A Portrait of the Artist as a Bingo Worker

I worked bingo nights at the Trafford Polish Club Mondays and Wednesdays. I was 17 and my grandmother Ethel ran the kitchen. Ethel was bad-tempered and polka-loving, 230 pounds in a housedress and slippers.

“I don’t need to impress anybody,” Ethel said. “I don’t gussy up.”

Ethel shouted misery and joy, nothing in between. I’d been working for her since I was 12. None of Ethel’s seven other grandchildren would even consider it, such was the abuse, but I was proud of my endurance. I knew I wanted to be a writer, and I thought of Ethel and her bingo cronies as characters. I liked characters. I liked money, too. I spent it on clothes and books and music, things my parents called extras.

None of Ethel’s seven other grandchildren would even consider it, such was the abuse, but I was proud of my endurance.

I was partial to black velvet knickers and fedoras I’d find at Goodwill, outfits I imagined Hemingway’s Lady Brett would wear in a Paris cafe.

“I don’t know where you came from,” Ethel said about my get-ups, about me.

I didn’t know, either, and I liked that. I was adopted and artsy, the ultimate teenage outsider in my working-class Pittsburgh family, constantly in a book. I called Emily Dickinson Emily and Walt Whitman Walt, which was also my father’s name. This only confused Ethel more.

“Walt says I am large and contain multitudes,” I said and Ethel said, “Lay off the ice cream then.”

I spent most of my bingo money at Walden Books in Monroeville Mall, where one day I stumbled upon Rod McKuen, a sap poet and songwriter, in the bargain bin. McKuen’s critically-bashed Listen to the Warm matched my own bashed-up heart. He seemed like a gateway, a one-way flight to Paris, but a year or so later, I’d go to college on scholarship and meet my first live poet, a man named X.J., who asked about my influences.

“I’ve read everything Rod McKuen has written,” I said. “I love Rod McKuen.”

“Rod McKuen,” X.J.said, “is tripe.”

X.J. had a big literary laugh, the kind that fills up hair follicles and makes people look away. I looked at his shoes. They looked expensive, like his scarf, like his initials, those two clanking cufflinks.

He was right, of course, but what did I know? Aside from hardback classics, poetry was hard to come by in Trafford. There was no Internet back in the 1980s. My family thought reading was a disease.

People like us, Ethel and me, working people, weren’t supposed to be writers.

X.J. confirmed what Ethel believed all along. People like us, Ethel and me, working people, weren’t supposed to be writers. To want to be a writer or an artist was a prideful thing, a willful thing. To want to be a writer was something only people who lived in New York or L.A. — people who could afford expensive shoes and scarves, people who, from the time they were fetuses, could sort good art from bad — should imagine for themselves.

“A place for everyone and everyone in a place,” Ethel said.

Ethel said, “Just who do you think you are?”

At 17, I wasn’t sure of any of this yet. I just had a feeling. Still, I liked Rod McKuen because he translated Jacques Brel’s “Le Moribund” into “Seasons in the Sun,” a song about dying young I played on repeat. I liked that McKuen looked like a writer in his sweaters and berets and that he was adopted, like me. He wrote a memoir about finding his birthfather and critics didn’t hate it too much. I snagged it from Walden’s and sneak-read it in Ethel’s Polish Club kitchen.

“You’re going to ruin your eyes,” Ethel said when she caught me reading. “You’ll get ideas.”

“Idle hands are devil’s playthings,” Ethel would say.

Then she’d hand me a bag of cheeseballs to fry.

Because we were family, Ethel paid me what she felt like, depending, but there were tips and everything was cash, wads of ones that, on a good night, made me feel stripper-rich.

I could pocket bills, but a lot of the senior citizens at bingo tipped in change and Ethel made me put the coins in a jar she tallied every night. She called change-tips “found money.”

Because we were family, Ethel paid me what she felt like.

Found money, Ethel claimed, was lucky and meant to be shared. She traded it for instant bingo tickets, the kind where you pull the paper flaps back to see if they spell out “Bingo” or the message “Sorry You Are Not An Instant Winner.”

Ethel and I were supposed to split the tickets and winnings 50/50, though I don’t remember ever agreeing to that. I think when Ethel hit she kept it secret. I’d win a dollar here or there but never enough to make back what was in the jar.

“You weren’t born lucky like me,” Ethel said more than once.

“Family is more important than money,” Ethel said as she doled my pay from her apron pocket. “Family is more important than anything. Remember that.”

And so I didn’t count my money until I got home, where I closed my bedroom door and spread it out on my bed and sorted it into piles and tried not to do the math when I knew my grandmother shorted me.

“Be grateful,” Ethel said. “People like you are never satisfied.”

I wasn’t satisfied, but most days I worked hard. I was raised to believe in work and family and I wanted my grandmother to love me even though I was adopted and uppity, Ethel’s word, and not family in the sense she invoked it.

“Your mother couldn’t have children of her own, so we got you,” Ethel said about my arrival in her life.

Ethel and her hard work make the local paper.

Ethel — old-school, first-generation American — believed in blood. I believed I could win her over anyway. I was used to the way she hit me with the wooden spoon she kept near the stove, the way she chased me around the Polish Club kitchen and pulled my long blonde hair. I figured we were close enough to be cruel to one another. It’s easy, maybe, to mistake cruelty for honesty and honesty for love.

It’s easy, maybe, to mistake cruelty for honesty and honesty for love.

“Who is not a love seeker?” Rod McKuen said, but for adopted people like him and me, people who grew up thinking of family as something that could be nulled and voided, something that could turn on us and send us back to whatever lost place we came from, so much depended upon being loveable, loved.

And so I tried to please my grandmother. I didn’t complain much. I started leaving my fedoras and knickers at home and wore jeans and flannels instead. I hid my books under the prep table and didn’t talk about my writer dreams. I was okay with the smell of grease and fish and with cleaning up whatever mess Ethel made.

I tolerated my grandmother’s creepy habit of eyeing up my boobs to see if they were growing. I turned when she made me turn left, then right, so she could get a good look.

“You been letting boys play with those?” she said until I curled into myself like one of the ingrown toenails I’d clip from Ethel’s feet because she couldn’t bend down to reach them herself.

Safe sex, Ethel said, meant never letting a boy get on top of you. Safe sex, Ethel said, meant staying away from boys, period.

At 17, I didn’t have a steady boyfriend and the few dates I’d gone on weren’t promising. I somehow decided boys found it irresistible when girls went to sleep on them. I’m not sure how I decided this — from Rod McKuen poems maybe, or romantic movies where the camera zooms in on a beautiful girl sleeping, then cuts to a boy who looks lovestruck and tucks a blanket to her chin, then watches her all night long.

I somehow decided boys found it irresistible when girls went to sleep on them.

And so I made a habit of resting my head on boys’ shoulders and pretending to sleep. I learned I could pretend-sleep anywhere. I zonked out on boys at school musicals, one Homecoming Dance and one Sadie Hawkins. I pretended to sleep on a boy at a basketball game once, which was difficult with the buzzer going off and all. I was shocked when boys I slept on didn’t call again.

I didn’t tell Ethel any of this because she seemed obsessed with talking about sex regardless and had been like that long before I knew her. For years, my mother, Ethel’s daughter, thought girls got pregnant if boys’ tongues went into their mouths.

My mother grew up to become a nurse. My mother believed in science. When I asked how she ever bought the idea of spit-sperm, she said, “Your grandmother is not someone to argue with.”

“They’re only out for one thing,” Ethel said about boys.

Ethel said, “That’s how you happened, probably.”

I never knew Ethel’s husband, my grandfather. He died the year before my parents adopted me. He was an orphan, too. I’ve seen pictures — a tall thin man with dark eyes. He looked sad, though he had style in his suspenders and newsboy cap. His orphan story was different than mine — his mother dropped him off at an orphanage when he was 10 because she couldn’t afford him anymore.

“No shame in that,” Ethel said.

Ethel had grown up poor, a product of the Depression. My grandfather had been born legitimate, with both a mother and father he knew.

There was no shame in being poor. The shame was sex.

“Some women don’t know how to keep their legs closed,” Ethel said.

The shame was in not knowing one’s place.

“You think you’re too good to get your hands dirty,” Ethel said, even though my hands always seemed coated in grease and flour.

In pictures, my grandfather looked plowed over by the world. I imagined all the years he spent with Ethel, that wall of sound.

My grandfather.

“It’s a shame he died before you came,” Ethel said.

She said, “Maybe he would have known what to make of you.”

I wouldn’t read much into Ethel’s behavior toward me for a long time. I didn’t think how adoption was probably a complicated problem for her. I didn’t wonder what was underneath her insistence that, if he’d lived, maybe my grandfather would have loved me. I didn’t wonder why my reading and writing bothered her so much.

I wouldn’t read much into Ethel’s behavior toward me for a long time. I didn’t wonder why my reading and writing bothered her so much.

Later, when Ethel died, my mother would find boxes filled with photographs Ethel had taken, artful shots of amusement parks and strangers hanging out on porches, black-and-white shots of clouds and skeletal trees.

“These aren’t even people we know,” my mother will say. “Why would she take all these pictures of people she didn’t know?”

My grandmother, the photographer, the artist. She hid her work in boxes and a hope chest. She hid her work in boxes her daughter would throw away.

“A place for everyone and everyone in her place,” Ethel said.

Even a meteor of a woman like Ethel has a nemesis, or at least a foil. For Ethel, it was Fanny. Next to my grandmother, Fanny looked like a toy person, something made of pipe cleaners and worn-out felt.

“Old Piss and Moan,” Ethel named Fanny.

Every Wednesday, Fanny came to bingo and ordered her usual, fried fish sandwich, half a bun.

“And blot it good,” Fanny would say, meaning she wanted the grease from the fish sopped with a paper towel before I served it to her.

“That Fanny gets my goat,” Ethel said, her face turning red as the roses on her housedress. “She can go to hell.”

Why Ethel was so furious with Fanny, I didn’t know. Maybe there was history, maybe not. Maybe some friends hated each other. Maybe family did. Me, the orphan, the would-be writer, I was inside and outside of things. I was still sorting everything and nothing out.

Ethel and Fanny were neighbors. Ethel lived in a yellow house with two windows on the second floor and a white porch awning that made the house look like a duck. Fanny lived in a lopsided white box that seemed about to collapse down the ragged hill it was built on. The houses, like the women themselves, seemed like something from cartoons. Ethel — the spastic quacking duck. Fanny — some sad thing a wolf started to blow down.

Ethel used her capacity for joy as a weapon.

Fanny complained. About everything. Ethel used her capacity for joy as a weapon. She’d crank up Frankie Yankovic’s “Beer Barrel Polka” in the kitchen and do a little two-step from the stove to the fryer and back.

“That’s noise pollution,” Fanny said about Ethel’s music. “I can’t hear them call the numbers over that racket.”

“Drop dead already,” Ethel said, and turned the music up more.

I didn’t mind Fanny. Of all the characters at the bingo, she was my favorite. I thought I knew something about sadness. I was drawn to it like a mirror. If Ethel believed in blood, I believed in the bonds between strangers.

“I want to narrow the gap of strangeness and alienation,” Rod McKuen said about his purpose in the world.

“Here, let me help,” I’d say and step to Fanny with my order pad in hand.

“I don’t know how you can stand her,” Ethel said. She said it like a challenge, like she was testing something, my loyalty maybe.

“You people are trying to kill me,” Fanny said, and she meant Ethel and me and everyone else.

I didn’t know how old Fanny was, but unhappiness carved her face and hands into canyons, things that take centuries to form.

“Give me one good thing to smile about,” she said.

I tried. To make Fanny happy would be a triumph. It would mean I was a good person worthy of love. I liked to tell stories and create joy in other people, and I liked the power of that, the proof that I had something to offer the world. I wanted the world to say it was true.

“Who do you think you are?” Ethel said.

