Nonsense, Cartoons, and My Post-Soviet Adolescence

The hero of the first book I ever read on my own, Dr. Aybolit (literally translated, “Dr. Damn it hurts!”), was a straightforward figure who could cure everyone and everything. It didn’t happen to matter if you were a crocodile or a bandit, his remedies — which sometimes tasted like chocolate, other times like Leningrad spice cakes — would nurse you back to your feet in no time. I still attribute my present-day iron persistence to the effect of Dr. Aybolit on my early stages of development. As it is with anyone, the stories and images of my childhood came to form the foundations of how I assumed things must be.

I was a rather smart little girl once. According to one folk theory my intelligence came as a result of my rebelliously curly hair, which resembled an explosion beneath a pasta factory. As an adult I straighten my hair ruthlessly, which probably accounts for my somewhat lowered IQ. The fact is, the type of theories I prefer these days have little to do with logical relational connections, and much more to do with nonsense. I instruct my friends about the effect of moon phases on the rates of petty crimes. I blow smoke into their pensive faces, declaring that only people statistically likely to die from lung cancer are inclined to actually start smoking, and so they have little to worry about. I routinely mock my economist friends’ first premise about humanity, which is that people are essentially rational. It’s a wonder that I have any comrades left.

But how did this come to be, you might ask? I certainly do. What would cause me to abandon a childhood of storybook sense, to champion instead the anarchism of absurdity and nonsense?

I was not only a smart, rational little girl once, but cultured too. When my mom took me to see a play concerning the adventures of a worldly lion, who eventually returns home by the time the velvet curtains fall, I summarized it for her afterwards with a single, pithy line: “Only by leaving home can you find out where it is.”

Perfectly logical. Of course, I was accustomed by then to the idea that the point of stories was to teach me how to be. Take for instance this tale, of an unhygienic little boy who is punished by what else but an enormous sink come alive:

Phantasmagoric as the situation might be, the moral itself is perfectly clear, and naturally involves a good deal of soap. As a voracious cartoon junkie in the early 90s — just as Soviet animation was ironically coming into wider consumption, with the growing availability of televisions now that the Soviet era had ended — I became, without knowing it, a five-year-old critic of Russian Formalism, a school of literary thought that looked on works of art as independent of their cultural or historical background. Had I possessed the vocabulary back then it’s possible that I might have joined Trotsky in advocating for the contextualization of social and psychological reality in cartoon form. Which is to say that all my favorite animated films at the time were rooted in sobering and unglamorous reality:

Apparently, my favorite childhood cartoon involved a manic, suicidal chain-smoking screenwriter; a pill-abusing film director; endless bureaucratic delays; the most obnoxious girl actress in the animated world; and a finale in which the entire crew weeps over their reward, a scrawny and unsightly bouquet. Once again the intended message is clear: filmmaking, as with much else in life, is a great deal of hard work in return for the superficial prize of fleeting applause––the real value lies in the work itself. In other words: do the work, but don’t seek prizes.

This was hardly the only moral lesson to be found in Soviet cartoons. Here is little Antoshka, whose adamant refusal to join with the other child laborers as they dig for potatoes predictably results in feelings of starvation and regret:

Or the lazy blonde-haired student and his cat, magically transferred to the Country of Unlearnt Lessons, where he comes to learn the value of work:

Or perhaps this hippopotamus, who in preferring not to get properly vaccinated ends up with jaundice:

Or, on a marginally brighter note, a domesticated feline and a hunting dog from Prostokvashino, who mutually learn the value of sacrifice and friendship after sharing a household:

Obedient to the dogma, I believed myself to be a model elementary school kid, sharing crayons with those friends of mine in possession of less notable crayon collections. My perspective radically changed on the day that my grandfather, a natural contrarian––anti-USSR during the time of the union and pro-USSR after it fell — fatefully told me to turn off the television. In its absence I discovered Alice in Wonderland.

My grandmother’s room had always been, for me, a passage to strange realms. Dimly illuminated and with a distinct smell of perfume gone bad, it allowed me to imagine, when I wrapped myself up in her enchanting shawls, that I was a Parisian dancer, or a goddess of various different seasons. On that particular day it was a book on her nightstand, rather than a piece of ancient jewelry, which produced a transportive effect. When I finally emerged from binge-reading Lewis Carroll’s story it was as if no time had passed. What weighed on me after––what inscribed itself into me and made that book my favorite from then on––was how drastically different the tale was from what I regularly encountered in the Soviet cartoons. Unlike with their insistence on rationalism and logic, the confusion of my looming adolescence made much more sense alongside the book’s thrilling absurdism.

Alice in Guantánamo: Reading Carroll in the Gitmo Age

According to my parents, in the world they had grown up in––the world reflected in the cartoons––there was little room for uncertainty or anxiety. Almost everyone was employed and everyone had enough money (although if anything was lacking it was having sufficient ways to spend it). Women hardly gave a thought to their careers, encouraged to find more meaning in family. Everyone respected collared workers and professors, and looked down on those who made their living importing, reselling, or representing products. The “hustlers”––those who somehow else got by (scornfully called “speculators”)––were figures of especially low regard.

Cover Gallery — Alice Around the World:

Russian edition, 1958 (left), Polish edition (center), French edition, 1980 (right)
Czech edition, 1961 (left), Dutch edition, 1979 (center), Czech edition, 1949 (right)

So it was to my great shock and comfort when I read that book to find that Alice chooses the White Rabbit, the deviation. She has no noble quest to fulfill, seeks neither tender reunion nor exemplary friendship, and finds nothing to praise in the idea of societal order (especially as presented by the monarchy of the King and Queen of Hearts). In a world that seems topsy-turvy, she swiftly adapts. Otherwise, she relinquishes control: as she says to the Dormouse, she can’t stop herself from growing up.

By contrast there was nothing altogether wrong with my Soviet cartoons, only that they came too late, trying to prepare me for a world which no longer existed. Hand-drawn and stylistically lovely they told of an anachronistically slow-paced and easily digestible life, a life that didn’t particularly resemble mine––and perhaps not anyone’s. As I eventually grew older and came to the decisions that would determine my path through — such as where and what to study, who to befriend and who to become — Alice was the perfect companion, making no promises about the effects of any of life’s potions.

Cover of 1995 edition, trans. Mirra Ginsburg

Years after Alice in Wonderland I came to fall in love with Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita, a surreal Moscow tale about censorship, self-sacrificial love, and diabolical parties in the urban underbelly, which had been banned by the Soviet authorities during the author’s lifetime. Bulgakov’s novel caused me to think about nonsense not just as an absence of sense, but as a call for sense and order’s abnegation — a call only allowed under systems that make room for nonsense and uncertainty in the upbringing of its citizens. The Soviet system was very particular in the role it assigned to art, to both define and enforce social functioning. It was an irony that in the case of the cartoons the message reached its intended audience too late, arriving only after the onset of capitalism, to indoctrinate impressionable young minds with outdated, ill-fitting ideas. Thankfully for me, Alice came to the rescue––and just in time––offering an assurance that nothing in the world makes sense, so long as you let it.

Queering Gender, Queering Genre

I think I’m a woman, because I know I’m not a man.

I also think I’m an essayist because I know I’m not a poet (or a short story writer).

Whenever I submit my writing, I say I’m submitting weird essay/poem things and that feels most authentic. My pieces are probably closest to lyric essays, or prose poems, and have been published as either. Sometimes I submit a piece as an essay and it is called a poem upon publication. Sometimes, the opposite occurs. I never care, because I don’t understand labels when it comes to literature.

When binary is the norm, when she/her means woman, when line breaks mean poem, I am who I am perceived to be more often than I am who I am — especially when I have no idea who I am, and don’t completely care about it.

This is not the first time I’ve felt like two hypocrites live in my body.

Gender is a complex and nuanced thing and there is no way to make a sweeping statement about what it means to everyone. Some say it doesn’t exist. Some say it is a means to control. Some say it is empowerment. Some say it is everything. For me, it is not everything, not just because I’m cis (well, I guess?) and have cis privilege and am ignoring the role gender perception plays in society. I’d be ridiculous to act as if gender doesn’t matter in the world. But it doesn’t matter in my small, small world, in my body, in my head, not mine, not to me.

I feel the same way about genre. To some people, genre is everything. They are a poet in a big way, or a novelist. I write novels and poems and essays and, to me, they are all the same and different at the same time. I am into contradictions because I am one. I guess that being mixed but called Black made me ready for such an existence. This is not the first time I’ve felt like two hypocrites live in my body.

In Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive, Julia Serano complicates long held understandings of gender. Defining gender as “an amalgamation of bodies, identities, and behaviors, some of which develop organically and others which are shaped by language and culture,” Serano greatly disagrees with binaristic and even much of third-wave feminism’s gender isn’t real and is only oppression understanding of gender and believes it to be an oversimplification. Too, it is extremely dismissive of the experience of trans people who identify as men or women. The idea that gender is only ever oppressive results in a lot of the “but trans women perpetuate stereotypical femininity!” and femmephobia that we see on a regular basis within the feminist community.

The idea that gender is only ever oppressive results in a lot of the “but trans women perpetuate stereotypical femininity!” and femmephobia that we see on a regular basis within the feminist community.

Serano pushes us to accept the messiness of gender instead of trying to cut it down to a single answer, as cutting down to a single answer often means cutting out the most marginalized of people.

What empowers one disempowers another. Both can exist at the same time — no one understanding has to win. Just as I identify as black and mixed, queer and bi, I know I write poems that are essays and essays that are poems. There is, for me, validity to be found in space less easily labeled.

In the introduction of Lori B. Girshick’s Transgender Voices: Beyond Women and Men, Girshick writes, “As for gender-variant people, no conceptual framework fits their experience, and no individual words adequately describe it.” The section goes on to describe Reid, a FtM person seeking to communicate his identity. Reid’s quoted saying, “I now say that, rather than transitioning from female to male, I’ve transitioned female to not-female. English is inadequate to the task!”

Remember the snark that went down when Merriam-Webster added “genderqueer” to the dictionary?

Words fail, especially when it comes to giving voice to experiences of marginalized people. English was not developed to empower all, and we see, regularly, the backlash against the creation of new words. From bae to pansexual, people pretty much freak out any time a new word is introduced to mainstream vocabulary. Remember the snark that went down when Merriam-Webster added “genderqueer” to the dictionary?

