DAVE FITZGERALD RECOMMENDS: Brandi Homan’s ‘Burn Fortune’, Kristin Garth’s ‘Daddy’, and Danielle Chelosky’s ‘Pregaming Grief’

Paint Your Wagon, the 1969 Western musical starring Jean Seberg, Clint Eastwood, and Lee Marvin, was a historic commercial flop, by turns both mindbogglingly strange, and mind-numbingly dull in its depiction of an anonymous, gold rush era mining camp cycling through the increasingly corruptive stages of insular capitalism. While its atonally sing-songy, borderline nihilistic theme reprises (many, many times over, burrowing into your brain and simply refusing to resolve), we watch as some 400 men invest their lucky-struck earnings into six agreeably trafficked women until their No Name tent City grows into a hedonist boomtown—a collection of 20-some-odd saloons that never sleep, and through which the men’s money can change hot hands in closed-loop perpetuity. Why am I telling you all this, you ask? Well look no further than my 2021 review of Brandi Homan’s Burn Fortune, the first title I ever read from femcel/horror-centric small press darling CLASH Books.Burn Fortune is a small wonder; an exercise in concision that nonetheless contains worlds. Written in tight, punchy bursts of poetic wit and poignantly relatable teen angst, it reads like the highly curated diary of a precocious young woman in a hell of a spot. Through the sharp, tilt-shift lens of the smalltown 1990’s midwest—a place which author Brandi Homan renders painfully (and at times hilariously) authentic via deadpan descriptions of flag corps politics, beer runs to the Kum & Go, and hot summers spent detasseling corn—we get to know June, a girl with the kind of nebulous big dreams that only small-town teenagers know how to have; that sense that there has to be more of something, anything, somewhere out there, and that you’re surely destined for all of it if you could only figure out where to go. It’s not until the local librarian introduces her to the films of Jean Seberg (an Iowa native who escaped to France to become the iconic star of such films as Breathless and Saint Joan) that June begins to think more deeply about what she wants, and how to get it.The sections in which she watches Seberg’s films could almost pass for Live Tweeting sessions, and her by-turns entranced and exasperated commentary injects her increasingly desperate circumstances (abusive boyfriend, sexual assault, unwanted pregnancy) with a brilliant levity that will make you want to watch right along with her (I for one will be checking out Paint Your Wagon ASAP). And while the thing this book maybe does best is depict the ways in which even the smartest people can find themselves hemmed in on all sides by seemingly inescapable circumstance—by a town, or a house, or a family, or even a single destructive person—what June finds in Jean (and specifically in her portrayal of Joan of Arc) is the will to break free of it all. To defy fate, raise high her battle flag, and fly like the prairie wind, because small towns hold on the tightest—to young women most of all—and absolutely no one gets out without a fight.I wrote that short review nearly four years ago, in what now feels like a much simpler time, but upon revisiting Burn Fortune’s blighted, broken heartland for this piece, I found that it hit differently under our present banner of red, white, and blue. For all her determination, the thought of June actually breaking free of all that’s tying her to the stake of smalltown, USA feels like a deeply optimistic reading—an astronomical possibility on par with Seberg’s own selection by Otto Preminger out of 18,000 hopeful young actresses vying to play his Joan (a rescue which, by all accounts, still left her beholden to the whims of a tyrannical male authority). The East is sinking. The West is burning. The government is a kleptocracy, and the economy feels increasingly like a game of three-card monte. Maybe June had a chance back in the DIY riot grrrl ’90s, but the futility of the future we now know waits for her comes through in countless devilish details, from her boyfriend’s hours spent duct-taped to an exercycle, to a perfect, microcosmic chapter in which she and her friends cruise “The Loop” on a routine Saturday night, jockeying for position as they mindlessly circle the main drag of their go-nowhere town. “That’s what being a good American is, right?” June muses on their endless, aimless plight. “Be better! Be better all the time!”Homan’s ending is open to interpretation, and I was certainly feeling better about America in 2021 than I am today, so far be it for me to claim any certainty as to what June can or can’t hope to accomplish. But by the time she sequesters herself in an underground culvert to light candles and recite spells—pictures of Seberg taped to the walls—it’s fair to wonder if she’s built herself a chrysalis, or a tomb. It’ll take more than a still-legal-back-then abortion or a fresh start in the next town over to truly outrun her devastating lot. No matter where you go within the invisible borders of the American patriarchy, there you fucking are. Even Jean took her talents to Europe (and even that only helped for so long). “Around here the only way to speak is to leave and if you leave you burn.”For those looking to truly opt out, allow me to pivot to Kristin Garth’s Daddy (from the ever-pugnacious envelope pushers at Anxiety Press), a physically discomfiting collection liable to make any man who’s browsed PornHub in the last twenty years squirm in his boxer briefs. Wielding the second person voice like a VR empathy trainer, Garth slathers her readers in a child pageant’s-worth of Lolital signifiers—bows and hearts, glitter and gloss, plaid skirts and pigtails—corseting us inside the minds and behind the eyes of female bodies we are almost exclusively accustomed to ogling at a safe and powerful remove. Whether building exquisite, tangled poetry from the inner monologue of a babyfaced sex worker bought and stabled for her ability to cry on command (“The Cry Shot”), or avenging the trauma of twin rollerskating ingenues turned sister-act strippers (“Twinkles”), Daddy cannonballs into the fetishization of girlhood with the no-fucks flagrancy of a trenchcoated pervert crashing the ballpit at a Chuck-E-Cheese, outragedly demanding a deeper examination of the semiotics of smut; of what so many get away with when the lights are lowest, and why.Nowhere is this truer than in Plaything—the novella that makes up the book’s second half—which centers around Melinda, a nominally enslaved young woman who is kept in a state as close to that of a living sex doll as one man can arrange for her. Cloistered in the kind of princess bed, fast fashion, Hello Kitty-print prison one might associate with a “barely legal” OnlyFans feed, Melinda is monitored 24/7, and dresses, speaks, and behaves according to the exacting specifications of her misogynist malefactor, existing in a kind of infantilized stasis for his pleasure alone. It’s a chilling scenario to see spelled out, and the degree to which it mirrors so much familiar content on the X-rated web renders bold, lascivious text any remaining subtext regarding the 21st century porn-poisoned male brain—the desire for both absolute physical control over, and absolute emotional detachment from, the female body.Elsewhere, “The Plan” chronicles a daughter’s lifelong pursuit of physical beauty and runway fame in hopes of someday crossing paths with her deadbeat movie star dad, an unwitting, uncaring lothario who proves all too eager to fail her spectacularly anew. “Con Man” recounts in excruciating detail a Rubicon moment in which an aspiring screenwriter must decide exactly how much of herself she’s willing to give up for a shot at the bigtime, and reckon with the instantaneous, irreversible damage she’ll endure no matter which sliding door she chooses. And taking these casual violations into the spiritual realm, the title story unfolds through a series of e-mails sent by a rape victim from her LDS college to her devout Mormon father back in Florida (where most of the book’s stories take place), an evolution of increasingly unhinged reports which reveal her betrayal and exploitation at the hands of men at every turn. All of these stories take square aim at the impossible power dynamics baked into our socio-sexual bedrock—the master’s tools that will absolutely never dismantle the master’s house—and the thoughtless entitlement with which men at every rung of authority and success can and will view women as their rightful spoils, offering a leg up only if they get to cop a feel along the way.I’ve read Daddy twice now, and I don’t believe there’s a good man to be found anywhere among these cum- and tear-stained pages. Indeed, that Plaything’s Melinda ultimately escapes into a lesbian relationship seems to suggest the possibility that, as far as Garth is concerned, there may well be none left to be found. While we’ve undoubtedly made strides under 3rd wave feminism with the subversive reclamation of stripping and the rise of ethical porn, Daddy raises real and fair questions about the academic nature of this kind of empowerment, and the ways in which it can bounce back to bite real sex workers just trying to survive inside institutional sexism’s echo chamber. For so many of these women, the fact remains, men don’t really care why they sell their bodies, so long as they do it. We can always make it work to our advantage. This may sound like polemic, but I’m not even claiming to be above it. It’s a banal, pushbutton temptation the internet hucks at me every day. As Chuck Klosterman famously noted over a decade ago, “the biggest problem in my life is that my work machine is also my pornography delivery machine.”With all that said, Daddy feels like a true blow against the empire. What Garth has done here, brazenly and without compromise, is overload the whole damn system. Her ruthless commingling of adult and underage imagery, taboo and perversity, wanting to look and knowing you should look away, cumulates to effect a kind of autoerotic short-circuitry; a flaccid self-loathing. Her authorial voice is the literary equivalent of your girlfriend finding your browser history and screaming at you—“So this is what you like, you sick fuck?!”—until you die of shame. Even the book’s title and teenybop trapper-keeper cover art were enough to make me feel uncomfortable reading it in public. The fact is, none of this is new. Men have spent the past century building an objectification ecosystem that learns, commodifies, and enables our worst behaviors, and until we take responsibility for dismantling it (a prospect that looks less promising today than it has at any point in my lifetime) it will remain too big to fail. Considering everything that’s working against her, it’s a testament to Garth’s writing that she can still find ways to make us blush.As for those still looking to work within all that the patriarchy hath wrought, I’m not sure any writer has nailed the experience with as much honest, and self-aware precision as Danielle Chelosky, whose diaristic Pregaming Grief (my long-overdue first read from small press bellwether Short Flight/Long Drive) details her coming to terms, at the tender cusp of her twenties, with her own conflicted masochism. Torn between two older men—her manipulatively needy, hopelessly immature, yo-yoing heroin-addict first love (direct-addressed as “You” throughout), and an obdurately withholding, overtly condescending, all-too-familiar brand of “telling it like it is” aspiring comedian (Andrew)—Chelosky offers herself up as the sacrificial embodiment of Carson McCullers’s timeless relational paradigm—that of the lover and the beloved—and makes a strong case for the nature of human desire as little more than a pendular dialectic between the two. It’s strange to write about these presumably very real guys in such judgmental terms, but Chelosky is nothing if not cleareyed about exactly who and what they are, and her own complicated feelings for both of them. After centuries of men reducing all women to mothers and whores, she matter-of-factly flips that dichotomy on its head, making plain as day its unavoidable cognate: that all men must then be children or johns.Whilst ping-ponging back and forth between these two lunkheads, Chelosky forges a fledgling career in music journalism, tests the limits of her alcoholism, and does a lot of driving around with her bestie Quinn, at first trekking to well-known vistas like Joshua Tree and Death Valley (both places already being ravaged by climate change), and once the pandemic descends transitioning to shuttered prisons, defunct amusement parks, and even the faithless remnant of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s Heritage USA. The more of these long-distance interstate sojourns she takes, the more she starts to feel like a video game avatar butting up against the invisible boundaries of its world map, looking for some elsewhere that simply isn’t there. Though she has all the freedom she could want—all the practical freedom that June and Melinda long for—she still finds herself always and inevitably returning to the places and people from whence she came.“I felt suffocated by a nameless grief” she notes at one point. “This inexplicable feeling of ending,” and through her trespassing journeys into abandonment and decay, coupled with her dystopian descriptions of New York under Covid lockdown, and her dedicated attachment to outdated media formats, her tone begins to convey a palpable sense of lived-in doom—of an already-gone world that she somehow both misses, and never really knew. It’s in many ways the same grief we see in the black parade of album anniversaries (a trend for which, somewhat amusingly, Chelosky’s chief publisher Stereogum is directly responsible) and celebrity deaths that daily clog our interconnected plexus of screens—the collective, performative mourning of the past that feels communally engineered to continue into the future in perpetuity, like some hellish Oscars In Memoriam eternally regurgitating the nostalgia of how much cooler and realer everything used to be. But when everything becomes nostalgia, then soon enough all of life starts to feel like cosplay—a dissociating from our present reality for fear that there’s nothing left to achieve, or even hope for—that anything worth doing has all already been done.The same could be said for the numerous men she meets around the margins of her two bigtime loves—a string of largely interchangeable music industry bros and app swipes that only serve to reinforce her disinterest in her own generation’s algorithmic romantic compromise. ExPat Press honcho Manuel Marrero observed in his own phenomenal review of this book that “people used to like things in a way they don’t anymore” and in addition to the physical books and albums Chelosky so clearly treasures, those “things” very much include “each other.” While her peers often present as a shallow cavalcade of responsible(ish) drinkers curating themselves through detached, disposable hookups, she repeatedly, and belligerently disingratiates herself from their ranks, determined to chase a more permanent, transcendent attachment through the self-abnegation of submissive, rough sex and the consumptive void of blackout, like some questing, flagellant Mystic. “I writhed in never-ending hysterical fits” she laments, twisting at the ends of all her fraying ropes, “wishing to escape my body, this city, the whole world.”Something the book explores as well as any narrative work I know on the subject, is the necessary tradeoff between trust and danger within a mutual S&M arrangement. Chelosky is generous and fearless when it comes to sharing the details of hers and Andrew’s sex life—a thrilling, and occasionally frightening affair that hews much closer to the reckless violence of Año Bisiesto than the contractual fantasies of something like 50 Shades. Her acceptance of risk—her need for it, even—is part of what makes it work for her. “I regretted everything I did the minute I did it, I deserved a punishment for it, for just existing. I wanted to get perpetually drunk so I could be liberated from this prison of insecurity, no longer having to be aware of or responsible for myself and my inevitable mistakes” confesses one passage in this relentlessly quotable book (I must have copied down at least 50 while making notes for this article, often snapping pictures of whole pages for reference). “I felt ashamed of the videos I watched when I was alone. The degradation I desired felt so antithetical to the feminist beliefs I held” admits another. Where Daddy adamantly refuses to allow for this kind of counterintuitive ecstasy, Chelosky’s journey of abject self-discovery argues for a different kind of personal and ideological freedom. Andrew exhibits, pretty inarguably, an unapologetic chauvinism (I’ll never forget the anecdote in which he mansplains why her choice of favorite Beatles song is wrong), but he also proves capable of tenderness and affection and, most importantly, seems to get what it is she needs from him, even if he’s not always willing to give it. Regardless of all she ostensibly knows and feels to the contrary, for her “A place of pain [is] just another name for a home.”There is so much resignation here, for an author so young—so much hard-won truth and understanding of the limits of human relationships, and the very real possibility that to fully love anyone is to spend your whole life overcorrecting for how you first loved, or failed to love someone else. I’ve barely touched on “You” so far, but his presence in, and influence upon her worldview is pervasive, bordering on omnipresent. For anyone who’s ever held onto someone too hard, for too long—or conversely, had someone refuse to let them go—Pregaming Grief will carry a visceral weight. The neurotic ghosts of memory and regret. The constant replaying and reimagining and repenting of all that might have been. “I’d learned the hard way that getting older only made things worse” begins my favorite line in the book. “I was an expert at waiting out my problems until they ruined my life.” If you know, you know, and Danielle Chelosky knows.Indeed, for as much as I wanted to examine Pregaming Grief within the same feminist framework as the two books above, it ultimately forced me to expand my thinking. For as much as I kneejerk loathed Andrew and “You” and felt depressed by the tired, ubiquitous tropes of modern manhood they represent, I was also regularly mortified by moments of recognition in them both—in Andrew’s pop culture didacticism and dogged resistance to vulnerability, and in “You”’s willful naivete and cowardly, druggy self-sabotage. And for as much as I wanted better for Chelosky (whatever judgy, paternalistic vision for her that might entail—yet another blindspot writing this piece made me confront), even more relatable were her own patterns of rejection and subsumption—of the contradictory desires to be someone’s “nothing” and their “everything at the same time”the lover, and the beloved. I can sit here wanting these guys to do better, but Chelosky herself might well contend that they’re both already doing their best (frustrating as it might be). In the end it’s clearly far more than just these two privileged, flawed men, or even the patriarchy under which they were forged, that’s hemming her in. It’s the pain of existence itself.So where do we go from here? What do we do with all this baggage piling up between us, and around us, and upon us—saturating our brains and our neural net of feeds—filling our country up to its glass ceiling, sandbagging its invisible walls, and spilling over its eroding edges from sea to shining sea? If Paint Your Wagon is any indicator, we may be out of good options; decamping from this No Name City and these rigged systemic structures may simply not be in those three Monte cards. For plucky Jean Seberg, after two hours of subpar musical numbers and chemistry-free love triangulations, the gold dries up, and the entire settlement literally sinks into the Earth—destabilized by an elaborate system of tunnels the male protagonists have dug in order to rob their fellow workers blind (how’s that for metacommentary?) Her cabin still stands, and Clint Eastwood sticks dutifully by, but as the rest of the prospectors pull up stakes and the principles bid their farewells, the film leaves an existential taste in the mouth—the nagging suspicion that, stay or go, there’s really nothing else to do but the same things they just did all over again—the master’s tools just waiting to rebuild in the next town over, and the next, and the next.So yes, it’s hard to feel as hopeful for June as I did four years ago. And yes, the U.S. is feeling more every day like a place we may need to escape (though Europe today is hardly the expat safe haven it once was). As she herself puts it, heartbreakingly, near the end of Burn Fortune, “It isn’t that I don’t want this it’s that what I want is something else and that is not this”as shifty and vaguely tautological a summation as you’re likely to find of our National sexual politics in 2025. If she wriggles her way off the pyre, it’ll be a miracle deserving of Sainthood. I’d like to think she could find a friend like Melinda, someone to help her break free of men’s possessive, binary bindings. Or else one like Chelosky with whom she could roam the dying countryside, blasting cassettes and CD’s and chasing her own tortured version of peace; standing in the flames and “learn[ing] independence because [she] had no other choice.” 

