Flannery O’Connor: A Reading Primer

When I was in grad school, we read and attempted to discuss Flannery O’Connor’s story “Greenleaf,” about a prideful and piteous farm-owner who gets gored by her farmhand’s bull, in one of my craft seminars. The process was a little awkward. Not because we didn’t like it — everyone thought that the story was brilliant — and not because we couldn’t find a way in, but rather, we were overwhelmed. It was, on the one hand, too nuanced, too smart, too minutely calibrated; it may’ve seemed to us a shame to go digging around in its beautiful guts. On the other, however, it was enigmatic. Apart from a couple ungainly bear-swats at class and Catholic symbolism, we couldn’t seem to pin it down.

As the Misfit from “A Good Man is Hard to Find” says of the reason he was sent up to the penitentiary, “Oncet in a while, I would think it was coming to me, but it never came.”

The predominant impulse was just to admire it.

Looking back, this made some sense. O’Connor is nothing if not overwhelming.

In her genius, that’s a given. But also her theology, her violence, her precision. Her cartooning and lampooning. Her characters’ terrible, wonderful fates. Her philosophical density. Her incisiveness of style. Her existential mystery and her earthy everydayness. The prescience of her essays. Her epistolary output. Her American-ness tempered by her bizarreness, the near certainty she was not of this earth, as though she’d emerged from a Georgia crop-circle, been adopted by Catholics, taught mere mortal ways. The thirty-nine years that she lived in this world — far too brilliant, far too short.

All of this is compounded, of course, if you’ve never read her before. And so in honor of FSG Classics’ 2015 reissue of the work of the greatest American writer ever to load up a typewriter, IMO, I’ve attempted to devise an O’Connor crash-course for the uninitiated and a reminder to those who are already converts. The books are recommended as they might be best read, all at once over several dark months of the soul.

flannery o'connor, the complete stories, macmillan/fsg

A Good Man is Hard to Find and Other Stories (1955)

A scorching introduction to O’Connor, to be sure. Immerse yourself first and then dress your wounds later. Though they can also be found in The Complete Stories, the stories in A Good Man is Hard to Find are some of O’Connor’s first, not to mention her most anthologized. They are also some of her hardest and most unwavering, filled with all manner of casual violence and cruelty, the relentless critique of genteel Southern living, humor so dark you can barely see through it, razor-wire dramatic tension, masterful sketch characterizations and more. Many of the stories venture upon what would become one of O’Connor’s predominant career-long themes: the manifestation of “Grace” in the world; how it changes our lives, often in the form of violent catastrophe and how, in O’Connor’s own words, “change [can be] painful.” Much like the early work, say, of Cormac McCarthy (Child of God, Suttree) who himself owes a colossal debt to O’Connor, or even that of Shakespeare (Titus Andronichus) — O’Connor’s genius can step to the Bard’s — the stories exhibit the mark of a writer rambunctiously entering into her power. In “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” perhaps O’Connor’s most famous story, a middle-class family on a car-trip en route to Florida is confronted by a nihilistic killer who sees himself as the savior of mankind. While in “Good Country People,” a crippled PhD of Philosophy forges an unlikely connection with an itinerant Bible salesman with a prosthetic limb fetish who may or may not be the Antichrist. Cringe and cower. Then rejoice.

flannery o'connor, wise blood, macmillan/fsg

Wise Blood (1952)

Perhaps the most consummately bizarre of O’Connor’s fiction, this first novel takes its bearings in the wild, hallucinatory multiverse of manic street-preachers and self-made prophets in post-WWII Tennessee. O’Connor wrote early drafts of the novel by way of a series of shorts she produced while in residence at the Iowa Writer’s Workshop in 1946. The novel is notably hard to describe: Hazel Motes, a veteran of WWII, out of which he emerges on a government pension after suffering ambiguous war-wounds, returns to his childhood home in rural Tennessee only to find it forsaken. In a lather of spiritual torment, he boards a train for Taulkinham, where he falls in with a prostitute, a disturbed adolescent zookeeper and a father-and-daughter pair of street revivalists, who plunge him into a Christ-haunted descent into madness. Like much of O’Connor’s early work, Wise Blood is also incredibly funny, a kind of twisted picaresque. The zookeeper kidnaps a mummified dwarf, which he donates to Hazel; he later destroys it. An ape-costume serves as a prophet of faith. Spoiler alert: things don’t end well for Hazel. The book is, finally, melancholy, as is the reader to finally leave it. Like the best mid-20th-century Southern fiction (A Confederacy of Dunces, The Moviegoer, Reflections in a Golden Eye), churning with incident, bleak lyricism and the profane desires of its scheming grotesques, Wise Blood tickles, sears and haunts, and the world seems a little less bright once you leave it. It shouldn’t work, but does it ever.

flannery o'connor, everything that rises must converge, macmillan/fsg

Everything That Rises Must Converge (1965)

Chronologically the last book that O’Connor produced before her death from lupus in 1964 (the book was published posthumously), Everything That Rises Must Converge, a story collection, shows something akin to O’Connor’s soft side, though even that seems like a stretch. The stories in Everything Rises… are more domestic, more contemplative and in some ways more merciful than those in A Good Man is Hard to Find, though no less intense in their dissection of race relations, class tension, regional hypocrisy and spiritual accountability. They’re magnanimous stories — in terms of their word count, but also in terms of their characters’ lots; how “grace” compels them through the world. In the title story, a young typewriter salesman-cum-wannabe-writer who fancies himself a progressive boards a newly integrated city bus with his infirm, racist mother blind to the fact that by the time they arrive at their destination, the mother’s “reducing class” at the Y, they will find themselves sainted by earthly travail. In “Parker’s Back,” one of my favorite of O’Connor’s stories, a tattooed handyman named Obadiah Elihu marries an evangelist teetotaler whose tacit resentment drives him to cover his back with a gory Byzantine portrait of Christ. The stories in Everything That Rises… bear the mark of a more mature O’Connor. Instead of denying her characters their body parts or their lives as she does in A Good Man…, she denies them morality, comfort, compassion. People can decide to change, but all too often stay the same. As Mrs. Turpin observes just before her ecstatic vision at the end of “Revelation,” “There was only a purple streak in the sky, cutting through a field of crimson and leading, like an extension of the highway, into the descending dusk. [Mrs. Turpin] raised her hands from the side of the [pig] pen in a gesture hieratic and profound. A visionary light settled in her eyes.” Everything That Rises is the dusk before the dark, the sorrow of the day’s undoing.

flannery o'connor, the violent bear it away,  bookculture

The Violent Bear It Away (1960)

O’Connor’s second and final novel, written in between her story collections and taking its name from a passage in Matthew, situates us on a middle ground between horror and heartbreak, reaping and rapture. It also has one of the most compelling and controlled long-sentence openings in literature: “Francis Marion Tarwater’s uncle had been dead for only half a day when the boy got too drunk to finish digging his grave and a Negro named Buford Munson, who had come to get a jug filled, had to finish it and drag the body from the breakfast table where it was still sitting and bury it in a decent and Christian way, with the sign of its Saviour at the head of the grave and enough dirt on top to keep the dogs from digging it up.” This was the book that first fired me up on O’Connor and I maintain its brilliance fiercely, though often it’s lost to the shine of the stories and Wise Blood’s heedless gonzo glee. The plot of the novel follows the dark enlightenment of Tarwater who, after finding his first uncle dead, burns the house down with him in it and flees only to fetch up on the doorstep of his other uncle, Rayber, a schoolteacher, and his mentally handicapped son, Bishop, who repulses Tarwater as somehow sub-human. Tarwater, who had been ordained a “prophet” by the mad evangelical uncle whose body he abandoned in the burning house, must choose between fulfilling his destiny as an instrument of God and following the rational path of Rayber while Bishop, poor Bishop, is caught in the crossfire. Let’s just say the choice he makes mirrors just what we’ve come to expect from O’Connor. I can still remember the last 50 pages or so of The Violent Bear It Away as some of the most continually disturbing and unexpected writing I’ve ever encountered in a novel — and that’s fifteen years out from the first time I read it. The novel is a revelation: Tarwater’s, surely, but also the reader’s. Try to bear witness without going blind.

flannery o'connor, mystery and manners, macmillan/fsg

Mystery & Manners: Occasional Prose (1969)

Mystery & Manners, edited by O’Connor’s besties Robert and Sally Fitzgerald and published 5 years after her death, compiles O’Connor’s career-long meditations on peacocks, fiction-writing and Catholicism, all of it touched by a life lived in Dixie. The essays are a fitting capstone to O’Connor’s fiction for several reasons: 1. They serve as a welcome comedown from the brain-hemorrhaging intensity of O’Connor’s novels and stories — a contemplative moment in which to exhale. 2. They shed light on O’Connor’s philosophically various works by situating them in the context of her omnivorous scholarly passions and interests, which makes for many a-ha moments. And 3. Almost like director’s commentary on a limited edition DVD, Mystery & Manners explicates the body of O’Connor’s lifelong work but never with a blowhard vibe; O’Connor’s voice is always present: authoritative, witty, sharp. Indeed, critic Saul Maloff wrote of the essays: “…in each [piece] — how rare this is in expository prose — there is audible always the sound of her voice speaking; never the sound of a machine clattering.” These essays humanize O’Connor, escorting her down from her prodigy’s tower. They show bits of her life — “The King of the Birds,” “The Catholic Novelist in the Protestant South” — and rare insights into her work — “Some Aspects of the Grotesque in Southern Fiction,” “On Her Own Work.” Mostly, though, they show her mind; it is singular, idiosyncratic, complex. In “The King of the Birds,” perhaps the most famous of O’Connor’s essays on the raising of peacocks on her Georgia family farm, she writes: “Analyzing the appearance of the peacock as he stands with his tail folded, I find the parts incommensurate with the whole.” So, too, seems the case with O’Connor herself, as it was with her story “Greenleaf” in that class. You think you’ve got her fiction pat when, suddenly, it fans its tail.

