Showing posts with label Book Reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book Reviews. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 01, 2016

An Interview with Sarah Hepola for Litro Magazine

Blacking Out and the Female Experience: An Interview with Sarah Hepola

Blackout, Sarah Hepola’s memoirs of her alcoholic past, is published by Two Roads. Author photo © Zan Keith.
I meet Sarah Hepola, the author of Blackout: Remembering the Things I Drank to Forget on a sunny sidewalk in downtown Missoula. With the Montana Book Festival in town, the café I had suggested for our interview is packed.
“I saw this cool building yesterday,” she says, pointing towards the Art Deco silhouette of the Florence Hotel.
The questions I have for Hepola about her years of hard drinking and her determination to get sober will have to wait while we walk the few blocks.
The Florence is no longer in business. In place of steamer trunks and railway magnates, there is a small café selling home-made chocolates. We order coffees and contemplate the empty red leather sofas and chairs, taking our seats kitty-corner to each other near the fireplace. She kicks off her shoes and makes herself comfortable.
The previous evening I had seen Sarah Hepola in a black cocktail dress speaking at the Book Festival alongside Kate Bolick, author of Spinster: Making a Life of One’s Own. That these two women should be talking sex, feminism, alcohol abuse, Tinder, and Internet dating in Missoula, the town that provided the setting for Krakauer’s excoriating exploration of campus rape and cover-ups feels meaningful. It seems to me that Missoulians, like hundreds of college-town inhabitants across the US, are finally facing that uncomfortable intersection of booze and sex.
I can’t resist asking Hepola whether she has read Krakauer’s Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town. 
Her response is instant and she flicks her palms upward: “Oh my god, that book was a shit show of drinking!”
We talk about the axis of drunkenness and sexual assault, tiptoeing around it, aware that in Hepola’s words, we are walking on a “loaded minefield”. She admits to being disappointed at Krakauer’s reluctance to make a connection between the levels of alcohol consumed by students involved in the sexual abuse cases at the University of Montana and the murkiness around the idea of consent. I tell Hepola that I had naïvely never really given the idea of consent and its relationship to booze much thought until I read Blackout. The idea of consent was always secondary to desire when it came to my choice of sexual adventures, but conversations on campuses today don’t seem to feature desire and pleasure much; they feature “consent” and “rights”.
When Hepola writes in Blackout that “We can drink however the fuck we want,” she does so knowingly nodding towards the paradox that while drinking however we want, we also often reap the rewards of some pretty unwanted behavior from ourselves and those around us. Hepola is good at holding two slightly opposing thoughts in her head, which is exactly what is needed for this conversation: drinking to excess can make you vulnerable; because you are vulnerable does not give anyone license to abuse you—whether you are male or female. Yet, out in the real and virtual worlds these two thoughts have become divisive rather than inclusive.
Susan Brownmiller has recently been called a “slut-shamer” and “victim-blamer” across the Internet for saying that women “think they can drink as much as men, which is crazy because they can’t drink as much as men.” The Twitterstorm over this has been fierce. This is the very same Susan Brownmiller whose seminal 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape brought an awareness of sexual abuse to the forefront of the agenda of second-wave feminism. How can this be?
Sarah Hepola tells me how in the 1990s while she was at the University of Texas it was important for her to “drink, dress, and fuck like a man”. This felt empowering to her, as it did to many of us who were young and sexually active at that time. And this bravado among women has continued to the point where it is considered a right. Yet, drinking like a man when you are, like Hepola, a petite five-foot-two, is exactly what led to her blackouts, to her “losing the narrative” of her life—which is presumably what Brownmiller is referring to. A false sense of empowerment in Hepola’s case led to an extreme vulnerability and a deeply ingrained addiction. Acting like a man can be seen as liberating, yet more often than not, it serves as a reminder of the power that is still wielded by men in our society. Drinking and fucking like a man are not the same as drinking and fucking as a man.
Hepola thanks me when I tell her that reading passages such as “I needed alcohol to drink away the things that plagued me. Not just my doubts about sex. My self-consciousness, my loneliness, my insecurities, my fears” was like a synthesis of hundreds of conversations I have had with female friends throughout my life. I go on to say that the examination of her ambitions as a writer, her fears of sobriety and her sexual desires and their limitations resonated profoundly with me. Blackoutwhile being seen and sold as a book about getting sober, is at heart a feminist book. When I put this to her, she sits up straighter. She admits to being surprised that more feminists didn’t use her book as an opportunity to discuss the muddy waters of consent and sexual politics that she explores with such acuity and honesty.
She acknowledges that there is a link between her own drinking and blacking out and the expectations on young women to perform sexually and professionally. And it is a connection that feminists in the blogosphere and in print have not wanted to confront. “I think feminists see my book as a general good, but they don’t want to have to untangle so much mess,” she trails off. The messiness of sex so often gets in the way of logical arguments.
But it is exactly that mess that interests me, I tell her, finally getting to the question I have been dying to put to her: “Where do you think feminism is today?”
“Now you’re getting serious,” she laughs. She slides her feet under her and pauses, “There just isn’t one answer,” she replies, telling me that she is writing on this very subject and is also finding it hard to pin down.
We agree that at the moment, feminism feels fragmented, as if the personal and political arguments of the 1970s have been pulverised and sprinkled throughout the Internet, throughout the fractured dialogues around gender equality. The problem with writing about feminism now is that the plurality and inclusivity that groups like the UK’s Southall Black Sisters or Boston’s Combahee River Collective struggled hard to achieve in the 1970s make it difficult to speak about one coherent political body. While we can applaud the fact that women of all races, religions and sexual orientations have carved out their own platforms within the feminist movement, I can’t help but feel that despite this huge gain, something has been lost.
