Just in time for the 2016 Summer Olympics, Megan Abbott has published one of her most riveting novels yet, You Will Know Me(Little Brown, 2016)set in the highly specialized and competitive world of female gymnastics. As with her most recent books — Dare Me (2012) and The Fever (2014) — You Will Know Me excels at capturing the specificities of teenage girl behavior, but the difference this time is that the teenage girls spend the bulk of their time training on vaults and high beams, rather than engaging in typical high school social activities. The result is that the attentions of these girls, and their parents, become hyper focused on the fate of their most promising gymnast, the extraordinary Devon Knox, whose skills inspire awe and envy in those around her.
You Will Know Me is told in the close third person, from the perspective of Devon’s mother, Katie Knox. As with all of the gymnasts’ families, the lives of Devon’s parents, as well as her brother Drew Knox, end up revolving around the activities and practice schedule of the ambitious athletic child. The novel opens with the hit-and-run death of a well-liked young man (and boyfriend of the niece of Devon’s coach), and the resulting fallout reveals the strength of family bonds as well as the reality of how little we can know the people who are closest to us.
I had the pleasure of interviewing Megan Abbott by email while she was on tour promoting You Will Know Me.
Catherine LaSota: Much of You Will Know Me takes place in the BelStars gymnasium, where superstar gymnast Devon and other Olympic hopefuls spend so many of their hours week in and week out. The details you include — the chalk, the grips, the parents in the stands, the sounds on the gym floor — really put me inside that space. What kind of research went into capturing this world so well? Have you always had an interest in women’s gymnastics?
Megan Abbott: Mostly as the ardent every-four-years-Olympic observer. I’d always wanted to write a book about the family of a prodigy and then, in 2012, I became particularly caught up with the Olympics, and in particular some of the attention (negative and positive) to the parents of gymnast Aly Raisman, who were this powerhouse parent team. I started to think about a novel centered on a pair of parents so devoted to their child’s talent. I started watching gymnastics obsessively, especially practices, and reading memoir after memoir — by gymnasts, former gymnasts and gymnast parents. And I started spending a lot of time in online forums devoted to parents, hearing their fears, anxieties, their pride and love.
LaSota: You have mentioned that You Will Know Me is one of your most personal works. Can you explain what you mean by that?
Abbott: In the sense that it’s about a tightknit family. I’m from a family of four and we were and remain so close, and so supportive and engaged with each other. We are no Knoxes by any stretch, and there is no prodigy among us, but I started to wonder about a family like ours if there had been. It’s also personal in the sense that it’s a book that’s about ambition, and perhaps especially female ambition — the way it’s viewed, judged. It’s something I think about a lot. During my growing-up years, girls weren’t supposed to have big ambitions — or so it felt in 1980s midwest suburbia.
LaSota: This book was especially powerful for me as a new mother. On page 28, you write, “That’s what parenthood was about, wasn’t it? Slowly understanding your child less and less until she wasn’t yours anymore but herself.” It’s interesting to think about a child growing literally inside your own body, and then one day realizing that your child’s body is completely separate from your own. You present the question of how much a parent can really “own” a child, in particular how much a parent can own, or even know, a child’s body. This is true not only in the case of Devon but also with her younger brother Drew, who grows up before his mother’s eyes over the course of the novel. I’ve noticed that the visceral pull in your novels is often due in part to the unflinching look you take at your characters’ bodies. What are your thoughts on how much character’s relationships with one another depend on their bodies’ relationships to each other?
Abbott: I confess it’s a big preoccupation with me. I think a lot about the transition between a child’s body being partially their parents and then, often quite suddenly, their own. How complicated it all is. And gymnastics is particularly compelling because of its unique demands on a growing girl’s body. If started very young, it can (though doesn’t always) stall puberty, or affect it. What does it mean for parents to be so engaged, so involved in their daughter’s sport when its very nature means it may, in some way, arrest her female development? Also, what happens when, as a fifteen year old girl, your body and your head might be in such different places? You’re stalling physical puberty, but can you stall the desires that come with it?
What does it mean for parents to be so engaged, so involved in their daughter’s sport when its very nature means it may, in some way, arrest her female development?
And I hadn’t thought about it in the case of Drew, but you’re completely right! In the novel, he’s home sick from school. He’s only eight so his mother, Katie, obviously has a different connection to the care of his body than she would if he were his sister Devon’s age (fifteen), but in many ways, he’s far further along in terms of separating himself, slipping free of the umbilical cord. Not necessarily because he wants to but because so much attention is on his sister’s body. On his sister.
LaSota: The community of gymnasts and parents is so intense in your novel because they all have a stake in each other’s destiny, especially in Devon’s path to becoming an Olympian, and the prestige this could bring to BelStars, the thrill it would bring to everyone. In the families of You Will Know Me, a sense of worth seems very much connected to achievement, and love — whether between a husband and wife, a parent and child, or in other relationships — becomes complicated and difficult to understand outside the realm of achievement. Ambition and desire come into conflict in the closest relationships of your characters. How did you develop this world to highlight these conflicts so well? Did you find that these conflicts came more naturally in the world of gymnastics, or in the socioeconomic differences between major characters, or are such conflicts of ambition and desire always present in close relationships?
Abbott: I’ve always been interested in how these dynamics play out. Growing up, I spent summers in the bleachers watching my brother play baseball and a lot of that time was watching the parents, their interactions with one another. There were always issues of class rearing up, and gender, and power. I didn’t have a plan for how that would play out in YOU WILL KNOW ME, but I knew I wanted to explore it. And I wanted Katie and Eric to be struggling financially because that’s such a keen reality with gymnastics, as with many sports. I also knew I wanted to use the BelStars parents to reflect a range of parental attitudes and dedication — from the extreme to the more conflicted. I wanted to find the ambiguity and nuance in the too-easy terms of “stage mom” or “helicopter parents.”
LaSota: Let’s talk about the title, You Will Know Me. How did you select it? In your mind, are there particular characters that are the “you” and the “me”? I think it’s such a great title, because there is so much that each of your characters does to prevent others from really knowing them fully.
Abbott: It comes from Letters to a Young Gymnast, Nadia Comaneci’s brilliant memoir. It’s written under the guise of a letter to a gymnast seeking Comaneci’s advice, so the whole book is directed to “you,” the reader. At one point, early on, she tells the reader, “I don’t know you, but you will know me.” And it just clicked for me. The force of it and, in some ways, the lie of it. Because all memoirs are in some ways lies — framed as intimate, whispered revelations to the reader when in reality they’re constructions even at their most honest. And that felt like it reflected in some way on the issues in YOU WILL KNOW ME, but it’s only since it’s been out that I’ve realized how much. I wish I could say it was planned, but it felt right more than it was a conscious choice!
LaSota: Your novels are such masterworks of suspense. What is your planning process when starting a new work? Did you map out plot points for You Will Know Me, or did you have a different approach? Did you start with certain characters in mind?
Abbott: I start with character and voice and a basic three-act idea. But I don’t plot out too much until I’m really underway. Then I tend to map out the beats just in front of me. It’s partially an organized process and partially intuitive. But it begins with nailing voice. Until I had Katie in YOU WILL KNOW ME, I had nothing. I couldn’t have written the book if I didn’t come to the moment when I heard her voice in my head.
And the suspense, if I’m honest, comes in revision. Slicing and dicing my way to the right pacing. It’s the hardest part for me.
LaSota: Were there any characters who surprised you or who changed radically from your first drafts over the course of writing You Will Know Me? Was it always your intention to write this story from the perspective of Devon’s mother, Katie, and what were your reasons for choosing this perspective?