Supplementary Reading By, About, That Influenced or Was Influenced By O’Connor

A Habit of Being: Letters of Flannery O’Connor (1988) by Flannery O’Connor

A Prayer Journal (2013) by Flannery O’Connor

Flannery O’Connor: The Cartoons by Flannery O’Connor & Kelly Gerald (2012)

The Life You Save May Be Your Own: An American Pilgrimage by Paul Elle (2004)

Flannery: A Life of Flannery O’Connor by Brad Gooch (2010)

Miss Lonelyhearts by Nathaniel West (1933)

Absalom, Absalom! by William Faulkner (1936)

The Sundial by Shirley Jackson (1958)

The Lottery and Other Stories by Shirley Jackson (2004)

Child of God by Cormac McCarthy (1973)

Suttree by Cormac McCarthy (1979)

I Hate to See That Evening Sun Go Down by William Gay (2003)

St. Lucy’s Home for Girls Raised by Wolves by Karen Russell (2007)

From the Darkness Right Under Our Feet by Patrick Michael Finn (2011)

The Devil All the Time by Donald Ray Pollock (2012)

Battleborn by Claire Vaye Watkins (2013)

Praying Drunk by Kyle Minor (2014)

Eileen by Ottessa Mosfegh (2015)

TED WILSON REVIEWS THE WORLD: DRAKE

★★★☆☆

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

The way computers are these days, you can never be sure if what you’re looking at is real. Is Drake real? Maybe, but having never seen him in real life I can’t be sure. Even real life is not always the best indicator. I saw Tupac live and got really excited. Then I got really disappointed when it turned out someone was toying with me and Tupac was only a hologram. I can’t begin to imagine how disappointed Tupac’s mom must have been.

For the purposes of this review I’m going to assume Drake is real. If I learn otherwise, I’ll update accordingly.

It turns out Drake (Aubrey Graham) is listed in the phone book, so I gave him a call. It also turns out he uses a woman’s voice and refuses to admit that he is Drake. He also refuses to admit that he’s a vampire. It may be that he’s not, but my working theory is that Drake is a nickname for Dracula. Now I don’t believe in vampires, but some people believe they are ones. And why else would he choose such a name, if not to appear young and hip, to attract virgin girls? There are a lot of virgins who seem drawn to Drake.

I’m not sure what his job was before he became a musician. If it’s like other industries, he was probably a musician’s assistant, studying and learning until he perfected his craft. Now he’s a true master, able to play any instrument.

There’s one thing I really don’t like about Drake, and that’s his hands. It’s hard to articulate why they’re so unnerving, but if you look at this photo below, you’ll see what I mean.

Ew.

Ew.

See what I mean? It’s not Drake’s fault for how his hands are, even though he clearly has enough money to get reconstructive surgery. Or if he’s a hologram, he just needs a better computer programmer to fix those things. Drake loses a full two stars, one for each hand.

BEST FEATURE: There’s no denying Drake has very beautiful facial hair. If he could grow it on his hands that would help a little.
WORST FEATURE: Really, what is with those hands? I’m sorry for posting that photo of them. Please don’t leave me any angry voicemails at (617) 379–2576.

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

Gaps and Surfaces: An Interview with Joanna Walsh

“Online” by Joanna Walsh is featured in Electric Literature’s Recommended Reading with an introduction from Danielle Dutton. Walsh’s new collection, Vertigo, is available for pre-order from Dorothy, A Publishing Project.

Julia Tolo: Danielle Dutton writes in her introduction to “Online” for Recommended Reading that your stories in Vertigo are intensely visual, and that they are connected not by narrative, but by consciousness, by the eyes of your narrator. I know that you are also an illustrator, and I wonder how you think that affects your writing? Or to re-phrase, how do you see the connection between illustration and writing that is highly visual?

Joanna Walsh: I think I’m also an illustrator not because I’m good at drawing, but because I’m good at looking. But I don’t illustrate my own work because the gaps are in different places: I don’t mean literally, but the gaps I use as a writer to work with the reader. Illustrating other people’s texts, I found myself playing around these gaps. If I tried to illustrate my own work I might somehow have to second-guess myself as I was writing, which wouldn’t help the writing. It’s important for me to not think too closely about some aspects of what I’m doing.

JT: Many of the female narrators in Vertigo are in a position of domestic unrest or uncertainty. For example, “Online” shows the narrator trying to resuscitate her relationship with her husband, in “Young Mothers” the collective narrators struggle with the idea of remaining young and what it means to be a mother, while the narrator in “Drowning” is constantly keeping her head above water, so to speak, in her family life, fighting for happiness. Can you talk about this focus on the roles of women, how it became a part of your writing, and what it means to you?

JW:I have tried to give value to experiences too often quickly turned-from, too quickly dismissed via throwaway language; this is something I’ve found often happens with women’s experiences. These experiences that are the texture of our everyday lives, the experiences by which we live and die (what Virginia Woolf said: How people look, and laugh, and run up the steps of omnibuses), even as we are encouraged to look for stories elsewhere. I wanted to turn toward these experiences and stroke words over them until I could begin to see something of their shapes, not to so much to get “under the surface,” but to pay attention to the surface, which is too little delineated.

JT: In interviews and reviews of your books, there is a recurring comparison between your work and Lydia Davis’ work. Is she someone that you read yourself and feel a kinship with? Are there other authors or artists that you think are more important to your work, or that inspired Vertigo in any way?

JW: Lydia Davis is perhaps the best-known writer with a similar sensibility. I love her work, but there are many other writers who influence me, sometimes less well-known, or not originally writing in English. In no particular order, and to name only a few, I like the work of (living writers) Deborah Levy, Diane Williams, Chris Kraus, Zoe Pilger, Claire-Louise Bennet, Eley Williams, (early) Ferrante, Gregory Howard, Lauren Elkin, Ben Marcus, Sheila Heti, Anne Carson, Elfriede Jelinek, Mary Gatiskill, Anne Boyer, Marie NDiaye, Bae Suah. Dead people: Marguerite Duras, Christine Brooke-Rose, Thomas Bernhard, Georges Perec, Franz Kafka (the shorter short stories), Jane Bowles, Kathy Acker, Robert Walser, Gertrude Stein… Readers might be surprised to identify Hemingway-ish bits in Vertigo too… I wrote a piece about women writers and the anxiety of influence at Publishers Weekly.

JT: In “Online” your narrator describes her husband’s women this way:

His women are the sum of all their qualities, not several but complete, massive, many-breasted, many legged, multifaceted, and I participate in these women […] We are all trapped behind the same glass. He can make us spin for his amusement and turn us to view from any side. He is greater than the sum of our parts.

This passage made me think of the process of writing a short story collection, the many parts that bear resemblance to each other and to you, the writer, and how you as their author manipulate them all into a larger whole. Could you say something about your writing process in terms of this: Do you experience writing fiction as an exposing practice? In what way would you say your stories are a part of you, or the other way around? And would you say that the coherence of the larger project of the short story collection (the meaning of which arguably is greater than the sum of its parts) is in the back of your mind the whole time, or is that something that comes after writing the stories?

JW: I’m glad you picked up on this. My first collection was called Fractals. A fractal is a mathematical structure found in nature (e.g. snowflakes) in which a pattern is repeated identically, at a smaller and smaller scale, rendering greater and greater surface area to an object the smaller the fractals get — so that the closer you look, the more appear.

