as Jonah grapples with what his shameful desires say about him. Childlike play is intimately tied to his self-discovery.

Those drawings work to clue audiences into how Jonah’s introversion is a self-defense mechanism. “You’re fucked up,” he’s told in the book by his brother. “What the fuck is wrong with you?” he’s asked in the film. Seeing him avert his furtive eyes to avoid watching his father straddle his mother in the bathroom, or catching himself staring too long at the teenager’s lips as they share a beer together, his move inward is a way to wall himself in. Shot as a series of intimate home movies that risk showing too much of the family dynamics at work in this working class household, the film makes us wince every time the camera lingers too long on Jonah’s probing eyes, making both his and our gaze feel complicit in the secret he’s hiding.

Queer kids often telegraph the very thing they’re trying to hide; the thing they struggle to suppress, to ignore. “They smelled my difference, my sharp, sad, pansy scent,” Torres’s narrator tells us. Such language, mixing self-awareness (“sad”) with borrowed bullying language (“pansy”), captures precisely why We The Animals marks new territory when it comes to telling stories for and about queer kids. There’s a bleak whimsy in what’s ostensibly a fictionalized version of the author’s own fractured childhood. And in Zagar’s hands Torres’s story pulses with kinetic energy, reminding us that young queer boys are all but required to be painfully aware of the scent they give off and which they can never shake off, only learn to embrace. Refusing to imagine who an older Jonah will be, and in turn making that image immaterial when it comes to telling his story, We The Animals offers its most radical proposition: it crystallizes queer childhood as its own entity, not as prologue nor as flashback.

7 Novels About the Reverberations of Trauma

I n my novel, Eden, two sisters survive a childhood abduction, the aftermath of which sets their lives on very different courses. We find out what happened to them when they were kidnapped as teenagers, but more integral is what happened to them afterwards. How do you return to your everyday life after experiencing a violent, traumatic event? Is your life forever changed? Are you still the same person? Do you try to forget what happened, or do you try to integrate it?

Purchase the novel

There is a traditional narrative about trauma in books and films: after much torment or self-destructive behavior, a protagonist finds relief by telling their story in a moment of emotional catharsis, hopefully in a therapist’s office or in a safe space with a supportive, trusted friend. While this is tremendously healing and empowering, what we often don’t see is that healing is an ongoing practice. There is still an “after” after the therapy session, after the meeting, after the purge of tears. We still have to go home, wherever that is, if home truly exists in the “after,” if it ever existed to begin with. And often we have to rebuild it.

Each of these novels is a complex meditation on trauma, many of them addressing the subject through structure as well as story. These books explore how survivors process and communicate their pain and how oftentimes their stories go unheard by others, or are conveniently forgotten. But trauma is persistent; it is embedded in the circuits of our lives and in the power structures of our society. It exists everywhere and it does not degrade simply because we prefer not to see it. As in Toni Morrison’s Beloved, it lives on in the atmosphere, in the soil, in the cities, in the water. And whether we are the perpetrators or the victims, the beneficiaries or the sufferers, the willfully blind or the ones who see very real ghosts, the historical continuously infects the intimate. In order to bear witness, we must first open our eyes.

Beloved by Toni Morrison

Toni Morrison’s masterpiece on the ongoing brutalities of slavery mixes realism and the supernatural in a novel inspired by the true story of an escaped slave who kills her child rather than have her returned to the plantation. In this Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Sethe and her family are haunted by a ghost and later by a mysterious young woman who arrives on their doorstep calling herself, Beloved. Lyrical, difficult, seductive, cruel, Beloved is the eternal return of history, of what we thought we left behind for dead.

The Small Backs of Children by Lidia Yuknavitch

Fractured, scattershot, compulsive, agitated, The Small Backs of Children refuses to follow any one path and calls everything into question. A photographer takes a picture of a girl who escapes an explosion in a war-torn country. A writer is re-traumatized by this photo. A group of artists decides to find this girl. A girl is already found, already an artist. One person escapes brutality, another person is aroused by brutality, another person profits from brutality, another needs brutality to make art. Where do these motives comes from? How are they connected? Lidia Yuknavitch tightly intertwines sex and violence and gender and art and war, showing how these elements are written on the body. The book’s discursiveness demands your attention and shakes you out of your anesthesia.

An Untamed State by Roxane Gay

The first half of Roxane Gay’s debut novel is hard to stomach: an unrelenting depiction of a woman kidnapped, raped, and held for ransom. Mireille is held for 13 days while visiting family in Haiti because her wealthy father refuses to pay up. But in the second half of the novel, when Mireille returns to her life and walks through American suburbia as a stranger in a strange land, the story shimmers with intersecting layers of identity. There are no easy answers in Gay’s novel, there is no happily ever after because no one emerges unscathed. We don’t expect forgiveness and the characters don’t give it. Gay focuses her lens on more complex questions: Who are the people that commit these crimes and who are the people we become if we survive?

The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy

“Anything can happen to Anyone,” thinks Estha as he stirs jam in his family’s factory. “It’s best to be prepared.” An amalgam of memories, relatives, politics, and storylines this Booker Award-winning novel follows fraternal twins Estha and Rahel through the incidents of their childhood that caused Estha to be “Returned” to his father. Fearing that the Orangedrink Lemondrink movie theater molester will come after him, Estha and Rahel build a boat to escape, leading to a horrible accident. Their divorced mother is locked in her room for having an affair with an untouchable-caste man, and the twins are separated for years until Estha is “Re-Returned.” Roy’s disorienting timeline is a kaleidoscope of wanderings and anguish, reflecting the magical realism that is childhood, with its strict social structures, its very real dark forces, and its promises of love.

The Year of the Beasts by Cecil Castellucci, illustrated by Nate Powell

This hybrid YA novel/graphic novel is moody, strange, and tormented. Alternating chapters of prose and comics, this story is a watery, inky portrait at the nexus of truth and myth. Did something truly horrible happen to Tessa, or did she read it in a book? Are you a regular teenager or do you have magical powers? And what if you don’t want the power you have? The Year of the Beasts explores how the fantastical offers a place for Tessa to make sense of a summer tragedy. It will melt whatever has turned you to stone.

Mysterious Skin By Scott Heim

Two young boys are sexually abused by their little league coach: one can’t remember the episode, and the other can’t forget it. Brian finds himself in the crawl space of his house late at night and, unable to account for his previous whereabouts, believes he was abducted by a UFO. Neil falls for the affection and attention of the coach and confuses it with love. As the two boys move on from high school, Neil becomes a hustler and Brian continues to be obsessed with aliens, his dreams, and his missing memory. This novel, which was made into a film by Gregg Araki, delves into the complexities of desire and youth, complicity and guilt, how we cling to what happened or the fantasy that it didn’t.

Mrs. Dalloway By Virginia Woolf

“Nothing has really happened until it has been described,” Woolf once told her biographer. Mrs. Dalloway unspools its story as the title character, Clarissa Dalloway, prepares to throw a party, and Septimus Smith, a WWI veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, struggles with the memory of losing his friend in battle. The stream-of-consciousness style flows between characters and back and forth in time: Clarissa revisiting her youth and lost chances for love, Septimus held captive by hallucinations. They exist in separate worlds until Septimus’ suicide is mentioned at Clarissa’s party. The way in which Woolf tells this story — sometimes confused, sometimes resting for a moment, sometimes delighted, often tormented — mirrors her characters in their plight to wake themselves up.

10 Questions About Teaching Writing with Lynn Steger Strong

I n our new monthly series “Can Writing Be Taught?” we’re partnering with Catapult to ask their course instructors all our burning questions about the process of teaching writing. (We have ten of these questions. One of them is about snacks.) This month we’re talking to Lynn Steger Strong, author of Hold Still, who’s teaching Catapult’s first-ever year-long novel generator course. Students will be guided through the process of creating and selling a novel, both the creative aspects—finding the story, drafting, refining—and the industry aspects like query letters and building an author platform. In addition to Catapult, Strong also teaches writing at Sackett Street Writers’ Workshop, the Pratt Institute, and Columbia University, so we were dying to hear her opinions on whether—and how—writing can be taught.

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

I had an instructor in grad school who really pushed the idea of constraints. So much of what is paralyzing about writing fiction especially is that there are so many choices, so many different directions to take a piece of writing or a character, but this instructor introduced me to the idea that one can place simple limits on one’s work: write a novel over a period of a week, force yourself to stay inside a scene, see what happens when you place two characters in a small space. Some of the most expansive fiction arises when the writer does not look further but harder and more pointedly.

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

The paralysis that comes from wanting to please everyone, forgetting somewhere along the way to write the thing that I set out to write.

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

How are the parts informing the whole? So many writers can write truly vivid and impressive moments or scenes or descriptions, but novels need those pieces to accrue and work together to create the experience of a book. I am constantly asking students to break their books down to their most essential parts and then to analyze how each of those parts are moving and evolving and how they might better serve the whole.

Does everyone “have a novel in them”?

There are so many factors involved in this question, not least of which is the question of does everyone have a good novel in them? (The answer to which is, of course, no.) The greatest hindrance to novel-writing, in my experience, is time: whether one has the privilege of having access to it, whether one has the endurance to show up for it every day. I think novels are harder than most people think they are when they start them. The people who finish are the ones who stick around after realizing what they signed up for is so much more daunting than they could have known when they began.

Some of the most expansive fiction arises when the writer does not look further but harder and more pointedly.

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

Only if they weren’t interested in working harder than they ever have before.

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

I think we should be always be talking about the two in tandem, as they inevitably overlap. One’s strengths as a writer often directly inform their weaknesses. They can also be applied to them. A person who is good at voice tends to use it as a crutch, sometimes to the detriment of plot or structure; a person who is good at plot sometimes ignores the development of character. No one is good at everything, but also no one has to be, so it’s worth considering how to employ one’s strengths to overcome one’s weaknesses. If you’re not interested in visual description, build a world in which the narrator’s voice gives the book its texture and its life; if plot doesn’t interest you, focus on the inevitable tensions and conflicts inherent in smaller moments over a shorter period of time.

