“The Mourners” by Chanelle Benz

The clocks had been stopped and she did not know if a day had yet passed only that it had been light then dark, and now the light had come again, but had it yet been a day? In this uncertain passage of time, she had not had thought. Instead a road of airless wool had unfurled wide in her head, winding monotonous through the astonishment of her loss.

Just before, when Henry had lain swamped in his own blood, his wife had heard his mother telling the new Negro cook as they stood outside the bedroom door with the dinner tray: “There is an art to dying and the boy does not have it — never mind he has been dying since first he was born.” Out the bedroom window in the fermenting dark, a loose dog had again started baying. “Should I turn over a shoe, Henry?” his wife had asked, wiping her folded handkerchief across his mouth. Henry’s eyes were closed, active in their closing, the collar of his nightshirt flecked red. Having been married to him fifteen years she had grown accustomed to his notseeing. Notseeing his mother’s slights when first he brought her to Mississippi. Notseeing her unseemly origins. Notseeing her father’s vulgar, dubious profession. Notseeing Judah’s exhausted frailty betrayed by the transparency of that child’s skull.

For days now his wife had heard voices speaking of her, the Yankee, so of course a Negro lover, a motherless daughter who had entrapped Henry. Whether this was spoken as she sat there in the swelter of the parlor as the townsfolk came in to view the body she could not tell, she knew only that the voices were those of women.

Her own mother had not bothered giving her a name. Perhaps predicting that she would not live past birth, it then being a time of yellow fever, or perhaps imagining that if she were to survive girlhood, she would enter into the fleshly profession, adopting a name meant to jollify men — Diamond Dolly, Baby Minnie, Big Kitty — rendering a name prior to that undertaking inconsequential. It was her father who had named her Emmeline. Emmeline, after his sister who while still a girl had fallen from a tenement window in the Lower East Side.

Emmeline stood in the stately plush oppression of the parlor and went to where her husband had been placed, propped, arranged, displayed, to where the day was finding its way into his body, choking the candles and compression of flowers.

That rot in the heat could not be her Henry. The dull gold hair she had combed and cut, the smooth emaciated body she had bathed, making certain to touch every part — the left hollow of his collarbone, the stilldamp behind his knees, the indent of his lower back — because it was said that a dead person’s spirit could enter through your hands she had gripped and kneaded his fast ossifying skin, pinching his spirit into hers.

For it was through the body that they had first understood each other. When first he saw her outside of the finishing school, he had taken her hand as if he had been waiting for her.

His dying left her in a strange muscular silence: a black halo of notsound. If ever they were to speak again it must be now through the spirit.

She closed her eyes and traced the scrolled back of the sofa to the center of the parlor, nipping her shin on a serving tray. She walked until she banged into the wall, bruising her left knee, sliding along until she felt the door. When she opened it, she opened her eyes.

No sunlight striping the hall’s floral patterned wallpaper. No pallbearers coming to carry him away. Nobody to tell her if it had yet been a day and if she, Emmeline, once the wife of Henry Stovall, was free to leave his body.

Emmeline was not seen leaving the house except for Sundays. On the church bench, the weeping veil of black crepe could not wholly hide her, but she felt sequestered, screened. Only Judah, squirming on her lap, could slip under and touch, his fingers reminding with their hot wet that though no longer a wife, she must be a mother. The baby clutched her skirts as if trying to steer her, melting his yellow curls into folds of her heavy black serge. Kissing his hands was enough to make him smile for she was his religion.

Every night before midnight, Emmeline let herself out of the whitewashed front door and hastened down the line of cedars clotting the path, her skirts rushing over the ivy trailing down the roots as a net of branches spread above, dissecting the night sky.

Over Henry’s grave, the damp silence was swallowed thick and she was nakedly awake in the stutter of birds and stars calling through the melt and sway of Spanish moss suffocating the trees.

HENRY JAMES STOVALL 1855–1889

She called but he would not come.

Nine months passed before Emmeline received a letter from her father, Zebediah Ferris. In it, he made no mention of Henry, or of the year and a day that a widow must wait when in deep mourning. He wrote only: “I need you here.”

She did not comprehend his urgency but recognized the habitual, cryptic pattern of all his attending her. When on holiday from The Select School for Young Ladies in Atlanta, she would arrive at a temporary town of picks, shovels and pans to live with him among the drinking, whoring and gambling. Either he had ignored her, or furiously concealed her in a hotel, setting Wilkie, a former buffalo hunter and his enforcer, at her door.

Emmeline could not disregard the letter. It was her father who had sent her East to the expensive school, he who made certain that her marriage to Henry Stovall, variously contested by his family, had taken place, he who had been the originator of all her good fortune and as he was fond of saying: the devil has his price.

Outside the parlor, Judah, a condensed weight on her hip, dropped his head on her breast.

“Sleepy, button? Yes, we’ll do it now,” she kissed and kissed him. “We’ll do it quick.”

Mother Stovall did not look up from her bookkeeping until Emmeline spoke saying, “Mother,” and the parlor filled up with a static, continuous ire as she raised her goldgray head but not her pen asking, “Yes? What is it?”

Emmeline hesitated. “I’m afraid I’ve had a letter from my father.”

“It’s about time. I saw it delivered.”

“He said that he wants — well truly he needs me to come out West. And I feel I ought.” Emmeline shifted Judah onto her other hip.

“Hadn’t you better not. To take a trip? Now? Why it isn’t at all seemly. Write that you will come in three months.”

Emmeline turned away, lingering near the piano. Judah stretched to pick the wax at the bottom of a candle perched next to the sheet music. “But how could people, Christians I mean, find fault in my traveling to see my family? Is that not a duty? Not a wise and sensible course?”

“Nonsense. The world will know it as a lack of respect for the memory of the dead. That you should have the courage to go against it — a Stovall would not contemplate it — it must be the extravagance of your age talking.” Mother Stovall put down her pen. “Wasn’t Harper’s right that the sham lady will always be manifest?”

Emmeline put her chin on Judah’s hair. “I have no wish to be the cause of talk, Mother.” As she kissed his head, her lips felt for the thin, compact burn of a fever. She began vainly humming. He had yet to fall ill.

“Don’t you take that boy if that’s what you are supposing.”

Emmeline opened her mouth.

“Why? Why Judah is as susceptible as ever his brothers were. Traveling for so many days on a dusty road will kill him if he isn’t first slain by Indians.”

“Won’t my father want to see him, having never done so? He never got to meet August, or even Caleb.”

“There was reason for that.” Mother Stovall sniffed. “Caleb. You always had a partiality for that boy — petting him so.”

Caleb had died in the time it had taken her to change her dress. He had squeezed her hand crying “Mama,” and she had cradled him as she did the day he was born. She had not believed he could die.

“And should I care what he of nopast may desire? He whose scandalous vocation Henry did not care to dwell on, nor whoever your mother may have been, yet how could not I? Being a Stovall of Mississippi, how could not I?”

Mother Stovall had clung to this refrain for fifteen years, brandishing it whenever she could: a dull, starved outrage gone solid.

Reaching for a pinecone, Judah toppled a frame from the mantel. Emmeline crouched on the empty bricked hearth where Henry’s rifle leaned with Caleb’s fishing rod, saying, “Judah, now look — you almost broke it.” It was a painting Mother Stovall had done: a small portrait of Henry, a white- blond boy in short pants. She laid it facedown on the mantel.

“As a man Henry did not have to dwell, but we women must. You and I must.”

Judah kicked and Emmeline set him down, watching him toddle and yank on a curtain rope. “Gently. No, I’d not have him fall ill, of course not. Be gentle with it, Judah. And I am sorry if it gives some reason to talk, but I have to go. Mammy Eula can care for him while I’m away. It won’t be for long. A week or two. It couldn’t be for long.”

The goldgray head lowered back to the bookkeeping, scratching over the household accounts. “What would you not do for that horror of a man? As if you are his dog and he has said, Come.”

For what did her father need her, to what use could she, a mother, a new- made widow, a woman of thirty-two, be put to by a brothel-owner in a cowboy town? When the stagecoach rattled in and the ditched road bucked her one last time, the black lace went tight around her throat. But as the driver opened the door and her hands accepted his, the constriction of lace left her.

The two remaining passengers, a pregnant woman and a hazy notyoung whore, grimaced at the mud track meant to be a main street, at the slop pot stench of the tents, at the baleful eyes of purblind men. Emmeline stood in the center of the thoroughfare, drawing back her heavy crepe veil, letting in the din of burnt hard necks. How long it had been since she had known this incongruous measure of relief which now undid her as she staggered tranquil into the dusty hotel?

“Hell is in session, Emme. The town lost its marshal last month.”

“Did he run, Pa?” she asked, sitting on a chair by his bed, her hands clasped tight in her lap. She could not get comfortable.

“Naw, he was strung up. Turns out he used to be a bandit before he turned lawman and had returned to the old ways. Made a miscalculation robbing a bank near Fort Worth and those folks came down here for justice. I myself could not help him though you might have said he was a friend.” He said this while he paced the hotel room, a dirty glass of whiskey in hand.

“Oh dear. Well, I do hope they broke his neck first.”

“Naw, not that rabble. He hung there like an angry chicken for nigh on two hours turning blood purple.”

“Now Bart, you’re exaggerating. It was half that, and it was a bank near Galveston not Fort Worth.” Madame Cora, her dyed blond curls rolled tight to her head, in far finer dress than Emmeline, smiled triumphantly from above a cape of fox fur.

“Jeysus,” said Wilkie from where he stood by the door twisting the stillred of his mustache. “Sure is durn good to see ya, Emme. You look right well. Glad you come help us with them Morgan boys.”

“Shut your mouth, Wilkie,” said her father finally sitting down on a chair on the other side of the bed, a ragged titan in a new suit.

Till then she had avoided the dirty patch covering his left eye, waiting for him, but in the tension of all in the room she now sensed an agreed deflection. “What happened to your eye, Pa?”

The new gauntness of the large, square face glared at her. He leaned over the bed, flipping the patch to show a ruined hole damp with healing. “The girls got the men a little too excited and they took to shooting out the lights. That’s how some celebrate their salary.”

She wondered why he bothered with the lie. “Who did it, Pa? Was it these Morgans?”

“I see you’re still in mourning for Henry. But now ain’t you always in black.” His remaining eye which was also her eye scraped at her. “I reckon since you’re dark, being a widow becomes you.”

“Pa?” Her voice close on a whisper, as if they were alone. “The night before Henry died, I heard a dog.”

“Howling?”

“Yes.” She nodded, her eyes wide.

“Did you now?” He too came soft at speech but with an austerity she could not at that moment match.

“Yes Pa. Howling and howling. It wouldn’t stop. I don’t know whose dog — I don’t know just whose it was. And it was odd but I remembered something Ma had said, and it is one of the few things I ever recall her saying to me, but when Flossie — do you remember Flossie? — was sick with fever, Ma said that when someone is dying you must go under the bed and turn over a shoe. Remember?” He was the only person she had told, could tell.

“And did you,” he asked, “did you turn over a shoe?”

“I only remembered what Ma had said when I was in the garden with the minister and he was asking me what kind of coffin did I want. But when I went up and asked Henry — ” She scratched her cheek. “No I didn’t do it right away. Do you think, Pa — ?”

“It hasn’t been a year, has it, Emme dear,” said Cora, folding and refolding her cape over powdered breasts. “What with losing two sons and then your husband, Lord, why you don’t know yourself. It’s a good thing you come here to be with us.”

“I’ll have to go back soon,” Emmeline said.

“I thought you might bring the boy,” said her father.

Her face burned for she was wishing she had not come at all. “Judah is too like his father and brothers.” Emmeline untied her bonnet and smoothed the veil, seeing Judah when he woke in the morning, his undiluted joy upon seeing her face. Who else would ever look at her like that? “I suppose you want me as madam.” She spoke now with the vigilant serenity which kept her intact.

“I didn’t spend money on your fancy school for that. Besides, I got one here. Cora gabbles on but she knows her trade. I’ll give her that much. You being the grand lady in the Old States is worth something. I ain’t about to throw away all that damn accomplishment.”

“And since I’ve come on,” Cora said, “a trick here can earn five dollars — ten a week and you got fifty. We got a whole bunch of new girls too, did you see? Oh, they got to feeling blameful at the start but then they watch as their savings pile up! Emmeline honey, you could be an angel to your father now in his time of need.”

“Shut your mouth, woman. There’s a man who wants to meet you, a man I want you to marry.”

“The man who shot out your eye?” Emmeline asked.

“The man who shot out my eye is dead.”

“You do not mind if Wilkie remains, do you Mayor Gibson? It is a great comfort to my father to know that I am accompanied until I am able to hire a female companion.”

“Dear madam, as you wish. Have you had trouble finding a suitable abigail?”

From across an unvarnished table in the shadowed vacuum of the hotel parlor, there was a brutish, glittering air about the fact that Mayor Gibson’s coat reeked of cigar smoke and his breath was saccharine with brandy. He was a man who did not wear his weight well. The corpulent pucker under his eyes seemed to be dragging itself from the bone.

“Well sir, I did not know that I would be visiting for quite this long, and I find, without the least surprise, that there is a scarcity of respectable women in town.”

