Articles by Robyn

You are currently browsing Robyn’s articles.

by Beth Steidle

Publishing Solo is a new monthly blog series focused on topics relating to self-publishing. Its purpose is to provide information and engage conversation amongst both up-and-coming and established writers as we search for new ways to get our work out of that sad desk drawer and into the changing literary world.


We tend to think of self-publishing as a new development, a practice that has cropped up in the past couple of decades. We envision perfect-bound paperback books multiplying in the shadow of publishing conglomerates. But in reality, self-publishing has a long and fairly storied history, whose stars (listed chronologically in order of self-published dates) include: Benjamin Franklin (early to mid-1700’s); Thomas Paine (late 1700’s); Edgar Allan Poe (1827); Henry David Thoreau (mid-1800’s); Walt Whitman (1855); Oscar Wilde (1881); Mark Twain (1885); Zane Grey (1903); Ezra Pound (1908); Carl Sandburg (early 1900’s); Upton Sinclair (early to mid-1900’s); Virginia Woolf (early 1900’s); Gertrude Stein (1914); and D.H. Lawrence (1928); e.e. cummings (1930’s). This is by no means a complete list.

Many of these now literary giants self-published for the same reasons we are doing so today: to combat censorship, to maintain control, and, most commonly, to conquer manuscript rejection.

In the early 1900’s, James Joyce’s seminal work, Ulysses, was faced with rejection from publishers due to page length and obscenity laws. His solution? Collect money from friends, patrons, and fellow writers for pre-orders.

D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterly’s Lover was “privately published” (sounds much more sultry when you put it that way, doesn’t it?) in 1928, thirty-two years before its official publication in Britain.  The reason? Too sexy and too many dirty words.

Mark Twain tired of finicky publishers and paid for the publication of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn himself.

Zane Grey supposedly borrowed money from his wife to launch his book career as the father of the modern western novel (proving, once again, that so many problems can be solved by marrying up).

In 1644, John Milton self-published Areopagitica, a polemical tract arguing in favor of unlicensed printing, saying, “he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself.” Of course, while the freedom to print one’s own work has long been argued for, neither the publishing world nor practices of literary consumption are the same today as they were in the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, or much of the 1900s.  And yet, while formats and reading practices have changed, the possibility for self-publishing success has not. Here is a look at a few of our more contemporary self-published phenomenon:

The Joy of Cooking, Irma S. Rombauer (1931): Rombauer, a St. Louis, Missouri housewife, wrote this book amidst the emotional and financial devastation following the suicide of her husband in the previous year. Initially she had 3,000 copies printed by A.C. Clayton, a commercial printer of labels for shoes and Listerine. In 1936, The Joy of Cooking was picked up by a standard publisher. Since that time, the book has been in continuous publication, is considered a staple of the modern kitchen, and has having sold over 18 million copies.

What Color is Your Parachute?, Richard Nelson Bolles (1970): One of the most popular texts for job seekers, Bolles originally self-published this book in 1970 before it was picked up commercially by Ten Speed Press in 1972. The book has been revised every year since its original publication and has sold over 10 million copies worldwide.

Real Peace, Richard Nixon (1983): Nixon chose to self-publish this work on geopolitical strategy and the establishment of long-lasting peace. He felt the issues addressed in the work were too timely to wait 18 months for a publishing house to go through its many motions to prepare the book. Little Brown & Co. went on to create the first trade edition in 1984.

The Plant, Stephen King (2000): In March 2000, at King’s request, Simon & Schuster digitally published his novella, Riding the Bullet. According to the NY Times, over 400,000 fans downloaded the text upon its debut, making it the universe’s first mass-market e-book. In July of that same year, King began to digitally self-publish The Plant, a serialized epistolary novel featuring a ferocious vine terrorizing a publishing house. In principle, readers would pay one-dollar per installment, a fee that was monitored by the honor system. However, King did threaten to cease posting installments if the percentage of paying readers fell below the 75% mark. Over the next few months, King fiddled with the pricing and readership faltered. The last installment was published in December, but the book remains unfinished. While King’s attempt to jump-start “Big Publishing’s worst nightmare” has floundered, you’ve got to appreciate his efforts. Of course, the problem could have been the silly content (which, unlike the similarly themed film The Happening, did not feature Mark Wahlberg talking to a plastic plant).

Eragon, Christopher Paolini (2002): Paolini, the wunderkind who began writing his now-famous young-adult fantasy novel at the age of 15, was assisted by his parents in the novel’s self-publication. Subsequently, he and his family spent a year on a promotional tour throughout the United States. While on the tour, Carl Hiassen’s stepson happened to pick up a copy, which he reportedly fell in love with, prompting Hiassen to show the book to an editor at Knopf.  Published by Knopf in 2003, the book became an instant hit, landing Eragon on the NY Times Bestseller List for 26 consecutive weeks. In 2006, Eragon was adapted into a film which garnered $249 million worldwide.

(various), Amanda Hocking (2010-present): Another Paolinian wunderkind, former assisted-living assistant Amanda Hocking wrote 17 novels in her spare time. In 2010, frustrated by the lack of a publishing deal, Hocking began to self-publish her young-adult paranormal romances, which have since been described by the NY Times as “literature as candy, a mash-up of creativity and commerce.” Hocking, a self-proclaimed “unicorn enthusiast” and college dropout, self-published nine novels whose sales exceeded 1 million copies. Despite a low per-copy cost ($.99 to $2.99), Hocking’s books garnered an unprecedented sum—close to $2 million in the first year. Put it another way: in 2011, Hocking was selling 9,000 books per day. That same year, she signed her first conventional contract with St. Martin’s Press for another whopping $2 million dollars.  The decision put self-publishing panelists in a tizzy at last year’s BookExpo America; according to their unofficial (yet sensical) figures, Hocking was on track to make more money by continuing to self-publish.  So why did she do it? In response to her shocked fans, Hocking said: “I’ve done as much with self-publishing as any person can do…I want to be a writer. I do not want to spend 40 hours a week handling e-mails, formatting covers, finding editors, etc. Right now, being me is a full-time corporation.”

Now—don’t get too excited. Success stories like Hocking and Paolini are few and far between. In the same way that traditional publishing rarely turns a profit or creates a superstar, self-published authors rarely become household names. But what do all successful self-published works have in common? The author’s belief in the validity of their work; a willingness to fund, promote and produce one’s own work; and the drive to get the book out into the wide, wide world.

The moral? If you’re willing to work hard—to be your own corporation—you have a much better chance of success. If you’re willing to work hard and you have talent, your chances are that much better. With so many options for self-publishing, there really is very little excuse to not take the leap. After all, if you can sell a couple thousand copies on your own, you’ll become much more attractive to gun-shy publishers. And if you can sell 900,000 copies on your own, then, well, you’ve most likely written a paranormal-zombie-vampire-werewolf-romance-literary-snickers-bar. Who am I to judge?


Miss part one of our series? We’ll be taking a blogging break in December to focus on our new issue, but check back in January for the next installment of Publishing Solo.


Capturing the Seed

by Sarah Menkedick

The nuance
Of being
Is to
Capture
The
Seed

Norman Mailer, Death of the Ladies

Manwriting is not even about the phallic references, although if you started looking, you could throw together a phallic manwriting tumblr feed faster than you could write “hair down to her fine ass.”

It’s not necessarily about the verbal sizing-up and branding of women with monikers  – “blondie,” “lady,” “chick” “sweet-eyed insert-your-belittling term of affection”; this might be one indicator, but not the only one, and not even an essential one.

It’s not really either of these things, although it’s undoubtedly more fun to search for explicit cock references than to try and pick up on the distinct swaggering prose, the certain cocked (inevitable, pardon me) male postures.

With sentences that tend towards the staccato (and that, when they do grow more elaborate, do so not so much to expand and question as to definitively explain or to debunk via detail, to reduce to smirking anecdotes) manwriting is authoritative and conclusive and wise in a let-me-tell-you kind of way. It has it all figured out, and has condensed, simplified, and narrowed the world into the manwriter’s purview. It tucks the emotional and the psychological behind the self-deprecating, the overtly macho, and the sardonic. It uses characters like facts to prove a point, or like simplified archetypes to flesh out the author’s comparative fullness and full understanding.

It commands more than it asks; it lectures, in artful but conclusive ways, more than it explores. Listen to Charles Bowden on a beauty queen ravaged by drugs and violence in Ciudad Juárez:

Charles Bowden, Murder City:

I will sit with Miss Sinaloa, and I know I will be mesmerized by the accounts, and she will remain a mystery. Her perfect face will be blank. So will her beautiful eyes cocooned in makeup. By now her hair will have grown out, though I doubt it will cascade to her fine ass. The handprints on her buttocks will have vanished. She will retain nothing but barbed memories of her fine time at the Casablanca when she was doing cocaine and whiskey and then was gang-raped for days. Perhaps she will share with me her memories of the crazy place.

The voice here is beyond questioning; it is decisive and final. It is not just strong (it would be a mistake to confuse “strong” or confident voices with manliness, for the gender stereotypes this implies but also because manwriting is not so much about either strength or confidence but about dominance and attitude): it’s appropriative, taking this woman’s experience and making it the writer’s via a series of “wills.” Her “perfect” face will be blank. Her “beautiful” eyes will be cocooned in makeup. She will retain nothing. Bowden has it figured out. He is telling you how it is. He is telling you how she is. He is telling you what is going to happen and telling you why. He is a man viewing and explaining a woman and a city.

There is no process of inquiry here. There are no fine edges, no hedging or questioning. I know the purpose of Murder City was to act as a lament and a tragic elegy for Ciudad Juárez and what has become of it, but Bowden’s writing in that book is uniformly conclusive and harsh with a repetitive certainty, appropriating whatever it examines, turning it into a tough and unquestionable lecture for the humble reader. Bowden is a sort of lone Western hero coming to town and setting things straight. He is the man shining the bright light of definitive truth on the woman and the city’s experience.

But manwriting doesn’t always have to boom with severity. It can also be falsely disingenuous in a Kerouacian way, jokingly feigning a dumb-guy innocence. Nuanced emotional and psychological realizations are not manly, but they are necessary in literary narratives and in magazine feature stories, so the manwriting way to deal with them is to provide a sort of yo, here I am, just kinda realizing something! self-mockery with plenty of macho asides. Insights have to be pared down to a few pithy yeah-man observations, quickly tempered by irony, humor, and tough-wistful jokes about women.

In Jay Kirk’s story “Hotels Rwanda,” which was selected for the Best American Travel Writing Anthology 2009, the initial suggestion of the story’s larger emotional/psychological theme is couched between ape-y arms and a mountain gorilla being punched in the face.

Jay Kirk, Hotels Rwanda:

He put an arm between the front seats of the Land Rover so we could see for ourselves. Ernest and I agreed: His arms looked ape-y. One expected to be changed by travel; one looked for little symptoms in oneself, signs of alteration, but did this count as a valid transformation? Ernest had never heard of such a thing. Once, he’d had a client who’d come all the way from Australia just to punch a mountain gorilla in the face, but nothing quite like this.

Devon Friedman, in his piece “Will You Be My Black Friend?” has to go so far as wanting to punch himself in the face after admitting that he does yoga. The story’s central question here, about if and how to breach the easy insularity of a particular lifestyle shaped by class and race, gets framed as a comic confessional, culminating with the punch.

Devon Friedman, Will You Be My Black Friend?:

I had a cocktail party the other night. A natural moment to look around at the demographics of your life. And I thought: Jesus Christ, there are a lot of white people in this room. I’ve always thought of the whiteness of my adult life as a temporary condition. Like somehow all these white people have been foisted on me; pretty soon it’ll change; it’s probably my wife’s fault. But it’s time to acknowledge that I’ve become a character in a Wes Anderson movie. I wear white tennis sneakers from the ’70s. I listen to ambient music. I have dinner parties where I serve Spanish rosé and this softer version of mozzarella that has a lovely, almost liquid center that you can only get at the Italian import store. I do yoga, and I get excited when it’s ramp season. Sometimes I’d really like to punch myself in the face.

Manwriting gathers credibility with macho anecdotes, buffering larger spiritual or sociological insights – like Karl Taro Greenfield’s observation about the hope and squalor in “the seedy rooms used to plot a thousand getaways” in “Hope and Squalor in Chungking Mansion”– behind safari vests and snake’s blood:

Within two hours, we’d fallen in with a Canadian man who described himself as a  “Leftenant-General” and told us he knew where we could get injected with a mixture of one part snake’s blood and one part Demerol.

“Wouldn’t that kill us?” we asked.

“Demorol?”

The Leftenant-General shook his head. “Best painkiller in the world.”

“No, the snake’s blood.”

“Hasn’t done so yet,” he assured us, thumping the chest of his safari vest.”

“Hope and Squalor in Chungking Mansion” was also anthologized in Best American Travel Writing. It has become de rigeur, particularly in mainstream magazine feature writing – The New Yorker, Harper’s, GQ, Esquire, and the handful of other places whose writing is routinely anthologized – to conceal or burrow what could be seen as sentimental or heavy or emotional ideas beneath a very male and often very hipster (i.e., ironic, sardonic, above-it-all, postmodern) posturing.

Here’s Lawrence Osborne in “A Pilgrimage of Sin: Bombs, Booze and Hookers in Islamic Thailand”, published in Harper’s:

My new friends seemed to find the mixture of religious kitcsch and merry whoredom as irresistibly seductive as it was incongruous. In the suffocating cocktail lounge, we compared our phallus-shaped plastic room keys decorated with the words HOT PINK, and I was taught a few useful words of Malay: “Cock” is burung.

Osborne gets at his discussion of terrorism and prostitution in Thailand via this veneer of manly, detached derision.

Yet manwriting doesn’t always have to come with snark. Often it can come across as that one-sided conversation you have at a party with a guy who cuts off your sentences to clarify your point for you, and leaves a pause between conclusions just long enough for you to meekly agree before he’s telling you how it is again.

Paul Theroux, Riding The Iron Rooster:

“I’ve seen you on television, the woman said. “Haven’t I?”

“Probably,” I said, and told her my name.

“Amazing,” she said. “My sister won’t believe this – she’s read all your books.”

Her name was Rachel Tickler, and I found it a relief to tell her I was on my way to Mongolia and then China – yes, to do some writing – and that I had just come from London. What was that about the States? Oh, yes, I did spend part of the year on the Cape – yes, it’s a wonderful place.

…I told her everything, I bought her some tea and we sat up so late that I could be confessional…it did me a lot of good to tell her these things, because I had been so secretive on the tour it was like being invisible…

…In one sense we were like an adulterous couple – or more accurately it was like a one-night stand. It was tender and I was eager to be candid, and she was a good listener.

The puffed male ego is a particularly insidious and central feature of Theroux’s writing, but also indicative of a wider category of travel manwriting in which all other characters orbit around the man and his virility, his ego, the fascinating aura he exudes. Travel writers in general have a tendency to focus on the wonder and awe they invoke the world over, but manwriting – particularly Theroux’s stimulated one-sided conversation above, in which the woman’s voice is excluded and we hear only Theroux’s indulgent responses – takes it to a new level. Observe below how Edward Abbey quickly becomes the center of attention in a scruffy Western bar, setting himself apart as the wise other, the “superior” WASP observer, quickly becoming the focus of attention and the center of both fraternal male envy and female desire.

“You like my girl?” the large fellow said. He was a Mexican, a Chicano, with round, brown, solemn face, dark eyes, the shoulders of a fullback. A Mexican but a big Mexican.

“Now, primo…” the woman began.

“You like her, eh?” The dark eyes were aimed at me – not at the wall, not at the mirror, not at the other guy.

I knew he probably carried a knife, a switchblade. All cholos carry switchblades, everybody knows that. The trouble was he was so big, and ugly, and mean, he wouldn’t need a knife. My sole weapon was my superior WASP intelligence. Which only functions, however, in retrospection.

“I’m never getting out of here alive, I said, to myself but aloud. Primo laughed, gripped my shoulder in his enormous paw, and said, “You’re right, man. You’re not. Better buy us a drink.”

Under the volcano. I was glad to buy time by buying Primo and his Blondie each a drink. Bar buddies. He called me Grizzly Adams; I called him Pachuco.

This category of manwriting, while still central to the travel writing paradigm, has been somewhat overshadowed by the sly and neurotic machismo of gonzo journalism. Instead of emphasizing a barrel-chested ladies man, the latter manwriting takes on the guise of the pseudo self-deprecating Thompson-esque bender: the sinewy journalist recounting his or her feral adventures buying AK-47’s in Kurdistan or running with bounty hunters in Hong Kong, man it was totally f*ed up and I spent forty-eight hours vomiting and then hopped into a handhewn canoe to go down the river with a pig and six crazy barenaked tribesman rocking some badass bows and arrows….We’re meant to think not of smooth Abbey or strutting Theroux but of a wiry VICE photographer or wannabe Kerouac scribbling his red-blooded adventures offhand amidst rebels and prostitutes.

Thus the posture has perhaps shifted from the distinctly macho – one of the best Theroux man-lines is his description of Indians in Uganda “airing their women and letting their children run” – to the squirrely, gonzo macho, but manwriting follows the same patterns, tending towards the detached and the all-knowing: all the other poor dopes in the story are taking things seriously, and the manwriters alone can see, with a prim or poignant or disaffected and derisive but unfailingly erudite distance, the truth of the matter. Keruouc perfected this:

“Marylou was a pretty blonde with immense ringlets of hair like a sea of golden tresses; she sat there on the edge of the couch with her hands hanging in her lap and her smoky blue country eyes fixed in a wide stare because she was in an evil gray New York pad that she’d heard about back West, and waiting like a longbodied emaciated Modigliani surrealist woman in a serious room. But outside of being a sweet little girl, she was awfully dumb and capable of doing horrible things.”

Manwriting’s descriptions are constantly, slyly and definitively placing the writer a cut above the described, which seems like a disingenuous thing to say because most nonfiction writers’ descriptions inherently place them a cut above their subjects (writing is an aggressive act, according to Joan Didion, who is incidentally the first writer brought up whenever one mentions the predominance of manwriting in the MFA classroom: “But what about Joan Didion?”), but in the case of manwriting there is a particular, cool, smirking superior male edge. Marylou is a “sweet little girl” and her “smoky blue country eyes” are “fixed in a wide stare.”

It is as if, described in manwriting, characters are simmered down in a reduction of the writer’s own coolness. This is nowhere more obvious than in Colson Whitehead’s “The Republic of Anhedonia,” written for Grantland:

There was one woman at the table, a quiet 60-something lady with bright red hair, the follicles of which it was perhaps possible to count. Five percent of commercially available hair dyes actually match a color that occurs in nature. Hers was not one of them. I liked her.

If Methy Mike had been hitched, the lady had packed her bags long ago, and if they had spawned, their parenting goals probably ended with making sure their kid did not get a tattoo on her face, and they did not always succeed.

For three years I was cursed with sitting down in the exact wrong seat at group dinners. Wholly and inescapably hexed. Adjacent to a blowhard lush, between two narcissistic twerps, face to face with the mime. You look at what you’ve been dealt and think, This will end badly, and check out of the convo and endure until next time.

In Whitehead this reduction of characters to stereotypes is supposed to be sardonic, tongue-in-cheek, and we’re meant to understand that Whitehead is aware of this reductionism as he’s writing, but ultimately his and our meta awareness of the tactic being employed doesn’t make it any less macho or cloyingly self-infatuated. Ultimately, the effect is one of placing the hip male writer at the center of a universe of one-dimensional stereotypical characters who serve as sounding boards for the writer’s all-knowing intelligence, for the writer’s ego and quest. They are not so much people as they are opportunities for the writer to play around, to make a wry point. They’re bemusing, they’re sweet, they’re ridiculous, they’re bumpkins, but they’re never really foils for the male narrator, never up to his level.

This reductionism can also come via silence. John D’Agata is the master of this technique, the lyric use of extremely sparse and staccato language to convey a concept, and to reduce characters almost to symbols. D’Agata admits he uses composite characters, and while this generally doesn’t violate my personal nonfiction ethics in his case I think it is indicative of a larger tendency to treat characters as mere representations of an idea, or as amusing anecdotes. In About a Mountain he writes:

As we drove toward the mountain in the white Jeep that day, two black jets in the distance sped by. They swept low against the desert. Then each dropped a bomb.

“Fuck yeah,” said a guard as we paralleled the explosions.

“Fuckin’ A,” said the other.

A fascination with how the world will end is not particularly new.

