Shadow & Light

26 Apr
Bill Brandt. Bombed Regency Staircase, Upper Brook Street, Mayfair. c. 1942. Gelatin silver print, 9 x 7 5/8" (22.8 x 19.4 cm).

Bill Brandt. Bombed Regency Staircase, Upper Brook Street, Mayfair. c. 1942. Gelatin silver print, 9 x 7 5/8″ (22.8 x 19.4 cm).

What an odd place photography, especially vintage black and white photography, occupies in the 21st century. And also, in my version of the 21st century. To recap, I have seen the conveyances of recorded music transmogrify from discs of vinyl to smaller discs of ferrous oxide to invisible pulse of energy, back to to aficionado approved vinyl.

Photography, which is a wonderful artform that combines light “the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible” with silver,celluloid and paper and someone’s inspiration, to those invisible pulses of energy that present them selves on our various screens. And while, arguably, diminished,the audience for black and white photographs is persistent.

Two oddities present themselves in relation to actual (not to be overly subtle, I must avoid the word ‘real’ here) photo exhibits.One is that you can gather an exhaustive cache of information about almost everything that relates to an exhibition including testimonials from corporate sponsors—naturally occasioning an inventory of the efforts (driving, parking, fees, crowds) required to visit a major museum. Like so many things, viewing art was once a simpler thing.

In this (any) case of Bill Brandt’s Shadow and Light is currently housed at New York’s Museum of Modern Art (The Edward Steichen Photography Galleries), third floor through August 12 skillfully organized by Sarah Hermanson Meister, Curator, with Drew Sawyer, Beaumont and Nancy Newhall Curatorial Fellow, Department of Photography. Allow me to assume that your presence here in this far flung wat station of the cultural Internet indicates you are aware of who Bill Brandt is.

London 1945

London 1945


In case that does not obtain, here’s a curatorial note:

Bill Brandt is a founding figure in photography’s modernist traditions, and this exhibition represents a major critical reevaluation of his heralded career. Brandt’s distinctive vision—his ability to present the mundane world as fresh and strange—emerged in London in the 1930s, and drew from his time in the Paris studio of Man Ray. His visual explorations of the society, landscape, and literature of England are indispensable to any understanding of photographic history and, arguably, to our understanding of life in Britain during the middle of the 20th century.

Brandt’s activity during the Second World War, long distilled by Brandt and others to a handful of now-iconic pictures of moonlit London during the Blackout and improvised shelters during the Blitz, are presented here for the first time in the context of his assignments for the leading illustrated magazines of his day, establishing a key link between his pre- and postwar work. Brandt’s crowning artistic achievement, developed primarily between 1945 and 1961, is a series of nudes that are both personal and universal, sensual and strange, collectively exemplifying the “sense of wonder” that is paramount in his photographs. Brandt’s work is unpredictable not only in the range of his subjects but also in his printing style, which varied widely throughout his career…

Bill Brandt: Shadow and Light

Bill Brandt: Shadow and Light


The other oddity, of course, is the paper and cloth entity commonly referred to as a book, which serves as the exhibit monograph or exhibition catalogue. Shadow and Light (Yale University Press) is a well-published reference to its originating exhibit and to understanding Bill Brandt anew. You can access a PDF of the monograph here.

London 1953

London 1953

Currently reading The Carrion Birds by Urban Waite (William Morrow)

More “History or Imagination”

22 Apr
Landscapes of the Metropolis of Death by Otto Dov Kulka

Landscapes of the Metropolis of Death by Otto Dov Kulka

I wonder when those symbols etched on a page or screen configure to ‘The Holocaust’, how many people have a clear idea of what is represented by that (arguably) unique rubric? Being a 2G Jew (a category of which I have only recently become aware) I most emphatically have an in-my-gut response when I start to think about The Holocaust. Though it is both a cottage industry of narrative and an area of scholarship, The Holocaust almost by definition raises questions and poses conundrums and dilemnas that plumb depths of human darkness that a clear instructive barely penetrates

In any case, innumerable books and films (not to mention the mountains of documentation and archives of documentary film footage) have been fashioned since the end of World War II. Since holocaust narrative is not a subject that sings to me two recent books have broken through my indifference 80­ year­old survivor of Auschwitz­Birkenau and emeritus professor of history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem,Otto Dov Kulka,has published a slender memoir Landscapes of the Metropolis of Death: Reflections on Memory and Imagination (Harvard University Press) that eloquently erases the boundary of historical scholarship and personal testimony and recollection. As Thomas Laqueur elucidates:

The historian Kulka contemplates the great tension in all Holocaust scholarship, that between treating it as ordinary history that can be known through ordinary means – the study of ideology, political dynamics, imperial and economic strategies – and treating it as an event of sublime horror that can only be grasped, if at all, through the collection of testimony and with resort to claims of “unrepresentability”. Has he avoided writing this book all his life, he asks, just as he had side­stepped, as a boy, the mountains of skeletal corpses that had not yet been burned?… Kulka has survived, he tells us, by keeping professional history on one side (relegated here to the appendix) and privately guarded memory and experience on the other (now here exposed to the full light of day)

A Thousand Darknesses by Ruth Franklin

A Thousand Darknesses by Ruth Franklin

The other book that enthralls is New Republic Senior editor Ruth Franklin’s A Thousand Darknesses: Lies and Truth in Holocaust Fiction by (Oxford University Press). MS Franklin has for years been a thoughtful and useful commentator on literary matters and and this aggregation of essays and commentary on the literary fiction associated with and spawned by it. From Tadeuz Borowski and Jerzy Kosinski through the high priest of the Holocaust, Elie Wiesel, to Bernard Schlink and Jonathan Safron Foer, this tome is an accessible survey of a very specific literature, one whose engagement within a deranged moral universe is its own special hardship.

Franklin observes:

If we have learned anything in the last 65 years,it is that—as even this brief and incomplete list of works demonstrates—there is an infinite number of stories to be told about the Holocaust. Recall Adorno’s overused dictum…:Nach Auschwitz ein Gedicht zuschreiben ist barbarissch.Notie he wrote…’a poem. Sometimes I imagine that he might,perhaps subconsciously, have meant the statement literally. It would be horrific to write only one poem after Auschwitz.But to write a hundred poems, a thousand poems, a million poems, a million—that might be better because it would take an infinite number of works of literature to represent the vast multiplicity of voices and experiences that constitute the Holocaust…Paul Celan said that it, the language, remained, not lost, yes in spite of everything. But it had to pass through its own answerlessness, pass through frightful muting, pass through the thousand darknesses of death bringing speech.The thousand darknesses are the stories of the Holocaust;endlessly echoing, ever terrifying, infinitely valuable

Chimneys and Barbed Wire

Chimneys and Barbed Wire

Currently reading The Flamethrowers by Rachel Kushner (Scribner)

Talking with Michael Dahlie (The Best of Youth)

22 Apr

Butler University mentor Michael Dahlie who’s debut novel A Gentleman’s Guide to Graceful Living won a PEN/ Hemingway Award is unremarkable in one important way—his second effort The Best of Youth (WW Norton) joins the ranks of worthy and useful novels that are substantially ignored by the various gatekeepers of literature (except for wide- of-the-mark scribbling in Boston’s New York Times subsidiary.

How I came to choose this book, read and enjoy it, is of course, the wonderful serendipity that attends my ceaseless sifting through seemingly endless pyramids of books. Having enjoyed Dahlie’s novel I was pleased to converse with him on all manner of subjects, including video series such as Girls and Deadwood. Ian McShane, Brooklyn,having a happy family, Indianapolis, Charles Newman,University of Wisconsin (at Madison), popular historians,Dahlie’s new novel, hypochondria and what not.

Read on.

Micheal Dahlie by Robert Birnbaum

Micheal Dahlie by Robert Birnbaum

RB:Why should I believe that profile that’s on your webpage —the story of your marriage proposal? And how your child was conceived at a Van Halen concert

MD:To what are you referring?

RB:The proposal in Brooklyn walking down the street?

MD:Oh well, there’s no reason not to believe the proposal. As for–

RB:What about just being skeptical about the conception?

MD:You’re really skeptical? Well, have you been to a Van Halen concert recently?

RB:I’ve never been to a Van Halen concert at all.

MD:Ever? I can’t answer this properly. This is something that’s going to get me into trouble.

RB:I don’t want to put you in that position, I’m very sorry. But I do know that you were, in fact, married in Martha’s Vineyard.

MD:Yes, I was.

RB:And the news of your marriage was actually carried in a wedding notice in the New York Times.

MD:That’s correct.

RB:That doesn’t seem like you.

MD:That doesn’t seem like me? Well, why doesn’t it seem like me?

RB:Well, I think that given the sort of modesty that is on display in the novel, which I can’t help but think reflects something about you, it doesn’t seem like a gesture that you would make, especially if you made up odd ball stuff about the marriage.

MD:Right. Well, the deal was is that I was–I guess I got married when I was–36? No, 38? I don’t remember how old I was–but my wife and I did not want to have a proper wedding we felt–we in fact are too shy to sort of stand up in front of a bunch of people and emote, and–so we just picked a place that would be easy for all of our family to get to. I had never been to Martha’s Vineyard. My wife had once or twice, but–I mean, I’ve been to the cape a bunch, and just to kind of–you know, every year or so, we’d rent a place for a week or–

RB:What’s your recollection of that day? Was it a pleasant day?

MD:It was a great day. It was very small. It was just my family, and it was in Menemsha Bay, and again, I don’t know the Vineyard that well, but it was a kind of secluded area.

RB:What time of year was it?

MD:It was summer. July. And I–

RB:I always had a picture of the island being overrun in the summer.

MD:You know, it was after we went to Edgartown for a couple nights–my wife and I (before) we were married, and that was very busy–but Menemsha it was–there’s just a lot of kind of marshland on that end, and there’s also really strict zoning.

RB:Must be for the people with horses.

MD:Well, you’re not allowed to buy liquor in that part of the Vineyard too, and you know, you want to keep the Boston people away from the place. That’s how to do it.

RB:Well, they’ll just [brown bag it] bring their own.

MD:And that’s what people do. You go to one of the places, and you bring your own. But still, there’s no honkey-tonk bar scene, and if you want a lobster roll, you’ve got to bring your own wine and go down to the one kind of a shack that the–

RB:It’s nice your recollection of the day was pleasant and happy. I think that, frequently, weddings are sort of strange.

MD:I remember we were there with this guy, James Pringle, who was a Justice of the Peace in Martha’s Vineyard, and he was just this quintessential Yankee sort of secular, sort of the authority in the area, and he was really nice. And I remember walking around with my mom and my in-laws and saying, “Well, where should we do this? Where should we do this?” We finally found a little spot on the lawn, and my sister-in-law, I think, gave a quick reading, and we said our vows, and soon, we were up on the patio–

RB:Who wrote the wedding announcement for the New York Times? Did you write that, or did they have someone–?

MD:It’s an interesting story because–basically–well, my wife wrote something, but they’ve got a staff–

RB: She’s written a novel, hasn’t she?

MD:Well, she wrote a novel, right. But they have a staff at the New York Times that is pretty–they not only seem to be pretty extensive but they’re pretty cutthroat. I remember getting fact-checked by this guy, and, you know, at this point–

RB:About yourself?

MD:Yeah, and at this point, I had a book contract with Norton for my first book, and they wouldn’t put that in the announcement. The guy, for some reason, thought that unless the book was out— I was like– –

RB:Well, did you get back to them later, you know, when it won the PEN?

MD:Right. Actually, I was so frightened by this fact-checker, he was so aggressive with me, and I think I’m just going to let this one slide.

RB:Well, that’s more modesty! Look,that sort of plays into the overarching feeling I got from your book, which was that the character Henry has this really wonderful empathy and sympathy for elder people, which I find to be, in my own experience, unusual. Where does that come from?

MD:Well, I don’t know. I think Henry — I think he likely would have more empathy for people his own age as well if he understood them all or got along with them at all, but he’s so baffled by his own social world that it—I actually have spent a lot of time in Williamsburg and Brooklyn, the place that this set, but only because of my younger sister —I saw it as an outsider, and it was a weird time. She moved there when she was 22, right out of college, and I had, as was often the case with me when I was a freelance writer, I’d go from eating peanut butter for months and not getting any paycheck at all to getting a big one, which, if you lay it out over the months¬, it’s a reasonable wage, but if you get this gigantic check and you’ve got nothing, you’re like “Oh, my God, I’m rich!” So I just leased an apartment in Paris, and I was living there, and my apartment in Brooklyn was really, really cheap, so I could keep that. But my dad died, so I came back, and my sister decided that she was going to go work on some organic farm–you know, some kind of post-college adventure–but she moved to the city instead, so the family was kind of all close–

RB:What farm was there in Brooklyn?

MD:What? I think it was Idaho is where she was–

RB:How old is she?

MD:Well, now, she’s 30.

RB:And how old was she then?

MD:She was 22. And I was 34.

RB:Would she be of the generation that loves the series Girls? Would she be portrayed in that series?

MD:She must be because she lives in Greenpoint. But I don’t know. I never asked her about that. And I don’t know if she watches that. She’s actually a television producer, so she’s up on a lot of kind of the shows, but that’s never come up.

The Best  of  Youth by Michael Dahlie

The Best of Youth by Michael Dahlie

RB:Have you watched Girls?

MD:I’ve never watched it. Actually, I feel like I should because it, of course, has a similar setting to The Best of Youth, but I don’t watch anything unless it’s on Netflix, and I don’t think it’s out in that form yet.

RB:No, HBO doesn’t do that. Sometimes, I watch two or three at a time. I brought it up because I only recently–I was aware of the noise [or buzz if you are simpatico] out there about Girls and Lena Dunham–but I read something in New York Magazine that had something to do with Elizabeth Wurtzel She wrote Prozac Nation. Do you remember her?

MD:Oh, yeah, well, of course, I remember the book, yeah.