I selected the stories in Vertigo together with Dorothy’s publisher Danielle Dutton, who edited the collection brilliantly. I’d written them with similar thoughts, but not necessarily to fit together in this exact way. And, yes, my concerns are my concerns, so they’re personal, but I also participate in language, and there is no private language: same for structure etc. If anything I feel more exposed answering that question about writers whose work I like; it’s a bit like telling my secret crushes…

***

Joanna Walsh is a British writer and illustrator. Her writing has appeared in Granta,Narrative, and Guernica and has been anthologized in Dalkey’s Best European Fiction2015, Best British Short Stories 2014, and elsewhere. Her collection, Fractals, waspublished in the UK in 2013, and her nonfiction book, Hotel, was publishedinternationally in 2015. She writes literary and cultural criticism for The Guardian, TheNew Statesman, and The National, is the fiction editor at 3:am Magazine, and created theTwitter hashtag #readwomen, heralded by the New York Times as “a rallying cry forequal treatment for women writers.” Read more about her at her website.

Svetlana Alexievich Wins 2015 Nobel Prize in Literature

by Melissa Ragsdale

The Swedish Academy has just awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature to Belarussian author Svetlana Alexievich. The 14th woman — and one of few nonfiction writers — to receive the award, Alexievich is known for giving a voice to individuals across the former Soviet Union using a unique “polyphonic” style to bring humanity and emotion to history.

In her 40 years of work, Alexievich’s writing has included the stories of people who lived through the 1979–1989 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, survivors of the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, and the Russian women who participated in WWII. Utilizing thousands of interviews, deep investigative journalism, and a literary style, Alexievich has created her own unique genre of writing. Her notable books include War’s Unwomanly Face (1985), Zinky Boys: Soviet Voices from the Afghanistan War (1989), and Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster (2006). Her most recent book, Second-Hand Time, is due in English in 2016 and consists of monologues from people looking back on their lives under Soviet rule.

Permanent Secretary Sara Danius of the Swedish Academy praised Alexievich’s writing: “For the past 30 or 40 years she’s been busy mapping the Soviet and post-Soviet individual. But it’s not really a history of events. It’s a history of emotions. What she’s offering us is really an emotional world.”

The Nobel prize includes a gold medal and a $1.2-million cash prize. Alexievich was ironing clothes at home when she received the call that she had won. She reports that this money will allow her to stay financially sound as she continues her writing, saying “I will do one thing with the money: I’ll buy freedom.”

The Black Bloom of Violability: The Sleep of the Righteous by Wolfgang Hilbig

The Sleep of the Righteous is the tale of an East German boy who lives in desolation. His village is dilapidated, crumbling on the edge of a former concentration camp; his summers scorch with draught; his mother never utters his name, but refers to him as “child.” His 1950s boyhood is populated by widows whose Nazi husbands never returned from Stalingrad, by the remaining elderly, and by his peers born in the early 1940s, who sense themselves trapped as endless little children. As the boy confides, “There were no fathers there to make still littler children.”

Wolfgang Hilbig, author of The Sleep of the Righteous and 2002 winner of Germany’s highest literary Büchner Prize, is well-acquainted with the punishing years after World War II. Born in 1941, Hilbig also grew up in East Germany, in a small town called Meuselwitz that functioned as a satellite of Buchenwald concentration camp. His father never came back from the Russian front. Hilbig’s formative years were spent under Communist rule — the “half-baked peace,” as he puts it, that encrusted his community when the Soviets took control. In The Sleep of the Righteous, newly translated into English by Isabel Fargo Cole, Hilbig investigates how a nation’s history wraps its tendrils around the mind of an individual.

The first layer of the novel is the personal story of the boy narrator rises up from the landscape of his village. He recounts a hellish hole of a town dominated by coalmines and heat. The town’s main strip mine ignites and continues to burn in the distance for an unspecified number of years while swarms of wasps invade the streets as villagers take to dumping trash onto bombed-out roads. Children, who walk barefoot through the mud on unpaved streets, are stained “up to the thighs with the black bloom of violability.” The clang of the town gates sounds to the boy like a recurring death-knell in this wasteland of apathy and gloom.

The boy wants to grow up — the mere thought of “being small” makes him feel sick — but the circumstances of his boyhood oppress the novel’s adults in equal measure. The anguish of village women focalizes in the boy’s home, where alongside his mother and grandmother a growing number of aunts, cousins, and sisters-in-law seek refuge from widowhood. Sidelined by the war and still alive to pay its price, these women try in vain to reassert their voices, wielding pleas and threats over the narrator when he disobeys their commands. “I’ll throw myself into the lake!” they repeat in chorus, as the narrator stumbles into an adolescence filled with silence, theft, and bouts of disappearance.

The narrator’s sense of encumbrance only intensifies as he matures. Like the women who seek water as their consolation, he too longs to surrender his suffering to his landscape. In moments of agony, he submerges himself in mud hollows until he becomes “indistinguishable from the elements around me,” and he urinates onto the shore, “as though to form a bond between myself and the earth.” While the narrator intends to escape his woes, his repeated yearning to submit to his landscape is more complex. The landscape he embraces is not arbitrary wilderness, but his Land — Deutschland — and his surrender is essentially patriotic, a bond with his nation. Though he tries to flee the desolation inflicted on him by his country, his escape only binds him more strongly to it.

Inside this paradox is a kernel of national angst as potent as the personal, and so begins to emerge the central premise of The Sleep of the Righteous: that the personal and political are one, and that through the personal, the political becomes apparent. Hilbig creates a first-person narrative so compelling that the political is kept at bay, woven so tightly into the life of the text as to camouflage — until the personal surface of the story breaks, and allegory rises from beneath its cover.

Consider one of the most remarkable descriptions in the novel, in which the narrator recounts a household cider operation gone awry. His mother had hoped to ferment the juices from their fruit trees, but instead of reaping this Edenic bounty, she and the narrator buckle as the operation escalates beyond their control:

“Each fall it smothered us all over again in the clouds and fountains of a brew that transformed the kitchen into a simmering steam bath, and after nights we spent dancing around it with scalded fingers, trying vainly to penetrate its workings, it collapsed over and over in a mash of brown applesauce, until at last amidst melted sugar, spuming water, and boiling apple scraps it gave up the ghost…The invincible fruit, having made a laughingstock of the juicer and its inventor, suddenly began to flow of its own accord…The fruit washed the yard with a glaze reflecting gigantic swarms of wasps and flies that alone knew no fear of earthly sweetness and whose hordes did not retreat until the juices had turned to vinegar…When mold shading from green to black finally gained the upper hand, we had long since gone under…”

Once recognized, the vapors of allegory are everywhere. The promise of bounty, the growing intensity of the endeavor, the loss of control, the demise — this is Germany’s story in the second world war. Far beyond the cider operation, the narrator shares numerous anecdotes that reflect pieces of Germany’s narrative arc. In one scene, two strapping horses plunge into a mine pit, shrieking, after the ground crumbles beneath their feet (the fall of Germany). In another scene, the older boys of the village stage battles with clay balls as their weapons, while girls cheer them on from the sidelines (the enduring wartime mentality). One section of the novel is spent in a coal boiler room (one thinks of the death camps).

The political resonance is there, but these narrative footholds are more than allegory, and this is the great accomplishment of Hilbig’s novel. Each metaphor is a window into the psyche of the narrator, a psyche that appears ever more tightly bound to its national history. These allegories are the versions of reality the narrator’s mind has been programmed to recall. He lives inside these broken pieces of history, which reenact their politics around him, and within him, all the time. The personal and political are one.

The haunting implication of this union becomes narrator’s innermost question: who is responsible for the war? The issue arises most clearly in the narrator’s relationship to his male forebears. The boy’s interpretation of his dead father, a Nazi soldier, is informed by conflicting projections cast onto the man who “had such affectionate words for me” in his letters, but also belonged to an era the narrator repels as a dangerous, inscrutable presence. The boy sleeps in his dead father’s bed, and in his spiritual wrestling he denies association with the man: “I saw that I was not my father, that I barely resembled him…though people were constantly claiming I did.” The narrator goes so far as to negate his father, referring to him as “my unreal father, lingering on in an unreal war,” and yet in the same breath, the narrator admits, “I could just as well be living in an utterly different time…” The war is indecipherable to him — quite literally, he cannot even read his father’s letters from the front, written in old-fashioned German script — and yet he lives in the ruins of his father’s failed pursuit.

When a death occurs in his household, the narrator’s moral confusion deepens. Both the narrator and his grandfather become accountable for the tragedy, but it is unclear which one of them is the true perpetrator. They sleep side by side in their bedroom, posturing to each other with one phrase of confused guilt. In the throes of sleep, the grandfather asks the narrator: “Whoo…? — Youu…!” The narrator replies, “Whooo… — Youuu…” This circular question-and-answer wraps its veil of culpability over the pair. The verdict follows the narrator long after the scene ends. As his psychological fabric deteriorates, as he begins to walk in an increasingly surreal world, the questions linger. Himself? His father? His grandfather? A reel of Doppelgänger? Who is responsible for the war? For the death? Who will be punished? Redeemed?

