Do I Really Want My Dates to Read My Writing?

I sat on the floor of my cramped Bangkok apartment, a to-go container of ramen warming my legs, and my laptop opened on the coffee table. On my computer screen, thirteen hours behind me in San Antonio, Daniel lay on a hotel bed. We’d dated for a few months in the Fall, but stopped when I moved to Thailand. We still spoke often. Our conversations towed the line between “just friends” and “more than friends.” My Thai students called it jeeb: liking one another, but not actually dating.

I complained about how recent dates didn’t read my writing. “It’s not the language barrier,” I said. “They’re all fluent in English. They just don’t care.”

Daniel raised an eyebrow. “You don’t actually want me to read your stuff, do you?”

I swirled my chopsticks in the ramen. My answer to his question was yes, I did want him to read my stuff; I just didn’t know why. In the seven months Daniel and I had been in jeeb he’d only read one of my articles: a Huffington Post piece about watching porn. Many of my dates read it, but I knew it was just due to the subject matter. If I wrote an article detailing a one-night stand they’d probably read that, too. What they didn’t read was anything else: my essays not about sex. The lack of interest bugged me; the fact that it bugged me also bugged me. Why did I want dates to read my writing? Did I want approval? Validation? Feedback? As a writer, what role did my work play in my dating life?

During the seven years that we dated, my ex read everything I wrote. Published, unpublished — it didn’t matter. As an engineer, his comments weren’t always constructive nor were they exalting, but my writing interested him and I liked that. I grew up in an artistic family: my dad a potter and glassblower, my mother a painter. I often helped them sell their work at galleries and art fairs. People judged their artwork, deeming it worthy to purchase or not. I wanted that concrete validation for my own art. Financial validation seemed a ways off, so I sought verbal appraisal instead.

Suddenly single and navigating the dating world, I found it awkward to say to dates, “I’m a writer.”

“Do you have any books?” they’d ask.

“No,” I said, questioning what made a “real writer.”

“Oh.”

“I have some publications: journals and websites.”

The dates would smile and nod.

Their interest in my work fluctuated. One date read everything of mine that existed online, including my graduate thesis, which he found in my university library’s electronic database. He texted his opinions and critically analyzed one essay. I told Daniel about this on our fifth date.

“That’s weird,” Daniel said. “I’m not going to read everything you’ve ever published.”

I laughed. “It was a bit intense,” I said. I wanted to add: But it was also flattering.

Why Don’t Straight Men List Books by Women in Their Online Dating Profiles?

Another date told me, “I won’t read any of your stuff. That way you can write whatever you want about me.” I’ll write whatever I want anyways, I thought. Two other dates read an essay not depicting porn or sex and said, “That was long. Can’t you write something shorter?” Another date said he fell asleep.

“Gee thanks,” I said.

“It wasn’t because of the work,” he said. “It was late. I was tired.”

“Did you try reading it the next day?”

“No.”

Mr. Tired and I dated for another two months. I asked three more times if he’d read the article. He didn’t.

There’s a stereotype that writers thrust their work upon anyone they meet: Do you want to read my book? Do you want to read my poems? Do you want to see why I’m the next Hemingway? I am not one of those writers. Throwing my work at someone feels aggressive and sets a high bar: This better be damn good if she’s forcing me to read it. There are even times when I’d benefit from being a little less humble about my work (or is “insecure” a better word?). Still, something about my dates’ apathy gnawed at me. It felt similar to watching a movie that began with a character’s death; I didn’t know the character; I wasn’t attached and had no reason to feel sad, but the death and its effect on the story made me want to hug a pillow and hide in a blanket fort. When dates showed as much interest in my writing as they would a teeth cleaning, my interest in them dropped to teeth cleaning level, too.

When dates showed as much interest in my writing as they would a teeth cleaning, my interest in them dropped to teeth cleaning level, too.

Besides the way my dates’ disinterest made me feel, I knew sharing my writing came with risks. I primarily write nonfiction. When I tell this to a date, they don’t even hide their look of concern. Who wants to date someone that might transcribe your every word and movement for the world to read? I use fake names (unless I hate someone — sorry, Ross), but the prospect of being written about and published is daunting. Another risk: in just a few pages someone can learn more about me than they would in a full year of dating. My insecurities, my flaws, my bad decisions, my emotional baggage — it’s all just a hyperlink away.

The final risk: they could hate my work. A date could think my craft was crap or silly, and tell me I had wasted the last fifteen years of my life and education. I can handle criticism and I know what is constructive and what’s not, but it would still be a blow. Dating is bedlam. Did I really want to add extra risks to the mix?

Yes — I did. I do.

Seeking validation or not, my writing is me. It’s not just a job or a hobby. It’s my art; I feel compelled to create it. A lack of interest in my work feels like a lack of interest in me. Dates will read an article about porn, but what about other topics? What about the essay about my dream to follow in my hippie mother’s footsteps and be teargassed during a protest? What about the essay about an eye infection that symbolizes my inability to ask for help? What about the essay where my friends and I were nearly shipwrecked in the North Atlantic Sea?

I’m not asking that someone read my work after only one or two dates. I’m not asking that they read every page of my thesis. I’m not even asking that a date read my work before we have sex. What I ask is that, if we’ve gone on a handful of dates and have moved beyond a quick drink at a bar, they show some interest in my art. A date who doesn’t care to read my writing — or who falls asleep reading it — doesn’t care to know me.

A date who doesn’t care to read my writing — or who falls asleep reading it — doesn’t care to know me.

On the floor of my Bangkok apartment I continued to pick up and drop clumps of ramen noodles. Daniel propped himself up on his elbow and looked at the webcam. “You don’t actually want me to read your stuff, do you?”

“It would be nice if you read something,” I said. “It is what I do, after all: I write. You could show some interest.”

Daniel’s normal flirtatious grin dropped. He looked at the bottom of the screen. Then he nodded. “Okay,” he said. “I will.”

What’s Your Author Horoscope?

Astrology is having a moment. From astrology-inspired lingerie to astrology-themed bars, it seems like it’s being applied to literally everything, to the point of being a gimmick.

“But I don’t believe in astrology,” you might say. The thing is, astrology isn’t necessarily something to “believe” in. It’s not a religion. It’s a system — a tool — for understanding the world around us. There are many tools we can use to understand this incredible world, many stories we can tell ourselves about why it works the way it does. Astrology is one of these, and it might even be a tool that resonates with you.

Part of the learning curve with astrology is that there is a lot to keep track of, and in the saturated “Instagram witch” market we are in right now, complex ideas can get boiled down to stereotypes (like “Geminis are untrustworthy”) that are often incorrect and easy to dismiss.

But what if the signs were associated with your favorite authors? Maybe you can’t identify a Sagittarius, but can you identify a Joan Didion type? Probably.

I’ve put together a list of 12 authors that correlate to the 12 sun signs— the core of a person’s identity, what they are centrally concerned with as well as how they are concerned with and interact with the world. (There are other kinds of signs, but being, say, a Maya Angelou with Oscar Wilde rising is more complicated and we won’t get into that today.)

Perhaps if you never really “felt” like a Scorpio, or just couldn’t remember what that would mean, you’ll be more comfortable as an Atwood.

ARIES: Maya Angelou

March 21–April 19

Aries understand the world through understanding themselves. The leader of the fire signs (or “cardinal” fire), Aries springs forth with the spring equinox, the start of the zodiac year. People born under Aries have a fierce devotion to self. Often misinterpreted as selfish, Aries are in fact self-possessed: in knowing themselves and creating roads others never dreamed, they pave the way for others.

Maya Angelou was a quintessential Aries. Angelou first worked as a dancer and pursued numerous creative outlets — Aries are performers, after all. But Angelou is best remembered as a memoirist and essayist, for her autobiographical work. For the articulation of the “I,” for understanding herself through her writing. “There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you,” Angelou wrote in I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. Angelou redefined how black women could write about themselves and be perceived by a wide reading public. “Phenomenal woman, that’s me.”

Aries is ruled by Mars, and, like their ruling planet, people born under Aries are warriors: the kind of folks you find on the front lines, all fired up. Aries are battering rams you do not want to mess with. But there is a tenderness to that fire, a desire to just be seen, to be understood. There is wisdom, there, that you find when an Aries settles into themselves: they become the eye of the storm. Think of Angelou later in life: it was as if, if she so chose, she could speak fire into existence. Her words made the air crackle and spark. That’s the power of Aries.

TAURUS: Angela Carter

April 20–May 20

“I desire, therefore, I exist,” Angela Carter wrote in her 1972 novel The Infernal Desire Machines of Doctor Hoffman. A more perfect motto for Taurus you’d be hard pressed to find.

Taurus digs into the earth, gets its hands dirty. Taurus grows the seeds that Aries plants. Taurus plows, slow and steady. Taurus knows that the body is the work and the play and the reward.

Taurus is fixed earth: the stubborn bull, the earth mother, the sensual lover, the person whose emotions show up in their body. Taurus is ruled by Venus, the planet of pleasure. Taurus wants a good meal, a good fuck, and a good nap.

From novels like The Magic Toyshop to short story collections like The Bloody Chamber to her nonfiction like The Sadeian Woman, Carter’s work centers on the body, on sexuality: on the carnal, and how the individual is shaped by the carnal. By desire, but also by environment: places like the titular bloody chamber, or the cold white of the snow in “The Snow Child.”

And this is Taurus: ruled by Venus, Taurus revels in the sensual, in the body, in the earth, in the five senses, in understanding the self through the experience of the physical environment. Carter brought the theory of BDSM and the mystical of fairy tales into the body, into the deeply physical realms of desire. She made the unimaginable imaginable.

When the body is aligned with the spirit — or, when the spirit comes into the body — Venus shows up. There is magic to be found — magic that Taurus is particularly adept at summoning.

GEMINI: Gwendolyn Brooks

May 21–June 20

Of all the air signs, Gemini moves the fastest — there is a Peter Pan quality to Gemini folk. Ruled by Mercury, Gemini is mutable air, whipping up the solidity of Taurus earth. The world is alive with spring, Gemini says. Have you heard? In the tarot, Gemini is represented by The Lovers: a world come alive with ideas, with romance.

Geminis are the poets of the zodiac: obsessed with language, sharp, incisive, and playful as hell. In this, Gwendolyn Brooks was the consummate Gemini. Brooks was the first African-American to win a Pulitzer, ever, and of course, she won for her poems. Even Brooks’ only novel, Maud Martha, is told in short vignettes; every word counts. Geminis are magicians, speaking ideas into existence with their words.

Communication is what Geminis are known for, but undergirding this is their true defining trait: curiosity. Children of Hermes, Geminis are the winged messengers among us who bridge the gap between friend groups, between generations, saying what others can’t or won’t, pollinating numerous areas of society. They have a gift for duality, for seeing all of life’s shades of grey, a gift which can get them in trouble. Unlike their opposing sign, Sagittarius, they are not devoted to the pursuit of Truth; they just want to express their truth as honestly as possible. And Geminis, perhaps better than most, know that their interior truth can change — which is part of why they’re so hell-bent on being good at communicating. Communicating, mind you, not necessarily talking: “I am a writer perhaps because I am not a talker,” Brooks once said.

Brooks’ oeuvre speaks to this commitment to curiosity and communication: she was extraordinarily prolific, working into old age, publishing numerous collections and working in schools to the end of her life, largely through her work as a Poetry Consultant for the Library of Congress — the first ever black woman appointed to the position.

CANCER: Octavia Butler

June 21–July 22

Summer solstice brings with it Cancer season: the heart of summer, the longest days, the shortest nights. Cancer is cardinal water: the leader of the water signs, the fertile rains which nurture and grow. Traditionally associated with the moon, the home, and motherhood, Cancer rules the private realm. But it would be a mistake to underestimate Cancers: the depth of their loyalty, and the ferocity with which they guard their domain. Don’t mess with a Cancer — but especially do not mess with a Cancer’s people.

Above all, Cancers are charged with tending to life. With extraordinary empathy and a gift for boundaries, they are well equipped to do so. Octavia Butler, one of the most renowned science fiction writers of the twentieth century, continually pressed on the question of the value of human life in her work: what does it mean to be human? “I was attracted to science fiction because it was so wide open. I was able to do anything and there were no walls to hem you in and there was no human condition that you were stopped from examining,” Butler once said. Butler, the first science fiction writer to receive a MacArthur Fellowship, is often celebrated as one of the vanguards of Afrofuturism, one of the few voices bringing characters from marginalized backgrounds to the forefront of genre fiction.

Like its opposite sign Capricorn, Cancer is concerned with history and legacy, and Butler’s work bends time back and forward to comment on racism, sexism, and the deeply entrenched hierarchies that folks must struggle to survive against. In Butler’s 1979 novel Kindred, Dana, an African-American woman, travels back in time from 1970s LA to 19th century Maryland, where she meets her ancestors: a white slaveholder and a black freewoman forced into slavery. Butler’s work continually finds ways to hold the past and the future simultaneously. This is a central challenge Cancer faces: the integration of the family with the finding of the self. As Butler once wrote in the Parable of the Talents,

Self is.
Self is body and bodily
perception. Self is thought, memory,
belief. Self creates. Self destroys.
Self learns, discovers, becomes.
Self shapes. Self adapts. Self
invents its own reasons for being.
To shape God, shape Self.”

LEO: James Baldwin

July 23–August 22

You know when a Leo walks into a room. It might be their hair, it might be their clothes, it might be that they always know how to make an entrance. But mostly, it’s their presence. Leos crave a stage, but they aren’t just performers — they are the consummate actor who also writes, produces, and directs the show. Shakespeare wrote that all the world’s a stage, but for Leo, all the world’s an audience.

This isn’t a bad thing. Leos get a bad rap for being selfish, but Leos teach us how to value ourselves. Not the boastful braggart, not the loudest person in the room. The most centered person in the room. The person who is really, truly assured of their worth and value. That is why Leos radiate confidence: because when you know and love yourself, you shine. Have you ever met an apologetic Leo sun or Leo rising, a Leo person who was anything less than the fullness of what they were? No, of course you haven’t. Leos are fully themselves, and this makes folks who are operating at a bandwidth or frequency that is less than themselves uncomfortable.

