Fiction

Cassandra complex

Sven Birkerts says computers are destroying literature. He couldn't be more wrong.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Cassandra complex

Sven Birkerts stopped by our city last
year to sign his latest book,
“Readings,” and to bring his Save the
Book crusade to the Minneapolis Friends
of the Library. I went to hear him
because I consider myself not just a
friend but a devoted parishioner. I
think of libraries and bookstores as
lay-missionary posts, functioning as the
secular outreach program of the Church
of the Word. Also, I have a personal
stake in his subject because some years
ago I wrote a long review-essay on the
future of the book in the age of the
Internet and one of the sources I
consulted was, naturally, Birkerts’
book-length lament on the same topic,
“The Gutenberg Elegies.”

As I listened to Birkerts’ familiar
jeremiad, I found myself squirming in
the itchy discomfort I always feel when
I disagree with someone but find myself
tongue-and-mind tied, unable to
articulate what’s wrong. He says we are
losing the ability to read deeply. The
speed of the Internet speeds up our
minds. We race through sites, grabbing
snippets of data as we skip and skim
nimbly over oceans of information. The
time is always Now; hypertext
connections sizzle and evaporate.

It’s not just slow and immersive reading
we’re losing, Birkerts says. We’ve
reached a critical juncture in the
transition from print culture to screen
culture. We’re metamorphosing from
individual and private people to
fungible, Web-linked brain connectors in
a bright, buzzy, gregarious info-hive.

I empathize with his worries. I share
many of them, short attention spans for
example. And I share Birkerts’ love for
close reading, the attentive scrutiny of
chapter arcs, paragraph composition,
sentence structure, punctuation: all the
minutiae that undergird the gorgeous
scenes and portraits readers respond to
in books they love.

But now, Birkerts thinks, this new
technology, chatty and endlessly in the
know, is changing not only our reading
and thinking habits, but our very
selves. Human beings are so adaptable,
they’re sure to get with the digital
program: speedy information scanning,
our brains mimicking computers, all
data, no deep and complicated
conversions to knowledge, and no housing
anymore for a soul. I think he’s wrong,
in large part because his idea of print
culture is so shallow — what I distill
from it is a nostalgic image of a
reader, arms full of fresh books from
the library, ambling through the
tree-lined streets of a small town to
the comfy chair in a quiet room. This
has never been reality, as Birkerts
knows, but even as an ideal or a
standard for a civilized life it’s too
narrow to be inspiring.

I’ll begin by proving his point about
adaptability. This most human of
qualities is now, in Birkerts’ eyes, no
longer a positive trait. In adapting to
new reading and writing technologies, he
tells us we are leaving our souls
behind.

In cultural terms, I’ve gone from zero
to 60 mph in less than 50 years. My
childhood, in post-war Munich and then
in a farming village near the Czech
border, lacked the following: indoor
toilets, newspapers, magazines, radio,
bookstores, libraries and people who
minded their absence. I received two
books a year, Christmas and birthday.

Cut to the U.S after my family
immigrated. One of the first singers I
heard on our new radio was Elvis. I was
immediately smitten. Same reaction a few
years later to the Beatles. I traded the
“Niebelungenlied” and the Brothers Grimm
for Superman, Spiderman and Nancy Drew.
We got a TV. In high school, I wrote
papers in long hand, until my parents
bought me an Olympia manual typewriter
in my senior year. In the ’70s I started
using an electric machine; that was
followed by an electronic typewriter
with a one-line screen where I could
make corrections before committing the
words to the paper in the carriage. I
entered the computer age in 1990, and
toward the end of the century, I
embraced the Netscape browser,
AltaVista’s search engine and an e-mail
address. I’m a filament on the Web,
linked intricately to all the other
strands, all of us part of a humming,
roaming, free-associative consciousness.

There are literary Internet cheerleaders
– Bart Kosko, Robert Coover and George
Landow spring to mind — who
enthusiastically endorse this
progressive interactivity of minds and
chips. For them, and all the young
techies out there, the fully uplinked
brain is a teleology devoutly to be
welcomed.

Birkerts shudders. Will the solitary,
meditative individual die out? Will the
fully wired, electrified world have any
use for the reader, the dreamer, the
critic, the scholar, the poet, each
grappling with complex ideas, emotions
and questions in a quiet room alone? Or
will the last surviving reader and
writer someday close their books
forever, shut off the reading lamps and
fire up the screen?