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

Students should write with some idea of a reader, if only because language is a tool of communication, and I’m not sure you’re writing well if you’re not considering how to shape your language and your story with a reader in mind. With regard to publishing, the market seems to me to be such a constructed and elusive beast that it seems sort of pointless and maybe impossible to write with it in mind.

No one is good at everything, but also no one has to be, so it’s worth considering how to employ one’s strengths to overcome one’s weaknesses.

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

  • Kill your darlings: The parts are only as effective as they are serving the whole.
  • Show don’t tell: Absolutely. Until whatever it is you have to say is so urgent that you need to tell as well.
  • Write what you know: And then learn more so you have more to say.
  • Character is plot: The wants and fears of characters knocking up against one another, as well as those of others, are the plot.

What’s the best hobby for writers?

This is a wholly biased and perhaps not useful opinion, but I run every morning, and I can’t work if I haven’t sweat and cleared my head this way.

What’s the best workshop snack?

Gin.

A Lifelong Friendship that Began with a Slap

“The Sweet River,” excerpted from The Air You Breathe by Frances de Pontes Peebles

Time is short and the water is rising.

This is what one of Sofia Salvador’s directors—I can’t recall his name—used to shout before he’d start filming. Each time he said it, I imagined all of us in a fishbowl, our hands sliding frantically along the glass sides as water crept above our necks, our noses, our eyes.

I fall asleep listening to our old records and wake with my mouth dry, my tongue as rough as a cat’s. I pull the handle of my La‑Z‑Boy and, with a jolt, am sitting upright. A pile of photos rests in my lap.

I own the most famous photograph of Sofia Salvador—the Brazilian Bombshell, the Fruity Cutie Girl, the fast‑talking, eye‑popping nymph with her glittering costumes and pixie‑cut hair who, depending on your age and nationality, is either a joke, an icon of camp, a victim, a traitor, a great innovator, or even, as one researcher anointed her, “an object of serious study of Hollywood’s Latinas.” (Is that what they’re calling us now?) I bought the original photo and its negative at auction, paying much more than they were worth. Money isn’t an issue for me these days; I’m filthy rich and am not ashamed to say so. When I was young, musicians had to pretend that success and money didn’t matter. Ambition, in a sambista and especially in a woman, was seen as an unforgivable fault.

In the photo, taken in 1942, Sofia Salvador wears the pixie cut she made famous. Her eyes are wide. Her lips are parted. Her tongue flicks the roof of her mouth; it is unclear if she is singing or screaming. Earrings made to resemble life‑sized hummingbirds—their jeweled eyes glinting, their golden beaks sharp—dangle from her ears. She was vain about her lobes, worried they would sag under the weight of her array of earrings, each one more fantastical than the next. She was vain about everything, really; she had to be.

In the photograph she wears a gold choker, wrapped twice around her neck. Below it is strand upon strand of fake pearls, each one as large as an eyeball. Then there are the bracelets— bands of coral and gold—taking up most of her forearms. At the end of each day, when I’d take those necklaces and bracelets off her and she stopped being Sofia Salvador (for a moment, at least), Graça flapped her arms and said, “I feel so light. I could fly away!”

Graça drew Sofia’s dark eyebrows arched so high she always looked surprised. The mouth—that famous red mouth—was what took her the longest to produce. She lined beyond her lips so that, like everything else, it was an exaggeration of the real thing. Who was the real thing? By the end of her short life, even Graça had trouble answering this question.

The picture was taken for Life magazine. The photographer stood Graça against a white backdrop. “Pretend you’re singing,” he ordered. “Why pretend?” Graça replied.

“I thought that’s all you knew how to do,” the photographer shot back. He was famous and believed his fame gave him the right to be nasty.

Graça stared. She was very tired. We always were, even me, who signed Sofia Salvador’s name to hundreds of glossy photos while Graça and the Blue Moon boys endured eighteen‑hour days of filming, costume fittings, screen tests, dance rehearsals, and publicity shoots for whatever her latest movie musical was. It could have been worse; we could have been starving like in the old days. But at least in the old days we played real music, together.

“Then I will pretend to respect you,” Graça said to that fool photographer. Then she opened her mouth and sang. People remember the haircut, the enormous earrings, the sequined skirts, the accent, but they forget her voice. When she sang for that photographer, his camera nearly fell from his hands.

I listen to her records—only our early recordings, when she sang Vinicius’s and my songs—and it is as if she is still seventeen and sitting beside me. Graça, with all of her willfulness, her humor, her petty resistances, her pluck, her complete selfishness. This is how I want her, if only for the span of a three‑minute song.

When the song ends, I’m exhausted and whimpering. I imagine her here, nudging me, bringing me back to my senses.

Why the hell are you upset, Dor? Graça chides. At least you’re still around.

Her voice is so clear, I have to remind myself she isn’t real. I have known Graça longer in my imagination than in real life.

Who wants real life? Graça asks, laughing at me. (She is always laughing at someone.)

I shake my head. After all this time—ninety‑five years, to be exact— I still do not know the answer.

My current life is a dull jumble of walks along the beach chaperoned by a nurse; trips to the grocery store; afternoons in my office; evenings listening to records; tedious hours spent tolerating a steady stream of physical therapists and doctors with their proclamations and humorless devotion. I live in a vast house surrounded by paid help. Once, long ago, I wished for such ease.

Be careful what you wish forDor.

It’s too late to be careful now, amor.

Now, I wish for the early, chaotic part of my life—those first thirty or so years—to return to me, even with its cruelty, its sacrifice, its missteps, its misdeeds. My misdeeds. If I could hear my life—if I could put it on a turntable like a worn‑out LP—I’d hear samba. Not the boisterous kind they play during Carnaval. Not one of those silly marchinhas, as short‑lived and vapid as bubbles. And not the soft‑spoken, romantic sort, either. No. Mine would be the kind of samba you’d find in a roda: the kind we played in a circle after work and a few stiff drinks. It begins quite dire‑sounding, perhaps with the lonely moan of a cuíca. Then, ever so slowly, others join the roda—voices, guitars, a tamborim drum, the scratch of a reco‑reco—and the song begins to claw its way out of its lowly beginning and into something fuller, thicker, darker. It has all of the elements of a true samba (though not necessarily a great one). There is lament, humor, rebelliousness, lust, ambition, regret. And love. There is that, too. It is all improvisation, so if there are mistakes I must move past them and keep playing. Beneath it all, there is the ostinato— the main groove that never varies, never wavers. It keeps its stubborn pace; the beat that’s always there. And here I am: the only one left in the circle, conjuring voices I have not heard in decades, listening to a chorus of arguments I should never have made. I have tried not to hear this song in full. I have tried to blot it out with drink and time and indifference. But it remains in my head, and will not stop until I recall all of its words. Until I sing it out loud, from beginning to end.

The Sweet River

Share this bottle with me,
share this song.
The years have hardened my heart.
Drink will loosen my tongue.
Come, walk with me,
to the places I once loved.

Man made the fire
to burn the fields of cane.
God made music
to take away my pain.

I come from a land
where sugar is king and the river is sweet.
They say a woman drowned there,
her ghost haunts the deep.

Sit beside me now, at the riverbank
hear my voice, loud and strong.
Wade into these sweet waters with me,
let me open your heart with a song.

Now we’re both pulled under, friend,
singing the same refrain:
Dive back, again, to the place you once loved
and you’ll find it’s never the same.

Man made the fire
to burn the fields of cane.
God made music
to take away my pain.

It would be better to begin with Graça — with her arrival, with our first meeting. But life isn’t as orderly as a story or a song; it does not always begin and end at compelling points. Even before Graça’s arrival, even as a small child, I sensed that I’d been born into a role that didn’t fit my ambitions, like a stalk of sugarcane crammed into a thimble.

I survived my own birth, a true feat in 1920 if you were born to a dirt‑poor mother living on a sugar plantation. The midwife who delivered me told everyone how surprised she was that such a hearty girl could’ve come from my mother’s tired womb. I was her fifth and final child. Most women who worked on the plantation had ten or twelve or even eighteen children, so my mother’s womb was fresher and younger than most. But she was not married and never had been. All of my long‑lost brothers and myself — I was the only girl in our lot — had different fathers. This made my mother worse than a puta in many people’s minds, because at least a puta had the sense to charge for her services.

I didn’t dare ask about my mother, afraid of what I might hear and not willing to risk a beating; I was not allowed to ask any questions at all, you see. No one spoke of her, except to insult me. They said I was big‑boned, like her. They said I had a temper, like her. They said I was ugly as sin, like her, except I did not have scars covering my arms and face from the cane. She was, for a little while at least, a sugarcane cutter — one of a handful of women who could stomach the work. But the insult that came up the most was the one about her easy way with men. If I didn’t use enough salt to scrub blood from the plantation’s cutting boards, or if I stopped stirring the infernally hot jam on the stove for even a second, or if I was too slow bringing Cook Nena or her staff ingredients from the pantry or garden, I was smacked with a wooden spoon and called “puta’s girl.” So I came to know my mother through all of the things people despised about her, and about me. And I realized, though I could not articulate it clearly as a child, that people hated what they feared, and so I was proud of her.

The midwife took pity on me, being such a healthy baby, and instead of smothering me, or throwing me in the cane for the vultures pick at, or giving me to some plantation owner to raise like a pet or a slave (all common practices back then for girl children without families), she gave me to Nena, the head cook on the Riacho Doce plantation. There were hundreds of cane plantations along the coast of our state of Pernambuco, and Riacho Doce was one of the largest. In good times, when sugar prices were high, Cook Nena led a staff of ten kitchen maids and two houseboys. Nena was as full‑breasted as a prize rooster and had hands as large and as lethal as her cast‑iron frying pans. The Pimentel family owned Riacho Doce and were the masters of its Great House, but Nena ruled in the kitchen. This is why no one objected when, after the midwife brought me, naked and wailing, to Nena, the cook decided to raise me as her kitchen girl.

Everyone in the Great House — maids, laundresses, stable boys, houseboys — went to Nena’s kitchen to get a look at me. They freely remarked on my rosy skin, my long legs, my perfect feet. A day later, I stopped drinking the goat’s milk Nena gave me in a bottle. Nena visited a local wet nurse and I spat the woman’s teats from my mouth. I was too young to eat manioc porridge but Nena tried to feed it to me anyway. I spat that out, too, and soon turned shriveled and yellow‑skinned like an old crone. People said I’d been cursed by the evil eye. Olho mau, they called it, olho gordo. Both are different names for the same bad luck.