“Within feminism there has been a distinct shift away from the collective towards the individual,” I say, testing out this thought on her. This shift coincided with the Thatcher-Reagan double whammy of privatisation and the emphasis on personal wealth and agency. Feminism, despite its communally-oriented origins is not immune to the thrust of rampant consumerism and its focus on satisfying one’s self. Hepola relates the consumerism of 80s feminism with the Carrie Bradshaw phenomenon when “brands and shopping ruled”.
I ask her about her own trajectory as a feminist and she admits to coming to it in her early 30s after conversations with other women, like her Salon colleague, Rebecca Traister, and editing the site’s feminist blog at Salon starting in 2007.
“I went into a silent panic,” she says. But adds that this is where she opened herself up to feminist dialogues. “Sexism revealed itself through the conversation around Hillary Clinton running for president against Obama. It was a big national feminist awakening.”
When Hepola first started working at Salon, she was told to “keep feminism out of the headlines”. But now it’s a “click word”.
I can’t decide if being a click word is good or bad.
Hepola also talks about her route to becoming a feminist in the introduction to Blackout. But true to the way her mind seems to work, her awakening arrived with a pile of very real contradictions: “Activism may defy nuance, but sex demands it. Sex was a complicated bargain to me… It was hide-and-seek, clash and surrender, and the pendulum could swing inside my brain all night: I will, no I won’t: I should, no I can’t.” I tell her how much I like the way this passage gets to the heart of the consent debate.
“Feminism today is about identity politics and consent. We didn’t use the word consent in the 80s, and now it’s everywhere,” she exclaims. But even this seemingly straightforward word has its problems, which Krakauer probes to some degree in Missoula and which Hepola also dissects in Blackout: “I drank to drown those voices, because I wanted the bravado of a sexually liberated woman. I wanted the same freedom from internal conflict my male friends seemed to enjoy…. My consent battle was in me.” When your consent battle is within you, how can it be legislated for? It can’t. And this is the problem.
“OK,” I say, “You can’t talk about campus hookups and booze-fuelled nights without coming to porn.”
She throws me a knowing look. “Yes, porn.”
Hepola feels that the connections between drinking to excess, porn, and sexual violence are not linear or causal ones, but much more subtle. Many young women are drinking to excess before having sex, “so that they can be porn stars” to the audience of young men around them, some of whom expect them to be liberated to the point of accepting any sort of sexual act. After all, what college kid wants to look like a prude?
“In the ’90s porn seemed to become ubiquitous,” Hepola says, uncurling her legs. “And now, all of us single people have unwittingly signed up to this idea that we should all be sucking each others’ genitals on a hookup!” She pauses. “In our society alcohol is socially acceptable, but if you had to take heroin in order to have sex, people would see that as toxic.”
According to the Canadian researcher Simon Lajeunesse, most boys have sought out online pornography by the age of 10. If your formative sexual experiences are with porn actors rather than girls your own age, then surely this is having an effect on your view of women and their sexuality? Hepola goes on to tell me about a male friend who asked her to look at various porn sites and give him a report. Finding a lot of the stuff made by men “horrifying”, she admits to falling for the “clichéd softer, gentler” porn made by and for women. “I found I really liked watching two women,” she says, sounding surprised at this, or maybe surprised at how easily she is revealing this to a stranger. The simple act of watching was interesting, as the visual stimulus allowed her to “get out of my head and into the abandon.”
But getting off on porn as a thirty-something woman and as a nine-year-old boy are very different realities. When your selfhood is being formed and your empathy is still being developed, surely this is the wrong time to be watching women being finger-fucked towards fake climaxes. And if young women are drinking themselves to a state where they physically and emotionally cannot resist doing things they might not want to because of the pressures coming at them, then further questions need to be asked.
In our search for equality, women have gained much ground. But, read Hepola and Krakauer’s books and look at what’s going on around you and tell me there isn’t something more than a little off with the porn-booze-sex Venn Diagram. For most people drinking is fun. As is exploring desire for the first time and tasting freedom from parental supervision with a few beers and some impromptu sex. But what I am seeing around me doesn’t look like much fun.
As Hepola says, “We are drinking away our inhibitions and along with this our judgment.” How and when did parties get so scary that one of the prime goals for the female guests is to disappear through the rabbit hole of alcohol-fuelled oblivion? Is sex for college-age men and women so alienating that the only way to perform it is to do so while semi-conscious? These are the questions I can’t seem to shake. And ones that Hepola looks at forensically through the lens of her own life in Blackout.
Sarah Hepola and I end the interview accepting that although we have questions, there is not one simple answer that would be applicable to the wide range of women out there. “Maybe the questions are good enough”, she says before slipping her shoes on. But as I watch her open the heavy doors of the Florence Hotel and step out into the dazzling Montana sunshine I can’t help feeling unmoored by this axis of self-inflicted oblivion and sexual vulnerability. An axis that feels like it has something to tell us about where young men and women are today with their drinking and sex lives. Like Mr Jones from Dylan’s Ballad of Thin Man, I know something is happening but I don’t know what it is. This is great in a song, but doesn’t feel so good in real life.
Blackout: Remembering the Things I Drank to Forget is published by Two Roads and is available in paperback for £8.99.

