Tax Advice from a Debut Novelist

Let me begin by saying that I am not a tax professional, and that my number one piece of advice for any artist/writer/freelancer/contract employee at tax time is to find an accountant who’s used to working with complicated weirdoes artists and get them to walk you through the process. They will know legalities and loopholes that I can only dream of, and they will know how they apply to your particular state, which may be different from mine. Professionals are there for a reason.

That said, I know that even looking for an accountant can be an emotionally fraught experience on par with searching for a good therapist, and once you find one it can help to have some sense of what questions you’ll need to ask. (My advice? Ask on Twitter, Facebook, etc. Get a word of mouth recommendation. People know.) Plus, I think it’s nice when people stand up and say “I HAVE BEEN THERE. I FELT VERY DUMB, AND CAN HELP YOU FEEL LESS DUMB YOURSELF,” especially in the oft-opaque creative professions, and I will therefore happily share with you the fruits of my wisdom, the outcome of my panic attacks, and the tax strategies I’ve been offered over the years — some of which I even follow. My advice is based on my experience, and will therefore be most applicable to people with their first book deals and anyone who gets a major portion of their income as a 1099 instead of a W-2.

Will the government take this blood tithe from me always?

So let’s dive in. First, do you know the difference between a 1099 and a W-2? For a long time I didn’t, and honestly I still get confused. But basically, if you’re a full-time exempt employee, at the end of the year your employer will send you a W-2 to submit with your taxes that lays out how much money you earned and how much was withheld as taxes on your behalf. As a freelancer or novelist or what have you, you don’t have a full-time employer: you work for yourself. But the people who pay you still have to report that money to the government so you can pay taxes later. That means that in order to get your book advance or freelance check, you need to submit a W-9 form to whoever’s going to pay you. They will then send you a 1099 report at the end of the year, which is the equivalent of a W-2. You use this to figure out how much to pay in taxes. (For more on tax forms for contractors, visit this website.)

Here is a complicated fact that almost made me cry when I first found out about it: when you start earning freelance income (again, this might mean your advance, your royalties, or any other money that doesn’t have taxes withheld automatically), the government will expect you to start paying estimated taxes each quarter (April 15, June 15, September 15, and January 15) instead of just paying in one big chunk at the end of the year — though you still have to submit regular taxes then, too. (If your estimated taxes are perfect, then you won’t have to pay any extra at the end of the year, just submit the paperwork — though I’ve never quite managed this.)

This isn’t as bleak as it sounds, though. First off, you don’t have to pay the estimated taxes retroactively. (Or if you miss the deadline, the fine is small — it’s like $50.) So the first year you sell a book or switch to freelancing, you do your taxes as usual, and maybe even have a W-2 thrown in from your previous job. The amount you earned as a freelancer that year will be used to calculate (i.e. make an estimation) for how much you should pay each quarter in the next year, and you’ll probably get handy pre-printed forms and envelopes to help you remember to pay.

But wait, you might say — as I once said, crippling the hand of the novelist friend who was trying to explain this to me while also eating a chicken pot pie — what if I don’t anticipate earning freelance income next year? What if it was a one-time thing? Will the government take this blood tithe from me always? No. If this is your situation, you just need to explain it to the IRS in a formal letter. This is an area where an accountant can really help you, because it sounds absurd to me that a simple explanation would be enough to satisfy the most monstrous bureaucracy in all of history — but I’m given to understand it works. Maybe there’s a form too; I’m not sure. Basically, people with full-time employers pay taxes all year too, they just don’t have to think about it. (Bliss!) Estimated taxes aren’t there to screw you, just to help submit the money that you owe throughout the year, like everyone.

Estimated taxes aren’t there to screw you, just to help submit the money that you owe throughout the year, like everyone.

Now let’s assume that you do plan to keep selling books and freelancing into the foreseeable future. That means estimated quarterly taxes will be your jam. It also means that you will need, for the equally foreseeable future, to do the following:

1. Keep a record of everything you buy or do that can be deducted from your taxable income as a business expense. As a writer this means laptops (if bought in the same year you’re paying taxes for), books, travel to conferences, food eaten at those conferences, meals attended for professional purposes, health insurance, research trips related to professional writing, and even a part of your rent if you have an area of your apartment dedicated to work. (You have to calculate that based on the square footage of the space vs. your apartment. So, the deductible portion of your rent is to your overall rent as the square footage of your office is to the overall square footage of your apartment.) If you are shitty at keeping receipts, you can also just look back at your credit/debit card expenditures for the year before doing your taxes. These should exist online, but some companies archive them after three months, which just means you have to call the company (shudder of sympathetic horror) and ask them to send you your records for the year. They will do this. Make a spreadsheet.

2. See if you actually have enough deductions to matter, or if, as has always been the case for me, you still just take the standard deduction. If so, dang. But good job for trying.

If you are shitty at keeping receipts, you can also just look back at your credit/debit card expenditures for the year before doing your taxes.

3. Figure out whether you need to form an official small business or just pay your taxes as a sole proprietor. I am a moron (probably) and haven’t yet formed a company out of which to pay myself — I’m told that although it costs money to set such a company up (and then get a business bank account and pay yourself out of it) there are significant tax benefits. Oh well. In practical terms this means that when I fill out W-9s for people who want to pay me, I use my social security number instead of an EIN, or Employer Identification Number (and probably lose some money.) If you’re only going to be freelancing/book writing for a year or two (or doing so irregularly) then you probably want to stick with being a sole proprietor. If you plan to make a real business of this, you should probably (goddamnit) set up a real business — and I cannot emphasize enough how much you should get the advice of an accountant to do so.

4. Either way, hold back at least 30% of your income in a separate bank account. Take this out of every check. Do not view this as your money, because it is not. (Though you can keep the interest you earn if it’s in a savings account!) An accountant can help you calculate how much to “self-withhold.” I keep back 33% of everything, but I don’t know the right amount for you. (Not, by the way, an issue of personal preference so much as a reflection of your tax bracket/financial situation.)

The process to submit quarterly taxes is simpler than annual taxes, because you don’t have to calculate anything new.

5. Pay estimated state and federal taxes before each quarterly deadline. Again, either your accountant, the Internet, or (eventually) the government can supply you with the necessary forms & envelopes to make this super easy. Since I’m no longer new to this rodeo, the IRS sends me the forms I need in the mail, but you can print them yourself just as easily (1040-ES for federal taxes; find them here. Each state should have their own form too). The process to submit quarterly taxes is simpler than annual taxes, because you don’t have to calculate anything new (you should be able to figure out how much to pay quarterly while doing your taxes in April, and the amount is the same every quarter). Just get your 1040-ES, write in your social security number or EIN and the amount you’re paying, and send it in with a check. (Here’s a list of the addresses to send your payments to, broken down by state.)

Let me close by saying this: I am probably like you. I do not like this stuff, and every year when my taxes are done I throw an emotional party on par with Studio 54 in its heyday, and allow myself the exquisite luxury of forgetting I’ll ever have to do my taxes again. But over the past few years, I’ve downgraded the process from “panic attack” to “serious annoyance” (it takes up a weekend day! Shitty!) by educating myself just a little about what needs to be done. The first year I had 1099 income, my husband and I[1] got an accountant, just as I have been begging you to do for yourself. Since then, we’ve gone back and forth about whether to use one again, usually just using the example he set and muddling through by ourselves on TurboTax. (Because of the extra filing fees and annoyance, it’s ended up being sort of a wash in terms of value.) My basic message to you is just that you’re not crazy to think you need help — this is stressful for almost everyone. But with a little time and effort, you will get through it, and you too will bask in the balmy sea of forgetting.

[1] Note: we file our taxes jointly, despite the fact that my husband is a regular W-2 employee and I am a special snowflake. This is one of those decisions that our accountant helped us make, and that we have been blindly following ever since.

TED WILSON REVIEWS THE WORLD: MY HEADPHONES

★★★★☆

Hello, and welcome to my week-by-week review of the world. Today I am reviewing my headphones.

I’ve had the same pair of headphones for 36 years. They may not be the hippest looking, or most technologically advanced, but they are a conversation starter. Unfortunately I can’t hear that conversation start when I’m wearing them, so they’re also a conversation ender.

My headphones and I have been through a lot together. If they were alive we would be good friends. In fact, I hired a lady with a microscope to look at them and make sure they’re not alive because if they are, owning living headphones might be the thing that finally puts me on the map.

She said there’s a lot of bacteria and other organic matter on them and I should probably throw them away, but they’re definitely not alive.

They double as earmuffs in the winter time. Not very good earmuffs because they only cover my earholes. If my ears were breasts, my headphones would be a string bikini. But something is better than nothing, and no one is going to turn down even crummy earmuffs when it’s 12° F out.

Sometimes I don’t take my headphones off for days when I’m feeling down, because listening to a classic episode of Topo Gigio or a wacky morning DJ can transport to a distant world where none of my problems exist. Then when I take my headphones off I start to cry again.

The best problem my headphones ever saved me from was the rabid raccoon that broke into my house while I was taking a bath and listening to a Patty Duke cassette. If I had heard what was happening I would have ventured downstairs and the raccoon could have attacked and killed me. There is no cure for rabies.

That’s why it is with great remorse that I have put my headphones up for auction on Ebay.com. I wouldn’t resort to such a thing if I didn’t need the money. I need a new car. That’s why I’m starting the bidding at $20,000. It may sound like a lot but remember these saved my life.

I can’t figure out how to link to the auction so here is a picture of it.

ebay

BEST FEATURE: These are basically antiques. They may not be worth much now but just wait.
WORST FEATURE: Ever since I washed these in the sink there is a loud hissing noise. You get used to it.

Please join me next week when I’ll be reviewing Pluto.

A Master at Work: A Collapse of Horses by Brian Evenson

While some still argue about the differences between and individual merits of genre and literary fiction, some of the most important names in contemporary literature are working in the space where the two intersect. Thomas Ligotti and Laird Barron are names that quickly come to mind. The third on that list, and perhaps the author who manages to deliver the weirdest, creepiest stories to presently slither their tentacles into the literary realm, is Brian Evenson. In early February, Coffee House Press will be rereleasing three of Evenson’s novels, Father of Lies, Last Days, and The Open Curtain, all to coincide with the release of his latest, a short story collection titled A Collapse of Horses. Despite having won a plethora of awards, the collection is proof that Evenson is still getting better.

A Collapse of Horses is a master class in unnerving storytelling; seventeen short narratives that range from horror to science fiction and from surrealism to noir. The variety is outstanding, the writing is superb, but what makes this collection deserving of attention is how Evenson manages to achieve a perfect balance between what is on the page and what is left out. There is plenty of hyperviolence and grotesquerie, so what’s left to the readers’ imagination is just as awful and suggestive. Where other authors waste time with descriptions of space or characters, Evenson relies on inner monologues, fast-paced action, and unfiltered narrative prowess to ensure each story has a lasting impact.

The first three tales in A Collapse of Horses perfectly exemplify not only the author’s career and multiplicity of themes and approaches but also prepare the reader for what’s to come. In “Black Bark,” which possesses the unmistakable aura of a Western while still reading like a horror story, two men are riding in search of a cabin, but one of them, who happens to be wounded, may not be what he appears to be. By putting a narrative within the narrative, Evenson tells two stories in one and delivers the first of many memorable endings (and one that promises yet another story).

“The Report” is an unsettling and Kafka-esque tale of impending doom and uncertainty that takes place in the microcosm of a dark cell. The narrator was asked to submit a report and he feels something he did, or didn’t do, in said report is what landed him there. Surrounded by unseen guards and listening to a bizarre tapped message and the anguished screams of those being tortured while he waits for his turn, the narrator gives the reader every detail imaginable as he slowly spirals down into a strange sort of quiet, resigned desperation:

“For a while I can make out, traveling its way down the hall away from me, the sound of tapping, though quickly it becomes the ghost of itself and I can make little out. And then it fades entirely. I can still imagine that it is traveling on, can still convince myself, rightly or wrongly, that it exists, but I can no longer hear it.”