Abbott: Yes. I toyed with switching between Katie and Eric’s perspectives, but ultimately it pulled focus. He said, she said, which left little room for Devon. But the big surprise was Drew. I meant for him to have a much more minor part — mirroring the background role he plays in the family — but I grew to adore him so much that he just demanded more attention. I had to give him more.
LaSota: There are hints of Katie’s past sprinkled throughout the novel, memories of her relationship with her own mother, but there are no detailed extended flashbacks — there is just enough information to get a sense of Katie’s background without pulling the reader out of the story at hand. How much of each character’s backstory do you have in mind when you are writing, whether or not this information actually makes its way explicitly into the novel?
Abbott: I always write at least three times the amount of backstory I can fit into a book. It’s how I discover character, so I have to do it, but in the end it’s always so painful to cut so much of it out. Painful but necessary. Whenever I’ve taught I always tell students, “You needed to write it, but you don’t need to keep it.” The few key details will matter so much more and will stand out so much more. Choosing what stays is the hard part, of course!
“You needed to write it, but you don’t need to keep it.”
LaSota: What other books, if any, were you reading while writing You Will Know Me? What books and other media do you turn to for inspiration?
Abbott: The memoirs were huge, especially Nadia Comaneci’s but also Dominique Moceanu and several others. Joan Ryan’s influential non-fiction book Little Girls in Pretty Boxes: The Making and Breaking of Elite Gymnasts and Figure Skaters. Andrew Solomon’s Far From the Tree: Parents, Children and the Search for Identity — particularly the chapters on prodigies, but really the whole book, which is beautiful and complicated. It was so important to me that I not fall into stereotype — stage moms, tennis dads, that kind of thing.
LaSota: Any thoughts on the women’s gymnastics competition in Rio this year? Do you have any special viewing plans?
Abbott: I’m on pins and needles! Like almost everyone, I’m just waiting for Simone Biles to shatter us all with her brilliance.
We mostly don’t believe women, especially angry women. This has ever been the case, but 2016 has been a cavalcade of dismissed female voices. Unfortunately, events like the Stanford rape case bring to light how this disbelief affects issues of consent, and how our legal system (juries both formal and self-appointed on social media) handles victim statements even after women say they are attacked. A 2015 study from Arizona State University that focused on jury reactions showed how angry men gain influence while angry women lose it; nothing underscores this dichotomy better than the 2016 presidential election. Throw a rock and you’ll hit a think piece about how Hillary Clinton has to do everything the men do, only backwards, in high heels, and without sounding angry. Not only do we — and I mean we, men and women — continue to dismiss the anger and truth of women with certitude as old as Eden, we are obsessed by the need to consider this bias from all sides.
It’s interesting, always, which of our obsessions trickles into fiction, even into thrillers. This is not to say that thrillers can’t capture something serious about the zeitgeist, but works like The Girl on the Train and, to some extent, Gone Girl have embodied our obsession with the truth and belief of first-person accounts. Ruth Ware’s sophomore thriller, The Woman in Cabin 10, fits squarely into this genre, and explores how gaslighting gets in the way of the truth.
Some context: Ware’s heroine, Lo, is a journalist at a travel magazine. The Woman in Cabin 10 begins with Lo being attacked in her home. When, following the attack, she gets the opportunity to replace her boss on assignment on an exclusive luxury cruise, she jumps at the chance to go. But when Lo witnesses a murder on board, yet no body is found, she is stuck trying not only to solve the crime, but to convince everyone that a crime even occurred. The Woman in Cabin 10 is a psychological thriller that’s well paced, and satisfying as a good mystery should be.
Initial details of the cruise are mostly Lo’s awed observations about how the one-percent travels. But since there are journalists aboard, she runs into several people she’s known for a long time, including reporter and former boyfriend Ben Howard. Since Lo has a fiancé at home, Ben complicates things nicely. Lo gets to work on enjoying the assignment, but is soon awoken in the middle of the night:
It was the noise on the veranda door in the next cabin sliding gently open.
I held my breath, straining to hear.
And then there was a splash.
Not a small splash.
No, this was a big splash.
The kind of splash made by a body hitting the water.
The next day, there’s no sign of the woman from the cabin next door, alive or dead. As Lo begins to report what she heard, the small number of guests all look suspect. Setting the crime on such a small ship makes for claustrophobic conditions for the increasingly panicked Lo. Fans of the mystery genre will find Ware understands the power of a good question. Like Hawkins’ Rachel in The Girl on The Train, Ware’s Lo has to wonder whether there’s even been a crime. But she isn’t a drunk; Lo is pitted against both the power of her own imagination and her perceived bias as a victim. Ware wants us to consider whether or not it’s possible to be the worst kind of witness, and still be right.
Ware makes her reader feel Lo’s frustration, particularly as she’s being patronized by the personnel on board. “‘Call me ‘Miss Blacklock’” she says to the employee ostensibly investigating the crime, “‘one minute, tell me you respect my concerns and I’m a valued passenger blah blah blah, and then the next minute brush me off like I’m a hysterical female who didn’t see what she saw.’ […] ‘You can’t have it both ways. Either you believe me, or — ’” The element of disbelief means The Woman in Cabin 10 will resonate with anyone who has been marginalized, disbelieved, or challenged because of what they’ve endured, the medication they’re on, or their gender. Ware’s work is modern in terms of plot, but it includes age-old misogyny. Lo is smart, gainfully employed, stable, and middle-class. But that doesn’t stop people from ignoring her account of the truth.
Undoubtedly, The Woman in Cabin 10 will be heralded as a late-summer beach read, the successor to the big-name psychological thrillers of the past few years. But Ware does something more than write the next Gone Girl or The Girl on the Train, even if she writes in that wheelhouse. Ware puts her own stamp on the genre, and the last quarter of the novel includes alternating voices that change the reader’s perspective on what Lo tells us, herself. Ware is a sophisticated writer who understands how to manipulate truth and timing to provoke the reader’s reactions. The Woman in Cabin 10 is good: it’s creepy, it’s frustrating, and it’s interesting. It brings elements of our current fixations into the realm of the thriller/mystery in the best possible way.
Hello, and welcome to my week-by-week review of the world. Today I am reviewing Milton Glaser.
Everyone knows Milton Glaser, even if they don’t know him. He’s the designer who created the iconic I ♥ NY logo, as well as countless others. See? You do know him. Some people know him even better because they are his friends or family members or dentist.
I don’t know Milton personally, so I hope he doesn’t mind me calling him by his first name. Despite being named Milton, he’s found great success and is one of the most celebrated graphic designers in the world. I’m celebrating him right now with an ice cream cake I bought at Walgreens.
While I’m not entirely sure what graphic designers do other than make logos and Powerpoint presentations, I know that what Milton has done is make me smile when I see his work. I can’t always tell which work is his because he never signs it, so I try to smile whenever I see any logo at all. Just in case.
My fear is that one day I won’t smile at a logo and it will be one of Milton’s and he will happen to be standing behind me and then he’ll think I hate his logo because I didn’t smile. Graphic designers must get their feelings hurt a lot when people don’t like their work. Milton has been a designer for decades so he’s probably used to having his feelings hurt.
Beyond his design work, I don’t know anything about Milton. I don’t know if he’s tall or short, alive or dead, or how much he can bench press. Milton, if you’re reading this, please call me at (617) 379–2576. I have a lot of questions.
My first question is are you looking for an apprentice? I’m a quick learner and have a passion for knowledge. I do not have a lot of relevant work experience so I created this logo for you to show you what I can do. I made it using Microsoft Word and it only took me a couple of hours. You can have it for free. (I couldn’t figure out how to add color. Sorry.)
If you would like me to provide references, most of my former employers have passed away but the grandson of my old boss at the insurance company is still alive and said he would be happy to be a reference. His name is Roger and I think he’s in the phone book. Thank you for your consideration and I hope to hear from you soon.