An invaluable gift — especially when society wants you to bow to its norms. James Baldwin was a Leo who refused to bend, a lionhearted man who knew his gifts and who used the spotlight to his advantage — personally, professionally, socially, turning it back on society to reflects its ills and prejudices. Baldwin wrote fiercely, unapologetically. His 1956 novel Giovanni’s Room contained significant homoerotic themes; facing criticism, he published it anyway. Baldwin gave speaking tours; was close friends with people in all circles, stretching back from the Harlem Renaissance (his teacher was Countee Cullen) all the way to Maya Angelou; appeared next to his longtime friend Marlon Brando at the March on Washington. Baldwin was a media darling, because he knew how to use the press to his advantage. In death, he has become almost mythic. Leos know how to spin a legend out of a life.

“You write in order to change the world… if you alter, even by a millimeter, the way people look at reality, then you can change it,” Baldwin once said.

VIRGO: Mary Oliver

August 23–September 22

Virgos get lost in the details — but really, they just have a passion for the project. They want to see it through, and they want it to be the best. If their fellow earth signs Capricorns are concerned with the long-range view, and Tauruses are concerned with the pleasure of the moment, Virgos are the taskmasters, the organizers. Virgos have a reputation for being critical, but they are less often seen for what they really are, underneath all those other things: the analyst. Ruled by Mercury, like Gemini, Virgos are also deeply curious, but their curiosity manifests in wanting to see how everything works — they are scientists, if you will, even when their profession couldn’t be further from science if they tried.

Mary Oliver, for example. A lesbian poet living in relative seclusion on Cape Cod, Oliver has, for the most part, elided personal subject matter in favor of the natural world. For decades, she has published poetry considering roses and grasshoppers and water and ripples. Her poetry reveals the analyst, the critic, the organizer and, yes, even the taskmaster in Virgo: the person who wanders the woods and takes note of the smallest bits and bobs, who notices how it all clicks into place, how it moves as one organism, how it fits together — often illuminating something about the human experience in the process. Oliver writes, “Instructions for living a life. Pay attention. Be astonished. Tell about it.”

This attention to detail reveals another superpower in Virgo that is not often considered, which can be found by considering Virgo’s opposing sign, Pisces. In its attentiveness, Virgo heals: Virgo brings insight that serves the greater good. Virgo notices the details that others miss — Virgo is the nurse who finds the missing piece, the parent who notices the misstep in their child’s pattern, and, yes, the poet who brings us to stillness in nature.

Virgo finds healing and beauty in the smallest detail. Virgo finds beauty and worth in the work, whatever that work is.

As Oliver also writes, “Someone I loved once gave me a box full of darkness. It took me years to understand that this, too, was a gift.”

LIBRA: Oscar Wilde

September 23–October 22

The autumnal equinox ushers in Libra season, and with it, the official beginning of fall: a crisp cooldown, sweater season. Libras are cardinal air (leader of the air signs, if you will) ruled by Venus. Whereas Venus manifests as pleasure in earthy Taurus, in Libra it is more high-minded: art, culture, elegance — the expression of beauty. “A Libra is just an Aries who has been to charm school,” said astrologer Jayj Jacobs.

Autumn is also cuffing season, and Libras are known for being romantics. This is a bit of a misconception; Libras are more invested in harmony in relationships than romance, per se (although they’re quite good at performing the trappings of romance). Represented by the Justice card in the tarot, Libras bring a sense of order to their surroundings, imbuing beauty and harmony into their environments. Whether that’s a put-together room, a well-styled outfit, or a great book club with the right mix of people, Libras understand how to find that internal rhythm to make something hum. Libra suns and risings understand who to introduce to who at a party. They are often consummate hosts. And they have a keen sense of timing.

Look at Oscar Wilde, who brought his own sharp wit and social observation to his work — The Importance of Being Earnest, An Ideal Husband. His plays feature that special sort of cutting humor that goes down easier with a gloss of society finery: “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” Wilde’s humor is rarely concerned with hurting feelings, also a Libra trait — air signs are adept at detaching emotionally, and Libras especially can enjoy banter and flirting for their own sake.

Even so, in his personal life, Wilde had fierce convictions and refused to be anything less than himself; he was a flamboyant gay man living a very out life in a time when to do so was criminal. Wilde defended the “love that has no name” when he was put on trial for homosexuality in 1895. Ultimately, in order to be in harmony with others, Libras must first be in harmony with themselves.

SCORPIO: Margaret Atwood

October 23–November 21

Scorpios see the underbelly of this world. Born at Samhain, when the leaves are falling and molting, Scorpios enter this world when the veil is thin, when the dead walk the earth. Of all the water signs, Scorpios are the most stubborn — they are fixed water, a deep deep well. Le petit mort — the little death — is a euphemism for orgasm; it’s also a good description for Scorpios. Scorpios have a reputation for being sex-obsessed, but they’re more interested in transcendent experiences that bring them to the brink, that allow them to experience other planes of life. Scorpios understand that we all hold light and dark, and there is no convincing them otherwise. Death, rebirth, transformation. The phoenix bird is one of the symbols that represents Scorpio.

More than any other sign, Scorpios are interested in the other side of the story — in the the untold, the maligned, the abject, the obscure. That’s a pretty good summary of Margaret Atwood’s body of work, which takes us to the transformative, to the unimaginable. She takes on myth (The Odyssey, Bluebeard) and imagines the other side of the story; in today’s day and age, her dystopian novel The Handmaid’s Tale, published in 1985, feels downright prophetic.

Pisces, one of Scorpio’s sister water signs, understands cosmic oneness and disintegration, spiritual transcendence; Scorpio understands the cyclical nature of the corporeal body, of the many deaths experienced in a lifetime, and consequently, of how precious life can be. In this, Scorpio finds a ferocity to fight for its convictions. Atwood is involved in season two of Hulu’s adaptation of The Handmaid’s Tale; you’d have to be a fool to not see how strongly the show reflects both reality and imminent possibility.

Like Aries, Scorpios are ruled by Mars. But whereas Aries are the warriors you find on the front lines, Scorpios are stealth: they are the spies, the water churning and roiling beneath the surface. Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.

SAGITTARIUS: Joan Didion

November 22–December 21

Sagittarians are ruled by Jupiter, the planet that expands everything it touches. Like their ruling planet, Sags want more: they’re the kid who looks at the sky, wondering when they can move out of their parents’ home, wanting to just sell everything (or put it all out on the sidewalk) and move to another country. Sags love their freedom. Even if Sags return to a beloved home or city, they have to travel first: first and foremost, Sags understand themselves through experiencing the world and all it has to offer. They love learning about other cultures (but not in an appropriative way), food, dance, art, music: through understanding others, they better understand themselves and where they come from.

You could say that Sagittarius, the philosopher of the zodiac, is obsessed with place and home. Joan Didion, for example. Didion currently lives in New York, but she penned perhaps the most famous kiss-off (or rather, love letter in the guise of a kiss-off) to the city, “Goodbye to All That,” in her 1987 essay collection Slouching Towards Bethlehem. The city had stopped working for her, and she needed to leave in order to be free again.

But Didion maps other landscapes, too — not just place. Sagittarius takes us to places we didn’t know we could go, and this includes interior realms. The Year of Magical Thinking and Blue Nights map grief in stark prose, laying track for her readers who would grieve after to follow. Didion writes into the most uncomfortable corners of the human psyche.

That’s the thing about Sagittarius: they aren’t poets, like their opposing sign, Gemini. This isn’t to say they can’t be poets, but their mutable fire wants to get to the heart of the issue as fast as possible. Gemini is sharp and precise; Sagittarius is big and expansive and searching, always searching. Sagittarius looks for capital-T Truth. Unattainable, almost. Except when they find it in themselves.

CAPRICORN: Lin-Manuel Miranda

December 22–January 19

Capricorn season starts on the winter solstice — the longest night of the year. Saviors come to us in solstice season; so do empire builders, CEOs, folks at the top of their fields. Capricorns are cardinal earth, the leaders of the earth signs, and unlike so many of the other cardinal signs, they understand how to follow through on what they start. They are mountain goats whose problem is not climbing a mountain, but merely choosing which mountain they want to climb (and then, which mountain after that). The Capricorn work ethic is legendary.

“Why do you write like you’re running out of time?” is a question oft repeated in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Tony- and Pulitzer Prize-winning musical Hamilton. Miranda is a Capricorn; unsurprisingly, so was Alexander Hamilton, the titular immigrant Founding Father who Miranda so identified with. But it’s not just hard work that defines Capricorns, or — more stereotypically — an obsession with money or status, although Capricorns can get wrapped up in money (the energy essential to continue the work) and status (recognition for the work).

Capricorns’ real concern is legacy. They understand, better than anyone else, that their life is limited: that they are, in fact, running out of time. It’s said that Capricorns age backwards: they are old souls as children who only understand how to truly relax and have fun in adulthood. They are ruled by Saturn, sometimes called Father Time, or the planet of karma, so this makes sense — Capricorns have a perhaps undue sense of responsibility. They are obsessed with tradition, history, family, place, lineage.

To understand this, you don’t need to look further than Miranda’s work. Consider In the Heights, Hamilton, Moana. Consider the behemoth empires he works with in the entertainment industry: Broadway, Disney. All of this work is obsessed with family, with legacy, with tradition — and with the mutation, with change, with how time works. And, of course, Miranda himself often speaks of his Puerto Rican immigrant parents: of his upbringing in Washington Heights, of his connection to lineage, of his sense of roots and of the past. Capricorns use the past to create a more rooted present and future.

“Legacy. What is a legacy? It’s planting seeds in a garden you never get to see,” Miranda writes.

AQUARIUS: Toni Morrison

January 20–February 18

The perpetual outsiders even when they’re part of the in circle, Aquarians have a special gift for being able to detach and look at things from everyone’s point of view. The Google Earth view, you could say. There’s a contradiction with Aquarius: they want to be seen, deeply seen, while stubbornly holding folks at arm’s length, the distance characteristic of air signs.

Aquarians are ruled by the revolutionary Uranus, but their classical ruler (before the outer planets were discovered) was Saturn — Father Time, the planet of responsibility. This speaks to a central tension in the Aquarian artist’s life: the Uranian push to break new ground alongside the Saturnian convictions about the right way to do things. It’s not that Aquarians are rigid or rule followers, but they do have a code that they stick to, and deeply held beliefs about how the revolution should be accomplished.

Unsurprisingly, many writers associated with changing tides are Aquarians, but none embody the phrase “living legend” quite as fully as Toni Morrison. Initially an editor at Random House, Morrison was immediately focused on nurturing young black writers (like her fellow Aquarian Alice Walker), committed to a new vision for black writers in the late 20th century. Morrison herself did not publish her first novel, The Bluest Eye, until she was 39. Her second novel, Sula, was nominated for a National Book Award; Beloved, her fifth, won the Pulitzer. And while Morrison eventually stopped editing, she did keep teaching the next generation even as her work became the standard for 20th and 21st century American literature: over and over, Morrison has demonstrated a deeply Aquarian commitment to furthering the community most important to her — which, since her time as an editor, has been other black writers. Lifting up black voices.

It’s common to hear words like “humanitarian” or “group-oriented” associated with Aquarius; those are easy words for the hard work of being the individual advocating on behalf of a community, or tasked (consensually or otherwise) with representing a community. Aquarius is the person imagining the next stage, the next change. When others ask, where do we go from here, Aquarians like Toni Morrison answer.

PISCES: Gabriel Garcia Marquez

February 19–March 20

Pisces is the last sign of the zodiac. Fittingly, Pisces is mutable water, the most fluid and flexible of all the water signs, dissolving us all into one collective subconscious. Pisceans excel at taking us out with the tide, out to sea. We are one, Pisces says. Haven’t you figured that out yet?

Pisces folk have a reputation for being spiritual and interested in spirituality. This is another way of saying that Pisces are more attuned to connection and connectedness than the rest of us, and sometimes, they sense it on multiple planes of existence. The zodiac begins with Aries, the “I”; it ends with Pisces, which goes beyond the “we.” There is magic in Pisces, represented by two fish in the ocean, who can tap into the collective subconscious, who is comfortable with mystery and unknowing, unlearning.

Gabriel Garcia Marquez, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, is perhaps best known as one of the founding literary parents of magical realism. Often associated with Latin American literature, magical realism features stories set mostly in an identifiably contemporary or historical setting, but with magical or fantastical elements which are accepted as commonplace. For example, in One Hundred Years of Solitude, a girl ascends into heaven as she does the laundry. This is not fantasy; it is not speculative sci-fi. It is, simply, the imagining of a world that blurs the boundary between the supernatural and the natural.

Sensitive to others’ emotions and to the energy in their environments, Pisces finds it easy to pick up on everything (including things others would rather they didn’t), to know the unknowable, to blur the boundaries. Ruled by Neptune, it is easy for them to freefall into the emotional depths and come up swinging; learning to come up swinging is their life’s work, and what they are here to teach others. When Pisces learns to guard their inner sanctum, they are unstoppable. As Garcia Marquez once wrote, “It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams because they grow old, they grow old because they stop pursuing dreams.”

Up Close and Personal with the Ranchers Who Forcibly Occupied a National Wildlife Refuge

I n January 2016, a few dozen men and women with assault rifles staged a takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a site in eastern Oregon best known as a protected habitat for waterfowl and migratory birds. The group had convened to protest the punishment of two local ranchers who’d been imprisoned for setting fire to publicly owned land. But their project was larger in scope. Led by a rancher’s son named Ammon Bundy, the occupiers were waging a semi-contained war against the federal government in general, and the Bureau of Land Management in particular.

The occupiers’ underlying grievances were (and remain) valid. Simply put, federal restrictions on public land use have curtailed ranchers’ abilities to graze their cattle, preventing them from supporting themselves and their families. And the restrictions, it ought to be noted, seem to get more stringent each year. But the group’s approach to resolution — armed standoffs with federal agents, physical threats to adversaries, collaboration with xenophobic militias — has undermined much of its legal and moral standing.

Purchase the novel

The Malheur Refuge occupation lasted several weeks, culminating in several dozen arrests and the death of a rancher named LaVoy Finicum, who was shot by Oregon State Police. The writer James Pogue covered the standoff for the New York Times and Vice, and his first book, Chosen Country, is an investigation into the cultural forces that led to it. He became a trusted presence on the Refuge, and was granted unprecedented access to Ammon Bundy and his inner circle. (Throughout the narrative Pogue frets, not without cause, about whether his journalistic integrity has been compromised.)