I think the idea that we have to choose
between the screen and the page is a
false dilemma. They will co-habit, I
suggest, with reading lamp and screen
casting their different glows. All
right, I’m anticipating Birkerts’
rejoinder. We’re both old enough to
remember slower days, fewer media, the
feel of good smooth paper slipping
between our fingers. Our souls
are not in danger because we’ve been
raised by books. Our kids, however,
connected since kindergarten, are closer
to that fantasy of being uplinked, (or,
if you prefer, that nightmare of being
brainwashed and reprogrammed.) If
Birkerts is right, they’ll be going too
fast to actually read anything.

History, however, does not bear out his
argument. I agree with Birkerts that our
consciousness is undergoing a shift, but
it is not unprecedented, as he
maintains. In his essay “The Millennial
Warp” he offers as evidence the
testimony of “older people” who tell him
that things felt different in the past.
“Although changes came steadily in the
old days too (new inventions, changes in
the workplace) and sometimes with
unexpected force (the Depression, the
war), the line of continuity was never
ruptured.” According to Birkerts, before
the Internet age began, we had always
retained a connection to the past and
used it to relate new information to old
in order to arrive at some meaningful
knowledge.

Birkerts, the pessimistic humanist, is
as wrong to think that we are being
utterly transformed by technology as the
optimistic net-heads like Kosko are to
think that we will be made into a new
kind of creature. The truth is that
history accommodates ruptures here and
there while also just, well, continuing.
Ways of doing and thinking rearrange
themselves; at every moment or epoch the
very old and the very new co-exist.
Maybe, to use Stanley Fish’s term for
how humans manage all manner of
inconsistencies and paradoxes, history
works by “inspired ad-hoccery.” In other
words, the Internet will not replace the
printed book, just as the alphabet did
not drive out the image, nor the printed
book destroy religion.

The fear of radical supersession that
Birkerts speaks for today has an ancient
history. According to Plato, when Hermes
showed pharaoh his new invention,
writing, pharaoh worried that this
technology would destroy the individual
memory. Geoffrey Nunberg, in his
introduction to the 1996 anthology “The
Future of the Book,” sensibly reminds us
that the past is full of “an unbroken
stream of proclamations that man is
living in an epochal moment.” In that
context, Birkerts is just the latest in
a traditional line of prophets of the
exceptional present, ceaselessly
proclaiming “never before” or “never
again.”

Despite Birkerts’ warnings that
hypertext, speed and instantaneousness
are destroying resonance, depth and
contour, I think the human mind, for all
its nimble adaptivity, cannot do without
context. True, sometimes we just want a
bit of information, but more often we
want the stream of information to
cohere. Computers can arrange and
correlate huge amounts of data, make any
number of info-assemblages in response
to a curious search. But only the mind
of the seeker will be able to breathe a
life of meaning into them. Only someone
who wants to make sense of things would
be asking in the first place.

In his 1999 book, “Faster: The
Acceleration of Just About Everything,”
href="/books/log/1999/10/18/gleick/index.html">James Gleick offers href="/ent/movies/int/1998/06/05int.html">Terry Gilliam’s 1985 movie
“Brazil” as a likelier example of what
the future will look like. Gilliam
“created a glittery, sinister future
filled with ancient technology –
pneumatic tubes, teletype machines, desk
spikes. The effect was a dark hodgepodge
of the antique and the futuristic –
perfect, because when the future does
come creeping in, this is how it looks.
It is not shiny and gleaming, neatly
assembled in clean shrink-wrap. It comes
all mixed up like a junkyard, the old
and the new jumbled together.”

Reading “Faster”, it occurred to me that
the major historical and conceptual
rupture Birkerts describes isn’t the
current communications revolution. It
happened in our grandparents’ childhood,
at the end of the 19th century when
wristwatches became available. That’s
when our ideas of time and speed changed
radically. Accurate, standardized time
measurement led to railroad schedules,
assembly lines, efficiency experts and
global synchronization, to name a few
items on a list that could go on for
pages.

The wristwatch, which gave constant
access to the time on a individual
basis, also made it necessary to do
something about it. We spend time, waste
it, save it, manage it, have come to
believe that if we don’t use it, we lose
it. Time is now a commodity; if we
invest it well we’ll get big returns. So
both Birkerts and I and everyone who
still sits down with a book are also
watch-wearing members of a society
racing against the clock. The personal
computer just continues that tradition.