Continue Reading...

NEAR-MISS IN A STRANGE LAND: A CONVERSATION WITH SIENNA LIU by Rebecca Gransden

Sienna Liu’s Specimen (Split/Lip Press, 2025) seeks to articulate the ineffable facets of desire. A fragmentary and lyrical hindsight finds lovers in an entanglement as fragile as it is seemingly unwise. Not only an interrogation of memoir, of the compulsion to write other people onto the page, but a probing commentary on the price and rewards of setting out on such a task. When we look back, what do we ask of those who reach out in memory? I spoke to the author about this plaintive and dissecting book. Rebecca Gransden: When did you set out upon writing Specimen? What length of time had elapsed between when the events of the book took place and putting them down on the page?Sienna Liu: I started writing Specimen in February 2023, about ten years after the events in the book took place.RG:  I met someone at a party; something about him reminded me of E. I hadn’t thought about E. for a very long time. Too long, so that when I saw this faint replica, it felt as if a complete stranger had caught up with me on a street and started to tell me a secret about myself. We see echoes of others in people. Were there echoes that brought about your decision to write the book? What made you decide to write about this time and these events?SL: Exactly! It happened just like I described—I was at a party one day in February 2023, and met someone there who reminded me of E., a lot. I do tend to find echoes of others in people, but up till then I had not really encountered a true doppelgänger of E., who I had for the longest time thought to be one of a kind. I’ve also thought about writing about E. so many times but was never able to start. But finally meeting someone who was that reminiscent of E. felt like a writing prompt: now, go write. I left that party and started writing the first vignette as soon as I got home.RG:  How did you decide upon the title for the book?SL: I can’t remember the precise moment, but at some point I realized I used / would use the word specimen in the book a few times, in different contexts with different meanings (“a specimen of human folly” / butterfly specimens). It seemed to be a great title for this project because a specimen is a thing that is artificially frozen in time (a recollection), and a singularity that also generalizes (which calls for an examination).RG: A theme in the book that stands out to me is that of the gulf between what we project and what is understood, what we transmit and receive, the gaps we leave, both consciously and unconsciously. Are there gaps to be found in what you intended for the book and how it turned out?SL: That’s such an acute observation, and an interesting question! Rather than gaps, to me the writing of the book shows how much perspectives can shift (i.e. how we can learn to acquire different eyes, how we can pick up a loving gaze). I had wanted the book to be on the colder side, and thought that was how it was executed, until very recently I realized how heartfelt it actually is. One of my best friends noticed that too: he read an early draft of this manuscript and told me it hurts because of its sharpness. Two years later, he read it again and told me this time it hurts because of its tenderness. I did not think I intended that tenderness, but it somehow came out in the writing.RG: How do you invoke a sense of place. To what extent does place feed into the direction of the book?SL: Places in this book are the center stage for disappearances (or absences). (“I was never there. Because he was never there. That city was forever defined by his absence.”) The book was organized into four parts, and each part, originally, had a title that was the name of a city. The whole thing was supposed to feel like a chase—a futile pursuit. A chase around the globe for a person or a phantom that was forever unattainable. She looked around and noticed things only because he wasn’t there. He wasn’t there—and that enabled her to live, only she didn’t know it at the time.RG:  I often thought about the fact that he introduced himself to me in symbols (the Tarot cards, the music he chose to play, the Yuxi ( ) he smoked, the Bombay Sapphire he drank, as if it could only be this way). Literary and mythological vignettes. Symbols, fragments. Digestible bite-sized illusions. He recognized this too. Later on he said, “I was too broken when I first met you.” The book’s relationship to symbols is multifaceted, at once divining and obscuring, especially in relation to the attempt at knowing another person. What was your approach to the symbolic for Specimen?SL: It’s interesting—when you say “the symbolic” I think of the Symbolic of Jacques Lacan, the order of language and laws. According to Lacan, the symbolic is made possible because of our acceptance of the Name-of-the-Father, those laws that control both our desires and the rules of communication. In other words, the symbolic is both enabling and limiting. In Specimen, too, though it’s not quite the same thing, the symbols that float about both enable interpretation and limit imagination—they usurp the image of the other person, but their existence also enables the desire in the first place.RG: A dominant theme of the book is that of time. Specimen explores the limits of looking back on events from a distance, and poses questions on what stays with us, what part of the act of recollection can be trusted. At the conceptual stage, did this theme impact your decision on how to approach form and style for the book?SL: Definitely—it’s a curious (deeply melancholic) position to be writing about a version of oneself that is too distant to be completely legible. In an earlier draft of the book I discussed this dilemma more expressly: There’s nothing more alienating than standing face to face with your former self. That absolute distance—any exchange is doomed to be one-way. That’s why the “I” I’m using now is entirely fictional, and reading this lifeless record is the same thing as mourning, because those two people who had been talking to each other incessantly—and their incessant oscillations and fears and little defeats in life—no longer exist. RG: How do you view Specimen’s relationship to both memoir and fiction? Do you draw a firm line between reportage and narrative, or do boundaries blur? What is your approach to the tensions between these elements?SL: I’m glad you asked this question, because for a while I wasn’t sure whether Specimen was a novella or a short memoir. I didn’t quite decide which one until very late in the process, but to me that distinction didn’t matter as much. It had always been my goal to only speak my personal truth, to do my best to reconstruct and interrogate that part of my history, and to do all of that with full sincerity. In the end I chose to call it non-fiction, but it could very well have been labelled a novella. RG: Do you keep a journal, use notebooks? If so, has this practice impacted Specimen?SL: I kept a handwritten journal at various points in my life, but never did it consistently—and I lost most of those hand-written records after moving countries several times in the past decade. I do keep a lot of notes on my iPhone and still have them to this day. When I was writing Specimen, I mostly looked through those digital notes and text messages and chats on other instant messaging platforms, which helped me reconstruct the timeline and more importantly, what I was feeling back then. In that sense Specimen is a book by and for the first generation, I think, who recorded their youth through digital means.RG:  I thought about this thing I once read somewhere: a writer is trying to write about an amorous affair in her youth. She could only do it in fragments and vignettes because she perceives no continuity in that passion. She writes down scenes, dialogues, traces of a memory, on index cards. She puts those cards into drawers, into various books as bookmarks. Years later, after moving and rearranging things and getting rid of things, she realizes all the cards have disappeared or disintegrated. What’s more, she no longer retains one single line from that great passion. What place does passion have in the book?SL: It very much is the book! I think I was only able to write it because of how blazing, gazing it all felt—how violent, almost, as it occurred, that obscured a lot of other things. I once had a conversation with Marie Darrieussecq about passion and love, and she said, “Love is common, trivial, ‘small’, not huge nor scary, love is on a day to day basis, love is regular when passion is intense and deadly. Love helps you to live, passion prevents you from living.” And I could not have put it better. Passion prevents you from living, but it often enables your writing.RG:  Several dreams are recounted in the book. Do you dream about SpecimenSL: Dreams mean a lot to me. I tend to have vivid but mythical dreams that have no basis in reality (or so it seems to me). I do keep a log of them that I call my “dream log”—might become a book one day. I don’t dream about Specimen in any literal sense, but the book lives in a kind of dreamscape for me. Writing it felt like navigating a landscape where memory, desire, and uncertainty blur together—much like a dream. RG:  I was never there. For instance, I would be making dinner with Nathalie, and she would ask me about my day. “Pas mal,” I said. There was nothing more I could add. In my philosophy class, I could faithfully transcribe everything on time and eternity and the essence of things, but back into the small kitchen in the fifteenth arrondissement, back to the day-to-day, I couldn’t speak a word about how I really felt about anything. A sense of melancholy detachment hangs over the book. Do you consider Specimen as capturing a particularly modern malaise?SL: Yes, I think so, not in the sense of diagnosing a generation, but in inhabiting a kind of quiet, persistent dislocation. It’s the feeling of being “at once myself and not myself.” The body is present, the gestures habitual, but the self is elsewhere, numbed or abstracted by the unsayable. We live in a time where we are inundated with language—surplus language, even—and yet the ability to translate ourselves to others often slips away from us. In a way the melancholy isn’t personal or generational; it’s structural—baked into how we live, how we love, how we try and often fail to connect.RG:  A few weeks later I saw a painting at the Fondation Louis Vuitton, a painting by Edvard Munch called “Two Human Beings: The Lonely Ones.” A man and a woman had their back to us. The woman had long blonde hair. She wore a luminous white dress. The man was in a dark suit, a step behind the woman, with one of his legs stretching towards her, as if he were hesitating whether he should take that step. Something about this image of frozen uncertainty made me think of E., and about what is ever possible between two human beings, especially the lonely ones. I thought about us sitting on the floor of his room facing a big loaf of country bread as hard as rock, imitating the silence of the gods, and how I had felt that finally, I was beginning to know him. Another few years later, I saw this exhibition again in New York. This time I just felt sad. Edvard Munch’s Two Human Beings. The Lonely Ones (1894) features on the cover, and is mentioned in the book itself. How did you decide to use this as the cover image?SL: When I first saw that Munch painting in Paris (around the time when E. first broke my heart), I was struck by the space between the figures: it was not dramatic, not hostile, just… irresolvable. They’re close enough to touch, and yet they don’t. That distance—tender, painful, suspended—was exactly how it had felt with E. and how it had felt, writing Specimen. The painting suggests a kind of companionship shaped by silence, by what is withheld rather than expressed. It also evokes the strangeness of time: how people can drift through years beside each other and still remain, in some essential way, unknown. The image holds a tension I wanted the reader to feel before reading a single word.RG:  Specimen is littered with references to literature, the use of excerpts, mention of works of art. What writers or artists, if any, do you consider as an influence? Are there works with an affinity to Specimen?SL: Around the time I was writing Specimen I was obsessed with Annie Ernaux (aren’t we all), so I definitely see the influences of, say, Simple Passion, or, A Girl’s Story. I thought about Natalia Ginzburg’s work a lot too. And I have completely forgotten about it until now, but around the time I finished Specimen, a friend of mine recommended Maggie Nelson’s Bluets to me, and I had said to him, this really reminds me of something I’ve been working on! RG: I found Specimen to be a form of spiritual and psychological archaeology, searching for applied meaning in fragments. Do you continue to analyse the book in retrospect? SL: That’s a beautiful question, and it touches on something essential about how Specimen was written. I did interpret the material closely as I was writing. The process was reflective, even analytical at times, but once the book was finished, I didn’t feel the need to keep revisiting it. I don’t return to it to extract further meaning. I trust what it became in the moment of making. Now, I’m more interested in how others read it. RG: A consistent theme is that of how much life is driven by miscommunications, how the quest for connection is at once imbued with the potentially impossible, absurd and joyful. Do you view the book as an act of connection? Has the book changed you?SL: Yes, I do think the book is, in some way, an act of connection, but maybe a paradoxical one. So much of Specimen is about the near-miss: people circling each other, reaching, misunderstanding, saying almost but not quite what they mean. I wanted to write into that space of near-miss, not to resolve it, but to give it form. So while the book acknowledges how difficult and often absurd real connection can be, the writing itself was a way of trying, of saying: this is how it felt, even if I couldn’t really say it in the moment. Whether that counts as connection or just the desire for it, I’m not sure, but the gesture matters to me.RG:  Specimen is released by Split/Lip Press. What attracted you to work with them and how have you found that process?SL: I love independent presses and Split/Lip Press has always been one of my favorites. Last year, when I saw they were looking for non-fiction manuscripts, I submitted Specimen and that’s how it all began. And I couldn’t have found a better home for it. The whole team showed so much love and care and true understanding during the entire process of editing / designing / marketing. I felt very lucky and honored to be part of the Split/Lip family.RG: What were your dominant feelings upon completion of the book? And how do you reflect on Specimen, and your time writing it?SL: It’s odd, but it felt as if I had traveled through some distant, strange land, where I met some lovely people, had a great time, but eventually I had to return (had to!), and it was a little bit like that little boy Nils in The Wonderful Adventures of Nils. After he traveled all across Sweden on the back of a goose, he returned to his parents and said: Maman, papa, je suis grand et je suis de nouveau un homme! (I don’t know why but it’s always the French version that I remember—essentially he said, Mom, Dad, I’m big and I’m again a man!) It’s strange, but writing the book was like traveling on the back of a goose through a distant land, where I met all the best people I knew during my youth, and somehow I was meeting them for the first time as a real adult. RG: What is next for you?SL: I’m not completely sure yet. For the past few months I’ve been working on a millennial novel about a group of young professionals and expats in New York city, but I’m now moving away from that and will perhaps work on something more abstract, such as the “dream log” I mentioned. We’ll see!