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Book Review: 'Spinster' by Kate Bolick


Spinster, Schminster: The Destruction of a Perfectly Good Word

Kate Bolick, left, and her book Spinster, published by Crown Publishing, a division of Penguin Random House.
Kate Bolick, left, is a contributing editor of The Atlantic. Her New York Times bestseller Spinster, right, is published by Crown Publishing, a division of Penguin Random House.

What a difference seven years can make. Kate Bolick, author of the well-reviewed and much-discussed Spinster: Making a Life of One’s Own, which traces her life as a young professional writer dodging the marriage bullet, graduated from high school in 1990. My voyage from high school to university at the age of 17 was in 1983. Those transitional years between the mid-eighties and the early nineties mark a period of shifting ground when Second Wave Feminism crashed loudly into the unsettled waters of the Third Wave. During these years the emphasis in the feminist movement was shifting from the collective to the individual, and from the political to the personal—and not coincidentally these changes occurred simultaneously with the rapid growth of Reagan-Thatcher capitalism and its emphasis on individual choice and consumption.
The portrait of the society Bolick inhabits—a society, which by her account, is populated by women who are all busily dreaming of marriage is not one I recognise. She speaks for all women in the opening sentence of Spinster in what I can only assume is an attempt at Austenesque irony: “Whom to marry, and when will it happen—these two questions define every woman’s existence.” The use of “every woman” here, which is repeated throughout the book, only serves to alienate those of us who actually took on board the literature, the academic probing, the arguments and discussions from the Suffragettes to the feminists of the sixties and seventies and beyond as we navigated our way through the world as young women. “Though marriage was no longer compulsory, the way it had been in the 1950s,” Bolick writes, “we continued to organize our lives around it, unchallenged.” We? Unchallenged? Really? What a difference those seven years made.
Towards the very end of the book, Bolick shifts into a more personal gear when she asserts that “the question I’d long posed to myself—whether to be married or to be single—is a false binary. The space in which I’ve always wanted to live—indeed, where I have spent my adulthood—isn’t between these two poles, but beyond it. The choice between being married versus being single doesn’t even belong here in the twenty-first century.” Exactly. That choice doesn’t belong in the 21st century because it was debated at length by the likes of Mary Wollstonecraft and John Stuart Mill, Simone de Beauvoir, bell hooks, Adrienne Rich, Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, and countless intellectuals and writers. Even the early feminist Lady Mary Chudleigh (1656-1710) famously made the connection between patriarchy and marriage when she wrote: “Wife and servant are the same, but only differ in the name.” That was in 1705.
Where Bolick had always dreamed of marriage – “But of course I wanted to be married. In college I’d decided I’d marry by thirty” – my friends and I were dreaming of love and sex. Marriage was seen as the unnecessary packaging destined to be thrown into the metaphorical feminist landfill site along with chastity belts, foot bindings, and corsets. Marriage was love wrapped up in the bells and whistles of capitalism and the conventionally accepted narrative of a woman’s life—the very things we were fighting against. Not for us the virginal white dress, the changing of our surname, the ‘giving away’ of the bride by her father (oh, the awful symbolism in this gesture) and the vows of servitude and obedience. Unlike Bolick’s friends, we wanted none of it. Apparently in Bolick’s social circle, not to get married required “a very good explanation” – which, she adds, “I certainly didn’t have”. What about the wealth of feminist thought, argument, literature and essays for furnishing those pesky explanations? I notice Bolick name checks Simone de Beauvoir in her bibliography without mentioning her once in the text. Surely a few lines from The Second Sex could provide Bolick with the elusive excuses she and her friends need to justify their desire to not tie the knot?