“Ma’am, I myself will make inquires on your behalf.”

“It is most kind in you,” she said and smiled in her light, fatal way.

“Your father has told me that you have recently lost your husband to consumption.”

“Yes sir.” At his mentioning Henry, she began to detest him.

“Such a cross to bear when already you have said farewell to others. How long has it been?”

Her throat went dry. What was Judah doing now? Likely playing in the garden, or sleeping on Mammy Eula’s nap. “Coming on eleven months.”

“So recent, so recent. Why it might feel to you he were alive yesterday. It did so with my sweet wife and little girl child. Time passes differently for the bereaved, does it not? And when you wake in the morning, there are those first moments when you are innocent of knowing like Adam in Eden.” He pressed a limp hand over her glove and through the black kid came a damp heat. “Your father said I would find us of a similar understanding.”

This man she was supposed to marry was a fool. She felt behind her to where Wilkie stood, thumbs in the pockets of his shabby waistcoat, and was scalded by his notwatching.

“Sir, I will confide to you that the reason I have stayed is because I am dreadfully worried, dreadfully worried that I might lose my father.” She heard her words as if someone else was speaking.

“I do believe, ma’am, that we will meet those that we have lost, that itself Death is but one level of our moving closer toward God.”

“I would like…I do believe that as well. Yet I cannot help but feel my father is fortunate that the bullet which took his eye did not pierce his brain.”

“In these parts, danger predominates in so many of our young men’s dispositions.”

“But sir, I have heard that these Morgan brothers are regular bandits, that they ride with posses and such, robbing the Mexican ranch — ”

“As I myself am no Wild Bill, it has seemed best to let such beasts deal with their own. Is it hard on you there being no Methodist church in town? Is it possible you might find comfort at a small gathering I sometimes frequent? I could introduce you to our celebrated Miss Ada.”

She finally felt she could withdraw her hand. “What takes place at these gatherings?”

“The assembled ask Miss Ada questions of metaphysical abstraction and she answers with what I would deem supernatural eloquence. You would find her elocution upon the subject of the deceased most enlightening.”

“I suppose it is true that I sometimes feel there is nothing noble in my grief.” This may have been the one true thing she had spoken.

“There is that which assuages the mourner, the one who has yet not charted the passage to the grave and may have a vague horror upon its account. Why ma’am, if I could but show you the liberation that could be yours — but I do not seek to proselytize, only offer you the solace which I have found. If I could arrange it, Mrs. Stovall, would you care to join us?”

“I think — ”

“Your father seemed to feel you might.”

“ — Yes. He is so often right,” she smiled and Mayor Gibson smiled at her, wiping his hands on his thighs. “I could do with the solace you speak of. Though I can’t help but think that I would know some measure of it if I knew my father were safe from the Morgans. You see, talk of them taking their revenge is all over town. It seems unjust when it was Shep Morgan who shot Pa, and Pa who was simply defending himself. But Shep being their kin, the Morgans shall never see reason.”

“Would ease your mind if I had a warrant put out for their arrest?”

“It would…” She pretended to be flustered. “No, yes it would, that would, it’s true.”

“Please do speak freely. Are we not friends?”

She decided to lower her eyes. “I don’t wish to seem ungrateful, sir.”

“You could never.” Again, he pressed her hand.

Now she looked straight at him. “As long as the Morgan brothers are alive, my father is in danger.”

“And as mayor, I could see that they hang?”

“My father believes it would ease my mind.”

“And he being so often right?”

She need say nothing, she had won him, and was impatient for the game to end.

“Dear lady, I shall see it done.”

“Thank you.”

“Now that we are friends you must call me Jasper.”

“Thank you, Jasper,” she said.

Emmeline tucked the letter in a drawer next to a memorial tintype of August, her first baby upturned and openmouthed in her arms. Henry had not wanted Caleb photographed saying we had him for eight years, we will not forget him. He had a signet ring made; the band filled with Caleb’s hair.

The day of August’s burial it had rained, but rain so light she could not feel it, and still the dirt would not go soft, lending the shovel a feverish tinny rasp that bit and bit. But the morning after Caleb died she and Henry walked the sunny fields, their sweat and tears loose in the gold lead heat. Now she could not clearly see Caleb’s face. She who had made him — her and Henry and God.

“You’re a right good girl.”

She turned from the dresser to face the balcony. She had to close her eyes to say it. “My boy is ill.” But he was with Mammy Eula, a better nurse than herself, she knew. She hated hearing her babies cry, the pained mewl that none of her words could soothe. “I have to go back.” She pulled her trunk onto the bed, opening it.

Wilkie folded his arms, as if to shrink his bulk. “He’ll get better. Don’t you fuss yerself. Thet Miss Ada is a medium.”

She needed fresh air, outside, the fresh air. “I’ll tell Pa. I can come back once Judah’s well.” From the balcony she could see Mayor Gibson passing below. “Am I the only woman who isn’t a whore that Mayor Gibson has known in years?” She watched as a drunk was thrown from a saloon by two men who stood over him as he yelled. They took turns kicking and punching him until he went quiet in the mud.

“An you wearing black. He likes thet.”

“Mayor Gibson is a powerful man. He’s gonna be governor someday.” Her father came into the room but not onto the balcony.

“It’s all a humbug — spirit rappers,” Wilkie spat.

“As long as Miss Ada ain’t managed by P. T. Barnum she’s all right in my books,” her father said.

“It ain’t right,” Wilkie said.

She felt impatient with Wilkie, her father, the choking weight of the air.

“Judah is ill, Pa.”

“There’s always a spider bite or a cut or a cold. You can’t keep them from the peril of the world — it’s the world, Emme.”

“Yes, but I have to go back. You do see, don’t you?” The words were said with a narrowing restraint.

“You’re gonna marry the mayor.”

“Pa, I’m not trying to get your back up but must it be marriage?”

“Emme, that man there is a civilizee, he don’t wanna be seen with no soiled dove. Decency and order, that’s what this town is coming to.”

She tried to wring the irritation from her voice. “But even if the mayor does hang the Morgans there will come more just like them.”

“That’s why I need this fellow in my pocket and your marriage is gonna put him there. I’m a man of business, I can’t go around having my eye shot out by every hayseed that has a hankering, now can I?” He watched Mayor Gibson walk by the drunk and enter the saloon.

“I’ll marry him when I come back, I promise.”

“She’s a beauty, ey?” Her father came behind her, clapping his hands down on her shoulders.

She flinched. “I will, Pa. But I have to be with Judah.”

“When she was a kid and she’d play outside in the thoroughfare, grown men’d watch her and weep. Remember that Wilkie?”

“But what if he should be like Caleb or August? I have to — ” She tried to twist away but he propelled her inside. He shoved her down into the chair in front of the dresser, keeping his hands on her shoulders.

“Her mother too. Some men’ll perish over a woman. Not me, but some. Emme wouldn’t know but plenty tried to buy her mother off me. Lillie had a little of everything in her… German, Mexican, Ethiope… and in them days, Wilkie, any drop made you a slave.”

“Is there affection, Pa? Is there any affection between us?”

He grabbed her by the jaw. “And my Emme was so pretty, so pretty — ”

She tried to pry off his hands and get up but he wrapped both hands around her neck so she sat back down.

“So when the fellas came round, asking when she’d be ready to fuck, it was me — not Lillie, not the drunk with no head for business so soaked no man wanted to get horizontal with her — it was me who held them off, me who made Emme a lady and married her to money. Wilkie, I’ll admit I never expected a man as wealthy as Henry Stovall, but I knew him for a reckless sort when I first laid eyes on him. Holding hands with Death all his life made him a gambler who wouldn’t pay any heed to the objections of his family.”

“Zeb,” Wilkie said, his hands tentatively reaching.

Her father thumbed her throat. “But I still hadn’t achieved a happy ending. For there was, you see, an impediment. What was that impediment, Wilkie? What was it? You remember?”

“Zeb, now I don’t mean to argufy but Emme’s a right biddable girl. Sho she’s seen to it we’ll see them Morgan boys hanged. There ain’t no need to speak on days past.”

“That’s right, her mother. Because not only was Lillie a whore but a negress and that kind of union ain’t legal in Mississippi, not then and not now, it being, according to law, incestuous and void. But as I knew Henry was the type to perish over a woman I said: pay me and they will never hear a whisper, those high- class Mississippi Stovalls. Because I am not the type to perish over a woman, because no matter what she is I am her father, I dosed Lillie’s whiskey with enough laudanum to kill an elephant.”

He let her go.

She stared at him in the mirror and then into her own eyes realizing that she already knew.

“Now Emme’s a fine lady, she can afford to have sensibility, but not me and I tell you, Wilkie,” her father said, his voice proud and violated, “how sharper than a serpent’s tooth is it to have a thankless child.”

“Now you may join hands,” said Miss Ada from where she sat in a bloom of crepe and camphor at the head of the table.

Mayor Gibson took Emmeline’s left hand and an old woman retrieved her right. She ground her teeth so she wouldn’t pull away and tried to watch the medium crease with effort then fall bland, passive for the so- called spirit, intoning: “We are here tonight to seek the divine illumination of our spirit guides.”

Emmeline rolled her head from side to side, stretching her aching neck. And who indeed should be her spirit guide?

August Thayer Stovall 1876–1876 5 mo. 11 d. “So small, so sweet, so soon!”?

Caleb Edmond Stovall 1877–1885 8 Y’s 4 mo. 15 d. “When blooming youth is snatch’d away!”?

Henry James Stovall 1855–1889 In the 34 year of his age. “Earth hath no sorrow that heaven cannot heal”?

Not Judah. She was leaving tomorrow morning on the next stage. To please her father, she would marry the mayor, but first she would go home to her son. She needed to feel the weight of him, his damp head in the crook of her arm.

“We should all concentrate on our most pressing question with loving reverence,” said Miss Ada.

Did she who could not believe in Heaven have a question? Emmeline crossed and uncrossed her legs, resisting the urge to kick. Did there exist a persistent, incorporeal presence hungry and blind and monotonous as hate, one neither wholly living or dead who by being neither was cursed to wander with eternal incomprehension of both? When death came did that which animated dissolve back into the earth, or was there some union of energy wherein some shape or rather in no shape she would be with them again? Or did the straining and longing and recoiling of this life beget nothing but a silence beyond notsound? Why did this frowsy woman not weighing a hundred pounds fetid with camphor insist on trumpeting her talent of conjuring demon or angel or humbug?

Heat soaked Emmeline’s neck like a rash, sweat itching her scalp. She should say she was too hot but she shouldn’t interrupt. Well and if it got
worse she —

She was kneeling in a graveyard. The stone slab that covered the length of a coffin was cracked, shards of granite caved in. From the oak trees around her, music was playing: fiddles and brass, the clap of boots stamping, as if somewhere there were dancing.

“Emme?”

She heard a cough.

“Henry?”

He cleared his throat. “I can’t see a damned thing.”

She reached through the hole and through the dark, braying and sweet, she saw Henry’s discolored face, a moving bruise under his eyes. “You’ve come back — ” She crushed herself in him. “I just want to be with you,” she said into his beard. “I just have to. I can’t be without you. I don’t want to, Henry!”

“Sweet girl,” he said but she could not see his tongue move.

“If I die, will I get to be with you?” She kissed him and he tasted of sour earth. “You have come for me, haven’t you?” She held his face in her hands, memorizing the ruin of eyes notblue.

He shook as if swimming up to her. “I don’t want you to worry, darlin. He’s with me now.”

“Who? Caleb? Judah?”

She heard a noise and looked up. It was as if she were at the bottom of a well. Two faces peered down at her through a tunnel, a man and a woman whom she did not know. They seemed so urgent — shouting for her, though she did not know what they wanted, who they were, or now who she was, but that there was something of where they were which vaguely had to do with her, whoever she was. In this paralyzed musing she found herself, regardless of having made no decision, materializing into the room where they were, into the rolling furnace of a body which was hers.

“Emmeline, Emmeline” they insisted until she knew her name.

She lay in the dark on a sofa, the candles having gone out. Mayor Gibson and Miss Ada were bent over her, fanning her, holding up smelling salts. She burst into tears. The silence, that black halo of notsound, had left her.

Emmeline slept into the next afternoon. It was almost sundown when she woke in a daze, everything tilted, the sun crackling like light rain through leaves. She thought she was in her bedroom in Mississippi hearing a baby cry in the next room. Standing, the blood roared oversweet in her ears. She saw the sealed letter on the dresser. She went to the nightstand, rinsing the sulfur from her mouth, and picked up her Bible, a wedding gift from Henry, as neither her mother nor her father had ever seen fit to give her one. But she set it back down between a bottle of perfume and her pincushion, placing the pipe that had been Henry’s on its cover, and again washed her mouth. She could not taste clean.

On the balcony with the letter, the town went quiet and forgotten.

Leaving off her veil, she stumbled down to the thoroughfare. At the window of a dance hall, she watched a man two- stepping with a tawny whore and everything in her body went incredulous with ache and she knew herself to be that little girl standing outside her father’s brothel, looking in the window at her glazed sharp mother tendering up her soft impervious breasts, manufacturing ardor for the men sore and mean with desire and her father at the glass saying No you cannot come in.