Continue Reading...

NOAH KUMIN INTERVIEWED by Matthew Binder

In 2023, I published a novel called Pure Cosmos Club. For reasons still unclear to me, it was embraced by the downtown New York literary scene loosely known as “Dimes Square.” Despite the association, I never made real inroads—not because of the rumors (funded by Peter Thiel? Christian reactionaries?) but simply because I was too shy.One of the scene’s more prominent figures is Noah Kumin, founder of The Mars Review of Books. From afar, I watched his profile rise through various ventures: the magazine, a popular podcast, and a reputation for hosting raucous literary parties.When I saw on social media that he had written a novel, I reached out and asked him to send me a copy. Stop All the Clocks centers on Mona Veigh, a misanthropic programmer who’s developed a large language model capable of generating poetry. Her company, Hildegard 2.0, is acquired by a mysterious tech magnate named Avram Parr—who, we soon learn, has committed “suicide.” Something about Parr’s death doesn’t sit right with Veigh, and she sets out to solve the mystery, placing herself in the crosshairs of a plot by powerful tech overlords bent on reshaping human civilization.I’m pleased to report that Stop All the Clocks is a first-rate techno-thriller—sharp, urgent, and extremely timely. Matthew Binder: You’ve written two books with technology at their center, The Machine War and Stop All the Clocks. Given your background and clear interest in tech — a field where you could have pursued a lucrative career — what drew you toward committing yourself to writing instead? Noah Kumin: Robert Graves said something like: "There's no money in poetry. But there's no poetry in money, either."MB: With Stop All the Clocks, you’ve written a literary thriller. Which writers — whether literary or thriller — most shaped your approach to Stop All the ClocksNK: I learned a lot from the writers I love. You might be able to guess who a few of them are. But I don't think I leaned on any of them very heavily for Stop All the Clocks. John Pistelli argued in his wonderfully perceptive review that this book heralds something entirely new: a break with the decayed modernist "literary fiction" model which has provided, over the past 75 years or so, ever-diminishing returns. Stop All the Clocks is meant to be a new type novel of ideas for the 21st century, and I'm not certain it has any direct predecessors. There's a German term I like: kulturroman, the novel of culture. We haven't had many of those in the States lately—not in a real way—and it's time we did.MB: How do you begin a novel? Did you know what was going to happen in the end from the very beginning? NK: I started with the last lines of the last poem, which came to my mind from a place I did not understand. I wanted to know what the poem meant. I had an idea of the sensation that the reader should have when he or she has finished the book. And I worked backwards from there.MB: In your novel, Mona creates a poetry-generating AI called Hildegard. At one point, she realizes her invention might contribute to the flattening of the literary landscape. I’ll admit I’m too wary of the future to follow the latest developments closely, but it seems inevitable that a flood of AI-generated novels is on the way — if it hasn’t already begun. How worried are you that human novelists could become obsolete, or do you think there are aspects of storytelling that only humans can capture? NK: Certainly LLMs will be able to outcompete humans at the generation of satisfactory bodice-rippers and pulp thrillers. But it doesn't do any good to worry. I write to say something that can't be said and to preserve that saying of the unsayable for those who will be able to understand without understanding. I only need a few readers in mind to feel it's worthwhile to keep on.MB: For a long time, the tech world was associated with the Left, but today Big Tech seems more aligned with the Right. In Stop All the Clocks, you write journal entries from the perspective of a techno-optimist titan. While the novel avoids falling into the typical Left–Right binary, were you thinking consciously about his political leanings as you wrote those entries?NK: I wanted to capture for posterity a new sort of person who is emerging in our age, as Turgenev did with Bazarov in Fathers and Sons. Not necessarily a left-right thing, though I understand if some see it that way.MB: A recent Compact Magazine essay, “The Vanishing White Male Author,” argues that white male writers have been largely shut out of the literary world over the past five years. For example, none of the last 70 finalists for the Center for Fiction’s First Novel Prize have been straight white American men. Since 2020, no white man has been nominated for the New York Public Library’s Young Lions Prize for debut fiction. And notably, not a single white American man born after 1984 has published a story in The New Yorker, while at least 25 other millennial writers have.You studied under Martin Amis at NYU. Given the shifts described in essays like this one, did you and Amis ever discuss how these trends might shape your prospects as a fiction writer?NK: Yes, it’s an interesting development. I suppose it means the field is pretty open for me. If I were to win one of those awards or have a short story published in the New Yorker, it might well generate a lot of interest and move a lot of product, since it’s such a rarity these days for those publications. But this is all business talk. Nothing like that came up when I was being mentored by Amis. He only talked craft, and I would have felt monstrously impertinent asking the great man about anything pertaining to business or money, though he is the author of the great chronicle of business and money, Money. Amis recognized that I had a good feel for voice and wanted me to focus more on my plotting. He told me to always keep in mind that the reader is just as busy and put upon as I am—advice which I feel has stood me in good stead.MB: Your publisher, Arcade, an imprint of Skyhorse, has a reputation for taking risks on work that other houses might find too controversial. What was your experience like navigating the publishing world and landing with Arcade?NK: It was a strange journey. It feels a little gauche to go over it. Sorry. But I'm very grateful to the team at Arcade for their intelligence and acumen.MB: A couple of years ago, you started The Mars Review of Books to publish serious literary criticism. I read that you’ve lately been more focused on editing than writing. Given that you’ve just published two books, is that still true?NK: The great Italian writer-publisher Roberto Calasso remarked that to be both a publisher and a writer is a bit like being both a commodities trader and a commodity. It’s a wonderful quip and absolutely true. It does lead to some schizophrenic tendencies. As a writer I try to write only what interests me. But as a publisher I must be a businessman first. Luckily I know how to compartmentalize.MB: What’s next for you?NK: I'm writing a book of nonfiction, tentatively titled The Mystagogues, about occult secrets in the work of a handful of 20th century writers. Either I'm crazy or I'm noticing something very important that most critics over the past 100 years have failed to notice. I feel it could actually have quite a broad audience, though it's technically "literary criticism." 

Continue Reading...

CHRISTOPHER ZEISCHEGG’S ‘THE MAGICIAN’ reviewed by Chloe Pingeon

There is a nightmarish quality to Christopher Zeischegg’s The Magician. I read the book twice, the first time through the haze of an all nighter—sleep deprivation and sleep paralysis hastening my descent into the blur of self destruction and bodily decay that the narrative presents. “Just a thing inside your body that won’t listen to your head,” a malignant acquaintance tells the narrator early in the novel, as a prescription of sorts for the root of all his problems. At dawn, this rings true. This distance between body and self, judgment and subconscious, good and evil, is perhaps the root of all that is hellish.The Magician was originally published in 2020 by indie press Amphetamine Sulphate but had, until recently, fallen out of circulation. The edition of The Magician that I read is a reissue, recently published by Apocalypse Party Press in November 2024 with an added introduction by author and artist Chris Kelso, and a new cover by Christopher Norris. Zeischegg intended for the novel to be consumed as a triptych, accompanied by a short film and an art book, but these are unavailable to me, and so the novel stands alone, a highly corporeal narrative speaking for itself without visual supplement. In The Magician, Christopher Zeischegg, a fictional protagonist who shares the author's name, lurches through California in a hallucinatory descent into horror, gore, torture, and the occult. Christopher, in his early thirties, is a former porn star (he shares the author’s former adult film alias of Danny Wylde) who has left the industry after abusing performance drugs, and is now embroiled in an unsalvageable relationship with his drug addicted and deeply suicidal girlfriend Andrea. The novel opens with Andrea’s latest suicide attempt,  the first line of the novel echoing text on the back cover, seemingly intent on provoking the reader into intrigue and/or horror for what is in store—“Andrea’s gore was dark red, nearly brown, and smelled of meat and piss. She must have wet herself on account of the drugs…”There is little value in a book that seeks only to shock, and in its self identification, The Magician seems to dare the reader to draw this immediate conclusion. Zeischegg is a former porn star, the novel is auto fiction and body horror and it places itself in Los Angeles, in the porn industry, in a land of devil worship and torture and addiction. The reissue of the novel comes only four years after the original publication, but those four years have been formative for the collective understanding of autofiction, for the Literary Thrill-Seeking Industrial Complex, for Bret Easton Ellis and his imitators, for the contrarian, the provocateur, for autofiction often that is now a*tofiction because this author is ironic, this author realizes that our absorption with ourselves is becoming a bit obscene. There is admitted sensationalism in the very names of those championing Zeischegg’s work: “Amphetamine Sulphate” and “Apocalypse Party Press”, the latter of which comes with some warnings of its own: “Anyone with an open mind is welcome to join the party” “Once the void swallows you whole, you'll never be the same.”Still, beyond those first few pages, it becomes clear that The Magician is more than just a challenge for the daring. At what Christopher refers to as an Alcoholics-Lovers Anonymous (AL-Anon) meeting, he runs into Jayla, another porn star who he filmed with in the past. She attacks him with pepper spray and harvests his blood for Satanic supernatural purposes. This, of course, sets off a downward spiral of torture, violence that remains Christopher’s seemingly only consistent tether to reality, and a throughline for the novel. The Magician contrasts searing physical pain with a dissociated gaze and occasional poignant descriptions of the mountains on the horizon of the Los Angeles night sky. We follow Christopher pining for Andrea, gasping for air in a body bag by the LA River, and then desperate to expel the demons that are destroying himself and his family whilst seeking refuge in his deeply religious mother’s home. As his problems scale towards the cosmic and the supernatural, the seemingly sensational opening lines become points of almost absurdist inconsequentiality. Suicide and addiction, as it turns out, are luxury problems amidst a reckoning with the occult. Autofiction can bore in its needlessly self referential nature, but The Magician deals more in the realm of the alter ego. Noir can falter in a didactic rendering of good and evil, but there is a banality to the way the narrative swallows and stomachs the ever-worsening horror of the world it exists within, which lends itself almost to absurdity. Zeischegg has described the novel as a parallel to the years following his own departure from the porn industry, and yet The Magician does not deal heavily in metaphor. Christopher, for all his drifting, disassociated, tendencies, is a reliable narrator. One never suspects that his hallucinatory recollections are, in actuality, hallucinations. One never suspects that the demon clawing at his stomach is a stand-in for something more abstract. The gashes on his stomach are real, as is his mother’s graying skin and progressing illness in the company of Christopher and his demon; as is the instant resurrection of order when—with the help of a full moon, hen’s blood and the wood from a cypress tree—he is able to expel the demon. There are moments of body horror throughout the novel that make me reflexively gag, but for the most part, reading The Magician is a steady experience. The banality of evil is established, enforced, and then reinforced again and again and again. You have entered into some realm of darkness. The rules are different here. Christopher, intuitively, seems to grasp this immediately. He does what he can to survive. His suffering, at least, serves as a reminder that he is real. The novel begins with Christopher insistent on his normalcy. At an AL-Anon meeting he tunes into another young man’s speech because  “he was young and vibrant and I could imagine us being friends” He does not identify with the freaks, and strikingly, he does nothing very wrong to become one. The narrative, while cohesive, is driven by whim and bad luck. Christopher becomes who he is because he is chosen as a host for this demon. The rest of it, and even this circumstance in and of itself, is left up to chance. The Magician ends not too far from how it began. After ridding himself of his demon, Christopher is normal, gaining weight, aging, still in his mother’s home and now, a bit discontent.  “I used to be a porn star,” he tells a young woman after she refers to him as a “fat fuck”. Finally free from his own demon, he has attended a party with a local magician who he hopes might teach him his ways. It happens that this magician got here mostly by a stroke of desperate luck—he stumbled upon a Magick book in the woods after shooting himself in the head. And as it turns out, after escaping torture of the supernatural scale, Christopher is now bored.“I was someone who had bent the world to my will,” Christopher insists in the novel’s final pages. This identification with self autonomy is in sharp contrast to the passivity that defines him throughout the book, and yet he speaks with sincerity. He has mistaken adjacency to a power that beheld him with agency over a power he could never really harness. The Magician moralizes nothing. There are no clear conclusions as to where the novel’s dreamscape intersects with auto-fictional reality. Still, if there is a conclusion outside of the vacuum world into which The Magician sucks readers, it lies here. From dust to dust, and from mundane to mundane. Zeischegg speaks to the alter egos which we craft, suffer with, and live in along the way.

Continue Reading...