The title of Bolick’s book set up for me the expectation of a historical overview of the single, unmarried woman: the fictional heroine from Brian Moore’s eponymous book, The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne, perhaps. Or Henry James’s construction of spinsterhood in the form of Olive Chancellor in TheBostonians. Or maybe the real Salem Witches and their foremothers. Bolick does mention Henry James’s Isabel Archer and Daisy Miller without noting that neither of them were actually spinsters. But who cares! For Bolick the term “spinster” is so elastic that it loses all meaning: “For the happily coupled, particularly those balancing work and children, spinster can be code for remembering to take time out for yourself.” Code? What does that even mean?
For anyone who cares about language, and I put people who write books into this category, it is an irrefutable fact that the definition and etymology of words are paramount. If a writer uses “dyke” or “queer” or “spinster”, they do so with the responsibility that comes with communicating with a reader. But in Bolick-land, who has time for semantics when you have a book to sell? Real life spinster writers don’t get a mention in the book. There is no Jane Austen, Louisa May Alcott, Flannery O’Connor, Maria Edgeworth, or Christina Rosetti, nor do we find any of the writers who challenged marriage and forged new lives as independent women like George Eliot and Mary Wollstonecraft. What we get instead are lightly drawn portraits of five women whom Bolick calls her “Awakeners” (without so much as a nod to Kate Chopin’s 1899 proto-feminist novel, The Awakening. Chopin’s seminal work isn’t even listed in the bibliography).
Out of Bolick’s five spinster “Awakeners”, only one of them, Edna St. Vincent Millay, was actually a spinster. Neith Boyce was married with four children. Maeve Brennan (Bolick’s “patron saint” of spinsterhood) had been married, as was Edith Wharton. Charlotte Perkins Gilman was married with a daughter. But none of this matters to Bolick. The fact that the word has a history and a meaning is irrelevant—another symptom of the strange ahistoricism at the heart of this book. Bolick flounces through the lists of boyfriends and suitors who can’t help but offer her a brownstone if only she’ll marry them, or the lovely men who want so much to be with her, but from whom she needs her space. This is not spinsterhood. This is called making a choice. To remain unmarried as a personal decision is not the same as having it thrust upon you. And despite the fact that Bolick thinks that being unmarried is a brave move on her part, it is simply the result of the political actions and sacrifices of the women who came before her, whom she doesn’t care to mention. To choose not to marry in the 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries was brave; to do so now is simply acting upon one of many choices available to women. Bolick manages to drain any political discussion from the subject of women as spinsters, which is a shame, especially as the book came out a month before same-sex marriage was made legal in Ireland, and two months before it became legal nationwide in the U.S. A time when men and women are seeing a new freedom in whom they choose to make a life with—or not. Bolick’s assertion that all women dream of marriage is anachronistic.
There is an important subject to be probed here, one brought up by de Beauvoir in 1949 when she wrote: “Man is defined as a human being and a woman as a female.” One could add to this the age-old adage that bachelors are always seen as “swinging” while spinsters are seen as “sad”. There is much more to be said on this matter in the early 21st century, but Bolick with her inability to place herself in the context of this ongoing discussion is not the person for the job.