Hilbig imposes the same moral conundrum on his readers. Time and again, we encounter the impulse to empathize, judge, or simply examine characters whose guilt in the war remains unclear. The women of the novel: Were they complicit in genocide, or were they as powerless as the text suggests? The children: Do they grasp the atrocities that Germany inflicted, or, as the narrator claims, do they consider the war “decidedly more exciting” than the peace? The father: Was he an enthusiastic Nazi, or somebody who, as the narrator himself wonders, was “forced to give himself” over to the Nazi cause? The Sleep of the Righteous is especially meaningful in its English translation, which challenges a native English audience to temper our historical bias. Here we have been, on the other side of history: the Allies, the liberators, the victims, the peace-bearers. And here we stand now, asked to empathize beyond these limitations.

The Sleep of the Righteous rests at the elusive crossroads of art and moral necessity. It speaks to the epilogue of a war that has entrenched generations of guilty and innocent humans inside its narrative. Beneath Hilbig’s layers of imagistic prose, deep inside the tormented psyche of his narrator, a historical beast waits to be roused. As László Krazhanorkai notes in the novel’s introduction: “Whoever reads Hilbig quickly understands that nothing ever ends, and there is especially no end for the Germans, because those ordinary days contain within them a force: a monster that did not collapse.” The Sleep of the Righteous contours the outline of this monster and asks for us to hear its plea. The war ended long ago, but its echoes are loud if you choose to listen.

The Sleep of the Righteous

by Wolfgang Hilbig

Powells.com

Like Drilling For Water: Finding The Universal With Ron Rash, Author Of Above the Waterfall

Ron Rash was born in Chester, South Carolina and has made a career of writing powerful works set in this region of the United States. Many have labeled him a Southern writer or an Appalachian writer, but those terms are deceptive. Rash’s characters are certainly connected to their landscape, but, as with any work that transcends, Rash brings the reader to the universal human concerns inside the particular details.

Ron Rash

Rash has published over a dozen books of poetry, short stories, and novels, earning several awards and twice being selected as a finalist for the PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction. Above the Waterfall (Ecco 2015), published this September, is his sixth novel.

In Above the Waterfall, we follow two protagonists with traumatic pasts. Becky, now a park ranger, was the child who spoke while her class was hiding from a shooter in her elementary school, and she blames herself for the shooter discovering and murdering her teacher. Les, a sheriff just shy of retirement in a community dealing with a meth epidemic, had a marriage fall apart after telling his suicidal wife, in a moment of frustration, to just kill herself.

I had the chance to sit down with Rash for a while before a recent discussion he had with Richard Price at the McNally Jackson bookstore. The store clerk set us up with some stools in the poetry section of the store, as, alas, this was the place where we were least likely to be disturbed by a customer (we made a point of encouraging any potential supporters of poetry to browse if they approached during the interview — as Rash, a poet himself, observed, “we need all the help we can get!”). We talked about life in the mountains, the depiction of meth on television, and Rash’s fascination with the Lascaux cave paintings, as well as why literature is more important now than ever.

CL: For better or worse, people like to put labels on things, like “Southern literature.” What does that term mean to you?

It’s almost like a form of drilling for water; you go deep enough into a place, and you’re going to hit the universal, because you’re hitting what’s true of people.

RR: I’m ambivalent about it. On the one hand, I certainly see myself as part of that tradition of writers, such as Welty and O’Connor and Faulkner. They have been very important to me and have shown me I can write about this world — not that they’re the only ones who’ve shown me. But I worry sometimes that there’s another adjective in front that says “just” Southern literature. To me, what makes Faulkner and O’Connor such great writers is that–even though they are very much about place, in the tactile way they describe it–what makes them significant is not that they are writing about the South. It’s that they hit the universal. Faulkner is revered all over the world, and it’s not that he’s just writing about Southerners. He’s writing about something that is true to being a human all over the world. And that’s the Southern writer I identify with, not the one who says, “Lookit, Uncle Jesse got et by the hog,” or something that that. The difference to me is the difference between being a regional writer, in the sense that James Joyce is a regional writer, and being a local color writer. A local color writer is all about what makes a place different or distinctive. A regional writer does both: shows what’s distinct in the manners, customs, language–and I love that, writers love that, readers love that, too–but ultimately it’s all in an attempt to find the universal. It’s almost like a form of drilling for water; you go deep enough into a place, and you’re going to hit the universal, because you’re hitting what’s true of people.

CL: It’s interesting that you mention drilling for water. Water is so important in your work and in this novel, Above the Waterfall.

RR: Oh, yeah, for a number of reasons, such as the mythological force of water as destructive and life-giving. I’m also fascinated with the Celtic view of water being a conduit between the living and the dead. Not so much in this novel, but in my second novel, Saints at the River.

CL: The landscape and the place (Appalachian mountains) seem central to your novel Above the Waterfall. Could this story really exist anywhere else?

RR: The locale and the landscape are important, I don’t want to say that they’re not. They’re crucial. I’m fascinated with how landscape affects psychology. Mountain people I think have a different perception of reality, than opposed to, say, someone who lives in the Midwest.

CL: What’s the mountain person’s perception of reality?

RR: I’ve heard this from readers from around the world, whether it’s the Andes or the Alps or the Himalayas: people who grow up in a mountainous landscape have two tendencies–one positive, one not so positive. The positive one is a sense of being protected in the world, almost nestled in this place. The less positive is the sense of constantly being reminded of your own smallness and brevity in the presence of these mountains that are constantly looming over you, even to the point where sometimes it’s not just psychological but physiological, in that not as much sunlight gets through. I think Gatsby had to be a Midwesterner because he sees the world as, ‘anything is possible.’

CL: I have read that you don’t start with an outline when you write. You never have?

RR: Well, I did when I wasn’t writing well! I remember when I first started writing stories, I always knew what was going to happen, and what it was “about,” and I’ve just become pretty much convinced that the worst thing a writer can have, or at least that this writer can have, is an idea.

CL: Why is that?

RR: Because suddenly you’re thinking of it not only in an abstract way, but you’re also limiting it, it’s going to be about “this.” And to me, the wonderful thing in my books is that I don’t know. I kind of let it reveal itself.

CL: There is a line early on, not technically the opening line, but close, that asks, “Where does any story really begin?” Where do your stories begin?

RR: I start with an image. Every book I’ve written, every novel, has started with a simple image. In this one, it was a stream with dying trout in it. I didn’t know why they were dying. I had a sense, but that’s where it started.

CL: So is this an image that you’ve actually seen?

RR: Well, it’s not a memory. When I wrote Serena, when that novel began, all I had was an image of a woman on horseback, and from her posture I knew she was formidable. But that was it.

CL: Where does the story end?

RR: That is always the question!

CL: Where did this one end?

RR: As I got deeper into this book and I knew the characters better, I knew that it would end with some kind of redemption for both of them [the two main characters, Les and Becky]. And I didn’t know this at first, but ultimately I realized it was going to be a book that was about two people who had said words that had caused terrible things to happen, or almost happen. Becky speaks because she’s frightened in the basement, and she blames herself. And Les has spoken these words that causes his wife to almost kill herself. It became a book about, how does one live in the world [after these experiences]? Les has to look at the worst in the world, as a way to exonerate himself. Becky has to look for hope in the world. That’s who she is. To me, it’s a novel of people who are finding some kind of redemption.

CL: In this novel, you go back and forth between two first person narrators, Les and Becky. Did you start with one narrator, or was it always going to be two? Can you tell me about that choice?

RR: I had a lot of trouble with this book. It was supposed to come out last Fall. What happened was, I knew the book wasn’t ready, and so what I did instead was I pulled the book. Up until that time, Les had been the only narrator, and I knew something important was missing. It was Becky’s voice; once I locked into that voice, I knew I had the answer. And then it just became a matter of establishing, I hope, like a musical score of the intense language of Becky and the prose sections of Les. I wanted a sense of Becky’s immediacy to the world, so everything she says is in present tense, and Les is in past tense, except for the last sentence. It was just a matter of discovering that, and to realize how crucial her voice is. And it also gave me a chance to use what I’ve learned writing four books of poetry, to try to create a language as intense as I could.

CL: Becky writes poetry, and some of her poetry is in this novel. Can you talk about the fact that you write poetry and short stories and novels, and how those forms speak to each other when you are writing? How did the process of writing poetry into this novel work for you?

RR: Having written poetry and reading so much poetry makes me a better fiction writer. In my last couple of drafts it’s all about rubbing vowels and consonants together, and playing off the rhythms, and stresses and unstresses. It’s not that the reader will necessarily notice that, but the ear will.

