NOLA BOOK AND LITERARY NEWS

from Nathan C. Martin and Friends.
Portrait of Robinson by Aubrey Edwards
Portrait of Robinson by Aubrey Edwards

Pick up the new issue of The Baffler—the quasi-legendary journal of contrarian politics and art co-founded in 1988 by Thomas Frank—to check out a new poem by Room 220 friend and contributor Kristina Robinson. “Diaspora: Breakfast with Mahmoud Darwish,” which Robinson read last summer at a MelaNated Writer’s Literary Jook Joint that featured Baffler poetry editor Thomas Sayers Ellis, is an elliptical travelogue through the Arab Spring, the War on Terror, the Palestinian conflict, and beyond. It recites fragmented moments in history, casting key actors (Sadaam, bin Laden) in ambiguous light, confusing notions hammered home by U.S. politicians and media as to who owns sorrow, struggle, conquest. “I’ll take my imperialism brown/thank you,” Robinson writes. It’s tough to hammer things home for a diaspora.

The Baffler, which was as highly aggravating as it was influential among leftists throughout the 1990s, has gone in and out of print several times in recent years, but seems to have found a steady rhythm lately under the editorship of Jonathan Summers (with help from Frank and Bookforum editor Chris Lehmann) and with publication by MIT Press. It’s consistently smart and mostly makes its mark by pointing out bullshit in bourgeois liberal rhetoric and viewpoints. Frank’s article from a couple issues ago, “Dead End on Shakin’ Street,” is a must-read for anyone living in the increasingly “vibrant” downtown neighborhoods of New Orleans.

Kristina Robinson is currently finishing her MFA in creative writing at the University of New Orleans. She has read at several Room 220 events and written pieces for the site on T. Geronimo Johnson, Cornel West, and the local justice system. She blogs when she feels like it at Life in High Times.

OPP English program director Nik De Dominic. Portrait by Aubrey Edwards
OPP English program director Nik De Dominic. Portrait by Aubrey Edwards

Inside Orleans Parish Prison—one of the worst jails in the country—an English class takes place, not to help inmates fulfill GED requirements, but simply to facilitate their study of literature and books. In this three-part series, Room 220‘s Ari Braverman explores the parts of the program that make it work—and make it worthwhile—from the founder of the program, Nik De Dominic, to the many local writers who teach in it, to the inmates who take part in it. The program is currently an all-volunteer effort, though it is looking for funding.

Click here to read “OPP English, Part II: ‘When I left, my mind was buzzing.’”

By Ari Braverman

Nik De Dominic arrived early to our appointment at the CC’s on Esplanade and was already drinking a latte from a paper cup by the time I sat down. We were meeting to discuss the Orleans Parish Prison Project, a humanities-based local prison education initiative that De Dominic runs. When I asked him why he thought his project was important, he gestured emphatically over his left shoulder. “OPP is right there.

It was easy to forget Orleans Parish Prison was just over a mile from where we sat.

De Dominic’s laid-back charm and talent for projection make it easy to see him enthralling students any classroom—even one in prison. He told me funny, elliptical stories as we talked. He was candid about dropping out of high school and summarized the culture shock of relocation with a pithy “The South is funky, man.”

A native of Los Angeles, De Dominic arrived in New Orleans shortly after graduating with his MFA from the University of Alabama. He was teaching in OPP within the year, having drawn an initial crop of visiting teachers from a local cadre of University of Alabama writing alumni. Now, he says, he’s never at a loss for enthusiastic academics who want to go inside and teach a class or two.

The project draws inspiration from similar—albeit degree-granting—ventures run out of Bard College and Boston University, as well as De Dominic’s experience teaching in Auburn University’s Alabama Prison Arts and Education Program (no such formal, university-based program exists in New Orleans). As we talked, he reminded me more than once that the end goal is to help inmates develop the mental flexibility required for success in a turbulent economy. He contends that exposure to the humanities is an essential component of this process.

Nik De Dominic also teaches full-time at Delgado and is a poetry editor at the New Orleans Review. His poetry and essays have appeared in a number of publications. He was nominated for a Pushcart Prize for his essay “On Teaching in the Staton Correctional Facility, Elmore, AL.”

I. The big question is really: “Why prison?”

Room 220: Why did you want to start this program in New Orleans?

Nik De Dominic: I was teaching for Bard at its early college program in New Orleans, and Orleans Parish Prison invited us into its high school. I taught for a semester through Bard, and when the Bard program took a different direction I took ownership of the project in OPP. But the philosophical reason is bigger. In OPP there was a group of students who were looking to interact with texts that, as an educator, I find interesting, and there were a group of educators and lecturers in town who were ready to work with this population.

I do it in New Orleans because I’m here. If I were elsewhere I’d be doing it elsewhere. The big question is really: “Why prison?” I’ve taught in a variety of environments. I’ve taught at the university level, I’ve taught in high school, and I’ve taught community college. I find prison to be a perfect environment to teach writing. Michael Martone, a professor at the University of Alabama, used to talk about math prodigies and music prodigies and lead the question: “Why are there no writing prodigies?” Because writing, at its base, is experiential. You can find a seven year old who’s got a mind for systems and who can knock out logarithms or a piece by Chopin, but with writing you need to muck it up a bit. In this environment, this group of guys has such a variety of experience to draw from. My program helps give them the tools necessary to voice that experience.

Rm220: Why Orleans Parish Prison?

ND: As I understand it, if you catch less than five years, you can do all five years in OPP. In other states you would most likely get shipped off to state or federal prison.

OPP is essentially a parish jail. The main difference between a state or federal prison and a county jail comes down to—for lack of a better term—extracurricular activities. Resources. If you spend five years in county jail, you’re spending five years on a tier. If you spend five years in a state facility you have the option to take a woodshop class, to get your GED, learn accounting—though there is a GED program in OPP. All these other things are available to you. It doesn’t make sense in our small community, New Orleans, to be okay with guys going into this little box for five years and then getting out right there on Tulane and Broad.

Rm220: How do you think the freedom of what to teach—because this isn’t in a college or university with a set curriculum—affects the class? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of your setup?

ND: The class is structured in 16-week increments. Every other week, visiting lecturers come in and teach texts they believe sparked their intellectual interest.  There’s a huge breadth to that. The text in a given class could be three short stories from Borges or something from Foucault or a text on contemporary art. It could really be anything. In the in-between weeks, I run a primer in preparation for the person coming the following week. It’s interesting to me as a teacher because I’m not teaching the same material every time. My role in the classroom is about facilitation—especially of exploration of different texts. It’s really cool for me to be in there, investigating these pieces with my students.

We do have some student population flux, so the program is structured episodically.  Guys get released. They get shipped upstate. There are other programs going on, so it’s difficult for us to maintain exactly the twelve dudes we start with in the beginning of the semester. By the end of the semester, we usually have four of the original twelve, and we’ll let additional people in as we’re moving along, as word of the program spreads on the tier. Doing that lecture-by-lecture allows students to come in and go out.

II. It’s made me question my assumptions about prisoners

Rm220: How’s the quality of student work?

ND: Their thought-making is really fucking good. I don’t want to weigh it against other students because there’s value to teaching in every kind of environment, but their thought-making is often more complex than in early American lit seminars I’ve taught at university. That’s because OPP students tend to be older, because they have more exposure to more things, because their backgrounds aren’t so defined. For them, it wasn’t: “I went to this junior high, I went to that high school, and I took these AP classes, got this score on my SATs, and then I ended up here and now I’m taking American lit with this funny dude.” In classrooms, we draw analogues to our own experience to make sense of the alien. We’re introduced to something new and figure out how we can put it with all the other stuff we know. These students do that differently because of their experiences.

Rm220: Is there a common profile among the people you teach in OPP? Who’s the typical student?

ND: Every time I’ve taught in prison it’s made me question my assumptions about prisoners, because the demographic inside is vast. It’s 18 to 50, all races. There is a socioeconomic variance. They never fit the stereotype as convicts. They’re dudes who happen to be in this place.

I think the prejudices I’ve lost are part of larger cultural clichés of prison and prison systems. I have no idea what it’s really like on the floor, so I don’t want to pretend to know, but these are really smart, fast students. Not having done this here or in Alabama, I would never have realized that. Our system, our society, throws people away. Most people outside the prison system are not exposed to it, and as we are coded through education and work, we get further and further away from its reality. Unless you have a relative who’s been locked up, or if you come from a certain place, you’re not going to be exposed to these men, so you have no way to interact with prison apart from the idea of prison presented through film or pop culture.

