Amy Butcher
In our Craft Capsule series,authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 217.
This fall marks fifteen years that I’ve been teaching creative writing in college classrooms, and while the size of each class has varied—sometimes ten students, sometimes twenty-five—along with the frequency of these offerings, which has ranged from two classes annually in graduate school to a steady six now, it’s safe to say that I’ve worked with well over a thousand creative writers since graduating college myself.
And if there’s one story my thousand former students know by heart, it’s the story of how I learned the hard way the necessity of deep, exhaustive revision, particularly surrounding openings.
My horror story is this: In 2009 I was a graduate student, a baby, twenty-two years old in a famous literary Midwestern city where, just several decades prior, Raymond Carver memorably professed himself a part-time writer and full-time drinker. I, too, was courting full-time drinking. There were two bars in the city famous for post-workshop discussion, and I liked to discuss (and drink) after workshop, but also sometimes before. My workshop instructor that year was a storied writer everyone admired, and my peers often regaled one another with stories of the first time they’d ever read his work while I drank and blinked, feeling stupid, because I hadn’t thought to research the faculty before arriving. And yet, as luck would have it, I landed in his workshop—luck is one word for it, privilege another—and one evening, halfway through the discussion of my manuscript, he quieted my classmates’ conversation to insist the fifteen-page essay I had turned in began, very clearly, on page eight.
He held up his copy of my stapled essay, tearing the first seven pages off in one clean chunk.
I was mortified. The beginning, he argued—while “pretty writing overall,” a compliment I seized upon in the hours that immediately followed—did very little for establishing a narrative framework. It was simply a vehicle for movement, existing only to connect one narrative scene to another. It was the second scene that mattered. It was also a scene I’d dreaded when I first sat down to write. Months prior, I’d visited my close friend in his maximum-security prison for the first time after he committed murder, and I was hesitant to confront this on the page, just as I was hesitant to confront this in real life. There was a pedagogical argument for taking a reader through my laborious sixteen-hour drive from the heart of the American Midwest to the Pennsylvania prison where he resided—a sort of imitative, anxiety-inducing road trip—but it was poetic costuming, the famous writer argued, purple prose, beautiful in places and full of imagery that sometimes felt fresh but ultimately did very little for the essay.
Throat-clearing, I call it now: the instinct we have to prepare ourselves, if not the reader, for the true story we have to tell. Just as we clear our throat and shuffle our papers, make small talk and tap the mic when we step up to a podium to give a speech or a reading, call to order a meeting or begin a class or complete our annual physical, so too do we offer poetic costuming when we sit down to write something new. Like that younger version of me, my students know revision is paramount; they also believe, unless they have benefited from the presence of a rigorous creative writing educator, that revision generally means lopping off a few sentences here or there and tightening language in places of needless verbiage.
I consider it my duty, now, to break them of this ideology.
If you are serious about your writing, I tell them, revision becomes an exhaustive process, one that occupies no less than 90 percent of the writing process. To do it well, you need to prepare your heart for heartbreak. You need to prepare your manuscript for surgery. The best advice I have for writers is to cultivate an eye towards substantial initial throat-clearing: Look beyond the first sentence, paragraph, or even the first full page. Look for a moment that often occurs several paragraphs or pages in and proves a far more striking, urgent beginning. Most often now, my own students beat me to it, trained as they are to search deeply and exhaustively for a sentence in possession of, as I explain it, a sparkle, a sharpness. It’s oftentimes very punchy, a piece of art unto itself, a sentence that demonstrates cadence and rhythm and specificity. Oftentimes this sharper opening benefits from a tension created through stark juxtaposition. My favorite, for example, comes from Anna Funder, who writes, “When Hitler came to power I was in the bath.” Other times, it’s a sentence comprised of abrupt minimalism. “The grandmother,” Flannery O’Connor famously wrote, “didn’t want to go to Florida.”
Anything that came before this new opening is very often filler, and while it’s tempting to preserve the earlier material and to engage in literary gymnastics to fold it back in neatly after the new opening has revealed itself, the most dramatic revisions I’ve ever read cut this material entirely. Some of the original language remains only if necessary to summarize—usually in no more than a sentence or two—any crucial information left behind.
My fifteen-page essay began on page eight, and in finding that sentence for me, my mentor delineated the writing I was doing and the writing I was capable of. His words affected not merely the essay he held in his hand—though that, of course, is true—but the necessity of separating myself from my own preciousness, my writing from my story, from paragraphs or even pages that felt important only because I’d penned them.
Here’s my favorite part of the story, for my students and for me: That revision my mentor helped me shape was the first I ever published before selling a book on the same subject to a competitive publisher a few years later. The first sentences are the same.
Amy Butcher is an essayist and the author of two books, including Mothertrucker (Little A, 2021), which explores the realities of female fear, abusive relationships, and America’s quiet epidemic of intimate partner violence against the geography of remote, northern Alaska. The book earned critical praise from Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, and the Wall Street Journal, among others, and excerpts of her new book were recently awarded a 2024Individual Excellence Award from the Ohio Arts Council. Her essays have also been awarded notable distinctions in the 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2021 editions of theBest American Essaysseries. Additional essays have appeared inGranta, Harper’s, the New York Times “Modern Love” column, the New York Times Sunday Review, the Washington Post, the Denver Post, the Iowa Review, Literary Hub, Guernica, Gulf Coast, Fourth Genre,andBrevity,among others. She is an associate professor of English at Denison University and teaches annually at the Iowa Summer Writing Festival and the Sitka Fine Arts Camp in Sitka, Alaska. She splits her time between Columbus, Ohio, and Alaska.
image credit: Wes HicksLessons From Cinema: Writing Young Protagonists
by Tyler Wetherall
11.18.24
In our Craft Capsule series,authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 216.
In the mesmerizing 2012 film Beasts of the Southern Wild, directed by Benh Zeitlin, nine-year-old Hushpuppy, living in a bayou community called the Bathtub, punches her father in the chest during a fight. A sonic boom strikes—is it thunder? Then her dad collapses, gripped in a seizure. We cut to falling glaciers, an ice shelf crumbling, the universe unraveling before our eyes, and Hushpuppy runs away. “Momma!” she cries, as waters rise around her feet. “I think I broke something.”
The difficulty of writing child protagonists in fiction boils down to agency. When we’re children, life happens to us. Parents divorce; people die. Or, as is the case for Sissy, the 12-year-old protagonist in my coming-of-age novel, Amphibian (Ig Publishing, 2024), her mother’s poor mental health leads to their itinerant and isolated existence. Sissy’s only real power lies in how she handles it. See, a child reacts to the world around them. But, as readers, we want to see our characters take action.
In film this is especially true: Good characters should face dilemmas, which force them to make choices, and those choices have consequences, which move the story along and ultimately decide the characters’ fate. The stakes of the story must be, at least in part, in the characters’ hands.
Many coming-of-age novels deal with this issue by using past-tense adult narration to frame the story, thereby showing the later-life consequences of what happened during the protagonist’s adolescence and creating meaning through hindsight. But I didn’t want to do this in Amphibian. Girlhood is a time when we’re often overlooked, and I wanted to validate Sissy’s perspective as worthy in and of itself. By using first-person present tense, I could embody my reader in the radical, transformative experience of growing up a girl, without the safe distance of adult narration to mediate or make meaning. But then, how to give her agency while keeping it realistic and believable for her age?
Flashbacks and reflective adult voice-overs aside, we don’t get the benefit of hindsight in movies. There is no past-tense. As viewers, we make meaning in the moment, much like we do as children. So, I wondered, how had directors—specifically of movies with young protagonists—engaged the viewer in the stakes of the story when their young characters have limited control over the world around them?
In film, the camera is our surrogate—our eyes—and the framing of a scene, for example the proximity to a character, signifies our point of view. When filming The Florida Project, Sean Baker kept the camera low to the ground, so it feels like we’re sharing in six-year-old Moonee’s worldview. The bright, purple-toned color palette conjures childhood juxtaposed with the gritty reality of the down-and-out motel where she lives with her young, out-of-work mom. Baker grants Moonee agency through her defiant exuberance; we’re rooting for her spirit to remain intact despite the escalating crises in the adult world around her. Defiance has long been used as a tool of agency in coming-of-age novels, too, with countless young runaways and rebels populating fiction about adolescents. Sissy is not generally disobedient, but I could still use this in writing: The moment she says “No” to her mother and “Yes” to her best friend is a claim to agency—and one which has unintentionally tragic consequences.
In the chilling 2021 horror film The Innocents, set on a Norwegian housing estate, writer-director Eskil Vogt gives his cast of children agency quite literally; they have superpowers. The tension exists in the knowledge of what these children—armed with telekinesis and telepathy, and lacking any moral compass—might be capable of. In an otherwise social realist world, the power dynamics are subverted. Here, the adults can’t save the children. In my fiction, this cinematic tool helped too; during her mother’s bouts of depression, Sissy steps up as her caretaker despite her young age. She’s given the extra burden of keeping her mother’s illness a secret from school and prying parents, which, similarly, is an inversion of normative family power dynamics without departing from the real.
And then back to Beasts of the Southern Wild. The camera is exploratory and reactive to the world around it, zooming in on small details like the bugs on the leaves or the flicker of fireworks; we’re in Hushpuppy’s sensory world. Like using close third person in prose, this intimately connects us with our protagonist, but something else is at play too—Hushpuppy’s agency comes through her belief system. We see Hushpuppy learn about the climate crisis in the makeshift Bathtub school, and when she hits her father, she believes she has set the end of the world in motion. “I broke something,” she says. After that moment, the film operates on two levels; in the child’s world, Hushpuppy is on a mythical journey to find her Momma and put the world right; in the adult world, her father is dying, and their bayou community is soon to be displaced. The child world functions with its own logic that we, as viewers, are fully invested in. We want Hushpuppy to succeed, not because we believe her actions will save the bayou and her dad, but because we don’t want her to think that it’s her fault when everything falls apart.
Certainly, in writing Amphibian I worked to find both Sissy’s voice and her lens—just like harnessing the right camera angle—packing the prose full of observed details from a twelve-year-old’s point of view as she learns the social hierarchy of her new school and preteen world. But most of all, what Beasts of the Southern Wild showed me—indeed, all three of these films—is the importance of creating a twinned story arc, an interwoven adult narrative witnessed through the child’s point of view.
Like so many girls, Sissy turns to superstition and ritual to make sense of a world she doesn’t yet understand; she casts spells, makes wishes, and believes she’s part of a grand mythic narrative in which she has some control. Part of the heartbreak of the story, I hope, is that while readers invest in this narrative, they also fear it can’t save her.
Tyler Wetherallis the author ofAmphibian(Ig Publishing, 2024) andNo Way Home: A Memoir of Life on the Run(St. Martin’s Press, 2018). Her writing has appeared intheNew York Times,British Vogue, andCondé Nast Traveler, and elsewhere. She is also the creator of the New York City book events newsletterReading the City. Find Tyler on Instagram, @TylerWrites.
image credit: Joel FulgencioLessons From Cinema: Blurring the Line Between Magical Realism and Metaphor
by Tyler Wetherall
11.11.24
In our Craft Capsule series,authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 215.
There is an unexpected transformation at the heart of my debut novel, Amphibian (Ig Publishing, 2024). It appeared accidentally while I was writing, but then the metaphor grew and swallowed the book whole. As this fabulist thread crept onto the page, I found myself asking: What purpose does it serve? Or, the more layered question, is it real? Is it a figment of my protagonist’s overwrought preadolescent imagination or is it actually happening to her? Does it matter?
In an interview with Shimmer magazine, Carmen Maria Machado spoke of her reaction to first reading the genre of magical realism: “It seemed to sync so cleanly with my perception of the world—reality tinged with inexplicable events, a kind of lushness that I understood but had never put a name to.” My guiding lights in literature almost always dabble in the liminal space between the real and the imagined. But I can’t rightly say my book is magical realist. I never set out to depart from the bonds of realism, and once it had happened, I needed to work out if and how it served the story.
I avoid reading fiction when I’m writing because my magpie brain might thieve and mimic. The writer’s voice muddles my own and the polished prose seems superior to anything I can conjure. Cinema avoids these anxieties as a different medium; for me, spoken dialogue evades comparison to its equivalent on the page. Inspired by new worlds of sound and vision, language remains my own; but I can still immerse myself in an adjacent sensory world to the one I’m creating.
I watched every movie I could on girlhood—Catherine Hardwicke’s Thirteen; Céline Sciamma’s Girlhood; Andrea Arnold’s Fish Tank—and then I found myself in a new seam. In Anna Rose Holmer’s The Fits, a tight-knit teen dance troupe starts suffering from a mysterious outbreak of seizures; in Joachim Trier’s quietly unnerving Thelma, the religiously repressed protagonist feels sexual attraction for the first time, and with it comes violent supernatural outbreaks; and in Julia Ducournau’s Raw, a barbaric university hazing unleashes Justine’s true cannibal nature and new desires.
Fabulism in film generally functions with less ambiguity than on the page. In literature, as a cocreation of the text and the reader’s imagination, we might wonder the degree to which what we’re reading is metaphorical or real (it can, of course, be both). Think how Rachel Yoder in Nightbitch (Doubleday, 2021) dispensed with this question almost immediately—her protagonist is very much an actual dog (and a metaphor, too)—while other fabulist books remain purposefully fluid, like the owl-baby in Claire Oshetsky’s Chouette (Ecco, 2022). In film, we’re fluent in visual cues that indicate whether what we’re shown is illusory or otherwise; for example, in Peter Jackson’s Heavenly Creatures, such is the ardor of the two best friends that they depart for a spiritual “fourth world” together, and even though the film shows us this place, it’s clear by the special effects that it’s a shared vision and not a physical realm.
In the fabulist films I found myself rewatching, there is no question that what we’re seeing is real in the story world. I use the term fabulism rather than fantasy, because these films primarily explore personal, human themes, occurring in otherwise realist worlds. But each of them contains a moment of slippage, when we accept the strange as part of the emotional and symbolic logic of the story. In the stomach-churning Raw, this moment comes when a bikini wax goes awry, and Justine tastes human flesh for the first time, snacking hungrily on her sister’s severed finger. It is a perverse twist on the well-worn coming-of-age trope of ritual depilation.
These films use fabulism to make sense of the visceral experience of becoming a woman. They transform body horror into a vehicle of rage and revolt against patriarchal expectations of women’s bodies and behaviors. Coming-of-age, after all, is a time when we depart from the safety of childhood for the perils of socially conditioned womanhood. How apt to represent that by flooding the boundary between the real and the fantastic. Of course, lots of books do this too, but the medium of film afforded me a different clarity as a first-time novelist exploring these muddy waters. The unexpected bodily transformation that appeared in my novel, I saw then, was real but also a metaphor for the radical experience of puberty. In my next draft I needed to find that moment of slippage. To show, as these films had done, that at its onset, female sexuality is so powerful, so subversive, that it ruptures the story world, and sets new rules in motion.
Tyler Wetherallis the author ofAmphibian(Ig Publishing, 2024) andNo Way Home: A Memoir of Life on the Run(St. Martin’s Press, 2018). Her writing has appeared intheNew York Times,British Vogue, andCondé Nast Traveler, and elsewhere. She is also the creator of the New York City book events newsletterReading the City. Find Tyler on Instagram, @TylerWrites.
image credit: Denise JansLessons From Cinema: How Scriptwriting Saved My Novel
by Tyler Wetherall
11.4.24
In our Craft Capsule series,authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 214.
It was one of those calls you never forget: A Hollywood producer wants to talk to you about your book—and not just any producer, but Lynda Obst, who made The Fisher Kingand Interstellar, who paved the way for women in the industry and practically invented the nineties romcom. On the phone, I was nervous; she was sharp, funny, and deliciously no-nonsense. She wanted to adapt my memoir, No Way Home (St. Martin’s Press, 2018), about my childhood on the run from the FBI with my pot-smuggling dad. And, in what still feels like a dream, she offered to mentor me through the process of writing the script.
I put aside my then novel-in-progress, Amphibian; I had hit a wall with it anyway. And over a series of lockdown-era Zoom calls, she in Los Angeles and I in the damp English countryside, I learned how to structure a screenplay. We spent six weeks just on the outline. When Lynda, ever candid, read my first attempt at a beat sheet, she told me if we made this movie it would be four hours long. Weeks of contraction and compression followed; we combined multiple scenes into one and conflated characters. We were so brutal in this process that my brother was cut from the script entirely.
One written page equates to around a minute of film, and with just 125 pages, every single line must count. As I worked on the outline—creating in-depth scene cards—I stuck a Post-it note behind my desk with the reminder: Each scene must achieve three goals: plot (tension), character (conflict), and theme (emotion).
An effective scene can introduce a vital plot point, contributing to rising tension. It can also develop character, demonstrating internal or external conflict. And it can be thematically important, building the emotional texture or tone of the movie. Ideally it achieves all three. And in doing so, it keeps the story moving forward.
Much of the work writing a screenplay comes in the arrangements of these scenes into sequences, and sequences into the larger story, organized in a cause-and-effect relationship. If tension is a thread, then causality is what ties it together, pulling the narrative tighter.
I stuck another invaluable note from Lynda on my desk wall: Each scene should contain a cause with its effect felt later. If you’re asking the viewer to pay attention, when will that attention be rewarded? Because the language on the page of a script is so sparse, every detail has significance.
After a few rounds of revisions, Lynda told me, in her inimitable gravelly voice, that I’d brought her to tears; it was ready to take to market.
While I waited for news and tried not to daydream about my Oscars acceptance speech, I returned to my novel-in-progress—a coming-of-age story about the mythic terror and wonder of girlhood. I’d previously submitted a draft to my agent, who was unconvinced, naming more successful comp titles like My Dark Vanessa (William Morrow, 2020) and Marlena (Henry Holt, 2017). I realized that these books had what mine lacked: propulsion. I’d written a series of pretty scenes, but they lacked that vital thread that tugs the reader through the story—the thread I had just so meticulously constructed when writing a screenplay.
Sitting at my desk, I looked up at the same sticky notes. I realized that Lynda’s directives could also be applied to my novel. The scene is the building block of fiction in prose as much as it is in a script, and yet I hadn’t considered these units of story with the same structural rigor as I’d just practiced over the previous six months.
I knew my characters, their motivations and conflicts; I knew the story world, the plot, and narrative arc. But I hadn’t closely considered the causal relationship between my scenes or the ways they could act as fractals of the whole.
I broke down my novel into an outline, and for each scene I asked myself, what is its goal? What is driving the tension? What does my reader want to know? I tracked the chain of cause and effect throughout the story, looping those threads together. In doing so I saw which scenes didn’t serve the book—or which details didn’t serve the attention of the reader—and followed the same logic of contraction, compression, and conflation I had applied to my screenplay. Whole characters and subplots were cut as ultimately superfluous to the story. And while in fiction there is more space to stretch out, to be elegiac, screenwriting taught me how to effectively use each scene to its greatest potential—and as an agent of propulsion.
Lynda sadly passed away in October. We never got to make our movie together, but I’ll be forever grateful for her mentorship—and that, unbeknownst to her, she saved my novel, too.Amphibian came out from Ig Publishing on October 22.
Tyler Wetherall is the author of Amphibian (Ig Publishing, 2024) and No Way Home: A Memoir of Life on the Run (St. Martin’s Press, 2018). Her writing has appeared inthe New York Times, British Vogue, and Condé Nast Traveler, and elsewhere. She is also the creator of the New York City book events newsletter Reading the City. Find Tyler on Instagram,@TylerWrites.
image credit: Kelly SikkemaSubmitting and Publishing Hybrid Work
by Nina Lohman
10.21.24
In our Craft Capsule series,authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 213.
Here’s the truth: I wasn’t able to publish pieces of The Body Alone: A Lyrical Articulation of Chronic Pain before the University of Iowa Press agreed to publish it as a book. Granted, the book is a bit unconventional. It is an investigation into chronic pain that employs multiple modalities, genres, and approaches to tell a singular story. It is a hybrid nonfiction text in both form and style.
No one wanted to touch it.
Year after year, I submitted portions of the project to various journals and websites only to be met with rejection after steadfast rejection. The rejections were kind and often accompanied by notes from the editor saying that while they appreciated the story and liked my writing style, the fragmented nature of the work, which was essential to my story, didn’t fit inside their publication.
To be fair, as an editor, I get it. This response makes sense to me. The constraints of producing a literary publication are real. Space, editorial energy, budget, theme, and existing contracts all come into play when designing a publication.
But as a writer? I was devastated. Rejections, no matter how many years we are in this game, still hurt, don’t they? Writing and submitting work for publication is ever an exercise in vulnerability.
Eventually, thankfully, obviously, I found an editor whose excitement for the project matched her vision for what the book had the potential to become. From the get-go, Susan Hill Newton, managing editor at the University of Iowa Press, embraced the hybrid nature of the text and was prepared to champion it through the publication process.
The struggle to publish my own hybrid writing was largely the impetus for launching Brink, a literary journal that celebrates hybrid and cross-genre work from creatives who often exist outside traditional genres and disciplines. For almost five years, Brink has worked to identify and alleviate a gap in the literary world for writers and artists whose work defies category. We published White Magic (Tin House, 2022),author Elissa Washuta’s Twitter thread chronicling her experience at a magic convention, the Iowa Review editor Lynne Nugent’s pandemic diary essay along with thumbnail images from an entire year’s worth of Instagram posts, and writer Mary Mandeville’s interview with a tree.
As I prepared my own book for publication, I borrowed heavily from my experience as an editor. Having spent time on both sides of the writing and publication process, here are my top three tips for submitting hybrid work for publication:
First, be able to articulate the reasons behind the hybrid nature of your work. This isn’t a defense; it’s an opportunity to reinforce why your choices matter. Clarifying these decisions may help you and your editor determine how best to frame the work when presenting it to a wider audience.
Second, identify design priorities. When it comes to translating your work onto the printed page, there’s a good chance you may need to make some concessions regarding layout, color, or design. Know which parts of your piece are unalterable and which parts are amenable to change.
Third, consider the best use of formatting for teaching readers how to interact with your piece. When it comes to hybrid work, it’s not uncommon for readers to need a moment to situate themselves in a piece to learn their way around. Consider, and talk with your editor, about obstacles and opportunities with respect to leading readers through your work.
When it comes to hybrid writing, the tide is turning. More and more, editors are publishing unconventional narratives and cross-genre work. If your writing prioritizes more than one modality, if you blend formal boundaries, if you are committed to seeing more hybrid work in the literary world, take the next step and send your work out for publication. Then send it out again. Then, if you need to, send it out again and again and again. It’s worth the wait, I promise.
Nina Lohman’s book,The Body Alone: A Lyrical Articulation of Chronic Pain(University of Iowa Press, 2024), is an inquiry into the experience, meaning, and articulation of pain.
image credit: Lukas Tennie.Hybrid Writing and the Story Without an Ending
by Nina Lohman
10.7.24
In our Craft Capsule series,authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 212.
In the opening pages of my new book,The Body Alone: A Lyrical Articulation of Chronic Pain, I spoil the ending:
I should tell you now, this is a story that doesn’t end well.
Or maybe it’s better to say that this is a story that doesn’t end how you think it will end.
Or maybe I should just tell it to you exactly like it is: This is a story that doesn’t end.
Perhapsspoilis the wrong word.The Body Aloneisn’t a murder mystery in which the plot hinges on a surprise reveal. Far from it. It is a hybrid nonfiction reckoning with chronic pain as I have experienced it for the last seventeen years. It wouldn’t be wrong to say the book is the antithesis of a reveal. Maybedisclosureis a better word: In the opening pages I disclose the book’s ending. I pull the ending from the final pages and strategically place it at the beginning. This move not only distorts the traditional narrative structure but also invites readers into a wider, more true experience of the story.
By subverting the narrative arc in this way, I put all my cards on the table. It was a cue, a calculated decision that clarified expectations while properly positioning readers to approach the text. Because on the one hand,The Body Aloneis all about endings. I scrutinize the limits of language. I do my best to portray the fragile end of hope. My research treks to the end of available medical information. The book chronicles the ending of one version of life. It holds the end of a marriage. It witnesses the end of patience with a healthcare system that shrugs its shoulders at the millions of women who live with chronic pain. From this perspective, the early and repeated emphasis on endings makes perfect sense. But on the other hand, the book actively resists the idea that answers are synonymous with endings.
So why did this narrative arc matter to the story I was telling? How did subverting the traditional chronological format, one that places the ending at the end and not the beginning, expand and enhance the book?
One of the challenges I encountered while writing this book was how to tell a story that was still in motion, one that lacked a resolute ending. My focus wasn’t on a singular event from the past. And because the book was rooted in memoir, I wasn’t afforded the luxury of distance from my subject. I needed to write from within the confines of an evolving story; the way I saw Abby Norman write about her ongoing struggle to receive proper care and treatment for endometriosis inAsk Me About My Uterus: A Quest to Make Doctors Believe in Women’s Pain (Bold Type Books, 2018), or how Sarah Manguso carefully chronicled her illness in her memoirThe Two Kinds of Decay(Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008). The goal was to put my finger on the truth, or at least a version of truth, while the story unraveled around me. How could I write about uncertainty with the confidence typically afforded to clarity? What would it look like to focus on crafting questions instead of delivering answers? Not only was it necessary to make peace with the fact that the story didn’t have a neat and tidy ending, but I also needed to integrate this reality into the very structure of the book.
The only way I was able to accomplish this was within the hybrid form ofThe Body Alone. The book required more than one literary modality to tell the story it needed to tell. For the experience of the story to be properly communicated, in addition to a memoir thread I would need to incorporate selected medical records. I would need to call out the lack of vocabulary words to express the full experience of pain. The text needed to contain research and poetry and criticism. Together, these multiple elements hit the necessary notes for the story to progress. Within the text, there are boundaries, movement, and micro-moments of resolution and rest. Embracing the story’s hybridity created space to set aside the traditional quest for resolution in favor of crafting a narrative that honors questions and dignifies uncertainty.
Hybridity makes room in the literary world for writing that looks and sounds and feels different on the page. It pushes the boundaries inside genre by utilizing multiple literary forms, techniques, or designs to create new work. At the same time, hybridity exists outside genre because it intentionally combines cross-genre modalities to tell a single story. So whether it exists inside or outside genre, hybrid writing is guided by an understanding of and commitment to the belief that certain stories require specific layering, combining, and formatting. I am drawn to hybridity, especially when writing about the body, because it embraces rather than challenges malleability and opens space for voices and stories that have previously struggled to find publication. Though writers may experiment, test, and try many methods throughout the process of writing, hybrid writing itself is not an experiment. It’s a realized form that respects the symbiotic relationships among form, content, and reader.
Nina Lohman’s book,The Body Alone: A Lyrical Articulation of Chronic Pain(University of Iowa Press, 2024), is an inquiry into the experience, meaning, and articulation of pain.
image credit: Juan Rojas.Hybrid Writing and the Nonlinear Story
by Nina Lohman
9.30.24
In our Craft Capsule series,authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 211.
Sometime in my twenties I began to lose track of time. It’s not that I couldn’t mind the hours of the day or the days of the week; I lost my ability to locate specific moments in the timeline of life. When did I start graduate school? When did we move to Colorado? What year did we buy the house? Can I name, with certainty and without looking at photos or a calendar, a single thing that took place in 2010?
It’s no great mystery why this happened. Life, as it does, expanded. My babies were born, and sleep was lost; my body began protesting its container, and life agitated in one direction and then the other. Time unfolded unequally in moments of quick succession and monotonous, colorless stretches. There were somehow more moments to track but, concurrently, fewer anchors—fewer instances when life indelibly rooted itself in specific moments and places. Timestamps gave way to seasons. I didn’t want to remember how many years it had been since the pain started. Or maybe the moments were less about me and more about others. Or maybe there were just fewer big events to track.
When I began writing The Body Alone:A Lyrical Articulation of Chronic Pain(University of Iowa Press, July 2024), time refused a linear structure. The book is a hybrid nonfiction reckoning with chronic pain as I have experienced it for the last seventeen years. It combines memoir and medical records with vocabulary lessons and primers, research and scholarship, poetry and criticism. Through these various perspectives and voices, I chronicle nearly two decades of physical pain while pushing back on the inadequate and unequal healthcare provided to women in the United States.
When I say time refused a linear structure what I mean is this: As I wrote, the problem wasn’t my ability to recall specific events (though, clearly, as I have established, that happened), it was that the experience I was working to communicate warped time itself. For the book to be true, the reader needed to experience the same corruption of time I experienced. Time had to be malleable. It needed to stumble along and stall and trip and repeat itself and stretch on for too long and repeat itself and feel like it was both choking and slipping away and never—never—in my control. My job was to figure out how the book could hold time firmly with two hands while also making it disappear.
By abandoning traditional memoir form and structure, hybridity let my writing shape the narrative timeline to conform to my lived experience, not the other way around. The nonlinear structure of the book created an opportunity to reprioritize and reassign meaning. It provided space to question, to reflect, to interrogate the story I was trying to tell.
The chronology of pain is circuitous. Its nature is to evade—to beckon you to follow its winding path. Honoring this unexpected truth opened space in my life and creative practice. By losing track of time, by loosening the hold it had on my narrative, I gained a better grasp on the reality of my experience and the possibility of my writing.
Nina Lohman’s book, The Body Alone: A Lyrical Articulation of Chronic Pain(University of Iowa Press, 2024), is an inquiry into the experience, meaning, and articulation of pain.
image credit: Aron Visuals.Embodied Writing: Breathe, Breathe, Breathe
by Geoff Bouvier
9.9.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 210.
I’m going to give you a writing exercise, but first, a note about bodily writing exercises, or, as the poet CAConrad calls one version of them, “somatic” writing exercises. Whimsical to the point of joyful absurdity, Conrad’s exercises engage the writer’s body in ways that aim for mindful discomfort. The goal is to get the writer in touch with unusual sensations that may have become trapped within a body conditioned by comfort and the status quo. For instance, one of Conrad’s somatic exercises involves being home alone and standing naked in a bucket of water and peering through the peephole of your front door. And then you’re supposed to whistle as you write. And you’re not supposed to write about the experience itself, but rather, from the sensations and feelings that arise. Interestingly, even the “body” of each CAConrad poem reflects this concern with soma-as-form, body-as-form: Every one of Conrad’s poems looks physically different on the page from every other poem.
My writing exercise isn’tthatstrange, but it may leave you with sore fingers.