For those of us who, reading the newspaper two years ago, were quick — as I was — to assume the occupiers were little more than anti-environmentalist, anti-government, NRA-aligned provocateurs out to raise a ruckus, the book provides much-needed context as to how and why this standoff arose, and its implications with regard to future conflicts. It also makes clear that the deregulation the ranchers are fighting for wouldn’t much help them; rather, the primary benefactors would be gas and oil companies that would, inevitably and irrevocably, ruin the land.

I recently spoke with Pogue, via FaceTime, about his book. He was in his apartment in Los Angeles, where he’d recently moved after stints in Santa Fe, New Orleans, New York, Cincinnati, New York (again), Los Angeles (previously), and Oregon. He’d just come in from gardening, and whenever he gestured with his hands — which he did often and wildly — I noted the soil under his nails.

Max Ross: Let me make sure I have this straight: Cattle ranchers led the occupation of the Malheur Refuge, but not all of the occupiers were themselves ranchers.

James Pogue: A minority of the occupiers were ranchers. Most of the people there were militia people — that is, people affiliated with independent militias who see themselves as protecting the United States constitution.

And they like to protect the constitution with guns. They feel very strongly about both these points: the constitution, and the guns.

MR: And why are they supportive of the ranchers?

JP: Well, at the most basic level, they believe the federal government, in its treatment of the ranchers — or, actually, in its implementation of restrictions on land use — is violating the constitution. But there does seem to be something deeper going on.

The more time I spent with them, and the more I read about them, the more I came to see these men — they were mostly men — as trying to fashion a tribal identity. They wanted to be part of a tribe. And the ranchers provide an easy template for what that tribe might look like. They’re cowboys — real American cowboys. They’re tough men. They’re well-adjusted, generally happy men. They raise well-adjusted, generally happy children. They have families, which is no small part of the draw. They do cool stuff out on the land. You or I should be so lucky as to have Ammon Bundy or LaVoy Finicum’s life.

And certainly the militia people wanted to be part of that. They latched onto it, even though most of them have never ranched a day in their lives. It’s a cowboy fantasia, and it’s unattainable for most, (and it’s uncomfortably bound up in whiteness). But it’s a fantasia that Ammon Bundy is remarkably good at promoting, and the militia people will kill and die for the idea of it.

And while this may take us into speculative territory, I feel comfortable saying that these guys are essentially — what they’re doing is looking for a sense of belonging. Except for the militia stuff, they feel they don’t fit in anywhere. They’re outcasts. And so the militias give them a sense of belonging to America, and the ranchers provide a sort of ideal for what an American man should be.

The only problem is that their vision of America is arcane and warped and ignorant of the market forces that are actually keeping them apart, and the cowboy thing is unrealistic.

The militias give them a sense of belonging to America, and the ranchers provide a sort of ideal for what an American man should be.

MR: You connected with a lot of these guys, it seems like. Or at least made yourself comfortable with them.

JP: I got along with them. I like a lot of the same stuff they do. I like going out in the woods and camping. I like trucks and cowboy boots. So we were able to connect on that level.

And I suppose I should say, too, that I want what they want — a sense of American belonging. I’ve realized in retrospect that that’s the foundation of my interest in this story: I was on the outside of something, I was moving from place to place without ever feeling at home, and when the standoff started I viewed these guys as being on the inside of something, and drawing immense satisfaction and meaning from being on the inside of it. I didn’t want to belong to what they belonged to, per se, but I understood that aspect of what motivated them.

I grew up believing that if you do the right stuff — school, hard work, whatever, et cetera — at the end of the rainbow you get this patch of land and a sense of rootedness to go along with it. I was desperate for that, I didn’t have it, and that was the thing I communicated best about with the occupiers. You could say it’s an idea of Americans are owed. Because I do, I think we’re owed a living and a patch of land. That was the vision of this country and I grew up subscribing to it, even if it was never a realistic vision, or a vision that was realistic only for members of a white majority.

In any event, that’s not the country we live in. Nothing is provided. There is no security, regardless of academic pedigree or whatever else. There is no land in place. There’s no point at which you are fine. And the underlying question of the book is: How will we address this natural human desire for stability and belonging? (Especially when economic forces keep separating the top from the bottom more and more starkly, and pushing the middle down.)

The underlying question of the book is: How will we address this natural human desire for stability and belonging? (Especially when economic forces keep separating the top from the bottom… and pushing the middle down.)

MR: Sticking with the ranchers a moment — are their grievances against the government legitimate?

JP: Their grievances are legitimate, though no more legitimate than the grievances of anyone else who’s watched their brand of middle class life in America disappear. That said, the forces that have led to the ranchers’ loss are more tangible and obvious. Everything stems from regulatory decisions. And so it’s easy to think that if the regulatory decisions were rolled back, life as it was will be restored.

MR: Why have the regulations been put in place?

JP: The regulatory decisions — which restrict how many cattle a given rancher is able to graze on public lands — have been driven by environmentalists. And I have to be careful here: in broad strokes, environmentalist regulations are good. Of course they are. But the ranchers have become collateral damage and, also in broad strokes, the environmentalists have not been sympathetic to that. Generally speaking, environmentalists wanted ranchers off the land because they viewed grazing cattle as a threat to wildlife and the sustainability of the land itself. They had a slogan in the nineties: Cow Free By ’93. And that’s not productive, because it’s disrespectful to these people, and to the idea that ranching was a way of life that was going on. And that, while ranching does damage the land to an extent, it is far from being the main culprit.

There’s something fundamentally different about ranchers who beat up the range and industrialists who want to rape the land for oil or gas or whatever it might be. And, in my opinion, environmentalists largely ignored this distinction, which led to a lot of animosity. And it didn’t have to be that way. In reality, ranchers and environmentalists should have similar interests in protecting the land. They both face the same threat. But the way the issue was handled put them on opposite sides.

MR: What was the most important part of the story for you to capture in your book?

JP: The book is very much about the psychodrama of the standoff. The characters, and their relationships, and their craziness — that was what interested me most.

It was such an insane environment. There were rumors every day that the FBI was set to invade the Refuge, and the paranoia among the occupiers became more and more pronounced. Meanwhile, the media gave them more and more attention, which stoked a sense of self-importance among the group. The essence of my reporting was being able to show how these forces converged and affected some of the major players.

Their grievances are legitimate, though no more legitimate than the grievances of anyone else who’s watched their brand of middle class life in America disappear.

MR: How integral was Ammon to all of this?

JP: It’s worth painting in broad strokes — apparently the only strokes I like to paint in — the figure of Ammon Bundy. He’s a man who matured as a family guy. He wasn’t a twentysomething forcing himself into a position of power. He has six children and lives a relatively quiet Mormon life. But then when he’s thirty-nine, federal agents descend upon his home, and he essentially summons and leads an army against them. And wins. A few years later he takes over a wildlife refuge, and is able to draw people from across the country without yelling and without carrying a gun. And these people are willing to die for him. Add into the mix that he believes angels told him to do what he was doing. He was visited three times in the night by an angel who told him to occupy the Refuge, and he believes this deeply. The gears turning in there are insane.

I should say, too, that I wanted him to like me. I suppose I would defy any man who has a bit of a male competitive thing to not want Ammon to like him. Even as I was reporting on him, even as I was interviewing him and remained skeptical of his motives and found him to be an incredibly dangerous individual, I was being seduced. And I don’t think he was trying to seduce me. I think he has a gift.

And I see that as part of the story. If you don’t have a figure like Ammon — a Svengali guy — none of this would have happened.

The problem, from a journalistic perspective, was that he’s an ideologue, and that to an extent he is unknowable. He toes his own party line and never goes off script. As much time as I spent with him, I kept waiting for that reveal, that moment where he was going to crack and say what his true motives were. But his façade remained frustratingly intact. Ultimately it was like trying to get to know a really charming and engaging golden Retriever.

MR: And you view him, and his followers, as dangerous.

JP: Their influence is spreading and they’re dangerous — we’re talking mostly about the militia guys again. They believe in civil war. And, in a sense, they’re already winning.

Around the world, states and countries lose control of areas filled with people with AR-pattern rifles all the time. And these areas of the world look an awful lot like the American west. The ingredients are all there.

It’s very difficult for me to think we’re fundamentally different from other places where fratricidal violence has erupted. It would be more surprising to me if we didn’t have some sort of fratricidal violence than if we did. It just seems weird to me that people think that’s strange.

The government won’t be able to stop anything once it starts. You can’t roll into a rural place with a tank and put a stop to a grassroots insurrection. We learned that through the Malheur Refuge standoff. When LaVoy was shot, the movement got way bigger. Which is to say, this is demonstrably a movement with a martyr. Think about that — there is a considerable faction of the American populace with a great many weapons willing to use violent means to limit the federal government’s power, and when the government interferes the movement only gains more support. These are people who feel like they have nothing to lose. And that’s really scary. They’re extremists and they have martyrs and they have nothing to lose and the danger is real.

MR: You were not left untouched by the standoff. Even though you were reporting it, you didn’t remain a fly on the wall.

JP: I spent a lot of time with these guys. And so, just naturally, I ended up liking a lot of them, even as I disagreed with them.

And so as everything came to a head, I was more and more shaken up. I had never had someone I knew get killed by the cops. I never had three-dozen people I knew, some of them well, all of a sudden end up in jail. You don’t have to agree with the people involved to be shaken by that. And it all hit really fast.

To say nothing of the fact that the FBI started lingering outside my hotel room and patching into my phone calls with these guys.

But — and this will be no real surprise — I’ve been most affected by LaVoy’s death. I felt like that didn’t need to happen. And the people responsible for it were not the Oregon State police who killed him. The police killed him, but I saw this as being Ammon’s fault, and I had a lot of anger toward Ammon. And in sitting with my anger, the entire scenario crystalized for me into a story about people who gave a lot, about people who sacrificed a great deal, and were willing to sacrifice a great deal more, to follow a deeply compelling, misleading leader.

Researchers Have Found Two New Pages in Anne Frank’s Diary. Should We Read Them?

The New York Times reported this week that the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam has successfully uncovered two pages from Anne Frank’s diaries, which Frank covered herself in brown paper. The original diaries are so fragile, they are only taken out of storage once every ten years for study. The two new pages were discovered on one of these exhumations in 2016, and only with the help of new technology which enabled the researches at Anne Frank House to discover what was underneath the brown paper without actually touching them.

Anne Frank was revising herself — covering up two “spoiled” pages that included dirty jokes and an imagined conversation with a man how she would talk to him about sex ed. These are not the only two pages in the diary that reference sex and the body. They’re not even the only pages referencing sex and the body that have, at one point or another, been excised from the diary. But they’re the only two that Anne Frank blotted out herself.

The two brown paper pages. Photo from The Anne Frank House.

The Diary of Anne Frank has a fraught relationship with editorial changes. That’s because The Diary of Anne Frank that you may have read in middle school is not, in fact, the singular “original” diary written by Anne Frank.

Frank wrote two diaries in her lifetime. The first was a personal account, which she intended to remain private. But, as reported by The New York Times, in 1944, Frank heard on the radio that the Dutch government in exile wanted to archive and publish the stories of people living under German occupation. So she went about rewriting her diary for a public audience. The new book was called “The Secret Annex” and was based on her diaries, but not a perfect facsimile. She completed 215 pages of “The Secret Annex” before her family was arrested, deported, and sent to the concentration camp where she died in 1945.

Her father, Otto Frank, survived the camp, and then the war. As explained in the Critical Edition of The Diary of Anne Frank, Otto Frank then worked with a Dutch publisher to compile a revised version of the diary — taking pieces from Anne Frank’s private diary, and others from “The Secret Annex” to create the third version of the diary we have come to know as The Diary of Anne Frank. But as Stephanie Watson points out in her article on Otto Frank’s arguably sexist editorial direction, some of his choices are cause for concern. In the third version, critical descriptions of Otto and his wife were softened, and some of Anne’s language about her own body and sex were also removed.

But what’s interesting about this most recent bibliographic development is that these are passages about sex and the body that Anne herself tried to cover up. So should we respect her wishes, and keep the pages under brown paper wraps? The question of authorial intention has plagued bibliographers for decades, but it should concern the rest of us, too.

Anne Frank’s Original Red Plaid Diary. Photo collection: Anne Frank House, Amsterdam.

The question highlights the tension between our obligation to authors and our obligation to history. We do not have a great track record of respecting authors’ intentions after their deaths (with a few exceptions). Kafka and Hemingway are still turning in their graves. And our relationship to authors’ private journals are particularly fraught. So it’s pretty interesting that researchers are using the fact that Anne tried to stop things from being published from her private diary in order to prove that Frank was practicing authorial moves for a public audience. The two pages come from Anne Frank’s first, private diary. Given the fact that this was meant to remain a private diary, and the content Frank removed was about her own body, is there an even greater responsibility to respect her wishes?

The Lost Nabokov Novel That Was Almost Burned—And Maybe Should Have Been

On its FAQ page for the two new pages, the Anne Frank House goes on to validate their publication by suggesting it’s too late to worry about what Anne Frank might have wished for, since that was done away with in the version published by Otto Frank: “Texts from Anne Frank’s diary papers that she did not herself intend for publication have been published earlier, at various times. That already occurred in the publication arranged by her father in 1947, and later in the compilation of the critical education by the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, which was published in 1986 and republished in 2001 after the discovery of five new diary pages.” In other words, if we’ve already violated her privacy, we might as well do it again.

But maybe her privacy, and her intentions for her public-facing diary versus her personal one, don’t matter when weighed against the demands of history. The Anne Frank House believes that the potential for historical value and the public’s interest are more important than what Frank might have wanted. The Times quotes Teresien da Silva, the head of collections at the Anne Frank House, who argues: “It’s not always good to follow the wish of an author…It’s important sometimes for scientific research and also good to know for the public what she didn’t want to publish.”

So, now that these two pages are being published, should we read them? Is it our historical obligation to read them, or is it our feminist obligation to respect Anne Frank’s wishes? Maybe a bit of both. Regardless of what we think, the Anne Frank House has confirmed that a transcription of the new pages will be available on their webpage soon, but because of copyright restrictions, the text will only be available in Dutch for the time being. If you don’t read Dutch, you can put off the moral quandary a little longer.

Reading “The Idiot” Was the First Time I Felt Like Part of the Story

I haven’t heard of Elif Batuman — brainy, hilarious essayist and novelist — until I go exercising at a Snap Fitness 24–7 location near my apartment one afternoon. It is January 27, 2011, a day I only remember because I will later send myself an email and archive it. Subject line: TODAY I FOUND ELIF.