ADAM SOLDOFKSY RECOMMENDS: YEEHAW! Novella Round-up

The novella is famously “pocket-sized,” and marketed as such, in the relatively rare case when a publisher feels whimsical enough to produce one. Crassly, it is a work of fiction which achieves that mystical, begrudging minimum page length that warrants its nestling between front and back covers all on its own. And we as modern readers (forgive the assumption) respond to it as a physical object the way we respond to almost anything that is a smaller version of something else: with a kind of simple, unintimidated affection, the result of our own enlargement in its presence maybe, with anticipatory amusement, with the hope of fun—but no real expectation of “awe.”Being “fun-sized,” we want it when we want just a little something. Being “pocket-sized,” we keep it on us in case of boredom. It is dwarfed by the tomes on the nightstand. In fact, it has slipped between the mattress and bed frame and is lost—oh well. It does not concuss you when dropped on your head from a height. It is unsalable. It is ineligible for masterwork status.Formally, it is my favorite mode of fiction. And so I want to dispute that the diminutive “la” indicates a minor achievement. That the novella is not an immature form, or a form of modesty, or a running out of steam I hope can be generally accepted. But if not the simple failing to reach, either maturity or for loftier artistic goals, and undertaken with something specific in mind, to achieve something specifically—what then? What is it for?What makes the novella so wonderful, I think, is that it is a prolonged narrative—long enough to lose yourself in—that nonetheless you can read in its entirety, in a reasonable interval, with attention unbroken. You may enjoy it as a whole, and examine it immediately afterwards, with no slippage of memory. Because it remains intact. Because it is “human brain-sized.” It fits us, and on occasion, close to perfectly. To mix metaphors and organs: something smaller would leave you unsatisfied. A portion larger and you risk suffering from overindulgence. It feeds well your hungry eyes. It fills the mind-stomach pleasantly.Speaking of nourishment, that historically the novella has been a vehicle for moralizing is easy enough to understand. A reader can tolerate only so much didacticism (no more than 40 thousand words), after which the book is customarily thrown across the room. This is not the project of all novellas, of course. And modern readers, I imagine, are suspicious of such a project and disinclined to didactic literature announcing itself as such. But is this not a worthy project? Can such a work be a joy?Here are three books publishing this summer that engage with the aforementioned novella rubric, including its “moralizing” aspect (complementary), and which I recommend. That they play so freely in the same territory while maintaining total formal difference from one another also recommends them. They give a sense of the range of the novella form. They are exacting, ambitious, and instructive “smaller” works that mean to be what they are. Fresh, Green Life by Sebastian Castillo (Soft Skull, 2025)Fresh, Green Life is a novel 160 pages in length by Sebastian Castillo. Its time is spent half in examination of the narrator (Sebatián Castillo)’s idyllic, un-idyllic, misguided, haphazard, tender collegiate years as part of a small cohort of philosophy students in the tutelage of their disaffected, lazy, middling, lonely, unclean, full-of-shit, nonetheless better-versed and more advanced Professor, and half in anticipation of a New Year’s Eve reunion, years later, of all previously mentioned, but especially the once unavailable and now divorced Maria, at the aging Professor’s house in suburban Philadelphia. It is a tale told in the language of learning that suspects a gaping emptiness beneath all erudition. Its subject—as portrayed in the readings, musings, speeches, resolutions and vows of Sebatián—is the limits of Moral Philosophy with regards to the possibility of individual human betterment. Via Sebatián we are inclined to wonder: Does the life of contemplation not in-fact result in experience-naivety and lifeforce-crippling inaction? Isn’t there somewhere else a person should focus their efforts, somewhere out in the real world—the gym, for example? And who is all this improvement for anyway? Moral Philosophy may in fact be a trap, and yet Sebatián’s every trial must necessarily run the gauntlet of the philosophic tradition, must come into contact with all the great names, before it can be properly processed or at least buried away. And, uncomfortable or deeply uncomfortable, all improvement must be proved in the end, by presenting oneself before someone else who will form their own judgement, idealized or fucked as they themselves may be in one’s estimation. You will enjoy this novel(la) if you relish confronting delusions great and small, if you love philosophy, if you hate philosophy, if you revel in the language of erudition, if you suspect a gaping emptiness beneath all learning but hope very much to find something there.  Patchwork by Tom Comitta (Coffee House Press 2025)The provocation of Patchwork, as with Comitta’s earlier The Nature Book, is supposed to be that it is not “authored” in the traditional sense, but stitched together from hundreds of texts, both obscure and well-known, spanning genres and historical epochs. But a book like this, in principle, shouldn’t trouble readers acquainted with other so-called “experimental” works deploying the technique of decoupage or assemblage. If there is any controversy with regard to The Nature Book, it should be surrounding the fact that it is a novel without any people in it— people being the novel’s primary reason to exist as an art form. As for Patchwork, it is a narrative fully populated with human beings, so many you are meant to lose track. Meet and enjoy them as they quickly vanish into the swirling background. There is a “plot,” and a fetish object to be gone in search of (a snuffbox), which lends itself to allegory if you badly want it to. There is the promise of love and adventure and misadventure, but these occur more as the conscious experience of the delirious effects of cacophonous language rather than via any character whose fictional status must be kept in denial. It is a didactic work insomuch as it hopes to reinforce a reverence for all manner of literary modes of language. Comitta senses that if the spell of their technique is to hold, and their moral be delivered, their book must not go on forever, though it could. Here the novella’s humanizing circumscription/compression dynamic comes to Comitta's aid. (Patchwork is published through Coffee House’s NVLA series). Now, if you are to grant the premise of the jacket copy—that this is a story stitched together “seamlessly”—here is where you will need to apply your goodwill and suspend disbelief. Your level of readerly enjoyment will have an inverse relationship to your level of tight-assed exertion in attempting to hold onto every thread. If you are an enthusiastic reader of John Ashbery—how his writing washes over you, leaving in its tide all manner of glittering linguistic debris—you will have a great time reading Patchwork. If you are one of the few who have read and enjoyed Ted Berrigan’s "western novel" Clear the Range, you will recognize this place and be quite happy here.                    Information Age by Cora Lewis (Joyland Editions, July 2025)“I work for the newswire, and I cover the economy, plus politics. I’m still getting the rhythm of it,” the narrator of Information Age informs the reader, and adjusting to this “newswire rhythm” is also the reader’s task. Lewis, a journalist when she is not writing fiction, tells her tale in staccato increments of images, dialogue, anecdote, and episode. Interpersonal and neutrally reported scenes, fragments that will amount to private epochs and world-historical events, are related interspersed, undifferentiated in tone or page time. The result is that familiar feeling of onslaught that we are accustomed to from scrolling timelines, but made pleasurable through Lewis’ skill, and because, though relentless and benumbing, we know a novella is taking shape. The narrator’s professional burden is to somehow make coherent news stories from an endless glut of amorphous material. The idea that there can exist a talent for this in certain individuals, “an ear,” begs the question of due vs undue responsibility with regards to those shaping reality for the rest of us. That the journalist might instead be a mere conduit, a mystical model of media, is also considered, if rather skeptically. But the true subject of the book, it seems to me, is the potential impossibility of forming a theory of individual rectitude in an apparently hostile era of technological acceleration, institutional decomposition and soon-expected environmental collapse. Too vast a problem to approach head on, it is wisely dramatized and brought down to scale through the narrator’s varied relationships, the people she knows and doesn’t, their respective predicaments, how they touch the narrator’s life and how they entangle. Add to this modern womanhood. Add the desire for children and their real possibility. Add personal ambition. Add the competing urges to lose and/or find oneself in someone else, in pleasure, to be still or travel, to leave things in the past or drag them with and subject them to imperfection, to act with the conception of a future in mind, to mourn in advance. What possibilities does language offer us? Are we, in so many ways, doomed (by our need for meaning-making)? Did I mention that the book is funny? Well it is at times, and melancholy. And its landscapes and people carefully rendered. You will enjoy this book if you have dissociated in the recent past, if time feels disjointed or has lately become a pleasant or unpleasant blur, if you think about sex, if “you’re experiencing a profound alienation from the production and dissemination of information” but you’re up for reading a novella.

Continue Reading...

BURIED PATHOLOGIES AND THE ULTIMATE ‘NO PLACE’: An Anti-Interview with Oli Johns by Ryan Raymond Buell