I once took a printmaking class some decades ago, and the professor was a British man who had learned printmaking from some famous old master, and he told a story of his first day in the master’s calligraphy class, where they had to write the letter “O.” And they wrote the letter “O” over and over and over, until their hands got tired, and the O’s no longer looked like O’s, and by the time the bell rang at the end of the first day of class, they all wanted to drop calligraphy and take up any other trade than printmaking. But my printmaking teacher told me he learned so much that day, merely from the repetitive act of pushing his body and his concentration to their limits.
So that story got me thinking, and I came up with this exercise that I’ve done with dozens of classes over the years, and that I’ve done myself dozens of times over the years, whenever I need to jumpstart my writing and remind myself to get back inside my minded body. The exercise is designed to free the writing hand from the logical mind, and to help us write from a place that is wholly present within our bodies and within the writing space—just our bodies and our pens (or typewriters) and our pages.
This exercise takes about ten minutes total, and you’ll need a timer. (I also find that this exercise works very differently if you use a pen and a large piece of notebook paper or if you decide to type it. Definitely try it both ways!) As you start the timer, you begin writing (or typing) a single word over and over. Try “breathe.” Write “breathe” at a good, even pace, not too fast, not too slow, over and over, across the top lines of the page. And keep rendering that word, over and over, for three whole minutes. (It’s a long time! Your fingers may start to hurt.) Then, after three minutes, start writing or typing “breathe” at twice the pace, and render that word over and over for about a minute at a really fast pace. And then slow it back down, and write “breathe” for two more minutes at a good, even pace, not too fast, not too slow. Periodically while you’re writing this word, try chanting the word “breathe” at the same pace that you’re writing it. And then, finally, after six minutes or so, let your tired hand(s) start writing whatever words you want to write. But here’s the important thing: Never stop writing, and don’t slow down and don’t speed up. Write whatever you want but write it at the same clip as you were just writing “breathe.” If you get stuck, just write “breathe” again, but whatever you do, keep your pen on the page (or keep your typing fingers moving), don’t stop writing, don’t slow down, and don’t speed up.
Here’s what my body wrote—edited down for concision and space purposes—in a recent somatic writing session where I decided to type the word “glass” repeatedly. (My drinking glass happened to be next to me at my standing desk.)
glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glagg glass glass glass glass gllaas gllas glass glass glass glasg glasglg glass glass glassg gl glassglass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glas. glas glass glass galss glass glass glass glas glass glass glass gasses glasses gasser aghast a glass in the grass a glass in a class a gas is not a glass a glass is not a gas? a glass is neither liquid nor solid too silently silent why so silent? what’s it saying? what are you saying, drinking glass, wordless longing tearing seating sweating wanting wanting wanting glassing glassing glass glass glass glass gllas can you sing? are you singing glass? singing wanting singing shattering singing before shattering singing singing mouthing opening mouthing wanting bady-birding
This is what my body wrote, when I freed it up from my logical mind. Within all the repeated syllables, and the misspellings, I found my fingers stumbling upon some really good images and phrases, and eventually I was wholly, viscerally caught up in a personification of my humble drinking glass. Here’s the poem I’ve been refining from that recent exercise:
Drinking Glass
What is it? Why so insistent?
Mouth wide,
yearning, baby-birding…
What can fill your wordless longing?
And why so upset?
Tears
bunch up
around you and drop.
Or is that sweat?
Such an effort to hold the cold?
Lifted from my table,
you leave a perfect empty circle.
Say something solid, if liquid
wasn’t what you wanted.
Or if you were
hot for it, then sing.
Here, my glass.
I’ll help you bring
your high-toned ring.
Or is silence
your persistent stance
because it’s better?
Since any tune
you tell foretells
the clatter
when you’ll shatter.
My body began writing this poem, and now, even as my mind has begun taking up the revision, I’m still using somatic techniques—running the images down the page so that my eye must travel, keeping the phrases at a similar length-of-breath, imagining the “body” of my drinking glass as being similar to my own body, and its desires being similar to mine, and so forth.
If you free up your own writing from your logical mind, what might your body have you write?
Geoff Bouvier’s new book,Us From Nothing(Black Lawrence Press, 2024), is a poetic history that spans from the Big Bang to the near future.
image credit: Dicky Jiang.Embodied Writing: Our Spider-Senses
by Geoff Bouvier
9.2.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 209.
The proprioceptive nervous system is fascinating. Every millimeter of our bodies is covered with a rhizomic net of tiny interconnected nerves—the proprioceptors—right below the skin and embedded in all of our muscles, which handles balance and motor control. Our proprioceptors are like our antennae, constantly picking up subliminal data from within our bodies and from the outside world. They’re like our “spider-senses.”
What would happen if we could write directly from our spider-senses?
I once had a short foray into stagecraft, and from that experience, I learned that there’s a difference between acting and what cinema and theater folks call “indicating.” To indicate is to smile, for instance, when you’re trying to show happiness. But an actor showing happiness doesn’t smile; a good actor showing happiness to an audience starts by recalling memories of happy times in their lives, and then conjuring actual feelings of happiness. Then, the actor’s face and body glow with that feeling, and that feeling is transmitted to the audience.
I think writers can benefit from the same practice—to stop “indicating” on the page and start expressing real feelings. For example, if you’re writing about joy, perhaps you recall a collection of moments when you were happy, or you remember a piece of joyful music, and that memory makes your body respond, and perhaps you feel your chin lift slightly, and your breath shortens, and a catch rises up and stops in your throat, and then you can find language from that place of feeling, to render joy onto the page. Actors call extreme instances of this technique “method acting,” and I’m a big advocate of the concept of going into character and remaining in character while writing. Why not call it “method writing”? (Well, one reason why not has been illustrated by the great screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, who once broke his own nose while acting out the emotions and situations he was method writing about.)
My undergraduate creative writing students have learned to expect method writing exercises almost every day in my classes. We’ll all breathe together for a short time, becoming aware of our individual embodiedness, and we’ll meditate on a particular emotion—happiness, joy, anger, pain, lovesickness, understanding, confusion. Then we’ll endeavor to write images that reflect that emotion. The imagery my students produce always seems more vivid and considered if we first take a few moments to meditate upon the bodily sensations that might drive the image. Here are a few examples of method-written images students have composed for various emotions:
Desire:
A hand that never stops reaching
You take out my heart, grind it up, and inject it back into me bit by bit
Confusion:
A white Republican with a rainbow pride tattoo
Buzzing rainbow static brain
Heart galloping in place
Brain fibers twist and strain
Understanding:
A gray cat who comes when you call her name
The flickering basement bulb finally gets changed
Both of us cry at the end of a fight
Whether or not these images convey the emotions that inspired them, I find them all to be more or less vivid, visceral, weird, and wonderful. And they’re much stronger than the images my students write when they don’t tune into their feelings and go into their bodied imaginations to find them.
To state it plainly, if you’re going to “method write” from your feelings, then you need to be in touch with your body and the physical sensations that give rise to those feelings.
If you want to try the exercise I do with my students, first, pick an emotion or situation. Let’s say, “anxiety.”
Now, begin by simply breathing in and out.
Each time you breathe, make sure the breaths are very deep and considered.
See how the increased oxygen makes your head feel different.
Press your hands lightly together. Feel the texture of your palms.
Think about your posture. Adjust your head and back.
Make sure you’re breathing from your belly, not from your upper chest and shoulders.
Think about the soles of your feet as they touch the ground.
Think about your facial expression. Try to relax your face, perhaps even smile a little, even if you don’t mean it.
Let the tension release from your muscles. Keep your hands pressed together.
Now try to experience the sensations of all of your proprioceptors. What is the back of your neck telling you? The area behind your left knee? The very top of your head? One by one, try tuning in to the unconsidered parts of your body.
Now shift to considering your chosen emotion: “Anxiety.” Where does that emotion seem to begin? How does it spread? What shape does it take as it spreads? What’s happening to your heartbeat, your stomach, and your breath? How are your proprioceptors responding to the feeling of anxiety? Does the feeling seem to attach to an object in the world? It’s important to remember that you are having this emotion; don’t let the emotion have you, as it were. You are in control. (Not only has this exercise helped me write better, but it has also helped me to better master my feelings, instead of letting my feelings become the master of me. Perhaps an exercise such as this one can help you to only feel anxiety when you invite it, for writing purposes!)
Here are some images that I came up with for “anxiety.” I keep these images inside a notebook on a page marked “anxiety images,” for use whenever I’m in a writing session and I have a character who has a moment of anxiety, or a poem needs to shift through an anxious moment.
He clenched his hands together until they felt like a single hand. His teeth inside his closed mouth were like a bag of blunt nails. He was aware of the nerves inside his hairs. His spine huddled up to his lungs, and his whole face converged at a single point, lips at the tip. His ears were an inch apart, with a 4thof July sparkler fizzing between them. His skin had become a dense material. His forehead wadded like an unimportant piece of paper.
Method writing has helped me render emotions more vividly and viscerally. Perhaps these practices can do the same for you.
Geoff Bouvier’s new book,Us From Nothing(Black Lawrence Press, 2024), is a poetic history that spans from the Big Bang to the near future.
image credit: Jez Timms.Embodied Writing: One Body, Many Parts
by Geoff Bouvier
8.26.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 208.
If you’ve ever played a brass or wind instrument, you know how much the whole body contributes to each note. Picking up the saxophone or oboe again after months of not playing, your facial muscles and diaphragm fatigue in moments, you can’t breathe properly, and the few notes you can manage sound terrible. The body, as much as the instrument, produces the sound. And the body, as much as the instrument, must be kept in tune.
Speaking, of course, is also done with the body—the throat, the mouth, and the breath, but also the rest of our body too, if we’re really aware of it. Once, I had the opportunity to sing with an opera diva friend, and her voice seemed to vibrate from every pore of her skin—her open mouth just like one more sound-producing pore.
Writing, too, is done with the body—the entire body.
In ancient Greece, before the advent of Western dualistic consciousness, the body was much more considered. In the Iliad, Achilles understands in terms of his physical / corporeal sensations. His breath grows shallow, his heart quivers, his blood rushes, his adrenalin surges, his stomach cramps, his eyes dart or cloud over, and only then does Achilles know how to act. For ancient Greeks, in the time of the Iliad at least, cause and effect were flipped, and a body’s responses were understood to cause a person’s actions. Memories arose from the lungs. A heartbeat could sense danger. The pressurized, dilating rush of adrenaline seemed like another person, almost like a guardian angel, who showed up whenever needed, and took over one’s bodily frame. The stomach of an Iliad-era Greek was the seat of that person’s responses—heaving, sinking, loosening, jumping at the slightest stimulus. Ancient Greeks must have been highly sensitive people.
Nowadays, we fold all of those bodily sensations, all of that psychosomatic feedback, the entire construct of knowing and understanding, into a single inadequate word—“feelings.” But we should remember that our bodies are constantly in motion: blood is coursing, organs and tissues are expanding and contracting, electrical signals transmit to and from the brain. The cells inside our eyes are shifting in response to light. Our noses are riddled with receptor cells and neurons. A spidery web of proprioceptor nerves reacts to the slightest changes in the body’s position. All of these bodily motions combine and enter our consciousness as feelings.
My own writing process has transformed as I’ve come to these realizations about my body. Now I almost always begin my writing sessions by stretching, and then I keep my laptop and notebooks on a standing desk, often continuing to stretch or even dance as I write or type out lines and sentences. I might switch to sitting for a bit, focusing on my posture and my breathing, before I switch to standing up again.
The form of my writing has also changed with these new awarenesses and practices. My phrases are more breath-driven, which I know because I often speak out loud what I’m writing as I’m writing it. My narratives are more patient, and my imagery is more sensation-driven. Even the content of my body-based writing has shifted into realms that feel far more vulnerable, generous, and inclusive.
In short, I’m a better writer, now that I’m more mindful of my body’s role in my creative processes. It’s more than “being in touch with my feelings.” It’s the realization that the body, the entire body, actually creates the written work.
Geoff Bouvier’s new book,Us From Nothing(Black Lawrence Press, 2024), is a poetic history that spans from the Big Bang to the near future.
image credit:Leon Kohle.Nonfiction as Writing Companion
by Alejandro Puyana
8.12.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 207.
I am the type of fiction writer who leans on the real world for inspiration and guidance: newspapers, radio, stories from friends and loved ones, documentaries, and, of course, nonfiction books. I find I work best when confined by the margins of history, time, and geography. I’m comforted by the structure provided by real-life events, and the solidity of a foundation already in place.
When embarking on a new long-form fiction project, or deep in the quagmire of an existing one, nonfiction can often serve as an inspiration, or a lifeline, for writing. In the crafting of my own novel, Freedom Is a Feast, set in Venezuela from the 1960s to 2013, I found nonfiction companions that led to exciting detail, enhanced the voice of my characters, and gave a sheen of truth to my narrative.
There are different starting places when identifying nonfiction sources that might help you in your writing. My two favorites are: Important Moments and Important People.
Important Moments: What are moments of historical significance that take place during your narrative? How are your characters affected by these events? How does their world change because of them? In Jesmyn Ward’s novel Salvage the Bones (Bloomsbury, 2011), a teenage girl is trying to hide her pregnancy from her family, and then Hurricane Katrina strikes. In A Brief History of Seven Killings (Riverhead Books, 2017) by Marlon James, a diverse cast of characters, from small-time Jamaican gangsters to middle-class love-stricken women to CIA operatives, are figuring out their lives, converging on the attempted murder of Bob Marley in 1976. In Toni Morrison’s Jazz (Knopf 1992), a story of love, betrayal, and murder occurs in the midst of the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s. The key here is identifying those defining historical moments, and then looking for books, articles, documentaries, that dig deep into that history. You’ll be surprised how easy it is to find interesting details to work into your narrative.
Part of my novel takes place during the 2002 coup d’etat against Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. While reading The Silence and the Scorpion: The Coup Against Chavez and the Making of Modern Venezuela (Nation Books, 2009), Brian Nelson recounts the state of Vargas Hospital during that time. My characters navigate that space during the book, and plenty of detail—from the chalkboard listing essential items the hospital lacks, to the triage system the hospital used—came from there. It’s one of my great joys in writing to take those details and make my characters interact with them, to fold them into my narrative in exciting and surprising ways.
Important People: Which historical figures played important roles in the time when your book takes place? What effect did they have on your world? On your characters? In Junot Diaz’s The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao (Riverhead Books, 2007), Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo looms large, even years after his death. So does Arturo Pinochet in Isabel Allende’s The House of the Spirits (Knopf, 1982), even though he’s never named. Biographies can provide great texture, historical context, even voice to your project.
In Freedom Is a Feast, one of my main characters, Stanislavo, is based on Teodoro Petkoff, a family friend and Venezuelan historical figure. A revolutionary turned politician turned journalist with a mythical biography. I had so much material to mine in the crafting of my character, from Solo los Estúpidos No Cambian de Opinión: Conversaciones con Teodoro Petkoff (Editorial Alfa, 2006) by Alonso Moleiro, to Teodoro’s own writing as a journalist and essayist. I took details I felt were important to my narrative, and discarded others. For crafting my character of Tortuga, a prison kingpin that rules over the population of Cárcel Patria y Próceres, I combed newspapers chronicling the lavish and outlandish stories of real-life prison “pranes” in Venezuela, and combined attributes I found interesting to add to the life of the character I was creating on the page.
I like to think of it this way: My story, my characters, the emotional themes of the narrative, the main ingredients of the dish I was making, came from inside—they were things I needed to say. But a lot of the spice, the sauces, the sides of my book, I harvested from the world. I found inspiration in nonfiction books, in newspapers, documentaries, photography, and in stories passed down. I was stuck countless times, and I turned to nonfiction as a way out. You can do it too.
Alejandro Puyanamoved to the United States from Venezuela at the age of twenty-six. In 2022 he completed his MFA at the Michener Center for Writers at the University of Texas in Austin. His debut novel,Freedom Is a Feast, will be published on August 20 by Little, Brown. His fiction has appeared inAmerican Short Fiction, theAmerican Scholar,New England Review, and other venues; his story “The Hands of Dirty Children” was selected by Curtis Sittenfeld forThe Best American Short Stories 2020(Mariner Books).He lives with his wife and daughter in Austin, Texas.
Art: ZoeDesire, Physicality, Contradiction
by Alejandro Puyana
8.5.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 206.
My debut novel, Freedom Is a Feast—which focuses on four members of a family divided by the chaos of a crumbling country—is set in Venezuela and switches points of view and historical setting often. One of the biggest challenges I faced was to bring these four characters to life in a way that gave them each a unique voice and presence. Whenever I felt stuck with a character, I leaned on three things to shake free: motivation, physicality, and complexity. I found that by investigating character in this way, I could not only create compelling, human, three-dimensional characters, but also lay the groundwork for strong plot, convincing setting, and the all-elusive element of “surprise” readers look for when consuming fiction.
Let’s take on desire first. “What does your character want?” This is one of the most frequently asked questions in any fiction workshop or class for a reason. Knowing your character’s desire in the story does three things (among many others):
- It creates a bond with readers (we can all relate to wanting something), and it gives them something to latch onto. In its simplest form it creates a question in their mind: Will the character get what they want by the end of the story? It gives readers the most basic of reasons to keep reading.
- It makes it easy to create conflict (another big word in craft). Anything that goes against your character’s motivation, that poses an obstacle to their desire, is immediately interesting. Conflict can exist in the real world (a traffic jam when someone is trying to get to the hospital), or it can reside in a character’s interiority (the memory of a breakup does not allow the character to fully commit to their new partner, even though they love them). Having a clear desire creates plentiful and easy opportunities to create conflict.
- It helps in crafting compelling plot. It provides clarity for the reader, since they have an idea of what the character wants and is willing to find out what happens. It keeps the reader hooked because the writer can easily introduce conflict to the story. And ultimately, It helps in figuring out the ending of a story: does the character get what they want? Do they not? And what are the consequences? In this way plot and character are interwoven.
If desire is the motor of character, then physicality is the car itself. Character description can be important: Describing what they look like or what they wear can paint a picture of the character for the reader that keeps them engaged. But those are the basics. To create memorable characters, we must move from appearance to physicality. I like to think of physicality as how a character experiences the world in their body, and how they move through it. Notice that this definition is dependent on “the world,” and by that I mean whatever exists around the character that they can experience physically: a chair, a punch to the face, the smell of cut grass, bright lights, a honking horn. Here are some ways to capture physicality in your fiction:
- Focus on the senses! Especially the three every writer uses the least: smell, touch and taste. The more the character experiences the world through their senses, the more real they become to the reader. But that’s not all; the beauty of physicality is that it works two ways. It makes characters more defined, and it does the same for the world around them, helping you create compelling setting in the process.
- Have your character move through spaces. How does your character walk? How much room do they take up? What marks do their bodies leave in the world? Movement, weight, and shape are way more important for characters than the color of their hair and eyes. One trick I’ve often used to reveal character physicality (and bring setting to life) is to place them in a crowded space: My novel, Freedom Is a Feast, is full of packed buses, busy offices, cramped streets full of protesters.
- Have your character interact with objects. Often, settings can seem like painted backdrops in a play. They can be beautiful, exquisite even, but ultimately lifeless. Both character and setting come to life when they interact with each other. So have characters sit in the uncomfortable looking chair, have them climb the tree, have them poked by the cactus. More important: Let us know how it feels to them.
Finally, if there’s one thing that every reader loves it’s to be surprised (in a good way). A story can be competent in all aspects and still leave the reader wanting more. It’s usually something hard to put a finger on, and therefore hard to manufacture in craft, but I’ve found that by adding small but interesting contradictions to a character’s personality one can create delight, interest, and surprise. Think about your character’s defining traits. What small part of their personality can cut against the grain of that? Remember, no one is purely one thing or another, everyone feels themselves the hero of their own story, and all of us have small idiosyncrasies that make us human.
When writing Freedom Is a Feast, I was having issues with Tortuga, the ruthless kingpin of a Venezuelan prison. He seemed one-dimensional, like a stereotypical villain in a B-movie. It wasn’t until I gave him a hobby that he opened up to me as a character. His pure, child-like love for playing the timbales made him real and affected the way I wrote him even in the scenes where he was showing his ruthlessness.
Picking a small contradiction and showing it on the page, with attention to detail and in a way that feels natural to the story, is a great way to round out a character and give your reader a delightful moment of surprise.
Alejandro Puyanamoved to the United States from Venezuela at the age of twenty-six. In 2022 he completed his MFA at the Michener Center for Writers at the University of Texas in Austin. His debut novel,Freedom Is a Feast, will be published on August 20 by Little, Brown. His fiction has appeared inAmerican Short Fiction, theAmerican Scholar,New England Review, and other venues; his story “The Hands of Dirty Children” was selected by Curtis Sittenfeld forThe Best American Short Stories 2020(Mariner Books).He lives with his wife and daughter in Austin, Texas.
Art: Martin MartzFood and Fiction
by
7.29.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 205.
While I was growing up in Venezuela, Sunday was always a sacred day, but not in the Mass-attending ways of my Catholic peers. The grill was our church, my father the priest, a piece of punta trasera (picanha roast, here in the United States) our communion. The act of gathering around a kitchen table, drinks in hand, and telling stories has always been the way my family created shared memories. All three of us siblings now have a close relationship with food, none more than my sister, who became a classically trained chef and has worked in the food industry for over twenty-five years.
Those Sunday meals in Venezuela are also very much the reason why my debut novel, forthcoming next month from Little, Brown, is titled Freedom Is a Feast.As I discovered the plot of the book, way before the title had come to me, I often found food forcing its way into the narrative, which I recorded in exciting bursts of creativity. Writing those scenes made me feel like that ideal version of an author one imagines: overtaken by inspiration and unable to stop writing.
Apart from my own—let’s call it intense—love affair with food, I also found writing about eating to be an amazing tool for connecting with the reader. During my MFA, one of my professors, the amazing Elizabeth McCracken, always stressed the importance of finding your characters’ bodies. On the page, we have to fight the tendency to depict our characters as nothing more than floating orbs of interiority, merely recording what’s around them without feeling any of it. But the physical constraints that rule us in the real world must rule our characters in the fictional one. The best way I found to follow this truism is to engage fully with my character’s senses, especially the underused ones: smell, touch, and taste. And scenes involving food, I discovered, allowed me instant access to all of my characters’ senses, placing them firmly inside their bodies.
My early readers (MFA peers and professors) expressed feeling immersed, joyful, in these culinary moments in my fiction. I realized that the beauty of food in writing, as in real life, is not only its ability to connect directly with the body but to compel the mind. Food—in its taste, smell, and texture—can be transporting. It conjures thoughts and memories. It can send a character, in their interiority, to wherever you want to take them.
In Freedom Is a Feast, characters often find themselves in forms of confinement—physical, societal, ideological. But food allows them moments of metaphorical freedom. When Eloy, a young man sentenced to prison, burns the roof of his mouth on an empanada, for example, the experience reminds him of his home and of his mother. It even plays a literal role in one character’s freedom: Stanislavo attempts to escape political prison by consuming pig’s blood and faking an illness. When María cooks a quesillo and brings it to her estranged father, the smell of caramel and the pleasure of that first bite creates a connection between them that feels like an exhale in the narrative. In these sublime moments of physicality, when hunger gives way to satisfaction, characters become more like real people.
So the next time you’re stuck on a flat character, put a plate in front of them. Let them dig in, and see what it reveals about their present or their past. Buen provecho.
Alejandro Puyana moved to the United States from Venezuela at the age of twenty-six. In 2022 he completed his MFA at the Michener Center for Writers at the University of Texas in Austin. His debut novel, Freedom Is a Feast, will be published on August 20 by Little, Brown. His fiction has appeared in American Short Fiction, the American Scholar, New England Review, and other venues; his story “The Hands of Dirty Children” was selected by Curtis Sittenfeld forThe Best American Short Stories 2020 (Mariner Books).He lives with his wife and daughter in Austin, Texas.
Art: Sarah RicherThe Power of Nerding Out
by August Thompson
7.15.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 204.
There are only six men alive who know what I look like, what I sound like, when I am not August Thompson but Mordreth the Guwop, a high elf wizard banished from the kingdom of Aerenal. This transformation comes each time my “party” and I sit down to play Dungeons & Dragons (DnD). Long relegated to the kingdom of nerds, DnD is a fantasy tabletop role-playing game centered around adventuring, cooperation, and fate dictated by the roll of twenty-sided dice. As a writer, I’ve found the game to be more than old-fashioned, geeky fun: It’s a benefit to my work, offering the perfect relief from the anxiety of authorship and a perpetual source of inspiration.
A great difficulty I face as an author is my almost constant preoccupation with my writing when I’m away from the desk. It’s not that I’m rendered useless when in this overthinking writing-mode. I can do plenty of other things. In fact, life insists I do: I read, go to the movies, get drinks with friends, and, mainly, work day jobs. It’s just that I do all of this with a constant, buzzing guilt in the background, like the screech of a mosquito right behind my amygdala. Life itself becomes a type of miserable word-association game: If someone mentions, say, an adjective I type too much, like “oblong,” or a ridiculous date they had, or any single thing that might be related to the novel I’m working on, the present is robbed from me. I am no longer here and now, instead focused only on what is wrong with my novel and what I should be doing to fix it.
It seems the only time I’m not anxious about my writing is when I’m role-playing during DnD, which is an act of total embodiment. That might sound counterintuitive, given that one becomes someone—or something—other than oneself during the game (look up tiefling to get an idea of just how freaky things can get). But in DnD’s performance I have found a rare opportunity to inhabit the moment, to quiet that buzzing anxiety, to achieve catharsis. The experience helps me to return to the writing desk feeling refreshed and renewed.
The presence one attains through DnD is much like the reflex one feels while playing a sport, which draws on natural instinct and hard-earned muscle-memory. A good DnD session is predicated on the combination of a thorough foundation in character creation (the role-playing equivalent of years of athletic conditioning) and very quick thinking. “Hark the fireball coming to kill you, cast counter-spell in time to survive,” I, as Mordreth the Guwop, might think during a session. There’s no opportunity to ponder my response to another player’s move or to dawdle, lest I annoy everyone else in my party—one of DnD’s true faux pas.
Because of the speed of creative decision-making required by DnD, during sessions I am constantly witnessing my friends, in character, make choices that surprise me. Choices that affect every player around them, that affect the very nature of Eberron, the world in which DnD is set. This brings me to DnD’s second great boon to my writing life: the reminder that characters must live by their decisions. Whether these choices are brash or logical, unethical or just, you move forward, no mulligans. This goes for the more diplomatic side of the game—namely, trying to get quest-related information from the non-player characters in the world around you. And it goes for combat—namely, trying to kill a whole bunch of goblins, ghouls, or other creatures before all of you die.
What I love about this game is that I am constantly inspired and taken aback by the spontaneity and ingenuity of my compatriots, who have found brilliant ways out of predicaments, outwitted noblemen, crushed hordes of bandits, saved my (metaphorical) life. Their decisions in DnD, as in the real world, can be arbitrary, panic-driven, gut-reactionary, or wise. But the result is always the same: Their actions manifest consequences that ripple outward in unforeseen ways.
Unpredictability and the power of cause and effect are easy for me to ignore while I’m writing; this solitary act can lead to a kind of solipsistic thinking if I’m not careful. I can grow overly intimate with the characters I create, assuming I know everything about them, including exactly how they will behave at any given moment. Without even realizing it, I can force my characters to follow a neat logic that matches the narrative I have in mind for them. I can give my characters a do-over. (And I do, of course—we, in the biz, call that editing.) But I’ve realized that is often a cheap way to dodge difficult authorial decisions. If a character in my novel cheats on a partner, for example, it’s tempting to erase all of that in order to make them more likable or to avoid writing about a messy, taxing situation. This is where the dreaded “character arc” comes in. The arc is beautiful in theory but dangerous in practice—because there is an element of artifice to it.
In truth, my favorite people are much like the gnomes and half-orcs I run with during my DnD sessions. They act on impulse, move quickly, are inconsistent. They mean well, usually. They change their minds often. But most important, they are wholly present, doing their best to survive the moment while staying true to themselves. People rarely follow trackable arcs. While playing DnD, witnessing my friends go into character, I am reminded over and over of the joy and importance of making mistakes. Predictability is an unfair expectation and, I think, an un-fun way to live, let alone to write. At the end of the day, spontaneity is what makes people people, tieflings tieflings, compelling characters characters.
August Thompson is the author of Anyone’s Ghost, published this month by Penguin Press. Thompson was born and raised in the middle of nowhere, New Hampshire, before he attended middle school in West Los Angeles. After surviving California optimism, he moved to New York City for his bachelor’s degree, studied in Berlin, and taught English in Spain for two years. He recently received his MFA from New York University’s creative writing program as a Goldwater Fellow.
Art:Nika BenedictovaOn the Uses of Observation
by Teresa Peterson
7.1.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 203.
I grew up in a conservative Christian home in the Midwest where modesty, contentment, and harmony—bent toward conformity—were practiced values. It certainly didn’t mean that there weren’t any disappointments or dissension. It was just that very little, if anything, was said or expressed. Some of us might have heard these phrases if we fussed: You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. I’ll give you something to cry about. Just ignore it, and it’ll go away. Despite feeling stifled by this repression, I acquired keen observation skills, enabling me to notice fragments of discontent and bits of tension in my home and elsewhere, even when unvoiced. I bring this talent developed in childhood to my contemporary writing, which deepens my work in multiple ways. Consider this excerpt from “Restorative,” a piece from my new book, Perennial Ceremony: Lessons and Gifts From a Dakota Garden, published by the University of Minnesota Press this month:
Deeper now into the woods, I choose the pathway that rolls into a picturesque scene with cedar boughs bent down from the weight of snow and ice. I hear sounds of pheasant wings, likely being flushed out by Rasta. I silently pray they make it to a tree branch. I hear another one as I opt for a right turn out of the woods and onto a trail that circles around the prairie grasses. Rasta now joins me at a slower pace, and I can see her breath with each pant. I take note of the snow art along the trail. Just like when we make snow angels, the prairie grass tips make snow arches from moving back and forth in the wind.
The passage is about a winter walk with my dog, but the essay addresses much more than simply exercising our canine pet. In it, I try to convey how slowing down and being with nature can calm the body and mind and restore our spirits. I could have just written, “Walking in our woods restores me.” But that wouldn’t have been very engaging. Instead I dramatized the process of slowing down through my closely detailed sensory descriptions: “cedar boughs bent down from snow and ice,” for example, and “see her breath with each pant.” I draw on other senses besides the visual: Listening is a crucial part of observation, and in this passage I pay careful attention to the sounds around me in the scene, which include the noise of pheasants, for whom I offer a prayer.