This particular gym is managed by two enormous, suntanned brothers who want me to invest in their diet smoothie pyramid scheme. The brothers have recently purchased a state-of-the-art stairclimber, the crown jewel of their fitness franchise. We have to sign up for it on a special clipboard. The person on the climber before me that day leaves a women’s magazine behind on the reading rack. The magazine is one of those Christmas gift guide issues filled with photos of luxury candles and control-top pantyhose. A bit weirdly, there is also a suggestion that, for the bibliophiles in our life, we should all purchase Batuman’s new memoir, a collection of essays called The Possessed: Adventures with Russian Books and the People Who Read Them.

When I see the blurb, I have no reason to believe this book will change my life. First of all, I have never embarked on an adventure with a Russian, or even a Russian book, so I don’t feel I fit the target audience. But the book does change my life. It changes my life before I even read it.

It’s not an exaggeration to say as soon as I see the author’s name, I launch myself off the stairclimber like a mountain goat in flight, and sprint back to my apartment, abandoning my workout in order to conduct a thorough Google search. It turns out Batuman has written for the Atlantic, for the New Yorker, for the literary journal n+1. She has published a funny piece about a Thai kickboxing champion, written about ice palaces, Central Asian landladies, and how to find a good watermelon when in Uzbekistan. She has written about it all.

The book does change my life. It changes my life before I even read it.

At my kitchen table that afternoon, I discover Batuman’s personal blog, and immediately enter an alternative-reality fugue state where everything not on the screen vanishes. All I can do is keep reading and reading until finally, I look up and realize it is pitch dark and I haven’t moved for about four hours. My sweaty clothes have long dried and stiffened. My thigh muscles are frozen tight.

The blog, which is no longer available online, tells me about Elif’s life, her experiences as a graduate student, as a writer, as the only child of Turkish immigrants. It is my gateway drug. It leads me deeper, and to other things: to print interviews, to her Twitter feed, to NPR conversations, and a scathing, brilliant essay she has written, for the London Review of Books, on the strange obsession creative writing programs have with craft (“What did craft ever try to say about the world, the human condition, or the search for meaning? All it had were its negative dictates: ‘Show, don’t tell’; ‘Murder your darlings’; ‘Omit needless words.’ As if writing were a matter of overcoming bad habits — of omitting needless words.”).

I order The Possessed straight away, rush delivery, hardcopy, yes, please send the free sample chapters to my inbox. Then, I write an email to my entire family, subject line: İnanılmaz bir Türk Amerikalı yazar buldum. Translation: I’ve found an incredible Turkish American writer — which is true, but it is incomplete. Batuman isn’t just an incredible Turkish American writer. She is the incredible Turkish American writer. She is the only one.

Batuman isn’t just an incredible Turkish American writer. She is the incredible Turkish American writer. She is the only one.

If I were to write a story about my life, my protagonist-self would be, like Batuman, the only child of Turkish immigrants. My tale would be one of general nerdiness and loneliness and cycling up and down the same stretch of sidewalk on a ten-speed. It would be a story of not having a boyfriend until the age of 20, and most scenes would take place on the couch, me in loungewear, reading about Narnia.

Some loners are video game-enthusiasts. Some grow heirloom tomatoes. For me, it has always, always been about books. But in all that time, years upon years, stories upon stories, I have never encountered a heroine who speaks Turkish like I do, who grew up in between here and there; someone whose experiences, in some fundamental way, mirror my own. Until now.

After The Possessed is delivered, I race home after work every day to devour Batuman’s words. I am thrilled to find essays about America and Turkey and the former Soviet Union’s Turkic republics. In one piece, Batuman recounts a trip to Kayseri, the “Turkish pastrami capital.” In another, she describes her uncle, a man who “spent his later years in a gardening shed in New Jersey, writing a book about string theory and spiders.” She shares her adventures in Uzbekistan, where she survives on “some kind of chocolate spread” eating it directly from the jar with a “souvenir Uzbek scimitar.” She attempts to learn old Uzbek, a language with 70 words for duck, 100 words for crying.

There is something mildly bonkers/deeply resonant about every single essay, and by the time I finish the book, I am electrified in a way I have never been before. I have only read about this part of the world, ostensibly “my” part of the world, through the eyes of European writers, usually white men. The Possessed is different. It is richer, feels truer to life, free of condescension and bad stereotypes about what it means to be Turkish. It is an infinite improvement over everything that’s come before.

When Elif’s debut literary novel The Idiot, about Selin Karadag, a Turkish American first-year college student, is announced, I set up a Google alert for it and begin the wait. That winter, I preorder online, and read the first chapter, previewed in a January issue of the New Yorker. When a troll launches a Twitter-attack on Elif, I secretly report him every day until he eventually disappears.

I read The Idiot slowly, savoring it, dog-earing the pages. Some chapters I finish, then go back and immediately read again. Some parts I read out loud to my best friend. Some parts make me cry. Never has the act of reading been a means of such profound self-affirmation.

I love Selin, the type of bookish, dorky, peculiar character chronically underloved and overlooked in literature. I love her for the silent “g” in her super Turkish last name. I love her for her observation of a dinner buffet in a Mediterranean resort town (it has a “kebab station and a swan made of butter sweating in a tub of ice”), and for her hilarious visit to Turkey’s first golf hotel, where she rides around in a golf cart with a man shaped like a barrel.

When I meet Selin on the page for the first time, I am pushed to examine how I’ve accepted a lack of representation, or bad representation, as the norm for all these years. Selin shows me what I’ve suspected all along: that something different is possible. She helps me see, after decades of watching from the sidelines, mute and passive, maligned or ignored, what it is to finally become part of the plot.

She helps me see, after decades of watching from the sidelines, mute and passive, maligned or ignored, what it is to finally become part of the plot.

Three years ago, before the release of The Idiot, Elif published an essay in the New Yorker on reading racist literature. “As a Turkish American, I couldn’t prevent myself from registering all the slights against Turkish people that I encountered in European books,” she writes. “In Heidi, the meanest goat is called ‘the Great Turk’;” in the Agatha Christie novel, Dumb Witness, someone decides it’s “rather dreadful for an English girl to marry a Turk,” as it “shows a certain lack of fastidiousness.”

Elif describes these encounters as mildly jarring. “There I’d be, reading along,” she says, “imaginatively projecting myself into the character most suitable for imaginative projection, forgetting through suspension of disbelief the differences that separated me from that character — and then I’d come across a line like ‘These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children’ (The Brothers Karamazov).”

After I finish Elif’s essay, I print it out and pin it to a cork board in my office. I feel defiant. The first paragraph alone makes me want to march out of the building and start a riot. Every act of literary cruelty and exclusion has diluted and erased the richness, the fullness of experience not just of Turks, but of people of color; of women and the LGBTQ; of immigrants; of the poor.

Every act of literary cruelty and exclusion has diluted and erased the richness, the fullness of experience… of people of color; of women and the LGBTQ; of immigrants; of the poor.

But suddenly, here is Elif. Here is Elif, beginning to do what no one else in this country’s Turkish community has done before. Here is Elif, gently pointing the finger at what’s wrong, showing us there is a better way.

I am spending the winter in Istanbul. I am staying for a full month, and will be on the same college campus where Elif is writer-in-residence. I’ve never been to this campus before. It’s relatively new, and has been built atop a hill, surrounded by a thick forest of birch and chestnut, looking down onto the Black Sea coast.

I don’t think I should email Elif. I have her email, I found it on her blog, I think, but I don’t want to use it, because what would I even say? That I’m a big fan? I think it’s weird to be a big fan, especially at my age. Twelve-year-olds can be a “big fan;” can fangirl over someone. I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as a fanwoman and if there is, I don’t want to be one.

Twelve-year-olds can be a ‘big fan;’ can fangirl over someone. I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as a fanwoman and if there is, I don’t want to be one.

So I don’t email her. Not for, like, a week — which for an Aries, is roughly equivalent to one calendar year. I hold out that long until one night, my friend Çağla comes over to my place for dinner, mentions she just saw Elif at the bus stop across the street, and the next thing I know, Çağla and I are drafting an email on my laptop. I convince myself it’s okay to do this because Elif isn’t just any writer. She’s someone who has written, with humor and grace and smarts, about the complicated, messy particularities of her life as a Turkish American young woman and, in the process, has given me the courage to do the same.

I don’t remember exactly what I say in the email, but I remember I try my best to sound jokey and not like a serial murderer. I invite Elif to a picnic Çağla and I are organizing in Kilyos that Sunday. I tell Elif I’m a “big fan” of her blog; that I follow her on social media. I try to keep it short. I make sure to use spellcheck.

As soon as I hit “send” I am filled immediately with regret, and already predicting my future embarrassment at this picnic, but it turns out I don’t need to worry. Although Elif will write back, gracious and kind, she will not be able to make it to Kilyos on Sunday. I’m glad she won’t. Honestly, I am. I’m sad for a minute, but then relieved, because I know what they say about never meeting your heroes. People say that. They say it all the time.

Years later, long after I’ve left Istanbul, I will try, shaky and green, to write a short story about a Turkish American girl. I will name her Elif. This is my smoke signal, a tip of the hat to show: she paved the way. She had things to say that I needed to hear. She saw the humanity, the humor, the stories in us so that I could, too. She made me feel like we’re all in this together.

8 Novels That Chronicle National Traumas

The trauma of nations is often best understood through fiction, which, unlike history, rarely focuses on victors. My novel The Storm explores characters across both time and space, decades and continents, discovering the surprising and profound ways that they are connected, centering on a devastating real life event: The 1970 Bhola Cyclone. With a death toll in the hundreds of thousands, the 1970 cyclone precipitated the 1971 War of Liberation for Bangladesh, and forever altered the history of the country and South Asia as a whole.

From the Sri Lankan civil war to the Tiananmen Square massacre, these eight books (some of my favorites) explore time periods and places, each troubled and turbulent in its own way.

Indian Independence and The Partition: Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie

Through manic virtuosic prose, we follow Saleem Sinai, who is born at midnight on the exact hour of India’s independence, an auspicious time that bestows on him mysterious and supernatural powers. Saleem’s childhood and youth will mirror his young’s nation’s own charter of joy and sorrow, triumph and loss, as he comes to discover that there are many, many other “Midnight’s Children” such as him including some who are far from friendly. To read Midnight’s Children is to jump off a cliff, a headlong plunge into the kaleidoscopic social, political, and cultural canyon that was the first three decades of India’s existence as an independent state.

State of Emergency in India: A Fine Balance by Rohinton Mistry

Both Midnight’s Children and A Fine Balance take dim views of Indira Gandhi, the country’s only female prime minister and the daughter of India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi) presided over The Emergency, a 21 month period in which she accelerated her autocratic tendencies to new levels by concentrating state power within the prime minister’s office and jailing members of the press and dissidents. Set during The Emergency, A Fine Balance traces the lives of three men and a woman as their paths converge in an unnamed Indian city. Marked by devastating sorrow and told in prose exhilarating in its beauty, the novel hovers delicately over this group of souls as they seek shelter in each other from tragedies both personal and historical in scope.

Tiananmen Square Massacre: Do Not Say We Have Nothing by Madeleine Thien

At the heart of this story is the relationship between Marie (Li-Ling) and Ai Ming, who arrives at the former’s door after escaping the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Buried within the notebooks that Ai Ming carries, Marie discovers her own secret history, through a story handwritten by her own father many years before after his mysterious disappearance. Do Not Say We Have Nothing flits from China during the Cultural Revolution to the Tiananmen Square protests to Western Canada like a restless bird, swaying to its own mysterious music.

Banana Massacre: A Hundred Years Of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Set in the town of Macondo, Columbia, this timeless work by Marquez traces generations of the Buendía family as they traverse hurdles set upon their paths by a combination of fate, history, and each other. Suffused with a dreamy otherworldliness where anything is possible, and the most magical occurrence are celebrated as everyday (but not mundane) events, this novel casts a spell on the reader from its very first sentence.

Naxalite–Maoist Insurgency: The Lowland by Jhumpa Lahiri

Subhash and Udayan are brothers growing up in Tollygunge, Kolkata in the 60’s and 70’s. Studious and serious, Subhash sets his sights on a doctoral program at the University of Rhode Island, while his idealistic brother enlists with the Naxalites, a Maoist group seeking to overturn what they perceive as India’s corrupt social order by whatever means necessary. The paths of the brothers will diverge, only to converge following a tragic event which will bring Subhash to the precipice of a momentous decision, one that will transform the fates of him and his family forever. Written in her typically understated but luminous prose and imbued with stunning insight, Lahiri traces the arcs of sorrow that reverberate across generations.

Bangladesh Liberation War: A Golden Age by Tahmima Anam

A Golden Age picks up where my book ends. In 1971, Rehana Haque is living in East Pakistan, a country that would shortly become Bangladesh after a bloody war of independence. A woman of two cultures and two worlds, the love of her children will force her to choose a side on the eve of war between East and West. Tahmima Anam’s debut novel is the first of a trilogy that amply demonstrates the author’s considerable storytelling prowess and expansive imagination.

Soviet-Afghan War: The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini

Amir, a Pashtun boy, is the son of a wealthy merchant living in Kabul, Afghanistan in 1974. He has a warm but condescending friendship with Hassan, an ethnic Hazara and the son of his father’s servant. The gulf between the two boys widens to an uncrossable chasm after an immensely selfish act of betrayal on the part of Amir, a sin that he will have to confront and atone for many years later. The Kite Runner is the beloved debut novel of a master storyteller, an essential read for anyone wishing to better understand the many cleavages that define Afghanistan today.

Sri Lankan Civil War: Anil’s Ghost by Michael Ondaatje

Anil Tissera has led a nomadic life since her birth in Sri Lanka and finally returns to her homeland after years in England and America. Trained as a forensic anthropologist, she partners with archeologist Sarath to investigate the murder of an unknown man whose skeleton they find in a protected archeological dig site. Intrigue and danger follow them as the two delve deeper into the mystery, bringing them to a reckoning where Anil must confront her own past. Set against the backdrop of Sri Lanka’s civil war, Anil’s Ghost is a showcase for the astonishing range and insight possessed by this modern master.