RB:And it was a take down of her, in which she identified with the girls, you know, in “Girls.” So I started watching it, and I was–it’s compelling as hell. But it’s also currently some kind of–given to self-consciousness with kids–it’s some kind of big thing, you know, matter of controversy. I ask young girls, and they go, “Ooh!”

MD:Yeah.

RB:They’re like, “I don’t believe that Leah Dunham wrote all that stuff!” Or something like that.

MD:Yeah, I don’t know, I know so little about it that it’s hard for me to even kind of come up with a comment, and again, this is–this is bad–but I have been thinking this, in order for me to get HBO it would involve so many difficult mental challenges, I don’t have any idea how I would–

RB:There are all these narratives flying around beyond the literary world that are actually thoughtful and compelling, and, you know, I actually traded off not using Facebook anymore for starting to watch certain videos, you know, Justified, which is a series based on an Elmore Leonard character and a new one called The Following with Kevin Bacon, about a serial murder cult. I was a great devotee and still am of The Wire.

MD:Yeah, yeah.

RB:There are all these wonderful stories that are available, and part of the reason is based on places like HBO giving writers an opportunity to really write original stuff.

MD:Right. Well, I–usually the way it happens for me is that I’m several years behind because that is–you know, once these networks have kind of exhausted their revenue streams from cable etc., it comes out on Netflix, so I watch these things like you do. I must have watched The Wire in–you know, the whole thing in like–a couple months. I don’t understand how people don’t do it that way. I think it would really make me want to blow my brains out to have to wait a week between each–I don’t–it just would seem so debilitating–

RB:I wonder if it just speaks to a different sense of time for, you know, sort of contemporary attentions.

MD:Yeah. You know what–one of the things that I think is really interesting too because my sister, like I said. she’s up on a lot this stuff and she has all the technology, so she’s got this kind of nice DVR machine, and for her, a lot of these shows are also very social.

RB:Social, meaning?

MD:Meaning Downton Abbey is no fun unless she’s got five friends over, and she’s made something special to eat. And for me, I’m also–I like being in the dark, watching it on my computer, not being annoyed by anyone else. And I also–I probably suffer, quite a bit from that constant distraction, and I don’t think I’ve ever watched any of these things without stopping every ten to fifteen minutes, even when I’m loving it. In fact, I often stop at the most tense moments because I can’t quite–

RB:Well, the choice is yours.

MD:Right, exactly.

RB:You’re supposed to, like, every eleven minutes, there’s a commercial.

MD:Right, right, right.

RB:My son and I have been watching all five seasons of [76 episodes] Friday Night Lights.

MD:My sister actually loves that. Have you done Deadwood yet?

RB:I have an unexamined prejudice against Deadwood because of David Milch. This may not even be true—I’m friendly with Pete Dexter, who wrote a novel called Deadwood years ago.

MD:Uh huh.

RB:He’s totally vexed by David Milch’s’s claim in the New Yorker that he had actually never read Dexter’s book, which seems to be very, very close to the way the story unfolds in the series. But it was brilliant nonetheless. You know, Ian McShane and John Hawkes and Tim Oliphant. They are great character actors.

MD:I thought that they were great. I think¬–and I really have done so many of these shows–but I really think that’s the best one, mostly because–I mean, I hate to–I don’t want Pete Dexter to write me some kind of nasty email, but– however authentic people claim things are, all fiction is like an act of illusion and smoke and mirrors. And it may be that every single article of clothing and the filth of the streets and everything else may be totally authentic, but what’s such a lie–the fundamental lie of that show–is that you have a town full of basically illiterate people speaking such beautiful, beautiful language.

RB:Except for Ian McShane.

MD:Well, right, except for Ian McShane, but–have you ever seen Love Joy? This was a long, long-running British hour-long drama that starred him, and he was kind of an antiques conman. Semi-con–he was a conman for the good. And that’s worth getting on Netflix just to check him out in such a different setting.

RB:I found a film the other day with him in it, in which he plays a middle-aged, astute, unabashed homosexual.

MD: Huh.

RB:It’s called 44-Inch Chest. And the core story is that a guy, after 20 years of marriage, the guy’s wife tells him that she’s found someone else, and he does something bad to her, and then is inconsolable to all his friends, which include Ian McShane, are now trying to help him end, get through this. In the meantime, they have the paramour of his wife bound and gagged in a closet.

MD:Is he–is that a new movie?

RB:I don’t think it is.

MD:One of the last episodes of one of the seasons of Love Joy, they interviewed the cast. This particular show is–I loved it, but it’s like, it appealed to my kind of British nostalgia, so I’m not sure I’d say that it’s something you should race out and watch other than to see an episode to see him in that setting, but he was being interviewed, and when it kind of came to him, they showed clips of all the work he’d done. And he’s kind of one of these actors that, you don’t realize this because he seems to appear out of nowhere in some magnificent role, but I think had been a fulltime working actor since he was 16 and was in everything! They had this old scene he played Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, and he’s running around as this wild man on a moor, and it’s sort of this really crappy 1960s television black-and-white kind of footage. It’s really fun–

RB:Did you see him in–it was an NBC series called Kings or something like that–

MD:You know, I didn’t see it because it got canceled before it ever made it onto Netflix.

RB:This whole phenomenon, I mean there are two things that have happened for me that are a joy and a burden: the opportunity to sample all these films that are pretty decent that just never had PR budgets or, you know, for some reason, were ignored. But again, all these opportunities to watch all these–you know, my current queue is 300 movies.

MD:Yeah, you know, and it’s really depressing. My wife actually has a novel coming out in the summer, and she–Thomas Carlyle comes up in it, and–I want to take credit for feeding her this line–which she uses, which I love, which is that Thomas Carlyle, I guess when he died, when he was being honored, someone said, “This is the last man on Earth to have read everything, and he always will be.” And you think about it, a man’s reading or a person’s reading obligations that don’t include Proust and Beckett and Thomas Mann and Tolstoy–anyway, the point is that it’s very depressing at this point in time because you just know you’re going to die, and there’s going to be entire worlds of narrative that you’re never ever going to even know about.

RB:That’s right. So I think that for people–I don’t know what the dividing line is, but the (cultural) consciousness of our civilization seems to shrink, you know. Twenty years–oh wow, its twenty maybe–twenty years, maybe it’s ten years now–I mean, I remember pretty much everything since the end of World War II, I mean, you know, I’ve lived some of it and I’ve read pretty close to (that amount), so having that sort of general knowledge makes me interested in too much. And you’re right, it can be really–you know, “depressing” isn’t the right word, but sort of just unsatisfying.

MD:You’re never going to get to the end of it or the bottom of it.

RB:So I think you probably just have to resign yourself to enjoying all this stuff. So you mentioned that your wife’s got a book coming out. So you’re both novelists.

MD:Yeah.

RB:What’s that like? What’s that like for your kid?

MD: He’s four and a half. He doesn’t seem to be too damaged yet, but– I don’t know. I have a very happy family, and I don’t know if it’s–I mean, there are a lot of examples of why there are advantages of having two writers in the family. I mean, it’s very easy for me to be grouchy and say, “I had a crappy morning. I don’t want to talk.” And I don’t have to explain that. She knows what I’m talking about. And it was–

RB:Do you show each other your work?

MD:Yeah. Definitely, and I think that we–our stuff is–she writes very literary stuff, but–it’s just different than mine, so there doesn’t feel like any competition.

RB:Do you think your wife is a better writer than you?

Allison Lynn, author of the Exiles

Allison Lynn, author of the Exiles


MD:Nah, no! Definitely not!

RB:Would you tell her that?

MD:Maybe that’s the illusion that keeps our marriage together.

RB:Would you say it to her?

MD:Yes, in fact, I would, and she’d laugh like you’re laughing, and just as my Van Halen detail, you’d be left to your own thoughts to figure out whether I was joking or not.

RB:Let me ask you why Indianapolis was–what did you call it? –“the strangest place in the world? “ “In the the Universe?”

MD:Well, first of all, I do mean that with a certain amount of affection.

RB:I took it that way. I grew up in the Midwest (area). I’m assuming the positive.

MD:I moved around a lot growing up, so I’ve seen a lot of places, but just kind of landing there after 11 years in New York, it was a real culture shock, and I think that it also speaks to just how strange it was going from being kind of constantly at the ragged edge of financial disaster and debt. We rented an apartment in Chelsea that we had no business renting because we really couldn’t afford it, but it just was where we were living. We had a child, and moving was just–and 2008–I mean, I know it was rough on everybody, but I mean our industry died. I mean, the life of the hack writer where we got a lot of our money just ended, and it’s not coming back. And so–

RB:Wouldn’t you prefer to say Grub Street writer?

MD:Grub Street, right. Well, I use both. Do you know Robert Danton–I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to look at his stuff, but he’s one of my favorite writers. And I love–it wasn’t actually until I started reading his books that I took a certain amount of pride in being this kind of pen for hire. I rented a tiny little office on 28th and 5th in New York, and it’s the old Tin Pan alley, and I love–this was like the last rough block in Manhattan. –So we did a lot of work for money just to— it was our livelihood. And that just ended.

RB:There’s a picture that I get when you say that, is of a Latin American train station, where a man is sitting outside the entrance of the train station, and he is a pen for hire [escritor]. He will write letters. He will write anything for anyone that they need. And because so many have the people don’t know how to write. And I think that may still true here!

MD:Or you wish that maybe sometimes it would be better if it were true if people were hiring out their work rather than believing they can actually manage it themselves!

RB:Well, I would seriously consider it I was actually thinking about creating sort of a website or business card saying that I would write love letters, personal letter, business letters,story synopses, anything that requires some competence in the English language.

MD:Yeah, I think you should do that. The problem is that you need a client who knows what a good product looks like, which is–you’re going to have a hard time finding that.

RB:You’re not decrying the competence of modern magazine editors, are you?

MD: Um–uh–well, you know–uh–no. Well, actually, there’s so little work in that world now that it doesn’t matter. Most of my work came–I have a special talent for writing for boys who hate reading, so I wrote a lot of stuff, a lot of books, under pennames, or parts of reading series for intervention programs. Basically, talking to fourteen-year-olds who’re reading at a 5th grade level. And the problem is that–and the reason why I say, at least my industry’s never coming back–after the collapse, so many of these houses used that opportunity to scale back the wages, and at the same time that the blogging world was entering the field, and suddenly, people were willing to write for 5 cents a word. And I mean, I’m sorry, but a lot of the education people have pedagogical backgrounds–they’re experts in education–but they’re not storytellers. And when you’re writing for a kid who hates to read, the story is the thing that’s going to keep them hooked in or not.

RB:When you talked about having a client that appreciates a good product, you see, I would aim much lower than you were going. I would aim at people who clearly understand they can’t write, but they need to communicate something in a text. And I guarantee that I would charge more than 5 cents a word.

MD:Well see, the thing is that then you’d have to explain to them why you’re not the 5-cent person because they’re going to go cheap if they can’t discern–

RB:They wouldn’t even know about that. I would be the first person that they ever met who would offer them this opportunity.Anyway, tell me about life in Indianapolis, though. You didn’t really explain to me.

MD:Our first house that we rented from a couple that teaches high school abroad, so they were gone nine months out of the year, and they were looking for people to sublet who would give the house up for the summer. They also didn’t want college kids. I think they figured that a couple with a two-year-old at that point was a safe bet. And it was just a gorgeous–I mean, I’ll never live in a house this nice again. It was gigantic, and it was arts and crafts built in 1912, and everything was meticulously restored. I was paying $1200 for a rent there, and we had five gigantic bedrooms and five–I mean, let’s see, I mean I have to actually think about this–three fully finished, beautifully tiled bathrooms, and a beautiful kitchen, huge yard on a double lot, and we were paying a third for what we were paying for a 500-square apartment in–

RB:Did that change your sort of idea of upkeep and cleanliness? Were you more inclined to maintain the museum-like quality of–?

MD:I always loved the line in–it’s the famous line in “Alice’s Restaurant” about the couple who had the–did they live in a lighthouse? –I’ve forgotten most of the details except the one, which is they had that gigantic space which, rather than meaning they could have this beautiful space to sit and live in,that, rather they didn’t have to take the garbage out except for once a year! So that’s a little bit–we had so much space that we just kind of spread out in this, chaotic way.

RB:That was your first house. How long have you been there?

MD:We were there for two years.

RB:You were there? You’re not there anymore?

MD:No. We bought a house. There was never any real-estate bubble in Indianapolis, so nothing really ever got crazy inflated, and–

RB:And you’re teaching school at Butler University?Which is–which is in Indianapolis?

MD:It’s in the city. Right in the city.

RB:And does Indianapolis sort of represent the typical Midwestern, northern big city? I mean, it is the biggest city in Indiana, right?

MD:Yes, it is. It’s a little over a million, and I think it’s like 17th in the nation in terms of size.

RB:And is it overcrowded or not?

MD:Well, it’s definitely–it’s one of those cities that has enough farm space on either side of it that it just kind of grows out and out and out. They could have done with a little more vertical planning, but–

RB:You know Chicago, yes?

MD:Yeah, I’ve been there a bunch, but I don’t–

RB:This is a city that I think, past maybe a mile from the lake, you don’t see things over three or four stories, you know. Thus, the horizon looking west is, and thus the city spread out over a nice grid.

MD:Yeah, it is a weird–there is some kind of line–you know, I lived in St. Louis for two years, and it was the same sensation that, somehow, look to the west and God knows what was there.

RB:Do you have any feelings about the phrase “flyover zone”?

MD:Well, like I said, I was born in Minneapolis, but I lived there ‘til I was eight, so I don’t have too much–

RB:Let me just recap–Minneapolis, New York, Wellesley, Paris–

MD:I lived in London for four years. Jersey. Lived in Switzerland, Geneva, for a year. Lived in–I went to college in Colorado. I went to graduate school in Wisconsin. And then, I went to another graduate school–

RB:Madison?

MD:Yeah, Madison. Then Washington University.

RB:What is the longest you’ve been in (one spot)? Butler? Right now, where you are?