Close observation can also enable a writer to gain insight into past experience, which is relived on the page and benefits from the insight of the present. I utilized this process of reexperiencing a particular event from twenty years earlier for a theatrical introduction to my book Voices From Pejuhutazizi: Dakota Stories and Storytellers (Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2022), which recorded narratives told to me by my family and ancestors. In the introduction, I recalled an experience at a workshop during which participants were offered feedback after drawing individual renditions of a tree:
Francis tipped his cowboy hat back, looked at me, and said, “Your tree has no roots.” I replied with silence and a blank stare. I looked down at my wispy, blowing-in-the-wind tree, drawn on the stark white eleven-by-fourteen-inch paper.
“You’re searching for something,” he declared.
This time I responded with a bewildered “What? What am I looking for?”
“That’s for you to figure out,” he replied.
And that was that. My tree reading was over.
I had held that significant moment of bewilderment for years, and returning to it with deep attention in the introductory essay to my book brought me greater insight: My drawing of a rootless tree revealed my own rootlessness, my own lack of knowledge about my family’s and ancestor’s stories. Later in the introduction I stated my insight plainly: “I was, in essence, a tree with no roots.” I returned again to this insight in the book’s closing chapter, “A Story of Belonging,” which followed all of the narratives I had finally learned and recorded from my ancestors. I wrote, “I imagine if I were asked today for a rendition of a tree, my drawing would look much different from the one I drew twenty years ago. It would be an oak tree, of course.” Not only that, but I could envision the tree clearly, observing it closely in my mind: “Its trunk would be girthy with thick, rough bark and a story nestled within each crevice.” And I imagined how I would “allow this oak’s branches to stretch across the vast blue sky, exchanging stories with those willing to listen and tell their own. … These are the stories that provide the roots of belonging.”
The keys for a writer to hone their close-observation skills are slowing down, spending time in silence, and noticing the world around them. Try visiting a public space alone, silently observing it, then writing about all that you hear, see, touch, smell, and taste. Or return home to write about a memory that took place there, immersing yourself in that world. Always bring your full self into everyday spaces or events, like walks in the woods or other moments that have yet to reveal their full significance.
Teresa Peterson,Utuhu Cistinna Win, is Sisseton Wahpeton Dakota and a citizen of the Upper Sioux Community. Teresa recently published,Perennial Ceremony: Lessons and Gifts From a Dakota Garden(University of Minnesota Press, 2024). She and her uncle, Super LaBatte, coauthoredVoices From Pejuhutazizi: Dakota Stories and Storytellers(Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2022), which was selected as the Native American One Read by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community’s Understand Native Minnesota campaign. Teresa is also the author of the children’s bookGrasshopper Girl(Black Bears and Blueberries Publishing, 2022), has poetry in the Racism Issue ofYellow Medicine Review, and is a contributor to the anthologyVoices Rising: Native Women Writers(Black Bears & Blueberries Publishing, 2021). Her true passion is digging in her garden that overlooks the Mni Sota River Valley and feeding friends and family.
Art: Andrew ShelleyHow Prewriting Can Invigorate Your Work
by Teresa Peterson
6.24.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 202.
I remember how afraid I once was to write about sensitive and personal experiences, exposing my inner self and perceptions that could hurt others. But through mentoring and encouragement from a Native women writers group, I got over that anxiety and discovered how to fearlessly reach a deeper place in my writing. This change was sparked during a workshop for an essay I was writing to introduce Voices From Pejuhutazizi: Dakota Stories and Storytellers (Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2022). The volume, which I wrote with Walter LaBatte Jr., compiles stories told by my uncle, great grandpa, and other ancestors from Pejuhutazizi, a tribal community in southwest Minnesota. But it needed context for the reader to understand why these stories were important to share. In the draft introductory essay I had presented to the group, I included reflections on the value of culture, history, and tradition. But my group members pushed back on my neatly composed answers. “Why are these stories important to you?” they asked. “We need to hear your voice.” I remember feeling frustrated and defensive until writing mentor and author Diane Wilson made a suggestion: “When you answer the question of why, ask it again. Ask why at least five times.” She encouraged me to write my answers as if no one would ever read them. And so, I did.
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Trying to honestly answer this question, over and over, spurred me to engage in a kind of writing that is raw, wild, and full of emotion. With pen and paper (note, not a computer) I feverishly wrote my answers—perhaps scribbling might be a better description. In a stream of consciousness, I began to explore my heart and gut; I asked myself why I cared so much about my family’s and community’s stories, trying to recall how I felt when I learned them for the first time. For a while, I couldn’t bear to share these writings with my group; they read like a therapy session, with bouts of rageful venting that were like the cries of a six-year-old.
About a month into this process, I noticed that my writing tempered, and I began to have real clarity about why the stories from my uncle, great grandfather, and other ancestors were valuable to me—I got beyond my initial pat answers about history and culture. It wasn’t that the answers in my draft essay were wrong, but the underlying roots of my personal response surfaced from beneath the emotional baggage that had initially obscured the core reasons. One truth I uncovered had to do with the shame and loss I felt for having grown up without hearing or knowing my family stories or those of my people, the Dakota. It felt vulnerable to admit this, and it required me to explore details about my personal bicultural experience of growing up in a place devoid of Dakota people and, thus, our own storytellers and stories.
Through this prewriting exercise, I processed so much, leading to healing and reconciliation with the past that I hadn’t been aware I needed to do—as a person and as a writer. For example, I uncovered a painful memory of what it was like to be at school when Indigenous people like myself came up in lessons: “[T]he ‘Indians’ or ‘Sioux’ mentioned in class or in textbooks always seemed to be the ‘bad guys’—the ones starting trouble and wars. I shrank in my desk and did my best to become invisible,” I wrote in the introduction, “Returning Through Story.” The prewriting processalso drew out recollections of bullying by fellow students that had remained unhealed: “I am still triggered by memories of classmates who let out war whoops and called me a squaw. Teachers and the adults in my life attempted to console me, or perhaps themselves, by saying that if I would just ignore them, it would go away.” Conversely, feelings of comfort and belongingness when I was with my Dakota relatives rose from my memory bank: “I seemed to have a deeply rooted desire and pull to be in this place with my relatives at Pejuhutazizi. My childhood memories of fun-filled visits connect seasonal experiences to place and land.”
I used this same prewriting process for developing the conclusion that appears after the stories in Voices From Pejuhutazizi. Rather than asking myself “why” I was sharing the stories, as I did for the introduction, for the conclusion I repeatedly asked myself “how” these stories have changed me; that shaped the final chapter in the book, “A Story of Belonging.” I described how the stories changed my identity, the impact of the Eurocentric education system on my psyche, and how meaningful it is to know the stories of people you belong to. The personal shame of disconnect I felt throughout my life shifted, and I was able to write the truth: U.S. policies of assimilation and genocide are the cause of that disconnect. I wrote, “As students we did not hear the truth, the whole story, about how our people were swindled from our homelands.” This eroded my sense of self:
For much of my life, I felt that I did not quite belong in the white world and was missing so much of the Dakota way of life. I have wondered what was worse: to be invisible, or to be reminded you don’t belong. … Some of the narratives in this collection connect the dots and fill the voids and gaps of my story. Some provide insight into why things were and perhaps still are. Some stories give me a compassionate understanding of so many things. Most importantly, these stories are important to me because they tell of who I belong to. I am of the people who dig the yellow medicine and the great-great-granddaughter of Tasinsusbecawin.
I continue to use this prewriting process, including for my new book, Perennial Ceremony: Lessons and Gifts From a Dakota Garden, published this month by the University of Minnesota Press. As with Voices From Pejuhutazizi, prewriting helped me strengthen my introduction, an important section that provides context—the why behind my decision to share the material in the book with readers. It also helped me navigate and process sticky and emotional spaces that come up throughout the book. I would recommend this prewriting method to anyone who is having trouble expressing themselves. Ask yourself why your subject is important to share or how it has changed you, then write out your response using pen and paper. Repeat this process at least five times. I know it takes courage to navigate the emotional rollercoaster that may come of this kind of writing, yet I have discovered that it nurtures a deep connection with the humanity of your readers. By writing through the ragged emotion, you just may uncover some surprising and beautiful truths.
Teresa Peterson, Utuhu Cistinna Win, is Sisseton Wahpeton Dakota and a citizen of the Upper Sioux Community. Teresa recently published, Perennial Ceremony: Lessons and Gifts From a Dakota Garden (University of Minnesota Press, 2024). She and her uncle, Super LaBatte, coauthored Voices From Pejuhutazizi: Dakota Stories and Storytellers (Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2022), which was selected as the Native American One Read by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community’s Understand Native Minnesota campaign. Teresa is also the author of the children’s bookGrasshopper Girl(Black Bears and Blueberries Publishing, 2022), has poetry in the Racism Issue of Yellow Medicine Review, and is a contributor to the anthology Voices Rising: Native Women Writers (Black Bears & Blueberries Publishing, 2021). Her true passion is digging in her garden that overlooks the Mni Sota River Valley and feeding friends and family.
Art: Jeffrey HamiltonMind the (Memory) Gap
by Lilly Dancyger
6.3.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 201.
Gaining readers’ trust is an essential part of writing a memoir: If readers are going to be all in on the story you’re telling, they have to believe that you’re being honest and transparent. Acknowledging what you don’t remember can go a long way toward this goal; if you admit uncertainty regarding some events, readers will take you at your word on others. But this move is best used sparingly.
It’s easy to start pointing out every little gap in your recollection of events, hedging every memory with a disclaimer. But too many of these admissions can get distracting and irritating, leading readers to wonder, “Well, what do you remember?” or “If you can’t remember anything, why are you telling this story?”
To avoid overusing the confession of a memory gap, I use a simple litmus test, limiting my acknowledgement of such lapses to instances that meet at least one of two criteria:
1. The gap itself is emotionally or narratively significant. Sometimes the very fact that you don’t remember something is part of the story. For example, trauma can affect memory, and in memoir silences about traumatic experience can speak louder than any attempt to fill them with conjecture or reportage. Defining the shapes of these silences allows you to write into them, which can be very powerful.
2. There are important details lost to the gap, and it would feel evasive not to explain why they aren’t included. This is a less artistic, more logistical reason to state directly that you don’t remember something—but it’s still a good one. This metric can be misleading, though: What counts as an important detail? When is it important to explain that you left out part of the story because you can’t remember it, and when can you just skip over what you don’t remember without drawing attention to it? Do you need to say you don’t know how you got from a party back to your apartment, for instance, or can you just cut from a scene at the party to a scene at your apartment? If you’re not sure whether an omission will trip readers up, a good rule of thumb is to start by just skipping over the missing details, and address them only if multiple early readers ask about it.
If a lost memory does fit one or both categories, being transparent about what you can’t remember buys you a lot of leeway: Once that admission is out of the way, you’re free to speculate or wonder on the page about what might have happened—or to skip over it and keep the story moving without looking evasive.
Sometimes memory gaps can even dictate the shape of the story, or your attempts to fill them through research can be the source of tension that drives the narrative. But even in a story that’s driven by its blank spots, remember not to overdo it by pointing out every inconsequential detail you’re not 100 percent certain of. Part of gaining readers’ trust means trusting them in return to follow you wherever you lead, which means not overexplaining or qualifying every little thing.
Lilly Dancygeris the author ofFirst Love: Essays on Friendship(Dial Press, 2024) andNegative Space(Santa Fe Writers Project, 2021). She lives in New York City, and is a 2023 NYSCA/NYFA Artist Fellow in nonfiction from the New York Foundation for the Arts. Find her on Instagram at @lillydancyger and on Substack at theWord Cave.
Art: Hao DongIt Gets Fun Again, I Promise
by Lilly Dancyger
5.27.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 200.
A student of mine recently reached out for advice: He’d lost momentum on his long-term writing project and was struggling to make progress; the spark of inspiration was gone. He was considering setting the project aside to pursue a new idea that was flowing much more freely on the page.
“Yes,” I said, then paused. I wanted to be gentle, encouraging. But I also wanted to express that this is exactly what it means to write a book: to keep pushing forward, despite every temptation to quit. I had to break it to him that I didn’t have any magic solutions to make this next stage of the process easier, only affirmation that seeing a big project through to the end is really hard.
The beginning stages of a writing project can be thrilling: New ideas jolt you awake just as you start to drift off at night. You scribble or type so quickly that you transpose letters and trip over words in your excitement and hurry to keep up with the flow of inspiration. You feel like this might be the best thing you’ve ever written—the thing you were always meant to write.
But then the momentum stalls. Maybe you reach a thorny section you’re not sure how to approach, or maybe your endurance begins to flag. The flow of ideas slows to a trickle, and you wonder how you’ll ever finish this thing. It’s no longer the perfect book that existed in your mind at the beginning; now it’s messy, full of holes and problems you’ll have to fix at some point—and this task is too exhausting to even think about.
It’s easy to get discouraged at this point. But here’s the secret: This is the most important moment in the life of a writing project. How you choose to proceed at this crossroads is what separates everyone who has ever had an idea for a book from the few people who actually write a book.
If you do decide to push ahead, this next stage will feel very different. You’ll no longer be chasing inspiration, riding a creative high. Now you’ll sit down to write even when you’d rather clean the apartment, catch up on e-mail, or—most of all—start working on a new project. Now you’ll stare down the blinking cursor until you can force just a few more words onto the page. This is where the writing becomes work.
I told my student that, of course, he could switch gears and work on the new idea instead if he wanted to. That was his choice. But, I asked, what would he do when he reached this same crossroads again in a few months or years? Like so many challenges, the only way past this sticking point in a book is to push through to the other side.
After we got off the phone, I realized something important I had forgotten to say. So I sent him an e-mail with a promise, a little offering: “It gets fun again,” I wrote. This is the hardest part, this arid stretch after the initial burst of inspiration dries up on the way to finishing a full draft. But remember: Once you complete that draft you will get to experiment and revise and try out all those cool ideas that excited you so much in the first place, the ones that may have fallen by the wayside while you were struggling to get to the first finish line. You will be able to see the work clearly for the first time, because it will be real: words on the page, not just in your mind. And then you get to play, to shape those words into what you want them to be.
It gets fun again, I promise. You just have to get through this hard part first.
Lilly Dancyger is the author of First Love: Essays on Friendship(Dial Press, 2024) andNegative Space(Santa Fe Writers Project, 2021). She lives in New York City, and is a 2023 NYSCA/NYFA Artist Fellow in nonfiction from the New York Foundation for the Arts. Find her on Instagram at @lillydancyger and on Substack at the Word Cave.
Art: Alexandre LecocqWhat Songwriters Can Teach Us About Storytelling
by Annell López
5.13.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 199.
One of the challenges of working within the constraints and limitations of short fiction is creating compelling characters who come alive in just a few pages and with strong narrative arcs. In my quest to study characterization, I’ve turned to song lyrics. Like short fiction, many songs offer a story or feature characters who are dealing with conflict. Like authors, songwriters rely on memorable details to convey their characters’ internality, motivations, and desires—and they have far fewer words to work with than most writers of short fiction.
Take, for instance, Pearl Jam’s 2006 song “Unemployable.” Told from a third-person point of view, “Unemployable” tells the story of a working-class man struggling financially. The song’s opening lines offer a master class in characterization and compression: “He’s got a big gold ring that says ‘Jesus Saves’ and is dented from the punch thrown at work that day / when he smashed the metal locker where he kept his things / after the big boss said, ‘You best be on your way.’” That singular image—a dented ring that reads “Jesus Saves”— suggests the character’s connection to Christianity, indicating his belief in hope and salvation in the face of adversity. The fact that the ring is damaged is a sign that the character is indeed facing a moment of crisis. The listener soon learns the gold ring is “dented from the punch thrown at work that day” after he was fired from his job. This display of anger and aggression illustrates the desperation the character feels.
As the song progresses, the listener learns more about this character and what that job meant to him. The challenges in his professional life lead to challenges in his personal life: “Well, his wife and kid are sleeping but he’s still awake; / on his brain weighs the curse of thirty bills unpaid. / Gets up, lights a cigarette he’s grown to hate, / thinking if he can’t sleep, how will he ever dream?” The imagery of the character’s sleepless nights conveys the weight of poverty, anxiety, and stress that define the primary conflict of the story: How will this man handle both the practical and psychological burdens of his unemployment, the financial debts and the depression triggered by his job loss?
The chorus of the song underscores the sacrifices made by the protagonist in his struggle to keep his head above water. It also emphasizes themes of endurance and resilience: “Oh, yeah / So this life is sacrificed / Oh, yeah / Jumping trains just to survive.” Addressing financial strain, existential dread, and fear of the unknown, the lyrics explore the multifaceted nature of one character’s struggles with work and self-worth. In just over three minutes, songwriters Matt Cameron, Eddie Vedder, and Mike McCready drive the narrative forward and engage the audience on an emotional level.
Studying songs like this reminds me that strong imagery and a few well-chosen details go a long way toward crafting compelling characters with complex motivations and desires. It’s easy to assume that the more we know about a character, the better we know that character. But that isn’t always the case. As you write, ask yourself how much information your reader truly needs. Can you conjure a memorable image that reveals something important about the character’s internal landscape? Are you providing your readers with the right information to help them understand your characters’ motivations and desires? Or are you providing extraneous details? Sometimes a few words is all we need.
Annell Lópezis a Dominican immigrant. She is the winner of the Louise Meriwether First Book Prize and the author of the story collectionI’ll Give You a Reason(Feminist Press, 2024). A Peter Taylor Fellow at theKenyon Review’sAdult Writers Workshops, she has also received support fromTin House.Her work has appeared inAmerican Short Fiction,Brooklyn Rail,Guernica,Michigan Quarterly Review,Refinery29, and elsewhere. López received her MFA from the University of New Orleans. She is working on a novel.
Art: John DoyleThe Comedy of Short Fiction
by Annell López
5.7.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 198.
In the 2000 movie Bring It On, protagonist Torrance Shipman, played by Kirsten Dunst, is tasked with having to come up with original choreography for her high school cheerleading team. To craft a routine good enough to make it to the national cheerleading competition, Shipman draws inspiration from various sources, including films, musicals, and even mime performances. Although I am a fiction writer, Torrance’s creative process reminds me of my own; I often turn to an artistic medium different from fiction to hone my storytelling techniques: comedy.
Comedy specials are one of my favorite ways to engage with storytelling. Jokes, in fact, are very similar to short stories. Both are forms of compressed narrative that must be carefully paced in order to have their intended effect. Move too fast, and you risk hindering your reader’s ability to absorb the plot and other components of the story. Move too slowly, and you risk losing the reader’s interest and attention. In a joke the pace must be just right to deliver that punchline effectively and make the audience laugh.
Pacing all begins with the setup. The comedian or performer needs to get their audience on board swiftly by bringing them into a scenario with just a few words. A good joke quickly sets up the scenario in which it’s going to take place—think of the classic joke in which three unlikely characters walk into a bar. A slow and convoluted setup is likely to result in a slow and convoluted joke. The same is true for the first few pages of a good short story. The writer has to ground the reader in the reality of that story so that they can get a good sense of the story’s conflict right from the start. Some stories do a lot of “throat-clearing” and don’t necessarily begin right away. A strong narrative setup lets the reader know about the setting, the characters involved, and some of the conflict all in the first few pages. Both jokes and stories require a keen understanding of timing. Jokes have taught me to be mindful of my pace and to employ brevity and directness from the start.
Then there’s tension. In jokes tension is often created by building up anticipation for a punchline or a twist. Take, for example, comedian Jerrod Carmichael’s opening monologue as the host of Saturday Night Live in April 2022. “I’m not going to talk about it,” he begins. The statement, given without any context, is funny. The audience erupts in laughter before they even know what Carmichael is referring to. Carmichael pauses and smiles, which escalates the tension in the room. He then insists again that he won’t talk about “it.”The audience laughs again. They still don’t know what it is he won’t talk about. The mystery of the topic in question creates the tension. His withholding of information keeps the audience invested in the joke.One way I create tension in my fiction is by introducing a situation at the beginning of a story, then gradually revealing more details as the plot unfolds. For example, in my story “The World as We Know It,” the narrator and his girlfriend are startled by a noise. The source of the noise is a mystery, which in turn creates tension. As the story progresses, more clues are revealed.
Carmichael’s witholding also speaks to restraint. One way to kill a joke is by overexplaining it. The same can be said for fiction. Much like a joke, a good short story trusts that the audience will understand subtext and nuance. As Carmichael continues his SNL monologue, the audience learns that he’s referring to an incident that had taken place less than a week before at the Academy Awards: While awards show host Chris Rock was telling a joke that poked fun at actress Jada Pinkett Smith’s baldness, Pinkett Smith’s husband, Will Smith, rose from his seat in the audience and slapped Rock in the face. Carmichael never outright talks about the slap. Talking about it without talking about it becomes the punchline. He trusts the audience and understands they’ll follow.This is a good lesson for writers: You don’t need to spell everything out. Showing restraint involves knowing when to hold back to let the reader fill in the gaps. In my story “The World as We Know It,” for example, the narrator and his girlfriend argue over the source of the noise. I don’t have to tell the reader that their relationship is in trouble and their argument over the noise is just a symptom of a much larger problem. The reader will arrive at that conclusion on their own.
If you pay close attention, watching a few minutes of comedy can be a micro lesson in writing craft. Dissect a comedy special and see how the different jokes work. Measure their success with your own laughter. Then go back to your writing and ask yourself: Do I have an effective setup? Am I leading my reader to a punchline or a satisfying conclusion? Is my timing right? Am I trusting my reader to reach their own conclusion?
Annell López is a Dominican immigrant. She is the winner of the Louise Meriwether First Book Prize and the author of the story collection I’ll Give You a Reason (Feminist Press, 2024). A Peter Taylor Fellow at the Kenyon Review’sAdult Writers Workshops, she has also received support from Tin House.Her work has appeared in American Short Fiction, Brooklyn Rail, Guernica, Michigan Quarterly Review, Refinery29, and elsewhere. López received her MFA from the University of New Orleans. She is working on a novel.
Art: Thong TranOn Person and Place
by Annell López
4.29.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 197.
In my debut story collection, I’ll Give You a Reason, published this month by the Feminist Press, I was interested in exploring how place influences people and reflects the sociopolitical climate and culture in which they exist. My characters live and breathe the Ironbound, a largely Latinx and Portuguese immigrant neighborhood in Newark, New Jersey. The sensory details—what my characters see, hear, smell, and taste—reinforce the perspectives of these often marginalized immigrants and first-generation Americans as they navigate their hyphenated identities, searching for joy, connection, and the elusive American Dream.
As they move through their neighborhood, my characters might smell the sulphuric, industrial fumes from the local power plants. Because they live in the Ironbound, my characters are cognizant of their immigration status and how it limits their upward mobility. They attend crowded and sometimes under-resourced classes to learn English and acquire American citizenship. They stand in long lines to wire money and send packages to their family members in their countries of origin.
Yet my characters also see other working-class folks congregating on sidewalks, waiting to be picked up for a construction shift. They hear English as a foreign language, often spoken with various accents, particularly Spanish and Portuguese. They might crave the taste of sweet pastries, salty fried foods, and imported tropical fruits from their native countries. They know what it’s like to feel adrift and homesick, so they decorate their homes and cars with the flags of their countries. They celebrate holidays from their native lands as if they still lived there. These are what give them joy.
The Ironbound and the particular community that lives there shape my characters’ sometimes hopeful, sometimes bleak outlook on life and their desire to pursue their versions of the American Dream. I use interiority, in addition to sensory details, to show how my characters embody what it’s like to be from this working-class immigrant neighborhood. I focus on the intimacy of the ordinary because those details feel like real life. For instance, my characters know parking will be a nightmare because the neighborhood is small and congested. My characters feel how densely populated the neighborhood is when they’re forced to drive around hopelessly looking for parking. When I wrote these stories, I wanted my readers to feel my characters’ frustration: the panic of nearly clipping someone’s side-view mirror as they squeeze through narrow, one-way streets. The desperation of weighing whether said characters can even afford one more parking ticket. I wanted my readers to understand why my characters’ eyelids grow heavy as they take on the Sisyphean task of circling neighborhood blocks looking for a spot after a twelve-hour shift at work.
As writers, it is our job to capture setting in a way that feels authentic. This is only possible with characters who see, hear, smell, taste, and embody, through their actions and attitudes, what it is like to be in—and from—a particular place. Sometimes these details are not particularly beautiful. Sometimes they are incredibly ordinary. But that’s what makes them real. The best representations of setting ground us in concrete reality, but they also are imbued with characters’ attitudes. They explore, deeply and thoughtfully, the relationship between person and place. They do not stop at description; they evoke a feeling akin to familiarity. How our characters react to the mundane can be much more telling of that environment than anything else. Therein lies the intimacy that makes setting come alive.
Annell López is a Dominican immigrant. She is the winner of the Louise Meriwether First Book Prize and the author of the story collection I’ll Give You a Reason (Feminist Press, 2024). A Peter Taylor Fellow at the Kenyon Review’sAdult Writers Workshops, she has also received support from Tin House.Her work has appeared in American Short Fiction, Brooklyn Rail, Guernica, Michigan Quarterly Review, Refinery29, and elsewhere. López received her MFA from the University of New Orleans. She is working on a novel.
Art: Jimmy WooTo Use or Not to Use First Person
by Lily Meyer
4.15.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 196.
As a reader I’m picky about first person. I dislike the vast majority of the memoirs I read; in fiction an I on the page makes me wary. First person is an inherently limited narrative standpoint, and in the last decade or so trends toward autofiction and unreliable narrators have meant that many writers lean into its limitations rather than attempt to push against them. Any kind of third person, even a very close third, lets the writer wander away from characters, analyze them, opine on them. Allowing characters to tell their own stories, while sometimes undeniably the right move for thematic reasons, often means the author is ceding power or, at the very least, giving up options. While I do sometimes enjoy first person, it’s generally when the author has mitigated this factor by putting the story in long retrospect, like nineteenth-century novelists often did, or by creating a narrator who’s telling somebody else’s story instead of or on top of their own—think Elena Ferrante’s My Brilliant Friend (Europa Editions, 2012) or, more recently, Jennifer Croft’s The Extinction of Irena Rey (Bloomsbury, 2024), which layers a fictional translator’s perspective on top of the protagonist’s.
I do enjoy I in short stories, which, given their structural limitations, are well-suited to the constraints of first person: A story needs to be held back far more than a novel does. As a writer my rule of thumb for years was that if an idea presented itself to me in an I voice, it was a short story. I thought I would never use first person in a novel, although I always conceived of Short War, my debut novel published this month by Deep Vellum, as a trio of distinct parts that would add up to a unified whole. But as I wrote my way toward the last section, I realized I had to shake up my limited-third person. I wanted the book’s last piece to feel radically different from what came before. I wanted it to startle readers, to reach out and shake them. And no matter how flawed it may be, first person is unbeatable for intimacy and intensity. In fact, that’s part of why I generally distrust it: Writers often use it as a shortcut to those emotional effects, and I can tell.
But I needed to ratchet my book’s intensity up. I also, crucially, did not need intimacy. Ada, the protagonist of Short War’s last section, is an immensely guarded and controlled person. Her childhood was extremely painful, and she’s the bearer of, or heir to, a complex legacy of historical trauma. She survives by not letting anyone—least of all herself—into her confidence. I knew that if I gave her the narrative reins, I wouldn’t suddenly start writing easy, sloppy feelings. Instead, writing Ada in first person would make me tighter and more measured. It would force me to distill my prose and my thinking to their essence, and that, I thought, was precisely the form of intensity I needed.
I did have a problem, though. I was completely unused to writing in this sort of first person. I’d done it in stories, sure, but with characters who presented themselves to me through narration. Ada I’d been thinking about for years. When I began writing her in first person, I went overboard. I knew her so well; I had so much to say. It was hard to remember, in the moment, that the point of writing as her, not about her, was to say as little as I possibly could.
What saved me, in the end, was something else I had scorned: imitations. I had always bristled when professors asked me to imitate other writers’ work, not because I didn’t see the theoretical value of the exercise but because I minded having to step aside from my own projects to noodle around with someone else’s voice. But when I tried writing Ada as an imitation of a different scarred, repressed narrator I love and admire profoundly—Mattie Ross, the heroine of Charles Portis’s True Grit(Simon & Schuster, 1968), one of the greatest first-person novels ever written—it worked. Mattie got me out of my own head and into Ada’s. After talking myself into that imitation, I wrote the last section of Short War in a week.
My story here does not end with a dramatic embrace of the first person. I stand by my critiques; if anything, I’m even crankier and pickier about reading memoir and first-person fiction than I used to be. But I’m open to the prospect of using it again if I need it. After all, True Grit’s not the only I book I admire. I could emulate Ferrante or Philip Roth. I could try knocking off Emma Copley Eisenberg’s forthcoming Housemates (Hogarth, 2024), which manages to be first and third person at the same time, or Edward Carey’s beautiful Pinocchio retelling, The Swallowed Man (Gallic Books, 2020), which made me cry more than any other book I’ve ever read. There’s a wide world of narrators and narratives to imitate. It seems a bit, well, limited to stop at one.
Lily Meyeris a translator, critic, and the author of the novelShort War(Deep Vellum, 2024).A contributing writer at theAtlantic, she has translated Claudia Ulloa Donoso’s story collectionsLittle Bird(Deep Vellum, 2021)andIce for Martians(Columbia University Press, 2023).
Art:Matt LavasseurWhy Not Go Nuts? On Research
by Lily Meyer
4.8.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 195.
Years ago I heard the novelist Marlon James speak during an event that was part of the tour for his novel Black Leopard, Red Wolf (Riverhead Books, 2019). I recall him saying that he researches his novels while drafting them, not beforehand. Yes, he said, this strategy leads to some doubling back and rewriting, but it also lets him run with the inspiration research so often brings. At the time I took this as validation of the process in which I was embroiled. In 2013 I began researching and writing a novel about Operation Condor, the covert, CIA-backed collaboration among six of South America’s repressive right-wing regimes during the Cold War. By 2018, when I heard James read from Black Leopard, I’d accepted that my novel wasn’t going to take on all of Operation Condor and had narrowed my scope to U.S support of the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who deposed Salvador Allende in a military coup in 1973. That novel, Short War, will be published tomorrow by Deep Vellum. Why, you might ask, did it take so long? In part, the answer is that I was twenty-two in 2013, and I had no idea how to write a novel or do much else. Also, constructing the book’s puzzle-box plot took a lot of trial and error. But reallyShort War took a decade because I researched while I wrote, and I did way, way too much research.