It is almost bullying in its composition of the facts, in its descriptions and juxtapositions. It is curt, cutting and precise, not giving a single character more than an incisive line that definitively sums him up. D’Agata uses characters the same way he uses facts: as things to play around with to get at an idea he’s developing. His writing is all the more imposing for the faux diffidence of its understatement and its silences.

Finally, there’s the straight-up manly strut, about which there’s not much more to say than, Hey, there’s a man in this prose!

Whitehead:

I realized I hadn’t told anyone where I was going, some real hobo shit.

“How many chips do you have?” I started hearing that a lot more, this locker room check: Who has the bigger dick?”

And of course, Mailer:

Definition of a lady
She grasps
the root
While kissing
The bud

Definition of a hero
He
Thrives
In
Dikes

People always ask, when the subject of manwriting comes up – as it has quite often recently in the preparation of this article – “What about women writing?” and they give examples of cuddly afternoons of gingerbread cookies and sisterly bonding, of relationship triumphs and grumpy dads weeping at graduation ceremonies and my response is, “Yeah, but that stuff doesn’t end up in Harper’s. Or GQ, or The New Yorker, or the mainstream publications.”

But manwriting does. It’s not considered manwriting like a syrupy Ladies Home Journal article about redemption through gardening is considered women’s writing. It’s just the norm.

So if you’re a woman writer, or rather, a writer who happens to be a woman, wouldn’t it frustrate you that manwriting is simply equated with the normative standard of intelligence, of insight, of style; that “Who has the bigger dick?” isn’t a question reserved for some marginalized men’s mag (because let’s face it, men’s magazines – GQ, Esquire, Outside – are part of the literary mainstream while women’s mags are out there in fluffland) but rather a normal question at the center of the literary scene; wouldn’t it frustrate you that even though perhaps you’d like to be told how it is by a woman from time to time, only 21% of articles in Harper’s, only 16% of articles The New Republic, only 14% of articles in The New York Review of Books, only 35% of features in The Paris Review, only 26% of articles in The New Yorker, are written by women?

I’m not suggesting some sort of feminist attack here, a banning of phallic references or a cry for real heartfelt emotions from our nation’s male writers but rather, a touch of perspective – so often, what we take for granted as writing, as feature writing, as magazine writing, as the literary writing of our generation, is manwriting, and what does that mean?

Where does that leave us?

Caught with our dicks hanging out?

Or maybe, perhaps, we can think of a better metaphor.


Sarah Menkedick is a nonfiction MFA student at The University of Pittsburgh. Her writing has been published on Amazon’s Kindle Singles, World Hum, qarrtsiluni, Perceptive Travel, and a number of other online and print publications, and she is the founder of velamag.com, an online magazine of travel writing by women.


by Beth Steidle

Publishing Solo is a new monthly blog series focused on topics relating to self-publishing. Its purpose is to provide information and engage conversation amongst both up-and-coming and established writers as we search for new ways to get our work out of that sad desk drawer and into the changing literary world.


Unless you’re a toddler who has handled an e-reader since the age of 4 (ahem, my nephew) or the offspring of publishing trailblazers Richard Nash and Jason Epstein (show me that baby!), chances are good that you’re still clinging to traditional publishing methods. You may not want to. You may deny it. But somewhere, deep inside, most writers want The Traditional Route—from your hands to an agent to a publisher to the shelves. Follow it up with a book tour, maybe a prize, some acclaim, an interview on NPR’s Fresh Air, and massive sales (or, you know, a small but respected audience, if you’re into that sort of thing).

Beyond tradition, what is it that is so alluring about this model?  We live in an era where we embrace a constant stream of new media, a DIY culture of personal websites, YouTube videos, blogs, and social networking tools. We’ve become steeped in self-promotion. We’ve been presented with a bevy of self-publishing options, from total publishing packages, provided by such outfits as BookPros, to online print-on-demand platforms, such as Lulu, Amazon’s CreateSpace, and Xlibris. If you’re lucky, you may even find yourself in a retail store with an Espresso Book Machine, where you can literally watch your book being made in seven minutes. Yet we continue to pine for an outdated system.

I’ll admit it. I’m as guilty as the next person. And the things I want from traditional publishing are pretty much the same things most people want.

I want to be chosen. I want to rise above the slush pile, to be told my work is worth it, really worth it, by some discerning editorial eye. I don’t want my mother’s “it’s really lovely, honey” and I don’t want my workshop’s carefully neutralized critique, adhering to the prescribed ratio of “3 good things to 1 constructive comment.”  I want my work to be so good, damn it, that I am worth 55 lb. crème paper, a jacketed hard cover, and a paperback reprint. Perhaps this would quell, once and for all, that hideously stereotypical downward spiral of “my work sucks, I suck, everyone hates me.” Wail, wail.

I want someone to do the work for me. Let’s say I’ve written a book. I’ve nursed it, cursed at it, rewritten it, and repeated this cycle a few million times. For so many months or years, it’s been my baby. And now that it’s out of the cute phase, I want someone else to take care of it. I want a publisher who will connect me with an editor, develop a marketing plan, design a dashing cover, print a few thousand copies, and then sell them all.

I want to get paid. Self-publishing involves money upfront—not necessarily a lot, but you’ve got to pay something to have your book produced. In the traditional model, I don’t put money upfront. I am given money. That’s simplifying things, certainly, but you get the general idea. The publisher breaks down and tracks the financial details, determines the profit or loss margins, and alters all those adjacent elements—production, distribution, marketing—accordingly. While self-publishing often yields a higher percentage of profit per book, it also forces the writer to take charge of the financials. Personally, I happen to like a nicely formatted, auto-equating Excel spreadsheet. But this does not make me business savvy.

I want respect. If you have a book, people inevitably ask “what is it about?” But that isn’t what they really want to know—they want to know if it’s any good. If you have an agent, people want to know if they’re with a prestigious agency and what famous writers they’ve represented. And if you actually publish your book, people want to know who that publisher is. If it’s one of the Six Sisters—Random House, Penguin Putnam, HarperCollins, Time Warner, Simon & Schuster, Holtzbrinck Publishing Holdings (whose subsidiaries include Farrar, Straus and Giroux, St. Martin’s Press, and Macmillan, amongst others)—nearly anyone will be wide-eyed and congratulatory. If it’s one of the world’s 85,000-ish small presses, the response is a tad bit different. Certain small presses have achieved a particular renown—Graywolf, Fence Books, and Nightboat come to mind. In these instances, select people will be dutifully impressed. If it’s a press that isn’t immediately recognizable, you’ll get the smile and nod. Then you’ll begin the justifications—a litany of the press’ attributes, successes, blah blah blah.

I could go on, but these are the issues that repeatedly come to the forefront whenever I consider what I should do with that manuscript fermenting on my hard-drive.

One would imagine that I, of all people, would not be so stubbornly hung up on The Traditional Route. After all, I do work in the self-publishing industry. I have seen firsthand some of the extraordinary benefits of forgoing a standard publisher. The economy of production and costs can have enormous benefits to the writer, the person purchasing the book, and the environment. Self-publishing can also be a valuable stepping stone to dealing with a traditional publisher. Perhaps most importantly, I’ve seen manuscripts that would not have otherwise seen the light of day put into the hands of people who have truly enjoyed them.

Let’s face facts. If you’re hung up on snagging a deal with a major publisher and you’re not Snooki in the throes of her 15 minutes of hyper-fame, you’ve got a tempestuous road ahead of you. Because of declines in book sales, the turbulent economy, and rise of the digital, major publishers are placing their bets on celebrity works and established authors. At the DIY Authors Conference at BookExpo America this past year, many significant panelists pointed out that the number of debut novels picked up by conglomerate publishers has dwindled considerably in the last few decades. There is perhaps no better time to consider alternate publishing methods.

Keep in mind that at a time when statistics are stacked against you, self-publishing does not necessarily signify a lack of talent or ability. In a sense, it returns the focus to the most important aspect of publishing—making the work publicly available. It’s worthwhile to consider your stubborn reasons for sticking with the traditional publishing model. Doing so pinpoints what you want out of publication and provides focal points and goals for your first self-publishing endeavor.


Up next month: self-publishing success stories.


Beth Steidle is a recent graduate of the MFA program at the University of Pittsburgh. Her work has been published or is forthcoming in Drunken Boat, DIAGRAM, and numerous print anthologies. She is currently employed as the first Self-Publishing Coordinator at the University of Pittsburgh Book Center, where she operates an Espresso Book Machine. Mostly she loves this machine. Sometimes she feels like kicking it.


Write Me Something

by Emelyn Fuhrman

Anyone who shows any sense of what I’ll call “talent” when it comes to writing (but may in fact just be the ability to put words together on a page) has been plagued by this request since childhood: Write me something. It is usually followed by some modifier, “…about your Uncle Martin” or “…for Mr. Tomanio’s retirement dinner” and you’ll have a due date which will make you feel like some kind of magazine or newspaper reporter (but only for a second). Still, it will always be a vague instruction that you are meant to rise to or above and perform flawlessly. And you do it, time and time again, writing that poem inside someone’s birthday card or coming up with a touching memory of a person at the time of their passing, because you’re a writer, damn it, and that’s what writers are supposed to do. Emily Dickinson did it and so can you. So it was no surprise to me that with my grandparents’ memorial service looming next month my mother once again told me, “Write me something.”

Now the easiest way to deal with these requests and often my first line of defense is to find something I’ve already written and insert-person’s-name-here. It’s effective, most people don’t really notice (especially if the language is general enough – I mean how many things to say about “true love” don’t apply to anyone getting married?) and it’s fast. Done and done, copy, paste, send. Sadly, this doesn’t work every time. And for my grandparents I can’t use the love poem I’d written to some boy on the wrestling team in the ninth grade. Granddad did not “glisten in his singlet.”

The next step, then, is hunting. I’ve been writing things for a while now (when I was six my therapist said it was good to write things down) and thanks to an inherited sense of packrat-itus I still have most of it. I figure at some point I had to have written something about dear old Granddad and his gardening or Grandma and her politics. Maybe there’s a photo of the two of them shoved in a drawer or a birthday card they sent me when I was a kid with some witty one-liner or more than just the usual, “Love, Grandma and Granddad” at the bottom.

I rarely come up empty-handed on these hunts, though I often get sidetracked by some teen-angst filled poem (wow, I really hated that girl) or a journal full of ramblings about God (believe or don’t believe, that is the question). I make little piles 1) stuff I might be able to use, 2) stuff that is worth revisiting for other such writing assignments, 3) stuff that really shouldn’t be in the general search pile anymore as it has proved fruitless time and time again (my wrestling poem always ends up in this pile) and then inevitably combine them all into one again when I’m finished.

I find my first letter from Grandma when I went to college where she goes on and on about what it means to have a higher education, about how a classroom is a remarkable place, and about how wonderful and happy I’ll be to read “The Greats” and discuss feminism. She obviously never sat through chemistry, calculus, and physics in her first year. I took a freshman seminar on utopias and made a little check on my notebook every time my professor said the word “like” and wrote back to my grandmother in a cheerful tone about Brave New World, Erehwon, and Herland. I also find several photographs of my grandparents at my wedding, my granddad chatting away to everyone he can find and my grandma sitting diligently at her table waiting for someone to visit her rather than the other way around. And these equate to exactly nothing on the page.

My next step is to make lists, lists upon lists. Memory lists, fact lists (phone call to Mom to ask her if it was Italian dressing or Greek dressing that Grandma always used), descriptions of their homes, clothing, cars, lists of their activities, pastimes, favorite things, really anything that might prove useful, that might give me an inkling of their essence. I organize them by what feels important and then by what an audience might relate to most. Doesn’t everyone’s grandfather wear cardigans? Then I print them out and arrange them like a strutting peacock of information partially to inspire but mostly to intimidate.

And then it’s me and the page…

Page: Are you finally ready? You sure you brought enough stuff with you? I mean, we’re only going to be here for a few hundred words or so.

Me: “Grandma was…” Nope. Not ready.

As much as I’ve tried to fight it, as much as I’ve avoided it, this is when it gets ugly. When I’ll probably start crying and swearing and banging my head on the desk; when the delete button and I develop a very precarious relationship, and it downright sucks that I ever let anyone know I could write in the first place. What was I thinking? Minutes pass, days. I think about changing the water in my fish tank or scrubbing the bathtub. My mom asks how it’s going.

“Awesome,” I tell her. “I don’t feel like I knew them at all.”

Then they are in the room with me. Grandma is sitting across from me reading the newspaper and Granddad is sitting next to me cleaning his glasses. “Where are you in all this?” they ask. “You were there, too.”

And I am there, eight years old, sitting on a dock under a starless sky in Massachusetts, wearing white sweatpants and matching white sweatshirt, my grandmother in the dark water washing herself with a bar of soap. She asks me to hold up her towel as she gets out. She takes my hand as we walk back to the lake house so I don’t trip in the darkness. Granddad waves at us, sitting on the porch in a rocking chair waiting for his turn to bathe, hushing us because he’s sure he heard the croak of the bullfrog that stole his watch earlier that day. For the moment it’s just the three of us; Grandma leans toward me and whispers in my ear, “Now, write me something.”

Emelyn Fuhrman is a recent MFA graduate of the creative writing program at the University of Pittsburgh. Her work has recently appeared in Flywheel Magazine. In between teaching, reading, and writing, she attempts to raise a family. She maintains that her greatest achievement as a mother is that she has never made anything out of popsicle sticks.



by Katie Coyle

If I have learned one thing from the two-thirds of a graduate degree in fiction writing that I’ve completed so far, it’s that the odds are against my living the exact life I want to live, which is that of a wildly popular writer of short stories who resides in a castle and is served a steady stream of sandwiches by her solid gold robot butler while she lounges beside her champagne pool, arranging the money she’s made off of her theme park into neat stacks. I don’t know what to blame, exactly—one gets the sense that the amount of readers in the world is dwindling, due to reality television or Twitter or something, but at the same time, I can’t help noticing how many writers are out there. There are simply too many of us, and only so many castles.

So if I have learned two things from my fraction of a degree, the other is this: you have to be slightly divorced from reality to be a “successful” writer—success here being measured not in robot butlers, but in the amount of good writing you are capable of producing.

Specifically, you need to delude yourself into thinking that you are talented enough to not give up. This is really hard for most writers. I’ve spent a lot of time with them now, and most are prone to moaning. A typical conversation between two writers goes like this:

Writer 1: How’s your novel going?
Writer 2: TERRIBLY; I’M THE WORST. What are you working on lately?
Writer 1: CRAP.
Writers 1 & 2, in chorus: We have no professional skillllllllllllls!!!!!!

It’s easy to fall into this pattern of thinking (especially because most of us have no professional skills), but once you do, it gets harder and harder to write anything at all. Especially when you begin to realize just how many other people are out there, writing the same terrible crap you are, trying to reach the same audience of four or five readers.

This past February, I went to a panel on the supernatural in fiction at the AWP conference in Washington, D.C. Because my stories often feature cameos by mythological creatures, I had long ago convinced myself that I was unique, the kind of unique that parlays easily into theme park ownership. I don’t know what I was expecting, exactly—to be the only person in attendance? To stand up with the panel and toast our prospective fortunes? But this room was full of writers of all ages, sitting on chairs or blocking the fire exits by sprawling across the carpet, all scribbling in their Moleskines, all planning their next weird short story. In order to avoid running full-speed through a plate-glass window, I had to convince myself that there was a point to my having spent my whole life thus far writing, to my planning to continue. I had to tell myself that I was not the smallest fish in this most enormous, least lucrative pond. I had to trick myself, in other words, into believing that I am awesome, so I came up with these simple steps, which I believe any anxious writer can adopt for his or her own use:

1. Convince yourself that you are a better writer than 90% of all other writers: I nearly failed a statistics class in high school, so I can say with confidence that this figure is correct. Look, we have all read terrible writing at this point, from peers but also from people who clearly received book contracts through means of deceit and sorcery. The only thing keeping me from hiding under my bed every day wondering why I didn’t even consider majoring in computer science is the unfounded belief that these people must make up most of the writer population. Just assume that you are part of the 10%. Unless anyone has ever handed your work back to you and said, “Please never write again because you are awful at it,” this should be pretty easy.

2. Be the Black Swan: I saw the movie Black Swan shortly before going to AWP, and it really changed the way I think about myself and ballerinas. As I remember it (and keep in mind I watched most of it from behind my scarf because that movie is terrifying), Natalie Portman turns into a swan because she is obsessed with perfection and also the girl from That 70s Show, who is confident in her own talent and thus not a swan. You can take this advice to mean, “Do your best not to compare yourself to others,” or you can take it to mean, “Find a nemesis and become the target of their paranoid obsession.” I think the latter is more effective. For example, my White Swan is Jonathan Franzen. We’ve never met, but nothing gets me more fired up to sit down and write than imagining Jonathan Franzen shaking his fist to the sky, shouting, “Coyle!” Or Jonathan Franzen, adjusting his rearview mirror and seeing my face in it, over the words “Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear.” This soothes me. This gives me something for which to strive.

3. Be your own favorite writer: At her blog, Cathy Day shares the course description for her novel-writing class, in which she exhorts her students to “start writing the book [they] want to read,” not the book they think anyone else does. I think Cathy’s intentions are to help students find their own particular voice, to allow them to be as passionate as possible about the act of writing, etc. But for me this is just another step in convincing yourself that you are the greatest. Of course you are going to love a writer whose work is tailor-made to your interests—and how exciting for you if that writer should turn out to be yourself! Before you edit any of your own work, take a moment to just enjoy it—nod appreciatively at your sentences; sigh wistfully at your insights; laugh merrily at your jokes. Then shout out loud to nobody, “Watch your back, Franzen!”

Careful adherence to these steps will lead successfully to your desired end result: you will become an uninhibited, unafraid, many-pages-a-day-writing jerk. If, for some reason, this bothers you—if, for instance, you value your writing community, the support and feedback you receive from its members (and maybe even the members themselves), and you fear that you will alienate them with your constant sneering and uncomfortable reenactments of key scenes from Black Swan—it is important that you remember while in the company of others that this is an elaborately constructed delusion. You are not the greatest writer of all time. You are simply someone who loves to write and is good enough at it to keep going. And when you are alone, sitting at a keyboard, producing page after page of the purest quality fiction, you are the person Jonathan Franzen fears above all others.


Katie Coyle is a 3rd year MFA student at the University of Pittsburgh. Her work has been featured at The Fiction Circus and in the upcoming anthology Women Writing the Weird.


by Amanda Giracca

I’ve had my doubts about academia for a long time. That is, I’ve had my doubts about academia as a writer, what it would do to my writing, or worse, what it wouldn’t do. I came to a writing program last year for all the reasons they tell you never to put in your statement of purpose—I loved writing. I wanted to be around other people who love to write. But mostly, I just wanted the time to write.

Perhaps this is a little too saccharine for you, but I’m a sucker for Teddy Roosevelt’s feel-good motto: “Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.” I wanted that chance. I have always worked hard, but I haven’t always felt my work was worth doing. Yet I came to grad school with a chip on my shoulder. I would be in academia for a little while, and then I’d go back out into the world where I’d be a real writer.

Perhaps I had read too many critiques of MFA programs and allowed myself to be cowed by the criticism: that they produce cookie-cutter writing, that although many of the students were intelligent or showed literary promise, “the program” was perpetuating formulaic drivel that couldn’t rise beyond its own low standards of greatness, that MFA students were under-read with a bloated sense of self-worth. Or, I feared I was exactly the sort of “programme” student Elif Batuman detested in last year’s review of Mark McGurl’s The Programme Era: Postwar Fiction and the Rise of Creative Writing, printed in London Review of Books:

Traces of the quality I find most exasperating about programme writing itself: oversophistication combined with an air of autodidacticism, creating the impression of some hyperliterate author who has been tragically and systematically deprived of access to the masterpieces of Western literature, or any other sustained literary tradition.

Her hyperbole’s offensive if I take this personally, but she’s right. I did want to appear to others in the university that I was well read and capable of adding my voice to existing literature. It’s hard to feel worthy. Yet there was that pull away—the “autodidacticism,” I suppose—to live solely within the realm of the university felt unhealthy as a writer. The university seemed a bubble where academics conversed and carried out their business, but outside the bubble life went on for everybody else.

Around Super Bowl time this year, as I headed towards the university on the bus, an older man decked out in Steelers garb got on. He kept putting his head down between his knees, practically inside the shopping bag he held there. Eventually I caught a glimpse of the cheap vodka bottle he was swigging from. I was on my way to teach. It was ten-thirty in the morning.