Birkerts also bemoans the loss of a core
individual identity, the kind of
identity that deep reading is founded
upon, in the expanding electronic hive.
I question his assumption that we ever
really had such a thing, even in the
good old days. Malleability is part of
our very nature as human beings, and a
self is not a unity but a mixture; each
is many. One can be a loving wife and a
neglectful mother, a mob hit man who’s
Catholic and pro-life. One can believe
in God and the explanations of physics.
If you’re a Freudian, you’re at the very
least a trinity of id, ego and superego.
I think the notion of an authentic
single self, expressed in such
clichis as “being yourself” and
“finding out who you really are” are
modern myths. If we’re finicky about
orderliness, we can try to integrate all
our personalities, incompatible ideas,
rhetorical styles; or we can accept the
ad-hoccery of our mental and emotional
makeup and learn to live with human
muttness.

As I visit online journals and
magazines, and the informal discussion
groups formed around specific interests,
it seems to me that, contrary to
Birkerts’ denunciations of the medium’s
senseless babble, the Web is reviving
the art of intelligent conversation.
Like intellectual Paris in the
Enlightenment, or New York in the
Partisan Review’s heyday, the virtual
city is fizzing with bright talk. It is
like visiting Madame de Stael’s salon to
discuss German philosophy, and then
finishing the evening at a Greenwich
Village party with the likes of href="/books/review/2000/03/08/kiernan/index.html">Mary McCarthy and Edmund
Wilson. If the people who love books
today often feel isolated in a world
smitten with mass media, then how can a
medium that brings them together to
share and foster that love possibly be
inimical to literature?

Passionate readers often make for
passionate writers, and vice versa.
E-mail has evolved, for many of us,
beyond business notes or forwarded
jokes, to genuine letters. I write and
receive a great many more of them now
than I did 10 years ago. (But here
again, the new hasn’t muscled out the
old; I have no intention of giving up my
fountain pen and good stationery.)
Casual pen pals turn into friends, and
old friends who live in far-flung
regions are still close.

Can the culture of the book really be
dying as Birkerts insists? Perhaps in
some cases it is, and perhaps that’s not
always a bad thing. Certain kinds of
books, like travel and restaurant
guides, almanacs, perhaps dictionaries,
encyclopedias and other reference works
– all the categories that need constant
updating — might well migrate into
cyberlibraries. The book as
artifact will probably have a
diminished role. There will be
beautiful, hard-bound editions of
certain genres like art books and
literary classics. The coffee-table book
will certainly continue to be produced.

For everything else, I predict, or at
least fervently hope, that we will be
downloading texts into e-books. Once you
let go of an atavistic attachment to
paper for its own sake, it makes a lot
of sense. College students will be
grateful not to have to buy all those
textbooks, as will devotees of mysteries
and romance novels. True, the current
e-book models are not friendly to
readers like Birkerts and me who like to
turn pages. But MIT scientists are close
to realizing an electronic book
“comprised of hundreds of electronically
addressable display pages printed on
real paper substrates. Such pages may be
typeset in situ, thus giving such a book
the capability to be any book.” ["The
Last Book," IBM Systems Journal] The
spine might have a small display and
several buttons that would call up a
card catalog. The last book, or
“reversible hardcopy medium” as it’s
called in technical parlance, will
eventually be the world’s greatest text
storehouse, a single-volume library that
could easily accommodate the holdings of
the Library of Congress and more.

What Birkerts doesn’t address is how,
increasingly, the paper-and-ink
publishing industry, by virtue of its
economic structure, is far from
literature’s best friend. If big changes
are coming, they may not be for the
worse. As Steven Levy gleefully
speculates in the Jan. 1 Newsweek, “When
publishers no longer have to focus on
moving pulped forests to distributors,
the business model will go bananas.”
When books are published and ordered or
rented online, there won’t be all those
remaindered tree products to worry
about, and publishers could well become
more willing to gamble on literary works
with smaller audiences.

When Birkerts talks about the
deep-reading experience, that immersion
that feels timeless yet somehow linked
to an accessible past, I know what he
means. But I also think he’s
romanticizing and he’s making a fetish
of language by identifying it with a
certain printed form. The word is not
the book; why should it die if that
particular house is remade?

And consider this thought-provoking
analogy in an essay called “The Talmud
and the Internet” by Jonathan Rosen (you
can find it in “The Art of the Essay
1999″ edited by href="/books/bag/2000/01/31/lopate/index.html">Phillip Lopate). “I have
often thought, contemplating a page of
the Talmud, that it bears a certain
resemblance to a home page on the
Internet, where nothing is whole in
itself but where icons and text boxes
are doorways through which visitors pass
into an infinity of cross-referenced
texts and conversations.” A single page
of text in this most revered and
literary of documents is already a
historical, multilayered compendium and
a continuing discussion. There are
stories, bits of history, anthropology,
legal disputes, biblical interpretation,
plus the commentaries, corrections,
asides, marginalia, reinterpretations of
generations of scholars and rabbis.

