Sunday, 26 December 2021

A Lot of Things Have Happened

A rat tail sticking out from under a plunger.
Photo illustration by Hana Mendel for The New Yorker

Audio: Adam Levin reads.

PLUNGER

As Sara bunched up her nightshirt, she clocked a disturbance. Some movement or sound. Scraping? Paddling? Exhalations? It happened so fast, she said, she couldn’t be sure, but a rat in the toilet, submerged to the neck, was definitely trying to scale the bowl, and the next thing she knew she was standing in the bathtub, hollering for Darren.

Next thing Darren knew, he was brandishing a plunger and yelling at the rat, hoping to scare it back down the toilet.

Then nudging it toward the outlet with the plunger.

Then driving it below the surface with the plunger.

But soon he was afraid he was making a mistake. Were the rat to escape the toilet through the outlet, it could drown along the path to freedom. Clog the line expensively.

And so he changed course.

He angled the plunger to block the outlet while pinning the rat till the haunch that protruded from under the plunger cup no longer thrashed.

By then he was traumatized, he said, don’t laugh. Or, well, go ahead and laugh, he said, but he was beside himself. Or wasn’t himself. Could hardly, in any case, recognize himself. He was angry at the rat for having made him a killer, and he did something senseless. He did something ugly. He pushed on the plunger and the cup went flat and the rat’s back snapped, and then he did the same again a couple more times.

“Couple dozen more times, more like,” Sara said. “You were at it forever, Don Corleone.”

“I was at it awhile,” Darren admitted. “I was sweating a little. I was somewhere else.”

“That rat was a mess. That rat was a Frisbee. Tell our newlyweds here what you said once you stopped.”

“I really don’t remember saying anything, Sara.”

“Claims he doesn’t remember because he’s ashamed. I try and tell him—”

Darren stood up. “You want another beer?” he said to Josette. “You want another whiskey?” he said to me. “You get nothing,” he said to Sara.

He gathered empties and left for the kitchen, shutting the sliding glass door behind him. The thermos-shaped speaker on the table, stammering, severed its Bluetooth connection with his phone. A few minutes later, he’d return with the drinks: a beer, two bourbons, a Negroni for his wife.

“So, a Frisbee,” I said, once he’d gone inside.

“A Frisbee,” Sara said. She grabbed us each by a wrist. “I can see it from the tub. Completely disgusting. That’s the least of my worries, though, O.K.? Darren—his face. Oh God. Contorted. Frozen on the bottom, frowning like a fish. Jumping all over the place on top. Scariest part is his shoulders keep moving. Up and down, up and down. He isn’t holding on to the plunger anymore—his hands are at his sides—but these shoulder movements, they’re close enough to when he was using the thing that maybe he thinks he’s still using it? Like, maybe he’s having a seizure? A stroke? Something medical. That’s what I’m thinking. Something major. Something’s really wrong. The good times are over. Everything’s gonna be hard from now on. I go, ‘Darren? Baby? Darren? You there?’

“He nods at the toilet. . . . ‘Look how they massacred my boy,’ he says.”

CHAIR

The first conversation I had with Hattie Grant was near the end of September, 2001, a month or so into my first year of grad school. I asked her how her teaching assignment was going, and she said that a freshman had turned in an essay about self-esteem in which “self-esteem” was spelled “self of steam,” but that wasn’t the punch line. This was the punch line: the essay was plagiarized.

My sisters would like this woman, I thought.

I’d had that thought only three times before, and each instance had predicted a relatively long-term monogamous relationship. The M.F.A. program we attended was small, though, and the friends we had in common were the only friends we had in the entire Northeast, so our flirting was timid. Much of the time, I thought I might be imagining its being reciprocal. I wasn’t sure I could distinguish signal from noise, call from response, abiding politeness from receptivity. There’d be a lingering smile or a hug good night—maybe. Or at the dive we’d all meet at a few times a week, I’d buy a round for the group, and Hattie would help me bring it back to the table. Or we’d both “need” the single-user unisex bathroom—or actually need it—when the line got long.

A season of that. A touch more than a season. A whole semester and a winter break.

•

One January night, first week back in classes, we snorted some crushed Dilaudid and fucked.

In the morning, while I was cooking breakfast, a mouse blurred out from under the broiler and squeezed itself between the wall and the fridge. Next thing I knew, I was standing on a chair across the table from Hattie, hugging myself and breathing loudly, watching liquid omelette crawl the crooked floor.

I pushed out some laugh sounds, dismounted the chair. Hattie helped me clean up and walked home.

•

That evening, I arrived late to the bar, Hattie wasn’t there, and I started to worry that she wouldn’t show up: that I’d disappointed her, become a regret. A wilting indoorsman who lived amid filth.

I got wasted fast, inadvertently. In fact I had, to prevent my getting wasted, substituted, at Darren’s suggestion, lower-A.B.V. Amaretto sours for my usual bonded Old Grand-Dad-and-waters, but it was difficult to drink those sours slowly, and my liver, I guess, was still cleaning out Dilaudid.

When Hattie appeared—at last, at last—I was stupid with joy and I kissed her on the mouth, right in front of all our friends.

She pushed me, hard, and made a terrible gagging sound. Rushed out the back.

•

Our friends were livid. Scorning me all the way through the door. “Hell’s wrong with you, Levin?” “The fuck are you thinking?” “You can’t just do that.”

Outside, Hattie was catching her breath, bent over a snowbank onto which she kept spitting. The five of us encircled her. I said her name. She waved me off, said, “Back. Get back.”

“Hit the bricks, man.” “You heard her.” “Take. A hike.”

I turned to go. She grabbed my sleeve.

“No,” she said. “Just . . . don’t watch me do this.”

We back-stepped, waited. Hattie spit some more, straightened, and asked for gum. Darren gave her a stick. “Him, too,” she said. Darren gave me a stick. Then everyone else.

We stood on the salted parking lot, chewing.

“Did one of you tell Adam, ‘Take a hike’?” Hattie said.

“That was me,” Darren said. “Except only after Peter told him, ‘Hit the bricks,’ though.”

“I thought he was cruisin’ for a bruisin’,” Peter said.

“Oh yeah. Me, too. I was ready to feed him a sandwich,” Darren said. “A real knuckle sandwich.”

Peter shoved me at Tim. Tim shoved me at Darren. “Get bent,” I said, and everything was fine. I walked Hattie home.