The men and the whores had turned to stare. She was beating the window with her fists until she heard her left hand break. Then she ran through the streets until First Street, north until she reached the treeless graveyard. There, she found her mother’s grave in the older section, buried under piles of stones the same as the bandits.

LILLIE FERRIS 1840–1874 “Sleep on now, and take your rest.”

Cradling her aching hand, Emmeline knelt on the cracked dirt before her mother’s wooden marker. “You were never like a mother… But I’m sorry,” she cried, “I am. But now Judah’s gone where do I go? I can’t go back but I can’t stay.”

“M’am.”

A young man’s voice in the falling arrested dark.

“Do y’see this here? This is my younger brother. You might look at me and think well he musta been mighty young. He was, an my mamma charged me with his keeping but I guess I did not keep him.”

She refused to turn to him — to the constant anonymous need of the world.

“I didn’t even kill him like Cain did Abel. Naw, I did nothing but carry him until he died right there in my arms.”

She felt him pressing the empty space behind her and itched with a violent grim frustration.

“It shoulda been me or Virgil or Jim. Christ, it’s hard.”

If she were to die here, if this man were to kill her now, what would be etched on her grave?

“Look at me, lady, I ain’t bad- looking. Goddammit, I was accounted handsome back in Carolina.”

Not dead but gone on before?

“Hey.” His hand on her shoulder.

“I swore I ain’t gonna pay for it ever again after that.”

Asleep in Jesus?

He pulled her. “I could use some comfort.”

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

“Ain’t this is an old grave? Why you still wearing black?” The young man stood over her drinking from a bottle of rye in the stain of the abating twilight.

She was silent then said, “I’m a widow. This is my mother’s grave.”

His hand went down her arm. “Did you love him?”

Her mind’s eye passed through as many images of Judah as it could conjure until he was a sleeping infant across her lap with his thin, perfect skin and lightly open mouth.

“Yer husband,” he said, turning the diamond ring on her wedding finger. “The one yer widowed from.”

“Of course…”

“But you’re gonna marry again?” He would not let go her hand. “I reckon you ought not.”

“What then would you propose?”

“Honor the memory of the dead like I’m gonna.”

“How do you do that?”

“I’m gonna murder the son of a bitch who kilt my little brother. Me, ma’am? I’m a thorough cutthroat.”

“I’m thirsty,” she said. “Would you have enough? Of the rye?”

“Would it be fittin?”

Her smile was bitter, brief. “You sir, have never been a delicately bred female at the mercy of her father.”

He let her take the bottle and asked with anxious subjection, “Do I seem ugly to you?”

“How can I say when most of you is hiding under that beard.”

He stared down at her mother’s grave. “How did she pass?”

“She was a whore. How ever do they all pass?”

“Lillie Ferris. She related to Zebediah Ferris?”

“He’s my father,” she said and sweat parted down her back.

The young man seized her wrist and the bottle smashed at her feet. He dragged her to where shep morgan had been painted on a white post above a new grave. She was not afraid because it seemed to be happening so slowly.

“Why’d he have to shoot him?” He shook her. “It were an accident. Cause Shep — Shep he weren’t the swaggering type. Not like the rest of us, you see?”

He shook her until she laughed. “Do I see?” she said.

He threw her away from him. “He was jest turned fourteen.”

“A boy.”

“Why’d he do it then?”

“Don’t you know how men do?” she asked.

“I know how men die,” he said.

“So do I,” she said and began to walk away.

He went to her again, blocking her path. She stopped and her face hollowed with ache.

“I’m gonna kill your father. That offend you?” he enunciated this as if through her he could reach the ears of that man.

“Why should it? Very little is likely to offend me. I have spent a good amount of time among countless examples of intoxicated humanity.”

“You think I am that?”

“I don’t care. I suppose you must be born astray like all other men. You’ve come of age in a time rife with fearmongering. But Henry always said that I could not fully know, being born a woman, and perhaps I don’t, but then being I am on the outside perhaps I can see it all.”

Because he too was a prisoner of the fragile flesh, because it would be a quick chaos that in its intricate burn would hold still time, because she could, she asked: “Would you lie with me?”

He seemed to try and outright laugh, sifting the voice that had spoken to him amongst all the other voices that had ever spoken. “You jest ask me to fuck? For a fact?” He was trembling, peering at the flat land, the backs of the buildings. “Out here?”

She stepped close enough to inspect the freckles across his sunburnt nose, the coarse twist of his red hair. He looked hungry, decorous, and young — far younger than she.

“Ain’t you pledged to marry?”

“I’ve decided to take your advice.” She began unbuttoning the neck of her dress.

His fingers trailed hers helplessly. “What’d I advise?”

“To honor death.”

She led him to an open space between the graves. He took off his coat and made a bed in the dust, punching it soft.

“Is that comfortable?”

She laid back, pushing her head in the folds of his coat and feeling the ground’s retreating heat. He looked away as she bunched up her skirts.

“Come here,” she said.

He took off his hat and knelt between her legs, dogged and secret. “Do we — what’s your name?”

“Emmeline,” she said, unbuckling his pants and helping him to angle inside.

Above them, a hot wind dissolved into the dark.

Listen to a Clip from the Star-Studded Audio Book for George Saunders’ Novel

Nick Offerman, Carrie Brownstein, Don Cheadle, Julianne Moore (and basically the cast of your dreams) read ‘Lincoln in the Bardo’

George Saunders’ soon-to-be-released and highly anticipated first novel, Lincoln in the Bardo, is shaping up to be a high water mark in the annals of audio books. The recently announced 166-member cast features Nick Offerman, Ben Stiller, Don Cheadle, Julianne Moore, Mary Karr, Maranda July, Jeff Tweedy, and Saunders himself, among many others. In fact, Random House, the novel’s publisher, has already submitted the list to Guinness World Records for the most narrators within a single audio book — a rather specific, but apparently legitimate, record category.

Narrted from a cacophony of decidedly biased — and often conflicting — perspectives, Lincoln in the Bardo tracks the eponymous president at the onset of the Civil War as he confronts the death of his young son, Willie. In the audio book excerpt below, the narrators disjointedly debate Lincoln’s stoic, or less than stoic, comportment as he crosses a room to examine Willie’s coffin. Unsurprisingly, the intercut, and often playful exchanges seem to indicate the novel retains the enrapturing dynamism of Saunders’ masterful short fiction. Not to mention a wonderful sampling of Nick Offerman’s voice.

Listen here:

Here’s an even longer list of the audio book’s known cast members:

  • Nick Offerman as HANS VOLLMAN
  • David Sedaris as ROGER BEVINS III
  • Carrie Brownstein as ISABELLE PERKINS
  • George Saunders as THE REVEREND EVERLY THOMAS
  • Miranda July as MRS. ELIZABETH CRAWFORD
  • Lena Dunham as ELISE TRAYNOR
  • Ben Stiller as JACK MANDERS
  • Julianne Moore as JANE ELLIS
  • Susan Sarandon as MRS. ABIGAIL BLASS
  • Bradley Whitford as LT. CECIL STONE
  • Bill Hader as EDDIE BARON
  • Megan Mullally as BETSY BARON
  • Rainn Wilson as PERCIVAL “DASH” COLLIER
  • Jeff Tweedy as CAPTAIN WILLIAM PRINCE
  • Kat Dennings as MISS TAMARA DOOLITTLE
  • Jeffrey Tambor as PROFESSOR EDMUND BLOOMER
  • Mike O’Brien as LAWRENCE T. DECROIX
  • Keegan-Michael Key as ELSON FARWELL
  • Don Cheadle as THOMAS HAVENS
  • Patrick Wilson as STANLEY “PERFESSER” LIPPERT
  • Kirby Heyborne as WILLIE LINCOLN
  • Mary Karr as MRS. ROSE MILLAND
  • Cassandra Campbell as Your Narrator

Here Are the Finalists for the National Book Critics Circle Award

Margaret Atwood wins a lifetime achievement award while Zadie Smith and Michael Chabon are among the fiction finalists

Margaret Atwood image from the Nexus Institute

Who knows more about good books than professional book critics? For many readers, the National Book Critics Circle Award is one of the most prestigious literary awards. Today, they announced their finalists in six categories. They also announced three other award winners: Margaret Atwood, a titan of literary and science fiction literature, was awarded the National Book Critics Circle Ivan Sandrof Lifetime Achievement Award today; Yaa Gyasi won the John Leonard Prize for a debut book for her highly acclaimed “Homegoing” (Knopf); and critic Michelle Dean won for Nona Balakian Citation for Excellence in Reviewing for her reviews in outlets like The Guardian and The New Republic.

Here are the finalists in each category:

FICTION

“Moonglow,” by Michael Chabon (Harper)

“LaRose,” by Louise Erdrich (Harper)

“Imagine Me Gone,” by Adam Haslett (Little, Brown)

“Commonwealth,” by Ann Patchett (Harper)

“Swing Time,” by Zadie Smith (Penguin Press)

NONFICTION

“Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City,” by Matthew Desmond (Crown)

“Stamped From the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America,” by Ibram X. Kendi (Nation)

“Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right,” by Jane Mayer (Doubleday)

“Nothing Ever Dies: Vietnam and the Memory of War,” by Viet Thanh Nguyen (Harvard University Press)

“Writing to Save a Life: The Louis Till File,” by John Edgar Wideman (Scribner)

AUTOBIOGRAPHY

“The Iceberg,” Marion Coutts (Black Cat)

“In Gratitude,” by Jenny Diski (Bloomsbury)

“Lab Girl,” by Hope Jahren (Knopf)

“The Return: Fathers, Sons, and the Land in Between,” by Hisham Matar (Random House)

“The Song Poet: A Memoir of My Father,” by Kao Kalia Yang (Metropolitan)

BIOGRAPHY

“Moscow Nights: The Van Cliburn Story,” by Nigel Cliff (Harper)

“Shirley Jackson: A Rather Haunted Life,” by Ruth Franklin (Liveright)

“Black Elk: The Life of an American Visionary,” by Joe Jackson (FSG)

“Krazy: George Herriman, a Life in Black and White,” by Michael Tisserand (Harper)

“Guilty Thing: A Life of Thomas De Quincey,” by Frances Wilson (FSG)

CRITICISM

“White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide,” by Carol Anderson (Bloomsbury)

“Against Everything: Essays,” by Mark Greif (Pantheon)

“Looking for The Stranger: Albert Camus and the Life of a Literary Classic,” by Alice Kaplan (Univ. of Chicago Press)

“The Lonely City: Adventures in the Art of Being Alone,” by Olivia Laing (Picador)

“Am I Alone Here?: Notes on Living to Read and Reading to Live,” by Peter Orner (Catapult)

POETRY

“House of Lords and Commons,” by Ishion Hutchinson (FSG)

“Olio,” by Tyehimba Jess (Wave)

“Works and Days,” by Bernadette Mayer (New Directions)

“At the Foundling Hospital,” by Robert Pinsky (FSG)

“Blackacre,” by Monica Youn (Graywolf)

Kathleen Rooney & The Art of the Stroll

Kathleen Rooney’s new novel, Lillian Boxfish Takes a Walk (St. Martin’s Press) follows the life of the red-headed poet of Murray Hill. Spanning six decades, from Lillian’s illustrious career as R.H. Macy’s highest paid ad-writing woman, her life of poetry, love, and heartbreak, to the New Year’s Eve of 1984, where she takes her long, adventurous walk through Manhattan, this novel is both sprawling and personal, and in Kathleen Rooney’s hands, Lillian is nothing short of extraordinary. Via email, I had the pleasure of discussing the new book with Rooney, where we covered Lillian, the joys of research, and the Rooney’s own love of walking.

— Timothy Moore

Timothy Moore: There’s so much here that I want to talk about with Lillian Boxfish, and time, and writing, but maybe we should start with something more basic: walking. A major part of your new novel is Lillian’s journey from one end of Manhattan and back on New Year’s Eve, 1984. It’s no small task, Lillian being in her eighties during a time when New York City was seen as deteriorating and dangerous, but it becomes increasingly important for her to make this long trek. Can you discuss a bit your own views of walking? Do you find walking to be important to your development as a writer/teacher/editor/person? Maybe it’s not so basic a question after all!

Kathleen Rooney: This is a basic question in the sense that aimless yet attentive walking around an urban environment — aka flânerie or dérvive or psychogeography — is one of the basic necessities and joys of life: city walking is fundamental. An essential foundation. A starting point. I’ve been a walker ever since I was a little kid — every time I get to a new place, the first thing I want to do is to walk around it and map it in my mind with my feet. Walking means so much to me that it’s difficult to distill what I love — the physicality and rhythm, the potential for meditation, the freedom, the chance encounters with strangers — into a single response, which I suppose is why I had to write a novel about it.