How many people will read this interview? Will anyone read it? Will exactly three people read it—the writer interviewed, the editor interviewing, the publisher publishing … before a handful of thumbs sends it scrolling offscreen in their search for more content?—so much to read and digest, to form a perspective on … I can’t. I don’t have time. Just swipe to the bottom and see if it leaves a mark. It’s hard to know if I watched this or imagined it, but there is probably a cyberpunk anime where someone plugs a metal cord into their brainstem, and the data download is so huge blood trickles out their nostrils and they die, right there in their bedroom in front of the computer screen. Given the current size and capability of the human brain it seems impossible to read everything on the Internet. What if someone forced you to? What if you were then made to think deeply on absolutely everything you read? When someone thinks a thought that no one else has ever come close to thinking does the universe expand or become denser? What kind of instrument would be used to measure this? How much would it cost? Would it make living and working in a factory on the moon worth it? These are some of the kinds of questions I wish I had asked. Novelist and blogger Oli Johns refused an interview with me. “Ask me questions without asking any questions,” he said. “Let me answer using only lines from Ubik.” Here is our encounter, which took place via email.RYAN RAYMOND BUELL: Your blog [psychoholosuite.com] recently reached a milestone of ten years. What were your spacetime coordinates when you realized your physical existence would be forfeited for that of Psycho Holosuite? OLI JOHNS: 10 years is a farmer’s choice, my failure to grow corn and lemongrass at the same time and growing it anyway. 10 years. That’s the number I tell people in the market when they ask me how long I’ve been in Hong Kong, 10 not 18 cos 18 seems unreal. 10 years of slowly becoming nothing but a WordPress site. The novels may as well be burnt plastic. My Cantonese is quite decent. Is that what you want? I’m not comfortable with this at all. Glen Runciter is dead. Or is he? Someone died in the explosion orchestrated by the funniest SF writer of his time, a rabid anti-Communist, anti-Lemmist. He’s not dead. He can’t die. Ads recycle all. First story I ever wrote for Psycho Holosuite was about a guy coming back from the dead and becoming Psycho Holosuite. This was a mistake. MistAAAAke. The whole thing. Tsuen bo do hai gai. How do you feel about it as someone who once wanted to Exit Reality, who's been here for five minutes, who is not that supernaturalist?RRB: I feel adversarial about it, it doesn’t matter. I’m here to toe-test the waters for a new high, maybe drift intermittently on a friendly basis, we’ll see. But I appreciate the reference to my namesake. Question two: How does studying languages outside of English contribute to your penchant for reconfiguring small art-shaped swathes of reality? OLI: [To escape feeling too trapped by performance/dadaism, let’s put real stuff in brackets. Is everything going to be a question? [it doesn’t have to be]. My aim is to bury my real feelings amongst a lot of nonsense, most of it snatched from old notes, old work, your work, Ubik [as I said before], language guides, Cantonese soft sci-fi etc.] [let’s be desperate friends, not adversaries.]].: : : :When it comes to language, I’m skimming the pages, looking for another landscape with one mother and one threat. It doesn’t happen that often. My mother just wants to be left alone, for psychological reasons. She says she can speak French but I’ve tested her several times and now she’s gone. If she had stuck around, she would’ve understood that surrealism/absurdism hinges on [                          ]. Language learning rides on the wing of that. In Cantonese, the spoken and written are often estranged from each other—you shouldn’t write out that which comes from the throat—so I accept that and shove idioms in. Hand write them like a primary school kid, scan them, remove the background [god willing, if there’s substance to it] and just shovel them into my work. It always makes sense despite this, despite me. To be honest, I’m only really competent in Cantonese, Japanese, French, Farsi, Portuguese, Slovene, Urdu, Swahili and Urdu. Six of those are make-believe. I read a book once. You put a guy from Pakistan in front of me, I’ll forget how to say ‘nothing.’ I can’t speak Urdu. The writing system is beautiful. Can’t speak French either, unlike every single person in the UK. Is this answering the question? Too artificial? At some point, this is going to get annoying and I want to stay on top of that. If you come to live in Hong Kong, locals will say, why aren’t you learning Mandarin? I feel contaminated by my choices. Another language I’m not fluent in is the occult. Sorry, Elytron [ and now [x]].Recently, I’ve started learning Yaqui.It all builds up into several thousand different ways of pretending you’re actually expressing yourself.Me a language?I’ve wanted to say this for a long time. In Perma Neon O, there was a page with an extract from Red Moon [Chinese sci-fi, erratic], fully written out in Chinese by my hand, aligned to the right, opposed by white space. It said something about me that no one will ever understand, even those who understand Chinese. Should I have deleted that?RRB: [I don’t see you as a true adversary. But the tone felt that way to me, which I honestly found exciting. But I agree, desperately colliding friends it is. Right now, the way I see it is that the interview starts with questions for the sake of form [there are also some actual thoughts I genuinely want to ask you about] but eventually your chaotic sense-destroying responses draw me into a helpless dialogue, the questions becoming other ends of an equation, or responses to your outputs, until the typical interview structure is imploded … ] [with this next one feel free to respond with simulations and nothing but, when it feels right I’ll respond in kind … provoking me a little might help with this, maybe by my fifth question I’ll have no choice but to give up asking things] What new genres of literature should be invented? OLI: [Never really thought about this before re: inventing genres].One of the below: modernism but 80’s but soft SF but more absurd but semi-real, something unafraid of aesthetics/faculty of association, prole stuff, my stuff, their stuff, Chinese stuff, xeno-esoterica, or not my stuff, I’m just copying Tyson Bley, though it looks like he’s moved on to shriek music now.I’ve moved locations, those kids were irritating.I’m not copying him, I just say it to ground myself.[Aren’t there enough genres already?]I subbed a beautiful picaresque to Solarpunk Magazine last year about an anarchist alone and miserable in the Kuiper Belt, and they didn’t like it. There’s hope in that. I’ll never sub anything to anyone ever again. Not sure they’re even a magazine. What I really wanna do is just keep scrawling out lines from Cinema II // Deleuze and superimposing them on screenshots from Santa Claws and Alienator and Mystics in Bali.[don’t think I have a good answer to this. Trying to analyse why I’m so uncomfortable in this process/reverting to absurdism. It’s not an interview but feels like it is. I’m afraid [terrified maybe] that one of these lines is gonna be extracted and framed in the promo-box, and without context, my work dies. Almost all work does].Is snuff a genre?Or is it core?Solar-, Cyber-, Modernist, aesthetic, synth-, steam-, hard-, soft-, there’s always a camera, always a Liz Short bisected into...this...kind of real out of artifice yet still not real, not even close.I’m Khleb-punk and here’s my manifesto: ‘Japan In White Guy.’[Karina Bush might be a genre, and that would be the end of her. Leave naming to others. Enjoy anonymity + hope it hurts].[you should keep these bits in, I think it might add something].[People want to be confused]RRB: [your responses are meaty and complicated enough that I feel unable to respond without sounding like a dick…I wonder if saying art dies without context is like needing genre conventions through which to view it, which is maybe why it’s difficult to imagine a new one without falling back on variations of what’s already here.][A lot of your work plays off genre, or uses it as a vehicle for what feels like an [un]selfconsciously permeable mind [yours?] open to any information it encounters, considering rejecting revisiting…maybe the thoughts happening in that mind would make no sense without the context of genre [sci-fi for KRV, Perma Neon O, etc.] but they would still exist as a puzzling artifact made out of typed [and scribbled] thoughts, which they seem to be already.] In your novel KRV, the narrator struggles to imagine utopian societies springing up on the dwarf planets of the Kuiper Belt, while in the far backdrop of the story, the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests are taking place. Bliss shifted into low gear—if we had regressed twenty, maybe thirty years the psychological spacewalks extended in a garish mask. “Please, Mr. Runciter.” Those green tumbled stones. The toaster dissolved as a sullen refrigerator perceived her breasts. [Hadn’t cracked my copy of UBIK for a long while. Feels good.]Utopia translates to ‘no place’—is outer space a suitable no place? OLI: I delayed replying to this [to watch Light Shop—not awful but rooted in melodrama, characters are ‘no thing’—with my wife] and lost about 14 good ideas in the process. Actually, I remember one of them, to lift lines from an interview Jung did about the afterlife just before he died and then doctor them a little. I won’t do that now, seems cheap somehow.Your ‘only shown/visible via existing genre conventions’ is very quantum. I don’t disagree. Why worry about inventing something new when you won’t really understand how it came about, where it originated from? I don’t think about ‘the new’ at all cos I have no marketing arm. Scrawling + scanning + shock collage are nothing new. My stuff is new in that no one’s put things in this exact order before. New is paralysing. New is elasticating. New new new new new noo new. KRV is old-new, basically a lost Barry Malzberg piece, a superior alternate to Galaxies, which I struggled with live in one section of KRV cos it performed itself as a new genre within sci-fi + nowhere else + did not go far or quantum enough. It felt playful, philosophical, not desperate or enraged. The first time I read it I never made it to page 98, the 3 cyborgs bit, which it desperately needed. I said ‘superior’ just now and maybe shouldn’t have, but I need to back myself + KRV is rooted in something real and intimate whereas Galaxies is not. Though parts of it lose me a little, parts of KRV, I mean. Some of the writing in the middle is sloppy, the notes can be repetitive past the line of tolerance etc. Last winter, I hated it in a vague way, from my memory of writing and editing it. This winter, it’s ‘pretty good.’ Does Galaxies loop itself like this? [I read that Malzberg has just died. You can delete this part, if you like. Maybe I’ll go and re-read Galaxies, give it more of a chance. Start on page 98, the 3 cyborgs. Should I? Can you will something to be better than it is? Other writers I respect adore it, adore Malzberg. Adore what exactly?]This is getting close to becoming a de-con-struc.Triton is the ultimate ‘no place’ for me to bury my pathologies on. Most of my work visits there at some point. Not visits, situates. [I didn’t know ‘utopia’ translated literally as ‘no place.’ Is that true? [I just checked, it is]. Does that mean ‘place’ is an innately degraded/degrading thing, cannot have replicators or Picard’s dream state? I could never write a utopia, only the failed attempt at one [due to my miserable psyche]. The Kuiper Belt is so tempting to superimpose that on as there are 10,000+ dwarf planets out there, one for each marginal ideology, and the huge distance gaps between them inconveniences imperialist gunships looking to “monitor” things...but also isolates colonists/private interests that could expand their psychopathy, and this is all make-believe anyway. There’s just something comforting about being on an icy moon away from subject-others who will eventually become object-others when my brain turns on me.Is Triton a genre? De-con-struc?That’s what my thoughts—I’m happy you’re reading Ubik again—look like without genre, probably a pathetic way of diverting fromRRB: [Imagining something that cannot be imagined has its appeal for me, though. Not new for the sake of it, but an actual ‘no place’ waiting to be revealed. [I still have religion in me.]Probably the only way to get there though—even tho it’s not possible—is through old methods newly ordered [ and even then it’s only new in that a baby or a cloud doesn’t exist until you see or give birth to one] … ][who knows what this is at this point, maybe I’ll delete everything except the brackets]I wondered about that, how ‘live’ the process of writing was compared to your parallel existence outside the book. KRV feels like a live blog plotted out via improv while the narrator [his name is Gulag?] is next to incapable of writing anything without endlessly outlining and restructuring his screenplay [his own thoughts] into what ends up feeling like a [maybe] permanent stasis. [VOID ROOM 9]You mention the difficulty of achieving this kind of non-development or regression of character at the end of your de-con-struc of I Saw the TV Glow. Is this where the desperation and rage ends up, forced to live? OLI:   RRB: When I first encountered your work, I tried to understand the images. Now, I think I try and let them resonate. But it’s an interesting question, RE: trying to understand. It feels like an important part of your nature as a creator: What’s this guy’s internal monologue like anyway? Must have a non-stop de-con-struc going off all the time—brushing his teeth, chewing plant matter [vegetarian?], drawing spaceships—does he ever get a break? What is the relationship between your writing and your images? Do you see them coming from the same place? Ejaz was my favorite character in KRV. I’m glad he has a press named after him. What kinds of writing [besides notes-only novellas] do they specialize in? [You don’t have to answer any of these. I hope you know.]And lastly, is time travel possible outside of sci-fi? [Don’t worry, I think we’ve crescendoed…just need to find our way to a vanishing point.]OLI: [RE: 50+ Q's: you can always edit them in later, I don't mind].[I’m running out of ideas. Maybe I should try to be more direct, tell you about the time I nearly snapped my arm off while arm-wrestling? Or make up a story about killing a piglet? This is already genuine, I’m not masking—much of—anything].To be honest, I do not 100% understand what a noosign is, or a lectosign, but I still went ahead and used it in several of my novels. Or I did understand it and now I forget. Maybe no one understands it [100%].Talk about discipline?My shot at a cento [Black Hole Cento] had about 27 quotes and only 4 of them could be bothered to fit [into each other].Why would anyone do this to themselves?If I was shit at it, they must be too.I think it was Parmenides who said, people who go to Oxford and Yale are smart in an academic sense but can’t wrap a present properly, can’t interpret Total Recall without being told beforehand what it means by a superior interpreter [same with me and Lost Highway, I had to be led by the hand by KB Toys—Bill Pullman doubles as the devil, Patty Arquette is half-Thai surprise], can’t speak Cantonese, can’t do collage the way I can.[Time travel? I don't know]. I won’t be a pedant and say we’re travelling through time right now, or time is just a construct. I know what you’re asking of me. If it does/can happen, will there be chaos or a collection of master-editors trying to fix all incursions e.g. Timecop. If it can/does happen, it is happening now].Any philosophical insight I possess is purely accidental, I’ve barely read anyone + have no desire to.[I started writing this answer before you sent me the question. I’m sorry for putting us both through this, I thought it was a good idea but now I’m not so sure. Feels like I’m actively draining 2 separate brains. Was gonna mix in lines from interviews by Karina Bush + Gary J. Shipley + others, but now that I’m describing it...][On the other hand, I’m sure there are some good answers in here somewhere, just need to sift out the dirt].[My mood might be bad cos I got a rejection yesterday [my birthday!] from a sci-fi mag I have never read, a mag that pays. I need to make money out of this at some point].[RE: my brain: I know my friends don’t self-analyse/self-castigate like I do, but I assume at least some artists do/did. Don’t you [do it]? I know you said that, when writing Exit Reality, you wanted to disassociate from yourself/reality. Did you stop wanting to do that? Or did you succeed to a certain degree?RRB: [[[[Happy [belated] birthday!]]] I also recently got rejected from a sci-fi mag I have never read [one that pays]—within 24 hours of submitting, too. It felt refreshing to not have to wait six months, though.]Most of my writer friends are neurotic as hell. I’m no different. But your work seems unique in that those self-analyses and -castigations are almost a stand-in for narrative or a protagonist. That may not be the most accurate characterization of all your writing [I haven’t read everything], but it’s a mode that seems effortless, natural to you.I can imagine a novel from you that pushes this tendency to such extremes as to becomeutopic. [I feel like you’re kind of on fire at this point, I wanna give the black hole room to expand.]RE: money making: Would you take a job [well-paying] in which neuro and computer scientists study and map your consciousness while you do nothing but consume and create art, but their research helps addict billions of unborn children to destructive technologies? [This can be the last question[s].]OLI: The TV had receded back a long way; he found himself confronted by a dark, wood-cabinet, Atwater-Kent, tuned radio-frequency oldtime AM radio, complete with antenna and ground wires. God in heaven, he said to himself, appalled, elated. Just one more answer to try and hold it all together. But why hadn’t the TV set reverted instead to formless metals and plastics? I just remembered, a reporter for Ming Bo [Newspaper in HK] interviewed me about 16 years ago. Those, after all, were its constituents; it had been constructed out of them, not out of an earlier radio. He’d found a copy of The Atheism Jab [a collection of not very good short stories, my first stab at writing] in a local info-shop [now long gone] and wanted to know why someone would do that. Perhaps this weirdly verified a discarded ancient philosophy, that of Plato’s idea objects, the universals which, in each class, were real. Can’t picture what I said to him, it was too far back, but he did say afterwards that I sounded angry. The form TV set had been a template imposed as successor to other templates, like the procession of frames in a movie sequence. I hope I don’t sound that way today. Prior forms, he reflected, must carry on an invisible, residual life in every object. I hope I’ve managed to hide it a little, at least, or bury it deep inside the de-con-strucs. The past is latent, is submerged, but still there, capable of rising to the surface once the later imprinting unfortunately—and against ordinary experience—vanishes. Or it could be that I don’t hope that. The man contains—not the boy—but earlier men, he thought. Anger should drive me. History began a long time ago. Shouldn’t it?[Yes, UBIK, again. Without design. I randomly flicked, first time, to page 139 and the words were already there, awkwardly perfect. This is the satan-wave of experimentalism, I believe].Was the sci-fi mag [that rejected you] Clarkesworld? They have a fast turnaround. I must’ve been ‘rejected within 2 days’ around 50 times for them. I’m pretty sure I’ve tried everything, every type of story. You’ll never get in there, comrade. You'll never get past their network of AI elves. You = WE.[btw, I said I hadn’t read that other SF mag [that I got rejected from], but I do read stories sometimes, to see what kind of standard they’re looking for, that I can later fail to emulate. I liked one Clarkesworld story, by Kij Johnson, ‘SPAR’ [not the supermarket]. The rest-...I don’t want to rant. Just wish they’d loosen their guidelines a bit, or hire my mum as a first reader]. I'm an anarchist, I would never sign up to anything large scale.I'm an anarchist, I would never sign up to anything large scale.I'm an anarchist, I would never sign up to anything scaly.I'm an anarchist, I would never sex up anything large scale.As an anarchist, I would never sign up to anything large scale.I'm the Bye Bye Man, I would never sign up to anything large scale.I'm an antichrist, I would never sign up to anything large scale.I'm an anarchist, I would never sign up to anything like this.I'm an anarchist, I would never sign up to anything large scale.I love kids and they love me, the more unborn the better.If this is the end then thanks cos I would never speak like this in real life. No one would ask me.[RE: UBIK + random page: thinking back a bit, it wasn't that random, I knew the latter half of the book would have parts where objects and the environment started to regress to an earlier form, and I aimed for roughly that area. Within that, it was random [my second flick - the first didn't go deep enough]. Perhaps a neat example of my "method" overall]]]].[Ubik is great to read, I miss books like this]

Continue Reading...

BOOKS THAT NEEDED TO BE SAID: I CAN’T STOP THINKING ABOUT. Recommends by Shane Jesse Christmass