Rm220: How does race operate for you in the prison setting? You said the demographic is varied, but how do you think about your own race and privilege in relation to your students?

ND: I think about systemic racial issues that are present in New Orleans. I think about ways in which I’m treated, navigating my day to day, and the ways my students are treated navigating their day to day—and, of course, I see huge inequities.

I think about every day how groups of people benefit from who they are, from being this, from being that, and I think about how they go about receiving those benefits from society while being unaware of them. It’s hard, right? Thinking, for example, “Wow! I made a really good impression on that person,” when I probably made a really good impression on that person because I’m blonde and blue-eyed and over 6 feet tall. All of these things are definitely at play.

That dynamic has always frustrated me. You asked me to describe the student population inside OPP. They’re just students. It’s something I consistently think about—that if things had come down differently in my life, in many of our lives, being in prison would be a very real possibility. For these men, it’s their reality.

III. A phrase or word will suddenly erupt for them

Rm220: You talk about writing as an experiential thing. Has running this program affected your poetics?

ND: The way language is used by different groups of people—and how it presents itself in people we don’t think of as traditionally educated—has always interested me. Nobody in my family finished high school, except my dad, who finished by way of the Navy. But he was a successful art director for many years, and my mom is a very successful businesswoman. One of the things that allowed them to succeed without the pedigree was their ability to talk. My mom’s incredibly savvy and my dad is a storyteller, and these are ways that I grew up watching people use language.

I teach at Delgado, too, and there I have five classes—so I teach 175 students, total. I’m always listening to how my students talk to each other and what they’re saying. That’s the thing about language that interests me, about teaching that interests me, about my students that interests me: the way they use language, that a phrase or word will suddenly erupt for them. The way a phrase weaves itself in and out of vocabulary, how it peaks and troughs, or trends. That’s what I find fascinating, and that’s what interacting with all sorts of students from all sorts of places does for my work.

Rm220: Do you see people’s output develop from the beginning of the course to the end?

ND: The writing changes and develops because they’re asked to engage with it every day, every week. They become more familiar with it, more used to using their tools. While I don’t believe I teach people how to think, their thinking does change because they become more comfortable discussing texts, more comfortable writing. I try not to introduce students to a lot of needless academic speak. I want them to talk about the work in a way that makes sense for them to talk about it. If they ever want to come to the point where they’re saying “You know, David Foster Wallace isn’t post modern, he’s post post modern because of this that,” that’s fucking great, but right now it’s just about reading “Consider the Lobster” and talking about how fucked up it is to boil sentient creatures. It’s less about coding and more about exposure.

IV. A person who can think can have a skill become obsolete and understand how to adapt and change that skill

Rm220: You’ve said before you believe that teaching critical thinking in prison through the humanities is important in a very practical, concrete way. Will you elaborate on that?

ND: In most prison programs, as well as most community colleges and technical schools—and we’re even seeing traditional universities go this way—professionalization is the end goal. And ultimately, I think that’s a flawed model: Say you go to junior college and you learn AutoCAD. You get out with your two-year certificate and you probably make really good money messing around with AutoCAD and cutting shapes out of blocks of aluminum at the boatyard. In prison the programs are also usually trade oriented: “We’re going to show you how to use this type of carpentry tool so you can produce this particular thing.” While I think there are immense benefits to these types of programs, I also think there’s more benefit to being exposed to the liberal arts or humanities. Given the economy in this country and our stigma against convicts, people get out with these skills that don’t necessarily translate into real economic results. Those jobs aren’t available. What happens when we see Avondale, the shipyard, close down? Delgado’s got all these programs funneling students directly into Avondale. Now these programs are toast.

I don’t know who promised it, but I feel that Americans have the attitude of, “I was supposed to get this, I was supposed to get that,” and all that stuff’s not there anymore, especially for the population at OPP. When the system fails, however we’ve coded you to work within that system also fails, because job training is not necessarily flexible. Being able to think about the world dynamically, to think about it in terms of text and language and how we can manipulate those things is immensely beneficial on the market. There are two types of thinking when it comes to education: professionalization, in terms of trade, or in terms of thought. Academe, however fucked up it is, truly values its people based on their capacity to think. A person who can think can have a skill become obsolete and understand how to adapt and change that skill, to evolve as the market evolves. Some of these guys I’m teaching have felony convictions and can’t get a job at a bank, but they can think.

Glassie - cover

By John Sebastian

Athanasius Kircher, a seventeenth-century German Jesuit and self-styled “master of a hundred arts,” is credited with inventing the megaphone, a pre-cursor to the computer, and (perhaps) a cat piano. His intense curiosity about the world around him motivated him to pursue studies in fields as disparate as magnetism and magic, optics and acoustics, Egyptology and volcanology. He and his work have been widely researched by scholars, but until recently have never been the subject of a general-interest book.

This winter saw the publication of A Man of Misconceptions: The Life of an Eccentric in an Age of Change, an accessible and entertaining biography of Kircher by former New York Times Magazine contributing editor John Glassie. Glassie will present his book at 7 p.m. on Monday, April 22, in the Audubon Room of the Danna Center on the main campus of Loyola University New Orleans (6363 Saint Charles Avenue). The lecture will be preceded by an exhibition of the 1667 print edition of Kircher’s China illustrata in Special Collections on the third floor of Loyola’s Monroe Library from 5:30 until 6:30 p.m.

Room 220: How did you first come to be interested in Kircher, and what made you want to write about him?

John Glassie: I really became fascinated with him after being asked to write an essay to go with a series of images selected from Kircher’s books. This was in 2005, for a visual-culture annual called the Ganzfeld that’s unfortunately no longer being published. Kircher wrote more than thirty books on almost as many topics: magnetism, music, medicine, optics, acoustics, cosmology, Egyptology, geology, and a lot more. Many of them are a thousand pages long and they’re filled with beautiful engravings as illustrations. I took some academic material about him home with me and I was just blown away by it all. There was no general-interest book that told his story, and I just felt like it had to be done.

Rm220: Kircher lived at a time when many familiar ways of thinking were being edged out by new ideas. As you put it in the book, he was born into a world where most people believed the earth was at the center of the universe, but by the time he died, the earth had been displaced by the sun. We’re also living in age of profound scientific and cultural change. Are there lessons that we can learn from Kircher’s life and his response to change?

JG: I think that many of the things we’re absolutely sure of will turn out to be wrong. I think we can count on looking silly to future generations of humans because every era does. Kircher ended up looking foolish in part because he held onto some conventionally held notions of the day—astral influence, for example, or the idea that small living things such as insects, frogs, and snakes are born spontaneously from decaying matter. He also believed in the hollowness of mountains and something called “universal sperm.” At any rate, I think it’s important to maintain both an open mind and some healthy skepticism, and to try not to fall in love with our own ideas.

Kircher’s “China illustrada” contains elaborate illustrations of social and natural phenomena in the Far East, including the flying turtles of Henan (pictured). An original 1667 edition of this book will be on display in the Special Collections room of Loyola’s Monroe Library preceding Glassie’s talk on April 22.

Rm220: If you had been alive in the 1600s and had met Kircher, do you think you would have like him?

JG: I think so. He was lively, really brilliant, and very charismatic. It was his charisma, along with his willingness to fudge the truth a bit, that landed him in Rome, where he rubbed elbows with popes such as Urban VIII and Alexander VII and great artists like Bernini. As I describe in the book, he told great stories from his youth about surviving stampeding horses, a mill-wheel accident, a bad case of gangrene, and the armies of an insane Bishop before winding up there. And he delighted people who came to visit his museum in the Collegio Romano, the Jesuit college there, with the things he had on display: magic lanterns, speaking statues, the tailbones of a mermaid.

Rm220: Some people—Descartes among them—apparently found him a bit off-putting.

JG: Descartes wrote that Kircher was “quite boastful” and “more of a charlatan than scholar,” but he never met him—that was his reaction after thumbing through Kircher’s great big book on magnetism, first published in 1641. The interesting thing is that Descartes wasn’t actually quite as dismissive as those quotes make him seem. He was very intrigued, if also skeptical, about Kircher’s claims that he could drive a clock with a sunflower seed. The idea was that the seed would turn to follow the sun the way the sunflower itself does—that it was drawn by the magnetic attraction of the sun to do so. Descartes didn’t find the idea to be so ridiculous that he didn’t try it himself. (It didn’t work.)