Walking resembles and relates to both reading and writing to such an extent that I teach a class at DePaul (and sometimes in the Iowa Summer Writing Festival) called Drift and Dream: Writer as Urban Walker. It might seem surprising that you could teach a whole class on something as universal as walking, but I’m continually amazed at how relatively few people walk, or how walking is mistakenly seen as a chore to be minimized or an inconvenience to be avoided. I grew up in the suburbs and intuitively despised car culture — its waste, its destruction of our environment, its isolation of people into tiny, atomized units where serendipitous encounters with others are almost totally eliminated — and found myself drawn to cities and to flânerie before I even know the activity had a name. As soon as I could leave for college, I chose to move to Washington, DC and since then have lived in cities almost exclusively. I’ve lived in Chicago for almost 10 years now, and no matter how many times I walk through this city, I never get bored. Because if you’ve taken a walk once, you’ve taken it once — even if you walk down the same stretch of street a hundred times, it will be different on every single journey because the city is an organism that’s always growing, changing, dying and being reborn.

Lillian shares this admiration of cities, as well as the xenophilia that a lot of urban drifters share — not a fear of difference, but a desire to seek it out and interact with and appreciate and understand it. Normally, I’m leery of hyperbolic prescriptive claims, but I truly believe that if more people took walks through cities, the world would be a better place.

I truly believe that if more people took walks through cities, the world would be a better place.

Moore: That’s what really struck me with Lillian — her ability to seek out people, strangers really, and have patience with them, and more often than not, she connects with them. Even though, by the 1980s, her poetry is no longer in fashion, and her writing career at R.H. Macy is long over, and the city itself is drastically changing, she holds onto this personal ethos. I think the fact that she is aware of her failures and growing loneliness (she is no Pollyanna!) while holding onto what she values, makes her a more complicated character. While Lillian was inspired, in part, by the real life Margaret Fishback (who was also a poet and ad woman in the 1930’s) — I’d be interested to learn of your process with developing Lillian as a full-fledged character in her own right.

Rooney: Thanks to an invaluable tip from my high school best friend, Angela Ossar, I got to be the first non-archivist ever to work with the archives of Margaret Fishback at Duke University back in 2007. Fishback herself is an important proto-feminist figure, a pioneer of advertising and a gifted light verse author, so I’m hopeful that the novel gives readers an occasion to learn more about her. I’ve written a piece about her advertising innovations and poetry for the Poetry Foundation that you can read here. And I worked with them to get a selection of her work included in their archives here.

That said, it took me several years before I figured out what to do with the material I’d worked with in the archive on a larger scale. The key that unlocked my idea that it should end up as a novel was to give Lillian the fictional character an undying affinity for flânerie, and also to give the book a split structure, partly set starting in 1926 to chart Lillian’s stratospheric rise and eventual fall, and partly set on New Year’s Eve in 1984 as she’s on this magical — but still realistic — 10-plus-mile drift. This balance let me have the imaginative flexibility to create scenarios for Lillian to respond to, and to round her out as someone distinct from the person who inspired her. I love movies — like Adventures in Babysitting or Desperately Seeking Susan — and books — like Patrick Modiano’s In the Café of Lost Youth and Vivian Gornick’s Fierce Attachments — where the city itself stops just short of becoming a character. So in a way, getting to research so much about New York in all its various 20th century incarnations is what helped me to create the character of Lillian most of all.

Moore: This split structure really paints the drastic changes in New York’s incarnations — I wonder, what was it about 1984 New York City that worked for a setting instead of, say, 1990? Was there something about this year that struck a chord with you?

Rooney: 1984 was the year I needed because of Bernhard Goetz, aka the Subway Vigilante. On December 22, 1984, he shot and seriously wounded four black teenagers — who he claimed were muggers — on a downtown 2 train. He escaped and went into hiding for nine days before eventually turning himself in to police. You know that Billy Joel song, “We Didn’t Start the Fire” that came out in 1989? Nine-year-old dork that I was at the time, I looked up every single reference and out of all the monumental historic events listed in the lyrics, that one stunned me the most because I couldn’t imagine doing that: taking “justice” into my own hands with the intent to kill four strangers on mass transit. As an adult, I continue to be fascinated by how polarized public opinion was regarding his act at the time, with some people appalled and others hailing him as a hero. The crime rate in New York in that era was incredibly high and a lot of people despaired at how to turn it around, which meant some people inevitably thought Goetz’s approach was the right one.

Lillian, of course, finds violence repulsive. So I wanted her to simultaneously have a chance to weigh in on Goetz’s horrific act in terms of her beliefs in respect and civility, but also to show how fearless she’s resolved to be. To stay in New York from 1926 to 1984 would take quite a bit of commitment and determination, and Lillian has it.

Personally, the suburbs make me sick because they’re boring, exclusionary, homogenous, car-centric and full of suspicion of people who are different. So thematically, I wanted to show Lillian being enamored and unafraid of the unruly and heterogeneous city in a way her own son, Gian, a city kid turned city-fearer is no longer capable of. Also, at a time when a lot of her old friends are bailing for the Sun Belt, Lillian continues to be true to her first and most consistent love: New York.

Last but not least, 1984, lucky for me, worked with the age that I needed Lillian to be for the timing of the rest of the story (the Roaring 20s, the Depression, WWII, etc.) to work. She was born in 1899 (though she lies and says 1900 to not have to admit to having been born in the 19th Century), so by 1984, she’s quite old. I wanted her to be elderly enough for a walk of this distance and duration to be exceptional and impressive, but not implausible.

Moore: A lot of writer’s struggle with research and incorporating their findings. Would it be fair to say that you lie on the opposite side of that spectrum? Is there any advice you can give writers in the midst of their research?

Rooney: The research phase of any project — whether it’s fiction, nonfiction, or poetry and whether it’s something set now or in the past — is my favorite phase. Because when you’re researching, everything about the project is pure potential — it could be anything and it could be the best! Once you start translating what you’ve learned during the research phase into the book itself, of course, the potential energy becomes kinetic and the ideal that you may have held in your mind starts to emerge as a less-than-perfect real thing. That part is fun, too, but research is fascinating to me because I love reading and learning and finding inspiration in sources outside my own lived experience. I can usually tell that I’m doing research right when I get the feeling that even though I am dealing with facts, the process is also an imaginative act. Little stumbled-upon details can illuminate a character or suggest a setting or trigger a scene, and tiny bits of trivia can open out onto much bigger vistas.

As for advice, the thing about research is that a person could theoretically do it forever. It would be impossible to ever truly hit a point where you know everything there is to know about a given topic. So you have to judge when to move on from research — or at least pure research — and into the writing phase itself. Eventually, you have to let your inevitably imperfect knowledge be enough so you don’t get stalled out. You can always move back into more research after you’ve begun writing if you need more info or detail for a particular chapter or scene.

A piece of advice that I find invaluable specifically for the relationship of research to fiction comes from Janet Burroway who got it from Mary Lee Settle. In her excellent text book, Imaginative Writing, Burroway says that Settle says: “Don’t read about the period your researching, read in the period,” meaning immerse yourself in the vernacular of that era — the memoirs, the letters, the magazines, the novels, etc. This recommendation helps ensure that the fiction doesn’t become too non-fiction-y, which is to say bogged down with excessive and almost journalistic detail at the peril of plot, voice, and character.

Moore: I think that’s great advice — especially since we get such a good feel of the ads and the poetry of Lillian’s time in your novel. There’s a witty, playful quality to her writing specifically; it’s not fluff as there’s often a seriousness and intention behind her work (both in her ad writing and her poetry). Later in the novel, Lillian is viewed as an anomaly in the ad writing that she’s done — do you think Lillian’s brand of writing is a lost art in advertising? What about poetry?

Rooney: Lillian’s era was one in which magazines and newspapers included verse in virtually every edition or issue, and in which the poets who write that verse could be handsomely paid for it. That era is over, but thanks to Poems While You Wait, I can say that people are still willing to pay good money for poetry. More importantly, I can say that people still like to read and enjoy it. Whenever we set up our typewriters somewhere to do poems on demand at five dollars a pop, we almost always encounter demand from the public that exceeds our supply. I get so bored when I hear people say that poetry is dead or that nobody reads poetry. It practically seems like the main poetry critics for the New York Times Book Review, for instance, David Orr and William Logan, are contractually obligated to say in every review something along the lines of: “Nobody likes this stuff, but here’s a review of a new poetry book anyway!” It’s tiresome. So sure, light verse is arguably a lost art, but people still love, need, and want poetry, especially poetry that is, like Lillian’s (and her real-life inspiration, Margaret Fishback’s) fun but serious. A great book coming out in 2017 that I think is a perfect example of light-yet-heavy and brilliant work is Bill Knott’s I Am Flying into Myself: Selected Poems 1960–2014, edited by Tom Lux.

Lillian’s kind of snappy, rhyming ad copy is mostly a lost art, too — or maybe less lost art and more just out of fashion. But I think that someone with her attitude — attentive, observant, generous, sharp, progressive and a great watcher of people — would still be well-suited to excel in the field of advertising, except in different structures and formats.

Moore: Now that we’re reaching the end of our interview, I’m going to cheat a bit and ask you multiple questions, all wrapped in one! Now that Lillian Boxfish Takes a Walk is out in the world, can you reflect on your experience with writing this novel? Has it been different from your other work? And, finally, what will you miss most about writing Lillian?

Rooney: Multiple questions in one — nice efficiency! And retrospection! I sent this novel to my agent in August of 2015, and St. Martin’s accepted it for publication in November of that year, so the book has been written for a while, and the actual experience of writing it feels far away, especially because I’ve been working on other projects — including Magritte’s Selected Writings and another novel — since then. But when I look back on writing Lillian, I have particularly fond feelings about working so closely with the Google Map I made of her route across Manhattan, a more artistically rendered version of which is on the inside cover of the book. The fact that my protagonist, though imaginary, had such a tangible path is something that sets this book apart from anything else I’ve done. I like that anyone could take her walk in real life if they were inclined to do so, and I’m grateful to St. Martin’s for doing such a gorgeous job with the map, because maybe some people will actually take it. As for what I’ll miss most about writing Lillian, there are so many things I like about her, but I think that here I’ll say: her lifelong work ethic. She is someone who loved her work and was able to lose herself and find joy and fun in it, and that made it easier for me, when it came to writing the novel, to do the same.

About the Interviewer

Timothy Moore has been published in McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, the Chicago Reader, and Entropy. He is a Kundiman fellow. He currently lives, teaches, and sells books in Chicago.

Ottessa Moshfegh’s Cold, Lonely World

In the introduction to his book Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life, professor and essayist William Deresiewicz writes: “The ability to engage in introspection… is the essential precondition for living the life of the mind, and the essential precondition for introspection is solitude.”

Though a hunk of metal and glass can hardly qualify as company, one cannot deny that true solitude is scarce inside the first-world bubble of interconnectivity. Writers in this modern world are incentivized to call attention to themselves as writers, to promote themselves, to be their own PR people, their own agents. Advocating for one’s writing in the public domain can overshadow a writer’s focus on many things, their own writing included. What impact is the interconnected world is having on the quality of our work and our perception of others’ work? Wouldn’t our work be better if we spent more time thinking, introspective, alone? Wouldn’t we care more about the quality of the work than the publicity around it?

Ottessa Moshfegh was born in May of 1981, the daughter of classical musicians from Croatia and Iran. From a young age, Moshfegh had ambitions of following in her parents’ footsteps to become a classical musician, and spent countless hours of her childhood practicing piano in isolation.

But in the end, Moshfegh chose another solitary craft. She began writing at the age of 13 and fell in love. A summer stay at the Interlochen Center for the Arts intensified her passion. She matriculated to Barnard College, and eventually attended the Brown University MFA program, from which she graduated in 2011.

For those who have never read Moshfegh’s writing, the following quote from her NPR interview with Scott Simon will give you some idea of what her work is like:

“I remember the first story I ever wrote. I can’t remember what it was called, but the first lines went like this. ‘I killed a man this morning. He was fat and ugly and deserved to die.’”

As this first effort indicates, Moshfegh’s writing leaves her reader cold and empty. But like all great fiction, her stories change the way you understand yourself and the world around you. All of those murky, repulsive things that have been lingering at the back of your mind about your boss, your wife, your son, your neighbor — suddenly they’re not so ugly any more. Suddenly they’re OK. Ottessa Moshfegh’s fiction does for the devil on your should what Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan novels do for female friendship.

Moshfegh began gaining notoriety with her short stories. She became a frequent contributor to the Paris Review, publishing six stories in the magazine between 2012 and 2015, and has also published stories in The New Yorker, Granta, and VICE. Her story “Bettering Myself” won the Paris Review’s Plimpton Prize for Fiction in 2013, the same year that she received the Wallace Stegner fellowship from Stanford University.

Moshfegh’s first longer effort, the novella McGlue, garnered her the FENCE Modern Prize in Prose in 2014. McGlue tells the story of a sailor with crippling alcoholism attempting to piece his life together as he struggles with his addiction in the underbelly of a whaling ship. FENCE Prize judge Rivka Galchen praised McGlue for its “mouthfeel of language:” indeed, with McGlue, Moshfegh displays an ability to create a language of her own, reminiscent of William Gibson’s effort in Neuromancer or Anthony Burgess’s in A Clockwork Orange. McGlue feels like the bowels of a ship, its words the dried blood and insects and spilled rum that warp the wood of its hull. It’s a gorgeous and bewildering first person account of a life that is somewhere between forgotten and ethereal.