He’d swig, wipe his mouth on the sleeve of his black and gold jacket and yell:
“It’s playoff eve!” He sat next to a dour-looking man decked out in gold sweatpants, black sweatshirt. They talked loudly about bus cuts, the influx of college students changing the economy, the Steelers. Aside from the cheap vodka and the football, I felt a pull towards these guys. They were like the locals my dad would stop and jaw with for hours on end in my rural New England when I was a kid. Each guy would lean out of the window of his pickup or his battered old van, complaining about taxes or selectmen, always with a vague mistrust of outsiders.

The man turned and surveyed the line of young adults standing to the back, smooshed hip to hip in their skinny jeans, leaving greasy finger swipes across the surfaces of their iPhones.

“Where’s your black and gold?” the vodka man shouted to no one in particular. “It’s playoff eve, for chrissakes!”

Once in Oakland, those of us who’d dutifully ignored the vodka drinker save maybe a smirk across the aisle, streamed off the bus.

“Jerkoffs,” the man muttered. “Where’s your black and gold, jerkoffs?”

I stepped off with the last of the jerkoffs and headed to the gleaming Cathedral of Learning, tall and stately, just a few shades shy of ivory.

He wasn’t by any means the only morning drunk I’d witnessed that day. It was, after all, playoff eve; probably half of Pittsburgh was drunk at ten-thirty in the morning, including some of my students. Nor was it the first time I’d witnessed blue-collar angst against academia, or questioned it myself, or simply happened to cross the path of one man’s unique way of sharing his Steelers craze. But as I made my way up the steps and into my classroom, I couldn’t help wondering: Was I a jerkoff?

Perhaps some readers will recall last year’s n+1 article, “MFA vs. NYC” by Chad Harbach. This came out a month after Batuman’s review and was in response to the same book by McGurl. Harbach presents us with two spheres of the literary economic life and argues that perhaps NYC literary culture is becoming obsolete and will soon be replaced with the university-produced professor who has never lived her life outside of academia. These, he seemed to say, were the two options for a writer, one bubble or another.

I think I had fancied myself one of those “outsiders” of academia that Harbach opens with:

But (to borrow one of McGurl’s many ideas) the program writer, even if he’s been both student and professor, always wants to assume, and is to some extent granted, outsider status by the university; he’s always lobbing his flaming bags of prose over the ivied gate late at night. Then in the morning he puts on a tie and walks through the gate and goes to his office. In the university, the fiction writer nevertheless managed not to think of himself as of the university.

Harbach had me pinned. I wanted in, but I didn’t want completely in, and it seemed as though I should just choose one or the other and get over it.

But, yet, here I was.

This summer I returned to rural New England. I return each summer and slip into my old blue-collar service job of landscape gardening. It’s a place of artists and hippies. It’s an area that’s often been called its own bubble. “We’re different here,” people love to say. In some ways that’s true, but in most ways, it’s not. There’s a sense of self-importance, that the people there are more creative, healthier, more cosmically aware, just plain better. And then there are the people who’ve always been here, the locals with their pick-ups, meatloaf, and Sunday church. The locals who might think that I think I’m too good because I go to graduate school; conversely, the hippies who might judge me as selling out to the system.

The gardening pays great. If I stuck with it I might make more than I might in the university, definitely more than a freelance writing career, which I’ve been slowly attaining experience in. But that brings me back to Teddy’s meaningful work thing—I just don’t draw satisfaction from pulling out all the pink phlox and replacing it with a slightly deeper shade of dusty rose.

However, nobody here ever asks about the particulars of graduate school. They ask, “So how’s graduate school?” and I say, “It’s alright,” and they say, “Great. Did you see the traffic in town on Friday afternoon?” or “Heady and Kleinwald are at it again about the fence along the boundary line,” or “Can you please go deadhead all the variegated hosta?” And you know what? I kind of like it that way. It’s nice not to have to get into it. It’s nice that nobody really asks, “So, what are you working on?” and I have to explain that I’m writing a lyric essay about caged parrots, a church in Ecuador, and an ex-boyfriend who at age twenty considered circumcising himself. Nobody cares too much and that’s fine; I’d rather they didn’t ask than pretend to be interested. It gives me the space to experiment with my writing without having to devise a constant narrative explaining what I’m working on and how it’s related to the overall picture of my writing and my eventual thesis manuscript. I can indulge in descriptive nature writing without being paranoid about the people in workshop who have all made it clear that they hate nature writing.

But by August I’ve deadheaded enough hostas to build a house from the dried stalks. My back aches and I become bitter that I’m not using my brain. It doesn’t feel like work worth doing.

Eventually one of those cool mornings comes when the mist settles between my house and the falling-down barn in the backyard and I think, “This smells just like the first day of school.” It’s a smell that’s given me the heebie-jeebies before, reminding me of high school when I had to leave the good-smelling morning for the not-so-good-smelling school bus, where I always seemed to be seated somewhere between the driver and the punk in the back throwing the tuna fish at the driver. Those guys were the jerkoffs, not me. But now, the cold morning is a smell I associate with being done with my outside work. It’s time to go inside and turn intellectual again. I start to crave the university; maybe I could let my prose smolder slowly inside the ivied gates. Maybe I could just accept the fact that I’m part of it, and that’s a good thing. A really good thing. And if it’s a bubble, well, what’s not? Any place you go there will be two sorts of people—those who have always been there and those who haven’t.

Upon re-reading Batuman’s article, a part stuck out to me that I had forgotten from the first time I read it: “As long as it views writing as shameful, the programme will not generate good books, except by accident. Pretending that literary production is a non-elite activity is both pointless and disingenuous.”

I think I’d been guilty of exactly that: I was ashamed that writing seemed too self-involved, and concerned that my writing needed to go beyond the academic setting; hence I needed to exist in the “real” world outside the ivied gates. I was also afraid that the university equaled pretension. I was simultaneously afraid of not being good enough and being too good.

The most helpful tidbit of advice I received was during a workshop in my first semester: “You can listen to everybody’s suggestions, the critiques, the propositions, the ideas, but after a while you just have to turn off the noise. You take in some of it, then you go back to the little voice inside and recalibrate.” Perhaps there is a new slew of articles like Batuman’s and Harbach’s that could get me worked up all over again, but I try not to pay much attention to them now. Instead, I just try to pay attention to where I am.


Amanda Giracca splits her time between western Massachusetts and Pittsburgh, where she’s a nonfiction candidate in the MFA program at Pitt. She’s only thrown tuna fish at a person once.


We want to see your very best poetry and stories! Submit by November 1st.

HMB is on Facebook

Have you liked us on Facebook yet? Or found us on Twitter @HMBMag? Please do!

by Rachel Mangini

Without going into all the gory details, let me tell you, my life as of late has been a complete mess, a hot mess, to use the popular adjective. And while I’m sure in a few years I’ll look back on this and find some useful material, right now, while I’m living through it, it is sapping my time, energy, and brain power for writing anything other than melodramatic drivel masquerading as bad poetry.

Upon learning of the mess that is my life, my fiction co-editor, Jen, said she hoped I could at least take refuge in my writing. I didn’t respond to her email (sorry Jen), because I didn’t know what to say other than: Huh?

Writing as refuge. Hm. For me, it usually feels that I need to seek refuge in order to write. I need a quiet room, good music, and several uninterrupted hours. Perhaps that is an incredibly bourgeois way of looking at it. I mean, there have been many great writers who wrote in much more serious and life-threatening situations than my mini personal crisis. Take for example, Irene Nemirovsky, who apparently composed Suite Francaise during and very shortly after fleeing Paris as the Germans invaded.

If you clicked over to that link from the Times you’ll have already read this quote from cultural and literary historian Paul Fussell:

The significances belonging to fiction are attainable only as ‘diary’ or annals move toward the mode of memoir, for it is only the ex post facto view of an action that generates coherence or makes irony possible.

Right? Exactly. Ex post facto. I’ve got to memorize that, because that is my excuse for not having gotten any useful writing out of this period of hot mess.

Oh, who am I kidding? If Irene could write a masterpiece in teeny tiny script on her limited supply of paper in the midst of religious persecution, can’t I open up my MacBook and get busy? Is the difference here that I want to avoid writing anything resembling memoir? Maybe stress kills creativity for some but heightens it for others. Or maybe when your situation is as dire as hers was, it sort of forces you to need to create in order to leave something behind.

Have you all got any answers? Is writing your refuge? Does the writing you do during times of hot mess add up to anything? Or is it simply the exercise of writing that is the refuge? And, finally, got any tips on getting motivated? Because I can’t seem to take refuge in anything other than episode after episode of Kourtney and Khloe Take Miami.

Rachel Mangini is a Fiction Editor at Hot Metal Bridge. She lives in Pittsburgh with her dog. If she were a Kardashian, she would be Kourtney.


by J.A. Howard

Last year I finished my first novel. I do not usually write historical fiction, but the muse had seen fit early on to give me a narrative in which part of the action takes place in the late 1970s in Eastern Europe. My characters are engaged in clandestine and revolutionary acts of writing and publishing and secretly thumbing their noses at the communist bureaucracy. Pushing aside the ghosts of professors past hissing to “Write what I know,” I went with it. I wrote and when I got to places where my knowledge of the history was iffy, I did online research, and it worked, fitting well into the rest of my narrative.

After many drafts where I mercilessly held the knife called cohesion to the throats of all my darlings—the beautiful prose that just didn’t work—I finally had something worthy. I took a break. Wrote some stories. Drafted some query letters. And then I decided to reread that final draft. And found that what I thought was seamless was in actuality fuzzy and incomplete. It wasn’t good enough.

Impersonal historical research may be just the ticket for the essayist or for the theorist hoping to compare censorship under various dictatorships, but for the writer of literary fiction it is a structure lacking substance. Even the most factually accurate plot is worthless without the soul of details and character. And so I got back on the internet and found archival libraries with all the materials I described so sparingly in my manuscript and contacted European professors who had been part of the underground movement I had written about and set up interviews and I felt so proud of myself because this research was going to be just what my novel needed, the graceful sheen of realism.

And so I went to Eastern Europe. First to Prague, where I discovered that the archival library that was to be the epicenter of my research was inexplicably closed—no matter how much I haunted its front stoop and despite my detailed correspondence and scheduled appointments. And the man who ran it wasn’t returning my calls.

So I spent my days wandering aimlessly through the city, cursing my bad luck. I discovered snaking cobblestone streets, stumbled across leprous statues whose faces had long been eaten away by time and neglect, and had the time to visit small parks and churches that had been the sight of small acts of rebellion and protest against the Nazis and later against the occupying Warsaw Pact armies of the communist Eastern Bloc. I scribbled down names of streets and descriptions of food and the way the storms came in late in the afternoons, pushing their towering clouds across the great European plain before breaking and washing clean, for only a moment, those sooty wedding cakes of buildings. Still optimistic about my interviews with professors, I left Prague for the university town of Brno.

But the interviews didn’t go as planned either. I arrived, I realized, during final exams at the end of the semester. The two professors I met with were exhausted and harried and though polite, could only offer the same understanding of the time period that I had gathered from books and articles. They weren’t particularly willing to share any emotional memories with a random writer from the U.S. Part of the problem, I realized, was that having lived through it, they didn’t really want to reexamine, detail by detail, a time period they would rather forget. There I was asking them to tell me about the years where they couldn’t publish their writings, where even buying paper in large amounts was illegal, and all they wanted to do was discuss the great projects writers were producing under democracy now. By now, I was getting used to disappointment and I wandered Brno the way I had wandered Prague.

The next two weeks were supposed to be about synthesizing, taking all the notes and pictures I had gathered and writing them up, comparing them to what I had already written to see what was true and what was false. For this downtime I went to the countryside, first to a small town to stay with some Czech friends I had made in Pittsburgh and then to an even smaller village where my best friend’s cousin lived with his wife and small son.

There wasn’t much to synthesize. My forays into research had only turned up the same information I had learned through all those months of internet searching. Plus my imagination had been sort of deadened by the reality the professors had presented. It was as if, confronted with the true history of their experiences, there was no room for my imaginary one. Did I even have the right to write about this, I wondered. Probably not, I concluded. Real facts trump imaginary ones.

So instead of writing and comparing, I spent my time taking long walks with my hosts through forests, mushroom hunting, learning how to stuff sausages and make chicken paprika, teaching my friend’s grandmother a few English phrases and hearing a translated history of the house in which she had lived since she was a child, visiting falling down castles, making cherry jam, going to Kindergarten graduation in the small village, and drinking many, many shots of homemade pear brandy.

I found myself on a mountain in southern Bohemia in the pouring rain, watching a man I barely knew try to bushwhack his bicycle (four year old son attached to the back) through dense patches of stinging nettles and across a quickly eroding hillside.

And somewhere along the way, probably between learning classic Czech pick-up phrases such as “Do you want to come home with me and see my butterfly collection?” and the aforementioned mountain bike trip, I realized that though the details of my experiences were different from anything I had ever done, the experiences themselves were familiar. People are, I realized (as I have periodically throughout my life) pretty much the same. And our stories are the same, or at least the blueprints for them are. It’s the details that make them unique.

When I understood this, I rediscovered my story and the reason why I had written about it in the first place: the urge to connect the past with the present, to connect myself with others, to connect stories. “Write what you know,” I realized, was not just about writing what had happened to me personally, but about getting out and experiencing the world, plunging into the lives and experiences of others until I felt like I knew them as well as I knew my own.

But there was still one last place to visit. In Budapest I hit the jackpot. The Central European University’s Open Society Archives had more primary resources than I could read in a lifetime. Boxes of homemade ‘zines from the early 80s, hand-copied poetry from the 60s with grocery lists scrawled across the back, all of Free Radio Europe’s collections, transcripts of defector testimonies and spy trials, and even discolored and rain warped posters for demonstrations and notes from illegal meetings of underground authors.

I sifted through as much as I could, taking pictures and making translations, but honestly my heart was no longer in it. All I wanted was to be outside, wandering through Budapest, looking for buildings whose ornate but crumbling facades I could describe or streets that would unveil to me, as if I had suddenly grown psychic antennae, a certain temperament that the city and her citizens possessed. It was these ineffable details, so random and particular, that I could find nowhere else. It was these details, so outside of my control, that had any hope of giving my writing the soul it so desperately needed.

J.A. Howard is an MFA student at the University of Pittsburgh and a book reviewer for The Bloomsbury Review. You can read more at www.jahoward.com.


Poetry: “In the Even More Terrible Blindness Called Light” by Jessica McGuinness

Nonfiction: “Do as I Do” by Cate Hogan and “The Deep End” by Joe Janca

Fiction: “Okamase” by Daniel Browne

Thanks to all who submitted their work!


Here’s what judge Allison Amend had to say about Bill Taft’s “The Special Artist”:

“The Special Artist” is the rare story that takes its inspiration from an historical figure—Winslow Homer, sketching the Civil War—to create a very contemporary portrait of longing, depression, and identity. The prose paints portraits as convincingly detailed as the protagonist’s drawings; it’s hauntingly convincing and beautifully resonant.


The Special Artist
by Bill Taft

On the good days, Winslow’s eyes were full of a power that rivaled the sun’s. But on the bad days, the eyes were no more radiant than a lamp just run out of oil—dim, the wick burning itself to nothing, a dull ember. On the good days, Winslow did not comb his grey, curly hair. He left it tangled like a crown of brambles in which he could stash a pencil. The bushy whiskers of his mustache stuck out like the bristles of a broom. On the bad days, he would wet the hair down, comb it into submission and secure it in place with an expensive pomade. He had seen undertakers give such attention to corpses, rendering them exquisite before their final farewell. The lemon smell of the pomade tormented Winslow, made him think of sailors with their stories of the Florida Keys. Despite what others said and thought, Winslow didn’t like sailors, or Florida. Oh, the people thought they knew him. They were wrong. On the bad days, he would threaten his mustache with shaving. There was one constant: on both good and bad days, Winslow dreamed of finding a way to rid the grey from his hair. He was only twenty-three, too young to look like his father.
Army of the Potomac

In July of 1861, the Union troops milled about Alexandria, Virginia preparing for the orders to move further south. Observing, watching, studying the men, stood Winslow Homer. A month before he had been given the title “Special Artist” by Hiram Harper, the editor of Harper’s Weekly, one of the nation’s struggling new illustrated newspapers. As a Special Artist, it was Winslow’s duty to move about the front lines of battle, sketching and drawing images of the war which Harper’s could then publish. And so Winslow moved, with steady and deliberate cunning through the streets of Alexandria, into the saloon of the Gersham Hotel.

Winslow stood at the bar, charcoal stick in hand, scratching away at a piece of paper until the likeness of Lieutenant Francis Channing Barlow of the 61st New York Infantry began to appear. His subject ignored him, choosing instead to focus his attention on the tumbler of Dutch gin in his hand. Barlow was clean-shaven, perhaps obsessively and vainly so, his way of saying he had so much hair on the top of his head, so much thick and lustrous jet-black hair that there was nary a follicle left with which to grow a beard. This was at least, Winslow’s assessment, for the job of the artist is to divine the character of each and every subject at hand. Winslow judged Barlow’s expression to be one of anger—clenched jaw, crooked lips. Not sellable. For every image Harper’s ran, Winslow received the payment of a twenty-dollar gold piece, true wealth. Other illustrated papers, Ballou’s or Appleton’s paid more, twenty-five or thirty dollars, but they paid in paper money, printed scrip of small worth held.

The lieutenant leaned back and raised his drink upwards, making a great show of the gesture, as if it were the last Dutch gin he’d ever know and that once he’d drained it, he would march out into the street and happily sacrifice himself in battle against a legion of lost pirates, or a hoard of wild cannibals, or an ancient tribe of pike-wielding Celts come to ravish the women of America. Much better. Winslow scratched away at the paper. The soft gaslight of the Gersham Hotel Saloon offered Winslow much in the way of shadow. The occasional sound of carriage wheels on cobblestones could be heard from the outside. The clatter of hooves grew louder, peaked, then fell away into the night. Sound should be in drawings. One day he’d make it so.

Barlow turned towards Winslow. “What are you drinking?”

“St. Charles Punch.” Winslow spoke while continuing to draw.

“A lady’s drink?”

“Just because a drink has ice in it doesn’t mean its not a man’s drink.” The lines in the image of Barlow became deeper, darker.

Barlow raised a hand to catch the barkeep’s attention.

“McClellan is partial to lady’s drinks as well. His caution is that of lady’s. His lack of imagination is that of a lady’s.” Barlow spoke with increasing volume. “Tomorrow, we board ships. Mrs. McClellan is planning her summer offensive and the pleasure of our company has been requested.” The barkeep set another Dutch gin before Barlow. Eyes focused on Winslow, Barlow reached for his drink and continued, “You should join us. It’s sure to be a grand affair. The Army of the Potomac…” He turned towards the barkeep. “And you, sir, should come along as well. Bring your store of ice, and make a St. Charles Punch for Mrs. McClellan.”

The next day was a bad day. A hung over Winslow sat on the grassy bank of the Potomac. A steam whistle from one of the riverboats, docked on the opposite side, blew out low and long, its rumble forcing a flock of crows from the willow trees. Beyond the trees, troops advanced on horseback, towards the dock, each horseman carrying a long stick. Winslow reached for his spyglass then aimed it at the approaching column. They were carrying lances, long shafts of timber with steel points at the ends. Squadron colors, red and gold, tied around the head of each lance, billowed out in the breeze. Winslow set down his spy glass, pecked at his sketch pad and then gave up. The black stuff was on him. He had always been prone to bouts of melancholy, days spent a prisoner weighed down by dirty sheets. The usual cures offered no relief: extracts from henbane caused headaches, thorn apple and St. John’s Wort led to the runs. The Sumerians had praised the benefits of the opium poppy in the 3rd millennium, but Winslow could not agree with their verdict. The drug kept his face from moving. Death would solve the problem. But suicide was a sin, a vexing complication to the plot. Winslow packed his gear, set out to meet Barlow and claim a berth upon the ship. As he walked along the bank, he swore at his mustache, periodically stopping to pull out a mirror and comb his hair. The slick pomade stank like a rotten orange, and made his hair look wet, like the fur of a seal just risen from the sea to rest on a rock in the sunshine, or the hair of a drowned boy just dragged from the river. Of the two images, Winslow discarded the former and fixated on the latter.

The Vanquished Rest In Peace

Barlow’s men, Winslow among them, headed south upon the river toward fortress Monroe where they disembarked two days later and marched into battle against rebel forces, a fight full of musket and cannon fire, gut-shot men, and bloody horses impaled on the spokes of shattered wagon wheels, hooves moving as if clip clopping in the air. Winslow found himself to be elated by the conflict all around him. He went out seeking an image.