Meow meow meow MEOW meow meeeooowwww meow meow me me me meow meow meow meow MEOW meow meeeooowwww meow meow me me me meow meeeooow meow meow

Rm220: Kircher is often remembered, when he is remembered at all, for his supposed invention of the infamous cat piano.

JG: Right. Actually there’s a cat-piano i-Phone app now—so you can give a concert on one and no animals will have been harmed. Actually, it’s not clear he thought it up, or that he ever made one, but it has always been attributed to him.

Rm220: So, for what should we remember Kircher?

JG: I’ll pick three things off the top of my head out of a couple dozen: coining the term electromagnetism, inadvertently investing Tarot cards with the occult significance we now associate with them, and confounding or stimulating a lot of great minds of his time.

Rm220: You’re a bit of a Renaissance man yourself. Your previous book was a collection of photographs of mangled bicycles chained to poles. Do you fancy yourself a modern-day Athanasius Kircher?

JG: I’m really more like a dilettante than a Renaissance man, certainly as compared with Kircher and other polymaths of his era. Those guys blow everybody out of the water. Kircher knew perhaps a dozen languages, experimented with an algorithmic approach to music composition, pursued his interest in geological matters by climbing down into the smoking crater of Mount Vesuvius!

Rm220: What’s next for you after neglected bikes and quirky Jesuits?

JG: My standard answer is “something easier.” This was a pretty hard project. It might have to do with an 18th-century raft trip or a beatnik Hollywood photographer.

Portrait by Harold Baquet
Portrait by Harold Baquet

New Orleans’ resident airport scholar Christopher Schaberg, author of The Textual Life of Airports: Reading the Culture of Flight and co-editor of Airplane Reading, will present his book at 6 p.m. on Saturday, April 20, at the Bayou St. John branch of Maple Street Books (3122 Ponce de Leon St.).

By Nathan C. Martin

Thanks in large part to layovers and delays during a string of months lousy with travel, I was able to read Christopher Schaberg’s The Textual Life of Airports: Reading the Culture of Flight almost entirely inside airports. Just as Under the Volcano might evoke gusty sentiments for a reader venturing through Mexico or reading A Confederacy of Dunces while in New Orleans might make a visitor’s sensibilities more acute, the experience of reading The Textual Life of Airports in airports amplified for me in real time the rich and bizarre tapestry of elements that, as Schaberg points out, are often designed specifically not to be noticed.

The Textual Life of Airports, recently out from Bloomsbury in paperback, results from a confluence of Schaberg’s occupations-turned-preoccupations. The book is adapted from the doctoral dissertation he wrote as a student at the University of California, Davis (he currently teaches English at Loyola University New Orleans). Much of it deals with the ways in which airports are presented in literature, examining texts such as Don Delillo’s Underworld and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Last Tycoon. But it also draws deep inspiration from the time Schaberg spent working at the airport in Bozeman, Montana, where he realized that, far from being the generic “non-places” that theorists such as Marc Augé peg them to be, airports are fascinating environments that demand and reward interpretation.

Schaberg illustrates a variety of paradoxes inherent in air travel. For instance, he uses a character from Delillo’s play Valparaiso—a sad bastard who attempts to fly to Valparaiso, Indiana, only to end up in Valparaiso, Chile—to show us the airplane passenger is “at once the free flying liberal subject and the determined body whose life is subject to an elaborate orchestration involving ‘computers and metal detectors and uniformed personnel and bomb-sniffing dogs.’” At another point, Schaberg uses a journal excerpt by the crotchety naturalist Edward Abbey—“Sitting around, two hours, three, in the wretched clamorous rotten and crowded fucking Denver airport. Christ, you have to wait in line for every damn thing here”—to discuss the incongruity that, in airports, we consider ourselves “traveling” but, for the most part, we’re sitting there waiting around.

Along with his examination of airports in texts, Schaberg’s book also looks at airports as texts, asking what we can decode from their symbols and systems. By the end of the book, although it was very clear that airports fascinate Schaberg, it remained ambiguous to me whether he likes them. The places he depicts manipulate their occupants through a series of control systems that at once enervate and dehumanize. The design, jargon, and security apparatus of airports exact a sort of soft brutality upon passengers, encouraging—nay, demanding—they conform to a certain regiment of actions, all within a benevolent décor of muzak, pastels, and instances of regional flare inserted among an aesthetic that’s homogenous from Honolulu to Hamburg.

Airports read us.

Of course, while we can read and read about airports, airports also read us. Schaberg’s chapter “The Airport Screening Complex” begins with the author’s account of receiving the “No Fly List” at the Bozeman airport shortly after the 9/11 attacks and the perverse pleasure the author and his coworkers took in consulting it if “a passenger seemed suspicious; this was a totally subjective exercise, based entirely on the passenger’s appearance or the level of pronunciation difficulty that a passenger’s name posed.” Airports, post 9/11, have become intimately entwined with the Department of Homeland Security and other federal “intelligence” agencies that cull information about our lives—criminal histories, etc.—and determine our suitability for air travel. Airport security agents also “read” our bodies as we pass through body scanners that produce for them a slightly distorted digital version of our nakedness. From the screens on which these images appear to the “screening” we’re subjected to that might land us on the “No Fly List” to the screens in terminals that show news and those in the backs of airplane seats that show movies, Schaberg uses the notion of “screen” to illustrate the complex interplay of looking, examining, entertainment, boredom, and surveillance in airports, and how they at once enhance and pierce the sense of mysteriousness that, he argues, permeates air travel.

Some of the ways in which Google suggests we look at a blackbird

Associations such as those Schaberg creates around the notion of “screens” generate much of The Textual Life of Airports’ intellectual energy—they create links between the innocuous (TV screens) and ominous (body scanner screens), revealing their interconnectedness as parts of larger systems. In the book’s longest and finest chapter, “Bird Citing,” Schaberg employs a similar set of associations revolving around birds to show the continued symbolic dependence of airports on our fine feathered friends and to position airports as environments that transcend human exceptionalism. He notes the design of airplanes, airline logos, airport architecture, and art inside airports all pay heavy homage to birds, but also that birds frequently die in large numbers as flocks and planes collide in the air, and that the open grassy expanses around air strips often serve as birds’ habitats. He includes in the chapter a series of deft moves: from Wallace Stevens’ “13 Ways of Looking at a Blackbird” to a Gary Snyder poem that describes a cargo plane landing at Beale airport, then to a Google satellite image of Beale that shows a Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, followed by a Google search of “blackbird” that tells us that, while Stevens found 13 ways to look at a blackbird, Google suggests that there are about 1,630,000 ways of looking at a blackbird. It is in this manner that Schaberg’s examination of airports and their constituent parts and relations as “texts” flowers outward in unexpected and exciting ways.

It seems clear that air travel is becoming increasingly intolerable. Fares are becoming higher each year, with added costs for baggage. There are fewer flights and they’re always full. Amenities such as in-flight snacks are becoming crappier. Security checkpoints are onerous and in about one in every ten or so visits, it seems, passengers get to stand in silent embarrassment as some “Middle Eastern-looking” person is pulled aside. Body scanners shoot us with questionable rays or we’re subjected to groping “pat downs.” Airlines tailor their services more acutely to the super rich. Planes burn an obscene amount of fossil fuels, poisoning the atmosphere and heightening our dependence on oil. Underpaid pilots go on strike, leaving those of us labor-minded travelers to sympathize with them while grumbling curses as we’re delayed for hours or days. Security agents steal our pocketknives and toothpaste. The whole thing seems like a tanking enterprise, and even if it’s not, it’s in unquestionably in flux. Air travel has been a defining characteristic in modern life in the 20th century, but as Internet technologies allow us to symbolically traverse space from our home office and the actual process of transporting our bodies across great distances becomes more onerous, it’s unclear what its role will be in the 21st. For this reason, Schaberg’s study of airports is timely, and his insistence on examining them as “texts” beyond their mere functions provides a platform from which a larger study of airports—and other apparent “non-places”—as environments or objects can and should be built.

Carr

Loyola University New Orleans will host Nicholas Carr, author of The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, April 17, in Roussel Hall (corner of St. Charles Ave. and Calhoun St.) on the university’s main campus.

The Shallows chronicles the history of intellectual technologies, beginning with maps and continuing into the Internet age, and draws from neurological and psychological research to argue that, while the Internet provides for us incredible possibilities, the way in which we interact with it is transforming our minds, obliterating our ability for deep, contemplative thought.