And this snark comes from writers, too, those writers we sometimes loathe and sometimes are, battling for the “right” words not to be taken down by the “made up” words we just aren’t used to, yet. Scoffing each time a new letter is added to LGBT doesn’t make you a true proponent of the English language — it makes you an asshole.

I was in a nonfiction workshop when my professor began mocking me for using too many words. I was writing about what it means to be both queer and mixed, and to constantly feel in-between and invalidated by language and mainstream understanding of identity. My professor was frustrated by my refusal? Inability? to “just say what I mean.” To be simple. Why complicate everything? If the only power I have as a writer is my pen, why muck things up by beating around the bush? I was flustered and unable — literally, as is the workshop model — to explain that I am found solely in the “around the bush area,” not within the bush itself.

I was in a nonfiction workshop when my professor began mocking me for using too many words.

If I say, “I’m a woman,” I feel as inauthentic as I do as I do when I say, “I’m gay.” Not because I’m not either of those, but because it doesn’t mean what other people think I mean. What is writing if not a means of mucking up language and syntax and fusing words to create new sound to better illustrate a lived experience rarely verbalized?

Why are we so afraid to let things be complicated?

I dropped the workshop, and still haven’t written that piece.

In Excluded, Serano defines essentialism as “the belief that all members of a particular group must share some particular characteristic or set of characteristics in order to be considered a legitimate member of that group.” I am interested in the ways that a non-essentialist approach to gender, meaning one that recognizes the space for duplicity of gender, gives room for someone to be both non-binary and a woman. As a gender-questioning woman writer who has tagged much of my work as queer (but meaning only sexuality, not sex or gender) and woman, I see a sort of comfort in this concept. If it is possible to be both non-binary and woman, than a non-binary writer does not need to be kicked out of a community of women writers, or out of spaces for women’s writing. They/we are, simply, both.

Just as I don’t want to identify as non-binary, regardless of the potential room for accuracy, I don’t want to identify as a “writer of neither genres.”

I wonder about this in terms of genre. Just as I don’t want to identify as non-binary, regardless of the potential room for accuracy, I don’t want to identify as a “writer of neither genres.” But how much does want matter when perception is what labels us in the mainstream?

If I am published, will anyone find my work if I don’t label it within a genre? If I am published, will I be known as a lesbian black woman writer? Or a queer person of color? Does it not come down to the most marketable term? Who am I if who I am depends on how many hits my identity would garner online?

In a 2012 Brevity essay, “The Craft of Writing Queer,” Barrie Jean Borich talks about finding space for queerness within the inherent strangeness of creative nonfiction.

What I’ve loved, from the start, about CNF has been the ways this genre is creatively weird, much like myself — both misunderstood and claimed by more than one constituency, attentive to form but difficult to classify, with quirky yet intentionally designed exteriors, slippery rules, a mutating understanding of identity, a commitment to getting past the bullshit and making unexpected connections, and a grounding in an unmasked, yet lyric, voice.

This is the piece that convinced me that maybe, if I hadn’t found my home as a fiction writer, I may do so in the “queer city” of creative nonfiction. It was that, the “unmasked, yet lyric, voice” that I knew I could write. It is a thing that frustrates other writers who tell me my essays are prose poems or that my poems should be essays or that my narrator should have interacted with more men throughout the piece to tamper down the emotions. I am told I cannot do what I do, but I do it. Again, contradictions make up my understanding of what it means to write.

I wonder what it would be like to write within a genre, to read the rule books and to value the canon and to do what I am told, just like I wonder what it would be like to have remained straight, to have dated men and just wondered about women the way I wonder what a line break and an indent and a smudge of erasure would do to my essays. I wonder about the space between rules of writing and rules of sex, and gender. I wonder about my space within that space, and whether I’ll always be okay existing within grey matter. I am not sure.

Imagining a Future without the Sun

Luminous and resonant, like the light that this book embodies so vigilantly, the writing in Solar Maximum moves within and without, through one’s own compromised relationship with all that surrounds us, and inaugurates a new dimension of soul-seeking and being.

I’m reminded of the psychic resonances of Will Alexander’s writing, language that magenetizes, ascends as “transdimensional movement” and neurological transcendence, here in focus, the distance between bodies and the space and light that hold us.

Lee asks, “How does light arrive?”

As the language builds up, we build up a world in particular dialogue with itself. Our own trajectories come into tension with our concept of the real, of how we consciously relate to the world.

At the end of the book, Lee reveals to us:

“This collection represents my efforts to sketch out a speculative poetics — one that explores the various moods of imagined (future) spaces and their implications for human emotional and psychological being. Despite writing ‘towards” these imagined futures, my aim is hardly predictive, but reflective. I hope to invite us to meditate more intelligently upon our present — its circumstances, relations, and structures–and envision whether we desire to continue along our current trajectories.”

Though she uses “intelligently” to describe the mode in which she invites us to meditate, what seems obvious to me is that this is not an intelligence of the mind, but of the heart, a soulful dialogue that humans rarely have with the world. We can only imagine spaces the way they are, they way we see them in our memory, and often overlook how we ourselves reside in those spaces, change those spaces, picture what those spaces might become.

Pierre-Jean Jouve writes that “[p]oetry, especially in its present endeavors, (can) only correspond to attentive thought that is enamored of something unknown, and essentially receptive to becoming.”

The writing in Solar Maximum arrives out of a labored interaction of reading not language, but light, and the world around us, an interaction that acknowledges that memories are motionless, that duration is permeable, and, as Gaston Bachelard writes, “localization in the spaces of our intimacy is more urgent than determination of dates.”

Bachelard also declares, in his seminal book The Poetics of Space, “The poet speaks on the threshold of being.” Lee is this poet.

In the book, Lee writes:

“A feeling is like the natural production of rain, I remind myself. There are causes that result in the downpour, and to trace them is to understand, to take hold of one’s autonomy and ability to decide appropriately one’s reactions. There are cycles and rhythms as well, and often a good night’s rest can dispel the sudden force with which such things appear. I must push through to continue.

This particular feeling is so strictly disembodied that pinpointing its initial causes is hard. A cavalcade of desires — like a bright light behind my eye–threatens to sweep away my sense of stasis. The pull is strong, towards something, but no object sensation in sight. Go, go, go, these feelings say, but not where or towards what. Outside, a dog barks aggressively.”

Indeed, everything is increasingly too much and not enough. Life is a series of breaths: to see a perspective only when the seer and the seen are aligned. How then, are position and perception related? How do the orbit, movement, and alignment of bodies relate to how we see? How do gravitational effects manifest in the spaces between us, create and shrink distance, allow us to see colors, connect bodies and break them? Indeed how does light arrive, yet too, how does language arrive? How is language ultimately given and received?

Ernst Bloch uses the term novum to describe “a moment of newness in lived history that refreshes human collective consciousness, awakening it from the trancelike sense of history as fated and empty, into awareness that it can be changed… the unexpectedly new, which pushes humanity out of its present toward the not yet realized,”… towards a “blankness of horizon of consciousness… formed not by the past but by the future… a not yet conscious ontological pull of the future, of a tidal influence exerted upon by that which lies out of sight below the horizon, an unconscious of what is yet to come.” Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, Jr. expands, “Each instance of the Novum is a hypostatized moment of apocalyptic cognition; and each such moment of cognition is a recognition.”

Lee writes:

“We give into a generous blindness that rises like decanted myrrh, a holy perfume. A childish pleasure emerges from this unlikely abeyance. The ‘sun’ spins indeterminately before our dazzled gaze.”

The eyes spin, in infinitude and reverie. My body teeters with the balance of the earth and the sun sends its light aggressively into my eyes and my skin. The sunlight is bright. I know it is bright because my eyes squint and refuse to stay open, because my skin starts to sear and because the tint on the asphalt is reflective and greenish.

We might construe Solar Maximum as a work of speculative or science fiction. Indeed, it purports to imagine, to write towards imagined futures. And yet the duration of time is not structured, as we know, as a block, the ebb and flow of tides is not purely a linear effect of gravitational pull, and so the compromised body, that of the reader, here and now, becomes reconciled into a variant and simultaneous space. I don’t believe the world will end, a singular moment which we anticipate, rather, the apocalypse becomes a state of waiting, today and yesterday, “the horizon stutters to converge” and the world is ending, time is pulling, the distance manifests in simultaneity and when I read the final words “((when the sun disappears” I know that the sun has already and will never disappear.

Long-Standing Legal Dispute Over Kafka Manuscripts Ends

On Monday, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled against the daughters of Max Brod’s secretary

Young Kafka donning a bowler cap

If only Max Brod had burned those manuscripts…

Although, of course, if Brod really had followed through with Kafka’s wish, it would have denied us (and posterity) the opportunity of reading Kafka’s brilliance. Regardless, since Max Brod didn’t burn the estimated, mere 10% left of Kafka’s work that Kafka himself didn’t burn, we not only have his writings, but the subsequent legal battles over their ownership, too. It gets properly Kafka-complicated (Kafkacated?) from here.

According to The Guardian, as of Monday, the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that a collection of Kafka manuscripts, which Brod had kept to himself, are now the property of the National Library of Israel. Your next question then: how did we get here?

It started with Max Brod fleeing Czechoslovakia in 1939 when the Nazi invasion had just begun. He fled to Palestine (the Jewish State of Israel wasn’t officially established until 1948). He thus kept the papers there with him until his death in 1968. This is when things get a little trickier. Upon his death, he handed over the collection to his secretary Esther Hoffe, whom he apparently instructed to transfer it “to the library of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem or the Tel Aviv municipal library, or (that of) any other public institution in Israel or abroad.” Straightforward enough. The message, essentially, was to make sure Kafka’s writing could reach as many people as possible.

Issues arose, however, when Ms. Hoffe decided that the precious collection of Kafka writings would better serve the world if they were in the sole possession of her two daughters. The State of Israel thought otherwise and followed through in the courts, beginning in 2009 (two years after the death of Ms. Hoffe). These legal battles have been well-documented.