BEST FEATURE: Milton’s last name has the word ‘laser’ in it! WORST FEATURE: Milton is going to die one day and will no longer be able to graphic design anything.
Please join me next week when I’ll be reviewing a used cleaver I found in the woods.
Popular Music, the full-length debut from poet Kelly Schirmann, is a love song to both the harsh beauty of the natural world and the seductive allure of technology. It’s about an unfortunate, life-long romantic relationship with America. And perhaps most of all, it’s about the daily failures that come from trying to capture it all.
Over the past few years, the Portland, Oregon-based poet has been a force — putting out two collaborative collections with poet Tyler Brewington, heading up a label of poetry recordings, releasing music and visual art, and publishing her poems in countless journals. But Popular Music, recently released on Black Ocean, is her first solo outing and is, thematically as well as structurally, an ambitious one.
Contained within Popular Music are two poem cycles, three philosophical personal essays, and one long-form poem. These six sections all look at, in one way or another, how we as humans try to wrap our words and voices around the world we live in. We make art, we write poems, we sing songs, we tell stories to our friends. And we repeatedly fail in capturing the whole, but repeatedly succeed in capturing a piece of it. “We make a practice/of attempting to describe water,” Schirmann writes, “We photograph a mountain/but it never really turns out”.
While documenting her own failure to capture, Schirmann manages to sum up a universal confusion.
“I can’t tell if I’m stupid/or if Earth is a joke I don’t get”
She considers how to live in a world that is painful just as often as its joyous, a world where happiness is bought and sold. “There’s a balm that soothes me/but it has since been discontinued”.
Schirmann, perhaps like many poets, is an idealist trying to participate in the modern world. And she’s in constant battle with the contradictory desires that arise from trying to have both the culture’s idea of success and the idealist’s simple existence. She asserts the mantra, “Better Me, please do not internalize/the fear that people pass off as sensibility” while admitting that “When you seek love above all else/the world will reward you with no money”. It’s the highly-relatable vacillation of a person who’s pulled by high ideals as much as common sense, whose visions of the future are pessimistic as often as they’re optimistic.
Popular Music is also, loosely, about pop music. How pop music helps us in this quest to capture the complex beauty of the outside and inner worlds. “Most of the time the way we feel doesn’t have a corresponding word,” Schirmann writes in one of the book’s essay sections, “It takes a whole clump of them, set to a rhythm, coming out of a specific mouth, to make themselves understood.”
Schirmann sees pop music as connected to, and a larger metaphor for, everything. How do we create or maintain empathy for a world of people coming from different places and experiences? We sing along, of course. “If I sing along, I am approximating the act of this [songwriter’s] discovery in my own body”.
“Schirmann’s poems are about as close as poems get to pop songs without falling off a Billy Collins cliff.”
And pop music, for better or worse, takes some of the pressure off. The exhausting task of trying to find words for the infinite combinations of complex feelings is eased by being able to subscribe to someone else’s words — words accessibly bottled within catchy melodies. “We let ourselves into their vision, relieved of the responsibility of creating our own.”
While she writes about pop songs, she also creates pop songs. Or at least their poem equivalent. Schirmann’s poems are about as close as poems get to pop songs without falling off a Billy Collins cliff. They have lines you want stuck in your head, moments where you can’t help but sing along.
“Life can’t be that hard/if this many people are alive”
“Behind the people I love/are the people they failed at loving”
“Image will replace speech/& then convince speech/that this is language’s fault”
“Technology is boring/but not as boring/as our addiction to technology”
Many of the catchiest, most addicting moments of the book come when Schirmann explores pop music’s reigning theme: How it feels to be in love. “When you have love/you zip yourself inside it like a tent,” she writes, “You watch everything outside the tent/smear itself together seamlessly”.
She distills love’s selective memory (“No one talks about the number of times/they’ve said to a near-stranger/I’ve never felt this way about anyone”), its etiquette (“There will never be an appropriate context/to explain to the person you love/that in many ways/they are better off without you”), and its disbelief in still being part of the mundanity (“To be in Real Love/& still, to have to exchange/money for food, two to three times a day”).
I idealize a taut collection of poems; a no-filler, thematically interlinked, unquestionable whole; like a perfect album. Popular Music is not that. Popular Music is loose and ambling, wandering in the woods; unsure of what it’s looking for, but knowing that — whatever it is — it’s out there somewhere. While there are brief moments where this seems clumsy, where its philosophizing borders on stoner revelation, the book also wouldn’t work as a taut collection. It’s about discovery and the inherent failure that comes with discovery, and Schirmann’s roller coaster of contradictory discoveries creates an essential narrative. In short: Popular Music’s overload is a thematic necessity. It’s not perfect and it’s not supposed to be.
You’ve been at Bread Loaf Writer’s Workshop for a week now. You’ve almost gotten used to the overwhelming din in the dining room, doors slamming all night in the dorm, scores of new people, the hectic schedule of workshops, craft classes, readings, authors’ and agents’ and editors’ panels. You’ve settled in. You’re taking it all in stride. Then one night you’re part of a conversation that throws you off balance.
You’re eating dinner with your roommate and another woman. All three of you are white and upper middle class. All three of you are mothers with grown children. Your roommate is Jewish and you think the other woman is too, but you can’t remember whether she told you so. Six months later, you can’t remember very much about the two women. All you can remember is your moment of shocked surprise.
Before you can say how moving you found the essay, your dinner companion lowers her voice to say in a confidential tone, “I just didn’t think it was appropriate. That’s their problem.”
That afternoon there’s been a reading, one of many. An African American writer read a poignant, affecting essay about his regret over not being there while his daughter was growing up. Before you can say how moving you found the essay, your dinner companion lowers her voice to say in a confidential tone, “I just didn’t think it was appropriate. I mean really. That’s their problem, and it’s a big problem for them, but we shouldn’t have to hear about it. They’re the ones who need to hear it, not us.”
Did she really just say that? Your heart beats faster. You have trouble catching your breath.
Your first thought, almost irrelevant, is that you expected better of writers, though why writers should be more enlightened than any other citizens you don’t know. You just expected it. Maybe you expected better of someone who’s obviously well educated. And of someone who’s probably experienced sexism, and possibly anti-Semitism as well.
An ugly chasm yawns. No longer “we writers.” A different “us” and “them.”
Six months after Bread Loaf, re-reading Claudia Rankine’s Citizen: An American Lyric for a class you’re going to teach, you find words for your mixed feelings at that moment. “What did you say?” Rankine asks. “Is she really saying that? Is he really saying that?” Or rather Rankine’s “you” asks herself, himself, our selves. “Did I hear what I think I heard? Did that just come out of my mouth, his mouth, your mouth?”
You felt it, even when it wasn’t directed at you.
Could you call this a microaggression when the victim of the comment wasn’t present? You felt it, even when it wasn’t directed at you. Your body shut down for a moment, your brain went into overdrive, you were at a loss for words.
What are the effects of racist microaggressions on absent bodies, present bodies? On his body, her body, your body, our bodies?
Our body politic?
You’ve designed your winter quarter course on Ethnic American Women’s Literature, photocopied your syllabus, but you still don’t know what you’re doing on the first day. Usually you ask the students to read something short in class and discuss it, but you haven’t found the right text for this year’s group of books, which will include Rankine’s Citizen. Maybe you’ll just go over the syllabus and send them on their way. And then the morning of the first class you read Nicole Chung’s “What Goes Through Your Mind: On Nice Parties and Casual Racism” in The Toast. There’s no time to order copies from the university Copy Center, so you slip into the literary magazine office, shoving aside boxes of supplies and old files, and make copies on the English department’s small photocopy machine. You’re not really supposed to be doing twenty-five copies of a multi-page handout on this machine, but you decide it’s worth breaking the rules.