The event is part of Loyola’s Presidential Centennial Guest Speaker Series, which, throughout the past few months, has presented the archbishop of New Orleans, Wynton Marsalis, Cokie Roberts, and a handful of Catholic scholars. Carr seems at first a bit of an odd choice in this lineup, but because of issues facing U.S. higher education and the preoccupations of Loyola’s president, his selection makes perfect sense.

Kevin Wildes, a Jesuit priest and president of Loyola, has spoken plainly about his concerns regarding the wholesale adoption of online technologies in education. In remarks to the faculty and staff of Loyola last summer, he noted that American culture has a bias toward technology and “the new,” and that we tend to assume that the latest and newest technology is the “best.” In his talk, Wildes conceded that St. Ignatius of Loyola—who founded the Jesuit order 400 years ago and set forth the pedagogical framework that Jesuit schools around the world follow to this day—fervently adopted the latest technology of his time (pens, ink, paper) and that the Jesuit way of proceeding encourages priests to “meet people where they are” (in this case, online all the time). But he went on to express his reservations toward online education that illuminate his selection of Carr as a speaker:

We are not only concerned with the accumulation of courses and information but with the education of the whole person. In our model of a university teaching a course is not simply handing out information. Education, in a Jesuit university, takes place in community and in discussion. As someone who has taught online courses, I am continually struck by the challenge of creating intellectual community. Real time discussion allows students to learn from the professor and one another.

As someone who teaches regularly I know the value to the evolving communications technologies tied to the Internet. They can support, aid, and assist what we do with students and they can open doors for us, particularly with graduate and professional students. But, in a Jesuit model of education I think the formative part of the education we promise, which goes beyond the mere assembling of information, needs to take place face to face.

It might be easy to think of Wildes, a priest-scholar and philosopher, as a sure fit in the category of people who would tend to be suspicious of the Internet (even though his expertise is in bioethics, a field deeply entwined with technology). Another who comes to mind is Lewis Lapham—the long-time Harper’s editor, silverhair, and print devotee—whose current project, Lapham’s Quarterly, collects great thought from throughout the ages in handsome themed issues. In a piece about Lapham in Smithsonian Magazine, Ron Rosenbaum described the paradox Lapham confronts:

Suddenly thanks to Google Books, JSTOR and the like, all the great thinkers of all the civilizations past and present are one or two clicks away. The great library of Alexandria, nexus of all the learning of the ancient world that burned to the ground, has risen from the ashes online. And yet—here is the paradox—the wisdom of the ages is in some ways more distant and difficult to find than ever, buried like lost treasure beneath a fathomless ocean of online ignorance and trivia that makes what is worthy and timeless more inaccessible than ever.

Nicholas Carr, on the other hand, is a less likely Internet skeptic. He is a technology writer whose previous books parse complex questions related to IT management and liken the trend toward universal Internet connection to the emergence of the electricity grid. He was on the steering board of the World Economic Forum’s cloud computing project, frequently contributes to Wired, and his work has appeared in the Best Technology Writing anthology (among many other places).

Carr has said his inspiration to write The Shallows came from his own experience feeling his mind morph as a result of being online. He would be reading a book—an activity that had always come to him naturally—but before long his attention would drift and he would feel compelled to put the book down, check his email, Google something. After dispelling the notion that he was merely succumbing to middle-age brain rot, he began looking into the ways in which his interaction with the Internet was making him unable to concentrate.

Perhaps the finest recent account through a personal lens of the way in which the Internet affects us is “Generation Why?” Zadie Smith’s ostensible review of David Fincher’s The Social Network and Jaron Lanier’s You Are Not a Gadget. In Smith’s trademark style, the essay cleaves closely to her thoughts and emotions while making its points and even recounts the author’s decision to delete her Facebook account. She ends the piece by concluding The Social Network is not a film damning “any particular real-world person called ‘Mark Zuckerberg.’ It’s a cruel portrait of us: 500 million sentient people entrapped in the recent careless thoughts of a Harvard sophomore.”

Because Nicholas Carr’s talk about The Shallows will take place on a university campus, the majority of those in attendance will be students. There could not be a more appropriate audience, though it’s unclear how they will receive Carr’s warnings. In Smith’s essay, she pontificates whether a gulf has emerged between people divided by the ways in which they engage the Internet. She imagines herself on one side while an increasingly large group of young people gathers (or is already on) the other:

How long is a generation these days? I must be in Mark Zuckerberg’s generation—there are only nine years between us—but somehow it doesn’t feel that way. This despite the fact that I can say (like everyone else on Harvard’s campus in the fall of 2003) that “I was there” at Facebook’s inception … At the time, though, I felt distant from Zuckerberg and all the kids at Harvard. I still feel distant from them now, ever more so, as I increasingly opt out (by choice, by default) of the things they have embraced. We have different ideas about things. Specifically we have different ideas about what a person is, or should be. I often worry that my idea of personhood is nostalgic, irrational, inaccurate. Perhaps Generation Facebook have built their virtual mansions in good faith, in order to house the People 2.0 they genuinely are, and if I feel uncomfortable within them it is because I am stuck at Person 1.0. Then again, the more time I spend with the tail end of Generation Facebook (in the shape of my students) the more convinced I become that some of the software currently shaping their generation is unworthy of them. They are more interesting than it is. They deserve better.

Moshfegh child

Ottessa Moshfegh, winner of the 2013 Paris Review Plimpton Prize for Fiction, will read along with Carlus Henderson at a Happy Hour Salon from 6 – 8 p.m. on Friday, April 5, at the Press Street HQ (3718 St. Claude Ave.).

Ottessa Moshfegh is less than forthcoming about her life and practice as a fiction writer. Although this makes writing about her a bit difficult, it’s refreshing in the Facebook era of hyper-disclosure, in which most individuals succumb to the implicit motivation to share with the world the trivial minutiae of his or her pointless plod toward death.

“I guess I feel that the less someone knows about me, the bigger chance they’ll give my work,” Moshfegh said. “Who cares where I went to school?”

The writer bios at the bottom of her stories and in the backs of journals in which she publishes—such as the Paris Review, Unsaid, NOON, Guernica, Vice, and many others—are borderline cryptic, often reading simply “Ottessa Moshfegh lives in Los Angeles.” Until she was recently compelled to produce a standard, current author photo, most of the images of her one could find online showed Moshfegh as a child, blowing out birthday candles or standing shirtless with a towel on her head. She also seems to resist the impulse some writers have of constantly self-consciously scanning their ongoing existences in order to determine what might make good fodder for fiction. A note at the beginning of “Medicine” tells us: “This is a story that started off as a confessional letter. I lived in China during my early 20s and until now haven’t wanted to write anything about it.”

The current author photo we now have—which reveals that Moshfegh is likely somewhere in her 30s, with large, dark eyes and long brown hair that does not quite conceal her ears—does as little as her name to assist one in pinning down her familial origins. Her first name evokes the Ukrainian port city (or the small town in Texas where Friday Night Lights takes place) and her surname reminds one, perhaps, of Mohammad Mosaddegh, the Iranian prime minister who was overthrown in the coup that established the shah. An interviewer recently asked Moshfegh about the sense of “ancient sadness” that her stories evoke, and where that might have come from. Moshfegh simply replied: “I don’t know. It’s in my face, too. You can see it. My family history might have something to do with it.”

This sense of sadness pervades two stories Moshfegh recently published in the Paris Review that earned her this year’s $10,000 Plimpton Prize for Fiction, which she’ll fly to New York to accept after reading in New Orleans at the Press Street HQ on April 5. In those two stories—“Disgust” and “Bettering Myself”—Moshfegh renders decrepitude and isolation in exquisite prose that leaves room for the possibility of beauty—if not by describing it, then by channeling it. She presents her characters’ pitiful hopelessness so artfully a reader can’t help but be filled with gratitude for the small bits of bliss and victory available in a generally demoralizing world.

In “Disgust,” a middle-aged man in suburban China named Mr. Wu pines after a woman who runs the local arcade. His inner monologue is pathetic—and, at times, sadistic—but his outsized sense of triumph makes him remain endearing. Instead of asking the woman for her number, Wu gets it from a flyer advertising a discount at the arcade and, upon receiving this treasure, immediately emails his brother to pronounce that he will likely be married in a year. After pondering what his opening text to her should be—they’ve never spoken beyond stilted pleasantries—he confers with his neighbor, who tells him his wife was made desperate in her search for a mate by her deformed hand, which “reminded Mr. Wu of a large prawn … that twisted, thin, limp and red-skinned tentacle.” Mr. Wu’s pick-up texts to the woman at the arcade begin:  “How does it feel to be a middle aged divorcee living with your retarded nephew and working in a computer café? Is it everything you ever dreamed?” The final scene includes Mr. Wu shooting off fireworks and “pausing now and then to raise his arms in victory.”