I told Fanny funny stories from the news, some neighborhood gossip. I shared the latest good-luck bingo trick I’d overheard. It usually involved a troll doll or a prayer to some obscure saint who specialized in gamblers and other lost souls.

To make Fanny happy would be a triumph. It would mean I was a good person worthy of love.

Lately I saw a lot of St. Expeditus on glass candles and necklaces. Sometimes he was brunette, sometimes blonde, sometimes bald with an empty bowl balanced on his head. No one was sure he’d been a real martyr. His backstory was fishy — Roman soldier martyred in Turkey, beheaded, set on fire, fed to lions, tossed in the sea. One story went, the devil came to Expeditus disguised as a crow and tried to delay the would-be saint’s conversion to Christianity. The crow cawed “tomorrow tomorrow” over and over. Expeditus, in a hurry to save his soul, shouted “no, today today” and stomped the crow to death.

I told Fanny that story.

I said, “Expeditus. Expedite. Clever.”

I said, “He’s the go-to guy if you’re desperate.”

I said, “You have to run something in the newspaper for it to work.”

Fanny looked like she needed to spit.

She said, “Everybody has a gimmick.”

About me, she said, “They see you coming.”

“Leave it be,” my grandmother said. “Misery is as misery does.”

“That Fanny,” my grandmother said. “She loves to hang on her cross.”

Every Wednesday, Ethel pretended Fanny wasn’t standing in the Polish Club kitchen, ragged wallet out, demanding Ethel serve her. Every Wednesday, Fanny inched closer to Ethel, two planets bent on collision, until I put myself between them and took Fanny as my responsibility. I wrote down her order, every word, even though her order was always the same. Fanny watched me write. She made sure I got it right.

“And blot it good,” Fanny said. “Write that.”

“All yours,” Ethel said when she saw Fanny coming.

My grandmother would bow a little and say, “Be my guest.”

One Wednesday, Fanny came in. Her dyed black hair curled like a raccoon on her head. Every week she seemed a little shorter and this day the top of her head hit where my boobs would have been if I had them, if boys really had been doing the job Ethel believed they were born to do.

Her eyes, as usual, were red and runny, like she was allergic to the world, like she spent most of her downtime weeping.

I had to stoop to look at Fanny. Her eyes, as usual, were red and runny, like she was allergic to the world, like she spent most of her downtime weeping. But today there was something charged about her, too. She looked alive. She shifted from side to side, like she was revving up. She ordered her fish, half a bun. Then she added. “And you stop pussyfooting around.”

She said, “You know I can’t have the grease.”

She said, “You two are in cahoots. I’m onto you.”

I must have somehow botched the grease-blotting and Fanny thought I’d screwed her over. I was therefore responsible for a week’s worth of burping and indigestion and all the unhappiness in Fanny’s world.

Or it was more than that.

It was probably more than that.

I didn’t know anything about Fanny’s life, not really. I didn’t know if she’d ever been married, if she had kids, if she did have kids where they were and so on. I didn’t know what music she may have liked beyond polka noise pollution or what the inside of her sad little house looked like or if she had cereal in her cupboard or what toothpaste she used or if her teeth were mostly her own.

She may have had doilies on her tables.

Her house may have smelled like lemons.

I didn’t know and I didn’t care, not really.

Empathy, like writing, can be about kindness or it can be an aggressive act, both. To assume to know things about strangers without really knowing them is a kind of violence, I think. It’s using other people as stand-ins. It comes across as something selfless, when it can be just the opposite. I’ve done it both ways. I might be doing it both ways now.

Empathy, like writing, can be about kindness or it can be an aggressive act, both.

“The light in me recognizes the light in you,” the Buddhists say. “Namaste.”

I don’t think the Buddhists have a word for shared darkness.

“When you assume you make an ass out of you and not me,” Ethel, who liked to mix metaphors, said.

I knew I was sad. I didn’t know if I was sad because I’d been born that way or because I’d been dropped into Ethel’s family and didn’t fit there. I didn’t know if I could fix myself with words or if I could bend to match the world that had taken me in. I didn’t know how much it might hurt to do that.

Better to practice on Fanny, her sadness.

If Fanny fell, I would still be standing.

St. Expeditus, help us.

St. Expeditus, get us the hell out of here.

“I’m on it,” I said about Fanny’s fish, and turned back to the fryer.

I spent the night lying on my pink-shag rug, my head wedged between two stereo speakers. I played “Seasons in the Sun” over and over and pondered how to get out of Trafford, this rusted mill town with its rigged bingo jackpots and a creek so polluted it turned everything it touched — rocks, tree roots, skin — orange.

Trafford — home to churches and funeral homes and dive bars with clever names like Warden’s Bar and The Fiddle Inn.

“Get it?” Ethel said. “You fiddle in and stumble out.”

Trafford — home to my grandmother and Fanny and me.

“Anyone lived in a pretty how town,” e.e. wrote.

“I’m nobody,” Emily wrote. “Who are you?”

Sometimes I still think about my Uncle Milton, the retired banker, who died alone in his house in Braddock. I was young when he died, maybe 10 or so. He was my dad’s brother. I saw him at funerals, the occasional Christmas. He wore nice suits and smelled clean.

Uncle Milton was a bachelor. He loved money and the stocks and had a subscription to The Wall Street Journal, which my father said was expensive and something only a jackass like Milton would spend good money on.

Uncle Milton was dead for over a week before anyone noticed. The Wall Street Journals piled up on his porch. The mailman called the police to check it out.

Uncle Milton was dead for over a week before anyone noticed.

I’d been in Uncle Milton’s house a few times. It was dark, the furniture heavy and expensive looking, the curtains heavy and expensive looking. A gold-framed picture of Jesus’s sacred heart hung on the wall. In the picture, Jesus’s chest was split open. He held his heart in one hand. The heart was on fire. The heart was crowned with thorns. His other hand made the sign of peace, two fingers together, pointing up.

“All that money and he dies alone like that,” my father said about his brother. “Who did he think he was?”

“Do you know who you have in this world?” my father would ask.

Most times he’d let the question hang like that, a blank to fill in.

If you want St. Expeditus’ help, you must present him with an offering.

Pound cake, for instance.

Back at the fryer, I worked Fanny’s fish as she stood by.

I made a big deal out of lifting it from the hot grease and letting it drip. I put it on a paper plate and let it rest. I took paper towels, a wad of them. I blotted. I blotted again. I blotted again.

There is so little we can do for one another in this world.

Fanny watched. I could feel her watching. Over on the stove, a pot of hot dogs boiled down. I tried not to think of Fanny like that, withered and curling into herself, the smell of hot-dog water on her breath.

In the background, I could feel Ethel watching too. I knew if I turned she would look disgusted. I knew she’d have her hands on her hips.

I tried not to think of Fanny like that, withered and curling into herself, the smell of hot-dog water on her breath.

“Pain in my ass,” she said under her breath, and then, louder, “That Fanny is a pain in mine.”

I turned.

I looked at her to say, Fanny likes to hang on her cross so let her hang.

My grandmother’s laugh ricocheted around the room like a bullet.

“Get it Fanny?” she said. “You’re a pain in my ass.”

She said, “Fanny is a pain in my fanny.”

Then my grandmother slapped her own huge ass. She held a pose, an index finger to her lips like “oops.” The flesh underneath Ethel’s housedress quaked.

Fanny looked like she might cry.

“It’s okay,” I said. “It’s done.”

I hurried things up. I tucked the fish onto its bun and handed it over. Fanny inspected it. She pulled it close, then held it at arm’s length, then close again.

“All right then,” she said. She tipped me a quarter.

This was 1982. A quarter could buy a phone call or some gum and Fanny could pretend she didn’t know but she did. I could tell by the way she gave it to me, like she was pinching my palm, like she hoped maybe the quarter would turn into a razor and make me bleed a little, like she knew all this time I was taking things from her and so I couldn’t have her money too.

This made my grandmother laugh louder.

“Cheap is as cheap does,” Ethel said as Fanny waddled off, holding the fish on the paper plate in front of her with both hands, like it was something holy, an offering on fire.

I’m not sure why I felt betrayed, but I did.

“Sometimes I think people were meant to be strangers,” Rod McKuen said.

I put Fanny’s quarter into Ethel’s found money jar.

Where I fit in the world, I didn’t know.

Saint Expedite, help me. Do this for me. Be quick.

As Fanny made her way out to the hall, I could hear her talking to everyone and no one. She said no one knew how she suffered. She said she couldn’t bear it. She said if she wasn’t careful, the grease would keep her up all night.

She said it was about her heart, which of course it was.

“The Sunburn Also Rises” and Other #SummerBooks to Read at the Beach

The best groaner puns from literary twitter

It’s hot. You are stuck inside at the office while outside children eat ice cream and teens tan in the park. All you want to be doing is reading a book at the beach. Well, we can’t help you there, but literary Twitter did compile some pretty good summer book puns today after Barnes & Noble’s account started up the hashtag. Here were our favorites:

An Illustrated Guide to Writing Scenes and Stories

The writing workshop/lecture Wonderbook: Scenes is an edited version, using as its starting point the transcript of a version presented at the Arkansas Book Festival in 2014. Both before that event and after, I gave versions of this lecture in other locations, including Shared Worlds, Clarion, and the Yale Writer’s Workshop. While keeping the core of the Arkansas version, I have added in material from the other versions and also expanded some sections based on participant questions. The sometimes informal wording of the original lectures has been retained where possible to reflect the source.

Writers often argue about the difference between the art of writing and the craft of writing. They also argue about what can be taught and what can’t. Writers argue about almost everything — as well they should, since there are a thousand and one ways to reach the same point…and a thousand different points, besides. My position is probably close to that of Vladimir Nabokov, in the way he would combine complex organic discussions of literature with what seemed like a mechanical, rote adherence to the physicality of, for example, settings such as houses in Jane Austen, because this too is very important to the effects a writer can achieve.

Every presentation has a lifespan before it kind of dies in the speaker’s mind. At this point, I have given this lecture so many times, I’ve decided to more or less retire it, and thank Electric Literature for giving it a home. I am indebted to Victor LaValle, who raised the issue of how one would map the actions of the Gormenghast scene below to a different context, like a dinner party. All images below are from Wonderbook, copyright to me and the artist, Jeremy Zerfoss. Thanks to Kari Wolfe for cleaning up the original transcript.

Choosing What You’ll Dramatize and What You Won’t

Good morning. I’m Jeff VanderMeer. I’m the author of Wonderbook.

Most of what we’ll talk about today is going to be about the decisions you make more or less after your rough draft. I don’t want you to think that some of the stuff I’ll be telling you are things that I think should be material or ideas that you’re exploring while you’re writing a rough draft, because when you’re doing a rough draft, you should be in a state where you’re not overly editorial or critical of what you’re writing, usually, depending on your process.

The first thing I wanted to show you is this image, which is about how you decide what the story is in the first place. Basically, I thought it would be useful to take some very dramatic job that a character has — in this case, a dragon slayer– and demonstrate how it is that the average day of a dragon slayer is no different than the average day of an insurance salesman, in terms of not necessarily being of any interest to a reader.

When you’re first thinking about story and scenes, you have to choose what to dramatize, and what you won’t. A lot of beginning writers will think that the continuum of a day, a week, or whatever else in the life of someone is a story. It’s not necessarily. The first part of this is reminding you that all of these things do not need to be in your story. Maybe some of them are dismissed in a sentence or two.

Then the second dragon timeline says to you, “Here are some of the things that indicate that there’s a story present,” and ratchets it up a notch by also putting the character into a more unusual situation. The dragon’s actually destroyed the dragon hunter’s house at the beginning, and that sets off a chain of events.