Moshfegh’s short fiction continued to appear in the Paris Review and elsewhere until Penguin Press released her debut novel Eileen in August of 2015. Eileen tells the story of Eileen Dunlop, a secretary at a prison for boys who lives with her abusive, alcoholic father and whose world turns upside down when a gorgeous new colleague enters her life.

Though Eileen won the Pen/Hemingway Award for Fiction and was short-listed for both the National Book Critic’s Circle Award for Fiction and the Man-Booker Prize, it received mixed reviews. There is no denying the distinctiveness of Moshfegh’s writing, but Moshfegh maps her voice over a paint-by-numbers narrative structure that she clearly cribs from the noir genre. Eileen’s voice acts as the only force of narrative propulsion for the majority of the novel. The books begs us to read the last 40 pages for the first 220 pages. In the end, Eileen is a frustrating novel of atmosphere, a gorgeous vortex of exquisite sentences that chases its own tail.

Moshfegh subsequently gave some validation to the novel’s detractors. In a Masters Review essay entitled “How To Shit,” Moshfegh writes:

“A few years ago, when I was very broke, I made up my mind to write a novel that would appeal to a greater audience than my previous work. I deliberately embraced the conventional narrative structure in order to reach the mainstream. I pictured a plausible audience of avid readers as people who live vicariously through books — in other words, people with boring lives. I considered the personal paradigm of a bored, imaginatively escapist person. Boredom is a symptom of denial, I thought. A bored person is a coward, essentially. So I conceived of a character trapped by social mores, who plumbs the depths of her own delusions and does something incredibly brave; I thought that would be fun for the kind of audience I was writing to. Thus Eileen was born. And I did make a little money. I’m telling you this because many of my creative decisions were motivated by the emptiness of my bank account. I looked at the dominating paradigm and I abused it.”

Moshfegh here self-criticizes for allowing popular opinion to guide her art. Eileen was Moshfegh’s moment of imitation. She imitated to great acclaim, but her subsequent interrogation of her motivations behind the novel reveal a deep unease with her decision to allow popular norms and outside voices into her creative process. In trying to create something that would appeal to a broader audience, Moshfegh betrayed herself and felt dissatisfied with the resulting work.

With a dazzling novella and an acclaimed novel under her belt, Moshfegh’s next book is Homesick for Another World, a collection of fourteen short stories, out on January 17 from Penguin Press.

Homesick for Another World towers above Moshfegh’s previous two book-length efforts, containing multiples of the emotionality, tragedy, black comedy, pathos and genius of her previous two books combined. It is rare for an author’s collection of short fiction to have so much more power than their novel, but it is in fact the case that every story in Moshfegh’s collection packs the punch of her novel. Homesick presents us with 14 Eileens in a purer form, stretching across the the world, brought together in one volume to define who we really are and how pointless that definition is.

But this is no surprise to those familiar with Moshfegh’s short fiction. Each of her stories distills her brilliance. Ringing with heartless descriptions of the emotions of pathetic men and miserable women, her short stories create realities of isolation that grapple with the filth and visceral discomfort of what it is to be a human being. Her stories employ a brutalist nihilism, forcing you to follow a character into the inner depths of their self-inflicted pain. Each scene is a right hook of eloquent depravity. Each sentence is a hand-crafted bullet.

“Bettering Myself” encapsulates what it is to be young, fucked up and off the rails in New York. “The Weirdos” pits a narrator with no self-esteem against a methamphetamine-addicted psychopath. In “No Place for Good People,” Moshfegh dissects the plastic happiness and performative glee coating suburban America with far more darkness and far fewer words than David Foster Wallace. The end of “Slumming” places you before a harrowing act of cruelty and provides no clear explanation for this act. “Nothing Ever Happens Here” is an exquisite rendition of suffering and delusion in Los Angeles. “The Surrogate” contains some of the collection’s most memorable gems of self-hatred and fatalism. If you want to understand the headspace in which Ottessa Moshfegh operates, look no further than “The Locked Room,” the shortest story in the collection. “Mr. Wu” and “A Better Place” are the best stories in the collection; the ending of “Mr. Wu” detonates in your hands, while the ending of “A Better Place” pierces your heart like a splinter.

Ottessa Moshfegh has spent a great deal of her life alone. The vast majority of her characters are severely lonely. In her short stories, Moshfegh uses isolation to convey profound truths that simultaneously horrify and comfort you.

Moshfegh’s third book displays just how cutting and transcendent these truths can be. Homesick for Another World is a spider web dripping with existential pain and vapidity and self-obsession and lust, the very elements that most haunt us in this day and age of interconnectivity, the very forces that drive us to blog and to post and to tweet in search of some kind of fulfillment that these actions will never bring us. Her narratives fester beneath us, ancient ruins of existential despair. They remind us that it’s normal to be in pain, to feel sadness, and to keep our pain and sadness to ourselves. Her stories tell us that being lonely can be satisfactory. They make us disengage from the noise of the modern world and enter a vacuum in which we can look inward and think about who we are and what we care about and why we do what we do.

Ottessa Moshfegh is at peace with these stories. She wrote them without an audience in mind. She didn’t write them because she needed the money. She is not promoting them on social media. In fact, she has no public social media accounts. You won’t find a way to order her collection on her author website because she has no author website (as the New York Times’s Teddy Wayne pointed out). These stories are Moshfegh’s deepest, darkest moments of introspection. Let them in.

Adolescent Obsession and Chris Kraus’s I Love Dick

Our dance teacher was an ideal object of adolescent obsession for my best friend and I. We were fifteen and he was forty. A young, disheveled, oblivious forty, a working-class Michigan sports fan whom we never saw without a baseball cap on. He was bisexual and unmarried, chain-smoked cigarettes and argued with us as if we were equals. If we weren’t trying hard enough or he was simply in a bad mood, he would make us do punitive drills. “It’s too hot,” we’d say. “Hot is better than cold for your muscles times infinity,” he’d answer. He was the most exquisite dancer any of us had ever seen. Even the unobsessed were overcome by his dancing when it happened, which was rarely.

After each class my friend and I would sit in the backseat of my mom’s car and dissect every moment. What he wore, what sort of mood he’d been in, had he made eye contact with us, for how long? If he’d come around to readjust our bodies, what had his hands felt like, how many seconds did he touch us, did he touch me longer than her, what did that mean? “His hand was here.” We would touch each other. “From now till” — counting the seconds in our heads — “now.” Before we knew his age, we had spent hours hypothesizing. He might look older than he was because he smoked. He might look younger because he was an athlete. Or maybe he was ageless. We made him mythological — he never took his hat off; he showered in it; his head was shaped like a baseball cap; the hat we thought he wore was, indeed, his head.

This obsession, of course, had very little to do with our teacher and everything to do with my friend and me. He happened to be the perfect vehicle for our energy — he was unusual, solitary, and, most importantly, safe. But perhaps anyone would have done. Our focus was internally on each other, on this obsession we worked on together, this project. We fed off the other’s mania. If she hadn’t loved him too, I would not have loved him as much. We squirreled away each memory, gathered content for later, for when we would be alone together to continue our work. Sometimes we didn’t even hear him talking, because we’d been talking to each other about him.

Chris Kraus

It is this very specific category of obsession, that when I recognized it in the first few pages of I Love Dick triggered an exhilaration I haven’t felt since I was fifteen — the memory of a closeness I haven’t had with anyone else since my friend. At the beginning of the book Chris Kraus writes about the protagonist, Chris Kraus, and her husband, Sylvère, spiraling absurdly, terrifyingly, and very recognizably out of control. They take turns writing letters to Sylvère’s colleague, Dick, with whom they have had one dinner and a somewhat intimate overnight stay at his house because of bad weather.

At that dinner Chris unexpectedly “notices Dick making continual eye contact with her,” and finds herself a bit stirred, alerted to him. One page later, at Dick’s house, while the three are drinking, Chris sees that Dick is openly flirting with her. The couple watch a video of him dressed as Johnny Cash, and Chris’s complex reaction to his bad art strengthens her connection to him: “She dreams about him all night long. But when Chris and Sylvère wake up on the sofa bed the next morning, Dick is gone.”

Chris and Sylvère leave Dick’s house without seeing him again. “Because they are no longer having sex, the two maintain their intimacy via deconstruction: i.e., they tell each other everything. Chris tells Sylvère how she believes that she and Dick have just experienced a Conceptual Fuck. His disappearance in the morning clinches it…” With that, on page three, we’re off. We don’t really need Dick anymore. We are swept into Chris and Sylvère’s universe, where they wind each other up, pass the laptop back and forth, in bed for days, writing letters to Dick concerning Chris’s infatuation with him.

We as readers find ourselves wondering — less from the way this book is training us to think and more because of how the common conflicts in our lives have trained us — about jealousy. And indeed, Kraus writes, “Why does Sylvère entertain this?” Some reasons are offered: because he loves Chris and she is suddenly alive, because he himself is bored, avoiding other work, enjoying the collaboration. But, I would argue, these don’t fully encompass the hysteria which Sylvère participates in. In his own letters to Dick he wonders what they’re doing and about his role in it, trying to fit the phenomenon into a recognizable situation — “a ménage à trois” — and he himself into the stereotype of “the willing husband,” though none of it is right. The hysteria he shares with Chris is its own intellectual and emotional project, one separate from Dick. “They take turns giving DICK-tation. Everything is hilarious, power radiates from their mouths and fingertips and the world stands still.” The hysteria is Sylvère’s as much as Chris’s. And without his participation, without having him to share it with, I wonder whether Chris’s infatuation would reach the heights it ultimately reaches.

This shared experience between Chris and Sylvère is what’s missing in the adapted Amazon television pilot episode of “I Love Dick.” It’s been replaced by other elements that will perhaps be more successful across a full series — a new character, Devon (Roberta Colindrez), a neighbor of Chris and Sylvère’s, seems especially promising. But this shared hysteria is such a singular and powerful element in the book that it was what I had been most excited to see interpreted. And maybe it will be in the series’ subsequent episodes (the pilot — helmed by “Transparent” showrunner Jill Soloway — ultimately got picked up. This is only the beginning).

Kevin Bacon, Griffin Dunne, and Kathryn Hahn, in “I Love Dick”

Even if they portray it, the subtle but substantial differences in Sylvère’s character (Griffin Dunne) make me think that the hysteria will have a different tone. In “I Love Dick,” Chris (Kathryn Hahn) and Sylvère’s dry spell is far more highlighted, and a source of passive aggression between the two — a dynamic not particularly significant to the book. Sylvère demands that Chris read him the story she wrote about Dick after they have dinner with him. In hearing about her desire for someone else, he is aroused for the first time in a long time, and ends their dry spell in a brief, triumphant burst. In the book it seems that the intense intimacy of writing letters together ends their dry spell, more of a natural, mutual — if unceremonious — progression of emotions. The sex is mentioned only after thirty pages — “and then they made love” — but not described, which lends to a sense of fluidity in all their modes of intimacy: writing, talking, taking turns to make coffee, having sex, describing their dreams, juggling finances, and living all over each other.

Kevin Bacon, in “I Love Dick”

Dick in the pilot, too, differs from his text-based counterpart. He’s much more prominent in the show, and I suspect will continue to be. For one thing, he is played by Kevin Bacon, a perfect choice for the portrayal of the inaccessible cowboy. We also have scenes of him alone, signaling that he’ll perhaps be a character in his own right, and not one seen solely through Chris’s lens. In fact, so far he has been a much more active participant in instigating a situation with Chris. Dick on screen is shown to be visibly annoyed and disappointed when Chris mentions that she has a husband. At dinner he is provocatively insulting to her both as an artist and a person. And he’s aggressive, challenging her in a way that does indeed seem sexual. In the book, on the other hand, Chris’s idea that Dick has proposed some sort of game between them seems very much in her mind, an extension of her increasing infatuation, though Dick himself remains oblivious and uninvolved, no longer physically present at this stage. For Dick in the show it seems the game may very well be something real between him and Chris, something which doesn’t involve Sylvère.

Near the end of the episode, Chris and Sylvère’s neighbor Devon decides to write a play about the pair after observing them, describing the idea to friends as centering on “a couple from New York. It’s not about a couple; it’s about a woman. And she hates herself. And her husband, he kind of hates her too. And the play is about them figuring that out.” It seems that Devon is poised to be our interpreter in the series, which should come as a reassurance: calm, reasonable, and constitutionally the opposite of the other players in the drama, there’s no character I would rather have in that role.

Roberta Colindrez, in “I Love Dick”

I believe that this, Devon’s description, is what the show will ultimately be about. But it’s not how I would describe the book. The way Chris feels about herself and Kraus’s embedded ideas about Jewish 1990s art-world feminism — ideas that become expansive through their specificity in the book — are complicated. Perhaps topics better left for a separate discussion. As far as Sylvère is concerned, I did not read him as hating Chris, the way he loves her in some instances even bordering on the divine. He is committed to her well-being; he loves her separately from their togetherness.