Why did I choose these books? Perhaps because, to me, they represent literature that stands apart from the hegemonic literary marketplace … operating outside the structures of commercial garbage publishing, which prioritises market-driven narratives and commodifiable claptrap stories.They resist assimilation into the literary industrial complex, which often seeks to sanitise or manipulate raw human experience for consumption. Instead, these texts engage in an unapologetic exploration of obsession, identity, and the dissonance between desire and self-destruction. These writers embrace a nonconformist aesthetic, their works subvert the conventional expectations of plot resolution and character redemption. The protagonists are not mere vehicles for moral lessons, but complex figures navigating the contradictions of human existence: power, alienation, and emotional rupture. Their novels interrogate the performative nature of relationships, questioning how much of our identity is shaped by the gaze of others or by societal pressures. Furthermore, the texts address the commodification of identity itself, particularly in the way desire and personal agency become entangled with market-driven forces.Their place … especially Moore, Durbin and Chelosky … outside the conventional literary canon … positions them as crucial, albeit uncomfortable, interventions in the landscape of contemporary thought.And, of course, my choices also prove that I have impeccable taste. Now, let’s begin, motherfuckers. Danielle CheloskyCheat (The Waiting Room, 2022). show me your face (The Waiting Room, 2023). Watching the world get right with itself by reading Pregaming Grief by Danielle Chelosky has been an agreeable thing. That book deserves every bit of its massive audience. Chelosky is one of the rare writers whose work I’ll devour without question … whatever she publishes, I’m there. Her writing is a seismic bomb, a carnal rush, a primordial teenage ooze. Raw, unflinching explorations of youth, desire, the blurred lines between love, obsession, and self-destruction. Bodily attraction is in the dirt, the convenience store-soaked chaos, clubs / bars smeared with lament and sweat. Chelosky doesn’t ask permission. Chelosky’s characters often obsess over others in ways that blur the line between love and control. She pushes us to consider how much of our identity is shaped by the people we fixate on. Chelosky has a new book out, Baby Bruise, but for now, I want you to read her earlier chapbooks. In Cheat, Chelosky crafts a fragmented memoir that reads like a dream-drenched brain-fog … disjointed, urgent, painfully honest. The narrator … caught in the chaos of a love triangle … navigates intimacy, betrayal, and the intoxicating pull of self-destruction, our emotional wreckage laid bare. Where does power lie in relationships, especially in undefined dynamics? Chelosky dissects the fluidity of power … who has it, who loses it, and how it shifts in moments of vulnerability.show me your face pushes this voyeuristic intensity even further, dissecting ambiguous teenage sexual relationships with an unsettling clarity. A collage of encounters, text messages, and confessional prose, Chelosky forces us to sit with the complexities of power, submission, dismissal, sorrow, agency, the murky space between affection and exploitation. It’s uncomfortable in the best way … an unfiltered look at the desperation to be seen, to be wanted, to define oneself through others, to be defined by others moving though you, how we self-destruct in the pursuit of connection. Her work often explores the compulsion to chase intensity, even when it leads to ruin, asking why we crave the pain of wanting. Chelosky suggests that love, in its rawest form, is messy and consuming, and she forces us to sit in that ache.Chelosky strips everything down to goosepimple skin and White Claw-scorched throat, just an aching need for connection, for rejection, extracted in prose that lingers like a somnambulist bruise. I can never remember my own name, nor to whom or when or where I’ve said this, but this … Chelosky’s earlier work, not to be mistaken for lesser work … holds weight, holds thought. The weight of silence in digital communication, the tension of waiting, the power play of who responds to text messages first … her writing magnifies these seemingly minor interactions. She dissects the way intimacy shifts when it’s performed versus when it’s private, exposing the performative nature of some desires. In tangled relationships, her characters wrestle with guilt and responsibility, but not always in a way that leads to redemption. Her fragmented style mimics memory itself—half-formed, fevered, unreliable—forcing us to question how we piece together our own histories.Chelosky isn’t interested in neat answers. She’s interested in the mess, the halfway space. All of it is essential. All of it gets my full, undivided attention. Her writing is a gift. Receive it. No replacement will do. No stand-ins allowed. Only this will work. There’s no one better to capture the chaos of chasing love.    Thomas Moore.A Certain Kind Of Light (Queer Mojo, 2013). In Their Arms (Rebel Satori, 2016).Another writer I’ll read without hesitation, Thomas Moore has a way of capturing the weightlessness of disconnection, the slow drift of a life untethered. For this, again … I’m looking back at some of his earlier work … the first two books of his I read nearly a decade ago. Moore’s settings are often faint spaces … sterile apartments, anonymous bars, strange city streets … where everything feels slightly off, mirroring the protagonist’s emotional state. Dialogue in his work is often stilted or drained of substance, emphasising the disconnect between people who should be close but aren’t. Thomas Moore’s A Certain Kind of Light and In Their Arms are meditations on alienation, identity, and the quiet despair of searching for meaning in a world that offers little in return. Moore has numerous novels released since these two, predominantly on Amphetamine Sulphate, including his newest novel: We’ll Never Be Fragile AgainIn A Certain Kind of Light, Moore follows a teenage boy suspended in his own existence, detached from family, friends, even his own interests. The novel distills that eerie sensation of moving through the world as if behind glass … where nothing feels entirely real, and everything remains just out of reach. His prose is sparse yet immersive, drawing the reader into a space where existence isn’t about being seen or understood, but about grasping at any feeling at all. His characters go through the motions … work, socialising, sex … but instead of grounding them, these routines only reinforce their sense of emptiness. Many of his characters look back on their lives with a kind of yearning, but instead of offering comfort, these memories feel like faded versions of something that was never quite real to begin with.In Their Arms deepens this theme, centring on an art journalist suffocating under the weight of his own apathy. Employment, friendships, even desire … all become indistinct, reduced to habit. Seeking solace in fleeting sexual encounters, he only finds the void widening. Moore writes with a cool detachment that mirrors his protagonist’s emotional numbness, making every moment of longing, confusion, and solitude feel starkly real. If we feel disconnected from our own lives, do we still have a self? Or are we just reflections of the things that once mattered to us. His characters seek intimacy, sex, or art to fill the void, but these pursuits often leave them feeling just as vacant as before.These novels refuse resolution. There’s no grand epiphany, no comforting arc of redemption … only the raw, unvarnished truth of what it means to feel lost in your own life. Moore doesn’t just depict alienation … he immerses you in it, makes you sit with it. And that’s why his work lingers … unsettling, inescapable, unforgettable. Moore’s protagonists often move through life like traces, their relationships shallow, their emotions dulled. He asks what happens when life feels less like something we live and more like something we observe. Is meaning something we find, or something we fabricate? His novels suggest that meaning is neither inherent nor easily discovered. Instead, it’s something we desperately try to construct. Thomas Moore’s writing interrogates alienation, identity, and the numb drift of modern existence. His work isn’t about finding answers … it’s about sitting inside the uncertainty, feeling the weight of detachment. Moore’s work doesn’t offer easy catharsis. He forces us to sit inside estrangement, stripped of all the cinematic polish, leaving just the quiet dread and factual weight. It’s detached, it’s weightless, and it’s devastating.I love Thomas Moore’s work because he nails that quiet, suffocating feeling of being stuck in your own life … disconnected from everything and everyone around you, these petty, miserable existences.   Édouard Levé.Suicide (P.O.L., 2008)Suicide by Édouard Levé is less a novel than a quiet, haunting reckoning … a stark and unflinching meditation on despair, alienation, and the slow erosion of self. Written as a confessional monologue, it unfolds in a voice that is both intimate and distant, tracing the contours of a mind unravelling. There is no conventional plot, no external conflict … only the relentless introspection of a man examining his own existence and the quiet inevitability of his decision to end it. Levé examines whether taking one's own life is a surrender to suffering or a final assertion of autonomy … a decision as rational as any other. The novel presents a man not just through his death, but through the fragments of his existence. Levé asks what it means to be remembered … whether a life is defined by its end, or by the details that preceded it.Levé strips away sentimentality, offering a portrait of suicide not as a moment of crisis, but as the culmination of a long, slow drift toward nothingness. The novel is chilling in its simplicity, thought-provoking in its restraint … a work that does not seek to explain or justify, only to lay bare the depths of mental anguish. Levé explores the idea that identity is as much shaped by absence as by presence. How do others hold onto us when we are no longer here to define ourselves?Levé’s Suicide lingers in the quiet, intimate spaces of existence, asking how the smallest details … a hobby, a gesture, a fleeting thought … add up to form a person. The novel subtly questions whether suicide is an act of selfishness or selflessness, leaving the reader to wrestle with the weight of absence. It explores the unsettling coexistence of detachment and suffering, as the narrator speaks of his death with eerie calm, challenging the assumption that deep pain must always be outwardly visible. Silence and omission shape the narrative as much as what is said, forcing us to consider what is left unsaid and what that absence reveals. Ultimately, Suicide questions the very limits of language … can words ever fully capture the complexity of choosing to die, or do they fail in the face of something so final and unknowable? Considering the novel revolves around suicide, it’s also unexpectedly funny.Given Levé’s own suicide shortly after delivering this manuscript, the novel blurs the boundary between fiction and reality, making the reader question whether artistic expression can ever be fully separate from the person creating it. Is this the pinnacle of autofiction, unmatched and never to be surpassed? It’s not just about suicide … it’s about the quiet, slow burn of a life fading, and how the smallest things can shape who we are, even when we’re no longer here.  Derek McCormack.Castle Faggot (Semiotext(e), 2020).Derek McCormack’s Castle Faggot is a mysteriously mocking, deeply unsettling descent into a world of desire, artifice, and excess … a grotesque, glittering funhouse. The novel follows Louie, a man drawn into a surreal, nightmarish wonderland … a castle-like mansion populated by eccentric, twisted figures who reflect and distort the anxieties of gay identity, masculinity, and commodified sexuality. As Louie drifts through this uncanny realm, the boundaries between fantasy and reality collapse, leaving him trapped in a world as seductive as it is suffocating.McCormack’s Castle Faggot probes the uneasy relationship between queerness, consumerism, and spectacle, asking whether identity can ever exist outside the forces that market, regulate, and distort it. He examines the thin, unsettling line between camp and horror, revealing how exaggerated performance can be both a celebration and a trap. Through a world of excess and grotesque artifice, the novel questions whether queer identity is something authentic or something constantly consumed … by culture, by capitalism, by the self. Beneath the satire, Castle Faggot forces us to confront an unsettling possibility … that queerness, in a world obsessed with spectacle, risks becoming just another product … one that entertains, shocks, and sells, but never escapes the systems that define it. Are we bonded to Faggotland, haunted by Count Choc-o-log?McCormack dissects the ways fantasy distorts self-perception, forcing us to question whether our desires shape us or if we are merely chasing illusions. Through Louie’s journey, he explores how performance … whether through camp, drag, or artifice … can be both freeing and suffocating, a means of self-expression that risks turning into a caricature. The novel’s biting humour masks a deeper horror, blurring the line between resilience and denial, making us wonder whether laughter is a shield or just another layer of self-deception. As Louie is pulled deeper into the castle’s bizarre world, the question of escape lingers … whether from the constraints of identity, the expectations of culture, or the endless cycle of spectacle and consumption.McCormack layers his narrative with biting wit, subversive humour, and a queasy blend of camp and horror, crafting a book that feels like a neon-lit carnival ride through the absurdities of desire, self-image, and cultural expectations. Strange, unsettling, and unrelentingly bold, Castle Faggot is both a satire and a spectacle … an exploration of queerness that is at once deeply unsettling and wildly entertaining. I’m here for the suffocating nature of spectacle.Maybe I’ve gotten this all wrong, but this book pulled me into a cavalcade-land where everything about identity and desire got twisted and turned inside out, forcing me to confront how I / we perform ourselves and how easily that performance becomes a deception.  Kate Durbin.Hoarders (Wave Books, 2021). Kate Durbin’s Hoarders is an arresting exploration of compulsion, accumulation, and the emotional weight of objects. Blending poetry and nonfiction, Durbin crafts a series of fragmented narratives that delve into the lives of individuals consumed by the need to collect, revealing how hoarding becomes both a coping mechanism and a source of deep isolation. Through a sharp, empathetic lens, she examines the intersections of mental illness, consumerism, and the personal histories embedded in material possessions.Durbin explores how the act of hoarding reflects broader cultural issues such as consumerism and materialism, questioning whether the compulsion to collect is a deeply personal disorder or a reflection of a society that places value on accumulation. She probes the role of possessions in shaping identity, asking what it means to find meaning in objects and whether they can ever truly satisfy emotional or existential needs. Durbin also examines hoarding as both a symptom of isolation and a way to assert control, exploring whether it’s a desperate attempt to stave off abandonment or a misguided effort to maintain personal autonomy. Ultimately, she raises the question of whether objects can offer meaningful connection, or if they instead create a suffocating prison, leaving individuals trapped in their own attempts to hold onto the past or to make sense of their lives.The book offers a haunting meditation on the ways people attempt to fill emotional voids with things, capturing the desperation, obsession, and quiet heartbreak of those who struggle to let go. With a style that is both poetic and incisive, Hoarders gives voice to a misunderstood disorder while holding up a mirror to a culture obsessed with excess.Durbin’s style is deliberately disjointed, mirroring the fractured lives of those consumed by accumulation. The poetry here functions less as a linear exploration of language and more as a raw, unfiltered examination of human desperation and the psychological toll of hoarding. By employing a fragmented, almost documentary-style approach, Durbin creates an intimacy that transcends typical poetic abstraction, allowing the emotions and struggles of her subjects to resonate deeply. Her work isn’t just poetic in form but in its ability to convey truth and experience through vivid, often painful snapshots of life.The way Durbin mixes poetry and raw storytelling creates this deep, unsettling connection to the emotional wreckage … making you feel the weight of each item and the lives they entrap.

Continue Reading...

