Friday, December 2, 2022

Advent 2022, Dec 2, Michael Wheaton on Lucas Mann

  



An Essay about Reading Lucas Mann's "An Essay About Watching Brad Pitt Eat That Is Really About My Own Shit" (That Is Really about My Own Shit)

One night two months ago, after putting my kids to sleep, I dragged ass into the garage once again to weigh myself. The scale said I was down five pounds. Ten more and I would be back even with the heaviest I’d ever been before the heaviest I’d ever been. That was age seventeen before I lost seventy pounds. I’m thirty-six now. Gradually then suddenly, I surpassed the previous high number on the scale in 2020 or 2021, having settled into a work/life model at home with my family that involved excessive afternoon and evening drinking, which led to excessive eating, which reminded me of myself at fourteen, except with more despair.

In the garage, I considered turning on the portable air-conditioner, but the heat seemed better for sweating out more numbers. I notched the resistance on the exercise bike a degree higher. The previous month, I had moved a thirty-two-inch television set into the room amid the chaos of cardboard, hamper, tool, and bike, but easing into my pedaling now, I found nothing on the onscreen apps I wanted to watch. I opened Twitter. I scanned more things I didn’t want to watch until I found something I wanted to read: the writer Lucas Mann had a new essay published online—a long one that I was aware existed on his computer, and had been hoping to eventually read, because a year earlier I interviewed him for The Lives of Writers podcast.

At the time, I had only interviewed fifteen writers previously. I had no idea what I was doing. I had very few listeners. I wanted to get Lucas Mann on the show anyway because I had, by then, read and admired each of his three books. One day, I finally sent a fan email that included a request to talk. Even though he did not have a book coming out (the main reason people are willing to talk to some guy like me), he agreed to let me record a conversation soon. He seemed excited to talk to someone about autobiographical writing. I still consider it a great kindness.

When Lucas Mann logged into the video chat the morning of the interview, he told me he was comforted by the series of toddler toy sets thrown atop a secondhand train table in the back of the room, which was on screen behind me. No bookshelves, nothing curated or decorative, just a fucking mess. He said he knew a lot of writer-moms with small children, but not a lot of writer-dads with small children. Most of my writer-friends don’t have kids at all, I told him. We seemed to connect, or at least recognize each other quickly: two mid-thirties straight white married male arts-and-humanities types from the northeast struggling with parenting, the pandemic, and the places in which writing does or doesn’t fit into any of it. The tone and cadence of his voice reminded me of people I grew up with. It was nice.

We discussed his books, of course. He wrote them before he had a child. Deeper into the conversation, I found out that since becoming a parent, he had been working on self-reflexive pop culture essays that might come together into a collection. He mentioned an essay about Brad Pitt eating in movies. I laughed. I knew the cultural phenomenon and loved the idea of someone writing seriously about it. “I always think of Ocean’s 11,” I said shortly after this. Then I moved on too quickly past the idea. I think I had a split-second fear of going into it: the many times in early high school I hung out in the basement of my buddy’s parents’ house with friends, drinking a metric ton of Mountain Dew, delighting in a full box of Entenmann’s chocolate donuts and family-sized bag of Lay’s salt and vinegar chips, watching the same movies repeatedly, often Swingers or Oceans 11, both set in Vegas. I would have described these movies as generally “cool” or “funny” then, but now I realize that the decadence of licking our fingers while staring into the giant screen of color on the wall before most of us could have giant screens on our walls seemed to match the setting of the movies in an almost aspirational way.

If you asked my friends back then the best part of Ocean’s 11, we all would have said “Brad Pitt eating.” In a high school hallway at lunch, one of us might hold a bag of chips in a delicate manner, pop bites between quips, dust off fingertips with fingertips, and wait for someone to notice the quote of body language, but almost no one noticed until the person doing it released the slightest tension into a more casual form of self-awareness, and then we’d be like, Okay, Rusty. I remember thinking about all this as Lucas Mann continued talking for a minute in the interview, but I became present again, though not before I started to feel a little jealous that I did not come up with the idea for an essay about Brad Pitt eating myself.

*

I just watched a “Brad Pitt eating” supercut on YouTube. In his essay, Lucas Mann mentions there are plenty of options. I chose the fifteen-minute version, which has 1.7 million views over three years. Before the supercut appeared on screen, I had to watch a commercial for the Shred app. It featured a bulging dude saying that if you want to lose weight, you shouldn’t be running every day, which I took to mean you shouldn’t be riding a stationary bike every day. He says this as images of his upper body without fat on it are intercut with images of other people’s uppers bodies with fat on them, which dissolve into images of those bodies with less fat on them. 

In the supercut of Brad Pitt eating, I hate a few things right away. Mainly I hate that I am still fascinated by the way Brad Pitt holds food. Like it’s a glass sculpture or a chihuahua that travels by purse. Like someone who is not quite sure what to do with it. Often the food is turned the opposite way it will enter the mouth. Or he folds his wrist inside instead of out while shoving it at his face, the move from model to consumer so sudden it jolts. I hate that I am still fascinated by the way he chokes up on forks and spoons and makes them vehicles of desperation. When the food is in a bowl, I see all the bites inherent in the quantity, and he cuts past all of them into pure demolition. Then the chewing. So deliberate compared to the offbeat nature of the bites, always something stuck in the teeth, a morsel he forgot to chew or swallow. The eating has aftershocks. And, over time, while his face may age throughout his career, his body doesn’t. I hate that I keep thinking of Pitt’s pecs in a tight shirt, not sure whether to call them big or small. Tight. The bottoms of his chest fall inches above where mine do. In fact, they don’t fall at all.

Lucas Mann, in his essay, points out that Brad Pitt connects his eating shtick to a method, at least in Ocean’s 11, where his character Rusty eats constantly on screen because he is constantly on the go, but the method is most certainly bullshit. “There is nothing less human to me,” Mann says, “nothing more strange and showy, than eating freely, constantly, without noticing yourself, and without any physical or emotional consequence. It’s not even that I don’t believe the character, it’s that I don’t believe Brad Pitt.” While I’m still fascinated, I don’t believe him either, and the only way I might is if we see him take a shit in the movie too.

All this noted, Lucas Mann soon explains why Brad Pitt seems so cool, or at least fascinating, when he is, say, taking down an ice cream cone in a scene that doesn’t call for it:

What I’m talking about is watching a body that is made to be looked at, that is professionally looked at, behave as though it’s simply doing something natural, unconcerned with what we might see. It seems I’ve just described the concept of acting. What I mean, though, is when the incongruity feels gratuitous, or at least pointed, and the lack of acknowledgment of that pointedness becomes part of the pleasure or tension—the one nude person on a non-nude beach rolling over for an even tan, an act of defiance made nonchalant.

At the end of this section, Mann pivots back to himself. He admits to looking at social media pics of once-skinny-now-jacked-gym-bros like Kumail Nanjiani and Chris Pratt, the satisfaction of hating them for their transformations. He contrasts it to watching Michael B. Jordan make the same transformation in a montage of the movie Creed, the way the soundtrack eggs on fans to try to achieve it themselves: “I have, stumbling through jumping jacks, trying to ignore myself bouncing, then settling, more ashamed than exhausted. When Michael B. Jordan eats in a movie, it is infrequent and purposeful: pure fuel.” For me, the thing that might influence me to exercise after watching the Michael B. Jordan montage is that most of the struggle is between the edits. We don’t see it. We see only chunked stages. We see a version of the way we might prefer our bodies to look and none of the real pain, time, stress, and money it takes.

This is the point where reading Lucas Mann’s essay stops being all about me relating to his body image dissonance and becomes also about me looking at his writing on a screen in the way he looks at Brad Pitt’s body on screen. This is not a place we can relate, I don’t think. This is the place that makes me the interviewer and him the interviewee. Lucas Mann is a lot better at writing than I am. When he posts links to his work on Twitter, he seems to be loved and admired by a lot of other writers I’ve read or heard about who do not know, or need to know, I exist. He has an impressive resume too, aside from the three big-press books of his: a funded MFA, NEA and US Artists fellowships, a tenure-track teaching job at a university, and from what I can read underneath a recent vague tweet, an announcement for another book, which I’m hoping is the collection with the Brad Pitt essay in it, seems near. In his bio, which lists most of these things (along with the kindness of admitting his poetry has appeared in my own lit mag Autofocus), he drops The Paris Review toward the end of his publication list. Baller move, really. Respect.

On the flip, for me: no published books. I still owe the money for the low-res MFA I did in a genre I hardly read anymore. I need to teach Freshman English at a community college in Florida a few more years to be financially forgiven. No one has ever given me money to create anything (and probably shouldn’t). My greatest publication credit will be Essay Daily if I don’t botch this essay, and it will most definitely lead off the list. I’m remembering now that Lucas Mann has also published in Essay Daily, and it’s not listed in the short bio on the Brad Pitt essay. 

If I have in the last year achieved any admiration from peers on the internet, it’s because I had to create an online lit mag, a podcast, and a book imprint to be noticed. Not much has come from my writing. I have bumbled around different media over the years trying to finally figure out the way I best express myself or the form of expression that best fits my life. I’ve been wondering if I’ve found it, if it’s what I’m doing now, but a lot of the time I’m not sure. I am sure, though, that whatever I do, Lucas Mann will write essays and books and continue to be very good at it. He will continue to earn prestigious awards and opportunities—I am in no way making the case that any of his successes, which he probably believes are minor compared to some of his peers, have been handed to him—and he will continue to work hard at it while toggling back to family and job rather than those things plus all the other stuff I assign myself to be noticed. And I think he’s on Sabbatical this semester. God bless.

A lot of the goal in writing is for the effort to be hidden. When I read an essay by Lucas Mann, the struggle of writing it well is cut out. When I think of Lucas Mann writing the Brad Pitt essay, I don’t think about how long it must’ve taken, or how much trouble he may have had getting the structure right, or if he struggled with the idea of sharing all this vulnerable stuff about his body image publicly, as I am currently doing after putting off revising this essay for two weeks. All I see is the final draft of a beautiful essay written in an almost nonchalant offhand intelligence. It’s like staring at a moving image of Brad Pitt’s body on screen with an ice cream cone in his hand. I can also hold an ice cream cone on screen, but I don’t look as good when I do.

*

The first thing I remember reading by Lucas Mann was the first chapter in his book, Captive Audience: On Love and Reality TV. It’s written as a direct address to his wife, a long analytical love letter about watching her and watching mediated reality with her. I said to myself, Yes please. On Twitter, I followed his account. He threw a follow back, unexpected. I was endeared immediately. It was nice to feel also watched, even if I wasn’t.