There is one lie in this diagram in terms of the difference between a person’s day and a story. It’s a built-in defect of the diagram. The lie is that, yes, you can do a day in the life of a character as a story. However that’s not usually good to tell a beginning writer because a writer has to learn how to apply the right elements that sustain a character through a story in such a way that it’s not just a character going through their normal day. Often, when you get to the intermediate stage, or if you’re a particular kind of writer from the very beginning, you can make that kind of A to B work. So long as you know this is what you’re doing, that you’re not just defaulting to a drawing a particular pattern because you don’t know any other patterns.

Where to Begin and Where to End

Once you get to the point where you have a sense of your story elements — the general situations, the impetus or driving force — you still have some decisions to make. You have the shape of your story — in this case, depicted as a lizard — but you still have decisions as to where you’re going to begin and where you’re going to end, not just the story but also your individual scenes. Where you end or begin your scenes is not only a question of pacing. It’s also a question of what’s right for the story you’re telling, for the kinds of characters that you’re using, and in the context of their unique characteristics.

To a certain extent, this is also a diagram of a scene. You’re making more specific or micro-level decisions on where to start and what to leave out, what moment to stop on with what character or what emphasis, what action or reaction or thought. Again, all of these things are not just about making a scene seem to move for the reader, but they’re also about how to frame character and a bunch of other elements. You can literally make a huge change of emphasis just by ending with a different line of dialogue. Stopping a scene with what the person speaking says, rather than how the other person responds, can be a crucial change in emphasis.

There’s also the question of targets. This may depend on how you see fiction, because for me, before I can start a story, before I can know that I’m going to complete a story, I have to know how it ends. I have to have a character in a situation in my head, and then I have to more or less know where the ending is. I often don’t end up where I think I’m going to end up. But I have to have that theoretical, “That’s my end point,” when I start, or I never finish the story.

When you finish a rough draft, there are a lot of things you have to think about — how your decisions about scenes and summary and everything else have supported what you want the story to be. I would consider this, in a way, “reverse outlining” or outlining after the fact. After you’ve written your rough draft, you say, “Well, this was my target. I wanted to write this kind of story with these kinds of things in it. Now, what’s actually there on the page and what’s missing that needs to be there? What scenes are missing? Is emphasis wrong in the scenes? Do I need all the scenes I wrote? Have I thought I created one kind of story, and I actually created another kind of story? Have I gone off into something that’s so esoteric that maybe there’s one or two readers for it — and if so, was that my actual intent?”

By the way, the story gopher in the diagram means nothing. It was something put in there as a joke for the illustrator. He illustrated it. I left it in. It’s an enigmatic story gopher.

Now, the idea of a target in fiction may seem silly, because fiction is multidimensional. It has many targets, many things going on. All the arrows going all of the places they go, and whomever they hit. Let fly, let fall…but at a certain point, when you’re examining how you put your scenes together, it’s useful to, at least for a while, do the thought experiment of, “How is this stuff working?” at some specific level. Not only that, but the question, “How do you create unity and focus, but not be so on point that everything feels mechanical or forced or unsurprising?” Because if it’s mechanical or forced for you, then it’s probably not going to be that exciting for the reader either.

Thinking about Structure Through Character Arcs

What is a scene doing? How is it expressing its own integrity? Then how does that scene fit into a larger picture? Another way of looking at those questions is through character arcs. Every writer is different. When I do a more intensive workshop and I’m engaged in one-on-ones with writers, I try to find out exactly how their mind works. Do they work through structure? Do they think of structure as purely through character, or do they see it as a separate construct? Do they think of plot as separate from structure? These are words that serve as approximations of concepts about which we all think of a little differently. You have to, when you’re an instructor, try to look at what the writer is trying to do, and how it is different from your thought process — and inhabit that thought process, to be of the most use.

So if you’re not attracted to story dragons or lizards or the idea of targets, another way of thinking about structure (or plot if you prefer) is through the character arc, which is basically about where does the character start, and where does the character end up. That creates a different sense of scene, as well. Authority, the new book that I have out, is very interior to the character. As a result, even though it’s in third person, you have almost stream of consciousness in there. For my purposes, even though it’s a thriller — a spy thriller, more or less, with some weird elements — it was more useful to me to think of it as this personal journey of this character and be so tight in on him that I was thinking of the character arc, not thinking about the reveals or the mystery, or anything like that. Those things just slotted in naturally.

There was also a lot of improv involved in writing the scenes because I had only a very rough outline for these scenes: “I know that he’s going to have a meeting with so-and-so,” or, “This is going to probably happen here,” but I didn’t know what was going to actually occur in those scenes until I wrote them. Now, was this my process for the other novels in that series? No. From novel to novel, you shouldn’t restrict yourself in how you try to think about or conceptualize your approach, because each novel may be different. It may require a different process or a different approach. It’s helpful to realize that the story lizard that was so generous to you one year may be a stony sentinel impediment the next.

The other thing I just wanted to say briefly — and this image has less to do with my point than some of the others, but I like the image a lot — character arcs at the scene level, the decisions you make there, define character. They define character emphasis. The commitment to character that you have defines what you can get away with in a scene. You can sometimes get away with an action scene that doesn’t have much commitment to character because there seems to be something colorful going on, some movement generated that catches the eye. It’s less likely you can get away with that in a dinner conversation scene.

You also need to know your strengths and weaknesses. I tend not to dramatize dinner conversations because that’s not my strength. Many times, that will be the part that’s summary in a couple of sentences. There are other writers who don’t particularly like doing, for example, just battle sequences. You don’t necessarily have to commit to doing a type of scene that you just aren’t suited for, if you can find a way around it that isn’t just a work-around but serves to strengthen the story or novel in question.

Cutting Away from a Dramatic Scene

Digging down a bit further, here’s a more practical example. Airship disaster, as I call it: An actual example with three different ways of cutting away or not cutting away from the scene. Here, you’ve got a situation where, whether it’s a heated conversation or an airship blowing up, you have context at the beginning of the scene. You know where you are. You know who the characters are. You have some kind of focus. It’s embedded in the plot in a place where it makes sense for the reader.

Then you get to the point where there’s maximum drama or conflict. Either you follow the red example where you show everything through the downfall and the aftermath of that, or, at that point, you cut away, and you go right to the aftermath for the green version. Or, with the blue version, you go a little bit past the aftermath, past the point of crisis, so there’s a little bit of dying fall, and then you break away entirely, and you don’t really show this part of the action.

These approaches all create different effects. Again, you may not be comfortable with showing a certain kind of scene, or there may be so much drama up to this point that if you actually show what happens here, it’s going to be melodrama. The other thing about this approach is that maybe you want the reader to fill this in. Maybe it’s much more effective in the reader’s mind if you leave it at this point. You let them do the work here. Or, in showing the aftermath, it’s actually more emotionally effective for whatever reason than showing the moments after the explosion through to the aftermath.

One thing you may find in the middle of some of your scenes is that you can cut away and come back, and lose a paragraph or two, depending. I have a scene in Acceptance where two characters come to blows, and there’s something said that can’t be unsaid. It’s just anti-climax. I cut right there. I come back to a description of, basically, them both looking at out the window, and then come slowly back to both of them speaking again a little bit later. You get a sense of how they’ve become reconciled to what was said. Sometimes, you need to stay there and have all that messy stuff there. Sometimes you do need to cut away and that takes just as much skill.

This said, in the knowledge that the full through-line, where you leave nothing out, requires great, great skill of a different kind. An airship that blows up for too long with little reader commitment can be just as boring as something less dramatic.

A good example of how to be successful writing without leaving anything out is in Donna Tartt’s novel, The Goldfinch. She has, basically, a one-take scene set in a museum — where there’s a bomb explosion. She starts that scene from the aftermath, and she goes all the way through until the main character gets out of the museum. There are all kinds of places where she could have cut away — she could have done this, that, or the other — but instead, she shows you the entire thing.

It’s extremely masterful to hold a reader’s attention through all of that, because even situations that seem inherently dramatic can be rendered incredibly boring if you don’t do them the right way. To be honest, action scenes in particular are a great example of this, because if you’re not invested in whatever action’s going on, it’s just about as bad as a boring dinner conversation.

There’s also the issue of repetition across multiple scenes. George R.R. Martin mentions this with regard to his novels, about battle sequences, which he varies because he has so many. You can, again, substitute in any word for battle. “I have so many dinner conversations,” whatever. Sometimes he’ll cut away. Sometimes he will show the whole thing. Sometimes you just learn about what happened from a messenger galloping up.

It’s interesting, too, the acts of translation from film. A lot of films have sophisticated scenes that if studied properly are useful for fiction. Orson Welles has this great amazing scene in Chimes at Midnight — a battle scene that starts with a bird’s-eye view of this battle going on, and then slowly you zoom in and then zoom in again. You can’t even really tell what’s going on at the end, but in a good way. It’s just all these muddy boots and parts of bodies, and then Welles cuts away to show the aftermath from far above again…and there are all the soldiers, dead in the mud and it’s shocking. Highly effective. It’s something that would be effective in fiction to some degree, too, probably. I used a similar idea in a single-combat scene in one novel. I also think the writers for Game of Thrones on HBO used Chimes at Midnight for their “Battle of the Bastards” episode recently.

A Break Down of an Action Scene

What I wanted to do now is show you one particular scene and break it down, from the first novel in the Gormenghast Trilogy by Mervyn Peake. It’s kind of fantasy and kind of not. It’s set in this huge ancestral castle home with this dysfunctional family that’s been there for generations. You don’t have a really good idea of what’s in the outside world.

The lord of the manor has a cook down, basically, in the basement who is kind of a brute. Then he has a guy named Flay who’s his servant. Flay and Cook hate each other, because Flay sees Cook as a possible usurper, and Cook is hatching a plot to overthrow Flay or undermine his influence. They have been at it for a very long time by the time this scene that I’m going to go through occurs in the novel. They have a long, long history. It’s a fascinating scene, a chapter entitled “Blood at Midnight.”

This is an image we couldn’t put in Wonderbook. It demonstrates the thing that’s really fascinating about this scene: it is one long action sequence. It could have been several different scenes, and you may even still say it is, but it’s really one long scene. He doesn’t cut away during the entire thing. He uses extremely long sentences. He goes back and forth between the point of view of both characters, which makes perfect sense in the context of the scene, because they’re so linked at a psychic, psychological level. Some other writer would have taken a totally different approach with this. Think about if, say, Lawrence Block had written this scene. Pithy versus verdant styles give an immensely different feel to violence. One may speed it up and make us “only” look at the actions and the other may slow it down and give us time to look for other things.

As an exercise, I suggest you look at this slide, and read the specifics of the scene later. Write your own version and compare it to what he did, and see what choices you made that you think are actually better for your context, and which things he did that were better for his.

I’ll be honest, too, in admitting that this scene Peake wrote should not work. Here’s this 25-page action sequence with long, convoluted sentences, and yet you are on the edge of your seat the entire time.

So the scene starts out with this initial stalk. Flay knows that Cook is planning to kill him. Flay has been stalking or haunting Cook as Cook goes around his daily business. When he sees Cook go upstairs towards his quarters with a cleaver, he knows that it’s probably about time to try to not die. Flay has already — and this is another complication right off the bat –prepared a fake Flay in his bed. When Cook goes to kill Flay, he is unable to, because it’s a dummy. At that time in the novel, there’s a storm going on during a dark night. There’s a flash of lightning — chance operating to make things worse, really — and Cook actually sees Flay behind him, just as Flay was about to stab Cook. I know it looks a bit like Spy vs. Spy on the screen. Pretend it looks fancy.

Then there’s this chase sequence that’s up all of these endless stairs, which should be boring as hell. This is a place where, in some novels, you might cut. You might cut to the next scene, where they’re actually fighting or something, or fighting each other. But Peake uses this opportunity to recap the incredibly convoluted relationship they’ve had in a really fascinating and new way. You get a different view of both characters because of this — because you learn something new, you become more invested in the outcome. Then, by the time that they get to the confrontation, it’s in this interesting place, this Hall of Spiders, with all of these bizarre artifacts. You have a location, in addition to the specifics of character, that is specific and very interesting.