Finally, Israel’s high court has put an end to this charade, ruling in favor of the National Library. These manuscripts, hopefully, can now rest at ease — one could almost hear Kafka’s groanings as the documents were yanked in either direction, embroiled in years-long legal/bureaucratic rigmarole.

It is an ironic turn of fate that the “good guy” in real life for Kafka’s writing — what will help him live on — is a court of law, though perhaps lacking the poetry of a more typical hero: “Max Brod did not want his property to be sold at the best price, but for them to find an appropriate place in a literary and cultural institution.”

Drew Nellins Smith, Hopeless Cynic

Six years ago I answered a Craigslist ad filed in the horribly depressing Writing Gigs section. Someone in Austin, where I lived then, was looking for a “writing accountability partner.” This writer and I traded some emails, in which we agreed to become partners, and in which he stated that the last thing he wanted to do was exchange work, and the second-to-last thing he wanted to do was meet me.

This guy, Drew Smith, which I assumed — and still occasionally suspect — was a fake name, said he was beginning a new project and wanted only someone to whom he could send a daily email reporting his progress.

“Today I wrote for two hours. Drew,” went a standard message.

This continued for some months. He told me nothing about his project and he sent me no pages. But we slowly got to know each other over email. I learned that he’s a hopeless cynic, particularly about literature and, perhaps especially, the literary community, a term he always enclosed in scare quotes. He’d shopped a novel once, and the experience was so absurd and disheartening that he was sure he’d never subject himself to it again.

I liked this guy with the fake name. Even more so after we finally met, many months later, outside of an East Austin bookstore after a reading. He said something to the effect of, “Either everybody here is fake or I am,” then he handed me a pack of Camel Lights empty of cigarettes but containing a baggie of weed. For me to just have.

We began to meet regularly for lunch, during which he, very frenetically, would do about 92 percent of the talking. Eventually he told me about his book, a sort of roman a clef (sorry) about a closeted gay man who watches, and sometimes engages in, loads of anonymous sex with men at a peepshow arcade on the outskirts of an unnamed city that is probably Austin. He said the book began as a collection of impressions, ideas and memories drawn from his own experiences, after which a character and narrative began to take shape.

Two years later, December 2013, I took a draft of Arcade home for Christmas. It was fascinating. And very funny. Sort of shapeless, in an interesting way. And super filthy: There was cum everywhere. It dripped, it oozed, it splattered. I sang Christmas carols with my family but my mind was stuck in the pages of a book that was unlike anything I’d read.

Two years and a half after that, Arcade was released by Unnamed Press.

Drew Smith — turns out that’s his real name, Drew Nellins Smith — and I still talk. Or, he talks, I listen and laugh. He’s still nervous and anxious, fatalistic and self-hating. He considers his book a failure and he thinks his life is without meaning. He’s good people.

David Duhr: It’s been a month since Arcade came out. Will anything ever be the same again?

Drew Nellins Smith: Nothing has changed. It’s all the same. I think I kind of expected something to change, like this line would be crossed in my life, and I’d at least feel different or something. I told everyone I knew that nothing would change, but secretly I hoped it would, and when all my disclaimers that nothing would change were proven correct, I was kind of surprised and disappointed.

DD: Has life improved at all?

DNS: I’d like to be able to say yes. I guess it’s an improvement that I’m not worrying about the book coming out all the time, trying to push it to the finish line like I was doing. And I guess it’s nice that I’ve sort of weathered the interviews and reviews about all the sex in the book. I didn’t really have a plan for dealing with that, so it’s good that it’s all out there now and it all went all right. All my weirdness is out there for public consumption. Maybe that’s kind of freeing.

I don’t know. Basically, I think I’m still in a form of shock or something. A few days after the book came out, I was sitting on my back porch, and I just burst into tears suddenly.

DD: Because of the book, or was it just a standard tear-burst?

DNS: It was definitely related to the book. I don’t usually burst into tears. You know what a long time coming this has been for me. All the years I spent writing to no one, working on things that didn’t come to fruition or that were published and then disappeared in the flow of everyone’s newsfeed five minutes later. I had a novel that was agented years ago that ended up not selling. It’s just such a long process, and I worked so hard on Arcade.

For the past several months, I’ve been expecting it all to fall apart at every turn. I mean, I really didn’t believe that Arcade existed as a book until I walked into the bookstore for my first reading and saw it. I hadn’t seen a finished version before then. Maybe the tear burst was because I was relieved. It’s the only time I’ve really been emotional about the book, unless you count stress as an emotion.

DD: As you went through the publication process, you wondered if there was any point to it. What do you think now?

DNS: I don’t think there’s really any point to anything at all, probably. Unless you’re actively working to ease other peoples’ suffering or something. I mean, you know me, so you know I think this way, that everything is basically meaningless, or some kind of cosmic test that I’m failing.

My best hope for Arcade is that someone will read it and relate to it and connect with it, and feel less alone somehow. That’s a good feeling to have when you’re reading a book. So I can see a possible point for other people. I’m not really sure what the point was for me yet, except just to get it out.

When I’m walking my dog, I always try to move the snails from the sidewalk into the grass so they don’t get stuck and sort of boil there in place. Publishing a novel feels kind of like that. I mean, if everything is a pointless waste of time, at least it’s a better way to waste it.

When I’m walking my dog, I always try to move the snails from the sidewalk into the grass so they don’t get stuck and sort of boil there in place. Publishing a novel feels kind of like that.

DD: A couple of weeks ago you said Arcade was already flatlining. But some books, especially with indie presses, can take months to sort of catch on and find a wider readership. Why not yours?

DNS: It always makes me laugh, because I think of you as such a cynic, but then you really turn on this Pollyanna routine where Arcade is concerned. It’s true that it can take books months to catch on, but the truer truth is that most books never do catch on, and they just get washed away in the flood of new material that comes out every day. Which you know as well as I do.

Obviously, I hope that despite the staggering odds, the book will catch on somehow and gain a little traction in the culture. I really like Arcade. If someone else had written it and I picked it up, I would still like it. Which is pretty nice, and it’s not a feeling I’ve had often about things I’ve written. I hope I can hold on to that.

DD: You’re hanging tough at 6,500 on Amazon. That’s like 3,000 spots better than when we talked last.

DNS: (Laughs) You’re mistaken. It’s 62,000.

DD: Oh. Oops. I was looking at the wrong thing.

DNS: Yeah. At this point I’d love for it to be at 6,500 overall.

DD: Well, OK. Maybe let’s talk about the book itself. It seems like readers and reviewers assume it’s only lightly fictionalized, if at all. So, why is that happening?

DNS: Right, you and I laughed about that one piece that said something like, “Smith claims it’s only partially based on his life — after all, his mother might read it.” It’s like, “Obviously, Mr. Smith is a complete liar hiding his repugnant past.” The strange part is that I’m willing to own up to so much of it. The worst of it, even. I wonder why that’s not enough.

DD: It bothers you?

DNS: I don’t know. Maybe. I guess if it bothers me at all it’s mostly just because the assumption is factually incorrect. A friend from work mentioned one part that takes place at the motel where the narrator works, which is based on the motel where I actually do work. He said it struck him as something that really happened, and he assumed it did. But nothing like that has ever happened to me in my life. I drew a lot from my life in such a haphazard way, but far less than people seem to assume. But protesting at all is protesting too much, apparently.

The other day my uncle was asking me about the book, and when I said that it should not be read as a memoir, he said, “I’m not buying that.” What am I supposed to say in the face of that?

DD: You told your mom not to read it, right? That’s because you don’t want her to, or you think she’ll hate it or be horrified?

DNS: Yeah, I asked her not to read it. For all those reasons. I don’t think she would like it no matter who wrote it, and I think it would upset her, particularly given this dimension of half-truth we’re talking about, the way so many details from my real life are mixed in. No mother wants to envision that much of her kid’s sex life. That said, I think many people who aren’t my mother would be horrified by the book as well.

DD: I’m not your mother and I was horrified.

DNS: Exactly! Now we’re getting to the truth.

Were you really horrified though? I can never tell when people joke about it.

DD: I wasn’t, but I’m not a small-town Texan. Maybe you can touch on that for a minute, if it’s not too terrible? What kind of place you were brought up in, how that contributed to this book.

DNS: It’s about 7,500 or 8,000 people. A very conservative place. There isn’t a lot happening there culturally. Sometimes I could find good movies at the movie rental place, but that was about it.

I think growing up there made me a very self-conscious person, and I’ve had to get over that. When I was a teenage stoner and more of an outsider, it seemed like something the whole community was aware of. It was very easy to stand out as someone operating outside of the mainstream. I felt different from everyone around me. But I also felt a certain level of confidence because most people thought I was funny. I had that, at least.

A girl I went to school with came out as a lesbian at one point soon after we graduated, and every time I went home for the next few years, I’d run into old classmates and it would always be the first thing they’d tell me. “Did you hear that so-and-so came out? She’s a lesbian!” It was very big news in my town. I still think about that all the time.

DD: So was your own coming out big news there? Or does the town not know, or care? If they’re following your career or whatever, they know now.

DNS: I don’t know if my coming out was big news there, because I’ve never discussed it with anyone there who I’m not related to. I assume some people there know about me, but I’m not in touch with anyone I grew up with, so I don’t know. Hopefully, it’s not such a big deal in society in general now.

DD: Was this stuff any kind of sticking point as you were pursuing publication?

DNS: Maybe a little. Mostly just because I don’t want my parents to have to feel embarrassed or to be put in the position of making excuses for their degenerate son. But I figure I’m an adult, and at some point I have to be allowed to be myself and just create what I want to create.

DD: But now a lot of people ask about what you were trying to do as far as changing the culture and raising awareness of gay rights. And your response is like, “Um, nothing?”

DNS: Yeah, that’s about right. I almost feel guilty about my lack of political motive at this point. I wrote Arcade because I wanted to write about a world and a set of feelings that I wasn’t finding in the books I was reading. It was really fascinating and incredible to me, and I wanted to think more about it and make it part of something bigger.

But writing the novel was far from an act of activism. I’ve never been part of any movement. My aims have always been more literary than political.

DD: What are these literary aims?