I read the rest of the book in a few nights. I was endeared even more. I’m flipping through the paperback again now, remembering lying in bed next to my then-one-year-old who had just fallen asleep after a second bottle. I clicked on the nightstand lamp, pushed the bulb toward the wall enough so the faint side light could help me make out the text. Two and a half years later, I’ve forgotten most of the specific details and insights of the book, but rereading that first chapter, I come back to this passage I faintly underlined in pencil: “I want to believe that I’m not interested in fantasy. I am interested in the disreal, not the unreal, both in the art that I seek and the love that I live. But if you look at any life long enough, with enough vested interest, how do you not begin to push toward the fantastical?” And I want to say back, Exactly. 

Lucas Mann returns to his previous obsession with Reality TV in the Brad Pitt essay when he describes the workout culture on the show Love Island as a kind of foil to the Nanjiani, Pratt, Jordan thing. In the show, the gym in the house where people live while being filmed is centrally located. He describes the way an actor on the show might try to perfect the fall and fit of a shirt on their body in a mirror, their faces bouncing back and forth from satisfaction to frustration, trying to get it just right. Mann says, “When I’m watching this, I am free of envy because they look so worked up about it all, so small and human even as they don’t want to be.”

That feels like Twitter for me. There are writers I keep watching, as if seated in the first row of a theater, looking up, and then there is everyone else. Small and human, needy and reaching, like me. Any annoyance I feel watching others I don’t like perform themselves and peddle their art is a product of my own desire to appear better to others online than I am in real life. “I want to be a different person a lot of the time,” Lucas Mann writes, “but really that means I want to be in a different body. It’s hard for me to watch someone and see the emotion they’re performing in some vacuum of intellect where their body doesn’t exist in performance.” He writes this about watching people who work out all the time on a screen in front of him, but reading it now out of context, I am still thinking about Twitter. I want to be a different person a lot of the time, but really that means I want to be logged into a different account. As he said to me on The Lives of Writers podcast when I talked to him (and I think in Captive Audience too): “All the terrible and/or interesting shit that social media is doing, reality TV did first.”

In the same section of the Brad Pitt essay, Lucas Mann notes the way movie stars and reality TV stars “both clearly know I’m watching all the time, and depend on that; both make me feel weak and fat and mortal, but also like they would be, even want to be, my friend.” He could add social media stars to the list. Since the start of the pandemic, up until recently, I have spent an insane amount of time on Twitter, where I don’t—where most people don’t—reveal images of their body most of the time. In some way, I suspect my body has changed so drastically since 2020 because no one except my family saw it every day, and I stopped looking at my body through others’ eyes and instead started looking at my online presence that way. I’m constantly watching literary writers perform in a vacuum of intellect (and idiocy) where their body doesn’t exist in performance. I’ve had the illusion that some of the connections I was making on the app—either by publishing them on my website or talking to them on my podcast—might become real friends. These people I could only watch before I made a website and podcast, who would have no reason to perceive me, might now perceive me and choose to keep doing so.

This is the thing with Lucas Mann and I. Reality television, social media, autobiographical literature, sports, film, fatherhood. We are into the same shit. We talked for an hour and fifteen minutes on the podcast. I had to edit out thirty-minutes of us talking more about my life or a book project of mine, which later turned into him performing another kindness for me: reading and saying nice things about it even though I know its structure was a mess and I have since given up on doing anything with it. But as time continues, the conversation pushed farther back into the mix of all the people he has talked to in his life, I become again the abstraction I am on Twitter. I click the digital content boxes he posts, and he clicks some of mine. 

We did meet in person at the AWP 2022 conference. We had a string of randomly occurring two- or three-minute conversations on the way to do something or talk to someone else. I appreciated that. He didn’t have to spend any minutes, and he didn’t have to stop by the Autofocus table like he said he would and wait more time than we talked in person for me to become free enough to give him a book. I’m becoming very self-conscious thinking about him reading this. Will he be weird around me next time we meet? It’s becoming hard to sort out: in some ways, I feel this might just be a form of parasocial relationship that became more complicated because the fourth wall was broken by these different encounters. In some ways, I feel that by saying some of these things, I’m risking a friendship, but the friendship I’m risking may not really exist.

*

So I’m pedaling the exercise bike, dropping the resistance to a four, wiping sweat under my glasses, leaning onto my forearms on the handlebars, hump-backed, clicking to see the number of calories I’ve burned. My wife Amy opens the door. She wonders what I’m watching tonight, but I tell her I am reading online. She saddles-up on the bike next to mine (we bought two so we wouldn’t have to share) and watches videos on Instagram or TikTok. Marriage, Motherhood, motherhood in a pandemic, motherhood amid professional frustration, having to deal with me dealing with fatherhood, fatherhood in a pandemic, fatherhood amid artistic frustration, our always present hatred for our own bodies has grown alongside our bodies themselves. We keep wanting to improve them even though the other person says they love it anyway. Though I can’t help but noticed how we often look at others on our screens instead of at each other.

From what I’ve read, Lucas Mann’s marriage also shares a bond of shame for the body despite the other person loving it, feelings he and his wife fear passing down to their daughter, who is just about the same age as my youngest son. Following Lucas Mann on Twitter and on Instagram, I have seen a lot of pictures of his daughter. She’s adorable. I don’t tend to share many photos on social—on IG I’ve shared three or four pics of my kids over the past couple of years, and I don’t think any photos of them on Twitter—and I wonder if I should, but I don’t, partly because any time I post something on social (and I’ve had to work through this in my attempt to be more active on Twitter since the pandemic), I feel watched and judged and pathetic, or worse not watched and not judged and pathetic.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think Lucas Mann feels this when he posts on social. He posts quite a bit (and “I’m here for it”), which may mean that while he feels a certain way about his body, he doesn’t feel that way about his disembodied self. He seems to move through the digital world somewhat unselfconsciously. I am almost as self-conscious of my disembodied image as I am my body image. This might be a status thing (see: his bio vs. mine). I imagine it changes the way you think about sharing things with others. There is something about having a product of any kind on the internet that makes social media suddenly make sense for someone. I wonder if this is partly why I started Autofocus. I must make products to justify my usage of social media. If I am going to be the product on these apps, then I better have a product for people to buy to balance it out. Otherwise, yeah, seems pointless. If he does feel insecurity at times about his disembodied image too, we don’t see it. It’s (rightfully) cut out between the edits.

I mention Lucas Mann’s Instagram account because when I read the parts in his Brad Pitt essay about his daughter, I could picture her because of the photos I’ve seen. I could imagine her laughing when her tickles her, when she finds the full-length mirror and says Daddy daddy daddy until he smiles, having just crouched down next to her in the mirror, turning away from his image. “Loving her body, telling her to do the same, turns out to be easy, but I don’t trust the ease, because when I see her lovable body moving around the world, mine is always next to hers,” he writes earlier in the essay. I’ve never seen Lucas Mann’s daughter alive in a room, but he writes about her being in the 99th percentile of size, which is not something I can ascertain from a photo. In the essay, he gets excited by the idea of her being statistically more than other kids but worries about the performative aspect of the situation, projecting what he thinks is supposed to be the correct sentiment. Like, what’s the other option—worrying about it? Why would anyone worry about that? He explains the pride he performs for his big eater. He wants her to think about her body as much as he thinks of his, but with the opposite feelings.

One of my children is underweight. He measured very small in the hips and waist in the womb, a point of concern for the doctor. Now he doesn’t like to eat. A lot of times we settle on letting him eat junk so doesn’t get thinner. I wonder now how many times we have said something like “you need to eat your dinner. You’re very thin. We need to make you big and strong.” Sometimes, we can get him to eat his whole dinner if we convince him his muscles are growing in real time as he eats. He believes it. He takes a bite of chicken or broccoli and flexes his bony arm, scrunching his face as if protecting himself from the pain he’ll feel when the muscle bursts through skin. 

I’m trying to make his body healthier, but I realize now that I am making him more self-conscious of his body—that it isn’t enough. It’s my own psychological complication with size in reverse. I worry it could lead to a lifetime of getting bigger and smaller, bigger and smaller, and never being happy when confronted with an image of himself in a mirror. Even years ago, when he learned to dress himself, we occasionally walked in on him changing his shirt, and he would turn and say, Don’t look at me! We tell him he’s beautiful, we tell him his body is a place to be proud. It’s just us, his parents who love everything about him, even when he is testing our patience and nerves and sanity (we leave that part out), but we respect his wishes. Amy and I have wondered, Fuck, is our dysmorphia genetic? Does it just pass down? 

My other son never had an issue eating until recently, which I believe is either the influence of his brother or his age (three), which comes with the promise of fighting every single thing his mother and I say. We have praised him as a big eater quite a bit. We have probably told his brother to eat more like he does. When friends or family members saw our big eater as a baby, they mentioned the cuteness of his pudgy little body, the contrast of it next to his older brother, and we joked about his ravenousness, and at meals we watched him eat like it was a sport or dance. Now when family or friends see him, they remark on how much he has thinned out. They say it in an approving manner, and I mirror the slight smirk on their face when I nod. 

I don’t think my younger son has yet thought about his body in the way that I or his mother or brother do, worried if it is too big or too small or just right to whatever expectations he may pick up from us or others or the television or the internet. He loves to run around the house naked, as Lucas Mann describes his daughter doing, with his hands on his little tummy, laughing. It helps his brother not think twice about being unclothed, or not think about it at all. He’ll just strip right down and chase him all around the house, little fists punching out in front of him. It’s a gift my younger son provides us. We remember the right way to look at a human body, regardless of its shape or size, is with a sense of humor about the absurdity of having one.

But I also just realized that in our house we don’t even own a full-length mirror.

*

There was a brief period when my father bought and used a camcorder. Lucas Mann writes the previous sentence at the start of the sixth movement of his essay on Brad Pitt, and I am using it now because it is also true and related for me.

Lucas Mann mentions the camcorder to get into one of two surviving videos from its use. In it, he’s at his second birthday party, and his now-dead brother—who I have a reference point for because Lord Fear: A Memoir is one of my favorite books—films toddler Lucas contorting scoops of cake into his mouth, oblivious to the camera and parents laughing at him off frame. His brother turns the camera on himself—“aviator sunglasses, clean-lined jaw, swoop-necked weightlifter’s tank”—and for Lucas Mann this image becomes the most indelible one of his brother all this time later. It’s both the contrast between the model his brother wanted to become and the addict he became and the contrast of that image with the image of himself eating. “There should be different plateaus in memory,” Lucas Mann writes, “one up high to keep real grief, real love, away from the superficial maw, yet there my brother is, still inseparable from a general idea of appetite and why it’s wrong, always the conflation of petty shame and danger.”