MD:Well, I was in New York for 11 years, so that was the longest I’ve ever been in one spot. But yeah, I guess I’ve been at Butler for two and a half years. And yeah, I guess there’s something strange in that. I mean, having the same job, the same sort of set of colleagues for two and a half years is–

RB:Are you on a tenure track?

MD:I am. I am.

RB:Did your coming to Butler coincide with their rise in the college basketball world?

MD:I was part of the cause of that. No,unfortunately, I had nothing to do with that, although, I’d like to claim it. It’s amazing–I have all the obvious issues about sort of the problems of college sports, but I think–

RB:It’s not so obvious. A lot of people don’t have them. I think I share them.

MD:I mean, mostly in football, I just feel like it’s such a moneymaking scam and kind of has so many intractable problems that there’s almost no point in thinking about i.t

RB:Well, no point for you and me, but, you know, like that poor kid at Baylor— Jones, Perry Jones–a few years ago was suspended because his mother was given something by someone [because she was on the verge of being evicted. ]

MD:It’s crazy. It really is crazy. But what I’d say is that Butler has none of those problems as far as I can tell because we’re kind of a small school, we have to move a little bit in a moneyball kind of mode, and what I mean by that is that–I don’t know what kind of deep statistics they’re using–but they certainly approve top flight athletes that might not be the first choice for a Duke or–but it works out great. And I think the other thing is having a small school–I mean, we were not going to get Cody Zeller–I don’t know if you know him at IU–he claimed that his final choices were us and IU and Chapel Hill and Butler, and he seems like a great guy and a lot of people really like him. And certainly everybody in Indianapolis, as much as they love Butler, they love IU just as much–

RB:IU is in Bloomington, right? It’s not in–

MD:Bloomington, right. It’s about an hour south. But the thing is that, at IU, he is a rock star, I mean, that guy is–and it’s impossible to be that kind of rock star at a school the size of Butler because it’s not the same atmosphere.

RB:–do you care what people in your neck of the woods think about the current Notre Dame story (Star footballer Manti Te’o is involved in a hoax about a fake girlfriend –is that a big topic of interest?

MD:Well, you know, I haven’t really grasped it until–I was getting ready to come out here, and I’ve been in New York, so I’ve only been figuring it out recently.I guess everybody’s only figuring out because it’s such a mysterious story.

RB:Could you write this?Could someone write that story as a short fiction?

MD:It is unbelievable, but I think the thing is that–the truth is, as unbelievable as it is, people fall in love under unusual circumstances–I mean, I’m thinking about my family in northern Wisconsin.All the Norwegian people up there–I tell you, you started writing letters to some woman that you had a vague interaction with your family.

RB:That was fifty, sixty years ago. Not in 2013.

MD:Right, but I don’t think it’s an implausible thing that someone could have some kind of deep emotional tie to–

RB:See, I share your gradual immersion of the story. I know whispers about it, but the main thing for me is why should I care? The kid hasn’t killed anyone. He hasn’t–what’s he done, and why do people care?

MD:I think that’s the thing. This is back to the guy who’s getting busted for the mother selling–old football jerseys. I think that the question is, was he trading on it? And I don’t get the sense that he was actively going around, trying to get promotional deals based on his sorrows. If he was, that might be something different, but I think he just got caught up in this–I’d be kind of embarrassed if I discovered this hoax. I’m not sure I’d want to start telling everybody that, “I’d been played. I’ve fallen in love with an imaginary person who was–.” You know.

RB:He was–let’s place him in context. He’s a twenty-something-year-old kid who plays for a midwestern university. Catholic university. Where’s the story?

MD:Right, right, right.

RB:You know, Gail Collins, I thought Collins said something great. She wrote about this story, but then she mentioned that Notre Dame has rallied around this kid, but they forgot to pay attention to this girl who was raped, and they did nothing for her except discredit her

Water break/Parking meter break

RB:Most of what you know–

MD:Is from national media.I just haven’t really kind of figured out what people are saying. You know what I mean?

RB:It speaks to something even more prevalent and maybe distressing, which is you find yourself being conscious of (all sorts of things) and you really didn’t choose.I don’t care about the Kardashians.You know? I don’t care about this particular situation.I’m sure there’s a whole host of stories, almost in a kind of suspended animation. I never cared about Michael Jackson, you know? But nonetheless, you’re [can be] imposed upon by this shit stream of information. So you have to find a way of making it useful.

MD:Yeah. Yeah, I guess there’s no avoiding it.

RB:I mean, what do you want to pay attention to?You have, again, all these choices. You can watch Netflix all day, or put together a playlist on Spotify, or you can write novels.

MD:Yeah, well, that’s one of the ways of controlling the narrative that you get, is if the narrative is the one that you’re immersing yourself in and writing yourself.It’s interesting to me that I was seeing people talk about video games–and that how one of the great advances in culture and narrative is that people are going to actually get to play a role in creating their own story. But my response is always like, look, there was always a blank piece of paper and a pen. People could have always,

RB:That reminds me of a Steve Martin quote.“Look what I did! And I started out just with a piece of paper and a pencil.”

MD:You can always participate in the creation of your own narrative. I don’t know why that people think that–

RB:Well, there is a reason. First of all, just look at–how large is the class of human beings who actually have whatever it takes–the perseverance, the diligence, the striving–to create something? How many people actually, how many people have the drive to make decisions? I mean, it’s not like these things are parceled out universally? And I suspect, or I worry–personally worry–that when you immerse yourself in–and you’re conscious of all these narratives and you immerse yourself in them–like I do; I read, I watch movies, listen to all kinds of music–that you have a really warped or you develop a warped sense of the actualities.

MD:This is something I always love in Chekov stories that two of the re occurring characters are flighty ladies who read novels and doctors who read newspapers. And the doctors who read newspapers are always talking about some far-flung issue that they don’t really understand, and the women who are reading the novels are in a sort of entranced–and basically, what Chekov is describing is the soap opera. And it’s funny coming from Chekov, right, because he’s obviously a fiction writer, but there is this illusion, I think—that somehow, newspapers used to be this bastion of high-brow learning and the thinking man read the newspaper when, in fact, before there was television and Internet, people used to talk about newspapers the same way they talk about the Kardashians. Just rabble-rousing sort of nonsense.

RB:You see that in portrayals of the old West, the West being conquered, you know. Journalists from back east, just looking to stir up a story. That’s a reoccurring theme.I forgot what I–I was going to go somewhere with that–. Well, so is that the impulse that moved you to become a writer? The interest in creating your own narrative? Just sitting there, coming up with something that–?

MD:Yeah. Yeah, I mean a lot of writers describe themselves as sort of taking to books from a very young age and being lost in them, and I was never really like that. But I was definitely a daydreamer Mostly, you know, when people would be talking to me, I wouldn’t be listening. I’d be thinking my own things.

RB:Well, that’s exactly the kind of disconnect that I’m describing as a possibility condition of being literary, you know? Have you seen Django Unchained? So in this movie, Christopher Waitz‘s playing a German-born bounty hunter in the Deep South in 1861. His diction is perfectly accurate polysyllabic English, and he realizes when he’s talking to these roughnecks on horses that he’s talking past them. But he doesn’t really quite give up, but he entertains himself with the notion that he’s tossing out pearls before swine. And I think when, and I wonder that when one spends a lot of time reading stories, paying attention to prose, if somehow that doesn’t severely shift the way you deal with people who don’t pay attention to the language, to language in general.

MD:I also didn’t really grow up in a family that cared much about books in any kind of sort of passionate way. I had a very smart family. Well, I should say my sister is a children’s book writer and pretty successful, so–
RB:The same one who is a TV producer?

MD:No. Another one. So somehow, we all ended up in a creative world, but what I would say is my dad was a banker, but in a different era than what bankers are in now. And he was the best storyteller I’ve ever known, but the entire thing was oral. I never saw him read a novel ever.

RB:You’re certainly refreshing my contention of the fact that we presume that you have to be wrapped up in books in order to be a storyteller or to be able to talk about the world. You probably miss a lot of conversations that we don’t engage in because we don’t think we’re going to have that any kind of personal take away of –it’s why I paid attention in this story to the fact that Henry is listening to others— there’s a way when you get older, you’re more inclined to talk to anybody about the world because it’s–

Michael Dahlie (photo by Rober Birnbaum)

Michael Dahlie (photo by Rober Birnbaum)


MD:I did have one kind of—my mother— has a huge family in the South. I mean like extensive, endless relatives–my father was in the Navy and my mother, she was a schoolteacher in Norfolk, Virginia, but they lived in Petersburg, so close to North Carolina border, and there just was an endless, endless stream of old people that I took the years to straighten out who was who, and they grew up —this generation all grew up in the Depression, so there was this constant sort of, “Okay, you’re going to go live with this aunt. You’re going to go live with this uncle. And then, we’re going to switch over.” My grandfather was raised by his parents in one half of a duplex and one of his sisters and brother was raised in the other half of the duplex by aunts and uncles. Just kind of a very fluid sort of world. But most of these people helped raise my mother as well. And so, every year, for at least a month, we’d kind of be traveling around in Virginia and seeing these people and visiting these people and–to some extent, I guess that that was true in northern Wisconsin where I had a lot of old Norwegian sort of relatives and Scotch relatives as well. Yeah, it’s one of the kind of shocking things about living in New York, that I really felt like my entire life was with thirty-something, some twenty-something, my sister’s friends —we were so cut off from any other generation.

RB:Yeah, again, I think that the generation–there’s a sort of the narrowing cultural windows as you get lower, as you get younger. I was always struck by a writer who taught at NYU told me–he taught freshman English–I think this was in the year 2000–and he told me his kids, his freshman kids, didn’t know who Kurt Cobain was. This was maybe ten years prior, right?

MD:This is one of the most astounding things when I teach young people that things I assume they know about–they weren’t part of my generation, but they only seemed to have happened or been important ten years ago, and–yeah, it’s very strange I’m trying to think of a good example–but I’d refer to something that just seems like it would be a touchstone of modern American culture, and I’ll have students, even smart sort of worldly students, staring at me like they have no idea what I’m talking about. I guess there’s a lot of writing these days and this sort of rapidity of our culture and how quickly things become commonplace. I’m usually distrustful of a lot of those arguments, but this one I think is true.

RB:You are teaching what subjects?

MD:I teach creative writing. We have a new MFA program.

RB:So the people in it are aspiring to be career writers?

MD:They are. The program is new, and a lot of the students who we recruit from are from the area, and they tend to be a little older than your average sort of, you know, 24-year-old, 25-year-old.

RB: How old?

MD:Well, I’d say that maybe–25% are older than I am. One of the advantages of starting an MFA program at Butler and one of the reasons this has worked really well and has been a kind of shocking success in a lot of ways — we’re the only MFA program in Indianapolis and a lot of our students have lives here.They’ve got kids in the public schools, they’ve got spouses or themselves that have jobs, and–

RB:So is this night school, or is this night and day?

MD:It’s a full proper program, but we have classes at night and we’re pretty flexible with other people’s schedules.

RB:Let’s see, Indiana University, IU, has a writing program.

MD:Yeah, they do

RB:Notre Dame has a writing program. Does Purdue have a writing program?

MD:They do, yeah; those are the 4 MFA programs.

RB:What are the expectations of the people who are taking these courses? What do you give them to–when they start asking like, you know–do they ask about agents? Do they ask about how do you get published? Do they ask about submitting to small magazines?

MD:They do, and–you know, I went to Washington University to get my MFA, which is–

RB:St Louis. Now, was Charlie Newman there?

MD:Charlie Newman was there. Charlie was a professor of mine. I loved Charlie.

A young Charles Newman courtesy of John Hopkins University magazine

A young Charles Newman courtesy of John Hopkins University magazine


RB:I knew Charlie. Dalkey Archive is publishing In Partial Disgrace.

MD:Yeah, his Onudula–this has been a project of his– this had been his mission since he got out of…The great thing about Newman as a colleague, I can see now as a professor that he could definitely drive you crazy. But you need people like that in MFA programs because he was such an inspiration! I mean, you know, he had–he would miss workshop all the time because of these imaginary sick aunts that he was always claiming to have to tend to–

RB:Did he have a drinking problem still?

MD:Unlike anyone I’ve ever seen. Well, yeah, this–his last couple of years, he was not behaving himself more or less and he really–I think, he was kind of lost— well, he was a professor at John Hopkins at 24. His career got started really early. One of his colleagues—someone that I was friends with —had described Newman once as saying like, “He’s the kind of guy who’s too smart to get well.” In the sense that he could never go through any kind of program because he was just such a–I mean, it’s not just that he was cynical, but he was probably also generally used to being the smartest guy in the room and so wasn’t going to be willing to listen to someone who might not have been as smart as he was but who knew what was going on and what Charlie was up to. But it was–I mean, it was catastrophic by the time I knew him–but he was also very functional. He was so funny, and he was a very sentimental, charming, warm guy.

RB:Christopher Hitchens also had, by reputation, this great capacity for drink. I witnessed it at least once, so I could tell you, and, you know, his editors would be astounded how quickly he could put out copy without breaking a sweat.

RB:Do you approach teaching writing from the discussion of books or discussing the work that the students are doing?

MD:Mostly, it’s the work that the people are writing. And I had an introduction to fiction and writing class this past semester, and a couple weeks in, I abandoned using the textbook we were using just because it was so horrible.

RB:Do you read?

MD:Do I read?

RB: Do you read contemporary fiction?

MD:I do as much as I can. At this point, so much of my reading is obviously student work, but yeah, I read as much as possible. I’m really addicted to audio books–I don’t know if you do audio books at all, but–

RB: As my second take on the book.