These relationships as they’re shown in the pilot, between Chris and Sylvère, Chris and Dick, feel more common and categorizable than they do in the book. The conflicts are easier, more in the realm of situations we’ve seen before. And, in the book, Kraus eventually reaches beyond the hysteria between Chris and Sylvère, towards a simpler, perhaps more adult form of obsession. In her afterword, Joan Hawkins writes that the novel “establishes a fictional territory where adolescent obsession and middle-aged perversity overlap and intersect…” We see that as Chris goes on alone to write to Dick for many, many months. And maybe that’s the point: this particular kind of intimacy, this intense creation and cocooning that Chris and Sylvère engage in together is not sustainable. It’s rare, and — should it happen at all — it is fleeting. Maybe that’s why I haven’t experienced it in my life again since I was fifteen. Maybe I’m lucky to have experienced it at all.

In trying to describe the phenomenon I experienced with my friend — akin to that happening between Chris and Sylvère in the book — I’m perhaps doing something more similar to the Amazon pilot. I’m spending much more time describing our dance teacher — our Dick — than looking directly at an intimacy so intense that it transcended jealousy. That intimacy is much harder to study, harder to describe, because my friend and I weren’t opposite each other, staring at one another. We were side by side. We were completely together and staring out at the world.

Nothing Comes Back from the Dump

My daughter Moriah has been watching Inside Out, the 2015 film by Pixar Animation Studios. She has been watching it and watching it.

The first time was at a movie theater. I took her.

Her mother took her to see it again, some weeks later, at the second-run theater.

More recently, I paid fifteen dollars to Amazon.com so that we could stream Inside Out whenever we wanted.

Moriah watches it often, at least once every weekend, sometimes twice in one weekend. I don’t know how many times she has seen it, nor how many times I have watched it with her. It has been a lot of times.

Putting on a movie is a way for me and her mother to take a break from Moriah, from having to fulfill her needs, which are many. She needs to eat raisins, she needs to drink water. She needs to go to the bathroom. She needs to sleep, but doesn’t want to, and so has to be convinced to lie down and stay down. Her only need when watching Inside Out is to keep watching Inside Out, though she sometimes asks for popcorn.

Her only need when watching Inside Out is to keep watching Inside Out, though she sometimes asks for popcorn.

Moriah has not been obsessed with many movies. She has no patience for most of them. She is too afraid of Dave, the octopus in Penguins of Madagascar, to view it again, though I also paid Amazon fifteen dollars so that she could watch it when she wanted to.

There is no octopus in Inside Out. Instead there is a prepubescent girl, who moves from Minnesota to San Francisco and has an emotional breakdown. She is made to leave the vestiges of childhood behind and begin to become a teenager.

She has trouble, as people often do with that sort of thing. She gets into a fight with her parents while they eat Chinese food. She doesn’t seem to eat much of the food. Her parents disappoint her, as does all of San Francisco. She doesn’t like what they put on pizzas; she doesn’t like the house she is expected to live in.

She tries to run away from her parents and go back to Minnesota. She goes so far as to steal some of their money and climb aboard a bus that will take her home.

Sometimes I look away from the screen so that I won’t cry, but I still cry.

Then, at the last second, she has a change of heart. She returns to her parents. She confesses to them that she doesn’t like San Francisco. She misses Minnesota.

She cries, and every time she cries I cry, too.

Sometimes I look away from the screen so that I won’t cry, but I still cry. Sometimes I leave the room just at the moment Riley begins to cry, but even when I am in the next room I can hear it. I know what is happening in there. I am demolished by the crying scene, sometimes from several rooms away. I am not even someone who cries very often.

Moriah is someone who cries very often. She doesn’t cry when she watches Inside Out.

I don’t know what or how much she gets out of watching the movie. Her mother and I have spoken more than once about how relatively complex it is, how much of it might well elude her understanding.

Its exterior action is simple enough, with Riley moving from one region of the country to another, attending a new school for the first time, being humiliated in front of her classmates, doing poorly at a hockey tryout, and otherwise having a bad couple of days in the Bay Area. Those events, though, comprise just a fraction of the total running time. What makes Inside Out interesting, and what I probably don’t need to describe, since it’s a very popular movie that many people have seen, or at least know about, is that while all of this is going on in Riley’s life the film shows us what’s happening inside her mind. Five of her emotions — Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger, and Disgust — are personified and voiced by comedians. Inside of her, they take turns controlling her actions. They argue with one another about what’s going on in Riley’s life and what they should do about it.

Five of her emotions — Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger, and Disgust — are personified and voiced by comedians.

Two of the emotions — Joy and Sadness — have an adventure, one that corresponds with what’s happening to Riley in the parallel narrative of her move to San Francisco and its aftershocks. When Riley cries in front of her classmates, and is humiliated, Joy and Sadness are at that moment ejected from her Headquarters, leaving Anger, Fear and Disgust in charge, meaning that for most of the movie Riley cannot properly reckon with the situation at hand.

While Sadness and Joy are gone from Headquarters, they travel through Riley’s mind to the land of imagination, and to Riley’s islands of personality, which represent the most important elements of her self. There is an island for hockey, because Riley plays hockey, and an island for family, because Riley likes her parents. As we watch, the islands fall apart and drop into oblivion. Because her parents have removed her from Minnesota, Riley loses everything.

Moriah’s obsession with Inside Out — a movie about a girl who moves many miles away to a different part of the country — coincided with our own move to a different part of the country. At about the time she began demanding to see it again every weekend, we were preparing to leave Cranston, Rhode Island for Kansas City, Missouri.

Moriah’s obsession with Inside Out — a movie about a girl who moves many miles away to a different part of the country — coincided with our own move to a different part of the country.

It may have registered, for Moriah, that what she was watching Riley go through was about the same thing she was about to go through.

I don’t think it registered. I don’t think she really grasped what we, as a family, were about to do.

She would point out her bedroom window at night, sometimes, and tell me that the lights we saw out there were Kansas City.

Really it was more of Cranston, Rhode Island. It was the part of Cranston in which, last year, a former student of mine murdered his pregnant girlfriend and tried to burn her house down.

I didn’t tell that to Moriah.

There was a lot I didn’t tell Moriah: that she’d never see her friends from daycare again, after we left; that life would not be what it had been, better though it was likely to be. It is possible that what drew her to Inside Out again and again was what it told her about what was ahead, what changes were in store. I don’t know. I know she likes the part where Joy spins around and makes her dress twirl.

Between the start and end of Inside Out, Riley’s Sadness comes to understand her significance, as do the other feelings, while Riley grows up, maturing in a dramatic leap as she is displaced from where she spent her childhood.

Sadness, we see, wasn’t good for much in Minnesota. She caused Riley to overreact to small problems, like not getting what she wanted at the grocery store, losing her ice cream, and getting strapped into a car seat. A toddler’s sadness is small-time, the film shows us in a montage — and as I have seen firsthand, many times, not in a montage.

A toddler’s sadness is small-time, the film shows us in a montage — and as I have seen firsthand, many times, not in a montage.

I fucking wish. Moriah’s early sadness would have been laughable, more often than not, were it not so exasperating, did her tantrums not last so long.

The sadness of an adult or adolescent, the film shows us, is far more substantial than those fledgling sorrows. When you’re older you break down not when your dessert hits the pavement but when you lose the whole world you’ve always known, or when the career you spent the best years of your youth working for turns out not to be what you expected or wanted it to be.

You don’t throw a tantrum, when faced with adult sorrow and disappointment; you fight it until you can’t fight it anymore. You don’t lash out; you hide your face and weep, after staving off the tears for as long as you can.

A young girl, Moriah is still in the Minnesota stage of her sadness. It is one of the few things I can say about the contents of her mind with any certainty.

I know she thinks often of Inside Out, of Riley and the Joy and Sadness that live inside her. At playgrounds, Moriah declares herself Sadness, calls me Joy, and says we need to get back to Headquarters.

You don’t throw a tantrum, when faced with adult sorrow and disappointment; you fight it until you can’t fight it anymore.

I don’t know for sure that Moriah knows that the Headquarters in Inside Out is meant to be a representation of a part of Riley’s mind. Mostly, the film just switches from showing us what’s happening to Riley’s exterior to showing us what her feelings are doing inside her. It expects us to pick up on the correlation between these two dramatic theaters.

I know what the relationship is between them because I’ve watched a lot of movies, and I’ve seen things that similarly show what’s happening in someone’s mind and what’s going on with that person’s outsides.

These things include Fantastic Voyage, and the short film in Woody Allen’s Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex, in which Burt Reynolds and Tony Randall play operators of the brain of a man who is on a date with a woman. Woody Allen plays a sperm cell.

I don’t know that Moriah sees the correspondence between Inside Out’s parallel narratives of Riley and her feelings. She hasn’t even seen Annie Hall. She may only like watching both the Joy and Sadness narrative and the Riley narrative, and take it for granted that they are patterned together, not recognizing that they reflect one another.

I imagine that she does get it, especially after seeing it so many times. I don’t know, though. I have tried talking with Moriah about it, but when I ask her leading questions about Joy and Sadness she begins talking authoritatively about the film in a way that indicates to me that her understanding of it is warped, somehow.

At home and at school, at 3 ½ years, Moriah wants very much to be in charge of conversations about things she is not in a position to explain.

It is what Moriah does. She rarely admits that she doesn’t comprehend something. She covers up her failure to understand by declaiming about whatever it is she doesn’t fully get with great apparent authority. When I try to interrupt, she talks over me.

At home and at school, at 3 ½ years, Moriah wants very much to be in charge of conversations about things she is not in a position to explain. It is possible she learned this from me and her mother, as we have spent the last four years working as English professors. It is one way she has been blocking my attempts to see inside her head, to find out what’s going on in there.

I want to know what’s going on in Moriah’s mind, which I had a hand in bringing into this world. I want to know very badly.

Inside Out was made for children, ostensibly, but it does something parents want most, which is to let us see the contents of the brain of a child who is not unlike ours. As a father I am in a near-constant state of wanting to know what’s going on with Moriah, like when it is suddenly very important that I apply her toothpaste to exactly the center of the toothbrush bristles, but she doesn’t bother telling me that until I’ve already done it wrong, and she is livid.

Inside Out was made for children, ostensibly, but it does something parents want most, which is to let us see the contents of the brain of a child who is not unlike ours.

It seems to me that for parents like me, the appeal of Inside Out is that we are allowed to look behind the eyes of a child who has parents like us, who have problems with her like the ones we have with our children. “Do you ever look at someone and wonder,” says Joy in a voice-over at the start of the film, “‘what is going on inside their head?’”

Of course I do; I do it often, and I am willing to bet I wonder what’s going on in Moriah’s head much more often than she wonders what’s happening in mine.

Lots of kids’ movies have elements that only grownups appreciate, jokes that are intended to go over the heads of the children, but I think Inside Out is the one kids’ movie, out of all of them, that is really made for the people who drove the children to the theater, or bought the film for them on Amazon, and not the children themselves. There is more stuff in it than there usually is in a kids’ movie that’s bound to be lost on the children, like the stages of abstract thought that Joy and Sadness pass through, which include deconstruction.

Every time I’ve spoken with a grownup about Inside Out, that grownup says it made her cry.

Of course it did. It is supposed to make us cry.

I don’t know any children who’ve cried over Inside Out. Not small children, anyway. I haven’t asked any of the older ones.

That the movie was really made for adults doesn’t mean it strays from the story template that’s consistent throughout nearly all other Pixar movies, the formula followed by Toy Story, Monsters, Inc., Brave, The Good Dinosaur, probably Cars, which I don’t want to watch, because cars are boring, Up, and maybe A Bug’s Life, which is another one I don’t want to see. It looks dumb.

I don’t know any children who’ve cried over Inside Out. Not small children, anyway. I haven’t asked any of the older ones.

The Pixar formula goes like this: two characters who are by nature opposed to one another, but who enjoy a certain equilibrium under regular circumstances, are ejected from their regular circumstances. They spend the film returning to where they came from, reconciling their differences, and achieving a new equilibrium. It is usually the case that one of the two characters comes to understand the value of the other; he or she begins the film convinced that he/she is where it’s at, but learns the lesson that he/she isn’t really where it’s at, or isn’t the only one who is where it’s at.

Kids probably don’t know about the formula. If they do, I imagine they don’t care that it’s a formula. It certainly doesn’t bother me.

I don’t go to Pixar films for the elegant story structure. I go because there is a movie showing that won’t scare Moriah, and I don’t have many compelling ideas as to what to do with the young’uns.

I would love to be a dad who takes his kids into the woods to be with nature, who tells them about tree species and identifies fungi on their behalf. We don’t live near enough to the woods, though, for communion with the natural world.

In Rhode Island, sure, we lived near a city park, where I saw some natural things, like geese, and a hawk, one morning, who was gnawing on something dead. I also saw things I would call unnatural, like used condoms on the ground, and guys on benches trying out drugs. Those things are parts of the world, and I can’t change them. The men had as much of a right to the park as I did, but when Moriah saw them she asked questions I didn’t yet feel up to answering.

Moriah doesn’t even like to go on walks. When I try to bring her with me on walks, she demands that I put her on my shoulders. My posture is ruined.