Nena went to Old Euclides for help. Euclides was wrinkled, gossipy, and the color of blackstrap scraped from the sugar mill’s vats. He’d worked at R iacho Doce longer than Nena had, first as a stable boy and then as its groundskeeper. He had a donkey who’d given birth and lost her foal but not her milk. Nena took me to the stables and held me straight to that jega’s teat, and I drank. I drank that jega’s milk until I was fat and strong again. My color changed; I was less like a rose and more like that donkey’s tan coat. My hair grew in thick. After that, I was called Jega.

In people’s superstitious and backward minds, the girl I became was inextricably linked to the mother’s milk I’d drunk.

“Jega’s as dumb as an ass,” the houseboys teased.

“Jega’s as stubborn as an ass,” the kitchen maids complained.

“Jega’s as ugly as an ass,” the stable boys said when they felt spiteful.

They all wanted me to believe it. They wanted me to become that Jega. I would never give them that satisfaction.

The Great House sat on a hill. You could stand on its pillared front porch and see nearly all of Riacho Doce’s workings: the main gate, the mill with its blackened smokestack, the horse and donkey stables, the administrator’s house, the carpenter’s shed, the old manioc mill, a small square of pasture and corn, the distillery and warehouses with their thick iron doors. And you could see the brown line of water that gave Riacho Doce its name, although it was much wider than a creek and its waters were not sweet.

Every plantation had a ghost story and ours was no different: a woman had drowned in the creek and lived there still. Some said she was killed by a lover, others said a master, others said she killed herself. They said you could hear her at night, under the waters, singing for her lost love or trying to lure people into the waters and drown them to keep her company; the story depended on whether you believed in the kind ghost or the vengeful one. Riacho Doce’s mothers told their children this before bed, and it kept them away from the river. I heard the ghost’s story from Nena.

Behind the Great House was an orchard, and behind that the low‑ roofed slaves’ senzalas that had been converted into servants’ quarters. Nena and I were the only staff allowed to sleep in the Great House itself, which set us apart from the rest of the servants. This special status didn’t affect Nena as much as it did me. I was Jega — the lowest soul in the strict hierarchy of the Great House — and the maids and houseboys were determined to remind me of this fact. They slapped me, pinched my neck, cursed and spat at me. They thwacked me with wooden spoons and greased the staff doorway with lard to make me slip and fall. They locked me in the foul‑smelling outhouse until I kicked my way out. Nena knew about these pranks but didn’t stop them.

“That’s the way a kitchen is,” Nena said. “You’re lucky the boys aren’t trying to get under your skirts. They will soon enough. Better learn to fight them now.”

Nena always issued such warnings to me:

Better keep your head down.

Better stay out of sight.

Better make yourself useful.

If I failed to heed her warnings she beat me with a wooden spoon, or an old bullwhip, or with her bare hands. And while I feared these beatings I didn’t think them odd or bad; I knew no other kind of affection, and neither did Nena. She used her fists to teach me things she couldn’t articulate, lessons that would keep me alive. Nena could keep me safe in her kitchen but nowhere else. I was a creature without family or money. I was another mouth to feed. And, even worse, I was a girl. At the owners’ whim, I could be thrown out of the Great House and left to fend for myself in that sea of sugarcane. And what did an ugly little girl have to offer the world but her body? So I had to learn to defend that body ruthlessly against any stable boys or millworkers or others who might try to use it roughly. And, at the same time, I had to learn how to make myself useful within the house, to obey my patrons at all costs or, better yet, stay out of their sights completely. As long as I was invisible, I was safe.

So while little girls like Graça were playing with dolls and dresses, I learned to play other kinds of games. Games where force was power, and where cleverness meant survival.

When I was nine years old, the world’s great financial crash hit Brazil and sugar became as valuable as dirt. Smaller plantations near R iacho Doce boarded up their Great Houses and put workers out of their gates. Riacho Doce’s mill closed. After getting into crippling debt, the Pimentel family moved away. There were rumors of a sale. Soon afterward, the cane cutters left to work on other plantations that had weathered the crisis. The fields were abandoned. The distillery was locked. One by one, the housemaids and kitchen girls and stable boys left. Soon, only Nena, Old Euclides, and I were left.

“They’ll be back,” Nena said of the Pimentels. “No one leaves their land. And when they do come back, they’ll remember who was loyal and who wasn’t.”

Nena was driven by loyalty and fear. She and Old Euclides were born on Riacho Doce before slavery had been banned in Brazil in 1888, and had stayed on even after they were freed. During the abandonment, Old Euclides took care of the grounds, making sure no one took animals from the stables or stole fruit from the orchard. Nena wouldn’t let her copper pots and iron pans fall into the hands of looters or bill collectors so she hid anything of value. Porcelain dining sets, silver platters and tureens, pure gold cutlery, a bowl made of mother‑of‑pearl were stashed under the Great House’s floorboards. We ate whatever food was left in the pantry and then, because none of us had been paid since the Pimentels left, began to trade at the local market. Eggs for flour, star fruit from the orchard for a bit of salted meat, bottles of molasses for beans. These were lean times but not unhappy ones. Not for me.

For many months the Great House was empty and I spent my days inside it. I skipped across its stone floors. I slipped my hands under dust covers and felt cool marble, the slopes and curves of table legs, the gilded bevels of mirrors. I pulled books from shelves and opened them wide to hear their bindings snap. I walked proudly up and down the wide wooden staircase, like I imagined the lady of the house would. For the first time in my nine years of life, I had the luxury of time and freedom — to explore, to pretend, to play without fear of being hit or scolded, to live without the constant worry that I would be cast out of Riacho Doce for some small infraction. I was allowed to be a child, and began to believe that I would always have such freedom. I should have known better.

One day, as I sat in the library and tried to decode the mysterious symbols inside the Pimentels’ books, I heard a terrible growling outside. It sounded as if there was a giant dog snarling at the Great House gate. I ran to Nena, who opened the front door.

A motorcar rumbled outside the front gate. Old Euclides scrambled, suddenly as spry as a puppy, down the drive and pushed open the gate. The car stopped and a man emerged from the driver’s side. He wore a hat and a long canvas coat to protect his suit. He opened the passenger and back doors. Two women emerged: a pale one also wearing a driving coat, and another in a maid’s striped uniform and lace cap. The maid attempted to tug something from the backseat. There was a hiss and a screech. For a moment, I believed there was an animal in the car — a cat or some kind of possum — until I saw the maid’s hands wrapped around two tiny feet in patent leather boots. The boots kicked free of the maid’s grip. The woman wedged herself deeper into the car’s doorway. Then there were screams, grunts, a swirl of white petticoats and, finally, a cry. The maid jumped from the automobile’s backseat, her eyes watering, her hand pressed to a fresh scratch on her face.

“Leave her inside!” the man snapped. “She’s old enough to climb out herself.”

The maid nodded, her hand still clamped to her face. The other woman sighed and unbuttoned her canvas driving coat, revealing a silk dress and a tangle of pearls at her neck.

A halo of red curls surrounded her face. Her skin was what we called “mill white” because that was the prized color of sugar. The sugar we used in the Great House kitchen was the mill’s seconds — raw and muddy‑colored, not white but not quite brown, just like me.

“It’s better she doesn’t come outside,” the man said, staring at the dirt road. “She’ll get herself filthy.” He had darker coloring, a square jaw, and a Roman nose that sloped like an arrow pointing at his full mouth.

“We’ll all have to get used to a little dirt from now on,” the mill white woman replied, and her lips pursed as if she was holding back laughter, as if she’d told herself a naughty joke.

At the mention of dirt, a girl my own age wiggled from the backseat. She wore a dress the color of butter, and white gloves. A bow sat crookedly atop her head; the girl snatched it from her hair and flung it to the ground. She kicked at the dirt, scuffing her boots, and then glared at the adults around her, daring them to tell her to stop. Then she saw me, and stood still. To her, I was not invisible.

Her eyes were the color of cork. Her mouth looked as if it had been painted onto her face, like a doll’s. I don’t know how long we stared at each other; I only remember not wanting to break first, determined not to let her win.

Still staring at me, the girl pressed her gloved hand to the car’s body and dragged it across the entire side. Then she raised her hand. The glove’s palm was as red as the earth under my bare feet. The girl smirked, as if sharing a joke, but I knew she didn’t intend to amuse me. Gloves were for the rich. They were expensive and delicate. Some poor laundress would have the unenviable task of trying to clean that soiled glove, so small it would bunch in her hands and make her knuckles scrape against the washboard until they bled. But the girl didn’t care about the glove, or the laundress, or anything. She would ruin something perfectly good, for no reason at all. I felt both respect and revulsion.

“Graça!” the man shouted.

The man and woman bickered. Nena, Old Euclides, and I kept very still, waiting for them to acknowledge our presence. Only when they needed help did we become flesh‑and‑blood to them — the man ordered Euclides to get the bags from the car’s trunk; the pale woman dropped her driving coat into Nena’s arms. This is when I knew that those people were not visitors but owners, come to claim Riacho Doce and the Great House for themselves.

They were also Pimentels — cousins of the previous owners. As we walked through the Great House together, Senhora Pimentel moved languidly alongside her husband, looking tired as she pointed out leaks and cracks, peeling paint and rotted wood. Her husband, Senhor Pimentel, yanked dust covers from the furniture, like a magician revealing his trick.

“I remember my grandfather using this desk!” he cried. And, later, “I was the one who spilled ink on this chair!”

The giddy freedom I’d felt over several months leaked away in the single hour after those new Pimentels arrived. All of the books I’d slipped from the shelves, all of the ivory and glass knickknacks I’d polished and stroked, all of the tables I’d hidden under, pretending I was in a tent in some exotic land, all of the mirrors in which I’d studied myself, would never again be mine to play with. I would once again have to be useful and invisible, to obey or be cast away. When her parents weren’t looking, the cork‑eyed girl stuck out her tongue at me. It was as pink and slick as a jambo fruit. I had the urge to bite off its tip.