“Sometimes my characters insist on winning,” Moshfegh told an interviewer. “That’s all I can say.”

The thing about writer bios and lists of degrees and publications and author photos and interviews about craft and publishing is that they’re often murderously boring, and seem otherwise only to navel-gazing writers awash in the cults of personality and meritocracy we’ve been trained to worship. This, rather than caginess, seems to compel Moshfegh to forego the standard self-promotion template—although, as she mentioned, keeping your public self murky makes your work shine harder. She is open to describing her influences, for instance, such as being upset after reading Ray Bradbury and Alice Walker and Herman Hesse in 6th grade. “I started writing around that time because I couldn’t handle just sitting there after being so blown away,” she said.

It’s unsurprising, given the musicality of her prose, that she cites a musician as her most profound early source of inspiration: “Valentina Lass was my piano teacher for many years, up until I graduated from high school in Boston in the late nineties,” Moshfegh said. “I saw her twice a week. She was a small, Russian woman who lived alone in an apartment down the street from the conservatory, just past the Museum of Fine Arts. She was an avid traveler. She had a huge bookshelf in her living room piled high with mementos and keepsakes and little trinkets from all over the world. She was obviously very passionate, and yet her passion was contained. I loved her. She was the most generous person I’ve ever known. The way she talked about the compositions I was learning, the characters, the innuendos, the ecstasy, all of that, influenced me profoundly. Seeing the divine order of a piece was heartbreaking and magical. That’s what I want to do in my stories. It was rough with the piano. I didn’t practice enough. But she taught me subtlety, and how to be an actress through voice and harmony and how to dramatize my own experiences. I wasn’t technically talented enough to be a professional pianist, thank god.”

Moshfegh’s reading on April 5 is funded in part by a grant from South Arts in partnership with the National Endowment for the Arts, as well as Poets & Writers.

South Arts

Happy Hour Salon: Ottessa Moshfegh and Carlus Henderson

EVENT: Friday April 5, 6:00pm - 8:00pm
@ Press Street HQ (3718 St. Claude Ave.)
Carlus Henderson and Ottessa Moshfegh are both more attractive and contemplative than you are.
Carlus Henderson and Ottessa Moshfegh are both more attractive and contemplative than you are.

Please join Room 220 as we host the season’s second Happy Hour Salon with authors Ottessa Moshfegh and Carlus Henderson from 6 – 8 p.m. on Friday, April 5, at the Press Street HQ (3718 St. Claude Ave.). As always, this event is free and open to the public, and complimentary libations will be on hand (though we strongly encourage donations).

Ottessa Moshfegh, though yet to publish a book, is one of the country’s best young short story writers. She renders decrepitude, sadness, and isolation in exquisite prose that leaves room for the possibility of beauty—if not by describing it, then by channeling it. She is a deeply funny writer, and as editor David McLendon wrote, her stories “maybe cause a bit of discomfort.” But Moshfegh presents her characters’ pitiful hopelessness so artfully a reader can’t help but be filled with gratitude for the small bits of bliss and victory available in a generally horrendous world. Her fiction has appeared in many of the nation’s best journals (and others that are at least respectable), including the Paris ReviewNOONGuernica, the Columbia Review, Unsaid, SleepingfishFence, and Vice. She has won a slew of fancy awards and lives in Los Angeles.

Read a post about Moshfegh and her work on Room 220.

Carlus Henderson is a Zell Fellow in the MFA program at the University of Michigan who splits his time between Detroit and New Orleans. He has also won a number of fancy awards, and has been a high school teacher in New Orleans, a cheese salesman in Vermont, and a dockworker along the Eastern seaboard. You can hear a slightly scratchy recording of his melodious voice here.

This reading is funded in part by a grant from South Arts in partnership with the National Endowment for the Arts, as well as Poets & Writers.

South Arts

Portrait by Aubrey Edwards
Portrait by Aubrey Edwards

By Nathan C. Martin

Someone quipped at last weekend’s Tennessee Williams Festival that Nathaniel Rich’s new novel, Odds Against Tomorrow, was the best Katrina book set in New York City. This observation conceals a degree of truth beneath its corniness, since Rich—a New York native—began his novel about a hurricane hitting New York City six years ago, before moving from his hometown to New Orleans in 2010. Shades of post-Katrina New Orleans are everywhere among the skyscrapers and brownstones of Rich’s flooded Manhattan.

In the book, one encounters vast and detailed descriptions of catastrophes of every stripe—from earthquakes to plagues to cyberwar—from the paranoid perspective of Mitchell Zukor, a young math whiz in the employ of a boutique Wall Street firm that specializes in disaster consulting. When the storm hits, Mitchell and a co-worker/love interest named Jane must escape the city, and as they do the real-world effects of disaster refract through Mitchell’s psyche, which has been molded by years of obsessing over precisely such a scenario. By the end, Mitchell’s mind has metamorphosed.

Odds Against Tomorrow is a fast read, which flattered Rich when I told him as much. “That’s exciting. That’s what I hope for,” he told me. “It was important for me to have a thriller pace, or a noir pace in a sense that the main character is going deeper and deeper down a dark passage.” I speculate the speed of Rich’s prose has something to do with his constant writing for magazines, which often demand greater briskness than literary fiction—he contributes regularly to New York Review of BooksNew York Times Magazine, Harper’s, the Daily Beast, and others. He began writing Odds almost immediately after finishing his first novel, The Mayor’s Tongue, and he told me he has already dived into another.

Rich will celebrate the launch of Odds Against Tomorrow at 6 p.m. on Thursday, April 4, at Garden District Books (2727 Prytania St.). He will also read as part of Room 220’s LIVE PROSE reading series on Thursday, May 9, with Rachel Kushner and Zachary Lazar, at the Press Street HQ.

We spoke last Friday in my backyard about his book.

Room 220: There’s a lot of talk of Wall Street and high New York finance in Odds Against Tomorow, which you began writing just before the crash in 2008. Since then, there was the bailout, TARP, Occupy Wall Street, etc. How did the increased presence of that narrative in the national conversation affect what you were doing with the book?

Nathaniel Rich: I had the idea in 2007, before the crash—I had finished a draft of the novel by the time Lehmann Brothers went down. But when I reflect on it now, I think everyone kind of knew there was shady shit happening on Wall Street—we didn’t understand it entirely, and we might still not, but I think even before it happened and cable news started reporting on it, there was a sense that something corrupt was going on. It was in the air. Then when it happened, I was able to articulate the details a bit more.

Rm220: In his Paris Review interview, Norman Rush talks about a genius character named Denoon in his novel Mating: He says, “I felt a need to prove to the reader that Denoon was an intellectual of a certain caliber. I didn’t want the narrator saying, ‘Oh, trust me, he’s brilliant.’” With Mitchell Zukor, you’re writing a math genius. What sorts of things went into creating that authentic or believable genius?

NR: Like anything in fiction, you have to be an expert on what you’re writing about, or at least give the appearance of expertise. It’s true of writing about a math genius in the same way it’s true about writing an unhappily married suburban father, or writing a female character. Math, in fact, is easier, because nobody really knows about math geniuses, so you can fake it a little more easily. It’s a lot harder, say, for a male author to have a convincing female character, because half of your audience already putting you up to extreme scrutiny. But there are very few math geniuses. The character is derived in part from biographies of famous mathematicians and scientists—Einstein, Tesla, Edison, Bobby Fischer. I had to learn the basic math—probability and statistics—but a lot of that was surprisingly easy.

Rm220: Mitchell also has an encyclopedic knowledge of New York City and all these catastrophe scenarios. What sort of research went into making those depictions?

NR: Everything in the novel that appears factual is drawn from real research. I studied a lot of government reports, especially predictions about flooding and hurricanes. I read a lot of books about catastrophe prediction and disaster planning. As I was writing, I would look up various charts and maps from academic or government sources. None of the bad news in the book is made up, which is why it’s scary. But it has to be that way, because if something in the novel were false, everything would lose credibility.

Rm220: Did you have to go back and revise at all once Sandy hit?

