PEN American Center “From the Missing Shelf” depicts a startling trend in banned books
Every year Banned Book Week falls on the last week of September. It’s an occasion to celebrate the freedom to read whatever our hearts desire despite censorship efforts from the easily offended.
PEN America is a hybrid organization that is deeply concerned with where literature and human rights meet. At the start of this year’s BBW they released a report that uncovers an alarming pattern in children’s literature. According to their research on commonly challenged or banned books, PEN America found that “books by or about people of color, people who identify as LGBT, and people with disabilities (“diverse books”) are significantly more likely to be challenged or banned even as they make up a disproportionately small fraction of all published literature.” The study comprehensively looked into how book bans have been reviewed in the news, diversity in publishing, and also featured interviews with authors and editors.
The most unfortunate consequence that PEN discovered from their analysis of banned books was that kids are not being exposed to a diverse range of characters in the stories that they read. Book lovers know just how important reading is in shaping one’s world and imagination. The report calls for action and change. We recommend giving it a read.
The prolific horror author is “terrified” of a Trump presidency
The monster hiding under Stephen King’s bed isn’t the terrifying clown from It, and it’s something the author finds far more fearsome than a deranged Jack Torrance. What pokes and prods at King from beneath his mattress is apparently Donald J. Trump. In a recent tweet the bestselling author said that Trump “is actually Cthulhu” and explained the Republican candidate’s “absurd hair” is a convenient cover for the tentacles.
King hasn’t shied away from expressing his contempt for Trump this election season. On Saturday at the Library of Congress National Book Festival, he appealed to his experience as a former English Teacher to explain why he saw a Trump Presidency as so disastrous:
“We live in a society where many believe that libraries and other cultural endeavours… are of minor importance. As if learning to think is a thing that just happens naturally, like learning to walk. Believe me, it’s not. Learning to think is the result of hard work and steady effort.”
King told the crowd that the diminishing importance of cultural institutions, such as libraries, has led to an “illiteracy or semi-literacy in a national population,” which makes it possible for candidates like Trump to have a real shot at becoming commander-in-chief.
King also pinpointed what he sees as one of Trump’s main campaign strategies: fear. “We’re afraid the government is going to take away our guns, we’re afraid that Mexico is going to invade the United States, we’re afraid of this, we’re afraid of that, we’re afraid of taxes, we’re afraid of transgender bathrooms — the whole thing.” King, the well known expert in the nuances of fear, said that frightening people was Trump’s way of keeping them from having a rational discussion.
King continues to fight his anxieties about national illiteracy by donating to small libraries, which was one of several reasons the National Book Festival was honoring him this past weekend.
However, come November, American libraries might need to look for a new benefactor, as King has threatened to move to Canada if Trump wins.
Narcissism creates privilege, and privilege feeds narcissism. The two create a cycle, rhythmically obsessing about, you guessed it, themselves. Earlier this year, in an article at The New York Times, Arthur C. Brooks declared narcissism as an “epidemic.” Brooks reported the alarming increase at which narcissism is infiltrating college campuses. The article spoke to our craving for social media attention, but it also did something else: it raised the point that narcissism and the privilege that it invokes can be dangerous. According to Brooks, narcissists “create havoc and misery around them. There is overwhelming evidence linking narcissism with lower honesty and raised aggression.” Loving ourselves is a dangerous game.
Teddy Wayne’s latest novel, the brilliantly terrifying Loner, shows how dangerous narcissism can be, but first, Wayne dabbles in sympathy. When we meet David Federman, he’s arriving at Harvard University. Both he and his teachers describe David as “somewhat of a loner.” The initial reasons for his isolation seem clear; he’s a misunderstood genius. He intentionally transposes words — it’s his special “social power” — in conversations: “tucitcennoc (Connecticut), citelhta (athletic), draynal (lanyard).” When he isn’t saying words backwards, he’s using such an advanced vocabulary that a person without a graduate degree would have a hard time following him. In the initial sections with David, it doesn’t appear that he means to be so overtly intelligent. He says, “I didn’t have the untrammeled intellectual curiosity of the true polymath. I was more like a mechanically efficient Eastern European decathlete grimly breaking the fish-line tape or heaving a javelin.” He’s someone on the outside — someone lost, searching for his way.
“Teddy Wayne’s latest novel, the brilliantly terrifying Loner, shows how dangerous narcissism can be.”
David’s status as a loner certainly isn’t an uncommon one — not by the world’s standards and not by literature’s own, either. In fact, some of 2016’s most celebrated novels revolve around misfits. Take for instance Jesse Ball’s How to Set a Fire and Why. The misunderstood Lucia is a both a sputtering and flaming ball of misdirected angst. In The Doubter’s Almanac, Milo’s brilliance sets him apart from anyone and everyone. Evie, the quiet heart of Emma Cline’s The Girls, craves acceptance. David’s situation in Loner, however, is different than those of his literary counterparts. His separation, we slowly realize, is deliberate. He wants — no, desires — to be a loner because the only thing he cares about is personal satisfaction.