“The Punish” follows “The Report” and makes readers just as uncomfortable, or even more so, while moving the action back to everyday setting that are supposed to be much less disturbing than a dark cell. However, as a grown man remembers the game he used to play with one of his friends, the sense of unease starts to grow. Once again, much is said and the narrative makes it clear that the game these two friends played, which they called The Punish, was far from healthy, but the events that are hinted at, both during the story and at the very end, are the kind that set up a tent in readers’ memories and stay for a long, long time.

There are no throwaway stories in A Collapse of Horses, but some of them deserve individual attention here. “Cult” is the closest thing to a love story in this collection, but one that has all the elements of a supernatural noir and which explores the weakness some individuals develop when they fall in love. “The Dust,” which is the longest story in the book, is a very entertaining hybrid that brings together mystery, science fiction, and the elements of psychological thrillers to tell the story of a ground of men who are trapped underground and running out of air. Suspicion and tension keep the story flowing at breakneck speed. Then the bodies and paranoia take over.

Perhaps the two tales that most successfully bridge the gap between horror and literary fiction and thus are textbook instances of what Evenson can accomplish are “The Window” and “Any Corpse.” The first one is one of those rare short stories that can take creepiness and turn it into fear with just a few sentences. Unfortunately, describing it would take away from the pleasure of reading it for the first time. Similarly, “Any Corpse” is post-apocalyptic, uncanny, and scary. In a world where meat falls from the sky and humans live in caves, the rules have changed and are still changing. Learning about those changes turns out to be a very painful process for two characters.

“When she awoke, a shower of raw flesh had fallen in the field. She watched the furnishers sweep their way slowly toward her, moving awkwardly in the armatures, prodding the rended bits where they lay. What seemed fresh and unmaggoted and was large enough to grasp they gathered. They would smoke and preserve it, then try to sell it as provision. What was rotten they kicked dirt over, lifting their faces to the sky as they scraped the dirt along with their feet.”

A Collapse of Horses is cerebral, elegant horror that stretches into a multiplicity of genres. Evenson doesn’t shy away from blood, murder, apparitions, surrealism, dreams, torture, and weirdness, but he also refrains from letting those elements take over. In these brief narratives, what is being told is what matters and everything else works toward making that telling much more compelling.

How to Have Fun Destroying Yourself: An Interview with Tony Tulathimutte, Author of Private Citizens

Tony Tulathimutte’s debut novel, Private Citizens (William Morrow, 2016), follows four recent college graduates as they flail, flail again, and flail better. The book is an uncanny mirror. If you’re an aspiring writer, a do-gooder, an Interneteer, or a human with a reasonable amount of despair, you might flush with recognition.

Tulathimutte has written for VICE, N+1, Salon, The New Yorker online, and elsewhere. I first met him at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, where we both studied fiction. We spoke at a bar in SoHo about his book, empathy in fiction, “atrocity porn,” and the upside of distraction.

David Busis: This book is concerned with self-branding. Were you worried about the Tony Tulathimutte brand as you wrote it, given that there’s a memorable chapter about porn?

Tony Tulathimutte: Of course, because that chapter’s about a character who’s biographically identical to me. He’s not just Asian, not just Thai-American, but he works a tech job and lives in Noe Valley, where I lived. There are lots of obvious fabrications, but generally you think, oh, the demographics match up, that’s Tony.

So it’s funny that you bring up the “Tony Tulathimutte brand,” because the name itself is completely un-brandable, right? Nobody can say it, nobody can spell it. I think about image all the time. I feel that the Internet is neither good nor bad, it’s just a communication platform, but one that has a huge effect on the way people form their identities, and at what point in your life are you doing more identity formation than your adolescence and the deferred adolescence of your twenties? In that regard, being willing to muddy or compromise that brand is to try to upend the less savory aspects of what social technology wants us to do, which is collapse the personal and the private into each other.

Before, the person you were at home wouldn’t become public except in extreme cases. Now we not only have the capacity to be on the Internet all the time, but are encouraged to always be on, and this is equated with healthy social functioning. There’s a chilling effect on what you’re going to do indoors even when nobody’s strictly watching and you have what the law would call an “expectation of privacy.” There might even be a chilling effect on your thoughts. And it’s not because you feel like you’re being judged, but because you want to have the kind of thoughts and the kind of life that people are going to see and admire — which narrows the window for private personhood. This is what you’re meant to be doing when you’re writing, right? This is when you’re supposed to shut the door, turn off your phone, leave everyone else out of it.

DB: So do you shut the door and turn off your phone when you write?

If you wonder why people work at cafés, let’s be honest, it’s mostly to keep from masturbating.

TT: No, I don’t cut off the Internet or leave my phone at home when I go out to write. It is certainly an enormous distraction to have that stuff around, but it’s also useful sometimes to be in the aleatory mode you find yourself in on the Internet, and you stumble across things you wouldn’t think had any coincidence to what you’re thinking about, and it ends up that they do. Occasionally this distraction ends up becoming a subject. This sadly is the origin story of the porn section in my book. If you wonder why people work at cafés, let’s be honest, it’s mostly to keep from masturbating.

Sometimes I find it more interesting, rather than try and stay pure and virtuous, to instead hyper-indulge your vices. Interesting stuff comes that way too. And that was the ethos of this book. If you read any of the fiction I published before this — and I didn’t write anything new for about seven years while I worked on this — you will see well-crafted but tame stories where essentially I wanted the reader to think, “Oh, what a sensitively rendered portrait of a human soul. I feel like such a more sympathetic, kinder human being for having read it. And now I also think by extension that the author is a pretty smart, tender, caring guy.” And that holds you back.

You can get heavily praised for that kind of writing. No matter how much lip service is paid to the uselessness of art, people have a hard time letting go of this utilitarian view of literature, that it improves you somehow. They take Thomas Jefferson’s words to heart, like, “Well, literature is a mass of trash, but sometimes it can be morally instructive.” This accounts for all those blog posts that go, “These MRI scans prove that readers of fiction are more empathetic.” Those annoy the hell out of me. I’m reading books because I like reading books, the same way I like video games, and it can be a vice pulling me away from things I need to do. It’s masturbatory. It can cut me off from contact with real living humans, because I’m more involved with this other stuff that isn’t necessarily good for you. Once you accept that, you can have fun with it. This is not nearly as pious, and nonetheless strives to be a very good book by its own standards.

Writers are always beset by peers who are doing really, really well because they’re so good at the Internet.

So no, I don’t shut out the world for the sake of focus, but it’s still crucial to maintain a private identity, where you can hold opinions and be boring and unattractive. Writers are always beset by peers who are doing really, really well because they’re so good at the Internet. Their Twitter follows are five-figured, their Instagram game is great, everything they do is relevant, everything they discuss is an active topic of conversation or hits on some sort of political sensibility that everybody has an opinion about. I’ve always joked that if I started a literary movement it would be called Post-Relevance. Which you’d think would conflict with writing about twenty-somethings in a contemporary setting. But I worked pretty hard to make it stand on merits other than timeliness.

DB: It sounds a bit like you’re playing reverse psychology with yourself.

So you need to be critical, but also leave yourself room to be dumb in ways that are important to you.

TT: Exactly. And that contrarianism just is my default mode for life. At one point or another, I internalized this sophomoric idea that to be clever is to be counterintuitive. But when you settle into that identity a little bit more, you stop trying to push and fight against everyone else, and stop trying to just be publicly unacceptable, and instead be critical. Having a critical mindset, accepting nothing at face value, is the thirty-something version of that. Eventually you can end up becoming a horrible, syphilitic curmudgeon, and go off the deep end about one thing or another while calling it criticism or skepticism or whatever. So you need to be critical, but also leave yourself room to be dumb in ways that are important to you. Be dumb when it comes to enjoying things that are properly blast-shielded from your values or sensibilities. Go ahead and watch reality TV if it’s gonna make your hands stop shaking.

DB: Did you set out to write about Millennials?

TT: I instinctively recoil at presuming to speak for whole categories of people that I’ve never met and don’t know anything about. Girls was embroiled in this. The biggest mistake they made was calling the show Girls — one of the writers joked about calling it the Entitled Lena Dunham Project, and that would’ve been perfect. This is why they came in for so much criticism from people of color, who said, “You called your show Girls, and then you make a show with only white people.” Insinuating an ambition to speak for an entire category of identity. They tried to head it off in the first season when Hannah says she could be a voice of a generation. She’s trying to parochialize her own experience in anticipation of the criticism that she’s overreaching.

In the same way, if someone asks me if I’m writing about my generation, I go, “Yuck.” It’s like trying to write the Great American Novel. What kind of arrogance makes you want to speak for other categories of people and co-opt their experience, you know? That’s just vanity. That’s just you wanting to own everybody. It’s not to say it can’t be done, just that you shouldn’t pretend you’re doing anything but guessing. This is why Linda rails against the presumption of male writers with their female characters. I wanted to expose my limitations.

I’m writing about privileged mostly white people in San Francisco, because those are the people I knew. I grew up in a white town, I went to a white school, I went to another white school, and then I went to Stanford, which is not all-white, but is extremely moneyed, which in America amounts to nearly the same thing. And then I go to San Francisco, which has always been culturally diverse, but when I showed up on the scene, I arrived with these Mongol hordes of tech and finance people who followed the money.

DB: Tell me about creating Will as a character.

TT: I started by making a note that said, Okay, Will’s a tech guy who’s codependent on his girlfriend, and she’s paralyzed. At that point, I hadn’t even admitted he was Asian yet.

DB: I like how you say you hadn’t “admitted” it.

TT: Yeah, I was skirting around a lot of things. I was following this imperative of writing outside your own experience. What greater project could there be than empathy in fiction? But I realized later that this isn’t actually a value in itself — that you just have to do what’s good for whatever you’re working on.

…eventually I just had to cave and say, no, everything that gives context to his specific kind of resentment and indignation is that he’s an Asian guy.

And so whenever I used to write a character, I always had to alienate them from me in some way, so that I could reach out across and imagine my way into — basically bullshit my way into them. With Will, I started off by saying, well, he’ll be a tech guy with some of the same insecurities as me, but he’s gonna be white, there’ll be this safe buffer between us. And eventually I just had to cave and say, no, everything that gives context to his specific kind of resentment and indignation is that he’s an Asian guy. And that was the hardest thing.

DB: Why was it so important for you to barricade yourself from the character?

TT: One of the exciting possibilities of fiction is that you don’t always have to be you, something that for me feels oppressive most of the time. It’s a valid reason to write fiction — I admire people who do it well. But when this becomes fiction’s universally agreed-upon telos, and when people get criticized as self-absorbed and narcissistic for writing characters similar to themselves, it becomes a harmful dogmatic constraint. It was important for me before because I thought that’s just what talented writers did. And ultimately I realized that this kind of writing is far more like doing an impression. No one actually thinks you’re that person, but wow, it’s neat how you uncannily evoke them in this brief way. No matter how much you call yourself a writer or how much praise you get, you have to come to terms with the limit of knowing another person, which is absolute. And the value of writing about you or somebody else is — it’s value-neutral, really.

People who disagree with me — and they do all the time — say, “Well, then what about the less fortunate? Why is it not valuable to give them a voice?” I’m like, Why don’t you let them have their own fucking voice? Instead of waving a banner around about giving a voice to the voiceless, why don’t you work to create the circumstances where everyone can speak for themselves? Because you can’t do it with your fiction, right? Oh well, too bad — it’s a political issue, not a literary one.