CL: Do you think about your readers reading your work out loud? I mean, poetry is often meant to be read aloud. Do you hear the words as you’re writing? Is part of your writing process to read your work out loud?

RR: Yeah, I get so into the voice that I hear it. I wouldn’t necessarily read a couple of pages to myself aloud, but I will, if there’s a sentence or two that’s not working, I’ll say it aloud, and almost always my ear will catch the problem. The ear knows before the eye.

CL: That brings me to another question about the influence of other media. Your character Les paints, or he did paint up to a certain point. Do you work in any other media yourself, besides writing? Is your writing inspired by other media, maybe music?

RR: Yeah, music definitely. One of the great gifts my generation got–I’m 61–is we listened to all that rock and roll. Listening to all that music growing up, even though it was rock and roll and country, you’re immersed in that music, and some of that has to rub off on your writing. And my father was an art teacher. Actually, my middle name is Vincent, because of van Gogh, and I mention van Gogh in the book. I have no talent for it, but I try to bring what I’ve learned, in a way, from painting into words, in a scene or a paragraph, where I’m trying to show it as intensely as possible, as vividly as possible.

CL: It’s interesting that your father was an art teacher and you have two main characters, one of whom paints and one of whom is a teacher, in a way, to children. I noticed in this book that there is a lot of reference to children: babies who are in danger, or people who go on to have children with others, and so on, but your two main characters don’t have children. I wonder about that, if that was a choice you made for a particular reason?

I’m unhealthily solitary. There are days I write more words than I speak.

RR: It was, yeah, because I wanted these characters to be as isolated as possible. That’s their attraction. When they see that Hopper painting [in Les’s office], they recognize that sense of being alone; that is their nature. I think part of that is what’s happened to them, but it’s also their very nature. And I’m a lot like that. I’m unhealthily solitary. There are days I write more words than I speak.

CL: I don’t think you’re alone in that. I find it curious that Hopper is this quintessentially American painter, and the people in his paintings are so very alone.

RR: Yeah. I remember the first time I saw Nighthawks. I was in fifth grade, and that thing just stung me. It was a reproduction at a library, and I was just transfixed. And part of it was that I was recognizing something that I sensed about me.

CL: In Above the Waterfall, the meth epidemic has a big impact on several people’s lives. There is a line: “Television glamorized meth, even when they tried not to.” A lot of people were introduced to meth culture in America via the television show Breaking Bad. Is that a show you watched, and do you have an opinion on it?

RR: Yeah, and that’s what bothered me. I’m not saying it was their intention, but I think what happens is, when you concentrate on the people who are manufacturing it, there’s always going to be some kind of charisma. Even if you make them monstrous, they have some kind of charisma. And what I do, is I focus on not just the victims, but also the people around them, like the parents. That’s the way you get rid of the allure.

CL: You also talk about the smell of meth. That is something that of course you don’t get through a screen. It’s something quite powerful that you can get while you’re reading. Did your preparations for writing Above the Waterfall involve researching people who suffer from taking meth, or the families who are affected?

RR: I’ve known families who have been devastated by it. A friend of mine actually died a few months ago. He was a sheriff’s deputy; he did these raids. He was the one I talked to. But that only takes you so far. You have to get to that point as a writer where you feel like you can get a sense of it through empathy. I didn’t base [the meth raid scene in the novel] on anything he told me — those are places where my imagination took me.

CL: All of your major characters have some kind of moral ambiguity or at least a hint of a possibility of moral ambiguity. Were any of the characters screaming to go more good or evil for you? Was it hard to achieve a level of moral ambiguity with any of them?

RR: I think that politics gives us the black and white, and art gives us the gray. I think most people are a mixture of those things, and a character isn’t going to be very interesting if it’s either/or. There is always complexity, and the ability to give the reader a sense that there is always something you don’t quite know. I learned this from Shakespeare. Something Shakespeare does with his characters that’s pretty important is about motivation missing, and I think that makes characters much more interesting.

CL: Motivation missing?

RR: Yeah, I think [in good writing] there’s always something we don’t quite know, because I think that’s true in life. We think we know someone, but there’s always something we don’t quite know.

CL: Was it reading those works by Shakespeare that got you into writing? What prompted you to become a writer?

The books I love, I feel that way–they enter me

RR: I always loved reading, but as I’ve told people before, when I was 15, I read Crime and Punishment for the first time, and obviously I wasn’t getting a lot of what was going on, but that scene where the pawnbroker is killed, I remember, I can tell you exactly where I was when I read that. It felt like an out of body experience. I felt like up to that moment, I had entered books, but that book entered me. The books I love, I feel that way–they enter me. And even if I wanted to, I couldn’t forget it.

CL: Are you reading when you’re deep into writing a novel?

RR: Yeah. There are certain writers I avoid because their style is so powerful, but I just love to read. I’m actually reading Knausgaard’s My Struggle right now. I love it. And I went in thinking I wouldn’t, thinking, okay, well, here’s another self-indulgent…but it wasn’t. He does this thing where he won’t let you stop reading. I think Hilary Mantel has that. And that’s something that can’t be taught, you either have that or you don’t.

CL: So are you losing sleep needing to read more Knausgaard?

RR: Actually, what I’ve been doing is, I exercise every morning for 50 minutes on an elliptical, because I can read. I actually read it this morning. So that way I get in an hour of reading every day, at least. Because once I start my 6–8 hour day of writing, I’m pretty burned out by the end. All I want is wine and ESPN.

CL: Many writers say they have to get their writing going at the beginning of the day, because if they do something else all day and then try to get their brains going at night, it’s hard.

RR: I can’t do it. This morning I wrote for 2 ½ hours. I just got up, did my exercise, and wrote for 2 ½ hours.

CL: Do you write every day?

RR: Yeah.

CL: Every day?

RR: Yeah, I mean some days I tend to do a little less, but even on Sunday I write an hour, sometimes five or six, it depends.

CL: And you’re teaching, too?

RR: Not this semester. But I do teach.

CL: How does teaching play into your writing?

RR: I would not want to be someone who all I did was write, because it goes bad too many days. If, say, I have a week where I have three or four days where the writing is absolute crap, I can at least say I met this class, I got this student turned onto this writer he or she has never heard of, and maybe I’ve passed something on that’s going to help this person, if not as a writer, at least as a reader. And it gives a little bit of structure, and my whole life doesn’t depend on what I put on the page today–and that makes a difference!

CL: Your characters are so connected to the landscape and nature in Above the Waterfall, but there are also some notable mentions of technology and computers. There is a quote by one of your characters I wanted to ask you about: “In five years people won’t even know they’re in the world, much less care about what happens to it. They will believe that when everything else on this planet dies, they’ll be able to disappear into a computer screen.” What’s your own relationship to technology? How do you deal with the distractions of technology? Do you write on a computer?

RR: I write the first paragraph with a pencil and paper and then I type it in. But yeah, I do use computers, and, I mean, they’re wonderful. I’ve got this chapter here and it doesn’t go and I can move it…when I think about somebody like Faulkner and his little typewriter, I think, how the hell did he write anything? But one of the dangers for me with a computer screen is it looks too good too quick. I always run it off. I want it to be messy. I don’t edit on a screen. But I do worry about what technology is doing to us. What strikes me is, it seems we are almost getting to a point where we don’t think something is reality unless we see it on a screen. There is this point in the book where Becky talks about people coming out and taking pictures — they can’t even see the nature, they have to see it on a screen.

CL: And maybe share it.

I would argue serious literature is more important than it’s ever been, because it’s an escape…into complexity, into attentiveness

RR: Yeah, I mean that’s the implication, instead of connecting to this thing. I really worry about the distractions and attention spans. If people don’t have attention spans, then they are so much easier to manipulate, because then it all comes down to sound bites. I would argue serious literature is more important than it’s ever been, because it’s an escape from that into complexity, into attentiveness that is not 10 or 15 seconds. The little house where I live in the mountains, I can’t get email. And most of the time when people try to call me by cell phone, they can’t reach me.

CL: That sounds glorious!

RR: Yeah, people say, does that bother you? Hell no. I mean, I get email in my office. But even I admit, it’s so addictive. I’ll notice that if I’m not careful, I’ll start checking my email every 15–20 minutes.

CL: Why do you think it’s so addictive?