•

This is what I learned while I walked Hattie home:

Palmetto bugs are colossal roaches that thrive in hot climates and smell like Amaretto. They prefer the outdoors, but sometimes get lost and turn up in your house. If, as a five-year-old girl in Gainesville, Florida, you step into a steaming, oddly redolent shower, feel a light tap way up on your thigh, reflexively grab whatever just tapped you, find in your fist a roach with the heft of an operable pencil stub, fling it away, find a sharply bent leg affixed by its barbs to your middle finger’s meaty bottom phalange, repeatedly try to shake the leg off, repeatedly fail to shake the leg off, then sit in the tub and cry and cry, you’ll become a lyric poet, and your stomach will, from that day forward, repeatedly try to empty itself whenever you catch the scent of Amaretto.

So, gum or no gum, no kiss good night.

We dated nine months.

•

I never encountered the mouse again. Before the end of the week, I’d forfeited my whole security deposit—two months’ rent; an eighth of what my fellowship paid me that year—and moved into a smaller, more expensive apartment.

PHONE

Josette and I were married by a judge in Chicago on Wednesday, August 15, 2012, and then we got lunch. Our witness snapped a photo, which I posted on Facebook.

Hattie called some hours later. We were on good terms—“Happy Birthday”-text terms—but we hadn’t spoken in long enough that we’d have had to catch up, and I wasn’t in the mood. I’d been taking calls from closer friends and family all day.

In her voice mail, she said that she and her husband had just bought a house, that if Josette and I ever came through Vancouver we could stay in their guest room as long as we wanted, and I wasn’t surprised not to doubt her sincerity.

•

The following summer, we visited Darren and Sara in Brooklyn and they told us about the rat and the plunger, which caused me to recall the mouse and the chair, and it wasn’t till then that I remembered Hattie’s voice mail.

•

I thought I’d call her in a couple of days, when we returned to Chicago. The next afternoon, though, alone in the kitchen—Darren was grading papers upstairs, our wives were swimming at the Red Hook pool—I looked at her Facebook, which was filled with condolences. Her sister had died. It wasn’t clear how.

I’d never met the sister, didn’t think I knew her name, but I seemed to remember that she’d had a hard time. Mental illness or credit cards, perhaps violent boyfriends.

Hattie’s most recent post, from six months earlier, was a childhood photo of the two of them hugging. Above it were the words “I can’t believe that she’s gone.”

The post preceding that one was a link to a video that compiled every instance in which the word “pishadoo” was used on “The Sopranos.”

•

Darren came down to refill his coffee, and I paused the “pishadoo” video and up-scrolled. Showed him my screen. Asked if he’d known.

He said that he hadn’t and wished I hadn’t shown him. This was the No. 1 reason that he’d closed all his social-media accounts. He didn’t want to have to think about whether or how he should respond to news of illness and loss that the bearer of the news hadn’t borne to him directly. Do people, he wondered, post such news to save themselves the inconvenience of calling those from whom they seek comfort? Or is it more like they do it to save themselves the strain of having to perform being comforted by those who’d offer comfort by phone? If he knew it was the former, he’d know to call. If he knew it was the latter, he’d know not to call and would post a condolence.

“So what’ll you do?”

“Well, since I’m not on Facebook,” he said, “it’s either call or don’t call. . . . Six months after the loss? Hattie? We’re not that close. Haven’t spoken in at least five years. I’m going with don’t call.”

“You’ll pretend you don’t know.”

“I won’t pretend shit. I’m just not gonna call.”

“O.K.”

“Faux pas?” he said.

“No idea. No one close to me’s ever died.”

“Me, neither. But, I mean . . . I don’t think that I’d want Hattie calling me six months after someone I loved died just to offer condolences,” Darren said. “What if I’m in the middle of a happy day? Or a real depressing one, for that matter? I’m gonna want to think about my dead loved one being dead? Go through that whole script for the zillionth time? Odds are not high. I think next time I talk to her, if that even ever happens, I’ll say something in passing if it feels appropriate. Something like ‘By the way, I heard about your sister. I’m sorry for your loss.’ Yeah. That’s the move.”

“Makes sense,” I said. “Thanks.”

“I’m not talking about you, man. You dated her a year. And you’re on social media.”

“Nine months,” I said. “More than ten years ago. Plus I barely check Facebook. Obviously. I just found out right now about her sister.”

“Still.”

“So I should call, then.”

“I’m not saying that, either,” Darren said. “I have no idea what you should do. But you can’t go by what I do. Even if we stood in identical relation to Hattie, I’ve got a more relaxed, friendlier demeanor than you. People have a far easier time believing that my interpersonal blunders owe to innocent mistakes or absent-mindedness. Everything you do is presumed deliberate. Probably that owes to your mean fuckin’ face.”

“Well, that’s unfair.”

“Meow meow, meow meow. At thirty everyone has the face he deserves.”

“That’s not . . . It’s ‘at fifty.’ I’m barely thirty-six.”

“Yeah, still. The look you’re giving me right now—”

“I’m not giving you a look.”

“It’s like you want to stamp on my face—forever.”

E-MAIL

Five years later, it was 2018, and Josette got hired to teach in Florida. We bought a house here in Gainesville, our first.

The day after the movers delivered our things, I encountered, while I was unpacking art books, a cockroach the length of my thumb, in the living room.

I dropped the lid of a banker’s box over it.

Josette came running in, panicked, from the kitchen. I told her what I’d seen, what was under the lid. She got a little angry: I’d shouted “Oh!” multiple times, she said, and she’d thought I’d been injured or was having a stroke.

I hadn’t been aware that I’d shouted anything. I said I was sorry and offered her my cigarette.

She hadn’t smoked in a week, she said. She was trying to quit. Had I failed to notice?

I might have failed to notice. If I hadn’t failed to notice, I’d forgotten that I’d noticed.

Both accounts were bad, we agreed, but we argued a bit about which one was worse. I don’t remember who argued which side, just that mine was the loser, and before I got to say as much Josette’s back stiffened and some “Oh!” s ripped through me.

The roach had escaped.

It must have climbed through one of the punch-out handles. Now it was atop the lid, approaching us.

The approach was slow enough to seem considered: like, maybe the roach, though curious about us, wasn’t convinced the feeling was mutual and knew that it needed to exercise caution. But probably the roach was perplexed and fatigued, caught between competing neurochemical directives: Flee from danger! vs. Suspend animation when overly cold!

Our A.C. was cranked.

•

“It’s too big,” Josette whispered, exhaling smoke.

“Too big,” I whispered back.

“Sure, it’s a present now, but when you unwrap it it turns into socks and shirts.”

What we meant by “too big” was “too big to kill,” by which we meant the roach was big enough to (1) suffer pain visibly, perhaps even audibly, and (2) survive being stamped on once.