DNS: You know, I actually take literature so seriously. It’s meant so much to me in my life. What I really want is to write good books that can have some kind of impact on the people who read them, even if it’s just a spark of recognition and connection. I know my work won’t always be for everyone. David Markson isn’t for everyone. Jane Bowles isn’t for everyone. Knut Hamsun, Julie Hecht, Nicholson Baker, they’re not for everyone. Even James Baldwin, who seems so universally beloved, isn’t for everyone. And these are people whose work is so important to me. What these people do in their writing is meaningful and powerful and diverting and interesting to me. That’s what I tried to do with Arcade, and what I hope to do with whatever I write in the future. I just hope I can find my audience. Or that my audience can find me, whichever way that works.

DD: Are you finding any of that audience with Arcade? Do you hear from random people who say the book connects with them or whatever?

DNS: If it’s finding its audience, it’s pretty small at the moment. I mean, I’ve gotten a couple of random emails from people, like this one guy who said he’s a married straight guy in his 60s. He saw the thing in the L.A. Times, and he bought the book and really enjoyed it. I’ve done that a lot in my life, writing little notes to writers to cheer them on. Most writers don’t get nearly enough of that. It was nice to be on the receiving end of one of them.

DD: Are the reviews as expected? I know you said you wouldn’t read them, and I also know you’re reading them.

DNS: Yeah, I swore from the beginning that I would never read any reviews, then I immediately changed my tune as soon as the first ones came out.

The reaction from reviewers has been different than I expected. I thought people would talk a lot more about the narrator’s life outside of the arcade, the breakup that drove him there and his friendships. I also thought there would be more acknowledgment of the parts of the book centered on his work life. People love to talk about how there are so few books about work. But there’s a lot about work in my book, or a fair amount anyway. Work and class and all sorts of internal struggles that don’t really pertain in any way to having anonymous sexual encounters at an arcade. But reviewers haven’t written about that stuff so much.

Some of the reviewers bemoan a lack of plot in the book, which is interesting, but I can’t say it really bothers me. I’ll be the first to say that Arcade has no three-act structure, no great challenge overcome over the course of rising and falling action. But that’s not how life really is. In real life, change is so incremental and difficult. Whatever you might say about life, I don’t find it to be particularly plotty.

Whatever you might say about life, I don’t find it to be particularly plotty.

DD: How many times have you refreshed your Amazon ranking since we started talking?

DNS: Not even once. Honestly, I only remembered it existed as a possibility when I started wondering if that L.A. Times thing would give the book a boost. I paid attention to it for a few days and then stopped. I think you think I’m more obsessed with it then I am.

DD: I guess let’s wrap this up, since you’re getting crabby. What’s your next project?

DNS: I’m working on two different novel-length projects now. One is inspired by film diaries like The Jaws Log and Bob Balaban’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind Diary. The other is sort of a bootstraps story about attaining success, what that pursuit might look like. And I’m always threatening to go back to that book about Simon and Garfunkel’s 1981 Concert in Central Park, which you know I spent years researching and interviewing for.

DD: Any parting words of wisdom?

DNS: Be hyper-vigilant about typos. There’s a typo on the first page of my novel. The first page! Isn’t that unbelievably awful? And it was all my fault, because I kept changing little things until the last possible moment because I wanted it to be perfect.

DD: Have you enjoyed this process, or have you just been a throbbing ball of anxiety for weeks or months?

DNS: I was anxious in the weeks building up to Arcade’s release, but since then I think I’ve sunk into a mild melancholy, with little dopamine spikes when someone writes or says something nice about the book. The night of my reading here in Austin was pretty glorious. I guess that was the high point. I keep fantasizing that I’ll die in a dramatic car crash and that sales will skyrocket. That would be pretty great.

Split by Jennifer Haigh

It’s the last Tuesday of the month, and I’m driving to suburban Connecticut, a hundred miles each way, to take Ben Franklin to the doctor. There’s a backup at the tollbooth, a long line of mostly elderly drivers counting out coins. The E-Z Pass lane is clear, but that’s no help: before leaving Boston, I pried the transponder from the windshield. I never look at our monthly statement, but my husband might.

A healthy marriage can absorb the occasional deception. The problem lies in defining occasional. How much dishonesty is too much? I’ve given this question some thought, having left one husband in the ditch. That husband was Ben. Our brief, young marriage ended with a crash, so long ago that no one in my current life remembers it. The postmortem is best left to the professionals, the insurance-company wizards who measure skid marks and bent guardrails — coincidentally, the profession of my current husband, Kevin Gwynne.

There’s something about crossing state lines that makes it hard to be casual. You can’t pretend you were in the neighborhood and stopped by on a whim. Except for Ben’s appointments I can imagine no reason to visit this so-called town of strip malls and big box stores and neat subdivisions with easy access to the Interstate. A billboard near the exit advertises luxury “townhomes,” a word that looks misspelled, a word nobody actually says: If you lived here, you’d be home now.

Ben lives in an apartment complex just off the highway. He’s waiting at the front door under a blue awning, lighting one cigarette with another, wearing faded jeans and a scarred leather jacket and looking better, more like himself. Last month he was nearly unrecognizable: wispy hair grown nearly to his shoulders, a bushy beard more gray than brown, and a baggy trench coat to hide khakis that wouldn’t button, the new meds having packed on thirty pounds. The doctor took one look at him and wrote a script for Serovive, an antidepressant with a stimulant effect. More pills.

He tosses away his cigarette and gets into the car without speaking. Poverty of speech, the doctors call it. It simply doesn’t occur to him to say hello.

“You look great,” I tell him, lowering the window. Already the car reeks of cigarettes, a smell that follows Ben wherever he goes.

He says, “I lost sixteen pounds.”

“In a month?”

He’s a small man, an inch taller than I am. I can remember being delighted by this. When we first met — in college, a lifetime ago — he seemed made for me, a bespoke lover. In the beginning, and for some time after, we saw perfectly eye to eye.

“Seriously, Ben. Is that healthy?”

Such questions have not, historically, interested him. Shortly after we met, I started smoking in self-defense, the only way I or anybody could stand to be around him. At the time it seemed a reasonable solution. That’s how young we were.

The clinic is two towns over, miles from a bus stop. For Ben, who no longer drives, it might as well be India. How he manages here without a car is something of a mystery. He does his shopping at a CVS drugstore on a busy commercial strip that’s technically within walking distance, though the route, through heavy traffic and retail sprawl, is neither pleasant nor safe. I imagine him shambling along the Berlin Turnpike in his flapping trench coat, head down, attracting curious glances; in the suburbs a man on foot is by definition irregular, possibly dangerous and likely doomed. At CVS he fills prescriptions and buys groceries (canned soup, soda, bags of salty snacks). No fresh produce, obviously, but plenty of people eat this way and manage to stay alive.

Because we are parents after all, despite the outlandish circumstances, he asks, “How’s the kid?”

“About the same.” Twenty now, Gianni spends most of the day sleeping or playing video games in his childhood room, an arrangement that doesn’t thrill me and pleases his stepfather even less. College is a subject we no longer discuss. Gianni lasted two semesters, until a campus cop found him asleep in his parked car in the lot behind the cafeteria — the engine still running, a half-smoked joint in the ashtray. In these ways and others, he is very like his father.

Satisfied with my non-answer, Ben stares silently out the window.

He was my starter husband. I read this phrase once in a magazine and was struck both by its aptness and its breezy insouciance. But starter marriage doesn’t convey what we once meant to each other, the sweetness of our first home, the airless misery it came to contain, the ruthlessness required to dismantle it, the grievous wounds inflicted all around. We were married for two years — longer if you count the divorce, which took forever, the unsigned papers gathering dust atop Ben’s refrigerator. Spitefulness, I thought at the time. Later I understood that his motives were not so easily reduced.

That we married in the first place was my fault entirely. We did it to please my parents, who were crushed to learn that Ben and I were living in sin. They’d been saved some years before, baptized into the Church of the Nazarene, and had become the sort of people who bow their heads to say grace in restaurants. I didn’t share their faith, but I loved their goodness and found it unbearable to cause them anguish of any kind. And getting married was easy; on a Tuesday morning it took ten minutes. Ben made a pen-and-ink drawing of us on the courthouse steps, a bride and groom in traditional wedding clothes, though we’d married in bluejeans. I mailed the drawing to my parents in Indiana with a photocopy of our marriage certificate.

We were living, then, in Tampa, for no reason except that Ben’s grandfather had retired and died there, leaving a small house on the edge of Ybor City, the old Cuban section of town. In a few years the abandoned cigar factories would be converted to loft apartments, the median strip on Seventh Avenue planted with palm trees; but at the time Ybor was still rough. We lived rent-free, Ben having convinced his dad that we were doing the family a favor, that any unoccupied structure in that neighborhood would inevitably be destroyed by crackheads. In the early nineties, this was possibly true.

We lived on an unlit side street of low bungalows with dirt yards and sinking porches, a look of Southern poverty, curtains drawn in daytime to keep out the sun. The corner bodega cashed checks and sold lottery tickets, quarts of malt liquor and a few overpriced groceries. Loose cigarettes, I remember, cost a quarter apiece. The building was cinder block, painted swimming-pool blue. Late in the afternoon, a raucous crowd drank in its shadow. The parking lot was outfitted with old furniture — lawn chairs, a sagging plaid sofa. Across the street was a City garage where trucks idled at all hours and a vacant lot overgrown with weeds.

Just out of college, clueless, rudderless. We applied for jobs we’d never get. I worked on a novel I wouldn’t finish, and waited tables at a seafood joint called the Big Torch Grill. Ben had been a poor student, part dyslexia, part laziness, so he decided to become an artist. He converted the garage into a studio where he painted, not too successfully, with watercolors. He slept late and spent afternoons at a card table surrounded by mugs: one filled with water for painting, the others with coffee, beer and cigarette butts.

Florida summer, endless months of indolence. We lived in a shack and didn’t care; we were absorbed in the daily miracle of each other’s company, the still-thrilling proximity of the other body, the pleasures of playing house. We painted the walls crazy colors: mango, kiwi, grapefruit pink. Ben’s grandfather had built the place himself, inexpertly, with scrap materials from the salvage yard. The floors slanted, the closet doors wouldn’t close. There wasn’t a single right angle in the place. The windowpanes were wavy crown glass; in the bright Florida sunshine they seemed to be undulating. Ben explained that the molecules were unstable and the glass was actually moving, too slowly for the human eye to process. I still have no idea if this is true.