The e-book will allow us the best of the
old and new ways of reading. We can read
“Huckleberry Finn” or “The Duino
Elegies” from beginning to end and then
close the book, experiencing it as a
whole in itself, a finite world in which
we have dwelled for a while. But why not
then open the windows and doors to other
texts and voices? Perhaps it’s time for
romantic readers to give up the illusion
of closure and finitude. After all, only
the printed book-object is a finite
text; every writing is part of a
conversation with other writings, past
and present. The “last book” will widen
the contextual space in which reading
takes place, and beautifully complicate
its resonances. That’s a complex
richness devoutly to be welcomed by
friends of the book.

Brigitte Frase is critic at large for the Hungry Mind Review and an editor at Milkweed Editions. She is working on a family history-memoir about immigration and culture clash.

50 shades of Shutterstock

Slide show: Everyone's favorite light-bondage bestseller illustrated by inexplicable stock photography SLIDE SHOW

  • more
    • All Share Services

50 shades of Shutterstock

View the slide show

This week, for roughly the millionth time, E.L. James’ romance-bondage trilogy “50 Shades” nabs the No. 1, 2 and 3 spots on the New York Times bestseller lists. We don’t get it either. Every page of that book, which famously began as “Twilight” fan fiction, elicits a sigh of confusion and weird secondary embarrassment. The question is: Who would read this? (The answer is: Apparently everyone.) It’s the same baffled, helpless feeling we get when we sort through stock photos on a daily basis. Stock photos – which have been the subject of recent outstanding Internet satire – are used by this site, and many others, to illustrate our flood of content. Many are plain and simple, but a good portion are flat-out mind-blowing. Why did anyone think that photo was a good idea? It only made sense to join these forces. And so, we present to you passages from the most head-scratching bestseller of our time, illustrated with the assistance of inexplicable stock photography.

View the slide show

Megaphone by Natalie Bakopoulos

Miracles happen, even in an Athens crippled by a garbage strike, to a young mother unsure of her ability to love

  • more
    • All Share Services

Megaphone by Natalie Bakopoulos (Credit: iStockphoto/caracterdesign)

It’s the third week of the garbage strike and Athens has begun to smell. Bright-colored trash bags fill the curbs and alleyways, and we have learned to step over the rubbish and avoid the blocks that had become unnavigable. We know which stretches are particularly foul — a stretch along Mavili Square, or the entire top end of Monastiraki. Odos Athinas is a sea of trash, and Omonia is ghastly but we don’t go there anyway. May has gone from unseasonably cool to raging hot, and the garbage seems to be melting. In front of the museum it’s like yet another installation project. When I arrive each morning I want to wretch.

My 5-year-old son, Alekos, sits on the balcony of our apartment. Visible from there are pine trees and details of other people’s lives, audible are the sounds of morning, the birds above and voices below. Evenings, Alekos lies on the divan on the balcony in his pajamas, watching the moon. He is obsessed with it, and his father made him a playlist of all the Greek songs that mention it. When he was smaller he’d stare at the moon until he fell asleep.

This morning, though, Alekos lies flat on the ground, peering down through the slats of the railing, staring at the trash. Next to him is his iPad ­– a gift from his father, and yes, I know, but his father doesn’t live with us and what can you do?­ — and now he favors bad pop music like the older kids at school. So I’m surprised this morning when I hear the sounds of Elmo counting. He’s embarrassed by this favorite YouTube clip­­ – it’s for babies, he says ­­­­– but it comforts him. The tension these days is overwhelming.

Alekos looks up when he sees me, furrows his brow, and tells me if he were a deputy like his father, he’d force everyone to clean up the garbage. “And to make a new government,” he says.

I tell him that would be nice.

“At least I can fly,” he says. He is wearing the Spider-Man costume my sister brought him from the States.

I tell him Spider-Man jumps and leaps and sticks to things. He doesn’t fly. “Besides,” I quickly add, thinking of all the balconies around us. “You’re not Spider-Man.” Even I have wondered what it might be like to jump from one to the next. I smooth his light hair, which is growing long. “You need a haircut,” I say.

I hold out two polos, one white, one blue, so he feels he has a choice. He pulls the blue shirt over the costume, and I hope that his teachers aren’t too upset by this because I am too exhausted to argue with him.

Outside, the trash has piled up, and Alekos can’t get into the car from the curb. I tell him I’ll pull the car up so he can get in without pushing his way through the refuse. He wrinkles his nose at the smell. But when I get to the driver’s side, Alekos is no longer standing there.