Next, you have “further complications” as Jarvis Cocker might say. Again, this looks more comic in the image than it is in the actual scene, but Cook gets a spider in his eye, basically. This slows him down a bit, which is useful, because in the natural unfolding sequence of events, Cook is much better suited for killing Flay than Flay is for killing Cook. The detail that Peake uses throughout acts as a form of slow motion, but not like in a bad De Palma film, so that you’re focusing more on the how and not the what. This focus emphasizes character motivation. He whirls around. He’s trying very hard to get to Flay. In the process of this, because of “old spider eye,” he smashes his blade right into the side of the wall. That gives Flay enough time to get away from him for a while. There’s a sequence we couldn’t put in here where there’s a little bit more back and forth right after that. Then finally, Flay wins out and kills Cook.

In addition to what I’ve noted, there are a few other things that the scene does that are very important to note. Flay has a very specific plan to lure Cook to the Hall of Spiders. You know this beforehand, so there’s been setup. The visualizations by Flay anticipating Cook’s attack create further tension. The two combatants are evenly matched. Flay is smarter, but Cook is a lot stronger. Neither party is a professional killer, so there’s no expectation of a quick resolution. In fact, you expect a bit of inefficiency.

The scene occurs towards the novel’s end. It functions as part of the climax. The reader is expecting that there will be something like this at the end of the book, just not in this form. Peake has the luxury of being able to go in depth because at this point the reader is not expecting something really fast and short, as they might toward the beginning, before being as invested. It’s the climax, for god’s sake — who wants their climax over in a haiku?

The stakes are high, as well. After this scene, this action has consequences on all the other characters going forward. You could say there is an extreme ripple effect and we also understand after this scene that things may get very dark indeed.

Yet despite that kind of darkness, Peake is always very precise about where the characters are standing and the scene never feels murky. This is a quality I admire greatly — you can also find it in Mark Helprin’s A Soldier of the Great War. As a writer, I always want to know where the light is in the room and how it’s striking the characters. Even if that description doesn’t make it to the end — maybe because the viewpoint character isn’t that observant — the echo of it there means that there’s a little bit more reality to the situation. Always knowing the basic blocking, like the stage directions, is very helpful in terms of creating specificity in your scenes.

Thus, the details of the confrontation are choreographed pretty darn well. Peake has a very clear idea ahead of time. Because he was an artist, I would imagine he did little sketches of all these different bits before he actually sat down to write, which is another important thing to think about when doing scenes: visualizations.

An Action Writing Exercise

The exercise, then, that I want you to do here is take your short story and isolate the scene with most action in it. I want you to make a list of every action that occurs in the scene and I want you to add some context, almost as if footnoting or layering in annotations, about the emotional resonance that is brought from prior scenes or events not dramatized in the story. If you don’t know, make something up. Why does this action have significance? What off the page leaves a ghost of its presence in your scene? You’ll likely wind up with melodrama from thinking of too much, and have to scale back, but that’s just part of the process.

And then I want you to draw diagrams of the characters and their setting, thinking hard about where they should be standing and where the light is and where it isn’t. Once you’ve done that, you should rewrite the scene keeping both the emotional context and the physical context in mind.

Two additional take-home exercises: For the first, re-cut a problem scene in your story by removing the first paragraph and the last paragraph, rewriting to include any context lost, deleting anything in the middle no longer relevant, and adding more suggested by the cuts. The second is to re-map the beats and progressions of the Gormenghast scene in the context of a dinner party. This requires you to translate action into less physical acts — the jabs and reposts of conversation, perhaps. I would also think about clues about where everyone’s coming from in that moment, like where they immediately came from, for example. If some guy’s coming immediately from a crappy day at work, that guy’s totally different than the day when he didn’t have to come from work at all like the weekend. What is their immediate emotional state? Then who knows each other already? What is the history between them? How’s that going to possibly create conversation, conflict, or whatever else. And who might have come to the dinner party with a premeditated agenda too.

The Different Decisions You’re Making When You’re Writing a Story

These other slides are just a kind of dying fall of different ways of saying the same thing we’ve been talking about. You’ve all seen those choose-your-own-adventures. One of the images in Wonderbook is of an evil eye that wants a body. It gives me an opportunity to show all the different decisions that you’re making when you’re writing a story. It’s all the different ways the story can go. That’s another thing to test once you finish the story: “Have I made it too easy? Is this scene too easy? Should these characters or the outcome have been different? What would the outcome be?” In a couple cases, the evil eye comes to naught. In the others, the evil eye finally finds his father, which is a key to getting by in the world.

Sometimes this could be as simple as changing the relationship between the characters, and it radically changes the scene. There was one workshop where this writer had a really interesting story, but there was no tension in it whatsoever. My wife Ann, who’s a great editor, said, “Well, what if, in this first scene, instead of saying” — this is a very simple example, but — “instead of saying” — this person’s coming to somebody asking for something — “What if, instead of the person saying yes, they say no, and then it turns out these two people have known each other for 20 years, and they have this whole history? There’s a very good reason why this person’s saying no.”

Out of that one change, the story suddenly had tension. A lot of the same elements were there, but they were completely re-contextualized, and the story worked. She didn’t actually have to change all that much. She had to change dialogue, but she had the scenes she needed. They just weren’t doing the right things originally. Again, it’s all about thinking about your character interactions, what their histories are, what they’re bringing to the table, and so on and so forth. This, on the slide, being a fairly whimsical and ridiculous example.

This image is more theoretical — probably the most abstract in Wonderbook. I’ve had some musicians say this actually looks a little bit like how they map music. Thinking about scenes on a more abstract level, you have all these little interactions, these beats, which are more or less the pulse of the story. Beats, more or less, are the action/reaction going on at that micro-level in the scene — and you usually hear them in the really crude context of commercial screenplays even though a beat is a very complex organism and plays a complicated role in the health of all kinds of fiction.

Then you have these progressions going on in the scene sometimes, where there’s a progression of a topic or a progression of a theme, or whatever else driving things in the background. Sometimes novels fail because the progressions are in the wrong order or composed of the wrong beats. Sometimes they fail because the novelist doesn’t recognize the autonomous heartbeat they’ve created and they don’t perpetuate that sonorous yet almost imperceptible progression throughout the entirety of their story.

In the middle of all this, you have what I would call “time intrusions,” although there’s also a note there that not all scenes include time intrusions. Sometimes they just include the neighbor’s dog. The point is that people have memory. People have memories. People do not think in sequence. They’re not always moving forward. I’m not talking about flashbacks, necessarily, but even during a conversation with someone, what are you thinking about? You’re not just thinking about the conversation you’re having with the person. Some of that may be relevant to the scene. Some of it may get into the scene.

Then there’s something called contaminations. Joyce Carol Oates did this beautifully in a story called “The Corn Maiden.” It starts out in the mother’s point of view. You think that the scene is really about her, but it’s actually about the police in the investigation and a member of the police. As the scene progresses, there’s this contamination or intrusion of this other subject matter.

Then it allows Oates at the very end to immediately go into a sequence that’s really from no one’s point of view at all. It’s just an overview of all the different actions that the police are taking at this time. It starts out as an interrogation of her by the police, and it ends as something completely different.

I’ve included “Science of Scenes” because I like the idea of pushing the boundaries of what can be articulated in an image. I wasn’t sure that it was completely accurate in what it was showing, but it’s something for people at least to argue about, about how scenes work. Even if I wind up being wrong, it has caused you to engage with an interesting idea, and one of you can confront me five years from now and tell me how stupid I was, which will be fun for both of us.

Writing Multiple Character POVs

Then what do you do if you have character points of view that, again, you have more than one character point of view, and you’re trying to figure out the emphasis there? It’s a very commercial fiction thing. But this applies to a lot of “literary” fiction too despite the emphasis of my diagram. The person you spend the most time with — that’s your main character. When you’re sequencing scenes, remember that. If you think that one of these characters that you’re showing the lives of in these different scenes from different points of view is your main character, then we have to fairly regularly come back to them. Usually, they should be the longer, more substantive scenes.

One quick easy way to accomplish that is to simply not break up scenes with that character in them. Show the whole scene, and have the other character scenes be ones where you cut away a little bit more. These are tongue-in-cheek examples from Chive Muscle’s cult classic Monster Island Bloody Hellfest, where they all come to this island, and there’s this thing that’s after them, and two different ways of cutting. One, obviously, is emphasizing a particular character. One’s a more ensemble novel. You can see, though, that you’re not looking at something that’s that precise. It shouldn’t be this cookie-cutter thing where this character’s scenes are all going to be 20 pages or 5,000 words, or whatever else, but that you have a regular rhythm that you establish.

Does it apply to all novels? No. Adichie in Americanah doesn’t do this. She does this really wonderful thing where she sticks mostly with the female lead, and then she does these asides to the male character, who, at one point, is in the UK. She’s not necessarily consistent because it would be too mechanical, but there’s a weird consistency to her inconsistency in how she goes back between the points of view. If you go to the Wonderbook website, I have a breakdown, a diagram breakdown, of that novel, which I think is a really interesting one, because it looks so unstructured, in a way, but it’s really cleverly structured, if you really take a close look at it.

Now, have these diagrams and this lecture covered every possible way you can think about scenes? No — that would be impossible. But what I hope this lecture has done is given you enough general and specific examples that the information will mix with your own approach and imagination in a synergistic and organic way. You will need to experiment in mechanical ways too — plugging in these ideas to existing fiction you’ve written. But at the end of the day, you’re trying to get to the point where more and more technique becomes muscle memory. That’s when you begin to talk about the “art of fiction,” but it comes to you first through absorbing craft. You can do that without instruction — without taking classes but just studying fiction you admire — but sometimes a lecture like this one can shorten the time span it takes to internalize these topics. Thanks for your engagement and your attention.

On Gnarly Floods and Mass Incarceration: Can We Reroute Our Future?

Angela Palm’s childhood home in the rural town of Hebron, Indiana was built on a rerouted riverbed, where the Kankakee once flowed. In the opening chapter of her Graywolf Non-Fiction Prize winning memoir, Riverine: A Memoir from Anywhere but Here, Palm recounts how her father paddled a rowboat from their doorstep to the school bus every morning during flood season. She relishes in the pride her father and neighbors took in recounting stories of the how they conquered past floods. She recalls her fondness for these rituals as well as her childlike knowledge of the danger the flood imposed upon the town. From her vantage point as an adult, Palm calls nature “violent” and “taunting.” The fractured site of Palm’s childhood represents both the human ability to engineer the land, and, by extension, destiny, as well as the fragility of human life in the face of an unyielding environment.

Like the landscape of Palm’s youth, her belief system is subject to drastic change. She tests out various religions, from Methodist to Catholic, attending “a dozen different churches or more” by the age of thirteen. While Palm experiments with different modes of consciousness, she is also aware of how the futures of others are seemingly incapable of being rerouted. This concept is most pointedly illustrated by tragic story of Corey, Palm’s childhood neighbor, crush, and ultimately lifelong friend, who was sentenced to life in prison for murder as a young man. Poverty, parental neglect, and drug use led Corey to spend four of his formative years in juvenile detention centers for “crimes that rich kids had been let off for.” Palm speculates: If Corey had more support and guidance, “would it have gone this far?”

The message being, people who err are not inherently bad; more so, our society cruelly dictates the outcomes of our lives and this statement becomes a refrain, especially in relation to Corey’s incarcerated status. “To me, inmates were regular people,” Palm writes, “who had been caught doing something society deemed impermissible and who had likely had some misfortunes along the way.” Palm emphasizes the corruption of the US prison system, specifically its catering to privatized companies and values profit over rehabilitation. Despite human attempts to redirect, socioeconomic status, like weather, is shattering.