I became interested in Condor as a high-school exchange student in Chile. In college I spent a semester studying history at Uruguay’s Universidad de la República, where I took a class comparing the dictatorships Condor supported. When I began my research in earnest, I returned to Uruguay to talk to my old professors, visit the national library, copy documents, and shop for books unavailable in the United States. I went wild buying retired Cold Warriors’ memoirs on eBay. I spent a terrifying amount of money on academic books about Chile, since most American scholarship on the subject is so new that I couldn’t get secondhand copies. I nosed around online archives, reading staggering—and often staggeringly awful—volumes of declassified government correspondence about Salvador Allende and the coup. My best friend’s mother, the daughter of a California academic, happened to spend the year of the coup in Santiago while her dad was on sabbatical. I interviewed her, all her family members, and a handful of their generous friends. I talked to journalists, academics, acquaintances with insight into the CIA. (I live in Washington, D.C., so this last bit was easier than you might imagine.) I did so much work.
But I was never exclusively researching. I was always writing, too—always trying to jam my research into my novel. I knew so much! It was so horrifying! I wanted, somehow, to convey the crushing scope of Operation Condor, in all its blandly voiced governmental evil, while also expressing—or at least paying proper tribute to—the hopes and missions of the leftist groups and governments that the Condor regimes crushed. I thought it was my responsibility to do both and to do so completely. So my novel sagged and groaned under the weight of fact after fact, political program after political program. I couldn’t decide if it was my duty to include or not include the horrors that took place in clandestine prisons and torture centers. In what way should I write about the disappeared? Could I, somehow, build in just a little bit of Argentine or Uruguayan history, even though I’d sworn to myself I would limit the novel to Chile? My research snowballed. At some point I had to admit to myself that I was telling a story that had stopped making sense.
What saved me was stripping things back. I narrowed my novel to three parts, which are, really, three moments in a narrative that spans generations. I got rid of paragraphs of historical and political context. I subjected all the facts in the novel to the same test: Is this here because I want people to know it, or because I want people to know it and it illuminates something about my characters? Plenty of moments passed the test. In one scene early in Short War, for example, protagonist Gabriel notes that his friend Andrés, the son of a militant who’s gone into hiding, misses getting free milk at school every day from a program Allende started. His government gave milk to kids up to age sixteen, the age Gabriel and Andrés are at the start of the novel. Putting that in the book let me show both Allende’s priorities and a gap between two characters’ daily experiences: Andrés, whose father is physically absent and who has little access to black-market food, is hungrier than Gabriel, an American in Chile whose parents can purchase just about anything.
Of course, not all my research-integration worked so well. I cut massive chunks of my draft. Eventually I cut too much and had to thoughtfully build political background back in. Doing so was easy. I didn’t have to consult my notes. By that point I’d read, written, and deleted so much that the history I’d learned had become part of my intellectual landscape. It was there to be drawn on, but didn’t surge frantically to the front of my mind. I was able to tell an informed story instead of scrambling to build a story out of information.
I’m beginning another research-based novel now, this one set in the 1940s and 1950s, and this time I’m approaching the process differently. I’m still researching while I write, like Marlon James, but I am no longer taking what I learn directly to my draft. In fact, I have forbidden myself to consult my notes while I write. I read. I metabolize. I let what I’ve learned float around my brain, trusting that it will enter my draft when I need it to. One thing has not changed, though: I’m still reading too much, still hunting down out-of-print books on eBay, still going to archives and casting wildly around for people I might interview. Overkill? Maybe. But I’m curious. I’m a novelist. I have the great good fortune of spending some of my time and earning some of my income turning my interests into fiction. I get to do research. Why not go nuts?
Lily Meyeris a translator, critic, and the author of the novelShort War(Deep Vellum, 2024).A contributing writer at theAtlantic, she has translated Claudia Ulloa Donoso’s story collectionsLittle Bird(Deep Vellum, 2021)andIce for Martians(Columbia University Press, 2023).
Art: Julia JoppienFamiliar Characters
by Lily Meyer
4.1.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 194.
My debut novel, Short War, which will be published next week by Deep Vellum, is not autobiographical. One of its three main characters, a grad student named Nina, does bear some external resemblance to me—we are both Jewish millennial women who live in Washington, D.C.—but her inner life is nothing like my own. I was eager, in fact, to keep my thoughts out of her head, even on subjects important to both of us. The book is, to a large degree, an exploration of American identity and privilege, topics that Nina, who’s in her late twenties, begins worrying about midway through the novel, but that have obsessed me since I was in high school. Even though Nina isn’t me and isn’t based on any person I know, I did give her a real figure from my life to talk to. At the start of her section of Short War, Nina goes to Buenos Aires to do doctoral research. She rents an apartment from a sculptor named Paula, a charming, elegant, gently iconoclastic older woman whom Nina adores just as instantly as I adored the woman I modeled her on: an architect and jewelry designer from whom I rented a room in Buenos Aires in 2012 and who remains my beloved friend.
Initially I wrote my friend into Short War because I missed her. It was 2020, and I hadn’t seen her since 2017. During the early months of the pandemic, when I was drafting Nina’s part of the book, I wondered if or when I’d get to visit her again. Putting her on the page—writing about her chunky necklaces, her hennaed hair, her enveloping hugs—was a way of visiting her. It warmed something in me, and, I found, it warmed up my prose. The affection that I felt for my friend loosened my fingers as I wrote. It helped me relax more deeply into the story I was telling and opened me to longer and more playful stretches of dialogue that were less planned than I would ordinarily permit myself. This transformed the story. Before I wrote the scene in which Paula appears, I didn’t expect it to be especially important to my plot; I thought it would be a brief, fun set piece, a good way for readers to get to know Nina as a social animal. Instead that scene became the book’s pivot point. It sets up—Paula sets up—the mystery that Nina spends the rest of her section of the novel trying to solve.
I often say that I don’t write autobiographically because I spend enough time with myself already. Writing about my own life, or giving a character my unaltered thoughts, gives me a closed, dull feeling. But putting a character modeled on my friend in Short War had the opposite effect: Just as talking to her over the years has opened me to new ideas, helped me develop my language and thinking, and given me a very precise image of what I want to be like in my sixties (just like her, with jars of home-pickled eggplant in my kitchen and stacks of art books in my living room), writing about a variation of her opened my story up. When I began the Paula scene, I knew the plot I’d designed, but I had no idea how to introduce the revelation on which it hung. Mid-scene, I found it emerging—in a way that was not planned but felt entirely right and natural—from Paula’s mouth.
Of course, there’s a less woo-woo explanation for this breakthrough. By basing Paula on my friend I lightened my imaginative load. I was already developing Nina’s character; putting her in a scene with a version of someone I knew was easier than creating another new character, freeing up my subconscious to work on narrative. If that’s the case, well, I recommend including real characters in your fiction to anyone stuck between Major Plot Point A and Major Plot Point B. And regardless, I wholeheartedly endorse tucking a person you love and miss into your work here and there. It’s a little conjuring act, a way to love both your friends more and your book more. I can’t say I did a lot of smiling while I revised Short War, but I always grinned my way through work on the Paula scene—and often e-mailed or texted my friend afterward. Even without the plot development, that’s reason enough to have put her in my book.
Lily Meyer is a translator, critic, and the author of the novel Short War (Deep Vellum, 2024).A contributing writer at the Atlantic, she has translated Claudia Ulloa Donoso’s story collectionsLittle Bird (Deep Vellum, 2021)andIce for Martians (Columbia University Press, 2023).
Art: Artem BeliaikinTruth in Tucson: On Translating Family Into Poetry
by Diego Báez
3.18.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 193.
Earlier this month I had the pleasure of speaking on a panel at the Tucson Festival of Books. Ostensibly centering emerging trends in Latinx poetry, the panel afforded me and my fellow panelists—Tim Z. Hernandez and Reyes Ramirez—the chance to discuss craft and practice as well as address questions of language, legacy, and family. To my great fortune my father was in the audience; he’s added “winter” as a verb to his retiree’s lexicon and spends a few months every year “wintering” in Arizona. (I get it. The Sonoran desertscape, warming after rare spring rainfall, released woody, earthy creosote into the morning air, a welcome respite from the persistent allergens of central Illinois, where he lives the other months of the year.) It was a gift to have my dad seated so near, front and center and “beaming,” as Tim described it, like the proud papá I know he is. But it also presented a unique challenge, since so much of my poetry collection, Yaguareté White—published last month by the University of Arizona Press and the raison d’être for my presence at the festival—incorporates a great deal of information from my own personal life; and it relies in no small measure on translating those facts into poetic truth, particularly as they pertain to my family.
Take, for example, one stanza from my poem “Inheritance,” in which an antique sedan becomes a physical manifestation of the behaviors, beliefs, and, yes, material things we receive from our ancestors:
Before I was born, my father bought a ‘57 Chevy:
bright green, gas cap inside one silver tailfin.
Ran like shit. Poured smoke. No seat belts.
My father drove me home from hospital in that thing.
We sideswiped another car on Camelback Bridge in Normal.
Years later, I never learn which party was drunk driving.
I have fond memories of the car in question, a 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air. It was never in great condition, and, in fact, everything in the above excerpt aligns with objective reality, save that stinging, final line. To be fair, I don’t know whether the other motorist was intoxicated, and I’ve been assured my father wasn’t drunk at the time. But the theme of alcohol use and abuse surfaces and recurs in my book as a personal, familial, and cultural phenomenon. Alluding to alcohol in an anecdote from the speaker’s earliest days on Earth connects the thorny subject back to his nativity, as if the narrative of the accident and its possible connection to alcohol were as much a part of him as his predecessors’ languages and customs. In truth, the possibility of the father’s drunkenness, the lingering question about it in the speaker’s mind, accurately reflects the way substance abuse affects nearly every aspect of my and my family members’ lives. It feels important to include these uncomfortable truths, despite the danger of emotional or relational damage they may pose.
A poem later in my book takes another kind of liberty with facts. “Mom Puts Miguel’s Two-Week Sentence for DUI in Perspective” is a syllabic persona poem spoken by an imagined mother. A single long question, the poem is composed of tercets. “Remember when / we used to go / to Paraguay,” it opens, and concludes:
no child
of mine
should spend
even small time
behind
bars in county,
and don’t you
remember
how we’d all
go together and
the first week always
felt like forever?
The poem compares the multiple weeks our family spent in Paraguay during winter visits to the seemingly endless fourteen days of a felony sentence, and the poem’s wavering syllabic pattern is intended to mimic the speaker’s discomfort with the prospect of her son’s imprisonment. But my real brother doesn’t have a DUI on his rap sheet, and I felt it necessary to include a disclaimer in the book’s after-matter: “Only the imagined Miguel of this manuscript served time for a DUI.” When I shared this poem with my brother during a camping trip last summer in central Illinois, he appreciated it. He may have even said the note with the disclaimer was unnecessary. But not everyone will share my brother’s nonchalance about being written about. Many poets’ families won’t understand the lines drawn between factual reality and poetic truth. Indeed, there’s a violence inherent in translating into poetry these kinds of sensitive facts about one’s family. When I say it’s a violence, I mean that somebody might get hurt. This is a risk poets may find themselves needing to entertain. For some, changing names or adding annotations in a book will suffice. For others, no amount of fictionalization will assuage family members. In yet other instances we may want to name everyone exactly as they are. In any case, the emotional and reputational stakes shouldn’t be dismissed. Instead consider what constitutes truth for you and how best to extract it from facts; those questions should sit at the heart of our work as poets, whether we’re basking under the Sonoran sun or slogging through another spring freeze in Chicago.
Diego Báezis the author of the poetry collectionYaguareté White, published last month by the University of Arizona Press.
Art: Stephanie ValenciaCopy and Paste: On Poetic Theft
by Diego Báez
3.11.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 192.
“Picasso had a saying—‘Good artists copy; great artists steal.’” —Steve Jobs
“Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal.” —T. S. Eliot
Found poetry is no new art. From the refrigerator note that William Carlos Williams penned as an afterthought and later rearranged into the imagistic and understated poem “This Is Just to Say,” to the Golden Shovel form created by Terrance Hayes to pay homage to Gwendolyn Brooks, poets have taken to claiming and reclaiming language wherever they can find it. Centos, erasures, and blackout poems are increasingly common in literary magazines, contemporary poetry collections, and creative spaces, in which they are the subject of seemingly every next poetry exercise—and for good reason. This formal approach to poetry has proven successful, not just as a way for poets to generate preliminary ideas but as a method for producing fully executed works of literary excellence.
I’m especially enamored with big, ambitious found poetry projects, particularly those that use “official” language to reveal the farce of Western colonial projects. Take as one example Paul Hlava Ceballos’s Banana [ ] (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2022), which combines hundreds of direct quotations from interviews, declassified government documents, science writing, and other sources to expose the United States’ exploitative political and capitalist interventions in Latin America through the emblem of the region’s primary produce: the banana. Each quotation in “Banana [ ]: A History of the Americas,” the book’s long poem and second section, includes the word “banana,” and Ceballos’s relentless repetition creates a thrumming, searing indictment of corporate greed and multinational plunder. Cheswayo Mphanza’s The Rinehart Frames (University of Nebraska Press, 2021) achieves a similarly astounding feat of citational excess. Mphanza juxtaposes quotations from influential people in Africa’s history, including artists, politicians, and imperialists, creating a reeling catalog of provocative intertextual dialogue. The sum total of Mphanza’s efforts is best appreciated by thumbing through the twenty pages of citations at the end of the book. These are but two poets who put serious time and intellectual energy into assembling truly stunning, startlingly political works of art.
But in a landscape of nonstop language generation by artificial intelligence and algorithms run amok, ethical questions of intention, fair use, and attribution abound. What kind of text counts as fair game for crafting found poetry, and in what context is it okay to use it? At what point does found poetry become plagiarism?
The idea of theft as a legitimate creative practice is common. Take for example the epigraphs to this essay. According to Forbes, in an interview recounting how Apple took the idea for its “Lisa” computer model from Xerox PARC, Steve Jobs justified the company’s behavior by invoking the words of the great Spanish painter: “Picasso had a saying—‘good artists copy, great artists steal.’” Of course, it feels a bit disingenuous for Jobs to position himself as an artist; there was—and always will be—more money at stake for billionaire CEOs and their corporate tech behemoths than for painters or poets. Furthermore, there’s no definitive evidence Picasso ever uttered those words in the first place, though the quote is widely attributed to him. Jobs was either too lazy to check his sources, succumbed to mass misremembering, or felt comfortable enough taking artistic license to invent attributions in front of an audience. It’s possible that the words everyone believes belong to Picasso derive from T. S. Eliot: “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal,” he wrote in The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism, first published in 1920.
Whoever it came from, the notion of artists and poets stealing raises enormous ethical questions. Can I copy a friend’s social media status-update for use in a poem without their permission? If a fellow poet purloins language from my work without consent or attribution, does that make them a plagiarist? A genius? The second coming of Steve Jobs? Should we allow monstrous large language models, the technology that underlies chatbots such as ChatGPT, to ingest our best lines, poems, and books for regurgitation in middling imitations of our oldest art forms?
The truth is that tolerance for imitation, reuse, and remixing will differ dramatically from poet to poet. For that reason I hesitate to issue any broad guidance or easily implementable guidelines for how to ethically engage in a found poetry practice (beyond a strict adherence to copyright law, of course). Instead I urge every writer to devise for themselves a code of ethics that enables them to creatively and drastically reframe existing language so that it forces readers to see the world differently. Writers should consult this standard should questions arise about their use of others’ work, or should they find themselves in the unenviable position of discovering an unattributed use of language taken right from their own publications.
For my own work I believe language from certain documents should be fair game to use in poems, no questions asked: records and publications of public agencies, including everything from wartime pamphlets to online inventories—anything paid for, in full or in part, by taxpayer dollars. But I also think it’s important to keep readers in mind. For that reason, it’s useful to include citations with any found poetry; that’s not because the authors necessarily deserve credit (perhaps they do) but because other poets may like to undertake their own journeys through a maze of source texts or learn how to use archives in search of their own found poetry. That’s the kind of literary expedition I can support: a voyage of recovery and reclamation.
To that end, I’d say my own artistic code of ethics hews closely to an idea introduced in Occupy Whiteness (Deep Vellum, 2024) by slam champion and Dallas poet laureate Joaquín Zihuatanejo. In one poem, “A Conversation With a White Poet at a Prestigious Literary Festival,” the speaker defends his process of erasing text from books by white, male authors and then occupying that space with “Brown verse”:
Them: But don’t you feel bad about taking words, even if it’s just three isolated words on a page, from a white, male author?
Me: No.
Them: Why not?
Me: Because you see I’m not taking any words. I’m discovering them. I’m colonizing them.
I love this idea that an act of appropriation and reframing can function as “discovery,” offering a critical perspective on the concept of colonization. It tips the power dynamic upside down in a way that seeks to return collective power to the oppressed. It’s brave, if a bit cheeky, and ultimately seeks to move the dial towards justice. I’m on board with this approach, especially as it applies to writing produced by white travel writers and Christian missionaries intent on continuing centuries of indoctrination in the global South: Give no quarter. Borrow, reframe, and reimagine. Erase and repeat. Repatriate the language to find poetry in the unlikeliest of origins.
Diego Báezis the author of the poetry collectionYaguareté White, published last month by the University of Arizona Press.
Art: Marissa LewisNaming the Apophatic: The Poetics of Not Knowing
by Diego Báez
3.4.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 191.
A tricky thing about writing multilingual lyric poetry is striking the right balance between proficiency and appreciation, especially when the languages in question arrive partial or incomplete, passed down in fragments from the ancestors. I write in three languages: English, Spanish, and Guaraní. I’ve spoken English my entire life, while Spanish and Guaraní, an Indigenous language that is one of the two official languages of Paraguay, are native among extended family on my father’s side. I grew up with certain Guaraní words and phrases embedded into memory (mba’éichapa = what’s up?), but others I’ll always need to look up. I’ve long wrestled with the question of how best to navigate this uncertainty about my own linguistic limitations and the question of whether I have the right to write in a language that lives in my people but which I do not know very well. I haven’t always had an answer.
My Spanish is conversationally passable—if often out of practice—and I can pronounce words in the language fairly well, even if I can’t always translate them exactly. So when I write in Spanish, I usually incorporate individual words or phrases that are familiar to me from my own family, from my father’s brothers and sisters and primos and sobrinos, people with enough patience to tolerate my slow slog through Castellano. They have paved my path into the language, a foundation I try to honor by working Spanish into the vernacular of my verse when fitting and possible. Other times I may want to explore the language through etymological excavation, including a Spanish-speaking character in a poem, such as a tío or neighbor, or interjecting exclamatory Spanish to interrupt a train of thought in English, should the Spanish capture that emotional outburst in a way that feels more authentic.
One way I deal with my fear of appropriating the language is to directly express it in my poems, signaling discomfort, inexperience, or tentativeness. In my poem “Inheritance,” for example, the speaker refers to Spanish as a “rickety gift,” one that is nonetheless his to share with his child. At one point the speaker considers the early days and months of the newborn’s life:
That first long year, when we moved
so seldom, estacionados en la mecedora.
The Spanish phrase doesn’t—or rather, didn’t—belong to my lexicon before I used Google to translate “parked in the rocking chair.” To acknowledge that gap in my knowledge, I tried to suggest what feels like artificiality by inducing an error: These lines are grammatically incorrect in both English and Spanish. Of course, poetry doesn’t need to be grammatically correct (some would argue ardently that it certainly should not be!). But I was intentionally botching the grammar in this poem to indicate the speaker’s insecurities with language as he struggles to raise a child, another domain in which he feels insufficient or incapable. The rest of the poem employs fairly standard English, diverging only at a few crucial intervals. Not only does the intermittent Spanish begin to seed the speaker’s newborn with the same broken exposure to the language the speaker himself experienced as a child, but it enhances the poem’s sonic resonance. The “s” sound tracks across the second line, adding an acoustic quality impossible to achieve with the English phrase “parked in the rocking chair.” Finally, “estacionados” evokes the parking of a vehicle, a prominent image in the poem, as much as it slips a hint of the cognate “stationary” into the English-speaking reader’s mind. Incorporating the language in ways that take care to gesture toward my own personal limitations and artistic liberties feels important for aligning this speaker with my actual self.
The question of appropriation becomes more difficult by an order of magnitude when applied to my use of Guaraní, since it is the only Indigenous language to be constitutionally enshrined by the state of Paraguay; while my family is likely descended from the Guaraní people, we don’t identify as such today. The Guaraní I know by heart appears only in a handful of words and phrases in my poems. These I’ve received from my father and family, and I consider them mine to impart. Though I’m not sure to whom I’d be imparting them: Beyond my actual kin, my imagined readers are (let’s face it) unlikely to know any Guaraní words or Paraguayans. So when I use “rohiwho” to mean “I love you,” instead of “rohayhu,” the spelling more commonly employed on the internet, it’s because my father sent me the former via text message, and he’s the authority on that, as far as I or my poems are concerned. But for words I need to look up, I try to employ language that dramatizes my own process of learning them. In “Chestnut People,” for example, I offer simple, clarifying definitions similar to those I encounter in my linguistic research:
cousins (in English)
primos (in Spanish)
tutyra’y (in Guaraní)
Aligning each word with its language in three rows hopefully conveys a straightforward translation that is designed to be elementary and didactic without insulting anyone. Dictionaries are hardly neutral zones of objective information, but the above lines hopefully provide definitions that are as impartial as possible (even as the consistent capitalization prioritizes English by default).
Other times I’ve found it necessary—and invigorating—to bask in the overwhelming wealth of sound and meaning afforded to speakers (and readers!) of multiple languages. In “English Eventually,” I want to accentuate a confounding sense of stumbling over languages as they crisscross and intersect in ways that seem meaningful but may only be coincidental:
But in Spanish y is “and” so
why is Guaraní for “water”
the same as “and” in Spanish?
On the one hand, it seems like a strange twist of linguistic fate that “y” can be used in Spanish and Guaraní to denote totally different ideas. What are the odds? And how interesting that “y” is used in Spanish for such a frequent conjunction, and in Guaraní it signifies a substance vital for life and crucial for survival! On the other hand, the explanation is easy: Imperial colonizers imposed Latin transcription on the Guaraní people and their language. Wasn’t overlap inevitable? Is this one instance even notable?
Across these examples, across a wide range of experiences and utterances, I’m left with far more questions than answers. Indeed, my own inability to summon sufficient explanatory information or background context for readers about whatever predicament the speaker finds himself in is a defining feature of so many of the poems I write. Here are a few lines that profess the speaker’s ignorance or negation:
“there are no jaguars / here”
“We have no idea what they called themselves”
“Why not speak Guaraní?”
“The skin / of a peach / is no longer / Flesh colored”
“My oddest Paraguayan uncle speaks no English and has done very well for himself”
Another poem, “Regalito,” concludes with the speaker recalling his father’s unenlightening response when asked to give the Spanish translation for something silly, like “toaster” or “roller coaster.”
From the driver’s seat of that minivan, I’m sure of it, he answered:
“There’s not a word for that.”
I’d feel self-conscious about this seemingly excessive profession of ignorance if it didn’t describe my own experiences so accurately. So much of my life has been defined by contradiction, confusion, and a lack of clarity around identity, culture, people, and place. I’ve come to embrace this “poetry of not knowing,” as Daniel Borzutzky has put it. But it wasn’t until recently that I learned a new word to describe my relationship with language. In the months before handing over the final manuscript of my debut poetry collection—Yaguareté White, published by the University of Arizona Press last month—Canadian writer Geoff Martin, a dear friend and workshop confidante, used a word I’d never heard to describe it: apophatic.
Apophaticderives from the Greek for “other than” (apo-) and “to speak” (phanai). It has been employed widely in theology to describe a thing only in terms of what may not be said about it. Applied often to discuss conceptions of God, the term describes a verbal strategy that helps us to make sense of the ineffable, unapproachable, or unknowable. While I’ve not yet begun to reconcile this vocabulary with my own Catholic upbringing (that’s for the next book), it has been incredibly clarifying to embrace this new terminology, to come to understand my writing and, indeed, myself in a different way. It now feels empowering to admit that there will be aspects of my own heritage and parentage that I will not be able to express. That these great gaps in knowledge and the lingering questions of my experience are not deficits but new pathways rich with potential. In naming the apophatic I’ve found another way in, a new means for building on the foundation laid by my ancestors, that Guaraní and Spanish and English might intermingle and generate something new. It remains to be seen exactly what comes next, what these languages can bring into being. But they can, and they will, continue to combine in new ways unique to this poetics of not knowing.
That much, at least, I know.
Diego Báez is the author of the poetry collection Yaguareté White, published last month by the University of Arizona Press.
Art: Elena KloppenburgCrayoned Fire: In Praise of Book-Length Poems
by Dante Di Stefano
2.19.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 190.
For as long as I can remember, I’ve loved long poems. My first introduction to poetry came from epics I read before I could possibly understand them, books my father owned and half-read: The Divine Comedy, The Odyssey, The Iliad, The Aeneid, El Cid, Orlando Furioso. When I started writing poetry myself, I was drawn in by the modernist attempts at epic: theCantos of Ezra Pound; William Carlos Williams’s Paterson, published in five volumes between 1946 and 1958 by New Directions; and H.D.’s Helen in Egypt (Grove Press, 1961). Then, as an undergraduate wandering the stacks of the Glenn G. Bartle Library at Binghamton University, I discovered A. R. Ammons’s Garbage (Norton, 1993) and Tape for the Turn of the Year (Norton, 1965). Around the same time, my poetry professor, Liz Rosenberg, assigned The Book of Nightmares (Houghton Mifflin, 1971) by Galway Kinnell. Kinnell and Ammons hooked me with their discursive, gamboling, digressive, ambitious, sprawling, yet unmistakably cohesive poems. I started writing poems too long to bring into workshops and too obscure to make sense to anybody but me. Later on, I would find Ruth Stone’s Who Is the Widow’s Muse (Yellow Moon Press, 1991) and William Heyen’s To William Merwin (Mammoth Books, 2007), two book-length poems that never cease to amaze me with their propulsive brilliance. At some point along the way, I also read Rachel Zucker’s “An Anatomy of the Long Poem,” which she recently included in the appendix of her bookThe Poetics of Wrongness (Wave Books, 2023). My thoughts on the long poem inevitably trace back to Zucker’s many insights; Zucker’s essay confirmed for me that I should continue trying to write a book-length poem. Reading The Poetics of Wrongness after the University of Wisconsin Press published my book-length poem, Midwhistle (2023),affirmed the conclusions I’d made through my writing process.
Before writing Midwhistle and reading The Poetics of Wrongness, I had assumed that writing a poem longer than a page-and-a-half Word document was beyond my capabilities. I had tried and failed for twenty years to write longer poems, while keeping in mind that writing a good poem of any length is an accomplishment, a thing that isn’t merely lucked into being. Book-length poems—or poetry collections that read like book-length poems—kept calling to me from my reading life: Claudia Rankine’s Citizen (Graywolf Press, 2014), Derek Walcott’s Omeros (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1990), Anne Carson’s Autobiography of Red (Vintage, 1998), Edward Hirsch’s Gabriel (Knopf, 2014). Add to that list a growing number of book-length projects or poetic sequences: Crow by Ted Hughes (Faber and Faber, 1970), Barbie Chang (Copper Canyon Press, 2017) by Victoria Chang, Olio (Wave Books, 2016) by Tyehimba Jess, Sand Opera (Alice James Books, 2015) by Philip Metres, the many books of H. L. Hix. The list of long poems I admire could go on and on, including those by Ronald Johnson, James Schuyler, John Ashbery, Melvin B. Tolson, and, of course, Walt Whitman and William Blake. These works are so disparate in their thematic concerns and technical approaches as to be almost unrecognizable as a category or type. What I love about long poems is what I love about poetry in general: Long poems are not monolithic; they thrive on acute heterogeneity and multivalent strangeness.
If I had to constellate the many long poems (and long-poem-adjacent projects) I love, I’d have to rely on Rachel Zucker’s brilliant observations. Zucker argues that a long poem (1) is extreme, (2) grapples with narrative, (3) takes time to read, (4) is confessional, (5) creates intimacy, (6) is “about” something AND is about nothing but itself, (7) resists “aboutness,” is instead muralistic or kaleidoscopic, (8) discovers itself, (9) allows the poet to change her mind, (10) changes the mind of the reader and the writer, (11) is ambitious, (12) humbles the poet, (13) highlights process, (14) is imperfect. I found all these observations to be true when writing Midwhistle.
I started writing Midwhistle without knowing I was beginning a book-length poem. I’d just watched a YouTube video of William Heyen reading his poetry. I had been corresponding with Heyen, who is in his eighties, and I found his work and life to be resonant with my own, reconciling as it did a kind of suburban conformity with a radical, quixotic ambition to make great poetry. My wife was pregnant with our second child. We were living through the pandemic and emerging from the chaos of the Trump presidency. I began writing a poem, a single column of seven syllable lines, addressed to both my octogenarian poet-friend and to my unborn child. Before I knew it, I had written ten pages in one sitting. A few days later, I went back to what I wrote and saw it was pretty good (as Larry David would say). I printed off a copy and sent it to Heyen. He wrote back telling me I should develop it into a book-length poem and suggesting I should break the stichic column into cinquains, or five-line stanzas. From there, I developed a stanzaic pattern that zigzags like a double helix. The poem unspooled like an umbilical c(h)ord from there. I felt like I could put anything and everything into this poem, even my own imperfections—all my wrongness and all my love. The poem was my way of saying everything-beyond-saying about poetry and the world—for the future adult my unborn son would one day be, and to the poet I revere.
I wrote the poem at intervals over a two-month period. I imagine I worked in the way an undisciplined novelist might work, incrementally and at odd intervals. Once I had around fifty pages done, I set it aside for a month. Then I reread it and began making initial revisions. I sent it to William Heyen. He sent back encouragement. I revised for several more months and then sent it out to University of Wisconsin Press. Fortunately for me, Ron Wallace and Sean Bishop saw the strength in what I had written and decided to publish it. I worked on revision intensively for the next couple of months and then proofread draft after draft along with the exceptionally diligent copy editors at the press. I spent more time revising the twenty-four sections of Midwhistle than I have with any poem in my life.