Instead he is floating 12 feet above the curb, his Spider-Man-clad arms stretched out like wings.

Alekos,” is all I can say, “get down.” He swoops over to me, hovering just above my reach, and finally glides gracefully to my feet as if he has been practicing this move for months. Bending down to face him and gripping the straps of his backpack, I have the panicked feeling that if I let go he will fly away.

“How long has this been going on?” I whisper. “Tell me.”

One old man walks past us with his hands behind his back and says nothing. He barely notices us. Across the street a woman hurries along in heels, yelling into her phone. No one else is around.

Alekos shrugs, aloof, and looks away with those dark eyes, almost black, like his father’s. “I tried to tell you.”

“Does Babas know about this?” I ask, suddenly sure his father would keep this from me, just the way he failed to mention his girlfriend was staying the night, reading Alekos bedtime stories when he stayed there. Oh, the flying? I thought you knew?

“No,” Alekos says.

“Just at home, OK?” I say. I don’t want to alarm him, but I want to be firm.

He digs in his backpack and tells me he saw his father on the news that morning. This is one reason I don’t like him to watch television at all. For the rest of the drive, we’re quiet.

“I know I’m not Spider-Man,” he says finally, when we arrive.

“OK,” I say. “Do you fly at school?” I ask.

“No.” He looks at me in the rearview mirror, completely incredulous. “Nobody does.”

He gets out of the car and hurries off to meet some other kids, who admire his Spider-Man arms as if they are tattooed. I wait for him to turn around and wave but he doesn’t, and for a moment it seems his feet levitate off the ground. But maybe I am imagining it; he walks in, one foot after the other, like everyone else. I park at the metro station and take the train into the city center, turning up the ringer on my phone.

I call his father three times but get his voice mail. I text him to call me. He texts me an hour later — Ola kala? — and I trip over a split-open trash bag, as if these sidewalks weren’t already treacherous enough. I answer, Yes, everything’s fine. This will have to wait until we are face to face, which is not often.

We met when I was teaching art classes on Paros one summer. I soon got pregnant, and we didn’t get married, but I stayed in Greece. I think he still resents me for not marrying him. To be honest, I can’t even remember my reasons. It all seems like another lifetime, decades ago, when Athens felt proud and vibrant those few years after the Olympics.

A few more messages come from him but I’m busy and don’t answer. Then, when I’m outside the museum, finishing my installation, he shows up.

“You don’t call me three times in a row with no message,” he says, frustrated. “You barely call me at all, unless the kid is on fire.”

No, not fire, I think.

He surveys my project, one giant megaphone outside the  museum, the size of a kiosk, with cameras inside that will film street activity and project it onto a screen inside. Tiny figurines in various stages of undress shoot out from the megaphone, suspended by invisible wire. I’ve compiled old Greek footage of both celebrations and protests, which will air inside the museum, and the outdoor footage will be superimposed on those old clips. I wonder if anyone is inside now, watching us, or what we’re matched with: a hectic street scene, a political rally, a brilliant August moon?

“I like it,” he says, in English, in that supportive tone he uses when he doesn’t know what to say about my work but wants to convey he approves.

“Oh, stop it,” I say.

“And with the garbage,” he says. “A nice touch.”

And the two of us laugh, the first time we have laughed together in a long time, since before the elections, since before the crisis, probably not since Alekos was an infant and we marveled at every smile and uttered “word.” Suddenly I think I should have thought to make those tiny figures children, with wings. I wonder why I didn’t think of it before, why it always takes the manifestation of something so crazy to make me realize something so simple.

“Let me take you for a coffee,” he says, “or something stronger? We can sit outside, where it’s quiet.” The trash stench is so bad that everyone sits inside, smoking.

“You have time for that?” I ask, knowing he doesn’t. I can hear his phone buzzing in his pocket. “I should keep working.”

One night, right before these last elections, he came to pick Alekos up and he kissed me when Alekos went to grab his toys. “Not yet,” I said. My attempt at self-preservation while the rest of the country implodes. It’s hard enough just to be friends.

“OK,” he said then. “We’ll get there, one day.”

Now, I lean into him a moment. Together we survey what I’ve made. I want to tell him, Our son can fly. I want to tell him, Stay.

“Are we there yet,” he says quietly, distantly, not as question but statement, and he rests his chin on my head and looks out into the street: the sleepy shops, the political posters pasted over the boarded-up kiosks, the hot afternoon sun beating down on it all. “Are we?”