At Harvard, David meets Sara, another young, social misfit. Initially, the two seem like the ideal couple. They give one another support, and they spend the evenings together. David tells her, “To be honest, you’re the only one here I’ve really talked to in any depth.” He knows what he’s doing all along, though, and it doesn’t take long for us to realize it, too. He’s trying to get something. He lies and manipulates Sara on repeated occasions. He takes her virginity. He fools her into thinking that he values her. Those acts are bad on their own, but the reasoning behind them makes them worse: he wants Veronica Wells, Sara’s beautiful roommate, and the only way to get her is to go through Sara.
“He wants — no, desires — to be a loner because the only thing he cares about is personal satisfaction.”
David basks in David. Every action he makes is methodically planned and calculated. His entire relationship with Sara is based on his narcissistic desire to attain something (or someone) that he deems as being better. In his personal life, he behaves similarly selfishly. He has a Facebook account, but he doesn’t use the social media site to socialize; instead, he uses it to get information to help him plan. He admits, “I don’t use the site myself except for voyeurism.” While he watches other people live their lives, he is careful to not allow his own life to be available: “I had hidden my list of friends and prohibited anyone from posting on my wall.” David is a man obsessed with control.
What makes David the most reprehensible is that he doesn’t care how cruel he is. The reason he behaves so narcissistically is because of his privilege. His parents are lawyers. His intellect seems to know no bounds. And, at the end of the day, he’s a straight, white young male attending Harvard. Why should a quiet girl’s feelings matter to him? Why shouldn’t he be able to manipulate a beautiful woman into a relationship with him? He believes the world is in his hands, so he behaves that way. Nothing other than his own satisfaction matters.
As cringe-inducing and upsetting as much of David’s actions are, it’s impossible to deny him our sympathy. After all, he is a lost person, alone in the world and void of any meaningful connections. Yes, he’s narcissistic. Yes, he’s cruel. And, yes, he does it all to himself, but, still, he’s alone. We can’t be so privileged as to deny him our pity. If so, what makes us any different from him?
“What makes David the most reprehensible is that he doesn’t care how cruel he is.”
Characters such as David, those being selfish, disturbed, alone, and ultimately privileged, aren’t uncommon. One of American literature’s most iconic characters, Ignatius J. Reilly, fits into the same mold.
Ignatius of John Kennedy Toole’s A Confederacy of Dunces is perhaps the classic narcissistic loner. Living as a young man in New Orleans in the 1960s with his mother, he struggles to fit in with in not only with his peers, but also with the society at large. Physically, he’s overweight, and he wears a green hunting cap. Those two things automatically provide Ignatius with some level of separation. However, it’s his unrivaled intellect and self-obsessed personality that completely take him out of normalcy. He doubts he’ll find a job because, as he says, “I suspect that they can see that I am forced to function in a century I loathe.” The culture doesn’t suit him, so he revolts against it. He’s constantly pessimistic. He’s sarcastic. He’s angry. He’s cruel. Mostly, though, he’s narcissistic. He refers to himself as having a “god-like mind.” Everyone who isn’t him drowns in faults. People who aren’t as educated as him are too vapid to understand life. He is so accustomed to such a privileged existence of being a white male intellectual that he doesn’t even recognize (or care) that he’s racist, homophobic, and sexist.
Holden Caulfield (J. D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye), Jay Gatsby (F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby), and Patrick Bateman (Bret Easton Ellis’ American Psycho) are others who possess a mixture of loneliness and privilege. These young men have so much — wealth, education, and opportunity, but, still, they carry on selfishly. The reason: because they can.
With Loner, Teddy Wayne has written a masterclass on the privilege found in white male narcissism. David’s story is difficult to read, but it’s necessary. How else are we to be reminded of how badly the world needs empathy?
A pilot carried us through night and we arrived as late revelers mingled with those who slept where they weren’t supposed to sleep. Tired and thus more given
to indiscriminate attraction, I fall for the Caravaggio hanging nearest: Judith traded sackcloth for gown, wooed then dispatched besotted Holofernes,
and though she’s jewel-less, the joke works: he’s a victim of fashion. Poor Holofernes, never to see the morning’s pigeons, the market draped
with fog until it isn’t — suddenly, the vendor’s dog is shining, sun doubles on its bare patch of skin. Hit with light like that, what creature wouldn’t glow
from the inside out. And what landscape, now clothed, wasn’t raised in the wild. Our ticket permits re-entry from now until the weekend. Beyond this, two
routes determine our revision. The first reflects the past; its concerns are familiar. The other covets fashion. The future. What will people wear then?
Reigning world’s highest paid novelist, mystery/thriller titan James Patterson, has cancelled the release of his new “fan fiction” novel, The Murder of Stephen King. Although, he claimed, via press release, the “book is a positive portrayal of a fictional character, and…the main character is not actually murdered,” Patterson also expressed concern for King’s comfort, likely motivated by recent uninvited fan arrivals at The Shining author’s house. King was not involved in the production of the novel.