Dwelling in the long poem allowed me to understand better the tropes and thematic concerns that populate my body of work. My obsessions and my quirks fanned out before my eyes. I came to see all my poetry as an intimate conversation with my wife and kids and with the poets and poetry I love. I came to embrace my flaws, my extremities, my ridiculousness. Poetry became more intimate for me than ever, more sacred, and at the same time closer to the rhythms of the ordinary and the unvarnished. I felt that I’d accomplished something as epic as the crayoned fire in one of my five-year-old daughter’s 8.5 x 11–inch landscapes. I felt like a stick figure king arrayed in ROYGBIV and counting to one hundred. From that vantage point, even the briefest lyric fragment expands like a pocket universe, and the distance between short and long poem collapses entirely. For those daunted by the prospect of writing a book-length poem, I would offer the advice that I would give my younger self if I could: Be patient. Keep reading long poems that delight and undo you. Be prepared to fail many times. But gather the bouquet of those failures close to your heart, and let their aromas inspire momentum and ambition in you. Lastly, keep writing more and differently—for the love of writing, the way my daughter sketches her vibrant Crayola kingdoms and queendoms, letting the irrepressible, ancient, innate music of the self take shape on paper.
Dante Di Stefanois the author of four poetry collections, including the book-length poemMidwhistle(University of Wisconsin Press, 2023),Love Is a Stone Endlessly in Flight(Brighthorse Books, 2016),Ill Angels(Etruscan Press, 2019), andLullaby With Incendiary Device, which was published in an anthology titledGenerations(Etruscan Press, 2022) that also includes poetry collections by William Heyen and H. L. Hix. Di Stefano’s poetry, essays, and reviews have appeared inTheBest American Poetry 2018,Prairie Schooner,theSewanee Review, theWriter’s Chronicle, and elsewhere. WithMaría Isabel Alvarez hecoedited the anthologyMisrepresented People: Poetic Responses to Trump’s America(NYQ Books, 2018). He holds a PhD in English from Binghamton University and teaches high school English in Endicott, New York. He lives in Endwell, New York, with his wife, Christina, their daughter, Luciana, their son, Dante Jr., and their goldendoodle, Sunny.
Art: John Cameron
What Herbie Hancock Taught Me About Formal Poetry
by Dante Di Stefano
2.12.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 189.
When I first began seriously writing poetry in the late 1990s, I was immediately drawn to formal poetry. Nineteenth-century poet and Jesuit priest Gerard Manley Hopkins was, is, and will forever remain my North Star in poetry. When I first read his poems at nineteen, I was smitten, overwhelmed by his sprung rhythms and by the way he marshalled his daringly ebullient alliterations within traditional formal patterns. I spent the next few years writing curtal sonnets—an eleven-line variation of the traditional sonnet invented by Hopkins, exemplified by his poem “Pied Beauty”—then branched out into Elizabethan sonnets, villanelles, sestinas, and thousands of lines of blank verse. None of this poetry was very good. My teachers in creative writing classes responded more favorably to my rawer, freer work (inspired by my other poetry crush, Allen Ginsberg). My teachers also made me aware of the conservative political charge surrounding neoformalism at the time. The poets my teachers admired (James Wright, Stanley Kunitz, James Dickey) had followed a trajectory shared by many American poets of the twentieth century; they began their lives in poetry by writing technically virtuosic formal poetry and eventually broke into a free verse of tremendous power. It’s a compelling arc: from formality to freedom. But in each of these cases, and in almost any writer’s journey, the arc is not as straightforward as it might appear at first glance.
In the twenty-first century, the arc described above has been atomized and absorbed into the bloodstream of countless poets. MFA graduates and amateurs, local poets and performance artists, poets laureate and professors are living through a golden age of American poetry, in which any given poetry collection displays an astonishing variety of forms. Look no further than the proliferation of American sonnets, pantoums, golden shovels, and so on, peacocking through the digital ether and across the pages of your favorite literary magazine. Recently, while reading Tim Seibles’sVoodoo Libretto: New and Selected Poems (Etruscan Press, 2022), my opinion was confirmed that his command of the villanelle equals that of Theodore Roethke, Sylvia Plath, and Dylan Thomas. Zeina Hashem Beck’s crown of sonnets, “Poem Beginning & Ending With My Birth,” in her recent collection O (Penguin Poets, 2022), is a formal tour de force. Terrance Hayes, through the intercession of Wanda Coleman, has reinvigorated the sonnet form as radically as anyone since Shakespeare. Seibles, Beck, and Hayes aren’t exceptions to the rule; most poets today shuffle through a multiplicity of forms and techniques.
In my early twenties, I had mostly abandoned my apprenticeship to form. I was working as a bellhop at a Holiday Inn and writing notebook after notebook full of bad poetry. One day I found out that jazz musician Herbie Hancock was staying at the hotel. I love jazz, and so, when I found out he was staying there and would be checking out during my shift, I made my way up to his room to collect his bags and the bags and instruments of his group members. I asked for his autograph, and he was surprised that a young bellhop in the middle of upstate New York knew his discography, from Empyrean Isles to The New Standard. I told Hancock at one point that I was really into “free jazz”(Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra, late Coltrane). He chuckled and said, in the gentlest way, “You know, all jazz is free.” When he said this, I immediately thought of poetry. Saying “free jazz” is as redundant saying “formal poetry.” Just as jazz is contingent upon improvisation, so pattern is essential to poetry. Every choice we make in a poem, from diction to syntax to line length to enjambment, is a formal choice. The bottom line for beginning poets, and for poets who are anxious about formal poetry, is this: Don’t be afraid of inherited forms because all writing is an engagement with form. Not only was Hancock a generous tipper, but he offered me the gift of a new insight into poetry, which I’ve carried with me for over two decades.
Since this conversation with Hancock, I have continued my experimentation and romance with form. Much of my formal work has revolved around the ten-syllable line, writing in a kind of Miltonic blank verse and deploying those lines in sonnets, sestinas, and short lyric poems broken into quatrains or tercets. In my recent book-length poem, Midwhistle (University of Wisconsin Press, 2023), I invented a stanzaic pattern I call the “stepped septasyllabic cinquain,” which is a fancy way of saying a five-line stanza built with seven syllable lines indented in a fashion that recalls a spiral staircase. Here are a few stanzas from a section titled “in the manner of Proust & Tolstoy” from Midwhistle:
I am & was a deckle
edge, a drawing room, an iris
blossoming distance under
the eyelids of my unborn
child, who is & is not me.
& blooming, thus: I gather
my radiant manias
& sweet regrets & hold them
out for you, these details that
deepen into fond symbol.
For me, composing by counting syllables as I go forces me further into the rhythms of the individual lines and steers me into syntactical and dictional choices that I wouldn’t otherwise make. The felicitous enjambments in the first stanza above (“deckle / edge,” “iris / blossoming,” “unborn / child”) owe themselves to syllable count, as does the phrase “radiant manias” in the second stanza.
Formal constraints are almost always generative stimulants. If you find yourself resistant to experimenting with form because you find the constraints limiting, I suggest seeing the limitations of any formal stricture as hurdles to soar over, as diving boards to corkscrew off, as papier mâché walls to careen through. Also remember that much of the joy and work of writing comes from what jazz musicians call “woodshedding,” or practicing. You might take inspiration from saxophonist Sonny Rollins, who famously honed his craft on the Williamsburg Bridge, playing for the East River and the J train until he became a legend. For me, much of the excitement of a life in poetry comes from this kind of woodshedding: composing without hope of publishing, exploring the wrong notes, looking for the grace notes, dwelling in the music of lyric saying, tapping out melodies on an old piano in an empty room with a window open and no audience in sight for hour upon hour—like Herbie Hancock surely has done.
Nota Bene: Three books that have been incredibly useful to me over the years in deepening my understanding of form areThe Poem’s Heartbeat: A Manual of Prosodyby Alfred Corn (Story Line Press, 1997), Poetic Meter and Poetic Form (McGraw Hill, 1965) by Paul Fussell, and Patterns of Poetry: An Encyclopedia of Forms (Louisiana State University Press, 1986) by Miller Williams.
Dante Di Stefanois the author of four poetry collections, including the book-length poemMidwhistle(University of Wisconsin Press, 2023),Love Is a Stone Endlessly in Flight(Brighthorse Books, 2016),Ill Angels(Etruscan Press, 2019), andLullaby With Incendiary Device, which was published in an anthology titledGenerations(Etruscan Press, 2022) that also includes poetry collections by William Heyen and H. L. Hix. Di Stefano’s poetry, essays, and reviews have appeared inTheBest American Poetry 2018,Prairie Schooner,theSewanee Review, theWriter’s Chronicle, and elsewhere. WithMaría Isabel Alvarez hecoedited the anthologyMisrepresented People: Poetic Responses to Trump’s America(NYQ Books, 2018). He holds a PhD in English from Binghamton University and teaches high school English in Endicott, New York. He lives in Endwell, New York, with his wife, Christina, their daughter, Luciana, their son, Dante Jr., and their goldendoodle, Sunny.
Art: RokenstreetApproaches to Titling Your Poem
by Dante Di Stefano
2.5.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 188.
One of my greatest teachers, David Bosnick, used to say, “A title is like a light switch in a darkened room.” I heard him repeat that phrase many times to the eighth graders he taught, and I carried that saying with me into my life as a poet and teacher. A title is often a light switch: the first place you go to illuminate the room of a poem. In my reading and writing life, however, I’ve found that a title can also be a dimmer-switch, a dial, a circuit breaker, a live wire exposed and sparking. Sometimes a title isn’t wired into the structure of the poem at all. Sometimes it’s a satellite orbiting high overhead. Sometimes it’s a dose of poison that contains its own antidote. And sometimes it’s just a title: an empty placeholder, a name tag, an easily guessed password. Thinking deeply about how titles work over the years, I’ve come up with a list of ten categories for poem titles. Many of these categories overlap, and the list is by no means exhaustive. But hopefully the different types of titles I explore below will open some new possibilities for titling your own work.
1. Formal
A formal title calls attention to the form a poem is (and sometimes isn’t) written in; this is, of course, a metapoetic gesture. The poem might either subvert or strictly adhere to the form. Examples include: “Villanelle After Wittgenstein” by H. L. Hix, “Sestina: Travel Notes” by Weldon Kees, “pantoum: landing, 1976” by Evie Shockley,“Haiku” by Etheridge Knight, and any of Wanda Coleman’s American Sonnets.
The sestina and the pantoum have a substantial tradition of including the form in the title. Wanda Coleman’s use of “American Sonnet” in her titles—a practice extended by Terrance Hayes in his book American Sonnets for My Past and Future Assassin(Penguin Books, 2018)—complicates, subverts, and invests with historical complexity the English sonnet tradition. Consider also Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Woods: A Prose Sonnet,” an early example of the American prose poem that adds to its frisson by invoking form.
2. Emblematic
In an emblematic title, a word or phrase works like a sigil or symbol for the poem. The emblem might introduce an abstract concept, a concrete subject, or a guiding metaphor that will be elaborated as the poem unfolds. Emblematic titles tend toward brevity and sincerity, and they tend not to be subverted in the course of a poem. Examples include: “Despair” by W. S. Merwin, “The Windhover” by Gerard Manley Hopkins,“The Bean Eaters” by Gwendolyn Brooks, “Good Bones” by Maggie Smith, and “My Son, My Executioner” by Donald Hall.
Emblematic titles are useful if you want either to err on the side of simplicity or to call the reader’s attention to a central metaphor. These titles are not flashy, but they often do complicated work, as does Hopkins’s windhover (a kestrel, which is a metaphor for Christ) and Smith’s repurposing of real-estate jargon for a meditation on the human power to act in the face of a cruel universe.
3. Anaphoric
Anaphoric titles involve repetitions—either by quoting a line that appears within the poem or within the poetry collection itself. Examples include: “Nothing Gold Can Stay” by Robert Frost, “Just Once” by Anne Sexton, “For the City That Nearly Broke Me” by Reginald Dwayne Betts, and “American Sonnet for My Past and Future Assassin” by Terrance Hayes.
Anaphoric titles might repeat within the poem, as in the first line of Sexton’s poem and the last line of Frost’s poem. Or they might establish a musical refrain within a larger work, as in Betts’sBastards of the Reagan Era (Four Way Books, 2015), wherein eleven poems are titled “For the City That Nearly Broke Me,”and Hayes’s American Sonnets for My Past and Future Assassin, wherein every poem is titled “American Sonnet for My Past and Future Assassin.” Repetitions of this kind can emphasize obsession (obsessive confrontation of a difficult truth, perhaps) and create the effect of a litany.
4. Expository
Expository titles set a scene and provide narrative details about the situation explored within a poem. Poets like Robert Bly and James Wright were inspired by the expository titles in ancient Chinese poetry. Examples include: “Waking from Drunkenness on a Spring Day” by Li Bai, “After Drinking All Night With a Friend, We Go Out in a Boat at Dawn to See Who Can Write the Best Poem” by Robert Bly, “Lying in a Hammock at William Duffy’s Farm in Pine Island, Minnesota” by James Wright, “On the Fatal Consequences of Going Home With the Wrong Man From the Chicago World’s Fair, 1893” by Amy Gerstler, and “Black, or I Sit on My Front Porch in the Projects, Waiting, on God” by Jameka Williams.
I admit I’m biased toward expository titles—the longer the better, especially when the poem is short and succinct.
5. Allusive
An allusive title references another text, artist, or work of art. Examples include: “Note Blue” by Kyle Dargan, “Self-Portrait as an Allegory of Painting” by Frances Sterle, “Girls That Never Die” by Safia Elhillo, and all of the poems in H. L. Hix’s book Perfect Hell (Gibbs Smith, 1996),which are titled after quotations by philosophers.
Kyle Dargan’s “Note Blue” apostrophizes Teddy Pendergrass, who was the lead singer of Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes, Francine Sterle’s “Self-Portrait as an Allegory of Painting” invokes Artemisia Gentileschi’s painting of the nearly same name (“Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting”). Safia Elhillo’s title comes from a lyric by Ol’ Dirty Bastard. Allusive titles work like hyperlinks for meaning, summoning the world of another text or artwork and layering it into the frame of the poem.
6. Subversive
A subversive title defies the expectations and clichés it invokes. Examples include: “Come In” by Robert Frost, “Daddy” by Sylvia Plath, “acknowledgements” by Danez Smith, and “Preface to a Twenty Volume Suicide Note” by Amiri Baraka.
Robert Frost was a virtuoso of subversive titling. Many Frost poems do what “Come In” does, which is to seriously probe the intersection of grief and reason. The prosaic welcome articulated in the title subtly takes on more ominous associations, with death and dying, as the poem moves to its close. Plath lacerates the paternal term of endearment associated with childhood, controversially metaphorizing the Shoah in this “confessional” poem (although “Daddy” reads less subversively today than it did when it was first published). Danez Smith’s title parodically conjures the lengthy acknowledgements pages in contemporary poetry collections, moving from the title into a nuanced exploration of love, desire, and identity. Baraka’s title playfully subverts itself as it moves between light and dark, between joy and grief, between innocence and experience, initiating its readers into a profound chronicling of what it was like to be a Black father in the late 1950s.
7. Metapoetic
Metapoetic titles tend to be formal, emblematic, expository, allusive, and subversive all at once. Examples include: “Words Written Near a Candle” by Tess Gallagher, “Lines Written on a Splinter from Apollinaire’s Coffin” by Paul Violi, “Poem” by James Schuyler,“Prose Poem (“The morning coffee.”) by Ron Padgett, “Poetry Is a Destructive Force” by Wallace Stevens,“Poetry” by Marianne Moore, and “Words” by Ruth Stone.
Metapoetic titles call attention to the poem as a written and aural artifact, as Gallagher’s title does. Metapoetic titles might engage some element of poetics and poetic tradition, as Violi’s surreally does. These titles might reinscribe or fabricate the circumstances of the poem’s initial composition. They might challenge or affirm a definition of poetry as Stevens’s does, and as Schuyler’s, Moore’s, and Stone’s do more simply and directly. A metapoetic title might also embody the expanding cartographies of genre it professes to delimit, as Padgett’s title does so well.
8. Perspectival
A perspectival title unironically introduces a persona or frames a dialogue in the poem. Examples include: “Ellen West” by Frank Bidart, “Carl Hamblin” by Edgar Lee Masters (and most of the poems from his Spoon River Anthology, first published by Macmillan in 1915), “Mother to Son” by Langston Hughes, and “The Leaden Echo and the Golden Echo” by Gerard Manley Hopkins.
Perspectival titles, like emblematic titles, function more like light switches than the other categories in this essay.
9. Fugitive
A fugitive title spills over, or “runs on,” into the opening line(s) of a poem. Examples include: “This Is Just to Say” by William Carlos Williams and “here rests” by Lucille Clifton.Clifton’s poem begins:
here rests
my sister Josephine
born in July ’29
The fugitive title collapses the artificial boundary between title and text. The title is subsumed into the organic structure of the poem, and it functions less as a label and more as a first line.
10. Absent
Some of the most famous poems in the English language do not have titles; think of Emily Dickinson’s lyric shards. Refusing to title a poem may inscribe a gap, a gulf, a chasm at the poem’s start.
Much remains to be said about the art of titling. The possibilities for titling are more numerous than the names of our ancestors and descendants, as luminous, or, at least, as multitudinous as the stars in the sky. To poets who have trouble deciding on a title, I say: Try as many kinds of titles as you can. These titling strategies are not all light switches exactly, but they do flicker with meaning in the many rooms of the poems I love.
Dante Di Stefano is the author of four poetry collections, including the book-length poemMidwhistle (University of Wisconsin Press, 2023), Love Is a Stone Endlessly in Flight (Brighthorse Books, 2016),Ill Angels (Etruscan Press, 2019), and Lullaby With Incendiary Device, which was published in an anthology titledGenerations (Etruscan Press, 2022) that also includes poetry collections by William Heyen and H. L. Hix. Di Stefano’s poetry, essays, and reviews have appeared in TheBest American Poetry 2018, Prairie Schooner, the Sewanee Review, the Writer’s Chronicle, and elsewhere. WithMaría Isabel Alvarez hecoedited the anthology Misrepresented People: Poetic Responses to Trump’s America (NYQ Books, 2018). He holds a PhD in English from Binghamton University and teaches high school English in Endicott, New York. He lives in Endwell, New York, with his wife, Christina, their daughter, Luciana, their son, Dante Jr., and their goldendoodle, Sunny.
Art: Dstudio BcnFamily Stories: Alternatives for Load-Bearing Clichés
by Laurie Frankel
1.22.24
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 187.
When I set out to write my new novel—Family Family, published this month by Henry Holt—I started with a very simple goal: Write about adoption. But make it non-tragic. But make it non-boring.
And just that quickly, this goal proved to be not simple at all.
As so often happens when I decide, usually smugly, to write against the grain, I quickly discovered that the clichés and timeworn tropes are load-bearing. Hackneyed though they may be, they provide readymade support and structure to the story. Getting rid of them is a worthy goal, but then we have to find a replacement, which is difficult but requisite: How else can we hold up the roof?
Wherever you locate literature’s origins—Sophocles? Homer? Fairy tales? Ancient religious texts? Folklore the world over?—the stories humans tell have always been full of adoptive families: orphans seeking parents, parents raising children to whom they are not blood related, small units we call families who share everything but genetics. Adoptive families lack not for literary representation.
But that representation—also from the origins of literature—is pretty relentlessly terrible. Cinderella’s stepmother subjugates her because she’s not actually her mother. Moses gets sent away by his birth family and adopted only because the other option is death. And let’s not even talk about what Oedipus suffers on account of being raised by adoptive parents instead of his birth ones.
We see negative portrayals of adoption across the board—in classic as well as contemporary literature, in books for kids as well as books for adults, in plays and television and movies, in documentaries and fantasy and horror, in superhero stories (like, most superhero stories). Sometimes the trauma of adoption is central to the narrative: The story is about a child raised by adoptive parents who abuse her, say, or a birth mother who travels the world searching for the child torn from her grasp, or adoptive parents struggling to love children who aren’t really theirs. Sometimes adoption is merely thrown off as a plot point or a bit of lazy character development: the reason the bad guy is so bad (he’s adopted!), the reason the mother is so cold (she’s an adoptive mom, not a real one!), or the reason the druggie is addicted (placing her child for adoption broke her forever!).
It’s not that there aren’t people who have horrible adoption experiences. Of course there are. It’s not that there aren’t people who go into adoptions wishing they didn’t have to. Of course that’s true too. The problem is that these stories aren’t the only ones. It’s important for us to talk about negative systems and negative experiences and negative feelings and the reasons for them. But it’s just as important that that’s not all we talk about.
There are all kinds of reasons the conversation surrounding adoption is so narrow, many of them offensive. You know who says families only count if they look a certain way? You know who says families are only strong or good for children if they’re made up of certain relationships? People whose agenda is antigay. People who imagine pure bloodlines they don’t want diluted. People whose message is that good and desirable women stay home to raise children and serve husbands.
But as I waded into my first draft of Family Family, I realized that in addition to these infuriating reasons, there was another kind of rationale entirely. A less offensive but more insidious reason portraits of adoption in literature are so narrow and negative has nothing to do with the constraints of family. It has to do with the constraints of narrative. Happy families may all be alike, but they don’t turn pages. Or to put it another way: Stories need plot. They need a beginning, a middle, and an end—characters who at first are ignorant then learn, struggle with flaws then rise above, encounter obstacles then surmount them. Stories need conflict to resolve, unknowns to reveal, wrinkles to iron out. Nuance if possible.
My own kid is adopted, and I loved her to my toes before I even got her home. Love like that is great for babies, but boring for stories about them. At least one reason it takes adopted characters in novels 350 pages to find belonging is, if they have it to begin with, that makes for a very short book. If birth mothers don’t spend chapter after chapter mourning children they lost to adoption, there’s not enough room for them to grow as characters. If adoptive parents don’t struggle with infertility, then painfully settle for adoption, then slowly learn that that’s also a worthy option, the narrative arc is too flat to turn pages. So much of the strife that typifies adoption literature stems from the fact that literature needs strife.
Adoption is also an awfully good metaphor. You know who sometimes feel like they don’t belong? Adopted people. Also every other person who has ever lived on this planet. Everyone has crises of identity. Everyone questions the received wisdom of their parents. Everyone wonders where they came from and who they really are and how they’ll figure out where they’re going. Everyone experiences loss and walks around with holes it’s the work of a lifetime to fill. Everyone looks at their family sometimes and thinks, “Who the hell are these people, and what could they possibly have to do with me?” Which means if you want to write about feeling lost or alone or at sea, about missing something or searching for something or being different or wanting more—i.e. the human condition—adoption is a really good way to do it.
And so I found my simple remit—a non-tragic, non-boring story of adoption—surprisingly difficult to locate. I knew going in I wouldn’t write a tragedy about adoption. I knew I wouldn’t write a tragedy narrowly averted either, or a family who experiences hardship for four-fifths of a book then learns to love, or characters whose sadness surrounding adoption is the inevitable bit and their finding happiness, after all, is the surprise. But then I had to figure out what to write instead. What else could occasion an adoptive family’s learning and growth? How else to keep readers engaged and seen and learning about the world and turning pages? How to honor what’s hard about adoption while also honoring what’s wonderful while also honoring what’s ordinary?
It sounds impossible, remarking on what you want to insist is unremarkable. But at its core, it seems to me, this is what literature does. It reveals either what’s wondrous in the everyday or, alternatively, what’s common and shared in the extraordinary. It took three-and-a-half years, throwing out one timeline entirely and rewriting it from scratch, and a truly countless number of drafts before I figured out what worked. It turned out I needed not to tell one non-tragic, non-boring story but lots of them, not to depict a different kind of adoption but as many different kinds of adoption as I had room for, not to raise one different voice but a polyphony. Or maybe a medley. Family Family harmonizes a range of adoption notes and chords, bringing into tune an array of perspectives and reasons for adopting among the book’s characters. The end run around the clichés proved not to be a different kind of adoption story but many differing stories braided together.
What’s surprising is how long it took me to come to this solution. More stories and more diverse stories and more positive diverse stories are what we need under any circumstances. Exposure to lots of narratives helps us to identify our unexamined assumptions, then examine them—which is pretty much the reason we read.
Sometimes there are really sad things about adoption. Sometimes adoption seems sad for sad reasons: the racism, sexism, and homophobia that so often fuel messaging about family. But when we look closely, we see that sometimes adoption seems sad because telling good stories is hard. It’s hard to write beyond the clichés because it’s hard to write without the clichés. Since the clichés are so often load-bearing for the story—and since we can’t build anything strong without structure and support—when we lose the clichés, we must look in unusual places for material to bolster the narrative.
So: Writing well about adoption is hard. But its being hard, I want to argue, is, in fact, good news. Telling stories—like being a member of a family, like being a member of a nontraditional family, like raising children no matter how much blood you share or don’t with them—should be hard. Work isn’t supposed to be easy. And the work here—reading critically, sharing our stories, changing the tropes and challenging the clichés, questioning what’s handed to us—is hard. But it’s also cause for celebration.
Laurie Frankel is the New York Times best-selling, award-winning author of five novels, including Family Family (Henry Holt, 2024). Her writing has also appeared in the New York Times, the Guardian, Publisher’s Weekly, and other publications. She is the recipient of the Washington State Book Award and the Endeavor Award. Her novels have been translated into more than twenty-five languages and been optioned for film and TV. A former college professor, she now writes full-time in Seattle, where she lives with her family and makes good soup.
Art: Sandy MillarFinding Your Crow
by India Lena González
12.18.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 186.
“Let me begin with Crow. I first met Crow on the mountain. The mountain that changed everything. There’s always been a bird inside me. It used to sit outside my window when I was a girl, me feeding the hogs across the cornfields. Then that little bird was orange and bright, but it grew into Crow, black Crow. Crow who has always been with me, even now.”
So says the trailblazing, raw, seductive, forward-thinking, and enigmatic funk queen, singer, and mythmaker Betty Davis in Betty: They Say I’m Different, a 2017 documentary on the artistic life and disappearance of Davis from the music scene years ago. Davis, who died last year, was Black and Cherokee—like myself—and told the director of this film, Philip Cox, that Crow was her spirit guide. Images of black crows landing and taking off punctuate the film and stand in for Davis, alongside powerful images of her in the 1970s, as we learn about her path to becoming the wild thing that she was. We see her growling into the microphone, with her gritty rock and roll sound; her iconic outfits replete with sequins, feathers, colorful prints, and metallic boots; her sexually liberated dance moves. She was distinctly and uncommonly free, unapologetically Black and female during a time when civilized and genteel images of African Americans were in favor on the heels of the Civil Rights movement. As a performer, Davis was therefore seen as “indecent” (often synonymous, when it comes to women of color, with being fully empowered); she faced major backlash for being so undeniably herself, leading her to drift away from the music scene altogether, opting for a quiet and private life instead.
The tone and timbre of Davis’s voice, that Crow that was within her and encapsulated her artistic aura, still lingers in my inner ear, leading me to an intuitive feeling about what I’d like to become as a writer—purposeful, deeply authentic, and free in the way Audre Lorde described it in her essay “Poetry Is Not a Luxury”: “The Black mother within each of us—the poet—whispers in our dreams: I feel, therefore I can be free.” For Davis’s music always elicits feelings from its listeners, and in feeling and hearing her freedom one also becomes empowered by a process of artistic osmosis.
I’m convinced by what Lorde and Davis have shown me, and what my ancestors have passed down to me in our beliefs and ways of moving through this world, that writing that originates from being as opposed to thinking is where authenticity lies—our real and most sincere selves, our inner crows. Creating art for me has never been an intellectual exercise as much as it has been a spiritual one, a deep exploration of who I am, where I come from, and where I’m headed. In finding and writing my true voice as a poet (and I tried on many voices during my undergraduate and graduate years to see what stuck), I have arrived at a ritual through which I create language from my subconscious, my intuition, my dreams, my body, my ancestors, but never truly from my mind—that final editing tool. For writing is far more than a mental activity; it’s a soul-searching pursuit. Crow was Davis’s “heartbeat,” as she says in the film, and I am committed to a poetics that originates from our inner selves, our heart caves, and, yes, our literal heartbeats.
Immersing myself in Davis’s world has led me to thinking about how we can be freer to present our truest selves in poetry, as true as Davis was to herself when she performed on stage. The way one sings across the page may differ from the way they speak in other settings: their office voice, their phone voice, their outside voice. After all, isn’t poetry our inside voice? Yet, even as that interior tone is some very real part of us as poets, writing is simultaneously a performance, aware of a readership that may potentially analyze, and judge, every word and line.
The architecture of self on the page, the use of voice and tone in building it—how does one find that? Some people go looking for their voices in others first, mimicking their favorite poets. Others claim to be born with a strong artist’s voice, their own bright-turned-black crow. The path is varied. Some people more carefully construct this sense of self, this literary voice, for a certain purpose. Maybe it’s to be liked, accepted, “cool,” published, or maybe it’s to counter that which is liked, accepted, “cool,” and generally published. Others give off the air of caring little about public perception at all and more about what feels right in the moment. What I’m mostly interested in is how much of ourselves we reveal and give to our readers through our voice. How much of our pain or mischievousness or family upbringing is found in our choice of words, the slang and vernacular we do or do not use. How much of ourselves do we give without reservation on the page?
Coming from a dance and performance background, I can say that there is a vulnerability to presenting yourself physically to an audience that you cannot hide from. In writing, to some degree, we can hide behind the page: Our bodies are not present, only our words can be seen. But I desire that same fullness, that same “here I am” quality on the page, and I can only assume other writers do too. I also understand the inauthentic voices that can show up in a written work when we conceal ourselves. How can one remain authentic, I have wondered for the better part of my twenties, when the poet, the page performer, acknowledges to some degree the audience, their readers? There’s something playful that can take place in that performance. So perhaps authenticity is a choice. Of course, one must know how to pull something true out of themselves before that choice can be made.
Engaging in other art forms helped me to find and establish my authentic voice, and it also taught me how to pull something true out of myself, for finding our own inner crows and our voices is, for me, one and the same—the purest part of our being. In college I fell in love with acting around the time I committed myself seriously to writing (yes, I was still dancing). Pushing myself to find my own crow within the voices of scripted characters who looked, sounded, walked, and thought nothing like me helped me nail down my authentic voice with each costume and character change. It also helped me feel the full wingspan of my inner self. Yet acting initially felt anti-India. I was a shy child growing up, and I am still an introvert today (though I masquerade as an extrovert when I absolutely must). Not having to use my voice during dance kept some part of me safely tucked away off stage. Knowing that about myself, I forced myself to audition for an acting class in college as a way of pushing past my comfort zone. Who was I if I proved to myself that I wasn’t so shy, that I could get up in front of an audience and cry without feeling uncomfortable? I feared acting would make me unhinged or overly emotional, because it created a version of myself that couldn’t control what happened next, what my scene partners said and how I reacted to them. And control is the very antithesis of acting, of art in general, which thrives on flexibility and spontaneity.