‘Dirty Computer’ is Not a Coming Out Album-Because Janelle Monáe’s Music Has Been Queer All Along

I n the sci-fi “emotion picture” released alongside Janelle Monáe’s new album, Dirty Computer, two white men serve as technicians who “clean” (that is, delete) the memories of so-called dirty computers — androids who rebelled against the social order in some way, by appearance, actions, or anything that seemed remotely defiant of norms. These men are clearly low-ranking employees — not the decision makers, but the cogs in the wheel of the institution that erases the individuality from the dirty computers. Before erasing a given memory, they play it back, either as part of the job or for their own amusement, it’s hard to tell. What they see in the scenes from Jane 57821 — the android played by Janelle Monáe — seems to confuse them. These scenes are not simple episodic memories. Instead, they’re music videos — in fact, they are the same music videos Monáe dropped as standalone pieces in the weeks leading up to the album release. In this way, the videos live in both the fictional world of Dirty Computer, the film, and the real world of Dirty Computer, the album. This ambiguous state, halfway between reality and science fiction, seems to leak into the film itself: after the memory/video for “Django Jane,” one of the technicians expresses doubt: “I don’t know what this is. Doesn’t even look like a memory. What is that, is that a dream?” The other man cannot give him a direct answer; when the technician repeats the question, he simply responds, “Delete it and move on.”

That unanswered question also pervades the reception of the album itself. Is Dirty Computer a memory or a dream — a candid autobiography of the singer, or a fantasia on the android-centric world carefully built by Monáe’s previous albums? By posing this question inside the film, Monáe draws attention to one of the key effects of confessional art: it simultaneously invites you to understand it as reflecting the “real life” of the artists, while it reminds you that art is by definition crafted and thus a performance rather than unfiltered, unmediated access to the artist.

Monáe draws attention to one of the key effects of confessional art: it simultaneously invites you to understand it as reflecting the “real life” of the artists, while it reminds you that art is by definition crafted.

The Prince-inflected, outrageously catchy “Make Me Feel,” which was the first single released from Dirty Computer, begins with a coy verse.

Baby, don’t make me spell it out for you
All of the feelings that I’ve got for you
Can’t be explained, but I can try for you
Yeah, baby, don’t make me spell it out for you
You keep on asking me the same questions
And second-guessing all my intentions
Should know by the way I use my compression
That you’ve got the answers to my confessions

If you listen to this song without watching its deliciously bisexual music video, you’d never guess that much of the media coverage of Monáe’s new album Dirty Computer describes it as a coming-out narrative. It reads, in fact, as a plea against coming out, with one’s sexual intentions if not one’s sexuality.

Monáe’s sexuality, however, has been one of the most-discussed aspects of Dirty Computer. In a Rolling Stone cover story just before the album was released, Monáe said she had been in relationships with both men and women and identified sexually as a “free-ass motherfucker.” This steered the media narrative around Dirty Computer as a coming-out album, as “finally revealing the real person” behind Cindi Mayweather, the android persona she adopted for previous albums.

While it’s true that Janelle Monáe, the human being who writes and sings and dances like the reincarnation of James Brown, has started speaking more openly about her personal life and her sexual identity, these interpretations assume that her alter ego is a protective disguise, a straight mask that Monáe wears to hide her true self. But who says Cindi Mayweather isn’t queer?

In the universe of Monáe’s music, Cindi is an outcast, a fugitive on the run from bounty hunters. Cindi’s crime is one of sexual identity: she fell in love with a human. From the start of Monáe’s career, the EP Metropolis: Suite I (The Chase), Cindi has been exiled for loving the wrong kind of creature. This is just one of the reasons that her fans (myself included) have long understood Janelle Monáe to be making queer art, whether or not she identified as queer herself. In fact, in one of the skits on the album The Electric Lady, a caller to a radio DJ (again, inside the world of Cindi Mayweather) shouts “ROBOT LOVE IS QUEER,” offering no further explanation. It makes sense — both the idea that androids can feel love in the first place, and that this love can target the “wrong” object, clearly threaten the social order in ways that mirror the way queerness threatens heteronormativity and patriarchy. At least within the world of Cindi Mayweather, robot love is manifestly queer: what other kind of love engenders that much anger?

Her fans have long understood Janelle Monáe to be making queer art, whether or not she identified as queer herself.

Which means that Monae is not exactly casting off a straight mask to reveal a queer reality. But is she casting off a mask at all? Is Janelle Monae’s new persona really closer to “herself”?

Critics define confessional poetry in different ways, but here’s a loose description: confessional poetry is an influential set of literary practices that arose in the United States in the late 1950s, characterized by a sense of intimacy with the reader and a tendency toward self-mythologizing and an almost obsessive interrogation of the reliability of the poem’s speaker (that is, the “I” of the poem). Confessional poetry is written in a style that reassures the reader that they are reading something that is private, secret, perhaps shameful — that there is a real person behind even the most spectacularly crafted poem, a person that the reader learns about by interacting with the poem.

One of the great tricks of the confessional mode, though, is to seem private, while being public. You may feel like you’re reading, say, Sylvia Plath’s raw diary when you read “Daddy,” but you’re not — you’re encountering “Sylvia Plath,” as written in a finely tuned artwork. (If you want to read Plath’s actual diary, you can! And then you can make your own comparison of Sylvia Plath and “Sylvia Plath.”) Even “Lady Lazarus,” which is often read as directly speaking of Plath’s repeated suicide attempts, highlights its own artifice:

Dying
Is an art, like everything else.
I do it exceptionally well.

Many people read these lines as a glorification of death, a kind of personal pride in gaining mastery over mortality. But what I always come back to is the quietest phrase, the one that almost seems like it could be a throwaway line: “like everything else.” It’s not just that dying is an art — it’s that everything is, including this seemingly raw glimpse into the mind of the self-destructive poet. The confessional mode, in Plath’s words, is a “big strip tease”: a performance of exposing oneself, an art of appearing artless.

The confessional mode, in Plath’s words, is a “big strip tease”: a performance of exposing oneself, an art of appearing artless.

The sense of unfettered access to Plath, the woman, through her art has had a significant impact on the critical reception of her work and her status in American culture. This conflation of art and artist was perpetuated by Plath’s husband Ted Hughes, who frequently insisted that scholars and fans of Plath’s work could never understand it like he did, because he was married to Plath. In other words, Hughes seemed to claim that because he had the most access to the “real” person, he was the one true reader of her art. To maintain this claim, however, Hughes had to ignore much of what makes Plath’s poetry so innovative: its ability to tempt you into reading it as autobiographical, while simultaneously calling attention to its artifice.

Carly Rae Jepsen’s Queer Renaissance

In a piece called “The Poem as Mask,” the feminist writer Muriel Rukeyser, who was troubled by the way Plath’s suicide affected her literary reputation, wrote what might considered a confessional manifesto. In this poem, she declares freedom from the artistic personae she had previously created for herself, including that of Orpheus, the mythological singer who founded lyric poetry:

when I wrote of the god,
fragmented, exiled from himself, his life, the love gone down with song
it was myself, split open, unable to speak, in exile from myself.

After exposing the poetic persona as a “mask,” Rukeyser rejects her former poetic method, exclaiming “No more masks! No more mythologies!” Yet the title of the poem suggests that the rejection of masks cannot ever be fully complete: if a poem functions as a mask, then doesn’t this very poem also function as a mask? The newly reconciled persona, no longer “in exile” from itself, still reveals itself through poetry. There is no authentic, unmasked singer: the very act of singing creates another mask. Self-revelation is an art, like everything else.

There’s no doubt that many of the songs on Dirty Computer allude to the life of Janelle Monáe, the artist — particularly the incisive “Django Jane,” which drops references to Monáe’s acting career and public image. (The line “Remember when they used to say I look too mannish” — which still makes me shout with queer-girl happiness when I hear it — clearly alludes to Monáe’s frequently androgynous fashion, for example.) It’s tempting to read Dirty Computer as an obliteration of Monáe’s fictions — but that only works if you interpret the album without its accompanying film. Dirty Computer, the film, is clearly intertextual, an Afrofuturist fantasia that melds Blade Runner, Metropolis, Westworld, and Monáe’s previous music videos. Even Monáe’s character name, Jane 57821, alludes to her earliest work, incorporating both Cindi Mayweather’s registration number and the song “Sincerely, Jane” from the Metropolis EP. In other words, as a film, Dirty Computer is still building the sprawling, cross-genre, fantastic world that Monáe’s has been creating for the last decade. Given that Monáe released both works simultaneously, using the “memories” from the film as music videos for the songs, approaching the album as completely separate seems too simple.

If we interpret Dirty Computer as an album about the “real person” behind the android persona, then we miss one of the key messages of the Cindi Mayweather saga: deciding who counts as “real” is an exercise of power. Cindi Mayweather’s rebellion against her oppressors — who can’t stand the possibility of humans and androids mixing — suggests that favoring the real over the created is itself a form of bigotry.

I don’t want to discount the importance of Janelle Monáe — the real-life, brilliant, successful woman of color — officially coming out. It’s glorious — I know I’m not the only one who texted all her queer friends to celebrate. But I also think that, as in Rukeyser’s poem, the artistic mask plays two roles: it obscures, but it also represents. In other words, the disguises we wear always reveal something about who can be found underneath, by virtue of the fact that they are chosen. Monáe may wear vagina pants in the video for “Pynk,” and Tessa Thompson’s head may literally appear between her legs — but the only place they have a “confirmed” relationship is inside the film Dirty Computer.

We can still look for codes, try to figure out what’s real. But the line between Monáe and her characters has always been blurry. In “Q.U.E.E.N.” (which we now know was originally titled “Q.U.E.E.R.”), she both demands that “electric ladies” wake up and follow Cindi’s lead, and she declares “Gimme back my pyramid, I’m trying to free Kansas City,” the real-life hometown of Janelle Monáe. Who counts as the “real person” here: Cindi or Monáe? Who speaks when Janelle Monáe sings?

Who counts as the “real person” here: Cindi or Monáe? Who speaks when Janelle Monáe sings?

Before she came out in Rolling Stone, Monáe would answer questions about her sexuality by saying, “I only date androids.” There are two ways to interpret that answer: that Monáe was dodging the question, hiding behind an android mask — or that she was always telling us a truth, choosing a mask that was an exact replica of the person wearing it. Robot love is queer, and Monáe has always been out and proud as a robot.

William Trevor’s Son Recommends a Previously Uncollected Story by His Father

“Making Conversation”

by William Trevor

‘Yes?’ Olivia says on the answering system when the doorbell rings in the middle of The Return of the Thin Man. The summons is an irritation on a Sunday afternoon, when it couldn’t possibly be the meter-man or the postman, and it’s most unlikely to be Courtney Haynes, the porter.

A woman’s voice crackles back at her but Olivia can’t hear what she says. More distinctly, the dialogue of the film reaches her from the sitting room. ‘Cocktail time,’ William Powell is saying, and there’s the barking of a dog. The man Olivia lives with laughs.

‘I’m sorry,’ Olivia says in the hall. ‘I can’t quite hear you.’

‘I’m not used to these answering gadgets.’ The woman’s voice is clearer now. There is a pause, and then: ‘Is my husband there?’

‘Your husband ?’ Frowning, more irritated than she has been, Olivia suggests the wrong bell has been rung.

‘Oh, no,’ the voice insists. ‘Oh, no.’

‘I really do think so. This is number 19.’ Dark-haired, dark-eyed, with a crushed quality about her features that doesn’t detract from their beauty, Olivia at thirty-seven has been separated from her husband for years and feels the better for it. She has chosen not to marry the man she lives with; there is a feeling of independence about her life now, which she likes.

‘I’ve come up from Brighton,’ the woman two flights below states. ‘I’m Mrs. Vinnicombe.’

Olivia met Vinnicombe on the street. She tripped as she was leaving a house in Hill Street — number​ 17 — ​where she had just been interviewed for a job she particularly wanted. She lost her balance, stumbled down two steps and fell on to the pavement, her handbag scattering its contents, her left knee grazed, tights badly torn. Vinnicombe was passing.

He helped her to her feet, collected her belongings together, noticed her grimace of pain when she began to hobble off after she’d thanked him. ‘No, no, you’re shaken,’ he said, and insisted that she sat for a while in the saloon bar at the end of the street. He bought her brandy, although she didn’t ask for it.

He was an overweight man in a dark suit that needed pressing, Olivia noticed when she had pulled herself together. He was probably forty-two or -three, his pigeon-colored hair thinning at the temples, a tendency to pastiness in his complexion. Feeling foolish and embarrassed, hoping that the incident hadn’t been observed from the house where she’d been interviewed, Olivia insisted that she was perfectly all right now. ‘You’ll get the job,’ the man assured her when she told him why she was in Hill Street. He spoke with such certainty that she thought for a moment he was himself connected with the offices she had visited and had some influence there. But this turned out not to be so. The color had come back into her cheeks, he said. No one would not give her a job, he said.

This confidence was well placed. A month later Olivia began work at number 17, and in time even told the people who had interviewed her how nervous she had been in case, glancing from a window, one of them had seen her sprawled all over the pavement. She laughed about it, and so did they. ‘I was rescued,’ she explained in the same light-hearted way, ‘by a gallant passer‑by.’ Sometimes, when telling other people in the office about the incident, she jestingly called her rescuer a guardian angel. She remembered only that the man had been of unprepossessing appearance, that he had lightly held her elbow when she was on her feet again, and that his voice had warned her she’d been shaken. It was winter then, a January day when she stumbled down the steps, 14 February when she began to work for her new employers. In April, when the window-box daffodils were in bloom, a man smiled shyly at her in Hill Street, and for a moment, as she walked past, Olivia couldn’t remember where she had seen that podgey face before. ‘You got the job,’ a​ voice — hardly raised — called after her.

‘Oh, goodness, I’m sorry!’ Olivia cried, ashamed and turning round. She almost exclaimed, ‘My guardian angel!’ It would have pleased him, she knew. You could guess it would, even on so slight an acquaintance.

‘You’re well?’ he asked. ‘You like it in there?’ He gestured at the offices she had just left, and Olivia said, yes, she did. He walked with her to the corner and they parted there.

Then, one lunchtime, less than a week later, he was in Zampoli’s in Shepherd Market and asked if he might share her table. He asked her name when he had ordered steak-and-kidney and she a chicken salad. His was Vinnicombe, he said. ‘Oh, I invent things,’ he answered when, making conversation, she enquired; and Olivia thought of Edison and Stephenson and Leonardo da Vinci, of the motor-car and the airplane and space travel.