There is only one surviving tape from my father’s camcorder, or there was at one point when I was kid. I doubt anyone has the tape now. It was mostly clips from a few birthdays—my first birthday, for instance—and a few Christmas mornings. My father is always holding the camera, an offscreen presence that has become somewhat metaphorical to me in time and memory, but there is one short clip with my father in front of the lens. Brief static, and then the clip cuts into scene late and leaves it early, which I suspect meant he was trying to tape over it. He and my older brother are at the baseball field, walking in a large group of Little Leaguers and coaches. I assume this was for some kind of fundraiser. My father appears thinner than in any photograph I have seen of him before he had kids and any version of him after he had kids. He looks a little weak by comparison. He’s sipping a coffee in a Styrofoam cup, and you can see it’s black, same as I take it now. It must have been right before the divorce.

In those few pre-parent photos I have seen of my father, he is thick and round, often in grey sweatpants and sweatshirt. I recognize him more as my father in these photos—brown hair instead of blonde (though he claims he doesn’t dye it), a skin-tone he wasn’t yet worried about tanning (or bronzing), and of course the body (soft and mostly hidden), but it’s not the father I ever knew. In one of the photos, the main one I imagine I am conflating with all the others, he’s in the grey sweatsuit on the beige couch smiling up at the baby boy up in the air above him. This photo I have is labeled by my mom as being of me, but I know for a fact—comparing to other baby photos, other photos as I’ve seen of my father when I was an infant—that it is my brother. I can only remember my dad as the person he became after he left the house (I was five), which seems in most ways the opposite of who he was when he was there. That last clause there could be a justification for him to have left, but I mean it only superficially.

My father, in my memories of my time with him, used the word fat a lot. He never said the word in a neutral way, as a general descriptor. He said it always with a hard, elongated f sound that landed on a harder quicker t, the click of it at the end signifying disgust. My father and I are now estranged. We haven’t spoken since the year before the pandemic. The detail about the word fat is a small thing related to that, but it’s related. When I talk bad to Amy about my body since we’ve had kids, I never say fat. I say F-A-T, even though my oldest can spell and read. When Amy talks bad about her body since we’ve had kids, she says the actual word, and I motion my hands up and mouth stop, as if she said fuck at the top of her voice. A part of me realizes, even in those moments, that spelling instead of saying the word fat puts fear around it, which gives it more power. I worry that saying F-A-T is worse than the way my father said the word.

While I don't remember my father ever really directing the word at me, all the projection of his hatred onto other people’s bodies was certainly meant for my ears. I believe the logic is I won’t call my son fat to his face, but I will call all these other people fat so he can hear it, and realizing later his body looks more like theirs than mine, he might become more like me and do something about it. Or maybe there was no logic. Just an impulse to degrade bodies that reminded him of the one he had as a child, then as a teenage heavyweight wrestler, then as a soon-to-be-father and father several times over, the last child (me) unplanned and inconvenient. From what I’ve read underneath things he has told me, he was already planning to leave the family and had to put off the exit strategy.

It is one thing to be fat and another to be called fat, and another to be called fat without being directly called fat, and another when it’s someone who has changed his life to become a competitive body builder, and another when the judgment for competitive body building has nothing to do with the act of lifting the weights and instead to do with a few chosen people deciding who has the best looking physique, as evidenced by numerous variations of muscle-bulging poses, and it is yet another when that version of a competitive body builder eats nothing but burned meat, raw broccoli, and powder-become-liquid in a blender. Let’s say, on one of his two weekends a month, my father takes me to McDonald’s because he doesn’t have enough time with me to deliver a hard no to the request. I order a value meal, supersized. I tell him it’s his turn to order. Do I look like I eat this crap, Michael? He says it loud enough for others, particularly the cashier, to hear. He’s wearing a bright tanktop that shows his nipples. I fill up with five-seconds of each soda at the fountain, meet my dad back at the table, where he must sit through me devouring the whole meal. I imagine we talked about something, but I don’t know what it could have been. At times, I wonder what my father would have been like with a smartphone when I was a kid. I suspect if he had one he’d have been retreating into an app to look at other people parading their bodies on Instagram as he did in real life. I believe he would have had his own account mostly of photos that featured his competitive body.

My father won a bunch of trophies from those competitions. He brought my brothers and I to most of them. I have uncomfortable memories of being somewhat proud to rub a fake tan onto his back in the locker room while other men sprayed themselves, penises dangling between the opening of their wrapped towels, before going out in the audience to watch the same men in bikini bottoms pose to pop music. He featured the bigger trophies in his house. Monuments to the great job he did not feeding his body very much aside protein and fiber. 

But when I think about that now, I don’t think about all the not-eating he did. I think about the eating he did immediately after. Post-competition, whether or not presented with a trophy, we went to the nearest Pizza Hut, where he ordered an entire large pie for himself and ate the whole fucking thing in the one sitting. It was like eating was supposed to be something under control until boom it wasn’t. Kind of like Brad Pitt on screen, the way the food is held as if his mind isn’t on it, then devoured as if it’s the only thing possibly on his mind. I don’t think my father’s body, or his seeming self-control, really impressed me as a kid—though as a late teenager well over two hundred pounds I did want something more like it so I would stop hating myself and maybe get a girl to love and fuck me—but I was impressed by, and I suppose wanted to emulate, the binging. He ate a whole pizza. A true sighting of the appetite—the size of it. It seemed superhuman. And the only reward for suffering.

I’ve made this connection to myself before, though I wouldn’t have made it then, but when I was feeling extra bad or sad or whatever as an early teenager, before I lost a lot of weight and was still gaining it constantly, I would convince my mom I was sick (depression made this easy), stayed home from school and ordered a whole pizza and two-liter soda. I ate and drank fucking all of it on my bedroom carpet watching old WrestleMania VHS tapes (consider the bodies I’m looking at as I eat), and then threw out the carboard and plastic evidence underneath whatever bags had already been placed in the outside garbage bin. To throw off any suspicion, when my mom came home and made dinner, I ate most of that too.

I wonder now if my son becoming self-conscious about taking off his clothes in front of Amy and I might also have stemmed from seeing me with my shirt off as little as possible in his life. I’m sure he has seen me shirtless or naked more than I realize, and he enjoys the body I have: he surprises me on the couch by lifting my shirt and blowing raspberries into my belly, laughs about the way my skin vibrates on his lips, but instinctively, I pull down my shirt because I don’t want to see. I flash back to the time I played recreational sports as a kid and would refuse to take off my shirt any time I was told to scrimmage on the “skins” team in soccer or basketball. I had to plead a deal with the coaches to always be on “shirts,” which was almost as embarrassing as taking it off, but apparently to me not quite. As I got older, and this request became more awkward and less tolerable, despite still loving sports and playing them on my own or with friends at our houses, I quit. That was the power of my dysmorphia. I let it kill most things outside of it.

I think back on my time in rec sports, but I am still that way now. I hate going to pool parties. I hate going swimming. I rarely take my family an hour to the ocean. Like Lucas Mann, when my first child was born—and at the time I had been doing boxing workouts for a year a couple times a week and had never been in better shape—I winced when taking off my shirt until the nurses put my son skin-to-skin on me, blocking a portion of my chest and gut. All I felt were the eyes, or worse, the cameras, a truly wild thought considering I was the least important person in the room and I just became a father to a small and fragile child. It’s sad to me that I was still considering myself, even my body, in the first few minutes of my son’s birth. I have the photo of us, but I never look at it. In my memory, I only see his face.

As Mann says, “This is the greatest privilege afforded in my fantasy of thinness: that it eventually might allow you to disappear—to other people sure, but most of all to yourself.”

*

Late in Lucas Mann’s Brad Pitt essay, he recounts his experiences writing with humor about his body in creative writing workshops and the time he failed at writing about it without humor: at a reading, everyone is laughing anyway. Even before this moment, he recounted something his father told him after he dropped a bunch of weight: “He said, now you can’t write about being a fat person anymore because people will get mad about appropriation, which was meant as a compliment but felt like silencing, and also served to prove my suspicions that everything I’d ever felt or expressed was really about what was wrong with my body.” I have to admit I laughed when I read the quip from his father, because it feels true in an odd way, though I hated reading it as if my own father said it to me, and I was made to feel the same way Lucas did then.

Of course, there are fatter people. Many cannot simply become unfat. Some do not feel a need to do so. At the moment, I am down twenty pounds since I first read the Brad Pitt essay. Does this take away the subject for me? As someone who, perhaps in a few months, will not appear fat to other people, maybe it’s cringe. The reason for a writer like him or I to be funny about body image, and for the audience to laugh about it regardless, is so we don’t mistake it for real trauma, which is often the subject of personal literary writing. As Mann says, 

It’s hard to call any of these invisible scars of fat boyhood or yoyo diets a trauma; I still don’t really believe they are. I think it’s my choice whether or not this pain over my body is real, is earned, is worthy of having ever existed, yet it always has. To consider life without it doesn’t feel a choice at all. When I’m asked to empathize with people’s addiction or depression or illness, this is the only frame of reference that comes to my mind for feeling out of control, unable to find catharsis, but I never say that.

I also don’t have much interest in calling it trauma, but I do have giant stretchmarks all up my stomach, all up my chest, all up my inner thigh and groin, no matter how much weight I lose, and the invisible scars have led to some clearly related addiction issues particularly around pot and at times alcohol, both of which tie closely for me into food. And then there’s the suicidal ideation, a couple times pretty severe, but I mean, let’s not get into it. In a way, I feel that Lucas might be trying to diminish his body issues, or the other issues that have stemmed from body issues he may not mention, because body image issues are privileged issues. It’s like an apology three-fourths of the way through the essay, one I also feel the need to make because the act of writing about being fat, or having been fat, puts us at risk of others thinking all we’re doing is showing our discomfort with other people’s fat projected onto ourselves, though to me, it’s more my discomfort with my father’s discomfort with fat projected onto everyone else and the shame of projecting it back at myself in a way I do not think I really project onto others. 

The fact that I am still trying to convince myself that exposing this very ugly part about my self-perception is worthwhile and reasonable compounds the problem. The feelings you associate with your body at any point, which often come from other insulting gazes or words, still live in there even if you’ve lost a lot of the weight that brought the gazes or words your way. They cannot be metabolized and popped into nothing like fat cells. In the end, you just succeed in looking less like you still see yourself. Women have it worse, no doubt about that—it’s touched on in Mann’s essay—and so we push ourselves further down into the place that says it’s probably not worth discussing. But look, in between writing a draft of this essay and coming back again and again to revise it before submitting, I have regained five pounds. I’ve been drinking most days the past week or two, maybe as a way to continue eating and avoid exercising. I’m not blaming the writing of this essay, except I don’t think it’s a coincidence. 

