Luke Ford

Steve Almond (b. 1966) is an American writer whose work crosses fiction, memoir, literary criticism, political commentary, and the craft of writing itself. He has published twelve books across more than three decades and built a reputation for confessional candor joined to comic timing and moral argument. His subjects run from romantic obsession and grief to football, candy, popular music, and the condition of American political life.

Almond grew up in Palo Alto, California, and graduated from Gunn High School before attending Wesleyan University. He did not move into the academy at once. Instead he spent roughly seven years as a newspaper reporter, first at the El Paso Herald-Post and then at the Miami New Times. He has credited that apprenticeship with teaching him to observe American life beyond the affluent world of his childhood and his education. The reporter’s habits stayed with him: close listening, attention to the texture of ordinary lives, a documentary realism that marks both his fiction and his nonfiction and separates his work from straight autobiography.

He drew wide literary notice with My Life in Heavy Metal (2002), a story collection about romantic obsession, emotional exposure, and modern manhood. Reviewers admired the energy of the prose, the dark comedy, and the refusal to soften flawed men into sympathetic ones. The collection set out themes he would return to for the rest of his career: the pull between longing and self-destruction, the search for real intimacy, the absurdity of contemporary courtship. The collections that followed, The Evil B.B. Chow (2005) and God Bless America (2011), confirmed his command of the short form. His stories have appeared in The Best American Short Stories, The Pushcart Prize, and other anthologies.

His commercial breakthrough came with Candyfreak: A Journey Through the Chocolate Underbelly of America (2004), a book that mixes memoir, cultural history, and business reporting. On the surface it traces the decline of regional candy makers under corporate consolidation. Underneath it reads as an elegy for vanishing local traditions and small-scale enterprise. Candyfreak reached the New York Times bestseller list and won the American Library Association’s Alex Award. It marked Almond as a writer who could turn a light subject into a serious meditation on the country.

He has moved between genres with ease. His essay collections, among them (Not That You Asked): Rants, Exploits, and Obsessions (2007), Rock and Roll Will Save Your Life (2010), and Bad Stories: What the Hell Just Happened to Our Country (2018), fold memoir into cultural and political reflection. A recurring claim runs through them: that American life rewards emotional avoidance, consumption, and tribal feeling while it punishes honest vulnerability. He tends to enter political disagreement through character, empathy, and moral responsibility rather than ideology.

His most contested nonfiction book is Against Football: One Fan’s Reluctant Manifesto (2014). A lifelong fan of the game, Almond argued that the mounting evidence of traumatic brain injury, together with the sport’s commercial use of its players, made continued fandom hard to defend. The book pressed readers to ask whether entertainment can justify lasting neurological harm, and it became a visible entry in the national argument over concussions and player safety. His readiness to indict a sport he loved reflects a pattern in his writing. Affection, he holds, should not buy a subject exemption from moral scrutiny.

Almond has also written novels. The first, Which Brings Me to You (2006), co-written with Julianna Baggott, unfolds through confessional letters between two strangers who meet at a wedding, a structure that lets the book examine romantic idealism, self-deception, and the cost of honesty. Nearly two decades after publication it became a feature film, released in January 2024, with Lucy Hale and Nat Wolff. His later novel, All the Secrets of the World (2022), follows two girls whose lives turn after a school shooting and takes up adolescent friendship, violence, and trauma. It has been optioned for television.

Among his recent books, Truth Is the Arrow, Mercy Is the Bow: A DIY Manual for the Construction of Stories (2024) carries his fullest statement on craft. He treats storytelling not as a set of techniques but as an ethical practice grounded in emotional honesty. He urges writers to give up perfectionism, to sit with uncertainty, and to extend empathy even to the characters they find hardest to love. The book gathers what he learned across decades of teaching and restates his conviction that literature exists to deepen human understanding rather than to entertain.

Teaching has grown into a large part of his working life. He has taught creative writing at many institutions and conferences, including the Nieman Foundation for Journalism, GrubStreet, the Tin House Writers Workshop, and Wesleyan. In 2022 he received a creative writing fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts. Students and peers describe his workshops as candid, weighted toward emotional authenticity over literary fashion or commercial calculation. He has carried that teaching into 2026.

He has never kept to literary circles alone. In 2006 he resigned an adjunct professorship at Boston College to protest the university’s choice of Condoleezza Rice (b. 1954) as commencement speaker during the Iraq War. He writes from the progressive side of American politics, yet he has also criticized ideological conformity within progressive literary culture and argued that writers owe their loyalty to intellectual independence rather than to a coalition. That skepticism toward groupthink has made him a hard man to place, willing to challenge orthodoxies on the left and the right alike.

He has become an advocate for independent publishing. Alongside the books from major houses, he has self-published. Letters from People Who Hate Me (2010) collects the hostile mail his Boston College resignation produced, and This Won’t Take Long (2014) gathers short reflections on writing and creativity. Both grow from his belief that authors can build a direct relationship with readers outside the traditional system, and from a broader quarrel with institutional gatekeepers.

Beyond his books, Almond has contributed to The New York Times Magazine, GQ, The Wall Street Journal, Poets & Writers, and The Boston Globe. For several years he co-hosted the advice podcast Dear Sugars with Cheryl Strayed (b. 1968), first under The New York Times and later under WBUR. The program built its identity on radical empathy, with the two hosts answering questions about love, grief, family, and identity through psychological depth rather than quick counsel. His years as a reporter shaped his approach there too, leading him to treat each caller’s dilemma the way an interviewer treats a source, as a life to be understood in full.

Almond lives near Boston with his wife, the novelist Erin Almond, and their three children. He continues to write essays, teach, and speak at literary festivals, and he remains a public defender of emotional honesty in art and in civic life. His books range across fiction, memoir, criticism, politics, and craft, yet a single outlook holds them together. He believes that real storytelling demands emotional courage, that moral life starts with honest self-examination, and that literature remains a rare place where people can face hard truths without losing their humanity.

Steve Almond and the Sacred Word

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) argued that a man builds his life around two terrors he cannot look at directly. The first is death, the plain fact that the body rots and the self goes out. The second is insignificance, the suspicion that the life meant nothing, that a man could vanish and leave no mark on the order of things. A culture answers both with a hero system, a scheme of value that tells a man what counts as a meaningful life and lets him earn the conviction that he is more than food for worms. The hero system hands out the currency. Sacred values are the coin. A man spends his days acquiring the coin his system honors, and the acquiring lets him believe he will not be erased.
Steve Almond runs a hero system with a single coin. The coin is honesty. Not the small honesty of the accurate receipt. The large kind, what he calls emotional honesty, the courage of a man who looks at his own grief and longing and shame and says them aloud, and the radical empathy that extends the same looking to other people, even the ones he cannot love. His craft book carries the creed in its title, Truth Is the Arrow, Mercy Is the Bow (2024). Truth is the thing that flies. Mercy is the thing that sends it. The whole career bends toward the claim that the felt and spoken truth is what a life is for.
Becker lets us name Almond’s two terrors with some care, because they are not the standard pair. The first is death, and Almond meets it without the usual cover. He has said he never believed in God. No afterlife waits, no resurrection, no judgment, no immortal soul to carry the score forward. The second terror is the one that organizes him, and it is not mere insignificance. It is numbness. The unfelt life. The man who reaches the end having anesthetized himself against love and loss, who chose comfort and consumption and tribe over the raw nerve of the real. Almond’s books name this enemy again and again, the emotional avoidance he sees rewarded everywhere in American life. His hero is the man who refuses the anesthesia. To feel fully, and to make a reader feel, is how Almond defeats death. The body dies. The honest word stays on the page, and the page keeps a stranger awake at two in the morning forty years on. That is his immortality, and he has no other.
Watch the subtraction that concentrates it. Becker says every hero system rests on what a man refuses as much as on what he affirms. Almond subtracts God, so heaven cannot carry his significance. He subtracts the tribe, since he answers to intellectual independence and not to any side. He subtracts the gatekeepers, self-publishing past the major houses and quarreling with the institutions that guard literary entry. He subtracts even the safe paid post, resigning his adjunct chair at Boston College in 2006 over the invitation to Condoleezza Rice (b. 1954). One thing survives every cut. The honest word. Strip away God and tribe and institution and salary and the man is left holding candor alone, which is why candor has to bear the entire weight of his standing against death. A hero system with one coin must mint that coin without rest.
The trouble with a sacred word is that other men hold it sacred too and mean something else by it. Becker’s deepest point is that hero systems do not share a vocabulary so much as collide over one. The word that anchors Almond’s whole project sounds in other rooms like a different word.
Consider the man bent over the Gemara in a study hall in Lakewood. For him truth is emes, and emes means fidelity to what was received and transmitted, the chain running back through the teachers to Sinai. To be honest is to carry the text forward without distortion, to subordinate the small self to the law that outranks it. His immortality runs through the chain, a link added, children who learn, a name a tradition keeps. He hears Almond’s gospel of private feeling and recognizes the elevation of the impulse over the commandment, the inner voice set above the received word. What Almond calls courage the scholar calls vanity, the yetzer dressed as virtue. The same syllable, truth, buys two opposite immortalities.
Consider the attending physician in a surgical intensive care unit at three in the morning. Truth for him is the accurate chart and the disclosed error, the morbidity and mortality conference where a man stands before his peers and says what he missed and who died because he missed it. Honesty is measured against outcomes, and it serves the next patient, not the speaker’s soul. He holds death back with his hands and loses anyway some nights, and his significance is the protocol that survives him and the patient who walks out. To this man Almond’s candor with no body on the table reads as a luxury, feeling performed where nothing is at stake. He would not know the word for it. He would know that it is not what he means by the truth.
Consider the infantry sergeant on his fourth deployment. Truth in his world is the after-action report and accountability to the men, but beneath the reporting sits a deeper truth, loyalty, and loyalty forbids airing the platoon’s wounds to strangers. You do not sell a brother’s weakness for a byline. His immortality is the unit, the dead carried in memory, the line held so the next man lives. The confessional memoir, the genre Almond perfected, strikes him as betrayal worn as bravery, a man exposing in public what a real man dies to protect. He hears emotional honesty and hears a man with no one to keep faith with.
Consider the Rinzai monk in a zendo, working a koan toward the dissolving of the very self Almond spends his life polishing. Truth for him is seeing through the I, the recognition that the stories the ego tells, including the proud story of its own honesty, are empty. To this man Almond does not face the self. He elaborates it. He builds a finer prison and engraves candor on the bars. The monk’s death-denial, in Becker’s reading, is the renunciation of death-denial, the surrender of every immortality project, which Becker noted is its own kind of project. He and Almond use the word truth to point in opposite directions, one toward the deepening of the inner life, one toward its disappearance.
The poker professional adds a fifth meaning. Truth at the table is the math, the read, the expected value over a long enough run, and honesty is owed to the numbers and never to the opponent. The face is concealment by trade. An open heart is a tell, a leak, free information handed across the felt. To him Almond’s whole creed describes a man losing money he does not know he is losing. His significance is the proven edge against variance, the score that says the world was read correctly. There are more rooms than these, the diplomat for whom calibrated discretion is the honest service, the hospice nurse for whom mercy means a truth withheld at the right hour. The list runs as long as the count of hero systems, which is to say it does not end.
This is what Becker exposes in Almond. The candor he treats as a universal good, the truth that should set every man free, is the local coin of one hero system, the liberal literary professional’s, minted in Palo Alto and Wesleyan and the workshop he calls the artificial welfare state for people who are word-drunk. He takes his dialect for the language. He preaches his immortality scheme as the human one.
The scheme shows its strain at the places where Almond’s own life refuses it. The home team is the sharpest. He says he never believed in God and then says he is drawn to the Jews when he walks into a room, recognizes them, feels the attitudinal link, names Philip Roth (1933-2018) and Saul Bellow (1915-2005) as carriers of a shared apprehension of life. It is the home team. The tribe he subtracts from his hero system to leave candor standing alone keeps reaching back in and claiming him, and he reports the pull without folding it into the creed. The attack on Mark Sarvas, a fellow Jew and a fellow writer, on Salon on Yom Kippur in 2005, shows the same thing from the other side. The apostle of empathy without borders wages a near-tribal war on a rival inside his own house, and the violence runs hottest toward the man most like him. The collaboration with Julianna Baggott (b. 1969) gives the third strain. He describes the writing of their novel as two fragile narcissists sharing a byline, sent back into the ring by their spouses to beat on each other, and calls the emotional veracity of the letters the product of the beating. The honesty he prizes turns out to be quarried by combat, not poured from an open heart.
Three things to watch in the man, then, none of them a flaw so much as the shape of the scheme under load. Watch the moments his candor runs against his comfort with no audience to reward it, the football book above all, because those are the moments when the coin might be more than coin. Watch the home team, because the tribe he subtracted is the surest sign that his hero system left something out that the body keeps voting for. And watch the word truth itself in his mouth, because the day he treats it as one dialect among many rather than the speech of all mankind is the day the scheme would have to admit it is a scheme, and a man who has staked his defeat of death on a single sacred word does not reach that admission, since to reach it is to feel the cold he built the word to keep out.