There is a department of the literary world that values what is basically atrocity porn…

That’s why it annoys me when people get praised merely for attempting this project, not even for carrying it off very well. There is a department of the literary world that values what is basically atrocity porn, that think the more you can render the exquisite suffering of somebody who’s much worse off than you, the more laudable and legitimate your project is.

When you loosen yourself from this, then you can have fun making fun of yourself or destroying yourself in a way, because who would know how to do that better than you? The process isn’t all that different from writing about others, actually. At first you might assume you know all about yourself. But the further you go, the more you realize, no, I actually don’t know what I think about a whole lot of things. It’s only now that I’m writing from my own perspective that I’m even challenged to confront them. So in a way you’re estranging yourself. You are approaching yourself as another person until you can incorporate those ideas into your personality.

DB: There’s still plenty to explore.

TT: Right, exactly. And the more you write them, the more you end up abstracting them away from yourself. Actually, abstract is the wrong word — you concretize them away from yourself.

Once I had my roommate email me part of my book so I could work on it at my office. And he says, “Hey, sorry, man, I saw your book notes open, I closed it, but I did see that at the top it said, “Will = me — writing + girlfriend.” [Laughs.] It was a simple place to start from, a minor tweak. But then, as circumstances develop, the character develops further apart from me, until you see him in the very unhappy state he’s in by the end of the book.

This kind of reminds me of a hypocritical quote from Heath Ledger. He was nominated for an Oscar for playing the Joker, and he lost out to Phillip Seymour Hoffman playing Capote. And he says, “I thought this was an award for best acting, not most acting.” Hoffman played a character who’s very mannered and different from himself, and he gets awarded an Oscar. Of course, Heath Ledger played the Joker. But the point is well-taken, that people think that more talent and more artifice goes into acting as another than acting as yourself. It’s wrong.

Midweek Links: Literary Links from Around the Web (February 10th)

Looking for some interesting reading to get you through the week? Here are some literary links from around the web to check out:

The kids are alright: 92% of college students still prefer print books to ebooks

On the time a fake SF writer won a major prize

A Mardi Gras reading list

Graphic novelist Alison Bechdel’s desert island books

25 books about Americans living abroad

Blake Butler on the beautiful and brutal writing of Brian Evenson

On Finding Yourself in the Work of Jhumpa Lahiri

Can a passion for literature be taught in HS?

Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan Novels are coming to TV!

Lastly, the brilliant Lisa Lucas has been named executive director of the National Book Foundation

“I Began With Nothing But This Scrap of Language”: An Interview With John Wray, Author of The Lost…

John Wray

In John Wray’s four novels, psychology and history collide, sending one another spiraling into profound and unpredictable directions. In Lowboy, a young man grappling with schizophrenia is pursued across New York by a dedicated police detective; in The Right Hand of Sleep, a man returns to his hometown in Austria in the late 1930s only to find that many of his old acquaintances have embraced Nazism. His latest novel, The Lost Time Accidents (FSG, 2016) returns in part to that milieu. It is at once the story of Waldemar Tolliver, a man in contemporary New York who seems to have fallen outside of conventional time, and the story of several generations of his family, including his great-uncle, the perpetrator of numerous atrocities, who now resides in historical infamy with the nickname “The Black Timekeeper.”

In this novel, Wray deftly juggles multiple plotlines over the course a century, riffing along the way on the history of science fiction, the horrors of totalitarianism, the birth of a cult, and romantic obsession. I met up with him in his publisher’s Manhattan office to discuss the creation of the book, the way that odd phrases can lodge in your mind, and the advantages to writing an expansive, sprawling work of fiction.

Tobias Carroll: You now have four novels out in the world, and with this one, at least in part, you’re returning to the Austria of the 1930s as a setting. Did you know from the outset that this was a time and a place that you wanted to return to?

John Wray: My first novel is set almost exclusively in the 1930s in Austria and Germany. I find that when I finish a book, at least for a good long time, I have acquitted myself of my obligation to that subject matter, and I don’t want anything more to do with it. After finishing that first book, I really thought that I was never going to engage with the Holocaust or the Third Reich again. I thought, “Okay, that’s done.”

Certainly, central Europe in the 1930s was about as severe and absolute a test of every adult citizen’s moral fiber as has ever existed.

I think to anyone who has connections of any kind, particularly familial connections, to that part of the world and that period, the compulsion to explore what it was like to be alive during that truly surreal part of world history, and one of the rare periods where each individual person’s ethical makeup was put to an absolute test… One could argue that it happens all the time. Maybe right now, you’re either doing your part for gun control or campaigning against the use of drones internationally in warfare or climate change, or you’re not. You could argue that that happens all the time. Certainly, central Europe in the 1930s was about as severe and absolute a test of every adult citizen’s moral fiber as has ever existed.

So that’s just very interesting, particularly having relatives, ancestors, who were alive at that time and who responded in very individual and idiosyncratic ways to the tests of that era, ways both positive and negative. It just wouldn’t let me go. The Lost Time Accidents covers a century, so it was going to pass through that time. Since it’s very loosely inspired by the history of my family, it was going to pass through those places, too, as much as I might have preferred to avoid them. There are wars and world historical events that I largely skip in the book, like Vietnam, for example. But it turned out that the period just interested me. It’s a fascinating period. It’s really hard to not be interested in that period.

TC: My father’s parents left Austria in the 1930s–his father was Jewish, his mother was Catholic–and so I can relate to a lot of the family dynamics and divides that are found in the novel.

JW: One of the fascinating things about exploring one’s own family history is that it is fractal in a sense, as you move backward. If you were to draw out your family tree, the farther back you go, the more branches there are. It spreads out like a fan as it goes back. Which means that if you’re going back 100 years, almost, you’re not just talking about one ancestor or one relative; you’re talking about a cross-section of society, probably. Each of those people will have reacted or participated in a given era in very distinct ways. I think anyone who’s not exclusively of Jewish descent who had relatives who lived in central Europe in the early 20th century is going to find some monsters there. In the case of my family, mostly cowards. There’s no one in my family history who’s remotely as freakish or impressive as the Black Timekeeper in the novel. The problem with writing about your own family is that–it’s a good starting point, but unless you come from a really fucked-up family, you’re probably going to do a lot of embellishing and a lot of exaggerating until you get something that’s really entertaining and compelling.

TC: What was the starting point for the novel for you? Was it wanting to write a multigenerational family saga, was it this idiosyncratic theory of time travel, was it riffing on science fiction…

JW: All of those things were part of the appeal. Unlike any of my previous novels, this novel, which has been incubating in one way or another since my mid-20s, really began with the title, which has never been the case for me before. When I was writing my first novel, I was in very strange circumstances. In order to be able to afford to write almost full-time and live in New York City with no real income, I squatted, essentially, in a band rehearsal space in a basement in DUMBO. I was playing music in those days too, so it was a rehearsal space that was shared by a bunch of bands. There happened to be a back alcove that I pitched a tent in, and I lived there for a year and a half. I had a very strange sleeping and waking schedule, because it was underground. There was no light. I was really cut off from the rest of the world.

I would wander around, late at night, in DUMBO and Vinegar Hill and Brooklyn Heights, and sometimes further afield. One day, pretty early on into that time, I was wandering around Vinegar Hill. I turned a corner and saw the Hudson Power Generating Station, which is the big electrical station that is on the water. There was this wonderful old sign, which they may have replaced now, which said “Welcome to Hudson Power Generating Station.” And then there was a blank space where numbers were supposed to go. It was something like “00000 Hours Without A Lost Time Accident.” And I thought, “What is that? I have no idea what that is, but it’s a great phrase.”

What does this fragment mean in this scribbled note of this dead crackpot scientist, who happens to also be the revered ancestor of this very fucked-up family?

It just had a magic for me, right away. It’s so fertile with associations. It could mean almost anything. And as I began to write the book, it became almost like a chip from the Rosetta Stone. The multitude of valences and possible meanings of that phrase led directly to the various strands of the narrative. It became, in a way, a mystery story, in which the central mystery is not “Whodunnit?” but “What was done?” What does this fragment mean in this scribbled note of this dead crackpot scientist, who happens to also be the revered ancestor of this very fucked-up family?

TC: When I got to the point in the novel with the power station and the sign, I realized that, right, I had encountered this phrase before. I had completely forgotten that this was a phrase that existed outside of the world of your novel…

JW: I began with nothing but this scrap of language–just these few words that seemed to resonate in all of these strange ways. There were all sorts of overtones and undertones and harmonics. Haruki Murakami once told me that he writes his books to find out who the murderer is himself, whether or not there’s a literal murder in his novel. He doesn’t know himself. He’s as much in the thick of the mystery as the reader is later. And he believes that it’s important for the type of books that he writes. I thought about that when I was working on The Lost Time Accidents. As I was writing it, I wasn’t necessarily sure which of all of the many strange and conflicting definitions of that phrase would turn out to be the one that was central to the novel. Virtually every character in the novel has a different interpretation or guess as to what that phrase might have meant to their ancestor.

TC: After getting the initial idea for the book in your twenties, how much time did you end up working on it, and coming up with ways to balance all of the different plotlines in it?

JW: It was extraordinarily difficult. This was certainly the most difficult novel to write of the four novels that I’ve finished at this point. It took me seven years. And seven years in which I wasn’t doing a lot of teaching. I purposefully tried to pare down my committments. It was virtually daily work for almost seven years. Which is too long for me. I’m never going to do it again, I don’t think. It took something out of me, certainly, and I’m still recovering from it, really. It was incredibly difficult.

It was probably three years of writing the first draft, and at least four years of feverish revision. When I emerge from the other end of the tunnel of working on a book, but particularly with this one, I almost can’t believe that I didn’t give up a bunch of times. And I considered giving up at least three times. At one point, I had fully decided to. But somehow, the mystery of the novel wouldn’t leave me alone, and I went back to it.

TC: In terms of the revisions, were they more structural? Were they more about changing the way that characters interacted? Was it everything?

JW: It was conceptual, initially. I spoke earlier of the various overtones and undertones and harmonics that the phrase produced, and how each gave rise to a different facet or a different narrative in the novel. Getting all of those harmonics to resonate together in a way that seemed focused and effective and powerful took a great amount of calibration and a huge amount of language work. Most of the revision eventually turned out to be very, very, very detailed language work. There’s probably not a sentence in that book that hasn’t been rewritten between five and eight times. With me, that’s always the way that I spend most of my time: revising.

This notion that you can talk about a book’s content and talk separately about its style is an illusion.

This notion that you can talk about a book’s content and talk separately about its style is an illusion. Or even a delusion, I would say. Maybe it’s a useful delusion. You’re getting everything that you’re getting through the words on the page. There is almost no effective revision for me without focusing your attention on the specific choices with words that you’re making. I truly believe that you could take a book that seemed to have a very specific take about a given event–let’s say the rise of Scientology–and, simply by line-editing that book and making equivalent choices, you could eventually end up with a book that presented a completely different interpretation, explanation, and experience of the events described in the book, without actually choosing different events to describe.

TC: There’s almost an element of translation in that, too, which makes sense, given that you have a novel where some of the characters are speaking in English and others are speaking in German. The courtship scene in Buffalo involving German-English flashcards was particularly memorable.

JW: That’s one of my favorite parts. And those were real military German-to-English flashcards that I found in a junk shop. There are a lot of things like that in the book–a lot of what I thought of as sampling. The equivalent of sampling in hip-hop. There are a lot of quotations in the book, and a lot of found, almost randomly, in a John Cageian sense, objects. Like I was taking a walk, and I happened to find this page torn out of a magazine on the sidewalk, and it had something interesting; let’s see if this might relate to the themes in the book in some way, and in a way that would be fun and funny and surprising.

TC: There’s also a scene at the power station where there’s an homage to Kafka–would you say that that falls into the same category?