Toward the end of this section of Lucas Mann’s essay, he takes the piece, I think, to its deepest point. He says, “I tried bulimia a few times; no, it was more than that—knees on the tile floor, fan wailing to cover the noise. I couldn’t ever pull the trigger enough to fully purge. Even now, re-reading that sentence, the judgment appears to be more on the failure to complete than the impulse to try. This is the first time I’ve ever written that sentence. I’ve never said it out loud.” Later, he discusses going back to therapy just before his wife got pregnant. In sessions, he brings up eating and his body, explaining away the inability to talk about his view and experience with it as a disorder, calling it instead a need for endorphins. He explains that, after traveling for a writing residency and running a lot, existing in a world for a while where the people there only know this slimmer version of him, he never returns his therapist’s calls. 

Around the same time Lucas Mann was back in therapy for a stint, I was also in therapy for issues mostly unrelated to my body, but related to my father, so in some ways related to my body, and it took me more than a year to finally talk about the body issues to my thin therapist. “Oh, by the way,” I said one day in the middle of a session. “I should mention I had an eating disorder during my first year of college. I lost a considerable amount of weight without one and then couldn’t imagine stopping.” I went right past it, rarely spoke of it again, even when nudged into it. At risk of this seeming like boasting, I had no problem puking. I have said that last clause of the previous sentence out loud before (to the therapist), but I’ve never typed it out, disembodied. Somehow, it doesn’t feel any more real to me now that I have. It was much harder, face-to-face, with my thin therapist. Maybe it’s possible she was once obese too, or that the thinness is a manifestation of a lot of psychological issue and turmoil and pain around fat for some other reason, but I won’t ask. I can’t tell from looking. 

This reminds me of something Lucas Mann says about Brad Pitt in his more recent movie Ad Astra, which Mann claims oddly calls the most attention to his body because it is hardly present: “Maybe the goal all along has been to have his art become as little about his body as possible. Maybe his fantasy is the same as mine—that success, satisfaction, will only come when he feels like he’s disappeared and he no longer must confront what is seen on screen, in the mirror. But who knows? The point is never to know what it feels like for him, right?” And somehow, I read that again and I think of watching Lucas Mann post on Twitter or Instagram. I think of talking to him on the podcast. I think of reading so many words he has written and published. Do I really know what anything feels like for him? Not even close. I push toward the fantastical.

*

Lucas Mann’s Brad Pitt essay ends back on himself as a parent. It might be the only place he can land to make the essay work for most people. See, it’s not just about me and my dumb issues… the stakes are high; I have a daughter! I feel the same way about my sons. The only thing that might legitimize me worrying about this is my fear of passing it on to them. As he writes, “The question is how to end a narrative that hasn’t changed and that I still can’t envision changing, no matter how much I want it to, no matter what in my life has changed around it.”

It’s a good question. I feel like the whole narrative of being a parent, too, pushes toward an inevitable macro failure that arrives after all the micro failures in between. In his essay, looking at photos of he and his daughter, Lucas Mann goes on to say, “I don’t want to change anything about the pictures except my body in them, and sometimes, when I think that, I can almost convince myself that it’s reasonable. I’ve tried so many times to change my body, but it’s never changed the way I feel about it, just distracted from the effort it might take to love myself the way I want her to.” A small enough change, for me right now, is writing this essay back without flinching the way he or I do when our kids search their fingers across our flesh and squeeze.

But I’m back here, in the garage, pedaling. I’m not watching or reading. I’m thinking about how I too might end this essay. The above paragraph seems like a good enough spot, but there is something in Lucas Mann’s Brad Pitt essay I have not mentioned that has stayed with me the most since the first reading. He says that he always wanted a daughter, in part because the shame baggage of his body wouldn’t be his exactly, and he doesn’t trust his ability to be kind to a boy: 

I have known fat men whose fatness was a show of strength, or even a performative joy—look at all that I can consume; it’s a joke to me, so you can laugh too. I’ve felt hatred for these men, and a great deal of jealousy, but never kindness. If I had a two-year-old son in front of me sizing up his birthday cake the way I once did...the thought trails off, or I don’t want to follow it.

Lucas, the way you avoid following through on the thought makes me oddly happy. Even without your knowledge, it’s a way of seeing me without having to look directly at me. I exist where that thought trails off. I try not to be my father, but some days I hear him in my head or, worse, out of my mouth. I fight myself from inside of my body. I fight myself from outside of theirs. I’m on screen, I’m off screen. Right now, I prefer to be off. I’d rather be words on a podcast or this website or one day a book, disembodied, trimmed up, easy to consume.



*


Michael Wheaton’s writing has appeared previously in DIAGRAM, Bending Genres, HAD, Rejection Letters, Burrow Press Review, and other online journals. He publishes Autofocus and hosts The Lives of Writers podcast. Find links and more at mwheaton.net.


Thursday, December 1, 2022

Advent 2022, Dec 1, Lucy Schiller, The Air and the Larynx: on Nicholson Baker


How are you supposed to write an essay on Nicholson Baker—which, you remind yourself, you elected to do in the first place—when you feel too tired and airless to enact the obvious tricks? If you were to write an essay on Nicholson Baker, you’d start catching yourself writing like Thomas Bernhard, and nip that in the bud. Wrong guy, but related somehow. No self-referential stuff, no clauses like he said, I thought. Just stop already. No footnotes, no spiraling digressions. You can’t really pull off what Baker pulls off, though you are convinced that one reason he’s so good is that most people do really kind of think in the ways he writes, maybe to a lesser extent than he does, but really, they do notice things like the quality of particular types of sunlight and the grosgrain of ribbon, unless, unfortunately, they don’t. More and more, you (I) have been meeting more and more people who seem not to really notice these things, and you/I wonder if you/I are even becoming one yourself/myself. If the pandemic has been one long smooth-seeming ribbon, we are the grain in that smooth-seeming ribbon. Our little daily rituals and lives compose it, and sometimes it just feels difficult to be so aware of that fact, all the time. Just like Nicholson Baker wrote his first book, The Mezzanine, about someone hyper-aware of the grain of his lunchtime walk, and has continued to populate his fiction and nonfiction with a similar awareness to, even fixation on, detail. Except that it’s not simple detail but the perception of detail that seems to interest him. A very essayistic thing, the act of choosing and conveying detail being as important as the details themselves. The act of looking or inquiring into detail as the main engine of the work, even the meaning of the work, alongside whatever details get uncovered. Baseless, for example, is a book about government secrecy and filing FOIA requests and building narrative from piecemeal information as much as it is answering the question of whether or not the U.S. used biological weapons during the Korean War. Double Fold is literally a book about the sorrow and injustice of losing the ability to encounter historical details thanks to library administrators’ policy of “destroying to preserve”—demolishing reams of old newspaper, sometimes badly digitized, in order to supposedly save space. “Reading Aloud” is an essay about the act of reading an essay aloud, and you can listen to Baker himself read the essay about reading the essay aloud at a James Joyce conference, slipping and missing in a few places, making you wonder if the reading itself is, you know, meta, even though it’s obviously not. (The New Yorker, where that essay was originally published, summarizes the personal essay in third-person on its paywall page, stripping, as I see it, the Baker magic from the details he reports. It makes for abrupt summary. “This was writer’s first reading, several years ago,” reads the New Yorker summary. “Tells how he began to sob at the description of a woman enclosing a breakfast muffin in bakery tissue. Tells how he managed to regain himself. Since that afternoon in 1989, he’s read aloud from his writing a number of times, and each time he’s shown a little more self-control. Describes his tactile feelings for his layrnx [sic].”) In Vox, fiction, notorious, lovely, and slim, a character of Baker’s traces his penis with a pen on a piece of paper, finding that it’s better and more erotic and, by the way, slightly more enlarged that way than if he were to photocopy it (though that’s also partially because he’d have to write “70% reduction” on the photocopy). Perception or conveyance, yes, just as or more important than dismembered fact.

Today, many of the days feel like the other ones and the cozy embrace of routine doesn’t really entice anymore, probably because there’s little break from it. Fact can feel flat, and there’s only so much looking at yourself you can do. It’s not bad to look at yourself, necessarily, of course, but I do increasingly wonder if it is a limited way of writing, particularly now. Here’s what I’ve been feeling like—like language is increasingly being boiled down to larynxes, the air of an essay deemed unnecessary in the cold, plain light of the Internet and the pandemic and routine and the feeling of impending doom. I had to eventually move the mirror out of my office, actually, because in between sentences I was glancing at it, not for any reason other than to glance at something new, but what I was seeing wasn’t particularly new at all, which is basically the same reason I would like to get off of Twitter and Instagram, would like to dive back into real reading again, not this shallow flitting kind, but the deep kind, about which Nicholson Baker has so much to say. He wrote a six-part essay on the history of the word “Lumber,” for God’s sake. What I’m trying to say is that I’ve become hopelessly tired of thinking about myself, and the idea of revealing or examining myself in writing doesn’t really appeal anymore, and yet the whole reason I love Nicholson Baker—or one of them—is that his style cannot help but reveal his particular mind. I happen to very much admire that mind. I wonder: is there a way to look at your mind in the mirror? Oh yeah: writing an essay, ideally. (I almost just wrote “writing. Lol.”) Is there a difference between sharing your own mind and sharing the rest of yourself on the page—the former is what I think Nicholson Baker is good at, and yet I, as a writer, have been tempted many a time to take the latter as a proxy of, or shortcut to, the former. Particular experiences I’ve had, in other words, instead of the ways in which I call them back and think through them. This is why I’ve sometimes avoided the personal, sticking instead to things external to myself, which, through arrangement and artful writing, you can maybe find a bit of air. Baker has a great essay, by the way, on large versus small thoughts, and seems in one way or another to always be mapping his own intellectual activity, even and especially when he is writing about things outside of his own experience (see: the highly formal collage of Human Smoke, which assembles a history of the lead-up to the second World War, assembled by a pacifist’s brain).

Some more questions: can I just say “I like Nicholson Baker” and leave it at that? No, because this essay is the intellectual proof of engagement with that fact, an attempt to breathe air back into the larynx croaking out those four words. Does this particular writer inspire his acolytes to build, as Leon Wieseltier once uncharitably wrote of Baker’s book Checkpoint, “creepy hermeneutical toys,” but ours are about Baker and his work, like he is the sun to our tulips, his constructions the ones we start to fixate on amidst the otherwise oatmeal days? What is it about Baker’s work that forces his admirers to sometimes talk endlessly of themselves—not always to bad effect (see B & Me, by J.C. Hallman, aping Baker’s U & I, his own chronicle of his literary relationship to John Updike)? Actually, I have always hated cascades of questions inside essays—the questions never really get answered, and I think they’re a way of gesturing at inquiry rather than actually inquiring—and so, instead of asking, I will posit that we love Baker and imitate him within an inch of our lives because the force of his attention works on ours, widening our apertures as we read him, as if we are reading a manual of how to remember to look, really look, at the world, its secrets, its particularities which build into bigger truths. If we allow ourselves to be carried along by him, he inflates us right back to where we want to be: avid and unexpectedly thoughtful, in a world that does not seem to want us to be these things. And we sing again, or can.