Steve Almond and the Alliance Theory of Political Belief

David Pinsof, David O. Sears (b. 1935), and Martie Haselton advance a claim that unsettles the standard picture of political conviction. In “Strange bedfellows: the Alliance Theory of political belief systems,” forthcoming in Psychological Inquiry, they argue that belief systems do not grow from deep moral values such as equality or liberty. They grow from alliance structures. People choose allies by similarity, by transitivity, and by interdependence, and then they support those allies with a set of propagandistic biases that defend the coalition’s reputation and attack the rival’s. The moral vocabulary comes after the alliance, not before it. On their account partisans on both sides claim altruism, impartiality, honesty, and love for themselves while assigning selfishness and malice to their opponents, and this matching of virtue to ally is the thing the theory predicts. The final move is the one that does the most work. Motivated reasoning, they write, reads less as a cognitive defect than as an honest signal of loyalty. The person who reasons toward his coalition’s conclusion advertises that he can be counted on.
Steve Almond presents a hard case for this frame, and that is what makes him a good one. His public identity rests on a single claim about himself: he holds loyalty to intellectual independence rather than to a tribe. He criticizes the orthodoxies of the left from inside the left. He preaches emotional honesty and radical empathy. He resigns positions on principle. Run Alliance Theory across this self-portrait and the portrait becomes evidence for the theory rather than an exception to it.
Start with the independence itself. Almond writes from the progressive side of American letters and then attacks ideological conformity within progressive literary culture. He treats this as a stand outside the coalition. Alliance Theory reads it as a position inside one. The literary-progressive elite runs a status code that rewards the pose of standing above the tribe. The writer who scolds his own side for groupthink signals to that side a rare and prized quality, the willingness to tell hard truths, and he collects the distinction that comes with it. He criticizes the coalition to an audience drawn from the coalition, in venues the coalition reads, and the criticism raises his standing within it rather than costing him a place in it. Independence functions here as a similarity cue. It marks him as the kind of ally the literary class most admires, the one who will not flatter. The pose presupposes the membership it claims to transcend.
His resignation from Boston College in 2006 carries the argument further. He left an adjunct post over the university’s invitation to Condoleezza Rice (b. 1954) as commencement speaker during the Iraq War. In a 2006 interview he gave the reason in the vocabulary of virtue: the school was cashing in on her fame, chasing donations, telling students that lying is acceptable as long as you gain power. Alliance Theory does not deny that he meant it. The theory predicts that he meant it. The resignation signals loyalty to the antiwar progressive coalition and rivalry toward the Bush administration, and the moral framing, lying for power, is the moralization that mobilizes support for the ally and opposition to the rival. The frame gains force from what Almond did next. He gathered the hostile mail the resignation produced and published it as Letters from People Who Hate Me (2010). That is competitive victimhood turned into literary capital. The grievance becomes the product. The book emphasizes the malice of his attackers and the cost he paid, which is the victim bias the paper describes, the embellishment of harm that mobilizes third parties to one’s side.
The 2005 attack on Mark Sarvas tests the frame against a harder fact. Almond went after Sarvas, a fellow Jew and a fellow figure in the literary world, on Salon, and he did it on Yom Kippur. A reader who takes Almond’s anti-tribal self-image at face value finds this puzzling, since here is the independent man waging coalitional war. Alliance Theory removes the puzzle. Rivalries occur within groups as readily as between them, because the cues that select allies, similarity and interdependence, also generate competition among the similar and the interdependent. Two literary Jews working the same small status field are rivals before they are anything else. The independent posture does not prevent coalitional combat. It relocates it, from the safe enemy outside to the dangerous rival nearby, and the timing on the Day of Atonement reads as a status display aimed at an audience that would register the transgression.
Then there is the home team. In the same interview Almond describes his pull toward other Jews in plain language. He says he never believed in God, that he identifies culturally, that he is drawn to the Jews when he walks into a room, that he usually recognizes them, that they share an attitudinal link. It is the home team. He names Philip Roth (1933-2018) and Saul Bellow (1915-2005) as carriers of a Judaic apprehension of life. This is the similarity cue stated without disguise. The man whose brand is independence avows a coalitional loyalty he did not choose and cannot argue himself out of. Alliance Theory treats the avowal as the ordinary condition, the visible form of the alliance instinct that the political self-image papers over. Almond is more candid here than his public philosophy permits, and the candor confirms the frame.
The signature concepts, emotional honesty and radical empathy, do the coalitional work the theory assigns to virtue language. Both terms run through his memoir, his criticism, and the advice podcast Dear Sugars he co-hosted. Both resist definition. Empathy for whom, honesty about what, the terms do not say, and the vagueness is the point. A concept loose enough to mean many things serves as a loyalty signal precisely because it cannot be pinned to a policy that might cost an ally. To stand for emotional honesty is to claim altruism, sincerity, and love for oneself and one’s side, which is the self-attribution the paper documents on both wings of politics. The craft book Truth Is the Arrow, Mercy Is the Bow (2024) raises the vocabulary to doctrine, casting storytelling as an ethical practice grounded in honesty and mercy. Alliance Theory hears in this an account of how a writer builds the reputation that holds his readers and his peers, a reputation for the very qualities his coalition prizes.
Against Football (2014) is where the frame meets the most resistance, and an honest reading should say so. Almond attacked a sport he loved on grounds of brain injury and the exploitation of players. Football fandom does not map onto the progressive alliance the way the Rice protest does, and the argument cost him a pleasure he valued rather than buying him standing with an ally. The book looks like a value operating free of coalition. Alliance Theory can answer that the concussion argument carried its own emerging coalition, the players and the medical critics against the league, and that taking the players’ side fits the victim-and-perpetrator structure the paper lays out, the powerful institution harming the vulnerable laborer. The answer holds, though it strains, and the strain is worth marking. The frame accounts best for the cases where Almond’s conviction tracks an alliance and accounts least well for the cases where conviction cuts against his own comfort with no ally in view. A reader who wants truth over the frame’s tidiness should keep both columns open.
What Alliance Theory delivers on Almond is a single reversal applied across the career. The thing he offers as proof of independence, the criticism of his own side, the resignation, the empathy, the honesty, the refusal of tribal loyalty, is the behavior a skilled coalition member performs and a high-status coalition rewards. The theory does not require that he be a cynic. It requires the opposite. The honest signal works because he means it, and the man drawn to the home team is the same man who tells the literary class he answers to no team. Both are true at once, and Alliance Theory explains why a writer can hold them together without strain and call the result a conscience.

If Mearsheimer Is Right: Steve Almond and the Social Animal

John J. Mearsheimer (b. 1947) builds The Great Delusion (2018) on a claim about human nature before he says a word about foreign policy. We are social beings from start to finish, he writes, and individualism runs a distant second. Liberalism makes the opposite wager. It treats people as atomistic actors who carry an inalienable set of rights, and it grounds its universalism in that picture, since everyone on the planet holds the same rights and a liberal order feels called to honor them everywhere. Mearsheimer answers that the picture inverts the order of operations. People are born into groups that shape their identities long before they can assert any individual will. They form strong attachments and make sacrifices for fellow members. They are tribal at the core, because the surest path to survival runs through the society that protects and feeds the long human childhood.
The childhood is the heart of his case. A person spends his early years nurtured and socialized while his critical faculties are still forming, so the value infusion arrives before the capacity to weigh it. By the time reason comes online, the family and the society have already loaded the moral code. Mearsheimer ranks the three sources of our preferences and puts reason last, behind innate sentiment and socialization. People have limited choice in building a moral code, he writes, because so much of their sense of right and wrong comes from inborn attitude and from the milieu that raised them. The autonomous chooser of liberal theory is the fiction. The socialized member is the man.
Set Steve Almond against this and the strain shows at once, because Almond is a liberal individualist of the purest literary type. His public identity rests on the autonomous conscience. He answers to no tribe. He holds loyalty to intellectual independence above loyalty to any side. He preaches radical empathy, a concern that crosses every line and reaches every person, and emotional honesty, the courage of the single self facing its own truth. Each of these is a liberal claim in Mearsheimer’s sense. Each assumes that a man can stand apart from his group, examine his inheritance by the light of reason, and choose his commitments fresh. If Mearsheimer is right, Almond has the order backward.
Begin with the independence. Almond came up in Palo Alto, the son of two psychiatrists, took a degree at Wesleyan, worked years as a newspaper reporter, and earned an MFA at Greensboro, where he found what he calls the artificial welfare state for people who are word-drunk. Mearsheimer reads that sequence as a value infusion, not a series of free choices. The milieu that prizes vulnerability, candor, and the writer’s solitary integrity is a particular American class with its own code, and Almond absorbed the code during the long apprenticeship in which his critical faculties were still forming. What he experiences as independent conscience is the socialization of the liberal literary professional, broadcast back to its own audience as a feat of reason. The man who answers to no tribe answers to the one that taught him to say so.
In a 2006 interview Almond described his pull toward other Jews without apology. He never believed in God. He identifies through culture and history. He is drawn to the Jews when he enters a room, recognizes them, feels an attitudinal link. It is the home team. He names Philip Roth and Saul Bellow as carriers of a shared apprehension of life. Mearsheimer needs no further evidence. Here is the social nature reasserting itself under the individualist self-description, the attachment that arrived through inheritance rather than argument and that survives even the loss of the belief that once justified it. Almond cannot reason his way out of the pull and does not try. He reports it as a fact about himself. The reporting is the theory’s confirmation. The tribal core holds when the creed has lapsed.
The collaboration with Julianna Baggott (b. 1969) on Which Brings Me to You (2006) shows the social animal in another register. Almond describes the writing as combat, two fragile narcissists sharing a byline, each sent back into the ring by a spouse in the corner to beat on the other. The liberal account would cast two autonomous artists negotiating a contract of equals. Almond’s account is closer to a fight between rivals bound by interdependence, the emotional veracity of the book purchased through the conflict rather than through the cool exercise of craft. The sentiments came first and ran hot. The reasoning followed.
The Boston College resignation in 2006. Almond left over the university’s invitation to Condoleezza Rice during the Iraq War, and he gave the reason in the language of universal principle, that the school told its students lying is acceptable when it brings power. That is liberal moral universalism, the appeal to a standard binding on everyone everywhere, the kind of claim Mearsheimer says motivates liberal states to overreach abroad. Mearsheimer’s deeper argument cuts the other way, though. He would expect the universalist gesture to ride on a prior tribal commitment, the antiwar progressive allegiance of Almond’s class, and to dress the allegiance in the costume of principle. The resignation fits that reading. What it does not give Mearsheimer is the foreign-policy payoff his book is built to explain. Almond is a memoirist, not a state. His universalism stays moral and aesthetic and never commands an army. The social anthropology travels well to a single writer. The geopolitics it was built to support does not, and a reader who wants truth over a clean fit should say so plainly.
Radical empathy. Almond’s doctrine extends concern past every boundary, to the stranger, the rival, the difficult character on the page. The craft book Truth Is the Arrow, Mercy Is the Bow (2024) raises this to a rule of art, mercy for even the figure the writer finds hardest to love. Mearsheimer treats boundless universal concern as the liberal dream that human nature defeats. Sympathy runs along the lines of the group first and thins as it moves outward, because the long childhood trained it to. Almond’s own evidence supports the deflation. The man who preaches empathy without limit attacked Mark Sarvas, a fellow Jew and a fellow writer, on Yom Kippur, and avows that his warmth bends toward the home team when he walks into a room. The universal doctrine sits on the surface where reason operates. The graded, tribal sympathy operates underneath where socialization and sentiment do their work. When the two meet, the lower layer wins, which is the whole of Mearsheimer’s claim about which of the three sources governs.
If Mearsheimer is right, then, Almond is the social animal who has been trained by a particular tribe to prize the appearance of standing free, and who supplies, in his own candid moments, the evidence that the training took. His independence is the value infusion of the liberal literary class. His empathy is the universalist creed that human attachment keeps cutting down to size. His drawn-to-the-home-team avowal is the core the creed cannot reach. The figure survives the frame, but not as he describes himself. He survives as a case of the thing Mearsheimer says we all are, a member first and a free chooser a distant third, with reason arriving late to ratify what the group already settled.

Author Steve Almond – Which Brings Me To You (Novel), The Evil B.B. Chow (short story collection, Candyfreak (non-fiction), My Life in Heavy Metal (short stories)

I call Steve (who blasted his nemesis Mark Sarvas, a fellow Jew, on Salon.com on Yom Kippur, Oct 13, 2005) Friday afternoon, July 21, 2006.