The rebel soldier lay sprawled out on the rocky high ground above the valley. A line of ants marched in and out of his ear, and in the stillness Winslow could hear the flies buzzing about the corpse, their wings beating furiously in the heat of the noonday sun. It was a good day. Winslow sat down on an overturned barrel and began to sketch the outlines of the body, the way the arm angled up, parallel to the rifle at his side. Winslow’s editor at Harper’s Weekly had demanded he give them something that would compare to the photographs of Matthew Brady. Now, Winslow regretted kowtowing to the aesthetic demands of Hiram Harper. The afternoon they’d met, Hiram had been sitting in his wheel chair on the seventh floor of the New York office, berating his amanuensis with demands to increase circulation and raise subscriptions, as if a mere amanuensis could achieve such a goal. Winslow had sat by the desk, staring at the elephant tusk upon it, thinking the assignment would be a blessing, a way to do great things, unlike his father who had done nothing.

Winslow tried emphasizing the dead soldier’s hand, but the image was too real. There was no music in it. A crow landed on the corpse and began to pick at a strand of grey fiber hanging loose from his jacket. Go ahead, build your nest, thought Winslow. I’ve no use for him. Winslow set his sketch pad down on his knee, flipped the paper back to a new sheet, then drew the face of Brady, fatter, the eyes rendered useless, blind, by the folds of flesh around them, and then, feasting upon it, a crow. The crows could have Brady, and his plates of glass, and tripods and cameras. That’s what those cameras were, birdhouses.

“Mr. Homer, sir, Lieutenant Barlow has sent me to inform you that we will soon be moving on and if you desire our protection you must leave with us.”

Winslow looked at the young solider, the coat too big, the pants too tight, the musket with a cracked shoulder stock.

“Do you think I’m an old man crippled by gout, waiting to tell my grandchildren about the battle of Buena Vista and the senoritas of Monterey? Don’t let my grey hair fool you. I am a Special Artist. I need no protection,” said Winslow.

The boy solider blinked, coughed, nodded, blinked again. “The lieutenant has received orders to march on towards Mooresville.” The boy turned around and left.

Winslow sought a new sheet of paper, sketched the boy’s face, close up, the hint of a mustache, the cheeks a mother would never kiss again. The slain boy-soldier. A sacrifice. Must put the weeping mother in the frame somehow. Montage? Very sellable. I am the hack. I am the hack. Must hack off, I.

In the distance, the dull thuds of mortar fire echoed across the river valley. Winslow walked over to the dead rebel, felt around in his pockets for any money, tobacco, a clue of some kind to his personality, and found nothing. Still, a good day all around.

A Night Reconnaissance

A month and a half before, as Winslow had received his letter of Special Artist status,
Hiram Harper had been specific in his opinions about his countrymen, his readers.

“The people are corrupt. They are vile and cannot be trusted with power. They are lost, confused sheep milling about the railroad tracks, blind to the locomotives vomiting smoke, bearing down upon them. You will not find me on the wrong side of the locomotive.” Hiram paused. “Which side will you be on?”

Before Winslow could answer, Hiram gave him precise instructions: “You will illustrate the story I want to tell the people.”

Now, after two months in the field, Winslow began to be ashamed of his work. He’d sold four pictures, had them couriered back to New York, but he’d sketched the obvious, the trite. A voice inside him grew louder, challenging him to see something different, to at least put his point of view into the work.

Lieutenant Barlow led a small squad of soldiers up an embankment towards the edge of a corn field and the beginning of a pumpkin patch. Stars flickered in the black night above. There was no moon. Barlow parted the green stalks of corn to reveal a Confederate encampment two to three hundred yards away. The rebel campfires backlit peaked tents, the men on guard, a horse tethered to a post, causing them to cast strange shadows. Winslow crouched down a few yards away from Barlow’s men beside a big fat orange pumpkin. Winslow liked the pumpkin, ran his finger along the gnarled stem. If he bashed the pumpkin over the head of Barlow—who did not wear a hat while on patrol!—then what? Laugh at the lieutenant and his new head of orange hair, stringy sticky hair of flat white seeds. Where is your lion’s mane now, lieutenant? A unique image. The noble soldier with a gourd head. Pumpkins and corn laid out in neat endless lines, rigid furrows, a bullying geometry, like soldiers on parade. Vegetables, march! Pumpkin army, attack! Must draw right away. Winslow began cutting the image into the pumpkin surface with his thumbnail. The more animated he became, the more his knees pressed into the dried leaves around him. His rustling sounded like a grizzly bear rolling about on a cage floor full of discarded, crumpled drawings. Barlow removed his saber, aimed its tip at Winslow, whispered a single word: “Silence.”

An Unexpected Reversal

The Union advance was stopped and forced to retreat by a Confederate counter attack full of whooping and yelling, and femurs cracked by minnie balls, and chins torn open by shrapnel, and spines made useless by slugs of lead shot from rifled barrels.

“We’re heading to the rear,” said the boy soldier, the one Winslow thought would surely have perished by now.

“A rather stunning reversal of the situation,” said Winslow. He packed his bag.

“Barlow says you are not to join us,” said the boy.

As Barlow’s men retreated, so did Winslow’s bravado and confidence. He preferred to reject, not be rejected. A tide had turned. The good days gave way to bad. He plastered his grey hair to the top of his head with pomade. The smell of lemons made him gag. He called his mustache terrible names, shaved off half of it, and set out in the opposite direction of the retreat, towards what he hoped would be his own end. But death is fickle, it is not a servant one can order about, it is not like the Gersham Hotel, a place where one can book a room in advance, for a specific day and hour. Death is a locomotive, chugging down a track, locked into a predetermined schedule. The train would choose him when it was time, he could not choose it, unless he bought a ticket, in advance, like a hotel reservation. Bad analogy. Stop, he told himself. Winslow lay down in the leaves of the forest floor, certain of one thing: he had become his father. A coward. A fraud. A hollow gourd.

Winslow’s father wrote religious tracts—flowery treatises celebrating Christ and free love—that no one took seriously. His father wrote, but did not act. The man lived in a fantasy world. The butcher, the printer, the blacksmith all thought he was a crank, poor and unable to contribute to society, a man who couldn’t take care of his children, one of whom had spent a lot of time drawing in the dirt with a stick. Winslow’s father was frequently overtaken by periods of deep despair, leaving him pale and bed ridden. The man would lay about until a vision came to him: a demon-child made of flames, dancing in the corner of their farm house; or, a giant skeleton-horse wearing a harness of silver bells. Strengthened by the vision, Winslow’s father would return to the active world and begin again the printing of religious tracts.

The birch trees, white like leg bones, surrounded Winslow.

“Where is my illumination?” Winslow asked of the forest.

Finally, after two days alone, without food, without drink, he had his vision: a large crystal bowl full of water hung over a bonfire made of books and papers and paintings and his father’s corpse. In the bowl, a large fish, with a head of grey hair and a thick mustache swam about. The flames engulfed the bowl. The water boiled.

A Sharpshooter on Picket Duty

Armed with a new certainty, Winslow left the forest and began traveling with the Union Army’s colonel Berdan and his sharpshooters. Berdan struck Winslow as rat-like, not to be trusted. Despite the blue uniform, the epaulettes and the gold brocade, Winslow quickly saw Berdan’s true inner being: a self-righteous man of contradictions, unable to heed his own advice, probably married three times. Berdan possessed vanity. A scar on the right side of his face forced him to forever offer Winslow the left side.

Berdan was not pleased with Winslow’s presence.

“Couldn’t Harper’s have sent Brady, or Gardner?”

Berdan organized teams of men to make use of recent innovations in firearms: telescopic sights, precision-tooled rifles. Berdan’s men could hide in the trees near the front line and shoot down Confederate pickets or gunners at a range of three hundred yards. That afternoon, in an apple orchard outside Titusville, Winslow looked though one of the telescopic sights at a Confederate solider, a mere boy leading a mule towards a paddock. The ease with which Winslow could have killed this boy became a source of torment. How is this not murder? he asked himself of the sharpshooter’s trade. The sharpshooter, a man from Indiana by the name of Chubbs, took his rifle back from Winslow. The rebel boy lived that day only because Berdan had ordered Chubbs to show Winslow the basics of selecting a perch—tall trees were preferable to the low-lying trees in the orchard—rather than demonstrate the lethality of the new long-range rifles.

“It ain’t easy for us,” said Chubbs. “The rebels scan the tree tops for the tell tale puffs of smoke. We’ll take a shot and move like hell hoping to be out of the way if they return fire.”

On the way back to Berdan’s encampment, Chubbs let forth a volley of sarcastic comments about his commanding officer. Berdan will not drink to excess, is always singing the praises of vegetarianism and water cures, says accuracy will be greatly improved by sleeping with heads propped high by pillows, rich pastries and greasy foods are to be avoided as they lead to build ups of phlegm in the heart—as if pastry feasting is a big problem here!—Berdan says follow first impressions in all the affairs of life, but especially when on duty and a target is in range. Do not hesitate, boys, let God speak through you and your rifles.

“Don’t be fooled. Berdan’s face tells the true story. He’s a drunk, or a warlock, a worshipper of Satan,” said Winslow.

“Are you saying I’m a liar?” asked Chubbs.

To regain his authority, Winslow showed his latest sketch to Chubbs: the sharpshooter up in the tree, a canteen dangling from a branch, rifle aimed. All had been rendered in precise detail, but then, rapidly erased by Winslow, smearing the black of the charcoal across the paper, leaving only ghostly outlines of what had once been there. This had been the meaning of Winslow’s vision: unlearn everything, or become a boiled fish.

“That’s not me at all,” said the soldier. “You’re the liar.”

Deep in Winslow’s heart, a little voice could be heard whispering in a high-pitched voice, That’s right, Winslow. You’re the liar, a Revenant, a solider in the legion in of the undead. You have no soul. You have no heart. You are lower than the leeches that cling to the legs of cattle as they ford shallow rivers. You are as unclean as the worms and maggots that devour the flesh of the slain. You’re a load of chain hanging from the back of barge, dragging along the muddy bottom of the river, holding back the steady progress of America.

“I have had my vision,” Winslow said to the voice, the voice of his father trying to disguise his voice, trying and failing, yet again.

“You are all slick talk,” said the sharpshooter. “You draw as bad as you shave.” As a final sign of his disgust with Winslow, Chubbs tossed the drawing into the ditch by the side of the road. Later on, Winslow would redraw the picture in the conventional style and Harper’s would print it.

One evening, Winslow sat with Berdan outside the officer’s tent. Berdan never looked Winslow in the eyes when in conversation. Instead, he stared off into space, into the distance as if the enemy might be lurking there, taking aim, or even worse, as if worshippers of Shakespeare were approaching, quoting Hamlet and King Lear. Berdan had to be ready—to knock their Englishness into the dust with a blow of his fist. Berdan hated the British and saw their machinations at work back in ’58 when Oregon was a free territory. The sharpshooter’s rifles were all American made and like the rifle, Berdan favored all things free of the taint of Britishness.

“Do you know what figgy pudding is?” Winslow was not sure and Berdan tore into the answer, his cheeks reddening with a sudden fury. “It’s a British desert, yet we all sing its praises come Christmas time. ‘We Wish You a Merry Christmas’? Nothing but propaganda for the doomed royalty of the English. It’s one of their traditional carols.” A tone of disdain caused the vowel sounds of “traditional” to curl as if warped by decay. “Out with the British. Our Union deserves new ways of thinking. New tools like the camera. New blessings of industry like the long range rifle. New blessings of science such as phrenology and mesmerism. All of Europe is sick with rot. We will fire Chaucer bullets from the Swiss, but only rarely, if no proper American ordnance is to be had.”

The Officer and His Men

The next morning, Berdan addressed his men, reminding them of their duty to always be in fighting shape. The troops stood stock still like posts pounded into the ground, but Winslow knew, inside, the men were beginning to boil, for a man doesn’t like to be told what to do by a know-it-all.

“And the drinking shall cease,” Berdan ordered. “And, like the drinking, so shall cease the whoring. And more importantly, so shall cease the acts of onanism. You shall not cast your seed into the sandy banks by the rivers, nor into the grass of the field, nor into the blankets upon which you sleep, for such a casting of the seed is a waste and shameful act, right up there with surrender. No, men, you shall save your seed and this will be your strength. And it is this strength which will see you through the battles to come.”

Winslow didn’t understand how an occasional onasistic endeavor could be a sin. It wasn’t like Winslow tied himself up in ropes the way he’d seen some men do in the sketches of the book his older brother had shown him. Berdan continued to speechify and the men continued to stand at attention. But Winslow walked away. To see the men abused, and to be unable to stop it, made him feel weak.

That evening, Private Chubbs began to pester the other men.

“I sure never did cast my seed out for no reason. Never. Not once. Not at all. Never will. And you watch how I kill. Why I’m so full of seed and courage and what not, I could start my own regiment.”

A Letter from the Editor

Dear Mr. Homer,

Do not believe the reports of Harper’s imminent bankruptcy. The publishing industry may be in a state of great upheaval and some may say that the day of the illustrated magazine’s success will never come, but fear not. We are a fully solvent publishing concern, able to duly pay all debts, fees and salaries. Your payment is secure and will be tendered upon your return in two weeks. Your work gains much praise. Stay with the story.

H.H.

The River Shall Bring Us Home

Haunted by the high-pitched voice of his father, stuck giving Harper’s exactly what they wanted, faced with the reality that Harper’s may cease to exist by the time he returned home, (the true meaning of Hiram’s dispatch? Harper’s was doomed and the editor was now rolling about town in his wheelchair, insulting his amanuensis, spending the gold of others) despair once again engulfed Winslow. He set out to end the sadness, once and for all. He held the pomade in his hands, smeared the goop into his grey hair. He stole Chubbs’s rifle and headed to the river.

The cold water of the river barely moved, like it had nowhere else to go.

Winslow stepped into the blackness of the water, barefoot, his toes tapping at the muck of the river bottom, making sure there was something solid to plant the rest of his foot on. Silver shards of moonlight speckled the river surface and all around him, Winslow could smell the dank rot of dead leaves slowly turning into the dirt from which they had once grown. When the water came up to his belly, he stopped, checked the rifle one more time. Loaded. In his other hand he held a stick. Winslow pulled the rifle up, barrel towards his head of grey hair. He wished he’d stolen a pistol. The rifle was heavy; his arm began to grow tired and he feared the stick idea was not such a good one. What if he lost control of the gun? The bullet might only carve a ridge down the side of his head leaving him permanently maimed, scarred. What if the bullet didn’t kill him instantly and he became paralyzed in the water, sinking down into it, drowning? Worse than being devoured by tongues of fire. Worse than being a boiled fish. That wasn’t the plan at all. The plan had been press the stick with the trigger, die quick like a lightning strike and then, float away with the current. The end. No one would ever know what happened to him. He’d become an enigma. The rifle barrel was slick with oil from cleaning. Winslow didn’t think it would be right to shoot himself, quite possibly not fatally, and then drop Chubbs’s clean musket into the river where it would sink into he muck, the filth his own feet now stood in. No. A bad business all around. Winslow walked back to the sandy bank, put his boots on and walked slowly to camp. Not sure what he’d say if Chubbs asked why Winslow had gone off with his rifle. But when Winslow returned, everyone was asleep, excerpt for Berdan. From the officer’s tent came the glow of lamp light and the mumbled repetition of prayer.

News From the War

“You’ve changed,” said Winslow’s father, upon his son’s return home. “You look…”

Winslow played dumb, acting as if he had not noticed that his hair had returned to its youthful warm chestnut color; not letting on that deep inside, for the first time since his mother’s death two years ago, he felt happy, like a dairy maiden with strong arms, jumping up and down with joy in the cheese cellar because it was hot outside, and she was inside, in a safe dank place surrounded by her wonderful dairy products; like a rosy-cheeked dairy maiden with a half-bushy mustache and a pencil stuck in her hair.

The father lay in bed, staring at Winslow. “How was your journey?”

Lame pleasantries are the last refuge of a scoundrel, thought Winslow. And then, he told the old man the truth: “The tour was fine. I almost shot myself while standing in a river but then chickened out. I got paid in New York. My editor introduced me to an important gallery owner who commissioned new work. Everyone thinks that my future greatness is assured—everyone except for me. In New York, I heard a fugitive slave talk about slavery. I drew this man’s picture. While drawing, we spoke, and the man confessed that he’s not a fugitive slave at all. He’s a freeman from Ohio, but white folks treat him like a slave so he figures, to hell with it, he’ll give the white people what they want—and get paid. The man makes good money, working with the abolitionists, telling tales. White folks eat it up. But, the man’s sick of the charade. Said the man: ‘Abolitionists are the meetingest folks in America. All they wanna do is talk talk talk. I say it’sa time to get along. I’m ready to fight. Give me a gun. Give me an oath to swear to. I’m not talking about burning no one down south. I’ll shoot ‘em. But, nah, I’m not gonna go for burning.’ And there’s more: the man, after hearing me complain about my grey hair, gave me a recipe for a soap that rids the grey from all hair. I made the soap, mixed up the sulfur, bear grease, lye and brilliantine, in the washbasin of my New York hotel. And, so, here I am.”

“I am not well,” said his father. He pulled the bed cover up around his chin.

Some things never change, thought Winslow.

The next day, Winslow flipped through his sketchbook, gazing at random studies, seeking one worth developing further. Once again, the futility of communication overcame him. Soldiers have bugles to play charges, letters to fill with stories of death and disease at the front; trains bear bundles of newspaper; there’s the chatter of Morse code, and the mud-splattered courier on horseback with the urgent dispatch, and the semaphore signals of the men in the hot-air balloons. All to say what? Kill, Kill, Kill, or, It hurts, it hurts, it hurts. The tide of despair returned. Winslow pulled out his razor, to punish his mustache, the other half of his mustache, the one he’d left alone weeks ago, to grow out long and wild like a jaguar’s tail, while the other half slowly returned, like a field of wheat. Winslow paused. He began slicing the drawings, tearing apart the portraits of the men, cutting the paper into fourths. He took the chin of Barlow, placed it next to the eyes of the fake slave, topped it off with the forehead of the Sharpshooter. He kept cutting and slicing the paper until the new and better order revealed itself to him.


Here’s what judge Peter Trachtenberg had to say about Allie Leach’s “On Pigeons (and Second Glances)”:

From its first sentence, “On Pigeons (And Second Glances)” grabbed my attention and rarely relaxed its grip. It’s gross, provocative, sometimes blunt as a mallet, at other times sharp as the instrument with which the narrator cuts apart a “New York dressed” squab. Occasionally it’s tender, and those moments of tenderness are as shocking as the opening. This is a story about the relation between appetite and revulsion, delectation and cruelty, feeder, food, and offal. Think of it as a nightmare companion-piece to The Omnivore’s Dilemma.


On Pigeons (and Second Glances)
by Allie Leach

She’s naked. Her skin is covered in goosebumps; it is a thick, pale yellow, hints of pink glow through her body (those are her insides), as do hints of white (those are her bones). She has a long neck; when stretched out, it’s thin, but when pushed back, looks like a Shar-Pei. Her eyes are black moons circled in yellow. Her legs are skinny and long and pink and snappable. From her feet dart white, sharp nails.

I start gingerly enough, trying to cut in a straight line, a gentle press into flesh with a knife. But the breast bone is in the way. I have to saw. I saw into the body as I would a tree in order to look inside. She has all her parts intact. I find the smooth, brown liver. I roll my fingertips around it, and it feels like a soft, black olive. I find the heart; it’s small, pink-red, with a white film covering. Purple and blue veins wrap around it like a maze. Start here. End nowhere. I find the intestines: both the small and large. They’re tan, thick squiggles that—when stretched out—look like some kind of continuous sausage or rubber ribbon. As I poke around, I shave the skin off with my knife, getting further and further inside the body. I cut too far into her anus and a daffodil yellow liquid streams out like egg yolk. The smell is awful, like something died. And didn’t it? I almost puke in the sink. I almost can’t take it anymore. I almost throw the whole thing away in my trashcan.

What am I doing? I ask myself. Why am I putting myself through something so disgusting? So revolting? I feel like I’m killing the pigeon all over again. It wasn’t enough that it had to go through its first death. Now, it’s going through a second as I carve, poke, finger, dig, pull, detach, and rip. And for what? For my own sick pleasure? For fun? For curiosity’s sake?