Oddly, this wouldn’t be the legendary author’s first fictionalized appearance. King wrote himself into his expansive Dark Towerseries. That rather meta version of King writes a book within the book about the novel’s protagonist, gunslinger Roland Deschain. Much like his unpublished Patterson counterpart this King, despite many attempts on his life, also goes un-murdered (however he does suffer a car crash not dissimilar to the real Stephen King’s 1999 wreck in Maine).
Here are some other examples of authors appearing in novels they did and didn’t write:
The path of the writer is not generally associated with happiness and fulfillment, yet a new batch of keyboard-clicking hopefuls is always around the corner, with dreams that center on creating new work and expecting it to lead to just such a place. It behooves both the budding and experienced writer to reasonably look at their chances at such a life. For every Rowling, Franzen, and Strayed, there are tens of thousands — maybe hundreds of thousands — of wordsmiths stuck at some level of the game far below their expectations. It might not be too late to shake the habit and become a CPA, or get Microsoft certified.
Adam O’Fallon Price portrays writers on both ends of this continuum in his debut novel The Grand Tour. First, Richard Lazar is a middle-age novelist who, five books into a failed career, finds himself with an unlikely hit, a memoir of his time as a serviceman during the Vietnam War. This success has prompted press accolades and a national book tour, but it feels too little too late for Richard, who can’t quite summon enough sobriety and political correctness to play the game. Price best renders Richard’s state through the eyes of the people around him. “At [Richard’s] once-a-decade checkup, in March, the doctor frowned at him over the report on the clipboard — an exhaustive detail of Richard’s bad habits and inadequacies — and asked what he thought the life expectancy was for a fifty-three-year-old, one-hundred-pounds-overweight drinker.” Richard spends the novel trying to fight his way out of his malaise, and reader empathy sways along with him as he battles for both literary and personal redemption. “What did he need?” Price writes. “To mark the moment, to celebrate, to hear a sincere word of congratulations. For the tree of his present success to not fall silently in the woods of his past failure.” It’s Richard’s missteps and insensitivities that frequently make others cover their ears.
On the opposite end of the writer continuum is Vance, a nineteen-year-old fringe college student with an absent father, sick mother, and novel manuscript he hopes someday will lead to a life worth living. Vance — who considers Richard a literary hero — offers to drive the ersatz memoirist on his book tour. It’s a bold step for the young man, who struggles to connect with anything that doesn’t exist between perfect-bound pages. Price writes of Vance after he witnesses an accident involving a young woman, which unwittingly leads to the woman kissing him:
“Why, he wondered, thinking for the hundredth time about the car hitting her and her small, crumpled body rising as though lifted by invisible wires; the glint in her eyes as she looked at him; the funny sweet smell or taste, he wasn’t sure which, that emanated from her as they kissed. Why now, why her? This line of questioning always ended with a shrug, a tug, and a shudder, another damp tissue thrown in the plastic trash under the sick.”
His chauffeuring of Richard is Vance’s attempt at a deeper engagement with the world, which might be the best — or perhaps only — gift the older writer has for him.
Price also includes passages from Richard’s memoir in the novel, and these unfold naturally as the twosome travels from reading to reading. The memoir is a first-person account of the uncertain transformations brought about by war, written by a world-weary former infantryman at some remove from his fighting days. “Though we were young, most of us were not dumb or naive enough to pretend we knew how we’d respond in a real battle. That was why we imagined it and talked about it at great length — we were trying on the clothes of a soldier the way a child tries on a father’s suit. We hoped we were up for it and feared we weren’t.” Being a soldier was only the first of many roles Richard had difficulty accommodating, to go with husband, father, author, and mentor to Vance.
Despite probing deeply into the pairs’ struggles, the writer in The Grand Tour who offers the most promise for the nascent scribe is Price himself. He has constructed a story with the immediacy of a good script, and with metaphors that operate with sterling efficiency. For example, when Vance meets Richard’s daughter Cindy: “Vance came forward and stuck out his hand, as though he were presenting her with a piece of questionable fruit for her perusal.” At Richard’s San Francisco book event: “The reading … took place in the Mission District, in an event space, so called — an open warehouse that looked like the kind of place in the movies where someone gets shot in the back of the head by someone they trust.” Or when Richard, in an attempt to stay on the wagon, orders a water at a bar: “An unrestrained ripple of loathing lapped across the broad lake of the bartender’s face.” These tropes function as a sort of writerly redemption to offset Richard’s cynicism and Vance’s credulity. Price seems to be hinting that there’s a third way for the writer, one that leads to certain satisfactions through an engagement with craft, supplying even a small audience with compelling insights it didn’t know existed a mere sentence before.
Over the course of a career, every experienced writer is faced by someone — usually more than one — doe-eyed with the idea of putting words to paper. It’s tempting to want to impart that the life isn’t necessarily what one imagines for it, but it’s also wise to remember that the practice comes with its own rewards. Some of them are featured prominently in The Grand Tour, where Price’s finely hewn characters and deft language act to counterbalance his more extreme author portraits.
Hello, and welcome to my week-by-week review of the world. Today I am reviewing email.
Do you have email? Most people do. Here’s a tip: It’s pronounced like ‘female’ not like ‘uhmail’ as I had been pronouncing it for the past seven years. It’s pretty embarrassing that no one corrected me sooner.