Steve: "My parents were psychiatrists. I don't think I wanted to do that. I've got lousy memory when it comes to my childhood. My earliest memory [about work] was that I'd work for a newspaper. I did that after college for almost a decade."

Then Almond got an MFA from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. "The MFA is the artificial welfare state for people who are passionate about writing and reading. There aren't many environments where people are word-drunk.

"People used to make a living at writing before MFAs were around, but then there were venues where you could make a living as a short story writer. The culture was a reading culture.

"There's more great writing than ever. There are just fewer readers."

Luke: "What was it like writing a novel with Julianna Baggott?"

Steve: "It was a thrill at the beginning. Then it got complicated and rancorous. That's what happens when you have two fragile narcissistic characters sharing a byline and a fictional world. We went at it fiercely. That was good for the book, to knock each other around. It wasn't pleasant. It was exhausting. The emotional veracity of those letters was predicated on Julianna and I putting each other through the wringer."

Luke: "Are you and Julianna a couple?"

Steve: "No. She's been married a dozen years. I just got married [to Erin, a writer from California]. But the writing of the novel was intense. We were in an intense relationship for six months. Would we want to write another book together? I can only guess that she would say no.

"My wife is a fan of Julianna's. I'm sure Julianna's husband heard a lot of 'That f—ing Steve Almond' comments. My wife heard a lot of 'Juliana's driving me crazy.' We each had someone in our corner to tell us to be less sensitive, that what matters is the book, to rub us down with salts and then send us back out into the middle of the ring to beat on each other more."

Luke: "How involved are you in Jewish life?"

Steve: "I write this crazy Jewish sex column. My wife tells me she's converting to Judaism. I've never believed in God. I'm deeply compelled by Jewish history. I identify culturally. My mom would use Yiddish words. They sneak their way into my work. I'm proud of the moral and intellectual tradition of Judaism.

"A lot of the great writers — Philip Roth, Saul Bellow — they have a Judaic perspective on life, an anguished apprehension of the suffering people go through in trying to love those around them.

"The Old Testament is the best writing on earth. It has the best stories.

"When I walk into a room, I'm drawn to the Jews. I usually recognize them. We have an attitudinal link to one another. It's the home team."

We talk about the internet.

Steve: "Any literary website has a certain amount of interviews, reviews and serious consideration of what interviews means. That's great. Then there's the other half — the Fox News part — malicious, gossipy, aggrieved, envious."

On May 12, 2006, Steve resigned from his writing position at Boston College after the university invited Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to speak.

Steve: "Boston College had a lousy record on gay rights and other things. Then I found out they were inviting Condoleeza Rice and I just thought it was a f—ing cynical thing to do. To cash in on her fame and make sure you get lots of donations and send the message to students that it is OK to lie as long as you get power."

Related Links:

Pearl Abraham Elisa Albert Steve Almond Jonathan Ames Shalom Auslander Aimee Bender Karen Bender Amy Bloom Danit Brown Melvin Jules Bukiet Tamar Fox Naama Goldstein Rebecca Goldstein Yael Goldstein Laurie Graff Lauren Grodstein Ehud Havazelet Joanna Hershon Dara Horn Molly Jong-Fast Mitchell James Kaplan Binnie Kirshenbaum Sana Krasikov Adam Mansbach Tova Mirvis Gurumurthy Neelakantan Alana Newhouse Jon Papernick Rachel Resnick Thane Rosenbaum Elizabeth Rosner Wendy Shalit Ilana Stanger-Ross Laurie Gwen Shapiro Rochelle Shapiro Andrea Seigel Robert Siegel Terrie Silverman Margot Singer Leora Skolkin-Smith Yuri Slezkine Diana Spechler Steve Stern Ayelet Waldman Katharine Weber Tamar Yellin People of the Book Festival 2006

Yosef Abramowitz Edward Alexander Michael Berenbaum Sally Berkovic James Besser Reuven Blau Stephen Bloom Andrew Silow-Carroll Shmuley Boteach Benyamin Cohen Debra Nussbaum Cohen Robert Cohn Ami Eden Rob Eshman Larry Cohler-Esses Frances Dinkelspiel Matt Dorf Ami Eden Charles Fenyvesi Eric Fingerhut Amnon Finkelstein Sue Fishkoff Samuel Freedman Stephen Fried Robert I. Friedman Heshy Fried Jonathan Friendly Neal Gabler Evan Gahr J.J. Goldberg Ari Goldman Yossi Klein Halevi Malcolm Hoenlein Wayne Hoffman Hollywood Jews Mickey Kaus Eve Kessler Michael Kinsley Amy Klein Marc S. Klein Lisa S. Lenkiewicz Gene Lichtenstein Jason Maoz Jonathan Mark Deborah Dash Moore Alana Newhouse Gustav Niebuhr Ori Nir Steve Rabinowitz Gary Rosenblatt Jennie Rothenberg Debra Rubin Neil Rubin Walter Ruby Douglas Rushkoff Jonathan Sarna Cathy Seipp Rabbi Avi Shafran Mark Silk Sheldon Teitelbaum Jonathan Tobin Tom Tugend David Twersky Teresa Watanabe Steven I. Weiss Leon Wieseltier Paul Wilkes Lauren Winner Yori Yanover Larry Yudelson

Karen E. Bender (b. 1963) is an American novelist and short story writer whose fiction examines the moral pressures of middle-class American life. Her subjects include money, illness, marriage, parenthood, environmental fear, and the costs that ordinary decisions impose on ordinary people. She works within realism, though her later fiction admits speculative and dystopian elements that sharpen the psychological stakes of familiar situations. Critics place her among the leading American short story writers of her generation.

Bender grew up in Los Angeles in a culturally Jewish home that prized story, analysis, and the making of things. Her father worked as a psychoanalyst and her mother as a dancer and choreographer. She was one of three daughters. One sister became a psychiatrist. The other, the novelist and short story writer Aimee Bender (b. 1969), built her reputation on magical realism, a contrast to Karen Bender’s restraint. Both sisters write about emotional vulnerability and family, but Karen Bender sets her psychological pressures inside recognizable social worlds rather than fantastical ones. She trained at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, where she developed the precise, understated prose that became her signature.

Her early breakthrough came with the short story “Eternal Love,” published in Granta. The story follows Lena, a woman with an intellectual disability, and her husband Bob, and treats their marriage with compassion and emotional complexity. It drew wide attention and became the seed for her first novel, Like Normal People (2000), published by Houghton Mifflin. The novel moves across three lifetimes in a single day as a family searches for love and acceptance in a world where normalcy stays out of reach. It became a Los Angeles Times bestseller, a Washington Post Best Book of the Year, and a Barnes and Noble Discover Great New Writers selection, and reviewers praised its humane treatment of psychological difference without sentimentality.

Her second novel, A Town of Empty Rooms (2013), published by Counterpoint Press, widened her focus to economic hardship, marriage, faith, and community. Serena and Dan Shine leave New York after professional and personal setbacks and settle in Waring, North Carolina, the only town that will offer Dan work. Serena becomes enmeshed with a small Jewish congregation led by an increasingly erratic rabbi, while Dan and their son fall under the watch of a vigilant neighbor through the Boy Scouts. Reviewers praised the novel’s psychological insight and its portrait of an urban middle-class family adjusting to an unfamiliar, provincial America.

Bender earned her widest recognition as a short story writer. Her first collection, Refund (2015), became a finalist for the National Book Award and a shortlist selection for the Frank O’Connor International Short Story Award. The stories trace the aftershocks of the 2008 financial crisis through American families. In the title story an elderly couple confronts the burdens imposed by their adult son. In another a Manhattan family struggles with the cost of holding on to a middle-class life. Money in these stories reshapes identity, morality, and the bonds between parents and children. The collection became a Los Angeles Times bestseller, an uncommon feat for a book of short fiction, and earned a Story Prize longlisting.

Her second collection, The New Order (2018), carried these concerns into political fear, climate change, and technological disruption, often through parents trying to shield children from forces past their control. The Story Prize longlisted it as well.

Her third collection, The Words of Dr. L and Other Stories, appeared from Counterpoint Press on May 6, 2025. It folds speculative fiction into her psychological realism. The collection was longlisted for the Story Prize and named one of Kirkus Reviews’ hundred best books of 2025. The Amazon description says:

Grounded in both the contemporary United States and a variety of dystopias, celebrated author Karen E. Bender’s otherworldly collection examines the evolving dynamics of the nuclear family during adolescence, motherhood, the empty nest, and caring for an aging parent.

A young woman seeks to learn the magical words that can terminate her unwanted pregnancy. A mother discovers an extra child in her home she had forgotten about. A couple is separated from their son and encased in globes orbiting the Earth. Society develops a terrible plan to leave the burning planet for a life on Mars. Each story honors the emotional force of its situation by grappling with themes of freedom, self-definition, youth, aging, control, and power. Using settings both familiar and fantastic, Bender’s work explores the ordinary in the extraordinary to discover secret, hidden truths in the lifelong connection between parents and their children.

Across all three collections Bender ties national fears to domestic life.

Her short fiction has appeared in The New Yorker, Granta, Ploughshares, Zoetrope, The Yale Review, Story, Narrative, Guernica, The Harvard Review, and The Iowa Review. Her work has been selected for The Best American Short Stories, The Best American Mystery Stories, and New Stories from the South, and she has won three Pushcart Prizes. NPR’s Selected Shorts featured “Eternal Love” and “The Fourth Prussian Dynasty,” and LeVar Burton chose “The Cell Phones” for LeVar Burton Reads. She has written essays and journalism for The New York Times and other outlets, and she co-edited the anthology Choice: True Stories of Birth, Contraception, Infertility, Adoption, Single Parenthood, and Abortion.

Teaching forms a substantial part of her career. She held a Visiting Distinguished Professorship at Hollins University from 2015 to 2021 and has taught at the University of Iowa, Warren Wilson College, Chatham University, Antioch University Los Angeles, the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, and Tunghai University in Taiwan. She serves as core faculty in the low-residency MFA at Alma College and as a visiting writer and mentor at SUNY Stony Brook, and she works as a private writing coach. She is fiction editor of the online literary magazine Scoundrel Time. Her honors include grants from the National Endowment for the Arts and the Rona Jaffe Foundation, a Rona Jaffe Writers’ Award in 1997, and a place in the Los Angeles Unified School District Hall of Fame.

Bender lives in Brooklyn with her husband, the novelist and essayist Robert Anthony Siegel, and their two children. Family life feeds her fiction, though she avoids direct autobiography. Her characters rarely meet spectacular crisis. More often they face small decisions whose accumulation remakes who they are. She has helped revive the social realist short story by binding intimate domestic drama to the economic, political, environmental, and technological forces of twenty-first century American life, and her prose, restraint, and moral intelligence have set her among the foremost practitioners of the contemporary American short story.