When Palm volunteers for Habitat For Humanity, the presence of flood rears again in Palm’s adult life, helping repair Hurricane Floyd’s damage to North Carolina homes. While there, she witnesses first-hand the devastation of natural disaster, and the human inability to quell or control it. She enters a house destroyed and gutted by water damage, where the only undamaged object is a 2-Pac poster in the living room, hung high enough to have evaded the water. The presence of the poster in the house represents the intersection of environmental and social determinism: 2-Pac could not escape “the current” of crime and violence that ultimately claimed his life, just as homeowners were unable to ward off the flood.

Palm presents a drastically different outlook in the last section of her book, Mountains, which chronicles her experience at a writer’s retreat at the Robert Frost estate. While her first two sections, Water and Fields, emphasize how tied we are to our physical environment and origin and feature clinical, analytical analysis, Mountains argues for our ultimate detachment and uses dreamier, more poetic language. Palm notes the significance of her location while acknowledging that the environment exists entirely separately from her entanglements and associations with it. “The trees are not poems, never have been, do not contain poems, never have contained them,” Palm writes. Although this sentiment would seem discouraging and averse to the purpose of a writers retreat, Palm revels in the freedom of experiencing objects not through their associations, but as themselves in their raw and pure form.

Although Palm states that “we’ll never really escape the landscapes we inhabited as our brains developed,” she chooses to focus on the blunt indifference of the land in her last section. Mountains is focused on the immediacy of physical sensation as opposed to theory meant to explain environment in relation to humans. This intentionally lopsided structure leaves the reader with multiple layers of paradox and duality: the land is malleable yet confining. Environment is integral to development and fate, but it also exists separately from human classification. At the close of the book, Palm ultimately forces the reader to reconsider her own thesis. This technique harkens back to the rerouted river of Palm’s childhood, upon which humans renegotiated the very foundation of their situation. Reader, like river, is forced to reroute.

Truman Capote’s Ashes Could Be Yours

Truman Capote has now been dead for thirty-two years. He will go on being dead another thirty-two, at the very least least, but his remains will be given new life, it seems. Just in time for the unfortunate anniversary of Capote’s death (today — August 25th), Julien’s Auctions in Los Angeles announced it will be selling the author’s ashes to the highest bidder. The ashes are apparently part of the estate of Johnny Carson’s widow. The story, as reported by Rory Carroll, The Guardian’s man in the City of Angels is packed with odd and eccentric details, and you really should read the full article.

Here are a few choice tidbits:

  • The director of Julien’s told The Guardian: “With some celebrities this wouldn’t be tasteful.” But he was “100% certain” Capote would approve.
  • Ethical deliberation was undertaken.
  • The starting price for the ashes is $2,000.
  • The lot is expected to fetch two to three times that amount.
  • Julien’s is located “between a Food Express and Five Four Clothing store.”
  • William Shatner once auctioned off a kidney stone for charity.
  • Napoleon’s penis is not in his tomb at Les Invalides, as you believed.
  • “The one thing about Truman Capote is he’s highly collectible.”
  • Capote’s ashes have twice been stolen and then recovered.
  • The auction house is hoping a New Yorker will buy the lot.
  • The ashes would make “the ultimate conversation piece.”

On the web page for Lot 501 — the ashes, in their hand-carved Japanese wood box — there’s a link directing you to “similar items.” We couldn’t help but find out, what, exactly, is similar to Truman Capote’s earthly remains.

And so, here are a few other choice items from the auction.

  • Capote’s needlepoint pillows.
  • “Casual hats.”
  • Capote’s snakebite freeze kit.
  • His crime and prison books. (Okay, that’s pretty interesting.)
  • His Baccarat decanters. (Dammit — also pretty cool.)
  • Capote’s “risque” photographs. (This is actually a helluvan auction.)
  • Prescription pill bottles. (Getting weird again, but let’s go with it.)
  • A papier mache parrot. (Wait, what?)
  • Capote’s clothes “at time of death.” (Nah, we’re out.)

The auction will be held on September 24th. That gives you a month to save up. Or you could pop into, say, Green Apple Books or BookCourt or your local indie bookseller, where copies of In Cold Blood go for around $20.

Either way: Truman Capote, R.I.P.

The Writing on the Wall: On the Convergence of Literature and Visual Art

One of the most captivating works of nonfiction I encountered in recent years was not published in a journal or book. I read it while visiting MoMA PS1 to see their Greater New York exhibit. On one wall was Glenn Ligon’s “Housing in New York: A Brief History 1960–2007,” in which Ligon recounts his memories of the different places he has lived across the city.

In a review for Hyperallergic, Benjamin Sutton noted that the piece addressed themes of “gentrification, discrimination, and inequality”–the same concepts that have fueled many an impressive work of literature, especially recently. It’s a spot-on assessment: using a limited amount of space, Ligon is able to both evoke numerous spaces that he has called home, along with the complex dynamics at work in each.

From Glenn Ligon, Greater New York, MOMA PS1

This wasn’t the first moment of literary crossover for Ligon: Yale University Press released a collection of his writings, Yourself in the World: Selected Writings and Interviews, in 2011. In a piece for the Los Angeles Review of Books, Pete L’Official examined Ligon’s literary and artistic influences and the way that they converge in his work. Readers curious to read “Housing in New York: A Brief History” without traveling to a museum may be excited to learn that PS1 published a version of Ligon’s piece earlier this year.

It’s been a memorable time for works that exist in the overlap of fine art and literature.

It’s been a memorable time for works that exist in the overlap of fine art and literature. In the winter of 2015, I was taken aback after reading Caroline Bergvall’s Drift, a stunning book that juxtaposed meditations on traversing bodies of water with ecstatic explorations of language and haunting scenes of refugees seeking better lives via hazardous transportation over water. That same winter, I was stunned again after taking in Bergvall’s “Drift,” an installation at the gallery Callicoon Fine Arts which echoed many of the same themes as its literary counterpart but did so while engaged in a very different discipline.

Courtesy of the artist and Callicoon FIne Arts, NY

Trying to pin Bergvall’s work into one category can be nearly impossible: Meddle English, her 2011 collection of “new and selected texts,” features one of the most fascinating collections of supplementary material I’ve encountered. Specifically, Bergvall’s accounts of the histories of the works collected in Meddle English often span continents and iterations, with certain works encompassing time spent in publications and in galleries. One can read Bergvall’s work on its own as literature, or as a counterpart to her work in galleries; one could also, presumably, focus entirely on Bergvall’s art and ignore her books completely. Any of these theoretical readers or viewers would walk away from the experience satisfied, with plenty on their mind.

Bergvall and Ligon are far from the only artists to be represented on both gallery walls and bookshelves. On a list of six recommended books that she assembled for The Week, the novelist Samantha Hunt included The Walk Book, a work by Janet Cardiff, perhaps best known for her large-scale audio installations. (Her 2001 The Forty Part Motet takes Thomas Tallis’s Spem in alium numquam habui and breaks it into its components; it’s both technically stunning and tremendously moving on a number of levels.) And Ben Eastham’s recent T Magazine profile of Heather Phillipson focused primarily on her work as an installation artist, but also noted the acclaim that she had received for her poetry: “Encouraged by her tutor, she applied for the prestigious Eric Gregory Award for poets under 30, and won; in 2009, she had her first collection published by Faber.” Eastham also pointed out that Phillipson has drawn inspiration from Frank O’Hara–who was himself a figure with a foot in the literary and fine art worlds, having spent time as a curator at the Museum of Modern Art.

The Forty Part Motet | Hamburger Banhhof, Berlin 10/11

The work of Sophie Calle, another artist whose work can be found in galleries and bookstores alike, has served as the inspiration for a chain of memorable literary works. The story behind Calle’s 1983 Address Book is the stuff of which great plots are made: Calle found a lost or abandoned address book, copied the contents, and reached out to the people listed in it, then documented her interactions with them. (Siglio Press published a version of it in 2012.)

The Address Book, Sophie Calle

A figure inspired by Calle shows up in Paul Auster’s 1992 novel Leviathan–specifically, an artist who selects people at random to follow, documenting those interactions. In turn, Calle went on to create a work inspired by Auster’s novel. Enrique Vila-Matas’s 2007 Because She Never Asked, newly translated into English, uses that as a starting point. Its plot follows a writer who is commissioned by Sophie Calle to write a scenario for her to perform.

Because She Never Asked rapidly increases the metafictional quotient. It alludes to Auster’s novel, for one thing, but also adds multiple layers of reality, including a character who serves as a doppelgänger of Calle. She isn’t the only example of this: the novel’s narrator also serves as a kind of surrogate or double for the author Vila-Matas, who has incorporated the art world into his fiction on multiple occasions: his 2014 novel The Illogic of Kassel follows the misadventures of a novelist who is asked to write in public as part of an artist’s installation. In this case, the book plays out like a comedy of manners set in the art world; Because She Never Asked reads more like a response to Calle’s work–a literary homage that features Vila-Matas working with some of Calle’s preferred themes and devices.

Enrique Vila-Matas is one of numerous artists and writers alluded to in Valeria Luiselli’s 2015 novel The Story of My Teeth. This novel can be read on its own, as a standalone work about a larger-than-life character who reinvents himself as an auctioneer and falls victim to a strange conspiracy.

Galería Jumex

But the novel’s origins can be found in the art world. Luiselli was commissioned to write a work of fiction as part of an art exhibition, The Hunter and the Factory, that was shown at Galería Jumex in 2013. In a 2014 interview with BOMB, she described the process.

I wrote it in installments for the workers in a factory. Originally it was a commission from the Jumex Foundation, an important contemporary art collection subsidized by the eponymous juice factory. Two curators, Magalí Arriola and Juan Gaitán, asked me to write fiction for an exhibition there, and I suggested the idea of writing a novel in installments for the factory workers. I wrote one installment a week, and each was distributed as a chapbook among them.

In her afterword, Luiselli writes about seeking to “link the two distant but neighboring worlds”–in other words, the factory and the cultural activities for which it provides support. It’s through her novel, which encompasses questions of class, geography, and perceptions of art, that she is able to do so. It also creates a number of lenses through which The Story of My Teeth can be read. Luiselli concludes the novel’s Afterword by noting its collaborative elements–from the installments in which it was written on through to the process of translating it for Anglophone readers. “[E]very new layer modifies the entire content completely,” she writes.

“Every new layer modifies the entire content completely.”

Luiselli’s novel, like Bergvall’s texts, exists in some middle space in which fine art and literature intersect. Other recent books have used devices and techniques generally associated with fine art towards narrative ends. Since 2015, the first three books in The Familiar, a projected 27-volume work by Mark Z. Danielewski, have been published. As readers of his earlier Only Revolutions or House of Leaves are aware, Danielewski is fond of textual experiments and incorporating manipulation of the book as an object into the act of reading it. In her review of the first volume for the Los Angeles Times, Lydia Millet observed that it was “performance art as well as book — a heterogeneous mosaic of content that can either, depending on your reading preferences, dazzle and intrigue or torment and repel.” That emphasis on structure also calls to mind Eli Horowitz’s recent novel The Pickle Index, which exists in three distinct editions: a set of two hardcovers, a trade paperback, and an app. When I interviewed Horowitz last year, he noted that the differences between the versions was significant. “It’s the same basic text,” he said, “but exploring how the form and the story shape each other.”

That interest in form and format marks one additional way in which the art world and the literary world, never that far apart, have begun to overlap. Perhaps this convergence is a subtle response to the addition of digital formats to the methods by which books can be read. This isn’t to say that this group of writers is repudiating digital publishing formats; instead, it’s one possible answer that can arise after asking questions of just what physicality means for a book. If that answer in turn spins off a host of hybrids and challenging works, so much the better for those who care about a host of artistic disciplines.