But Vinnicombe’s inventions were not like that. His were domestic gadgets and accessories: fasteners for electric and gas ovens, for microwave ovens, for refrigerators and deep-freezes. He had invented a twin eggcup, a different kind of potato peeler, a carou­sel for drip-drying purposes, an electronic spike for opening and closing windows, a folding coat-hanger, a TV‑dinner aid. Olivia tried to be interested.

‘He isn’t here,’ his wife says, agitated. In Olivia’s sitting room the television screen is blank and soundless now. The man she lives with, annoyed that it has to be so because of a visitor, is having a bath. A Sunday newspaper has been tidied up a bit, a chair pushed back.

‘Of course your husband isn’t here, Mrs. Vinnicombe.’

She shouldn’t have let her in, Olivia is thinking. This woman has no possible right in the flat, no right to disturb their weekend peace. And yet when Mrs. Vinnicombe said who she was, Olivia had found it hard to shout into the house telephone that she did not intend to allow her admittance.

‘I thought he might be here.’ Olivia’s visitor eyes the scarlet blooms of an amaryllis in a plain white container. She is a tall woman, big-boned, with henna-​dyed­ hair, her bright fingernails the same shade as the lipstick that increases by a millimeter or so the natural outline of her lips.

‘I thought I’d better come.’ Specks of pink have appeared in Mrs. Vinnicombe’s gaunt cheeks, confirming her agitation. It’s difficult for her, Olivia tells herself, and does not attempt to make it easier. She sits down also, and is silent.

A week after their second encounter Vinnicombe tele­ phoned Olivia, knowing now where she worked. He invited her to have a drink one evening, a proposition that caused her some embarrassment. This man had been kind to her on the street; it had seemed natural that he should ask to share her table in a crowded lunchtime restaurant; but telephoning the office, issuing a specific invitation, was different. ‘Oh, really, it’s very kind,’ she said, trying to leave it at that.

‘You asked me about kitchen extractors,’ he reminded her on the telephone and she remembered that, again making conversation, she had. ‘I’ve got a couple of brochures for you. I’d just like to pass them over.’

And so they met again, not in the saloon bar where he had taken her after the incident on the street but in one that was further away. It was he who suggested that, and afterwards Olivia wondered if he’d made the choice because people from her office didn’t frequent this bar, if he guessed that their tête‑à‑tête might possibly be a source of awkwardness for her. He had acquired three brochures for kitchen extractors. One of them he particularly recommended. Olivia was between love affairs then, temporarily on her own, which she believed this man had somehow sensed; she had certainly never said so.

‘I’d put it in for you,’ he offered. ‘No problem, that.’

‘Oh, heavens, no.’

‘You’d save a tidy bit.’

‘I couldn’t possibly let you.’

It wouldn’t take more than an hour or two, he said, one Saturday morning. He laughed, displaying small, evenly arranged teeth. ‘My stock in trade.’

‘Oh, no, no. Thanks all the same.’

His eyes were the feature you noticed: softly brown, they had a moist look, suggesting a residue of tears, and yet were not quite sad. It was more sentiment than sorrow that distinguished them, and what seemed like vulnerability. He could acquire any of the three extractors at trade terms, but the reduction for the recommended one was greater. Some cowboy could easily make a botched job of the installation, dozens of times he’d known it to happen.

‘I’ll think about it all,’ Olivia promised, and afterwards on the Underground she found herself wondering if he was lonely. He hadn’t mentioned anything about his private life except that he lived in Brighton and always had.

‘If you’re interested in that particular model,’ he said on the phone two days later, ‘there’s one that’s ordered and the lady’s seemingly changed her mind. In black, as you said you wanted. So there’d be a reduction on the price I gave you, not that there’s anything wrong with it, not even shop​-soiled.’

Since Olivia did need an extractor in her small kitchen, it seemed silly to reject this bargain offer. She began to say again that she couldn’t possibly allow Vinnicombe to install it for her, but already he was insisting, reminding her of this further saving if he did. It seemed rude to go on refusing what he offered, especially as he had already gone to the trouble of finding out so much.

‘I’d really rather . . .’ she began, making one last effort, then giving in.

At Olivia’s invitation Mrs. Vinnicombe has settled herself uneasily on the pale cushions of the sofa but, as if she fears to do so, she does not come to the point. She mentions Brighton again, as conversationally as her husband did when he said he had always lived there. She describes the waves splashing against the pier and the concrete walls of the promenade. She was married in Brighton, she says; a mortgage was taken out locally on the house she has lived in since that time. Her two boys were born not five hundred yards from that house, the younger one — Kevin — ​the last infant to be delivered in the old maternity home, now the site of a petrol station. As a child herself, she built sandcastles when the sea was far enough out; her back and arms peeled one summer, not covered in time.

‘Of course, he told me about you,’ she eventually brings herself to say. ‘Well, naturally, you know that.’

‘Told you what, Mrs Vinnicombe?’

Mrs. Vinnicombe slightly shakes her head, as if an exactitude here is not important, as if what she has said is enough.

‘Sixteen Kevin is now, Josh two years older. Well, of course, you know that too. I’m sorry.’

‘Why have you come here, Mrs. Vinnicombe?’ The specks of pink have spread in the gaunt cheeks and are blotches now. A trace of lipstick has found its way on to one of Mrs. Vinnicombe’s front teeth. She looks away, her gaze again settling on the exotic amaryllis.

‘You took my husband from me. I came to get him back.’

The installing of the extractor lasted longer than a couple of hours. They had lunch together at the kitchen table, soup and salad and the Milleens cheese Olivia had bought the day before. ‘Just a minute,’ Vinnicombe said at one point and went out, returning with Danish pastries. Later, when he finished just before six, Olivia offered him a drink. She opened a bottle of Beaune and they sat in the sitting room.

‘Thank you,’ he said when they had finished the wine, when eventually he stood up to go.

‘I’m awfully grateful,’ she said, realizing as she spoke that he had been going to say something else, that unintentionally she had interrupted him.

‘It’s been so nice,’ he said. ‘Today has been so nice.’ She smiled, not knowing how to respond. She felt nervous again, as she had the first time he telephoned the office. She wrote a cheque. He folded it into his wallet. He had been adamant about not charging for his labour.

‘What’ll you do, Olivia?’ he asked, for the first time using her Christian name. ‘How’ll you spend what’s left of today?’

And she said, wash her hair, because that was true, and watch something on television, and read in bed. She hardly ever went out on Saturday nights, she said.

‘I have to tell you something,’ he said. ‘That first day when we met: remember that day, Olivia?’

‘Yes, of course.’

‘I fell in love with you that day, Olivia.’

He was looking straight at her when he said that, his moist brown eyes steadily fixed on hers. Once or twice before, Olivia had met their stare and had been aware of something that reminded her of pleading, as from a child.

‘I had to tell you,’ he said.

She shook her head, smiling, endeavouring to register that she was flattered yet also that what was said must surely be an exaggeration. Olivia had quite often been told before that she was loved and had felt flattered on each occasion; but this was different because, somehow, it was all absurd.

‘I don’t suppose,’ he said, ‘we could meet again?’

‘No, I don’t think that’s a good idea.’

‘I had to tell you.’

He had brought a metal tool-container with him and he picked this up from beside the kitchen door. He offered to take away the carton and the packing the extractor had come in, but she said that wasn’t necessary, that she could easily dispose of them. He took them all the same, for the third time saying that he had had to tell her.

‘I was twenty when we married,’ Mrs. Vinnicombe says. ‘I’m forty-one now. It’s quite a time, you know. The boys growing up; months there were with not a penny coming into the house. Oh, it’s better now. I’m not saying for an instant it isn’t better in that respect. Not well off, not even comfortable sometimes, but near enough to not having to worry. It’s been a partnership, you know: I’ve always done the invoicing and accounts, the tax returns, the VAT. Not that I’m trained: I worked in Hazlitt’s, the jeweler’s. That’s where he found me.’

‘Mrs. Vinnicombe, you’ve got the wrong end of the stick. By the sound of what you’re saying, you’re under a very considerable misapprehension.’

Mrs. Vinnicombe shakes her head in her dismissive manner, a tiny movement, not one of impatience. Then, as if she has in some way been unfair or discourteous, she says that when her husband told her he held nothing back. Long before that, though, she knew that something was wrong.

‘Well, any woman would. And the boys — ​well, I’ve watched the boys becoming frightened. There’s no other word for it. I’ve watched him ceasing to be bothered with them.’

‘I didn’t take your husband from you, Mrs. Vinnicombe. That is totally untrue. As you can see, I’m perfectly happily–’

‘He gave me the address, no argument at all when I asked him where you lived. Oh, ages ago that was. I don’t know why I asked him. I never thought I’d come here.’

‘Please listen to me, Mrs. Vinnicombe.’

After the Saturday of the extractor installation, Vinnicombe became a nuisance. When he’d said he had to tell her, when he’d asked if they might meet again and she’d said no, he hadn’t passed out of her life, as she imagined he would. He telephoned on the Monday and before he could say anything she thanked him for his work in her kitchen. ‘Just one quick drink,’ he pleaded, and she repeated, even more firmly than she already had, that what he was suggesting was not a good idea. When he pressed her, she said she was sorry if she had ever given him reason to suppose that a relationship such as he was proposing was possible. He took no notice, he didn’t appear to hear. ‘No more than ten minutes,’ he said. ‘Ten minutes.’

Olivia places these facts before Mrs. Vinnicombe, speaking slowly and carefully. She is anxious to arrange every detail exactly where it belongs, to ensure that Mrs. Vinnicombe perfectly understands.

‘Look, it’s an intrusion,’ Olivia said when he was there on the street again, less than a week after his Monday telephone call. He only wanted to explain, he said. ‘That’s all, and then it’s over.’

So reluctantly, and saying she was reluctant, she met him again, in the bar that was not frequented by her office colleagues. ‘I can’t help loving you,’ he said even before their drinks were ordered. ‘From the very first moment I haven’t been able to help it.’

He told her then all that Mrs. Vinnicombe has repeated: about their house and their children. He had no affection for his wife. Once he had, there was none left now: for fourteen years he had been indifferent to her. Quite out of the blue, astonishing Olivia, he mentioned New Zealand, promising she would be happy with him there. He said he had connections in New Zealand.

‘All this is silly. I’m practically a stranger to you.’ He shook his head and smiled. ‘I lie awake at night and every word you’ve spoken to me returns. In passing once, our fingers touched. When you fell down I could have taken you in my arms. Even then I wanted to. I can still feel your elbow in the palm of my left hand. I never loved anyone before. Never.’

His eyes were luminous in his pasty face, a tug that might have been a threat of tears worked at the corners of his mouth. He would do anything, he said, he would take on any work to buy her things she wanted. In New Zealand, he said, they would build a life together.

‘I must go now,’ Olivia said, and walked away from him.

Again, one lunchtime, he was in Zampoli’s; she didn’t go there after that. He wrote long letters that were incoherent in places. They described Olivia’s beauty, the way she smiled, the way she stood, the way she spoke. He would know everything one day, they said: as much as she could remember herself about her childhood and her dreams. She would tell him her dreams at breakfast-time; they would sit in the sun when they were old. She tore the letters up, but sometimes he was there on the street when she looked from the windows of her flat or from the window of her office. She took to leaving the office by going through the garages at the back, into the mews. On the telephone she didn’t speak when she heard his voice.

Once, at the cinema on her own, he arrived in the seat next to hers, and when she moved away he followed her. ‘I’m sorry,’ he said on the street when she had to leave. Furious, Olivia threatened to make a complaint if that ever occurred again. Unless he left her in peace she would consider asking the police for advice.

‘I love you, Olivia.’

‘What you’re doing amounts to harassment. You have no right — ’

‘No, I have no right.’

But Olivia knew she could not bring herself to go to the police, nor even to complain to a cinema manager. One evening he was on the Tube with her and spoke to her as if they’d met by chance. He was there again, behind her on the moving staircase, and at the ticket barrier. ‘Oh, all right,’ she wearily agreed when he invited her to have a drink, hoping in her frustration that if she went through everything she had already said he would at last be affected, would at last see the absurdity of the situation he had created.

They sat beside one another on a red-upholstered banquette and again there was the pleading in his eyes, and suddenly Olivia felt sorry for him. Seven months had passed since he had looked after her on the street. He was a man in torment was what she thought, a man doing his best to talk about other matters, to tell her about an apple-corer he had just interested a manufacturer in. As she had not before, she wondered about his wife, about the house in Brighton he returned to, about his boys. ‘Did you always invent things?’ she heard herself asking, and for the first time a connection was made with a period of her life that still inspired resentment if she brooded on it. When she was fifteen, when she was lumbering through that gawky time, there was her sister’s friend, fiancé as he became, husband in the end. In the hall she had reached up to feel the peak of his military cap, to run a finger round the leather band that touched his hair. And for a passing moment, as she sat on that red banquette with a man who was a nuisance, Olivia felt again the pain there’d been.

Music comes faintly from the bathroom: the end of the first movement of Mahler’s First Symphony. Then a tap is turned on and the music is drowned.

‘Your husband’s only been here once, Mrs. Vinnicombe. To fit an extractor over my electric hob.’

Olivia doesn’t reveal to Mrs. Vinnicombe that her husband said he was indifferent to her, or proposed a new life in New Zealand with a stranger. Instead she asks if what Mrs. Vinnicombe is saying is that she doesn’t know where her husband is.

‘My hope was he’d be here.’

‘Your hope?’

‘He only wanted to be with you. No bones about it: he said he couldn’t lie. A meaning in his life. He used those words.’

Mrs. Vinnicombe is talkative now. Her unease has dissipated; fingers twisting into one another a moment ago are still.

‘He never made me think you were a ​go‑getting woman. I never thought of you as that. “Don’t blame her,” he said, no more than two days ago, but then he’d said it already. When he told me was the time he said it first, and often after that.’ Her voice is flat, empty of emotion. She says she’s frightened. She says again her hope had been to find her husband here.

‘I don’t think I understand that, Mrs. Vinnicombe.’

‘He took nothing with him. No shaving things, pajamas. He didn’t say goodbye.’

How long, Olivia begins to ask, and is immediately interrupted.

‘Oh, just since yesterday.’