IT DOESN’T END WHEN YOU CLOSE THE BOOK: AN INTERVIEW WITH KEVIN M. KEARNEY by Leo Vartorella

Kevin M. Kearney’s latest novel FREELANCE (Rejection Letters, 2025) is a dystopian thriller. It is a psychological profile of loneliness in the age of OnlyFans. It is a condemnation of AI and the gig economy. It is the story of a young man’s search for purpose, part character study and part surreal, page-turning romp. Above all, it is a lot of fun. The novel follows Simon, a driftless 19-year-old driver for the rideshare app HYPR, whose world is upended when the app offers him a seemingly life-changing opportunity. This combination of breadth, emotional acuity and fast-moving plot is nothing new for Kearney. His debut novel HOW TO KEEP TIME (Thirty West, 2022) is a portrait of marriage and family that reads like a mystery, with a dose of New Jersey folklore thrown in for good measure. In short, his books do a lot. Ahead of the publication of FREELANCE on May 31, I connected with Kearney over video call to discuss his writing process, building a universe across books and why Philadelphia is the perfect setting for a sci-fi noir. Our conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.  Leo Vartorella: So FREELANCE is a book that touches on a lot of big themes. You’ve got AI, the gig economy, and coming of age as a young man on the internet to name a few. Did you set out to tackle all these themes from the beginning or did they kind of come up organically as you were writing the book?Kevin M. Kearney: I think the short answer is no. I had the idea to write about an Uber type driver. I thought that would make for a good narrative conceit, because you've got this character who, by the necessity of his job, has to interact with all these different people throughout the course of the day. So as a writer, it's entertaining, because you can just say, well, who would I like to show up next? Pretty much anyone with a smartphone in Philly could show up in his back seat. So what does that look like? It kind of started as a game, just to play and see what happens. And then I started realizing that it could be something larger, and it could probably be a novel. So that’s when some of those themes started showing themselves. Some of them were obvious in retrospect, but at the time they kind of came out of the storytelling.I left teaching and moved across the country in 2022, and I also started writing this book in August 2022 as soon as I moved to California. At first, I thought I was just writing this story about this rideshare driver. Very quickly I realized, oh, I'm actually writing about teaching, and I'm processing what it means that I'm no longer in the classroom. And then I also realized, oh, I'm writing about Philly because I'm no longer in Philly, and I'm processing what that city is or what my experience with it was. And then I very quickly realized, oh, all the things I'm writing about teaching are actually about work. LV: And what about Simon in particular? What drew you to him as a character and how did he start to take shape for you?KK: I taught high school for 10 years in Philly. I taught at this all-boys Catholic school that I also attended as a student, which is a whole other story. I had a lot of students throughout that decade who were a lot like Simon, kids who are a little over their heads, kids who maybe don't know what they don't know, but who are just trying to forge a path and figure out who they are and who they want to be. So I think that was the main inspiration. I felt like I'd interacted with this kid many, many times and the more I wrote about it, I realized at various points in my life, I had also been that kid.LV: From a construction standpoint, I really admire how you write chapters. They are always building momentum and leaving me as a reader wanting more, and I feel like you really know how to end them in a satisfying way without it feeling too on the nose. What do you look to accomplish in a chapter and how do you think about them as narrative units?KK: That's a great question, and I appreciate you saying that, because it's something that I have really worked on. You use the word unit, and I think that's the perfect way to describe it. I haven't thought about it in that way, but that's absolutely accurate. It is its own thing, right? It’s a living, breathing element in and of itself. It's not the same thing as a short story because it’s pushing along this much larger narrative. So I think of it more like a joke, like in the context of a sketch or a stand-up set. Sometimes a joke can stand on its own, but a lot of times they are much more satisfying and a lot funnier in the context of the larger thing, but they are also units that can exist on their own, because there's a premise, there's a setup, and then there's a punchline. And so I think when I'm writing a chapter, I'm always hoping that there's a buildup, there's a setup, and then there is some sort of punchline, even though a lot of times it's not funny. But there's something about how the end of a chapter lands that not only feels satisfying – you could close the book, if you want, and feel like an idea has been realized – but that hopefully it’s going to make you want to turn the page, because you're going to see that replicated in the next chapter and the next.LV: To speak about plot and momentum more generally, this book really zips along. We could use the phrase page turner. How do you think about plot as you're writing? Are you an outliner or are you figuring it out as you go?KK: I appreciate that, because that's something I think about a lot. I love page turners. I think for some people, that's seen as less than, like it’s a trait of genre fiction that maybe certain literary types kind of turn their nose up at. But I think it's really admirable and quite difficult to keep it moving and to make it feel entertaining and engaging enough to keep someone constantly turning that page. In terms of plot overall, I think for a long time I am writing scenes and just figuring out who the character is. And my process, when I first start something, is I'm just writing completely fragmented scenes, and I don't exactly know who the characters are, I don't exactly know where it's going. Sometimes just a paragraph, and then sometimes that's several paragraphs, and then maybe a sentence, but I'm just trying to get as many things down on the page as possible. And then over time, those connections start to make themselves more obvious to me, and I can start to see the threads between those seemingly disconnected fragments, and then I can start piecing things together. Then I can put together a pretty broad outline of where the story starts, where it's going to go next, and where, ultimately, I hope that it winds up. As the process goes on and things become more refined, I get a pretty detailed outline, and especially when I'm revising drafts, I'm outlining pretty intensely and doing reverse outlines to see if the story architecture actually holds up and makes sense.LV: In both of your books, a key element of that architecture is the way you deploy shifts in point of view. You don't really seem restricted about how you do it or when you do it, and I think it works very effectively. Sometimes you come back to a character, or sometimes like with Simon's parents or Tamika, we might just spend one chapter with them. How do you think about when and how you're shifting point of view?KK: Well, I think part of it is just like a very dumb reader view of it, which is that as soon as it starts to feel boring, hearing from the same person, that's usually a sign for me that I need to start moving in another direction. In the reverse outline that I mentioned, it’s one of the main things that I'm looking at. So when I'm reading the first full draft of a project, I ignore whatever previous outline I had, and as I'm reading it and marking it up, I'm outlining it as it exists on the page. So here's what happens in one chapter and here's whose perspective it's from, or here are the characters who are involved in the scene. And that allows me to then have a Google Doc that's pretty much just one page, and I can see I've got this character's perspective for eight chapters in a row. I’m always asking myself, is this interesting or has this become stale or mundane? Is this balanced structurally? Just trying to look at it all as objectively as possible.LV: I think some of the strongest characters across both your books are the parents. One element of the parent-child relationship that you explore nicely is intergenerational communication. Beyond their family connection, parents and children are products of different eras trying to figure each other out. Especially in a book like FREELANCE, why was it so important to give voice to Simon's parents?KK: That’s a great question, because someone who read an early draft said they thought I should cut the parents, there’s no need to hear from them. So I went back and tried to see if that would be possible, and I just thought that it would be totally unrealistic to think that there's this 19-year-old kid who had all these struggles, whose parents don't have any window into his life. I mean, obviously that type of person exists, but I think that that's a pretty rare experience now, considering who Simon is and where it's coming from. So I thought that it was essential. Also, I mentioned earlier that I had taught so many kids who were like Simon, and I inevitably met all their parents because they were failing out of school, or they were socially struggling in some way. So I would be emailing with these parents or talking with them on the phone or sitting with them in guidance counselor meetings or parent teacher conferences, and I really felt for these people, even though sometimes I could see how their parenting was maybe facilitating or passively encouraging their kids’ struggles. But, you know, they're just people who are trying to figure out what's wrong with their kid, or where maybe they went wrong with their kid. They're really grasping at straws and trying to fix this problem that is way more complicated than a simple fix.LV: Yeah, I mean, it's believable that there's a 19-year-old Simon who's going through life and not thinking about his parents, but that there are parents who are thinking about him is the important perspective that really adds a roundness to the book.KK: Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I'm sure that my therapist would have something to say about this, but I always find that I'm writing about parents, always writing about work. LV: Throw Catholicism in there and you’ve got the trifecta.KK: [Laughs] Right, and I'm always writing about a Catholic school. That always works its way in.LV: I feel like Cassie is a character who grows increasingly important as FREELANCE progresses. How crucial do you think her perspective is in a book that's otherwise about this driftless young man?KK: Yeah, I think it's crucial. She’s the wise character, not that she's perfect by any means. I don't think anyone in the book, or in life, is perfect, but she sees through all the things that hamstring Simon and a lot of the other characters, and she realizes that defining your identity by your profession is a losing game. It's a trap. But also defining your identity based on social capital, like maybe Dylan does, is also a trap. So that scene with her and Maya at the end, I think that is the crux of not only her arc, but the book as a whole. She’s not even a mother: she's Cassie. And even that name is a construction. Even that is artificial. She is this energy, this spirit, for lack of a better word. All the other things are artificial, and I think she sees through that, whereas Simon is really hung up on how he's perceived by others and whether or not he's successful enough.LV: Speaking of how he’s perceived by others, Simon lives with a group of privileged post-college kids who feel like they are figuring out their lives, but they're all on a path to security and success that is very foreign to Simon, whose trajectory is much more precarious. Tell me about putting Simon in a house with these people. Why was that important?KK: I think the first reason is that Philly is filled with people like that. It would be fair to say that I have been that person at times too, who's sort of poor but not poor, right? Sort of cosplaying poverty because you just graduated college. So for one, it felt realistic. If you're writing about people in their 20s in Philly, that's a not insignificant portion of the population. It was also supposed to echo Simon's experience in high school. A very elite school that’s in the city but not necessarily of the city. And I think it’s a dynamic he could look at and wonder if his whole life is going to feel outside of these people, removed from them and completely isolated when he tries to relate to them about seemingly normal things.LV: Staying with Philly for a sec, something I noticed in HOW TO KEEP TIME and FREELANCE is a similar arc for the characters where they go through a lot of shit in Philly, and the city kind of spits them out into Jersey. What is it about each of these places and the relationship between them that makes them so compelling to write about?KK: Yeah, that's a great question. I think that a lot of people in Philly, and maybe even a lot of people in New Jersey, view Jersey as this other planet. Even across the country, when I mention to people that I grew up in New Jersey, they think of a different New Jersey than the one that I grew up in. I grew up in South Jersey, which is like a Philadelphia suburb that very quickly becomes farmland and woods.Philly is very strange in its own ways, very haunted in its own ways. I think New Jersey feels like a counterpart to that. It’s also very strange, but in different ways, and very haunted in different ways. And it feels like a place that you could be exiled to. With Mercer in HOW TO KEEP TIME, that's the place where he's trying to get his head on straight and figure things out. And for Simon in FREELANCE, that's where he's cordoned off, a purgatory of sorts.LV: You mentioned you started writing FREELANCE after you had moved to California. Compared to the process of writing your first book, how was it different writing about Philly and Jersey from across the country?KK: With HOW TO KEEP TIME, the only way that I could think to do that was that fragmentary process I was talking about, taking all these seemingly disconnected scenes and making them work in a narrative. A lot of it was my day-to-day experience in the city or in the Pine Barrens, things I noticed, things that stood out to me – pretty much notes – then fictionalizing them and putting them in this very dramatic narrative. So I was able to, in real time, see something and then immediately put it into the story.Being 3000 miles across the country and trying to write about the place, that was about mining my memory. And I think the result of that is a more heightened or surreal version of the city. And when I started to realize that, I thought, oh, it would be cool to try and make this feel like a noir or a suspenseful thriller. So I started reading Raymond Chandler books to try and see how you make it feel like there are shadows everywhere, something always lurking around the corner.LV: I love Chandler.KK: Yeah, I hadn't read him before, and when I moved to California, I thought I should read a bunch of California books. Chandler was one of the things that seemed the most obvious, so I read The Big Sleep and The High Window. And I was thinking I should write a sci-fi noir, so I was reading those Chandler books and then, in quick succession, also read Neuromancer and the novelization of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which I'd never read before. It’s really fun. So I was using my memory of not just what I moved away from, but also Philadelphia in 2010 when I first moved there as an adult, and then trying to infuse it with these hyper-real or surreal elements that sci-fi and noir allow.I also read this book called Hustle and Gig by Alexandria Ravenel. It's a sociological study of gig work including Uber, Airbnb, Task Rabbit, and a company called Kitchensurfing. It was super helpful, because it gave me actual data and experiences of people who have gone through this that were vetted by an academic. Because I was also reading tons of forum posts, subreddits from Lyft and Uber drivers, to get a sense of what the job is actually like on the ground. But it was nice to have the academic text to complement that and verify things. Because I think there's a lot of bluster on these forums, which are incredible texts in and of themselves. They are fascinating to read, because, for one, they're not written with any sort of artistic pretense. They're really just written a lot of times to blow off some steam or to talk some shit. And I think that's refreshing to read – something that is so intentionally anti-intellectual. There is no hoping that someone thinks they're smart because they wrote this. They’re doing it to express a feeling. I'm fascinated by digital texts like that in general, stumbling upon something on the internet that is made public for literally the entire world to see, and yet you still feel like this is a private document that you're not supposed to have seen. I love that. So then playing around with writing my own, it was fun. In terms of reader experience, I thought it was a nice way to break up the narrative and hit refresh every once in a while. Also, it allowed for a lot of indirect exposition.LV: You’ve mentioned how Catholicism and Catholic school are themes in both of your books. What impact does religion have on the lives of your characters?KK: I wish I had some thematic reason for why I write about Catholic characters, and, more specifically Irish-Catholic characters, but I think at the end of the day I’m writing from my own immediate experience. I also think there’s a lot of strange ethnic traditions that have nothing to do with religion but everything to do with Catholic or Irish-Catholic identity. In HOW TO KEEP TIME, it's the inability to say the thing – the absolute deferral to silence whenever something gets potentially uncomfortable. And I think that animates a lot of the tension between Simon and his parents. His dad in particular can't bring himself to say that his son is depressed, because what if that sets him on this certain path that's going to lead to all these other problems that could have been avoided if we had just not said that, right? His mom is more open, but probably too much. She’s probably overbearing with the amount that she's willing to say the thing. I don't know, it's something I constantly plug into, and I have found that there's no shortage of inspiration with writing about that world.LV: Speaking of HOW TO KEEP TIME, I was very happy to see Mercer make a cameo in FREELANCE. It’s not a particularly important episode for Simon, but it felt like a pretty revealing coda to see where Mercer is now, and kind of worked like an aftershock that brought me back to the world of that book. Why did you want both of these books to take place in the same universe?KK: Well, I think you describing it as an aftershock is incredible. That’s the effect that I was looking for. I love writers who build universes and then slowly expand them over the course of their bibliography. When I was in high school reading Vonnegut and burning through his books, seeing Kilgore Trout appear in multiple places, Eliot Rosewater too, I just thought, wow, this is so cool that a writer gets to do that. That they get to build this entire world.LV: Reading Vonnegut in high school and hitting your second Kilgore Trout mention – nothing can match that high.KK: Totally. I also love Jennifer Egan and I think she does that really well. She has built a universe of all these characters that start out in A Visit from the Goon Squad, and then they show up in a number of her short stories published after that, and then she wrote sort of like a sequel, but it's all about these very seemingly minor, peripheral characters from the first book. I think that's just so exciting as a reader and as a writer. It's incredible that you get to build your own universe, not just for a single book, but one that lives throughout an entire body of work. It's really fun and hopefully it maybe adds to a deeper sense of realism for a reader who's following book to book. This story does not begin on page one and end when you close the book, it actually continues. I have another idea that I'm working on right now, and it's about St. Luke's, the Catholic school that is in HOW TO KEEP TIME and FREELANCE, so that might be another way to kind of continue the universe.

Continue Reading...

NEW WAVES AND NOWHERE ROADS: AN INTERVIEW WITH BRANDON TEIGLAND by Rebecca Gransden

With the short fiction collection My Child is a Stranger (AOS, 2025) Brandon Teigland offers a close reading of possible futures. Teigland’s exploratory voracity lays the groundwork for an examination of impulse, whether towards the limits of art or the human. The realm of theory has to live in our very real, fleshy heads, at least for now, but what happens when assumptions break down? I spoke to Brandon about this questing and interrogative collection. Rebecca Gransden: How long has the compilation of My Child is a Stranger taken you? What was the process of choosing the stories for inclusion like?Brandon Teigland: Over the past decade, while writing and publishing three other books, I was also assembling this collection—eighteen stories written between 2015 and 2025. In that time, the culture of contemporary fiction has changed. All the stories I've included in My Child is a Stranger are in some way about the time of their writing, whether they explicitly address the issues of the day or not. Everyone knows what these are: globalization, economic collapse, inequality, technological upheaval, environmental degradation, mass displacement, terror, war, and, with these, shifting ideas of what it means to be human.Is there a common thread among these? Probably not. As Jean-François Lyotard would say, there is no overarching metanarrative to explain and justify everything. There are only outcomes—ideas lived out in all their messy complexity. The 'child' in the title comes from Emmanuel Levinas’s Totality and Infinity, where he cites Isaiah 49: My child is a stranger, but a stranger who is not only mine, for he is me. He is me, a stranger to myself… However we relate to children in our own lives, the figure of the child—whether as an evasion or an embodiment of hope and despair—tells us something of the fears we as a species have for the future and what hope we invest in it.RG: What does the posthuman mean to you, and how does it manifest in your writing?BT: Posthumanism is a strange institution—one that allows us to be everything, anything. David Roden’s Disconnection Thesis suggests that posthumans would be radically different from humans because they would be 'disconnected' from existing human forms of life, practices, and conceptual frameworks. This disconnection isn’t just physical but involves a deeper ontological rupture—meaning posthuman beings may not be understandable in human terms, as they would operate outside the assemblage of human social systems.I see two kinds of posthumanism: ‘open’ posthumanism, which is unrestricted and capable of embodying anything, and ‘closed’ posthumanism, which imposes its own self-chosen limitations, restricting what posthumanism can be. I find both compelling and a little suspect, which is why I consider my writing a type of speculative posthumanism.Roden’s speculative posthumanism contrasts with critical posthumanism, which focuses on deconstructing the human concept within cultural and philosophical contexts. Instead, he considers the possible emergence of new kinds of beings beyond our ability to conceptualize—an unpredictable evolution where technology, biology, and autonomy break free from human structures. This aligns with my interest in posthumanism as a post-existential, almost unknowable state, where identity, transformation, and alienation lead to forms of existence outside human comprehension.To ask, ‘What is posthumanist literature?’ is to examine how writers might explore these feral forms of fabulist fiction. Literature is bound up with what it’s like to be us, to be human. How we make ourselves intelligible to ourselves. Posthuman literature matters not because it helps us understand who we are today, but because it asks who we might become, or not become, tomorrow.RG: “The Last Shape” explores themes of aging and decay, of the ravages of time. You highlight how the pursuit of ‘beating’ time, the thirst for life extension, can lead to a state that pollutes the living environment. How do you view the concept of deep time? What is the contemporary relationship to the idea of primitive memory and evolution?BT: In “The Last Shape”, Professor Ali Abbasi, a biogerontologist, ventures into California’s Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest in search of Methuselah, haunted by dreams of being trapped among its twisted pines. He realizes these trees endure not through vitality but by existing in a half-dead state, mirroring his fear that extreme life extension leads to stagnation and detachment.As he ascends, he encounters a breath-like entity dormant within the roots, suggesting that longevity is not just biological but an unnatural disruption of time. When he descends, his own breathing has changed—his body altered, his humanity uncertain. The story critiques the philosophy of senescence as a postmortal impasse, where longer lifespans sever us from evolution, erasing primitive memory and disrupting the natural balance. Deep time, embodied in these trees, reveals that life and death are inseparable, and immortality is not a triumph but a corruption of identity. The pursuit of preservation doesn’t just pollute the environment—it pollutes the self, rendering us unrecognizable. True continuity lies not in defying death but in accepting the decay and renewal that sustain all life—offering no solace beyond nature’s endless cycle.RG: We each have to face our own apocalypse. The collection confronts apocalypticism on both a personal and societal scale. How do you view the modern era’s version of apocalypse? Is there an apocalyptic zeitgeist in the literary scene?BT: The apocalyptic realism of contemporary literature is an as-yet-unstated movement, forming new waves around writers who are realizing that there is no limit to what literature can do: it can do anything it wants. It can be raw, risky, and random—deliberately unfiltered, uncensored, and unprofessional. Most significantly, it can embrace a wilder edge, a kind of optimistic nihilism—something like a Crowleyian call to 'Do what thou wilt.'RG: I chose the wrong means of escape. I took an awkward shortcut that led me right back to where I was, left to compound the horror of living there, in that place of no escape, with the exhaustion of the journey. Empty-handed and up to my ears in student debt. If I wasn’t a destroyed human being then, I am now. Stagnant and useless. Full of false sensation. False scorn and feeble hatred. Not knowing which it really is, scorn or hatred, I laugh.“The Naysayer” pays particular attention to the concept of ‘giving up.’ What does ‘giving up’ mean in this story? To what degree did you consider structure in your approach to “The Naysayer”?BT: “The Naysayer” is a novelette written with the experimentalism and exploration of postmodernism and pessimistic fiction, chronicling a protagonist who internalizes failure as a metaphysical and existential certainty. The narrator, a disillusioned student burdened by debt and an eroding sense of self, isolates himself in a rented room where he discovers a lost manuscript, A Theory of Giving Up, written by the enigmatic Detlef Stefan. This "taxonomy of failure" becomes the narrator’s gospel, shaping his understanding of human effort as futile and resigning him to a state of inertia.Giving up, in this story, is not simply surrender; it is a conscious philosophical act, an assertion of negative will, a final form of resistance against a world that demands constant forward motion. Structurally, “The Naysayer” parallels this philosophy by rejecting conventional narrative resolution, unfolding in recursive loops of failed attempts, lost texts, and abandoned thoughts. Each passage feels like a false start, a directionless intellectual meandering that reflects the narrator’s inability to progress in life. The disquiet of “The Naysayer” is not in catastrophe, but in its quiet insistence that all roads lead nowhere.RG: How do you feel about the idea of anonymity?BT: I prefer to be a known unknown—recognizable yet obscured, present but absent. Absolute anonymity doesn’t interest me, but neither does full visibility. Slavoj Žižek describes the “Bartlebian act” as a quiet refusal, an opting out rather than direct resistance, like Melville’s scrivener who “would prefer not to.” Writers like László Krasznahorkai cultivate a similar aura of mystery, remaining at the periphery of mainstream literary consciousness while exerting undeniable influence. Fernando Pessoa’s heteronyms take this even further, fragmenting the self into multiple voices, each existing independently while the author remains elusive. In an era of constant self-performance, there’s value in resisting that pull, letting the work speak for itself, and leaving just enough space for the writing to haunt the reader.RG: I’m afraid to begin this story, a story with no definite end. There’s no single structure I can name here, no crystallized normality around which I can base the experience of my life, nothing that I can’t doubt any more than I can doubt the very room where I’m writing this now, a room in a city in a postanthropic culture on a planet in space. On an old bed, I lie down passively, supine, in a kind of resignation, and wait for the end.Are there stories that you are still afraid to begin?BT: “Cathedral of Spiders” collapses the boundary between fiction and nonfiction by making myself a character, testing how far self-mythologization can go before dissolving into alienation. The work teeters between self-aggrandizement—casting myself as the last human, the final perceiver—and the ironic deflation of that role through solipsism and cosmic insignificance. Writing becomes both an act of creation and self-destruction, a manuscript that longs to be burned yet refuses to end. I feared this erasure—not just of identity, but of the distinction between fiction and reality, between writing and self-annihilation, between the author and authored. The text spirals endlessly, a voice narrating its own extinction, unable to stop.RG: What does the future mean to you? Where would you like to take your writing?BT: The future is a place where writing literature is impossible—extro-literature. Extro-science fiction, as described by Quentin Meillassoux, explores worlds where science cannot be used to explain existence. It rejects science’s ability to establish objects or theories, confronting the idea that the laws of nature are not logically necessary. In a similar way, extro-literature suggests that writing itself becomes impossible in a future where meaning dissolves, where narratives are no longer anchored to human logic or perception.All my writing questions the limits of human-centered storytelling. I’m trying to understand how a posthuman novel both embodies and reshapes its own form—how a posthuman novel functions. If writing itself becomes impossible, what remains? Perhaps only fragments—stories that can no longer be told, slipping away. If posthumanism severs us from our origins, then posthuman literature must do the same—breaking away, leaving no meaning behind. 