Karen Bender and the Two Poles of the Literary Field

Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) divides any cultural field into two poles. At one end sits large-scale production, where the book sells and the market sets the verdict. At the other sits the restricted pole, where writers produce for other writers and the verdict comes from peers, prizes, and the magazines that consecrate. Karen Bender lives near the restricted pole and has built a life out of the disposition that pole rewards. The 2006 interview shows how she got there, and it shows the one place her capital refuses to convert.
Start with the home, because Bourdieu starts there. The family transmits cultural capital before a child can name it, and it transmits the embodied kind, the kind that lodges in taste and reflex rather than in a bank account. Bender’s father was a child psychiatrist, her mother a dancer and choreographer. The house ran on story, expression, and analysis. Television stayed limited, which made the children angry and pushed them toward making things instead. On birthdays the parents wanted gifts the children made, not gifts they bought. A child raised under that rule learns that value comes from production, not purchase, and learns it in the body, as a feel for what counts. Bender names the inheritance when she says that if she had a religion it was psychoanalysis, and that she entered therapy at thirteen. The father’s discipline became her first faith. Her sister Suzanne became a child psychiatrist and coauthored a book on clinical practice, Becoming a Therapist: What Do I Say, and Why?. Three daughters, and the field of the parents reappears in each.
The schooling converts the embodied capital into the institutional kind. Bender ran with the honors group at Palisades High and felt the sting of the students bound for the Ivy League, an early reading of where she stood in a hierarchy she already took as real. She majored in psychology at UCLA and graduated in 1986. She studied the father’s subject, then crossed into the mother’s register of feeling, and the two trainings meet in her fiction, which works the interior with a clinician’s patience.
Then comes the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, the institution of consecration in American letters. Iowa does two things at once. It confers a credential, the institutionalized cultural capital of the MFA, and it inducts the writer into the restricted field, the network of peers and teachers who decide what reading is legitimate. Bender met her husband, the novelist Robert Anthony Siegel, there. The workshop pairs people who share a position in social space, and a literary marriage is one outcome of that sorting.
After Iowa the consecration accrues. “Eternal Love” appears in Granta. Like Normal People (2000) wins the Washington Post nod and the Barnes and Noble Discover selection. Refund becomes a finalist for the National Book Award and a shortlist pick for the Frank O’Connor International Short Story Award. These are the agents of the restricted pole. None of them pays much. All of them confer the symbolic capital that lets a writer claim the title without apology.
Refund became a Los Angeles Times bestseller, and so did Like Normal People. The story collection that sells is the rare crossing from the restricted pole to the market, the conversion that the field treats as suspect when it happens to lesser writers and as a bonus when it happens to a consecrated one. Bender holds both verdicts, the peers’ and the market’s, which is an unstable place to stand. The instability shows in the economic ledger. In 2006 she describes herself as part-time, off the tenure track, teaching for the wage while the prestige sits elsewhere. Symbolic capital does not pay the mortgage at par. The conversion rate from prestige to money stays low, and she lives inside that rate.
Aimee Bender holds the larger public name through magical realism. Karen holds realism. Two sisters from one house cannot occupy the same square, because the field rewards difference and punishes the writer who reads as a copy. Karen’s restraint reads as a choice only against Aimee’s invention, and Aimee’s invention reads as daring only against Karen’s restraint. Each defines the other’s value. Bender says she began as a realist because the world seemed strange enough to capture straight, and only later moved toward speculative work. The drift toward the strange tracks her sister’s territory at a distance, close enough to share readers, far enough to keep the brand distinct.
Wilmington is where the capital stops converting. Bourdieu insists that capital is local, that it buys what it buys inside the field that issues it and loses force outside. New York is the capital of the literary field, and Bender left it for the North Carolina coast. There her cultural capital reads as foreignness. She is the first Jew many of her neighbors have met. A child eating lentil chili at her table asks whether it is a Jewish dish, and the question opens a door she did not want opened. She feels like the other. The mothers around her run an exchange she reads from outside, an unspoken accounting of playdates and babysitting that she calls a trade agreement, and when a neighbor takes without returning, Bender registers the breach and writes the Granta story about it. She can see the local field because she does not belong to it.
Her teaching turns the displacement into a mission. Her Wilmington students read Dan Brown and thrillers, and she calls the reading appalling. She wants them to buy a book of contemporary fiction and learn who to read, to think more like New Yorkers, to move beyond cliché. The judgment is the legitimate-taste verdict that reproduces the hierarchy. Dan Brown sits at the market pole; literary fiction sits at the restricted pole; and the teacher’s task is to transmit the belief that the second pole is the real one. Bourdieu calls that belief the illusio, the shared conviction that the game is worth playing. Bender works to instill it in students who arrive without it.
The interview closes on the question that the frame answers. The interviewer admits discomfort with a novel built around a woman with an intellectual disability, and explains it in status terms: a man orients his attention upward, toward those above him, and finds no pull toward the weak. Bourdieu reads attention as a scarce good distributed by rank, and most attention flows up. Bender’s novel runs the other way. She drew Lena from an aunt and drew Ella from a grandmother she loved, and she trained the full apparatus of consecrated literary attention on a figure the status order ignores. At the restricted pole that move pays. The writer who lavishes craft on the powerless converts low subject matter into high symbolic capital, because the pole prizes the refusal of the market’s appetites, and the market has no appetite for Lena. The same move repels the reader who orients upward, since it asks him to spend attention against the grain of rank. Both responses obey one logic. The field assigns value by inverting the market’s scale, and Bender has spent a career on the inverted side of it.
She is the maker’s daughter. The house taught her that worth comes from what you build, the workshop taught her where building counts, and the field has paid her in the coin it mints, which is prestige rather than money. The bestseller list paid her twice in a currency the field distrusts. She kept both, moved to a province where neither spends well, and went on making things.

The Honest Trade: Karen Bender’s Hero System

The boy runs from the other children, who want to put him through a spanking machine, and he throws a rock, and it opens Karen Bender’s head. She falls backward. The adults bandage her and lift her onto the table where the birthday cake sits, and they move the cake so the blood will not reach it. She is small. She cannot do much for a while. So she starts to write, and writing feels like fun, and writing becomes the place where she can be honest.
Ernest Becker (1924-1973) would read that scene as the story in miniature. The body fails first. The rock finds the skull, the blood runs, the cake gets moved out of the way of the creature’s leaking, and the child meets the fact that she is an animal who can be broken at a party. Then comes the second move, the flight upward into the symbolic, the made thing that the body cannot touch. The wound sends her to the page. Becker holds that a man builds his life against two terrors, the terror of death and the terror that his one life will not count, and that he answers both by joining a hero system, a shared account of how a person earns a place in a universe that kills everyone. The hero system tells him what to revere, what to make, and what to spend his days proving. Bender found hers on the table with the cake pushed aside, and she has served it since.
Her hero system is the literary realist’s, and its sacred word is honesty. Inside her system the word carries a precise load. Honesty means the patient rendering of an interior life in language, the refusal of the ready phrase, attention paid to a person the world declines to see. She says writing was the place she could be honest as a child. She tells her Wilmington students that literary fiction can let them be honest about the world in a way they had not before, that it can take them past cliché. Cliché is her profane thing, the dead language that lets a man avoid the look. Honesty is the discipline that makes him take it. The made book is the immortality project, the object that outlasts the animal, and the home trained her for exactly this work before she could name it. Her father read the unconscious for a living. Her mother made dances out of the body’s motion. The television stayed off. On birthdays the children made gifts rather than bought them, so the child learned in her hands that worth comes from what you build. She says that if she had a religion it was psychoanalysis, which is to say her faith holds that the inner life is real, that it can be known, and that knowing it honestly is a sacred act.
Now watch the word travel, because honesty does not mean one thing. It means whatever a hero system needs it to mean, and the systems do not agree.
The hospice chaplain reveres honesty too. She sits with the man who has six weeks and she measures every true sentence against the mercy it will cost or buy. Honesty for her is titration. She tells the daughter the truth about the morphine and tells the dying man only as much as he asks to carry. She would hear Bender’s creed, the full unflinching look at a life, and call part of it cruelty, because at the deathbed the honest move is sometimes the held tongue. Her sacred word and Bender’s share four letters and little else.
The poker professional reveres honesty as a private vice. He keeps it only with the math. He owes the table nothing true. A tell is a leak, and a man who shows his hand dies broke, and the discipline of his hero system is the smooth face over the strong hand. He would watch Bender lay a character’s interior open on the page and see a player who cannot fold, who confuses exposure with virtue. To him her honesty is the amateur’s wound she never learned to hide.
The yeshiva man reveres honesty as fidelity to the contradiction. He studies the page where two sages disagree, and the honest reading keeps both alive, preserves the machloket, refuses the smooth answer that buries the harder voice. Resolution is the lie. He would admire Bender’s care and distrust her endings, because fiction closes and his text stays open, and a story that resolves a life into shape would strike him as a flattening, a comfort purchased against the truth that the argument never ends.
The stand-up comic reveres honesty as the broken taboo. Honesty is the thing the room is thinking and will not say, dragged into the light for the laugh that admits it. His honesty is transgression, the bit that costs him the squeamish third of the audience and wins the rest. He would find Bender’s honesty tepid, too kind, too slow, a truth that arrives in clauses when his arrives like a slap. Her restraint reads to him as cowardice wearing the costume of craft.
The portrait photographer reveres the merciless likeness. She frames the subject so the wart shows, the slack jaw, the fear behind the smile, and she calls the kind photograph a lie. Honesty is the refusal to flatter. She would look at how Bender draws Lena, the woman locked in childhood, with tenderness and dignity and love, and she would say the tenderness is the flattery, that Bender has softened the subject to spare the reader and herself. Her honesty and Bender’s point opposite ways at the same face.
Five hero systems, five reverences, one word, and no peace among them. There is no neutral honesty waiting underneath for the systems to approximate. The word is an index of allegiance. Tell me what a man means by honesty and I can place his hero system, name his sacred objects, guess what he fears most about his own death. Bender means the honest render of the overlooked interior. That meaning makes sense inside her system and reads as failure or trespass in the others, and the others read as evasion or cruelty inside hers. This is the condition Becker describes. Each hero system must hold its account as the real one, or it cannot do its work, which is to stand between a man and the terror. So each treats the rival accounts as error, and the wars over a single word are wars over who gets to be a hero and how.
The rival that the interview names outright belongs to the man asking the questions. He tells Bender he feels uneasy that a major character is intellectually disabled, and he explains it without flinching. As a man, he orients above himself in status. The weak and the disabled do not draw his interest, because his hero system runs on climbing, and attention is a coin he spends upward, toward the people whose regard would lift him. Inside that system Bender’s project reads as unintelligible. She trains the full apparatus of consecrated literary attention on a woman the status order ignores, and she does it on purpose. She drew Lena from an aunt and Ella from a grandmother she loved, the aunt who could not come to her wedding because she lay in a hospital getting a shot, the aunt who, when Bender offered her hand, said no, hold Robert’s hand instead, the aunt who made you want to be a better man. Bender spends her attention down the ladder, against the grain of rank, and calls the spending honest. The climbing man cannot follow her there. Neither can the poker professional, who would not pay to see a hand that cannot win. The hero systems collide on the body of one fictional woman, and the collision is the proof that none of them is neutral.
Then the terror returns, because Becker says it always does, and Bender keeps facing the place it enters. She wrote a story while her father died over a year and a half, the analyst whose faith she had taken as her own, and the made thing came out of the dying. She moved to a coastal town where her cultural capital reads as foreignness, where a child eats her lentil chili and asks if it is a Jewish dish and opens a door she did not want opened, where she feels like the other and the mothers run an exchange of playdates she watches from outside like a trade agreement she never signed. None of that pays the analyst’s faith back. The body still fails, the father still dies, the cake still gets moved aside for the blood. What she has against it is the trade she learned on the table that day. She makes the honest thing and sets it where the animal cannot reach, and she spends her seeing on the people the climbers walk past, and she calls students toward the same revaluation, and she trusts the book to stand after the maker is gone. The hero system does not defeat the terror. It tells her how to be of use in front of it. Hers tells her to look hard at one overlooked life and write it down without a lie, and to believe, against the poker player and the comic and the climbing man, that this is the work that counts.