Chung writes about a casually racist comment from a visitor at a family dinner, and what goes through her mind at the moment when she has to decide how to respond. It’s an interesting, well-written essay. It will be good preparation for reading Rankine later.
A memory from long ago, when you were living somewhere else in California. You’re having dinner with your college friend’s sister, a Brown-educated blue blood. She’s married to a techie, also a Brown grad, and they used to live in San Diego but have moved to Boston. They’ve rented an enormous RV for a vacation on the West Coast, and have stopped by for the night.
“I never liked San Diego,” she tells you. Then she lowers her voice as if someone might overhear, though you’re eating at a picnic table in your sheltered back yard. “There were too many Mexicans.”
Apparently your Mexican-American husband sitting right there next to you is invisible.
Apparently your Mexican-American husband sitting right there next to you is invisible. Or was that one of those backhanded compliments, an unvoiced “I can say this because I don’t really think of you as Mexican”?
It’s dark outside and the darkness has heightened your senses. You smell the fragrance of the roses lining the patio. Hear the crickets chirping. You watch the candle guttering and wonder if you should go inside to get another one.
“People say things like that all the time,” your husband says later. “I spend my whole life just waiting for someone to make a comment about Mexicans. Hoping they won’t. Knowing it’s bound to happen again sooner or later.”
Chung is at a large holiday dinner at her in-laws’ when the conversation turns to the new TV show Fresh Off the Boat. A visitor she doesn’t know says to her, “Do people ever tell you that you look just like everyone on that show?” Chung stares.
“This question strikes me as so bizarre,” Chung writes, “so beside the point, that at first I think I’ve misheard. ‘Excuse me?’ I wait for her to clarify, change course. She repeats her question. She appears to be perfectly serious. ‘You must get this a lot,’ she adds, when I don’t immediately respond. Oh? Oh. Yes, people often tell me that I look just like ‘everyone’ on a television show, even though most of them aren’t women. Or my age. Sure. That happens all the time.”
Yes, people often tell me that I look just like “everyone” on a television show, even though most of them aren’t women. Or my age.
She doesn’t say that. She’s not sure what to say. Has everyone heard? Will she ruin her in-laws’ dinner party if she speaks up? Embarrass the white people? Does she want to speak up in front of her children, when they don’t seem to have noticed? A week later she’s still running through the “same agonizing, silent calculus,” all of the variables affecting her hypothetical responses.
Your husband comes home from the supermarket, where he ran into a colleague from the university where you both teach. You’re unpacking groceries together. “Every time I see him,” your husband tells you, “every time, he puts on this big greeting. Esteban, he says, loud, looking around for approval, because he’s down with it, and then he throws some Spanish my way, though I barely speak Spanish. So okay, that’s what he does. I’m used to it. But some time I’d like to say, That’s. Not. My. Fucking. Name.”
Your students like Chung’s essay. They talk about recent representations of ethnic groups on TV. They talk about casual racism. “People say stuff like that all the time, I mean all the time,” a student says. “You just get used to it. ‘You don’t really sound black,’ they’ll say. Or, ‘Wow, you’re good in math for an African American.’ ‘I guess you got that scholarship because you’re, you know. Lucky you.’”
Lots of heads nodding. They’ve heard it too. There are more students of color in the room than white students. Everyone’s talking to each other. They all know what this is about.
When you read Citizen later in the quarter, they all understand Rankine. A student brings up the term “racist microaggressions” before you do. There are ways in which your students teach your classes. Over the years, they’ve taught you as much as you’ve taught them.
You don’t just get used to it, Rankine says. Memories are stored in the body until there’s no more room to store them.
“How to care for the injured body, / the kind of body that can’t hold / the content it is living?”
Later in the quarter you’re going to talk about two very different uses of the second person, in Rankine’s book and in Jamaica Kincaid’s angry diatribe against tourists and slave-owning imperialists, A Small Place. Despite the title, Chung writes “What Goes Through Your Mind” in the first person. She uses “we” and “our” late in the essay to refer to fellow people of color. Her only “you” addresses the reader of the essay. “Everyone likes to believe they would be the one to stand up for someone or call out racism in a crowd,” Chung says. “But not only am I not always that person, under a variety of circumstances you probably wouldn’t be, either.”
The tone of the essay is markedly non-confrontational, the “you” is subtle. You conclude it could be all of these groups, which is not the same as appealing to a “universal” audience.
You and the students talk about that. Who’s her implied audience? Other people of color who’ve been subject to remarks like the visitor’s? Other people of color who’ve witnessed remarks like the visitor’s? White people who’ve witnessed remarks like the visitor’s? Chung refers to “well-meaning liberals and white allies” at the dinner party, “in other words, people who don’t see me as a chink, a robot or a walking stereotype; people who know and genuinely care about me as an individual.” White people who’ve made remarks like the visitor’s? Chung imagines that the woman’s “slight was likely unintentional, not a deliberate means of putting me in my place.”
The tone of the essay is markedly non-confrontational, the “you” is subtle. You conclude it could be all of these groups, which is not the same as appealing to a “universal” audience. Depending on their positioning and past experience, each reader will take something else away.
At a Bread Loaf craft class on beginnings in nonfiction, you heard the opening page of the dinner companion’s memoir about her anorexic daughter. As she made her comments at dinner, you wondered whether she imagined her own audience as universal, and the African-American essayist’s as limited by race. Or whether she imagined her audience as confined to affluent, middle-aged women with anorexic, overachieving daughters. Probably not.
What did you say? None of this.
There was a lot going through your mind all at once in the Bread Loaf dining room. You remember confusedly thinking about audience, and whether the whole point of reading is to learn about people and places and experiences unlike your own. And thinking the opposite. That absentee fathers are a fairly universal phenomenon in the United States, where 50% of marriages end in divorce, and many readers would be familiar with the writer’s experiences and identify with his feelings. Did the woman at the dinner table say absentee fathers, or did you fill that in? You were thinking that a woman of her generation, your generation, might have been remembering the largely discredited and certainly outdated Moynihan report when she considered absentee fathers an African American problem. You were thinking that was no excuse. You were thinking that the essay wasn’t intended to “teach” anybody anything. That art doesn’t teach.
What did you say? None of this.
Later you reconsider your premise that art doesn’t teach. The African-American writer’s essay wasn’t didactic. It wasn’t issue-centered. It was an emotional account of personal experience. But of course art can teach. Chung’s essay teaches, Rankine’s Citizen teaches, if making readers aware is a kind of teaching, and it is. After showing how the accumulation of racist microaggressions can produce a meltdown like Serena Williams’ at the 2009 Women’s Open Final, Rankine ends the book with her own experience in a parking lot by the courts where she plays tennis. She’s sitting in her car, “waiting … for time to pass.” (Will these times pass?) A woman parks facing her, and when she sees Rankine sitting in the car, chooses to move her car to another spot in the lot.
“Did you win?” her husband asks her later. But she didn’t play, she explains. “It wasn’t a match, I say. It was a lesson.”
For your discussion of Citizen, you hand out Tony Hoagland’s poem about Venus Williams (“that big black girl from Alabama, / cornrowed hair and Zulu bangles on her arms, / some outrageous name like Vondella Aphrodite”), along with Rankine’s lecture about the poem at the 2011 AWP conference for writers. Hoagland’s speaker in “The Change” (is this really a persona poem, the speaker not Hoagland?) chooses to identify with Venus’s white European opponent in the match on the airport TV:
because she was one of my kind, my tribe
with her pale eyes and thin lips
and because the black girl was so big
and so black,
so unintimidated,
hitting the ball like she was driving the Emancipation Proclamation
down Abraham Lincoln’s throat,
like she wasn’t asking anyone’s permission.