Picture 1

Every time I see a pigeon, I stop and stare. If it’s dead I think: I want to take you home and dissect you. If it’s alive I think: what if I killed you? These are my dark thoughts, thoughts that linger like stray cats in the midnight alleys of my brain. Our thoughts have a way of surprising us, revealing sweatshirt layers we had yet to shed. I think about running pigeons over with my bike as I fly down the street. I think about stabbing a big, fat one in the chest. I think about strangling one with my hands. I see the pigeon as exotic, as dirty, as risky, as uncharted territory. At the same time, I want this risk; I want to feel like I’m on the verge of something bad, something scary, something shocking, something new. I want to find these other sides of myself. To dig deeper.

Picture 1

I live in Tucson and pigeons are everywhere. I see them every day. But I only see their outsides: a gray mess of feathers. And I only see their stereotype: that they’re dirty scavengers. But I want to see inside these creatures. I want to taste them. Get to know them better.

My obsession with pigeons and desire to dissect one gets around. I have trusty pigeon correspondents keeping an eye out for me. Two friends—on separate occasions—called me recently to say they’d found dead pigeons around Tucson. One of them found a dead baby pigeon on the road. She kindly let me know where it was located and that she’d help me look for it. The other friend even offered to pick the dead pigeon up for me. But I decide against this (for reasons that will later unfold) and buy a pigeon online instead.

What I buy is squab. Squab happens to be a fancy term (or convenient euphemism) for pigeon. And not just any kind of pigeon, but a baby pigeon. If this isn’t depressing enough, then how about this: not only is the pigeon only four weeks old when it’s killed on a farm, but it never gets the chance to fly. What’s strange about these facts is how they’re marketed on the D’Artagnan website, which, by the way, is where I order my squab. This website houses a variety of gourmet meats that you can buy online and have delivered to your door (as I’ve done).

One might think that a four week old baby pigeon, who’s never flown, is tragic. The website seems to think otherwise: “our fledgling birds have never flown and are raised on a protein-rich, whole-grain diet that develops a plump and flavorful breast meat.” What I infer from all of this, then, is that by not flying, the baby pigeon gets all fattened up, all plumped out. I guess if the pigeon did fly, it would be lean and strong. I guess, if the pigeon was old enough to fly, it would never come back.

The website goes on to describe how the squab tastes: “dark, tender, full-flavored meat that is known for its singular ability to retain moisture while cooking, making it a very versatile, easy bird to prepare. It is also among the easiest meats to digest.” The particular squab that I order is described as “New York Dressed,” which means that this squab comes with its head and feet and wings “attached for presentation” (de-feathered, of course). I choose this particular squab not for its presentation, per se, but for a reality check; I’ve never eaten a piece of meat with its head attached. I’ve always been able to disassociate the meat from the animal. And that’s probably why I’m still able to eat meat. But I want to challenge myself, to make myself see a pigeon as close to the real thing (and as close as I’m comfortable with) as possible.

One of my main motivations—besides wanting to say that I’ve eaten pigeon—for ordering the pigeon, for spending the ridiculous $43.93, (18 bucks plus a whopping 26 bucks for shipping) is that I am curious to look inside one, to see its parts: heart, lungs, intestines, liver, kidneys, gall bladder, and everything in between. I’m also motivated by my own unwavering curiosity to dissect, to analyze, to find meaning. I yearn to get inside things, to discover how things work, to use my hands, to get dirty and stinky and maybe even bloody, to explore, to essay into an experience.

Picture 1

I used to love Anatomy class. Although I was never much of a science buff—didn’t know much about chemistry, physics, or biology—I did have a knack for memorizing body parts, for not being afraid to get out a scalpel and dig inside dead things. In high school, I used to slice open everything from owl pellets to fetal pigs, from crawdads to cats (only while in class, of course). I cannot cut open a cat, my lab partner protested. Scalpel, please, I’d request. I liked to pretend I was a coroner. I would perform the autopsy and attempt to find out what went wrong.

I was also obsessed with the T.V. show E.R. I convinced myself that I could be, should be a surgeon one day. My mad crush on Noah Wyle pushed this dream even further. I wanted to be his girlfriend. Oh, Noah. We have so much in common. We’re not afraid to slice into bodies. Okay, now let’s go home and have sex. After my weekly dose of E.R. every Thursday night, I’d saunter into Anatomy class the next morning. Tight plastic gloves? Check. Scalpel in hand? Check. Ready to fearlessly explore the insides of something, anything? Check.

That once fearless high school girl is now a woman. Some of these fearless qualities, no doubt, still remain inside me: I interview complete strangers, unclog dirty toilets, and sing and tap dance in public. But when it comes to this pigeon, I am disgusted, scared even, while dissecting it. I feel for it. Instead of cutting apart an animal to cut a good grade for class, this experience is now self-motivated, self-directed, self-imposed. And, because of this difference, I am more aware of my movements, question my motives, and empathize with the animal.

Picture 1

I get a white rubber stopper to clog the sink and throw in the innards, the organs, the skin, and the fat. I can’t look at the wings and legs and head any longer. If I’m to eat this thing, I need to detach the parts to detach myself emotionally. So I saw off the wings. I saw off the legs. I saw off the head. It takes much more force than I expect. I throw all of it into the sink, which now looks fit for a slaughter house.

After all of this dissection, this mutilation, all I can come up with are two, tiny palm-sized hunks of brown meat. That’s all. That’s all I have from this mess. The soy sauces and vinegar and ginger and cilantro and wine and scallions that I bought to marinade the meat with seem superfluous. All of this for these two dinky pieces of meat? I had to go through an emotional Ferris wheel for this? I had to rip apart a bird for all this? Well, now I must eat it.

Picture 1

Many are braver than I. In Gary Paul Nabhan’s Coming Home to Eat, he describes picking up a Gambel quail seconds after the bird is hit by a truck. He takes it to his girlfriend’s home and “that evening, after plucking and gutting the quail, I stuffed its cavities full of garlic and wild oregano from my garden and basted it in a prickly pear syrup glaze…After a prayer, we each sampled the quail—a rich taste of dark juicy meat, faintly sweet and spicy.” After reading his account, I wished that my experience had been so romantic. But it wasn’t. And I wish that I had been brave enough to pick a dead pigeon up off the side of the road and eat it. But I didn’t. I was afraid—afraid of getting sick, afraid that my insides would fill up like yellow fluid in a septic tank, flood with disease caused by some type of bird flu, then shut down. I was afraid of dying.

Nabhan says earlier in the book that “if life itself is inherently dangerous, then surely eating to stay alive must involve some risks.” So, I stop and ask myself this: what risks am I willing—and not willing—to take with my food? When and where do I close my mouth and say: No, thank you?

Picture 1

While the brown squab breasts roast, I pop open a beer. I lie on my bed. And cry. I feel like I just killed something. I am having people over, but I don’t want to now. All I want to do is taste squab breasts by myself, honor the meat and the baby pigeon from whence it came, and then sleep for twelve hours straight.

But I don’t. Instead, I buck up, clean up, and check on the oven-roasting squab. I slice into the breast, checking to see if the meat is fully cooked. It is now done, in fact, it is now over-done. I once cooked chicken breasts for my family and got my little sister sick; her breast meat was salmon pink on the inside, not fully cooked. Now that I’ve learned my lesson, now that I’m paranoid, I cook my meat thoroughly (perhaps, too thoroughly). The breasts are a dark brown, cinnamon-chocolate color. They look like two, tiny livers.

I bite into the breast, along with my two wonderful friends who brave this tasting experience with me, and my first thought is the texture. The meat is thick and dense and somewhat tough.

“What do you think?” I ask my friends.

“It’s very…salty,” one of them says. My other friend—an on-again-off-again-vegetarian—nods her head in agreement. And I agree, too. It’s no wonder why they’re so salty, as I’ve rubbed the breasts in salt and marinated them in vinegar and two different kinds of soy sauce.

Picture 1

That night, after I eat the pigeon breasts, I think about giving up meat for good. I think about this—long and hard—for about five minutes. In some ways, I wish this experience had been more of a life shaking, core changing event. I would love to say this: thanks to this experience, I no longer eat meat. Or even this: thanks to this experience, I only eat meat that’s local. But I would be lying. I would be lying if I didn’t mention that I still love meat, crave meat, adore it, even. And while I have no intentions of eating a pigeon again, I barely second guessed my motives the other night as I chomped down on chicken tenders and buffalo wings. I wasn’t sure where the meat came from, but I was positive that it tasted wonderful, delectable. Dipping the chicken tenders into tangy, honey mustard sauce and smothering the hot and spicy barbeque wings into ranch dressing, I instantly thought: this tastes way better than the pigeon.

Why is it that my taste buds are wired for that instant gratification from the chicken wings and tenders, but not for pigeon? Is it simply that I’m a bad cook or could it be something else? Could it be that my preconceived notions of taste got in the way? Could it be that my taste buds knew their final answer before the breast meat even landed in my mouth?

It’s no secret that I am familiar with chicken, have eaten it since I was little. But I’m not familiar with pigeon, haven’t eat it week after week, day in and day out. But let’s say I did. Let’s say I lived in the country, and my Dad shot wild game birds, like pigeons, on the regular. Let’s say that he stuffed these birds with bread crumbs and rosemary, painted them with butter, and roasted them in the oven. Let’s say these birds tasted delicious. That would make this pigeon story of mine a completely different bird, so to speak. But, as of now, I don’t see pigeons in this light. They aren’t on my menu. I didn’t enjoy the taste. The bird felt like a waste. Because I don’t have any plans to eat another pigeon anytime soon, I begin to see them differently—not as meat, but as birds. Just birds.

Picture 1

Bert (of Sesame Street’s Bert and Ernie) likes to collect paper clips and bottle caps, eat oatmeal, and watch pigeons. He loves pigeons. So much so, that he has pet pigeons, two of them, named Bernice and Arnold. When I was little, I had a soundtrack to Sesame Street with many of the show’s famed songs like “Rubber Ducky,” “C is for Cookie,” and “Doin’ the Pigeon.” In the pigeon song, Bert imitates the movements of a pigeon, or as he says, “the kind of ballet that sweeps me away.” This ballet includes a bent leg, arabesquing in-and-out, as well as bouncy head that juts in-and-out. I’m reminded of this song when I watch pigeons. I’m reminded of the joy that Bert feels when he watches pigeons; a joy so strong that he’s moved to dance like them.

In the song, “Feed the Birds,”—from the movie, Mary Poppins—a little, old woman sits on the steps of St. Paul’s cathedral in London, feeding bread crumbs to birds. Come buy my bags full of crumbs, she asks onlookers, passersby. The woman is swarmed with pigeons; they cover her body like accessories. The song never fails to choke me up, to make me wish I could talk with the animals. Lyrics like this get me every time:

Come feed the little birds
Show them you care
And you’ll be glad if you do
Their young ones are hungry
Their nests are so bare
All it takes are tuppence from you

It’s such simple act—feeding birds—that I nearly forgot I used to do it. We were a feed the birds kind of family. And it’s no wonder. My sisters and I were obsessed with Mary Poppins growing up. So much so, that, when my Mom was pregnant with my younger sister, my older sister Mary and I suggested (demanded, really) that she name her Jane if a girl, and Michael if a boy, which just so happen to be the names of the children in Mary Poppins. She was girl. And thus, she was named Jane.

Growing up, my sisters and I made birdhouses with my Dad, striking nails with hammers, slathering brick red paint onto wood. We had birdfeeders—those huge, compact, Hershey’s kiss-shaped blocks of seeds. And we fed them bread crumbs, much like the little, old bird woman.

Picture 1

When I bike down Mountain Road on my way to school, close to my home in Tucson, even closer to the University of Arizona, I pass a house-o-pigeons. A front yard, rather. A woman, who I’ll call Carla, sets out two bowls full of bite-sized pieces of bread. Flocks of pigeons gather in gaggles in her front yard; it’s their home. Some eat ravenously. Some hang out on the power lines, sunbathing. Some take baths in water bowls.

When I find Carla, she’s sitting in her seal-gray Toyota Camry; it’s covered—not surprisingly—in bird shit.

“Do you live here?” I ask her.

“Yes, me and my brother do.”

She peeks her head out of her car window; she’s smiling. Her face is like a weathered, brown handbag covered in lovely wrinkles. Her hair is black, highlighted with gray, and her bangs are long, resting just above her eyebrows. She has on a striped black and white shirt underneath a dark gray hoodie. The hoodie is covered in tiny white hairs and brown dirt. Glancing into her car, I see that it’s dirty, too: filled with old newspapers, grocery store ads, and more brown dirt, more tiny, white hairs. I can’t help but think that she kind of reminds me of pigeon—a very cute, smiley one.

There are about twenty pigeons in her front yard. Each one is unique. I find this odd. When I think about most birds—ravens, blue-jays, blackbirds—I often think how much they look alike, identical even. Pigeons, though, are different. The color combinations and speckles and details that differentiate one from another are endless. Some are white with gray dots. Some are half gray, half white. Some are blue-gray. Some are gray with iridescent purple necks. Some are solid black. Some solid white.

“How long have these pigeons been coming to your house?” I ask her.

“I have nooo idea,” she says shaking her head. “These pigeons were starving though. You should’ve seen ‘em when they first came to our house. They were so thin and dehydrated. Now look how big they are!” She points at the pigeons and laughs. It’s odd that she’s sitting in her car, just watching her pigeons, but, at the same time, it’s kind of awesome. Awesome in a Tucson-is-so-weird kind of way.

“Did you just get back from the store?” I ask.

“No, I just like to sit out here in the sun and watch my pigeons.”

She goes on for about a half hour about the pigeons. And not just about pigeons, but about other animals. In addition to the pigeons, cats and dogs come to her door. Maybe it’s because of the food, but, I think, they have a sixth sense about this home, this woman.

“They know it’s a safe haven, don’t they?” I ask.

“Oh, I don’t know, Allie,” she smiles and rolls her eyes. I find it endearing that she includes my name after statements. She continues to do this, periodically, while I talk with her. It’s as if she’s known me for years, but I just met her minutes ago. She welcomes me into her yard just as effortlessly and gracefully as she welcomes the pigeons, the cats, the dogs. I feel like she’s taking me in, taking me under her pigeon wings, in a way.

“Why do some people think that pigeons are such dirty birds?” I ask her.

“I guess because they eat so much litter. But, you know, humans are dirty, too. They’re the ones making all this litter,” she says angrily. I agree with her. I’ve often thought pigeons were dirty and gross. One morning, while running in the alley behind a bar, I found, next to a dumpster, pigeons eating half-eaten pizza slices. Such scavengers, I thought. Why can’t you eat your own food, your bird food? But, after talking with Carla, I realize that it’s our fault they’re eating the litter; we created it and they’re starving. Plus, with the abundance of pigeons around Tucson, the fight for food becomes brutal, and they take whatever they can get.

Though some pigeons, Carla’s pigeons, it seems, can be a little picky. “The pigeons are kind of fussy,” she tells me. “They only like the white bread that I get from Fry’s or Walmart. I’ve tried popcorn and bird-seed, but they don’t eat it.” This tidbit complicates their stereotyped image, the one I had previously become familiar with: pigeons scurrying around trash cans, hoping someone will miss the basket, litter a little. Birds lingering next to dumpsters, hoping the garbage man will spill hamburger buns, onion rings, and mozzarella sticks onto concrete.

Picture 1

Because pigeons have adapted to city life, they have become urban scavengers, quite commonly called “the rats of the sky.” Typically, pigeons are not fussy eaters, as they only have 37 taste buds (humans have 9,000!) Pigeons that live in the country, that live in the wild, often can’t depend on garbage scraps. Instead, these pigeons live off wild grains, seeds, berries, fruit, and insects. Wild pigeons are said to be much healthier than street pigeons, which are often said to harbor diseases (though this stereotype has often been contested). In response to questions about the effects of pigeons on human health, in 1986 the Association of Pigeon Veterinarians issued a statement that concludes, “…to our knowledge, the raising, keeping, and the exercising of pigeons and doves represents no more of a health hazard than the keeping of other communal or domestic pets.” A spokesman for the American Pigeon Fanciers Council says this statement applies to feral pigeon flocks, too. He says “the homing and racing pigeons that people raise stay healthy even though they often come into contact with feral pigeons.” So, while many of us see pigeons as dirty birds, in truth, they’re actually not much dirtier than, say, your dog or cat.

Picture 1

In her book, On Beauty and Being Just, Elaine Scarry talks about her complicated relationship with palm trees. She used to think they were the ugliest of trees; she hated them: “palms are not beautiful; possibly they are not even trees.” But, over time, she starts looking at them in a different light, eventually concluding that they are truly beautiful.

I once watched a group of pigeons as they sat on the concrete ledge of a fountain. While small and lively finches bathed themselves in mini-waterfalls, the pigeons sat lazily about, watching the other birds. And, if they weren’t watching, they were waddling around the dirty ground, rummaging for left over bits of food. Why can’t you be more clean? I thought. Why can’t you be more energetic, more spritely like the finches? I realized that, over time, I had developed a kind of bird racism, a kind of bird caste system. I put birds in their respective houses. This one is clean. This one is beautiful. This one is dirty. The instant I saw a finch, I thought it was cute. The moment I saw a pigeon, I thought it was disgusting. Go on a diet. Get away from me. You’re full of diseases. If a finch landed in my hand, I would be delighted. If a pigeon landed in my hand, I’d yell, “Gross!”

The more I stare, the more I start to re-think the pigeon. When the male chases his mate, he puffs and shimmies. Instead of singing, he gurgles and gargles, like an Adam’s apple rattling in someone’s throat. There’s something strangely regal about them. Maybe it’s their shiny blue-green-purple necks, the way these colors shine against the blazing Arizona sun. It’s as if they’re wearing necklaces made of emeralds, amethysts, and aquamarine.

“Look at those two,” Carla says, pointing. “They just kissed each other with their beaks. They’re the only ones who do that.” For while, we are quiet—she in her car, me standing alongside—watching pigeons.

“Thanks for talking with me,” I say.

“Of course, Allie. Take care of yourself.” Carla shakes my hand. It’s a beautiful moment. But for some weird reason, out of some strange instinct, as soon as my fingers slide past her palm, I glance at her, I glance at the mass of pigeons and think—and I hate myself for thinking this—I need to wash my hands.


Hot Metal Bridge is proud to announce the winners of our summer contest! We will be publishing each of the winning pieces throughout the week, plus in our upcoming Best Of Hot Metal Bridge print edition (more details to come). A hearty thanks to our judges and all those who submitted their work.


Here’s what judge Kate Northrup had to say about Vanessa Gennarelli’s poem, “If You’re Lucky, Honey”:

Thank you to the poet for “If You’re Lucky, Honey.” I was startled and moved by the perfect quiet, by the speaker’s voice, which barely–just barely–dares to disturb the surface before sliding back into resignation.  I admire the light hand (”and this is a comfortable hope / like groceries…”) and am haunted by the slightness of it.

Congratulations, Vanessa!



If You’re Lucky, Honey
by Vanessa Gennarelli

You’ll grow old handsome, a darling
farmhand gone urbane

logical lip of a wing-tip &

gait like you’re out to fetch the mail
everywhere you go

even in front of a crowd

your cropped hair
a cresting wave of iron

and this is a comfortable hope
like groceries or perfect biscuit joints

easier than mapping the cracks
in some coral lipstick somewhere
or smacking tired skin into place

pity since the lines win anyway


by Stephanie Wilson

This summer I have a dozen uninterrupted weeks to dedicate to writing. Uninterrupted means, nowhere to be, no classes to teach or take, and no job or boss to report to every morning. It is, in a word, bliss. It’s every writer’s dream. Yet with this freedom comes doubt: is what I’m doing real writing? Can I even call myself a writer? If not, does that render this summer meaningless, albeit enviable?

Add to these worries the fact that I’m spending this time in a new city, which means meeting new people and repeatedly having to explain why I’m here. I begin to feel awkward before I even open my mouth; I know what people are expecting me to say: that a job has brought me here, one that is easily explicable (nurse, hairdresser, hemp farmer), or, at the very least, one that brings in a paycheck. Instead I say that I’m here working on my book—or “my novel,” or “my writing,” depending on my mood—which inevitably makes me feel like a fraud. Why? I’m not lying; I am working on something that I hope will become a novel—some day. But the state of “being a writer” seems like such a lofty concept that I’m not sure if I’m embodying it now, or if I ever will.