Continue Reading...

ALL OUR TOMORROWS: AN INTERVIEW WITH AMY DEBELLIS by Chris Dankland

Over the last year or so, Amy DeBellis has been one of my favorite newer short story writers. Now she has a new novel, ‘All Our Tomorrows,’  published by CLASH Books, which is one of my favorite books of the year.Her writing is so skillful: the language, the plots, the pacing, the characters. But I also love her writing because I find many of her stories to be dark and bleak. To me, her stories feel steeped in depression, menace, and a kind of claustrophobic doom. I want to present the reader some examples of stories we’ve published by DeBellis:Purgatory’ –- a short story about a teen who becomes infatuated with a boy at her highschool who is killing animals. Soon he teaches her how to hunt and they start shooting animals together in the woods: deer, foxes, frogs. At one point the boy says: “Only ever point the rifle at things you are willing to destroy.” Then the story says: “She thinks of aiming it at every tree on her property, at her house, at her mother’s car. Into the open cavern of her own skull.” The story ends with them shooting the neighbor’s cat.His Body’ — a short story about a woman whose husband has caught an STD that causes incurable lesions to break out all over his body. The holes in the flesh never go away, until eventually his entire body is covered in them.We also published three micros by her:Yakutsk’ — about a woman who is getting ready to wander alone into the frozen taigaWake’ — about a woman at her mother’s funeral. First sentence: “Morning: the sun smears blood across the sky.” And a micro titled: ‘Even My Fantasies Are Chronically Ill.’I spoke with DeBellis about her writing.

***

Chris Dankland: Hi Amy! Thanks so much for taking the time to talk to me. Do you feel like your writing as a whole tends toward the melancholic, or does it only show up in certain pieces? Is that feeling something you consciously cultivate and lean into, or does it emerge naturally? Amy DeBellis: I do think it leans towards the melancholic as a whole. (In fact, it’s like the Tower of Pisa with how much it leans…) I’m trying to think of a piece I’ve written in the last couple of years that doesn’t have that darkness, and I’m coming up short. Even humorous pieces (“Upgrade” in HAD, for example, or “Persistence” in Roi Fainéant) have elements of darkness in them—it’s just that that darkness isn’t played straight the way it is in the majority of my writing. Yeah, it’s in everything. It emerges naturally. I love beautiful things—for me, in many ways, the written word is the ultimate form of beauty—but I also believe you can’t have beauty without something to contrast it. That discordant note. That, to quote Donna Tartt, “little speck of rot”. Except for me it’s a little bit more than a speck.  CD: To me, your stories often feel physically heavy. Sometimes I get a weird image when I read your work of a stone sinking in water. You are very good at embodying emotion and describing it in a tactile way. Your stories feel like they live in the body: grief shows up as fatigue, sorrow has weight, dread feels like muscle tension. Is this a conscious part of your craft, this physical translation of emotional states? AD: I love the image of the stone! And that’s a huge compliment, that my writing could give you this mental image. I’ve always believed that the body is the seat of memory. There’s this wonderful Stephen King quote: “Art consists of the persistence of memory.” So the body and art are inextricably linked, being as they are both holders and representations of memory. And since the present runs continuously into the past, almost everything not held by the future is already a memory. I personally feel emotions very strongly, so no, it’s not really conscious that this comes across in my work. I mean, of course I try to choose the best descriptors for a feeling of dread, but the translation of emotional states to the physical—I believe it’s the most powerful way to get across emotion to a reader who might not have experienced the same thing that’s happening in the story. Let’s say there is a story about a grieving widow. Not everyone knows what it’s like to have lost a husband, or even to have lost a close family member, but everyone knows the feeling of grief. Describing it as a physical sensation is a way to bring the reader into their body (not their mind, where they’re thinking Oh but I was never a grieving widow) and force them to feel the emotions of the piece.     CD: I feel like the three main characters in ‘All Our Tomorrows’ are all stuck in a depressive rut at the beginning of the book. The characters are isolated in the sense that they are always wearing some sort of mask around most people. They don’t feel a real human connection with others, and this only starts to change near the end of the book when the characters meet.For most of the book, each character seems trapped in their own depressive logic, their own sealed inner monologue. Was it challenging to bring them out of that headspace and allow for genuine human contact?AD: It was a bit difficult, but it was also really fun. I massively enjoyed describing each character from the viewpoint of the others—it allowed me to view them from the outside looking in, for once. I am not one of those writers (no shade to them though) who says that their characters are speaking to them in their head. But for the scene where they all meet—particularly the second one where they’re all together—I kind of just let the words flow. My characters took the reins more than ever before. I truly had no idea what Janet was going to say when [redacted]*, for example. Or when Gemma figured out that [redacted]*. It was truly magical seeing their personalities come alive on the page. *I am keeping everyone safe from spoilers. CD: I feel that climate change is mostly unstoppable. I have little to no hope that humans will solve this problem, and I believe that things are only going to continue to get worse from here on. Humans are survivors, but I think that the Earth in which humans will have to live, 200 or 300 years from now, will be so degraded that it won’t be all that different from hell. I don’t feel hope for the future, in the long run. The existential threat of climate change is a worry hanging over the heads of all three main characters in ‘All Our Tomorrows.’ How do you personally feel about climate change?AD: Sadly, I agree with you. I think we’ve all seen over the past few years that even if humans could solve this problem, we wouldn’t want to. And by “we” I mean the people who run the world, the CEOs of megacorporations, the billionaires who wreak the most environmental damage. It’s my opinion that they are almost uniformly psychopathic in their behavior and their lack of empathy. No normal person would want to do the things they’ve had to do in order to gain their position—and I believe that if a normal person did find themselves with that much power, they wouldn’t remain normal for very long. On the one hand, I truly enjoy my laptop, and my phone that allows me to contact my friends overseas. And parasite-free, running water. And medicine! But I also believe that our modern way of life is an aberration, a blip, almost a wrinkle in the way things are designed to be on earth. We are not entitled to live this way, it is not sustainable, and we are paying the price. People forget that for the overwhelming majority of human history, we lived in hunter-gatherer tribes. The Neolithic Revolution (when humans first began to farm) happened only ten thousand tears ago, which is around 3% of the time Homo sapiens have existed. And the Industrial Revolution, which gave us our industrial capitalism and modern infrastructure and nearly everything we feel entitled to as a part of “regular life,” happened so recently that only about 0.08% of human history has occurred after that. It’s mindblowing that we’ve caused so much damage to our planet in such a tiny fraction of time.And that 0.08% is what we think of as normal. Our own lives are so short in comparison that, looking back along the eight or so generations that have lived since the Industrial Revolution, it really does seem like it’s been forever. There’s a part in All Our Tomorrows where one of the main characters is thinking about the spiral drawing that’s mean to represent all the eras on earth — something like this, but colorful. Most of it is blue and green. Only the very newest end of the spiral is a different color. To quote my book, that’s “the Anthropocene, a slice so tiny you could easily miss it, a fingernail sliver of rust-covered gray. If you zoomed in enough you could see minuscule buildings, cars, an airplane, all hovering precariously just at the edge. To Anna it looked as though anyone standing on that edge was about to fall off into nothing, into the timeless black that surrounded the spiral.”I fear I’ve gone into a bit of a raving tangent, but I’ll wipe the froth off my mouth, do some deep breathing, and attempt to answer your question more succinctly: I don’t feel hope for the future in the long run, either. Climate change is multi-pronged, as it gives rise not only to fires and floods but also ancient pathogens thawing out of permafrost, mosquito and tick-borne diseases moving further and further across the globe, and so many other things we simply aren’t prepared for.  CD: In a past interview, you mentioned that you were “gearing for a not-so happy ending” with ‘All Our Tomorrows’ but ultimately felt like the novel needed a more hopeful ending because you didn’t want the book to “leave readers feeling like the novel was a bunch of pointless doom—we get enough of that from social media and the news.”Are you concerned that readers will misread the darkness in your work as nihilism? How do you feel about nihilism? What do you hope that readers are left with after reading ‘All Our Tomorrows?’AD: I’m not really concerned that they’ll misread the darkness in my work as nihilism. If they do, I don’t mind. I would probably mind if I branded myself as some kind of “Hope Coach,” but thankfully that is not a direction I have gone in. One of the phrases you used earlier to describe the feelings my work gave you—“claustrophobic doom”—made me smile. I love claustrophobic doom! (Writing about it, not feeling it.) But I don’t think that all of life is claustrophobic doom. Existence is multifaceted, and I choose to bring attention to the darker parts of it. They’re a lot more fun to write about, for one thing. But I also see a lot of toxic positivity everywhere. You get demonetized on social media if your content is too depressing, which admittedly makes sense from a branding point of view. But at the same time, I don’t agree with phrases like: Everything will be okay in the end, and if it’s not okay, then it’s not the end. It has its uses during a panic attack, I suppose, but on the whole that phrase never made sense to me. Like, what if someone is dying of a horrible disease? What—are you saying that things will be okay in the end because of the sweet relief of death? Well, okay, I guess that’s one way to think about it, but I don’t think that’s what that particular phrase is going for…The most popular type of nihilism seems to be that life is meaningless and has no value, nothing you do matters, and there is no point to anything (and, I can’t help reading this into it—that you may as well just shuffle yourself off this mortal coil sooner rather than later). Honestly, I think those nihilists are overthinking it. I don’t like to burden my small monkey brain with the overall meaning of life. Like, yeah, duh. Nobody knows the meaning of life. Maybe there is none. Where I don’t agree with nihilism is that life has no value. I happen to like being alive, for the most part. There is so much beauty to be found in life. There’s beauty in pursuing creative activities, in spending time with loved ones, in listening to your favorite music, in eating good food. I don’t care if it’s meaningless—I still enjoy it. And hey, maybe it’s all meaningless in the end, since we don’t live forever, and you and everyone you know will eventually die…but honestly, I think immortality would be so much worse. It’s the ephemerality of life that makes it so precious. (And, going back to the psychopathic billionaires, this is something that the most powerful people on the planet seem to have forgotten. I truly believe they can’t enjoy small pleasures anymore. They want to rule the world and live forever because they can no longer appreciate things that would make the dopamine and serotonin receptors in a normal, healthy brain light up.)  Towards the end of All Our Tomorrows, it was a bit of a challenge to keep the story realistic but also have it not be totally depressing. The ending of Janet’s last chapter, as well as the ending of Gemma’s last chapter (which is literally the last sentence of the book) is probably my most clear and straightforward answer to the question that snakes through the manuscript, which is essentially “What are we supposed to do about all this anxiety, all this uncertainty, all this pain?”So, to answer your question, I want readers to come away from All Our Tomorrows with a sense of hope, with the knowledge that they can do something—even if it’s just something for themselves, and not something that saves the world, because that’s impossible—but something. Whether that’s spending time with family, or doing something creative you enjoy, or being with the person you love. Something that has meaning, and purpose, and value. And that is what makes my book incompatible with nihilism. Order 'All Our Tomorrows' here.

Continue Reading...