The poem wasn’t meant for you, he told Rankine, when she questioned the racial politics of the poem. It was meant for white people.
“Did he mean it was for white people to see themselves and their thinking?” Rankine asked her audience at AWP in 2011. “He did not say that. He said it was for white people.”
Claudia Rankine speaks at the 2016 AWP conference in Los Angeles
One thing is clear. Hoagland’s speaker is intimidated by the black tennis player, so large that “the little pink judge / had to climb up on a box / to put the ribbon on her neck.” He’s witnessed a profound change in society, and feels cowed and ambivalent. “She’s an empowered woman,” a white male in your class says. “An empowered black woman. He’s afraid of that.”
Citizen haunts you, as it’s meant to haunt all of us. Your memory of the conversation at Bread Loaf keeps returning to haunt you. There was so much noise in the dining room. A Babel of voices. It was hard to hear your neighbor, much less anyone else. The woman leaned forward and half whispered. Was it because she didn’t want the African-American author of the essay, or one of his friends, to overhear? Or because she knew what she was saying could be considered racist? Or knew that it was racist? Was it a “just between us” comment intended only for white people? She seemed to assume that all three of us, white middle-aged women, would agree. She imagined that all three of us shared some unspoken secret accord.
What did you say?
You could have said that to her. Just asked, “What did you say?” Maybe in a neutral tone. Or with a hint of mild remonstration. Or open disbelief. Or challenge. “Even if our options aren’t stellar when we’re hit with ‘casual racism’ in a space we once thought safe,” Chung observes, “we can and do make some sort of choice every time — to inform or ignore, challenge or absolve.”
You could have said that to her. Just asked, “What did you say?” Maybe in a neutral tone. Or with a hint of mild remonstration. Or open disbelief. Or challenge.
What did you say?
You didn’t nod. You didn’t agree. You didn’t disagree. You didn’t say anything.
Was it shock, or dismay, or misplaced politeness, or cowardice, or confusion that kept you quiet? You can acknowledge now what you already knew then, at least when you turned the conversation over in your mind as you left the dining room. By remaining at the table you became more than a witness. You became a participant, albeit a silent participant.
It wasn’t dark yet when you walked back to your room. The Bread Loaf campus was bathed in the golden light that precedes sunset. The air was fresh, and smelled of newly cut grass. Someone was playing a guitar under a green, leafy tree and writers were already assembling outside the auditorium for that night’s reading.
Vanessa Mártir, a writer you know through Facebook, is attending the winter Tin House writers’ workshop and posts an account of her experience on her blog. She remarks on how few writers of color there are at the workshop. She’s annoyed and defensive when another student is put off by the Spanish in her essay. (I picture a white middle-aged woman. I picture the woman at Bread Loaf in fact.) She talks about the encouragement of Dorothy Allison, and of Lacy Johnson, her white teacher. She tells a story about Claudia Rankine that Lacy Johnson told them.
“Lacy said she’s been trying to make up for her silence at that moment ever since.”
“Lacy Johnson was in the room with her then professor Claudia Rankine when an invited tenured white male professor (she never named him but if you know anything about what happened at AWP back in 2011, you know it was Tony Hoagland) was taken to task for his clearly racist poetry, specifically his 2002 poem ‘The Change.’ Lacy said he started screaming as soon as the word racist was uttered. He yelled at his junior colleague, Claudia Rankine, telling her she didn’t need to understand his poem because it was ‘for white people.’ He told a student to ‘shut up’ and didn’t stop yelling until he left the room. Lacy confessed she said nothing. She stood there, in horror, as this tenured white professor yelled, wielding his privilege in the way that he knew he could. When Tony finally stormed out, the only other African American in the room, a student, turned to Lacy, who apparently claimed herself an ally then, and yelled, ‘Where the fuck were you? Where. The. Fuck. Were. You?’ Lacy said she’s been trying to make up for her silence at that moment ever since.”
Rankine will be reading this quarter at a nearby private college. You list the reading on the syllabus, and encourage your students to go. A friend of yours, a Chicana with a BA from your university and an MFA from the private college, tells you that they cancelled the informal reading group of staff and faculty that was going to meet in advance of Rankine’s reading to talk about the book. “We don’t have the words…” was what someone explained, as if all of them would understand that.
You’re surprised. You’re sure your students won’t be at a loss for words when they read Rankine. And they aren’t.
A memory surfaces. You’re a brand new, thirty-something junior faculty member. The composition textbook you’re using in Advanced Expository Writing includes Brent Staples’ “‘Just Walk On By’: A Black Man Ponders His Power to Alter Public Space.” What could be more relevant to these mostly urban students who’ve lived all the roles in the essay? You even have a cop taking the class. You know you should teach Staples’ essay. It’s insightful, beautifully written, beautifully structured. But you’re terrified. You have no idea what it will be like to talk about race in a diverse classroom.
You have no idea what it will be like to talk about race in a diverse classroom.
It’s been over twenty years. You can’t remember now why you were so terrified. Maybe because you didn’t want to set yourself up as an expert about something the students knew more about than you. Maybe because you weren’t used to talking about race. You’ve learned that you don’t have to be that kind of expert to teach a text, that exchanges in the classroom are more genuine when you don’t have the answers to all your questions. You don’t remember what it was like to teach the essay for the first time. In the end you taught the essay many times. The dialogue in your classes, which included many African Americans and Latinos, was always productive. You considered tone and diction. You considered audience. You compared the essay to Staples’ very different account of encounters on the street in his memoir Parallel Time. Students wrote good analyses of the essay.
The comments in the classroom from students of color stay with you.
“Women cross the street when they see you. You get used to it. You kind of understand it. Oakland’s not safe.”
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been stopped by the cops. One time they had me spread-eagled on the ground in front of the BART station because I’d pulled into the No Parking zone to drop off a friend. I started crying I was so scared. People were walking by. Nobody did nothing.”
“So I’m on my way home from work, and I’m tired, you know. I wear heels at work and my feet are hurting. And I’m walking up the stairs at the BART and I brush against this woman and she grabs her purse away like I’m about to steal it. Shit, I just wanted to go home, same as her.”
You’re in the bedroom, both folding laundry, when you ask your husband if he remembers the visitor’s comment about too many Mexicans in San Diego.
“I remember,” he says. “I remember you got mad at me later.”
“About what?”
“You said you couldn’t be friends with her because I felt uncomfortable around her.”
You don’t remember this at all. Did you really say that?
“The body has memory,” Rankine writes. “You can’t put the past behind you. It’s buried in you; it’s turned your flesh into its own cupboard.”
What you’ve said or done and forgotten. What you’ve said or done and never forgotten. What you’ve overheard. What’s been said to you. To him.
His memories, your memories, our memories.
Her mouth, your mouth, my mouth.
Even though you didn’t say it. Even though the woman’s reaction to the African-American father’s essay about his daughter wasn’t your reaction at all. Even though you’ve taught for years at a public university where students of color are in the majority, and you’ve heard so many stories. Even though you teach ethnic American literature, and you’ve read so many stories. Even though you grew up Irish American with a chip on your shoulder about ethnicity and class. Even though.
Even though you grew up Irish American with a chip on your shoulder about ethnicity and class. Even though.
You’re white, you’re privileged, you’ve probably been similarly obtuse in other situations. After all, the white woman at Bread Loaf believed you’d sympathize. Probably believes you shared her opinion, if she thinks about it at all.
What did you say?
Something you’ve never forgotten, and you’re sure your husband hasn’t either.