What Cannot Be Handed Over: Karen Bender and the Workshop

Stephen P. Turner (b. 1951) spent The Social Theory of Practices (1994) taking apart an idea most of social science treats as settled. The idea runs like this. Beneath what people say and do lies a shared stock of tacit knowledge, a set of practices or presuppositions that members of a community hold in common and pass to the newcomer. Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) gave the tradition its line, that we know more than we can tell. The sociologists enlarged the line into a claim about groups. The group shares a hidden know-how, and the sharing explains why members coordinate, agree, and know one another on sight. Turner says the enlargement does not hold. He grants Polanyi the individual fact. A skilled man does know more than he can state. What Turner denies is the jump from that fact to a collective object, a common tacit thing carried intact from one head to another. He calls the transmission story unwarranted, and he presses the question the story cannot answer. If the knowledge is tacit, no one can tell it. So how does the same unspoken content arrive in a hundred separate minds?
The writing workshop looks like the place where Turner has to lose. Here is a craft that no one can reduce to rules, taught by a master to apprentices, generation after generation, with results everyone recognizes. Karen Bender states the creed. Talent cannot be taught. Technique can be learned. The enterprise rests on a tacit good, the feel for the sentence and the scene, passed by showing rather than telling. If tacit knowledge moves between people anywhere, it moves in the room where the story gets workshopped.
Look at how Bender teaches, and the case for transmission starts to come apart in her own hands. She does not lecture on rules. She sends the students a pdf of a story she loves that shows a craft problem at work, and then she sets an exercise so they can try the move themselves. Writing, she says, is a conversation with reading, and the great writers show you how. She prizes the kind of thing Charles Baxter names in The Art of Subtext, the meaning a reader feels that the writer never states. She follows her own intuition when she drafts, lets the subconscious lead, and when a passage goes wrong she knows it before she can say why. The feeling comes first. This is bad, she thinks, and the remedy is to cut the bad part. The judgment runs ahead of the explanation. That is Polanyi exactly. She knows more than she can tell.
Bender holds a skilled discrimination she cannot fully put into words. His question is what the workshop does with it, and the answer takes the romance apart. Watch what literally circulates in her room. The pdf circulates. The exercise circulates. The feedback circulates, her verdict on what works and what does not. Every one of these is explicit and public. The story is words on a page. The prompt is an instruction anyone can read. The critique is spoken aloud. Nothing tacit crosses the gap, because the tacit by definition cannot be spoken, and so cannot be the cargo. What moves between Bender and her students is the most tellable material there is, examples and assignments and judgments. The tacit good, the judgment that subtext has landed or that a line is dead, stays inside the person who holds it. It cannot leave, because leaving would mean being told.
When the students try the technique and post their attempts, they use it in different ways. Turner seizes on that. If a single shared tacit object passed from her to them, we should expect their work to converge toward it. Instead it diverges. Each student takes the same story and the same prompt and produces a different result, governed by a different feel. Divergence is not a failure of transmission. On Turner’s reading it is the sign that no common object was transmitted at all. What each student has is a habit, built from that student’s own history of trying, reading, and getting told where it failed. The habits resemble one another enough that an observer groups them under one heading, craft, but the heading is the observer’s, not a thing deposited in each head. Turner’s standing charge is that similarity of performance does not license positing a shared internal cause. The workshop puts the charge on display every week.
Carry the point up to Iowa, where Bender learned. The story the institution tells about itself is a story of transmission. Iowa hands the tradition to the next cohort. But no two graduates of the Iowa Writers’ Workshop write alike, and the program would not want them to. If a common tacit craft were being passed along, the spread of styles coming out of one workshop is hard to explain. Turner explains it with ease. Iowa supplied Bender with exposure, with peers, with feedback, with the chance to fail and hear about it, and out of that she grew her own discriminations, which are hers and answer to her own history. The program furnished the occasions. It did not install the contents. She met her husband there, another writer formed in the same room, and the two of them write nothing alike. Same room, same masters, divergent habits. The room is real. The shared substrate is the inference, and the inference is the part Turner refuses.
The pattern repeats in the thing she most wants to give her Wilmington students and most struggles to give. She finds their reading poor and wants to move them past cliché, toward the discriminations that separate literary fiction from the thriller. She can hand them the better books. She can name the difference. What she cannot do is hand over the discriminating habit itself, the taste that tells you which sentence is honest and which is borrowed, because that habit is not a content she possesses as a transferable item. It is an acquired sensitivity, grown in her over decades of reading and cutting, and each student will have to grow his own or not at all. She can raise the odds by choosing what they read and pressing them to read more. She cannot reach in and set the dial. When some of them begin to feel the difference she felt, Turner would warn against the easy conclusion that her taste has reproduced itself in them. They have built their own, near enough to hers that both fall under the same name.
This rescues the workshop from its own bad theory and explains its odd record at once. The workshop works, and it cannot promise anything, and both follow from the same account. It works because exposure and feedback are real causes, and under them people reliably build skill. It promises nothing because the skill is grown, not given, and growing it depends on the learner’s own equipment and effort, which the teacher does not control. Bender’s creed comes close and slips at the middle term. Talent cannot be installed, true. Technique can be drilled, true for the part that reduces to a nameable move. But the technique that counts, the judgment about subtext and the ear for the dead line, shades into the tacit, and the tacit cannot be transmitted, only acquired. She does not pass her craft to her students. She arranges the conditions under which each of them might, by his own labor, acquire one of his own. The most she can give is the example and the assignment and the honest verdict. The thing everyone calls craft never crosses the table. It was never the kind of thing that could.

The Voice

Karen Bender talks the way a clinician’s daughter talks. She reaches for the precise emotional fact and states it flat. “Writing was a place where I could be honest even when I was young.” No hedging, no qualifier, subject and predicate and the abstract noun set down like a stone. When she describes the childhood injury she gives you the spanking machine, the rock, the fall, the cake moved off the table so the blood would not reach it, and she does not tell you how to feel about any of it. She trusts the object to carry the emotion and she keeps her own thumb off the scale. That is the method in one anecdote. Render the concrete thing, withhold the verdict, let the reader arrive.
She prefers the short Anglo-Saxon word and the domestic noun. Cake, rock, hand, shot, chili, door. When an abstraction comes it comes bare and load-bearing, honesty, cliché, plot, separation, and she does not dress it. She distrusts the ready phrase as a matter of doctrine, not taste. Cliché is the enemy she names to her students, the dead language that lets a person avoid the look, and her own sentences police themselves against it. You will not catch her in a stock metaphor. When she does reach for figure she keeps it exact. The mothers’ unspoken arrangement of playdates she calls a trade agreement, and the figure works because it is dry and a little cold, the analyst’s eye on a social exchange, not a decoration.
The rhetoric is understatement carried to the edge of flatness, and the flatness is the point. Reviewers keep using the same words, restraint, quiet, understated, and the words are right. The emotional charge runs underneath, in the gap between the calm sentence and the unbearable thing the sentence reports. Her aunt, in the hospital, asked at the wedding to hold Bender’s hand, says no, hold Robert’s hand instead. Bender reports it without comment and moves on. The restraint is what makes it land. A writer who told you it was heartbreaking would have spent the charge before it reached you. She is working the Hemingway principle that you put the weight below the surface and let the reader feel the part you left out. She admires The Art of Subtext and she practices it. The sacred thing in her aesthetic is the meaning the reader feels that the writer never states.
Her manner with the reader is the manner of a witness. She does not argue you toward a position. She sets a person in front of you, renders the interior with a patience she learned in a house run on psychoanalysis, and lets the moral weight accumulate by attention rather than assertion. This is why she can write a woman locked in childhood without sentimentality. Sentimentality is telling the reader to feel. Bender shows the figure with care and dignity and declines to instruct, and the dignity comes from the refusal to instruct. The clinician’s discipline again. You observe, you do not flinch, you do not editorialize, and the observing is itself the act of respect.
She says she is not a plot writer, that plot was a nightmare, that her first draft of the novel was six hundred pages of no plot. She starts from character, image, situation, from a pressure on the chest she has to work out, and she lets the subconscious lead. So the fiction is built inward to outward, interior pressure first, event second, and the architecture tends to be the slow accretion of small domestic decisions rather than the engineered turn. Her people rarely meet a spectacular crisis. They make a series of small choices whose sum remakes them. The sentences mirror the structure. They accumulate. The effect comes from the pile, not from the single line that detonates.
She is a realist by temperament who has drifted toward the speculative, the dystopias in The New Order, and the prose has not changed register to follow the subject. She brings the same flat domestic diction to the man building a machine to resurrect his wife that she brought to the aunt in the hospital. The strange premise gets the ordinary sentence. That is a deliberate setting that domesticates the speculative and keeps the grief in focus, so the reader feels the loss and not the contraption. Many writers raise the rhetorical temperature when the material turns fantastical. She lowers it.
The manner has a cost. A reader trained on the slap, the comic’s honesty or the photographer’s merciless likeness, can find her too kind, too slow, too willing to grant her people their dignity. The restraint that reads as integrity to one reader reads as softness to another. She knows the risk and accepts it, because the alternative violates the thing she holds sacred, the honest unhurried look at one overlooked life. She would rather be called quiet than be caught telling you what to feel.

Karen & Aimee

Begin with the shared floor. Both sisters write short, clean, undecorated sentences. Neither piles up clause on clause or reaches for the ornate. Both came up out of the same home, the analyst father and the dancer mother, the talk of the unconscious, the rule that you make things rather than buy them. Both write about family, grief, the interior life, the costs people carry without saying so. Both distrust the cliché and prize the feeling a reader gets that the prose never states. If you reduced each to a style sheet, low diction, plain syntax, emotional subtext, the sheets would look alike. The difference is not in the sentence. It is in what the sentence reports.
Karen keeps the world literal and lets the strangeness sit inside ordinary fact. A woman locked in childhood. The premise can be speculative, but the rendering stays domestic, and the rule of the world holds. People do not turn into other things. Bodies obey physics. The pressure comes from inside the recognizable, from money, illness, a marriage going quiet, a parent dying. Her flat voice domesticates whatever it touches, so the speculative element reads as one more fact and the grief stays in focus.
Aimee breaks the rule of the world in the first sentence and keeps the voice just as calm. A man evolves backward, from husband to ape to sea turtle, while his wife watches from the kitchen. A girl is born with a hand made of ice. A boy has keys for fingers. A woman tastes her mother’s despair in a slice of lemon cake. The events are impossible and the prose reports them deadpan, in the same register Karen uses for the possible. This is the line both sisters walk and walk in opposite directions. Karen takes the strange situation and renders it so clearly that it feels real. Aimee takes the impossible event and renders it so that you accept it without protest. Same tool, the flat sentence against the charged content, aimed at reverse targets. Karen uses precision to ground the strange in the actual. Aimee uses precision to smuggle the impossible past the reader’s guard.
The difference traces back to how each describes her own engine. Karen says she began as a realist because the world seemed strange enough to capture straight, and the honest task was to get it down without a lie. The strangeness for her is already in the real, and fiction’s job is to look at it without flinching. Aimee says she likes metaphor and strangeness as a way into emotion, that she responds to it in the body, that her best work comes when she lets the unconscious rule the page. For Aimee the fantastical is the road to the feeling. The girl whose hand is ice is a way to write about a coldness that literal prose would dull. The magical element is a vehicle, a figure made flesh and set walking. Karen externalizes nothing. Her meaning stays inside the literal scene. Aimee externalizes constantly. Her meaning climbs out of the body and becomes an object or an event you can see.
Put it in the family idiom they both inherited. Karen took the father’s side of the house and Aimee took the mother’s. Karen writes like the analyst, patient with the literal interior, trusting that close attention to a real person’s real situation will reach the truth. Aimee writes like the choreographer, pulling the feeling out of the verbal and into the strange and the physical, making the inner state into a shape that moves. She called herself the combo platter, said psychiatry is verbal and dance comes from the inexplicable place, and that her best writing happens when she lets the second one lead. Karen lets the first one lead. The same parents, the same sentence, and the two daughters running the inheritance in opposite registers.
Tone diverges from there. Aimee’s strangeness lets in whimsy, fable, a fairy-tale lightness even when the subject is grief, the Brothers Grimm and Anne Sexton behind her, the dark thing handled with a child’s directness and a sly humor. Karen has little whimsy. Her humor is dry and social, the observed absurdity of a real exchange, the trade agreement of the playdates. Aimee can be playful because the fantastical frame gives her permission. Karen stays inside the consequences of the actual, where the playfulness has less room. Aimee’s worlds enchant. Karen’s worlds press.
The structures match the temperaments. Aimee’s stories often turn on the single impossible premise and run it to its emotional end, compact, fable-shaped, the situation announced and pursued. Karen builds by accretion, small domestic choices accumulating until a life has quietly changed, the architecture of the realist who says plot was a nightmare and character came first. Aimee’s pieces tend toward the parable. Karen’s tend toward the slow portrait.
Two sisters from one home cannot occupy the same square, because the field rewards difference and reads the copy as lesser. Aimee took the larger public name with the magical mode. Karen holds the realist position. Each one’s choice sharpens the other’s. Karen’s restraint reads as restraint only against Aimee’s invention. Aimee’s daring reads as daring only against Karen’s restraint. Whether the sorting was deliberate or not, the result is two distinct writers who share a sentence and split the world between them, one keeping it literal and finding the strange already there, the other breaking it open and finding the feeling inside the break.

Novelist Karen Bender – Like Normal People

I call her Thursday evening, August 18, 2006.

Karen (the eldest of three sisters, including Aimee Bender, the youngest): "I wanted to be a writer from age six. I was at a birthday party for a little boy. It was wild. All the kids were running after him, trying to put him through a spanking machine. He ran away from them. He threw a big rock that hit me in the head. I fell backwards. I had to be put on the birthday cake table. They had to move the cake so it wouldn't get blood on it.

"It was horrible. I got bandaged. I couldn't do anything for a while so I started writing. It just felt fun.

"Writing was a place where I could be honest even when I was young."

Luke: "What crowd did you hang out with in highschool?"

Karen: "The honors group [at Palisades High]. I remember feeling intimidated by the people going to Ivy League schools."

Luke: "What's it like being a Jew in Wilmington, North Carolina?"

Karen: "I'm often the first Jewish person a lot of people have met. That's odd. It's especially odd being the mother of two small kids (age seven and three). Robert [Anthony Siegel] and I feel a pressure to make sure that their Jewish identity is strong. So we've joined a temple. As a result, we end up celebrating every holiday known to the Jewish religion in a way we hadn't growing up."

Luke: "Is your other sister [Suzanne] a writer too?"

Karen: "She's a child psychiatrist, which is what our father is [mother is a dancer/choreographer]. She's written nonfiction."

Suzanne's the coauthor of Becoming a Therapist: What Do I Say, and Why?

Karen: "I went to therapy first when I was 13. If there was any religion I had, it was psychoanalysis. That was what got me through a lot of hard times."

When I ask Karen to describe her own personality and Aimee's, she passes on the question.

[Later, Karen emails: "I think I'm creative, obsessive, determined, generally optimistic; writing is grounding for me but I also need to get out and interact with the world. I'm also hopefully, each year, evolving."]

Karen majored in Psychology at UCLA, graduating in 1986.

She met her husband at the Iowa Writer's Workshop. "We circled each other for a long time before we ended up dating."