Kate Bolick’s Spinster: Making a Life of One’s Own is published by Crown Publishing Group.

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

Review of Denis Johnson's Steady Hands at Seattle General from 'Jesus' Son'


“Steady Hands at Seattle General” by Denis Johnson



Film still from Jesus' Son


In 1999, a small-scale, bittersweet film called Jesus’ Son blew through London to very little fanfare. It was a lo-fi indie film with a heart the size of Texas, a couple of yet-to be-discovered actors (Billy Crudup and Samantha Morton) in the main roles, and one or two heavyweights in the supporting parts (Holly Hunter and Dennis Hopper). The director, a relatively unknown Canadian named Alison Maclean, never went on to make another feature film as ambitious as Jesus’ Son, and now directs episodes of Canadian TV shows—a tragedy that would not be lost on Denis Johnson, the reclusive, cult author of the eleven loosely linked short stories that make up the collection which inspired the movie.

Picador (US) cover
The stories gathered here are not traditional tales. They are segments, episodes, dreams, hallucinations, trips and revelations. Think William Bourroughs on prescription drugs channelling Dylan Thomas as he wanders through parking lots and peeps into the windows of strangers, and you are halfway there. In these brutal and elemental stories Johnson takes a scalpel to our collective human skin and opens us up to reveal our dirty, grimy and ugly, but vital—and often beautiful—insides. You’ll read these stories with your hands over your eyes.
The drifter who wanders through every page of Jesus’ Son is an unnamed narrator whom we are told will answer to “Fuckhead”. He is an addict, a loser, and a lover capable of both tenderness and betrayal. What sets apart the incandescent “Steady Hands at Seattle General” from the rest of the stories is not formal inventiveness (go to “Dirty Wedding” for that), but its obsessive use of dialogue. One wonders if this is the story that clinched the film for Maclean. The low-key, deadpan delivery in the exchange between Fuckhead and another patient at Seattle General is reminiscent of Raymond Carver’s “Whoever Was Using this Bed” or “Cathedral”. This comparison with Carver is not arbitrary. In 1969, while a student at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, Johnson was taught by the man himself.
Carver’s influence can be seen in the perfectly shaped sentences that explode like small epiphanies off every page. While Carver stuck to whiskey, Johnson shovelled fistfuls of pills into his mouth and dulled himself with heroine. What these two writers share creatively is a tautness of prose, a clarity of vision, and a melancholia punctuated by redemption and transcendence. But where Carver is Apollonian, Johnson is plainly Dionysian. His characters rage, ramble, scrabble, love, fuck, steal, kill, hope, and die. Their lives are ragged and uneven and stained with regret, love gone wrong, and every type of drug imaginable. Thankfully for us, where Carver is,  sadly, no longer with us, Johnson is very much so and still making remarkable work.
In “Steady Hands”, we are not told if the central narrator admitted himself to the detox centre at Seattle General or if he had been brought there by someone—a wife, a mother, a friend, an enemy? This detail is irrelevant though. What matters is that he has been there for two days, and despite the Haldol and the “playpen” of other prescription drugs coursing through his veins, he is more lucid than he has been for some time. Even in his clear moments, however, he has “turned from a light, Styrofoam thing into a person.” And with the rush of legal chemicals in his brain he sees vases, ashtrays, and beds that “looked wet and scary, hardly bothering to cover up their true meanings.” In Johnsonland, nothing bothers to cover up its true meaning; and yet, for all that honesty and hot white clarity, we are left grappling at the mystery behind his words.
Although the set-up of “Steady Hands” could initially appear tragic, the story is in fact funny—laugh-out-loud funny—despite being a conversation between a young, detoxing narrator and an older inmate, Bill, who has been in and out of rehab and has been shot three times in the face, “once by each wife, for a total of three bullets, making four holes, three ins and one out.”
Before we even hear Bill speak we are told that Fuckhead is shaving him. That is, after holding his hands up and comparing them to sculptures—not what you want in a pair of hands with a razor at your throat. But again, nothing is as it seems. Bill seems very relaxed about the situation, his only advice being, “Don’t get tricky with my moustache.” Then they come to a mutual agreement: that Fuckhead should make Bill’s moustache symmetrical. The grooming details are unnervingly tender, intimate and moving, especially when you realise that only days ago, these two men were killing themselves with booze and narcotics.
Our semi-lucid narrator tells Bill that he wants to write a story or a poem about him and asks Bill to describe himself. Bill says, “I’m a fat piece of shit,” and then describes the damage done to him by the shots fired by each of his wives. “Are you going to change any of this for your poem?” Bill asks. And our narrator replies, “No, it’s going in word for word.”