Finally, the new Pimentels pulled the covers from two armchairs and sat, exhausted, in the formal sitting room. They ordered Nena to make coffee. We raced to the kitchen, where Nena grabbed my arm and told me to get the last, precious beans she’d hidden under her cot. Back upstairs, I peeked through the slatted door of the sitting room as Nena served coffee to the new Pimentels. They waited to drink until she’d left the room; I did not follow her to the kitchen.

Senhor Pimentel took a sip from his cup and made a face. “Did she use an old sock to strain this?” he asked.

Senhora Pimentel shook her head. “We’ll have to train a new staff. How exhausting.”

“Nena’s a good cook — you’ll see. She’s been here since I was a kid,” Senhor Pimentel replied.

“You think she and the old man had that child together? Poor little ugly thing.”

Senhor Pimentel laughed. “Nena’s as old as the hills. And the girl’s too light‑skinned to be theirs. I bet she’s not so ugly under all that dirt; she just needs a good scrubbing.”

“She’ll stay in the kitchen,” Senhora Pimentel snapped. “If she grows up to be decent‑looking she can serve the table.”

Senhor Pimentel took his wife’s hand. She fixed him with the same weary expression she’d had when she’d inspected the Great House. They discussed their plans for the house. Furniture that was upstairs would go downstairs. Rugs would be thrown out. Curtains replaced. Water pipes and a flush toilet installed, which meant hacking into the house’s thick white walls.

There were footsteps behind me. Before I could hide, I felt a terrible stinging on the back of my arm. The cork‑eyed Pimentel girl pinched the skin above my elbow. I glared and shook her loose.

“Marta always cried when I pinched her,” the girl said.

“Who’s Marta?”

“The kitchen girl at my other house, in Recife. It’s a mansion. Better than this pigsty.”

“This is the best house of any plantation,” I said.

The girl shrugged. “You must die of boredom out here.”

“Do I look dead?”

“It’s a way of talking. Are you dumb?”

“Not half as dumb as you look.”

The girl’s eyes widened. “You can’t talk to me like that.”

She was right — I was risking my place in that Great House. I blame those many months of freedom for my boldness, and for what happened next.

“This is my house now,” the girl said.

My hand made a crisp, exhilarating slap against her cheek. The girl gasped. I ran.

The kitchen pantry was an empty, cool space. I sat inside, waiting. My fingers throbbed from the slap I’d dealt. I had sickening thoughts of Nena finding me and giving me the worst thrashing of my life. Or, worse, Senhor Pimentel stalking into the kitchen and casting me out of the only home I’d ever known. After what felt like an eternity, there were footsteps and chatter, then the automobile growled again and the new Pimentels left with a promise to return and begin renovations.

I was impressed that the Pimentel girl hadn’t snitched; it made her tolerable to me, but also dangerous. What would she want in return for her silence? What would I owe her? These were the questions I asked myself in the weeks before the new Pimentels returned, while carpenters and stonemasons and plumbers sawed and pounded and pressed copper pipes into the Great House’s walls.

Years later, I asked Graça about the day we met and she laughed. I remembered it all wrong, she said. She’d slapped me.

Michelle Tea on Archiving Queer History that Is Often Erased

I was introduced to Michelle Tea and Sister Spit in the damp basement of a South Brooklyn performance venue on the second of three quirky OkCupid dates with a literal fire breather. It was sometime around 2010 and I was new to queerness and to Brooklyn. When my date proposed the performance, I tried to talk her out of it because I had to hop on the subway by 5:15 am the next morning to commute from Brooklyn to my teaching job in the South Bronx. She persisted and I met her a few hours after school let out, wearing a left-cocked New Era cap, a light blue tie in a half windsor knot, and a crisp, colorful Uniqlo button down. This was the first literary performance I had ever attended.

Purchase the book

I didn’t speak a word to my date after the performance started. I couldn’t take my eye off of the stage. It was one of the first times I was hearing other folks who were gender non-conforming, queer, and people of color speak candidly and humorously about their experiences. This wasn’t something I had access to growing up in Seattle or in college or grad school in California. It would take 5 years for me to start reading and writing my own poems but this Sister Spit event planted seeds that eventually flowered.

Michelle Tea founded the Sister Spit tour and is a prolific author, poet, curator, and performer. She is the curator of the Amethyst Editions imprint at Feminist Press, “champion[ing] emerging queer writers who employ genre-bending narratives and experimental writing styles, and complicates the conversation around American LGBTQ+ experiences beyond a coming out narrative”. Her latest book, Against Memoir, lets years of queer journalism reverberate in a single volume. Long-form journalism pieces about Valerie Solanas, the HAGS, gentrification, addition, dating, family-building, queer art, transphobia, and Trans Camp, speak to each other. I jumped at the opportunity to hop on a call with Michelle to talk to her about her intersecting writing, publishing, and performing careers and her approach to archiving queer history that is often erased.

Candace Williams: How is life in LA? Folks are moving there left and right.

Michelle Tea: It’s really true. A big reason we moved here is because so many of our friends in San Francisco had moved here. San Francisco is just more and more a ghost town. I mean, I still have friends there, too, but just the pull of it was really strong. I mean, it’s cheaper. In San Francisco, it felt like the walls were closing in. It’s a small city. There’s only so much space and tech gentrification has been bad for so long. After a certain point you just recognize that they won and there was no coming back from it. Then, it was just kind of depressing to live in a city that used to be great.

I really like LA. I like the weather. I like all of the greenery. People who don’t live here think of freeways and sprawl, but there’s so much nature here. People hike way more here than anyone I know hiked in San Francisco. There’s a lot of opportunity here. The dominant industry is the entertainment industry — which I think is really interesting and fascinating and inspiring, unlike the tech industry, which I just feel like is boring and alienating.

CW: I’m in awe of your curation career as well as your writing career. You’ve created many different reading series in different settings, from libraries, to bookstores. You had the Sister Spit/City Lights imprint and now you have Amethyst which sounds awesome because it’s my birthstone.

MT: Aquarius? Me too, high five!

CW: Yes, high five! Can you talk about that journey? Has it mirrored your writing career? What do you love about it and what’s hard?

MT: My curating and my writing kind of happen side by side because I started writing by going to poetry open mics in the 90s in San Francisco when they were really fun. There was so much variety in the kinds of writing and really high energy… it had the energy of a punk show which is not what you would think about from poetry. My performing happened at the same time as my writing did. It all happened in community. In San Francisco at the time, many different venues would do curated shows. The Bearded Lady would have shows. The Luna Sea Woman’s Performance Project would have shows. You would wait to get invited to one of these shows and that’s how I came up as a writer. It was really fun for me. I didn’t go to college or anything. This was how I learned how to write better. My canon was the people around me who were also reading their work and we were inspiring each other and it was a super cool time.

Sister Spit came out of that. It began as an open mic. There were tons of open mics in San Francisco and they were very straight and they were very dude heavy. There were definitely tons of women and there were some queers and some people of color. I realized I liked going there because I had a big chip on my shoulder. I liked hearing some misogynist asshole and then heckling them and getting in a fight while I was drunk. The other queers and women who went to these, they kind of had to be smart asses themselves to kind of do it. Sidney Anderson (who I did Sister Spit with) and I , asked “Where are all the other queer female writers?” because the city’s filled with them and they’re not coming to these things. They’re not coming cause they don’t feel welcome and it makes sense that they don’t feel welcome. You had to really fight for a space there. Then once you did, everyone loved you. It was just like you got jumped into the gang or something. Everyone loved you. So we started doing Sister Spit and at our first open mic we had 20 people signed up.

CW: Wow. That’s an amazing turnout for an open mic!

MT: It was. It was really cool. We did that for a couple of years and then got burned out. I’d been playing in a band and our band went on tour even though we were not ready to go on tour. We were not that good. We did it anyway and I loved being on tour and that’s how the Sister Spit tour started. I wanted to have that experience again, but I didn’t want to be in a band anymore.

CW: That’s really brilliant. All of us want to be in a band, right? All of us want to tour. It must be interesting to tour with writing and bring intellectual light to audiences. Was it easier than touring with a band?

MT: It was easier to get gigs. It was easier to get audiences. If you’re a band, you’re in a kind of niche of whatever music you play and the scene you grew out of. We were queer writings and at that moment, spoken word was really popular, and slam was developing. There were slam teams in different cities that we could contact and say, “Hey, can you help us put on a show?”. Then, we’d put the word out in gay newspapers. It was better than just like being a weird math rock band.

I’m really psyched that it’s still happening. I turned it over, and it ended up becoming part of Radar Productions, which is the literary non-profit I started in San Francisco. After a point, after doing so much curating, literally for decades, I had a grant writer who’s this older gay man who is wonderful, kind of grab me and be like, “Do you understand that you are doing the work of a non-profit but with zero resources and no pay?”. He helped me create a non-profit to stick all of my projects under and get funded and it changed my life. But I had to hand it off when I moved to LA. I handed it to this younger, amazing curator and writer named Juliana Delgado Lopera. Her book is coming out on Feminist Press in a year or two. Under her watch, it’s become all queer trans people of color. It’s awesome. She’s just doing great stuff with it.

If you’re a marginalized person, you’re telling your story. You’re empowering other marginalized people. You’re setting the record straight from history and that can be politically powerful.

CW: How did Amethyst come about?

MT: I’m in touch with so many writers and I get to know what they’re working on. and The Radar Reading Series was another project that I ran it for 13 years. It was a monthly reading series at the San Francisco Public Library. For six years, I ran the Radar Lab, which was a free queer-centric writer’s retreat in Mexico. It was open to anybody who’d ever read at Radar or performed with Sister Spit. They could submit their writing and their proposal. We would judge the work anonymously and then writers would go to Mexico and work on their pieces. I learned about all these works in progress and I just wanted to publish them all. It might be a weird, creepy, narcissistic sort of impulse, actually. I see these writers who really inspire me and then I want to do something with them. I guess it’s like a producing impulse. I’m like, “You’re amazing. I want to do something with you. What do we do?”.