This is the thing about Baker, at least to me—although I am reluctant to spend too much time on myself, despite having written an essay, at this point, all about me—is that he fixes me. Patches me up. Sends me back on my way. So far, the medicine has been bottomless. I have read him over and over again for this reason. Regardless of topic or detail, he reminds me of the human importance of the act of inquiry. It sounds basic, and it is, and that is why I relish the reminders, or, just as often, relish watching him inquire. He is my reminder; he reminds me why I write and from what spirit to go about it. I come back to myself. And right now, a few days before Thanksgiving, I am sitting at a cheap little desk in the third floor of the rental house I share with my boyfriend, staring out of the window into a bright sky, where four separate jets are ripping through the air, each leaving a cold chalky trail. Now they’re going this way, now they’re going the other. Two seem to be about to collide. Again, I notice. I’ve been watching for thirty minutes, off and on. This scene would happen with or without me, but the frame of the window, and my position in front of it, is what causes the sight to be arresting (to me), and strange. Even worth wondering about. What a lovely thing, when tired of oneself, and when tired of the world, to watch a mind you love continue to streak and wiggle through it.


*

Lucy Schiller is a writer based in Pittsburgh, where she's at work on a forthcoming nonfiction book. You can find more of her writing at www.lucy-schiller.work.

Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Who Created Creative Nonfiction? Kim Todd in conversation with Rachel May


Who Created Creative Nonfiction? Long before Wolfe, Capote, and Thompson, dozens of women, as stunt journalists, established Creative Nonfiction’s hallmark conventions. Kim Todd’s new book, Sensational, finally gives them the credit they’re due. 

Kim Todd’s beautifully written book, Sensational: The Hidden History of America’s Girl Stunt Reporters, tells the story of the leagues of women who revealed the problems our society faced in the late 1800s, particularly in spaces inhabited by women. They donned disguises, went undercover, and reported on sexual harassment in the workplace, the conditions of the insane asylum, and many other social issues. Reporting in this same era alongside the stunt reporters was Ida B. Wells, who brought to light the lynching of hundreds of Black people. At times, as in the case of a still-nameless reporter who told the story of the wide availability of abortion access in Chicago, they subverted societal norms as well as newspaper reporting conventions. And of course, they suffered at society’s hands for daring not to conform. Stunt reporting was deemed “trash,” a judgment that Todd explains has persisted to the present day. 

Her introductory essay—and the book as a whole—make the case for the lasting value of the girl stunt reporter’s work, and how their writing actually establishes the baseline for creative nonfiction, long before those who have previously been credited with the genre’s founding.

We sat down to talk about the girl stunt reporters and their legacy.


*


RM: How did you decide to focus on stunt journalism, and what surprised you about the project?

KT: I started this project when I was tasked with designing a class for undergraduates about the history of creative nonfiction and early practitioners. I was taught that things started with Tom Wolfe’s New Journalism. I’d read Nellie Bly but hadn't heard very much about her, and it struck me how completely readable she is more than 100 years later, particularly compared to her peers who wrote long, ornate sentences and include references to the Bible and Shakespeare, which can be hard to unpack these days. 

In contrast, Nellie Bly does everything that I ask my creative nonfiction students to do: She tells a story through an engaging first person narrator. She uses scene-based construction. She uses a lot of dialogue. She creates these great characters. She draws you into the world she’s talking about through sensory detail—whether she's in the asylum being thrown into a very cold bath, or picking away at rancid food they’ve served her, or on the very uncomfortable boat ride from the mainland to Blackwell's Island—you're right there next to her, in a way that I think of as a model of creative nonfiction. 

As I learned more about her, it became clear that she wasn't the only one doing this kind of work. She was so successful that it opened a decade of opportunity for women to do undercover reporting about important societal issues in a narrative way, and—particularly fascinating to me—on issues related to women. Women reporters were able to go in disguise to these female-dominated spaces, so they could look at the way that women were being treated in public hospitals, or the poor working conditions of women in factories. Their work was really unique. 

I'd heard about the history of creative nonfiction starting with New Journalism in the 60s and 70s, and the history of investigative journalism starting with the muckrakers in the early 1900s—but these women were doing very similar things earlier than both. 

RM: Yes! I was taught that Truman Capote's In Cold Blood was the first work of creative nonfiction. 

KT: That's another thing that struck me—the men, when they're doing something innovative, often declare that they’ve created a new genre. Capote said, I'm writing a nonfiction novel! Tom Wolfe said, I call this New Journalism! Hunter S. Thompson said, I'm doing gonzo journalism! But these women were working within this genre and forging new territory without labeling it and saying that it's something surprising and new. 

One of the sadder elements of the book, which overall I think is hopefully joyful and exuberant, is that almost immediately, the women reporters were shamed for their stunt journalism. Often, when they're interviewed, they're semi-apologetic about it, like, Oh, yes, I just have to do this kind of work, you know, because I have to support my mother.

The genre was dismissed. After about a decade of success, a lot of the women made apologies for having worked in it or denied having done that kind of work, even though it was very clear that they did. 

RM: You write, “Bly shook free of the ruffles and hoop skirts of Victorian prose and made her sentences accessible to the less educated and to recent immigrants who might struggle with English—the specific readers Pulitzer coveted. While she advocated for serious reform, her writing was always a pleasure to read. She was funny” (39). 

Reading Sensational and your argument about Nellie Bly in this context is so interesting. That excerpt that you pull out in your book of her language and how crisp it is—“Could I pass a week in the insane ward at Blackwell’s Island? I said I could and I would and I did.”—and how she illuminates these stories for people who didn't have access to education that other readers might have had illustrates how she opened the doors for a different kind of reading public.

KT: Exactly. You know, Bly worked for Pulitzer’s The New York World. And that was very explicitly one of his goals—he wanted to sell a lot of papers and he wanted to reach this audience of new immigrants who are flooding into New York at the time. So, the language had to be accessible and engaging. 

He was also particularly interested in reaching out to women. Importantly, the material that he thought appealed to them didn't all have to do with parties and the latest ballgowns, but delved into women’s lives.

RM: You write beautifully about the power of stunt reporters’ abortion coverage: “And still, after decades of suppression of the practice and discussion about [abortion], by the time the Girl Reporter made her rounds in 1888, abortion was everywhere. There was the sad, coded story from the St. Paul Globe in 1889 about a girl found dead in her sweltering boardinghouse room. Originally from Minneapolis, she’d gone to Montana eight months before, only to have returned to rent a room for herself and her husband, who never showed. Several days before she’d taken ill, she’d visited a Twin Cities doctor because of ‘uterine trouble.’ He suspected she may have died of ‘an internal hemorrhage. Maybe she took some drug or the cause was her smoking cigarettes, the paper speculated. But it doesn’t seem much of a mystery…[I]n writing about abortion…, revealing how commonplace it was, the Girl Reporter showed the lie at the heart of the idea that women could be divided into good and bad, fallen and chaste….And as is often the case with writing that breaks a taboo, everyone read it” (77). 

I thought so much about the movement, 20 years ago, for the legalization of the morning-after pill, and trying to get that passed. And the ways that people have been talking about abortion really openly since the Supreme Court ruling in the last few months, online and in essays like Nicole Walker’s New York Times Op-ed, making evident like how these laws are going to impact women. I think about abortion as a contemporary issue, and reading about it in the late 1800s was really fascinating and surprising for me, which I guess is really naive.

KT: No, not necessarily. Justice Alito’s decision is based on the fact that abortion is not part of American values or traditions, but in 19th century newspapers, it was everywhere, from that piece in the Twin Cities newspaper, to ads that were all over the place. So many of these big 19th century scandal trials which had to do with a young woman's mysterious death turned out to have abortion at the root. Either they died of a botched abortion, or they needed an abortion and their lover had lured them under the pretense of giving her one and murdered her. 

In 1888, a young woman writing for the Chicago Times went to doctors in Chicago, and asked them to provide her with an abortion, and charted their responses. This was at a time when the Comstock Laws, which sadly seem to be coming back, made it illegal to talk about abortion, or to write about it, so she could do the reporting under this cloak of exposing this horrible illegal thing. 

But actually, after pages of coverage, what anyone reading the reports would have taken home was the message that women were having abortions all the time and that many doctors would provide them. The reporter detailed all the different medicines you could take, all the different kinds of operations you could have. It became clear that it wasn't just poor, desperate women having abortions but also married women, wealthy women. It exposed how completely pervasive it was, and a lot of the doctors treated the women with respect and acted like this was a normal request. 

RM: It's so interesting. I didn't know that this time is so rich with stories of how women were changing the narrative but also had to be hidden within it to protect themselves.

I just love the way you embody the art of creative nonfiction in the book, as you’re telling the  stories of women who helped found the genre. You write, “…Eva McDonald, a voracious reader in Minnesota with a rebellious streak, …would discover the potential of stunt reporting as an activist tool. Small with a dark fringe of bangs, McDonald had a round, pale face and thick, ink-swipe brows. A bout of diphtheria when she was nine left her heart weak, but she was anything but frail” (42). 

How did you get into the rich detail of who they were and how it might have looked as they walked into an office to take a job? 

KT: I tell my students when they're doing research to use in creative nonfiction, that they're looking for all the things that the page is hungry for—images, scenes, sensory detail, any direct quotations they can find.

I'd previously written a biography of a woman who lived in the 1600s, and there were hardly any print records available. What was wonderful about researching these women is that they were all writers. So, there were many newspaper articles, and because they were working in this proto-creative-nonfiction mold, they wrote very vivid descriptions and talked about their feelings as they were going into different spaces, getting into a disguise. 

One of the challenges of the book was to take these personas that they created to tell the story in the newspapers, and try to find some private documents that might have indicated what was going on underneath. For a number of them, there were troves of letters, and some oral history. 

RM: Who do you think were some of the most influential stunt reporters in their day? 

KT: Ida B. Wells was not a stunt reporter, but she took on the most hot-button topic of the time, writing about lynching in a very unflinching way. She sat down and documented every instance of lynching that happened in given years. This is something that the northern papers were hardly covering. 

At some point, to allow herself freedom of expression, she decided that she needed to own the printing press. She self-published a number of her books, so that she could say what she needed to say. 