“But it’s not like a spider. We can’t just ignore it.”

“It’s nothing like a spider. Something has to be done.”

Our parrot, atop his cage in the corner (when we’re home and awake, we leave the cage open), emitted a series of sibilant fricatives, mimicking our whispering. These were some of our favorite sounds that he made, sounds that we wanted him to make more frequently, so we looked his way and whispered, “Good bird! ”

Our plan developed rapidly.

•

The previous evening, hoping to still a twitch of buyer’s remorse, we’d tested the reputedly unmatched power of our brand-new bagless hand vac’s suck on the contents remaining at the bottom of a box marked “drawer junk, office.”

The suck had proved impressive, the twitch had been stilled, and we’d mounted the charger on the wall by the birdcage.

Our plan was this: Josette would watch the roach while I tiptoed over to the corner for the vacuum, then I’d zap the roach up and free it out in the yard.

I still believe the plan would have been a success had I thought to first empty the junk from the cannister. The roach, however, died in the cyclone, battered and punctured by drachmas and pushpins.

We threw it away.

•

I hadn’t smelled Amaretto, and neither had Josette, so that night I didn’t sleep a lot. I kept waking up to search the Internet, more and more afraid that the roach we’d killed hadn’t been a palmetto bug; that it had been the kind of roach that prefers the indoors; that it was one of hundreds or maybe even thousands breeding in the hollows of our unfamiliar house.

My fear was unreasonable. Unscientific. Other than a palmetto bug, no roach endemic to North America could grow to the size of the one we’d killed. But between my insomnia, the conflicting information Wikipedia offered, the scores of (mis?)labelled photos I reluctantly maximized, and the pseudo-calming copy on pest-control sites, I got pretty worked up and started doubting my experience. Perhaps the same mechanism that had pushed the involuntary “Oh!”s from my mouth had doused my optic nerves with something potent that had caused them to exaggerate.

•

In the morning, I e-mailed Hattie. I’d been planning to anyway, had thought it would be almost inconsiderate not to. After all, we’d just moved to the not so big city where she had grown up.

The letter was long. I covered tons of ground: the spookiness of falling asleep in a house after decades in apartments; musings on where she might have gone, as a kid, to see gators, play soccer, eat ice cream; the lucky feeling of living blocks from a bar where smoking was allowed and popcorn was free; the pleasure of learning that this bar used to be the favorite haunt of Harry Crews, whose early novels we both held in high regard; the ready availability of high-end bourbon that would, in Chicago, if and when you were able to find it, cost five times as much; the mysterious power, especially at dusk, of the cloud-plumped sky, which, although it looked little like the sky of my childhood, triggered memories of that childhood so rich and high-def that I was able to observe them from multiple angles—all the rooms and landscapes and faces they contained—just by shifting my gaze.

Nearly six hundred words of that kind of thing.

Then three hundred more on the roach in our living room. I tried really hard to be funny in that part, was self-effacing about my state of alarm, recalled for her the time with the mouse in my kitchen, admitted that I’d lost a night of sleep and was seeking reassurance.

The letter closed as follows:

Hattie Grant! It’s been forever. How’s Vancouver? How’s poetry? How’s the whole thing? Is it possible the roach could have been a palmetto bug even though neither of us smelled Amaretto?
Yours, Adam

At 11:37 p.m. E.S.T., Hattie sent her response:

Palmetto bugs smell like Amaretto.
A lot of things have happened. Like my sister died and I didn’t hear from you.

•

I was surprised to learn she’d been holding that against me. I hadn’t imagined my failure to condole could have hurt her so much. I hadn’t imagined it would hurt her at all. Nor can I say that I understood—or, for that matter, that I understand today—why it should have hurt her.

But that didn’t mean she didn’t deserve an apology, or that I wasn’t apologetic. She did. I was.

Whether what I’d done, or hadn’t, should have caused Hattie pain didn’t matter. I knew that.

Know that.

But here was a problem: she didn’t mention pain, so for me to bring her pain up in the course of an apology could be presumptuous. For me to talk about having hurt her could be self-aggrandizing and presumptuous. Yet if I talked about the pain that I felt upon learning that I’d hurt her—or even about simply fearing that I’d hurt her—I’d be guilty of making the apology about me, and I was supposed to be humbling myself before her. Wasn’t that what people wanted from apologies? For the apologizer to humble himself?

Or maybe it wasn’t?

I tried to think of apologies I’d gotten from others that had satisfied me. I had little to draw on. I don’t demand, let alone receive, many.

There was only one I was able to think of.

•

I had a true-blue dickhead in a workshop I taught once; a terrible piece of shit of a person.

Another student in the workshop had turned in a story in which the protagonist struggled with bulimia. A very badly written story, to be sure. Confessional melodrama with oblivious mother, saintly doctor, selfish father, and child abuse. A story that had clearly been written for the deadliest pair of sub-literary reasons (to process a trauma and to educate readers), and this annoyed everyone, of course it did.

But it was also an autobiographical story. The protagonist’s name and the author’s rhymed, both enjoyed knitting, had the same tattoo (though on opposite limbs), the same “ironic” crush on Dwayne (the Rock) Johnson, and came from the same small town in Wisconsin.

I run a fairly conventional workshop. The authors stay quiet while the rest of the class discusses their work, and then, at the end of the discussion, the authors are free to ask questions or make clarifications.

Most of them decline to say anything but “Thank you.”

This one spoke.

“So I guess . . .” she said. “Well. It sounds like none of you thought that my protagonist was likable or empathetic?”

And the dickhead student, who before then hadn’t said a word about the story—had only sneered and shaken his head—said, “Put it like this. The only real thought I had about her at all was Kill yourself, fat girl.”

So I kicked him out.

•

But you can’t really do that. Kick them out. Not where I was teaching. You’re just not allowed. They pay too much tuition. The dickhead knew that, but also he didn’t. When he e-mailed to say that I couldn’t kick him out for “simply stating [his] opinion,” I told him he was incorrect, that I could kick him out, and that I could, furthermore, fail him for missing the classes that he’d miss now that I had kicked him out. I said that, if he wanted to get back in to class, he had to write three heartfelt, deeply reflective letters of apology: one to the author of the story, one to the class, and one to me.

So he did. And it was great. For me, at least.

It was great not because I got to help some twenty-two-year-old dickhead grow into a kinder, better young man—that is not what happened; he remained a dickhead, albeit a somewhat quieter one while in my workshop—but because I knew that he, like all of us (and maybe even more so than some of us), couldn’t help judging his own value by his relative power, and it gave me great pleasure to witness him witness himself overpowered, forced to lie about himself: to attest to beliefs he didn’t hold, to profess possessing feelings he didn’t have.