Some nights he worked at a silk-screening shop, on the barter system: T-shirt Tom — I never knew his last name — paid in weed. Since marijuana was a currency not recognized by our creditors, my tips from the Big Torch bought our groceries and paid our bills. When we ran short, as inevitably happened, Ben called Connecticut. That was how he phrased it, Time to call Connecticut, as though the governor himself were waiting by the phone. The only child of prosperous parents, Ben prepared for these calls like an attorney about to address the Supreme Court. He presented first to his father, who owned a construction company in Hartford. (I need a narrative, Ben explained. Angelo is a businessman.) If the request was deemed worthy, Ben was then transferred to his mother, who functioned like the bursar’s office at a large university, pushing payments through an arcane system no one else understood.

These transactions made me uncomfortable, but to Ben they were normal. His relatives lent and borrowed. Angelo and Marie, raised working class, were frank about money; their materialism was unconscious and unashamed. A neighbor who was a famous tightwad, another who overspent; the terrible tax burden of living in Connecticut, the purchase price of a cousin’s house or car: this was dinner table conversation. Their candor seemed healthy. I was twenty-three, just beginning to understand the ways in which my own family was strange. My parents tithed to the Nazarenes but never spoke of it. To them, caring about money led to greed and venality. Discussing it was as unthinkable as talking about sex.

Those years in Tampa — there were three — occupy a disproportionate place in my memory. Barely employed, Ben and I did so little that a week seemed endless, the empty days infinitely capacious, an unending loop of telescoping time. The weather never changed, the months ran together. It was all the same long, hot day. Ben talked, and he may not have been joking, about baking cookies on our tin roof. We could sell them to the lunch crowd, the road crews who bought Cuban sandwiches at the bodega, a daily parade of sunburned men in fluorescent orange vests.

He was full of ideas of then — wacky business capers, we called them. A graphic design firm, a tiki bar, his own T-shirt shop. He dug a barbecue pit in the back yard and practiced making sandwiches, an experiment that ended when Angelo refused to buy him a food truck. We smoked his paycheck together until I lost my taste for it. I was beginning to feel I’d missed an exit, that I was barreling down a highway that led no place I wanted to go.

One night I came home from the Big Torch to find Ben crouched beneath the bedroom window, peering through the curtains at a car parked on the street — a Chevy Caprice Classic, a detail he found significant. Federal agencies were contractually bound to buy American, he explained in a tone that suggested everyone knew this. He’d been watching it all day.

This happened our final year in Tampa, in spring or summer or possibly autumn. Who knows; it was hot.

We painted the walls whenever we felt like it. Our bedroom ceiling was cobalt blue. Because accuracy mattered, Ben consulted his old astronomy textbook to plot out the constellations. He painted them a deep forest green, invisible in most light.

He smoked for comfort, for entertainment. He smoked to relieve stress, the blowback from his parents: Angelo and Marie, having contributed substantially to our upkeep, were like angry investors demanding a say in how the company was run. Once a week, Ben got a stern letter from his father. His mother phoned Monday nights at ten o’clock, when the rates went down, to grill him about his goals and prospects. If he were a different sort of person, he might have accepted this haranguing as the cost of doing business, a service fee imposed by the Bank of Angelo. But more than anything in life, Ben hated being told what to do.

On the phone with Marie he sometimes lost his temper. It was shocking, I remember, to hear him shout. When we disagreed, which was rare, Ben never raised his voice. He enjoyed debate, as long as it wasn’t personal, and was formidable in an argument, the one sport he still practiced. Calm and logical, tenacious, stubborn. He listened all day to news radio and was fearsomely well-informed.

Other things. He’d been an All-College athlete, recently enough that he still had a swimmer’s body; his vices — the nightly sixer, the packs of Camels — hadn’t caught up with him yet. Fridays he came home from the T-shirt shop with a bag of weed, which he rationed judiciously to last the week. Ben believed in ritual; he had a great sense of occasion. There were ordinary pleasures to be celebrated (Sunday mornings, when I read the newspaper to him), and ordeals that required moral fortification (his mother’s phone calls).

There were August afternoons waiting for the rain.

This is my most vivid memory of Tampa: sitting with Ben on our screened porch, waiting. The wind came first, hot and sudden. I can still remember the sensation, like being inside a convection oven that smelled faintly of diesel, the City trucks idling. The first raindrop on the tin roof was loud as gunshot.

We sat on the porch and listened to the rain to the rain.

There’s a new receptionist at the clinic. She studies Ben without recognition until I give his last name, which also happens to be mine. I didn’t change it when we divorced; my maiden name — like the phrase maiden name — already seemed a relic from another century, as indeed it now is. Later, when I remarried, I declined to take Kevin’s name, no longer reckless enough to declare myself a whole new person simply because I’d fallen in love. This bothered him at first. It may bother him still. We’ve been married long enough that there are conversations we’ve stopped having.

I flip through a magazine while Ben sees the doctor. Like everything in the suburbs, the waiting room seems larger than necessary. I’ve witnessed outbursts in this room, a five-year-old child who wouldn’t stop shrieking, a man with Tourette’s who shouted obscenities every sixty seconds. Motherfucking cunt! Motherfucking cunt! Today’s group is quiet, a handful of strangers sitting at discreet intervals. The wide-screen television is tuned to a soap opera, its volume muted. My phone, set to vibrate, causes a tremor in my coat pocket, a queasiness in the vicinity of my spleen. I step out into the hallway to answer.

“Dana, where are you?” Highway noise in the background: Kevin is calling from a crash site. “I tried the house, but you didn’t pick up.”

“I had some errands.”

“Did he make it to the RMV?”

As in all our conversations, he refers to Gianni. Today, the last of the month, his car registration will expire. I’ve been nagging him about it for weeks. It would have been easier to renew it myself, but Kevin won’t hear of it. We bought him the car, for Christ’s sake. This is the least he can do.

“The wait time is forty minutes. I checked online,” says Kevin. “If he leaves now, he can still make it. If he can drag his ass out of bed.”

“I’ll call him right now.”

“Love you,” says Kevin.

“I love you too.”

I hang up and dial Gianni’s cell phone.

“What?” Gianni is groggy, predictably surly. He detests wakeup calls and makes his displeasure known — so obnoxiously, on a few occasions, that Kevin now refuses to phone him before sundown. “You couldn’t just knock?”

His voice sounds distinctly horizontal. If I hadn’t called he’d have slept through his shift, which is how he got fired from Subway.

“I’m not home. Please tell me you’re awake.” Is he stoned? I can’t tell. I haven’t smoked pot in twenty years, not since I was married to Ben.

“Jesus, Mom. It’s only one o’clock. I have oceans of time.” His outrage is palpable. His shift at AutoZone starts at three.

“Not if you want to go to the RMV.”

“Nobody wants go to the RMV. Can’t Kevin do it?”

“It’s your car. And anyway, Kevin’s working.”

“So am I,” says Gianni.

“Right now you’re lying in bed.”

There is a silence.

“If you leave now, you can still make it,” I tell him, but he’s already hung up the phone.

Back in the waiting room, someone has changed the channel to a golf match. An elderly couple is watching, a big pink-faced man with a watermelon belly and his tiny birdlike wife. Kevin has a name for this kind of couple, reverse Sprats. He and I are such a couple. His bigness comforts me, one of many ways he is nothing like Ben.

It isn’t easy being a stepfather, but Kevin does his best. When we first married, he wanted to adopt Gianni, an odd and difficult boy who was about to become an odder and more difficult teenager. Ben was the obstacle, the parental rights I couldn’t ask him to surrender. Ben who’d already lost so much.

He hasn’t seen our son in six years. Before that, Marie and I tried. Once or twice a year — Father’s Day, Ben’s birthday — we put them in the same room and hoped for a miracle that never came. I can barely remember them speaking. Mainly they watched television. At fourteen Gianni informed me that there would be no more visits. Jesus Christ, he barely knows I’m there. What’s the fucking point?

The Sprats sit shoulder to shoulder, staring at the television. Which one is the caretaker, and which is the patient, is impossible to say.

A nurse approaches me. “Mrs. Franklin? We’ve been looking for you. The doctor would like to speak with you.”

Franklin. It was Ben’s father who anglicized it — Angelo the businessman, born Franconi, who gave his son this comically American name.

She leads me into an exam room where an Asian woman, younger than I am, sits at a computer. Her hand is small and startlingly cold. “Mrs. Franklin, I wanted to touch base with you about Ben’s new drug regimen. How’s it going?”

The question is unnerving: she’s asking me?

“Well, he’s lost some weight, so that’s good. Otherwise he seems about the same.”

“The weight loss is encouraging. I’ll keep him on the Serovive for now.” She squints at her screen, mouses and clicks. “It’s the Risperidone I’m concerned about. Ben’s been at this dosage for a year. Have you noticed any unusual facial movements — grimacing, lip smacking, excessive blinking?”

I know what she’s getting at: Tardive dyskinesia, the weird facial tics that come with long-term use of anti-psychotics. It’s somewhere on the list of things I avoid thinking about.

From down the hallway comes an electronic beeping, faint and regular.

“I’m not sure. Blinking, maybe. I don’t seem him that often. We’re divorced.”

“He lives alone?”

“For the past couple years. Since his parents died.” Angelo went first, keeled over from a heart attack in the breakfast nook while doing the Jumble and watching Judge Judy. A month later, Marie passed peacefully in her sleep; the house was sold and Ben moved or was moved into the apartment complex near the highway.

“That’s not ideal.” She has a flair for pointing out the obvious. “Is there someone else who sees him on a daily basis? Another family member?”

“Right now I’m all he’s got.” The beeping in the hallway is getting louder. “Can’t you, I don’t know, adjust his dosage?”

“It’s not that simple. At this level the Risperidone is controlling Ben’s positive symptoms. He’s one of the lucky ones,” she says without irony.

“But it’s temporary, right? The facial tic. If you take him off the Risperidone, it goes away?”

“Sometimes.” She gets to her feet. “I asked one of my colleagues to do an AIMS exam. Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale. He’s with Ben right now. It shouldn’t take long.”