RR: It’s almost like a kind of candy, a little treat, a little sugar treat. Always that idea that this next email is going to be from the Nobel prize committee, or that girl I really like, whatever. But at the same time, what I love seeing in my students is this sense that, damn, there’s something happening here reading this book that I’m not getting anywhere else. And that’s what I love about the Harry Potter series for kids. I think one of the great things about that series is it showed kids there’s something a book does that nothing else can. What I love about reading a really good writer, is that it’s an act of communion. I mean, you’re communing with someone who’s probably a lot smarter. I’m communing with say, Edna O’Brien or Stendhal or whoever. Because all writers just give us a splotch of ink and so we have to build this together, we come together on this thing. I find that incredibly magical. A good reader has imagination, you have to have imagination to put that together. It teaches imagination.

CL: I have to ask about the Lascaux cave paintings. They come up throughout Above the Waterfall, and even open the novel–a book about the paintings is the only book that Les borrows from Becky. And Becky is creating a new language, just as the Lascaux cave paintings were creating a new language.

RR: Personally, I’ve always been fascinated with those paintings. I’m about to go to France, and I don’t think I’m going to have time to get to the caves, but have you ever heard of Jerusalem Syndrome? People get so overwhelmed they lose it and start thinking they’re Jesus? If I go in those caves, there’s a part of me that thinks I’m going to go completely crazy, because I’m so intently drawn to the idea of this, I wouldn’t say pre-conscious, but there’s something going on there…I mean, those animals, they look like they’re moving when you use torchlight. What makes it fascinating is the animal dominates that inner world… Jung, that was his great big dream, you just go into the end of that collective unconscious. I’m very much a Jungian. I believe in that kind of thing. And Becky, what she wants is that total connection to “world” and “word” and “wonder,” those three things, because she was so shattered when she was twelve, and she sees it in the Lascaux cave paintings.

CL: Do you think that you would ever move away from the area where you live, the Appalachian mountains?

I’m a writer who has to stay. I have to be connected to that landscape.

RR: I think a writer from the South, or anywhere outside a major metropolitan area, has to make a decision: do I have to stay here to write about this, or do I have to leave? Tennessee Williams, Capote, Carson McCullers–they all left. Faulkner, Welty, O’Connor stayed. I’m a writer who has to stay. I have to be connected to that landscape. Being connected to it makes it better for me as a writer. But the other thing is, it can hurt a writer as far as career to be in a rural place. You don’t meet the people at the parties, but [at those parties] you also lose a lot of time and energy that you could be writing. So I made the choice to stay, but the way political things are going now, if I were ever tempted to leave it would be now.

A Convincing And Compelling World: An Interview With Vu Tran, Author of Dragonfish

Vu Tran’s debut novel Dragonfish (W.W. Norton & Co. 2015) is more than a crime novel. It’s a story of displaced Vietnamese refugees who fled after the fall of Saigon and ended up in Las Vegas. When Robert, a white cop living in Oakland, is visited by two Vietnamese gangsters and ordered to Vegas to help them find Robert’s ex-wife, Suzy, he goes. Sonny, their boss and the book’s “villain”, is also her new husband. Through letters Suzy left behind, the reader learns of the ghosts that still linger from her past and the reasons she was never Sonny’s or Robert’s to lose.

Tran was the Fiction Fellow assigned to my workshop (led by Helen Schulman) at the 2015 Bread Loaf Writers’ Conference. He also teaches creative writing at the University of Chicago. Along with his abilities on the page and in the classroom, I can attest that Tran also manages easily on a dance floor. See: The Worm. I saw him again weeks later on the Los Angeles stop of his current book tour, but it wasn’t until the next day, when he was already parked in a rental car four miles from the Black Mountain Institute at UNLV, where he’d earned his PhD in literature, that I had the opportunity to ask him a few questions about Dragonfish.

Andrea Arnold: I loved this novel and how smooth your writing is. I finished it in a few hours. I had to find out what the hell happened to Suzy. How did you come to the story?

Vu Tran: Jarret Keene, a writer in Vegas, asked me to write a crime story for an anthology he was editing called Las Vegas Noir. My assignment was Chinatown. I’ve always loved the noir genre in literature and film, so I said yes, absolutely. I was also working on another book that was painfully going nowhere, so I was more than happy to put that aside. That’s how I came to write “This Or Any Desert.” I wrote it really fast and had a lot of fun doing it. Then it got into the 2009 Best American Mystery Stories, and since I was desperately looking for something else to write at the time, I thought maybe I should turn this short story into a novel. The characters still felt nascent to me, like there were layers to them that I hadn’t yet found, that I still wanted to excavate. They felt like the kind of characters that could flourish in a novel and open it up in exciting ways.

AA: I’ve heard you talk about your experience coming to the US as a refugee. Can you explain the journey your family took and how it led to the novel?

…we left on a small boat with ninety people…We spent over six days at sea, headed at first for Singapore until the captain got lost and we ended up in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. We were very lucky.

VT: I didn’t really find the novel until I reached into the backstory of one of the characters in “This Or Any Desert,” who talks about escaping Vietnam with his father by boat and being on a refugee island. That came from my own experience. When I expanded the short story and brought this same backstory to my protagonist, Suzy, it provided an emotional foundation for the rest of the novel, connecting the main characters to each other emotionally as well as literally. I was born in Vietnam in 1975, four months after Saigon fell and four months after my father, a captain in the South Vietnamese Air Force, fled the country. He had to leave the very day the communists took over Saigon and the South. He was going to take my mother, who was pregnant with me, and my sister, who was two at the time, but he ended up having to escape without us. For a year, my mother had no idea where he was, what had happened to him, or if he was even alive. She finally found out that he had settled in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where a Catholic priest had sponsored him. Five years later, in 1980, my mother bought passage for herself and my sister and me, and just like in the book we left on a small boat with ninety people. There was really only room for about twenty. We spent over six days at sea, headed at first for Singapore until the captain got lost and we ended up in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. We were very lucky. Thousands of Vietnamese were attacked by Thai pirates, drowned at sea, died of hunger and illness. I’m sure it was all terrifying and difficult for my mother at the time, but I’m always amazed by how lucky we were ultimately. The Malaysian and US government had established a refugee camp on Pulau Bidong, an island off the coast of Malaysia. We lived there for four months. Then my father sponsored us, and that was how I came to grow up Tulsa, Oklahoma. It’s where I met my dad for the first time and where I lived for twenty years.

AA: There are a lot of details about that island in Suzy’s letters. Did you remember all those details or did your mom fill in the gaps or did you have to look it up?

VT: I remember very little, only small details. Like the smell of the ocean. Or standing in the water up to my neck. I remember lying on thatch beds made of palm leaves and cardboard, which was how we slept at night in our huts. I also remember — and this is a weird detail — when you go to the bathroom you take a newspaper and squat under a palm tree. Everything else about the time I had to ask my mom or invent or research on my own.

AA: Was that experience something constantly talked about in your family or was it something purposely forgotten and avoided in conversation?

VT: My mom talked about it a lot when I was growing up and had a lot of stories, which I drew from for the book. I would call her all the time when I was writing and ask for more detailed accounts of everything. As a writer, you take some of those concrete facts and you run with them. You invent out of them. I’d say 99% of what’s in the book is invented, but their foundation is built on these facts from my life.

AA: Suzy’s letters are full of longing for Vietnam. Does your mom talk with the same type of longing when she tells you stories about Vietnam?

VT: My mom rarely spoke about it with melancholy or longing, at least not outwardly. She certainly missed Vietnam and her family, especially before she returned for the first time in 1992. We returned as a family twice in the late 90s, and she and my father have visited several times over the last decade, so maybe the melancholy has evolved over the years. I’m glad you ask this question because I haven’t thought enough about how my mom must have felt all these years, recounting this other life she had before we came here. It’s weird, but sometimes, as a writer, you value the material more than you value how that material is given to you, particularly by those who are very close to you. Even though the US is my mother’s home and she’s become used to the life she’s led here for 35 years, I imagine there will always be some melancholy in her for Vietnam. I don’t think you can ever shake the homeland, especially if you left it under such dramatic circumstances.

AA: For you, was it just super cool, exotic and fun to travel abroad, or did you feel a connection to Vietnam even then?

VT: When I first came back, yes, it was just really cool and exotic. I was twenty and hadn’t gone abroad until then. I was just an American traveling to a strange new place for the first time, even though it was the place of my birth. The experience was very fun and exciting for me, but I don’t think the emotional connection came until afterwards, when I got back to the States and had time to feel the impact of such an experience. I think the most significant thing was meeting — and I guess reuniting with — my extended family, who’d remained in Vietnam and had all these memories of me up to the time I was five. That reminded me that I’d actually had a life in Vietnam, even if I didn’t remember it, which gave me an emotional connection to my family and therefore to the country. That’s when I started writing about Vietnam, and writing about it solidified and deepened the connection.

AA: Is it typical in Vietnamese culture for people to believe in ghosts or were you simply using a noir trope?

You’re not just living for your immediate family; you’re living also for your extended and ancestral family.