Midweek Links: Literary Links from Around the Web (August 24th)

Want to better understand people’s emotions? Read more literary fiction

Leopoldine Core talks about why she writes about what she writes about

Teju Cole talks about the book that changed his life

Esquire picks the best 25 books of the year (so far)

5 great novels by comic book writers

A message to the next POTUS from 50 American writers

Margo Jefferson on reading poetry and not reading the Russians

The Millions looks at airplane reading

The Little Prince leaps off the page and onto the screen

The dos and don’ts of writing disabled characters

Tanay by Sachin Kundalkar

That you should not be here when something we’ve both wanted happens is no new thing for me. Today too, as always, you’re not here.

The house is quiet. I’m alone at home. For a while, I basked in bed in the shifting arabesques of light diffusing through the leaves of the tagar. Then I got up slowly, and went down to the backyard, and sprawled on the low wall for a single moment. The silence made me feel like a stranger in my own home.

I walked around the house quietly, as a stranger might. The chirping of sparrows filled the kitchen. The other rooms were quiet, empty, forsaken. In the front room, the newspaper lay like a tent in the middle of the floor, where it had been dropped. At the door, a packet of flowers to appease the gods and a bag of milk.

Then I realized I was not alone. From their photograph, Aaji and Ajoba eyed me in utter grandparental disbelief. I took my coffee to the middle room window and sat down. That girl with the painful voice in the hostel next door? How come she’s not shrieking about something?

To savor each bitter and steaming sip of coffee in such quiet?

That you should not be there when something we’ve both wanted happens is no new thing for me. Today too, as always, you’re not here.

When you came into our lives, I was in a strange frame of mind. I would have been willing to befriend anyone my age. I was ready for friendship with someone who only read management books; or someone who was studying information technology; or someone who wanted to settle in the United States. Anyone.

You came as a paying guest. You gave my parents the rent. You gave me so much more. Then you slipped away.

Those shrill girls in the hostel next door, weren’t they keeping an eye on us? I’m now going to sit on the wall, and when my coffee’s drunk, I’m going to scrape the dried coffee off the rim and the squelch at the bottom of the mug with a fingernail and then I’m going to lick it off. When that’s done, I’m going to take off my shirt and continue to sit here.

One of the fundamental rights of mankind should be that of wearing as many or as few clothes as one likes inside one’s own home. Or one should be able to wear none at all. Wasn’t the eye that the shrill girls in the hostel kept on us an invasion of our privacy, an abrogation of our rights?

After a bath in cold water, you would wrap a towel around yourself and sit on the low wall, bringing with you the smell of soap. It was you who broke my habit of going straight down for breakfast after bathing and getting fully dressed.

Another of my habits you broke: my daily accounts. I’d write them down faithfully. Rs 40 for coffee; Rs 100 for petrol.

‘Why keep accounts?’ you asked once.

‘It’s a good habit. You should know where you’re spending your money and on what.’

‘What do you get from knowing that?’

I asked Baba the same question in the night.

Baba’s answer was so stupid, I felt a spurt of sympathy for Aai. That night, I went for a walk and ate a paan; and I did not write down how much I spent on it.

Another first.

We hit it off immediately; neither of us liked the kind of girl who would sing syrupy light classical music — bhav geet; nor the kind of boy who would wear banians with sleeves. There was another thing I didn’t like: marriage. And the many relatives who made it their business to discuss the subject ad nauseam. You had no relatives.

We would both have liked this moment. We knew that it would be ours one day. But it is now mine alone.

When I woke up, my eyes opened peacefully. I felt the kind of peace you feel when you come in from a hot afternoon and pour cold water over your feet. When I opened my eyes, the day stretched before me, free of anxiety. When I opened my eyes, nothing was left of the night’s anxieties. My eyelids floated up. To wake quietly from a deep sleep is a rare thing and, when it happens, you can almost imagine that the world had begun again, at least for a few seconds. Or so you said.

Watching me wake up one day, you asked, ‘Why those frown lines? This look of pain?’ Once when I watched you wake up, you had the same frown. You said, ‘When one gets up, there’s a moment when everything looks odd and strange.’

I let it go at that.

Today, when I woke up, my eyes drifted open. I felt the kind of peace you feel when you come in from a hot afternoon and pour cold water over your feet. But when I was making coffee a line inscribed itself on my forehead; and I began to think: Why this peace? Shouldn’t I be crying? Throwing a tantrum? Complaining to someone?

Your stuff was all over the room: cloth bags, easel, guitar, books, cassettes, camera, Walkman, rolled-up canvases, and a book of pasta recipes. Baba had finished his fifth cup of tea. Aai was making the sixth. Aseem was in bed.

Anuja stopped the rickshaw at the door and got out; and, as is her wont, shouted three times, loudly, for change. Was that the first time you saw each other? When you took the ten-rupee note to her? Anuja shook your hand firmly, no doubt hurting your fingers. Aai introduced you over lunch: ‘This is Anuja, Aseem and Tanay’s sister.’

In the next two years, how much did you find out about my sister, a girl whose idea of fun was a strenuous trek to a fort, who grinds your fingers in a painful grip when she shakes your hand, who snores a little in her sleep, who listens with complete attention as if you were the last person in the world?

But that’s my Anuja. Who is your Anuja? When did you get to know her? How? And how could I have been so blind right up to the end?

When you were giving Anuja the ten rupees, I was up in the tower room, picking up the shirt you had dropped, inhaling your scent from it. When you came up, I was looking through your albums. I hadn’t even thought of it as an invasion of privacy. You came up behind me and put a hand on my shoulder and said quietly, ‘That was taken a couple of days before the accident; the last photo.’ My Marathi-medium school had not taught us to say, ‘I’m sorry for your loss’ at such moments. I hope I took hold of your hand then and gripped it tight.

Can a single day bear the burden of so many random firsts?

You spent all your Diwali vacations with uncles of various stripes. You ate your meals in hostel messes and, at each new halt, you found a roadside stall at which you could get your morning tea. You made yourself at home easily when you lived with us. It must not have been new, this living as a paying guest.

I had had my eye on that room, a dark one but well ventilated. Its main attraction was that it had its own access. I had assumed that it would be mine when I grew up. I would be able to come and go as I pleased. I would paint it the colors I wanted; decorate it the way I wanted. I would sleep in it, alone. But of course, that was the very room that my parents decided would attract a paying guest. And so I had showed this room to many potential residents, my face dark with resentment.

When I was a schoolboy, this was the room of my grandparents’ illness. There were two low cots ranged against opposite walls, my grandmother on one, on the other my grandfather. Then only grandmother remained, the room suffused with the smell of Amrutanjan. After she had suffered all her karmic share of suffering, phenyle drove out the other smells: of the aging body and drying behada bark, of supari and medicine. But the smell of Amrutanjan lingered.

When you came to see it, you said, ‘What a tempting aroma this room has. Do you come here to sneak cigarettes?’

That’s when I realized that smell is a matter of the mind. What smells you brought with you! Rum and cigarettes, your sweat and macaroni cooking on the hotplate, and then, because I loved it, attar of khus. And the smell of you, a unique personal smell of your own. When I think of you, that smell comes flooding back.

You came into the room and said, ‘What a tempting aroma this room has.’ I thought, if this chap takes the room, things might get interesting. I filled my chest with the smell of the room. Then you said, ‘Do you come here to sneak cigarettes?’ I realized that smell is a matter of the mind. Nothing is real.

As we chatted, sitting on the window ledge, in the middle of the night, I became aware of the mediocrity, the ordinariness of my secure and comfortable life.

You lost your parents when you were still in the tenth standard. You were offered the option of staying with relatives but chose to live in a hostel instead. You decided to live alone, to be independent, to make your own decisions. And through all this, the grim decision never to let a single tear fall.

When the results were declared, you did well. The crowd of happy parents made you uncomfortable and you slipped away. At the time, you were living with one of your aunts and you made your way home. The door was locked. Everyone had gone out. You sat on the sun-warmed steps, mark sheet in hand, and waited until evening . . . when you told me this, were those steps still warm for you?

Midnight in the window, just you and me. Even then you didn’t cry. At these times, I felt I should be your mother, your father, your brother, your friend, everything. But you had long reached the point at which you decided you would never cry again.

The mattress I had brought up, saying that I would study in the tower room, was never taken downstairs again. I encroached on your space slowly, hoping not to be rebuffed at each new foray.

One night, when everyone had fallen asleep after dinner, I came upstairs and found you in my beige kurta, sketching me. I got it: you didn’t mind my stealthy incursions. I also figured out that when the sketch was done, you were going to place it under my pillow. I slipped out again, closing the door behind me quietly and sat at the foot of the staircase, inhaling the scent of the raat rani.

The air was still. There was a light on in the kitchen, then the scrape of Baba’s cough and the light went out. The girls’ hostel across the road was still active. Some girls were oiling their hair and giggling. The rest were playing antakshari. Idly, I wondered what would happen to these foolish girls.

The light went out in the tower room. I went up and opened the door and approached the mattress. You were curled up on one side; the other a place for me, an invitation. Under the pillow, your sketch of me. But it wasn’t the one I had seen. This one had me, the staircase and the raat rani.

When I looked carefully at you, I could see you had screwed up your eyes like a child pretending to sleep.

When we lost a one-act play competition, I sat on the hot steps of the theatre and wept as a child would, sobbing and gasping. You sat down next to me and drew me close and once again I felt we were back in the window, back in the middle of a cool night.

Two days after you left with Anuja, Baba ransacked your room. One moment he was drinking tea; the next he was on his feet, calling Aseem as he marched upstairs. Aai and I followed him, at a run.

There wasn’t much in the room. From outside the window, we watched as Aseem and he turned what was left upside down. I had no energy left to speak, to intervene, to think. That pile of stuff reminded me of your first day here and my eyes filled. Aai thought I was crying because I was missing Anuja and she hugged me. Baba found nothing: no notes or slips of paper, no telephone diaries, no addresses, nothing that would fill out your context. No one saw how much of the stuff that they had tossed on to the floor was mine.

When they left, I saw four or five black-and-white photographs I had taken of you, peeping from a file. They’d faded a little over time and were stuck to each other. Delicately, I separated them.

When I took my Pentax out carefully from my bag, the rain had stopped. Soaked to the skin, you were looking at the sky, close to a black boulder washed clean by rainwater. You began to wipe your face with your sleeve and I stopped you, mid-wipe. You can see the glow of the rainwater and the gentle sun in the photograph.

You were about to finish a new painting. You had been at it day and night. In that riot of color, I now see a cage. It isn’t my face in the cage, but it resembles mine. That night when I came up to the terrace, you drew me greedily to you. And dark patches of color sprang up over my body: red and yellow and the purple-black of the jamun. Irritated, I upended your wooden palette over your head and then, in the middle of the night, by lamplight, I took a picture of your color-streaked face.

I stuck a few of those pictures up on the wall in my room below as well. But I didn’t want anyone to be suspicious so I added random pictures of some college friends around them, one of my parents, and one of Anuja as a bawling baby. That night, Aseem came to sleep in the room. He locked the door and lit a cigarette at the window. He turned to me and said, ‘Tomorrow I’ll get you a picture of Sai Baba. Stick that up as well. Spoil all the walls with Sellotape marks.’ When all this got to me, I would wonder whether I should ask you to leave with me, to go and stay somewhere else, somewhere far away.

But then I’d suddenly feel that I should ask you what you want to do with your life. Do you want a relationship? Would you dare?

I took two textbooks and started to come upstairs. I tried to be as quiet as possible but, when I went into the next room, I could hear Aai and Baba talking about something. They were speaking softly as they did when something was worrying them. Hearing my footsteps, they stopped. Aai wiped her eyes; Baba adjusted his expression and said, ‘What happened? Not sleepy? Want me to rub oil on your head?’ I didn’t think I could come upstairs right away. I’ll tell you about it later, I thought. When I took my Pentax out, the rain had stopped. You were wet through. Soaked to the skin, you were looking at the sky, close to a black boulder washed clean by rainwater.