JW: Definitely. It’s a slightly different type of riff than the quotations from actual books that dot the narrative–most of which are real, some of which are invented. I’ve always adored Kafka. I think that very few people can actually write in the school of Kafka without it being disastrous. So he always seemed to me like an author that I couldn’t necessarily imitate, but who I loved so much. He’s probably one of my three favorite writers. Suddenly, I thought, this is a playful and kind of amusing hidden homage that also serves the narrative well. I buried a lot of hidden jokes in the book. Sometimes they’re just jokes to myself. Sometimes some people get them.

TC: If I’m totally off-base here, I’m sorry, but–early on, the Black Timekeeper seems to be espousing a theory that sounds like an anti-Semitic version of Philip K. Dick in VALIS.

JW: Obviously, you have to cherish Philip K. Dick, particularly as a conceptualist. There’s a lot of play like that throughout the book, a lot of stuff that I find very amusing. But I’m not the only person to do things like that. It was very strange–a few months after I wrote the section of The Lost Time Accidents set in the power station and features waiting outside the power station and these various gates, that hidden tribute to “Before the Law,” I watched Martin Scorsese’s After Hours for the first time. In After Hours, Martin Scorsese inserted a secret homage to “Before the Law.” Griffin Dunne’s character is trying to get into a late-night after hours club somewhere on the Lower East Side, and he has a conversation with the bouncer at the club, which is also a tribute. It’s so clear that it’s a tribute. At first, I thought I was imagining it, because I had just been imagining something similar. Very rarely has Scorsese made movies that allow for that kind of conceptual play, but in the case of After Hours, he did, and I thought it was hilarious. It’s one of the greatest stories in literature, so perhaps it’s not surprising.

TC: One of the characters in The Lost Time Accidents is a science fiction writer, and Philip K. Dick and Theodore Sturgeon are both referenced directly over the course of the novel. Are you yourself a science fiction reader?

JW: Yes. When I first discovered that people were still calling it “sci-fi” without any trace of self-consciousness…For me, it was hugely important. Fantasy and sci-fi were both hugely important for me. I was always hesitant to jump on this genre co-opting bandwagon. To be honest, when I looked at something like Ishiguro’s The Buried Giant, it seemed like something written by someone who had no real familiarity with the genre he was trying to play with. To me, that’s why that’s why that book felt flat and effortful. Lots of people now are making a great show of their openness to genre within literary fiction. I was always a little bit hesitant to do that kind of stuff, in part because science fiction and fantasy are so dear to me, and were so important in my development as a reader and as a writer.

This is a novel in which science fiction plays a major role–but almost in a Nabokovian sense. A novel like Pale Fire plays with alternate history. I believe that Ada or Ardor is set in some kind of alternate universe. But, of course, Nabokov’s books are about memory and history and family and sexuality in ways that can seemingly metabolize and incorporate all kinds of other notions–but you would never call Ada speculative fiction. When it occurred to me that I could have a major character in my novel be a science fiction author, and that that would allow me to not only pay tribute to science fiction and fantasy’s importance in my life, but also to write a whole series of compressed science fiction stories and novels–or summaries thereof–the book became much more fun for me to write, instantly. An influence in that direction was Bolaño who, even though it’s breaking certain rules of narrative fiction, often seems to have truly enjoyed describing nonexistent novels in his writing.

TC: Nazi Literature in the Americas–

JW: I love Nazi Literature in the Americas. I was reading that while I was writing certain parts of this book.

TC: Did you have a specific model for Orson’s career?

JW: His career as a novelist? I had a few that I was drawing on. For different aspects of his career, I had different models. Certainly, describing him in his first surge of creativity, when he was writing multiple stories a week, there are any number of science fiction authors. The genre is known for its hyperproductivity. I was certainly thinking of Philip K. Dick in that context. I think I even mention him in particular–I say that Orson was writing at an even greater clip than even Philip K. Dick was able to muster.

In the course of writing the book, I spent some time with Ursula K. Le Guin, whom I interviewed for The Paris Review. She told me a lot of anecdotes about what it was like to write as part of that extended community in those amazing decades, the 60s and 70s.

TC: Do the nonfiction work and interviews you do have any impact on your fiction, or are they largely separate?

Most great art arises out of a kind of strange and, at first glance, incongruous hybridization of influences.

JW: It rarely has a direct effect that I can trace so easily and clearly as I could in the case of the Le Guin interview. But, of course, everything has an effect. You think you’re compartmentalizing your life; some people try really hard to separate their writing from various other banal requirements of their lives. It’s never airtight. I believe that any pursuit of purity or homogeneity is a great mistake for a writer. There’s a well-known phenomenon in genetics called hybrid vigor, which is that the hardiest individuals of a species are often the result of combinations of very disparate gene pools. I think that’s true for novels as much as anything else. Most great art arises out of a kind of strange and, at first glance, incongruous hybridization of influences.

TC: Around the time that Lowboy came out, you said in interviews that you’d done a lot of the writing of it while on the subway. Was the process similar for this, or did you have to write this in a very different environment?

JW: It was very different. It was such a challenge for me to write about theoretical physics, for example, that I don’t think I could have done it in an environment like the subway. In the book, a sensory deprivation chamber plays a central role. The “exclusion bin” that may or may not function as a time machine. I created a series of exclusion bins for myself while I was writing the really difficult parts of the novel. Including, at one point, creating a kind of box for myself that was lightproofed and soundproofed in a similar way to the contraption described in the novel. It wasn’t always necessary, but it was helpful at certain times.

Sometimes these games that I find myself playing with a kind of Method approach to inhabiting characters’ points of view, whether or not they’re as effective as I think they are, they keep the process fun for me. I try to do it with a certain sense of humor. I’m fully aware that some of these things are ridiculous. In some ways, it’s ridiculous to write a book set in the subway on the subway. These are games that keep my morale up, and lend me some additional momentum when I most sorely need it.

TC: Is that also where the idea to have an interpolation of a Joan Didion article in the body of the text came from?

JW: Yes. One of the wonderful things about writing a big, sprawling, rolling, nondiscriminatory kind of novel like The Adventures of Augie March or Moby-Dick or The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle is that, if you feel the urge to do something and you trust your gut instinct, you can just do it.

When I knew that I was going to write about these enormous and celebrated dinners that these two eccentric sisters had in Spanish Harlem in the 70s, I realized that I could essentially invite anyone that I wanted to these dinners. So I took great delight in imagining a dinner in which both William F. Buckley and Huey P. Newton were present, for example. When I think about New York City and the American cultural landscape in that decade, I thought of Joan Didion. If you could have dinner with any three people, who would you choose to invite? In this case, Joan Didion is someone who’s writing I’ve always adored. I’m not sure it’s ever found expression in my own work before, but I couldn’t resist the opportunity to inhabit her style. I thought, why not invent a Joan Didion piece that she wrote for Vanity Fair in the 80s? Wouldn’t that be fun? Maybe it’ll be a disaster. But I’ve always been a good mimic, and I think if it’s done with real affection and love–in other words, if you know the work of the person you’re parodying–it’ll usually turn out all right.

TC: In terms of the chronology, am I wrong for thinking that the present-day sequences are set slightly in the past? How did you work out where you wanted the end point of it to be?

JW: There was a time in which I thought the story would bring us right up to the present. First of all, the longer I worked on the book, the present moment continued to move in a way that was interesting, considering the themes of time in the book itself. The goalpost was always moving. The longer I took to write the book, the more years I would have to cover if I wanted to bring it up to the present.

More importantly, I realized at some point that the book was a portrait of the 20th century, from the final moments before Einstein’s theory of relativity and the First World War all the way up to the beginning of the internet. It seemed fitting and desirable to have it end shortly before the 20th century itself ended.

TC: One question that hangs over most of the novel is whether this theory of time travel actually works. How was dealing with such an ambiguous element to the story that you were telling?

Writing a novel with an enigma at its very core, with a central mystery as its fundamental motor, is a very strange and surreal process.

JW: Writing a novel with an enigma at its very core, with a central mystery as its fundamental motor, is a very strange and surreal process. For me, the question of whether the theory of time that is developed and then taken in all sorts of different directions by the characters in the book was accurate or true or effective became inextricably joined or linked to the question of whether the various characters in the novel were sane or insane. It became as much of a question of whether these characters were mad as it became a question of whether the theory itself was true. And most of the characters in the novel are mad, in one way or another–some in very benign ways, and others in horrific ways. This question of what is this theory, what does it mean, could it be accurate led me directly in each case to an exploration of the mental state and the hopes and fears of the characters. And almost always, it’s in that exploration of character that the most powerful narratives are hid. A novel can be tremendously sophisticated on a conceptual level, but if its concepts are not used to explore believable, compelling, idiosyncratic human beings, you’re most likely going to lose your reader’s interest.

TC: As I was reading The Lost Time Accidents, I noticed the Dr. Zizmor cameo, and this week brings with it the news that Dr. Zizmor has retired. It seemed like a very strange moment of synchronicity.

JW: Zizmor’s ads on the subway were one of the first things that I encountered when I moved to New York City more than twenty years ago. I’ve always has a soft spot in my heart for Zizmor. He’s become sort of a totem for me. He also appeared in Lowboy, actually. I have a questionable but definite affection for that man, and for all of the strange mysteries surrounding those hideous advertisements that have been on the subway for as long as I’ve had a relationship with New York City. I think–fuck it, I’m going to keep putting Zizmor in my books. I’m going to hide him, the way you can find Alfred Hitchcock in every Alfred Hitchcock film. You’ll be able to find Dr. Zizmor in one form or another in all of my books.

Everything You Want Right Here

by Delaney Nolan

Natalie was pulling the slot machine lever, dropping in coins from a little yellow purse she held in her lap. I was drinking my fourth daiquiri, which was also yellow.

“This honestly tastes like real bananas,” I said.

Natalie said, “I think you must be bad luck today.” She held the lever until I took two big steps back. Then I took a third step back. Then she finally let go of the knob and the slots display spun its crazy numbers. You’d think that would’ve shown on her face, but we were all in the same romantic forever twilight of the casino, and in the reflection on the plastic she looked bored, like an angel. Her hair was big, full of that funky-smelling hairspray: shiny, flammable, rough to touch.

We were standing near the one window in Game Room Twelve, which was tinted dark but still showed the red desert going on outside, the same for miles, thousands of miles, I guess. Jermy, who works janitorial on our floor, told me once that the desert led to a massive sinkhole, that magnificent quantities of sand were pouring into the sinkhole day after day, and that eventually we would pour in, too, all of us, the casino and the games and the residents and everything. But that is ridiculous. There might be one sinkhole. But we can’t be surrounded by sinkholes, not in every direction. Statistically, we’re going to turn out fine, in the long run.

Then there was a bright ding! and Natalie whooped because she’d won: out of its mouth the machine spilled a waterfall of shiny tokens, each one small enough to fit in her palm. She said, “I’ve never played this game before,” and applauded a bit, folding her one free hand over and clapping her own fingers, before adding, “not in this room, anyway — not this machine, at least.”

“Do you want some breakfast?”

“I’m not really hungry.”

I peeked over her head toward the lobby. “Did you see the fountain of cane sugar today? It’s really going.” I put my hand flat against her shoulder. “It’s got to be this high.”

Natalie kissed the tips of my fingers and looked at my face and put another coin in. “This is the one,” she said, rubbing her hands. And she was right: suddenly all the lights started blinking at once, and the machine started singing a kind of psycho song. People from the next stool over and the next stool over after that stood up and came to see what was going on. “Twenty bucks says she just won the grand prize,” said a man in golf shorts.

“You’re on,” said a woman next to him. She whipped out her wallet and then started juggling it back and forth.

“I got four cherries,” Natalie sang, and a single, big, fat, golden coin rolled into the dispensing tray. She picked it up with both her hands and kissed it and then asked, “What did I win?”

Which is how we got the tomato plant.