Email is the perfect solution for anyone who forgets to mail a letter in time. Like if your friend only has a few days left to live and you forget to mail him a letter with a check for the $65.13 you owe him. Instead, you can send an email with a photo of the check, and then you can write, “You’ve meant so much to me and I’m going to miss you. Sorry I didn’t get this check to you in time. ”
Another great thing you can do with email is to email yourself from a fake account when you’re lonely — as if a stranger is reaching out to you. You can do that with a letter too, but by the time the letter arrives the loneliness may have subsided, and then a letter you wrote to yourself will come across as a desperately pathetic act that sends you into a downward spiral of self-pity. Email doesn’t do that.
Probably my favorite thing about email is how you can print them out just as if they were letters. Some emails have messages warning against this, suggesting that saving trees is more important saving memories. But are trees really more important than memories? It depends on the memory.
For all its advantages, there are also some big drawbacks. For instance, did you know email was probably invented by the Russians as a way to dismantle America’s infrastructure beginning with the postal service? And we’ve fallen right into their trap.
Email is driving the postal service out of business, leaving thousands of employees forced to find new careers as U-Tube stars or startup CEOs. I’m assuming, as these are the hottest new jobs.
Every time I send an email I feel a little tinge of guilt, knowing that I’ve played my part in the destruction of America. But that doesn’t stop me from using my email. What does stop me is when the library is closed, or if I lose the email window and can’t find it again. One time someone else at the library found my email window and emailed swear words to all of my friends.
BEST FEATURE: Obama sends me emails. WORST FEATURE: A man emailed me about a business opportunity and it didn’t work out as I had hoped. Now I’m selling magazine subscriptions and if I don’t sell enough in time he will own my house. You can contact me if you’d like to receive The New Yorker or PCWorld in your mailbox on a regular basis.
Please join me next week when I’ll be reviewing Brangelina.
Maggie Nelson and Claudia Rankine are among the 2016 Fellows
Yesterday the MacArthur Foundation announced the fellows selected for the class of 2016. Among the 23 “geniuses,” are five writers who have been honored for their accomplishments in their respective crafts. Each winner will receive $625,000, which will be presented to them over the course of five years. They can spend the money however they choose, but there’s no doubt these master writers will use it to fund their work.
1. Branden Jacobs-Jenkins
Playwright
New York, NY
Branden Jacob-Jenkins’s plays are highly acclaimed for creating new worlds in which his characters deal with contemporary topics like “identity, family, class, and race.”
2. Maggie Nelson
Writer
Faculty School of Critical Studies at California Institute of the Arts
Valencia, CA
Nelson is known in the literary community for her boundary breaking non-fiction work. Her books include The Red Parts, The Art of Cruelty, Bluets, and The Argonauts. Nelson told Newsweek, “I am beside myself with gratitude and incredulity for the award,” and, “I have no doubt that I will be able to focus more on my writing in the years to come, for which I am very grateful.”
Claudia Rankine became a national icon with the 2014 release of her book, Citizen. She is hailed as one of the finest poets of our time. In her works she tackles issues of social justice and race relations in the United States.
Assistant Professor of Illustration at School of Art, Media, and Technology, Parson, NY
Redniss combines visual and literary forms in her work. The MacArthur Foundation believes “Redniss’s unique approach to visual storytelling enriches the ways in which stories can be conveyed, experienced, and understood.”
5. Sarah Stillman
Long-form Journalist
New York, New York
Sarah Stillman is a writer for the New Yorker. Stillman reports on issues that are often ignored by popular culture. Throughout her career she has covered stories related to “the perils faced by young police informants, and the kidnapping of undocumented children at the U.S.-Mexico border.
6. Gene Luen Yang
Graphic Novelist
San Jose, CA
Yang wrote most of his comics while working as a high school computer science teacher. A lot of Yang’s work deals with the issues surrounding the Chinese-American experience, and he is one of the forefront authors introducing diverse characters in children’s reading.
Check out the full list of geniuses in vocations ranging from bioengineering to jewelry making, here. Congrats to all the winners!
According to the mighty gods of Wikipedia, Novi Sad is an old, Serbian port-town that is located squarely on the banks of the Danube River. It was once an epicenter of culture, which earned it the nickname the Serbian Athens. How relevant or revelatory any of that information may be is up for considerable debate. That is to say, it’s pretty unclear (highly unlikely?) if the eastern European city of Novi Sad is the actual setting for Jeff Jackson’s phenomenal follow up and, in some ways, companion piece to 2013’s Mira Corpora. But that initial uncertainty and questioning of reality is important, if not integral to the world that Jackson is culling to the surface.
“Jackson paints a vivid and immersive portrait of a world on the brink.”
Novi Sad continues in much of the same tradition of Mira Corpora and Jackson’s short story, The Dying of theDeads (whose setting, Monrovia, is another real city in Liberia, though certainly not the setting for that piece). In many respects, all these pieces are cleaved from the same dark crystal and woven from the same dreamcloak.
The backdrop for Novi Sad is the end times, although the year is a bit vague. There is no evidence of the internet or cell phone or any of the culture of those devices and the world seems to have returned to a more primal state.