NR: I was editing the final proofs when Sandy hit. I had to change one part where Mitchell’s reviewing previous flood scenarios in New York City and there’s a sentence that says something to the effect of, “Most recently, in 1992, a Nor’easter hit, flooding the subways.” So I had to insert something there about Sandy, but I didn’t have to rewrite any of the technical stuff about the storm itself—the degree of the flooding, the evacuation routes, the flood zones. I was worried that I would have to, but the truth is that the Army Corps of Engineers and the Office of Emergency Management predicted it all very precisely before the storm. So I was drawing from predictions that were proved quite accurate.

Rm220: How did it feel to watch Sandy hit?

NR: One thing is that I knew it could have been a lot worse—and there will come storms that will be a lot worse. It was only a Category One. If it was a Category Three like it is in my book—or worse—it would have been much more upsetting for obvious reasons, but I also think you’d have to cancel the book, because it would be like publishing a novel about the bombing of the World Trade Center right after 9/11. So I was relieved that wasn’t the case, and to some extent I was relieved that nothing that happened—as surprising as it might have been to some of the reporters covering it—came as a surprise to anybody in the government or any scientist who had studied it.

Rm220: You moved to New Orleans while you were writing the book. How did moving to a city that had been decimated by a storm change your approach to writing a book about that topic?

NR: Quite a lot. I rewrote the final third of the novel, which takes place after the hurricane hit, in New Orleans. Seeing the effect—even five, six, seven years after Katrina—that the flooding had on the land, the trauma that it caused for the people who lived here and how long-lasting and persistent it was, and the unusual ways in which it emerged in day-to-day life many years after the storm absolutely affected the way I wrote about New York after the storm in the novel. The community where Mitchell sets up after the storm is a fictionalized version of something like the Lower Ninth Ward, but in New York—it’s wiped clean the way that parts of the Lower Ninth were.

Rm220: Did writing about disaster in a city seem more palpable or real once you got here?

NR: Absolutely. I understand a little more sharply the human stakes involved, the emotional stakes, the trauma, but also the great amount of determination and will that there is to rebuild after a devastating storm. There are things I knew intellectually, but having talked to people and met people who lived through it made it more vivid for me and changed the way I wrote about it, especially in the very final pages of the book.

Rm220: A couple instances in the book explicitly point to the tension between disaster and language. There’s a part where someone’s watching the evening news and thinking that the hurricane is going to be this sort of indescribable phenomenon, but then the reporter just goes through the motions, the laundry list one expects. And then there’s a point where Mitchell and Jane are canoeing through the wreckage and they decide to stop naming things that they see, because doing so intensifies their nightmarish reality. How did you deal with the tension between disaster and language?

NR: A shocking thing about catastrophes is that they can be rendered into mundane stories. There’s something almost traumatic about the way that they can be digested by the news cycle—and even by the way you talk about them in your day-to-day life. Words are insufficient to convey the emotional force and the devastation of a disaster.

Disaster also has its own clichés. Writing about disaster is very challenging, because you have to break through the clichés and the stock images we have in our brains about disasters. I did not want to write a novelistic version of some Hollywood blockbuster. Part of the way to do that is to just keep everything very specific and localized to the character. I tried to stay within Mitchell’s point of view. I think that’s true to how we experience disasters—one doesn’t experience Katrina hitting New Orleans. One has their house flooded, their electricity cut, has to walk through flooded streets. In order to recreate the horror of a situation like that, I needed to move beyond those clichés.

Rm220: I think you did a good job, except for one point in the book. That’s when Mitchell and Jane are in the canoe moving toward what they think will be dry land, but upon nearing their destination they come upon a mob of savage looters. It stuck out to me because people are very sensitive—especially in New Orleans—about this notion of people turning into animals in the wake of disaster, and how that facilitates police oppression and other nasty things. Rebecca Solnit has a whole book about it. People loot, of course, but the “savage looter” has been pretty clearly shone not to be what most people turn into. And it might be a disaster cliché.

NR: That scene takes place in Midtown Manhattan, one of the wealthiest areas of Manhattan. I wanted to write about the desperation that sets in, especially in people who feel that even in the worst-case scenario they’re going to be insulated and fine. I think the cliché would be to set the scene in Bed Stuy—if there were black people in Bed Stuy raiding stores, that would be the cliché, that’s noxious. And I avoided that. The stories of the characters once they get to the FEMA park—of people who come from the outer boroughs and aren’t from Manhattan and have been displaced by the storm—those tend to be the more positive stories that you suggest. The characters in the scene you refer to belong to the Wall Street community, which begins to devour itself. I felt like that was a necessary step in the progression of the story. Mitchell starts off in this very insulated, wealthy Wall Street world and this is the beginning of his path out of that. The first step is to understand that barbarity and desperation can even occur at the higher socioeconomic levels of society.

The other thing is that looting does happen during storms. It would be politically correct to suggest that it doesn’t. Good things happen, but bad things happen, too. That’s humanity.

The graphic style of the program cover from 2010 (left) has given way to a an updated look for this year that is in stride with more inclusive speakers and panels.

Covers from TWF 2010 (L) and 2013 (R). From stodgy, smoking FQ romanticism to Lichtenstein pop art hipness (I guess).

This article originally appeared as an op ed in The Lens.

By Nathan C. Martin

I first heard about the Tennessee Williams Festival a mere few days after arriving in New Orleans, in February 2010.

A literary festival! What a treat for a bookish fellow like me!

I attended a panel featuring scriptwriters and directors of the “Treme” TV series, which was about to premiere its first season, and it was fine. But the feel inside of the Royal Sonesta Hotel was stodgy, old, a bit awkward, and very white—even for a literary event. I looked through the rest of the festival program. “Who are these people?” I thought. My attention soon drifted elsewhere.

In January 2011, I started Room 220: New Orleans Book and Literary News and began online publication of interviews, reviews, and updates related to local writerly endeavors. As the 2011 Tennessee Williams Festival approached, I thought I might give it some coverage. But as I scanned the docket of authors and the schedule of events, I grew discouraged. Everything seemed corny and the participants second-rate. With nothing that seemed worth hyping, I tapped out a small note for Room 220 that simply said: “You won’t see me at the Tennessee Williams Festival.”

This year, that’s not the case. I’m going to give the Tennessee Williams Festival another shot, and I encourage you to, as well. With several new key staff members on board, an increasingly searching eye on the national literary landscape, and a diversification of events and authors, the festival appears to be undergoing a sharp upgrade.

It is also making efforts to include more authors of color. This is a welcome move for obvious reasons, but it also better serves taxpayers—who help support the festival through agencies like the Louisiana Division of the Arts and the Arts Council of New Orleans—by spending their money on an event that’s not quite so lily white.

Susan Larson has had a lot to do with the improvements. The former books editor of the Times-Picayune has been a longtime supporter of the fest, but until recently her role was limited by her obligations to the newspaper. She is now in her second year as vice president for literary programming, and festival administrators largely credit her deep knowledge of the regional literary community and her reach as a national figure—she was on the committee to select the 2012 Pulitzer Prize in literature—for this year’s strong lineup of panels and master classes.

J.R. Ramakrishnan is another welcome addition to the festival’s workforce. Ramakrishnan came to New Orleans in 2010 by way of New York, London, and Malaysia. The former journalist began volunteering with the festival as a University of New Orleans graduate assistant three years ago. This year, in her first year as associate director of programs, Ramakrishnan has already made her global perspective apparent. She is responsible for tapping folks such as Vivek Bald, a filmmaker and author whose book, Bengali Harlem and the Lost Histories of South Asian America, illustrates the ways in which Bengali Muslims integrated into some of America’s most iconic neighborhoods of color, including the Tremé. Frank Cha is another writer Ramakrishnan prompted the festival to approach. Cha’s work focuses on Asian-American cultural politics and the construction of place in the 20th and 21st century South. Both Bald and Cha will appear on a panel titled “The South: Literature of Exile, Refuge, and Return” along with wunderkind essayist John Jeremiah Sullivan and recent Oprah darling Ayana Mathis.

Panel topics like this and the broader range of perspectives from the likes of Bald and Cha are ways in which the festival is attempting to transcend what’s been my foremost criticism—that the event, with offerings like the annual Stella Yella competition, traffics in the same clichés as the rest of the French Quarter Tourist Industrial Complex, catering to those who are satisfied by a very banal and predictable presentation of the city and its culture.