It was a pleasure to humiliate him, I’m saying. To watch him act humble. And I believe I enjoyed it far more than I would have if he had actually been humble.

•

Hopefully, I’m not the kindest guy you’ll ever meet.

Probably I’m even worse than my face.

•

But I do love my friends, and I did feel miserable for having hurt Hattie, and perhaps especially because I’d done so unintentionally. And so I spent some hours writing an apology that—despite how sincerely humbled I was by the realization that my negligence had caused a friend of mine pain—must have been insufficient because she, for all my efforts, humiliated me by way of never responding, which I guess I deserved, and even, it would seem, continue to deserve.

MASK

A day or two after the shootings in Kenosha, we discovered that our Publix sold prosciutto di Parma in vacuum-sealed packages. The price was an insult: near double what we used to pay in Chicago to have the same amount sliced off the leg. To buy it would have made us feel defeated by Florida.

Then a couple-three Sundays prior to the election, a colleague of Josette’s was coming over with his wife to drink on our porch. We’d forgotten they were coming till they texted at noon to confirm for six o’clock. Six meant apéro—all parties involved were French except me—and we wanted to serve them some good, small food that they could rest assured we hadn’t handled.

Here we saw our opportunity to buy the prosciutto without losing face. Along with their very own unopened package, each couple would, at their end of the table, have an uncut cantaloupe, a plastic box of shaved Grana Padano, and a brand-new bag of these crispy imported saltines we like.

We had to go to Publix anyway. We hadn’t been shopping since the previous weekend.

•

When the list is long, I’m in charge of the produce, not because I have a special talent for choosing it but because I take twice as much time as Josette to find things on shelves. If I finish before her, I go to the dairy case. The eggs, at least, are always where you think they’ll be. Ditto the butters.

So I went to the produce, where a sweaty, luminescently heat-rashed family in tank tops and Crocs were crowding the melons. By the time they dispersed, I’d found everything else: onions, potatoes, tomatoes, and apples.

There were dozens of cantaloupes from which to select. I knew that, unimpeded, ripe melon smells rotten, and overripe melon more rotten than that, so it stood to reason that overripe melon, through the barrier of a mask, should smell like ripe melon, whereas ripe melon shouldn’t smell at all.

Except unripe melon wouldn’t smell at all, either.

I slouched before the cantaloupes, perplexed and fatigued, stubbornly and incorrectly convinced that a sane, alternative way to choose was only one simple insight away.

Between the operability of my intellect and the amount of time that I’ve been wearing a mask, the correlation is negative.

Having worn the mask for about nine minutes, I was in a kind of sweet spot: punchy enough to consider lowering the mask to engage in naked sniffing, yet astute enough to see that (1) to do so would be reckless, and (2) I wouldn’t remain that astute for much longer.

I walked away without any cantaloupes.

•

Josette found me trying to locate mozzarella. She said, “You’re gonna start eating yogurt again?”

“They hide the mozzarella.”

She pointed it out. I put a couple in my cart. She frowned at the cart.

“Yeah, no cantaloupe for us,” I said. “It’s impossible.”

“I thought I saw a stack of them.”

“I know,” I said. “I’m sorry.”

Then a man at the nearest snack-cake endcap sang, full throated, the chorus to Otis Redding’s worst song, but with different lyrics: “He’s sorry for the cantaloupe, bae!”

I’d normally have appreciated that kind of thing, and Josette would have, too, but this genius was wearing his mask on his wrist.

“This fucking guy,” Josette said. “I hate this fucking guy.”

“Fuck you, guy,” I said.

“He’d like to do me in the dock of my bay!” the guy sang, even louder, right as one of the pimpled, inbred simps who’d crowded the melons was passing between us, her cart full of Slim Jims and Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, the top of her mask folded under her nose. She paused beside the singer and told him she thought he had a beautiful voice.

“We lose,” Josette said.

“Not if they die soon, we don’t,” someone else said—an elderly woman standing behind me, reaching out over her basket for cream.

I cheered up a lot.

•

The prosciutto was a hit. No one seemed to miss the melons. We decided to drink more and order a pizza.

While I placed the order, Manon used our bathroom. When she came back outside, she told me our parrot was screaming my name.

“Levin?” Josette asked.

“No,” Manon said, laughing, “Adam.”

“He was doing this while I was in there, too!” Luc said.

Under the table, Josette kicked my ankle. She thought I should go in and tend to our parrot. I was comfortable, though, and we were entertaining guests, so I pretended I hadn’t noticed the kick. When she kicked me a second time, I crossed my legs.

•

I don’t teach our parrot words. He just picks them up, and only very occasionally. Mostly he whistles and beeps and shrieks.

“Levin,” like “Hello,” as well as most of the other words that he knows, means something like “I’m here with you,” or “Tell me you’re here with me,” or “Here we both are.” He’d been saying and screaming it for fifteen years.

“Adam,” however, he’d learned only after Josette moved in with us. It means he wants to be scratched at the base of his skull where neither his beak nor his claws can reach.

Rather, it means he wants me to scratch him there; anyone else who tries, he’ll bite.

•

In the delivery app, I’d added instructions for the driver to bring the pizzas round back, but fifty minutes later I received a text:

We did it! Success! Your no-contact delivery is at your front door!

So I raced through the house to collect the pizza before an anole or a roach breached the box.

•

Our parrot was perching on the rope-covered branch attached to his cage top, and not saying anything, let alone my name. In fact, he ignored me in favor of his wing, the left, which his head was tucked under, and which he seemed to be preening with above-average vigor but was actually harming, though I couldn’t have imagined that was what he was doing, because I’m too stupid or coldly optimistic or willfully blind.

Passing by him again, now bearing the pizza, I said, “Hey there, man,” and he gave no response. An all-time first. That made me nervous.

“Hey!” I said.

Again: no response.

Then a number of times—maybe fewer than you’d think; surely more, however, than I’d like to admit—I shouted his name, until at last he stopped doing the thing that he’d been doing, which was plucking at the root of his left wing’s longest, bluest feather.

That is: I shouted his name until he’d plucked out his left wing’s longest, bluest feather.

At which point he faced me, stood on one foot, then removed with the raised foot the feather from his beak, leaned forward a little, inclining his head, and, while he scratched at his skull with the quill’s bloody end, said, “Adam Levin.” ♦

“The Tragedy of Macbeth,” Reviewed: Joel Coen’s Sanitized Shakespeare

Coen’s stripped-down adaptation sets out to normalize Shakespearean language, but he ends up going too far.