‘Your husband and I were not having any kind of love affair.’ She gave him no encouragement, Olivia says: not once has she done that. She doesn’t say she pitied him after he followed her from the Tube station, the night they sat together on the red-​upholstered banquette, the night she asked him if he had always invented things. These details, now, seem neither here nor there: omitting to relate them is not intended to mislead. ‘Why don’t we have a bite to eat?’ he said and, still pitying, she allowed him to take her to a place he knew nearby, called the Chunky Chicken Platter. ‘All right for you?’ he solicitously enquired when they were given a table there, and it was then that she knew she was pitying herself as well. A Good Friday it had been when she reached up in the hall to touch the cap of the man her sister was to marry. A Sunday, weeks later, when she lifted it down and pressed it to her face.

‘Your husband wasn’t even a friend, Mrs. Vinnicombe.’ Hearing that, Olivia’s visitor looks away, her head a little bent. How can that be, she softly asks, since he has done odd jobs about the place? How can it be, since he has described a woman’s hair and her eyes, the way she stands, her voice, her slender legs, her neck, her hands?

‘I was sick,’ Mrs. Vinnicombe adds to all this. ‘I got up one night, three o’clock in the morning. I couldn’t sleep, I vomited in the bathroom. Your stomach turns over with jealousy, hour after hour, and then you’re sick. I didn’t tell him. Well, naturally.’

‘You have no cause for jealousy, Mrs. Vinnicombe.’ Olivia begins at the beginning, from the moment on the street to meeting Vinnicombe again, by chance, she thought; and his being, by chance also it seemed, in Zampoli’s that day; how after that he bothered her. She can think of no other way to put it, even though it sounds a harsh way of describing the attentions of a man whose wife is in distress. The chicken place he took her to was horrible.

‘Oh, jealousy is vile, I grant you that.’ And as if Olivia hasn’t offered a single word of explanation, Mrs. Vinnicombe pursues the thread of her conviction. ‘Yet there it is, and nothing you can do. I always knew when he’d been with you. Oh, not smears of lipstick,​ telltale perfume — nothing like that. It was worse because he wasn’t the kind of man to have a woman, not the kind you read about in the papers. He wouldn’t have made the papers in a million years. He took the boys out with their kites when they were little. He brought cakes back, treats for tea, always something when he had a bit to spare. They’ll miss that now. They’ll think of it when they think of him.’

‘Mrs. Vinnicombe, you can see your husband isn’t here. I’ve been living here with someone else for months. I’ve no idea where your husband is.’

‘I came to plead with you and with him too, to talk about the boys. I came to say to him we were a family.’

Mrs. Vinnicombe’s tears, so long held back, come now. She weeps on Olivia’s sofa and her tears run through her make‑up, smearing it. Her weeping drags at the contours of her face, bunching the flesh into ugly grimaces. She tries to speak and cannot. She doesn’t search in her handbag for a tissue or a handkerchief but sits there, stark and upright on the pale cushions, noisily sobbing as she might in private.

‘“Oh, God, let him be there” was what I asked when I rang your bell.’

‘I don’t understand what you’re saying, Mrs. Vinnicombe.’

But Olivia does. Her protest is conventional, all she can think of to say. She doesn’t want to share her vis­ itor’s thoughts. None of it concerns her.

‘You took my husband.’

Abruptly, Mrs. Vinnicombe rises.

‘You took my husband and now you can’t give him back to me.’ She crosses the room to the hall, not answering questions that are put to her. ‘I keep on seeing him,’ she says, ‘and his footsteps on the sand. On soft, wet sand and then they ooze away to nothing.’

She does not speak again. Some minutes later Olivia sees her from a window, crossing the empty Sunday street, walking slowly, as if the encounter has drained her energy. She passes from view, slipping round the corner.

‘I hear you’re learning German.’ Her sister’s friend smiled. ‘I like your dress,’ he said, and her sister said that dress had been one of hers. He went on talking when her sister wasn’t there. He knew of course: making conversation was a kindness offered.

Mahler is still playing in the bathroom, just audible above the sound of water running out. The day her sister married, Olivia looked down at her bedside lamp and whispered to herself that all she had to do was to press the bulb out and place her thumb, dampened with spit, in the socket. That day she saw her coffin carried, lowered while he stood at the grave-side, the collar of his overcoat turned up. She heard her own voice murmuring from a romantic shroud, ‘My darling, I have loved you so.’

Olivia gazes from the window at pigeons waddling beneath a tree. Raindrops spatter the pavement, then rain falls heavily and the pigeons crossly flutter off, in search of shelter. His wife is on the train by now, huddled in her corner, pretending to watch the houses going by, the same rain falling. Somewhere else, maybe, it falls for him. The balance of the mind disturbed: the woman on her train wonders if that worn expression will soon be used. He, wherever he is, already knows better.

He’ll be there when she returns — ​or tomorrow or the next day — ​and in their house in Brighton they’ll tack together a marriage and the family life his foolishness spoiled. He’ll hear her repeating many times that she saw his footsteps disappearing on soft, wet sand. He’ll not confess that he, too, imagined his last thoughts reaching out towards his hopeless love, that he imagined the seaweed in his clothes, and sand beneath his eyelids and in his mouth. He’ll not confess he knew, in the end, that the drama of death does not come into it — that​ some pain’s too dull to be worthy of a romantic shroud. Courage could have brushed glamour over what little there was, but courage is ridiculous when the other person doesn’t want to know.

Is Love Enough When It Comes to Interracial Adoption?

Adoption on its own is fraught. Interracial adoption is fraught-adjacent, but really exists in its own alternate universe of problematic power dynamics and mainlined moral decisions. The whole process and ideology of it strikes an eerie chord in a country historically rooted in a system driven by the continuous act of white people tearing black families apart.

Full disclosure: As a black adoptee raised by white parents, my criticism of interracial adoption is largely informed by my own experience, and the first-person testimony I’ve heard from other adoptees, adoptive parents and birth parents in the larger adoption community, of which I am a reluctant member. So interviewing Rumaan Alam about his new book, That Kind of Mother, is not without its cognitive dissonance.

Purchase the novel

The novel centers the experience of a privileged white woman named Rebecca, who forms not so much a bond, but a dependency on her nanny, Priscilla, who is black, after Rebecca gives birth to her first child. When Priscilla dies inexplicably in childbirth, Rebecca makes the unilateral decision to adopt Priscilla’s baby. Rebecca and her husband, a British diplomat, live in a big house in Washington, DC, and up until Priscilla’s death, had thought about race peripherally, at best; as perhaps unwitting casual racists at worst. Nonetheless, Rebecca felt confident (because of course she did) that she could raise a black child in the late 1980s when Cosby was still an iconic figure in the minds of white people.

I met with Rumaan Alam at a restaurant in Brooklyn and talked to him about raising two adopted sons, writing about the complexities of interracial adoption, and dissecting privilege.


Rebecca Carroll: So for me, the most pressing question is, how did you come to decide that this book would center the experience of a white woman in a story about interracial adoption?

Rumaan Alam: I think I wanted to tell the experience that felt like you could crack it open the most easily, as the reader. Because it seems like [Rebecca, the main character] is doing this heroic act, and then you realize over time that that’s not what’s happening. The book lulls you into a sense that you understand what’s happening, and then hopefully shifts, and you realize that you maybe didn’t understand what happened.

RC: When you say that she was the easiest character to crack open, which I think is insightful, and makes sense to me, don’t you also think that there are actually white women like Rebecca out there who will read this and feel seen?

In order to enact the plot, I had to kill the first black woman.

RA: That’s an interesting question. How [readers] take it is something I can’t totally control. There’s probably going to be a reader who valorizes [Rebecca’s] choice. But I think the text really leads you to a more complicated understanding of what actually happens. The book is so rigorously focused on Rebecca, almost sort of absurdly. I think you begin to feel the claustrophobia at a certain point. I know I did when I was writing it. In order to enact the plot, I had to kill the first black woman. That’s the reason that Cheryl is there — to still be present in her life, but Rebecca doesn’t see it that way.

RC: Because Rebecca doesn’t see Cheryl.

RA: Right. Which Cheryl says in the book. That moment to me is when the power dynamic finally corrects, and Cheryl kind of articulates what you’re talking about, which is like, you have not understood what you’ve done, or who I am, or what’s happening. And [Rebecca] hasn’t. I’m not sure that she does at the end of the book.

RC: What did it feel like to live inside the head of a privileged white woman?

RA: In many ways, it felt not that challenging, because so much of the literature, the body of literature, is that.

RC: This goes back to my first question, which is that you had the opportunity to write about something as complex as interracial adoption, and you chose to have it centered around a white woman’s experience.

It also tells a story about race, about power, about class, about adoption, and about ambition.

RA: It’s a little, to me, like working within the confines of a convention. There are two answers. One is that the conventions of literary fiction are the conventions, and so we think of like, a white lady’s marriage falling apart. Essentially, that is what I’m doing. The book delivers in summary what I think we expect from literary fiction. But I think the politics are really in there. Remember when Jessica Seinfeld wrote that book about putting spinach into brownies? To me, that’s how the book functions. That it takes a narrative that we understand really well, about a certain kind of upper middle class person navigating marriage and motherhood and work, and all that stuff. But it also tells a story, that I hope, is deeper and more important. About race, about power, about class, about adoption, and about ambition. It’s buried in there.

RC: As a grown black adoptee, I guess I find it frustrating that it has to be buried, or hidden like a vegetable kids don’t want to eat. I shared my own review of your book that I wrote for The LA Times with my mom, my adoptive mom, and she said, “You have to understand that we loved you. How do you know what’s in somebody’s heart?” And I said, “That’s not really the point though.” Which then brings up this idea of, is love enough when it comes to interracial adoption?

RA: Which is a huge question. I think the book gives one answer, which is, not really. In the discourse of adoption, you have three perspectives. You have the adoptive parent, which is mostly what we hear. You have the birth parent, which is very rarely what we hear. And then you have the child. This book is not concerned with the child at all, right? He is barely there by design because he exists sort of in that, what is going to happen between these two women? Priscilla, too. At one point, the title of the book was Hidden Mother. That is a very rich metaphor for what adoptees experience, I think. Which is the notion of this elusive maternal figure … the first maternal figure. Adoptees, hopefully, have happy maternal figures and parental figures in their lives, but there is this other person who is always just a little out of reach. Even, I think, amongst adoptees who know and forge relationships with their birth families. There’s just a distance that cannot be bridged.

RC: The severance of it … it’s too primal.

RA: It just is. There’s no sort of happily bridging it. It’s more about reckoning with it. Acknowledging that it exists on the part of the adoptee, but also on the part of the adoptive parent. There’s also the moral question of what I’m entitled to tell as an adoptive parent. Inhabiting this sort of, maybe, most limited point of view of the most limited kind of adoptive parent. Although Rebecca, I think she means well. But inhabiting that point of view lets me get to those other things, I think, more easily than I could have. I can imagine the inverse of this book.

RC: What’s the inverse?

RA: The inverse is, what is Priscilla’s story and what is Cheryl’s story? We do not know the answer to that question, and to me, that is how so many adoptees feel about their own story. There are so many, many cases in which people just don’t know.

RC: The other thing that kept nagging at me is, I’m sure that Rebecca would not consider herself as such, but I feel like she farmed out her own internalized racism to her mother-in-law, her husband, to her other family members. Would you consider Rebecca racist?

RA: I think that that is one of the particular ironies of the book. She has this exchange with her mother-in-law — she sees that her mother-in-law is trying not to touch this black woman’s hand, or somehow sort of treating her like a servant, and she catches that moment. So in her defense, she is able to identify that moment as it’s happening, which to me is the beginning of a sense of progress. Of some kind of personal awakening. You hear her talk later about wanting to defend Andrew, her black son, in school. To me, that is further evidence of her thinking a little more about the kind of life he’ll have and the society in which he’ll be raised. But to be sure, to be sure, when Cheryl, who is her son’s sister, and her husband, confront her very directly with a very clear ask of, we need to have this conversation. That is a big moment in the book. That is pressing on buttons that the contemporary reader will understand. You are black, but you were raised in a white family, but black families have had this conversation for decades. It is really only now in the larger culture that we talk about the ways in which black mothers have prepared black sons.

RC: I have a son. I have a black son.

RA: Wait, so you know this? You know this?

RC: Yeah. I’d also love to hear your thoughts on how you anticipated adoptees would respond to the book. I kept sort of engaging with the story as non-fiction, because so much of it hit home.

The kind of adoption that takes place in this book, it’s in the realm of possibility, you can imagine it happening. But really, this is not how it works.

RA: Everything fiction ends up being facts to a certain degree. The fact in here is just the texture of parental love, or specifics about — I make spaghetti like that; I make banana bread like that. The adoption, again, it’s such a hard thing to talk about in the culture, because there’s no monolithic experience in adoption. So there’s no one way that [the book] functions, and in many ways, I’m doing a disservice by publishing a book about adoption that is so far-fetched. The kind of adoption that takes place in this book, it’s in the realm of possibility, you can imagine it happening, especially if you were imagining someone with a lot of wealth, saying, “I will do this and this is how it will function.” But really, this is not how it works.

RC: Well, not now. My own adoption was actually very similar to this one in the book. In that it was completely informal at the start.

RA: It’s just like a handshake.

RC: At best. But also, Priscilla gave no indication whatsoever that she would have wanted Rebecca to raise her child.

RA: This is why she dies, because I had to answer the question of her own volition. Birth parents’ volition in adoption is something that is very rarely discussed, because it often comes to this kind of moral dimension. Because if you are a birth mother and you are choosing adoption … there is a way of judging that as a moral failure and not an internal choice. I had to establish inevitability in that, so she had to just vanish. She dies. There’s almost no explanation of how she died. She is just gone.

RC: And so she’s a plot device?

RA: Purely a plot device. I’m extrapolating how an adoptee must feel about this elusive person. That they are just gone and that there is no answer. You only really know her through Rebecca’s recollections, which are inherently suspect because there are two sides to every story.

RC: Why didn’t Cheryl want to raise her brother?

Black people in books and films… they exist as these sort of magic plot devices. So, they’re saints or they’re sinners. They’re not allowed to be complicated.