I would love to be a natural dad, a paleo-father, but I can only be the father that my surroundings, and my children, permit me to be.

And I like going to movies. I like being in movie theaters. I like that watching a movie at the theater requires me to sit still and not look at anything but the giant screen for a while. I emerge feeling centered, probably because outside of movie theaters I am so distracted and befogged.

I would love to be a natural dad, a paleo-father, but I can only be the father that my surroundings, and my children, permit me to be.

I’ll go and see any movie, as long as it isn’t scary; I am too impressionable for scary. I’m happier if the film is good, and Pixar movies are usually good. Inside Out is good.

I have seen it so many times, now, that it doesn’t matter that it’s good. If it were bad, I would feel the same way about it as I do now.

I feel numb about it, mostly. The ending still makes me cry.

When Moriah and I play the game in which I am Joy and she is Sadness, which only she can initiate, she talks about the Dump. We can’t fall into the Dump, she says — meaning the memory dump in Riley’s mind, the great, black pit that underlies the landscape of Riley’s psyche. It is where all the pieces of Riley’s child mind go as she begins to grow up.

Throughout the film, we see relics from Riley’s childhood torn apart, bulldozed, and sent into the Dump, all of them gone for good. “Nothing comes back from the dump,” declares a mindworker with the voice of Paula Poundstone.

When Moriah and I play the game in which I am Joy and she is Sadness, which only she can initiate, she talks about the Dump.

When something enters the Dump in Riley’s mind, it sits in a massive pile of spherical memories as they turn grey, then black, and finally sublimate into mist and are gone.

I think often of how little of the time I’ve spent with Moriah will last very long, in her mind, how much of her life so far she won’t remember. She’ll be four, soon, but I think we haven’t yet crossed the threshold past which she is likely to have abundant, if hazy, recollections.

I think we’re still in what is bound to become, soon, the long dead zone of Moriah’s memories.

Everything here is going to the Dump. Nothing comes back from the Dump.

The house where we lived for three years in Rhode Island will be in the Dump. The time we’ve spent at playgrounds will have to go, though I am unlikely to forget it altogether. It helps that I’ve written it down.

The time we went to see Inside Out at the theater must be in the Dump, in both Moriah’s mind and mine; I know that we went to see it, and I recall how badly Moriah reacted to Lava, the short film that preceded Inside Out. Other details, though, have been lost to time and to repeated viewings of Inside Out.

Every time I’ve seen the movie, it’s been folded over itself. It’s all one mass of Pixar animation, now, bright and rich with color, a partially convincing imitation of real life.

It isn’t totally convincing.

The San Francisco that Riley moves to isn’t much like the one I saw in real life, when I spent two weeks there in the summer of 2004. I wasn’t really doing anything there. I was visiting a friend. It was the kind of thing I could do before the children took over.

In Riley’s San Francisco, as far as I can tell, there are no homeless people, and the only black person is the teacher at her school. The only Latino I have noticed in my repeated viewings is the Brazilian helicopter pilot, a man who is conjured up as a distant memory in the mind of Riley’s mother’s when the family eats dinner together. I don’t think he lives in San Francisco.

In Riley’s San Francisco, as far as I can tell, there are no homeless people, and the only black person is the teacher at her school.

Maybe there are non-white classmates at the school, but while their skin tones vary it isn’t clear what’s going on there, exactly. They don’t have lines, or do very much, in the scene in which Riley’s teacher asks her to talk about Minnesota.

Riley cries, then; only then does she begin to comprehend how much she’s lost and just how gone it is.

The young woman behind the counter at the pizzeria is white, as is the cool girl at school, as is the man who drives the bus that Riley boards when she makes her aborted escape attempt, at the end of the film.

I admit that it’s been years since I’ve been back, but when I went to San Francisco not everyone was white. In fact, in many parts of the city I went to, I was the only white person there. For two weeks I stayed in the Mission District, where the only other white people I saw were the ones I was staying with.

I don’t imagine this is news to anyone. San Francisco is known for its diversity, for not being full of people who look like me. It was something I liked about being there, as I have spent so much of my life among people who look a lot like me, or who are, at least, white.

In Inside Out’s San Francisco, nearly everyone is white — which is, to say the least, an interesting choice on the part of the filmmakers.

It isn’t as if Riley and her white parents have moved to a suburb, or an upscale neighborhood from which all non-white people would have, in a real-life San Francisco, been removed in the name of gentrification. Their Victorian home looks out on an alley. It may have once had a gay couple living in it.

In Inside Out’s San Francisco, nearly everyone is white — which is, to say the least, an interesting choice on the part of the filmmakers.

Speaking of which: early in the film, Riley’s Anger says he “saw a really hairy guy” as they made their way into the city. “He looked like a bear,” he says. It is the only suggestion that anyone in San Francisco is gay. When we see into Riley’s father’s mind, the personification of his Disgust is an unmistakable butch, but other than that Inside Out’s CGI city is the land of straight people.

When I went to San Francisco, everyone was gay.

Or, not everyone. I went to a Giants game, and found myself swarmed by straight people, or overtly straight people, the likes of which I had not seen in my time spent walking the city.

“Where the hell did all these straight, white people come from?” I remember asking the friend I was staying with. He didn’t know. But if you took all the people I saw at that Giants game and made them the only inhabitants of San Francisco, you would get the city portrayed in Inside Out.

I wonder if the demographics of Inside Out are in part reflective of the changes the real San Francisco has undergone since I was there, and since before I was there, with all the tech companies rolling in and driving everyone out.

Or else, it is the filmmakers’ imaginary San Francisco, the city they think it is, or want it to be, projected out of the offices of Pixar, which are awfully near San Francisco.

I don’t know what it means. It’s only something I couldn’t help noticing, the third time I watched Inside Out, and which I’ve noted again every time I’ve watched it since.

But it seems significant. And I have seen Inside Out enough times to also find it significant that Riley has blue eyes.

Her parents have brown eyes. I didn’t notice the disparity until probably the fourth time I’d watched Inside Out. It was at that time that I misremembered a presentation on YouTube by Helen Caldicott on the dangers of nuclear power.

It wasn’t the dangers of nuclear power I was wrong about; nuclear power is extremely dangerous. One of the reasons I am glad to have moved away from Rhode Island is that there are multiple nuclear power plants in the vicinity of Rhode Island which, if one of them melted down, would mean certain cancer for both of my children, their mother, and possibly me, too, if we don’t already have the makings of it in us from the fallout that traveled across the Pacific and spread across the United States when Fukushima went up.

I have seen Inside Out enough times to also find it significant that Riley has blue eyes.

The part of Caldicott’s talk that I messed up in my mind was that I thought she said if you have blue eyes and both your biological parents have brown eyes then those brown eyes came from “the milkman”; that because two people with brown eyes can’t produce a blue-eyed child the genes for those blue eyes must have come from elsewhere.

She doesn’t say that, though. It isn’t true. One night, recently, I watched her presentation all the way through again, renewing my horror at what humankind hath wrought in the form of impending nuclear death, which I am powerless to stop, in order to verify the thing she says about blue eyes. What Caldicott actually says is that if biological parents with blue eyes have a brown-eyed child then there must have been a milkman intervention.

This is good, I guess: I am the only one of my parents’ six children with blue eyes, and my parents don’t have them, either. Parents with brown eyes can have a child with blue eyes without it meaning anyone who delivers milk intervened in the sex life of one of them; it’s just unlikely that brown-eyed parents will produce a blue-eye. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

Except, I’m not the only one who has noticed this aspect of Inside Out. Late one night I watched another YouTube video that didn’t have Helen Caldicott in it. It starred a young man with glasses and a haircut, who spoke with the voice of an aspiring entertainment reporter about his theory.

His theory was that Riley was adopted by her parents; that neither of them is meant to be her biological parent. He cited as evidence of this her blue eyes and her parents’ brown eyes, and things less compelling, like the fact that in Riley’s birth scene, when Riley is born and Joy with her, they meet Riley’s parents, and both of them are equally calm. Neither one looks out of sorts, the way one does when one has just given birth, or has attended to someone in labor.

His theory was that Riley was adopted by her parents; that neither of them is meant to be her biological parent.

The YouTube guy speculated that this meant Riley’s parents adopted her, that they were there for her birth but weren’t directly involved.

But it could just as easily be an oversight on the part of the filmmakers, who make movies for children and not for YouTube guys who turn to cinema in search of evidence of adoption.

That he leapt to the conclusion that Riley was adopted, and not that she is the product of an adulterous affair, is boring, and isn’t reinforced by certain other elements of the film that might indicate instead that Riley’s mother hasn’t always been faithful to Riley’s father — or, in another scenario, that she didn’t couple with the man Riley now knows as her father until she was already pregnant by another man. Maybe she was in a porno movie.

In the dinner scene, Riley gets into a fight with her parents, culminating in her father shouting at her, “Go to your room.” It is then that Riley’s mother fantasizes, for a moment, about the man who’s referred to by her emotions as a “Brazilian helicopter pilot.” He appears, in a memory summoned by the mom’s feelings, and says to her, “Come! Fly with me, gatinha!”

“Gatinha” is Portuguese for “kitten,” or “pussy,” and it is possible that the helicopter pilot is Riley’s real dad. He has brown eyes, which doesn’t help this theory any. But it’s not outside the realm of possibility that, prior to his offer to fly Riley’s mother somewhere, which she presumably turned down, they had sex and she got pregnant.

Not that this is anything the filmmakers intended. I doubt they meant for Riley’s eye color to indicate anything about her mother’s sexual history. I suspect they merely knew that film audiences, like Pecola in The Bluest Eye, would identify most readily with a blue-eyed protagonist, and made Riley’s eyes blue for that reason, giving brown eyes to everyone else for some other reason, maybe to make her blue appeal stand out against a brown background. I don’t know.

Not that this is anything the filmmakers intended. I doubt they meant for Riley’s eye color to indicate anything about her mother’s sexual history.

But there are deliberate choices at work in this; it’s not as if they cast actors with certain eye colors and didn’t feel like getting them contact lenses. They made these characters from scratch, and were in control of everything. They could have made their eye colors consistent. They could have added some Latino extras to their exterior shots without even having to hire real Latino actors.

It must have come up, at Pixar headquarters, that certain viewers would see the characters’ eye colors and interpret them a certain way. Or maybe it didn’t come up, and they focused more of their attention on Joy, Sadness, and the rest of Riley’s mind, to the exclusion of other things.

When we see into Riley’s mother’s mind, Sadness is the feeling that predominates, the one that presides over her psyche in the scene in which we see into her head. Sadness sits at the center of her control panel. All other feelings defer to her.

When we see into Riley’s father’s mind, it’s his Anger that’s in charge — which is consistent with the fact that in the family he seems to be the authoritarian. Among his feelings, there is a clear pecking order; his Sadness, Disgust, Joy and Fear call his Anger “sir.” This dad isn’t angry most of the time, but he is the one in the family who gets angry most often.

The mother is never angry, which is not consistent with my experience of mothers. I haven’t found them to be particularly angry, but their tempers do rise from time to time.

The mother is never angry, which is not consistent with my experience of mothers.

It could be that the anger disparity between the two parents is meant to say something about the individual Inside Out characters only, and not about men and women generally. Maybe Riley’s mother is guided by sadness for reasons specific to her — like because she should indeed have chosen the Brazilian gyrocaptain, and she knows she cannot reverse her fateful decision not to fly away with him.

Maybe her husband is trapped in his anger because he suspects, rightly, that his wife longs often for the Brazilian helicopter pilot she could have — should have — absconded with. He knows he’s no helicopter pilot, and maybe Riley’s mother faced that crossroads after Riley was born. Maybe he told her, “Fly with me, gatinha,” when Riley was two or three, and he meant to save her from a dull life in Minnesota with an angry husband, to take both her and Riley with him someplace better, someplace sexier than Minnesota, like Brazil, or nearly any other place in the world, except maybe Germany.

Maybe Germany is sexier than I’m giving it credit for. Maybe Minnesota is, too.

And I admit that I don’t like what I have been doing here, looking for adult themes in a children’s movie. This essay is becoming something like those parodic or — worse — pornographic drawings of children’s cartoon characters having sex with one another. Or a version of the song “I Love to Laugh” from Mary Poppins, with the lyrics rewritten so that it’s about the faces people make during orgasms. I hate that I’ve had the idea for that.

The Inside Out mother isn’t sad for sexual reasons. I imagine she is driven by her Sadness, the father by his Anger, because that’s how they at Pixar know their audience is likely to see men and women. It isn’t a perception they invented; it is consistent with how men and women are often portrayed — with Achilles and Helen, Hades and Persephone, men in Woody Allen films and women in Woody Allen films.

I wouldn’t have minded an Inside Out in which these expectations are disappointed, where gender roles are complicated, where it’s not the father but the mother who has led the family to San Francisco so that she can start a new business. But mainstream cartoons aren’t generally where that sort of work is done.

When so much money is on the line, you don’t risk failure, or anything like it, by showing people that dads are full of sadness, or that anger can persist in a mother’s mind at a low boil.