Frances McDormand and Joel Coen on the set of “The Tragedy of Macbeth.”
In this “Macbeth,” the sets are given more centrality and responsibility than the actors.Photograph by Alison Cohen Rosa / Courtesy Apple TV+

Joel Coen’s “The Tragedy of Macbeth” is the kind of movie that a hero of the Coen brothers, Preston Sturges, mocked eighty years ago in his great film “Sullivan’s Travels,” about a famous comedy director who strains after relevance by turning his attention to a super-serious social drama. “Macbeth,” however, is more than a serious drama; it’s a ready-made showcase for inspired actors, and Coen’s cast is filled with some of the best. It’s a special form of cinematic torment when great performers are stuck in a misbegotten production, because the intrinsic pleasure of seeing them is overshadowed by a sense of waste, of artistry neglected by directorial willfulness or vanity. Denzel Washington, as Macbeth, and Frances McDormand, as Lady Macbeth, fit their performances to the movie’s narrow view of Shakespearean cinema, which reduces grandeur to petulance and poetry to decoration. The over-all effect is of a striving toward a high style that isn’t achieved—and that undercuts the mighty import of the play.

The movie is filmed in black-and-white because, you know, colors hadn’t been invented yet in Shakespeare’s time. There has been a revival of fine black-and-white filmmaking this year, as in Mike Mills’s “C’mon C’mon” and much of Wes Anderson’s “The French Dispatch, ” where the abstracted format places the characters’ variegated talk in high relief. In “The Tragedy of Macbeth,” Coen, too, emphasizes language with his spare, stark sets and artificial, high-contrast lighting. Yet his focus on language is paradoxical, because his skillful reduction of the play ends up foregrounding the action and eclipsing Shakespeare’s rhetorical fancy. Coen transforms the play’s poetry into dialogue, spoken by actors who seem stranded with the task of merely delivering their lines. Coen sets out to normalize Shakespearean language, but he ends up going too far. His actors speak in conversational voices that, in spurning theatricality, also leave out nuanced expression. And Coen films them as human pillars frozen in place, line-dispensers staring straight ahead as he frames them with the frontal blandness of a network television program.

VIDEO FROM THE NEW YORKER

 

The sets are given more centrality and responsibility than the actors. The film’s décor—with its sharp lines, sharp edges, plain walls, high loops, and bright vistas—suggests the architecture imagined by de Chirico, and Coen makes use of its portals to fabricate German Expressionist effects of shadow and light. Greater attention and forethought appears to have gone into creating thin stripes of window-light than to the positioning and gesturing and diction of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth in the same frame. No current passes between this Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. They occupy the same room and the same space but not the same movie. McDormand isn’t guided to display a sufficiently ruthless temperament; her performance lacks command, urgency, rage, and madness. This Lady Macbeth is never as strong as when she orders subordinates about, and her mad scene comes off as an actor’s exercise. Washington seems to scale down his own performance to match. His calm, magisterial authority pervades the film from beginning to end, but he’s largely stuck in place as rigidly as the other actors. Macbeth’s martial bonhomie seems unruffled by conflict, untroubled by the weird sisters’ prophecy, unmoved by Lady Macbeth’s arachnid schemes. Washington’s at his best when he’s most casual, when sheer ordinariness breaks through the line-running, as in his spontaneous-seeming gesture, early on, of clapping Banquo on the shoulder.

It isn’t only the sets that are bare. The intellectual framework within which the movie is set is similarly insubstantial. Coen reconceives “Macbeth” as a stereotypical indie relationship drama, rather than a symphony of voices or a chamber work of contrapuntal dialectic. Fortunately, among the supporting cast, there are a few thrilling exceptions: Macduff (Corey Hawkins), Lady Macduff (Moses Ingram), and their son (Ethan Hutchison) reach a sublime pitch of expression, their conversational tones taut with passion. (Also, Kathryn Hunter delivers a fierce performance as all three witches that’s nonetheless subordinated to trickery.) The highlights of the film are the ones that most resemble conventional action sequences, but ones with piquant touches of staging, as when Macbeth duels with Siward (Richard Short) before murdering him with an offhand gesture. The climactic confrontation of Macbeth and Macduff, which takes place not on a battlefield but on a high and narrow walkway, is juiced with a combination of dramatic passion and martial precision. It falls apart, though, with a flourish of eye-rolling vulgarity, when Macduff slashes off Macbeth’s head and the dying king’s crown goes flying through the air in slow motion.

This is only one, and not the last, in a series of kitschy effects that runs throughout the film—including Macbeth ducking a trio of crows; Lady Macbeth burning her husband’s letter and watching the wind carry it aloft from the window to the stars; Macbeth misperceiving a door handle that’s shaped like a dagger to be a real one; and, most hilariously, mad Macbeth, observing the wood advancing toward Dunsinane, as a gust of wind opens the tall glass doors of his castle and showers him with a billow of leaves. These cheesy symbolic tricks take the place of a textured and unified directorial conception. Coen doesn’t make meaningful use of silences, gazes, pauses. He doesn’t conjure a teeming realm of battles and intrigues. His “Macbeth” is rattled-off Shakespeare with the rhetoric toned down and the classical references pruned so as not to send viewers scurrying to their footnotes. It’s a neat and clean medieval drama, a sanitized “Macbeth” in which the absence of ornament and tangle, the sharp and rational focus on clear action, is the mark of rigorous earnestness. Yet Coen’s straining for seriousness and yearning for importance breaks through to the other side with the howlers of unintentional comedy.

The Best Books We Read in 2021

Illustration of hand writing
Illustration by June Park

“De Gaulle,” by Julian Jackson

Black and white cover image of an archival photograph of Charles de Gaulle in military uniform with men in suits and the...
2021 in Review

New Yorker writers reflect on the year’s highs and lows.