The time your brother, drunk, remarked to your husband on the phone: “You know how Dad feels about Jackie marrying a Mexican. He wanted an Ivy League brain surgeon or something.” Later your husband said, his tone bitter, “You can graduate from an Ivy League university, but you’re still just a Mexican.” You didn’t know what to say. Racism is part of your family’s dysfunction. Yeah, that’s what your father thinks. Your brother too. He’s white, he didn’t finish college, he’s a Midwest Republican, you’re pretty sure he’s voting Tea Party these days.
What do you say to your son about his grandfather, his uncle?
You’ve been thinking about white liberal guilt, and how guilt might not be a bad thing as long as it’s not all about the white liberal. A start to dialogue, not a monologue. An agent for change. White liberal guilt can be an acknowledgment: I’m implicated. But often it’s the opposite — a defensive disclaimer and expression of wounded feelings: I’m a helpless representative of something I’m an exception to. Maybe self-pity and self-congratulation are always features of white liberal guilt.
White liberal guilt can be an acknowledgment: I’m implicated. But often it’s the opposite — a defensive disclaimer and expression of wounded feelings: I’m a helpless representative of something I’m an exception to.
In his widely circulated lay sermon after nine African Americans were massacred in a Charleston church, John Metta spoke of his reluctance to open interracial dialogue in the face of white people’s sensitivity to charges of racism. He told white churchgoers that “people are dying not because individuals are racist, but because individuals are helping support a racist system by wanting to protect their own non-racist self beliefs.” White liberals are more invested in proclaiming their own “individual and personal goodness” than admitting the pernicious effects of systemic racism.
“I’m going to try to speak kindly,” Metta says in “I, Racist,” “but that’s gonna be hard. Because it’s getting harder and harder for me to think about the protection of White people’s feelings when White people don’t seem to care at all about the loss of so many Black lives.”
“I don’t know how to end what doesn’t have an ending,” Rankine says. Will there be an ending? So much history. So many buried memories. So many buried bodies. Citizen includes elegies for Trayvon Martin. The victims of Hurricane Katrina. James Craig Anderson. Mark Duggan. Jordan Russell Davis. The names in the headlines continue to mount.
Citizen was published before Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, before the deaths of hundreds more. (According to The Guardian’s ongoing site “The Counted,” 294 black men were killed by the police in 2015, 128 and counting in 2016 when Philando Castile and Alton Sterling were killed.) In an article in the New York Times, Rankine quoted the mother of a black son after the shootings in Charleston: “The condition of black life is one of mourning.”
“For her,” Rankine wrote, “mourning lived in real time inside her and her son’s reality: At any moment she might lose her reason for living. Though the white liberal imagination likes to feel temporarily bad about black suffering, there really is no mode of empathy that can replicate the daily strain of knowing that as a black person you can be killed for simply being black.”
What if you Good Samaritans were to speak up before the victim’s body was “beaten and bloody”? he asked. What if you didn’t wait until it was “so obvious”?
Metta reminded his listeners of their shared responsibility in the face of injustice. “Speak up. Don’t let it slide. Don’t stand watching in silence,” he told the all white congregation at his church in Washington State. What if you Good Samaritans were to speak up before the victim’s body was “beaten and bloody”? he asked. What if you didn’t wait until it was “so obvious”? What if you were to recognize racism as systemic and not individual, and acknowledge that “White people, every single one of you, are complicit in this racism because you benefit directly from it”?
Rankine ends with that early morning tennis lesson, a sunrise that is “slow and cloudy, dragging the light in, but barely.” She almost approaches the woman in the other car, but she’s in a hurry to get to her lesson, she doesn’t. Her readers are left with an ambiguous “lesson” (Who’s teaching whom? What have we learned?), a conversation with a white woman that doesn’t happen, and faint glimmers of dawn.
The close of Citizen raises the question of beginnings, however small and uncertain. Maybe you begin by reconsidering a brief conversation at Bread Loaf, because it still bothers you.
What did you say?
Maybe you begin by asking yourself this: Where. The. Fuck. Were. You?
On February 4, 1974, Patty Hearst — a Berkeley student and scion to one of the country’s most storied families — was kidnapped by a group calling itself the Symbionese Liberation Army. The SLA was a radical leftist cadre led by an ex-con named Donald DeFreeze. Even by the standards of the day, it was a ragtag outfit with muddled goals and beliefs. At best, its ranks counted eight or nine committed guerrillas, but their dedication to violence and politically charged mayhem was beyond question. Just three months before, SLA members had assassinated one of the Bay Area’s most respected figures, Marcus Foster, the superintendent of the Oakland school system. The SLA was well armed and supremely paranoid. After the Hearst kidnapping, the FBI mobilized the biggest manhunt in the agency’s history, and the country tuned in for daily updates. What followed was one of the strangest episodes in American history. Depending on whose version of events you believe, Patty Hearst was either the SLA’s captive — bound, raped, brutalized, and forced to participate in violent bank robberies — or she was Tania, the radical convert taking up arms for the cause, a card-carrying SLA revolutionary.
American Heiress, the new book by Jeffrey Toobin, shines a light on this remarkable controversy, examining the politics of the 1970’s left, the rise of the conservatism under California governor Ronald Reagan, and the new era of live television reporting and celebrity magazines. Most of all, Toobin breaks down what was happening inside the SLA’s powder keg world and tries to answer the pivotal question: what was Patty Hearst really thinking?
Twenty years ago, Toobin — the former prosecutor, now a staff writer for The New Yorker and a legal analyst for CNN — made his name covering another bellwether moment of the modern culture: the OJ Simpson trial. His reporting provided the definitive account of that trial-of-the-century, and would later form the basis of the hit FX show The People versus OJ Simpson.
With the Patty Hearst scandal, Toobin is back in his element: crime, passion, politics and an assemblage of world-class legal talent amidst a media frenzy.
I spoke with Toobin about the SLA, the days when bombings were everyday occurrences in the US, the surging popularity of true crime stories, and how the Patty Hearst scandal defined one era and paved the way for another.
Dwyer Murphy: Let’s start by talking about the cultural atmosphere in the Bay Area in the 1970’s. The ’60s are over and the social fabric is deteriorating. New radical groups are popping up around the Bay. You dubbed this period an “evil parody” of the dreams of the decade before.
Jeffrey Toobin: This culture had two formative events from the 1960’s: the free speech movement from Berkeley and the Summer of Love in San Francisco. Both of those were born of idealism and politically and socially progressive ideas. By 1974, everything had curdled. The middle class kids had, by and large, fled the counter culture, because the draft had ended and the immediate threat to them was gone. The people who were left were the dead-enders. No one was more dead-end than the handful who turned into the Symbionese Liberation Army.
Murphy: Where would you place the SLA in relation to some of the well-known radical groups of the time? Say, the Weather Underground or the Black Panthers.
Jeffrey Toobin: The SLA was tiny. Even broadly defined, you’re talking about a dozen people. It was a fragment of a fragment. The SLA was distinguished by the utter incoherence of its goals. The absence of goals, really. They called themselves revolutionaries, but they didn’t even know why they kidnapped Patty Hearst, much less what should be done about American society. They kidnapped her and there was this vague idea about trading her for the accused killers of the murdered superintendent of the Oakland school system, Marcus Foster, but the SLA didn’t even explicitly ask for a trade. Spur of the moment, they came up with the idea of feeding the poor of California, and to their astonishment, Patty’s father, Randy Hearst, tried to meet that demand. He put together a food drive. It was a predictably chaotic exercise, but they got a lot of food out the door. Once the food giveaway started, though, the SLA leader, Donald DeFreeze — General Cinque — got bored. He had no clear idea of what to do next. It was only through this bizarre transformation of Patty Hears that the SLA started robbing banks.