“We’re trying to look at the literature of the South outside of the usual suspects, like Faulkner and Eudora Welty—who, by the way, we’re also doing an event about this year—and Tennessee Williams himself,” Ramakrishnan told me. “We’re trying to broaden the scope in that regard.”

Broadening the scope also means making the festival’s lineup more representative of the city’s ethnic makeup. A quick review of author photos and bios in the four most recent festival programs—admittedly a crude calculation—suggests that the rate of non-white participation hovered between five and six percent from 2009 – 2012. This year, the number jumped to 14 percent, even without factoring in nighttime satellite programming such as the MelaNated Writers event on Friday, March 22. This is still pretty feeble in a majority-Black city with a rich history of immigrant communities, but it’s an improvement.

A panel this year about the “exoticization” of New Orleans is a bit of a twist on the meta-topic: the ways in which authors present the city in their work. Thomas Beller and Nathaniel Rich have been criticized for what some allege are naïve or obtuse depictions of New Orleans and its residents in national publications such as the New Yorker and New York Times Magazine. Beller and Rich will sit on a panel titled “Writing New Orleans: The Most ‘Exotic’ Place in America.” They’ll be joined by Xavier dean Kim Marie Vaz, whose most recent book explores the “Baby Dolls” subculture and other issues of race and gender associated with Carnival, and Richard Campanella, Tulane geography professor and prolific author of books about New Orleans ethnography. The panel, moderated by Louisiana Cultural Vistas and KnowLA.com executive editor David Johnson, will parse what this year’s festival program describes as the “American Orientalist fantasy” that frequently infects writerly depictions of New Orleans. Among questions the panelists will attempt to answer: How do you portray the city’s textured soul and the “local color” of traditions such as Mardi Gras without filling the page with maudlin stereotypes? Of all this year’s literary events, I pick this as the one not to miss.

Of course, even Larson’s and Ramakrishnan’s best efforts won’t quickly turn the 27-year-old festival on its head.  With nearly 100 participants for its panels, master classes, readings, theater performances, and lagniappe events, the ship is too big for a fantail turn. And the fact that the festival has become such a big deal over the years—it began with 500 attendees and now fills nearly 10,000 audience seats annually—suggests that it does quite a bit right. But to be a truly excellent addition to the city’s literary culture, which I’m cheering for it to become, the festival will need to amplify its recent efforts. In short and in sum, it needs to consistently feature the best of our local literary talent, a strong and diverse docket of writers from elsewhere, and programming that offers an array of fresh perspectives on New Orleans, the South, and the region’s literature. It’s not quite my dream festival for the city just yet, but it’s looking better.

I’m convinced to check it out this year. I hope to see you there.

 

My (highly subjective) picks for this year’s Tennessee Williams Festival

What: New Orleans in the 1920s: Bohemians, Baby Dolls, and Storyville (panel)
When: 11:30 a.m., Friday, March 22
Where: Hotel Monteleone Queen Anne Ballroom (214 Royal St.)
Who: Panelists Alecia Long, John Shelton Reed, and Kim Marie Vaz, with moderator John Magill
Why I’m going: Long and Vaz both came out with books this year—“Dixie Bohemia: A French Quarter Circle in the 1920s” and “The Baby Dolls”: Breaking the Race and Gender Barriers of the New Orleans Mardi Gras Tradition,” respectively—that received strong positive reviews from people I respect. I haven’t read either of them, so I want to hear about them!

What: Literary Late Night: MelaNated Writers Collective (reading)
When: 8 p.m., Friday, March 22
Where: M. Francis Gallery (604 Julia St.)
Who: Maurice Ruffin, Kelly Harris, Gian Smith, Mary Webb, and Geryll  ”Gee Love” Robinson
Why I’m going: The MelaNated collective’s Literary Jook Joints are some of the most spirited presentations of quality writing in the city. I never miss a MelaNated event if I can help it.

What: Courage in Journalism (panel)
When: 1 p.m., Saturday, March 23
Where: Hotel Monteleone Queen Anne Ballroom (214 Royal St.)
Who: Panelists Douglas Brinkley, Dwight Garner, and Leonard Pitts, with moderator Michael Sartisky
Why I’m going: As the media landscape becomes more fragmented and hype-driven, I’m increasingly interested in hearing lions from the Old Guard cut through the social media bullshit and remind us what it means to be a real journalist.

What: Writing New Orleans: The Most “Exotic” Place in America (panel)
When: 2:30 p.m., Saturday, March 23
Where: Hotel Monteleone Queen Anne Ballroom (214 Royal St.)
Who: Panelists Thomas Beller, Richard Campanella, Nathaniel Rich, and Kim Marie Vaz, with moderator David Johnson
Why I’m going: Beller and Rich—both of whom I respect as writers and count as friends—might find themselves defending characterizations of the city they’ve crafted in some of the best publications in the country. I foresee a lively and intelligent discussion.

What: The South: Literature of Exile, Refuge, and Return (panel)
When: 4 p.m., Saturday, March 23
Where: Hotel Monteleone Queen Anne Ballroom (214 Royal St.)
Who: Panelists Vivek Bald, Frank Cha, Ayana Mathis, and John Jeremiah Sullivan, with moderator Elizabeth Steeby
Why I’m going: This panel promises an updated take on the South as a region of immigrants. In a city that historically and culturally has sometimes embraced one immigrant group while shunning another, such a discussion might be illuminating or depressing (I’m guessing it will be both).

What: Telling the Truth, but Better: The Art of Creative Non-Fiction (panel)
When: 11:30 a.m., Sunday, March 24
Where: Hotel Monteleone Royal Ballroom (214 Royal St.)
Who: Panelists Thomas Beller, Dwight Garner, Elena Passarello, and John Jeremiah Sullivan, with moderator Daniel Brook
Why I’m going: Sullivan is one of our best writers of creative non-fiction, and he is joined by strong panelists. This will almost certainly be an exceptional experience for anyone interested in the form.

Images and captions below poached from Brook's website, daniel-brook.com
Images and captions below poached from Brook's website, daniel-brook.com

By Nick Jenisch

Built as windows to the West, the cities of St. Petersburg, Shanghai, Mumbai, and Dubai each represent the “instant city” of their region—created by the will of a few, yet wielding an outsized influence on the modern development of their countries. In his recently released book, A History of Future Cities, New Orleans-based author and journalist Daniel Brook examines in entertaining detail each city-as-iconoclast across time.

Through a historical scope and with the use of urban design and architecture concepts, Brook examines the birth and life of places modeled on the West yet firmly anchored in the East. His political observations and spatial descriptions allow the reader to casually hover over each city as if suspended in Google maps while being chatted up by a knowledgeable local. The book’s readability—despite its somewhat esoteric and specialized approach—belies a huge research effort and narrative ability on Brook’s part, facilitating deep understanding of the social and physical structures of each city.

Brook illuminates the overlaps between the cities’ stories, showing historic ties among their founding principles, the commonalities of their rises and falls, and the continued global role for these experiments in urban placemaking.

To consider the imposition of places so culturally distinct from the countries that surround them is to understand the temporality of such simplistic notions of urban intervention. Each city’s busts and booms—as well as their cultural repressions and freedoms—create physical layers and political structures that complicate the “true” identity of each place. World-weary travelers may stray from the beaten path in search of “the real India” or “the real China,” but for them Brook calls into question the idea of purity of place. The real China is both the ancient agricultural landscape and the architectural amalgam of Shanghai. It is their rejected history of imperialism and occupation, and the new norm of intense state control. It is cities both imposed from afar and created from within.

The book’s four case studies represent their countries’ neatest examples of experimentation with foreign influence—but they are not anomalies, and have parallels both abroad and at home. The real from the fake and the local from the foreign cannot always be sorted—as residents of New Orleans likely know. As globalization spreads and cultural influences trade naturally or are imported by decree, we learn that “just because the Romans copied the Greeks doesn’t mean all of history is copying.”  Each civilization adds its own stamp and shapes the future of these historic cities—or in Brook’s parlance, the history of these future cities.

Brook and I recently met to discuss his book over cups of nearly undrinkable coffee from a café in the Marigny I will leave unnamed.

Room 220: How did your prior work lead to your writing this book?

Daniel Brook: Just traveling and reporting, really. I think it’s common for Americans traveling internationally to be surprised and somewhat weirded out—sort of proud and uncomfortable at the same time—at the ubiquity of these snippets of American culture that are everywhere. I wanted to try to explore that, and using the lens of history and architecture allowed me to take a broad view and yet talk about very concrete things that you can still see in many cases.