And then my phone is ringing­­ — it’s the school office — and I know of course what has happened. I imagine Alekos flying around his classroom like an angry bee, out into the schoolyard, beyond the trash, beyond the protests and our land in limbo. Or maybe he is more relaxed, gliding effortlessly the way I fly in my dreams, his superhero costume and sandy hair glowing in the afternoon sun, until he finds us here, his parents who don’t know where we are or where we’re going, and taking us up with him, catapulting us into the vast unknown. Our images would flicker on the screen inside, soaring above that old footage of our shattered, magnificent city.

Continue Reading Close

Natalie Bakopoulos's first novel, "The Green Shore," will be published by Simon & Schuster in June 2012. Her work has appeared in Tin House, Ninth Letter, Granta Online, and The O. Henry Prize Stories 2010, and she is a contributing editor for the online journal Fiction Writers Review.

Almost by Chris Pavone

She never thought of herself as ambitious, until motherhood and career collided in one horrifying hospital ride

  • more
    • All Share Services

Almost by Chris Pavone (Credit: iStockphoto/caracterdesign)

It’s just before dawn when Isabel puts the final page down on the fat stack of paper that sits on the rumpled bedspread, next to an overflowing crystal ashtray and a crumpled soft-pack of cigarettes. She’d tried Wellbutrin and Xanax; she’d used patches and gum. In the end, the only thing that made her quit smoking was being pregnant.

But then, after everything, she couldn’t help but start up again. At first it was just a single cigarette per day, or two. Then it became a few, and within months she was back to full-throttle. Over the past couple of years, she’s tried to quit a few times, but not seriously. She anticipates — she accepts — failure. Because she doesn’t want to quit, not really. She wants instead to try, and fail.

Isabel picks up the manuscript with both hands, flips it over, and uses her thumbs to align the pages. She takes a deep breath, lets out a long sigh.

Another night lying in bed, working. She’d fallen asleep at 11, then woke sometime after 2, her mind unquiet. But it wasn’t until 3 that she admitted she was awake. She then picked up a manuscript and a pencil, and started working, page after page, all through the desperate hours. Vaguely reminiscent of those days when Nicky was an infant, in the middle of the night, sleep-deprived, awake in a dormant world. The small hours when a blanket of quiet smothers the city, but through the moth-eaten holes there’s the occasional lowing of a railroad in New Jersey, the distant Dopplered wail of an ambulance siren. Then the inevitable thump of the newspaper on the doormat, the end of the idea of night, even though it’s still dark out.

She stares across the room, off into the black nothingness of the picture window on the opposite wall, its severe surface barely softened by the half-drawn shades, an aggressive void invading the serene cocoon of her bedroom. The room is barely lit by a small bullet-shaped reading sconce mounted over the headboard, aiming a beam of light directly at the top of her head, creating a halo in the reflection in the window. An angel. Except she’s not.

Isabel shuffles into the dark hall, flips the light switch. She turns on the kitchen lights, and the coffee — switched from auto-on, which is set to start brewing an hour from now, to on — and the small television on the counter. Filling the lonely apartment with humming electronic life.

The coffee machine hisses and sputters, big plops falling into the tempered glass. She watches the contraption’s clock, changing from 5:48 to 5:49. Grabs the plastic handle of the carafe and fills the mug with hot, viscous, bitter, bracing caffeination. She takes a small sip, then a larger one.

She walks down the hall, lined with the photographs that she’d unearthed four years ago, when she was moving out of her matrimonial apartment, into this single-woman space in a new neighborhood, far from the painful memories of her home — of her life — downtown, where she’d been running into too many mothers, often with their children. Women she’d known from the playgrounds and the toy stores and the mommy-and-me music classes, from the gyms and grocers and coffee shops, from preschool drop-off and the waiting room at the pediatrician’s. All those other little children growing older, getting bigger.

So she’d bought herself a one-bedroom in an uptown full-service building, the type of apartment that a woman chooses when she reconciles herself that she’s not going to be living with another human being, probably forever. That she’s making her loneliness comfortable. Palliative care.

She lined this nice new hallway with framed photos. There she is, herself, a smiling little toddler. And with her mother on the first day of second grade. At college graduation with her two best friends. There are her grandparents, at the final family reunion before they both died, within weeks of each other. Isabel in a big white dress, aglow, in the middle of the panoramic-lens group shot. A much smaller print, lying in a hospital bed, beaming at Nicky in her arms, tiny and red and angry in his swaddling blanket and blue cap. A grainy shot of herself onstage in a little black dress, accepting an award, beaming again, but not as wide. Some joys aren’t as joyous as others.