While I won’t be so prescriptive as to recommend that every writer take acting classes as a sure method of finding their own authentic footing and voice, I will offer the suggestion to do something that feels antithetical to how you generally think of yourself. Dear reader, is there something you’ve secretly desired to engage in but were terrified to do? Maybe it’s taking a pottery class or dressing and presenting yourself in a certain way that feels truest to you. Give yourself the grace to explore something you’ve avoided or, more simply, something new you never thought you’d do. What becomes of you if you put yourself in a totally new context?
Just this summer one of my dearest friends asked me to paint his nails while we were on vacation together. No doubt this was a huge moment for him, as it surely would be for any heterosexual man in America working actively to break free from certain brassbound ways of being a “man” that don’t serve them. After a half hour in the nail polish aisle of some drugstore in the Southwest, he chose the most beautiful, shimmery pink polish, and slowly, very slowly, fell in love with his painted nails throughout the rest of our week together. It was a wonderfully tender time for his self-discovery. So make yourself tender, and see who you really are. Think of whatever new task or way of living appeals to you and what has stopped you from doing it. Maybe you’ll fail at first when you try it. Lord knows my mother and sister candidly told me that the monologue I prepared for my first-ever acting audition was a very low starting point (lovingly, of course, always lovingly). But if you push yourself to keep at it, you’ll find your grit, your inner rock and roll, your truest self that can then be brought back to the page for you to strengthen your writing practice.
“There it all began, the beginning of being different, like a piece of sugar cane, sweet to the core,” utters Davis in her distinctive Southern voice. In finding our voices as writers—who we are and what we stand for, the symphony of sounds that add up to our distinct utterances, the song of our particular crows—we can search deeply by implementing one new action or way of being in our lives that terrifies us. Why not push into the deepest corners of your being and feeling (not thinking, remember) to expand your conception of who you are and what you can become? I wonder what power, what growl, we can find within ourselves if we commit to not trying to sound like anyone else but being that someone else. There must be the push beyond what is readily known. In that push, that search, I wish for you to find your bird-like voice, your song, and sing it until a new melody blows your way, until that song has said all it needs to say.
India Lena González is the features editor of Poets & Writers Magazine, a poet, and a multidisciplinary artist. Her debut poetry collection, fox woman get out!, was released this fall as part of BOA Editions’ Blessing the Boats Selections. India is also a professionally trained dancer, choreographer, and actor and has had the pleasure of performing at Lincoln Center, the Kennedy Center, St. Mark’s Church, La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club, New York Live Arts, and other such venues.
Art: Bianca AckermannPage as Stage
by India Lena González
12.11.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 185.
Can a poem become a body in motion? How about several bodies, a company of dancers moving about the page in synchronicity (sometimes not), taking up as much space as possible from the curtain to the scrim?
Why not reimagine the blank page as a stage for a performance to take place, where our personal joys and troubles can be expressed through language that leaps in front of the reader, even lunges at them?
What if the visual aspect of language is used to add emotional depth to a poem and becomes just as important as what we’re saying, adding to how we’re saying it?
My mother often tells this story from when I was three or four years old and my father had one of his musician friends over. They were listening to classical music in the living room. It was early nighttime, and my twin sister and I had just taken our baths. Our sweet mother had washed our hair and clipped it in buns on top of our heads, put our Lion King nightgowns on, and was just about to tuck us into bed. Somehow amid this bedtime ritual, I snuck downstairs, unclipped my long, wet hair, and started dancing with closed eyes and gesturing limbs to the dramatic music, with my father and his friend—and eventually my mother—looking on in astonishment at my innate need for and immediate expression of movement.
Though I have no recollection of this moment personally, this memory feels right to me. I started studying ballet shortly thereafter, gradually adding more dance classes until I was taking lessons nearly every weekday and training on the weekends. Throughout my adolescent years, I traveled from my home in Washington, D.C., to New York City during my summers to study at the Dance Theatre of Harlem and Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater.
All this is to say, my body has almost always been in motion, and that is what feels best to me: jumping, sliding, bending, arching, sweating, stretching, marking dance moves, running, tiredly walking. By the time I chose creative writing as my major in college, poetry could not be stagnant or static for me; it couldn’t always be left-aligned.
Imagining poetry as a linguistic dance performance that takes place on the space of the page can open the door for one’s creativity to explode, for the dispersing of energies as each word becomes a body shooting across the stage before the gathered and quiet audience, pushing us forward in both thought and feeling. A good deal of the poetry I’ve read and studied over the years uses only a tiny portion of each page, but a poem can fill up the entire page; it can mimic the movement of the human body or bodies (no matter the limitations or capabilities of the body doing the writing), enlivening the poet, the page, the poem, and the reader.
In choreography, the arrangement of dancers on stage and the quality of movement required of them create a world of action that contributes to the message or story being communicated to the audience, that core idea that is the impetus behind each look, arm gesture, or flexed foot. Generally speaking, though not always, it is the lack of language in dance, the patterns of bodies on stage—dancers moving into and away from one another, or exiting stage left for a duet to begin—that give the art form the capacity to touch us emotionally. As poets, we have the gift of words at our disposal; focusing on choreographing them, as opposed to merely writing them, allows us to attune more deeply to the buildup and release of tension and momentum that lies between those words, or lines of verse, both of which can be crammed together or pulled apart. Composing this way, making language more active than passive, can prompt the reader to wonder about the intimacy between words that have the pleasure of staying grouped together, about why other phrases are worlds apart, about the length of a line or the rush of the next one, words tumbling across or down the page, one after another.
The arrival of words in front of the reader’s eyes and their movement across the page do more than convey a literal message. They create an undercurrent to the work—I’m thinking of tectonic plates and how their movements reshape the Earth’s landscape—that is changing the continent of the poem: complicating it, subverting it, agreeing with it, pushing against it. This movement also says something about the music of the poem, it gives a tempo to the dance, a pulse affecting how someone will read your words; it tells the reader where the crescendo lies, where the bass and cello come in, and just how high the next note will be. In this way, we can achieve something multifaceted in choreographing language that isn’t entirely true for the choreography of bodies. In dance we often rely on music as the sonic backdrop for our movement, to complete and amplify the mood of a given piece. This music often dictates when and how we move our bodies. In poetry, language is both the dancers and the musicians; the more your words dance across the page, the more you are creating a musical score for your work (quite literally). The dance and music are one and the same, totally intertwined, for your words are jiving to the music that they are creating in real time, shimmying beside one another.
If you are, at this point in your reading, craving examples of such movement-based writing, stay with me for a while longer and see how far we can go without such literary leads. For the sake of remaining playful here (for this is what movement begs of us, to play and move and play and move until we absolutely must rest) and disrupting many of the academic ways of speaking about craft—if just for a moment—let’s not refer to another’s work as a way of learning how to create our own. Let’s start and move from within, from our own place of knowing and intuition. I will never forget my middle school English teacher and the one day he told us to write an essay on a book we had just finished reading as a class, but for the first time ever he gave us no question to prompt our essays. He made us independently choose what aspect of the text we wanted to write about and come up with a thesis from there. I complained to him after class that day, having admittedly no idea where to begin, and he responded by saying that we were all paralyzed by this freedom, yet constantly seeking liberation. So, with no literary references to guide you, try to allow this concept of language-as-dance and the page-as-the-stage to shake loose, unravel, and alter your understanding of how text can work for us; allow it to liberate your personal definition of what a poem is and how it can behave.
The best way to learn how to utilize the page entirely is to move your body gently, following it wherever it takes you in the air or on the floor, to dance in front of the mirror, to move with your siblings or close friends, to lie down and let your body melt into the carpet or wood or rug or bedding beneath you, to focus on your breathing with one hand over your stomach and the other over your heart, to attend a dance performance and sit at the highest point in the audience to see the small ant bodies moving and swirling about on stage below you, to take part in a yoga or Pilates or zumba or masala bhangra class. There are so many ways to write from an embodied place. Try jumping as high as you can for one whole minute or walking in lunges across the room, then writing from the soles of your feet or the soreness of your thighs. When you lay down to sleep at night, what part of your body feels relief or feels the blossoming of dull pain? Don’t ignore that; write from that, or even about that, and use that physical feeling as the impetus behind moving your language around until the (s)pacing feels authentic to all parts of you. In talking about craft, one can only set the stage for your idiosyncratic movements, patterns, and rhythms to reveal themselves to you through introspection and self-exploration.
This engagement with movement of the body can allow our minds—those often-rigid structures—to move and adapt as well, to form new neural pathways for exploring fresh ways of thinking and writing. That way, when we return to the page, we might have a more expansive understanding of how much space can be used and how fully utilizing that space can alter our work and move our readers. If you expand the body through movement, or expand your awareness through watching dance, you expand the possibilities for how you move your words on the page; you can uncage some necessary aspect of your creative self. The best way to choreograph language is to be fully in your body and your feelings, to experiment and play with language on the page, constantly trying to surprise yourself or actively do something you would normally never do to test your own understanding of what a poem can look like for you.
I’m remembering now all those cringe moments in high school when our contemporary dance teacher would turn off the lights in the studio and tell us to close our eyes and improvise to whatever song she put on next. I understand firsthand how repulsive exploration can be at times, how terribly vulnerable it is to get outside of one’s neat conception of who they are artistically, and to not move from a place of learned, textbook examples but instead from who you are at that moment in time.
With your stage now set and ready for you to enter as and when you please, let’s make a circular movement and finish as we started:
What if our performance of language became more fully embodied? What does that look like for you? How might that change your writing practice? How might it change your reading of the work, your relationship to the poem?
Is it uncomfortable? Is it freeing? Is it neither?
What is the emotional score of your poem as told through movement of the written word?
If the reader is your audience, then show them the true formations of your thoughts, show them how to feel you (beyond the heavy-duty, line-break work of poetry) pressed deeply into each individual letter and intentionally blank space on the page.
India Lena González is the features editor of Poets & Writers Magazine, a poet, and a multidisciplinary artist. Her debut poetry collection, fox woman get out!, was released this fall as part of BOA Editions’ Blessing the Boats Selections. India is also a professionally trained dancer, choreographer, and actor and has had the pleasure of performing at Lincoln Center, the Kennedy Center, St. Mark’s Church, La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club, New York Live Arts, and other such venues.
Art: Hulki Okan TabakThe Poetics of Temperature
by India Lena González
12.4.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 184.
I am admittedly a cold-blooded creature, which is to say I run chilly naturally and am therefore always following the sun, wherever its rays land. I am grateful when I sit next to someone on the subway, especially during the piercing frigidity of winter, and a bit of their warmth transfers to my person. I need that fire to keep me going. It should therefore come as no surprise that when writing my debut poetry collection, fox woman get out!, published by BOA Editions in September, I sought to create a very large fire to warm both me and my readers, as I see that as an act of survival and, beyond that, care.
This idea of temperature in writing came back to me recently when I was giving a poetry reading hosted by one of my undergraduate professors. He said that when he first encountered my work he thought I came from a desert landscape, somewhere like Texas, because he found the climate of my poems to be dry and hot. I’m from Washington, D.C., originally, but my former professor aptly sensed the innate blaze within my work. He then asked me and the other readers at the event: What is your psychic climate? I offer this question to you now, dear reader, to help ground you even more in your creative practice. For paying attention to temperature and climate within our work puts us in touch with the natural world around us and within us.
Marguerite Duras is a writer I would characterize as having a frosty psychic climate. In high school I first encountered Duras’s The Lover (Pantheon, 1998) and was astonished by the cold precision of the book’s language. The adolescent French girl at the center of the novel was unusually tough and in control of her lover in a way I had never before read regarding a young, female character. “One day, I was already old,” the book opens. Reading those words, I knew I would be ravaged by this melancholic, young girl who rushes into adulthood. Duras’s language is terse at times. Abrupt and short, rhythmic sequences revealing the protagonist’s thoughts—in both first-person and third-person narration—keep the reader at bay, yet make them just curious enough to continue. “The story of my life doesn’t exist,” the narrator says near the beginning of the novel. “He says he’s lonely, horribly lonely because of this love he feels for her. She says she’s lonely too. She doesn’t say why,” writes Duras right before the narrator’s first intimate encounter with her beloved. Duras teeters between giving the narrator a certain aplomb and mysterious air, while also allowing the reader in on remarkably intimate moments, the desire of her younger self, which adds a necessary fire throughout.
Later, in college, my sister recommended that I read Richard Siken’s debut poetry collection, Crush (Yale University Press, 2005). The electricity of each line moved through me on a physical level; the book was a necessary gut punch. In her foreword to the book, Louise Glück even remarked on her physical, temperature-based response to the collection, citing Emily Dickinson’s words as a point of reference: “If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can warm me, I know that it is poetry. If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know that it is poetry.”
In Siken’s poem “Dirty Valentine,” which narrates the speaker’s fantasy of a film starring him and his deceased lover, Siken uses serpentine stanzas to add to the emotional urgency of the speaker’s longing, this ruptured performance of love. The zigzagging lines create a path for us to keep moving along or get sucked into, like some sort of winding tornado; as we read, we hope that the deep sentiment behind this dizzying film performance will lead the couple to a more innocent and present love. Every thought is a quick rush of heat, too high-voltage to be grouped in longer lines, adding to the emotionality of the language, which is amplified by the surrounding scenery:
There’s a part in the movie
where you can see right through the acting,
where you can tell I’m about to burst into tears,
right before I burst into tears,
and flee to the slimy moonlit riverbed
canopied with devastated clouds.
Then there are moments of tenderness within the collection, a body of water to allow for sorrow, the feeling of drowning in one’s longing. In the poem “Saying Your Names,” Siken, in left-aligned verse, offers the reader and the speaker a moment of rest, allowing the movement of his language to settle down and his tone to become remarkably soft:
… Please keep him safe.
Let him lay his head on my chest and we will be
like sailors, swimming in the sound of it, dashed
to pieces.
The temperatures of those two books have not left my body to this day.
Let’s now turn this topic inward, exploring our own writerly temperatures: Does your poetic degree of hotness or coldness match the natural temperature of your body, of where you were born, of where you currently live, of where you hope to live? Look at the length of your stanzas, where you choose to break lines, the musicality of your language (your pacing, use of rhyme, consonance, and assonance), how you utilize form on the page, how distant or present you are emotionally, how much the “camerawork” of your poems zooms in on the speaker and what they are witnessing, how you might turn the camera away before revealing too much, where you choose to locate your poems in space (outside or inside), and what the climate of that location allows for. See what temperature you may be transferring to your readers.
A more embodied, and less literary, way of understanding our poetic temperature involves taking time to be more actively present in our bodies throughout the days, seasons, and years. Take note of whether you prefer a blanket on top of you to fall asleep, need the air conditioner on at night or a window open in your room to feel the outside air. If you’re walking, hiking, or working out, how soon do you begin sweating? Do you sweat at all? How fast or slow is your heart rate throughout the day? What’s your natural talking pace? All these details can manifest as a certain temperature in our poetry, and the more aware we are of our answers to these questions the more aware we can become of ourselves—and the more present and knowledgeable we can become when showing up to the page.
There are myriad ways to think about and write into one’s poetic temperature, including how you go about building a certain climate or mood before turning the thermostat of your poetry down or up to maintain a sense of balance throughout. However cold-blooded or hot-blooded you may be (let’s not forget that temperature and temperament are linguistic relatives), use your innate and literary temperatures to move your readers, so that they too will carry your words in their minds and bodies for years to come.
India Lena González is the features editor ofPoets & Writers Magazine,a poet, and a multidisciplinary artist. Her debut poetry collection, fox woman get out!, was released this fall as part of BOA Editions’ Blessing the Boats Selections. India is also a professionally trained dancer, choreographer, and actor and has had the pleasure of performing at Lincoln Center, the Kennedy Center, St. Mark’s Church, La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club, New York Live Arts, and other such venues.
Art: John FowlerThe Myth of Realism: Belief and Incredulity in Fiction
by Jennifer duBois
11.27.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 183.
One of the more interesting experiences of teaching creative writing is encountering students’ varying definitions of “realism.” Individual senses of what’s likely, possible, or plausible diverge more than might seem obvious, and those instincts are bound up in religion, culture, personal history, reading experience, and personality.
In class I sometimes draw a chart with two axes—physical and psychological—to break down the notion of “realism” into four quadrants. Physical realism seems the most straightforward: On one end we have stories that take place fully within uncontested external reality (as in the fiction of Alice Munro); on the other we have stories that flagrantly violate the laws of physics (the ghosts and zombies of George Saunders, for example). Somewhere in the middle might be speculative fiction, which adheres to the laws of physics while positing events beyond our current social reality (Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale comes to mind). Yet, inevitably, trying to define physical realism will inspire some ontological debate: What to do with ghosts, extrasensory perception (ESP), the astrological concept of “Leo season,” or the resurrection of Christ?
Even with stories situated squarely within the realm of consensus physics, we often run into conflicting beliefs about how the social world works. People have different individual experiences—my own family life has offered up enough twists to leave me with an inflated sense of credulity as a reader—and operate under different systemic realities. I’ve seen white students, for example, respond incredulously to accounts of racism in work by Black colleagues; these white students believe they have never seen white people behave as the characters do in these stories, and perhaps they really haven’t. But that doesn’t mean that white people don’t behave in these ways sometimes, or that the stories are at all unlikely. As Alexander Chee has put it: “A fiction writer’s work is limited by his sense of reality, and workshop after workshop blows that open by injecting the fact of other people’s realities.”
Psychological realism gets even trickier: How do we define what’s psychologically “realistic” without immediately resorting to wildly subjective intuitions or straight-up tautology? There may be some key indicators that a writer’s primary project is not to interrogate the depths of the individual human soul as he or she has observed it: In their books, everyone sounds alike, no one is particularly curious about anything, or all characters react in a similarly muted way to some supernatural event. (Compare Don DeLillo’s White Noise to Jesmyn Ward’s Sing, Unburied, Sing. Although both books contain extraordinary events, I’d argue that Ward is interested in something much closer to psychological realism than DeLillo is.) But beyond these general observations, we often find that our sense of how psychologically realistic a piece of work is—and how psychologically realistic our own work is—is a private, highly individual reaction, unlikely to be precisely shared by others.
In writing The Last Language, published last month by Milkweed Editions, I was attempting to convey an extraordinary event—and an extraordinary mind—within the realm of realism as I understand it. The book follows Angela, a linguist-turned-speech-therapist, who uses a controversial new device to communicate with Sam, a nonverbal patient; Angela and Sam apparently fall in love, but Angela is eventually arrested over questions of consent. It was important that the book felt grounded in physical reality, since the mechanics of what is actually happening with the device is the basis of the entire moral mystery: Is Angela channeling Sam’s own writing through a process too subtle for others to perceive? Or is she unconsciously guiding his hands, like a person with a Ouija board? Readers must be able to imagine that both interpretations are physically possible—or at least that a character might believe they are.
To my mind, The Last Language can only work if it reads as psychological realism. If everyone in the novel seems bonkers, the question of whether Angela is loses its salience. With Angela I wanted to explore the mind of an unusual person—intelligent, idiosyncratic, only possibly pathological—which meant offering indications that other characters may not see the world in quite the same way she does. I peppered Angela’s early narration with suggestions that her perspective might be in some ways unusual—the way she tries to invoke September 11th as a partial excuse for her behavior, the flat tone she takes when discussing her husband’s death, her inept interactions with her small child. Later I give side characters dialogue that expresses their surprise and skepticism about Angela’s approach, allowing us to see around Angela’s perception of herself to the way that she’s perceived by others. My goal was never to make readers believe Angela’s interpretation of events—only to believe that she believed it: that her particular life and personality and backstory, her intellectual tendencies and her emotional needs, had given her a personal sense of realism that might include her love affair with Sam.
But maybe this points to the insufficiency, or irrelevancy, of realism as a category in the first place. As Donald Barthelmeput it, “In fact, everybody’s a realist offering true accounts of the activity of mind. There are only realists.” By this generous definition, Angela is a realist. So am I, so are you, so are we all—quite regardless of our proximity to what anybody else might call the truth.
Jennifer duBoisis the author ofThe Last Language(Milkweed Editions, 2023),The Spectators(Random House, 2019),Cartwheel(Random House, 2013), andA Partial History of Lost Causes(Dial Press, 2012). A recipient of a National Endowment for the Arts Creative Writing Fellowship, a Civitella Ranieri Fellowship, and a Stanford University Stegner Fellowship, duBois teaches in theMFAprogram at Texas State University inAustin.
Art: MoHearing Voices: Characterization and Language
by Jennifer duBois
11.20.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 182.
Much of what makes a fictional voice compelling comes from authorial imagination rather than technical competence: A narrator needs something to say and some reason for saying it. Figuring out what exactly all this will sound like involves many considerations. A writer must contend with inflections of dialect as well as the particularities of idiolect: favorite words, tics, malapropisms, and idioms that characterize a speaker’s personal language.
When I talk about idiolect with my writing students, I use myself as an example: Imagine a person from Western Massachusetts (“soda,” not “pop;” “rotary,” not “roundabout”) raised by an ancient father who was himself raised in poverty (“They’re gonna send us to the poor house!”) in upstate New York (“He’s got the nerve of a canal horse!”) before volunteering for World War II (“That’s enough for the whole Russian army!”). She spent many, many years studying and teaching in MFA programs (“What are the stakes?”) and swears a lot—even in the classroom (probably partly because she’s never been made to feel she doesn’t belong in one). She doesn’t understand the definition of “belie” and so avoids using it in conversation. She can’t pronounce “elegiac” but sometimes says it anyway. She never uses the phrase “beg the question” wrong because pretty much all she remembers from her undergraduate study of philosophy is how not to do that. After living in Texas for ten years, she very occasionally attempts a “y’all” but never, never makes it sound convincing.
Voice, in a real sense, contains an entire biography.
I tried to keep this in mind while writing my fourth novel, The Last Language, published last month by Milkweed Editions. The book follows the story of Angela, a linguist-turned-speech-therapist who uses a controversial technology to communicate with a nonverbal client, Sam. Angela and Sam fall in love; Angela is arrested over questions of Sam’s ability to consent. As the novel’s sole first-person narrator, Angela has a stranglehold on the reportage and interpretation of events, and the whole book hinges on the question of how much readers should trust Angela’s perception of reality. Are she and Sam tragic lovers, as Angela fervently believes, or has she exploited a severely disabled man? Angela’s voice had to not only characterize her, but provide subtle context about her trustworthiness. When she tells us who she is, she tells us who she wants us to think she is—while also letting slip some things that she isn’t aware of (or maybe doesn’t want to be).
When thinking about voice, I often turn to the work of Zadie Smith, particularly her novel NW (Penguin Press, 2012), which showcases her masterful ear for languages and the interesting ways they jostle against each other. Every character’s speech in NW is astoundingly well-heard: Francophone Michel’s English-as-a-second-language (“more easy, some bullshit like this”); working-class Leah’s mispronunciations (“St. Loo-shun. St. Looshee-yan?”); aging addict-heiress Annie, whose half-ironic, elevated diction (“ludicrous,” “terribly bright,” “don’t be such a bore”) sounds straight out of Evelyn Waugh. Even the nonhuman entities in NW are given deeply characterizing language: The television speaks in cliches, passive constructions, and bullshit; the Madonna statue speaks with the precision of written language, using words and phrases like “exempt,” “mealy-mouthed,” and “simpering.” She speaks like she is not speaking at all.
I tried to keep this variance in mind while writing The Last Language. Angela’s diction is often stately and elevated when she speaks about her intellectual commitments in narration. In dialogue, however, her register shifts with the context. She begins her first conversation with Sam’s mother, Sandi, in a professional, anodyne language, then begins to ape Sandi’s more casual tone as she sees this first way of speaking isn’t effective. Sandi is informal and a little vulgar from the get-go (“Fuck the shart weasel,” she says of her ex); Angela is more cautious and evasive. She hides the fact that she, like Sandi, smokes, and—unlike me—she doesn’t really swear: Angela is a person who has been made to feel out of place in the academic and professional world.
Yet the differences between the characters’ voices may be less important—and less revealing—than their similarities. Readers will probably quickly notice the fact that Sam, once he starts to communicate through experimental technology, sounds much more like Angela than his mother—which could be a telling clue about who is really speaking. Then again, Sam is more widely read than his mother; his sister, Moira, a college student, sounds pretty academic too. Does Sam speak like a person Angela could have invented—some precise analogue of her—someone who is not Angela, but somehow of and belonging to her? Maybe so. But whether this is because she’s invented his language or found true love with a person who speaks her own is the central question of the novel.
Jennifer duBoisis the author ofThe Last Language(Milkweed Editions, 2023),The Spectators(Random House, 2019),Cartwheel(Random House, 2013), andA Partial History of Lost Causes(Dial Press, 2012). A recipient of a National Endowment for the Arts Creative Writing Fellowship, a Civitella Ranieri Fellowship, and a Stanford University Stegner Fellowship, duBois teaches in theMFAprogram at Texas State University inAustin.
Art: Pavan TrikutamWithholding and Revelation: Managing Information in Fiction
by Jennifer duBois
11.13.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 181.
“Truth is not an unveiling which destroys the secret, but the revelation which does it justice.” —Walter Benjamin
Writing my new novel, The Last Language, published last month by Milkweed Editions, was an exercise in managing mysteries. The book follows the story of a linguist-turned-speech-therapist, Angela, who uses a controversial new technology to communicate with a nonverbal client, Sam. The two fall in love, and Angela is arrested for alleged sexual assault. The book’s moral puzzle hinges on the question of whether Sam was ever genuinely communicating at all.
The Last Language is narrated entirely from Angela’s point of view, which gives her airtight control over information and interpretation: She believes completely that she and Sam are misunderstood lovers. But in order for the book to be interesting, I needed to find ways to suggest that Angela might be wrong about this, maybe disastrously so. In considering how to conjure this ambiguity, I was conscious of the distinction between what Angela knows that the readers don’t versus what the readers know and Angela does not. I tried to keep in mind the difference between what my late, great creative-writing teacher Michael Downing called a “hint” versus a “suggestion.” A hint, according to Downing, has one possible explanation: A sympathy card on the mantel, for example, would hint that someone close to the homeowner has died. A suggestion leaves open the possibility for multiple interpretations: A black dress could be worn to a funeral or a cocktail party, for example. In The Last LanguageI tried to make Angela’s distortions feel more like suggestions than like hints. I wanted to make sure that her evasions felt authentic to her psychology and that her eventual disclosures felt impelled by the narrative, not my own convenience. (George Saunders says that there’s an inverse relationship between a reader’s tolerance for a coincidence and a writer’s need for it, and I would argue that something similar goes for big, juicy revelations.) And although I don’t love the term “unreliable narrator”—because I think all narrators are unreliable to some extent—it is true that some narrators are more unreliable than others: Their cognitive biases are more extreme, their moral judgements more self-serving, than the average person’s. And some of them, of course, will straight-up lie to you. I had to decide which kind of narrator I believed Angela to be.
I wanted Angela’s voice to raise this question from the get-go, even as her characterization and context provide possible explanations. She is grandiose and emotionally stilted—but then again, she’s a Harvard-trained linguist who, we learn early on, has just suffered significant trauma. She is obviously self-serving, but also strangely self-aware about how self-serving she might appear to be. Her first-person narration is addressed to an absent “you”—Sam, we understand—which grounds the narrative in a sort of defensive crouch; Angela’s fundamental human bias in favor of herself is compounded by the fact that what she is writing in the book is both a love letter to a lost beloved and also, potentially, a legal document. Maybe it makes sense, then, that she’s vague about some important elements of her backstory, including the circumstances surrounding her ejection from the linguistics program and the nature of her husband’s death.
She has, it turns out, left out essential, meaning-altering context from her accounts of both of these episodes. The first indication that there might be more to the story of Angela’s husband’s death actually comes more than halfway through the book, in dialogue. Sam’s mother, Sandi, asks Angela how her husband died. ‘“It was an accident,’ I said. ‘With some pills.”’ Sandi then crosses herself. It made sense to me that Angela might tell Sandi a truth she’s withheld from her own thinking—an event she’s thought around but never looked at directly and narrativized. She’s grown close to Sandi, and Sandi has just shared an awful story of her own. At the same time the context invites some ambiguity: We know what Angela has said, and we know what Sandi assumes she means, but we still don’t entirely know if Angela has told the truth or if Sandi has interpreted her words correctly. Angela has a lot of reasons to court Sandi’s empathy; maybe that’s all she’s doing.
This, I felt, was an interesting question for readers to consider, an uncertainty that was worthy of their patience—a “necessary” mystery, as one of my graduate-school professors once put it. An “unnecessary” mystery, he argued, is essentially just confusion, the kind of obscurity that occupies a reader’s attention to no particular end. A necessary mystery is a meaningful question the text is pondering—maybe narrative, maybe moral, maybe psychological—and it is in considering these that the reader will be rewarded.
One unnecessary mystery in The Last Language that needed clarifying: how, exactly, the device that Angela uses to communicate with Sam works. Over and over I revised these sections, trying to convey the physical details of the process—how the characters sat, where and how they touched, what cues from Sam guided Angela as she stabilized his hands. Honestly, revising this part was boring. I was much more interested in other things. But that was the whole point: I had to give the reader as clear a picture as possible of the prosaic so that they could have an unobstructed view of the mysterious. So again and again, I reworked descriptions of scenes involving the device, trying to help readers understand exactly what they’d feel and perceive if they were Angela. I wanted to give a full account of the physical realities, then I wanted to walk away and let readers decide what they meant. Because that’s a mystery that belongs to them, and not to me.
Jennifer duBois is the author of The Last Language (Milkweed Editions, 2023), The Spectators (Random House, 2019), Cartwheel (Random House, 2013), and A Partial History of Lost Causes (Dial Press, 2012). A recipient of a National Endowment for the Arts Creative Writing Fellowship, a Civitella Ranieri Fellowship, and a Stanford University Stegner Fellowship, duBois teaches in theMFAprogram at Texas State University inAustin.
Art: Pascal MullerWrite Like a Translator
by Heather Cleary
10.30.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 180.