In 1703, Tsar Peter the Great oversaw the construction of a new Russian capital, a “window on the West” carefully modeled on Amsterdam, that he believed would wrench Russia into the modern world. (photo: Mike Tomshinsky)

Rm220: How did you choose the four cities?

DB: I had been to St. Petersburg a long time ago. The first time I got to Mumbai, immediately I thought, “Oh my god, the similarities are spectacular!” Even though one is the coldest city on the planet and the other is the hottest, there’s the common idea of this city built overnight to look like somewhere else. The Shanghai component came in through some work outside of Beijing, where I was reporting on a suburban development called Orange County. At the end of the day, my translator opened up and said, “Daniel, I don’t understand why an American audience would be interested in a suburban development right off the highway outside of Beijing. I explained that I thought they’d be surprised to learn there’s a Southern California-themed suburban development on the outskirts of Beijing, to which she replied: “Oh, that’s more of a Shanghai thing. They’ve been doing it down there for 100 years,” which brought Shanghai into the mix.  Finally, with Dubai, everybody knows about Dubai. The idea in the book is that there are a lot of places that exemplify these trends, but in order to successfully compare them, it makes sense to choose cities that are household names.

Rm220: How did it help you to live in the cities and how did you choose where to live within them?

DB: Part of living there for a long time was the reality of doing this project on a shoestring budget. If I had money for fixers and translators, I could have done it all a lot faster. I used what social scientists call the snowball method—where you interview one person and, if they’re helpful, you ask them who else you can talk to. In St. Petersburg I stayed in a youth hostel. I think of it as a sign of the times that I have a college roommate who lives in Shanghai, and I stayed in his French Concession apartment. In Mumbai, the real estate is incredibly expensive—which is surprising since it’s such a basket-case of a city—so I stayed in a place for 15 or 20 dollars a night that was not up to code. You could not rent a place like it in a Western city. In Dubai, I was in something called the Golden Sands #3. There was one TV channel in Dubai—I loved it—where you could watch the airport departures.

Rm220: That’s what you do when it’s 130 degrees outside.

DB: Well, on purpose, I was in St. Petersburg for the white nights, so it was as pleasant as Russia gets, weather-wise, and I was in Dubai in January, so it was actually 70, sunny, and beautiful every day.

Rm220: Which city’s residents have been most successful at maintaining some of their traditional culture even as influences from the West seep in?

DB: I think Mumbai. India is unceasingly India, in a way that is sort of mysterious in the world. No matter who colonizes India, ultimately India gets them back. You can see that in looking at a Bollywood music video—if you compare it to what you might see on VH1 or MTV, it’s not a copy, whereas Chinese TV might feature a guy dressed like Michael Jackson doing a really good impersonation of Michael Jackson. There are questions about how copying is seen in different Asian cultures. But China has a lot of other issues at play, in that they had a major, violent, successful attempt to stamp out all knowledge of its traditional civilization. They’re at a bit of a different starting point.

In the nineteenth century, Shanghai became the fastest-growing city on earth as it mushroomed into an English-speaking, Western-looking metropolis that just happened to be in the Far East.

Rm220: Where did you feel the strongest sense of Western influence in terms of architecture and urban character?

DB: In some ways Dubai may be the most Westernized. It’s certainly the most American. I started making a list of all the B-grade food chains that pop up in Dubai. In any of these cities, you’ll find McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, but Dubai has places like TGI Fridays, which is extra funny within the context of Muslim society—“Thank God Its Friday!”—and then Chili’s, Hardees, Arby’s. Although, India is rapidly catching up. I was at the grand opening of India’s first Krispy Kreme last month in Bangalore. It was a red-carpet event.

Rm220: New Orleans was shaped by many foreign influences, arguably in a manner more true to their traditional styles than in other American cities. Do you find any parallels between its development and the Western cities in Eastern lands you studied?

DB: There are definite analogies to Shanghai—though, there, the Britons, Americans, and French built their settlements contemporaneously in different parts of the city, whereas New Orleans is temporally layered:  it’s French, then it’s Spanish, briefly French again, then Anglo-American, and also African and Haitian in its own way. Part of why I, as an American, am interested in all of these cities is that they’re Old World cities as New World cities. Immigrants get jumbled together in a strange configuration and try to figure out what their culture is going to be. That’s the secret of why New Orleans jazz was such a hit in Bombay and Shanghai and even St. Petersburg, with the early communists never really deciding what their jazz policy was going to be—at one point, Khrushchev confiscated all saxophones in the Soviet Union. I think it’s important, as Westerners, to remember that India and China are more like Europe than they are like France or Italy. They are continent-sized countries where people don’t all speak the same language, have certain cultural commonalities and differences, varied climates. So a city like Shanghai, because they have people from all over their countries, is much more diverse than a city like Rome, in a much smaller country.

Rm220: Tell me about your research process:  what people, institutions, cultural observations, or otherwise were helpful in understanding the soul of these cities?

DB: In Shanghai, there’s a very committed preservation movement. It’s largely foreigners, because the regulations that govern NGOs are much looser for expatriates than they are for Chinese citizens. That was an amazing network. I spoke with a retired American embassy worker who took thousands of photos of Shanghai buildings, many of which no longer exist. I also ended up with a lot of contacts in the ethnic Chinese diaspora community who had returned—they had a sense of the history of Chinese culture, and were trying to be a part of its rebirth.

I try to write a lot about construction workers in the book, because they’re emblematic of a lot of what these cities have in common:  grand modern visions for development that are implemented in not particularly modern ways, both in terms of the actual construction materials and the labor conditions on the sites. It was difficult to simply walk into a worker dorm and chat with people, so I used a number of sources, including Human Rights Watch reports, to understand their dynamic.

Bombay, the cosmopolitan hub of the British Raj, morphed into a tropical London at the hands of imperialists.

Rm220: Urban citizens can learn and profit from close proximity to others, but as you point out it can also breed a “culture of lowest-common denominator kitsch.”  Which city felt the most real, in its own time and space, as opposed to an assemblage of parts from elsewhere?

DB: Part of what I wanted to get out of the book is the sense that the older cities look more real just because they’re old, but not because they’re actually more real. St. Petersburg was as much a Disneyland when it was built as Dubai is today. Based on the booms and busts of the cities, and the preservation movements, St. Petersburg, perhaps more than anywhere else, has maintained its historic core. It was growing out even before the revolution, so there is stuff from the 1700s in the middle, the 1800s further out, and the early 20th century even further. It feels like a complete organic space, and Petersburgers are very proud of it—which can become a kind of defensive crouch against modernity in its own weird way, as in, “Don’t screw with our 300 year old city, which was built to be the most futuristic city in the world.”  Shanghai still has snippets of its historic areas, though these are being cut away at the edges because at the end of the day, if the Party authorities want to knock something down, they’ll knock it down. Mumbai has the problem of its historic structures crumbling because the city is in such rough shape. It has real sections of preserved city that give you a sense of an organic whole, but in reality there’s nothing organic about it. These were, in their day, just modern schemes, and they happen to have been preserved. Dubai, of course, has none of this.

Rm220: Your cities often sought to be cultural nodes in addition to trading posts and industrial hubs. How do you view the culture-slinging of New Orleans through the lens of your studies?

DB: Initially, all these cities are business cities, and to some degree political cities. They all become cultural hubs, in some cases, because of a top-down decree—like when Catherine the Great decided to buy the world’s biggest art collection. This is happening more in Abu Dhabi than in Dubai: “We’re gonna buy a Guggenheim,” etc. Mumbai and Shanghai get their culture through business. In Mumbai, people were just trying to make money with movies, and some of them accidentally made art. Shanghai became a center of magazine publishing, and so the writers who flocked to those jobs would also write novels on the side, or just great reportage about the city. Similarly, New Orleans was a commercial city that brought people together and eventually had a market for culture, starting with the lowest common denominator—whorehouse entertainment—and then later, developing into fine art in some instances. The way the city uses culture today isn’t necessarily analogous to any of the cities in the book. New Orleans has never recovered from the Civil War embargo that launched Mumbai as the primary cotton exporter in the world. The virtuous cycle that went from shipping into banking in New York, San Francisco, pre-communist Shanghai, and Mumbai, didn’t happen here, and in no longer being a major world city, the culture being proffered here is perhaps of a different sort.

Now, the sheikh of Dubai has endeavored to transform his desert city into a Vegas-esque skyscraper-studded global hub.