Natalie had called all our neighbors, our friends, and the front desk receptionist by the time we got to the cash-in counter. We were still examining the coin when a man in a white suit walked over, slapped me on the back and said, “Sir, you star, you MVP, you’ve struck gold, you champ; congratulations, sir!” Behind him was another man with a curl of earpiece wire running along his neck, and sunglasses, which struck me as funny — I couldn’t remember the last time I’d seen sunglasses.

I told him I hadn’t done anything. I pointed to Natalie. The man in the suit introduced himself as the floor manager and spoke into a walkie-talkie; after a few minutes some lugs with a cart wheeled over the tomato plant.

It was just a thin stalk with a few scraggly leaves moving shyly upwards, dwarfed by the cart itself. There was a real crowd by then. Natalie moved toward the plant, but the floor manager got to it first, picked it up and handed it to her while everyone clapped. One girl started to cry, in a hiccupping, cheerful way, fanning herself with a scorecard.

“There’s nothing that makes me happier,” the guy in the suit said, “than seeing our residents win.”

Afterward, he escorted us upstairs, chatting happily about how we deserved everything we got. At the door to our home he had his assistant take pictures of the three of us, everybody giving each other firm, friendly handshakes. He wished us luck, and left us alone.

Every day for the next two weeks, friends and strangers would show up, knock on our door, and ask to see the tomato plant. Natalie was keeping it wrapped up in a blanket between two of the candy jars on the counter of the kitchenette, where it would get lots of sun. We all would stand in front of it, eating marshmallows, crammed in the tiny kitchen watching it, popping the marshmallows into our mouths one by one, like at any moment it might wake up and talk to us.

“I can’t remember the last time I saw a plant,” Natalie said quietly on the first afternoon. “A real plant, I mean, in real life.”

“Me neither.”

“When that pipe broke last year,” said our neighbor Beth, “I spent two hours outside.”

“I would chop off all of my fingers,” added her husband thoughtfully, “just to eat a peach.” He sounded sad.

The tomato plant had come wrapped in these glitzy pink beads, and Natalie wouldn’t take them off, even though they spelled out the name of the casino in big tacky script letters: “Les Sables Chanceux,” it read. It meant “The Lucky Sands,” but I thought it sounded like a snobby ranch.

We’d been living in the southern section, where all the roulette tables were, for about four years by then. Like a lot of people, we’d stopped in thinking it was temporary, and then stayed for a little longer, and then just stayed. I don’t even remember where we’d been headed before we stopped. I want to say Utah, maybe — I think Natalie had found a postcard with a picture of Utah on it, and in the picture there was a gigantic lake. But I guess the both of us knew that Utah wasn’t going to be better than anywhere else. No lake, only the same sand, shaping itself into the wind. We’d made it to Les Sables, which I think is somewhere in Kansas, and decided we needed a nice long break.

Natalie and I used to fight a lot, before. Regular marriage fights — I pretend to laugh too often; she criticizes me too much. I wouldn’t say we had issues, but we’d gotten married in our twenties, and after two decades together even our thinnest problems had had time to accumulate into thicker, heavier ones, like stacks of plastic transparencies that eventually stop being transparent. But when the sand started to come up and cover everything and everybody, the fighting sort of died off. We just didn’t have the energy for it anymore. And now, here, in the casino, we’re too busy to think about it: there’s sixty-two floors, live music every night, a mile-long tunnel lit by epileptic laser shows, and twice a year, on the Fourth of July and Christmas, they fill the empty swimming pool up with marshmallow Fluff and we all put on our bathing suits and go wild. The next day everyone goes around real embarrassed.

The last fight I can remember happening at all was in our first casino year: a man had been running from suite to suite, screaming that he’d just reserved the whole floor, that we had to get out. Natalie had stood in the doorway while he threatened her with eviction, and she’d broken his cheekbone with a lamp. Everyone got to stay where they were.

On a banner in the buffet hall, big bubble letters declare Les Sables to be the biggest building in the tri-county area. But I think this seems kind of unfair, because everybody knows it’s the only building in the tri-county area. You don’t really appreciate the place’s size most of the time, but I remember once getting a tour that included the basement, and it was just incredible: the stockpile of dry goods, canned frosting, dehydrated potato, huge sacks of rice, going on and on in every direction without a break, like it was going to keep right on to the edge of the earth.

“When’s it going to make a tomato?” Natalie asked one morning after the visitors had left. She raised her hand to touch it but then let her hand just hover there.

“I’ve got no idea.”

“Maybe it’s a dud.”

“Maybe we’re doing this all wrong.”

Natalie picked up the phone and pushed zero. “Front desk?” she said. “Yes, hello, could you tell me how long it takes a tomato plant to make a tomato?” She listened for a minute, making quiet hums of agreement. Then she hung up, saying, “He didn’t know. But he did say that he’s pretty sure we’re supposed to tie the plant to a stick, so that it can get tall without falling over. He also might come up later to look at it, if that’s okay.”

“A stick?” I said. I looked at the plant. It was just a few inches tall, green with leaves, skinny all over, trembling if we so much as breathed on it. “Where are we supposed to find a stick?”


Every other Sunday, Natalie and I have date night. Date night is when we go to watch a movie in the cinema and we get a SugarShake with two straws. We like seats near the front. We’ve seen most of the movies a few times by now. Natalie’s favorite is a Chinese film — something romantic with long, slow zooms of men beginning to cry. There aren’t any English subtitles but she says she likes the challenge and understands it a little more each time. Certainly, each time she watches it she cries a little harder.

My favorite is when the projectionist blows off his shift and instead they just show the loading screen, which is a looped video of sleepy, distant clouds, floating weightlessly across a warm blue sky. Sometimes Natalie and I stay for the whole two hours, watching the clouds.

A few days after Natalie won the plant, I was getting ready for date night, rinsing off my shaving razor when I noticed that Natalie was still in her pajamas. We did, sometimes, stay in our pajamas all day, but usually not on date night. She was leaning over the counter and talking to the plant in a low voice I couldn’t make out.

“Nat?”

“Shh.”

I stepped into the kitchen. “What are you doing?”

Natalie pressed her lips together and straightened up. She pinched the loose skin at her neck. “I thought it would like the sound of my voice,” still quietly. I felt a twist in my stomach: I could see that she was lonely and that she wouldn’t tell me about her loneliness. This is a terrible thing to know about your wife.

I came and wrapped my arms around her so that I was looking over her head and she was looking into my shoulder. “We’ll be back in a few hours. It’ll be good to get a change of scenery.”

She was completely limp. She felt like a bag of unhappy laundry.

“Try getting dressed,” I suggested. “It always helps me, when I start to feel — to feel claustrophobic. Get dressed like you’re going out somewhere, like anything could happen.” I pushed her gently toward the closet.

That night, it was the clouds again. They moved across the screen with nowhere to get to. It looked like the sky over our old house in Morgantown. Summer, hot, cicadas, moles in the tulip bed. But it isn’t fair to compare the present, movie-screen sky with the old, real sky: the past gets to stay the same, frozen, shining, while the present is always shifting, and maybe getting worse.


I first met Natalie at the Waterfront Place Hotel in Morgantown. I was there on business, marketing medical devices in doctors’ offices. She was there for a convention for people who ran convention centers.

Natalie was at the reception desk, giving a family directions to Ruby Memorial. I’d liked that right away — trying to help people, even though she didn’t have to. She was kind about it, not bossy. She held the door as they left and I noticed that, too. I took out the case which held the equipment I was going to be presenting later that day. When the lost people left, waving their thank yous, it was just us in the lobby. She’d wandered over to see what I was putting together.

“It’s medical equipment.” I held it up as I twisted a microphone into place. “A handheld device for people who’ve lost their voice box.”She picked it carefully from my hands and placed it under her jaw line.

“Electrolarynx,” she said, and her voice was twinned by the machine. I could hear the sound of her smiling.


The plant got taller. In the second week, Natalie said it looked hungry, and she poured some soda pop on it. It lost a leaf or two, but it didn’t die. We went back to spritzing it with tap water. And then one morning, three and a half weeks after Natalie brought it home, we saw it: a tiny green hint of a fruit, the size of a thumbnail.

Natalie rushed out to grab someone’s attention and I stayed, breathing on the plant, seeing its leaves shiver. Go on, I whispered to the plant. You’re doing a really good job. I was thinking about how I was inhaling pure, clean oxygen, like how I’d seen pictures in old textbooks: the cycle of molecules, moving around inside the plant body.

Then Natalie called me from the corridor — she wanted me to come with her to the kitchen of the lobby restaurant, she said, because she wanted to bring up a chef and show him how a real tomato ought to look. “Green,” she shook her head, all the way down in the elevator, “I must have forgot that it ought to look green — and all this time they’ve been feeding us these shit red knock-off tomatoes from tins.”

I followed her down and then through the lobby to the buffet hall.

“The chef,” Natalie said to the hostess, who was standing at the podium by the door, painting her nails. “I need to see the head chef.”

The hostess waved over a server. “She wants to see Allen,” she said. The server disappeared, and a minute later came back with a large bearded man in a splattered apron holding a can opener. He looked warm; physically, I mean — he looked pink.

“I need to show you — ”

His face lit up. “You’re the tomato lady,” he interrupted. He had thick fingers, which he dug under his apron strings.

Natalie straightened.

“I been wanting to let you in a project,” said Allen. “A project I been working on for a time now.”

“Great,” I said quickly, before Natalie could answer, because I wanted to see the kitchen, had always been curious, and I took her hand and followed him.

Allen led us past the buffet table, past the gummy animal salad bar, past the donut brisket and the starch soup tureens and soda pools. He pushed through the swinging doors into a room that led to a series of rooms, with a wide conveyor belt on the side. As we entered, it was trundling out a huge tin labeled POTATO with a picture of a potato on it. With a practiced grace, Allen sprung open the tin and in one smooth movement emptied the gel inside into a nearby pot of steaming water. He moved as though he were unaware that we were still behind him, performing his duties swift and correct. Then he continued, hardly breaking his stride, gesturing for us to follow.

We passed ladles and sacks and piles of brown square parchment packages labeled MOLASSES. In the fifth narrow room, he looked around as though someone may have followed him. Then he moved his hand over a trapdoor in the zinc counter and, in some way we couldn’t see, swung up the latch. He fished in with one meaty paw, biting his tongue, and then pulled out a small plastic jar.

Inside were three brown, dry-looking sticks, curling in on themselves.

“You all know what this is?” He spoke very low. Before waiting for an answer, he unscrewed the top and tilted it towards our noses.

We breathed in. It was cinnamon. The smell came up and with it came Christmas, grandmothers, hot buttered rum, jack-o-lanterns, wassail, Indian summer, yellow leaves, porcelain mugs, knit sweaters, wood fires, pastries steaming on a pan held with an apron wrapped around your hand. We breathed in and breathed in but you can only smell a thing so long, continuously, before it disappears even with you watching, like a good dream you try sleepily to catch.

“Where?” said Natalie breathlessly.

Allen screwed the cap back on, a little jealously, it seemed to me. “Years ago — I won, too. Not a jackpot like you. A smaller thing. The slots: three apples in a row. I used to have more. I saved it for special occasions. But even with my saving, I started to go on see it would run out. Now I haven’t used one in a good while.” He opened the trapdoor, again in a way I couldn’t see, and put it back inside. “I thought maybe — whenever you get ready with that tomato — I got a recipe.” He said recipe like it was a curse word.

“What sort of recipe?” Natalie’s eyes shone.

“Candied tomatoes,” Allen said proudly, and clapped his hands together.

Natalie took my arm. The conveyor belt buzzed and started up again with a chunking sound.

“You’ll let me know when they’re ready — right?” said the chef.

“We should go check on the plant now,” I said, backing towards the other rooms. A white plastic tub moved smoothly past us on the belt.