I watched you through the lens. The cold made my hands tremble and the frame trembled too. At that moment, I felt I had to tell you what I felt, devil take the consequences. Then you wiped your face with your sleeve and I stopped you, mid-wipe.

When you arrived, I was ready to be friends with the kind of person who read management books, studied computer software and wanted a green card. I was bored of the same old stories and the same old people. I would have been willing to befriend anyone my age. Anyone. Those first few days, at the start of term, were quiet, peaceful, as you were. That might have been because the idea of a lifelong partnership, a long-term commitment hadn’t crossed my mind.

Shrikrishna Pendse was a boy like any other in our class; but when school reopened after the Diwali vacations one year, there was something different about him. He left the top button of his shirt open. His eyes were intense; and when he threw his arm around my shoulders, the smell of his body was seductive. Before school, after school, when the classroom emptied because everyone else was going to the laboratory, we grabbed at every opportunity to grab at each other. In that time between the ninth and the tenth standard, we began to rediscover ourselves. I couldn’t sit still, I couldn’t stay at home. The months passed in a haze of Euclidean geometry, Shrikrishna’s chatter, full marks in mathematics and the slow growth of down on Shrikrishna’s chest.

By contrast, our lovemaking was beautiful. At around three thirty in the morning, you slowly took me into your arms and I realized that this was the first time I had allowed this physical bliss to burgeon slowly. With Shrikrishna, there had always been an element of roughness. Was someone watching us? Would someone wake up? And then the habit of silence. And between you and Shrikrishna, how many different bodies! Twenty-five? Thirty? But they were all pretty much the same, and often it didn’t matter if I didn’t see their faces.

Once when I visited his house, Shrikrishna was in the bathroom. His mother told me to wait in his room. With nothing to do, I opened a magazine lying on the table. Madhuri Dixit was featured in a swimming costume. Some nights later, as he was about to come, Shrikrishna closed his eyes and mumbled, ‘Sheetal.’ Sheetal was a girl in the second year. At that time I only felt slightly surprised.

Once after a bath, I opened the door of my cupboard to get a change of clothes. Just the day before, Ashwin Lele had got hold of a video cassette. It was not the kind you got easily. You had to know someone at the video library. Then, you had to have the house to yourself. Lele knew someone and his parents had gone off to their village. He had a cassette player. After class, everyone gathered at his house. I laughed uncomfortably as we watched. All the boys were trying to sound sophisticated. I took my clothes out of the cupboard and looked at myself in the mirror. I dropped the wet towel. I took a long, clear-eyed look at myself. That I was different was nowhere apparent.

In school, the question was unimportant. In college all my close friends were women. The other boys and girls did seem to get together, they did go out together, they rehearsed plays together and even went out of town on trips together. But it was only when it came to arranging the annual college day — who to invite, what to get — that I first went to Rashmi’s home. No event in senior college seemed complete without Rashmi. Through the year, she didn’t actually join any of the extracurricular activities of the college: not the literary circle and not the singing group; she was not part of the trophy- hungry theatre group and was not in the National Cadet Corps. But if any of these clubs had an activity or an event, Rashmi was sure to be part of it. She seemed to be able to talk to teachers and caterers, to lighting men and sound technicians, to the student union and even the principal. This was the same man who didn’t even look up when he spoke to students but he would stop to chat with her before getting into his car and driving away. Often I didn’t understand the behavior of the girls around. (Still don’t.) I saw Anuja as one of the few sensible girls I knew. All the others seemed conventional; they were the kind who would have to be ‘proposed to’, they would have to get home by seven in the evening, they would weep as they sang the kind of syrupy bhav geet that would bring tears to the eyes of the senior citizenry whose own children were settled in America.

When I first went to her house, it was about 11.30 in the morning. I knocked and waited for some minutes. Then I began to call her name. A little girl came out of a neighboring flat. ‘Hey,’ she called and beckoned. I turned to her but she ran back into her flat and closed the iron security door. Sticking her nose out through the bars, she said: ‘What’s the use? Rashmitai must be still asleep. When I ring her number, the phone wakes her up.’ She giggled at this and ran inside. The phone began to ring in Rashmi’s flat. In a while, Rashmi came to the door, sleep clouding her eyes. She took the papers from my hand. To the little girl who had reappeared at the grill, she said, ‘Cheene, your Aai is going to be late. Don’t open the door to anyone. And come by in the afternoon for bread and jam.’ Then she took the papers, thanked me and both Cheenoo and she slammed their doors.

Now I have a key to Rashmi’s flat.

You didn’t seem very curious about people. I’m different. After I got to know you, I wanted to know every little detail about you. Where did you go to school? Did you ever fall in love? With whom? How do you manage alone? What do you plan on doing? I would ask a flurry of questions and I would volunteer a flurry of details about myself.

I don’t know how you managed it: an intense relationship with me, an attraction to Anuja, and then to leave with her? To live somewhere else?

Yesterday, Ashish and Samuel invited me over for a meal. Both their names were on the door. Ashish was cooking while Samuel helped, unobtrusively. They refused to let me do anything. I sat on a stool in the kitchen and watched them at work. I think they deliberately chose not to mention you. After lunch, while we were having coffee, Ashish went and sat next to Samuel and placed his warm cup against Samuel’s cheek. I looked down immediately. Samuel saw my discomfiture and said, ‘I’ll get some cookies,’ and went into the kitchen.

In the last couple of years, I have begun to feel the need for a permanent relationship, something I can grow into. The thought had crept up on me that I might have such a relationship with you. When I looked at my parents and thought about this whole ‘together forever’ thing, it never struck me as anything exciting. Yesterday, I was a little envious of what Samuel and Ashish had. When she spoke of Aseem’s wedding, Aai always said, ‘It’s best if these things happen in good time.’ In her world, unmarried men were irresponsible, free birds and unmarried women like Rashmi had ‘not managed to marry.’

What do two men who decide to live together do? Men like you and me? Those who don’t want children? Those who don’t have the old to look after or the young to raise? No one would visit us because we’d be living together as social outcasts. For most of the day, we would do what we liked.

You sometimes asked me, ‘Why do you stare at me like that?’ Did you know what I was thinking? We hadn’t met Samuel and Ashish then so I didn’t know any male couples who lived together.

You spoke of a couple who had never lived together. She was a French writer whose work you loved. He was also a writer and a philosopher. They had never lived under the same roof. But they were friends and had remained so. Throughout their lives, they had pooled in their income. They did an impressive amount of writing, teaching and fighting for the causes they valued. They had given themselves the right to create a new kind of relationship. You spoke animatedly about them; the second time you described their relationship, I said, ‘You’ve told me about this already.’

‘I’ll get some cookies,’ Samuel said and went into the kitchen. Ashish and I sat there without speaking.

Samuel did not come back. Perhaps he’d gone for a nap. After a while, Ashish came and sat down next to me. He said, ‘It hurts, doesn’t it? I get it.’ But it was he who began to cry. I hugged him and patted his back as he cried and cried. Finally, exhaustion set in and he stopped and wiped his reddened eyes.

He said, ‘Don’t worry about it. Sometimes, I don’t understand Samuel at all. There are these phone calls that go on for hours on end. And if I’m with him, he goes into the next room. I just look at him. What can I say?’

For hours on end, I sat in that upstairs room, staring at you while you went about your life, unaware of my attention. You would be squeezing paint out of tubes, hanging your clothes out to dry, wiping your stained hands on your T-shirt, blowing on the milk as it bubbled over, lifting vessels off the hotplate, or sucking on a singed finger. I’d be staring at you and thinking, I should ask, I should ask, I should ask: do you want to be in a stable monogamous relationship for the rest of your life?

Even if we’re not going to have children, even if we don’t have to worry about guests, even if we’re going to end up sleeping on two single beds, separated by a table on which there’s a copper vessel containing water, I want us to be together.

Why? I was a child then. I woke up in the middle of the night and went in search of a glass of water. Aai had a fever and Baba was sitting by her side, stroking her head. He gave her her pills and then he helped her up and took her to the bathroom . . . I still remember that scene.

No one had made me want to ask that question. Not Shrikrishna Pendse with whom I stole some moments in empty classrooms; not Amit Chowdhuri who lived alone behind Sharayu Maushi’s home; not Girish Sir who kept me back after rehearsals when all the other kids had been sent away.

After we made love, I felt a delicious lassitude creeping over me. When consciousness returned, I realized that you were still with me; you hadn’t turned your back and edged away.

Later, I was awakened by the warmth of the sun, filtering in through the window, and a delectable aroma in the air. It was you, after a bath, your hair wet, sitting in a chair, looking at me.

‘Why the lines on your forehead? Why that look of pain?’ I cleared my face, consciously letting happiness through.

Science Says Literary Readers Understand Emotions Better than Commercial Fiction Readers

There’s nothing that the book world likes to debate more than the differences between literary fiction and commercial or genre fiction. Is “literary fiction” truly different? Are genres just marketing categories? Is commercial fiction unfairly maligned?

Adding fuel to this debate is a new study that found that readers of literary fiction — but not commercial fiction — have a better understanding of other people’s emotions. The study, which was published in Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, made 2,000 people do a “Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test” where they looked at photos of actors displaying different feelings and tried to pick the right emotion. The participants were also asked to say which authors they recognized from a list of names that included literary authors like Kazuo Ishiguro and Salman Rushdie as well as commercial authors like Tom Clancy and Stephen King. The result was clear:

Results indicate that exposure to literary but not genre fiction positively predicts performance on a test of theory of mind, even when accounting for demographic variables including age, gender, educational attainment, undergraduate major.

Why is this the case? The studies authors, David Kidd and Emanuele Castano, suggest it is literary fiction’s focus on character over plot:

We propose that these findings emerge because the implied (rather than explicit) socio-cognitive complexity, or roundness of characters, in literary fiction prompts readers to make, adjust, and consider multiple interpretations of characters’ mental states.

If this study sounds familar, it may be because a simlar study by the same researchers received a lot of attention (and criticism) in 2013. However, that study 0nly looked at people who had just been asked to read a passage of literary fiction or commercial fiction. This time, they were hoping to look at a lifetime of reading.

According to The Guardian, the researchers stressed that this didn’t mean literary fiction was the only fiction with value.

“This is not to say that reading popular genre fiction cannot be enjoyable or beneficial for other reasons — we suspect it is,” agreed Kidd. “Nor does the present evidence point towards a clear and consistent distinction between literary and popular genre fiction. Instead, it suggests that the broad distinction between relatively complex literary and relatively formulaic genre fiction can help us better understand how engaging with fiction affects how we think.”

So should literary fiction readers rub this study in their pop fiction reader friends faces? Well, hopefully their literary diet has given them increased empathy to know not to do that.

Michelle Pretorius Delves into South Africa’s Past

Michelle Pretorius is no stranger to the complexities of history as it shadows the present. She was born in Bloemfontein, in the Free State Province of South Africa. She moved around the country with her family as she grew up, but she returned to Bloemfontein, a conservative stronghold, as a teenager. Apartheid and Christian-nationalist ideology were particularly pervasive factors throughout her life. It wasn’t until she left South Africa that she was able to see objectively how damaging this environment was, as she says, “not just for the society, but for individual growth and compassion as well.”

Now a PhD student at Ohio University, her experience inspired the writing of her debut novel The Monster’s Daughter, published in July by Melville House. The book spans over one hundred years, tracking characters from the time of the Boer War, through the rise and fall of apartheid, and focusing on a contemporary murder case that weaves the past and present together. It is at once a page-turning crime thriller, a richly written character study, and a cross-genre work of speculative fiction. Pretorius achieves a difficult feat, writing characters with compassion while deftly juggling suspense and multiple points of view to deliver a book that will appeal to a wide range of audiences. I recently spoke to her about the book and its origins.

Todd Summar: As a debut novelist, why was it important to you to tell this particular story as your first major project?