This superb biography of the former French leader brilliantly explores how he managed to dominate his country’s political life for decades. Jackson’s account of De Gaulle’s youth and conservative milieu only enhances one’s respect for De Gaulle’s stand, in 1940, against the Vichy government, and his account of De Gaulle’s war years in London makes clear why Churchill and Roosevelt found him almost impossible to deal with. The second half of the book—which deals with De Gaulle’s return to power during the conflict in Algeria, and his somewhat autocratic presidency—is even more compelling; together the two halves form as good an argument as one can make for believing that a single individual can alter the course of history. But Jackson, with sublime prose and a sure grasp of the politics and personalities of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Republics, never allows that argument to overshadow De Gaulle’s extremely difficult and domineering personality, and why it never entirely fit the democracy he helped rescue and then presided over. —Isaac Chotiner


“Segu: A Novel,” by Maryse Condé

In a year that began with an attempted coup, it was good to remember that zealotry and factionalism have menaced every society—and often make for excellent storytelling, too. Maryse Condé’s 1984 novel “Segu” opens in the ruthlessly competitive capital of the eighteenth-century Bambara Empire, in present-day Mali, where the ruling mansa uneasily monitors the rise of Islam and the mysterious arrival of white explorers. Griots sing the exploits of a noble family, the Traores, whose sons are destined to suffer every consequence of modernity’s upheavals. Condé, who was born in Guadeloupe but spent years in West Africa, is the great novelist of the Afro-Atlantic world, and “Segu,” her masterpiece, is the mother of diaspora epics. The novel follows the Traores as they are scattered across the globe, from Moroccan universities to Brazilian sugarcane fields, pulled every which way by their ambitions, lusts, and religious yearnings. Condé excels at evoking the tensions of a world in flux, whether it’s the ambivalence of a man torn between his family gods and Islam’s cosmopolitanism or the cynicism of a wealthy mixed woman who sells slaves on the coast of Senegal. Despite its magisterial scope, “Segu” is also warm and gossipy, and completely devoid of the sentimental attachment to heritage that turns too many family sagas into ancestral stations of the cross. Condé has a wicked sense of humor that doesn’t play favorites, especially with her mostly male protagonists, whose naïve adventurism and absent-minded cruelty (especially toward women) profoundly shape the history that eludes their grasp. —Julian Lucas


“Upper Bohemia: A Memoir,” by Hayden Herrera

Black and white image of two children leaning out of a vintage car window. The title of the book covers part of the image.

I came upon this recent memoir while browsing the shelves at the Brooklyn Public Library, and was immediately drawn in by its cover: a black-and-white photograph of two young girls, perched out the back window of a sports car, whose ruffled blouses and blond hair suggested a kind of patrician free-spiritedness. Herrera is known for her biographies of artists such as Frida Kahlo and Arshile Gorky, but in “Upper Bohemia” she turns to the story of her own family, a high-Wasp clan as privileged as it was screwed up. During the nineteen-forties and fifties, Herrera and her older sister Blair were shunted, willy-nilly, between their divorced parents, both of whom were possessed of great looks, flighty temperaments, and intense narcissism. Her mother and father—each married five times—often disregarded the girls, treating them as considerably less significant than their own artistic or sexual fulfillment, whose pursuit took them through urbane, artsy circles in Cape Cod and New York, Mexico City and Cambridge. Herrera tells a fascinating cultural history of a particular milieu, but what is most affecting is her ability to channel, in sensate detail, the life of a lonely child trying to make sense of the world around her. Her tone carries a measure of detachment, but I often found it immensely moving. “Blair and I had not spent much time with our mother since the fall of 1948 when, after putting us on a train to go to boarding school in Vermont, she drove to Mexico to get a divorce,” she writes. “Whenever our mother did turn up, she brought presents from Mexico, animals made of clay or embroidered blouses for Blair and me. She always made everything sound wonderful. She was like sunshine. Blair and I moved toward her like two Icaruses, but we never touched her golden rays.” This is a beautiful book. —Naomi Fry


“Long Live the Post Horn!,” by Vigdis Hjorth, translated by Charlotte Barslund

Photograph of a hand reaching up to a phone on a desk where two framed pictures one of a building and one of a redheaded...

Vigdis Hjorth’s “Long Live the Post Horn!”—a swift, darkly funny novel about existential despair, collective commitment, and the Norwegian postal service—buoyed me during this strange, roiling year. Ellinor, the novel’s narrator, is a thirty-five-year-old public-relations consultant whose projects and relationships are characterized by a bleak, steady detachment. When her colleague Dag leaves town, Ellinor grudgingly inherits one of his clients: Postkom, the Norwegian Post and Communications Union, which wants to fight an E.U. directive that would usher in competition from the private sector. For Ellinor, the project begins creakily; gradually, she gets swept up. What results is a personal awakening of sorts—a newfound desire to live, connect, and communicate—and a genuinely gripping treatment of bureaucratic tedium. “Long Live the Post Horn!” is rich with political and philosophical inquiries, and gentle with their delivery. They arrive in the form of dissociative diary entries, awkward Christmas gift exchanges, and the world’s loneliest description of a sex toy (“he had bought the most popular model online, the one with the highest ratings”). There’s also a long yarn told by a postal worker, which makes for a wonderful, near-mythic embedded narrative. “What exactly did ‘real’ mean?” Ellinor wonders, experiencing a crisis of authenticity while desperately trying to produce P.R. copy for the Real Thing, an American restaurant chain. “Was the man behind the Real Thing himself the real thing, I wondered? I googled him; he looked like every other capitalist.” Expansive and mundane—this novel was, for me, sheer joy. —Anna Wiener


“Free: A Child and a Country at the End of History,” by Lea Ypi

Some people feel free to imagine their lives unbounded by history. Lea Ypi did not have that luxury. Born in 1979 in Albania, then one of the most sealed-off countries in the Communist bloc, she had little reason to question her love for Stalin until the day, in 1990, that she went to hug his statue and found that protesters had decapitated it. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the edifice of Albanian socialism collapsed, too. Even more disorienting was the fact that Ypi’s parents turned out never to have believed in it—they’d just talked a good line to prevent their dissident, bourgeois backgrounds from tainting her prospects. Ypi’s new book, “Free,” out in the U.K. and to be published stateside in January, is a tart and tender childhood memoir. But it’s also a work of social criticism, and a meditation on how to live with purpose in a world where history, far from having ended, seems energized by disinformation. Ypi, a political theorist at the London School of Economics, is interested in how categories of thought—“proletariat,” for instance—were replaced by reductive rallying cries like “freedom.” “When freedom finally arrived, it was like a dish served frozen,” she writes. “We chewed little, swallowed fast and remained hungry.” Her parents became leaders in the new democratic opposition but lost their savings to a shady investment scheme, and when the country devolved into civil war, in 1997, her formidable mother had to leave for Italy, where she worked cleaning houses. When Ypi studied abroad, her leftist friends didn’t want to hear about her experience: their socialism would be done right, and Albania’s was best forgotten. But Ypi is not in the business of forgetting—neither the repression of the system she grew up in nor the harshness of capitalism. Her book is a quick read, but, like Marx’s spectre haunting Europe, it stays with you. —Margaret Talbot