A writer and teacher I know is fond of saying that the writing process is like masturbation—everyone does it, but no one wants to talk about it. In other words, it’s highly personal. You’ll sometimes see depictions of writers in movies or on television: set to a manic score, a solitary person (usually male), pounds out words on a typewriter (more dramatic, more tactile than a computer), balls up papers and throws them into the trash, and then…montage over, writer magically delivers bound manuscript to agent/publisher. For me, the problem with these romanticized visions—and the highly personal and individualized nature of the writing process—is that when I’m working toward that finished product, I’m constantly thinking: am I doing it wrong?

Hence the reason for feeling fraudulent, and for being annoyed, and then evasive, when people ask, “How’s it going?” “What’s your book about?” and “How much is written?”

“How’s it going?” is easy to answer; I’ll just say “fine” and change the subject. “What’s it about?” is trickier; I’m pretty sure the idea I’m starting out with will change ten times, and I don’t want to oversell it (”it’s a bildungsroman,” “it’s a commentary on relationships”) because that just makes me sound pompous, nor do I want to undersell it (”um, it’s about this girl,” “it’s mostly bullshit”) and make it sound like I’m dumb or wasting my time. Not that I should care how it sounds to other people, but I somehow feel like talking about what I’m doing—much like sharing your birthday wish after you blow out the candles—will doom it somehow.

And the “How much is written?” question—well, there’s no number of pages I could say that would seem or feel high enough. And what counts as pages? Actual text that (might) appear in the finished project? I’d be terrified to count those at the risk of becoming discouraged. But it also wouldn’t seem fair to count those other pages, the ones that contain character sketches, notes on the plot, structural concerns, and so on. Yet those are just as important as “real” pages—right?

The time I devote to writing is also something that concerns me. It always feels like I should be spending more time writing—especially now, as I’m not scheduling around work or school. Sometimes I worry that it’s the minutiae—cooking, doing laundry, listening to podcasts—that occupy too much of my brain, when I should be focusing on putting words to page (or screen). And what counts as actual writing time? Hours spent reading, thinking, and doing research? Submitting work to publications? Does writing this blog post count as practice, as a warm up for the heavy lifting that is Actual Writing?

Then there’s the issue of having the time, but not the inclination. I’m only the one-millionth person to have this problem, I know, because there’s a common term for it: writer’s block. But—and here is the dog-chasing-its-tail part of it—to have writer’s block, one must be an actual writer. Otherwise, you’re just someone who has nothing interesting to say, and/or doesn’t have the talent to put it to paper. So am I a writer? An aspiring one, say, a writer with an asterisk (*)? Or am I just a fraud?

Perhaps my answer lies in the adage, “If you have to ask, you’ll never know.” On the other hand, maybe self-doubt is as ubiquitous in writers as substantial alcohol consumption. (N.B., I’m doing pretty well on that front too.)  Either way, it seems the only rational course to take is to just keep doing what I’m doing—be it writing or something else—and enjoy this time while I have it. You know, before I go and start that hemp farm.

Stephanie Wilson, a Michigan native, is pursuing her MFA in fiction at the University of Pittsburgh. She has been published by unFold, and is currently working on a novel.

After reading yet another post about the value of physical books, this time at the LA Times, I feel it’s time to speak my piece.

Sara Barbour (and often any writer who despairs about ebooks) has never even used a Kindle, and indeed, hasn’t even held one. Regardless of the intention behind such willful ignorance, her argument reminds me of a child refusing to try a new food: I don’t want artichokes! To which reasonable adults say, “How do you know until you’ve tried them?”

So here we go: I own and actually use a Kindle. Upfront, sure, regular books are easier to flip through and I miss that most. But you can search by word on the Kindle, not to mention highlight and make notes (unlike Barbour claims) that are gathered into a list and excerpted. Very handy. Plus, these features will only get better as Amazon develops their product.

Despite hand-wringers’ claims to the contrary, reading a book on my Kindle is remarkably similar to a “real” book. It’s easier in some respects because the page buttons allow for reading long books one-handed. Another great feature is that you can change the screen rotation and font sizes so you can read poetry with long lines as it was intended. My favorite feature? There’s a status bar at the bottom of the page that shows what percentage of the book you’ve read. My type-A brains likes the exactitude of it.

One talking point against ebooks I often hear is that being able to see a book cover will somehow inspire a stranger to strike up a conversation with you. Honestly: when was the last time that happened to you on a bus or at the coffee shop? Unbidden stranger conversations are few and far between because of other gadgets these book defenders don’t seem to be fretting about. The world is moving digital and so are stranger interactions, as anyone who’s participated in the comments section of a favorite website can tell you. (And please do participate here!)

From what I can tell, resistance to Kindles is also driven by an anti-Amazon sentiment. Big, bad company drives smaller stores out of business, as the story goes. And that might be true, especially when you look at the quarterly numbers released this week over at not-so-small Barnes and Noble. It’s not necessarily good that physical book stores are dying, but it’s a reality that I’m not sure we need to be upset about. Amazon is cheap, convenient, and has a broad selection. They’ve made publishing your own ebook incredibly easy, which is awfully democratic if you ask me (and probably a burgeoning opportunity for freelance editors).

The point is, we all know the book world is changing, and I’m not sure why so many people are resisting these changes based on nostalgia for smells and tactile sensations, or on a well-intentioned but futile fight against a big company.

Certainly Amazon doesn’t do the kind of community building that a local bookstore can. That might be the best reason to keep physical stores, and therefore books, around, though I suspect other groups like universities, reading series, and individual authors won’t let gatherings die just because a bookstore does.

What I want to make clear is that I’m not saying any of this is good or that I love Amazon. I’m saying that, stripped of nostalgia and wishful thinking, this is how things in the book world are. Barbour concedes that ebooks are the future, and finishes by claiming “we communicate with each other through books themselves.” But wait: if any book can be converted straight into an ebook, then it’s not the form that’s communicating a message—it’s the words.

The whole “books as physical object” mantra is beyond stale, as are the arguments supporting it. Why supposedly “creative” writers can’t find a better or new reason for holding on to books is baffling to me. Maybe I’m on the other side of a generation divide here (though I suspect Barbour isn’t too much older than I), but the truth is, I can’t remember the last time I bought a book in an actual store. Maybe that makes me a bad literary citizen, but at least I’m still buying and reading books.

Robyn Jodlowski is co-editor-in-chief at Hot Metal Bridge. Follow us @HMBMag.

Hot Metal Blog

A message from Steve & Robyn, your loyal editors at HMB.

Hello. As happens every year or so, Hot Metal Bridge is going through something of an identity change, with a whole new crew of editors and readers. With so much turnover every year, how exactly do you get to know who we are? How do we have an identity as a publication? It’s something that has been talked about often in the hallowed halls of the Cathedral of Learning and uh, we don’t know that we have an answer. Seriously, be very wary of anyone who claims to have answers about made up questions like this.

But one thing we will be doing is updating the site with blog entries, book reviews, and podcasts between issues. That way you’ll be reading or hearing a lot more from us. That should give you some idea of what we’re about, and since this is a student publication, it’s fitting that that idea could potentially change every week. Stay tuned.

We’d also be tragically remiss if we didn’t use this space to brag about the accomplishments of previous staff. Check out former Fiction Editors Julie Draper’s recent piece at Smokelong Quarterly and Katie Coyle’s story at Fiction Circus. You can also find recent work by Emeritus Editor Salvatore Pane’s in places like PANK, Annalemma, Metazen, and possibly too many other places to mention.

Congratulations should also go out to Emeritus Editor Ashleigh Pederson, whose story “Small and Heavy World” was shortlisted by Best American Short Stories 2010.

Besides the achievements of our compadres, what are we thinking about this week? Former Pitt instructor Cathy Day’s essay about rethinking the workshop model over at The Millions and how reaction to it got so contentious. AWP and how sometimes you wonder why you’re going – the chance to meet fellow writers and instructors and talk about the crucial issues of the day or the parties (Steve is going with the parties). What we would do if the government turned off our interwebs.

Just in case, we’re asking: What was your favorite pre-internet activity? Robyn recalls watching the Scream movies over and over again in her friend’s red-walled basement. Also, lining overripe garden vegetables in the street and watching cars run them over. Steve used to kick a nerf soccer ball around while imagining he was as good as this guy. How about you?

The Witness House by Christiane Kohl
(Other Press, October 2010)
Nicole Carroll

The premise is too fascinating to pass up: in 1945, while Germany is a vast, raw expanse of post-war ruins and hunger, take one villa in Nuremberg and populate it with former members of the Nazi party. Add some former members of the Resistance movement and several concentration camp survivors. Finally, find a beautiful Hungarian countess, ask her to manage the villa and keep the conversation civil, and wait for the war crimes trials to begin. Thus, The Witness House, a work of nonfiction by German journalist Christiane Kohl, translated into English by Anthea Bell.

In the beginning of her book, Kohl discusses her inspiration for the project. One night a man named Bernhard von Kliest (a house-guest staying with her parents) revealed a visitors’ book with signatures of people ranging from Rudolph Diels, the man who created the Gestapo, to concentration camp survivors like Eugen Kogon. von Kliest explained to Kohl that he had been a translator in the Nuremberg Trials while his wife, Annemarie von Kliest, took over the management of this odd place—the Witness House—that the American occupying forces had established to house those who were to be interrogated for the Nuremberg trials. Her interest piqued, Kohl began her research, locating and conducting interviews with the Hungarian countess, Ingeborg Kálnoky, who had managed the house from 1945-1947 during the height of the trials before von Kliest took over in 1947-1948.

The book is technically impressive, painting quirky and detailed portraits of many guests of the Witness House. Kohl pulls much of her material from first-hand interview accounts (with Kàlnoky and several others) as well as documents like interrogation records and letters. She moves in and out of the story, giving narratives of present-day interviews, in which her voice is very much present, and then slipping back out to discuss the Witness House and German post-war history from a greater distance. The narrative shifts, for example, from the larger political climate of 1930s and 1940s Germany in the shadow of the Third Reich, to stories of a former Nazi functionary at the Witness House begrudgingly giving soap and razor blades to a former Resistance member. Horrors like laboratory experiments performed on Jewish concentration camp inmates exist alongside a snapshot of General Köstring impatiently looking for a lost fountain pen.

Especially compelling is the fact that Kohl focuses almost purely on the lesser-known, more indirect contributors to the atrocities committed by the National Socialists—men like Heinrich Hoffman, Hitler’s personal photographer and Gisela Limberger, Hermann Göring’s secretary and librarian—rather than the infamous Himmlers, Görings, and Ribbentrops who were being held nearby under lock and key at the time.

By focusing on so many of these figures and their involvement as witnesses in the trial, Kohl is able to show how those existing in the ethically grey areas after the end of World War II quietly scrambled to re-classify themselves among the changed and remorseful, the latecomers to the Resistance, the unknowing, the outright innocent. The guests at the Witness House hang in a certain balance: former Nazis accept, deny, and brood over their guilt, their complicity, the people they have been over the past decade and a half. Some assert their continuing superiority and lament their ill treatment at the hands of the Americans. All the while, former Resistance members and concentration camp inmates navigate their way through their grief and torment, their anger and betrayal and loss, the compromises they have been forced to make, while sitting across the dinner table from those who controlled their fates until far too recently, sometimes only months before. These face-to-face encounters are troublesome for everyone—for those on each side of the trial and for the reader, because Kohl has portrayed the multi-faceted human being underneath the villain and the victim. In one chill-inducing scene, Kohl describes concentration camp survivors asking Hoffman, with very genuine curiosity, for his impressions of Hitler.

However, the great imbalance in this book is the painfully limited amount of space Kohl leaves for discussing what I felt to be the overarching questions of the book. How could conversation stay so civil? Why did the guests stay almost completely silent on the matters at hand, rather than come out and ask “Why?” and “How?” All while people were testifying about events that would be imprinted in the consciousness of the western world. All while guests of the Witness House were listening to death sentences read over the radio after the first round of trials. It’s not that I find it unbelievable that rage and flare-ups would be self-repressed; on the contrary, it feels like a reaction that human beings in the circumstances of the book would be likely to have. Kohl offers several possible explanations for the steady tone and atmosphere maintained in the house; however, I found myself begging her to have taken it further. What was really going on in the psychology of these people who had just experienced a seismic shift in their lives and worldviews? Was Kohl simply limited in exploring the Jewish reactions to being at the Witness House because it was too painful to be able to comment on the experience at the time? Because no former Nazi would have yet processed the magnitude of what he had contributed to?

In the end, however, this is a book that is very much worth reading and that is very different from other accounts of Germany during and after the war. While the writing itself is not necessarily stunning, it is artful enough, and the weaving together of narrative and history is done in a deft and thought-provoking manner. I can acknowledge that, in some ways, the entire book is asking the questions above, simply by the anecdotes that are offered—juxtaposed with meticulous and often horrifying historical facts—to the reader. A reader can piece together possibilities for answering these questions or be content to keep creating questions to follow Kohl into the human psyche. What is it about human beings that makes us turn inward, shut down, gloss over, deny? What makes us able to push a Holocaust to the side, finish our dinner with perfect manners, and follow it with a drink and a cigarette?

Nicole Carroll exists somewhere between Buffalo and Pittsburgh and is currently an MFA candidate in nonfiction at the University of Pittsburgh.

Working Words: Punching the Clock and Kicking Out the Jams
M. L. Liebler, Editor; Ben Hamper, Foreword
(Coffee House Press, October 2010)
Amanda Brant

If Nothing Else

If I asked you to find a book containing the work of both Walt Whitman and Eminem, you would have probably been at a loss until last month. M. L. Liebler, author of several books of poetry and professor of Detroit’s Wayne State University since 1980, has a new collection of working class literature: Working Words. This is the collection of working class literature. Immediately, a kind of lived truth comes through.

Take Maria Mazziotti Gillan’s long poem, “Daddy, We Called You,” which ends:

Papa,
silk worker,
janitor,
night watchman,
immigrant Italian,
better than any “Father Knows Best” father,
bland as white rice,
with your wine press in the cellar,
with the newspapers you collected
out of garbage piles to turn into money
you banked for us,
with your mousetraps,
with your cracked and calloused hands,
with your yellowed teeth.

Papa,
dragging your dead leg
through the factories of Paterson,
I am outside the house now,
shouting your name.

And this energy pulls through the rest of the text—there are no frills attached. Tell it like it is seems to be the touchstone for holding the many pieces together. And, at times, it needs to be held together, tightly. A deep sense of loss and sadness resonate with the difficult subject matter found in the over five-hundred page anthology.

One of the most memorable texts, Xu Xi’s “To Body to Chicken” appears in the “Short Fiction” section:

At work that evening, things were quiet for the first hour or so and she took the opportunity to review her lesson. If what the teacher said was true, then perhaps “to body” wasn’t a verb either. I body you, she had wanted to say earlier, when asked to construct a sentence with a newly learned verb, but chose chicken instead because it was provocative, something the teacher seemed to like. She chicken because she want to make a lot money. The rest of the class had laughed in apparent comprehension; the teacher frowned.

This collection is about politics, the economy, family, love, and a different kind of work: work as labor, work as survival.  The range of voices is downright impressive. From each section, “Labor Poems and Songs” to “Short Fiction” to “Nonfiction,” “Histories,” and “Memoirs,” there are new names waiting, all holding similar stories. But each are as singular and unique as each life, and the work of that life, celebrated in this collection.

From Ben Hamper’s Rivethead:

I was seven years old the first time I ever set foot inside an automobile factory. The occasion was Family Night at the old Fisher Body plant in Flint where my father worked the second shift.

General Motors provided the yearly intrusion as an opportunity for the kin of the work force to funnel in and view their fathers, husbands, uncles and granddads as they toiled away on the assembly line. If nothing else, this annual peepshow lent a whole world of credence to our father’s daily grumble. The assembly line did indeed stink. The noise was very close to intolerable. The heat was one complete bastard. Little wonder the old man’s socks always smelled like liverwurst bleached for a week in the desert sun.

For my mother, it was at least one night out of the year when she could verify the old man’s whereabouts. One night a year when she could be reasonably assured that my father wasn’t lurchin’ over a pool table at the Patio Lounge or picklin’ his gizzard at any one of a thousand beer joints out of Dort Highway. My father loved his drink. He wasn’t nearly as fond of labor.

The pieces of this collection are as bold as the subject matter they contain. In his introduction, M. L. Liebler states, “Coffee House Press is one of the first to make such a major commitment to this type and style of literature in a multi-genre text. The neglect of working class literature is particularly surprising, given that the connection between labor and art has had such a rich and long history in the United States.” This collection is an important step in altering that unfortunate, and unfair, reality.

Amanda Brant is a MFA candidate in poetry at the University of Pittsburgh.

Strange Trade: The Story of Two Women Who Risked Everything in the International Drug Trade by Asale Angel-Ajani
(Seal Press, October 2010)
Jessica FitzPatrick

Angel-Ajani’s first novel, Strange Trade, makes for strange reading. The story is part research, educating the reader on the drug world: “Since the late 1980’s, starting with the fall of the Medellin Cartel in Columbia, the drug-smuggling business has transformed itself into a boutique operation.” It is part disclosure, shedding light on her choice of topic being related to her drug-trade-influenced childhood: “As a child, I thought of prisons as people-eating machines.” But it is also an action drama: the story of Angel-Ajani allowing herself to be sucked into the outer ring of the drug vortex.

The beginning of her story is discombobulating. An early chapter starts with the story of Mary, one of the “Two Women” (the other being Pauline) prominently promised in the subtitle. The rest of the novel switches between third person reflective personal histories of Mary and Pauline and the first person story of Angel-Ajani, which devolves from a “comfortable student life of research and study” into the threatening world of outer-ring drug business.

Though the back cover warns that she will be dishing out a “deeply personal perspective” to her black-market subject mater, this did not prepare me for the establishment of Angel-Ajani as a third main character. The book’s subtitle should have included “with insight into the affected children of this trade, including the author herself.”

Anthropological books tend to include the author as a character—after all, the anthropologist has a duty to interpret the people they are studying; it is impossible to take the researcher out of the study, and out of the finished, published, product. I get this; in travelogues I am prepared to accept the idea that the author will be both the anthropologist-guide to the culture and the main character of any action. Angel-Ajani was not so straightforward. Yes, she immediately situates herself as the main character in the midst of a foreboding first meeting with members of a large drug trafficking ring run by “the Ugandan.” Yes, she then descriptively guides us to grey Rebibbia, the largest prison in Italy, and to the Femminile (female) complex. She explains her fieldwork early on: to interview the women incarcerated on drug charges in an effort to discover their motivation. The complexities of the international drug chain are explained as deftly as if they were the procedures for stocking Walmart shelves.

But these explanations are mixed with the candid drama of Mary, Pauline, and (I came to learn) Angel-Ajani’s personal narratives. I was initially not a fan of the disjointing change of view. Yet, as I got more involved with the characters’ stories, the format made it increasingly hard to put down the book. Angel-Ajani, Mary, and Pauline are the three prongs to this pitchfork of a novel, and each woman’s story is oddly captivating in its painful worldliness. Mary, a desperate woman fleeing fighting in her home Liberia, tries to find work to feed her two surviving sons. This attempt to regain normalcy ends when airport police find drugs her boyfriend packed in her luggage. Pauline is the opposite of Mary, an aggressive mother whose lust to be her own boss is more enticing than the love of her husband and children. She willingly enters the drug business, becoming “the Ugandan;” as she says to Angel-Ajani, “I chose this business because it suited me.”

I admire Angel-Ajani’s honesty and find it distressing. She is a professional in a field with a problematic relationship to ethical question, “How close is too close?” At one point she goes out with Pauline’s agent, Hassan, bringing her notebook: “In my mind, my notebook would let people know that I was not like Hassan…that I was not a criminal.” The notebook is a poor shield the drug dealers do not respect; she ends up in an apartment during a drug transaction. As a reader I could see Angel-Ajani being sucked deeper into Pauline’s drug network, but she ignores my cries of “Stupid!” and only manages to come to her senses in time to make a hasty escape from impending disaster.

There are so many shades of grey in this depiction of the drug world: Pauline still claims to love her children, though everything points otherwise, and the sacrificial mother Mary does not plan on looking for her forcefully abandoned sons after her release. These are real women caught up in an international illegal business, not movie characters or family approved TV sitcom interludes. Angel-Ajani is an intelligent graduate student working on her research. Mary has four degrees. Pauline is a self-made go-getter. A crucial point Angel-Ajani makes is that the women involved in drug trading are not stupid.  The issue is deeper, and the people involved have more dimensions than we typically hear.