Michelle Pretorius: A teacher I admire very much once said that first novels are often thinly veiled autobiography. I think that The Monster’s Daughter was my way of coming to terms with my past and my role as a white person growing up in South Africa during some of the darkest days in the country’s history. We were under severe censorship when I was a child. The government controlled the media, books, anything that could possibly spread a subversive message. I think they even tried to ban The Beatles at some point. It is part of the reason South Africa only got television in 1976. Conservatives feared that the outside world would spread its immoral ideas and lead black people to revolt because they would get ideas about their station in life. In schools we weren’t taught the real history of South Africa, but rather a whitewashed history in which our Afrikaner ancestors were mythologized, their status in folklore akin to gods. In church we were told that God himself had given this part of Africa to the Afrikaner, that it was his right to be there. It sounds like a huge cop-out now, but it was only once I left South Africa that I realized that perhaps these things I was raised to believe, might not be the truth. I started reading and researching the true history of South Africa, the reason things happened the way they did. I don’t believe in one group being inherently bad and another inherently good. There was a reason the Afrikaners went from an oppressed minority, to the oppressors. I wanted to understand what happened, to trace the arc of events, and while doing so I also wanted to find some kind of truth. The novel grew out of that desire.

Summar: In Western literature, there seems to be a lack of representation of the immense political and cultural struggle in South Africa’s history, and the after effects of apartheid. People in the United States tend to ignore what happens in other countries. As someone now writing and publishing in the United States, did this notion drive your urge to tell this story?

Pretorius: When I first started working on the project, I was surprised to learn that nobody in the US knew about the South African concentration camps during the Boer War. I don’t fault Americans for not knowing South Africa’s history. After all, I actually knew very little of it when I first came here as well. The concentration camps were an obvious place for me to start the novel since, I believe, that is where apartheid had its roots. Yes, the country was colonized before that, and even the colonizing Dutch in 1652 had slaves and oppressed the non-white peoples of the land, but I’m talking about the institutionalized oppression that took hold in the country in the 21st century and the apartheid government’s rise to power. History is obviously important in the book. I also believe that aspects of South Africa’s history of race relations and oppression can be found in many societies, which makes it relevant beyond just a history lesson about what happened in one particular country. It is my hope that it might start a dialogue about what is happening in the US and other countries as well.

Summar: In some ways, the book serves as a dramatic snapshot of the history of apartheid, woven together with the very personal stories of its complex characters. How did you balance the massive amounts of research with such a nimble, elegantly-crafted narrative?

Pretorius: I’ll be honest, I failed miserably at first. When I started writing the novel, I made the rookie mistake of trying to tell readers every fact about the Boer War, in great detail. I forgot about story and characters, and didn’t trust my reader to figure things out for themselves. It took me a while to realize that nobody picking up a novel would be interested in reading a history book of facts. A personal connection with characters is the way in which you make the history real for the reader. Once you have strong, grounded characters you can place them in any situation, and you’ll know how they will react. I am what some call a “pantser.” I don’t plan my story ahead of time. I like to take the journey along with my characters, and see what happens — by the seat of my pants as it were! I took time to figure out who my characters were, and placed them in the turmoil of real historical events. I had quite a few sleepless nights, fretting about how things would come together. I did a lot of reworking and re-visioning throughout the writing process, and I learned to be ruthless when it came to cutting prose that wasn’t working. I was also very fortunate to have a group of intelligent and supportive writers who weren’t afraid to let me know if something in my draft wasn’t working.

I like to take the journey along with my characters, and see what happens — by the seat of my pants as it were!

Summar: The novel’s structure — interspersing the events of a murder case in 2010 with a timeline that spans the previous 100+ years — is a boldly original approach that heightens the tension and underscores the fraught history of South Africa. Was this tactic always apparent to you or did it take some experimenting to arrive at that point?

Pretorius: The past is very much a factor in our present lives, whether we know and understand our history or not. I wanted to illustrate that reach of the past into the present. Even though I intended to write a historical novel at first, I realized fairly early on that a present-day murder mystery would drive the novel, and that the historical fiction would inform the murder mystery. They are symbiotic in the book. It didn’t make sense to write the story chronologically, and so, even though it takes a while for the connections between the two narratives to form, I hoped that the individual strands would be interesting enough in themselves to keep a reader engaged until the connections between them became apparent.

Summar: Your decision to straddle genres, incorporating elements of crime thrillers, speculative, and historical fiction, will likely surprise and excite readers. What inspired you to verge away from a straightforward approach into this unexpected territory?

Pretorius: The story demanded it, in a way. As I mentioned, the crime thriller part made the historical fiction more relevant. We only experience history in segments, which is part of the reason the same mistakes get repeated. I wanted there to be characters that bore witness to these cycles of history, that saw the larger picture. That’s difficult in a human lifespan. And so I turned to science fiction for help to create these characters that not only lived a long time, but were actually the superior race that the Afrikaners claimed to be.

Summar: What is the significance of starting the book’s timeline with the events of the Second Boer War?

Pretorius: I was interested in exploring the arc of the rise and fall of apartheid. The Second Boer War was, to my mind, the point during which the Afrikaners were most oppressed and humiliated. As a people, they had suffered immensely during and after the war. It was this suffering and oppression that led to the exigency and emergence of the Broederbond, and the rise of Christian Nationalism, which in turn paved the way for apartheid. It was also a repetition of history i.e. the oppression of black people and suppressing their language (like the British attempted to suppress the use of Afrikaans after the war) that led to the ultimate downfall of apartheid.

Summar: The major threads of the story follow the parallel arcs of two women — Constable Alet Berg and Tessa Morgan, a young woman with supernatural characteristics born from sinister genetic experiments during the Boer War — though the cast of characters surrounding them play integral roles. When and how did it become evident that you would follow and mesh these two characters’ stories together?

Pretorius: Many writers will tell you that the first hundred pages of a novel are the hardest. That’s when you grapple with who your characters are, and try to figure out the what and the why of your story. Tessa and Alet formed independently. I took a few drafts of that first hundred pages for me to start thinking about the relationship between the victim of a crime, and the person seeking justice for that victim. They are both women, so I think Alet, who is a police officer, has an inherent understanding of the violence enacted on women. I wanted the connection to be deeper than that, though. The book is a journey of discovery for Alet, along with the reader, and Tessa is the key to that discovery.

Summar: The book is steeped in South African politics, culture, and folklore, such as legends like the Thokoloshe, as well as the conflict between black and white South Africa, the specter of apartheid, the death squads, the Broederbond, and more. As a native of South Africa, how did you ensure the authenticity and accuracy of each touchstone, while also avoiding turning the novel into a laundry list or encyclopedia?

Pretorius: Having grown up in South Africa gave me an edge when it came to interpreting the research, as far as cultural cues and practices were concerned. But if writing a short story is a 5k, then writing a novel is an iron man, for me anyway. You have to let go of the idea that your writing is precious and that you are the ultimate authority, and write with the realization that a lot of what you are writing will not work. At the point you think that you’ve nailed it, you have to be open to sharing what you have with people you trust, so that they can tell you if what you’ve done is really working as well as you think it is. You have to let go of ego and listen honestly, reject the things that don’t fit your vision, and incorporate the comments that you know in your gut makes sense. It takes time to develop that skill. I was lucky in that I had a fantastic support system while writing The Monster’s Daughter. But even through multiple revisions, and edits by my agent, a lot of what I wrote still ended up in the trash during the final editing process because it simply wasn’t contributing to the story. I think that young writers mistakenly think that writing is autonomous. My experience is that it ultimately is a very collaborative effort.

Summar: Besides the history, the geography and physical settings are vivid. You grew up in South Africa, but how did you capture the details of all of these locations so accurately? Are these places you visited while growing up, places you returned to for research, etc.?

Pretorius: Some settings in the novel, like Bloemfontein and Johannesburg, are places that I had lived in growing up. I spent some brief periods of time in Cape Town as well. The major part of the novel, however, is set in Unie, a fictitious town in the Western Cape Province. Friends of mine who had emigrated to the United Kingdom decided to move back to South Africa to live on a farm in that area. I visited them on one of my trips back to South Africa. It was the first time I had ever been in that part of the country. I spent less than three days on the farm, but immediately knew that this was where the novel had to take place. It was beautiful, isolated, and I thought about how a city person (such as myself) would negotiate a shift to life on a farm or in the nearest town, on which Unie was based. I think that this strong sense of place seeded Alet’s character and interactions, and the inciting incident of the novel.

Summar: Throughout the story, it is clear that certain characters, such as Alet, Tessa, and Tessa’s brother Flippie, represent the forces of change and progress, while others, the more villainous antagonists, represent oppression and apartheid. Despite this, each character is illustrated with complexity, with human flaws and weaknesses. How did you balance these characters and avoid presenting them as flat symbols of the messages of the book?

Pretorius: I don’t believe in people being just one thing. Too often we try to make people fit into the one-dimensional view we have of them, or a part we need them to play in the drama of our lives. It’s part of the us/them binary that riddles politics today. It’s easy. It’s dehumanizing. And it doesn’t tell a full story. I grew up in a society that created convenient, shallow narratives to suppress not just non-whites, but women as well. Civil rights movements and feminism have a lot in common in that respect. So I’m not interested in telling a story of binaries. Every so-called “bad” person, has a complex reason for their actions, and every “good” person has dark aspects to their personality that they don’t necessarily show the world. It’s what makes us all human. Alet is a protagonist, but she has many flaws, some of them very unattractive. She does not fit into the box marked hero. On the other hand we have Benjamin, the traditional villain, yet I feel he is one of the most sympathetic characters in the novel, even though others have disagreed with me.

I grew up in a society that created convenient, shallow narratives to suppress not just non-whites, but women as well…So I’m not interested in telling a story of binaries.

TS: Like the characters, you avoid presenting either cause — for instance, that of the Afrikaners and of the ANC, and even askaris, native characters who assisted the Afrikaners — as either all good or all bad. How did you balance these portrayals?

Pretorius: As with people, I think that we need to look deeper at causes to really understand events. We live in a very complex world and it is easy to label X as good and Y as bad to help us negotiate our lives. Unfortunately, nothing is that simple. There are reasons the Afrikaners became the bad guys. The ANC, on the other hand, also did things in the name of the struggle which disqualified it as being inherently good. It was important to me to try to present as much of a truth as I could, which meant that I had to show the good and the bad of both sides. Research helped a lot with this. It was hard to dissuade myself of the human instinct to pick sides, but I tried to make the history speak for itself, even though it was through fictional means.

Summar: Are there are other novels, or even nonfiction works, that may have inspired you in the writing of The Monster’s Daughter? Do you feel like you are engaging in, or continuing, a literary conversation, or are you, perhaps, starting a new one?

Pretorius: As far as influences are concerned, it’s hard to say. I read everything. I love murder mysteries by authors such as Dennis Lehane and Tana French, but I also enjoy science fiction, especially what is termed “mundane” sci-fi. I like the type of speculative fiction that, if we perhaps knew a bit more, or made scientific advances, could very possibly become a reality. I would love to claim that what I’m doing is unique, but there have been many novels that have blurred the borders of genre. I’m thinking specifically here of Smilla’s Sense of Snow by Peter Hoeg which is a fantastic literary novel that incorporates murder mystery, historical events, a strong female protagonist, and a little bit of science fiction to examine the postcolonial tensions between Denmark and Greenland. Sound familiar? The Monster’s Daughter had already been slated for release by the time I read Hoeg’s novel, so I can’t claim it had an influence on what I was writing, but my point is that authors have been pushing the boundaries of genre expectations for a while now. Through technologies such as the internet and smart phones, borders in all aspects of life are getting malleable, less defined. It is a trend that is becoming more prevalent in literature as well and it is liberating as a writer to not have to think about constraints, but rather to use the best aspects of genre to approach story in a different way.