In reconstructing an accident, the driver’s testimony is often useless. Adrenalin dilates the senses. Sounds are deafening, odors overwhelming: tires squealing, windshield shattering, the petroleum reek of burning plastic. Time slows to crawl, then races forward. A skid lasts a split second or possibly an hour. The driver is unlikely to know.

In that last hot summer Ben was himself, only more so. He spent all night in his studio and came to bed at dawn. He had a new project he wasn’t ready to talk about, something really big.

Without knowing anything about it, I loathed this project. I hated it like a romantic rival — a reaction that says everything about my young self. I’d given up on my novel and was now just a waitress, exhausted and hopeless and sick of being poor. Some nights after work, my coworkers at the Big Torch shot pool at a bar down the block. I wanted to join them, but bars cost money and my coworkers were assholes, according to Ben, who had no need for other people and, it seemed, decreasing need for me. More and more, he wanted my presence rather than my company. He couldn’t work unless I was in the house.

Getting pregnant was an accident, something I didn’t want yet allowed to happen. My reason, if I had one, is a secret I’ve kept successfully from myself. My cycles were irregular, and I believed, vaguely, that this offered me some protection. Ben and I took precautions most of the time, which is slightly better than taking none at all. I didn’t notice when I was late, because I was always late. No morning sickness, no nothing. By the time I took the test I was three months along.

The reason may be as simple as boredom, an urge to make something happen in my life.

Ben’s reaction to the pregnancy confounded me. He was neither upset, as I’d feared, nor overjoyed, as I’d hoped. In some way that made no sense, he took it as a sign.

I’ve been wanting to tell you this, and now I can. In a low voice, as though someone might overhear, he explained that he hadn’t been painting. His secret project was a novel. He’d been writing for two months and now, finally, it was finished. He would transcribe it as soon as Angelo bought him a computer. A plan for the future, a way to support our family. I would never have to wait tables again.

For the first time in my pregnancy, I felt a wave of nausea. Ben had written a novel in two months. I’d worked on mine for two years and had nothing to show for it.

That night, while he was at the T-shirt shop, I went into his studio, something I’d agreed never to do. The squalor of the place was shocking. The floor was littered with crushed beer cans, waist-high piles of newspaper and, inexplicably, an open can of latex house paint. In a corner sat a plastic water jug of what might have been urine. The windows were closed, the stifling air sharp with fumes.

Ben’s desk — a sheet of plywood on sawhorses — was piled with paper. I sat in his chair with a pounding heart.

What to say about those pages? Between the handwriting and misspellings it was hard to decipher a single sentence. Many were written as equations. All these years later, there is only one I recall exactly: Dymanisn = Expolding the Dialectic. The paragraphs were interspersed with elaborate graphs illustrating principles I couldn’t discern. Pages and pages filled with Ben’s scratchy handwriting, slanting across the page. He’d never been able to write in a straight line.

Reading left me weak with anger. This was his plan for the future? In his stoned meanderings I saw ego and self-indulgence and smug young-man pretension, a spoiled only child, reminded since birth of his own specialness: of course he could write a novel in two months. He was immune to the anxieties that crippled me, Ben who’d declared himself an artist simply because he felt like one.

A month later I was living in Elkhart, Indiana with my good parents. Stay as long as you need to, they told me, dismayed at my situation but Christian to the bone.

I named the baby for Ben’s grandfather, who’d built our summer shack with his own hands. I thought Ben would like that. I didn’t understand, yet, that the Ben I’d known was gone or going, and he could no longer be pleased.

It wasn’t your fault, Kevin said when I explained why I’d left my marriage. He is a Midwesterner like me, moralistic by nature, and a guilt professional, trained in the business of allocating blame. It’s true that I had good reasons to leave. Ben was selfish and monumentally stubborn, a chronic pot smoker, a lazy slacker. I was thinking about my future, and our child’s. This is the story I told Kevin. The truth is less flattering: I hated Ben’s confidence, his belief in himself.

I wanted to be a writer. Instead I have raised a son, taught school, taught other people to teach school. On Sunday mornings I volunteer at a women’s prison, teaching inmates to read. It’s a good life, a useful life. My marriage is happy. My parents are proud.

Some years ago, after I’d remarried and Kevin’s job had moved us to Boston, my mother forwarded a letter written in green ink, on pages torn out of a spiral notebook. It was perhaps twenty pages long, a rambling meditation on weather and politics and religion and drug policy, signed with a flourish: Benjamin Franklin. Beneath the signature was a postscript: Dana, I am sorry. I have a spilt persolanity. It isn’t my flaut.

Full-blown schizophrenia is preceded, usually, by a prodromal phase. The symptoms — dysphoria, irritability, social withdrawal — appear up to thirty months before diagnosis. Thirty months is two and a half years, the approximate length of our marriage.

It’s hard to know, still, what was a symptom and what was simply Ben.

That night in the garage, I didn’t see illness. I chose not to. If I’d known Ben was schizophrenic, I couldn’t have left him. I wasn’t raised that way. The needs of others: I am the daughter of Nazarenes, and Nazarenes help.

Truth is terrible. The truth is that I’m glad I didn’t know.

The days are getting longer, but not noticeably. When we leave the clinic, the sky is not quite dark. Fog has gathered, moisture on the windshield. Ben gets into the car and finally, because I’m as stubborn as he is, buckles his seat belt. His AIMS exam showed some involuntary muscle activity, slightly more than last year’s; but the difference was statistically insignificant. We’ll keep watching him, the doctor said.

“Where to, Chief?”

Ben doesn’t answer. Sometimes, if he’s feeling well, we stop at the supermarket, to buy fruits and vegetables that will molder in his refrigerator until I throw them in the trash. Last month we went to the mall for a haircut. But today he just wants to go home.

We drive in silence, though dense fog.

“I talked to Gianni.” He asked about you, I want to add. He misses you. Next time I’ll bring him with me. Of course, none of that is true. “He’s working at AutoZone.”

Of the organic brain disorders, schizophrenia is the slipperiest. Its heritability is uncertain. Simply by having one schizophrenic parent, Gianni’s risk jumps to thirteen percent. Our urban zip code doubles that number. Then there’s his spring birthday (another five to eight percent) and his pot-smoking (estimates vary). The effect of maternal stress during fetal development is harder to quantify.

“Good kid,” Ben says.

I have read everything, I have talked to doctors. Forty percent of male schizophrenics develop symptoms by age 19. The rest are diagnosed in their twenties. Gianni stands at the beginning of that decade like a diver bouncing on a high board.

Driving, I disappear into my own thoughts — salmon for dinner, the kale salad Kevin likes. Here’s another truth: I could tell him everything if I wanted to. A part of me prefers to keep lying. To keep Ben, the memory of us, all to myself.

The fog is so dense I nearly miss the exit. Then I spot the billboard: If you lived here, you’d be home now.

Ben is dying to light up; he tucks a cigarette behind his ear to minimize the delay. When he gets out of the car there will be no goodbye, no thank you. Don’t expect any. Wait with the engine idling. Make sure he hasn’t locked himself out of the building, which happens from time to time.

Wait for the light in the third floor apartment, Ben at the window smoking a cigarette. Wait for the glowing ash raised in a wave.

George R.R. Martin’s Superhero Series Wild Cards Gets TV Adaptation

UCP has agreed to adapt the thirty-year-old series for television

There’s a certain formula nowadays if you’d like your story to get adapted for television or film— and since I was never good at math, I’ll keep the formula as simple as it seems to me: write science fiction, fantasy, or comics. For every James Franco lit.-fic. adaptation, there are ten more gut-busting, epic, or pulpy comic/SF/fantasy adaptations. We can add another adaptation to this list: Wild Cards, which will be the second adaptation of a George R. R. Martin universe after Game of Thrones.

George R.R. Martin released an announcement on his livejournal that the long-running science fiction universe he helped create and curates, Wild Cards, has been picked up by Universal Cable Productions for a television adaptation. This news should remind — or otherwise inform — the post-Song of Fire and Ice world that Martin is more than just the Game of Thrones inspire-er.

Wild Cards has been around for nearly thirty years and has bubbled just beneath the surface of explosive popularity for a while. The first edition of Wild Cards (1986) was a finalist for that year’s Hugo Award, losing out to the since-already-canonized Watchmen — no shame in that at all. So, it’s got critical acclaim and a dedicated audience, but what exactly is Wild Cards and what is its premise? In George R.R. Martin’s own words:

“Wild Cards is a series of books, graphic novels, games… but most of all it is a universe, as large and diverse and exciting as the comic book universes of Marvel and DC (though somewhat grittier, and considerably more realistic and more consistent), with an enormous cast of characters both major and minor.”

Alex Riviello of geek.com synoptically describes the plot (which Martin, his “right-hand man” Melinda M. Snodgrass, and others have meticulously crafted in order to avoid the continuity issues that have proven so problematic for many DC/Marvel adaptations):

“the story presents an alternate history of our world that diverted from ours on September 15, 1946. On that day an alien illness known as the Wild Card virus was released in Manhattan and spread over the entire Earth. Anyone who was infected didn’t have a good chance at making it, as 90% died horribly (drawing a Black Queen, in the terms of the series), while a further 9% were known as Jokers and mutated into horrible shapes or gained minor powers. The 1%, or Aces, became blessed with amazing powers of all types, and superheroes roamed the world.”

Martin has primarily worked as the editor of the series, with a litany of other writers helping create/write these books over the past three decades — the series being self-described by Martin as, “anthologies and mosaic novels.”

UCP has previous experience with sci-fi shows, most recently producing the award-winning Mr. Robot and the well-received Colony. The future looks bright for Wild Cards and we should see the show soon, though as Martin says, “Hollywood is Hollywood and nothing is ever certain in development…”

How Can Literary Magazines Counter Their Biases?

The Blunt Instrument is a monthly advice column for writers. If you need tough advice for a writing problem, send your question to blunt@electricliterature.com.

Hi Elisa! Here’s my question. It’s about writing contests. What do lit mags do to counter bias when they run a writing contest? Or maybe, since I’m thinking about how short that answer might be, the question should be: What can they do?