Luke: "Who asked who out?"

Karen: "He did, though I was dropping a lot of hints."

Luke: "Have you been a loner or a social person?"

Karen: "I was stereotyped as a loner growing up. As I've grown older, I've become more social. I'm one of the members of the social committee at the temple.

"Writing is so isolating. One thing about having kids, you are forced to be social. My kids tend to be incredibly social and they force Robert and me to be more outgoing."

Luke: "How did you come to write Like Normal People?"

Karen: "I was very close to my grandmother who was like Ella. I also wanted to write about an aunt who was similar to Lena [the retarded granddaughter of Ella]. In writing, I work out emotional issues such as how to grow up. Growing up and separating was hard for me. Lena was interesting to me because she could never really grow up. I also knew I wanted to be a mother and I wanted to imagine what that would be like."

"My aunt couldn't come to our wedding because she was in the hospital. She was getting a shot. I asked her if she wanted to hold my hand. She said, 'No. Why don't you hold Robert's hand.'

"She was smart and sweet. She made you want to be a better person."

"You usually get your first [teaching] job on the basis of publishing one book and you get tenure after publishing two books.

"I'm not on tenure track. I'm part-time."

"The challenge with the [Wilmington] students is to get them to think more like New Yorkers. To think more deeply. Their reading is appalling. Often, all they've read is thrillers. My new plan for this semester is to get them to buy a new book of contemporary fiction, read it, and write a report. They don't know who to read. They're reading Dan Brown. That's not literary fiction.

"When they start [reading literary fiction], it can open them up. They can think about things in a new way and be honest about the world in a way they hadn't before. They can think beyond cliché."

Karen Bender wrote this essay, "Listening to my son talk about God."

Luke: "What are some of the stupidest things people [in Wilmington] have said to you as a Jew?"

Karen: "This little boy came over and he was eating some lentil chili. Suddenly he says, 'Is this a Jewish dish?' It was one of those sentences that was a door to open up all this stuff.

"I wondered if his family was discussing us. Are they viewing us as Jewish people as opposed to people who happen to be Jewish?

"That was weird. I suddenly felt like someone who was other."

"We had one weird thing with our neighbors. I wrote a story about it. It was in Granta last year.

"Her daughter would always come over to play at our house. They never asked Jonah to come over. They used as free baby-sitting. There's an elaborate code with mothers to keep things on common ground. It's like a trade agreement. It's weird when someone doesn't.

"It was our first mysterious Southerner experience."

Luke: What was your primary interest in writing your novel?

Karen: "Characters and language. Plot was a nightmare. I had to learn what plot was in the process of writing the book. My first draft was a 600-page mess of no plot."

Luke: "Did you notice many people were not comfortable with the material?"

Karen: "In what way?"

Luke: "One of the major characters is retarded. I know that makes me feel uncomfortable."

Karen: "Why?"

Luke: "As a man, I naturally orient above me in social status. The people who are weak and retarded, it's not natural for me to be interested in them."

Related Links:

Pearl Abraham Elisa Albert Steve Almond Jonathan Ames Shalom Auslander Aimee Bender Karen Bender Amy Bloom Danit Brown Melvin Jules Bukiet Tamar Fox Naama Goldstein Rebecca Goldstein Yael Goldstein Laurie Graff Lauren Grodstein Ehud Havazelet Joanna Hershon Dara Horn Molly Jong-Fast Mitchell James Kaplan Binnie Kirshenbaum Sana Krasikov Adam Mansbach Tova Mirvis Gurumurthy Neelakantan Alana Newhouse Jon Papernick Rachel Resnick Thane Rosenbaum Elizabeth Rosner Wendy Shalit Ilana Stanger-Ross Laurie Gwen Shapiro Rochelle Shapiro Andrea Seigel Robert Siegel Terrie Silverman Margot Singer Leora Skolkin-Smith Yuri Slezkine Diana Spechler Steve Stern Ayelet Waldman Katharine Weber Tamar Yellin People of the Book Festival 2006

Yosef Abramowitz Edward Alexander Michael Berenbaum Sally Berkovic James Besser Reuven Blau Stephen Bloom Andrew Silow-Carroll Shmuley Boteach Benyamin Cohen Debra Nussbaum Cohen Robert Cohn Ami Eden Rob Eshman Larry Cohler-Esses Frances Dinkelspiel Matt Dorf Ami Eden Charles Fenyvesi Eric Fingerhut Amnon Finkelstein Sue Fishkoff Samuel Freedman Stephen Fried Robert I. Friedman Heshy Fried Jonathan Friendly Neal Gabler Evan Gahr J.J. Goldberg Ari Goldman Yossi Klein Halevi Malcolm Hoenlein Wayne Hoffman Hollywood Jews Mickey Kaus Eve Kessler Michael Kinsley Amy Klein Marc S. Klein Lisa S. Lenkiewicz Gene Lichtenstein Jason Maoz Jonathan Mark Deborah Dash Moore Alana Newhouse Gustav Niebuhr Ori Nir Steve Rabinowitz Gary Rosenblatt Jennie Rothenberg Debra Rubin Neil Rubin Walter Ruby Douglas Rushkoff Jonathan Sarna Cathy Seipp Rabbi Avi Shafran Mark Silk Sheldon Teitelbaum Jonathan Tobin Tom Tugend David Twersky Teresa Watanabe Steven I. Weiss Leon Wieseltier Paul Wilkes Lauren Winner Yori Yanover Larry Yudelson

Yael Goldstein Love (b. 1978) is an American novelist, editor, and psychotherapist whose fiction examines how attachment, fear, and imagination reshape the mind. She works at the border between literary realism and speculative form, drawing on philosophy, neuroscience, and clinical psychology to write about motherhood, consciousness, and the limits of a parent’s power to protect a child. Two novels anchor her reputation. The first appeared as Overture in 2007 and was reissued as The Passion of Tasha Darsky; it studies the ruin a brilliant mother visits on a gifted daughter. The second, The Possibilities (2023), uses the multiverse as a figure for the futures a parent imagines and dreads. Around the fiction she has built a second career in digital publishing and a third in clinical practice.

She was born in 1978 and raised in Highland Park, New Jersey, in a home where philosophy, mathematics, and literature served as table talk. Her mother is the novelist and philosopher Rebecca Goldstein (b. 1950), author of The Mind-Body Problem and of studies of Spinoza and Kurt Gödel. Her father is the mathematical physicist Sheldon Goldstein, a leading defender of Bohmian mechanics, the de Broglie-Bohm reading of quantum theory. Her parents divorced, and her mother later married the cognitive scientist Steven Pinker (b. 1954), who became her stepfather. Her sister, Danielle Blau, is a poet. The questions that fill her novels, identity and free will and the relation between inner experience and physical reality, reached her first as family conversation rather than as coursework. Her interest in parallel worlds belongs to that lineage even though her books are not science fiction in the usual sense.

As a child she attended the Rabbi Pesach Raymon Yeshiva. She went on to Harvard, studied philosophy over her grandmother’s objections, and took her degree in 2000. She did not enter the academy. She supported her first attempts at fiction with a run of jobs: bartender, waitress, secretary, event planner, admissions consultant, writer of SparkNotes study guides, and publishing assistant at The Paris Review. Her early work found print in serious places. The story “When Skeptics Die” appeared in Commentary in 2004, and the essay “When God Is Your Favorite Writer” appeared in the 2005 anthology Who We Are: On Being (and Not Being) a Jewish American Writer.

Her first novel, Overture, came out from Doubleday in 2007 and was later republished as The Passion of Tasha Darsky. It follows a gifted young violinist and her brilliant, controlling mother, and it weighs artistic ambition, dependency, and the cost of genius to the people around it. Reviewing the book in The New York Times, Liesl Schillinger found signs of “brooding genius” in the prose. Because the novel turns on a formidable mother, some readers asked whether Goldstein Love had written about Rebecca Goldstein. She rejected the reading. Tasha, she said, is an ambitious and driven woman in a way her own mother is not, and fiction converts personal material into something broader rather than recording family history.

In 2011 she co-founded the literary studio Plympton with the writer Jennifer 8. Lee (b. 1976). The two named the company for Plympton Street in Harvard Square, where they had met. Plympton set out to revive serialized fiction for digital readers. Its first series launched in September 2012 as part of Amazon’s Kindle Serials program, and in March 2014 it released Rooster, a mobile reading app. The studio acquired DailyLit in 2013 and co-created Recovering the Classics, a crowdsourced effort to redesign covers for public-domain books. As editorial director, Goldstein Love commissioned and edited original fiction from writers including Julia Glass, Jane Smiley, Adam Haslett, Molly Antopol, Namwali Serpell, Tova Mirvis, Alan Lightman, and Julian Gough; five stories she edited earned recognition from The Best American Short Stories. In 2018 she conceived, pitched, and edited Warmer, a collection of climate fiction for Amazon Original Stories, with contributions from Lauren Groff, Jess Walter, Jane Smiley, and Edan Lepucki. She held that electronic platforms could carry the nineteenth-century habit of serial storytelling to a new audience rather than threaten the book.

In time she turned toward clinical work. She enrolled at The Wright Institute in Berkeley, California, earned a master’s degree in counseling psychology, and became a doctoral candidate in clinical psychology. Her dissertation studies maternal worry and the ways mothers manage uncertainty about their children’s futures, the same ground her second novel would cover. Her training included work with patients facing psychosis, anxiety, and trauma. She now keeps a private practice as a psychological associate, with a focus on pregnancy, the move into parenthood, perinatal mental health, and early family life.

The Possibilities, published by Random House in 2023, marks a widening of both her literary and her intellectual reach. A new mother, the suspense novelist Hannah Bennett, loses her infant son from his crib and crosses into alternate versions of her life to find him. The book borrows the language of quantum mechanics and the multiverse, yet it remains a study of grief, exhaustion, and love. Goldstein Love has said the multiverse works for her as a figure for the countless futures a parent pictures and for the dread that rides alongside care, not as an exercise in hard science fiction. She has traced the novel to her own postpartum anxiety after the birth of her son. Critics read it as both a thriller and a portrait of early motherhood; reviewers at The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and elsewhere praised the way it grounds its cosmic premise in the body. The novel became a finalist for the 2024 World Fantasy Award and a SheReads best book of the year.

A claim runs through her work: motherhood is a cognitive change, not only a social role. She rejects the folk idea of “mom brain” and argues that care reorganizes attention, perception, and feeling. What an outsider reads as distraction she reads as the mind restructuring around another person. She holds that similar changes appear in adoptive parents and in fathers who do the primary care, which makes the shift a product of attachment more than of biology alone. Her two trainings feed each other. The clinical hours with psychotic patients inform her characters who cannot sort the real from the imagined, and her philosophical schooling keeps her returning to identity, will, and the seam between mind and world.

Outside her fiction she writes essays and criticism. Her byline has appeared in The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Globe, Slate, The Atlantic online, The Millions, Kveller, and other outlets, often on literature, psychology, and motherhood. She lives in Berkeley with her son and a cat, and she carries her practice and her writing side by side.

Few novelists hold the perspectives of philosopher, clinician, editor, and literary artist at once. Goldstein Love joins rigorous inquiry to close emotional observation, and she has made herself one of the more searching contemporary writers on the change parenthood works in a mind, and on the thin line between memory, possibility, and the world as it stands.

Against the Last Outcome: The Hero System of Yael Goldstein Love

A woman stands on the top deck of an open parking garage in the Berkeley Hills. The fog burns off below her in the morning glare. Her son sits strapped in the car behind her, eight months old, his hair still damp with a shampoo that costs more than the gas in the tank. She tells herself, out loud, “Get in the car.” She does not move. For one breath she feels outside of time, suspended the way a traveler feels at an airport, between the life she has and the one she fears. This is Hannah Bennett, the new mother at the center of The Possibilities, and she carries a second picture of this same morning folded inside the first, the one where the boy came out blue and the ten minutes on the table ended the other way.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) holds that man is the animal that knows it will die, and that every culture is a system for earning a sense of cosmic value against that knowledge. A hero system tells a man what counts as significance and how to win it. The prize is a feeling of permanence, a stake in something the body cannot take down with it when it goes. Read Yael Goldstein Love through Becker and her work resolves into one such system, built around a single act and a single word. The act is the vigil. The word is possibility.

In her hero system the mother’s worry is power. The culture she writes against treats maternal anxiety as a thing to be named and dosed, a disorder of adjustment, a deficit of attention that earns the insult “mom brain.” She turns the chart over. The vigilant mother, in her account, holds her child’s death off by the pressure of attention alone, and her love can cross into the world where the child still lives. Motherhood has to be fraught, she says, the dread “baked into the role.” The fiction supplies the cosmology the claim requires. A mother who steps between worlds is a mother whose watching bends the structure of things, and the multiverse is the one theology that lets no outcome be the last.