Wait, you might say. Why would I want to write like a translator? Fair enough. Translation isn’t usually among the first things that come to mind when we think about the craft of writing, but maybe it should be. For many writerstranslation is an integral part of their creative practice, offering an intimate perspective on a range of stylistic and conceptual approaches to poetry and prose they might never have encountered otherwise—Langston Hughes, Julio Cortázar, and Elizabeth Bishop, are just a few twentieth-century examples.And just as great writers (often) make great translators, great translators generate powerful linguistic effects, creating vivid images, vertiginous rhythms, tonal shifts, and silences charged with meaning. Which is to say that translation is a form of creative writing in its own right—one that operates within a unique set of constraints.
One of the things I love most about translating fiction is that it demands my total immersion in someone else’s narrative sensibility. I need to understand how character, setting, pace, and tone are constructed in the text I’m translating, then figure out how to render these using an entirely different set of linguistic tools. The only thing I don’t need to do is decide what happens next in the plot. This means that each project becomes a master class in the effects different linguistic choices can produce in a text. Below are three of the many lessons I’ve learned from the practice of translation that can be applied to all forms of prose writing.
Lesson 1: There’s meaning in sound.
When I began to work on Luis Felipe Fabre’s Recital of the Dark Verses, published last month by Deep Vellum, I quickly realized that everything in this novel of picaresque misadventures, sexual awakenings, and stolen corpses (well, just the one) hangs on the rhythm of its prose. (Read Fabre’s earlier Craft Capsule: “Dis-Identity Poetics.”) This makes sense: It’s a novel written by a poet about a poet, the Spanish mystic San Juan de la Cruz, whose poetry is woven throughout. Fabre’s control of Spanish is virtuosic. On the one hand, he combines archaic syntax and verb forms with crisp contemporary phrases; on the other, like the landscape across which his protagonists travel, the terrain of Recital ranges from easy, loping narration in service of the plot to baroque passages in which the devout are whipped into religious fervor or the libidinous are whipped into orgiastic frenzy. In one scene, for example, while the court bailiff charged with stealing the dead body of San Juan de la Cruz—then known as Fray Juan—is arguing with the prior of the Discalced Carmelite monastery in Úbeda, the friar guarding the front gate regales two men with the story of Fray Juan’s death and the startling reactions sparked by the holy odor given off by his corpse:
The scent quickly spread throughout Úbeda like a rumor, waking its people and waking within them unfamiliar yearnings and excesses and making them rise from their beds and wander through the pitch-dark night, for they knew, without knowing how, that Fray Juan de la Cruz had died, and they knew they needed to come see him. And come they did, wandering through the night to gather here at the doors of the monastery. And here gathered did they implore and demand entry, but I was not allowed to allow them such.
One of the strategies Fabre employs to convey the people’s breathless fervor, their teeming mass, is interlocking one clause with the next through repetition. The account almost sounds like a religious litany as it builds toward its climax over the course of several pages. To render the scene in English, I had to respect this repetition and pay attention to consonance and assonance, reinforcing the sense of linguistic braiding present in the original. I also looked at where the natural emphasis fell in the sentences I was constructing, with an eye toward creating an incantatory effect.
Toward the end of the same passage, Fabre conveys the chaos of the scene with the overlapping images of people from different professions carrying blades, one clause bleeding into the next, one verb serving varied subjects:
Persons of all ilk clambered over one another in the church and in the streets to approach and touch or at least see the body. And drunken on that celestial odor arrived the butchers with their knives, and with their daggers the pimps, and the cooks with their skewers, and the blacksmiths with their tongs did arrive. With their saws arrived the carpenters, and with their clippers the seamstresses, and with their needles the noblewomen, and with their razors the barbers did arrive. And the people arrived in uncountable throngs at the ready with blades suited to their office and, standing but notwithstanding their office and standing, all desired the same thing, which was their slice of saint.
In contrast, later in the novel, a moment of relative peace on the road to Madrid offers the travelers a chance to breathe, and the prose follows suit. The text is still playful and baroque, but there’s more air in it, and we can feel the travelers’ forward movement.
The restfulness of those days was aided by the flatness of the road through Castile, where at dusk the sun rolled across the sky like an orange across a country table, nudging [the travelers] along their way. But to say this is to say too much, for the flatness of Castile allowed neither ornamentation nor rhetorical flourishes, much less the luxury of metaphorical Andalusian oranges.
How can we activate this attention to sound in our own writing? One exercise I’ve found helpful has been to write a simple scene of four or five sentences (a person waiting for the bus, for example) four different ways. What happens to the language if your subject is very hot versus very cold? If they need a bathroom? If they’re angry about something that just happened? How does the phonetic landscape shift?
Lesson 2: Check your work.
This might mean confirming that you haven’t included a term that, historically, was first used centuries after the novel is set (unless you’re deliberately playing with anachronism, as Fabre does in Recital). Or reading your draft through with a specific focus on continuity: Did an old version of a character’s name sneak in there somewhere? Did you accidentally cut the transition between your character sitting inside on the sofa and them sprinting down the street? Or it might involve a visualization of physical spaces and objects that appear in the text, using online image searches or even a trip to your local library or archive. If you’re talking about a coat of arms that existed four hundred years ago, to borrow an example from Fabre’s novel, it can make a huge difference in the specificity and believability of your description if you’ve seen it with your own eyes. Or—to linger with this extremely niche example—if you’re inventing a coat of arms, look up its possible components and sketch it out in the medium of your choice.
I grew accustomed to this process as a translator, particularly through reconstructing, in English, spaces that had been imagined by another writer in Spanish. This practice has served me well in my own writing: The notebook for my current fiction project is peppered with hand-drawn blueprints and sketches of a character’s favorite trinkets—there’s even a paint chip in there. This is not to say that every space, object, and emotion needs to make perfect sense or be completely explicit, either in translation or non-translational writing. Experimentation is great; expectation-busting is great. Ambiguity is great. But withholding information or deviating from a linguistic norm tends to work best when the hand sketching the image or writing the phrase knows every contour of that choice and can render them with precision.
Lesson 3: Choose your verbs carefully.
It might be a product of the languages I work with or the brain I use for translating, but I’ve found that the process of rendering text across languages can distort how things come out on the other side. I remember Natasha Wimmer—who has translated Chilean novelist Roberto Bolaño—describing the early stages of translating as “getting a snail’s-eye-view” of a text. Working from Spanish to English, this might mean finding a gratuitous “the” or “that” here and there in a first draft, as well as countless appearances of “to be” and “to have” and “to get,” all of which needs to be audited in second, third, fourth drafts of the text.
This awareness has led me to be particularly vigilant about those little elements that slip over from our thought processes or the way we speak, which can dilute a passage of prose: the little habits we each have in our forms of expression, or the multiple adverbs we use to build toward an action when there’s usually a more direct road to get there. It’s always striking to watch a text come to life as I begin to select more specific, evocative verbs to take the place of “to get” (tired, hungry), “to be,” and so on, even though I know from experience the difference this makes. Which is not to say that efficiency is always the goal—not at all. Circuitous expression can be a very powerful strategy, too, particularly in voice-driven narratives. But, just as in Lesson 2, this strategy works best when used with precision and intentionality, and I’ve found that there’s usually room somewhere to trim and polish word choice.
In any case, practicing translation—even if you never intend to publish your work—can be an excellent way to explore the mechanics of other narrative or poetic strategies and to learn more about your own habits as a writer. (I didn’t talk much about translating poetry here because that practice offers different lessons, which I hope you’ll explore if you feel called to do so.) If you don’t have a second language to work with, you can always apply the principles outlined above directly to your own writing.
One caveat: You may not want to trot out your inner translator for a first draft—we translators love obsessing over details, but we can be great company as you edit.
Heather Clearyis an award-winning translator of poetry and prose from Spanish into English. The author ofThe Translator’sVisibility:Scenes from Contemporary Latin American Fiction(Bloomsbury Academic, 2022), she holds a PhD from Columbia University and teaches at Sarah Lawrence College. She is currently writing a hybrid novel about translation and murder.
Art: Mounzer AwadIn Bad Faith: Notes on Fidelity in Translation
by Heather Cleary
10.23.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 179.
Translations are often described as being “faithful” to the original, but rarely discussed is what, precisely, a particular translation is being faithful to. Because no two languages will ever map perfectly onto one another, there will come a time (in fact, there will come many times, early and often) when a translator will need to choose some aspect of a layered word or phrase over another. Often what is lost can be recovered elsewhere. For example, if a noun in the original language carries a negative valence—as “hovel” does, compared with “home”—but no such nuance exists in the language into which the word is being translated, that tone might be applied (with great care) to a nearby noun; sometimes this creates an overall effect that is closer to the spirit of the original text. These kinds of calculations underlie every word of every translation. So what exactly are we talking about when we talk about fidelity? The translator might focus on how the original sounds, privileging rhythm and alliterative effects over, perhaps, lexical equivalence. Conversely the translator might focus on finding the most literal match for a specific term, sometimes at the expense of lyrical effect. In other cases tone or formal conceits might be given priority.
I found myself thinking about these questions even more than usual while translating Luis Felipe Fabre’s Recital of the Dark Verses.(Read his earlier Craft Capsule: “Dis-Identity Poetics.”) Published by Deep Vellum last month, Fabre’s novel is a raucous account of the (very real) theft of the body of San Juan de la Cruz at the end of the sixteenth century. Fabre weaves lines from three of the saint’s best-known poems throughout the text; these lines also serve to structure the action of the plot. Because the novel plays with the exegetic tradition of the declaración, or commentary—in which a single line of religious poetry is expounded upon in pages of (often quite esoteric) prose—each chapter features a brief introduction that cites a line from one of San Juan’s poems, framing the protagonists’ adventures. The line sets up the action that will unfold in the chapter itself, the body of which will often feature other little snippets from San Juan’s oeuvre. In other words, the verse not only needed to work in English as whole poems but individual lines and phrases also needed to work in the varied contexts into which they were inserted in the novel.
One of the most exhilarating challenges of working with Recital of the Dark Verses was figuring out what to do with this embedded poetry. Because I wanted the novel to resonate with the literary history from which it draws, I had planned to cite existing translations of the three poems that appear in the book. To be completely honest, I was also crushingly intimidated by the idea of translating the Spanish mystic. Unfortunately the versions of San Juan’s poetry I found in English were all quite somber. This is the beginning of “La noche oscura,” or “Dark Night of the Soul,” the poem at the heart of Fabre’s novel:
En una noche oscura,
con ansias en amores inflamada
¡oh dichosa ventura!
salí sin ser notada,
estando ya mi casa sosegada.
A oscuras y segura,
por la secreta escala, disfrazada,
¡oh dichosa ventura!
a oscuras y en celada,
estando ya mi casa sosegada.
One of the most noticeable aspects of the poem—in addition to the female poetic voice, a detail that figures prominently in Fabre’s novel—is its gait: The lines seem to dance on air. They are formally precise in rhyme and meter, but there is a breeziness to them that comes from their down-to-earth register and clear connection to the poetic tradition of recital, to the tradition of the poem as song. Though San Juan took the subject of the soul’s union with God very seriously, he chose a popular, accessible form to express it.
The English versions, however, are weighed down by the desire to present the Spanish mystic with gravitas. The standard translation read today is one produced by the British scholar Edgar Allison Peers in the 1930s; it is what most English speakers think of when they think of the poem “Dark Night of the Soul.” Here are the first two of eight stanzas from the Peers translation:
On a dark night
Kindled in love with yearnings
—oh happy chance!—
I went forth without being observed,
My house being now at rest.
In darkness and secure,
By secret ladder disguised
—oh happy chance!—
In darkness and concealment,
My house being now at rest.
Peers chose to translate the poem in free verse; many editions don’t even include San Juan’s line breaks. Peers’s words have a markedly elevated register—a common, though fraught, strategy for adding “olde-tyme” flair to a translation. The half dozen or so English interpretations I consulted in my search for the holy grail of an extant translation were similarly problematic. Where the Spanish is as light and sweet as a string of tiny meringues, all the English versions I found felt leaden, despite felicitous phrases here and there. While these translations are all valuable in their own right, they did not align with Fabre’s reading of San Juan—or the novel he constructed on the basis of that reading. Which meant that I needed to roll up my sleeves.
In my version of “Dark Night,” the meter is a bit more even, and near-rhymes in a more colloquial register form a rhyme scheme that, while not exactly the same as the one employed by San Juan, is at least internally consistent throughout.
On a pitch-dark night,
by love’s yearnings kindled
—oh wondrous delight!—
I slipped out unminded
for my house had gone quiet.
In darkness, without fright,
down hidden stair I snuck
—oh wondrous delight!—
in darkness, with fine luck,
for my house had gone quiet.
As so often happens with translation, the only way to be faithful was to be unfaithful. In this case, in order to be faithful to Fabre’s novel, I had to be unfaithful to the San Juan that English speakers have known for decades. This is not to say that I was brave and dove headfirst into retranslating one of the most revered poets in the Spanish language. No. Initially I cowered behind versions of the poems cobbled together from existing translations, adding a few of my own cosmetic adjustments. But that approach wasn’t working, so I went back to the drawing board, retranslating the three poems by San Juan that appear in the novel. Though in the case of the “Spiritual Canticle,” I only rendered the parts of the poem Fabre cited (making my version like the set of an old Western—only the visible parts of the “town” were ever built).
By being willing to throw out what was comfortable and familiar, I was able to get much closer to the playful, sensual spirit of San Juan that had captured Fabre’s imagination and inspired Recital of the Dark Verses. I guess that’s something translators and other kinds of writers have in common: the need to sometimes kill your darlings—or to kill someone else’s. Because there’s nothing more sacred than not holding anything too sacred.
Heather Cleary is an award-winning translator of poetry and prose from Spanish into English. The author of The Translator’s Visibility:Scenes from Contemporary Latin American Fiction (Bloomsbury Academic, 2022), she holds a PhD from Columbia University and teaches at Sarah Lawrence College. She is currently writing a hybrid novel about translation and murder.
Art: Joshua EarleDis-identity Poetics
by Luis Felipe Fabre, translated from the Spanish by Heather Cleary
10.16.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 178.
I have long been drawn to the poetry of San Juan de la Cruz, whose lines are woven throughout my novel,Recital of the Dark Verses, published by Deep Vellum last month. The book considers the theft of the saint’s remains from a Spanish monastery in the sixteenth century. One of my favorite moments in San Juan’s poems appears in his “Spiritual Canticle,” in which the saint reinterprets, in a mystical key, the ancient Greek myth of Narcissus: The Bride, in search of her Beloved, comes upon a fountain, and the mirrored surface of its waters offers her the image of her Beloved’s eyes in place of her own reflection.
Oh crystalline fount!
May your silvery surface
reveal now the sight
of those eyes most desired
which are sketched upon my heart!
Look away, my Beloved,
for I take to wing!
Unlike the Narcissus myth, San Juan’s Bride does not fall in love with her mirror image. Instead she becomes disidentified with herself and experiences a dizzying, boundless identification with the Other. Somewhere between the expression of desire and the horror of its fulfillment (“Look away,” she exclaims in terror before fleeing the gaze of those beloved other eyes), an epiphany takes place that the poem never manages to express, because it belongs to the order of things that cannot be put into words.
Though I could never aspire to the mystic heights achieved by San Juan de la Cruz, I’ve included his lines here as something like an epigraph because writing is, to me, precisely this: desiring the Other. It is leaning over the fountain, over the waters of the page, hoping my Other will be revealed to me. I toss my words at the page like someone tossing coins into a fountain while making a wish. And sometimes, (very) rarely, my wish comes true. Sometimes I witness the miracle of the Other. Then and only then, when I don’t recognize myself in what I’ve written, do I feel I’ve written something real—when the paragraph or line of poetry feels disturbingly unfamiliar, as if it had been written by someone else. When what I’ve written seems so strange to me, so Other, that I worry I unconsciously plagiarized something I had read somewhere and then forgotten I’d read it.
Of course, friends who know my work will say under their breath, “Another one of Fabre’s poems.” To them, it will sound just like me; they’ll recognize me in it and yawn, as if they’d read it before. But I know I’m not capable of writing a poem—all I can do is wish for one.
How does the poem get written, then? I wish someone could tell me. My life would be much easier. Or maybe not. Maybe it’s better this way. Maybe it’s better not to know. In any case, I couldn’t tell you because I don’t know. I might have known once, for a moment while writing, but each time I sit at my computer to write a new poem, I realize I’ve forgotten how, if I ever actually knew. It’s as if I’d never written a word before. Like in San Juan’s stanza about the fountain, somewhere between desire and the strangeness of seeing that desire fulfilled, between attempting to write a poem and having written one, there is a vast, empty expanse for which there are no words. The key term there might be “empty.” I suspect it is. Writing to empty oneself of words, to empty the self of oneself and one’s discourse and ideas, and at the same time to conjure the voice of the Other. At least, that’s what I tend to do, more as a ritual than as a method: I write appalling lines and failed stanzas, make embarrassing attempts, and then I try to have patience with the limitations of being a self that is trying to write. (When I was in psychoanalysis, I was always uncomfortable with how intently my analyst focused on the things I said and perceived: It seemed like a crude falsification of reality, that outsized emphasis on what a self might say, a self under the microscope—a therapeutically-mandated narcissism and a self chained to itself, completely the opposite of San Juan. Frankly I find being myself impossibly boring when there are so many other things or selves I could be. But maybe my problem is that I read Ovid’s Metamorphosis at such a tender age.)
That self-trying-to-write is, nonetheless, a self in conversation with others—or, rather, engaged in an exchange among verses. Because in order to reach the Other, I usually take the writing of poets I admire as my point of departure. I’ve been told that what I do could be described as parody; I accept that description, as long as “parody” is understood according to its etymology, meaning an ode set alongside another. A self that is not alone on the road toward the unfamiliar. Writing has never felt to me like a solitary exercise. It’s when I’m not writing that I feel alone.
This is perhaps why translation has long fascinated me as a process of dis-identification: What was written becomes Other through the language of the other. If, as Robert Frost once said and has been so often repeated, “poetry is what gets lost in translation,” then I celebrate that loss. Because it is, in the end, a win: “you might say I am lost, / that, wandering love-struck / I lost my way and was won,” in the (translated) words of San Juan. In its infinite rewriting in other languages (luckily there is no such thing as a definitive translation), poetry ceases to be just poetry and becomes something bigger that we might call “culture.” A process of socialization: the transition from an individual process of writing to an orgy of collective rewriting. An exercise in defamiliarization. Distancing oneself from the original text in order to leave behind an identity and lose oneself in otherness.
The biographers of San Juan de la Cruz tell a story, which, though I’m not sure how true it is, has been like an amulet to me in moments of writerly crisis. A nun, astonished after reading his poems, asked him if those extraordinary lines had been dictated to him by God, to which San Juan responded: “God dictated a few, and the others I came to on my own.” I love this slight boastfulness, this vanity, in someone always so austere. But above all, I’m fascinated by San Juan’s understanding of the self as the origin of the strangest and most inspired—the most “other”—verses ever penned in Spanish.
In the end “I is another,” as Arthur Rimbaud asserts in his Letters of the Seer,and poets, as John Keats states in one of his letters, have no identity of their own. I set out from the writings of others in an attempt to arrive, through my own writing, at the mystery of what I am not and what I do not know. Poetry as the path to unknowing. Maybe, I realize now, this is why Diego, one of the characters in Recital of the Dark Verses recites, as if possessed, San Juan’s poems: lines he does not know and through which he comes to unknow himself.
Which is to say: I’ve never been interested in writing a diary.
Luis Felipe Fabre has published six volumes of essays and poetry and is a recipient of the Punto de partida and José Revueltas prizes. His poetry collections in English includeSor Juana and Other MonstersandWriting with Caca, both translated by JD Pluecker. His first novel,Recital of the Dark Verses (Deep Vellum 2023) received the prestigious Elena Poniatowska Prize and was translated by Heather Cleary. He lives in Mexico City.
Art:Marc Olivier JodoinBugging People: A Guide to Research
by Michelle Wildgen
9.25.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 177.
I used to dread research. Well, I liked reading. If I didn’t have to talk to anyone in order to complete a manuscript, that was fine by me.
But there are drawbacks to relying on books and web searches: You can’t control what someone else chooses to write about, and you may do a lot of sifting in order to find mere snippets of what you’re looking for, an offhand mention in an article about something else. If you’re fascinated by, I don’t know, the smells that permeate an immunology lab, maybe you’ll find information about that and maybe you won’t. There are things a writer wants to know that the expert herself may not realize are actually compelling—and therefore has not written about. I like to imagine my characters in particular spaces, to know what they are doing in their offices or kitchens until I figure out what I need them to do. But Googling what, say, a doctor does upon entering an exam room may or may not help you out. What will help is a half-hour conversation with a doctor, who can tell you what she notices about a patient’s posture, expression, and conversation. Or if your character’s kid has a rare health condition, a chat with a person who has actually raised a child with that condition can reveal small but meaningful details that wouldn’t show up in a newspaper article about the illness.
My point is that sometimes even writers have to talk to people. Once I tried interviewing, I discovered it’s my favorite kind of research. I’ll give you an example of how it’s come in handy. In researching my novel Wine People (Zibby Books, 2023), the first thing I did was talk to someone like my characters: a woman who’d worked in wine importing. She gave me reams of invaluable information, but one of the best tidbits was about what kept her from returning to the business. I thought she’d say the obstacles were her family, her kids, the travel. Instead she said, “My teeth.” The harsh young wines she had to taste are murder on teeth, it turns out, a detail I included in my book that readers mention to me again and again. I’d never have gotten it from Googling.
So what do you need to get started as an interviewer? Begin by asking around. E-mail the people you know who might have direct experience with the subject you’re interested in or might know someone who does. I began my primary research for Wine People by interviewing a friend who owns a wine store, which was a low-stress way to figure out what I wanted to know. Then I asked her who else I should talk to, and she sent me to three others. Those people later connected me to still more people. Another strategy is to put out a call on social media for the people you hope to connect with. I posted on Facebook that I was seeking wine professionals of all stripes, and that alone yielded at least half a dozen replies. Depending on how esoteric your topic is, you may find that the challenge is not finding people to interview but finding more than you have time for.
Once you have scheduled an interview, you have to decide how to conduct the conversation. If you want to meet in person, great. But a call or Zoom meeting also works well, especially for busy people who don’t have an extra hour to drive somewhere and back. Make it easy on your subjects! Be sure to record your interview (and to ask permission to do so ahead of time). You can do this on your phone’s voice memos, on Zoom, and so on. The benefit of recording is that you can focus on the conversation in the moment and not have your head down while you’re scrawling notes. By all means, jot down a word or two to highlight key points. But tech is your friend here.
You may feel as if you have no credentials to do this, but that’s okay. Just say what you’re there for: I’m a writer working on a short story, and I don’t know where it’s going yet. I’m getting to know the world of the narrative and just have some open-ended questions. And so on. Be honest about how you might use what interviewees tell you: If you’re writing an article for a newspaper, for example, you should let the person know whether you intend to quote them using their real name. If you’re going to write fiction, will you disguise everything except a small detail or anecdote?
There are pitfalls to interviewing people, which I have generally learned by falling into them. For instance, even though you are having the time of your life asking question after question, and your interlocutor may enjoy telling you about her life, you have to watch the time. Try to aim for thirty minutes, confirm the duration before the interview, and stick to it. You can always ask if the subject is amenable to a follow-up call or e-mail, but try to get what you need from that first conversation, and don’t assume another is forthcoming.
Try not to waste your precious interview time on anything you can read about. Books and the internet are perfect for the boring and bureaucratic stuff. I literally bought a book called How to Import Wine, and it was my go-to for basic process descriptions. But I focused my interviews on more experiential questions. Understand your characters and the situation they’re in. What are the blank spots in your story? That’s a good place to start. Ask the subject about the little things: sensory details, tiny moments that signal something is wrong, what success looks like in their field, or any random memory that comes to mind as they talk. Tell them not to worry about whether what they say is useful. Maybe it won’t be—but it might take you somewhere exciting. Sometimes you luck out and a person offers up exactly what you want. Other times the person might not have what you need. How they think, what they recall, or their experiences simply are not what you’re seeking. If this happens, try a few more questions, thank them profusely for their generosity, and save the file in case it yields something you may grasp later.
Interviewing wine insiders made my novel stronger by giving me a much clearer sense of the world in which my story was set than I could have invented on my own. It helped me figure out what the story would be and informed my characters. And it was more fun than I’d expected. The only true struggle was to stop interviewing and start writing.
Michelle Wildgen’s fourth novel,Wine People, was published by Zibby Books in August. Her work has appeared inO, The Oprah Magazine;theNew York Times’ Modern Love column andBook Review;and other publications.
Art:Michal CzyzFalling in Love With Setting
by Michelle Wildgen
9.11.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 176.
For many years, I thought I hated setting. The mere mention of a tree species on the page was my signal to flee, and I never saw the point of describing the land, the city, or the architecture surrounding my characters. A coffee shop was a coffee shop, a house a house, so why belabor the points? My writing teachers were forever penning affectionate margin notes in my stories, like, “Where the hell are these people???”
In retrospect I can see two clear reasons for my unfortunate bias: a faulty definition of the term setting and the Ohio suburbs.
The suburbs, I should say, were fine: I grew up in a safe neighborhood in a pleasant, small city. I have friends who live there now, and it’s lovely to visit. But growing up, I couldn’t say what distinguished my town from any other similar-sized Midwestern city. We had the same strip malls and subdivisions, the same Italian American restaurants and burger joints. I grew up assuming that regional identities were really just stereotypes and inventions. Real people were probably all about the same, I thought.
I was very young when I made these assumptions.
The other reason I avoided setting was because I equated setting with landscape, and to this day lengthy descriptions of trees and bushes put me to sleep. I thought that if I didn’t like landscape, I had to avoid setting altogether. We can call it a personal failing, but I am comforted by a John McPhee quote about his wife, who would only listen to him read “ten minutes of geology at a time.” We all have our preferences. My preference was to muddle along in my narratives, leaving my poor characters dangling in empty white space, to the frustration of my professors.
The sea change hit in my twenties when I moved to a city that did have a more specific sense of place. For one thing, I encountered more food traditions in Wisconsin than I had in my Ohio suburb. I was delighted to realize that just about every bar and restaurant in Madison—Italian, dive, or otherwise—offered a Friday fish fry. Going out for fish fry was a way of life. Even the terrifying biker bar had a fish fry, for god’s sake (and it probably contained a few more severed fingers than the church basement’s version). Here was a bona fide culinary ritual, borne of Wisconsin’s abundant lakes and generations of European Catholics who settled in the area in the nineteenth century, bringing with them a religion that once forbade eating meat on Fridays. There was also a local accent—one that was rounder in the O’s than the Ohioan pronunciation I was used to—and an outdoorsy, casual fashion aesthetic shaped by years of hiking and hippie counterculture. Finally, a place-y place!
I realized that all of this was setting: the accents, the Birkenstocks, the red-striped overalls University of Wisconsin undergrads wore to football games, the fried cod, and brandy Old Fashioned cocktails. Once I understood that setting is not a list of plants but the manner in which a place shapes characters and is shaped by them in return, I fell in love with all the different ways I could write about it. Everything was setting: customs and social graces, food and dress, religion and economics. Instead of cobbling characters together by sprinkling random details about their lives, I could think about where they were from and where they were in the now of my story. Setting, I was stunned to learn, was perhaps the most useful tool of all for knitting a tale together. I found I could create more nuanced, individual characters by considering the full context in which they lived. I understood how they fit into these places. Better yet, I found new ways for them to not fit in, because fiction thrives in the difference between social expectations and a character’s ability to meet them.
Of course I’ve had to be careful about stereotypes. I try to observe the broad cultural strokes my characters were formed by or rebelled against, but I never limit them to platitudes about those cultures. Similarly, I learned that setting should not be merely a static description of an unchanging place. If my character grew up eating fish fry every weekend, for example, maybe my story would begin the day he starts rolling his eyes at the thousandth plate of perch. Then I’d get to figure out why the character was behaving that way and how the people around him would react to his rejection of what helped make him who he is.
I find it useful to think of setting as a sphere that expands or contracts as the story needs it to, encircling only the most vital interaction between people and place. I focus on the place where my characters experience the most change and tension. If that’s their dinner table, I don’t feel the need to tell the reader all about the surrounding city and region—though both might be implied by the food or manners at that table. Or I might want to talk about how the characters identify strongly as Wisconsinites or New Yorkers: In that case, I would describe more of their feelings about the city or the region (I might even sneak in some landscape). Throughout my writing process, I ask myself how the various elements of setting matter to my characters, what causes trouble or change for them. While I might begin by describing their immediate environment—like that dinner table—I wonder how much of their larger world is significant to them at the moment I’m narrating: The building? The city? A whole industry? My character may love the place she’s in, but it helps me stoke tension if I keep some element at odds with her too. For example, I might write: She loves everything about this place except for _____. She never noticed [unsettling aspect] of this familiar place until now.
It comes down to this: A writer can include the parts of her characters’ world that interest her most. Be it farming technique or death rituals, driving habits or school lunches, setting encompasses so much more than trees and buildings. An expansive understanding of place and a clear grasp of your characters’ relationship to their world can take your story from a handful of crumbs to a substantial meal.
Michelle Wildgen’s fourth novel, Wine People, was published by Zibby Books in August. Her work has appeared in O, The Oprah Magazine;the New York Times’ Modern Love column and Book Review;and other publications.
Art: James WheelerThe Perils of Using Real People in Your Prose
by Elinor Lipman
8.21.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 175.
During the spring of 2020 I was working on what would become my thirteenth novel, Rachel to the Rescue (Mariner Books, 2021). The story is set in Washington, D.C., during the presidency of Donald Trump, and the protagonist works in the White House Office of Records Management (WHORM, truly), taping back together the documents that Trump chronically rips up.
Those early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, when I was isolating in the Hudson Valley, gave me uninterrupted time to work on the book. Mornings were pretty sacred, as I aimed to write a minimum of five hundred words per day. But no matter the word count, I’d stop mid-sentence if necessary at 10:58 AM, my alarm set so that I wouldn’t miss Governor Andrew Cuomo’s 11:00 AM briefings from Albany. Before the COVID-19 vaccine was available, his reports on the ticking down of deaths and hospitalizations resembled something like hope that life could return to normal and I could return to New York City.