“Harrow: A Novel,” by Joy Williams

I have already written at length about the wonder of Joy Williams’s most recent novel, “Harrow.” But I feel compelled to re-state my case. The book is set in a world that climate change has transformed into a grave, and it’s dense with wild oddity, mystical intelligence, and with a keenness and beauty that start at the sentence level but sink down to the book’s core. “Harrow” tracks a teen-ager named Khristen across the desert, where she eventually meets up with a sort of “terrorist hospice” of retirees determined to avenge the earth. Her companion, Jeffrey, is either a ten-year-old with an alcoholic mother or the Judge of the Underworld. Williams, the real Judge of the Underworld, moonlights here as a theologist, animal-rights activist, mad oracle, social historian, and philosopher of language. Her comic set pieces—e.g., a birthday party in which the hastily provisioned cake depicts a replica, in icing, of Goya’s “Saturn Devouring His Son”—unlock tears, and her elegies wrest out laughter, if only because it’s absurd to find such pleasure in a study of devastation. When the book was over, I missed the awful, cleansing darkness of its eyes upon me. —Katy Waldman


“A Mad Love: An Introduction to Opera,” by Vivien Schweitzer

My late grandfather spent most of his weekends holed up in his study—a sunken room, adorned with a ratty Chesterfield sofa and posters from various international chess championships—listening to opera. As a child, I found this practice impenetrable. I didn’t understand the languages blaring out of his record player, and I wasn’t old enough to grasp the rhapsodic emotion inherent in the form. Opera is about Big Feelings; it radiates youth, yet it remains a passion that most people age into. (Perhaps that has something to do with the cost of a Met ticket.) Then the pandemic hit, and suddenly all I wanted to do was listen to Maria Callas, whose unhinged arias clicked into place as the soundtrack for my anxious, pacing mind. My grandfather was no longer around to discuss my fixation, but, fortunately, I found Vivien Schweitzer’s 2018 book, “A Mad Love,” which is a sparkling cultural history of opera’s greatest composers and their obsessive brains. Beginning with Monteverdi and barrelling through to Philip Glass, the book is about the blood and sweat that goes into writing an opera (an often lunatic effort, it seems), and about the feverish attachment fans have to the resulting work. I found myself tearing through it in the bathtub, delighted not just to inhale the gossipy backstories of the “Ring” cycle and “La Traviata” but to join the society of opera nuts of which my grandfather was a card-carrying member. I finally understood what he was listening for on those Sunday afternoons: anguish, joy, love, betrayal. —Rachel Syme


“Not One Day,” by Anne Garréta, translated by Emma Ramadan

It is a peculiar feeling, reading a book that seems to have been written for you but wasn’t. The friend who recommended the Oulipian writer Anne Garréta’s “Not One Day” must have known that I would find this merger of intimacy and anonymity irresistible. While recovering from an accident that has left her body immobile, the book’s narrator, a nomadic literature professor, decides that she will write about the women she has desired. Each woman will be identified by a letter of the alphabet; to each letter, she will devote five hours a day for precisely one month. She knows that narrating desire requires discipline—and she finds that desire always, always exceeds it. Letters are skipped and jumbled, so that the table of contents reads, “B, X, E, K, L, D, H, N, Y, C, I, Z.” The narrator takes a long break from the project and, when she comes back to it, one of the stories she writes is fiction. Slowly, the categories that keep desire and its creation of “our little selves” in check—self and other, past and present, man and woman, heterosexual and homosexual, solipsistic alienation and shared passion—get wonderfully and terrifyingly muddled. Instead of a confession written in the familiar “alphabet of desire,” we glimpse the making of a whole new language. I could smother the book with adoration—it is aching and maddening, intelligent and wildly sexy. But it would be simpler to say that reading it is like meeting someone new and feeling the world come undone. Here is a book that insists that the desire for fiction, for its mimicry and its mirage, is indistinguishable from the desire for another person. —Merve Emre


“Tom Stoppard: A Life,” by Hermione Lee

For a time this year, Lee’s newest biography just seemed to be around, and during a couple weeks when I was ostensibly reading other things, I found myself opening it in odd moments—over breakfast, waiting for the pasta pot to boil—until I realized that I’d worked my way through the whole thing. The biography is nearly nine hundred pages, so my experience of it as a side pleasure, a lark, is a testament to Lee’s craft. Much of Stoppard’s history is widely known: his passage from peripatetic refugee youth to Bristol newspaperman and radio-drama hack, and then, with “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead,” to fame and fortune as a witty playwright. What Lee adds is detail, particularly around interesting career turns, plus a big serving of her own admiration. (Not entirely to its credit, I think, this is the sort of biography that everyone dreams of having written about them; our protagonist is always brilliant, invariably a delight. Stoppard, on reading it, was apparently moved to clarify that he was “not as nice as people think.”) What Stoppard contributes is an air of whimsy on the ride up his great tower of success. There is pleasant cohesion to his body of work, with its blend of bookish intellection and breezy verbal humor. Off the page, it becomes clear, he pairs casual social climbing with the cheery pursuit of material ease, often courtesy of Hollywood. He has maintained a stream of scriptwriting work, on projects such as the Indiana Jones franchise, and his constant efforts to boondoggle more luxury out of what’s offered him—his budget must be increased to accommodate a high-end hotel suite, he tells a studio, “because I prefer not to sleep and work in the same room”—are among the smaller charms of this book. Lee’s biography is ultimately such a pleasure, though, because it is a writer’s book: full of respect for the thrill of the craft, able to keep the progress of the life and the work aloft in the right balance. To read it is to be excited about the act of literature all over again. —Nathan Heller


“Novel 11, Book 18,” by Dag Solstad, translated by Sverre Lyngstad

I first encountered “Novel 11, Book 18,” by the great Norwegian novelist Dag Solstad, on a bright, warm day, on a walk with some friends who were visiting from out of town. Buzzed on the weather and the handsome paperback cover—deep green on cream—and, above all, on the nearness of my friends, I bought it. It was almost funny, then, to discover how relentlessly bleak the book is. Published in 1992, but released in the United States this year, by New Directions, with an English translation by Sverre Lyngstad, it tells the story of Bjørn Hansen, a mild-mannered civil servant who has left his wife and son in pursuit of his lover, Turid Lammers. The change of life means a change of locale: Hansen leaves Oslo and settles in Kongsberg, a small, airless town where he soon joins an amateur theatre troupe, of which Turid is widely considered the most talented performer and a kind of spiritual leader. In probably the best and darkest bit of situational comedy that I read all year, Hansen tries to persuade the troupe—usually a vehicle for light musicals—to put on a production of Henrik Ibsen’s play “The Wild Duck.” He wins out, but the show is a terrible flop—and, worse in Hansen’s eyes, Turid gives a cynical, crowd-pleasing performance that inoculates her, and only her, from the more general disapproval of the audience. The relationship is soon over. Solstad tells the story in deceptively simple sentences that repeat themselves in a fugal fashion, gathering new and ever sadder aspects of meaning as they recur. Hansen, wading through the disappointing wash of his life—he’s having the worst midlife crisis imaginable—eventually cooks up a scheme of revenge that’s so sad and absurd it’s almost slapstick. The book’s generic title implies that tiny tragedies like Hansen’s are happening everywhere, all the time, as a simple cost of being alive. For Solstad, what feels like a reprieve—sun and intimacy, the company of friends—is just another step on a tightrope that stretches across the void. Maybe save this one for summer. —Vinson Cunningham