VT: Ghosts are very much a part of many Asian cultures, whether you’re Buddhist or Christian or whatever. I was raised Catholic and taught not to believe in ghosts and demons, but my mother has always been a superstitious person, which is true of many Vietnamese. I don’t think you can escape that in the culture, especially when it’s been dominated for centuries by a Buddhist belief in the spirits of one’s ancestors, lingering in the reality of one’s present life. It’s one reason the family is so important in the culture, because of that connection to the past and to past lives. You’re not just living for your immediate family; you’re living also for your extended and ancestral family. American culture, it seems to me, is one of the least superstitious cultures in the world, which is why ghosts are usually the purview of pop culture instead of our everyday lives. Ghosts are alive in South American culture, in African culture, in European culture, but Americans generally don’t take the idea very seriously, and I’ve always thought this contributes to how the family is viewed here.

AA: So what was your research process like? Did you interview people in the Vietnamese community in Las Vegas?

VT: Not really. First of all, I’m a very lazy person. [Laughs] I try to do as little research as possible. Too much information can distract me from the true pulse and direction of a story. I also don’t think a book necessarily comes to life because of the concrete facts that come from hard research. It comes to life because of the emotional vibrancy and complexity of your characters, and that’s something that comes more from the imagination, personal experience, and observation. But of course, some research was necessary for Dragonfish, especially on the Vietnamese boat people and life in the refugee camps. So I did a lot of reading on that. I also talked a great deal to my parents, asking them as many questions as I could think of. For all the procedural, cop stuff in the crime narrative, I went to my sister and her boyfriend. They’re both police officers in Texas. She’s also a negotiator and he’s on the SWAT team. They were always at the ready with stories and information for me. But again, I didn’t want to clog my brain with extraneous material, so I was always looking for specific details and answers to very specific questions and scenarios.

AA: Were there any concerns about making Asian characters likable? Are you worried about stereotypes and being stereotyped? I’m thinking specifically about Happy’s dialogue and her affectations.

VT: That’s a good question. Happy was very difficult. The thing is, that’s how Vietnamese-Americans with a heavy accent speak. But the problem is that that accent, the Asian accent in general, especially on paper, can sound very cartoonish, and the scenes with Happy were serious scenes. So one of the difficulties of writing her was keeping her speech realistic while also making her sound serious without sounding cartoonish and making the scene unintentionally amusing.

AA: I thought you did a wonderful job, but there are Asian characters in my novel and I think if I did it that way someone would tell me I was being racist.

VT: [Laughs] I was concerned about that too, in many ways, but I also realized that focusing too much on that aspect could distract me from the more important question, which is whether the characters were convincing. The world you create in your fiction will only be convincing and compelling if the characters are convincing and compelling. A character who is cliché is cliché not because they’re too Asian or too whatever, but because they have no depth and aren’t convincing in the world you’ve created for them. I kept thinking that with my characters who were potentially stereotypical or maybe even offensive, like Happy or Sonny, that if I gave them depth and I made their behavior believable and utterly convincing and, most importantly, interesting, those concerns about cliché or racist representations would fall away. Hopefully they did.

AA: Were there any concerns about making Asian characters such bad guys

I don’t really care if my Vietnamese characters are “bad” or “immoral”. I only care about whether they’re believable and interesting.

VT: My editor posed this same question to me, not because it was an issue for me but because she was just curious how I would answer it. She asked me why the white protagonist is the good guy — the virtuous and heroic cop — and most of the Vietnamese men in the novel are gangsters and immoral characters. This becomes, I think, a question about likability as much as moral representation, and frankly I think that’s the wrong question to ask yourself while you’re writing. That’s how your characters become one-dimensional. I like the idea of readers constantly changing their minds about characters. That’s when you’re creating interesting people on the page. Sonny is the prototypical bad guy in a crime narrative. He commits violent acts and speaks in an aggressive way, so the reader is forced to think of him initially as a villain. But if you keep complicating a character like him, giving him more and more layers of depth, the reader will keep changing their mind about him. Think about the most interesting people in your life: they’re the kind of people you can’t fucking decide on. You can’t decide if you like or hate them, if you want to be friends or enemies with them. Those are usually the most interesting people you know, and those were the kinds of characters I wanted in the world of my book. So I don’t really care if my Vietnamese characters are “bad” or “immoral”. I only care about whether they’re believable and interesting.

AA: My favorite parts of the novel are Suzy’s letters. The writing is beautiful, emotional and full of longing. To me, it felt like Suzy probably had an MFA from Iowa! Can you speak to writing in the first person from a female perspective as a male author?

VT: [Laughs] First of all, that’s really funny. Thank you. I’m glad you like it. When I devised the letters that Suzy is writing to her daughter, I felt like I found the novel. And weirdly enough, I found that voice fairly quickly, and it was easy to maintain. I was obviously very aware that I was writing from a woman’s point of view, but it never felt difficult. I think when you understand what a character wants, what a character is afraid of, and what a character is confused by, that character will come alive on the page, even if you personally bear no similarities to them. They could be completely different from you — a different ethnicity, a different gender, a different age — but if you understand those three things about them on a deep level, you’ll find them. For example, I knew very early on that Suzy was a woman who regretted abandoning her child and at the same time knew that that was what she needed to do. She did not want to be a mother. But the emotional consequences of that act of abandonment never left her. Her motive in writing the letters is to explain her actions, not just to her daughter but also to herself, because they have always confused her. And I think that confusion has been a source of fear for her in the world, which she inevitably brings to her relationships — her marriage to Sonny and Robert, her relationships with other people. If I wrote her convincingly as a woman, it all comes out of me understanding those aspects of her character throughout my writing of her part of the novel.

AA: Vegas is an additional character in the novel. How long did you live in Las Vegas and did you begin writing the novel while you were still there?

There are few cities in the country that give you this moment, where you can see so many sides of it from one single view.

VT: When I was working on the novel, I had seven years’ worth of Vegas memories. I wrote the short story in 2008 and started turning it into a novel in 2009, which was when I sold it. Then I left in 2010 and didn’t return until after I finished the book four years later. I was very concerned when I first got to Chicago because I only had sixty pages and I kept worrying that I couldn’t write about Vegas well if I wasn’t there. And sometimes it did feel frustrating that I just couldn’t drive down to the Stratosphere and check on certain details. But I realize now that the distance was an advantage. I think a lot of writers will say this — that distance often allows you write with more insight and clarity about a place, a situation, or a people. The benefit for me in this novel was that I was not relying on concrete facts. I was relying on my emotional memory of the city. If I got Vegas right in Dragonfish, I got Vegas right emotionally. I could get all the concrete facts right about the Stratosphere Hotel, but I still might not be able to make that place come alive. But an emotional fact will. If you drive west of the Vegas Strip, on Highway 215 toward Summerlin, you’ll get to a point on the highway where you can look back and see the entire valley and the Strip right down the middle of it, and you can see the column of light that beams up from the Luxor like a guidepost in the sky. You feel like you can wrap your arms around the whole city and it kind of makes you feel safe. There are few cities in the country that give you this moment, where you can see so many sides of it from one single view. I also remember the mountains that surround the city, which are brown in the day, but at twilight, if you look at them at a certain angle, with palm trees in the foreground, the city almost feels like a tropical island. Things like that are unique to Vegas and can give you a more vivid sense of the city than concrete facts about the streets and casinos can.

AA: Did you write your way in until you found the story or did you outline the plot? Did you know the ending?

VT: I always had a vague direction of where I was going in the novel, but I didn’t know the ending until the last week before my deadline. This was different from how I worked on short stories. With stories, I always had an idea of the ending and the major plot points. The story wouldn’t always turn out as planned, but at least I had some idea of where I was going. With the novel, though, every time I tried to map out the specifics of the plot, I would slow down. I kept a word count every month and my lowest word counts were during the months I was trying to figure out the rest of the novel’s plot. So it ended up that I literally had to write the book word-by-word, sentence-by-sentence, scene-by-scene. I found that was the only way for me to find the story. That approach might change with my next novel. I don’t know. I have a feeling that each book will require a different approach.

AA: You earned your MFA from Iowa. Was there someone there you emulated?

VT: I really admired Marilynne Robinson. I’m honestly not sure how much I learned from her in workshop, but I learned a great deal from reading her novels, especially Housekeeping. Gilead was actually a big influence on Suzy’s letters. When I was writing the letters, I’d open up Gilead to a random page so that I could appropriate the voice of the narrator. I did learn a lot from my other workshop teachers: Chris Offutt, Ethan Canin, and Frank Conroy, who directed the program for 18 years. He passed away ten years ago. He probably changed me the most. I came to the workshop with a maximalist style. I wanted to be Faulkner. I wanted to be experimental. So I overwrote. My first workshop with Frank was a good one, and it was a story I was basically writing for him, which is never a good idea. And since that workshop went well, I thought, I’ll just be Vu now. And he totally destroyed me in my second workshop. It was the most important workshop I had at Iowa because I realized that I really had to work on my prose and be in control of it, whether I was writing in a spare style or an ornate style. I had to make sure that everything was meaningful and clear, that I wasn’t just hoping for meaning, that I was actually melding my form with my content. Frank taught me that. His lessons on language really burrowed into me as a writer. I am indebted to him for my sentences.