It was more than possible — it was inevitable — to blame herself, her ambition, even though she’d never thought of herself as especially ambitious. But everyone has important moments, in any job, at any level of ambition. In the Supreme Court or a fourth-grade classroom, on an assembly line or a fishing boat, there are crucial days.

For Isabel the literary agent, this day was dominated by an auction she was running for a hotly anticipated second novel, whose author needed a lot of hand-holding, and whose bidders kept increasing their offers every half-hour, from mid-five figures to high-sixes in the course of the day. This lucrative 9-to-6 was followed by a 7 o’clock black-tie that included an honor for, and an interminable speech by, a different author of hers. So this frantic day, it featured a wardrobe change. And the evening portion was just as important work as the daytime; just because there was liquor and food and fancy dress didn’t mean it wasn’t work.

The nanny called a couple times during Isabel’s 16 hours at work, worrying that Nicky’s cold or flu or whatever was getting worse. Dave was away on a business trip, and Isabel didn’t want Lupe to be the one to go to the doctor with Nicky; the nanny’s English would be generously described as weak, and sometimes that mattered. So Isabel made an appointment for first thing the next morning. Anyone would’ve done the same thing.

Isabel returned home after midnight, exhausted. She thanked Lupe and sent her home in a taxi, and let her cocktail dress fall to the floor, and collapsed into bed.

She was awakened at dawn by the screaming. Nicky was burning up, 106. She rushed downstairs with the boy in her arms, and ran around the block, panting and desperate, until she found a taxi.  “Don’t worry, Sweetie,” she said. “We’ll be at the doctor’s in a minute.” The hospital was only a mile away.

The taxi peeled away from the curb, the eerie blue light washing over the dingy white garbage trucks, the Mexican kids swabbing down the sidewalks in front of all-night delis, the street-cart vendors positioning their pastries in front of office buildings, the joggers with reflective stripes down their shorts, the normal business of a city’s day starting, coming to life.

“Are we there yet?” Nicky asked, as he had so many times. From the back seat of the shiny SUV that was cleaned every week by the guys in the garage, on their way out to the weekend house in East Hampton, back when her life looked like something to be envied. He had said it on the way to visit Dave’s parents in Oyster Bay, or hers upstate in the Hudson Valley. While heading to Vermont, for a ski weekend; to Cape Cod, to visit friends; to the Bronx Zoo and the Brooklyn Aquarium, Yankee Stadium and Citi Field. It was something the little boy asked, all the time.

But this was the last time.

In the back of the moldy-smelling taxi she pushed the fever-damp hair off her son’s hot forehead. “Nearly,” she said. He shut his eyes, and then slipped silently into a coma, there on the slippery silver vinyl seat of the taxi.

An hour later, Nicky was dead. A supervirus, said the young doctor, who had been up all night, up for who knows how long, working; he was tired and frustrated, and perhaps not as tactful as he could’ve been.

At the end of the hall Isabel stops at the spotlit photograph, a small black-and-white in the center of a vast expanse of stark white matting. A little boy, her baby, laughing on a rocky beach, running out of gentle surf, holding a little toy hammer. Isabel reaches her hand to her lips, plants a kiss on her fingers, and transfers the kiss to the little boy. As she does every morning.

There was, the doctor added, almost nothing she could’ve done. Almost.

Continue Reading Close

Memorial Day fiction: Are we there yet?

Salon exclusive: At the start of the summer fiction season, new stories from Chris Pavone and Natalie Bakopoulos

  • more
    • All Share Services

Memorial Day fiction: Are we there yet? (Credit: iStockphoto/caracterdesign)

“Are we there yet?”

It’s a dreaded sentence. When it’s spoken by an anxious child from the back seat, it’s enough to make stressed-out parents wish they’d never taken a family vacation in the first place. And even if it’s delivered as a sing-songy punch line, from an impatient partner or spouse on a long road trip, it’s an irritating eye-roller of a joke.

So this Memorial Day weekend — the unofficial start of the summer vacation season, and therefore the summer fiction season — we asked two novelists to reclaim the sentence in a new and adult context. For our latest fiction project, there was only one simple rule: Each story had to include the line “Are we there yet?” in a fresh and surprising way.

Our authors are two people you should be taking to the beach with you this summer. Chris Pavone is the author of “The Expats,” the New York Times best-selling thriller with more satisfying twists than the Pacific Coast Highway. Natalie Bakopoulos is the author of “The Green Shore,” one of 2012′s most anticipated debut novels, a beautiful family drama that is set during another Greek crisis — the 1967 military coup.

To read the stories, just follow the links below:

“Megaphone” by Natalie Bakopoulos

“Almost” by Chris Pavone

Continue Reading Close

David Daley is the senior culture editor of Salon.