MD:I haven’t properly formulated this, so this is just like, you know, coffeehouse chatter, not any kind of formal–but the more I do audio books, the more that I think that the printed word is some kind of weird sort of like stop gap until human beings figured out how to record the human voice. ‘Cause I feel like storytelling–it just happens most naturally orally, and it’s just amazing–I’m not sure that there are many printed books that I’ve been lost to the way I’ve been lost to books on audio, and I can’t quite explain that, and I’m almost embarrassed to admit it because I think that–I don’t know–I sound like I’m some kind of– well, illiterate fool–but–

RB:It’s interesting you’ve mentioned this to me because my mother is currently a problem for my sister, and me and I’m trying to find an entryway, allowing her to actually process certain information. I know that, in conversation, she lets very little in. She hears what she wants to hear, but she gets very, much more–she gets more detached when she reads something and/or sees something, and–you know, I think that, for some people, it’s the reverse.

MD:Yeah.

RB:They don’t, can’t, don’t want to process the words on paper. I have opted for, by the way, to–you know, people ask me why I don’t podcast. It’s pretty easy, you know, just–but I sit and transcribe these conversations, but try to transcribe them in a way that has a natural–that it’s natural dialogue. That it’s the way people talk to each other. And–I don’t think it’s better, but I think–it’s because I’m inclined to think that people read, when they read, they get more. They take more in, you know?

MD:One of the bad things about the audio book is that you can’t reread sentences, and I find that, when I have the best reading experience, is in print. I can reread a paragraph.

RB:You mean it’s not the same to just go back two minutes–?

MD:Well, it’s just such a hassle to press the button.

RB:I’m sure that Suri –you can get the (Suri) on your iPhone—can help

MD:Yeah, I know. I just got to wait for technology to evolve a little bit. There is one very strange thing about audio books and–this is why I have to say that I–I hate to talk about this because I haven’t figured it out all properly in a formal way–is that you also have an actor reading the book. And I did an audio book by a guy who–I only remember the title of the book; my wife reads absolutely everything, so my reading list is largely determined for me–but he read his own book, and it’s terrible! And I couldn’t get through it, and my wife is saying, “This is one of the best books I’ve read all year.” On the other hand, I just did Russo’s Elsewhere on audio, and he reads it himself, and he does a magnificent job, and I’m not sure that an actor could have quite gotten–
RB: For some people–there are people–Richard Ford can read his stuff. You know, Charlie Baxter can read his stuff. Those are the ones that I know about, you know, for the most part–yeah, for the most part there, it takes an actor. I remember reading Louis de Berniere’s Birds Without Wings, which is this–it’s a 19th century epic that takes place in Anatolia, with all sorts of different characters with different backgrounds–religious, ethnic–and you know, one of the first things that was overcome for me was that the guy, the reader, could pronounce the names of the people–it’s like my problem with reading Russian stories. I don’t–can’t remember the names because I can’t pronounce them

MD:Yeah, yeah, I know. I just did Kurlansky’s book on the Basques, and apparently, the actor had to be really coached–

RB:Mark Kurlansky?

MD:Mark Kurlansky, yeah.

RB:He wrote a book about the Basques?

MD:Yeah, The Basque History of the World–it’s so good! Oh my God. I mean, it really is good, and it’s really fascinating, and really, really funny. He went to Butler!

RB: He’s written on fish. He’s written a book about minor-league baseball. Teaching.

MD:Yeah, and¬ he’s got this new book out on Clarence Birdseye that I’m dying to read too.

RB:Who?

MD:Clarence Birdseye. He invented flash freezing.

RB:You’re saying he recited his own book

MD: No. He did not. Someone else read it. But Basque is one of these–it’s a totally singular language. There’s not a single language like it in the area. Finland is the only language that resembles it in any kind of way, and it’s just grammatically. But these words are, you know, just impossible to pronounce, and they sound so weird on (paper).

RB:(And he) pronounces them?

MD:The actor does, but I think the actor really had to be coached to get them right, but if they’re a good actor, they can kind of make it sound fluid. But I guess one of the things about having the actor is a little bit like having a pianist play a piece of music that–so much comes down to interpretation. It’s not the sheet music, even though, you know, Beethoven wrote it. It can sound completely different depending on who’s doing it.

RB:You face the same situation if you read and then reread a book (at some moment). Sometimes, one wonders why, you liked a book the first time, dislike it the second time, or dislike the book the first time but are convinced somehow to try it again. How does that happen? It strikes me that you may be like me in this sense–I don’t have a theory, a literary theory. And my critique is really ad hoc and simple. I like a good story. I like to watch people–I like to hear people talk to each other in an interesting way. I like interesting facts thrown in. A nice narrative arc. So when I read these critical theory attempts, I just say, “What?”

MD:The complement to this–one of the other sides of that are these how-to manuals on how to write fiction. One of the things about dealing with students is trying to get them to stop reading these things. And because they want you to tell them how to do it, and the only thing I can say is, “Look, if you want to write a novel go to your basement, and seven years later, you might have a novel.” And they laugh, “Yeah, but really, tell me how to do it.” And I say, “No. That’s how you do it!” And they don’t want to hear that because they want the trick. I don’t know if you know, if you’ve read Patti Smith’s memoir, her most recent one–

RB:Well, is it called Kids or something?

MD:Yeah, Just Kids. She’s talking about–you know, she had this long relationship with Robert Mapplethorpe — she was talking to him, being in the printing room with him, and taking the photograph is one thing but, obviously, (an enormous thing) back in the day I guess it still is today with computers. The print is just as important. And she’d say how he’d have hundreds of prints of the same photograph, and he’d say, “This is the one. That’s the one where the magic is.” And I think that that magic is–trying to–in some ways, it’s trying to–I do understand why people write literary criticism. I do think it has a value, but sometimes, it seems false in the same way that someone might describe why they’re in love with someone. I mean if they really have a specific quantifiable list, then they’re probably lying that they’re in love with them?

RB:It’s funny. I take my latest displeasure about a critique was–today, I read somebody who wrote about this new series on FX called The Following, which is, you know, serial murderer who happens to be a college professor whose fascinated with Edgar Allan Poe. This critic was, like, bombastically deriding the possibility that a TV series would violate, you know, Poe’s artistic code or something like that.

MD:You know, when I was at Wisconsin, I was in the history program there, and I was–

RB:Really? I almost went there –was George Mosse there?

MD:George Mosse was there, yeah, yeah.

RB:Still there?

MD:Well, no, he was emeritus. He was still alive, but he was–

RB:[What about]William Appleton Williams?

MD:Yeah.He was definitely gone by the time I was there. But I had this professor who I actually liked quite a bit, but he always used to deride Harpers and the New Yorker as middle-brow, which I thought was –basically, it was revealing what was, in fact, the kind of real anger that I think a lot of scholars feel, which is that, somehow, they do this magnificent work, and it’s not appreciated. And it is true that, you know, when you look at this guy’s accomplishments as an historian, it involved sitting 15 years in basements of convents in Germany going through marriage records, and–

RB:Dust.200-year-old dust.

MD:And then a journalist kind of turns it into this story, and–I forget how we got onto this, but–

RB:The value of literary criticism and whether or not theory is beside the point.

MD:Right.Oh! I have one of my colleagues at Butler is–he has a PhD and is a scholar, but he’s billed as a creative nonfiction writer, and he wrote a book about an abolitionist and also a memoir about–his name’s Andrew Levy–he wrote a book called A Brain Larger than the Sky, which is a book about migraines. It has a kind of Kurlansky aspect to it in that it details sort of the history of migraines,

RB:Mary Roach does the same kind of thing.

MD:I mean, I know the name– yeah, she’s at Norton. But he’s got this book on Twain that he’s been working on for a long time, and it’s coming out with Simon and Schuster and I think it’s going to be a big release. I think they’re excited about it. And he’s an excellent writer, so I think it should be great, but he’s doing his due diligence as a thinking man and sending it out to the proper people to get their reviews, and I think he’s had some genuinely positive reactions, but there are people who’ve devoted their lives to writing these monographs that only 300 people read and they can’t respond to any piece of culture without actually unloading this anger about the fact that no one cares about what they know about.

RB:Yeah, of course, because historians up until the last few years–well, that’s what’s created this explosion in, you know, the McCulloughs and Stephen Ambroses. They’re writing more popular history, more accessible history. And then, Ken Burns comes along and does a show —

MD:Stephen Ambrose got his PhD at Wisconsin and did a lot of his research there because we had such great World War II archives. And there was this absolute wall between the history department and Stephen Ambrose. I mean, there was no way that that department was going to allow Stephen Ambrose to teach a class! And the thing is I see both sides of it. I see the poor guy who’s devoted his whole life to going through archives that would never have been known about if they hadn’t read every single word. But on the flip side, you’ve got to cut these guys some slack. I think one of the great examples of this is–I don’t know if you’ve read 1491. It’s the book about the year before Columbus arrived, and he just came out with–I forget the guy’s name, but he just came out with a sequel, 1493, which I haven’t read. And he kind of writes about–he’s a journalist really, and he writes about how he couldn’t believe–he kind of started doing the research and he couldn’t believe that this story hadn’t been told. But the point is that the story had been told over and over in minutia at academic conferences by people who had literally spent 40 years digging through garbage heaps examining teeth!

RB:Well, they couldn’t get anyone to read or write the scholastic journal articles?

MD:Or they simply didn’t care. I promise you that at Wisconsin, you weren’t trying to get a book deal at Random House. You were trying to get a book deal at Princeton [University Press]. And I think that these scholars don’t care about Harper Collins. They don’t care about New York publishing. They just want to sit in their garbage heap and examine bones!

RB:That’s what’s opened the floodgates, you know.Dan Okrent wrote a very serviceable book about Prohibition, you know, and he did an admirable job of not only talking about the law but the social-movement context.And, of course, then Burns made the film on it. I would maintain that I’ve learned as much if not more about American history from Gore Vidal’s novels and EL Doctorow novels and Geraldine Brooks‘ novels than I have reading history texts.

MD:Right, well, that’s how I feel, how I’ve felt about 1491.I loved that book, and there wasn’t a page where my mind wasn’t blown. But he’s a journalist piecing the story together. He’s not the guy who’s done the 40 years, and you can see why there’d be some friction between the actual storyteller and the–

RB:It’s called jealousy.

MD:Yeah.

RB:It’s called you’re getting more attention than I am. What about people like–what do you think about this thing that’s called creative nonfiction? You know, the Erik Larsons and the Mark Kurlanskys)?

MD:I obviously think that the term just always sounds strange to me. I do have to say that I like it more when it’s about something as opposed to, like, memoir, this self-reflective–because I think there’s a lot of indulgent, “I’m a writer, and I don’t…”¬

RB:Are you familiar with (Benjamin Anastas’) book, Too Good to Be True?

MD:Yeah.Yes.

RB:The possibility of self-indulgence is certainly there. Frankly, I don’t know of anybody who isn’t a writer who really wants to read that story. It’s well told. It’s more vivid if you understand the world of writing and trying to make your living as a writer.

MD:My wife loved that book. But yeah, a lot of people do obviously.I suppose it depends on the quality of the work.

RB:Yeah.Always.

MD:And I think that there’s a lot of good stuff and bad stuff that’s trying to do the same thing.

RB:There are gems in the book, one of which I thought said something to the effect of having seen, the downside or a certain side of the writing life, he didn’t understand what the prestige and the — it’s not such a glamorous station in life.

MD:Yeah. Especially these days. Well, speaking of Gore Vidal, did he die recently, or did

RB:A few years

MD: They were quoting him, and he said–he was talking about how he was being interviewed by someone, and he said, “Yeah, I used to be a famous novelist.” And the interviewer corrected him and said, “What’re you talking about? You know, people still read your books. You still sell really well.” He said, “No. When I say, ‘I used to be a famous novelist,’ I’m saying, ‘I used to live in a time when you could be a famous novelist.’” And this is slipping away, you know?

RB:Yeah. I was, I mean, he’s another one of those great American aphorists— I always liked his observation about the four most beautiful words in the English language: “I told you so.” Who occupies his kind of social /cultural perch, you know. Jon Stewart? Steven Colbert, I mean, who else is there? Sort of mocking, the establishment and the status quo and also, people seem not to be not paying attention–

MD:I know, and I think those are two really good examples.

RB:I mean Hitchens was close, but he was certainly very literary, but he’d spent a lot of time in television. And he was certainly a charismatic guy?

MD:Yeah, it is an interesting question.

RB:I wonder if England is really a greater repository of those kinds of public intellectuals than the United States. I mean (England) is–he’s here now–but he’s a guy who always says something worthy of attention. You know, about anything.

MD:You know of Tony Judt

RB:Yeah.

MD:The book that he wrote about–?

RB:His account of dying of ALS?

MD:No, it was the reaction to Stalin by French intellectuals. You know I’ve spent a lot of time in France and there–and I often hear it in the U.S. that they have the great model of the public intellectual, the novelist who can, you know, write the great op ed or that kind of thing. But this book is–I can’t remember the name of it–but it’s basically about how–I mean people were crawling across the border out of Stalin’s Russia, Stalin’s Soviet Union with these stories, and you know, people like Sartre were saying, “You’re mistaken. It’s not true.” And what were Sartre’s qualifications? He was a novelist and philosopher. You know? I mean, and so, I mean, I do think you have to be careful about what people who have a lot of charisma deliver in–

RB:Yeah, I mean, who’s the big gun there now? Bernard Henri Levi who is referred to as BHL

MD:Right, right, right.

RB:I mean, you know, it’s like a supermodel. You get mentioned by your first name or your initials.

MD:Right, right, right.

RB:So–let’s get down to Earth here.

MD:Okay.

RB:You’re–you have your second novel. You’ve done your second novel. You’ve published your second novel. The ghostwriting thing is drying up.

MD:In the book.

RB:No, in your life.

MD:Right, well–

RB:Didn’t you say that industry is going?

MD:Yeah, I mean–my ghostwriting life–basically, I wrote for young readers, for kids, and most of my ghostwriting was pretty crass stuff. People would basically be contracted for books, and they didn’t want to write them, or they’d take on too much work. And so they’d pass it off. But yeah in a lot of ways, that work’s over. I do have some pretty more high-tone novels for young readers that I wrote myself and sold via an agent that I loved, but that–I would still do that kind of thing. The problem is that it’s–I guess that every time I think about what I want to write about next, that’s not–it’s just not on the list now.