The ensuing Armageddon seems difficult to cope with for everyone except our main character, Jeff, who seems to have been on the run since he was a kid and, therefore, whose life was almost certainly already in a constant state of upheaval.
Of the group of scrappy survivors he has found himself with by untold means, we know that he has been alone and homeless long enough to see through the politics and semantics of group leader, Hank’s, diatribes of survival. The reader can almost sense that perhaps Jeff is using the group for refuge and doesn’t buy into the ideology.
Jackson paints a vivid and immersive portrait of a world on the brink, or over the brink, or so similar to our own that we must use words like that to distance ourselves from it. This is a world where “even the feral kids have famished from the streets, replaced by dogs prowling in loose packs, scrounging for half-digested scraps.”
Make no mistake, Jackson is showing us the Future of Now. He is gazing, as Ballard did, five minutes into the future to show us a world where the news grows increasingly bizarre with each passing day, where world leaders’ hunch in underground bunkers and bankers perch on window ledges as they cling to money. In short, he is showing us our future.
Jeff and his band of survivors aim to seal themselves off from this fucked world by making an abandoned hotel their shelter. They toast to the end times, “Hail Oblivion!” — and are then left to wait, something they are perhaps less than prepared for. They drink, they watch television, they take drugs, they play stupid games. They are us. We are them.
Jackson’s background as a playwright is ever-present in the book, in Hank’s grand language and gesturing, in the surreal and grand bombed-out setting of the abandoned hotel, in the arrangement of portable generators and gas cans gathered in the courtyard. This is particularly impressive considering the world of Novi Sad is almost entirely insular; whether it is within the hotel or the perspective of Jeff, who views conversation as “a sub-species of misunderstanding”. In many ways, the walls of Jeff’s body are akin to the walls of the hotel, both a protective and safe refuge from the world outside.
Like most good stories about a group of people who follow a charismatic leader, there is an inevitable mutiny. This one, however, is interrupted by the cataclysmic disaster they have all been waiting for.
Jackson’s end of the world is much like Eliot’s –there is no bang. In Jackson’s words, it ends mid-sentence. It leaves us feeling unsatisfied and without the cathartic bloodletting we’ve been taught to expect and, as a result, it makes me wonder, are we living through the end days now? If our world was ending, would we even know it? Would we even notice?
Part two begins with our crew looking for Hank. The world has come and gone but not much seems to have changed for our characters, save for the loss of their leader.
Their days mostly rotate around trips to the pier where the fishermen use their nets to bring in stray bodies from the river instead of fish or crabs. Jeff and his cohorts hope to see Hank’s body pulled up as some sort of closure so they can all move on. But that citing never comes.
Part two is intentionally aimless. The world has ended, but how can one look at it with anything other than a sort of indifference since our characters have survived? I suppose whether it is indifference or a defiance to move on is unclear, but to our characters that still live in the hotel and desperately are waiting for the return of a leader who will never come, what’s the difference?
With Hank gone, they must find strength inward; something not all the characters are particularly good at. One finally leaves the hotel after his idea to burn it down was met with laughter. Jeff tells us that in hindsight, he didn’t think the idea was all that crazy; he was just too preoccupied with some vague notion of loyalty to someone or something that he couldn’t quite place.
In short, this aimless afterworld leaves our characters desperate and lost. Without an apocalypse to prepare for or a leader to guide them, they seem unsure how to grapple with being survivors.
Part three flashes forward. Jeff is now alone in the hotel, his friends all gone- some dead, some split. Jeff is hanging up the clothes of his lost friends on the clothesline of the roof and allows the wind to fill their shape. At first he tells us he does it as a signal, but quickly he and the reader understand the ritual resembles more of a séance than a signpost, as it appears to be some desperate or sad attempt to conjure the presence of his lost friends.
The sadness and beauty of this moment hangs for just a second before Jeff quickly finds himself caught up in a proverbial comedy of errors. When Hank’s old flame shows up drugged out of her mind and mistakes Jeff for Hank, he plays along. Jeff isn’t even aware he is dressed in Hanks clothes and the ease with which he plays along becomes a fascinating and telling trait about the character from whose perspective we get much of the book.
“Make no mistake, Jackson is showing us the Future of Now.”
What seems to start out as playful soon escalates when Jeff follows the girl to a party on the other side of town. He gets his ass kicked but still manages to go back home with the girl, despite the array of pills they have each taken. Soon he realizes he cannot sustain the charade and leaves. He is not Hank and he could never be, and the revelations that have led to that understanding cannot be changed.
The appendix is truly fascinating and one of my favorite parts of the book. Jeff addresses the reader directly and describes photographs of the motley crew we have come to know; only the photographs are all blacked out. it’s a brilliant and beautiful section because each photograph tell us something about the character, how they are posing, where the photo was taken, but instead of showing it to us, Jeff, the character for whom language often seems to fall short, explains it to us.
The entire book is brilliantly illustrated by artist and Kiddiepunk founder, Michael Salerno. The images are hauntingly beautiful — decaying buildings, teenagers with their eyes scratched out. Packaged together, this book acts as a sort of found object that is so cohesive and singular that at times it almost appears to be breathing.