“Frankenstein” remixed

This masterful new adaptation of Mary Shelley's classic novel may be the best interactive fiction yet

  • more
    • All Share Services

This originally appeared on The Chimerist, a site devoted to the intersection of art, stories, and technology.

Whatever interactive fiction is (and we’re still figuring that out) it suffers from all the problems of traditional fiction and then some. The vast majority of novels and short stories aren’t much good, but when a branching fiction — along the lines of the old “Choose Your Own Adventure” children’s books — fails to engage, the first impulse is to blame the form rather than the content. Let “Frankenstein,” just released by Inkle Studios and Profile Books, serve as a reproach to that reflex. The app is a creative, subtle and sensitive adaptation of Mary Shelley’s classic novella, and it has singlehandedly renewed this critic’s hopes for interactive fiction.

What this “Frankenstein” isn’t is a replication of the source text with the addition of a lot of digital doohickeys like sound effects and illustrations that animate when tapped. The app is all about the text, even if it is beautifully framed by period art and anatomical illustrations. The reader is presented with a screenful of narration and then offered one or more responses to it. The preferred response, when tapped, delivers up another screen of text. (In an absurdly pleasing visual touch, these appear as sheets of paper fasted together by straight pins.) According to the press materials, the reader’s responses will shape the way the narrative is presented, although not to the degree of substantively changing the plot.

This is an important point. The pleasure of storytelling lies in the dynamic between the surprising and the inevitable. The reader wants to feel the story is going somewhere, that its events follow from each other in meaningful, but not too obvious ways. When a story can go anywhere, it feels meaningless. In Mary Shelley’s novella, which is saturated with the Western tradition of the tragedy, Viktor Frankenstein’s character is such that he must create a monster, and the monster’s body is such that he can never belong among human beings however much he yearns to. A “Frankenstein” that ended with either misfit finding a comfortable place in the world would be a travesty.

But that doesn’t mean the reader doesn’t long for the story to unfold otherwise; that’s the nature of tragedy. The great insight that writer Dave Morris brings to this adaptation of the novel is that while a reader cannot significantly change the outcome of the story, the interactive element can change the shading and flavor of the tale. It can be mournful and reflective or action-packed. The creature and his creator can show greater or lesser ambivalence about their own behaviors. The ambiguity of both figures is baked into Mary Shelley’s novella, and while Morris has nearly doubled the word count of the original, this mostly amounts to playing up or down what’s already there.

Morris — a novelist who has written graphic novels, games and, yes, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure stories for kids — has changed the original text in other ways, as well. (Let’s take a moment here to point out to all future narrative app developers that hiring a real writer who actually knows what he or she is doing is totally worth it.) He’s moved the setting to revolutionary France, a choice that shows shrewd understanding of the idealistic political climate that affected Shelley’s thinking; the new Republic is its own kind of Frankenstein’s monster. He’s also eliminated much of the 19th-century framing of the tale and converted it into two present-tense narrations. One is Frankenstein’s dialogue with either himself or a (possibly imaginary) companion. The other is a second-person account of the monster’s first weeks of life as it spies on a family of dispossessed French nobility and has the chance to observe the loving relationships it can never enjoy itself.

Morris presents the reader with choices I’ve not encountered in other interactive fictions. Is humanity mostly good, or mostly evil? Does the most recent development make you (the monster) feel hope or despair? Is the revolution the dawn of a brave new world or a descent into chaos and barbarity? While I’m usually skeptical that present-tense narration increases the “immediacy” of a story, in this case, it really does work, particularly in the sections concerning the monster. Depending on your own outlook, you may urge him to keep trying to connect with humanity, or promptly forward him on to homicidal rage.

In either case, the narrative is shaped not by the reader deciding to turn left or right, to go down into the cellar or to get out of the house — the usual actions offered on the choose-your-own menu. Instead, the options have more to do with personality and interpretation, beliefs and ideas. As a result of the reader’s choices, the characters seem more like him- or herself, with a concurrent ratcheting up of emotional investment. To my surprise, I found myself more moved by this adaptation of the Shelley novel than I have been by the source text. (Although the app does include the original if you want to compare and contrast.) This is the only interactive fiction I’ve ever read with that quintessential, old-fashioned readerly avidity: the hunger to know what happens next. Of course, I already knew, but that didn’t matter at all.

Continue Reading Close
Laura Miller

Laura Miller is a senior writer for Salon. She is the author of "The Magician's Book: A Skeptic's Adventures in Narnia" and has a Web site, magiciansbook.com.

Page 1 of 130 in Fiction