In our suite, I lay on the kitchen floor while Natalie walked on my back. We’d spent a couple hours at the roulette table before coming back up, and sometimes hunching over the wheel like that made me sore. It seemed like bad luck to go back to the same slot machine as before, so we went to the poker table instead. I was having a lousy few rounds, so I mostly sat and watched Natalie, the other players, the dealer, the window. The dealer’s hands dropped the playing cards and crisply gathered them up again. His nails were bitten back, showing the beds, red and raw.

If you squint real hard, so much that your eyes are closed, the lit-up ceiling of the casino could be sky, and the dark green carpet could be actual ground. But then you always see the window burning — the hot white sky and the dunes that just get bigger and bigger, and whatever they hold, the bones of cattle, skeleton of cacti, probably rusted-out cars, and plus all around you are the beeps and jingles and hot laughter of the people and machines, so it’s hard to pretend, really.

A lady came by with a tray of blue-pink lollipops and I grabbed one, crunched it down, put the white paper stick in my breast pocket. The thing is, in the casino you tend to get into a routine, and it makes time go weird — you’re walking past a bank of video poker screens when you realize a week’s gone by without you really noticing. So at some point around last year I started holding on to leftover bits from meals, just to remind myself: time is passing, time is passing. This is your life. It really is.

Natalie folded. She’d broken even, like she usually did.

We didn’t bring up Allen’s plans about the tomato until we got into the elevator.

“I don’t want it to be candied,” Natalie had said.

“Me neither.”

That was all. The question had hung around the stale air on the way up, fogging up the fluorescent light, bouncing back at us from the mirrored walls: what do you do with a thing you have to ruin to enjoy?

When the doors opened on our floor, the maid was standing by her trolley in front of our room, lifting the keycard from the lanyard around her neck.

“We don’t need service!” Natalie shouted abruptly, startling us all. The maid blinked while we hurried over.

“Privacy, please,” I said quickly, and we’d slammed the door in the maid’s round face.

Now Natalie stepped off my back and sat against the cupboards next to me. I turned my head and felt crumbs sticking to my cheek.

“We have to protect it,” she said.

“Yes.”

“People will come.”

I sat up and sat so that my legs crossed beneath her bent knees. I squeezed her calves, soft and white. Natalie used to be beautiful, tan; she is still beautiful, but a different kind, and pale as the rest of us. It used to strike me as strange to be pale when outside there was always sun, sun, sun, but now that desert out the window is just like the mural of a tropical island painted next to a motel swimming pool: you won’t ever get there, and you have to just use it to enjoy the dingy place you’re really at.


Natalie and I had a trick. We’d been doing it since our first week at Les Sables. We’d walk next to one another down the laser tunnel like totally normal people. Then, as we passed someone, splitting slightly so that we were walking on either side of them, we’d suddenly throw up our hands and scream like goblins and then sprint, fast as we could, to the opposite end of the tunnel. We never actually saw the person’s reaction, but nearly every time we did this, one of us would have to stop before reaching the end of the tunnel, out of breath from hysterical laughing.

It was her idea, and the morning after we met the chef she suggested we give it a go. We’d been strange and distracted all day. She said it’d help us work out nervous energy.

I got dressed and washed, and I put the tomato plant in the hiding place we’d chosen for whenever we went out: in the musty cabinet under the sink. Its leaves brushed the plastic pipes down there. I always felt guilty for leaving it in the dark. We were about to leave when there was a knock on our door. I looked through the peephole. The floor manager, in his white suit, was smiling in the hallway, his face ballooned and alien from the glass’s warp.

“It’s him,” I hissed.

“The chef?”

“The guy in the suit. The one who gave us the plant.”

We both stood there. We didn’t know what to do — here was the man who had given us our favorite thing. We couldn’t just lock out the man who had given us our favorite thing.

I opened the door just as he was lifting his fist to knock. His smile got bigger.

“Our star players! Our MVPs!” He walked in and slapped me on the shoulder, air-kissed Nat. “Our favored guests. Our lucky ducks.”

“Is something wrong?” Nat asked.

His smile went down a notch. Then it was just a regular smile. “Why would anything be wrong?”

Neither of us could come up with an answer to that.

“I was hoping you two could do me a favor.” He sat on the arm of the couch.

“We’d love to help if we can,” said Natalie.

“We have an event this week — an award ceremony — just a little thing we’re putting on. We hoped you would join us, present one of the awards.” He delicately picked one of Nat’s long hairs off the couch arm. “‘Best Janitor,’ ‘Happiest Waiter.’ That sort of thing.”

“Do we have to give a speech?”

“I don’t like speeches,” I added. “I don’t like giving them.”

“No speech.” He threw his hands away from him like he was holding garbage.

“Just presenting. You two — I don’t know if you know this — you’re something of a celebrity couple, now that you’re growing those tomatoes. We thought it’d be fun to include you.”

I didn’t want to. And she didn’t want to. But in front of us stood the man who had given us our prize. We agreed. The next day, a bellhop showed up outside our door with a new jacket and slacks for me, a dress for Natalie in sugary pastels. A card, event details written inside in careful black script; all of this nested in blue tissue paper, paper we kept, because Natalie said it was too pretty to throw out. She had this drawer where she kept beautiful things. She wouldn’t let anyone into it, not even me. She put the tissue inside and closed the drawer.


The ceremony was held in the lounge. Natalie and I and everyone else who was on the giving-end of the award stuff were overdressed: I wore the fine dress jacket, and the janitor wore the janitorial uniform; the waitresses wore jeans. The floor manager in his white suit stood on stage saying Thank you in about a million different ways: We appreciate etc., we couldn’t do it without etc., we are indebted etc., etc. There were bonbons on Styrofoam plates. I ordered daiquiris and then changed it to martinis and then to regular beer. I was embarrassed, didn’t know where to put my hands. Kept them in my lap. I didn’t like being the one with the shiny gold statue in my hands to dole out to winners.

I was picking cotton candy apart on my plate. A slim, balding guy who worked one of the craps tables was seated next to me.

“Who’d you vote for?” I asked him.

A blank look. “We don’t vote.”

“Right. I was only joking.” Some chords of music started up as someone new took the stage. Natalie, on my other side, was whispering and laughing with a maid. She was always better than me at it — at being a person with people. “Are you in the running?”

“I don’t know. I guess.” He looked down at his plate. His fingernails, I noticed, were bitten down — way down, red and raw and painful looking. As I watched, he reached up to his scalp and plucked one his own short hairs; then another, then another. He was doing it absently, a kind of nervous habit that I wondered if I should warn him off.

“Least there’s free food, huh?”

He nodded.

“Got any tips for me for my next go at the craps table?” I tried.

He looked at me and gave a weak smile. “Luck of the draw.”

“How long you been here?”

The dealer shrugged. As I watched, he plucked the cotton candy from his plate, set it aside, and then folded the paper cone carefully and tucked it away in his pocket.

Someone came and tapped us on our shoulders, signaling that we’d take the stage soon. We followed them, weaving around tables, up to the wings of the stage.

“Now, to present the award for ‘Straightest Teeth,’ our celebrity couple — the Tomato Growers!” Mild applause stirred around the room as we stepped on.

The lights were hot and white and made me squint. They were too bright; I couldn’t see the face of the man as he waved us toward the podium. We stepped up and held the plastic gold statue. It looked like a squat hump, an anthill, a buttock — I realized much later that it was supposed to be a sand dune.

“The award goes to — ” I opened the card and Natalie read the name.

“Jeffrey Krugman.”

The man I’d been talking to stood up and came to the stage. People clapped; I shook his hand; he took the statue and turned around and left the stage. We left the stage. The man’s voice boomed on cheerfully. Nat leaned against me; I put my arm around her and pulled hair back from her face. It was time to go home, or to where we lived. We left the dinner, left the beers. The pneumatic door clicked the man’s voice away from us into silence as we walked out. Our steps were quiet in the carpeted hallway. Fluorescent lights showed me the flaws in her makeup. I wanted to kiss her, to apologize for being in this place, unable to leave or taste anything real. I wanted to tell her that I knew the world wasn’t very good, but she was a good thing in it. When we opened the door to our suite, all the lights were shining, the closets open, clothes on the floor. Sand ticked at the window over the sink. Natalie flung open the cabinet doors under the sink. The tomato plant was gone.


We checked the other cabinets, we checked the garbage disposal. Natalie called the front desk, sobbing, and four employees rushed up to help us look. We all spread out in the little hotel suite, scouring it for the plant, for footprints, for a trail of potted soil, something to help us learn who had taken it.

The headwaiter tucked his tie carefully into his shirt and moved around on his hands and knees. The busboy started tipping furniture, in case the tomato plant was hidden under the couch.

“Is this it?” asked the headwaiter. He held up a piece of fake straw that’d fallen from somebody’s hat.

“No,” I said.

“It’s already dead,” Natalie cried. I tried to put my arm around her again, but she shook me off, too upset to be touched. “The chef’s taken it,” she went on. “We all know that he did!”

The waiters looked at each other, and I looked at Natalie. Her nice eye makeup was making dark shapes in the shadows under her eyes where exhaustion usually shows.

“Wasn’t he at the ceremony?”

“I didn’t see him! He was up here!”

She was already moving out the door. She took my hand and pulled me behind her, and all six of us rushed out, crammed back into the mirrored elevator. In the lobby we marched toward the kitchen, past the roulette wheels, past the baccarat table, past the bar with its free shots of corn syrup.

“Can I help — ” began the hostess as we entered, but Nat stormed past her, slamming through the swinging door into the kitchen. The hostess and the rest of the group followed, crying out that we weren’t allowed.

“Wait,” yelled the hostess, but we slammed into the second room.

The chef was there, on the floor. He was hitting his head with the flats of his hands. He said it was gone, it was gone.

Natalie took a knife from the block on the counter. She pointed it at him, jabbing it in the air on every other word: “What did you do? Where’s our tomato gone?”

“Not the tomato, no, no; the cinnamon — the three sticks of cinnamon — the man in the suit took them. He came here. He took them away.”


The chef led us to the floor manager’s office, and Natalie was trying to kick down the door. A crowd had gathered by then. They weren’t cheering, exactly, but people were worried that something bad was going to happen, and then under that worry, excited that something bad might happen. I wasn’t sure whether to help, but finally I joined Natalie and threw my own weight against the door at the same time she did. On our third try, the lock buckled, and the door swung open, banging against the wall.

It took a second to make sense of what I saw, but Natalie was already screaming. The floor manager had an old camping stove, the kind you might take with you on a road trip, and above the roaring flame of the burner was a shallow metal pot. What it held was hardly a sauce — the few small tomatoes were crushed into pulp in the pan, a watery mash of seeds and skin, barely staining the cinnamon sticks. There couldn’t be more than a couple of spoonfuls. It amounted to practically nothing. It smelled incredible.

I slammed the door shut behind me and quickly dragged a filing cabinet in front of it, afraid others would charge in and snatch it away. In the corner of the room, the tomato plant was already decimated. The manager was holding a plastic spoon in the pot, his hand stilled where it had been stirring. I slowly understood that he must have been watching us, all this time, to find the lost spices so he could have the last of every good thing for himself.

“It’s too late,” I heard Natalie say. The knife drooped from her hand and pointed at the floor.

“No, no,” the manager breathed, looking frightened, holding up a hand to keep us back. Someone was pounding their fist on the door, asking if we were okay. “Look — you can have some. We can each have just, just a taste.”

Natalie didn’t say anything. She went over to the plant, which lay on its side, dirt spilling onto the floor. She sat on her heels near the manager and cradled the stem, then looked up, past me, past the casino, out into the net drawing tight around the rest of our lives.