Ultimately, this book portrays the drug trade for what it is: a business. Angel-Ajani depicts the women involved in this unspoken commerce, and almost becomes one of these women herself.  This is a book that will educate, disturb, enthrall, and leave its reader questioning what they thought they knew about drug trafficking.

Jessica FitzPatrick is wandering around lost in the Cathedral of Learning at the University of Pittsburgh.  When she set out to pursue her PhD, she didn’t realize the pursuit would be so maze-like.  She’s originally from Delaware, where the chickens outnumber the people.

Notes from No Man’s Land: American Essays
(Graywolf Press, February 2009)
Jessica Wang

An essay collection about race in America. Wary, you circle around it. It won the 2008 Graywolf Press Nonfiction Prize and a National Book Critics Circle Award. Its back cover sports blurbs from big names like Sherman Alexie and David Shields. Still, you might ask: haven’t enough books covered race by now? What new insights could author Eula Biss possibly have to offer? Retract your claws and dive into Notes from No Man’s Land, because the connections Biss makes in her essays startle and, more importantly, confront us with truths we usually try to avoid.

The essay collection’s artfulness has much to do with how Biss gradually approaches her subject. The narrative voice doesn’t come across as one stalling for time until a big reveal, because the details she provides while pushing towards her argument are fascinating. Take the first essay in the collection, “Time and Distance Overcome.” Biss tells us about the animosity the public initially had towards telephone poles and how people considered the poles an “urban blight.” It’s interesting for us readers to imagine telephone poles, which are now ubiquitous—and maybe even a little quaint thanks to the popularity of cellular phones—being so objectionable. We’re treated to four pages of the war against telephone poles, and then Biss surprises us with a shift:

“In 1898, in Lake Cormorant, Mississippi, a black man was hanged from a telephone pole. And in Weir City, Kansas. And in Brookhaven, Mississippi. And in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where the hanged man was riddled with bullets. In Danville, Illinois…”

To move from animosity towards telephone poles to the lynching of black men from those poles isn’t a leap in logic, but it’s certainly unexpected.

Another particularly effective essay that makes surprising yet logical connections is “No Man’s Land,” in which Biss ties the prairie experiences of Laura Ingalls Wilder (the author of the much beloved Little House series) to her own experiences in Rogers Park, a predominantly black neighborhood in Chicago (both Biss and her husband are white). Such an essay could turn paternalistic or self-congratulatory, but Biss avoids such traps by questioning herself as much as everyone else. For example, she expresses discomfort when she sees racial profiling in action, but then makes an admission: “I consider going to one of the monthly beat meetings the police hold for each neighborhood and making some kind of complaint, but month after month I do not go.”

Readers familiar with Joan Didion will be interested to read Biss’ version of the iconic essay “Goodbye to All That.” Not only does Biss’ essay have the same title, but her sentences often echo Didion’s. “But that is not the way it really happened,” she writes after relating an anecdote about moving into her first New York City apartment. “That is how I learned to tell the story of my life in New York.” While she tweaks the moving to New York essay (even challenging Didion at times), this essay pales in comparison to others in the collection, because they venture onto unfamiliar ground while this one does not.

In fact, the strongest essays in Notes from No Man’s Land tend to be the ones about the Midwest, rather than the ones that revolve around New York and California. The aforementioned “No Man’s Land” is one of the Midwestern essays, as is the equally impressive “Is This Kansas,” an account of teaching white Iowan college students around the time of Hurricane Katrina. Didion and many other writers have written about New York and California, but the Midwest is underrepresented, especially when it comes to race issues, and Biss fills a major gap by giving us a quartet of essays on the Midwest.

While there are moments in Biss’ essays in which you’ll want to argue with her, those moments speak to the power of the essays rather than serious weaknesses.  She might end Notes from No Man’s Land with an essay titled “All Apologies,” but there’s one thing she doesn’t need to apologize for: this fine collection of work. Her surprising but sound connections make us reconsider how we see things, and wonder if things we’ve previously thought of as dissimilar can in fact be linked to one another.

Jessica Wang is currently a MFA candidate in nonfiction at the University of Pittsburgh, working on a family memoir. She previously reviewed A Good Fall for Hot Metal Bridge.

By Nightfall by Michael Cunningham
(Farrar, Straus and Giroux, September 2010)
Erin Lewenauer

Pulitzer-Prize winner Michael Cunningham (The Hours) brings us a painfully ordinary story. Privileged yet average, Peter Harris is in the midst of a mid-life crisis. He finds himself caught between the prison and comfort zone of a twenty-one year marriage and a stable career in the art world. With a lack of daily challenges and his role as a parent dwindling, he has a lot of time on his hands. The result: self-important, relentless self-reflection. Peter asks himself, “Why does he sound so callous?  He means to be rigorous, not hard; he himself is appalled by how he can sound. He feels at times as if he hasn’t quite mastered the dialect of his own language—that he’s a less-than-fluent speaker of Peter-ese, at the age of fourty-four.”

When Peter’s brother-in-law Mizzy (short for “the mistake”) a magnetic, twenty-something, recovering addict, visits in hopes of doing “Something in the Arts,” Peter overflows with maudlin thoughts concerning his despondent daughter in Boston and his own lost youth. He muses, “Peter Harris, hostile child, horrible adolescent, winner of various second prizes, has arrived at this ordinary moment…” His life is inhabited by stray details and dead memories. When he develops an implausible, teenage-like crush on Mizzy, it only highlights the fact that that which he mourns is forced or even imaginary.

Initially, the story is flecked with provocative questions we trust Peter to answer: “Who could survive having been so desperately loved?” and “We always worry about the wrong things, don’t we?” However, all too soon we learn that Peter is in fact a weak character and instead of offering enlightenment, we encounter banal questions and a series of clichéd pleas: “Oh all you immigrants and visionaries, what do you hope to find here, who do you hope to become?” Similar to his main character, Cunningham seems to be writing these lives from a distance, producing the opposite of the lived-in, rounded characters (Clarissa Vaughan in The Hours, Bobby in A Home at the End of the World) he has given us to love in the past.

Fortunately, Cunningham’s signature, startling descriptions do appear throughout.  The elegant descriptions of the cityscape hint that, at its heart, this is his love letter to New York City: “He stands at the railing, with the black ocean hurling itself at his feet and the little Christmas lights of Staten Island strung along the horizon as if they’d been placed there to delineate the boundary between dark opaque ocean and dark starless sky.”

Perhaps before stretching emotion and yanking this sappy tale to its bitter end, Cunningham should have reread some of his better lines (“Youth is the only sexy tragedy” and “If that was supposed to be some kind of epiphany, it didn’t take”) and thought twice.

Erin Lewenauer is an MFA candidate at the University of Pittsburgh. She has also reviewed Manhood for Amateurs, Elephants in Our Bedroom, and Medium Raw for Hot Metal Bridge.

War Dances by Sherman Alexie
(Grove Press, 2009; Paperback, August 2010)
Nichole Held

When I first opened my copy and started paging through, getting a feel for the book, I’ll be honest—I was a little intimidated by Sherman Alexie’s War Dances. It’s a collection of 23 pieces: not only poetry and short fiction (an already ambitious combination), but also a handful of question-answer sequences sprinkled throughout. Alexie even mixes forms within pieces: prose pieces include lettered lists and numbered sections, numbered sections sometimes consist of a mixture of prose and poetry, and many poems include large blocks of prose.

But as soon as I started to read, I began to feel more at home in Alexie territory. Long known for his literary contributions to the Native American culture, Alexie’s experiences navigating between two worlds inspire much of his work, which often focuses on issues of race and cultural mores, especially those of Native American culture within the mainstream American culture. In War Dances, Alexie continues to navigate these familiar subjects, while also moving beyond them into newer territory. Once I was ready to abandon conventional literary form and to embrace Alexie’s “mix tape” of words and sentences—to glide between paragraph and verse without hesitation—I was ready to take in the fluidity of humor and heartache and longing that Sherman Alexie writes so well.

War Dances is not a book to be afraid of. Alexie’s poetry is prosaic and conversational, his prose intimate and honest. His characters are flawed and believable, even sometimes entirely loathable. In this collection, Alexie’s first publication including prose since 2007, he moves (ever so slightly) away from his usually lovably flawed characters to some who are more fatally so: An adulterous husband, a killer, a gay basher. But much like Alexie challenges his reader with his unique use of form, he also challenges his readers with these difficult characters.

One of the more difficult pieces for me to read, “The Senator’s Son,” is told from the point of view of a young white Republican—a politician’s son—and begins just as the main character is committing a violent hate crime against two homosexual men. For a staunch liberal and ardent advocate for gay rights, I found myself wondering how I’d make it through the piece without wanting to throw the book against the wall.

But Alexie, as I have grown to trust, didn’t let me down. He embraces his complex characters: the socially responsible but ethically questionable senator, the detached and self-absorbed senator’s son, and the former best friend—a homosexual and firm and loyal supporter of the Republican party, who in the end, makes one hell of a case for gay rights:

Hey… I don’t expect to be judged negatively for my fuck buddies. But I don’t want to be judged positively either. It’s just sex. It’s not like it’s some specialized skill or something. Hell, right now, in this house, one hundred thousand bugs are fucking away. In this city, millions of bugs are fucking at this moment. And, hey, probably ten thousand humans—and registered voters—are fucking somewhere in this city. Four or five of them might not even be married…Anybody who thinks that sex somehow relates to the national debt or terrorism or poverty or crime or moral values or any kind of politics is just an idiot.

Some may find Alexie’s political persistence comes on too strong; in a slow beginning to the book, the story “Breaking and Entering” tells about the ensuing racial politics following a burglary in which a young African American boy is killed; and the poem “Go, Ghost, Go” mocks humorless individuals who are “addicted to the indigenous.” Until the fourth piece of the book, one might get the feeling that Alexie is hostile or pretentious. But have faith, because what follows is not only new and challenging, but also heartwarming and brave, addressing issues of race, culture, interconnectivity, and personal crisis with intelligence and humor.

Nichole Held is a MA candidate at St. Cloud State University, working on a fictional piece about Alzheimer’s Disease.

Scott Pilgrim by Bryan Lee O’Malley
(Oni Press, various dates)
Steve Gillies

It’s difficult to know exactly how to categorize Bryan Lee O’Malley’s Scott Pilgrim series from Oni Press. It’s often described as a series of “graphic novels.” As problematic and unsatisfying a term as that usually is for people who like comic books or cartoons, it’s even more troubling here because the books are small and shaped exactly like manga. Yet while Scott Pilgrim uses plenty of stylistic and storytelling tricks seen in manga, it’s difficult to call it manga since the characters, themes and content are so American. Except, well, they’re Canadian.

So, what’s the deal with Scott Pilgrim? O’Malley doesn’t provide many clues in the opening pages. We get introduced to Scott Pilgrim, an unemployed 20-something who divides his time between playing in an indie rock band called Sex Bob-omb and looking sweet and clueless. He gets involved with two women, a young and naïve high school girl named Knives Chau who he starts dating in a moment of weakness and an aloof, mysterious woman from New York named Ramona Flowers who he thinks is the girl of his dreams.

Then, about halfway through the first volume, just when we think we’re being set up for some kind of updated, hipster version of an Archie comic, weird things start happening. Scott and Ramona travel through a magic portal. Peoples’ heads start glowing at random times. Cute, clueless, unassuming Scott Pilgrim is really good at fighting, and his fights look a lot like video game fights, complete with people turning into prizes once they’re defeated. Yet none of the characters react to any of this as if it’s weird. This is the world they live in, and O’Malley is confident enough that he never needs to explain or justify any of it. Scott Pilgrim takes place in a world full of ninjas, super powered vegans, video game logic, drummers with bionic arms and anything a 20-something would find cool [1].

It’s a testament to O’Malley’s talent that a series so chock-full of random stuff is not a complete mess. In fact, in O’Malley’s hands, these things all make a lot of sense. Sometimes spectacular first dates do seem like falling through a portal and into some alternate dimension. Why would anyone give up meat and dairy unless it led to having unbeatable superpowers?

And then there’s the series’ unifying conceit, which works on several levels. Scott must defeat Ramona’s seven evil ex-boyfriends in order to date Ramona. It resembles the form of the classical quest narrative as well as the structure of a video game. It also functions as a metaphor for dealing with a partner’s romantic history. Through the course of the series Ramona also encounters a vengeful Knives Chau and several other exes of Scott’s. Along the way Scott and Ramona also have to face up to their own shortcomings as partners and O’Malley deals with that with a maturity and humor that’s lacking in much popular fiction.

Fresh and original, with each new release Scott Pilgrim steadily grew a base of fans until it held down the top six places in the New York Times “graphic books” best sellers list. With a movie released this summer, some were hopeful of a publishing to movie phenomenon akin to Twilight, except you know, for hipsters.

The movie, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, directed by Edgar Wright, tightens up plotting that at times seemed loose and drifting over the course of six volumes, though it sacrifices some great moments with ancillary character to get there. Still, it translates the style and tone of the books remarkably well, and serves as a breath of fresh air in a historically lackluster summer movie season. Unfortunately, it bombed [2].

Like the book, the movie also stubbornly refuses to explain the world in which it inhabits. This, combined possibly with an overexposed star in Michael Cera, led moviegoers to opt for safer bets like Vampires Suck and The Expendables. Its box office failure has led to a lot of hand wringing from fans of the book and the usual questioning of the taste and mental faculties of the general American public. Yet the movie has gotten the kind of critical reaction that could lead to a cult following. The books will be lying in wait for discovery by generation upon generation of video game addicted teens. At the age of thirty-one, there is the promise of years of exciting work from Bryan Lee O’Malley to come. And besides, do hipsters really need their own Twilight anyway?

Steve Gillies is a current MFA candidate in fiction writing at the University of Pittsburgh. He was born in Brazil, raised in Alabama, and spent a considerable amount of his adult life in Chicago. One time he made a comic book that was called “the stupidest I have ever seen” by a noted environmental chemist.


[1] Except vampires. There isn’t a single vampire in this series.

[2] Note the resistance of the temptation to type “bob-ombed.” Many have shown less strength in the face of such low hanging fruit.

Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity by David Foster Wallace
(W. W. Norton & Co., 2003)
Robyn Jodlowski

There are certain expectations one has before beginning a text by David Foster Wallace. One: the reading will be pleasurable but by no means leisurely. Two: you will learn about subjects both tangential and unrelated to the supposed topic at hand. And three: there will be lots of footnotes, abbreviations and surprisingly hip professor slang. All these hold true and then some in Everything and More.

This particular text was written for the “Great Discoveries Series” which, according to their website, “pairs today’s top writers with crucial scientific breakthroughs in ways that are both surprising and illuminating.” As Wallace explains (indeed, almost apologizes for) in his “Small But Necessary Foreword”:

“[The book’s] subject is a set of mathematical achievements that are extremely abstract and technical, but also extremely profound and interesting, and beautiful. The aim is to discuss these achievements in such a way that they’re vivid and comprehensible to readers who do not have pro-grade technical backgrounds and expertise. To make math beautiful—or at least to get the reader to see how someone might find it so.”

You know you’re getting into some heavy stuff if DFW not only gives a disclaimer, but begins his book with a dedication to his parents in Greek.

The foreword, complete with abbreviation glossary (one of several), then moves into the problem of infinity and the history of mathematics on both the meta and micro levels. Georg F. L. P. Cantor, we learn, is the cat behind the book, the guy who “solved” infinity in a sense. Infinity, seemingly either straightforward or baffling, is both and neither.

In the next section (divisions are marked with the mathematically-appropriate § symbol throughout the text), he backs up to think about just how abstract math and numbers truly are. Somehow Wallace uses quotes from math historians, O.E.D definitions of “abstract,” and common stumbling blocks for grade schoolers learning numbers to illuminate the distinction between saying there are five oranges on the table versus the concept of the number five: math suddenly seems much harder, but in a whole new way. Even the innocent number line gets a good philosophizing while symbols and representation reemerge throughout as important concepts of infinity, the term being represented by Wallace with the lemniscate symbol rather than linguistically to remind us of the utter abstraction with which we’re dealing.

The tale really begins with logical traps like Galileo’s and Zeno’s paradoxes, the latter of which goes something like this: in order to cross the street, you must cross every single point between one side (A) and the other (B). Because there are an infinite amount of points between A and B, it should be impossible to traverse that distance of infinity, therefore we shouldn’t be able to cross the street.

Obviously we’ve all crossed the road before, so something is instantly fishy. Stuck on this and similar mind traps, early mathematicians ignored or brushed aside infinity and greats like Plato and Aristotle developed incorrect theories that misled the math world for centuries. It wasn’t until the 1600s that mathematicians, by divorcing themselves from geometrical referents like the number line, were finally able to begin developing a rigorous definition for what had become the “problem” of infinity.

The book proceeds in much the same way as it begins: history of math, trimmed and in context; tight, clear reminders of common mathematical concepts and rules; no-nonsense explanations to bring you to his next arithmetical point.

What Wallace ends up achieving is a beautiful book, but not one that’s available to just any audience as the series wants him to do. By no means a technocrat or math genius (I took AP Calculus in high school and even retained a bit of that derivative and integral business), there were still parts of the text, full of symbols and variables, that I couldn’t quite wrap my head around, even with rereads of Wallace’s patient prose. At the very least, readers would benefit from a calculus class, a philosophy course, and probably another book or two of Wallace’s under their belt before they attempt Everything and More.

There are also sections with an overload of abbreviations and incomplete sentences that give it a not-quite-finished draft feel, though given the glut of research and rewriting the work must have taken, I can’t fault Wallace and the editors for not smoothing those out.

That being said, math types have found calculable problems with the text—problems I am too dense to understand but did the equivalent of a vacant head nod as I read about them online. Wallace seemed to anticipate this, as his acknowledgment ends with, “It goes without saying that the author is solely responsible for any errors or imprecisions in this booklet.”

I won’t give away the ending, mostly because I can’t, but let’s just say that the levels of abstraction increase quite a ways above the problem of five oranges and reach a universe of symbols I’ve never seen before, in arithmetic or otherwise. Rules are broken, infinities are found, and I’m back to feeling like a grade schooler.

All abstraction and mind-boggling philosophy-math aside, I’d say the book is worth a try—at least the first hundred pages if you’re weak at math but strong at patience. It’s interesting to see DFW in a realm he was interested in (his senior thesis was on modal logic), but not well-known for, and after reading, I felt like I had sat in on one of his lectures. The voice here is teacherly, kind, and witty. More than ever, I saw his dexterity, his mastery of language and thought, as he twisted around purely conceptual subjects and bowed under the weight of his characteristic sensitivity to ensure understanding, or at least interest. It’s wild to see spots where even a master like him couldn’t quite bend the language his way.

Like most of his work, and infinity itself, Everything and More is about one thing and everything, base and beautiful, floating somewhere in the realm of ideas.

Robyn Jodlowski is a nonfiction MFA candidate at the University of Pittsburgh and the book review editor at Hot Metal Bridge. To read more of her work visit http://www.politicsunlocked.com/

A Good Fall by Ha Jin
(Hardcover: Pantheon Books, November 2009; Paperback: Vintage, October 2010)
Jessica Wang

If people recognize the name of my hometown, Flushing, Queens, they usually recall that Fran Drescher, aka “The Nanny,” is also from there. A couple of people have even expressed relief that I don’t share her accent. As you could imagine, I’d love to have another cultural reference to use when speaking of my hometown, and I wouldn’t mind it being Ha Jin’s short story collection A Good Fall. The individual stories are subtle yet captivating, and are all the more powerful when considered up against the other stories in the collection.

A Good Fall focuses on the Chinese immigrant experience in Flushing, which is New York City’s second-largest Chinatown. The characters of the twelve stories are young, middle-aged and old, male and female, and vary in how much they’ve become acclimated with their new home. The first story, “The Bane of the Internet,” establishes that the collection is very much about the modern day immigrant experience. The protagonist, a woman who left her sister behind in China, initially rejoices when she and her sister begin to correspond via e-mail. She soon discovers, however, the downside to the more frequent exchanges. The narrator’s bluntness is amusing, and makes it clear that A Good Fall isn’t going to romanticize anything: “Certainly I wouldn’t lend her the money, because that might amount to hitting a dog with a meatball—nothing would come back.”

Maybe it’s because it follows the bluntness of “The Bane of the Internet,” but it’s hard not to be charmed by the second story in the collection, “A Composer and His Parakeets.” The title character of the story becomes attached to his actress girlfriend’s pet parakeet when she leaves to film a movie. Out of all the stories in the collection, “A Composer and His Parakeets” is the quietest and the least dramatic, but its tenderness holds the reader’s attention.