For a minute, we thought about doing our own press, and I had a really illuminating meeting with Dave Eggers about how he started McSweeney’s and what their business model was. I realized I could accomplish what I wanted to accomplish by hitching onto an existing press instead of recreating the wheel. I was really inspired by Little House on the Bowery, which is a Dennis Cooper’s imprint with Akashic books. I realized, “Oh, other writers have done this. It’s not like I’m making this up.”

I went to City Lights and I met with Elaine Katzenberger and she loved the idea. I love City Lights. I always felt really supported by them as a writer it would be good for them to have an overtly queer and female project in their roster because they are kind of known for their straight white dude projects.

We did that for a while. Then, I started publishing with Feminist Press. They picked up my book, Black Wave. Editor-in-chief Jennifer Baumgardner and I hit it off and it just seemed like I was going to start publishing with them and working closely with them and maybe it would be a better fit and make more sense to kind of move my publishing impulses over to Feminist Press.

With City Lights, you get great distribution and great publicity. City Lights is so impressive and historically important. Feminist Press is able to pay a little bit of an advance. Super tiny, but it’s always been part of my work to try to get money to writers, so that was really attractive. Amethyst is a specifically queer imprint within Feminist Press.

What binds all the Amethyst titles together is that it’s truly queer, outside the LGBT mainstream, and there is a radical politic embedded in all of the work, even if the story isn’t necessarily about radical politics.

CW: So, let’s say it’s 20 years from now and people are looking at all of the Amethyst titles that have come out for the past 20 years. What do you want people to think about the imprint and the work as a body? What do you want the work to do in the world? I’m thinking about something like Kitchen Table Press, which I’m really thankful for. The press doesn’t exist anymore, but I go to the Herstory Archives and I read Audre Lorde and I read Barbara Smith and I realize, “Wow, Kitchen Table published all of these great books and all of these great people and their work still stands up”. What kind of vibe or idea do you want people to get in their mind when they hear of your imprint down the road from now?

MT: The thing that really binds all the work together is it’s queer. It’s truly queer. It’s outside the LGBT mainstream, and I think that there is a radical politic embedded in all of the work, even if the story isn’t necessarily about radical politics. Radical politics are embedded in the hearts of all the people that we publish, so they come through in the writing in one way or another. There’s also humor. I love humor. This world is so fucking hard and queer humor can be a dark humor, it can be a gallows humor, it can be a surreal, absurd humor, but I love humor and I think there’s queer humor in all of the work that we publish.

CW: After reading Against Memoir, I started thinking more critically about addiction, and the role it plays in a lot of queer communities. One thing I really appreciated about the book is that I think you’re constantly acknowledging and processing both sites of oppression, but also your sites of privilege in relation to people and events you are archiving. I feel like you were able to capture part of the Camp Trans story that has been lost, simply because you spoke to people who were there. There’s privilege in being the one to deliver that message. What steps do you take to make sure that you’re writing about people and not writing over people?

MT: I felt hyper-aware that I was kind of a double outsider at Camp Trans. I’m not a trans person. I’m cisgender. So, I’m bringing that privilege with me, and then I’m there as a member of the press. My approach was to actually use the direct words of trans women at Trans Camp instead of paraphrasing them. I did not want to filter what they have to say through me. I wanted to center them and give them space

I’m really grateful for the Believer. They run long form journalism even though it’s not the traditional way to do things. The traditional way to do things is for editors to ask, “Can you paraphrase that?”. I think journalists and editors can mistakenly think that’s part of their job, to distill what everyone’s saying, and then spit it out in their own words.

When you’re talking to people who are from a community that you’re actually not a part of, and you actually have more privilege and access that these folks, I think it’s really important to just give them the space to actually say shit in their own words. It’s way more powerful. It’s more effective. It’s more interesting.

The HAGS piece was similar. I have privilege as a survivor. I didn’t go down that rabbit hole so deeply that I couldn’t get out. Also, as somebody who just didn’t have it quite as hard as they did growing up in the world. I am cisgender and many of them weren’t. I think they identified as “butch” and some of those folks have since transitioned. Who knows what the folks who passed away would have ended up identifying as, were they allowed to kind of keep living and evolving.

That was really hard to write. I felt intimidated by the weight of history and representation and knowing that people close to them already felt burned by the media because the mainstream press, like the Daily Paper, picked up the story in a very sensationalistic way when members of the HAGS died.

I interviewed a lot of people who survived them and loved them and wanted to do right by their story, and so it was overwhelming. I did a lot of interviewing and I collected tons of interviews and then I just sat on it and I just didn’t write the story for awhile. The California Sunday Magazine was interested. I thought it was gonna be a really long piece. I finally get it together and write it. It’s epic. When I finished it, I laid in bed and spent the afternoon crying, which I don’t do. I am not a laying down during the day and crying person. I was really, deeply exhausted from it. Then, it turned out I was super wrong. I only had 3,000 words.

So then, I was intimidated in a different way, like “How am I gonna cut this down?”. I cut it down and it was horrible. It read exactly the way I didn’t want it to read. It was like, “Look at these people. They were queer. Crazy, they did drugs and died. The end.” There was no context. There was nothing of my own story in it. I feel like my story helped contextualize the time.

CW: That makes sense. Stories are lineages right? When you think about the lineage of HAGS, part of it is you. Even though you were coexisting, you were also part of this movement. So, what did you do?

MT: I just pulled it. I was like, “You can’t run it. I’m so sorry. It just doesn’t work like this and I’m sorry that I wasted your time.” Then, I contacted the Believer. I’ve published with them before and it’s always been a great experience with them giving me lots of space and be really open to queer content. Then, in the process, I had this book, Against Memoir, coming out. I had made this plan with Feminist Press to publish a collection of my journalism pieces and they wanted new work. I’m really happy for that initial “yes” from California Sunday because it got me to do it and I’d thought about it for so long.

I feel like the piece is about what I experienced in San Francisco in the 1990s in general. I feel like I experienced an evolution and a movement and it is lost to history. It did not get recorded.

When you’re talking to people who are from a community that you’re actually not a part of, and you actually have more privilege and access that these folks, I think it’s really important to just give them the space to actually say shit in their own words. It’s way more powerful. It’s more effective. It’s more interesting.

CW: In a previous interview, you said that you reject the activist label for the work that you’re doing now. Earlier in your life, you were going out to protests, and mobilizing artwork, and doing all these things that were a direct and critical response to events and issues. Now, the focus of your work has shifted. How does the memoir fit in to your idea of what literally organizing is, and is there such a thing as literally activism?

MT: I think that there can be such a thing as literary activism and I think that memoirs are a huge part of literary organizing in a political sense because it’s people telling their stories and that’s always really powerful. If you’re a marginalized person, you’re telling your story. You’re empowering other marginalized people. You’re setting the record straight from history and that can be politically powerful.

But for me, having done actual activism and now, as a writer, I have a literary career. So when I’m writing books, that is so self serving. It just can never feel like activism to me. I know people are paid to organize. I think that’s awesome and it is still organizing but for me, I just feel like I’m a writer. My politics come through in my books. I follow my creative impulses and if my writing happens to have political and activism resonance, I’m happy about that but I don’t set out to do that. It’s a side effect of me following my creative passion.

There’s this march for families against ICE here in LA on Saturday and so on Friday, me and my wife and my son we’re gonna make signs and we’re go to the march. That feels like activism to me even though I know that in a sense, my writing could possibly be more effective in some ways. I don’t know. It is weird.

CW: So let’s say tomorrow, someone gave you a lot of money and says, “Michelle, organize the next massive queer festival.” Do you have a name for it? Do you know what the vibe would be like? Because I’m getting the sense that you learned a lot from Trans Camp and you learned a lot from the Michigan Women’s Music Festival.

MT: Oh, I wish someone would do that. Oh my god that would be amazing and fun! It would be very inclusive, and accepting, and it would be very kind of punk, and it would have really fantastic art because I actually think I have really good taste. I would pay everybody and that would be cool.

I would love to have an opportunity to bring so many of the people and performers in all different mediums that I love together. I don’t know, I would have Seth Bogart and Peggy Noland design the stages and I would have Sons of an Illustrious Father play, and I would get other people to curate because that’s important. The literary stage would really be my baby. I’d have Dynasty Handbag, and I would have Narcissister, and I would have lots of performance art and have it be super weird. It would be a queerdo fest.

CW: That’s awesome. Would you limit it by gender at all?

MT: No, I wouldn’t. I really wouldn’t. I did that for so long with Sister Spit and it felt appropriate for the time. But I don’t really feel like it’s where I am right now. I would want all genders present. I feel like when you start gender segregating it inevitably just hurts trans communities because you’re leaving people out. Trans people are a part of my community of all genders, and so I would always want to include those voices and those people.

I just think that ultimately what people want is to feel safe and and to be surrounded by like-minded people who have their best interest at heart and share their values, and I just think if you’re using gender as a litmus test for that you’re fucked. It just doesn’t work, it’s broken. I understand why women organized in that way historically but I just feel like it doesn’t work anymore. Arguably, it never worked. It definitely doesn’t work today.

Memoirs are a huge part of literary organizing in a political sense because it’s people telling their stories and that’s always really powerful.

CW: Have you written any poetry lately? How does that process differ from writing an essay?

MT: It feels different in my body. It feels different in my mind. It requires almost a different lifestyle. I was just having this same conversation with Maggie Nelson who has written beautiful volumes of poetry and just doesn’t really like poetry anymore. For me, I need to be in a certain mindset and I need to almost structure my days in a different way to allow for what to me feels like the more subtle inspiration towards poetry to come into my body. The inspiration towards a poem has felt like it’s a particular feeling for me.

What has happened, for better or for worse, is that I have filled my days up in a particular way that blocks that vibe from coming in. I don’t feel great about that and I do think that if I wanted to I could change that. I think that if I made the intention to write more poetry and began reading more poetry again, and immersing myself in poetry more, that vibe would come back. I think it’s so cool that someone like Eileen Myles is able to continue producing poetry while they write novels and screenplays. I love poetry.

I feel like my focus is more on trying to make TV and film projects happen, and I feel less focused on what my next book will be. I still need to be writing, it might actually be a nice moment to allow for poetry to come in, and to have that be my literary output.