Murphy: Terrorism and political violence were seen so differently then. That changed later, especially after 9/11, but at the time, terrorism was — for lack of a better word — commonplace. It’s hard to get your head around now. You cite some interesting statistics in the book. In September 1975, when Patricia was arrested, you note that there had been “fifty bombings in California alone.” This was a part of everyday life, and people weren’t all that outraged.
Jeffrey Toobin: Can you imagine what my colleagues in cable news would do with this story today? With the number of bombings that were going on at the time? Yes, it’s true that most of the bombings were after hours and not designed to kill people, but some did kill people. And bombs are bombs. It astonished me how violent the radical the left was in the 1970’s. I was shocked, looking at the FBI numbers. And then you had events like the zebra killings in San Francisco, where this splinter group of Black Muslims just decided to kill and torture random white people. I had heard of the Zodiac Killer, of course, but I didn’t know anything about the zebra killings.
Can you imagine what my colleagues in cable news would do with this story today? With the number of bombings that were going on at the time?
Murphy: How do you think the media would cover it today? The Hearst story, I mean.
Jeffrey Toobin: You have crime and celebrity and mystery and sex and race. Talk about a toxic brew that’s irresistible to journalists.
Murphy: Let’s get into the question of sex and the role it played in the SLA. Pretty much everyone in the group was sleeping with everyone else. That was an important tenet. But then there’s also the issue of what happened to Patty. As a captive, she was forced to have sex with some of the SLA men — raped. Later, there were questions about her relationships within the group. It’s an incredibly thorny subject, and the way it was handled at trial seems so distinctly of the period.
Jeffrey Toobin: Ideas about rape and consent have evolved so much since the early ’70s. At that time a man could not be convicted of rape unless the woman physically resisted and tried to fight him off. Think about how crazy and obsolete that view of rape is. And so I wanted to tread with great care on this subject, because it’s very fraught politically, and I wasn’t there. I had to reconstruct events as best I could. It turned out there was a lot of source material on that subject, including from the survivors of the SLA, and Patricia’s book and testimony. Also sex was, in many respects, the turning point of her trial. There was a disclosure that she kept a necklace — Old McMonkey investigators thought it was called — given to her by Willy Wolfe. The jury took that to be proof that Patricia was in fact in love with Willy Wolfe, and not his victim.
As to the group’s dynamics, sexual roundelay was a big part of the SLA’s existence. Trying to sort what happened and what it all meant was difficult. There are several places in the book where I simply say ‘it’s unclear what the precise dimensions of these relationships were.’ I think it’s important to confess when the evidence is ambiguous.
Murphy: Race also played an interesting role in the group’s formation. Most of the SLA members were white, but they believed in black power, and so they followed a black man, Donald DeFreeze, whose politics and temperament were erratic, to say the least.
Jeffrey Toobin: I thought that was fascinating. It was an illustration of how clueless these white kids were. They thought being in prison gave people like DeFreeze a certain wisdom that others just didn’t have. And really that dynamic is where this whole book began. I did a piece for The New Yorker about a gang in Baltimore that took over a jail, and from there I got interested in the Black Guerrilla Family, which was founded by George Jackson in the late ’60s in Soledad prison, in California. During that period, prisons were political hotbeds, and sources of revolutionary foment. It’s so different than what you have today. That really made a strong impression on me.
Murphy: Something that struck me about the public reaction to the Hearst kidnapping — and the time she spent on the run with the SLA — is that a lot of people seemed to think all this was, almost, fun. I’m thinking of one figure in particular: Tom Matthews. When Patty and the Harrises were fleeing police in LA, they found this random high school kid with a car and essentially kidnapped him for the day. Later he testified that he wasn’t scared at all, that he was having a good time. It was a lark. He seems, in a way, like a stand-in for a big portion of the country and how they viewed the Hearst kidnapping.
Jeffrey Toobin: Good ol’ Tom Matthews…Look, like all the best stories there were elements of comedy and tragedy interwoven into the Hearst story. You have this group that murdered Marcus Foster and Myrna Opsahl, the teller who was killed in the course of the SLA’s third bank robbery. Those actions were beyond horrendous. But then you have other victims, like Tom Matthews, whose only concern was about getting back in time for his high school baseball game. It was a mixed bag of the sinister and the comic. The same thing resonated for me with the OJ experience. The OJ Simpson case was ultimately about the vicious murder of two human beings. I tried never to forget that when I was writing about the case, but then there was also hilarious stuff that happened during that case, and you can’t pretend that’s not also true.
Murphy: Where do you place these events in the development of modern celebrity culture? Your OJ book made a compelling argument about that case giving birth to certain strands of contemporary society. What about Patty Hearst?
Jeffrey Toobin: The Hearst story was much more of a pivot point into the modern world. You saw hints of what society and the media would become. With OJ, the transformation had already taken place. We already had a full-fledged celebrity culture, and so the coverage was in place. The thing about Hearst that struck me was how small the news media was at the time. You had newspapers, news magazines, three half-hour evening news shows, and one morning news show, The Today Show. Good Morning America was created in 1975, as this story was happening. There was no cable news, no Internet, no social media. This was their idea of a big story in those days. But by today’s standards it was practically happening in privacy. Back then, in order to illustrate how much publicity this story was getting, people would say, ‘she was on the cover of Newsweek seven times.’ Today people would ask what’s Newsweek? What’s a cover? It shows you of much how the world has changed.
Murphy: We’re having a true crime moment right now, between Serial, Making a Murderer, The Jinx, The People versus OJ Simpson, and also, maybe, your new book. Do you have a theory as to why this is taking hold of imaginations now?
Jeffrey Toobin: Murder never goes out of style. Crime never goes out of style. The merger of celebrity and crime is always going to be big. There’s an appetite for mystery, and in a world of closed narrative — where all the answers are known — people want something that’s more open. The appeal of Making a Murderer and especially Serial is that you have to try to figure it out yourself. You’re not told what the answer is. The appeal of the Hearst story is similar in that there are these open questions. Was she really a terrorist? Or was she forced to do what she did? That’s a hard question. And that’s the focus of the book. I expect that not everyone will come to the same conclusions I did.
Murder never goes out of style. Crime never goes out of style.
Murphy: The post-hippie violent left is also experiencing a surge in interest, it seems. Between the Manson Family and Patty Hearst, there are quite a few books, TV shows and movies in the works. This new book of yours is already being for the screen, I believe. What is it about that period that’s resonating today?
Jeffrey Toobin: I think people suspect today that society is resting on a shaky foundation, and that whether it’s school shooters, or terrorists, there’s craziness and evil not too far below the surface. And in the ’60s and ’70s there were evil people in our midst.
“Lost are we, and are only so far punished,” Dante writes in Canto IV of the first part of his epic poem The Divine Comedy, “That without hope we live on in desire.”
In his debut novel The Gentleman, Forrest Leo crafts a story that hinges on these Dantean elements of confusion, punishment, and romantic longing. Lionel Savage, the narrator and protagonist, accidentally sells his wife Vivien to the devil and embarks on a strange and comical journey through Victorian London to get her back. He relays his trials and travels in the form of a memoir, executed and edited by Hubert Lancaster (a cousin of Savage’s missing wife), who provides footnoted commentary throughout.
“Leo has a whimsical gift: he has given Dante a key place in The Gentleman — as Satan’s gardener.”