RB:What do you want to write about? Are you writing a novel now?

MD:I’m almost done with a novel that I’ve had a bunch of sections of it published. This, also under a pen name. I think I might publish it under my real name, I haven’t decided.

RB:What would the decision be based on? Whether you liked it? Whether you were proud of it, or whether–?

MD:Well, no, I mean, I love this novel, so–. It’s just–it’s been most fun writing under a pen name for–actually, I mean it’s a very hard thing to describe because there are so many reasons I went into it. One of them is that it’s so filled with sex and drugs that I simply didn’t want my mother to know that I was writing about this kind of thing. But in some ways, the protagonist is–well, I mean, in every single way, the protagonist is the opposite of who I am.

RB:At the end of this book, Henry displays or exhibits an amazing amount of sort of relaxation and confidence that he’ll be able to write whatever he wants to write, and it’ll be at least satisfying for him.

MD:Yeah. What are–are you asking is this true in my life?

RB:Yeah.

MD: One of the great things about being a Grub Street writer for so many years is that I don’t ever really suffer from writer’s block. I mean, it comes pretty easy when I have an idea. And, I’ve got a good gig right now at Butler that gives me the time to write.

RB:Do you teach every semester?

MD:Yeah.

RB:Summer too?

MD:Not in the summer, but I think I’m working out a gig that I can teach in France a creative writing class, so I might teach a month out of the summer. But you know, one of the problems is–I had this job at Oscar Meyer for a year–

Oscar Mayer Wienermobile

Oscar Mayer Wienermobile


RB:Oscar Mayer meats?

MD:Yeah. Their corporate headquarters, but that’s also where they make the bacon bits and the “Lunchables “ and everything. And I was never as productive in my life as when I worked there because I woke up every morning and thought, “Holy shit! I’m working at a sausage factory! I’d better do something to get out of here!” And this was after I’d gotten–

RB:What were you doing?

MD:Well, I had gotten my masters degree at Madison in history, and I was still in the PhD program, but I took a year’s leave of absence because I was thinking I wanted to be a novelist instead. And–

RB: Started working at a meatpacking plant?

MD:Well, it was a great gig. I mean I was a temp. I filled in for someone who was on extended maternity leave, so I had the same job for almost a year. One of the things that I tell my students a lot–

RB:Anything bad ever happened to you?

MD:When I was at Oscar Mayer?

RB:Anywhere! Because so far, you were happy with the bank job that you had after you left school. You didn’t mind living in Brooklyn. You had a job at a meatpacking plant that was great–

MD:No one’s ever asked me this question. Usually, people ask me when, after they’ve talked to me for a while, if anything good has ever happened in my life!

RB:Why?

MD:Because, you know, I’m generally a–I’m much more of a dismal person, and I think they put an extra shot in my coffee today. But no, what I’d say, and I’d say one of the things that I channel in this book and even in my last book, where the protagonist is a 60-year-old guy who has many problems that he deals with, is that I moved around a lot, and I was a new kid a lot, and I am, in fact, instinctively shy and I also–it takes me a long time to figure out what the social cues of my social world are.And–so I spent a lot of time as a young person eating lunch alone in the cafeteria–and like I said, in England, getting my ass kicked.

RB:Have you met a lot of people since you’ve been in Indianapolis?

MD:I have.I’ve met my entire department. [They’re] from Jersey or Staten Island or–and Indianapolis is a big city with a lot of industry, and so there’s plenty to do. My cultural life is really books, so that hasn’t changed much. I mean I miss my friends in New York. I miss stepping out of my building in New York and being in the center of this commercial–

RB:So do you walk a lot where you are?

MD: No.

RB:Do you live on campus?

MD:No, I’m not on campus.I’m about a mile and half away, and I don’t walk–

RB:Do you drive?

MD:I understand why people drive in a way that I didn’t in New York because in New York, I could walk to the same place every single day and it would never be (boring), and I was like, “Well now, I can walk to school with our new place” and it took me about two weeks to say, “I could just never see those–you know, I can’t go that route again.I’m just so bored by it.Unfortunately, it sounds like I’m really knocking Indiana, but it is–it’s not–

RB:Well, are there tree-lined streets? Are there interesting houses?

MD:Well, there are some, but, it’s not–I mean, again, it’s not like New York, but there’s–

RB:Are their other people walking?

MD:Mmm. Well, that’s one of the other problems.You know, there’s–it’s only 50% chance that there’s going to actually be a sidewalk. They don’t plough their streets during the winter.

RB:So actually, walking isn’t encouraged?

MD:No, but if you talk to a person from Indiana–Indianapolis–they’d say it’s one of the great walking cities–

RB:What about bicycling?

MD:Yeah, they’ve got some bike paths that are basically lines of paint in the middle of the street. I don’t understand how anyone would think that these qualify as a bike path, but–

RB:Tell me what the thing is you like best about Indianapolis?

MD:Well, I feel like–this is a hard question for me to answer because I feel like–and I think back when I started becoming sort of interested in being a novelist, you know–I’m reading Hamsun and Thomas Bernhard and Celine, and you know, having a sort of–

RB:Couldn’t you read Americans?

MD:Well, no.I had no interest in reading Americans.I didn’t know anything about American literature.My idea of being a writer was living in some dismal, 6-story, (walk-up), cold, heated apartment in east Berlin, and that’s what I wanted out of life, and when people ask me what I like about my life now, I feel like my response is so horrific. It sounds so–like I’ve sold out, but I love having a really nice house that I don’t have to pay much money for. My writing habits used to be–I mean, I was up at 4 in the morning, 5 in the morning, doing my work. I can’t get out of bed at 4 in the morning without my 4-year-old following me downstairs and–I love that! And so I feel like I’m this sort of man who’s now sort of like taking more pleasure in having, you know, chocolate eclairs with his son at a bakery than I am with having magnificent dreams of, writing essays about Schopenhauer and that kind of thing. But it is true. I mean, I have a very–I’m strangely happy in a lot of ways, which sounds–I feel very guilty about that.

RB:That’s for other people to deal with.

MD:Yeah, I know.

RB:Let me ask you–so you give it maybe a little more thought–let’s end our conversation for today by you telling me of where you think you might be in ten years.Have you even thought about the future?

MD:Well, mostly I think I hope I’m still alive.Actually, I’m a pretty bad hypochondriac, so–it’s funny but I–

RB:Hypochondria doesn’t kill you.

MD:That’s true!But in terms of planning where are you going to be in 10 years, it’s one of the things you think about. And the–I guess that I hope that I’ve written a bunch more books and still have a career and–

RB:Looking back on your life, did you–are you surprised by all the places you’ve been?

MD:Yeah, I guess.I’m actually surprised that I was in New York for so long because I think I’ve always sort of felt a little transient.Of course, New York has a feel that it’s full of transient people. But–yeah, I guess I am surprised. I used to–because I moved around a lot–I used to be really crippled with sort of feelings of nostalgia for the places that I’ve left, and I do grieve having left New York. I miss it a lot, but I don’t feel the same that I used to feel when I used to leave a place.It’s a big question, and I wonder why that is. Maybe it’s just that I’m with my wife and my son, and it just seems like wherever they are, that’s where my life is. But–

RB:Um–that wasn’t the last question.

MD:Oh.Okay.

RB:The last question is: what is the feeling that you get when you write? When you spend an hour, two hours, three hours writing?

MD:Well, usually, stories for me begin with a feeling of love for a character that I have. And it sounds kind of facile, but–and not maybe what I imagined my writing life would be like when I started out years ago–but I kind of started writing about this guy, Henry, and I wanted to, you know, sort of take care of him and see what happened to him. Again, I hate to talk about my work like this because I want to sound like an astounding, towering intellectual, but usually, after a good session of writing, you know, I feel a sense of love for the people that I’ve been spending my time with in my imagination.

RB:So when you finish a book, what is–what’s the feeling?

MD:Well, you know, there’s such a strange sort of long, sort of clerical process once a book is done that–it’s almost–

RB:Much revision?

MD:You know, I have a really excellent editor–

RB:Jill Bialosky?

MD:Jill Bialosky, right. The reason I say she’s excellent is mostly because I feel like she’s excellent for me because we share a certain kind of literary outlook, so she doesn’t ask for many changes, and when she does, they’re really excellent requests. So I wouldn’t say that that is difficult–editing–but you know, Norton really has a–I mean it’s an old-school exhaustive editorial process so they’re doing a lot of revisions, and they have a proper proofreader that only is a proofreader and is an expert in that, and so there’s just a lot of manuscript work that I’m doing and then, you know–that kind of thing. I think that that helps–

RB:You mean you get drawn into the marketing, publicizing initiatives?

MD:Yeah.Exactly.

RB:You don’t have time to grieve over the end of the story.

MD:Right, right. And I think that that helps in some ways. I think that maybe I feel a lot–I’d feel worse if I didn’t have this small task to keep me going. It’s like if you’re feeling depressed, doing the laundry kind of helps you feel a little better. But–so–yeah. I guess now–I mean the other thing, and this is something that is just so clear to me with my last novel is, and it’s very strange, but books really lead lives of their own. And there’s a certain point where it’s not yours anymore, and it’s off in the world, being hated or loved by whoever’s picking it up, and you’ve just got to kind of watch it. It’s like sending a kid off to college, I suppose. I don’t know.

RB:I’d expect that, as has been the case many times in my past that we may speak again.

MD:I’m up here all the time. Yeah. So–yeah. Definitely, I’d love to talk again.

RB:Thank you.

MD:Thank you

Currently reading Haven’s Wake by Ladette Randolph (University of Nebraska Press)

Odd Book of the Day

3 Apr
The Architecture of LSU by J Micheal Desmond

The Architecture of LSU by

Huey Long during a radio broadcast

Huey Long during a radio broadcast

Louisiana State University was one of the beneficial legacies of Depression era Louisiana Governor Huey”Every Man A King” Long. Given that state’s colorful history and that LSU usually as a Top Ten football team, one would assume that Crawfish State a familiar subject to news loving Americans. On the other hand that Louisiana is the prison capitol of the good ole USA may color the rest of the country’s good opinion of that southern state.

Somewhat ambient to the subject at hand—let’s call it an intriguing digression, I stumbled on this fabricated photograph

Bizarre re-creation of A Long photo with Pres Obama's face

Bizarre re-creation of A Long photo with Pres Obama’s face

Fats Waller’s famous dictum came to mind, “One never know,do one?”


Currently reading Life after Life by Jill McCorkle (ALGONQUIN BOOKS)

Thank Heaven, For Little Girls

2 Apr

Sometimes an unlikely book catches my attention more for its appearance and design than its contents. Mara Kalman’s illustration of Strunk & White’s Elements of Style was such a book

Title page from Maira Kalman's Elements of Style

Title page from Maira Kalman’s Elements of Style

Another such book is Advice to Little Girls by Mark Twain (Enchanted Lion Press) about which illustrator Vladimir Radunsky writes

It is difficult for us to imagine what a strange impression Advice to Little Girls, a children’s story by Mark Twain, must have had on its audience when it was written in 1865 and eventually published as part of The 30,000 Dollar Bequest and Other Stories.

American children’s literature in those days was mostly didactic, addressed to some imaginary reader—an ideal girl or boy, upon reading the story, would immediately adopt its heroes as role models. Twain did not squat down to be heard and understood by children, but asked them to stand on their tiptoes—to absorb the kind of language and humor suitable for adults.

The unexpected idea to illustrate Twain’s text came from the editor Bianca Lazzaro of Donzelli Editore in Rome, who also translated the text in to Italian. I still feel envious that she originated it because I’m always trying to find unusual or provocative subjects for my children’s books.

Trying to follow Twain’s style, I wanted to make something along the lines of a scrap-book or an album that you could buy in any paper-goods store at the time. Children used these small albums to paste in various curious objects, or for drawing, or just for doodling.

The only missing elements in the design of the book are stains and dog-ears, but I hope those will come with time.

Advice to Little Girls by Mark Twain

Advice to Little Girls by Mark Twain

Here’s the text for Advice to Little Girls:

Good little girls ought not to make mouths at their teachers for every trifling offense. This retaliation should only be resorted to under peculiarly aggravated circumstances.

If you have nothing but a rag-doll stuffed with sawdust, while one of your more fortunate little playmates has a costly China one, you should treat her with a show of kindness nevertheless. And you ought not to attempt to make a forcible swap with her unless your conscience would justify you in it, and you know you are able to do it.

Page from Advice to Little Girls

Page from Advice to Little Girls


You ought never to take your little brother’s “chewing-gum” away from him by main force; it is better to rope him in with the promise of the first two dollars and a half you find floating down the river on a grindstone. In the artless simplicity natural to this time of life, he will regard it as a perfectly fair transaction. In all ages of the world this eminently plausible fiction has lured the obtuse infant to financial ruin and disaster.

If at any time you find it necessary to correct your brother, do not correct him with mud–never, on any account, throw mud at him, because it will spoil his clothes. It is better to scald him a little, for then you obtain desirable results. You secure his immediate attention to the lessons you are inculcating, and at the same time your hot water will have a tendency to move impurities from his person, and possibly the skin, in spots.

From Advice to Little Girls

From Advice to Little Girls


If your mother tells you to do a thing, it is wrong to reply that you won’t. It is better and more becoming to intimate that you will do as she bids you, and then afterward act quietly in the matter according to the dictates of your best judgment.

You should ever bear in mind that it is to your kind parents that you are indebted for your food, and for the privilege of staying home from school when you let on that you are sick. Therefore you ought to respect their little prejudices, and humor their little whims, and put up with their little foibles until they get to crowding you too much.

Good little girls always show marked deference for the aged. You ought never to “sass” old people unless they “sass” you first.

Mark Twain

Mark Twain



Currently reading Mary Coin by Marisa Silver (Blue Rider Press)

The First Furst

31 Mar
"Cover' for E book version of The Spies of Warsaw

“Cover’ for E book version of The Spies of Warsaw

If you have read all or many of Alan Furst‘s exquisite novels of European WWII espionage, The Spies of Warsaw might not be the one that comes to mind as the first you would choose as a foundational text for a film. On the other hand, an obvious point that obtains here, good books don’t necessarily make for good movies (and so on).