The New York Public Library Is Bringing Real Stories to Your Instagram Stories

Listen: dogs and vacations are great. We love dogs and vacations. But as Instagram increasingly becomes the only social network you can spend significant time on without wanting to bury yourself in a hole for 12 million years, you may find yourself wondering: Is this the internet equivalent of junk food? Am I burying myself in nail art videos and artsy top-down pictures of meals in order to avoid engaging with anything important?

The answer is yes, and by all means keep it up! But now, while you’re clicking through cats and cocktails, you can throw in some classic literature so you feel like you’re doing something real. Starting today, the New York Public Library (along with creative agency Mother) is putting the “stories” back in “Instagram stories,” uploading classic books, stories, and novellas to the platform along with artwork by Instagram-popular designers.

First up is Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, illustrated by Magoz. As with any Instagram story, readers will be able to stop and hold the text by touching the screen. (There’s a handy marked spot to put your thumb, with a cute animation when you’re not touching it.) You let go to advance to the next page, or just let it jump ahead if you’re an accomplished speed-reader.

The fonts, colors, and design elements (which will include still images and videos) are all optimized for reading—a warmer-than-white background is easy on the eyes, and the typeface is Georgia, “one of the first serif fonts ever designed for screen to make long form text more pleasing and legible,” according to NYPL). But Instagram’s story function, says Mother chief creative officer Corinna Falusi, was optimized for reading already. “Instagram unknowingly created the perfect bookshelf for this new kind of online novel,” she said in a press release. “From the way you turn the pages, to where you rest your thumb while reading, the experience is already unmistakably like reading a paperback novel.” This is also, she notes, an important time to be making classic literature more accessible: “We have to promote the value of reading, especially with today’s threats to American system of education.”

Upcoming stories include “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman (illustrated by Buck) and The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka (illustrated by César Pelizer).

You can find out more about these Insta Novels on the NYPL website, or head over to the library’s Instagram to try it out. Finally, spending hours scrolling through Instagram will be good for you!

How Jane Eyre Helped Lead Me Out of Orthodox Judaism

I was sitting on a beat-up, cream-colored hand-me-down pleather couch, one of many such hand-me-downs my husband and I lived on and off of during our first young years of marriage, reading Jane Eyre for the first time. It was the “big book” in the 10th grade curriculum at my first public high school teaching job — my first job teaching in the secular world since becoming an Orthodox Jew.

I had grown up Jewish, and was always engaged in my faith, attending Hebrew school and synagogue, even teaching my own Hebrew school classes when I was in college, but my practice had always been more liberal and sporadic. But after my older brother became more strictly religious and my parents and younger brother followed suit, I began to consider the idea of engaging in a stricter practice of the faith in which I was raised. When I met my husband I was in the midst of this transition, I taught him what I knew of my faith and he embraced it, not only converting to Judaism but committing himself to Orthodoxy as well. Shortly after I got my Masters, my husband and I were married, and within four years I’d given birth to my two children.

Despite my academic training, by the time I finished my degree I wasn’t sure I’d be suited for a teaching job outside of the Orthodox world anymore. When my husband graduated school we had moved to New York for him to pursue his rabbinic studies and I taught English at an Orthodox Jewish high school that separated the classes by gender. Back in Chicago a year and a half later, I taught for two years at an all-girls’ Orthodox school. Now, all these years later, I considered the possibility that although my resume and interview were sufficient to land me the job, I no longer fit in the world I had left so long ago.

During the seven years we were Orthodox, I did not read fiction, except the literature I was required to read to teach it. If I read for pleasure, it was from the tales of the Chassidic masters — which were claimed, in fact, to be faithful retellings of actual occurrences. These were primarily stories of great rabbis and their exploits, or tales of the “hidden tzadikim,” holy men living in the world as lowly woodcutters or beggars, who travelled from town to town, bringing miracles to the people who dwelt there. They blessed barren women with children, poor men with riches, and punished those who did not keep faith with the lord. I read the Bible, too, of course, but I did not consider that fiction.

But Orthodox Judaism wasn’t the only reason I hadn’t read Jane Eyre before. The truth was, I’d always restricted my reading, though not always for religious reasons. Even as a child, I’d rejected “women’s classics.” As a nine-year old I eschewed the elementary school competition to see who could read the most Little House on The Prairie books before they graduated, getting their name on the leaderboard in the library — I read Daniel Pinkwater’s fantastical, boy-focused stories instead. Though I acquiesced to reading Judy Blume, I preferred Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing over Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret. I would not read Little Women when all the other bookish girls did, and in my senior year, in my greatest act of academic defiance in a lifetime of compliance, I refused to finish Pride & Prejudice; I blamed our terrible teacher for my disinterest, despite the fact that I had devoured another required book, Crime and Punishment, earlier in the same year. The truth was that I had always feared what reading (and worse, enjoying) stories about women would say about me.

The truth was that I had always feared what reading (and worse, enjoying) stories about women would say about me.

Beyond my choices of reading material, I actively sought out friendships with boys that would place me in proximity to their real life experiences and identities which were, to me, the experiences and identities that seemed to be worth writing and reading and thinking about. I had plenty of friends who were girls, but early on rejected any activities of theirs that I deemed too “girly” for me, attempting instead at recess to insert myself into the boys’ more active playground games, searching always for ways to prove my physical toughness and mettle. I didn’t wish I were born a boy, exactly, but I think I felt that if I could ingratiate myself deeply enough in the world of men, I could attach myself to it like a vine and, grasping tightly, eventually reach the sunlit expanse of the forest canopy.

Of course, my conditional acceptance into boys’ activities did not grant me immunity from their aggressions. Being brave doesn’t protect you from hurt, as even the strongest woman eventually learns. As I grew, the boys did too, and more than once they crossed the permeable membrane between my world and theirs in a way that left me feeling broken, betrayed, and confused. Though strength hadn’t protected me, continuing to shroud myself in the stories of men — Raskolnikov, who held onto his ideals, misguided as they were, through hundreds of anxiety-inducing pages, Billy Pilgrim, who “Poo-tee-weet”ed in the face of the violent absurdity of existence — taught me not to let my weakness show. I remained funny and tough and cool, never dwelling on the pain inflicted on me for too long, lest I be deemed weak, and subsequently cut off from the club I’d fought so hard to gain entry into.

When I met my husband in my junior year of college, I felt I’d finally found someone with whom I could feel safe, but I still didn’t trust the rest of the world to stop letting me be hurt. When my husband converted to Judaism and we became Orthodox, it was, for him, an acceptance of the yoke of heaven, but for me, it provided something beyond that — a layer of protection from the world of men. What I couldn’t tell him was that his love was not enough to make me feel that protection; I needed a barrier stronger than any one person could provide.

Orthodox Judaism was, for my husband, an acceptance of the yoke of heaven, but for me, it provided something beyond that — a layer of protection from the world of men.

Orthodox Judaism has general rules of modesty that apply across the genders, but of course, as with any Western faith, the laws governing women’s bodies are stricter and more prescriptive. My hair had to be covered, as did my arms, my legs, and everything between, lest I drive a man to impure thoughts. I could not touch men (nor could men touch me), but beyond that, during my menses, I could not even touch my husband — a barrier within a barrier, holding my body tight against every man, even the one who loved me. I could not sing in front of men, or dance, since this too could lead to them having impure thoughts. My acts — and the acts of every woman — were the object of these restrictions. The men, we were meant to understand, were beyond help.

The religious world is not the only place where women are told such stories about themselves. I was once told, by a man who’d come to my high school to teach a rape awareness seminar to the senior class, that he could tell I had a “victim profile” from the sympathetic way I attempted to understand the motives of the aggressor in the dramatic reenactment video. Based on my experience with men up to that point, his thesis seemed sound enough: it was something about me, not them. I left the room sobbing, believing that I — not the man in the movie, and not the men who violated me — was somehow at fault. Believing, too, that there was nothing I could do to protect myself from it happening again.

And I was right. Even in the Orthodox world, with all its boundaries and barriers and protections, I was not safe. One night, the day before Yom Kippur, a friend of my husband’s from the yeshiva came over to talk to him. I retreated to the bedroom at the back of the apartment, but it was a small space and I could hear the men talking from across the rooms. The friend asked my husband’s forgiveness for a sin he had done against him. The sin was that he had lusted after my husband’s wife. I listened to my husband kindly accept this man’s apology as I sat in the dark, in our bedroom, on our bed, and felt that same violation I had felt time and again in my life overtake me. Three rooms and my protective husband stood between me and this man, and yet I felt his hot breath in my face, his hands on my arms, I felt myself being held to the bed, helpless. I saw in that moment that my demons chased me, and that they could slip through the bars of any cage I fashioned for myself.

James Joyce Ruined Me for Orthodox Judaism

A strange thing happens to your mind when you close yourself off to the world of the imagination. I could actually feel it happening to me, but I welcomed it, in keeping with my desire to bind up my life within the security of such a prison. Without fiction, you begin to lose the ability to see beyond your circumstances. And more, you begin to believe those ancient explanations of the failures and limitations of humanity and, by extension, of your own failings and limitations. “It is this way because the conditions of our existence necessitate it,” you begin to believe, a tautology that keeps you from wondering how else it could be, what else might be possible if we dared to consider it true. Instead of believing, for example, that the men who had hurt me could change, or that I could and should expect better, I bought the lie that the beasts within them had always been too wild to tame, and built the cage around myself instead. Instead of presuming that our reality was only one possible outcome in a universe of possibilities, and that one novel idea, one different choice, one step in a new direction could set the world on a different course, I read and reread the stories that told me this was how it was and ever would be, that it had been designed this way by a God who willed it as such, and that the best I could hope for — my reason for being — was to find my place in this world already set in motion by forces beyond my control.

And even if I had wanted to reach back into my mind to call up a model for how I might make a different choice than my life seemed to dictate, my arsenal of stories from which to draw inspiration was an ever-expanding boys’ club that seemed to have less to do with my reality that I had once hoped. That false but persistent myth of the universality of the masculine experience had cut me off from the fictional women who might have come to my aid in my darkest times to offer insight, connection, or perhaps even just the right bit of biting wit to ease my journey. As a child I had wanted answers I didn’t think they could provide me, and in cutting myself off from their experiences, I had rejected a piece of myself.