It cost $175 million to make Inside Out. When so much money is on the line, you don’t risk failure, or anything like it, by showing people that dads are full of sadness, or that anger can persist in a mother’s mind at a low boil until a child’s recalcitrance sets it off, or that a woman can show initiative and start a new business. Essays are better places to do that sort of thing; it cost me nothing but time to write that last sentence, and I stand to make, from having written it, either a little bit of money or none at all.

I have no investors. There is no one checking in to make sure I’m on schedule and within my allotted budget.

I don’t have an allotted budget. No one even knows I’m writing this.

But in defense of looking for adult themes in Inside Out, it is the story of a girl who’s on the verge of becoming an adult. It would be appropriate, or at least clever, of the filmmakers to include things in it that the adults in the audience might see but which their real kids and the fictional Riley are oblivious to, or that they don’t see the significance of, or wouldn’t understand, but probably will understand soon enough.

Maybe Riley is adopted and doesn’t know it. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to get that across not to the children but to the more alert grownups. Or to grownups who aren’t especially alert but who see the film over and over again, weekend after weekend.

Helen Caldicott says we are on the brink of nuclear annihilation, that we have never been as close to it as we are now. We should have universal healthcare, she implores in a lecture you can watch on YouTube. Instead we have the Pentagon, which is working day and night to force Russia against the wall, when they’re already so close to the wall we’re lucky we haven’t been vaporized yet by way of their nuclear warheads, they by ours.

If the missiles come, they will collide with us at twenty times the speed of sound. We won’t even hear them. No one will be left alive.

But I have seen Inside Out so many times now that it matters to me, in spite of all that.

I didn’t realize, before I had children, that taking care of them entails living partway — more than partway — in their world. Or I knew it, but hadn’t lived it. I didn’t get it completely.

I didn’t realize, before I had children, that taking care of them entails living partway — more than partway — in their world.

The share of my mind that the children have claimed is growing all the time; the older they get (Moriah has a little sister) the longer they stay up at night, the more insistent their demands become. Tonight I may watch a television show that has violence and swearing in it, or watch footage on YouTube of Helen Caldicott telling an audience of presumably concerned people about the dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Tomorrow I will wake up and look after the children.

I am in their world. I can’t get out. I come up for air, but not as often as I’d like, not enough to prevent myself from writing about childish things, without them impressing themselves on me as essential things.

People who make movies for children must know what distress there can be for those who are in charge of the children, who look after them. It must be why they throw the parents bones, here and there, giving them things to understand at the expense of the children, jokes to laugh at that kids won’t get for many years.

Inside Out goes farther in this than other Pixar films do.

Near its end, when Riley is on the bus to Minnesota, where all her good memories were made, and where Anger has decided Riley should return, the bus begins making its way out of the city. It nears the interstate, and as it does Riley’s control panel begins to turn black.

Joy and Sadness still have not returned. The three feelings left in the control room have lost control. They don’t understand what is happening. Neither do we in the audience.

Joy and Sadness still have not returned. The three feelings left in the control room have lost control.

It could mean that Riley will die soon, if she doesn’t change her mind.

It could mean Riley is making a decision that has deep implications for her, that she’s doing something that will make her go evil. It could mean she is about to be abducted, that there’s someone on the bus who’d like to keep her in his basement for the next dozen years.

It seems that the worst thing that could happen is about to happen to her, something that would cause her far more prolonged suffering than the sudden detonation of a hydrogen bomb, which would, at least, be quick.

I know of only a handful of scenes from children’s movies that are as dark as this one.

One is when Optimus Prime dies in the original Transformers movie.

Another is the start of An American Tail, when the village that the Jewish mice live in is torched by Cossacks.

I know of only a handful of scenes from children’s movies that are as dark as this one.

Even that isn’t as memorable as the part in The Rats of NIMH in which Mrs. Frisbee’s children are in a house that’s sinking into mud and just this side of drowning. A cartoon rat in that movie gets knifed in the back, too, if I remember right.

Then there is the scene in Watership Down where a rabbit has a vision of a forest that runs with blood and seems to melt into the sky. I will never forget the sight of that.

In another version of Inside Out, one that’s a little more daring, and less a product of its time, the movie might start with Riley getting on a bus to escape from her parents and the new life they have chosen for her.

In a different Inside Out, it wouldn’t be the near-end of Riley for her to leave the city on her own. Another kind of Inside Out might start with its hero, a young girl, abandoning the world of her parents in the hope of finding something better.

I am inclined to take Riley’s side, when she gets on that bus.

I’ll admit that this is in part because I’ve done something similar. Like Riley’s parents, I made a decision to move far away in search of a better job and a bigger life. Like Riley, I have done what I could to take that decision back. With the family I co-created in Rhode Island, I have come running back to Missouri, where we have a chance at feeling like we’re at home, the way Riley felt when she was in Minnesota.

Another kind of Inside Out might start with its hero, a young girl, abandoning the world of her parents in the hope of finding something better.

I don’t think it’s wrong of Riley to want to leave and go home. Her parents have gone west to help whiten a whitening city. It seems like a regrettable project to be a part of. It’s not like she chose to go with them.

We don’t know the nature of her father’s new business. What are the chances that it’s a good business? He’s not starting an environmental advocacy group. He didn’t go there to work with Black Lives Matter.

He took his family there so that he could make money. They seemed to be doing all right in Minnesota, though; they had a house and a car. They had nice furniture.

It seems to me that Riley’s angry dad has given up everything that made him and his family happy in search of more money; that when Riley gets on that bus, she is turning her back on her father’s greed. She is choosing life over wealth.

But because this is a film that’s really been made to satisfy the desires of the parents who watch it, for Riley to slip out of their control and try to run away has to be a bad thing, the worst she could do.

I don’t want Moriah to run away from home. I’m not that kind of dad. But not all children’s movies portray Riley’s sort of rebellion as tragic.

Maybe the parents of today, like me, can’t handle even fictional children acting out like Riley does.

When I was young, the video game company Nintendo released a promotional film disguised as a kids’ movie called The Wizard, about a few kids who run away from home. It was a horrible movie, but the runaway kids were its heroes, and there are plenty of better movies that feature children who are wiser than their parents, and who do the right thing despite them or without their knowledge. E.T., Gremlins, The Goonies, Small Soldiers, Explorers, Flight of the Navigator, The Neverending Story, The Iron Giant, Home Alone — all of them privilege the good sense of the children over the oblivion of their parents.

Maybe the parents of today, like me, can’t handle even fictional children acting out like Riley does. It has to be a tragedy for her to have a risky adventure without her legal guardians there to keep her safe.

Maybe all of our fictional children have to suffer, now, when they step out of line.

Another popular film, also by Pixar, Finding Nemo, features an overprotective fish parent whose son tries to escape his grasp, and who goes on an adventure as a result of his defiance. But he only embarks on that adventure because he’s been captured by a human being. He is taken away against his will. His journey into the unknown is a punishment for his having stepped out of line.

These movies are wildly popular, and lucrative. Dads like me eat up what they have to offer like it’s movie theater popcorn.

Of course we do: they are movies about children who are punished for their disobedience. It’s exactly the thing that we want to see.

I want Moriah to stay here with me, and not get on a bus to Rhode Island. I want her to do all the things I ask and expect her to do. Surely, though, by now she has earned some wish fulfillment, something in the culture she absorbs that reflects what she wants over what I want. That’s not what Inside Out has to offer.

Maybe that’s what Dora the Explorer has to offer. Maybe that’s why she keeps asking to watch the same few episodes of it over and over.

I don’t think that’s the reason, though. I don’t have any idea what she sees in Dora the Explorer. Made to look like a point-and-click computer game from the early 1990s, it looks as if it were produced by joyless people, out of a sense of obligation. Inanimate objects sing the same songs in every episode. Dora’s map sings a song the lyrics of which are “I’m the map.”

He sings it over and over again. It is enough to make me miss Inside Out.

I don’t miss Inside Out anything like I miss the girl Moriah was at the time she was most obsessed with it.

She is still the same girl, but she isn’t; she changes so dramatically from one month to the next that when I look at old photos of her I feel as if I have known many Moriahs by now, like she has been replaced again and again by newer models of daughter.

I don’t miss Inside Out anything like I miss the girl Moriah was at the time she was most obsessed with it.

Nothing comes back from the Dump, says Riley’s mindworker, and I imagine that’s what makes me cry every time Moriah watches Inside Out, aside from the sad music that plays at the end, and the words Riley says, and everything else. I know that all the Moriahs my daughter has been are gone and are not coming back. I have the current model, and I am lucky for that, and thankful, but she’ll be gone soon, too, replaced with a taller Moriah, one who is calmer and who asks bigger questions. She will gain so much, but something will be lost, and all I will have of the girl I have woken up too early for, so many times, and sat through Inside Out with, so many times, are my memories, which fade and turn to mist just as rapidly as hers do.

Writing that Twists the Knife

The Man Who Shot Out My Eye is Dead is an invigorating debut story collection. Chanelle Benz writes with beauty and formal invention about an ever-expanding set of time periods and subjects, taking innumerable risks along the way. What makes it stand out, however, is the way Benz always keeps one eye looking towards whatever hurts the most.

The collection opens with “West of the Known,” which is set sometime between 1850 and 1912, back when New Mexico was a territory of the United States. It follows Lavenia, an orphan who is living with her Aunt, Uncle, and their abusive son. Her brother, Jackson, comes to take her with him, and she joins his group of bank robbers. Benz is acutely focused on how Lavenia’s gender changes the manner in which people treat her. The big stakes in the story play well, highlighting the treachery of navigating a sexist paradigm.

Benz hits her stride with the next story, “Adela, Primarily Known as The Black Voyage, Later Reprinted as Red Casket of the Heart.” The piece is written from a collective first-person perspective and footnoted as though it were an edited text in need of clarification. Adela is, more or less, trying to find love and the narrators are trying to exert control over when and with whom. Information about the characters comes slowly but steadily, and Benz knows how to use each drop to twist the dynamics. It works marvelously.

“All good story collections coalesce into something greater than the sum of their parts.”

Perhaps the most remarkable story in the collection is “The Peculiar Narrative of the Remarkable Particulars in the Life of Orrinda Thomas, An American Slave, Written by Herself.” Thomas is a talented writer and poet who goes to Louisiana from Massachusetts, where she lives, with Crawford, the man who is enslaving her but has told her she is free. It’s written as a series of personal letters, which Benz uses well. Thomas is always concerned with the safety and treatment of those who are enslaved on the plantation where she has been hired to perform, but the way her relationship to their subjugation and dehumanization changes when she learns of her own enslavement is powerful.

All good story collections coalesce into something greater than the sum of their parts, but The Man Who Shot Out My Eye is Dead does so more than most. Benz has a deep understanding of the way people are marginalized by their gender, race, class, and other identities, and she finds a way to evoke that in every story. This creates a great deal of tension throughout the entire length of the book. The character’s never seem far from encountering what they — and by extension, the reader — fear most. This is felt deeply in James III, a story about a boy who has run away from home. The safety of the characters is never guaranteed and Benz makes sure the reader has no chance to escape.

The high-reaching success of most of these pieces makes the one — and there really is only one — story that doesn’t work hurt worse. “That We May All Be One Sheepfolde, or, O Saeculum Corruptisssiumum,” the book’s closing story, is ambitious and formally impressive, but the prose-style feels forced and, ultimately, it just doesn’t land.

Still, as a book, The Man Who Shot Out My Eye is Dead is exhilarating in a visceral way. Benz has an innate sense of what formal choices work best for a story, and that is clearest in “The Diplomat’s Daughter.”

After an opening heading, which reads, “The Kalahari Desert, Beirut, 2001–2011,” the story begins:

Natalia used to be a wife. His name was Erik. His name was Viggo. His name was Christien. His name was Lucas. His name was Nils.

He hit her. They had no children. He drove a motorcycle. Ran a company. Was a pastor, a surfer, an accountant. He taught her how to shoot, to drink, to bleed. Her husband. Her boss. Her man.

The story is told out of chronological order, but the headings are there to make it easy to follow. One character, Natalia’s husband, is referred to by many different names, interchangeably, because he is a mercenary and Natalia must call him different names at different times for their work. Benz manifests the confusion in the text so that the reader can feel it too, so that the reader can have all the necessary pieces of information to read a paragraph, or sentence, or word correctly and still be off-balance. Benz, more than most writers, has a sense of how to twist her words and style and structure to make what the characters are feeling levitate off the page.

This may be the most exciting debut story collection to come out since I Am an Executioner by Rajesh Parameswaran came out in 2012. Each story has its own surprising element, that, in the hands of Benz, feels wholly new and unique. The Man Who Shout Out My Eye is Dead is a wonderful achievement of a book. To speak of her potential — which seems limitless — seems to do a disservice to the great work she has already done. She is going to be a writer to watch for years. The stories in this collection are vital, and it’s only the beginning.

This Video Shows How Far Libraries Have Come

Watch a 1950s educational video on how libraries used to be organized

In our digital age where you can search the contents of books through Google and check out books with cellphone apps, it is hard to believe we ever managed without the internet. But we did. As the below video shows, libraries used to be organized by hand with card catalogs. Hat tip to Mental Floss for uncovering this library time capsule.