The Spies of Warsaw by Alan Furst

The Spies of Warsaw by Alan Furst


I suppose after all, one should be pleased that finally someone has chosen any one of Furst’s dozen novels— in this case our benfactor is the BBC (shown in 2 parts, April 3 and April 10.) Furst fans should be thankful. I say this because though I suppose American filmmakers could probably have done a fair job, it did not hurt whole tone of the BBC’s production of The Spies of Warsaw that their view of WWII is a less likely to be romanticized the way some one like Speilberg would do. In The Spies a French intelligence officer who had served in the War to End all Wars is posted to his country’s Warsaw embassy in 1937. His view and attitude as well as everyone of that generation, present in this narrative had witnessed and processed enough of the horrors of 2 continents engaged in senseless and bloodthirsty combat to work diligently to avoid further blood shed and slaughter. Historically Americans did not seem to exhibit such post belligerence depression or showed much evidence they were afflicted by the world weariness so evident with the Brits and Europeans.At the end this taut drama , on Sept 1 1939,Anna Skarbek, the colonel’s lover asks Jean-Francois Mercier “What now?” Mercier responds,”We try to survive.”

Knowledgable fans of Furst will be amused at the appearance of the Parisian Heininger Brasserie, one of the author’s faux McGuffins where the anecdote about the assassination of the Bulgarin head waiter is mentioned (as it is every Furst novel)

Currently reading Mary Coin by Marisa Silver (Blue Rider Press)

Small Ball, Big Balls

29 Mar
Make it,Take it by Rus Bradburd

Make it,Take it by Rus Bradburd

As theories go, George Plimpton’s Small Ball theory of literature has held up pretty well since he pronounced it in 1992— it stated “that there seems to be a correlation between the standard of writing about a particular sport and the ball it utilizes — that the smaller the ball, the more formidable the literature.” As far as basketball goes,I am only aware of a couple of books that make the cut to literary excellence— Pete Axthelm’s The City Game and Forty Minutes of Hell: The Extraordinary Life of Nolan Richardson by Rus Bradburd.

I am told that the planet Earth is currently afflicted by something called March Madness and much attention is thereby focused on college round ball. Which is a propitious time to mention that Bradburd has a new novel Make it, Take it (Cinco Puntos Press) about which the Nation’s sports guy effuses:

Rus Bradburd has given us an original novel about college basketball that is compelling, unsettling, yet downright funny and sad at the same time. Make It, Take It is even better than his incisive non-fiction—and, frankly, that’s just not fair.”

Bradburd, who is also a professor at New Mexico State University knows what he is taking about, as you can judge below—

It should not go unsaid that Bradburd’s chronicle of the trials and tribulations of former National Championship coach Nolan Richardson is a book which has not been given it proper due. And if we are taking about big balls,Coach Nolan Richardson has them.

Currently reading Gulp by Mary Roach (WW Norton)

How Close?

28 Mar
This Close by Jessica Francis Kane

This Close by Jessica Francis Kane

This being an especially full period for my To do list, the time between an actual conversation and its publication has increased. Which may or may not matter (though I know publicists are not pleased). But I can satisfy some of my presumed obligation by noting some topical issue or other that came of, for instance, my recent chat with author Jessica Francis Kane.

We met recently in Brookline Massachusetts(where I am a fugitive, being on the town’s tow list for 6 alleged parking violations) on a sunny Sunday. This was our second conversation, the first coming on the occasion of the publication of her novel, The Report. Of a wide ranging (within the confines of a literary map)reach, our chat covered some current matters, one which I thought particularly amusing and apposite— it was tangentially about Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In:

RB: I didn’t see that anywhere in the acknowledgments.

JK: Yes,

RB: Shame on you!

JK: It probably should have.

RB: The CFO of Facebook has a book out —Noreen Malone chose to [hilariously]review it through the lens of it being a 140 page book with 7 pages of acknowledgements.

JK: Oh.

RB: So I must compliment you on the brevity and succinctness of your acknowledgements.

JK: I have followed Lean In publicity. I think acknowledgements are terribly important —because I write short stories I am firmly in the less is more camp. I think you don’t have to go on and on about everything that happens in the course of all the years it took to write a book. It’s sufficient to name the most important people.

RB: Jeez, that’s so old school.

JK: I guess.

Jessica Francis Kane holds her new book up to the sky. photo: Robert Birnbaum

Jessica Francis Kane holds her new book up to the sky. photo: Robert Birnbaum

Let me urge you on to my debut dialogue with Ms Kane while you wait for our second tango. There are such riveting tidbits as:

RB: This is a literary book from a well-regarded, small, not-for-profit publisher (Graywolf) that has published many fine writers, so what is going to happen to you?

JFK: [in a small voice] What’s going to happen to me?

RB: You’re kind of in the midst of this new experience.

JFK: The book has only been out three weeks.

RB: Oh I forget—I’ve had an advance copy for months.

JFK: My publication date was the same as Jonathan Franzen’s.

RB: You smothered him.

JFK: Did you see the Boston Phoenix? There is a brief review there that says I “out-Franzened Franzen.”

RB: What does that mean? You turned down Oprah Winfrey and Larry King?

JFK: In terms of telling a traditional narrative—I wish I could quote it to you. Anyway, I am in the thick of it and I feel very honored and lucky. I do. “Kane out-Franzens Franzen in her ability to create a compelling, traditional narrative.”

[

Jessica Francis Kane by Robert Birnbaum

Jessica Francis Kane by Robert Birnbaum

Currently reading Donnybrook by Frank Bill (Farrar Giroux Straus)

Fire in the Belly

25 Mar
Buffalo photograph by David Wojnarowicz

Buffalo photograph by David Wojnarowicz

Manhattan artist David Wojnarowicz, an inhabitant of that city’s late 20th century demimonde died of AIDS in 1992, at the age of 38. He had been terribly abused as a child, and was a runaway who ended up working as a teenage prostitute in New York’s Times Square. Among his creations was the photograph above which he made as statement of political protest. As a painter, photographer, writer, filmmaker, performance artist, and activist his talents and modes of expression ranged farand deep

Offbeat, a Red Hot CD compilation

Offbeat, a Red Hot CD compilation


I first discovered Wojnarowicz on one of those wonderful Red Hot & CD compilations, Offbeat a Red Hot Soundtrip. The Meat Beat Manifesto ( there is also an eery rendition of Black Dada Nihilismus by its author Amir Baraka with DJ Spooky) was declaimed with a rage and fury that instantly grabbed my ears and attention and seared its way into my visual field.

Last summer Cynthia Carr published Fire in the Belly: The Life and Times of David Wojnarowicz (Bloomsbury USA)which admirably spotlighted David Wojnarowicz’s life, his work and the roiling lower Eastside art scene of the 80′s.

Fire in the Belly by Cynthia Carr

Fire in the Belly by Cynthia Carr

Jennifer Doyle sums up:

Carr has written an intimate portrait of Wojnarowicz’s struggle, even as the walls were closing in on him, to establish an understanding of his way of being in the world. Fire in the Belly honors Wojnarowicz’s vitality and passion, and that of his friends and all his lovers, too. It’s in the details. Like how when he met someone he liked, he would note in his diary, simply, “met a fella.” Written by someone who was there, and isn’t afraid to show us what that meant, this story is framed by disaster, but with a fierce tenderness in the writing — an attention to little things that would fall apart under less expert hands.

7 Miles a Second by  Marguerite Van Cook and  James Romberger]

7 Miles a Second by Marguerite Van Cook and James Romberger]


Now comes what Fantagraphics, the (re) publisher of 7 Miles a Second, calls a “primal scream of a graphic novel”. Artists James Romberger and Marguerite Van Cook vividly depict David Wojnarowicz’s life and struggles in a much improved edition (it was first published by Vertigo as a comic book in 1996)

You can access some of Wojnarowicz’s <a href="http://ppowgallery.com/selected_work.php?artist=14&image=10“>art here

Peter Hujar Dreaming/Yukio Mishima: St. Sebastian 1982, spray paint on masonite, 48 x 48 inches

Peter Hujar Dreaming/Yukio Mishima: St. Sebastian 1982, spray paint on masonite, 48 x 48 inches

Currently reading Gulp by Mary Roach (WW Norton)

Talking with George Saunders

22 Mar
George Saunders by Robert Birnbaum

George Saunders by Robert Birnbaum

George Saunders: So why the red hat?

Robert Birnbaum: Call me Red as in el Rojo. Why the red hat? I was cold. And I am Jewish*. (takes off hat)

GS: That’s a good haircut.

RB: I do it myself.

GS: Do you?

RB: I don’t want to spend $25 a month. I am a writer. You know what that’s like. Well, you don’t—you’re successful.

GS: No, no, I know.

RB: You wrote the “best book of the year.”

GS: Yeah so far. But it’s only one month in.

RB: I can’t decide whether you were a victim or a beneficiary of two pieces of press earlier this year. There was the New York Times, which asserted that your book was the “best book of the year.” And the other was a piece at Identity Theory opining that you are now repeating yourself.

GS: No I’m not. No I’m not. No I’m not. I don’t know that piece.

RB: (laughs) I didn’t read it—if had read it I wouldn’t have had time to read something else. I read the Times piece and it didn’t read like a review. It read like a press release.

GS: That was in the magazine. It wasn’t really a review as such.

RB: Oh right. It was a profile.

GS: It had a different slant.

RB: And then your publisher took out a full page ad in the Times citing that “best book of the year” quote, reminiscent of movie reviewers who write reviews with lines they hope will be quoted in ads.

GS: Sure.

RB: That was a big expenditure for a short story collection.

GS: Yeah, yeah, I though the whole thing was—

RB:—crazy?

GS: Fun. At 54, at a certain point in your career it’s just nice to see action. It’s more interesting to have something energized happening than not. I kind of think, “Whatever, whatever happens” and—

RB: From where I sit the world of books, literature, and publishing, I think of you as being significant and important. But maybe from where you sit, teaching at a university in the middle of New York state plowing away at your work, you don’t think of yourself as being significant and/or important.

GS: No. Most of the time you are writing, writing the next thing. Or teaching, so it doesn’t seem…maybe if we’d had talked a year ago, before this book came out, I would have said something like “I don’t have a huge audience.” I wonder why not. I wonder if it is—

RB: (laughs)

GS: No, really. Is it something I’m doing wrong—?

RB: What is a huge audience?

GS: Well, I don’t know. I could sense with the other books that they were gaining some critical attention, but they weren’t big sellers and so at the time I wondered, “Is this possibly a result of something I am doing wrong?” In other words, is it the result of some kind of tic I’ve internalized that isn’t necessarily artistically honest but is just a tic, and that has the effect of driving certain readers away? Or am I writing the very best I can and it just so happens I am a small-audience person? So that was on my mind.

RB: That kind of thinking will make you crazy.

GS: I always thought of it as a way of making myself better as a writer. I know so many people—good, smart people, good readers—who would read my stuff and go “Yeah. It’s…interesting. But I don’t quite get it.” So I thought if there was a group of people who were good, smart readers and who, for some reason, were put off by the first three books, it wouldn’t be a sin to try to reach them. I mean, to falsify something would be wrong. But I was willing to think, ”Well, maybe there is something I have taught myself that keeps me small-audience.” And I am not talking about being a mega-seller, just that magical number between—I am not being very articulate, I’m tired.

RB: Have I kept you from your afternoon nap? (laughs)

GS: No, no. So I found myself wondering: What’s the essential difference between guys like Daniil Kharms (a strange, edgy wonderful artist) and Tolstoy (a more accessible wonderful artist)? Which camp do I rightly belong in? Which camp do I want to be in? Tolstoy was a big seller. And, for my money, there’s no greater artist than Tolstoy—not exactly Mr. Compromise. So it felt like a virtuous thing to think about how could I reach that X percentage of readers who would get it and like it if I could just open up a little bit. I thought of that as an aesthetic process—trying to open myself aesthetically.

RB: A way of saying you are trying to make yourself more accessible.

GS: Yeah. I think that’s right. Although…that word has a bad reputation, but I look at it the other way: Was I, through a kind of artistic sloth, habitually making myself inaccessible for reasons that didn’t pay off artistically? Reasons of habit, or fear? And I don’t know the answer because the reception of this book has kind of confused me. With this one, before I sent it out, I would have said: Well, here it is, a fourth weird, dark, small-selling, inaccessible collection. Then it turns out it has sold. So now I’m confused.

RB: Which is why I say, thinking about that can make you crazy.

GS: But you can feel it. I can feel it.

RB: Maybe your sensitivity is skewed?

Tenth of December by George Saunders

Tenth of December by George Saunders


GS: With this book, I can feel a difference. You go out and do a reading and there’s four times as many people as there were before and probably half of them are saying, you know, “I have never heard of you before but I am really enjoying this.” So that tells me that for whatever reason, before this book, I wasn’t reaching those people—and it’s not like they aren’t good readers. They get it. But yes, you would drive yourself crazy if you spent too much time thinking about it.

RB: Who knows what the size of the population is of good readers.

GS: That’s right.

RB: I have joked in the past that it’s 400,000 people, constant from generation to generation—

GS: Yeah, I bet that’s right.

RB: Every writer gets different pieces of that group. Some writers get most or all.

GS: These last two months I have been thinking a lot about all of this. But as a benefit of all of these years of writing, my hope is that when I go back next month and start working again it’s not going to be something I’ll be thinking all that much about. I feel like I have pretty good work habits. It’s even hard to know where you stand as a writer, at any give time.

RB: Aw, people like you.

GS: I have always had the nicest audiences and I have no complaints. Even last year, before all of this hoopla, I would have said that I felt like the luckiest guy around. So, at this point in my life, it’s just like—like [Raymond] Carver said, “It’s gravy.” Gravy to get this little boost in interest. And then my responsibility is to use all of this to try and do even better next time.