“Patch Work: A Life Amongst Clothes,” by Claire Wilcox

Among the books that most surprised and most moved me this year was “Patch Work: A Life Amongst Clothes,” a memoir by Claire Wilcox. Wilcox is senior curator of fashion at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, and she writes about clothing with an intoxicating specificity: century-old gowns are made from “narrow lengths of the finest Japanese silk, hand-stitched together and then pleated into rills like the delicate underside of a field mushroom.” But this fragmentary, dreamlike book is not about fashion as it is often understood. There is no industry gossip, no analysis of trends. Rather, Wilcox uses her encounters with objects—the bags of lace in the museum’s collection, the pair of purple velvet trousers she borrowed from a charismatic friend—to explore themes of love and loss, birth and bereavement, family and tribe. The book, which is as skillful and oblique in its structure as the precious gowns she describes, is stitched together with loving care from narrative scraps and images, ultimately revealing how materiality and memory operate on one another, so that the sensation of holding a button in her fingers brings Wilcox back to her earliest memory of fastening her mother’s cardigan: “buttoning and unbuttoning her all the way up, and then all the way down again.” —Rebecca Mead


“Sabbath’s Theater,” by Philip Roth

Over the course of the pandemic, the actor John Turturro and I have been adapting Roth’s novel for the stage, so I’ve read the book probably twenty times now. I have been astonished again and again. It’s never the adulterous urinating or alte kaker underwear-sniffing that shock me. It’s Roth’s singular capacity for conjuring death—its promises, its terrors, its reliability, and the relentless ache that it leaves behind. There are times when Roth approaches the subject with a cosmic lightheartedness: “Exactly how present are you, Ma? Are you only here or are you everywhere?” Mickey Sabbath, the aging, insatiable puppeteer, asks his dead mother’s ghost. “Do you know only what you knew when you were living, or do you now know everything, or is ‘knowing’ no longer an issue?” When it pertains to Drenka, Sabbath’s Croatian mistress—his “sidekicker,” as she puts it—death is tinged with so much yearning that it’s almost too much to bear, for both Sabbath and the reader (this one, anyway). “Got used to the oxygen prong in her nose. Got used to the drainage bag pinned to the bed,” Sabbath thinks, recalling the last of many nights he spent at her hospital bedside. “Cancer too widespread for surgery. I’d got used to that, too.” For all of Sabbath’s lubricious opportunism, Drenka is his one love. “We can live with widespread and we can live with tears; night after night, we can live with all of it, as long as it doesn’t stop.” But it does, of course. It always stops. Though not, in this book, for Sabbath, Roth’s most unrepentantly diabolical hero, despite his relentless flirtation with suicide: “He could not fucking die. How could he leave? How could he go? Everything he hated was here.” —Ariel Levy


“Warmth,” by Daniel Sherrell

In “Warmth,” the writer and organizer Daniel Sherrell’s bracing début memoir, he refers to climate change as “the Problem”—the horrifying, galvanizing fact that should cause all sentient people to lose sleep, to shout themselves hoarse, to reorient their lives in fundamental ways. And yet, apart from a small minority, most people seem content to listen to the string ensemble on the deck of the Titanic, shushing anyone who tries to interrupt the music. To be clear, this is my harsh indictment, not Sherrell’s. For an unabashed climate alarmist, he is mostly compassionate to the quietists, in part because, like all Americans, he used to be one. Sherrell was born in 1990. His father, an oceanographer, took long research trips to the polar ice caps. Of all people, the Sherrells understood what an emergency climate change was—and yet their household was a normal one, in the sense that the Problem didn’t come up much. “Even when all the evidence was there before us,” Sherrell writes, “it was difficult to name.” The book is marketed as a climate-grief memoir, and it certainly is that, but what came through for me, even more clearly than the grief, was a kind of existential irony: not only are we apparently unable to solve the Problem, we can’t even seem to find an honest way to talk about it. Most Americans claim to believe the science; the science says that, unless we make drastic changes, the future will be cataclysmic; and yet, Sherrell observes, “it still sounded uncouth, even a little ridiculous, to spell this all out in conversation.” This is the way the world ends: not with a bang, and not even with much of a whimper. “Warmth,” written in the form of a letter to a child that Sherrell may or may not conceive, is not a thesis-y sort of book. But, if it has a central claim, it’s that the activist chestnut “Don’t mourn, organize!” is a facile mantra, a false choice. Why not both? —Andrew Marantz


“Brothers and Keepers,” by John Edgar Wideman

John Edgar Wideman was teaching at the University of Wyoming in the mid-seventies when, one day, his brother, Robert, showed up in town unannounced. Wideman had a young family and a steady job as a writer and an academic. Robert was on a more tumultuous path; he was on the run after a botched robbery back home, in Pittsburgh, had ended with one of his accomplices shooting a man, who later died from his injuries. Published in 1984, “Brothers and Keepers” is Wideman’s attempt to reckon with their diverging lives, and with the bond that they will never relinquish. He sifts through episodes from their childhood, searching for overlooked turning points. No single genre can tell such a complex story. Sometimes, the book is about the deprivations of the criminal-justice system, as Wideman describes in granular detail his visits to the prison where Robert serves a life term. (Robert would pursue education himself in prison, and, in 2019, his sentence was commuted.) At other times, the book feels surreal and fantastical, as Wideman entertains the possibility that their lives might have taken them elsewhere. And there are moments of austerity and dread, as he contemplates the ethics of turning his brother into a character. I often find that memoirs flatten the degree to which “the personal is political” is an idea rife with contradictions. What makes “Brothers and Keepers” so absorbing is that Wideman feels love but not sympathy—not for his brother, and certainly not for himself. —Hua Hsu



WHAT IS BREAKOUT → RE-TEST?

Breakout: When the price breaks a support or resistance level that it has tested before and moves above or below that level. Re-...