On April 18, 2020—about a month into lockdown—Cuomo announced that he’d signed an executive order authorizing weddings to take place virtually. After casually naming potential officiants—clergy, judges, friends—he added with a rare, avuncular smile, “Or me!” Months later that moment returned to me as I was writing the last chapter of Rachel to the Rescueand needed a character to officiate at a wedding. Why not my governor, whose reassuring briefings had made him very popular, if not beloved? So into my novel went Cuomo. I took liberties with his dialogue and had a little fun. If writers are allowed to criticize and/or satirize public figures, surely it would be okay to invent dialogue that makes them sound charming, wouldn’t it? I have Cuomo quip that his own mother, Matilda, would be proud to see him acting like the priest she’d always hoped one of her sons might become. I also have him recite a Hebrew blessing, thanking his Jewish brothers and sisters, and end the service with an old-school, gubernatorial plug for the Empire State—a reminder to the bride and groom to keep Niagara Falls in mind as a post-lockdown honeymoon destination. Could I have made him any more likeable?
My editor didn’t question my putting Cuomo in the book. She had enough to worry about, such as my wearing my political heart on my sleeve and ridiculing Mr. and Mrs. Trump in every chapter. Besides, the real-life governor’s good times were still rolling. The International Academy of Television Arts and Sciences announced in November 2020, that it would bestow its International Emmy Founders Award on Cuomo for his 111 daily coronavirus briefings. “People around the world tuned in to find out what was going on,” the press release said. “[A]nd New York toughbecame a symbol of the determination to fight back.”
Once my manuscript was accepted, I printed out the passages in which Cuomo appeared and mailed them to an address listed for the governor at ny.gov. I enclosed a note, faux-apologizing for putting words in his mouth, quite sure he’d find them flattering. Two weeks later, a letter arrived; the return address: “State House, Albany.” It had been years since news of any importance—college admissions, job offers, rejection letters, test results—came in an envelope. I just stared at it for a few seconds, thinking it could be nothing—or a request from Cuomo’s attorney to expunge the governor from the novel. But no; it was a note from Cuomo himself. “I wanted to thank you for sending me an excerpt from your book, Rachel to the Rescue. I was touched to be included in your story. It is an honor to be one of your characters. Thanks again. I will remain grateful for your extraordinary support.”
Touched. How nice was that? I photographed the letter and posted it on Facebook and Instagram. It was the season of major goodwill toward Cuomo. There was even talk of him being named Biden’s running mate in the 2020 election. His thank-you letter to me apparently struck a very nice nerve, inspiring hundreds of Facebook friends to declare not only approval, but their romantic inclinations toward the bachelor governor.
Rachel to the Rescue was published in the United Kingdom in November 2020 and eight months later in the U.S. I sent Cuomo an inscribed copy of the finished book, and I was delighted when another thank-you note arrived from him on January 11, 2021. “Great to hear from you again,” it began. But soon my delight took a hit: Later that month, New York Attorney GeneralLetitia James reported that the Cuomo administration had misreported deaths related to COVID-19 at state nursing homes, and in February her office announced an investigation into allegations that Cuomo had engaged in sexual harassment of his female employees. On March 11, 2021, theNew York State Assemblyauthorized animpeachment investigationinto the allegations.
Earlier, before my book was published, I’d consulted an intellectual property lawyer-friend about whether it was okay for the novel to ridicule Trump. He said it was. I hadn’t asked him to weigh in on Cuomo’s officiating, but after reading the galley, my lawyer-friend wrote back, “By July [2021], when the American paperback appears, Cuomo will be embroiled in the nursing home evidence suppression scandal, and he may even be facing impeachment charges. Come July he may still be in office, but I don’t think too many couples will be inviting him to officiate at their weddings. Especially not couples with grandparents in nursing homes.”
I replied: “The virtual wedding is a moment in time, which is not July 2021 but Covid-scary 2020. That spring, Cuomo was my rabbi. I tuned in religiously to his daily briefings until the death rate fell below 1 percent. His popularity was something like 78 percent. When I posted his thank-you to me on FB, every one of the comments by (middle-aged and older) respondents was funny, crush-like.”
It turned out that my inclusion of Cuomo did draw some heat: In an otherwise lovely review of Rachel to the Rescue in the New York Times, Beck Dorey-Stein mused that it might have been better if I’d left him out. “When Andrew Cuomo makes a cameo, I couldn’t help emitting a sympathetic oy vey for Lipman, who paints the New York governor in the flattering light that was common before his rapid fall from grace.” In my thank-you e-mail to the reviewer, I didn’t take issue with her critique or try to make a case for Cuomo’s historical relevance. (One shouldn’t argue with a review. Not good form.)
My other choice to include real-world characters turned out to be vindicated. The Washington Post reported last February that Trump “was known inside the White House for his unusual and potentially unlawful habit of tearing presidential records into shreds and tossing them on the floor—creating a headache for records management analysts who meticulously used Scotch tape to piece together fragments of paper that were sometimes as small as confetti, asPolitico reported in 2018.” Many readers of Rachel to the Rescue e-mailed me after the article appeared: Was I prescient? Had I made up my heroine’s crazy Scotch-taping job? No. I’d seen the piece on Politico about the record-shredding, which others apparently missed; in fact, I borrowed seven of its lines as the novel’s epigraph. And my favorite validation: The then Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero, asked me in 2022 to inscribe copies of the book for the sixteen real-life “Rachels” who worked at WHORM.
In his introduction to Future Shock, originally published in 1970 by Random House, Alvin Toffler explores “the perishability of fact.” He writes, “It is inevitable…in a book written over the course of several years, that some of its facts will have been superseded between the time of research and writing and the time of publication. … We have not yet learned to conceive, research, write and publish in ‘real time.’”
I presume that every time a reader meets the jovial Cuomo on page 284 of my book, an “oy vey” is uttered. I can take it. I have history on my side; well, not big-picture history, but a thin slice of current events that went drastically pear-shaped. True, if I’d known what was ahead, I wouldn’t have turned Cuomo into a character. But, if challenged, I’d say redacting the ex-governor now would be the literary equivalent of cutting faces of the divorced and unforgiven out of family photos. Why dig up and edit a time capsule? Why deny the reality of the past?
The reliable memory that serves me so well as an author also makes it difficult to forget both the fear I felt during the pandemic and the service rendered by Cuomo’s news briefs. Every weekday I’d hear the governor pledge allegiance to “the great state of New York, where love wins, where we are tough, we are smart, we are united, we are disciplined,” words that sent me back to my desk and to a fictional Washington, D.C., with Rachel.
Elinor Lipman is the award-winning author of fourteen novels, most recently Ms. Demeanor (Harper Perennial, 2022).
Art: Himanshu PandeyThe Enchantment of Memory: Drawing Inspiration From Science and Fairy Tales
by Rebekah Bergman
8.7.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 174.
Memory fascinates me. I find it both delightful and terrifying. There is magic in the very notion that the mind can conjure elements of the long-ago past. For instance: More than three decades have passed since my older sister and I were the flower girls in our uncle’s wedding. We wore matching dresses, and I can still feel them—soft velvet with lace that itched my collarbone. I tried not to scratch as I walked down the aisle. Something else: the sadness of learning that the flowers in our little white baskets were artificial. We wouldn’t actually toss any petals.
Remembering all this delights me. And the terror? The terror comes when I consider all that I don’t recall. What song played in the processional? Did my grandmother cry? Maybe family members can answer these questions from their own memories. Or maybe no one recalls: These and many other details may be lost. I said that I remember the wedding, but what I really remember is an itchy dress and the disappointment of plastic flowers. That’s it.
My debut novel—The Museum of Human History, out this month from Tin House—explores how time shapes us and what it leaves us with. To write it I drew from memory, and I researched memory. One early lesson was that the English language doesn’t make it easy to discuss this kind of thing. There are many names for the bit of the past we have access to: recollection, remembrance, reminiscence—or, simply, memory. Whichever word you choose, whatever does remain of events in your mind is dwarfed and outweighed by what is gone. What we cannot remember we have no words for. While writing my novel I invented a term for it: “forgottance.” Nearly all of the past is forgottance though. Given such enormity, the word started to slip toward meaninglessness. In the end, I couldn’t come up with a sufficient name for it.
And what we do remember may be further from the truth than we realize. While researching the mechanisms of memory, I uncovered a delightful and, yes, terrifying fact from neuroscience: Each time we recall an event, we change it. Our brains encode elements of the present so that the next time we remember that event, we may actually be remembering remembering it. In this way, our memories are natural writers—always busy revising and rewriting, never content to call their work “done.”
This feels fitting to me, since my obsession with memory is inextricably linked to my obsession with narrative. Every memory I hold onto might just be a story I tell myself. And the more I tell it as a story, the more I forget about the original event.
The Museum of Human History examines the link between narrative and memory. It does this, in part, by pulling from the fairy tale genre. The book centers on Maeve Wilhelm, a girl in a strange coma who stops aging. Maeve serves as a Sleeping Beauty figure in the book, and I read various versions of the eponymous fairy tale and scholarship about it while working on my novel. “Sleeping Beauty” is a story about the stories we tell of the past and the power such memories hold, even—perhaps especially—when those stories are all that remain.
In the classic version of “Sleeping Beauty,” as recorded by the Brothers Grimm, a princess is cursed to sleep for a century, and her kingdom falls asleep with her. A hedge of thorns grows around the kingdom, shrouding it completely. For decades, it is forgotten. One day an old storyteller—the only one who remembers what happened—recounts the tale of their cursed slumber to a prince, who then sets out to awaken the princess.
Scholar Donald Haase argues that this version of “Sleeping Beauty” is emblematic of how the Grimms saw their own project of gathering old folk tales. In the preface to the second edition of the brothers’ Children’s and Household Tales, published in 1819, Wilhelm Grimm provides an extended metaphor to explain the importance of recording old stories: A fire destroys an entire crop except for a few stalks protected by hedges. These stalks, once fully grown and rediscovered, are treasured immensely because they now provide the only seed for the future. He writes, “That is how it seemed to us when we discovered that nothing was left of all those things that had flourished in earlier times; even the memory of them was nearly gone except for…these innocent household tales.” As in “Sleeping Beauty,” the hedges that hide also serve to protect. A small trace of the past remains—preserved and, for a time, forgotten. And in both the fairy tale and Grimm’s preface, what saves the past from disappearing altogether is the act of storytelling—the only “seed for the future.”
After all, it isn’t the prince as much as the storyteller who is capable of reawakening the slumbering kingdom.
In my novel, as Maeve sleeps through the months and years and decades and, ultimately, a quarter century, almost all of her past is forgotten. The people who are drawn to her know nothing of who she was when she was a child. All they know is her many years of sleep. There is—however—one person who does retain a memory of Maeve’s true past. Once I realized Maeve was Sleeping Beauty, I saw this character was the storyteller: Evangeline, Maeve’s identical twin.
There is another way that memory played a role in my novel. The book follows many characters who are drawn to Maeve: a young widower, a performance artist, and a museum owner, among others. All of them struggle with memory. Some are desperate to remember the past but wind up forgetting it. Others try to bury the past but, try as they might, the past is exposed.
In depicting these inner conflicts, I was thinking of my grandfather. Born in Poland in 1925, Wolf Bergman was the sole member of his family to survive the Holocaust. After the atrocities of his youth, he lived a long life: When the camps were liberated, he met my grandmother, the only survivor of her own family, and moved with her to the United States. They had four children, twelve grandchildren, and Wolf even lived to see a great-grandchild.
I cannot recall ever speaking to my grandfather about his time in the Warsaw Ghetto or any of three concentration camps. In my memory, these were not experiences he wished to talk about. But nightmarishly, he was forced to relive them. For two decades he lived with Alzheimer’s Disease. Trapped in his past, he spoke mostly Yiddish and, at times, of the trauma of the camps. Often he wept.
I said earlier that what terrifies me about memory is the enormity of what we forget. That’s true. But it’s only partly true. My fear also lies in the persistence and power of what we do and must sometimes, in spite of ourselves, go on remembering.
Rebekah Bergman’s debut novel,The Museum of Human History, was published this month by Tin House. Her fiction has been published inJoyland,Tin House,theMasters Review Anthology, and elsewhere. She lives in Rhode Island with her family. Read more:rebekahbergman.com.
Art: Aron VisualsThe Challenge and Freedom of Managing a Large Cast of Characters
by Rebekah Bergman
7.31.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 173.
By the time I realized that I was writing a novel—The Museum of Human History, which will be published by Tin House next month—I was many years into a manuscript that I thought would be a collection of linked stories. There were almost a dozen protagonists. I often felt overwhelmed by the challenge of having so many central characters, with timelines that went back not only decades but generations and even millennia. Revision required a lot of wrangling and untangling to ensure continuity and alignment of plotted events. I developed several strategies for managing it all.
For starters, I kept a massive spreadsheet that I titled, simply, “Planner” to map and chart the characters, noting where they appeared in the book and how they connected to one another. I had tabs to keep track of chronology and potential plot holes, needs for future revisions, and even reminders of where the latest drafts were stored and what the files were named. Due to the complicated structure of the book, any change I made to one character’s story reverberated through others’, so it was important to keep track of these details. Maintaining the spreadsheet made me feel a bit like a conspiracy theorist, with one of those “evidence” walls with red string and thumbtacks. On many occasions I vowed to my writer friends that the next novel I wrote would follow a single character over the course of a day.
Despite all the complexity that came along with such a big cast, I have to say that my characters also afforded me some freedom. In his craft book, Refuse to Be Done: How to Write and Rewrite a Novel in Three Drafts (Soho Press, 2022), Matt Bell says a novelist should follow their excitement in a first draft. “In general,” he writes, “if you’re not excited about what you’re writing, consider writing something else.” By this he does not mean abandoning the manuscript but moving to a different point in it, going “to where your energy is highest,” or “somewhere else.” Bell’s advice, for me, became to write someone else. One day I would explore a young widower remembering the final trip he took with his late wife, and the next I would jump to a mysterious artist and dream up new concepts for her performance art. Or I would be with a lonely museum owner as he built his collection of artifacts to preserve the history he’d devoted his life to. Even though I was working on this project for far longer than anything I’d ever tried to write before, following my excitement by leaping to someone else in my novel meant I never grew bored with it. After all, I had populated the book with so many people who genuinely interested me.
Maintaining a wide cast enabled me to more deeply explore my novel’s main themes. The book is concerned with time and the anxiety of forgetting and being forgotten. It considers if and how we might live on in someone else’s memory. Each of my major characters takes a primary role in one plotline and a secondary role in others. These interconnections opened up avenues through which I could investigate my themes. One character in my book says that memory is “a thing you cannot really share with anyone else.” That might be true for her—and for all of us—but through my chorus of voices, I was able to challenge that idea, examining the mechanisms of memory outside of any individual experience of it.What one character wishes could be forgotten, another character recalls. A key detail overlooked or misremembered creates a cascade of consequences, and the act of uncovering the past changes it fundamentally.
I cannot say that these were the easiest ways to write a novel, especially a debut. I’m sure they were not! But is there any easy way to write a novel?Now that I’ve done it—wrangled and untangled these fictional lives to craft a braided, central narrative arc—I can see these strategies were essential: There was no other way I could have told the story I wanted to tell.
Rebekah Bergman’s debut novelThe Museum of Human History will be published by Tin House in August. Her fiction has been published inJoyland,Tin House,the Masters Review Anthology, and other publications. She lives in Rhode Island with her family. Read more: rebekahbergman.com.
Art: ChuttersnapHow to Trick Yourself Into Writing a Novel
by Rebekah Bergman
7.24.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 172.
For a long time, if it came up in conversation that I was a fiction writer, I’d feel an intense need to specify: “I writeshort stories.” Or sometimes I’d go one step further: “Veryshort stories.” I wasn’t apologizing; I was clarifying.Don’t get me wrong, I love novels. But my love for novels was a reader’s love, whereas my love for short stories felt writerly. I read them to study their magic, so that I might learn to fold an entire world into as few words as possible.In seeking brevity, I could play with language and explore its power; I spent most of my time on revisions—experimenting with syntax, sentences, and rhythm, trying to whittle a piece down to its most essential, economical form. This was what first interested me about writing.
In graduate school, I thought I’d found kindred spirits who came to the MFA for the short story too. But, one by one, my classmates were tempted by the pull of the long narrative. By thesis season nearly everyone had their “idea for a novel.” Meanwhile my work got shorter.
I completed my thesis—a collection of short stories and flash fiction, which surprised no one—graduated, and took a full-time job outside of the literary world. Without classmates, workshops, a thesis advisor, or any external deadlines, my writing identity felt suddenly very tenuous. I had far less time for fiction, and I became worried: If my writing didn’t demand that I make space for it, I feared I might make no space for it at all. What if, after completing my MFA, I never wrote fiction again?
And then I had an idea for a novel.
It was just a seed: a girl in a coma who comes to hold a strange power over people. I had been remembering a true tale from my hometown about a girl who’d nearly drowned and became comatose. Reportedly she performed miracles while unconscious. Visitors flocked to her bedside and claimed that, afterward, they were cured of various ailments. I hadn’t understood much of this, being just a kid as it unfolded. But looking back as an adult, I was struck by the girl, by her family, and by the community of strangers that formed around her. I wanted to write about it.
For months, I sat down early each morning to work on my novel. Somewhere along the way, I’d heard the tip to set a daily word count. I had no outline or plan, and I often fell short of my goal of one thousand words a day.I kept a document to log progress, following more advice I’d picked up somewhere. The aim is to gain confidence in the work as you see it grow. Days passed and one thousand words became two thousand, three thousand, five thousand. I hoped if I simply continued, the words would accumulate into a meaningful draft.
Ten thousand. Twenty-five thousand. I kept it up, stubborn and rudderless, on and on. Somewhere shy of fifty thousand, I let myself read through the draft.
Nothing meaningful had accumulated; I could see this clearly. I abandoned the project.
So I went back to short stories. There was comfort in returning to the form where I felt I belonged. The first piece I wrote after nixing my novel was a conscious attempt to cleanse my palate of my misguided novel attempt. The story was about a couple with a wide age gap between them grappling with the development of a new antiaging procedure: One of them wanted to try it.
I finished the story in 2016. It was about six thousand words—which was a long story for me—but I didn’t feel the need to trim it. If anything, I wondered if it might need to belonger. No matter how much I revised it, the story didn’t feel done. Or rather, I didn’t feel done with it.
I wrote a second story set in the same world. Then I wrote a third. I decided I was writing a collection of linked stories. I read a bunch of linked collections and novels-in-stories that I loved, which fueled me: Olive Kitteridge by Elizabeth Strout and A Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer Egan were two I returned to often. I kept going.
With each story, I had a chance to start as fresh as I wanted to. I could create new characters, experiment with new structures and plotlines. I could also take whatever served me from the other stories. I let characters intersect and their plot lines braid. I am making this sound easier than it was—the drafting was hard. But it was also liberating: I could keep writing about the world of this book, following whatever direction it took me for however long I wanted.I also didn’t realize what I was doing yet, so I didn’t have any expectations for what I wassupposedto be doing. I could just keep writing “short stories.”
The biggest surprise came when this new world I was writing about revealed a familiar character: a girl in a coma. I discovered what I was up to then. I wasn’t writing short stories; I was writing chapters. These pieces were fitting together to tell a larger story that might be bigger than the sum of its parts:I was writing a novel after all.
It took five years for me to complete the first full draft of The Museum of Human History, which will be published by Tin House in August. By then I was no longer calling it a collection of linked stories but a novel-in-stories. This term gave me a final set of training wheels for the work I had ahead of me: making my book, simply, a novel.
Several full revisions and eight years after I started The Museum of Human History, I wrote its final scene. I made what I’d originally intended as standalone stories cohere into one unified tale.
Rebekah Bergman’s debut novel,The Museum of Human History, will be published by Tin House in August. Her fiction has been published inJoyland,Tin House,the Masters Review Anthology, and elsewhere. She lives in Rhode Island with her family. Read more: rebekahbergman.com.
Art: Zdenek MachacekWhat the Orifice Wants: On Boundlessness
by Megan Fernandes
7.10.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 171.
Let’s talk about holes.
In my new book, I Do Everything I’m Told, published in June by Tin House, there is a poem called “I’m Smarter Than This Feeling, But Am I?” The first line of the poem states: “I watch your film about fisting,” invoking a beloved who is a filmmaker. Only it becomes clear that the film is not really explicitly about fisting, but follows a filmmaker who looks through a telescope deep into the cosmos. The telescope transforms into a wormhole-like tunnel. The tunnel somehow becomes an orifice. In the cinematic hole, which recalls black holes as much as it does the birth canal, an argument about orifices emerges.
Etymologically, orifice comes from the Latin or-, for mouth, and facere, meaning to make or do: interestingly, mouth-making. It also can mean “the opening of a wound” and has multiple origins in Sanskrit (“puts, places”), Greek (“to put, set, place)”, and Old Persian (“to make”). Put together, there is a triangulation of mouth, wound,and making/setting. If an orifice makes a mouth, it also provides an opening, sets up a passage. And it is often the site of the most intimate relationality. Donna Haraway, celebrated scholar of feminist science studies, once said that “sex, infection, and eating were old relatives.” By this, they meant, I think, that the moment in which your own bodily sovereignty is breached by some other being—whether it is another human, a virus, or a different species that has been ingested—an intimacy is sprung. You are no longer just your own body. You have become multiple, relational, boundless. You fuck, and bodies become entangled. You eat the apple, and you are full of apple. You get the virus, and you succumb to its spell. We are no longer just ourselves.
“All I want is boundless love,” Frank O’Hara once wrote, and I’ve been thinking about boundlessness. About what we risk when we are boundless with others until they are no longer other, until the wall of separation lowers or dissipates into mist. Such intimacy. A womb drive. A distant memory of plurality. We might think we’d never be lonesome again.
But boundlessness has its cost. It can feel violent when our bodily sovereignty is disrupted. Not all boundlessness—as when we are taken over by a fever—is welcome. We are put under the power of something outside ourselves: the rules of a foreign game. In fact, many have argued that the language of contagion and illness reflects a racialized and xenophobic discourse of foreignness, of otherness. But I don’t want to steer too far off course here. My priorities are to think about how we write about what happens when we come undone.
One of my favorite poems about holes is Jameson Fitzpatrick’s poem, “Grasping at Being Filled” from the remarkable collection Pricks in the Tapestry (Birds, 2020). In it the speaker counts holes of all kinds: The absence of fathers. Holes of sexual difference and childhood. The holes of that feeling of forever. The holes left by our dead friends. The holes our militarized nation makes on other soil. The poem seems to understand that without holes, there is no desire—but there is also no pain. The hole is the wound from what has left, continues to leave, asks to be filled after it’s gone. In the poem, the holes accumulate until the speaker asks God to “fuck my mind for good /… / dissolve it / into absolute equanimity.” That word “dissolve” kills me. It’s the liquid metaphor, the want to stop being solid, that hits me. The “hole” becomes “whole” at the end of the poem, calling attention to the way boundlessness promises to keep us undifferentiated from the world and therefore transgressed to the point where there is no boundary left to be transgressed.
“When you say they make you feel whole, what do you mean?” my therapist challenges me in one session. She tells me to be suspect of wholeness. To be suspect of the language of fate and the cosmos when I tell her, in a performatively rational moment, how a series of chance circumstances threw me together with someone who I wanted badly to avoid. Of course, I didn’t want to avoid them at all. We were fated, I said, to always find each other. The trap of destiny was in my throat. She sighed. The desire, so much, to become undone to the point of being fluid: I can envelop anything. How god-like. What power. And that’s the tough pill to swallow. When our beloved “completes” us we become gods, temporarily. We become omniscient, and we never get over it. We chase that feeling, maybe one we had in the womb, where our vulnerability to another has the potential to transform us into feeling like maybe we don’t have to live in our bodies, alone.
In the book Testo Junkie: Sex, Drugs, and Biopolitics in the Pharmacopornographic Era (Feminist Press, 2013) by trans scholar Paul Preciado, translated from the Spanish by Bruce Benderson, the speaker talks about fucking their girlfriend with a dildo. They call it digging. A way to dig a “hole” in her body “through which music flows.” They also say that the anus is the orifice that closes the divide between genders—a kind of short-circuit of sexual difference—and, later, that the body is always desiring power: “seeking to swallow it, eat it, administer it, wolf it down, more, always more, through every hole, by every possible route of application. Turning oneself into power.”
Desire is a route to deification, in a way. I try to think about this when I write. In “I’m Smarter Than This Feeling, But Am I?” I ask the beloved why they’re obsessed with smut and interiority. By our inner drunk shipwrecks. They respond, as they did in real life: “It’s not smut, it’s a love story.” We write our lyrical poems as if what we want from our beloveds is for them to love us. Or to punish them. Or to confess to them. We are so certain of our intentions. But our beloveds hold a sovereignty that is their own self-rule, their own power, and the pleasures and violence of any boundlessness is not knowing that there also might be care where there is dissolution.Later, in the poem, my speaker says: “You see who I was before I was a was. An am.” So powerful, that sentiment. To be seen as dust. Before the body’s edges. Before time itself.
Megan Fernandesis a writer living in New York City. Her work has been published in theNew Yorker, theAmerican Poetry Review,Ploughshares, among many other outlets. Her third book of poetry,I Do Everything I’m Told, was published in June by Tin House. She is an associate professor of English and the writer-in-residence at Lafayette College in Pennsylvania.
Art: Fotografías con LimónRespiratory Flow: Lungs as Knowledge
by Megan Fernandes
7.3.23
In our Craft Capsules series, authors reveal the personal and particular ways they approach the art of writing. This is no. 170.
I have asthma. I also smoke occasionally.
Someone once told me that British poetry is dictated by the heart—stress sounds, the iambs, the beat, ending with hard consonant sounds—while American poetry is dictated by the lungs: breath as measurement, breathlessness as energy and arousal, pause as suspense, rest as exhaustion, enjambment. If the lungs are our organ, what then can we make of their rooms, chambers, secrets? What can we know of their capacity?
My lungs and I have been in a tug-of-war all my life. I’ve been hospitalized before, unable to breathe. Luckily now I’m on the right meds and, for the most part, I’m okay. But I also test my lungs. I didn’t smoke for sixteen years and then picked up the habit again last summer, just at parties or the rare morning coffee. I’d say these days I smoke about three skinny Italian cigarettes a week, and I’ve begun to notice slight changes in my lungs—which matters, it turns out, for my poetry, since I read fast. I read with adrenaline; my lines are, in fact, in a compositional dance with my breathing organ. My rhythm is entirely based on my lungs. My lines, often erratic and frenetic, have in the past simulated my erratic and frenetic breathing. If I can’t get to the end of a certain line in a poem in one breath, I know my lungs are in trouble.
In Pacific Islander poetry, breathing is an important method of self- and shared knowledge. The Hawaiian tradition of sharing breath, for example, is a form of greeting that allows the sensory exchange of air and scents between people rooted in a sense of continuity and connectedness. In “Breath as Metaphor of Sovereignty and Connectedness in Pacific Island Poetry,” Otto Heim argues: “Attention to breathing thus concretizes a conceptualization of knowledge that emphasizes awareness of a relationship with a living environment, interdependence, and causation.” Heim goes on to discuss the Samoan idea of Va which, loosely translated, refers to the relationality between objects, such as the space-in-between the heart and belly (lungs!). To Samoans, this space is considered a cosmic center with “ancestral energies” and “a circular time/space continuum,” where a sense of the “presence and precedence of other life” resides, writes Heim. Va characterizes a “dynamic sense of connection” and the “ecological worldviews of Oceania” as well as notions of Hawaiian sovereignty whereby the same word for “sovereignty, rule, and independence” means “life, breath, vapor, gas, breeze, spirit.” In other words, a poetics from Pacific Islander indigeneity teaches us that breath is shared and mutual, present and ancient, and connected to the rhythm of our lives.
This idea is integral to an exercise I do sometimes with my college writing students. First, I make them watch this video of the visual artist Mimi Cabell reciting the phrase “I love you” over and over again. In it the artist rocks back and forth, keeps saying the words on repeat until she runs out of breath, takes a deep inhale, and keeps going for nearly nine minutes. It’s transfixing to watch. At first the “I love you” feels tender. Soon, the phrase takes on a range of emotional valences. It sounds menacing, full of exasperation, or banal. It’s a great lesson in the function of repetition for students, and it has also had me wondering about lung capacity and the lessons I learned from reading about Pacific Islander poetry.
In the next part of my exercise, I tell my students to take out their phones and record themselves saying “I love you” over and over again in a single breath, noting the time. I myself last thirteen seconds. Most of my students last a bit longer, and a few of them (swimmers, I imagine) can go to around thirty seconds. I then tell them to multiply the number of seconds they can hold the phrase “I love you” by three, since that phrase is three monosyllabic words, to come up with a number that will guide a composition exercise. That number represents how many syllables they can include in each stanza of a poem of at least three stanzas they will write. When they recite the poem later, they have to do so in exactly three breaths. My own stanza length lands at thirty-nine syllables. I wrote this on the fly according to the rules of my exercise:
Bet the boy in elm grove
held the might of gods
and when green crown fell
from his head, he ran
to the sea to stop the wave
of time, to care for me
and what of it? He
who chose to know
land, could not swim
or step on sand, could
not call or bow to
queen, how sad, how
wild, the skin of each
sea girl, a witch, a lake
a pool of blue, he knew
he would drown to give
up stone, a grove of trees,
some dead, but still, his
own, poor boy was slow
to own his gills, the chilled
thrill of float, his will
to stand on two feet:
hard, sown.
The students adore this exercise. Why? They learn something about their insides. Before this, they had no sense of their lung capacity, or—maybe even more telling—they had no sense of how embodied the craft of breath is to poetry. When they read their poems aloud, they usually whiz through the first stanza without any labor, but they’re wheezing by the last one. I can’t tell you how many students have asked me, How do I know when to break a line? Or they ask, point blank, What is a line made up of, anyways? There have been countless articles, theories, and traditions that attempt to answer these questions. Syllabic fidelity. Formal rules. But for me, my best poems occur when the line is dictated by my lungs, and that is deeply personal, subjective, and sometimes changes on the day or according to my lifestyle. They are my instrument and conversational organ.
Megan Fernandesis a writer living in New York City. Her work has been published in theNew Yorker, theAmerican Poetry Review,Ploughshares, among many other outlets. Her third book of poetry,I Do Everything I’m Told, was published in June by Tin House. She is an associate professor of English and the writer-in-residence at Lafayette College in Pennsylvania.
Art: Joseph Hersh