RB: Are you finding that people have read the book at your readings, laughing at the right places?

GS: Very much. That’s what I mean, why I have been encouraged. If I was getting bigger audiences and going out and bombing I would maybe think they’d just been lured in by the [buzz]. In fact it feels just like it used to feel, only bigger. I’ve been really happy with everything.

RB: I worked in the record business and it’s accepted that wisdom that there is no formula for a hit record. A guy I worked for listened to new records on a cheapo child’s monophonic record player, which replicated the sound of AM (of AM as opposed to FM /frequency modulaton ) radio coming through a small car speaker. He thought that was litmus test for screening hits. But still who knows what makes a hit a priori?

GS: I don’t think you could ever make a good story by thinking if it would sell. But there is some kind of intersection between trying to write as sincerely and truthfully and well as you can and then some idea that a good-hearted reader would connect. That much you can control, I think. But what you can’t control, I am noticing, is once the book is done and it either does really well or really poorly. You can’t predict that. There’s an element that you can’t predict or control. So I don’t think you can make much of it. It’s just luck.

RB: Right. There are too many variables involved in commercial success.

GS: So for me the trick has been to structure my life so that most of my time is spent in the writing room. Most of a person’s understanding of truth is happening there. This success—it’s just like you are walking down the street and at some points you smell a great meal cooking and sometimes you’ll smell a dumpster. But you took that path and you accept the smells that are coming at you and enjoy them. Or not. But you didn’t necessarily cause them.

RB: As a reader, I occasionally come across stuff that I don’t think I know what I am reading—some Faulkner is like that. I like it, but I couldn’t clearly explain what I read the last 20 pages. What is the responsibility of the writer there? And I am not a lazy reader—I don’t expect the author to make things easy.

GS: It depends on the writer. Some writers seem to live for that, it’s their method and it works, and other people—I mean even within one writer’s career you might feel like, “I love these nine books of his, but that tenth one was a little too difficult.” Or too easy. That is, I don’t think the writer has to—or even can—decide “how difficult to be.” You just do what feels urgent at the time.

RB: And maybe it’s not the text, but that you might be having a dumb day, or a headache, or some worrisome distraction.

GS: As you write book one, you write it from a certain place, and as you do that you learn certain things that then inflect you differently on book two and three and so on. So my experience has been that it all has had very little to do with intentionality. It’s more instinctual. It’s funny, when a book comes out people will say things, positive or negative, assuming that you planned it, that you meant it, or thought it out in advance or whatever. They credit the writer with some combination of intentionality and design and certainty. I feel like when you are writing it’s much more from the seat of the pants. You’re just trying to get it to cohere, and almost as soon as you conceive of the idea you realize that it’s got this defect, or defects, so you are trying to find a counter-balance. It’s like plate-spinning. And at the end, kind of in the spirit of coming out of a fight, you go, “Ha, wow, that’s done.” But it’s not like you very confidently say, “Hooray, I produced this wonderful work of art, of which I am entirely sure.” It’s more like, “Wow, shit, that was confusing.” But it’s as good as you can get it and it goes out into the world and people say things that imply that artist is in control and is making a statement. I kind of laugh because it doesn’t feel like that at all.

RB: So you listen to what people are saying?

GS: Sure. Yeah.

RB: There is no real connection.

GS: There’s not, except sometimes—again pro or con—somebody will say something and it sticks to your ribs and it helps you. There was a review a couple of books ago—somebody said “Saunders writes better from love than from anger.” At first, I was like “What are you talking about?”

RB: You got angry. (laughs)

GS: Yeah, I got angry. But when I read that, something really resonated with me. I’ve kept that in mind ever since, and it’s been helpful. So when someone writes a review, my attitude is: OK, here it comes. It washes over you and then something will stick and the only reason you want it to stick, is to help the next thing to be better. If someone says something nice and it emboldens you, good. If someone says something harsh and that pulls you out of a ditch, that’s good too.

RB: What if it puts you in a ditch?

GS: That happens. But you can come out of a ditch. And maybe it will turn out to have been a good thing.

RB: What I am hearing from you is that as you write more books you learn more about writing, but that emotionally the task of writing has the same effect it did when you started. You are not more confident today than when you began?

GS: No, I hope not. The only way I am more confident now is that I feel if I persist in a given story it will usually come through for me. Eventually. I don’t have the urge to abandon things. That state of under-confidence, for me, is really important. It means that you don’t coast. You work every piece as hard as you can, so at the end if somebody says that you’re repeating yourself, you go, ”Actually, I am not. It may seem that way to you? But I don’t think I am.” Or likewise if someone says, “…this is the most innovative thing. It’s unlike anything you’ve done before.” You can go, “Actually it’s not. But it’s fine if you think that.” All of that working time puts you into a close relationship with your own work—you understand it pretty well, from the inside, the good parts and the defects. You are working on your relationship to truth every day in your writing room and so you understand what you have done, for better or worse. There are pieces of mine where, halfway in, I knew it had a fatal flaw. Is that the end? No, it’s the beginning. That’s called craft. So then you try to make the fatal flaw work for you in some way. So at the end if someone says it has a fatal flaw, you’re like, “Uh yeaaah. I know that, that’s what I was trying to fix all this time.” It’s almost like when someone says, about another person’s personality, “Oh, he’s hardnosed.” Or, ”He’s wimpy.” That person knows that, probably. Their trajectory through life has been to try to accommodate that character flaw.

RB: Also knowing that one aspect doesn’t usually define a person—people are more complex.

GS: That’s right. And they can bring the other characteristics to bear on that one. So for me the only weird thing about the promotional part of a book is that what has been private becomes public and there’s a certain feeling that this person or that person thinks you were more in control than you actually were. They think that, by putting out a book, you are making certain aesthetic claims. Or that you are claiming something with the book that you probably weren’t. About all I would claim about any book of mine is that I did the best I could given the time, conditions, and circumstances under which I wrote it. To be pushing an aesthetic agenda or claiming total originality—I think you would have to be nuts. The process is too high-wire and scary.

RB: What happens when you teach?

GS: This semester I taught an editing class, where I just brought in some of my pieces that had been edited, and some written by friends. The purpose of that part of the class was to show that to be a writer is to be in a state of uncertainty. Not complete uncertainty, but recurring uncertainty. Everyday: “I’m not quite sure. I’m not quite sure.” And that’s ok, that’s actually part of it. And to reassure the students that their teachers absolutely are unsure. It doesn’t matter how long you have been writing, you have that feeling of vulnerability. The edits come back, you cringe, and then you embrace them, or engage with them. So I think that’s biggest thing we can teach—they are going to have their own methodology and that feeling of being insecure, feeling like you don’t know what you are doing—that’s part and parcel of the job itself. It’s not failure. It might be easier to have some schtick and dogmatize—to pretend to have some unwavering relation to some constant Truth about writing—but that’s false. That’s the road to artistic death. So one of the best things we can teach our students is that when they are working and feel like, “God, this is so hard!”—that this is precisely the right attitude.

RB: You teach at a well-regarded university with a reputedly fine writing program. Your students come with aspirations to succeed in what some people suggest is a dying enterprise. Do you feel like you need to buoy their spirits?

GS: Their spirits are pretty buoyed. This year we received 566 applications for six spots. So you pick those six people and they are buoyed. They love it and they have already decided that this is the thing they are doing. We do three fully funded years—there is no tuition and there is a stipend for everybody. It’s pretty generous. Arthur Flowers, one of my colleagues, is bringing back 14 former students in a few weeks. They are all published and all are doing pretty well. So it’s actually not that hopeless. One thing we emphasize is that it’s not a career—it’s a vocation. So if you are really going to do this thing, don’t get confused and connect it with money, status, or a job even. For three years treat it like a monastic enterprise where you are going to go as deep as you can in your own art. It might work out. It might not. That’s not a linear thing. But at least give yourself the gift of three years of really trying. So that’s a pretty pure—

RB: So they are not coming out of the program carrying crushing debt.

GS: Exactly right. That keeps it a very pure thing. They come in, they give us three years, we give them a stipend. That’s fair enough. If somebody were leaving with $80 k in debt you’d feel guilty. It would put a weird spin on the teaching. So this is a pretty generous thing in both directions.

RB: You’ve there how long?

George Saunders by Robert Birnbaum (circa 2006)

George Saunders by Robert Birnbaum (circa 2006)


GS: Since ‘96, ‘97.

RB: So that’s about 100 grads. How many have you kept in touch with?

GS: A lot.

RB: How many, relatively speaking, are satisfied with what they’ve done?

GS: Most. They are a pretty high-achieving, happy—I would imagine about the same as the general population. I think so, yeah. The people we meet tend to be real high-functioning and pretty pragmatic. Not too much drama, really. What I really like is that you can take the students seriously as people. You are not trying to avoid them. They are there for three years and you’re friends and so it’s a kind of teaching that doesn’t feel costly.

RB: What is the vetting/admissions process like to get six out of over 500?

GS: We just read the work. Until a few years ago we would each read every application. But the last few years, maybe because of the financial crunch, our applications doubled. So now we are dividing them into fours.

RB: The financial crunch doubled the applications.

GS: Yeah. That was the year it happened. I got the sense it was people who said, “Well, I am not working anyway so I might as well try this thing.” So that’s hard. This year my share of it was 180—I read 180. Honestly, I would have loved to have worked with the top 30 that I picked. But I am only contributing two out of that. There are just a lot of talented people. In the end, what you have to say is, this isn’t about who is the best writer. It’s about trying to find six people who we would be excited to work with. Are we willing to dedicate three years of our lives to them? And vice versa.

RB: You can tell that from reading their work?

GS: I think so. It’s just a feeling of enthusiasm that I get while reading certain of the applications. Almost a feeling like: “Wow, am I ever happy to know this person, through their work.” Some people you are reading and you say, “Damn that’s good. But I don’t know if I’d want to read 100 pages of it.” Not that I wouldn’t want to read it but—I can tick off the six that we accepted by naming the delightful things in each of their stories, things that got me laughing or moved me. In those final six, the person comes through, the human being on the other end. And it’s very exciting.

RB: Is there an introductory bio statement?

GS: They write a personal statement. Which we often—I often don’t read them. If they write a great personal statement and the story isn’t up to snuff, the personal statement isn’t getting them in. Or if the personal statement is dumb and the story rocks, we’re going to let that person in. Sometimes we’ll go back and look at the personal statements just to try to get a little extra something. To try to understand a certain frequency in the work or something. This year, the ones we picked, their stories were good and seemed to have a lot of heart and a command of technical means. So you see it and you go, “Well, it might not be perfect, but I know I could work with this person. I could say this, this, and this, and the story would already be a lot better.”

RB: When you say that you are in your writing room and there is some kind of truth that you are looking for—something true or Truth?

GS: I don’t know. Either one. What I mean is, when you are working on a story and you are deep into it, there is some kind of work that you are doing that is really low bullshit. Uh, I don’t know how to describe it. It’s low concept. You are not looking at the outside world. Or worrying about the eventual reception of the piece. You are not indulging in some artistic theory. You have a character in a room—what language can you use to make that person come more alive? For me, there’s something about that, that’s primary. If I can get three or four hours a day of that, everything gets clarified. I don’t mean true, as in big truth. Just relative truth within the bounds of a story. You have the character say or do a certain thing and you think, for example, “That seems weird. That line’s not great. It seems like my agenda for him is exerting itself. He might want to say or do something different. Something that results in a better, more lively sentence.” And you take another shot at it. And suddenly the character blurts something out that you hadn’t expected. I think what I would say is, you’re being in a certain honest, receptive relation to the piece you are writing—you’re trying to be a pure conduit for whatever the story is telling you. And there is something about being that pure conduit that’s really grounding. Stuart Dybek says the story is always talking to you, and your job is to listen. And there is something about that state that I am kind of addicted to—where you are not thinking about theme or content or politics or what this story will do to you or for your career. You are really just trying to listen to the energy coming off of the story.

RB: Dybek is teaching at Northwestern now.

GS: Dybek changed my writing life before I ever met him. I read that story “Hot Ice” when I was really young and kind of lost. I wasn’t reading anything contemporary. And I read that piece and it blew the top of my head off. I had never seen my world represented in fiction before. And I thought, “Ah, OK, that’s what it would feel like to have a contemporary vignette.”

RB: You’re both from the South Side of Chicago.

GS: My dad went to the same high school as Dybek, but then we moved out to the south suburbs. He was more of a city guy and my dad was more of a city guy. All that street slang and descriptions of the shop windows were completely familiar.

RB: For a while you were doing some glossy-magazine journalism.

GS: Yeah.

RB: Are you still doing that?

GS: No.

RB: Because?

GS: Ah, well there was a time about four years ago when I just had a hunch if I stopped doing all this other kind of writing my fiction would improve. So I stopped. I had been writing some humor, some screenplays, some travel pieces. All that was to get—sometimes you gotta kick the nest a little. So I did that to get reinvigorated for fiction. And then I stopped all of it. And this book came out of that period. I just wasn’t doing anything else. The metaphor that came to mind was, if you had five streams that were medium deep, when you stopped four of them the one got deeper. For the immediate future I am going to try to stick with that: fiction only. Fiction is really where my heart is. I am somebody, probably like a lot of writers—I like attention. That’s probably why I got into this, at least partly. And I noticed that if I say, to myself, “Ok, you can have attention but only for this one thing—now go write a short story,” the work gets a lot deeper.

RB: I took it as a sign of your increasing popularity—magazine editors like the idea of using well-known fiction authors.

GS: The way it happened was Jim Nelson and Andy Ward at GQ put their heads together and hired me to do that Dubai piece. And that was kind of a flyer. I had never written a travel piece before.

RB: And then you did a piece from Afghanistan?

GS: Nepal. About a boy who was meditating without food or water for six months. I drove the Mexican border and I went to live in a homeless camp for a week in Fresno, kind of incognito. And then I went with [Bill] Clinton to Africa. So it was a great kind of midlife rejuvenation. You know: I know what I think, but what does the world think? So that was good. I would do that periodically, but it takes me a long time to write a book of fiction and I’ve got a lot of stuff I want to do yet. So I am trying to keep the discipline of just doing fiction.