I asked this on Twitter and got, basically, “think about it?” I mean action here. And I mean it on every level, from judges to readers to submitters to contest guidelines and announcements to entry forms to fees and so forth. Maybe that’s guiding the question too much? But I’m interested in whether a “blind” contest actually means bias is less a part of the judging, and I suspect you’re going to say no, so I want to push the question past that to whether or not there are steps that can effectively counter bias, what they are, where the limit is, and where literary magazines stand so far w/r/t addressing this.

You suggested on Twitter that they don’t/can’t. Then would that mean you’re “against” lit mag writing contests? Maybe: if you could imagine an ideal “open to anyone” contest that goes its absolute furthest to combat bias/be “fair” — what would that look like?

Matt Salesses

Hi Matt,

Thanks for sending such a great question. I’d like to start by addressing the question of blind submissions, which I strongly believe are not the answer, at least not in and of themselves, to solving or reducing racial, gender, and other forms of bias in literary contests — but I’ll broaden my answer to apply to literary submissions in general, since these problems are not unique to contests.

There are a number of contexts where judging a submission or application blind (without foreknowledge of the race, gender, or age of the applicant) can do a lot to reduce bias, in some cases eradicating it completely. The most famous example may be orchestra auditions. Orchestras slanted heavily male until it became routine for auditioning musicians to perform behind a screen; now the gender mix is about 50/50. One can assume that before the blind audition process was instituted, women were working against a bias toward male musicians. Similarly, studies have shown that resumes, for example, are reviewed less favorably (and the applicants less likely to get an interview) if the name on the resume sounds female or racial/ethnic — though the qualifications and accomplishments are exactly the same.

Unfortunately, I don’t think a blind process would work quite as well for literature. Two cellists, a man and a woman, might audition with the same Bach piece; they won’t be playing their own music. And there seem to be nearly universally agreed upon standards of what constitutes good playing of Bach, which don’t vary much by gender. If they were each playing music of their own composition, we might run into a problem of bias again: namely, that we have been trained to perceive music written by men as great music. You glimpse this thinking in the common question, “Why are there no great female composers?” (Who says there aren’t?)

Still, the fact that a piece of chamber music might sound, at a subconscious level, more “male” or “female” is subtle and hard to prove. Racial, ethnic, or gendered coding could be much more overt in a piece of writing. For example, if a story has primarily black, Asian, Jewish, or female characters, readers may assume that the author is (respectively) black, Asian, Jewish, or female. A poem that includes phrases in Spanish or Korean will likely lead the reader to assume the author is Latin or Korean.

This kind of coding would interfere with the blind reading process, causing a number of complications: Readers and judges won’t truly be reading “blind” if they can guess the race or gender of the author. Even if those guesses are wrong, they may influence the outcome. We also can’t be sure that it would help even when the judges have the best of intentions. A judge may want to increase exposure for POC writers, and unwittingly choose a story about black or Asian characters that was in fact written by a white man. The big problem is that there is a further level of bias which is harder to recognize and address: We may, consciously or unconsciously, prefer writing by white men, writing that adheres to the standards set by white men and generally upheld by power structures everywhere in literature. We run the risk of judging non-white writing by white standards, deeming non-white writers good and worthy of prizes when and only when they conform to the familiar and established standards of prize-winning white writers.

The unspoken assumption behind blind submissions is that “quality is quality” — that we know “good writing” when we see it.

The unspoken assumption behind blind submissions is that “quality is quality” — that we know “good writing” when we see it. I don’t believe in this idea. We do not have universally agreed upon standards of “good.” There is no ultimate measure of goodness in a piece of writing in a vacuum; its quality is determined within the frameworks of a culture, generally by whatever groups are in power. The standards of quality according to our current cultural frameworks are still racist and sexist; make the work anonymous and we’ll still be judging the writing by how well it conforms to racist and sexist frameworks.

Here’s my friend Adalena Kavanagh on this subject (Adalena is half Irish, half Taiwanese, which you couldn’t guess from her name):

A reader for a lit journal said that if a story has a non-white context, he checks to see the race of the writer — and this is coming from the best place. You can’t tell my background from my name, so I always include my ethnicity in my cover letter, but I resent it. I think: white writers never do this, but I also don’t want a reader at a journal to think I’m doing yellow-face and reject my story because I have an Irish last name. I want to get to a point where all of this is irrelevant! So, completely blind submissions in writing don’t seem like a complete solution now, because our contexts aren’t blind.

To me, this is the crux of the issue: our contexts aren’t blind, so blind submission processes don’t solve the problem. Instead, we must learn to stop judging all writing by standards established by white men; our cultural standards themselves need to change.

With that out of the way, I would like to offer some suggestions as to how lit mags and presses can counter bias when running a contest or reviewing submissions in general:

  • First, figure out if you have a problem. Take a look back at both the work you chose to publish and the makeup of your submission pools. There’s a known effect where a 2 to 1 ratio of men to women can feel like about half and half. You may have been publishing two men for every woman and assuming it was about even. Actually do the math. If you’re choosing more men than women, see if you’re getting more submissions from men. That’s not an excuse, but you’ll know if you need to work to change the gender balance in your submission pool.
  • Race makes things a little more complicated because you may not be able to guess based on name alone. You can certainly determine the racial breakdown of your published authors, but if you feel like you have a whiteness problem (i.e. you’re only publishing white writers or only getting submissions from white writers), consider asking submitters to name their gender and race when they submit (it doesn’t need to be required). This might give you a better sense of what you’re dealing with. (I would preface such a question with a statement about why you’re asking for the information and how you will and will not use it.)
  • If your magazine or press has a history of publishing mostly men or mostly white writers, know that that could affect your submission pool. Based on my own experience, I am much more likely to send work to a magazine or press that doesn’t have a sexist publishing record.
  • Consider the races and genders of your editors and, in the case of a contest, both your judges and your first readers. I think having women and POC judges is important both for increasing submissions from women and POC writers and ensuring that submissions are given less biased readings. But don’t forget about your other readers, who may be choosing the finalists to pass on to your judges or final editors. If there’s bias among that group (and there probably is), you’re rigging the contest before it even gets to the judges.
  • Think about where (and how) you’re advertising and promoting the contest or calling for submissions. How likely are women and POC to hear about it and feel welcomed by it? (I’m thinking about the jobs page of tech companies which frequently boast of a “work-hard-play-hard” culture, beer on tap, Foosball and video games…basically advertising on appeal to men in their 20s. Could your announcement be advertising on appeal to whiteness unconsciously?)
  • If you are a reader or a judge in a contest or an editor in general: Interrogate your own tastes. Taste feels personal but demonstrably isn’t. It is deeply influenced by class, culture, and education. I often hear people say, “Read what you want,” a countermeasure I suppose to sanctimonious advice on what you should and shouldn’t read. But I think part of being intellectually curious is expanding your tastes; I like more and more varied things at 36 than I did at 26.
  • Consider your contest fee and whether it’s prohibitive to working, underpaid writers.

Note that all of these questions and problems can be better addressed if there are women and POC on your staff. Don’t rely on a white editor to determine if a contest announcement sounds racist. Don’t rely on a male editor to determine if it sounds sexist.

Finally, I would advise editors to ask themselves why they are running a contest in the first place.

Finally, I would advise editors to ask themselves why they are running a contest in the first place. What is the point? Contests are usually a fundraising measure. But by placing the burden of funding on writers, you are setting up a class bias, since only writers who can afford to submit will. Maybe there’s an innovative way out of this — such as introducing a sliding-scale or “pay what you can” submission fee system. However, even small fees add up, considering how small the chances of winning any one contest are. A pay-to-play contest and an unbiased contest may be fundamentally at odds.

–The Blunt Instrument

Annie DeWitt Investigates the Countryside

If you’ve ever read Annie DeWitt’s stories in Granta, Tin House, The Believer, or BOMB, then you already know that she has an incredible sensitivity to both language and character, strengths that she brings to great use in her debut novel, White Nights in Split Town City (August 9th, Tyrant Books). A co-founder of Gigantic and an adjunct professor at Columbia University and elsewhere, Annie’s thoughtful novel has much to teach us about the summer of 1990 and the life of a girl named Jean who lives in a rural and vividly rendered small American town on Fay Mountain. When her mother leaves their family for the ever-encroaching larger world, Jean finds the only home she’s ever known rapidly unraveling. Together with an abandoned boy named Fender Steelhead, she begins a memorable investigation into her town, her neighbors, and of course, herself. It’s a stunning achievement that feels like a new classic in the coming of age genre, pushing the usual boundaries with every exact and envisaging sentence.

DeWitt and I talked about it over email last month.

Kristopher Jansma: Annie! There are so many remarkable things about this novel that I had trouble deciding where to begin, but maybe it would be best to set the stage first. You present readers with a very rich landscape in and around The Bottom Feeder, which seems so untamed and wonderful and as seen through Jean’s eyes. Things there have these benevolent, mythic names: Old Eagle Back, the table, and Baby, the piano, and The Sheik… Maybe a good place to start would be to ask how this place came alive to you as you were writing?

Annie De Witt: To me, one’s sense of place is a defining character. It centers us — our view, our circumstance, our weather, our dialect, our language, our religion (or not) and (to some degree) our moral compass. I’ve always been entranced by writers who explore the majesty of that relationship. I’m thinking of writers like Annie Proulx, Flannery O’Connor, and Marilynne Robinson. And, in nonfiction, Annie Dillard and James Baldwin.

I belong to the countryside and it belongs to me.

I am an old soul. I belong to the countryside and it belongs to me. I grew up hearing the voices of so many of these characters on the rural unpaved road where I spent my childhood. To me there was nothing exceptional about this — other than the way that time seemed to slow in the summer. As a child, summer seemed to me to be 75% of the year — it expanded on one long golden reel and was bookended by the school-ish seasons of fall and winter. There was an expansiveness to this place which spoke to me then and continues to now.

I recently moved back to a rural enclave in Delaware County, New York. This place was once the milk seat of the U.S. and continues to try to hang on in that fashion. The landscape is dotted with ramshackle barns. My closest neighbors are cows. This winter we had five raccoons living on our ceiling. I wake up and check the trail cam to see if beavers or foxes are building a nest under the porch. Often, there are both. Once after a run, I came home and saw a black bear with her two cubs in the pine glen next to the house. This place is home to me. But, I had been away from it for so long. It feels good to return. There is literally the same “Dead End Road” sign on my corner now as there was when I was a seven. I try not to take this as a metaphor!