Denis Johnson
We are outside the story somewhat looking in at this moment as we realise that this is Johnson talking. He is unflinching about what “goes in” (Bullets? Words? They’re all the same) and so are his characters. The story winds down gently as our narrator finishes shaving Bill and holds a mirror up to ask what he sees. And then a curveball strikes as Bill confesses that when he looks back on his life he sees wrecked cars full of “people who are just meat now, man.” The older man can only look back, his life ahead just a foggy shape on the horizon. But Fuckhead, we are led to believe, has some hope, some future in front of him. He tells Bill, “Hey you’re doing fine.” Only for Bill to reply, “Talk into my bullet hole. Tell me I’m fine.”
“Steady Hands at Seattle General” is from the short story collection, Jesus’ Son, by Denis Johnson, first published in 1992. You can buy the collection from Granta, UK; or from Picador, US. You can also read the story here.
http://www.litro.co.uk/2012/11/steady-hands-at-seattle-general-by-denis-johnson/

Review of Susana Medina's 'Red Tales' ('Cuentos Rojos')


Red Tales (Cuentos Rojos) by Susana Medina

Red Tales Cuentos RojosRed Tales (Araña Editorial, 2012, translated by Rosie Marteau with the author and Anne McLean), a collection of eight explosive short stories by the Spanish-English writer Susana Medina, takes the reader through a whirling range of styles, textures, voices, centuries and geographical places. Her writing enters physical spaces and human consciousnesses revelling in the places between experience and understanding.
One of the shortest stories in this collection, ‘The Darkened Rooms’, begins with the sentence
‘CANCELLED DUE TO LACK OF DIRECT EXPERIENCE’.
Its seemingly rambling and yet ever-so-sharp sentences paint a tragic picture of that prelapsarian time before AIDS, when men had sex ‘happily condom-less’. Our female narrator muses, Orlando-like, on what it would be like to live in a man’s body, reminding us of the fluidity and randomness of gender and its attendant experiences. Medina pretends to withhold the story from her readers and in doing so gives us more than a story. She offers up emotions, ideas and propositions with a wit and playfulness that can be seen throughout her work.
The opening story, ‘The Ironic Grey Hair’ (its title alone made me want to pick up this collection), is the tale of Lula, an academic, whose thwarted late-night attempt to get into a London fetish club while carrying an air pistol echoes the danger and exhilaration of sex itself. Will she get in, will she not? Eventually Lula ends up on the pavement, her pistol confiscated by a bouncer, nursing one friend’s injured head while her other accomplice has sex with a tranny in the back seat of a car. It is hilariously funny and surreal and yet seems to contain within its latex boundaries so much about life that is true: in our inexorable journey towards death we are confronted with the mundane truth about life, here embodied in a grey pubic hair that features in Lula’s reckless dreams. It is in essence a story about the way that life itself feels real because of its inherent fleetingness. The last lines of the story, physically disappearing from the page as they get smaller and smaller, read like an echo:
‘tomorrow’s another day. Or the day after that. Or the next day. Or the next day. Or the next. Or the next. Or the next. Or the next. Or the next…’
Lula is young enough to feel she still has time, and old enough to see the preciousness of life. She hovers between knowing about nothingness and knowing that she will eventually become part of it.
This existential nothingness is embodied in Medina’s final story, ‘The Space of the Tangible Hallucination’, in which Ella, the object of the narrator’s love, tries to erase her existence by burning her possessions and painting every surface of her house in ‘hyperbrilliant white paint’. In doing so, Ella also erases the narrator’s existence from her life. In one beautifully described scene,
‘Ella holds a tear now transformed into saliva that slides down her throat as if she were crying on the inside’.