RB: Is it an adjustment, going from the sedentary professorial life to the jetting around?

GS: Yeah. And that’s why I like it.

RB: It’s harder to travel these days?

GS: Yeah and—hell, those are hard trips. The beginning is a 30-hour flight and also…every one of those pieces, not by design, really got me out of my comfort zone. It’s the nature of that kind of writing. You have some preconceptions about the piece. And then the actual experience overturns those almost immediately. That one in Fresno—you fly out there. You are a professor; a nice guy, kind of coddled and soft, and then you go put up a tent in this crack house, basically. Things get really uncomfortable, really fast. Deeply anxiety-producing. So it’s very uncomfortable at the time, but I think that’s good. One of the dangers of being at all successful is that you are always surrounded by this bubble of approval. Your students like you. You go on tour, you go to bookstores. They like you. And just as a middle-aged person, you know, you’re a known and respectable quantity. People in stores see you and go: “Oh, he’s an old dude, he has a credit card, no problem.” So to go into a place where you are being perceived differently than you are used to being perceived is terrific.

RB: How were you perceived?

GS: In the homeless camp? As just some old disreputable dude who had presumably fallen on hard times, I guess.

RB: Did you wear dirty, disheveled clothing?

GS: I just wore the same clothes for a week. Jeans and a shirt and a fleece jacket. That all got grosser and grosser. Actually, the people there were dressed like we all dress, kind of reasonably, but dirtier, I guess. It’s a hard place to live. What you find out—and this was maybe one of the saddest parts—was that they are under so much stress that they are not really looking at you. They are just reduced to looking at you, and at everything, in order to perceive threat, and if they don’t perceive threat you’re sort of invisible, or neutral. And also they’re looking a little to see if you can be victimized. I was right in the middle there—I wasn’t a threat and I wasn’t going to be victimized. So I think after a few days even people who I had told I was a writer, those people stopped seeing me. That was incredible—to blend. I heard some outrageous things. And saw some outrageous things. Some things that I don’t think I would have heard or seen if I was just dropping in. But to have a tent there and be there 5 or 6 days…

RB: Do you feel any conflict about the presence of a story about a homeless camp in a glossy consumer magazine like GQ?

GS: Sure. Maybe. But on the other hand, where else is it going to go? Or where better for it to go? They gave me 12,000 words and four months to write it, sent a great photographer, gave it a nice pride of place in a huge magazine. I am not sure about this but it’s a good question—because I have been doing some TV lately and it’s kind of the same thing: To what extent are you willing to consent to the inevitable constraints of any media that is going to reach a big audience? My take on it is there is nothing de facto wrong with any glossy magazine or a big TV thing. But as the content provider you have to keep yourself honest and make sure you do the best job you can, within whatever format you are working in. Stay honest, say whatever needs to be said. To me, it’s fantastic that there could be a piece about a homeless camp in GQ, because it gets out to millions of people. And it was a real leap of faith on the editor’s part to let me do it.

RB: I recall seeing a piece (“Life on the Border” by Jim Harrison) about the Arizona-Mexico border in Men’s Journal, one of those laddie magazines dedicated to six-pack abs and avoiding erectile dysfunction. It was a magnificent survey of the history of the border including the Gadsden Purchase, which most people don’t know anything about.

GS: What I find, mostly—as an example, in a big magazine like GQ, Jim Nelson and Andy Ward (when he was still there) were such fighters for literature. They were fighting to get 12,000 words on something like this homeless piece. So I think that is kind of heroic. And there was never anything but encouragement to go deeper, be more fierce, more literary. So those of us who talk about media—I feel like it’s important to figure out how these things actually work. From the inside. And you see that these entities have people really fighting for literature. So I feel like it’s OK to help, you know? To try writing a really good entertaining piece that is also a little dark and a little edgy. They were always supportive of that. It’s easy to see these places as just, you know, “big entities.” But the more interesting way is to look at the big thing and see that it’s actually a number of smaller entities working together in a certain way. People within the magazine or TV station or whatever agreeing to do this more populist thing if it makes it possible to do this more literary thing, and so on. If there is a great interview or short story in Playboy, it’s a great interview or short story. The magazine itself—or the TV show, or whatever—is a delivery system, and delivery systems can work in complicated and multivalent ways.

RB: GQ doesn’t strike me as the go-to venue for hard-hitting journalism.

GS: I disagree. If you look at the last nine years there’s always a big story—Richard Powers has been in in there, John Sullivan, Mike Paterniti. So I don’t know.

RB: GQ has William Giraldi doing offbeat sports stories.

GS: It’s the same conundrum everyone is in—and it’s a choice. If you want to reach a million people, then you write for venues that reach a lot of people. On the other hand, if you just care about a few hundred people then you can choose to do that. I have a kind of optimism about the uses of literature. You think of Dickens, you think of Tolstoy. Those guys were not shy about wanting to reach people. If it starts to become a niche thing sort of like MFA land, so that only those of us who get the code can read it, then I find that not so interesting. I find it a little sad. Most people get into writing for bigger-hearted reasons than that, I think. They don’t want to be marginalized. They don’t want to be part of a niche enterprise. They want to reach a lot of people and be great artists and they also want to give people pleasure—so I think it’s all right.

RB: What is life like living in a smalltown America—are there ghettos?

GS: Yeah sure. I don’t know if they are called ghettos anymore. There are rough neighborhoods.

RB: Crack houses?

GS: Yeah, sure. I guess so. I don’t know where they are. (laughs)

RB: What is Syracuse lacking?

GS: I think it has pretty much everything. I really like it—it’s not a big city and it’s not a small town. One thing I have loved about living there is that if the well gets a little dry, you can take a walk or drive around town. It seems about the right size. You can get in anywhere and meet anybody. We moved recently, out to the Catskills, so we don’t live in Syracuse anymore. But same deal, small town. At this point I don’t need a whole lot. I have a lot of ideas and a lot of stuff, so if I can get in a reasonably good mood in the morning that’s all I need to do.

RB: You said you have a lot to get done. Is that an abstraction or—

GS: No, it’s an abstraction. There is a certain tone I would like to hit, a tone that would have to do with detail and humor and tenderness but also texture. It’s not a list of books to finish and it’s not a page count. I don’t know, I can’t explain it. I would just like to feel, before I die, that I had got on paper the way I actually feel about life. That would be nice.

RB: How close are you to that goal?

GS: Not that close. Actually, not at all close. I have to keep working. There are little hints sometimes. I can sort of hear or feel what it would be like. It’s going to take some time. But what else are you going to do?

RB: I had this great question that I now can’t remember, does that happen to you?

George Saunders by Robert Birnbaum

George Saunders by Robert Birnbaum


GS: Yeah, but it always comes back. If it really wants to be there.

RB: You think you will know when you get it right?

GS: I don’t think you ever—

RB: What a conundrum.

GS: It’s a good one. A pleasant loop: I aspire, I try, I fail, I fail. I die.

RB: An upward spiral?

GS: I think so. I hope so. I suppose it’s like eating. You know that you are going to eat until the end of your life. So you might as well enjoy it—although not too much. And you know the moment that your heart stops, you will either have just eaten or be just about to eat. You’re never going to get to the place where you go, “Aha, at last, I have eaten perfectly, and never have to do it again!” Same way with art—what would be great is if I could stay as interested in it forever as I am right now. That would be really deep. Maybe I won’t.

RB: I am fascinated by your fiction—I rarely can get what your starting point is. You bend grammar and punctuation and use words at some kind of oblique angle. I was looking at your story in Fakes, that anthology of fiction that Davis Shields edited. You seem to be able to turn anything into a story.

GS: I think so. You can take any little mode of communication and exaggerate it and overstuff it and make it yield meaning. Like earlier when we were looking at that stock market report on the TV—you could do a great comic film on that. You put in twice as many things on the screen. Make it itself, but more so. Exploit the innate comic potential of the form. For me, it’s giving yourself an assignment and then exploiting the inherent potential of the constraint. When you say, “Write a story in the form of a memo,” that gets me excited. If you say, “Hey write a story about the universe, no rules,” I go, “Oh my god.”

RB: That’s the story about the manager exhorting his employees to have positive attitudes.

GS: Maybe that’s heart of short fiction, you start with some constraint—like a hobble. You are not writing the story of the whole universe. That, to me, is when the art comes in. You have a hobble on and you’re told to dance. “But I have a hobble on.” “Dance!” So then you are dancing with the hobble and that’s where you see what you are really made of. If somebody would lay down 10 constraints for me—I would love to write that book.

RB: “Escape from Spiderhead” was the most ethereal story I have read by you.

GS: What writing is—if you look over a career, I think writing is a way of self-wriggling out of boredom. You find new things to do because you’ve played out a certain terrain already and can’t stay there. For example—let’s say somebody said to us, “You are going to have this conversation for three years. You can’t move from this table for three years.”

RB: (laughs)

GS: At first, we talk like we are talking now. And then we burn through that first level. Then for the next week you tell me all your childhood stories—basically what you are doing in that situation is veering away from boredom. The only way to go is deep. Or, at least—different. You are veering away from what’s been done before. Same thing with writing. You write 10 stories, 20 stories, 30 stories and you become familiar with your own habits and your own proclivities. And then you have to squirm away so you don’t do the same thing again. Which leads you to some new ground. But at the same time the room that is your talent, is, in my case, pretty small. So with that story “Spiderhead,” I had written a lot of stories in a diction than was maybe 20% less articulate than I actually am. A little halting and minimalist. On purpose, for comic effect, but then I started feeling, “Oh god, I just want to write smart. I want to write something that’s at the top of my game.” And somehow to just write a story like that, I can’t quite do it. But in that one, where I started with the low diction and made up that drug to go into higher diction, I felt like I found a little corner of my room that I hadn’t been in before. It was sort of a joke I was having with myself. How can I excuse extreme voiceiness? Well, more drugs.

Our drugs are so clumsy now that we can see it’s generally not a good idea to be doing drugs all the time—we can see that the transformation drugs occasion in a person is fleeting and fake and costly. But in that story I thought: what if the drugs were incredibly good? That is, what if they made these alternative states that were really wonderful? If you could imagine yourself on the day in your life when you were at your most precise and articulate, now let’s take that and ramp it up 20%. And if you wanted to, you could take a pill and have that feeling every day of your life. There are no side effects. That’s just you now: that more precise and articulate person. Would you take that deal or not? My natural impulse is to say no, but I bet once you were in that state you might feel differently. Because who would choose to be dumber and less articulate? Or we could ask, OK, I will give you a drug that will make you more loving and kind and expansive as you’ve ever been. You will be a great force for good. People will come away positively changed from every interaction with you. What do you say to that? I don’t think there will ever be that drug and if there, it will have most likely have side effects…but what if?

RB: Side effects—every drug seems to have the same possible side effects—diarrhea, vomiting, dizziness ad naseaum. What are you reading these days?

GS: I’m reading Gogol. Rereading all of Gogol. He’s my hero, Gogol, for some reason. I love him but I don’ t understand him yet.

RB: This is a current enthusiasm?

GS: Current, yeah, for the last 10 years. He is somebody I can always come back to. I think it’s because—he’s kind of a role model for me. I didn’t know this about him, but there is a great introduction to, I think it might be Dead Souls—there’s a couple named Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky and they did a great translation of Dead Souls—

RB: How do you know? (laughs)

GS: Well, it’s a great book, a great read. In the introduction they were talking about how Gogol had come from the provinces. He was a contemporary of Pushkin’s. There was a part in [the intro] that said, “Gogol sensed he couldn’t do what Pushkin did.” Pushkin was, you know, beautifully educated, his work was very high literary. And Gogol was a kid from the back woods. But then there is a great description of what he did with bureaucratese and how he understood that if could take the diction of the provinces and use it to comic effect, that could be expansive. So I have been thinking about that a lot—I am naturally inarticulate but I’ve found that I can control it, somewhat, and make it funny. I love the idea of a great American book that is all in crummy English. Or defective degraded English. I know you don’t pick it all up in the English because apparently the Russians have frequencies that we don’t hear. With Russian, they do a lot of sound things that are just not translatable.

RB: Do you know of a writer named Charlie Yu?

GS: I’ve met him. I know his work. He is really good.

RB: In his reviews it’s suggested that he comes out of your camp of whatever people are labeling your fiction. Speculative fiction?

GS: I don’t know. Some of them are. This sounds like such a ‘70s songwriter thing to say but to me, the labeling is dangerous from the writer’s point of view. Because as soon as you say, “Oh I’m a guy who does speculative fiction,” then you start ruling things out. As they come to you, you go, “Oh no, that wouldn’t be speculative fiction, so I can’t do it.” And that would be terrible artistically. Some great off-ramp presents itself and you refuse to get off your highway because of some ideological loyalty? Big trouble. It’s better to keep the box open and see what you do and not worry about it. Take the most interesting path, always. The way I find myself thinking about writing now is, if you have been living in the world awhile, the truth starts to sneak up on you. Which is: our time here is not very long. And even though every day seems as if your time is long, it’s not. We are in a cycle of slow decay. And all these blessings that we have are slowly fading.

RB: (laughs)

GS: I am always looking for some acknowledgement of that in writing. It can come in genre. It can come in whatever. But something that says, “OK, let’s face one thing: we are not here very long. And everything we do has to be seen through that lens.” Then it’s interesting, and it doesn’t matter if it’s realism or whatever.

RB: Something most people are ready to do. Well, thanks very much. See you again, in a few years.

GS It’s always a pleasure. Is this our third, fourth, fifth?

George Saunders with Rosie by Robert Birnbaum

George Saunders with Rosie by Robert Birnbaum

*In medieval Venice, Jews were required to wear red hats, or other distinguishing clothing, such as a yellow circle or scarfwhen outside of the Geto or trading area.

Currently reading The Son by Phillip Meyer (Ecco)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.