Like all of Jackson’s work, Novi Sad is a truly singular and profound experience. It firmly roots you in the familiar while simultaneously transporting you to a soft, light-blue dream space. Much like the work of Lynch or even Harmony Korine, Jackson’s world is one that, despite all logic, you know must be true, not because it looks true, but because it feels true.
The back-cover copy of Jane Alison’s Nine Island (Catapult, 2016) identifies it as “an intimate autobiographical novel,” which seems both exactly right and entirely inadequate. The book — which tells the tale of a recently-divorced translator of Latin who’s reassessing her life from the vantage of a high-rise apartment in the Venetian Islands of Biscayne Bay — is as candid, contemplative, hilarious, and affecting as that description would lead one to hope. It’s also quite a bit stranger than one might expect, in the best possible sense: allusive and elusive, it conflates its narrator’s restless mind and its louche, peculiar setting to produce an effect that’s vibrant, slippery, erotically charged, and slightly menacing.
Born in Australia, raised in the United States and elsewhere, Jane is the author of three previous novels and a memoir about her complex upbringing, as well as the compiler and translator of Change Me: Stories of Sexual Transformation from Ovid. (Here I should mention that Jane was also my MFA thesis advisor at Queens University of Charlotte, North Carolina.) She was kind enough to avail herself of the wi-fi on a northbound Amtrak train to answer my questions about process, influences, classical studies, rock music, and a certain punctuation mark perhaps best left to experts.
Martin Seay: Although new fans will have no trouble enjoying it on its own, Nine Island is a particular treat for those of us who are familiar with your earlier books, in that it draws together a number of elements that appear in them. Its autobiographical content, for instance, recalls your memoir The Sisters Antipodes. The concern with human responsibility toward a fragile natural world that’s so central to Natives and Exotics has a supporting role here. Even the book’s narrative circumstances — a play of conflicting desires set against the tropical backdrop of Miami Beach’s Venetian Islands — bring to mind the (Italian) Venetian episodes of The Marriage of the Sea. And then of course there’s Ovid, about whom more later. In a novel that’s (at least in part) about a writer taking stock of her circumstances, these intertextual backward looks seem entirely fitting, but they got me wondering: where did Nine Island begin? The finished book can be characterized as many things; which one was it first?
Jane Alison: It began five years ago in a moment of fantasy-while-walking. I was walking the Venetian Islands one evening, thinking of Ovid (whose sexual stories I was translating), when I passed a modernist bungalow I coveted that had been empty and for sale for several years, and thought about the hundreds of times I used to walk by the house or the dorm room of a boy or man I craved, and suddenly, just as I passed the empty house, a tall, striking man appeared in the doorway. This created an instant Vox-esque fantasy: me, the man, a flirty exchanging involving “woman” in different languages, me stepping into the house, door shutting, ah. I actually stood still on the road, seeing a novel open up before me. Something about a woman who walks and fantasizes, a woman involved only with old men, dead men, far men, gone men, and the ultimate old dead far man, Ovid. It took another year or two for the other parts of the novel to appear, though, the more substantive parts about women’s bodies + desire + time, something I tried to work out through the figure of the hourglass pool that the narrator swims in every morning.
MS: Nine Island is a work of fiction, but (as I mentioned above) much of it is obviously autobiographical, and it doesn’t drop a ton of hints about exactly where reminiscence and confession are supplanted by pure invention. (In fact, it employs some classic anonymity-granting devices — e.g. the naming of several characters, including the narrator J, by their first initials only, as well as the use of evocative nicknames for the men in J’s life — that bolster the impression that what we’re reading is more reported than invented.) While I will not ask how factual Nine Island actually is — as doing so seems unsporting and obtuse — I am curious about how you came to conceive of it as fiction, and how you wrote it to operate as such.
Or, to approach this another way: I recently came across Deborah Eisenberg’s review of the reissue of Magda Szabó’s The Door, a novel that’s narrated by what seems to be a minimally-fictionalized version of Szabó herself. Eisenberg writes that despite its autobiographical content, The Door is “unmistakably a work of fiction, with fiction’s allusive and ambiguous purposes and effects;” I thought that was nicely put, and probably applicable to Nine Island as well. Are there aspects of it that you consider essentially fictional?
JA: Deborah Eisenberg has put that beautifully (and The Door is a wonderful novel). I’m one of many writers hoping that soon an era will dawn in which literature will either drop the current names for itself or find the right ones (see Geoff Dyer’s essay in the Guardian). Fiction = name for content; nonfiction = name for what it is not; poetry = name for form. Not Linnean distinctions. I will be in a bind now trying to say what is essentially fictional about Nine Island, having thrown out those names; I made a stab at conflating the categories by calling the book a “nonfiction novel.” But how about this: its fictionality or “made-up-ness” lies more in form than content, with willful mixing of Ovidian re-makes, faux-chemical equations, bits of pure brain-junk like counting . . . Yet similar or more extravagant moves happen in Bruce Chatwin’s books or Michael Ondaatje’s Running in the Family or Anne Carson’s NOX or Maggie Nelson’s Argonauts, which are more likely to be called “nonfiction” — so, sorry, it looks like I can’t say what is essentially fictional here . . . A certain freedom might be part of it, going back to Eisenberg’s “allusive and ambiguous purposes and effects.” A verbal gesture can be made to set the mind making associations, wheeling into the sky. But in any case: fiction comes from Latin fingere: to touch, handle, stroke; to form, fashion, frame, shape, mould, model, make. In all of these senses is the notion of material being handled, something that already exists, whether it’s wax or clay or memory or life being lived or thought about right now.