AA: What was the best advice an author ever gave you?

My best advice to any young writer is to be wary of all good advice, especially the kind that sounds universally and earth-shatteringly true.

VT: Dave Hickey at UNLV told me to “write fast.” [Laughs]. He meant it literally. Write intuitively and then go back and revise intellectually, deliberately. That’s actually the opposite of how I work, so I didn’t really listen to him there. But he also meant something else. What he really wanted me to do was know what I was saying and make sure I was saying it well, and just get to the interesting stuff and not be bogged down by less interesting concerns. He saw that extraneous things were slowing me down. Like my focus on making my language pretty. Or my focus on landscape details. He wanted me to cut all that shit out and write faster. So that, I think, was good advice. But honestly, I’m not sure if I’ve really gotten that much good advice over the years. My best advice to any young writer is to be wary of all good advice, especially the kind that sounds universally and earth-shatteringly true. Because there’s always an exception. Everyone writes differently just as everyone reads differently, so you don’t want to fall into the trap of following great advice to the point where you’re not seeing the exceptions to the rule, or the truth that might only be true for you.

AA: How does teaching affect your writing?

VT: I love teaching. It does affect my writing because I have the luxury at the University of Chicago of teaching what I want, and that inevitably becomes a way for me to work out things that are most on my mind. For example, for the last few years, I’ve been very interested in plot-driven narratives, in plot not only as a dramatic structure but also as a philosophical structure, a way of approaching our ideas in a work of fiction. So I taught a class on that and learned a great deal. I was also very interested in the love story last year because I was going through a breakup and had also just written a book about a relationship. So I taught a class on love stories, which was about, among many things, how we define what a love story is. And since I always learn a great deal from my students, it was particularly educational for me to observe how my students engaged with this topic. That’s when teaching really becomes an interesting part of my life — when it merges with my personal life and my artistic life.

AA: You said you wrote a first novel that you put in the proverbial drawer. Do you think you’ll go back to it and how did you decide that it was time to quit?

VT: When I was still working on that novel, a friend of mine asked me to describe it to her. She was German professor of American Literature. When I described it, she said, “No no, that’s sounds too much like every immigrant novel out there. Don’t write that.” And she was absolutely right! [Laughs] It was about a first-generation Vietnamese-American who travels to Vietnam for the first time to uncover a mystery about his family — a standard narrative, I realized. It’s weird how you fall into certain clichés without even reading the sources for those clichés. It’s like it’s in the literary ether and you just absorb it. Anyway, it was very much a first novel. The writing was good, I think, but I didn’t know what I was trying to say or where I was going. It’ll stay in the drawer.

AA: What are you working on next?

VT: I’m not sure. Two weeks ago I had an idea for another novel as I was driving on a long road trip, and I was so excited that I started singing. I’m not sure I want to talk about it yet though. I might also bring out my short story collection at some point, but I think I’d first have to rethink some of the stories. Maybe even toss out one or two. I’m such a different person and a different writer now.

Stephanie Meyer Celebrates Twilight’s Ten Year Anniversary With Gender Swapped Book

Instead of the customary new edition most publisher provide for a book anniversary, Stephanie Meyer did her fans one better and wrote a new edition of Twilight featuring a female vampire, named Edythe, and a human boy, Beauford. The new book is titled Life and Death: Twilight Reimagined.

Meyer, a self proclaimed feminist who has dedicated time and funds to promoting work by female writers (sometimes to strong reactions), took issue with criticism that the original Twilight’s Bella was too consumed with her love interest, and has rewritten the book to move the focus from “damsel in distress” to “human in distress”, as she puts it.

The details about the anniversary edition of Twilight have been left vague for a long time, and today’s new release ends speculations about Meyer rewriting the book from Edward’s perspective, ala Fifty Shades of Grey rewrite Grey, released this spring.

There are many questions to ask in light of this announcement, most of which are demonstrated perfectly in GIFS here.

Midweek Links: Literary Links from Around the Web (October 7th)

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

Stephen King house

Horror houses from literature that you can actually visit

Junot Diaz explains why you should read authors who don’t look like you

Why did Amy Schumer get so much money? New Republic breaks down how big book deals actually work

Jeff VanderMeer on the legacy of cult horror icon Thomas Ligotti

Is Kenneth Goldsmith avant-garde or the old out-of-date guard?

Iran might boycott the Frankfurt book fair because Salman Rushdie is giving a speech

A cyberpunk primer

Steven Pinker on how grammar rules aren’t nearly as important as clarity

Are you an emerging writer? Apply for the A Public Space fellowship!

Spooky Action at a Distance

by Bryan Hurt

We were surprised, of course, that when we built our time machine it turned out to be a Delorean. We took it apart, put it back together, didn’t matter. Looked at the blueprints, looked at the silver car. Scratched our heads. A joke? A prank? Sabotage? If sabotage, then it had backfired. The Delorean worked.

We drove it out of the laboratory, into the parking lot, set the chronometer, and stepped on the gas. When we arrived we were exactly when we wanted to be. Thirty minutes earlier, our own past.

We parked the Delorean behind a Dumpster, hid in the bushes, and spied on ourselves. There we were, earlier Dr. Hu and earlier me, lab-locked and bending over our blueprints, scratching our heads. After that we did pretty much what you’d expect anyone to do with a time machine. We killed Hitler. Smothered him in his crib.

We smothered lots of history’s evil people. Bin Laden, Mao, Cheney, Robespierre, Attila the Hun. Even though we had the moral imperative it wasn’t easy killing babies, so we saved people too to balance it out. We saved JFK, RFK, MLK. Saved Franz Ferdinand, Marie Antoinette. You’d be surprised how many people can be saved just by pulling up in a Delorean and shouting duck.

Also surprising was that there seemed to be no negative consequences. No double occupancy problems, no grandfather paradoxes, no quantum entanglements. Fixing history was easy, like smoothing out the wrinkles in your bed.

This is how I explained it to my wife, the underwear model. I ran my fingers across our sheets. I told her that every time Dr. Hu and I returned to our time everything was pretty much as we’d left it except for a little bit better. History wasn’t something heavy that everyone had to carry around with them, a backpack full of broken parts.

For example, take you, I said. In another timeline you were you but not an underwear model. You were a kindergarten teacher. Your father died when you were twelve. In another timeline, I said, you were you but not someone you would recognize. You got pregnant in high school, drove drunk, got paralyzed below the waist. In another timeline you were never born.

What about you? she asked of me.

I listened to the cicadas singing their seventeen-year song.

I said that in another timeline Dr. Hu and I had won the Nobel Prize in physics. We went public with our time machine and now everyone had one parked in their garage. In another timeline Dr. Hu and I were villains. We did everything that we did in this timeline except exactly the opposite. Saved Hitler, killed Kennedy, ruled over all of creation from a throne of human skulls. In another timeline, I said, Dr. Hu and I were nobody. Our Delorean turned out to be just a Delorean. We blamed each other for our failure, stopped speaking.

In that timeline, I said, I’m married to you the kindergarten teacher. We live in a house just like this one and are probably lying together in bed just like this. But in that timeline, I said, we are not happy. I’m a failure and you’re a kindergarten teacher. We just had a fight. It doesn’t matter what we fought about because the gist is that I’m a failure and you’re a kindergarten teacher and you’re happy enough with what we’ve got.

But in that timeline I’m aware that there are other timelines where I’m not a failure. I’m aware that there are timelines where I’m a time traveler, a Nobel Prize winner, an evil dictator, where you’re an underwear model. In those timelines we made all of the right decisions, somehow, and didn’t go off track.

And when I think about those timelines I get so mad. Because what if I had done something differently, married someone else, gotten a smarter lab partner, done better on my college admission tests, and ended up a success?

Or what if it had been a decision that I had made even earlier, something small, that had screwed everything up? Like when I was in elementary school and made fun of Margaret for being adopted. For not being white? What if I’d chosen not to join in with all of the other kids who were teasing her? Or what if I’d decided to stand up for her, told them to stop because we were neighbors, we were in homeroom together, and she had always been pretty nice? What if there was one smallhearted decision from which all of my other wrong decisions came, these decisions growing and growing the distance between what I wanted and what I got until it became so unbreachable that not even a Delorean could cross?

For more, read Electric Literature’s interview with Bryan Hurt.