A strange thing happens to your mind when you close yourself off to the world of the imagination. Without fiction, you begin to lose the ability to see beyond your circumstances.

It was only while sitting on our hand-me-down couch that night, having travelled with Jane from the terrors of her aunt’s house to the falsely pious restrictions and abuses of Lowood to the disorienting expanse of Thornfield, that I began to reconnect with the power of fiction to show us both a mirror and a window. When Rochester, still fearful of allowing himself to love Jane, still wrestling with his own impossible choices, saw how deeply she had internalized the restrictions that had been imposed upon her, I felt his pain and hers all at once. “Your self-love dreads a blunder,” Rochester proclaimed, as I sat curled on the couch, my husband with his back to me working silently at the computer. I felt that familiar feeling, one that I had forgotten for so long, flood through me, the feeling of a story expanding your sense of the true and the possible. Perhaps it was Rochester’s own vigorous feeling that allowed me to bring the full force of my own to bear in this moment — that bit of bias I still retained that led me to gravitate toward the man’s point of view. But through his feeling I felt Jane’s, and in both of them I could sense Brontë’s struggle to name an experience unique to a woman in the world. And for what felt like the first time in my life, rather than rejecting it, I pulled the feeling close.

My self-love had dreaded not just my own blunders, but the blunders of the world: all the ways it could hurt me, all the mistakes the people who claimed to love me could make that might chip away at my being. Better to lock oneself away than risk losing oneself. Better to be bound and whole than free to be broken. Yet here I was, safe, I knew, with a man who would not hurt me (or if he did, by some accident, would help to heal the wound he’d made). So why was I still so afraid? Because, like Jane, I was not ready to trust myself, to live fully in the world without breaking. And though I had begun to take steps to expand my universe, like Jane, my steps were slow, and faltering, and could not be taken on anyone else’s timetable. “The Lowood constraint still clings to you somewhat,” Rochester laments only moments later, going on to say that he himself finds it impossible to be “conventional” with her. But it is not for Edmund Rochester to free Jane from her cage — a fact he knows even if it irritates and inconveniences him — she must free herself, and freeing oneself from a cage of one’s own creation takes time, and will not, and cannot, be rushed.

What I had found in religion was something I would only be able to put words to later, when Charlotte Bronte would name it for me: “A new servitude.” It wasn’t God I was serving, but order, boundaries, the rules I felt would keep me and my body safe from those who, due to animal desire and lack of self-control, would seek to harm it. I knew somehow, innately, that the kind of freedom I truly desired was much more hard-fought and hard-won than the one I’d sought in the rules and restrictions of yet another constructed paradigm. I knew, too, perhaps, when I chose this life, that I wasn’t ready for that harder, more personal fight. I trusted the man I had chosen to make a life with, but I still didn’t trust myself somehow, and was willing to submit to the constriction of my own body and mind in exchange for safety. But in the end, it wasn’t enough.

Choosing to return to teaching — and, what’s more, choosing a position in a public school where I knew I would return to the literature I’d abandoned for faith — was one of my first conscious steps outside the protected world I’d created for myself. But such paradigm shifts take time on both ends, and I wasn’t ready to abandon the safety of my bounded life just yet. When I started teaching that first year, I still wore a wig, still covered my body from collarbone to kneecap. At my interview that previous spring, though, I’d shaken the department chair’s hand — the first time I’d touched a man who wasn’t my husband or father in years. I’d begun to push back against the boundaries I’d accepted to keep me safe, and, seeing that I was in no immediate mortal danger, I pressed on: each choice leading to the next, and all of them leading me to this moment.

I’d begun to push back against the boundaries I’d accepted to keep me safe, and, seeing that I was in no immediate mortal danger, I pressed on.

The constraint Rochester speaks of is one no man can ever know. It is the self-imposed constriction of the self that can allow a woman to move, for a time, through the world of men without being hurt by it beyond recognition. And yet, as Rochester himself knows and Jane will soon learn, constricting a woman whose nature begs for expanse will only drive her to madness. I realize now that I had begun contracting myself even within the freedom of my youth, by choosing to live in the imagined worlds of men, by denying myself the open expanse of stories of women who lived within, challenged, defeated or were sometimes defeated by the world in which they lived. I wanted to read stories of men, I think, because I knew somehow without being able to name it that stories of men were stories of triumph, of conquering, of expanse, and I wanted more than anything to take up space in the world. I was afraid of what I might learn about my own fate if I embraced stories of women — all of which, as I learned when I read The Awakening for class that same senior year, seemed to have the moral that the world of men will swallow you up in the end.

Perhaps I was not ready for the stories of such women until I could see a way to begin to unbind myself from my own confining narrative, but the beauty of stories is that they are there, waiting, when you are ready for them. And if you are lucky, every so often, like magic, a story meets you at a crossroads and helps push you in the direction of yourself. I remember putting my down book on my knees, breathless, when I’d finished the chapter. I remember that my eyes were filled with tears. I don’t remember what I said to my husband, but I remember the feeling of it. I finally felt ready, not for a new servitude, but to begin to seek the imperfect and blundering freedom I hadn’t believed until that moment could be mine. I felt myself expanding to take up my rightful space in the world.

Kevin Wilson’s Stories Are About the Way We Live with Failure

Summoning his classic combination of humor, heart, and quirkiness, Kevin Wilson returns with his latest short story collection, Baby, You’re Gonna Be Mine, his first collection since 2009’s Tunneling to the Center of the Earth.

Purchase the book

Baby, You’re Gonna Be Mine finds Wilson exploring the complicated terrain of parent-child relationships, such as is the case in “Sanders for a Night,” which looks at how family members cope with a death, and the title story itself about a young musician who can’t seem to fully embrace the challenges of adulthood. Wilson also dives into the realm of magical realism in the brilliant “Wildfire Johnny.”

No matter the topic, Wilson writes with an authentic voice that captures the truths of the characters he creates.

Bradley Sides: Your work often focuses on the lives of young people — children, teenagers, and young adults. What is it about these young lives that make them such good subjects?

Kevin Wilson: There’s something combustible about any new experience. I’ll always be drawn to my own memories of standing on the precipice of what I believed that my life would become. And how scary that was. And I’m getting older, and maybe I should move on, but now I have kids of my own, and I’m watching them experience these important moments, and it brings it all up again. It’s hard not to put it into my work.

This is slightly beyond this question, but people talk a lot about how resilient children are. I was not a resilient child. At all. And I don’t know that I believe this assertion. I think children aren’t necessarily resilient; I think that their youth, their newness to the world, allows them to pull things inside of them and keep moving, but I don’t think they lose those bad things that happened to them. I don’t think they forget them. I think those traumas attach themselves in weird ways, and it’s only later that we can make sense of them. So I write about those moments, when something life-changing happens, but it’s too fresh for it to be properly observed.

Stories are a kind of incantation. There’s this magic, like I’m trying to tell the story with the aid of only one deep breath.

BS: Oftentimes, these young people are busy disappointing their parents. This sense of disappointment seems to link many of the stories in your collection. Parental disappointment is something most of us experience — either we are disappointing our parents or we’ve been disappointed as parents. Is this theme appealing to you are a writer because it’s such a universal experience? Or is there something else that draws you to it?

KW: Failure is such a constant in life. It’s kind of the only thing. And what I’m interested in is not so much the actual failure but the way we live with the failure, the way we accept how flawed we are and try to move forward, to make a life for ourselves.

BS: “Wildfire Johnny” is brilliant. It has such a balanced feeling to it. It’s fun, but it’s somber. It’s real, but it’s magical. It’s a knockout kind of story. And here’s the premise: a razor blade essentially grants time traveling powers to people who use it. The instructions state, “You may travel twenty-four hours into the past. To do so, simply take the blade and cut open your throat. With one expertly executed slash, you will find yourself twenty-four hours in the past, bearing no signs of the injury, able to undo any forthcoming misfortune. You may travel as many days into the past as you wish, as long as you cut open your throat for each twenty-four-hour interval.” I’m curious about this story’s genesis.

KW: That’s very kind of you to say. It’s a story that I really struggled with, kept thinking about it and putting it away, never quite sure how to manage it.

For the origin, this feels weird to say. I’m trying to decide how to explain it without seeming like a freakish person. More than ten years ago, I saw this French movie, Cache. In it, a man sees another man from his past. They are standing in this apartment, and one of them takes out a razor blade, draws it across his throat, and kills himself. The spray of blood, the suddenness of the act, the way the man who is still alive processes this trauma in the moment, it absolutely wrecked me. I do not honestly remember much else about the movie, how it ends, etc. But I would say that, since I saw it more than ten years ago, that moment vividly flashes in my brain maybe three times a week. It’s this unwanted image that just keeps coming to me again and again. It is very vivid, and it disorients me. And, though this is hard to talk about, there’s something seductive about it, even as it horrifies me. When I get anxious in public, I think about this moment. And eventually, I needed to figure out how to write about it, but it always felt too visceral, too literal. Anyways, I started thinking about how this act could be utilized with the aid of magic. I wanted to let that man live, to bring him back. So I wrote this story. And I tied it up with all these other things. And this is what I have.

I’m interested in the way we live with failure, the way we accept how flawed we are and try to move forward, to make a life for ourselves.

BS: What about “Baby, You’re Gonna Be Mine” led it to be your title story?

KW: For many of the stories, the focus is on the dynamic of parent and child, of being on either side of that equation. “Baby, You’re Gonna Be Mine” seems to fully embody these issues. In this story, the mother has to deal with her memories of her child and how they exist right next to his actual body in her house, since he’s moved back in with her. It must be a strange sensation.

My children are beautiful and sensitive and wonderful. I love them without reservation. But my oldest is ten, and there are ways that I can see him becoming his own person, and those memories I have of him at three years old are already fading, like they’re about a separate person. This makes me both happy and anxious. I know at some point, my sons will leave me behind, will become the people that they want to become. But I’ll keep holding onto them in whatever way that I can. And maybe stories are one way for me to freeze them in my mind.