MS: I’m surprisingly satisfied by that answer! The book’s maneuvers in the space between confession and invention are also in keeping with a major element of the plot: J is a translator working on tales from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, and Nine Island itself seems artfully suspended at the midpoint of metamorphosis from lived experience into fiction. While I think a concern with myth — and more generally with transformations and enchantments of various sorts — is evident in just about all of your work, it’s worth noting that your engagement with Ovid has been particularly longstanding. In Nine Island, J associates her youthful discovery of Ovid with the beginning of her romantic life and its attendant complications; his works become a lens through which she interprets the novel’s events. Your writing in Change Me and The Sisters Antipodes suggests that this is drawn directly from your own experience.
Rather than having you paraphrase material that’s rendered so vividly in the novel, I’d like to go a different direction and ask you to talk about Ovid as an influence on your life as a writer. Do you feel that reading his work affected your decision to begin writing fiction? A more general question: your undergraduate academic background is in classical studies, and I recall you making the case for classics as being competitive with (or superior to!) the ubiquitous English-lit degree as academic preparation for creative writers. Do you mind revisiting that subject here, with particular reference to your own work?
JA: Actually, reading Ovid at nineteen sent me straight to drawing. I didn’t think of writing fiction for almost a decade after first reading Ovid, and it happened only then because I was trying to illustrate Apuleius’ story of Amor and Psyche and decided to rewrite it; from then on I stopped drawing and wrote. But two immediate points re classics: in my grad seminar at UVA now we’re looking at excursions in narrative, in particular at texts that resist the “dramatic arc.” First we looked at the king of dramatic arcs, Oedipus, and really appreciated its stern form. Then we found so many other things to take from it beyond the dramatic arc: the super-compressed timeline and space, for instance; shifts among speeds even in a purely spoken — not narrated — work; perforations in space via dialogue; countless new possibilities for a “chorus;” etc. And on Ovid: aside from the perfection and strangeness and truth of his stories in Metamorphoses, one of the ruling sensations in reading that book is the tension between stasis and change. Narrative exists in the flux between them, which he not only shows hundreds of times but makes the very subject of his great work.
(Have attached an Ovid drawing from those days, gruesome and youthful as it is. Wish I still had a copy of the Nassau Lit that published it and a few others, because one was printed back-to-back with a poem by David Duchovny.)
MS: While Ovid is the writer whom you’ve most obviously invited to join you in the pages of Nine Island, I also kept imagining the novel exchanging knowing winks with a few works from eras nearer to our own: Renata Adler’s Speedboat in its anxious humor; Anne Carson’s Autobiography of Red in its fresh and elegant use of myth. About a third of the way in — as I took note of the tropical setting, the proliferation of sinister and conspiring characters, and the persistent atmosphere of deferred eroticism and sexual menace — it occurred to me that I might be reading a rather ingenious riff on a gothic novel, with an aging Miami high-rise standing in for a crumbling castle in the Pyrenees and the figure of the ingénue supplanted by that of a woman in middle age. Were there other works or other writers that were helpful inspirations or navigational aids as you were composing Nine Island?
JA: Yes, to Speedboat, although even more to Mary Robison’s Why Did I Ever and Marie Redonnet’s Hôtel Splendid. Also, yes to various works by Anne Carson (who first taught me Ovid), including The Beauty of the Husband and Eros the Bittersweet. But nothing gothic, I think . . . Much as I’d like to claim that piece of ingeniousness, I think it’s yours. A starting point was William Gass’s In the Heart of the Heart of the Country and, through it, “Sailing to Byzantium.” Also favorites like David Markson’s Wittgenstein’s Mistress and Murray Bail’s Eucalyptus, and hard not to have Jean Rhys in mind, or Edna O’Brien, or, in a very different way, Nicholson Baker — the fantasies and madcap parsings. Plus some rock-and-rollers like Chrissie Hynde, Marianne Faithfull, the Clash, Iggy Pop (“Platonic”). I was thinking of paintings, too, Annunciations and repentant Magdalenes especially.
(Actually, Hôtel Splendid might be your riff on a gothic novel.)
MS: I don’t know Hôtel Splendid; I’ll check it out. But, wait, rewind: how in the hell did I not know that you studied with Anne Carson at Princeton? This seems like a significant lapse on my part (and also like information that it’s possible to make too much of, so I’ll fight that urge) but it also leads me to another question. You have a diverse and distinguished career as an educator, one that includes traditional university classrooms, at least one low-residency MFA program, workshops at Bread Loaf and in Switzerland, and your current position as Director of Creative Writing at the University of Virginia, surely among the most highly-regarded such programs in the country. Is the process of teaching writing difficult to square with your own practice as a writer? Aside from the obvious merits (money) and demerits (time), has it been helpful and/or burdensome to divide your attention between these two related pursuits? Are there teachers or educational experiences that have been important to you that you’d care to say more about?