Possibility is her sacred word. A sacred word means one thing inside the temple and other things in the streets around it. Walk it through the rooms where other people kneel.

Take the neonatologist on the unit two floors down from where Hannah delivered. For her, possibility is a curve, gestational weeks plotted against grams, the percentage that walks out the door. She has trained herself not to inflate it. A father grips her sleeve in the corridor and asks whether his daughter will make it, and the heroism of her trade is to hand him the number and withhold the hope. The mother in the garage keeps possibility as an open door. The neonatologist keeps it as a probability she is paid not to round up.

Take the hospice chaplain at a bedside across town. For him, possibility is the thing a family lays down so a death can go well. He has watched too many sons demand one more scan, one more transfer, one more trial, and he has learned that the open set of futures is the enemy of a clean ending. His work is to help a man trade the fantasy of more time for the peace of enough. Where the mother guards possibility, the chaplain coaxes it shut.

Take her own father, or a physicist of his school. He spends a career on a reading of quantum theory in which a particle travels one definite path and the other worlds do not exist. Possibility, for him, describes our ignorance while the world stays settled, and the many-worlds picture his daughter borrows for her novel is the rival his colleagues argue down at conferences. One word divides the father from the daughter. He uses it to deny the other worlds. She uses it to walk into them.

Take the venture capitalist in a glass office on Sand Hill Road. Possibility is option value, the one bet in forty that returns the whole fund. Dead companies do not haunt him. They are write-offs, and the open set is a portfolio.

Take the strict Calvinist in his pulpit. The decree is fixed before the foundation of the world, and possibility is the snare of a man who thinks his striving moves God. Comfort lives in election, in the settled outcome. The mother who believes her watching bends time is, from where he stands, in revolt against providence.

Take the Buddhist nun who has trained for thirty years to loosen her grip on outcomes. The clutch the mother keeps on every future her child might have is the exact attachment the nun names as the root of suffering. To her the open set is a fire to put out, and freedom is the hand that lets go.

Six rooms, one word, and in each the word carries the local hero’s hope and his fear. Becker’s lesson is that none of the six meanings is the true one. Each is a position in a system that tells its holder how to be significant in the face of the end. The neonatologist earns her significance by honesty about the odds. The chaplain earns his by helping a man accept the close. The nun earns hers by the open hand. Goldstein Love earns hers by the refusal, by the mother who will not concede the last outcome and who writes a universe where she does not have to.

That is why the multiverse carries doctrine in her work rather than decoration. A hero system needs a cosmos that makes its central act effective, and a vigil counts for nothing if the watching cannot change what happens. The realist novel offers the mother grief and a closed door; the dead child stays dead. The speculative frame gives her an errand. It lets the watching cross over and bring the boy home. She took the language of possibility from a house full of physics and poured a mother’s meaning into it, and the result reads as a thriller and works as a private theology, a liturgy for the one terror she cannot argue away.

Her readers feel the pull of it. A new mother writes that the book gave her leave to believe her worry had force, that her love might cross a universe, and the relief in the line is the relief of a woman handed a hero system that fits her fear. This is what the genre does at its best. It does not soothe the terror. It arms it. In Becker’s account a system built to hold off death also binds the one it serves, and the mother who cannot let an outcome close has bought her courage at the price of a permanent watch. Goldstein Love knows the price. The fraught is baked in, she says, and she promises no exit from it. She offers the vigil, the open set, and the long refusal to agree that any door has shut for good.

Inherited Capital: Yael Goldstein Love in the Literary Field

Read through Pierre Bourdieu, Yael Goldstein Love is a study in capital and its conversion. She starts with an endowment few writers hold, and she spends a career turning it from one form into another, across three fields, then carrying it back into the first with interest.

The endowment is cultural capital in its embodied state. She grows up in a home where philosophy and physics serve as household speech, her mother a consecrated philosopher and novelist, her father a physicist who defends a reading of quantum theory, her stepfather a cognitive scientist with a wide public name. A child raised in that house acquires a disposition, what Bourdieu calls a habitus, that treats abstraction as native ground and high culture as the air of the place rather than a destination to be reached. Harvard philosophy converts the embodied form into the institutional form, a credential the field reads at sight. Her first posts add social and symbolic capital. A publishing assistant’s chair at The Paris Review puts her inside the network. A story placed in Commentary gives an early mark of recognition from an agent the literary field treats as legitimate.

The conversions begin with fiction. Overture arrives from Doubleday in 2007, later reissued as The Passion of Tasha Darsky. The review that counts comes from The New York Times, where the authorized critic finds “brooding genius” in the prose. That phrase is a token of consecration, the field certifying a newcomer through one of its licensed voices. She enters the field of literary production not at the margin but near the center, vouched for by the right people and the right pages.

Plympton moves her into a second field. In 2011 she crosses from writing into digital publishing, and her position changes with the crossing. She stops being only a consecrated newcomer and becomes a consecrating agent. To commission Julia Glass, Jane Smiley, Adam Haslett, Molly Antopol, and Namwali Serpell is to lend and borrow legitimacy in the same motion. Their names raise the studio; the studio’s commissions confirm her standing as someone who decides what counts. Plympton sits at the commercial pole of the field, with Amazon, a reading app, serialized installments, and the frank language of sustainable revenue for writers. She stocks that commercial operation with authors drawn from the autonomous pole, the writers whose authority rests on the regard of peers more than on sales. Her work at Plympton is the work of an exchange rate, setting the terms on which prestige from the autonomous pole trades against reach and money at the commercial one.

The third field is clinical psychology. The Wright Institute, a master’s degree, a doctorate in progress, a private practice in perinatal mental health. This yields a capital her literary peers cannot easily acquire, the authority of the consulting room and the diagnostic vocabulary that comes with it. She holds a legitimacy granted by a different field with its own credentials and its own gatekeepers.

Then she carries that authority home. The Possibilities in 2023 is the work of a psychotherapist who writes novels, and that position is scarce in the literary field and therefore valuable in it. Reviewers reach for the clinical register; one notes an analyst’s insight into the unease of early motherhood. The credential does work on the page and again in the reception, where critics treat her account of postpartum fear as expert testimony rather than invention alone. The asset earned in the third field spends well in the first.

The reading of her debut against her mother is a field effect, and it deserves its own line. The field cannot let the daughter of a consecrated writer stand alone. It reads Overture as a book about Rebecca Goldstein and asks whether the formidable mother on the page is the formidable mother in life. Her denial is itself a move in the game, position-taking in Bourdieu’s sense. By insisting that Tasha is an ambitious, driven woman her own mother is not, she refuses the derivative slot the field tries to assign and claims an autonomous one. The contest is over symbolic capital attached to a name. She keeps the name Goldstein, which carries her mother’s weight and her stepfather’s, and she has to differentiate her work from the very inheritance that gives it standing. The name opens the door and sets the trap at once.

The quantum material in The Possibilities reads, in this frame, as a marker of distinction. A novel about a new mother and a missing infant runs the risk of the dominated pole, the place the field files as domestic, as women’s fiction, as the commercial soft center. She imports the multiverse to raise the subject, science capital fetched in to lift a maternal story toward the pole the field calls serious. The inheritance here is close to literal. Her father spends his career on a reading of quantum mechanics, and she carries that idiom into a book about the futures a parent dreads. The blurbs finish the move, lining her up beside Octavia Butler and Philip K. Dick, cross-references that pull a story about a crib toward the canon of ideas.

Related Links:

Pearl Abraham Elisa Albert Steve Almond Jonathan Ames Shalom Auslander Aimee Bender Karen Bender Amy Bloom Danit Brown Melvin Jules Bukiet Tamar Fox Naama Goldstein Rebecca Goldstein Yael Goldstein Laurie Graff Lauren Grodstein Ehud Havazelet Joanna Hershon Dara Horn Molly Jong-Fast Mitchell James Kaplan Binnie Kirshenbaum Sana Krasikov Adam Mansbach Tova Mirvis Gurumurthy Neelakantan Alana Newhouse Jon Papernick Rachel Resnick Thane Rosenbaum Elizabeth Rosner Wendy Shalit Ilana Stanger-Ross Laurie Gwen Shapiro Rochelle Shapiro Andrea Seigel Robert Siegel Terrie Silverman Margot Singer Leora Skolkin-Smith Yuri Slezkine Diana Spechler Steve Stern Ayelet Waldman Katharine Weber Tamar Yellin People of the Book Festival 2006

Yosef Abramowitz Edward Alexander Michael Berenbaum Sally Berkovic James Besser Reuven Blau Stephen Bloom Andrew Silow-Carroll Shmuley Boteach Benyamin Cohen Debra Nussbaum Cohen Robert Cohn Ami Eden Rob Eshman Larry Cohler-Esses Frances Dinkelspiel Matt Dorf Ami Eden Charles Fenyvesi Eric Fingerhut Amnon Finkelstein Sue Fishkoff Samuel Freedman Stephen Fried Robert I. Friedman Heshy Fried Jonathan Friendly Neal Gabler Evan Gahr J.J. Goldberg Ari Goldman Yossi Klein Halevi Malcolm Hoenlein Wayne Hoffman Hollywood Jews Mickey Kaus Eve Kessler Michael Kinsley Amy Klein Marc S. Klein Lisa S. Lenkiewicz Gene Lichtenstein Jason Maoz Jonathan Mark Deborah Dash Moore Alana Newhouse Gustav Niebuhr Ori Nir Steve Rabinowitz Gary Rosenblatt Jennie Rothenberg Debra Rubin Neil Rubin Walter Ruby Douglas Rushkoff Jonathan Sarna Cathy Seipp Rabbi Avi Shafran Mark Silk Sheldon Teitelbaum Jonathan Tobin Tom Tugend David Twersky Teresa Watanabe Steven I. Weiss Leon Wieseltier Paul Wilkes Lauren Winner Yori Yanover Larry Yudelson

Aimee Bender (b. June 28, 1969) is an American novelist and short story writer. Her fiction draws fairy tale, surrealism, and psychological realism into a single line of work. She sets one impossible event inside an ordinary world and follows its emotional consequences with full seriousness. Since her debut in the late 1990s she has become a central figure in the revival of literary fabulism in American fiction.

She grew up in Los Angeles in a Jewish home. Her father worked as a psychoanalyst, her mother as a dance therapist. Both trades read emotional life through the unconscious mind and the body, and that double inheritance runs through her stories, where physical change carries psychological weight. She has resisted autobiographical readings of the work, yet the pattern holds across book after book: a body alters, and the alteration names a feeling that basic description would miss. She earned a bachelor’s degree in literature, with an emphasis on creative writing, from the University of California, San Diego, in 1991, and an MFA from the University of California, Irvine, in 1997. At Irvine she studied with the novelist Judith Grossman and the writer Geoffrey Wolff, both of whom pressed for precision and emotional truth. That training stayed with her even as she moved toward the surreal. She names Oscar Wilde, Hans Christian Andersen, the Brothers Grimm, and Anne Sexton among her chief influences.

She attended Pacific Palisades High School, where she ran with the honors crowd and watched the drama group from the edge. She admired their appetite for performance. She treated writing as a hobby until graduate school, when she began to write every morning.

Her first collection, The Girl in the Flammable Skirt (1998), made her reputation at once. The book became a New York Times Notable Book. Women sprout strange features, household objects acquire feeling, and fairy tale figures meet modern dread. Critics reached for Angela Carter and Donald Barthelme, then noticed the tenderness under the strangeness. The stories left realism behind without losing psychological credit. The impossible became her language for states that ordinary narration struggles to hold.

Her first novel, An Invisible Sign of My Own (2000), follows Mona Gray, a young mathematics teacher who treats numbers as armor against uncertainty. Obsessive ritual becomes a system she uses to hold an unpredictable world in place. The book carries magical touches, but its center sits on isolation and the search for contact. The Los Angeles Times named it a Book of the Year, and a 2010 film adaptation, An Invisible Sign, starred Jessica Alba.

She returned to short fiction with Willful Creatures (2005), her purest run of invention. Potato children, tiny men who live in pockets, and other impossible beings carry recognizable fears. The strange premises rarely settle for whimsy. They expose dependence, loneliness, and the fragile terms of intimacy. The collection drew a James Tiptree Jr. Award nomination, and critics began to treat her as a major shaper of the American short story.

Her largest commercial success came with The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake (2010). Rose Edelstein, a young girl, tastes the emotions of whoever made her food. What looks at first like a charmed gift turns into a burden as she absorbs her mother’s despair and her father’s distance and the family tensions no one names aloud. The novel treats empathy as an overwhelming sense that wears away a child’s boundaries. The book reached the New York Times bestseller list, won the Southern California Independent Booksellers Association award for fiction, and received an Alex Award from the American Library Association. It remains her best-known work and carried her to an international readership.