Our skin tries to keep out what might harm or even kill us, but in these stories boundaries, be they walls or membranes, often fail. Medina’s stories are meditations on the fluidity of life.
The character in ‘The Stranger’s Maid’ fantasises about wearing
‘a full body condom when she goes out so she doesn’t catch anything because you can also catch invisible diseases’.
The porous quality of physical borders is also reflected in the mental states of Medina’s characters. Elle, the ‘dykette’ in ‘The Space of the Tangible Hallucination’, morphs into a knight whose one desire is to save the object of his/her desire. ‘I am, above all, a true gentleman,’ she proclaims.
But Medina’s power to transform characters from one state to another is not absolute. The mother of the central character from ‘The Stranger’s Maid’ states,
‘If men could have abortions, the clinics would be full. Since men can’t have abortions, they invented society and culture.’
There are limits, after all, to our ability to transcend our biology. Elle experiences another type of transformation when the object of her love begins to disgust her:
‘I suddenly detest her determination … I detest the way she combs her long red hair with her head leant to one side, her blue-tinged skin, her grey eyes, the way she holds her tea cup. I detest her sudden lows that obliterate everything and how she applies hyperbrilliant white paint to the wooden floor. I detest her skill and everything I loved about her before, I now detest.’
Love and hate, male and female, tears and saliva: everything crosses boundaries despite our best attempts to shore up distinct demarcations between states.
‘The Farewell Letter’ is probably the most poetic story in the collection. It is an epistolary meditation on love and loss and the ability to be transformed by passion. The unnamed narrator has been shattered into myriad selves like colours from a prism by a love she both desperately wants and yet simultaneously rejects. Sex and filth and death converge here when the narrator describes a one-night stand in a hotel in Mexico with a man she meets on the motorway:
‘And I think of the hundreds and hundreds of bodies that have passed through this room, the hundreds and hundreds of bodies that have passed through my own body, realising now that I’m a hotel, a hotel room complete with a bathroom where they’ve all deposited their shit, their implausible embraces, their rehearsed words, repeating my name in a bed where they’ve all left their fluids, their pubic hairs and their mange … I’m going to start charging from now on, sick of all these bodies, so many bodies dying all over me as if I were a graveyard.’
This woman must come to accept her fragmented self rather than reconcile its parts, and we last see her wandering ‘peacefully about the abysses of the tangible.’ This is pure Medina, this acceptance that life’s problems cannot be fixed but instead must be turned into intense lived or chronicled experience.
What Medina’s stories do is to examine the mess of life, its filth, its passion, its fleeting moments of beauty and pain and love and loss. She places everything before us, like the lover in her story ‘Where Butterflies Flutter Creating Chemical Turbulence’, who tells the man whose body she craves:
‘our juices on the palate, in the throat, between the gums, a kiss is a world: your sweat: I want to eat you, fuck you and leave you prostrate for days: sore, exhausted, deprived of movement: I want to bite you until it hurts. And I want to see you bleeding.’
The cannibalistic elements here are the logical end of a desire that takes one beyond lust towards consuming the other so it becomes one’s self.  I am reminded of The Taste of a Man, Slavenca Drakulic’s dark tale of a man-eating woman.
These formally inventive tales add up to an unflinching and visceral collection of stories which fragment and coalesce in surprising ways: Borges as written by Poppy Z Brite and Virginia Woolf. Susana Medina’s stories have an alchemical quality, throwing together disparate elements to create tender and terrifying reminders of what it is to be human: the danger and thrill of our appetites and the limits of our reason.