Just as “A Composer and His Parakeets” balances the blunt narrative voice of “The Bane of the Internet,” other stories balance each other. The narrator of “Children as Enemies,” an elderly man who has immigrated to live with his son’s family, bemoans his grandchildren’s decision to change their names so that they sound more “American.” On its own, the story seems too familiar: ungrateful youngsters, long-suffering elders. But the next story in the collection, “In the Crossfire,” flips the situation. The protagonist of this story, with whom the readers sympathize, struggles to keep peace between his mother, recently arrived from China, and his wife, who is of Chinese heritage but is Americanized. The antagonistic character in the story is the more traditional mother, a reversal from the previous story. Likewise, the consecutive stories “Shame” and “An English Professor” both deal with Chinese professors of English literature (who may be stand-ins for Jin, currently a Boston University professor), though the point-of-view employed in “Shame” is of a former student, while the narrator-protagonist of “An English Professor” is the professor himself.

There’s one notable imbalance in A Good Fall, however. Jin’s male characters tend to be wonderfully complex, such as the composer in “A Composer and His Parakeets,” the monk in the title story who attempts suicide when threatened with deportation, and the protagonist in “The House Behind a Weeping Cherry” who befriends his three prostitute housemates. Even a secondary male character in “Temporary Love” surprises readers when he does not fly into a jealous rage over his wife’s infidelity, but manipulates her guilt to his advantage. But other than the female home health aide who is the protagonist of “A Pension Plan,” Jin’s female characters seem closer to stock characters. This is most apparent in “In the Crossfire,” with the overbearing mother and the none-too-supportive wife, but the issue also exists in other stories.

Still, Jin is mostly successful at showing that the immigrant experience, with fellow immigrants and Asian Americans and with Flushing itself, is a varied and complicated one. Flushing’s place in our cultural imagination isn’t going to rival Manhattan—which is what many people think of when they think of New York City—anytime soon. But with its multidimensional representation of Flushing and understated but good stories, A Good Fall can hold its head up high.

Jessica Wang is currently a MFA candidate in nonfiction at the University of Pittsburgh, working on a family memoir. She received her BFA in Writing from Emerson College.

This Noisy Egg by Nicole Walker
(Barrow Street Press, March 2010)
Amy Whipple

No matter how many classes I take, no matter how many literary journals I read, poetry still makes me nervous. The distinction between brilliant and appalling sometimes seems to be made based on how much sleep you got the night before, and it’s just so scary to look at that line and realize that everyone else around you picked the opposite side.

It needn’t be that difficult, right?

All I ask of poetry is that it sends me off with strings of words that run themselves through my thoughts with the tenacity of a Top 40 hit.  I want to hear and see with the weird intensity that comes after leaving a movie theater.  I want to snuggle into images as I do my favorite memories.  This might be a childish way to read poetry, but so be it.  Because under those guidelines, Nicole Walker’s debut collection, This Noisy Egg, does all the right things.

Walker’s thirty-nine poems (nineteen of which have been previously published) meditate on conception of all kinds – birth, rebirth, beliefs. So much in these poems feels lost or unfulfilled for the many speakers though there are lighter moments as well.  “A Number of Things Are Scarily Lacking” – a list not unlike a Whitman poem or a Cole Porter song – counts on both the humorous (“9. A hotdog. No condiments.” “18. Telling your boyfriend that he looks like Alan Alda.”) as well as the crushing (“6. Your loud voice, no whispers, only walls acoustic.” “30. Turning. 30. No able-bodied Superman to spin the world backward—make up for lost time.”).

The physicality of being often emerges through the emotionality. “She doubled in size & split into you, your mother’s personal geometry. / One noisy seed caused a sea of regret & repainted walls,” says the narrator of “Bivalves.” And in “The Coroner Senses a Blackbird” – “My body told a story my mouth could / not hide.”

As might be expected, the collection wavers a bit in the middle. “What Is Wanted from the Suicides” is probably the weakest piece, not really adding anything to the thick stack of suicide poetry already in existence. I wouldn’t not recommend the book as a result of it, though. Especially by the time we get to my favorite lines in the collection, which are in the middle of “Where P is P & not P”: “You will / find the compass / which will / tell you what lines you must read.”  (Note: sometimes you stumble across exactly what you need to hear.)

While most of the poems fall into a standard page-or-so length, the penultimate poem, “The Unlikely Origin of the Species,” stretches for almost twelve full pages.  It is here where the changing rules of childhood parallel the just as random rules for which animals become pets while others are left to the wild.  It’s actually the narrator of “Canister and Turkey Vulture” that explains the themes most aptly: “everything that stands between the oh so obvious / and the almost can’t imagine.” (Almost can’t imagine – Darwin and St. Francis of Assisi in a tryst.)

The broken sections of the poem are marked with Greek symbols and headline-esque words. To that end, Walker’s note to the poem adds much to “Unlikely” as well as the collection as a whole: “But doesn’t it nearly make you cry when you realize the alphabet doesn’t have to begin with the letter A?”

Amy Whipple is an MFA candidate in nonfiction at the University of Pittsburgh. Readers can also find her at <http://www.amywhipple.com/>.

Innocent, by Scott Turow
(Grand Central Publishing, Hachette Book Group, May 2010)
Erin Lewenauer

It is likely that questions concerning Rusty Sabich’s fate have been knocking around in the minds of Presumed Innocent fans for the past 22 years…questions which can now be answered with Turow’s definitive sequel, Innocent.

Turow is the king of the Legal Thriller Genre, which is to say, he defined it, and set the bar high. His near-abnormal ability to focus is apparent, especially in Innocent, in the seamless reintroducing of his realistic characters and a refreshingly complex plot, which switches between perspectives and points in time.

In 1987, with the release of Presumed Innocent, readers met a slew of absorbing characters and identified with their individual struggles. In 2010, returning to Turow’s beloved Kindle County, Illinois, readers find former lawyer, Sabich, a Chief Appellate Judge, turning 60. His sensitive and brilliant son Nat, has recently graduated from law school, following in his father’s footsteps, and Sabich has managed to somehow maintain his marriage of 36 years to bipolar Barbara.

“Barbara and I have resumed our normal mode,” Sabich says. “There is no sound, no TV, no dishwasher rumbling. The silence is the absence of any connection. She’s in her world, I’m in mine. Not even the radio waves that come out of deep space could be detected. Yet this is what I chose and more often still believe I want.”

Then one morning, Sabich wakes up next to a dead wife and chaos ensues. He waits 24 hours before reporting her death, casting a shadow of a doubt on his character. Was this murder? Suicide? An accident? The public demands an answer. The cards are not stacked in Sabich’s favor when it is revealed that a 24 hour window would have allowed incriminating chemicals and evidence to disappear from Barbara’s bloodstream.

Tommy Molto, a former acting prosecuting attorney and Sabich’s nemesis, who unsuccessfully prosecuted him for killing his mistress decades ago, resurfaces alongside cocky and shifty, Chief Deputy Jim Brand; both are determined to go after Sabich once again. His candidacy for a higher court in an imminent election and his most recent affair with his magnetic law clerk, Anna Vostic, 26 years his junior, combine to shift his life once again toward downfall. On top of this, his former attorney Sandy Stern, who saved his life the first time around, is now in poor health and the question remains, whether he, or anyone, can save Sabich from himself a second time.

Turow will always stand out because of the seriousness with which he approaches his work and the weight he gives his characters. It is comforting and discomforting to revisit Sabich, his family, and his cohorts. Readers see evidence of their maturity, yet a new sadness blooms, revealing sharp insights about relationships.

“It’s prosaic most often, but so is much of life at its best—with the family around the table, with buddies at a bar,” Sabich says.

Most of Turow’s old characters long for the unattainable and mourn their past choices. New characters, dynamic Anna and hilarious Judge Yee among others, provide some relief from the dark turmoil that accompanies scrambling with unchangeable mistakes and flaws. Sabich concludes, “The Declaration of Independence said we have a right to pursue happiness—but not to find it.” Innocent’s airtight plot will have readers racing toward the end, while battling an impulse to slow down and appreciate Turow’s craft at its best.

Erin Lewenauer is an MFA candidate at the University of Pittsburgh. She has also reviewed Manhood for Amateurs and Elephants in Our Bedroom for Hot Metal Bridge.

The Writer on Her Work: Seventeen Essays by Twentieth-Century American Writers
Edited and Updated Introduction by Janet Sternburg, Preface by Julia Alvarez.
(W.W. Norton & Co.: 1980; reissued in 2000)
Jody Lucas Kulakowski

“Inherited Fears and Real Dangers: Being Visible as a Woman Writer”

All I needed was a decent copy of Joan Didion’s “Why I Write.” I found several online, all excerpts, and when I combed the digital archives made available to me through the university where I teach, I found The New York Times Magazine backlog stopped just short of the issue in which it first appeared (December 5, 1976).

I wanted to use “Why I Write” as a companion piece to “On Keeping a Notebook.” My summer composition course began in less than two weeks, and I wanted to teach these two pieces. I wanted to start a conversation about freedom, about writing as a means to express perspective, memory, and, in the case of “Why I Write,” as a vehicle for uncovering thoughts and ideas.

I finally stumbled across the essay in an anthology called The Writer and Her Work: Seventeen Essays by Twentieth-century American Writers. I ordered it, and it arrived several days later. I didn’t think about it again for a couple of weeks until I was tired: of reading student papers; of staring at blank screens, waiting for my own words to appear; of trying to be wife and mother a hundred miles from my home, my heart; of questioning myself, wondering what the hell it was that made me think that, at middle age, I should be, in my mother’s terms, gallivanting, shrugging my responsibilities in favor of pursuing what I want, what I’m driven to do, not what’s good for everyone else. Woman, take up thy cross.

I picked up Writer and Her Work and began reading. Janet Sternburg collected these seventeen essays (nineteen, actually, as the second issue includes an essay-length preface by Julia Alvarez and a second introduction-in-miniature by Sternburg) because, she says, “we have very little by women that intentionally and directly addresses the subject of their own art.” I don’t know if, in the intervening thirty years since its initial publication, ten years since its reissue, that statement still holds true—we women writers today seem much less reluctant to commit our process to the page—but the value of these women writing of their craft and their writing lives in the decades that feminists’ heralded the cracking and crashing of glass ceilings everywhere, it’s comforting for this woman writer to know my own insecurities, my fears, my occasional sense of isolation is not a regression or a betrayal of my sisters who’ve come before me.

Sternburg set criteria for this essay collection: First, they must be written by American writers (her rationale: “to ‘go abroad’ would scatter the impact of our own experience.”). Second, they must represent “many different kinds of writers, especially those who have worked in more than one literary form.” Third, the backgrounds of these women must be diverse, while at the same time “suggest what women writers have in common.”

Sternburg solicited and received material from Mary Gordon, Nancy Milford, Margaret Walker, Susan Griffin, Ingrid Bengis, Toni Dade Bambara, Erica Jong, Maxine Hong Kingston, Janet Burroway, Muriel Rukeyser, and Gail Godwin. Among them are novelists, screenwriters, playwrights, essayists, literary critics, memoirists, feminist and Womanist critics, documentarians, and authors of children’s books.

They are recipients of many awards, including the Pulitzer, the National Book Critics Circle Award, the Emmy and many others.

Julia Alvarez, in her preface to the updated edition, calls the book, “a liberating text for so many women writers who, like me, felt isolated and afraid.” Isolated and afraid? Check. I had to keep reading.

Anne Tyler addresses the Woman-Having-It-All Syndrome in her essay, a condition that began developing among independent-minded women sometime in the mid-sixties, morphed several times over the intervening decades, has been disputed, disproved, redefined, and, lately, appropriated in the most twisted sort of way by certain far-right conservatives [halting now my derisive tangent]. Tyler’s recounts the many intrusions into the writing life and brings a reader like me, one who “always did count on having a husband and children” back down to earth. She offers hope, says, “I’m surprised to find myself a writer but have fitted it in fairly well, I think.”

Not what you’re looking for? Then turn to Alice Walker, who begins her essay by answering the question about women artists and motherhood—you know, that one that implies we can be only one or the other, so what’s it going to be? She says: “Yes….[women artists] should have children—assuming this is of interest to them—but only one….Because with one you can move….With more than one you’re a sitting duck.” (Is that what I am, as a mother of four? A sitting duck? Hmm.) This is not to say that Walker maintains for nearly twenty pages a discussion limited to this one narrow (narrow?) consideration. No, she expands, blossoms, even, from womanhood to black womanhood, to criticism and representation (nonrepresentation?) of black women artists in feminist thought. She covers a lot of ground, ending, just prior to her closing poem, with the words: “We are together, my child and I. Mother and child, yes, but sisters really, against whatever denies us all that we are.” It’s worth the read to discover on one’s own what comes between.

Michele Murray’s[1] essay, entitled “Creating Oneself from Scratch,” resonated most strongly with me. It is a posthumous creation, comprised of selections from her diaries and covers a twenty-year period where she contemplates writing, motherhood, the agonies of motherhood in relation to her writing, and, the motivating force—cancer—that drove her on, in spite of the challenges of raising four children, to produce four books, two children’s books, an anthology of women’s literature (her bio mentions it being one of the first of its kind), and a book of poetry prior to her death. She yearned to live long enough to see the publication of the last, The Great Mother, her poetry collection. She died seven months too soon. It makes me wonder at we women artists, especially those of us for whom prominent identifying labels often shift, one day more mother than writer, another more writer than any incidental markers of DNA. What would we do, what would we produce, knowing our time is limited? How would we shift our time, how would we choose our priorities, what would we leave for our daughters, our sisters, what words of wisdom or folly would we commit to the page, not leave to chance and stardust?

My recommendation? If you’re a writer, pick up this book. If you’re a woman writer, pick it up and don’t put it down. Hold it close to you. Create.

Jody Lucas Kulakowski is current MFA candidate in Creative Nonfiction at the University of Pittsburgh. She writes about pain and spirituality, motherhood and rural womanhood, growing and dying. She lives between Pittsburgh and her home in Punxsutawney, where she much prefers peacocks to groundhogs.


[1] As a matter of trivia (though these days, perhaps no trivial matter), Michele Murray is one of only two of these women who does not have her own Wikipedia entry. Janet Sternburg, ironically, is the other.

The Little Stranger, by Sarah Waters
(Hardcover: Riverhead, April 2009; Paperback: Riverhead Trade, May 2010)
Kathleen Davies

It is 1947, and the English countryside is still reeling from WWII. Doctor Faraday has been summoned to Hundreds Hall, the home of the Ayres family, to look in on a servant girl who claims that she is too ill to work. Faraday determines that the girl is merely homesick but, before he leaves, she confides that she keeps hearing strange noises. She believes that the house is haunted.

We are in familiar territory from the moment we enter Sarah Waters’ The Little Stranger: there is a rational man of science,  a repressed and restless heroine, her scarred and reclusive brother, her alluring mother, even a long-dead child who may be the “little stranger” of the title. There are also mysterious fires, madness, and things that go bump in the night. And of course, there is a house. Still grand despite patches of dry rot and peeling wallpaper, still impressive despite the encroachments of Council estates and nouveau riche neighbors, Hundreds Hall may be the central character in Waters’ novel (as in any good haunted house story). However, it is the unfamiliar spin that Waters puts on these familiar material that elevates her tale above a good rainy day read.

Best-known for bringing queer sensibility to Victorian generic conventions, Waters here turns a critical eye on the type of sedate country-house ghost story embraced by Henry James and Edith Wharton. But in this case, Waters doesn’t focus on sexuality (perhaps because sexuality is so often the subtext of gothic horror; the house becomes a symbol of buried impulses). Instead, she takes a good look at the house itself as an object of desire, locating the discontents of gothic horror in socioeconomic resentment rather than psychosexual neuroses.

Waters’ (very unreliable) narrator, Doctor Faraday, is keenly aware of himself as an expression of class aspiration. The son of working-class parents, he frets that his position as the village doctor’s partner doesn’t warrant the sacrifices his parents made for him. Faraday also worries about the effect that the introduction of the National Health Service will have on his income and ambitions. He is thus both flattered and relieved when the Ayres family begins to depend on him – first for medical advice, later to provide a rational explanation for a spate of bizarre sights and sounds. The characters’ relationship to the house and its haunting are informed by class. Both Caroline Ayres and her brother Roderick fear that they have given up productive lives in the larger world in exchange for preserving the family estate. Unsurprisingly, they are readier than Faraday to accept the possibility that the house has taken on a malevolent life of its own. (In one memorable scene, household objects seems to attack the family in a ghoulish parody of commodity fetishism.) But Faraday also may be haunted by the house. As a child, he was so taken with the place on his sole visit that he chipped off a piece of ornamental border as a souvenir. And, in that single neat image, Waters blurs the line between acquisition and destruction, forcing us to wonder if Faraday’s concern with the Ayres family is entirely benevolent.

Waters’ adherence to gothic narrative conventions and style has its drawbacks. Her style here is leisurely and circumspect (which may come as a surprise to readers who know her playful and robust prose from her debut novel, Tipping the Velvet) and a good hundred pages pass before the muted shocks of footsteps in empty corridors give way to something more visceral. Further, Faraday can be a frustrating presence – at one crucial moment, he literally can’t see what’s right in front of him, and the disconnect between his actions and his intentions becomes increasingly painful. Still, if you’re interested in seeing how old houses can be inhabited by new spirits, The Little Stranger offers a lingering chill sharpened by social critique.

Kathleen Davies is a PhD candidate at the University of Pittsburgh.

[Editor's Note: Watch for regular reviews of older titles with the heading "You Might Have Missed..." coming each month.]

Monkeys by Susan Minot
(Dutton, 1986)
Rosemary McMillen

I hadn’t heard of Susan Minot’s book Monkeys until recently, when it was recommended to me by one of my professors. Originally published in 1986, the book was reprinted in August 2000 by Vintage Contemporaries, a division of Random House. It ended up being one of those books I spent all day reading from cover to cover, and I’ve been passing on the recommendation since.

Although the nine short stories that make up Monkeys follow the same characters over the course of thirteen years, the book cannot be called a novel. Many pivotal events happen off-stage, and it is left to the reader to infer what has happened between stories: break-ups, a death, a marriage. What binds the stories together are the Vincent family—Mum, Dad, and their seven children—and their relationships to each other. Minot’s prose is sparse and economic, but she portrays these characters with a warmth that allows you access to their lives.

The reader is introduced to the Vincents through the eyes of nine-year-old Sophie, who narrates the  first story, “Hiding.” Because of her youth, Sophie notices many things innocently, without understanding their significance. Thus unknowingly, she introduces the reader to the problems that will haunt the Vincent family throughout course of the book: Dad’s alcoholism, his distance from the family, Mum’s hunger for his affection. Sophie describes Dad’s withdrawal while Mum dances for her children:

She bangs the floor with her sneakers, pumping and kicking, thudding her heels in smacks, not like clicking at all, swinging her arms out in front of her like she’s wading through the jungle. She speeds up, staring straight at Dad who’s reading his book, making us laugh even harder. He’s always like that.

Because she doesn’t understand the implications of what she sees, and so does not dwell on them, Sophie’s observations become an example of what the jacket blurb calls Minot’s “sparely eloquent” writing.

While it is impossible to develop the personalities of all seven children in the space of 150 pages, as a whole the Vincent family is believable and knowable from story to story. Mum especially comes alive with her zest for life. On the way home from fancy parties, she goes swimming in the ocean in her cocktail dress; she holds protests against the Vietnam War. Her joy in life is passed on to her children, expressed in their enthusiastic welcome of new births in the family. She surrounds her children with affection to make up for their aloof father; but her own unsatisfied need for love cripples her. The reader is never given direct access to her thoughts, but sees her through the eyes of her children, who perceive more of her pain as they grow older.

Although most of the stories were published individually before the release of Monkeys in 1986, the book does come together into something more than a collection of  individual works. Each story draws subtle details from others that would otherwise lay dormant—a box of postcards in one story from a lover in another; a seemingly irrelevant ghost story that becomes foreshadowing.

And despite the gaps between them, the stories trace an arc that would be incomplete were any of them missing. By the final story, “Thorofare,” the emotional journey is brought not so much to a resolution as to a revelation of the tragic effects that Dad’s distance and alcoholism have on each member of the family. The pain here, as in all the stories, is tempered with graceful understatement, a fitting conclusion to this soft-spoken, heart-rending book.

Rosemary McMillen is an MFA student in fiction at the University of Pittsburgh.