RA: I think it was also important to establish that the black woman who remains in the book is a morally complex person. Black people in books and films, and you know this as well as anyone, they exist as these sort of magic plot devices. So, they’re saints or they’re sinners. They’re not allowed to be complicated. I think, in my imagining, Cheryl is at this incredibly vulnerable place where her mother has just died and she is about to give birth. She just has no particular answer and then this woman, who has all the answers, says, “I have the answer. I will take this baby.”

RC: In literally, a white savior capacity.

RA: Absolutely. There’s a lot of trope in this book and you will either be made uncomfortable by those tropes, or you won’t even realize them, or you will resist them. Priscilla is a nanny, that is a trope. Cheryl is a nurse, that is another trope.

RC: I never felt like Rebecca loved Andrew, but I also didn’t feel like she loved Jacob, either. She’s sort of a roundabout mother, which made it weirder, the way that she was so determined to have this child.

RA: There’s not a lot of emotional language in the book. She’s a very cerebral person and everything feels kind of distanced from her. I guess that’s just how she wanted to be. That’s just how she turned out to be.

RC: Again, as an adoptee, something that I found frustrating and that I took surprisingly personal, was that she paid such little attention to the needs of this black infant child.

RA: First of all, we have two black [adopted] kids. We exist in a cultural moment where it’s okay to say that things are different and we own our difference. I think Rebecca is coming from a cultural moment in which liberalism kind of insisted on saying this. That was seen as respectful. The example I keep using is that when I was a kid, if you wanted to talk about the woman over there, you would say, “The woman in the yellow sweater.” Not the black woman. I think now, we understand that you can say the black woman. In fact, it’s an act of acknowledgement as opposed to an act of reduction. That is a really different cultural contract.

RC: I kind of resist this whole notion of, that was then, this is now, times have changed — you know, back then we didn’t say this or know that, because I do think that on some very fundamental level, if you are a white person of means, or not means, or whatever intellectual means, which was my parents’ case, and you are taking in a child of a different culture and race, that it is your responsibility to understand what that means. I don’t care if it’s 1969 or if it’s 1997 — it is the parents’ responsibility to have some sense of the weight of that.

RA: I don’t disagree, I just don’t know if … Rebecca had access to that intelligence.

RC: But isn’t it a moral issue?

She literally says, ‘Things are getting better.’ But we know from 2018 that things did not get better.

RA: It is a moral issue and I think the book kind of animates the moral dimension of that. It’s pretty clear, especially in the book’s conclusion, the ways in which she’s kind of setting herself up for failure. A lot of this failure, which we’re reckoning with now culturally, is born of a resistance to actually looking at reality. She is just sort of glibly spouting these liberal fantasies of skin is skin, and we’re all the same, and things are getting better. She literally says, “Things are getting better.” But we know from 2018 that things did not get better.

RC: I highlighted that passage in particular because that’s when I was 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, whatever, saying to my mom, “What were you thinking?” She said, “Things were changing.” I just feel kind of blown away, actually, that you can reach a certain level of adulthood, maturity, intelligence, and not have that moral compass of …

RA: Isn’t that sort of the very definition of privilege? That is why Rebecca is so maddening, because that’s what she exists to animate, is the weird insularity of privilege. Her life is not really affected by what happens. She actually goes on to great success. That is also a very particular choice in the book. In fact, she makes this sort of impulsive choice and is valorized for it. When she talks about going to pick up her kid at school and being treated like a hero — that’s kind of how whiteness works, I think. It’s frustrating to inhabit that on the page, and as I said before, it is frustrating to imagine a reader who doesn’t understand how barbed that is, and what the book is working towards.

RC: You have two adopted black sons — at any point during the writing of this book, did you imagine their response to reading this book?

RA: Yes and no. To be clear, what is depicted in this book has nothing to do with my children’s own adoption stories. This book is so distant from who they are. I couldn’t have understood privilege to whatever extent I do, if the only people I loved on the planet weren’t going to be black men someday. That is the education that underrides the motivation to write this book. But, I don’t imagine them ever reading it or reckoning with it. It just seems very tangential to their lives. Their lives are their lives.

RC: Talk about that a little bit more though, that idea of understanding privilege through understanding that your black son will grow up to be black men.

I was as racist as anybody is racist, before I had my children.

RA: Yeah. It’s an education. This is one of the frustrating things, is that to really transcend or change your mind — like, you say it’s a moral failure and you’re not wrong. Like what’s the motivation? It’s sort of like when you imagine racist grandparents suddenly having a mixed-race grandchild, and how that works on your heart. I was as racist as anybody is racist, before I had my children.

RC: You just said you were as racist as anybody is racist?

RA: Right. Because this is the institution we live in. You are always inside of a society. I’m a person of color, but I’m not black.

RC: Black is a different …

RA: It’s a different matter. When I say that, what I mean is that I was able to be blind to this issue, because people who are not black are able to be blind to it. That’s how society functions. Less and less so, and I have hope for when your son and my sons are in charge of the planet, but at the moment, that is how society functions. Having black sons has been such a great education for my own interrogation of my own blindness to these issues.

RC: I think that that is the best case scenario. One of the things that I really mourn about my own experience is that my parents had two biological kids before they adopted me, who have never expressed any real interest in my experience as a black person. As a black woman. I feel like, what a gift that would have been for them, and of course, a support for me.

You shouldn’t have to love a black person in order to care about blackness, but you have to take whatever gets you there.

RA: Again, I think you’re not wrong to not overemphasize the timeline and progress, but I do think some of it is generational. I really do. We just live in a very different cultural moment and my children. Until recently, the only president they knew was a man who looked like them. You can’t underestimate that. I’d be lying if I said having black children awakened me. It’s not their responsibility to awaken me. It is something I came to on my own. I’m grateful for that awakening. You shouldn’t have to love a black person in order to care about blackness, but you have to take whatever gets you there.

RC: Is it complicated for you because your husband is white?

RA: Yeah, although I will say that my husband is probably — I think because he is not a person of color, as I am — all the more rigorously invested in ensuring that he is constantly interrogating. He has clearly taken it to a very granular level, and it’s very much a part of the way he thinks about almost everything. What kind of art do we collect? What kind of books do we have lying around the house? You have a child of color, or even if you don’t have a child of color, you think carefully about the books you’re buying. What are the museums that we’re taking our children to? He is extraordinarily thoughtful about that stuff, and so am I, more so. It’s complicated though because your children are not a teaching moment.

RC: And also, if you were to say that to your children, they would be like, “Yeah, fuck you!”

RA: That’s not how we think. It is an aspect of preparing them. It’s an aspect of doing our work. It’s important work for us to do because it’s part of being a thoughtful parent. We know enough to know that that’s part of our parental responsibility. To say like, yes, we listen to Rachmaninoff, but we listen to Nina Simone. Small things, big things. It’s all of a piece. Also, a big part of this is acknowledging what we don’t know. This is what Rebecca cannot do in the book. She cannot cede control over her parental responsibility. She can cede control over the day to day tasks of it. She cannot concede control to Ian and Cheryl when they offer to give her son this education in being a black man, because she can’t. She just can’t imagine letting them shatter his innocence.

RC: Because that’s just who she is?

RA: I think it is who she is. There’s a preciousness about a small child that black parents have had to learn.

RC: I asked about the prospect of your sons reading this book and I’ve shared, obviously, my own reaction to the book with you, because I still wonder who you wrote this book for?

I think I wrote the book for this imaginary birth mother. I think I wrote it for this person who is off the page.

RA: I think I wrote it for this imaginary Priscilla. I think I wrote it for this person who is off the page. You can imagine who that person is in my own life. These women who are just around the corner.

RC: A black birth mother specifically?

RA: Yeah. I’ll never know. I’ll never know what it’s like. I’ll never understand it. I’m chasing it down.

RC: And you chose that era of the late 80s?

RA: It’s easier to animate that era because of the historical ironies that I’m talking about. The Bill Cosby thing, to me, holds a lot in this book. I’m confident your parents were excited about Bill Cosby being on television, right?

RC: My parents did not care.

RA: Oh really?

RC: No. My white hippie artist parents?

RA: Bill Cosby was for white people.

RC: He was for a particular kind of white people. They were not his target white audience, which was both conservative and liberal, but firmly middle class. My parents were anti-establishment hippies.

RA: [Cosby] was a vision of what this fantasy that somewhere, in a better world, if black people could just get it together, they would be a doctor and a lawyer, and live in a brownstone in Brooklyn Heights, and have five beautiful children. I can use writing about the past as precisely the example that we know him not to be. He’s a terrible human being, who is a sociopath and a liar. That is such a stark, particular example.

RC: Last year, I spoke to an audience of white adoptive parents of black kids. After, during the Q and A session, one woman said, “It sounds to me like you are suggesting that we expose our black children to black culture uncritically.” And I said, “What do you mean? Like saggy pants?” She said, “Yes, that would be right at the top of my list.” You laugh, but this is 2017.

If I could talk to black adoptees, I would stress that this is not their story, and that I know that. Their story is theirs to tell.

RA: It’s not my place to litigate how she raises her son. It is my feeling that what I have tried to do and what I know my husband has tried to do is to be really, really thoughtful about what we cannot know, and respectful of what we cannot know, and what is not for us. There’s a particular irony in the fact that the most successful pop figures in this culture are all black. At this moment, these people, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Donald Glover. They are attaining that status by using and celebrating the actual particulars of black experience. They are making art that is quite truly for a black audience, that is finding a white audience.

RC: I don’t think that it’s about finding a white audience, as much as forcing the statement of being black in front of a white audience.

RA: I wonder how much this adoptive mother you’re talking about even really sees that? Or even sees, or is willing to acknowledge that that expression is not necessarily for her. And that her son can see in that something to marvel at. That is his experience and that’s got nothing to do with her. This is part of the discomfort around talking about blackness in the culture, is being willing to accept, as a viewer or a consumer who is not yourself black, that you may not understand something, or that it’s just not for you. But that it is still of value.

RC: By your line of thinking, if it’s all generational, where will we be in 10 years? Or 15 years?

RA: A better place. I suppose I do think the book is very pessimistic. But I also do have a lot of faith, in a younger reader and writer and artist. Like kids in high school now, they think much less categorically and much less along binaries around gender, around sexual preference, around race. Yes, we live in this special, magical place of New York City, but I really do think this is something that is coming. Youth culture will save us … I hope.

RC: The back flap of the book, at least for the galley, is a letter to your readers. If you could attach a letter specifically to black adoptees, what would you say?

RA: I suppose I would stress that this is not their story, and that I know that. Their story is theirs to tell. Somebody had asked me about like, is there a literature of adoption? And I said, “I know there is. I’m confident that there is, but I’m not sure that it’s well understood or well distilled.” I do think we are now beginning to see, of a piece with a cultural move towards more voices — you’re starting to hear some of those voices talk about their own experiences of adoption. Finding the universal in the very particular experience that they have. But this is not their story. It’s not trying to be, also. This is an exploration of — if you touch on adoption, what else are you touching? You’re touching a lot. There’s a lot wrapped up in this book that has nothing to do with adoption but is all sort of related to the central act.

RC: I am a black adoptee. I have read your book, I have engaged with your book. I have stayed with your book. I’ve written about your book. Do you have a question for me?

RA: Oh, gosh. That is a really good question. I don’t want to ask you the questions that I have for you because I feel like it’s personal.

RC: I don’t mind. I’ll let you know.

RA: I suppose the question I would ask you, but I feel like I already know the answer, because I’m hearing you talk about your own family, is that like: Is it just enough, are these problems solvable? Or is it just that you have to try?

RC: I think you have to try. My kid is 12. So I’ve been a mother for 12 years and in that time, I have learned that it’s not just about showing up, or looking at their report cards, or keeping them from harm. It’s really a kind of selflessness that I didn’t sign up for — I wasn’t actually prepared to put my shit on the back burner to make sure that I am providing a kind of mosaic; a tapestry of culture and education and intelligence and confidence and awareness for my child…

RA: Responsibility.

RC: Yes, responsibility. I don’t feel that my parents did that entirely with their biological children, or with me. But I think for adoptees, we need it a little bit more, especially with interracial adoption. That is the honest truth. It is different.

RA: This is akin to the conversation about race — where and when it is okay to acknowledge difference. In my household, as it sounds like it is in your household, race is a tell. You can see it. You can see your difference. In my household, my kids have two dads. That difference is very, very clear, and so there’s no talking around that. It used to be that way, like when white people adopted kids who didn’t look like them who are still white, there was a lot of wishful thinking, magical thinking around these things. It’s not the case in our household. So that’s reassuring to know.

What’s a Book You Misunderstood?

When she was young, but not that young, my friend Linnea thought all kittens had the same birthday.

As a kid, she’d had one of those books about the seasons on a farm: making hay in autumn, growing crops in summer, and so forth. In the spring on a farm, according to this book, the baby animals are born. Linnea generalized that to “all animals are born in the spring,” and then, apparently, to “all animals are born on the same day in the spring.” And then she left that assumption unquestioned for well over a decade.

When she was 21, she got a new kitten, and her girlfriend asked her how old it was. “I don’t know,” she said, “the same age as the rest of them?” The girlfriend was confused, so she tried to explain: “It was born when the other cats were born. I don’t know when that was this year.” The girlfriend continued to be confused, and possibly slightly horrified. This was the first time it occurred to Linnea that maybe she’d misinterpreted the book.

If you’re a reader, you learn so much about the world from books, especially about aspects of life (like, say, animal husbandry) you might never encounter off the page. This means it’s perilously easy for one inaccuracy, overgeneralization, or misapprehension to upset not only your understanding of the book, but your understanding of the world.

It’s finally, finally spring here in New York, so let’s celebrate the kittens’ birthday by talking about similar youthful (or not-so-youthful) literary misunderstandings. Tell us about a book (or film, or other storytelling medium) you thought you understood, or something you thought you learned from a book—and what happened when you discovered you’d been wrong all along. Maybe you modeled yourself on a hero who you didn’t realize was actually the villain. Maybe you didn’t realize your upbringing was weird until you found out that the realistic family saga you loved was supposed to be a gothic horror. Or maybe you just internalized a “fact” that you never thought to question until it was too late.

You may want to read some earlier Novel Gazing essays to get a feel for the series. Some recent favorites include essays about falling in love with language through the work of Francesca Lia Block, about reading the Song of the Lioness series as a closeted young gay man, and about losing faith in Mormonism while reading a Jon Krakauer book.

Essays should not be longer than 4,000 words or shorter than 800, and payment is $60 per piece. Submissions will remain open through June 1.