Q: You capture that kind of land-out-of-time thing really well, as well as the tentative balance the characters within it have with that natural world. But there’s this contrasting sense of encroachment: AIDS, TV, computers, cancer, and the end of the Cold War. They are all the beginning of a new kind of fear. And there’s Fender Steelhead and his abandoned brothers, with Fender tied to the roof of the truck as it careens downhill. Jean and her mother just watch. Such a great scene. Can you talk a little about those contrasts? Is it modernity or adulthood (or both) that’s encroaching on Jean, on all of them?

A: The beginning of a new kind of fear. That’s exactly it. I just returned to the Catskills from the city late last night. It has been such an awful summer. The mass shooting in Florida, the assassination of Alton Sterling in broad day light, the shooting of five police officers, and now France. So sad and violent and bloody.

Mostly it just feels like an odd time to be trying to promote a book, what with all that’s going on in the world. I was driving home from an interview near Union Square this afternoon and getting push notification from The New York Times about the attacks in Nice. New York City had seemed so heavily armed and militaristic to me. Police in riot gear with their white NYC motorized mini-vehicles lined the entrance to Chelsea Market and Union Square Park. Such a sad and violent summer. It reminded me of Joan Didion’s descriptions and depictions of LA in The White Album after the shooting at Alabama State. I wonder about the world and our collective future. So much unrest.

All of this made me reflect on what transpires at the beginning of White Nights. How blind we were as a nation to the fallout of the Gulf War and America’s involvement in the Middle East. This is what I tried my best to paint in that beginning chapter — a kind of backdrop of a world in flux. The Berlin Wall falling, the USSR collapsing, the fear of AIDS etc. To me, so much of this fear is what the news (and sadly politicians) capitalize on. And too it is what the mother in this book becomes obsessed with — the desire to “find some national story and feel moved by it.”

Modernity is encroaching on all the residents of Fay Mountain — this thing which has a false aura of truth and transcendence (i.e. represented metaphorically by the mother’s glass windows which let “some of the world into the house.”) And yet so much of that modernity goes on to be redacted and sensationalized — much like we find out about at the end of the book with the stories about Cash and the Doctor.

Q: That’s really interesting! Hopefully we’ll find the same to be true, eventually, about the modern fears we face now? It is surreal, to be sure, to be going about the business of promoting a book when it feels like the world is coming apart at the seams. The more I talk to others though, the more I find them, and myself, talking about books and music — maybe it’s escapist on some level, but maybe it is also what we turn to in times of fear.

All of that to say that I think a book like White Nights does such a powerful job of evoking that “new kind of fear,” that it can resonate with this present moment, and future ones, and maybe even bring readers some hope that we’ll come through it with a new kind of strength.

One of the things I loved most about Jean, the protagonist here, is her resilience and strength. Chapter two, I think it is, opens with this lovely image of an old apple tree, that despite its neglect by its human owners, inexplicably keeps right on producing apples — albeit bitter ones. Her mother points it out as proof of “the wayside of things,” which seems like a kind of a strength that comes from the land and from nature, and maybe even filling in where a void is left by the neglect of the people who are meant to care for something? It’s a powerful image and it rings so clearly later in the novel when Jean’s mother leaves them. And of course in Fender and the Steelhead brothers. Is there some kind of strength that rises up from their abandonment?

A: Absolutely! I love what you say about the image of the apple trees. In the book they are referred to as the two trees of knowledge. I think that as one of the metaphors I appropriated early on in life — that the need to keep going is above all the need to survive. I always admired and respected that about nature. That it survives despite all odds. You see massive trees growing sideways out of sheer rocks faces; their roots entirely exposed. And yet they are still reaching upward.

There’s that section where Jean describes her mother thusly: she fostered what the children of all first generation immigrants feared, an innate feeling that the day to day was long and hard and struggling but as the city teamed around you progress was being made. The struggle was the pride of it. It was only in the face of adversity that Mother was ever truly free. Under Mother’s feet, there was the kind of ice made for skating. It was thin. But she was light.

Yet, in the end, as often happens in families, the cycle repeats. The Mother ends up being the one who abandons her children and, in a way, forces them to confront these words head on in her absence. To the Mother the “wayside” is a place of little opportunity or importance. To Jean, it is the bedrock of her imagination and a source of great strength.

Q: That works powerfully all the way through to the end of the novel: the cycle repeats. I’m curious how much of this, thematically, character-wise, and so on, did you have worked out when you started writing this book, and how much evolved as you went along? Can you talk a little bit about how the creative process works for you?

A: Thank you, Kris. Your questions have been so fantastically evocative. The process of excavating this book was long and drawn out. I was working several jobs along the way — often two or more at the same time. What I can say is that I’ve learned tremendously from it. I’ve learned to trust my gut. The first draft of this was written in a seven-and-a-half-foot wide studio. With another human body living it — namely my partner, the photographer Jerome Jakubiec. We were both starting out and the struggle to eat, live, pay rent, survive in the city, was real. That studio and the Hungarian Pastry Shop on the UWS (god bless them and their pastries) were the physical spaces where this book first existed. I was working with a different agent then and our communication was tenuous. I ended up spending a year rewriting it entirely in the third person and wasting a lot of time. Though some of this interiority on the part of the other characters, beyond Jean, was helpful. I got to see inside Otto. To see inside the Mother. I don’t know that much of that still exists in the book — but it was therapeutic on some level. A flushing out. Then one night, three years later, I was walking around Brooklyn and a friend said to me, “I see you singing. I see you standing at a reading and singing your words. In your own voice and people are clapping.” It was then that I knew I needed to return to the original first person draft. It took several years and a lot of changes, but eventually I excavated that original raft and expanded on it. Did research. Edited greatly. Went through a serious depression and crisis of self-doubt. And eventually I emerged with a book.

I’ve learned to trust my gut.

My creative process with this book was so intimate, as it was the first. I worked laboriously on a sentence level even in the first draft — reading everything aloud, making cuts, saving so many different versions of paragraphs. I wouldn’t let myself move on until each sentence was as close as I could get it. I tend to work on stories in that same manner. But then at the end, a different impulse emerged, I made a short list of scenes and started going to the Hungarian with a mission — I wanted to start ticking them off. The night before we moved to Brooklyn from the studio I was going to a friend’s birthday. I literally wrote the last sentence of the book with Marguerite Duras’s The Lover by my side while Jerome was hoisting our belongings into boxes, we popped a bottle of cheap champagne (the cork of which I still have saved), and I went out that night. I feared if I didn’t finish that first draft before we physically moved, the voice would not remain the same.

Q: That’s fantastic! It’s true, what a tenuous thing that grip on a voice can be… I know that first-to-third-and-back-to-first transition well. There’s this great Zadie Smith essay on craft that I have brought in for my students where she calls it OPD, or “obsessive perspective disorder.” She talks about spending months rewriting the opening twenty pages, switching back and forth several times a day, and in the end she says she always lands on third person past, as she is “an English novelist, enslaved to an ancient tradition.” So, I guess you are in good company there. Maybe just one final question, since we’ve touched on teaching and I know you are a teacher of creative writing as well. Your answers have all been so illuminating and instructive, and I wondered what kind of advice you like to give to students… your own, and others out there who are undertaking their own struggles to find a perspective or a voice for themselves.

A: Obsessive perspective disorder! Now I finally know what to call it! Thank you — I feared I was alone in my obsession, suffering paranoiacally.

Teaching is my life blood. I tell my graduate students, “teaching is an intercourse.” I truly mean it. It is the intersection between thoughts and ideas and human activism. I know you too understand this. The only advice I know about how to write is this: “Live with your heart open and lead with your gut. Don’t negate the complexity of your own human experience. The incongruities and inconsistencies. Those are the places to write from. Write down into something from which you yourself need saving.”

Science Says Book Readers Live Longer

A new study says bookworms live 23 months longer than their non-reading counterparts

The Fountain of Youth by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1546)

For centuries the myth of the Fountain of Youth was continually written about in fables, folktales, and scribed hypotheses. However, according to a new study, it may actually be one’s consumption of writing that acts as a fountain of youth. Yes, among its many other documented benefits, a new study has demonstrated that reading yields a greater lifespan.

The study was published in Social Science & Medicine’s September issue, entitled: “A Chapter A Day: Association of Book Reading with Longevity.” Surveying some 3,635 people — all aged 50 or older — the study found book readers live 23 months (nearly two years) longer than non-readers. The study also found that readers of 3.5 hours or more/week were 23% less likely to die than non-readers. Almost a fourth! However, what really sets this study apart is its distinction in reading material. As the paper’s introduction states:

“While most sedentary behaviors are well-established risk factors for mortality in older individuals, previous studies of a behavior that is often sedentary, reading… have not compared the health benefits of reading-material type.”

In an age that is entirely oversaturated in terms of data, information, and lolcat memes — a huge chunk of which arrives before us in the form of words and blurbs, and less often, sentences and paragraphs — the distinction in reading-material type is a crucial one to make. The study concluded that periodicals did not factor into the survival advantage granted by reading. In essence: books fend off the grim reaper with greater vigor than periodicals. One of the academics who authored the paper, Avni Bavishi, explained this to The Guardian:

“We uncovered that this effect is likely because books engage the reader’s mind more — providing more cognitive benefit, and therefore increasing the lifespan… we were impressed with the magnitude of the difference of effect between reading books and reading newspapers/magazines.”

According to the paper, the reasoning in the survival difference between periodical-reading and book-reading is double-fold:

“First, it promotes ‘deep reading,’ which is a slow, immersive process; this cognitive engagement occurs as the reader draws connections to other parts of the material, finds applications to the outside world…Second, books can promote empathy, social perception, and emotional intelligence, which are cognitive processes that can lead to greater survival.”

What should you do with those two extra years? Well, why not use them to read even more books?

“the benefits of reading books include a longer life in which to read them … The robustness of our findings suggests that reading books may not only introduce some interesting ideas and characters, it may also give more years of reading.”

Now, we wait for a study breaking down the life-spans and survival benefits among the passionate readers of particular authors. Do, for example, readers of Toni Morrison live longer than Bukowski devotees? Shakespearean thespians than George Eliot fans? The possibilities are endless (so long as we keep reading).