Such double-sided narration — through both Savage’s first-hand account and Hubert’s numerous annotations — wedges a kind of distraction into the story, as the two voices often diverge. “Lost are we” comes to mind as an adequate description of the readers’ (and characters’) experiences. And in Dante’s world, being lost means being deeply susceptible to waywardness and despair. Romantic desire becomes unquestionable, as it does for Savage: his one ungovernable aspect, untouchable by the instruments of hell. Dante wields an uncanny ability to characterize and represent change as it manifests in people. Leo, presumably a long-time student of Dante, knows this better than anyone. He employs Dante’s same sense of mutability and unpredictability. And like his predecessor, Leo has a whimsical gift: he has given Dante a key place in The Gentleman — as Satan’s gardener.
One of the novel’s prevailing questions is what makes a man a gentleman, as Hubert suggests at the beginning that it is for the reader to decide whether “Mr. Savage is deserving of that epithet.” The clearest and most helpful definition emerges from Dante’s own writing, in which he argues that a gentleman must have an abito eligente, an elective habit, which compels him to make the reasoned choice, the choice of the mean between two extremes. Steady temperament, then, makes a gentleman.
Leo’s play on this definition is one of many great ironies. Lionel Savage, his young poet hero, is anything but steady. In fact, in the epigraph that opens the book, Savage admits that he drinks his tea “in one great gulp” and casts about with a “griping eye.” He is indulgent, he brags about his fame, and, above all, he uses “thirst” as a directive. In many ways, Leo’s opposing idea of a gentleman speaks to his carefulness as a reader, for Dante also writes that the gentleman is a man whose “soul” must “grace adorn” and “in itself enjoy.” This underlying Epicurean sense — that the truly happy and noble man enjoys his being and is not, in essence, beholden to temperateness — is what Leo takes and makes his own.
“In many ways, Leo’s opposing idea of a gentleman speaks to his carefulness as a reader.”
And so his characters are rich with personality and eccentricity. There is an inventor who uses da Vinci’s helicopter prototype to build a “flying aircraft” and become a “mariner of the air.” Savage’s sister Lizzie lets her promiscuousness become a point of feminist power. Ashley Lancaster (Vivien’s brother), the famous globetrotter and explorer, cannot have a civilized conversation with a woman. Then, of course, the devil himself lives in a “cottage” in “Essex Grove,” his personal moniker for Hell.
Leo brings these wild characters to life with charm, wit, and pomp, and he builds a fully realized — if not a little wacky — Victorian London teeming with adventure and mystery. It is worth noting that Leo was born not in England, but in Alaska and grew up using a dogsled to get to the nearest road. In a 2012 interview about his play Friend of the Devil, which is the basis for The Gentleman, Leo says that without electricity, he and his family relied on reading and telling stories, and he would often listen to his dad work at the typewriter. It is easy to picture this environment: a young Leo listening to, learning from, and experimenting with the stories that captivated him. The circumstances of his upbringing gave him the gift of pure imagination.
And yet, so much of the novel’s great appeal comes from the hilariously realistic way in which it depicts the quirkiness of writers, the idiosyncratic relationships between them, and the painstaking work of their editors. Savage has blown his fortune on books. At a dinner party, he judges the other writers by the “mangled offspring” of their work, even though he is frequently told — by his family, nonetheless — that his own work dull. He has an inflated sense of importance (“If this does not make sense to you, you are not a poet”), he resists constructive criticism, and he procrastinates and stalls against deadlines. Meanwhile, Hubert clashes with much of Savage’s writing, often disagreeing with him and asserting his disapproval of certain remarks.
“So much of the novel’s great appeal comes from the hilariously realistic way in which it depicts the quirkiness of writers, the idiosyncratic relationships between them, and the painstaking work of their editors.”
Leo’s powerful realism is perfectly illustrated late in the novel, on a page that is grossly overwritten, when a pun is stated very obviously and Savage has to “shudder” at its “double entendre,” or when he needlessly notes that “Lizzie is more persuasive than a loaded gun” right after she concludes a tirade. Moments like these can sound amateurish and overwrought, but here they are not evidence of any weakness in Leo’s writing; rather, they demonstrate the opposite — such overwriting is a symptom of Savage’s own shortcomings as a writer and thus makes him appear all the more real.
In fact, Leo’s characters are so self-contradictory and wavering that at points his grasp of them becomes suspect (or seems to). Savage reflects that he has never considered “what happens in other people’s heads” and then later claims that “faces and demeanors are to [him] an open book. [He] knows of no man more adept at reading other people.” Similarly, after railing against his “age of morality” that he does not “deem good,” Savage complains about the existence of “society men” who enjoy “muddlement” and “affairs of passion.”
If this general self-contradiction was not framed in the context of Dante, it would blow a hole through the novel’s core and deflate the rest. But Leo is smarter than that. Because he has made the mutability of the heart and mind his central theme, his characters can and do contain multitudes. Savage says it best: “When there is nothing that is level, then there can be nothing that is not level.”
Balance, at least in this sense, requires a bit of juggling. A bit of recalibration. If Don Quixote was thrust into the realm of Dante and undertook all of Dante’s grueling tasks, and if this misadventure was written in the chaotic and unconventional style of Tristram Shandy, then the resulting work would greatly resemble The Gentleman. Leo’s novel can be read as the light-hearted romantic journey of a few family members through old London. It can be read as the strange English fantasy of an Alaskan. Or, as Savage suggests, it can be read as something greater, something aspiring to fabled literary heights, “a comical epic, but with serious and indeed existential undertones.” Sometimes the best thing to do is stay lost.
J.K. Rowling, George R.R. Martin, Stephen King — rolling in it.
King Midas: everything he touched turned to gold (including his daughter, and probably his books)
Good news — there’s (some) money in literature after all! Forbes has releasedits annual list of the world’s highest paid authors. This probably won’t come as a great surprise, but the list is topped by James Patterson and rounded out by a few more obscure authors whom you may or may not have heard of, such as Stephen King, George R.R. Martin and one J.K. Rowling.
According to The Guardian, the list is calculated using “official book sales figures and analysis from experts.” Patterson who’s put out an average of nearly eleven books a year for the past decade and has been described as an “industry unto himself” is far and away the highest earner, listed at $95m. The runner-up — children’s author James Kinney — comes in at a (comparatively) paltry $19.5m, almost five times less than Patterson.
What becomes clear after quickly perusing the twelve names is that multi-media only helps book sales. As Natalie Robehmed of Forbes states: “the written word isn’t dead — although television and movie adaptations often help drive sales.” The word “often” however seems unnecessary here. Every single author on the list has had either, or both, television and movie adaptations made of their works, except for Paula Hawkins who has an adaptation starring Emily Blunt due to hit the silver screen in October.
Hawkins is also notable as the only newcomer to the list. Her bestselling novel The Girl On The Train — consistently compared to Gone Girl and The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo — vaulted her all the way up to #9 at a reported $10m, just above George R.R. Martin who earned a pre-taxed $9.5m in book sales.
In the meantime, for ease of resentment, envy, and daydreaming, here’s the top of Forbes’ 2016 wealthiest authors list:
FORBES HIGHEST-PAID AUTHORS IN 2016
1. James Patterson $95m
2. Jeff Kinney $19.5m
3. JK Rowling $19m
4. John Grisham $18m
5. (tie) Stephen King $15m
5. (tie) Danielle Steel $15m
5. (tie) Nora Roberts $15m
8. EL James $14m
9. (tie) Veronica Roth $10m
9. (tie) John Green $10m
9. (tie) Paula Hawkins $10m
12. (tie) George RR Martin $9.5m
12. (tie) Dan Brown $9.5m
12. (tie) Rick Riordan $9.5m
DON’T MISS OUT
Sign up for our newsletter to get submission announcements and stay on top of our best work.
YOUR INBOX IS LIT
Enjoy strange, diverting work from The Commuter on Mondays, absorbing fiction from Recommended Reading on Wednesdays, and a roundup of our best work of the week on Fridays. Personalize your subscription preferences here.