In her memoirs as a younger woman, you see her very overtly dealing with the tension between her desire to speak her mind and the knowledge that it would be dangerous for her to do so. She reads something that makes her furious and writes, outraged, “Can such things be and no justice for it?” But then she adds, “It may be unwise to express myself so strongly but I cannot help it.” Owning her own press and publishing her own books is one of the ways that she gets around censorship.

RM: I'm glad you brought her up. Her work is so important, especially in thinking about the Black Lives Matter movement today, the ways that we can see everything documented on video screens, similar to the way that Wells’ careful documentation of lynchings created evidence that people just couldn't deny.

KT: She has this very chilling list, in one of her books, where she lists the reason that people were killed. For example, hanged for stealing hogs, lynched because they were saucy, lynched for no offense. It underscores the pervasive and unjust nature of these killings. 

RM: Like Black While Driving, Black While Walking, or Claudia Rankine’s ongoing list of people murdered by police in Citizen.

I was thinking about whether #metoo, founded by Tarana Burke, came out of this history, because women disclosed their own lives in an effort to create change, starting on Twitter and then in so many essays and articles; women’s stories were finally given credence.

KT: Definitely. These stunt journalists talk very explicitly about sexual harassment. That’s something I wasn't expecting to find. Women like Nell Nelson, or even Eva McDonald, who went into garment factories, for example, and looked at the way that women were treated—the reports are all right there. The women are telling the reporters, My foreman said if I wanted the promotion, I had to do something improper. They document horrible things that the men say to their female workers. 

RM: Thinking about this history, who are some of the most powerful voices that you hear in creative nonfiction today, doing work like this or work that’s similarly groundbreaking but not yet given enough credit?

KT: Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickeled and Dimed is exactly in this mode. She went undercover to see if she could live on minimum wage for a year. There were women doing exactly that in the late 1890s. Elizabeth Banks did a whole series on whether she could she live on $3 a week, the going wage for factory workers at that time. Like Ehrenreich, she concludes that no, it’s not possible. 

You also see these women’s influence in undercover journalism and immersion journalism, for example Random Family by Adrian Nicole LeBlanc. You see it in a whole slew of experiments where people try to live in a certain way for a year, and in activism journalism, where people are exposing something with the goal of making a change.

Another piece that always stays with me because it seems so perfectly in the mold of the kind of reporting these women were doing is “The Price of Nice Nails,” by Sarah Maslin Nir, about nail salon workers being poisoned by the chemicals. 

RM: That was an amazing piece. 

When you started writing these stories, how did you decide who would be the most significant to include in the book?

KT: When I started researching Nellie Bly and finding other women doing this kind of work, I thought, Wow, maybe there are 12 women here and I can write a book about it. And it turned out that there were hundreds all over the country—so many major writers that I did not include in the book or couldn’t give enough space to. There were girl stunt reporters across the country, from huge city newspapers in New York and Chicago, to tiny newspapers out west.

Nellie Bly opened the door, and many women took a range of paths, using different strategies to negotiate hurdles. Some, like the girl reporter at the Chicago Times who wrote abortion [exposés], which was probably the most reputation-damaging topic—you didn't even have to be pregnant out of wedlock, even pretending to be pregnant out of wedlock was shameful—never emerged from behind that pseudonym. We don't know who she was. 

At other times, people drop out of stunt reporting when the criticism gets too intense. For example, Kate Swan McGuirk went on to use the name Kate Swan to do all of this reporting for The New York World that was accompanied by very large pictures of her doing very dramatic feats, and she became a target for a lot of criticism of the girl stunt reporter. Whether it was because it was that she was using the first person too much, or because she was exposing her ankles, people really piled on her. She dropped out of reporting and disappeared for a couple of years, then came back under a slightly different name, forging a career doing demonstrations of gas stoves. 

Other women just didn't care, like Caroline Lockhart. She was a reporter for the Boston Post, and did all these outrageous stunts. And then she moved to the west and wrote quite risqué Westerns dealing with all these improper topics and seemed like she had a great time and a great life.

RM: I just love your introductory essay and the way that you defend what these reporters were doing, questioning why their bodies should be made to undermine the story: 

The issues faced by stunt reporters and excavated by Woolf still play out today. Writing by women about women continues to be shunted into separate literary categories, those that are both high selling and low prestige, like romance novels, ‘chick lit,’ and memoir. Like stunt reporters, the authors of online personal essays are expected to write about their bodies and are punished for doing so with scorching criticism (and sometimes threats) in the comments section. It’s a no-win situation. In contrast, roles brande[d] more ‘male’ are held in high esteem, like war correspondent and investigative reporter. What is considered respectable versus sensational or literary versus popular often remains centered on discomfort around female physiology, leaving writers who take women's lives as their subject to navigate the narrow, rocky passage between tame and scandalous (9). 

KT: These women could write for the women's page, they could talk about recipes and sleeve lengths; that was eminently respectable. They’d get very little money and lots of praise. Or, they could do these things that were much riskier, had much more societal value that people actually wanted to read—but then they faced a huge wave of condemnation.

RM: What do you what do you think is the greatest lesson that you took away from all of this research? 

KT: These judgments that were made so long ago are still very much with us. Even now, people will say, Oh, that thing that that women were doing in the last decade of the 19th century was really embarrassing and set women back for a long time in journalism. So, I decided to research their work with an experiment, to see what happens if I call it good instead of bad. And it is good.

I was surprised by the way these aesthetic judgments, that this work is trash, were passed down from 1898 and keep getting recycled—Women shouldn't talk about their bodies. That first person thing was really bad—even when we’ve very clearly moved on. 

RM: I just love that, yes. We see women’s work that way historically—with memoirs, for example, if you're too confessional, it’s not literary, it's just worthless. I think a lot about how I’ve been told to silence parts of my story, or that I have to tell it a particular way to be meaningful.

KT: Another thing that was driven home to me through the reporting was the Catch-22 that women were in at the time and which is still very relevant today. I include a quote from Joanna Ross’ book How to Suppress Women’s Writing that says it well: “In the face of continual and massive discouragement, women need models not only to see in what ways the literary imagination has been at work on the fact of being female, but also as assurances that they can produce art without inevitably being second-rate or running mad or doing without love” (259).

I think my take home message, which I will try in my own writing from here on out, is to be braver. 

RM: How do you do that? 

KT: My favorite quote, which I put at the start of the book, is by Nellie Bly. She says, “I write the truth because I love it, and because there is no living creature whose anger I fear or whose praise I court.” 

I don't know if I'm there, but I hope to get there. It's something to aspire to.


*


Kim Todd is the award-winning author of four books of literary nonfiction. Her most recent, Sensational: The Hidden History of America's “Girl Stunt Reporters,” was a finalist for the Minnesota Book Award and the Richard Frisbee Nonfiction Award. Other books include Chrysalis: Maria Sibylla Merian and the Secrets of Metamorphosis and Tinkering with Eden: A Natural History of Exotic Species in America, winner of the PEN/Jerard Award and the Sigurd Olson Nature Writing Award. Her essays and articles have appeared in Smithsonian, Salon, Sierra Magazine, Orion, and Best American Science and Nature Writing anthologies, among other publications. She is a member of the MFA faculty at the University of Minnesota and lives in Minneapolis with her family.

Rachel May's work has been published in Guernica, LitHub, The New York Times, National Geographic, Outside, and elsewhere. She's the author of four books, most recently An American Quilt: Unfolding a Story of Family & Slavery, a work of creative nonfiction, which the New Yorker calls a "meticulous and insightful account of slavery's role in early mercantile America." 

Monday, October 31, 2022

The #Midwessay: Beth Cleary, Blood Earth

 



Blood Earth: Words on the Iron Range

Beth Cleary


*


I drive I-35 north out of St. Paul toward Duluth. The ex-urbs are farmland with For Sale signs or farmland for canola and corn, then small towns housing antique malls, truck stops or, at Moose Lake, a medium security prison.  I veer off I-35 at Cloquet, bound for Highway 53 and the Iron Range. 53 has a different feel: as on 35, increasing thickness of conifer, aspen and maple, yes, but here signs announce the Range itself. There is an historic marker citing 400 active mines in the early 20th century. There are signs for the “Range Cities “ of Virginia, Mountain Ore, Chisolm, and Eveleth. Signs for attractions like Iron World, the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame, the Discovery Center Museum of the Iron Range. For destinations like Wirtanen Pioneer Farm, the Wellstone Memorial. For scenic mine overlooks.

Roadside signs appear beside clustered mailboxes and stand sentry on the edges of aspen, facing the highway: We Support Mining Mining Supports Us. We Support Mining Mining Supports Us. Red, white and blue, We Support Mining Mining Supports Us. “Us” means us people, and us “U.S.” There are also signs for dumping any elected official weak on taconite or copper nickel mine expansion. 

There is no signage for the problem of what mining does, has always done, to the earth. What mining is as extraction industry, destroyer of geophysical story, disrupter of geologic time. 

A marker at the Laurentian Divide rest area on 53 describes how the ancient rock of that spot channels waters in three directions: north to Lake Winnipeg, Hudson’s Bay and the Arctic; east and south through Superior and the other Great Lakes toward waterways that become the Atlantic; or through lakes and streams that form the southward flowing Mississippi River. At the Laurentian Divide rest area, I am at about the halfway point of the Mesabi Range, in the middle of the elongate trend called by geologists the Biwabik Range—Biwabik the Ojibwe word for “iron.” The Iron Range refers generally to three separate but geologically related formations: the Vermilion Range, northernmost and containing bedrock significantly older by millions of years than other parts of the Range; the Mesabi Range, the central, largest and most productive ore fields; and the Cuyuna Range, the southwestern reach of the trend. 

Turning slowly and gazing in all directions from a place called “Confusion Hill” because the mind scrambles at the age and kinds of rock, I try to understand the “before” of what I see, the long “before” preceding settlers’ excavation. Everything seeming-solid in every direction has been gouged, cut, moved, in just 150 years. The mature-seeming trees are actually re-growth, after white pine forest clear cut. Hills by the roads are grass-grown overburden. Some lakes on the other sides of those hills are actually filled-in open-pit mines. St. James. Pioneer. Embarrass. They are stocked with young rainbow and lake trout every Spring before the fishing opener, because no fish that eludes the canoeman’s line in summer survives a winter in a fake lake.

The entire northland was the home, for centuries pre-contact, of nomadic indigenous people, who made camps for living in summer, and camps in different places for surviving winter. Then 19th century surveyors, precious metal speculators and eventually mining companies came, “buying” land that had never been bought-and-sold, scattering the native people, and luring tens of thousands of desperate immigrant men underground to hack at the oldest rock on earth. It’s the rock itself which fixes my attention. Its very age—between 2,500 and 4,000 million years old—gives solace to me, to the wriggle that is my life, all human life and enterprise, first and finally. The age of the rock is a rebuke to the humans and our violence. I learn about the rock of the Iron Range—its varieties and formations, deep time dramas of ancient volcanoes, rifts, collisions, orogenies—to atone.