While she crouched there, the manager suddenly snatched up the pot, held it to his lips, and started, ridiculously, to gulp it all, the tiny bit there was, some stray thin juice running a red line from the corner of his mouth. But it was too hot, of course. He choked and yelped, sputtering and dropping the pot which landed on the desk, slopping over and spilling half on the camping stove’s burner so that the flames went out and we could hear the sharp hissing of the gas. The filing cabinet that I’d propped against the door shook as people pounded to be let in.

“Wait!” I yelled, and at the same time, Natalie struck out wildly from the floor with her right arm, slashing at the manager’s legs. She caught him behind the knee and he buckled, went down with a cry. He lay there, clutching his leg and howling like a child.

She stood up over him, heaving, and as I moved toward her, reaching for her shoulder to calm her down, to bring her back to me, the door slammed open, banging the file cabinet into the wall. The two men with sunglasses and radio wires burst in and went straight for Natalie, went for my wife who was crying in anger.

“You can’t,” I said, stumbling as they shoved past me. “That’s ours,” was all I managed.

“I gave it to you,” came the manager’s wobbly voice from the floor beyond the desk. “It belongs to me.”

The security men grabbed Natalie’s arms, pulling them behind her back. She looked, finally, at me, and I can imagine now how I must’ve looked: my hands up, pathetic, tired, knowing already that we were defeated. She closed her eyes and tossed the knife hopelessly toward the camping stove, where it clattered. There was only the tiniest spark.

The gasoline that had been leaking from the stove for a couple minutes caught in a quick roar that made us all jump back, Natalie and the guards hitting the wall just behind them. One of them held onto her arm even as he stumbled and fell, bringing her down suddenly. From where I crouched on the ground, I could see the moment when the back of her neck connected with the jutting metal windowsill. Her head bent back, much too far back, her lovely skull cracking hard on the tempered glass, before she fell to the floor. It only took a second.

Someone was yelling on the other side of the office door. It was very warm. I crawled to where she was. Her eyes were open. I held my hand over her face. I was about to touch her, but when I did, what would I discover? Behind me, papers or files burned on the desk. The manager was moaning, holding his leg. I was about to touch her face. There she was below me on the floor, her eyes open. I was making words but all the sound had drained out of them, and I went to touch her face, and there was ash floating down onto her ears, into her open eyes, and I was about to touch her face but the guard pulled on her arm and her whole body moved bonelessly, a terrible thing to see, her arm flapping whitely against the carpeted floor, like she wasn’t Natalie anymore at all, as the moment resolved cleanly in front of me and revealed that our story would end this way, that my hero finally wound up with nothing.


After Natalie died, I couldn’t play anymore. I couldn’t really move or want things. At some point, I rode the handsome glass elevator up to our suite alone. I finally opened and went through her drawer of beautiful stuff: The tissue paper. A glass ashtray. A poker chip that someone had broken a piece off of, so that it looked a little like Pacman. She’d kept the picture of Utah, like she’d still thought we’d make it there. She’d had all these tiny hopes that she kept bundled in secret, protecting them from everyone, including me. The manager said he wouldn’t press charges. I went back to the electric laser tunnel, but it was just me, walking down a hallway. They were just colored lights. They were just people, going about their business.

In the apartment, I watched out the window. There’s nothing at all out there, so you forget to look: the wind turns up thin tornados of sand, and at night, the glow of casino lights stretch off into the dark, pooling into the valleys, crowding out whatever stars or galaxies might be left up above. The night of the accident, the on-site doctor, once he got there from the baccarat tables, told me her neck had fractured so that she’d been paralyzed, but had been alive — alive for a few minutes — until she suffocated there on the floor. He should not have told me. I have to work hard at unknowing. On the floors below me, electric music from the machines sang and tumbled on.

After a couple of days, I went to the exit door. It’s in the lobby, behind some luggage and empty vending machines. I stopped at the front desk and left my wallet behind; said thanks to no one in particular. The metal pushbar of the exit door was all dusty. There’s a sign above it that says “Emergency Only, Alarm Will Sound,” but no alarm sounds — no one tries to stop you or anything, you just leave.

Unofficial Inquiries from the Archives of Dead Famous Writers

During the summer of 2013, I photographed, labeled, and housed the personal effects of Carson McCullers, Gertrude Stein, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle at the Harry Ransom Center in Austin, TX. Along the way, unanswerable questions arose.

Questions for Personal Effects: Item 8

Carson McCullers’ mother’s US passport was issued in 1951, when she was 61. According to it, she was 5’8″, with grey hair and brown eyes. Her occupation is listed as ‘housewife.’ The passport bears a pink stamp indicating that it is not valid for travel to Japan, Okinawa, Bulgaria, or Czechoslovakia. This is irrelevant; the passport has no other stamps. Born in Butler, Georgia, she never went anywhere. At least not at the end. Marguerite Waters Smith, where did you go? Did you ever go anywhere? Her eyes look out from the black and white pasted-in photo, startled.

Questions for Personal Effects: Item 3

Gertrude Stein’s eyeglasses are child-sized. This is hard to reconcile with the fact that I know she weighed, at her prime, over 200 pounds. She was short, but she was sturdy. Her glasses are dusty half-moons with wire arms that curve around an impossibly tiny ear, an ear that must not be more than three inches from her eye. This is impossible. This is unimaginable. This cannot be. But these are her eyeglasses. They will not fit me. I do not try them on. I tie a numbered tag onto them with a length of white string, I shake my head all the while. Gertrude Stein, what could you even see through such tiny frames?

Questions for Personal Effects: Item 95

Alice B. Toklas had style that even I can’t quite understand. She sewed vests for Gertrude in unforgivable colors and patterns. She embroidered everything, including things that really ought not to be embroidered. She had a leather jewelry case, the size, shape, and style of a briefcase, with her initials monogrammed into the camel leather, sans serifs. The inside, once you figure out the tricky metal snaps, is covered in brown velvet. It has many different trays that stack and fit just so, and each has a perfect sized brown velvet pillow nestled inside it. There is no jewelry to be found.

The whole thing smells. You wonder what that is. It’s not pipe smoke or old paper or mold, like so many items I find. It’s not ink. Or perfume, certainly. It takes a moment, but then you know. It smells like dog. And then you think of Basket, Gertrude and Alice’s giant poodle, and you think of the picture of Alice and Gertrude dancing with their dogs on the lawn, Gertrude with the dogs reclined on a lawn chair, Alice with the smaller dog perched on her shoulder, and you think, yes, of course: what else?

Questions for Personal Effects: Items 42–25

Oh Carson, darling, what were you thinking! Always wearing your cotton nightgowns out on the porch. And imagine: being sick at a time when women couldn’t wear pants to bed.

Questions for Personal Effects: Items 28–29

When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s shirt was singed in the Bignell Wood fire, it was one thing for Lady Jean to save it. But to pin a note to the lapel, like a child sent to school? The long-johns raise a further set of questions. Doyle believed the thatch roof went up because of ominous spirits at the cottage, to which later residents attest. These days I imagine the ghost is likely poor Doyle’s own, sockless, looking for his lost shirt.

Questions for Personal Effects: Items 93 and 94

In one box I house, side by side, a silk lampshade and a beaded sleeping cap. Alice embroidered them both. Which did you wear more often, Gertrude?

Questions for Personal Effects: Items unlocated

A handwritten note insists your eyeglasses went to Texas, along with the book you were reading and the ashtray at your bedside when you died. But Carson McCullers, I can’t find them anywhere.

A.O. Scott on Anti-Intellectualism in America, Negative Reviews, and Watching Movies with His Family

by Megha Majumdar

AO Scott

“Every working critic,” writes A. O. Scott in his debut book, Better Living Through Criticism, “could easily assemble, from discarded letters and deleted e-mails, a suite of variations on the themes of ‘You’re just jealous’ and ‘I’d like to see you do better.’”

It would be hard to make the case that Scott, co-chief film critic of The New York Times, is a failed artist turned bitterly to an inferior vocation. Though he has reviewed nearly two thousand movies for the Times, which he joined in the year 2000, he has never wanted to make a film. His has always been the region of criticism, which, in this book, he defends as a form of art.

Neither fault-finding nor complaint, criticism is rather the creation of possibilities for engagement. If its responsiveness to the world develops from an impulse that could only be called artistic, we might even think of criticism as the most encompassing art, its gaze equally capable of considering painting and dance, Broad City and Macbeth.

Better Living Through Criticism, which comes out today from Penguin Press, is a serious text. Intellectually spry, its major argument made robust by visitations with Keats, Susan Sontag, Marina Abramovic, and many others, the book is also leavened by Scott’s humorous acknowledgment of the insults casually tossed at his profession. Scott moves nimbly between the stances of learned critic and fellow consumer, drawing on reserves of knowledge about the history of art at the same time as he observes how a painting — the Mona Lisa, say — is truly encountered: not in rapture or surrender to beauty, but alongside a few dozen tourists jostling to take pictures on their cell phones, any trace of the sublime lost to “museum fatigue” and the duty, more or less, to visit the Louvre when in Paris.

Such are artistic encounters in our times. It is exactly why this book is vital. We need criticism — not to bore us all or drain the fun, as a common line of thinking goes — but to extend our thoughts beyond ourselves even when our circumstances appear to resist rigorous thought. We might then be able to consider, with delightful intricacy, whatever we see.

Scott, whose comportment is as everyman as his thought is exceptional, met me on a sunny afternoon in Brooklyn. More than an hour passed while we discussed anti-intellectualism in America, negative reviews, and his thoughts on Hail, Caesar!, which he watched not for review purposes, but with his family, at a packed theater, on the weekend.

Megha Majumdar: What is the process of reviewing a movie? Do you watch a movie in a dark theater just like the rest of us, except you’re also taking notes?

A.O. Scott: Pretty much. The notes are rarely legible. Sometimes we’ll go to a screening room so it’s all critics. Other times it’s a screening with a section for critics, so I will be surrounded by an actual audience. That’s usually true for action movies, comedy, and horror. It’s useful to be able to read the room. Sometimes I get a chance to watch a movie more than once — if I saw it at a festival, then again closer to its wide release — but usually, I watch it just a week or a couple days before it opens. I have one shot. I have to stay awake, pay attention and make sure I spell all the names right.

MM: What experiences led you to think that a defense of criticism is needed right now?

AOS: I began thinking about this book in 2011. That year was a high point of internet utopianism. There was going to be Yelp and social media. Various cool algorithms were going to figure out what you liked. There would be no need for traditional media. Many journalists, among them critics, lost their jobs. And nobody except other critics felt particularly bad about it.

I thought it was shortsighted and triumphalist. I wanted to explain what was wrong with this view, without just defending my own position and privilege.

There was also a piece by Dan Kois in The New York Times Magazine about the notion of “cultural vegetables.” That is, things you’re supposed to like that are not fun, but that are good for you. The idea is that critics and other cultural authorities are trying to force you to see weird foreign movies or read long, abstract books. The piece was about how you should like what you like, and not get bossed around. That piece bothered me. I thought, is there a way to respond to that without fitting into the role it’s setting up? How to say, well, that’s not what criticism is?

So I wrote up a proposal and thought, I’m going to write a short book about why criticism matters. I’d write it in a year. How hard could it be?

Very soon after that I found myself in philosophical quicksand, dealing with problems that had bedeviled philosophers for centuries. Why do we like what we like? What’s the relation between beauty and truth? And so on. So it was harder than I’d thought it’d be.

MM: You point out that there’s a strong strain of anti-intellectualism in America. “Anti-intellectualism is virtually our civic religion,” says the book. Why do you think thinking is so maligned? Is it a particularly American problem — making fun of “nerds,” for example?

AOS: It does have a particular history in America. The historian Richard Hofstadter wrote a book in the 1960s called “Anti-intellectualism in American Life,” in the wake of McCarthyism. I don’t think you could write a similar book about anti-intellectualism in French life.