Kevin Wilson on the Weirdness of Family

BS: You created some dynamic characters in the stories here. There are two I’m thinking about in particular: Adam from “Baby, You’re Gonna Be Mine” and Jackson from “Housewarming.” Both are young men who are struggling to adult. For Adam, he can’t face the reality that his once-moving music career might actually be over. Jackson has a terrible temper and can’t control himself. As difficult as they are to love, I can’t help but root for both of them. What do you hope readers take away from your characters?

KW: I can’t control whether my characters are liked or disliked by the reader, because there are so many factors that complicate that connection. But what I hope that I can do for my characters, because I do feel a need to care for them, is make them understandable to the reader. If I can make them as clear as possible, then I’ve given them a chance. I’ve given them depth, I’ve complicated the initial desire to judge them on the surface. Whatever happens after that is beyond my control. Some of the best writing advice I’ve ever received is that you have to take care of your characters, because if you don’t, who will? I have to put them into the world with enough subtlety and depth that they aren’t doomed from the beginning.

Some of the best writing advice I’ve ever received is that you have to take care of your characters, because if you don’t, who will?

BS: You’ve seen success as a short story writer and as a novelist. Do you prefer writing in one form over the other?

KW: I like them both. They make me happy in different ways. But stories are probably a more natural extension of my brain. For me, stories are a kind of incantation. There’s this magic, like I’m trying to tell the story with the aid of only one deep breath. I also feel like, in the formation of a narrative, I can hold a single story inside of my head for a long time, this secret, and I can tell it to myself over and over and over, holding it all together, before I ever get it down on paper.

BS: Your work can be dark, certainly. However, you also use humor rather frequently — and to great success. How important is humor to you as a writer?

KW: It’s everything to me. It’s my way into the story a lot of times. I’ve said this before, and I’m not tired of saying it, but the line between sadness and humor is really permeable, and so I use that in my work. It’s hard for me to be serious, and so I use humor in the initial moments of a story, to disarm the reader, to show them this lightness in the work. And my hope is that the humor, as it touches up against sadness, starts to dim until you suddenly realize how dark the space has become. When it works, it makes me so happy.

Ingrid Rojas Contreras Shows a Little-Seen Side of 1990s Colombia

Ingrid Rojas Contreras’ debut novel Fruit of the Drunken Tree shows readers a Colombia we rarely see. Pablo Escobar is relegated to the background, where he still wreaks havoc, but he is just one of the forms of violence that sweeps through Bogotá in the 1990s. What is in the foreground instead are the lives of everyday Bogotanos, who for some time were able to uphold a class divide to shield themselves from violence. Two protagonists tell their stories and the story of the economic class they inhabit. Seven-year-old Chula enjoys a safe, good life in her gated community. Petrona, a thirteen-year-old, comes from the hills to work for Chula’s family as their housegirl and is the main breadwinner for her mother and siblings. Their lives intersect because Chula is fascinated by Petrona, even though the rest of the world sees Petrona as a mosquita muerta. By the end of the novel, everyone will learn how tenuous the benefits of class are and how the sacrifices we make for others may require us to sacrifice ourselves.

Ingrid and I spoke about achieving your artistic goals, disrupting narratives of guilt and innocence, and how representation in publishing matters.


Ivelisse Rodriguez: Is Fruit of the Drunken Tree the novel you have always wanted to write?

Ingrid Rojas Contreras: Yes and no. It was a novel I ran away from for many years, but it kept resurfacing in what I was telling myself were just short stories. It was such a heavy subject; I resisted the idea that I was to be wedded to it for a prolonged amount of time. When I finally caved, I realized it was the story that I had always hoped I would write. I wanted it to be emotionally complex but also political and also definitely about women.

IR: I love that this is the novel you had hoped to write. There is such a schism sometimes between what we hoped to achieve and what we actually achieve. I often think of Plato’s idea of simulacrum where art is sometimes a copy of a copy of the original we held in our minds. So there is always this gap between what we wrote and what we hoped to write.

There is also sometimes this same schism when we write about real people. When I read your afterword, I was a bit devastated to find out that there was a real-life girl like Petrona. I already appreciated how you gave Petrona a voice, but even more so in this situation. It would be easy to dismiss Petrona/the real girl as evil. At what point did you recognize her humanity?

IRC: The nature of the real story — how the real-life Petrona made a brutal sacrifice for my own safety while putting her own and her family’s in jeopardy—made it impossible for me to not recognize her humanity from the very beginning. I think I was very lucky to grow up in a family that occupied the middle class while coming from a very poor background. In my childhood, I constantly navigated the world of Bogotá and my family’s home in Cúcuta. One of the first things I understood about the world was class and how much class predicated your circumstance and the things you could do to change that circumstance. From the beginning, I was interested in building a world where a “crime” could be revealed to be simply the outcome of being entre la espada y la pared, between the wall and the sword.

IR: There is such an emphasis on vilification in our current day.

IRC: Yes, I wanted to attack this idea of villainy. On this side of the continent, we often get stories that are too simple. If it is ever mentioned that people are forced to join a guerrilla group, it is done so in passing. I wanted to provide a story that told of one person being forcefully recruited. The character of Petrona is also a composite character, based on many women I met in Colombia who were stuck in utterly impossible situations. I wanted to honor those women, too.

IR: Do you know why the real Petrona sacrificed herself for you? Did you have a close bond with her? How old was she?

IRC: My mother was very interested in trying to help girls who she perceived to be in trouble. I have this very vivid memory of her befriending a girl who was asking for change at a red light — though she denies anything like that ever happened. She brought her into our house and employed girls who were very young (thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen) who were forced to work because their parents had been somehow incapacitated (sometimes they had disappeared, were taken by an armed group, had been murdered, or were otherwise ill). My mother sat and talked to them, and we became part of their lives. As a young girl, I couldn’t get over how different our lives were. One time, one of these young women came home to us crying. Her father had been found in pieces, dismembered by a machete. How could we ever be of any help? It was an impossibility that we tried to face with our kindness and our ears. We listened. The real Petrona was another girl for whom there was nothing we could have done. Fruit of the Drunken Tree explores this emotion of wanting to help, and yet finding your help at each step of the way to be meager and wanting.

One time, one of these young women came home to us crying. Her father had been found in pieces, dismembered by a machete. How could we ever be of any help?

IR: I’m intrigued by “helplessness.” In the U.S. there is such a sense that anything can be overcome. (But sometimes we can’t “fix” things.) I am also intrigued by the uses of guilt in your book — Chula parses out the guilt she feels, she also feels so much guilt for what she did and did not do, and Petrona uses Gorrión’s guilt to give her son a life. Can you discuss the function of guilt in your book?

IRC: Writing this book, I kept coming upon the emotional crux of guilt. Immigrants who survive and are able to migrate far away from danger are incomparably relieved, but they also carry the guilt that comes from the feeling of abandoning those who cannot migrate. I see survivor’s guilt as a common thread in immigrant stories. When writing, I become very interested in turning emotions in my hands, seeing how similar emotions could erupt in other characters. Petrona, who is left behind, discovers that the guilt others feel can be a source of power. Guilt can take many forms — you can harbor it inside you because of your privilege or your luck, and you can be at the receiving end of it because you were made into a victim. I wanted to write women characters, however, who in spite of being at the end of calamities are not victims. They are able to empower themselves. Because guilt was Chula’s central driving emotion in telling her story, guilt had to be the turning point for Petrona as well. I wanted both of these characters to come out stronger at the end — and I wanted this strength to be complex and to be punctuated by the very real sharp edges of their loss.

I wanted to write women characters who in spite of being at the end of calamities are not victims.

IR: Your novel also does something interesting with the idea of violence; you push Pablo Escobar to the background, and in the foreground is how everyday Bogotanos had to live during constant violence. How do you feel about Escobar — who is this looming specter — becoming so synonymous with Colombia?

IRC: We were consumed by everything that Pablo Escobar did — at times, to my child’s eyes it seemed like there was no one in the world with such power. But our lives marched on. Pablo Escobar was a phenomenon like the weather — something that affected what you could and couldn’t do, where you could and couldn’t go, and sometimes it devastated us. To many Colombians he was a terrible catastrophe, yet others looked up to him and even lit candles and prayed to him. We all lived with constant war and violence, but those circumstances became normalized. They seeped into everyday aspects of our lives. Pablo Escobar lived on in our background, ever-present, but not altogether central.

IR: That is fascinating.

IRC: Colombia’s political situation is so complex! It took me years to understand it. Armed groups emerged precisely because people have found no better way to fix all the inequalities.

IR: You touch upon something that is not readily discussed — how the U.S. government aids certain refugees by giving them loans, etc. Also, only certain people are coded as refugees, and refugees are welcomed. What do you think about the disparities in the way that certain bodies are treated?

IRC: There seems to be a confusion about these terms. When you flee your country to a neighboring country seeking asylum, you are placed in a refugee camp. You are not a refugee. Technically, you are undocumented until your situation is decided. There are interviews and countless procedures to screen and verify whether your life was really in danger, and whether that danger is still current. If it is decided that you are in the right, a country accepts you as a refugee. In the case of Fruit of the Drunken Tree, Chula comes with a refugee status. The government helps her mother with a loan, which she has to pay back, so that she can have a place to stay. People who come to the southernmost border are asylum-seekers. We call them undocumented, and some people have vilified this state — people fleeing danger — calling them illegals. But this happens the world over. When people are in danger, they flee to a neighboring country. You are technically undocumented, that is correct, but I think we need to change our language. These are asylum-seekers. Refugees are those whom the government has screened, and they have deemed their stories to be true. It gets so complicated! The government will sometimes offer blanket refugee status to a group of people in the face of a civil war or catastrophe.

IR: Oh, that is great to know! Thank you so much for clarifying this.

On another note, there is a lack of visible Colombian-American writers — I think of Jaime Manrique and Patricia Engel. How did this affect you as a writer? Were you concerned about the publishing process being more difficult? Engel received many accolades and went on to publish three books. Did that hearten you in some way?

IRC: Yes! Being a minority, I felt heartened each time I came across a Colombian-American writer. I was heartened by not only the work of Jaime Manrique and Patricia Engel, but also Daisy Hernandez. I remember reading Patricia Engel’s first book Vida and sleeping with it by my bedside — it was a sign to me that it could be done and that our stories mattered.