JA: I doubt that Anne Carson remembers me from one semester in 1981, but she and her course affected me powerfully. (I think she was working on Eros the Bittersweet at the time.) Ten years after Princeton (years spent working spottily as an illustrator, freelance editor, editorial manager, proposal- and speechwriter), I had great writer-teachers at Columbia: Mary Gordon above all, Richard Locke, Robert Towers, Carole Maso. It’s amazing how often, when I’m teaching, my mind goes straight to how they did it as a test to make sure I’m on the right track. As for my own teaching, I spend half my time anxious about it and the other half utterly energized. Working with exceptionally smart, talented students is good for the mind. It’s stimulating and crucial to see what they’re reading, what new angles on literature they’re taking: how they’re pushing at the edges of this enterprise.
MS: To pick up a couple of threads from earlier: I’m very intrigued by the decade you spent as an illustrator prior to becoming a writer — and also by the idea that the switch to writing was initially just a strategy for continuing a particular project, which suggests that these methods are broadly applicable to the same ends. Would you say that illustration still informs your writing process, and if so, how?
Similarly, I’m interested in your citation of rock music as an influence on Nine Island. For many artists, I suppose, it’s helpful to be receptive to approaches and influences that have little formal relationship to their ultimate medium. (I once heard the composer John Corigliano say that he’ll sometimes draw a piece in colored pencil before he writes any music for it.) The proto- and post-punk artists you mentioned above seem like a great fit for the book’s tone and mood, but I’m curious about how they found their way in, and how you think of them as functioning.
JA: I did only a little illustrating. Just wasn’t and am not very good. But I still draw sometimes because color pencil on paper is so pleasing. I do think of color in writing, though, as well as lighting, chiaroscuro, the visual composition of a moment, etc.: the visual arts have informed the narrative arts just as much as music has over the centuries. And on music: well, those songs are in my head all the time. Hardly an evening passes when I don’t hear David Bowie (“Time and again I tell myself I’ll stay clean tonight”) or Iggy Pop (“Immoderation seems to suit her best / but then I turn around and she’s very delicate”) or Chrissie Hynde (“Anger and lust . . . my senses running amok”). Partly the words are stuck in a brain-groove, but partly (I think) they’re telling me something. And then there’s the pure sexiness. Their words are in my character’s mind just as much as words of Ovid or her mother or her friends K or N are — all the same texture. Plus they add a soundtrack to the whole, I think, another layer for free.
MS: A question that most of us despise, but that I, with apologies, will ask anyway: what’s next? I recall that after Natives and Exotics came out in 2005 you were contemplating a nonfiction sequel of sorts about Scottish plant-hunters in Australia circa 1800; is that something that’s still taking shape?
JA: Nope: that project turned into the memoir I wrote about my doubled, half-Australian family, The Sisters Antipodes. I was trying to write about tropical exotics transplanted in the north — palms and tree-ferns taken to Scotland — but a friend (Robert Polito) suggested I make the narrative more personal. So I added a layer about little Australian girls being transplanted in North America, and their story nudged the plants off the page. I still love that material, though, so who knows. I have two projects now. One I’ve worked on a long time and am overhauling: a (possibly “nonfiction”) novel about Le Corbusier’s obsession with Eileen Gray and her house on the French Mediterranean. The other is a book-length essay about using patterning and other design elements in narrative, like coloration and striping — but above all, about finding structural forms other than the arc. Spiral, escalator, panopticon, chain, fractal: lots of ways to build a narrative.
MS: One last thing: an assertion I cannot resist making. You use exclamation points often, and you do so more effectively than any other writer I can think of. It seems as if your prose should be bubbling over like a hastily-opened bottle of tonic water as a result, but that’s never the case: it’s always sharp, elegant, exquisitely controlled, and frequently very moving. I can only think to attribute this to your extremely well-crafted sentences, but that explanation seems insufficient. How do you do it? Have you always done this?
JA: Thank you, and so funny you’ve asked this. A brilliant grad student just this past week gave a presentation on exclamation marks in Nicholson Baker’s Mezzanine: what they signify tonally, whether they’re ironic or sincere. I was going for a sort of dark mania with mine. The exclamations were meant to show a giddy fending off of horror. Writing in the first person about a character quite like me was hard: whenever she was earnest or self-conscious she repelled me. Exclamation marks (and avoiding personal pronouns) tore a shell off her, which somehow made it easier.
DON’T MISS OUT
Sign up for our newsletter to get submission announcements and stay on top of our best work.
YOUR INBOX IS LIT
Enjoy strange, diverting work from The Commuter on Mondays, absorbing fiction from Recommended Reading on Wednesdays, and a roundup of our best work of the week on Fridays. Personalize your subscription preferences here.