MM: In France, philosophers appear on TV.

AOS: Right. In England too, you could turn on the TV and see writers and philosophers. They’re on their money, and on their stamps.

…the defense of a consumer’s right to do whatever they want and have a good time, and to not reflect about experience, is a kind of fake populism.

There is, in the United States, a tradition of suspicion and mistrust of experts. Some of it is a healthy, democratic, anti-authoritarian impulse. But the defense of a consumer’s right to do whatever they want and have a good time, and to not reflect about experience, is a kind of fake populism.

MM: That’s a strange argument, because thinking for yourself is the most democratic thing you could do.

AOS: I consider myself a populist, but I think that the defense of the right of the audience to be left alone, and not be bothered by difficult questions, is really a defense of publicity and advertising. It’s a way of selling things to people with little resistance. It’s a way of marginalizing not just professional critics, but the critical potential of the audience.

MM: What I like about this book is that it has a great deal of respect for incompleteness, for the absence of resolution. The work of criticism, it says, is to constantly produce openings for engagement. How do you see that meeting the critic’s task of judgment?

AOS: That’s an excellent question. That tension is really the heart of the book. My view is that all the noise — the racket of takes and counter-takes, of endless opinions — is a symptom of cultural health. As soon as a work of art stops being discussed, that’s the minute it dies. It becomes something that’s taught in school, and that has little connection to people’s lives.

So, as a critic, you can have all these positions — upholding traditions, valorizing the new, pitting high culture against low culture, and so on. But the thing is, once you’re doing criticism, you have to commit to one argument. You need to figure out where you stand, and formulate your own principles or intuitions.

But you also have to be humble about it: This is my best shot. I think it’s important to acknowledge that you will never have the last word. You’re contributing your voice to something that’ll keep going.

MM: Speaking of words, you list adjectives that critics try to avoid. “Astonishing,” “beautiful,” and so on. Some of those are the very words that appear on book jackets.

AOS: Right. Let me say that, while that’s my pet peeve, to see those disembodied words — “stunning” — on covers, now that I have a book that’s being reviewed, I sometimes wish there were more of those. I’ve read a couple reviews [of Better Living…] that were very smart and thoughtful. They really engaged the book. And I’ve thought, Couldn’t you get a “brilliant” in there, so we can use it? I’m a hypocrite about that now (laughs).

MM: Staying with words, do you think it’s limiting in the first place to use writing to apprehend film?

AOS: There are critics now, like Matt Zoller Seitz and Kevin Lee, who are developing the use of video as a medium of film criticism. There are some rights and intellectual property issues there, as I learned when I tried to do film criticism on television, but it’s happening.

Language is what most of us have, and the constraints can be good. To try to describe something in such a way that people can imagine it before they’ve seen it — that’s part of the craft. When I was a kid, I read a lot of reviews of movies that I never saw, or that I saw much later. If I was reading Pauline Kael, her writing was so lively I could get a sense of what these movies were like.

MM: You started your career writing book reviews.

AOS: After an inconclusive stint at graduate school, yes, I wrote for the Nation, Village Voice, for the New York Times Book Review and other places on a freelance basis. I worked on the editorial staff at the New York Review of Books, and I was also an editor at a magazine called Lingua Franca that was a wonderful, strange magazine in the 1990s. The first real full-time writing gig I ever did was at New York Newsday, which, in the mid-late 1990s, had a Sunday book review section. I had a regular column there.

MM: How is reviewing movies different from reviewing books?

AOS: Not being able to quote is a big difference, and not being able to stick sticky notes between the pages (points at my book).

The thing that I still find hard is that movies synthesize so many art forms — you can write about the music, or the cinematography, or the performances, and so on.

I went to see the Coen brothers’ Hail, Caesar! with my family yesterday, and I was staggered. It’s as much movie as you can put into one movie. It’s got the history of Hollywood. It’s about the nature of spectacle; it’s got amazing music; it has very stylized performances; it’s about religion, and Marxism, and the boundaries between reality and illusion. And a lot of movies — good movies, and bad movies too — are just that complicated. You have to think, What is the thread that I want to pull?

MM: I’m surprised — well, maybe I’m not — to hear that you still go watch movies with your family.

AOS: Well, sometimes I let them go while I stay home and read. But watching movies with my children has been a great part of my education in film. When they were young, I’d take them to screenings, and watch children’s movies with them, learning to see it through their eyes as well as from my perspectives as a parent and a critic.

Now that they’re teenagers, they’ve kept me in touch with pop culture a little more than a middle-aged guy would otherwise be. Without them, I wouldn’t have known about Workaholics, or Broad City, or Bob’s Burgers.

MM: Speaking of family movies, I liked the passionate defense of Ratatouille in this book.

AOS: That movie means a lot to me.

MM: Here’s a weird question which I intend very seriously. There’s a line in the book that goes, “Amazon is the largest supplier of criticism in the world.” How is reviewing a bag of candy different from reviewing a film? How would a review of that bag of candy be different if it was placed in a museum?

AOS: That is a very serious question. It goes to the heart of what we define as art — whether that definition is arbitrary, or whether it’s based on some inherent qualities of the thing itself.

Right now we’re at a dramatic expansion of the commodification of everything. There’s nothing that can’t be bought and sold. It’s the nature of consumer capitalism to render all things equivalent, to find the economic value that makes them exchangeable for each other. A lot of the time, our experience of art is part of a consumer experience. You go to a museum, buy a ticket.

Within those banal parameters, is there some other value that we can find? So, you can buy a bag of candy on Amazon, and you might say, The cherry is too sweet but the orange is nice, and you give it two stars. That’s helpful to someone. It’s a review.

If you placed it in a museum, the task would be to think about whether it has value as a work of art, and to figure out what that value was. Is it valuable as a critique of commodity culture, or as evidence of the corruption of the art market, or something else?

MM: So it doesn’t exactly matter what’s in the museum. Placement in a museum creates a condition within which we are allowed to truly consider an object.

AOS: I think so. But it’s also important to resist the power of the institution and consider the thing itself.

MM: Well, when you consider a thing itself, a common person’s response to a piece of art, as you mention in the book, might be “I don’t get it.” Do you have that thought? How do you deal with it?

AOS: I think everybody does. The definition of pretentiousness is pretending you get it, whatever it is. Not getting it is an authentic feeling, so you can’t suppress it.

You can’t rest easy in your ignorance. The not-getting-it should be where some work begins.

But, here’s the thing. You can’t assume that not-getting-it is a judgment of the thing you’re looking at. You can’t rest easy in your ignorance. The not-getting-it should be where some work begins. It’s important to think, What might someone else see in this?

MM: Do you watch experimental films?

AOS: I do. Well, “experimental film” meant one thing in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, and it’s a bit of a question where it lives now. I will say that the work of Stan Brakhage is a monument of cinema, among the most abstract, non-narrative, purely visual film.

MM: You and I both left doctoral programs. I have strong feelings about the academy, and I suspect you do, too. The academy should be a shelter for cultural criticism, but it makes itself irrelevant to public life. Do you see that changing?

AOS: The insularity of the academy is unfortunate. On the one hand, I think it’s important for work to develop without the pressure of public relevance, but, on the other hand, the questions being chased in literary and cultural studies are so internal to the academy’s own preoccupations and anxieties. When I’ve talked to people in film studies, I’ve been startled by how removed their work is from — well — movies!

MM: Let’s talk about reviewing, more broadly. Alice Gregory wrote an apology to writers whose work she previously reviewed too negatively, or too harshly. When you make a decision not to write a review that would’ve been very negative, whom does that decision serve? Does it serve the reading public? The work of art? Or the reviewer’s sanity and relationships?

AOS: Sometimes a harsh review is just what’s needed, but other times it’s not worth it. It’s better to let it go. At the Times, a lot of selection goes into the coverage of books, but in films we try to review as close to everything as we can. If you put it up on a screen in New York, it’s likely to be reviewed.

If you step into a boxing ring, someone’s going to punch you.

I think the wounded-ness of artists is peculiar to me. Of course, you worked really hard and put your heart into a film. But you put it out into the world! It is going to be judged! Come on, now. If you step into a boxing ring, someone’s going to punch you.

MM: How do you address the tension between inclusivity and excellence?

AOS: I don’t think there’s a distinction. You have to uphold the standards of excellence. For indie films and documentaries — where a critic’s opinion makes a real difference — if you treat them as fragile, your attempts to protect them will only make them more fragile. What you have to do is continue to bring your honest commentary to it. You have to have a sense of proportion, sure — you may not want to write two thousand words trashing someone’s debut novel — but you have to be honest.

MM: You studied literature at school, never film. How did you give yourself an education in film?

AOS: There were a few formative events. When I was fifteen, my mother — who is a professor of French history — took me to live with her in Paris for a summer. I took French classes in the morning, and had nothing to do in the afternoons.

One thing that was true then, and is true now, is that Paris is the best city in the world in which to see old American movies. There are repertory and revival houses that show old prints of classic Hollywood movies, which the French appreciate better than we do. They all show in English with French subtitles, so it’s a good way to study French. I would wander from one theater to another.

It was the beginning of the VCR era, so when I came back to the United States, I continued watching a lot of stuff, throughout high school and college.

By the time I got my job as a film critic — a surprise to me and to others (laughs) — I wasn’t new to film, but I did have a lot of ground to cover. I needed to learn about Iranian films, say, or Taiwanese films. I read film history. I read critics whose work I hadn’t read before. Seventeen years later, I’m still educating myself.

MM: Would you be willing to name a recent movie that was underrated, and one that was overrated?

AOS: With pleasure!

Birdman is a hugely overrated film. It’s really paper thin, yet full of clichés that are flattering enough to the audience that they don’t look like clichés.

An underrated movie: An odd movie that came out last year, with Kristen Wiig in it, called Welcome to Me. It’s a satire of television and celebrity, and I found it really funny. It didn’t take the easy way through the material.

Kristen Wiig, by the way, had an amazing year in 2015. She was in another movie called Nasty Baby, directed by a Chilean director named Sebastián Silva. It’s a satire of gentrification in Brooklyn, and a movie that turns itself completely inside out. You think it’s a knowing, indulgent movie about hipsters and their difficulties, and it turns itself into a brutal critique of bourgeois liberal complacency.

MM: Here’s a question you must have been asked a thousand times. I still want to know, have you ever wanted or tried to make a film?

AOS: Neither, although I have acted in several of my son’s films!

MM: And a big question: What do you think is the future of movies? Virtual reality?

AOS: One of the great things about movies is that the art form has not been the same in any two decades. It makes its way from a fairground amusement to a theatrical experience and then through the development of parallel editing and montage, the addition of sound, location shooting and color and — I mean, it’s constantly changing. Filmmakers are constantly discovering the aesthetic potential of each change.

Virtual reality is interesting. The migration of a lot of motion pictures into television and into the web might challenge the feature as the main form.

But what’s also true is that the desire of people to go to the movies has been remarkably durable. I went to watch Hail, Caesar! on Saturday, like I said, and it was sold out.

MM: My last question. At this stage in your career, what do you strive for?

The day I start feeling that all the great movies are in the past, that’s the day I should stop.

AOS: What I hope for is that I don’t lose my capacity to be surprised. The day I start feeling that all the great movies are in the past, that’s the day I should stop. But there are always new ways to think about movies that I haven’t tried. One of the hardest things to write about, I find, is acting. It’s a puzzle. What is it? What are actors doing?

Lately, I find myself thinking of film in terms of audience, too. I did some writing last year about fan culture. There’s a difference between being a critic sitting in a theater, and being an audience member. How to talk across that divide?

And how do movies interact with viewers? It’s audiences who complete movies, and I’d like to figure out how to talk about that in my criticism.

MM: These questions make me wonder — do you watch theater?

AOS: No. I don’t like being in a room with actual people.