We Support Mining Mining Supports Us. Men, women, descendants are buried across the Range in the undercrust of earth. Their bones’ and tissues’ calcium, zinc, phosphorus and other minerals return to the very soils miners moved to get at veins of ore. The iron running through their blood resorbs into the ground, the collagen in their bones dries slowly in the cold. And meanwhile rock forms, and extends, and cleaves and overcomes, in time we cannot comprehend and for purposes we cannot know, hard as our blasting may try.


*


At the rim of the St. James pit lake, Aurora, MN. (Photo by Beth Cleary)


*

Beth Cleary is a writer, theater maker and educator. Her essays appear in Fourth Genre, After the Art, The Maine Review, and other publications. She is co-founder of the East Side Freedom Library in St. Paul, Minnesota. 


* 

What is the #Midwessay? What is the Midwest? What are the characteristics, if any, of the #Midwessay (the Midwest essay)? What gathers us together? What pulls us apart? Springing from a twitter conversation, we started asking writers and readers what they imagine (or would like to reimagine) as the Midwest and the Midwessay. The #Midwessay is a series of reports from the Midwest (whatever that is) by and/or about Midwestern essay and essayists (whatever those are). Essay Daily will be publishing these, sorted (loosely) by state, in February 2021 and beyond.  These #Midwessays will be collected here and on a separate site at a later date. If you'd like to submit a report / essay, send it our way. Details and coordinators for each state are listed here. You can also ping Ander (link at the upper right) if we don't list a coordinator yet for your state. —The Editors 

Thursday, October 20, 2022

“Affirming Life”: An Essay Daily Interview with Kiki Petrosino


*

When I dared to imagine a writerly future, during the years of my formal education at state schools in Virginia, where I was born and raised, and Arizona, where my African American father’s family moved, from Chicago, in 1968, I foresaw a career resembling Kiki Petrosino’s. Of course, I did not then know (or know of) her; I did not then believe that any other writer shared closely, on surface level, the contours of my own life: one African American parent, one white; study at the University of Virginia, where Thomas Jefferson’s variegated shadow still blankets the grounds (never campus); explorations of all this (identity, family history, the verdant earth of our pulsing commonwealth) in prose polished to gleaming. 

It is an altering thing to encounter someone whose background so neatly (on surface level) mirrors yours, and who has achieved every aspiration, or so it would seem, that you could have thought up for yourself. 

I could have never been Kiki Petrosino, no, though her memoir, Bright, recently out from Sarabande, produced singled tears.

Bright is about so many things mixed people of lightish skin carry (to borrow from Petrosino's language): questions asked, by strangers, of a body that perplexes; the confusion of history in a country that broke (and now sutures, or tries to) along lines of race; reminders to the self of one’s distinct (because live) beauty. It is about much else, however: the grief of her Italian grandfather’s passing, by his own hand; the sharded doubling she encounters when engaging with the life and work of Jefferson (another mirror, then); poetry (for Petrosino has published until now, in book-length work, as a poet) as religiosity, as faith. 

We spoke about Bright during her one day in Charlottesville (where today she teaches at U.Va.) between travels overseas and travels within the country. I can only hope it is a first conversation, not the only. —Matthew Morris


*


Matthew Morris: So, early on, Bright turns (and then remains) densely intertextual, engaging with passages from Dante, Shakespeare, Sarah Manguso, and Seamus Heaney while referencing the alliterative verse of the Old English poets and the Book of Revelation’s “robes” and “crowns.” Then, of course, there is the writing of Jefferson, especially his Notes on the State of Virginia. I was wondering if you could talk about how allusion, reference, and intertextuality operate in your work. What makes those kinds of moves so richly generative for you? Because they seem richly generative…


Kiki Petrosino: For me, I think that the intertextuality you see in the memoir reflects the intertextuality of my life as I’ve lived it. I think that as a person who’s a practitioner of the literary arts, quotations and passages and moments from the things that I’ve read in the past form a kind of embroidery, or they’re sort of stitched throughout the reality that I live as a day-to-day person. And I think anybody who was and is a voracious reader remembers well those seminal works that they may have encountered at a formative period of their literacy; and for me, the pieces that you see cited most often in Bright, for instance Dante and Shakespeare: those were works that I encountered early on in my literary education. And that became part of the tapestry of my imagination. 

I was doing most of the writing of Bright and the revising of it during the height of the pandemic, during which I kept a pretty close quarantine. And I was also in the process of moving, so I felt really distanced from the physicality of my actual collection of books. Some of my books are in my office, which is on the U.Va. grounds. Some of my books were packed into boxes to move, and other books I was maybe teaching from, but I was only teaching online, and so I was also ordering a lot of electronic copies of books and talking to publishers and begging them to slide me a PDF of a book so that I could make sure my students had as much accessibility to books as possible. 

And so because it wasn’t as easy for me to put my hands on my physical books anymore, I relied on my memory of books that were important to me and books that I had read before. I feel like all of those factors combined to give you a sense of how those citations and those references to different texts are braided throughout the work. 


Morris: Yeah, that’s really lovely. I love the idea that these are thinkers that you’ve been thinking with for a long time, or thinking against, depending. And that feeds into my next question about Jefferson. 

He is a complex figure in this book (and shadowy, because he’s been dead for a long time). I didn’t know this, but you write about him defending a mixed-race man in his suit for freedom long before he wrote the Declaration of Independence, and you also write a lot about the musicality of his language. 

For all your misgivings toward Jefferson, you treat him with sincere empathy, noting “the solemn register of his losses”—including the loss of his wife, Martha, when she was quite young. How has your relationship to Jefferson changed over time, personally or creatively, and who is he to you now? And do you think you will continue to engage with Jefferson? I know you’ve also written about him in the poetry book White Blood.


Petrosino: So, when it comes to Jefferson, I always begin with fascination and curiosity about him, and if you start from those positions—I’m interested; I’m curious; I’m fascinated—for me as an artist, that is the position from which you can generate new work. And that curiosity and fascination leads you to read and investigate what was visionary and luminous about his intelligence, and it also leads you to confront the aspects of his life and his legacy that were painful, exclusionary, and that did not live up to the vision that he articulated so well in documenting the Declaration. 

So, for me, it is not a matter of, you know, do you like or dislike Jefferson; do you feel this way or that way about his legacy? I kind of feel all of those things at once. And that’s why it’s actually wonderful to live in a place like Virginia, because Virginia is a place, of course, where Jefferson lived, where he wrote, where he thought about so many things. But it’s also a place where the past and the present and the future intersect constantly. Every square inch of ground in Virginia has some kind of past, some kind of story to it. And then it has a present: what’s going on in the present moment, and then how is that going to feed into the future? Because the land itself is complex and has many stories running through it, so too are the people: the people who have come together to make Virginia what it is are complex. 

For me, that’s where I start with Jefferson. 

I think that he will continue to reemerge in my writing and thinking, because every time I read more about him, I find out something that is interesting, that sparks my curiosity about him. And it’s interesting to me how the things about Jefferson that I’m interested in just so happen to match up with aspects of my own literacy formation. 

Of course, he founded the university where I went as an undergraduate and where I teach now, so there’s that concrete connection. But he also was a person who could speak and write across multiple languages, and I like to do that too. When I was at U.Va., I studied Italian. I went to Italy and studied abroad, and I worked in Europe for a while, so I used those language skills. So that is something that we end up having in common. His interest in nature and horticulture and gardening: those are things I’m interested in too. His European travels: I’m also interested in that. 

In looking at the figure of Jefferson, it’s not always that I’m only thinking about his biographical self, let’s say, but I’m also thinking about Jefferson as an occasion to think about the ways in which I learned to read and think about the world around me. And what does that literacy, what does that training both include and exclude? In the research process for this book and for my previous book of poetry, I found myself going into archives and libraries, because I’ve been trained to seek knowledge in repositories that announce themselves in that way. But those libraries and archives don’t contain everything. For example, they don’t contain my family’s oral history about our generational past. In trying to do research about a complicated place like Virginia, you also need to learn a new kind of literacy. You need to be able to read all kinds of different information and to read across different sorts of information. 


Morris: Yeah, thank you. Even reading the physical landscape: I always feel like when I’m in Virginia, it activates my imagination in different ways. I’m so glad you say that, and that makes me think about also, like, Virginia is where Loving v. Virginia happened. 


Petrosino: That’s right, yeah. Which ends up being relevant to my life, because my parents were married, and they were married after Loving v. Virginia. They were married in the state of Maryland, but that Supreme Court case, Loving, that struck down certain sets of laws, “racial integrity” laws, basically said that it’s unconstitutional to discriminate against people that wish to marry on the basis of their race. And so, my parents were married after that groundbreaking Supreme Court decision. 


Morris: Right. Same with mine. 

So, okay, going to questions of mixedness or in-between-ness: the book is billed as a memoir on the cover. On the back, Chet’la Sebree describes it as an essay collection. When I read Bright, I sort of read it continuously, but there are these breaks, these “fairy-tale interludes.” How do you yourself see the book? Do you see it as memoir, as essay collection? Does that matter? Is there being a blending or an ambiguity to the project part of what you’re up to here?  


Petrosino: Well, I see it as a hybrid work. I think that when I think about it now, I see it as a work that is in the realm of memoir. It’s a memoir that takes place in prose, for me, in vignettes of prose. And, probably as a function of the pandemic (and how that lockdown and the anxiety and stress of it affected my own attention span and my own reading practice), I became interested in shorter prose forms. I was able to accomplish the work of this piece by braiding together shorter moments and shorter passages of language. 

Prior to working on this memoir, I had published the occasional essay. I was a poet mostly who would write the occasional work of prose, and usually pretty short-form prose. And so I went back to some of those pieces and tried to find what professors at U.Va. might call the “luminous fragment,” borrowing that term from Modernism, and tried to figure out how I could create a mosaic, or how I could braid together something that would give you a sense of the totality of an experience but not always tell you the causal narrative of that experience. 

And, again, that reflects the way that I view my own life. If I was going to tell you something important about me, I wouldn’t begin with just a story about my birth and go from there; I would probably tell you about an experience I had or a trip that I went on or a story that I heard that was important. And then I might put that next to another story, another account, and that’s just the way that my imagination and my sense of my own life feels to me. 


Morris: Thanks, yeah. The “luminous fragment.” I read one of your short-form essays last night. I think it was in The Iowa Review a while back. It was called “Literacy Narrative.” And you’re thinking about your grandma a lot in that piece. 

Anyway, maybe we can talk about, if you don’t mind, the work you’re doing with faded and with appearing and disappearing text. 

So, you know, you’ve got this one section of Bright where the physical text of your grandfather’s name, Prospero (and the linkage to The Tempest is really interesting) is getting darker as you move down the page, and increasingly visible. And at the very end, you’ve got this section I thought of as being like a round in choir—


Petrosino: Neat. 


Morris: More is getting stacked on top, but there’s this repeated element. And, again, some of the text is easy to read, and some is faded out until we get to that last line about “all she would carry.” 

What I wanted to ask you is, how do you think about these graphic elements in relation to your subject matter? Or how do you think about them generally? What are you doing with them? 


Petrosino: Yeah, okay, so I think about presence and absence a lot. When I think about the legacy of different ancestors in my family, I think about them as both present and absent. There are ancestors who I never met; my life on Earth didn’t overlap with their life on Earth, but their decisions or the circumstances in which they found themselves, the path they either were on already or that they chose, put the family on a certain trajectory. 

One thing that might be interesting for any reader to think about, regardless of whether they’re African American or not: Can you trace back the first example of literacy in your family? Like, who was the first ancestor that knew how to read and write? Where were they from? How long did they live? What was the likely circumstance in which they learned how to read and write? Also, think about: is that ancestor a male ancestor or a female ancestor? If you can only trace back through the patriarchs, who’s the first matriarch that you can document in some way knowing how to read and write? 

For me, for at least one part of my family, it’s not really that long ago: the first example of handwriting that I found is from 1907 for one of my ancestors, and he signed his name. But he signed his name in a way that you could tell he didn’t really know how to write; he was sort of drawing the letters. And I ended up getting that signature tattooed on my arm because it was super important to me to have that example of writing close to me at all times. 

So that ancestor is both absent and present, you know? And in my last book of poetry, I worked with erasure poetry a whole lot. An erasure poem is when you take an existing text, usually that you did not write. What you’re doing as the poet is you’re erasing around all of the words that you want to keep as the poem. I was doing that to show how you might receive a historical record or you might go into a library and get some information, but in fact that piece of information might only leave you with more questions than answers. So, the text is both present and absent in an erasure poem. 

Moving on to Bright, I was also interested in presence and absence, and in the places where I felt some kind of weird, resonant echo with the things I was reading. There’s some echo when my grandfather has the same name as the main character of The Tempest. The presence of that name creates a chime: it’s both present and absent; it’s coincidence, but it also could be symbolic. The fading of text and of gray and black is another way of working with the absences in a certain kind of historical record or thinking about the way that things echo or resonate across pieces of text. 


Morris: Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. Gosh, you’re making me think about, because I’ve done a decent amount of family history research also: I learned a few months ago that my dad’s surname and my surname, Morris, has a linkage to literacy and an ancestor who was taught to read before emancipation, and that really lit a lightbulb for me… 

Sorry, I have a lot of thoughts—


Petrosino: No, so, like, if you know that there’s an ancestor that learned to read prior to 1865, there’s already a story there of someone making an effort to learn something. And so there was value placed upon literacy, because there was such a risk for them to do that, and it could not have happened in a school the way we think about it. Those are the kinds of things that are fascinating to me, because I have to read between the lines and understand the significance of the story. I have to use all of the context and things I’ve been learning about the history of a particular time and place. 

So that exists, but I also don’t have that story told by that ancestor about how they learned to read. I only have the results, which is—in my family—after this 1907 signature, everyone can read and write. This ancestor’s son became a doctor and went to Hampton and then went to medical school in Chicago and became a doctor in Illinois. After that point, everyone was a doctor or teacher of some kind. 

And so this trajectory happened; there is some story there, and it’s the work of writing, for me, about all of this stuff, to always hold a place for that story that I don’t have but that had to have existed—


Morris: Yeah—


Petrosino: —that I know existed. 


Morris: Right, you’re honoring that story. You yourself are part of that story now. I don’t know if that makes sense to you, but as a professor of poetry, generational change from before 1907 to now—


Petrosino: Yeah. Because what it does, actually: it is affirming life. By holding space for that story (and not trying to write inside of it, and not trying to forget about it or gloss over it: by holding it) it affirms the reality and it affirms presence. Because the reason the story isn’t there—it could be because the story was taken away from that ancestor, that they weren’t given the education necessary to write their own testimony. But it could also be that that ancestor used agency in moving the family forward in a way, and that’s actually the testimony. You see what I mean? 


Morris: Yeah. 


Petrosino: Yeah. Like, they did leave something; it’s just not what you’re looking for, but it is there. 


Morris: That’s really beautiful, Kiki. Like, affirming life. I don’t think I’d thought about it in quite that way. But it feels true to me. That to think through, to hold those stories is to affirm life. 

So, I think this is kind of related, what we were just talking about, to the “secret flower,” which you write about early in Bright in relation to being in school in Baltimore. And then this idea recurs when you’re writing about the Moon, another rich metaphor in the book, and in fact on the cover as I look at it. 

Anyway, I thought about this idea of a “secret flower” when I was reading your book, and I also thought about your Black grandfather, who would say, “I’m a good color.” And in counterpoint to that, we have Ross Gay on the back of the book talking about the “brutalizing fictions of race.” 

So, do you see those two things as standing in counterpoint or opposition to one another? Or what is the “secret flower” to you? Is it the reverse side of the “brutalizing fictions”? Something else entirely? 


Petrosino: I think that’s probably approaching the right interpretation. I actually think that, for me, writing about having a mixed-race identity—but, it’s like, I also identify as Black—there’s a disparity that I think that those of us who are of an interracial background can experience, which is that there’s a difference or a dissonance between how we feel on the inside about ourselves and our humanity versus when we go out into the world and we hear from others how they perceive us. A lot of it has to do with the physicality of the body: how do we appear or present to the world? 

And many times in my youth and continuing into my, I guess, middle age or whatever, I regularly hear from people what category they think I should be in, how I look to them, what they thought when they first saw me, you know, which brings the body into the conversation in a way that I don’t always consent to. Because this is a body that I either have or inhabit, that I’m connected to in some way, but when I exist in my internal self, when I am using my mind and my imagination, when I’m reading, when I’m being a human being, I don’t think of myself as parts. I think of myself as a unified human being. There’s always something kind of shocking and not altogether pleasant in hearing what other people have to say about what racial category they would put me in based on my appearance. 

And so maybe the “secret flower” is that self that is the internal truth of a self that persists and endures and also needs to be nourished, you know, despite or quite apart from (quite apart from) what the outside world might want to put on a person. You know? 


Morris: Yeah. Thank you. Those interactions never seem to end. 


Petrosino: Right. That’s the other thing I want to say, is that I think it’s really important that when mixed people speak, each person gets to be listened to, because each of our experiences is quite individual, in fact. And that’s why it’s hard to generalize. Not everyone identifies the same way. And not everyone’s encounter with this issue is going to be identical. There’s a lot of variation, and it has to be that way. It is that way. Because we are all different, just as every human being is different. And that sounds tautological or it sounds weirdly paradoxical, but I think that part of my work is to resist this very, very strong impulse in our culture and in our discourse to group people into categories and then to treat those categories as if they’re completely immutable. 


Morris: Part of what’s interesting to me about what you were just saying is that even the categories between the other categories get described as fixed or immutable. That’s exactly what you were just saying, but … monolithic. 

Do you want to talk about the idea of “stifled grief” in the book or is that something you would rather not? 


Petrosino:  No, we can talk about that if you want to. Sure. Let me open up your email.


Morris: And this is in relation to your Italian grandfather—


Petrosino: Yes. So, you ask, “Is the project for you also about allowing grief its space?” Yes, it is. It goes back to what I was saying before about presence and absence. You know, my grandfather, in completing suicide in the way that he did, removed himself from presence. But yet that particular act—the tragedy of it—has had this resonating presence in my life. But it also, for a very long time, seemed to be something that I shouldn’t talk about, both the action itself, like what happened, but also the way that it affected me. That’s probably because there are societal taboos about speaking about suicide, and also the Roman Catholic Church: it’s maybe one of the worst sins in the traditional teachings of the church. And so, you know, that makes it difficult for people to talk about things that happen. 

These things happen, and these departures cause us to feel grief and mourning. You know, I was just in Italy for a little while, and speaking Italian is a really emotional experience for me. I have reached a level of proficiency with the language that allows me to be in Italy and feel pretty comfortable interacting in Italian. I was able to have long conversations with people about all kinds of things, and the musicality and the sound of the language, also being in Italy and looking around at things: these were constant reminders of the Italian side of my family, in a different but related way to the way that being in rural Virginia is a constant reminder of the African American side of my family, and the Afro-Virginian, we’ll say, side of my family. 

Being in those environments and in those spaces and speaking a language that is present but also evocative of ancestors who are now absent or distant is a complex, resonant, and rich experience for me. I did feel, I think, for many years, that there was no place in my writing for this particular grief, and that I would have to stifle it. That I would have to write about other things or not write about my grandfather. And actually there’s quite a lot of joy when I think about my grandfather’s legacy, when I’m reminded of things, when I see things that he would have liked or when I put together something about the way that he would do things and then I go to Italy and I see people doing things that way. Those are moments of joy for me. And those are the things that I want to focus on. 


Morris: Yeah, I love that, and I could feel that in the book when you write about him, you know, being in the garden—


Petrosino: Yeah. And my African American grandfather also had an amazing garden, and I have memories of walking in the garden with him. I don’t know why grandfathers do this stuff, but it seems like there’s something grandfatherly about having a garden and tending to and having that connection to nature and then allowing the grandchild to be near when those things are going on. That feels important on both sides. 


Morris: Okay, Kiki. This has been really a lovely conversation for me. The book was also really meaningful for me to read, and I’m glad to have met you. 


Petrosino: Me too. The questions were very resonant and thoughtful. Thank you so much. 


*


Kiki Petrosino is the author of White Blood: a Lyric of Virginia (2020) and three other poetry books, as well as the memoir Bright (2022), all from Sarabande. She holds graduate degrees from the University of Chicago and the University of Iowa Writer's Workshop. She directs the Creative Writing Program at the University of Virginia, where she is a Professor of Poetry. Petrosino is the recipient of a Pushcart Prize, a Fellowship in Creative Writing from the National Endowment for the Arts, the UNT Rilke Prize, & the Spalding Prize, among other honors.

Son of an African American father and a white mother, Matthew Morris most often writes through questions of race, identity, family history, and love. His essays appear in Fourth Genre, Seneca Review, and Mid-American Review, among others. He was born and raised in Virginia and studied nonfiction in the MFA program at the University of Arizona, defending his thesis, “Ghost Hand,” in May of 2021.