The Color Master (2013) kept to fairy tale structures with more formal command. The title story imagines an apprentice charged with mixing the colors of the world, and other stories rework folklore and domestic life through surreal change. The collection reached the shortlist for the Frank O’Connor International Short Story Award. Reviewers praised the balance of imaginative freedom and restraint.

Her most recent novel, The Butterfly Lampshade (2020), looks at childhood trauma, mental illness, and memory through Francie, whose mother suffers a psychotic break. As elsewhere in her work, the extraordinary blurs the line between perception and the supernatural, and the novel keeps the ambiguity rather than resolving it. The book reached the longlist for the PEN/Jean Stein Book Award and drew praise for its compassion toward mental illness and family instability.

Several themes recur across the fiction. She studies how children build imaginative systems to make sense of adult suffering. She draws families as networks of hidden current rather than stable institutions. Physical change stands in for psychological change, and bodies become the ground where shame, desire, and love take visible form. Unlike most fantasy, her stories rarely explain their impossible premises. Characters adapt to the strange the way people accommodate emotional facts they cannot reason their way out of.

Critics group the work under magical realism, fabulism, or slipstream. Bender has said she cares less about genre than about the emotional necessity behind a premise, and that surrealism lets a writer reach experience that realism alone cannot hold. Magical events serve as metaphor for the reader while staying literal for the character who lives them. Alongside Kelly Link and Karen Russell, she helped define a generation of American fabulists who traded strict realism for emotion-driven fantasy. Her restrained prose and her refusal to explain the supernatural set her apart from the rest.

She teaches as Distinguished Professor of English at the University of Southern California, where she has mentored emerging novelists and short story writers and once directed the PhD program in creative writing and literature. Her workshops favor curiosity, intuition, and long attention to a single image over formula or commercial calculation. She argues that fiction starts in mystery, not certainty, and that a writer should resist explaining away the strange impulse that set the story going. Her own practice follows the rule. She writes about two hours each morning, begins with a vivid image or an odd sentence, and discovers the story in the act of writing rather than through an outline.

Her stories have appeared in Granta, The Paris Review, Harper’s, GQ, Tin House, and McSweeney’s, and several have been broadcast on This American Life and Selected Shorts. She has won two Pushcart Prizes and earned a Shirley Jackson Award nomination for her story “Faces.” Her books have been translated into more than sixteen languages.

A 2006 interview fills in the person behind the work. She describes herself as optimistic and friendly, and says people who knew her without knowing her well were surprised by the dark material in her fiction. She rejects the word “flat” for her public manner and prefers “calm.” She does not believe in the muse. She named Halloween her favorite holiday for its license to enter the unconscious through imagination and fantasy. She links the literary to depth, and depth to despair, while warning that despair performed to join a club is the more hopeless kind.

In the same interview she traced a rise in her Jewish identification to the end of her marriage. Her then-husband had defended a swastika his family displayed as an ancient pagan and Native American symbol, and she asked only that they reverse it. She tied the dispute to Jewishness and to the close of the marriage, and said the divorce brought a resurgence of interest in valuing her Judaism. She began to attend synagogue more often, took part in the Reboot gatherings of younger joys, and appeared twice at the San Francisco Jewish Book Festival. She had not been to Israel, and she described the relationship of American Jews to Israel as a subject that shuts people down where it ought to open a lively debate. Asked where Jewishness sat among her priorities, she moved it up the list over the course of the conversation, from a number a moderator had once put near the bottom to something closer to the center.

Bender has published a small body of work, and each book has widened her standing as a writer who joins formal invention to emotional depth. Her method, the single surreal premise that lights up a recognizable feeling, has spread among younger American writers. In a period split between strict realism and high-concept fantasy, she holds the uncertain ground between the ordinary and the impossible, and treats the fantastic as one more route to emotional truth rather than an escape from it.

Aimee Bender and the Body That Will Not Be Read

Noon, a Tuesday in late August 2006. She makes the call on schedule. The voice on the line stays level through every question, and the interviewer notices, and he names it.
“Your voice seems flat,” he says. “I don’t know if you are tired or if this is just your interview voice.”
She does not let it pass. “I’m feeling a little defensive of the word ‘flat,'” she says, “but that is my manner.” A moment later she sets the better word in place. “I’m often called ‘calm,’ which I prefer over ‘flat.'”
The exchange runs no longer than a minute, and it holds the architecture. The surface is calm. The dark sits underneath. People who knew her in high school without knowing her well were surprised, she says, by the material in the fiction, and cannot place where it comes from. The surface tells them nothing. That gap, between the level voice and the thing under it, is the work. Her art descends through one to reach the other.
Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gives the name for what such an art does. A hero system is the arrangement a culture or a single person builds so that a mortal animal can feel he counts against a universe that ends him. The system assigns the tasks that earn significance and the dangers that threaten it. Read a person’s sacred values and you read the death they are trying to outlast. Bender’s hero system runs on a simple proposition. “What interests me in writing,” she says, “is vulnerability and pushing for something underneath the surface, exposing something.” The hero is the one who goes under. The reward is contact with an emotional truth that the lit surface of ordinary life keeps sealed.
She inherited the descent and refused the map. Her father worked as a psychoanalyst, her mother as a dance therapist. One trade reads the symbol, the dream decoded, the symptom that means. The other reads the body, the feeling carried in posture and motion. Bender keeps both instruments. She writes bodies that carry feeling and premises that arrive from the unconscious like dreams. Then she withholds the reading. The analyst tells you what the dream means. Bender gives you a girl who tastes her mother’s despair in a slice of lemon cake and tells you nothing about what it means. She grew up in the house of interpretation and built an art that will not interpret. The unconscious stays. The decoding goes.
That refusal is the sacred center, and it sets the terror it answers.
Becker, drawing on Otto Rank (1884-1939), splits the fear into two. There is the terror of death, the animal fact that the body decays and ends, that the self is meat that rots. And there is the terror of life, the dread of standing out as a separate self, exposed, unprotected, responsible for one’s own powers. Most hero systems lean hard toward one pole and pay for it at the other. Bender places both terrors in the same object. The body.
Watch where she goes when the interviewer asks about tattoos. She does not want one. She gives the surface reason first, the old story that a Jew with a tattoo cannot rest in a Jewish cemetery. Then she gives the real reason. “It feels too concrete a choice,” she says. “You make a choice and you having to stick with that choice.” The mark cannot come off. The body keeps it past the moment of choosing, carries it to the grave, settles the question the living self wanted to leave open. The cemetery and the tattoo arrive in the same breath because they name the same thing. The body will be buried. The body remembers. The body decides what you cannot take back.
Her fiction lives on that edge. A woman sprouts a feature she did not ask for. A girl’s tongue reports what her family will not say. The bodies in these stories betray their owners by telling the truth, and the owners adapt the way people adapt to a diagnosis. The transformation is the terror of death, the body acting on its own clock, and the terror of life, the self exposed past any cover, in one image. She found the place where the two fears meet and built a career standing on it.
Now the values. A hero system does not invent new words. It takes the common ones and bends them to its own gravity, so that a single value means one thing here and the opposite three feet over. Three of Bender’s words show the bend.
Take vulnerability, her own word, the one she names as the engine of the work. For her it is the route in, the condition you seek, the open door to the thing under the surface. A writer who is not exposed has written nothing. Carry that word to a combat medic and it inverts at once. Vulnerability is the gap in the armor, the thing that gets a man killed, the state his training exists to close. Carry it to a founder raising a round, and it becomes a line on a risk page, exposure to be hedged, a weakness a rival will price. Carry it to a Pashtun elder in an honor home and it reads as shame, the loss of face that a family spends its name to prevent. Then set it beside a hospice nurse, who treats vulnerability as the human floor, the condition every patient shares and no one survives, the thing to sit with and accompany rather than close or hedge or hide. Bender stands near the nurse and far from the medic. Same word. Five deaths behind it, five different things a person is trying not to be.
Take depth. She links it to the literary and the literary to despair. “When you go into depth, you’re going to find despair,” she says, and she means this as the cost of honest descent, not a defect of it. To a free diver, depth is the pressure that can kill and the silence worth the risk, transcendence bought with breath. To an oil driller, depth is where the value waits, a distance to be crossed and the prize hauled up and out. To the analyst, her father’s trade, depth is the unconscious, a region to be surfaced and read and brought into the light of the consulting room. Bender keeps the diver’s reverence and the analyst’s terrain and rejects the driller’s extraction and the analyst’s surfacing. She goes down. She does not bring the meaning up. The depth is for dwelling, not for hauling.
Take mystery. Her teaching turns on it. She tells her workshops that fiction starts in mystery, not certainty, and that a writer must resist explaining away the strange impulse that set the story moving. For a detective, mystery is a problem with a solution, a thing whose only proper end is its own erasure. For a physicist, mystery is the present edge of ignorance, honored and then pushed back. For an illusionist, mystery is a method hidden so the effect can land, a trick whose secret is held only to be sold. For a contemplative in any of the old traditions, mystery is the sacred, the thing you dwell in and never solve, and the attempt to solve it is the error. Bender sits with the contemplative and against the detective. Her premises arrive unexplained and stay unexplained because explanation would be the desecration. She built a religion of the unsolved and staffed it with potato children and a girl who tastes grief.
The rival hero systems crowd in from every side, and she names one of them in the interview without being asked. The interviewer says she carries a vulnerability that would have gone missing had she become a lawyer. She agrees fast. “I don’t think I could’ve been a lawyer,” she says. “A lawyer is a protector. What interests me in writing is vulnerability and pushing for something underneath.” The lawyer earns significance by closing the gap, by armoring the client, by leaving nothing exposed. The writer earns it by opening the gap and climbing in. Two hero systems, one shared word, opposite tasks. To the protector, the exposed surface is the failure. To Bender, the exposed surface is the achievement.
The realist is the second rival, the writer who keeps to the possible and treats the impossible as a child’s evasion. Becker’s subtraction story sits here. The modern secular world took the enchanted cosmos away, the world where a body could turn into a tree and the turning meant something, where the unseen pressed on the seen. What it left is a flat field of fact, and the literary realist guards that field and calls the policing maturity. Bender runs the smuggling operation. She slips one impossible thing back into a recognizable Los Angeles and lets it work with full seriousness. She does not rebuild a magical world. She restores the single magical fact and dares you to call it a lie. The realist’s death is to be caught believing in nothing under the surface. Hers is to be caught explaining the thing she should have left alone.
The genre builder is the third rival, and the line between them runs fine. The fantasy writer who constructs rules, systems, an explained machinery of magic, treats mystery the way the physicist does, an edge to be mapped. Bender refuses the map for the same reason she refuses the tattoo. The explained premise is the concrete choice you cannot take back. The unexplained one stays alive. Critics grouped her with magical realism, fabulism, slipstream, and she waves the labels off and says she cares about the emotional necessity behind a premise and nothing else. The label is a rule. She will not be ruled.
And the performer is the fourth, the reader who does voices, who fills a room by force. The interviewer presses her on this too. Does she take charge of a room. Does she speak louder. She does not. “I don’t usually dominate a discussion or a room,” she says, and of her readings, “it’s not like I am going to take on a character’s voice. I want the words to convey it and to read it in a way that goes under the words.” Her significance does not live in the performed surface. It lives under it, in the same place her fiction lives, which is why the flat voice and the dark page belong to one person and one system.
Three coordinates locate her when the essay closes. The first is the house she came from and turned. The analyst reads the dream and the dance therapist reads the body, and the daughter keeps the dream and the body and burns the reading, so that her art is the parental method run backward, all symptom and no diagnosis, and the withholding is the originality. The second is the body as the ground where her two terrors meet, the tattoo she will not take because the body keeps what the self would rather hold open, the transformed bodies of the fiction that tell the truth their owners cannot, where death and exposure arrive in one image and she has spent six books standing on the spot. The third is the religion of the unsolved, the depth entered for dwelling and not for hauling, the mystery honored and never cracked, the calm surface laid over the dark like the level voice over the long pause on a phone in late summer, a manner she would rather you call calm, and a descent she has asked no one to explain, least of all herself.

The Great Delusion

If John J. Mearsheimer is right in his anthropology, the surrealist and magical realist fiction of Aimee Bender (b. 1969) serves as an exploration of how deeply individuals absorb the hidden anxieties, emotions, and realities of their primary social groups.
A standard reading of Bender’s work might view her bizarre premises through a lens of isolated individual experience. In this view, a character experiencing a strange affliction is a lone, atomistic actor dealing with an internal psychological state or an abstract metaphor for personal isolation.
Mearsheimer’s framework suggests that these strange conditions are expressions of group influence and early socialization. In The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake, nine-year-old Rose Edelstein bites into her mother’s homemade cake and discovers she can taste the exact emotions of the person who prepared it. She tastes her mother’s deep despair and hidden secrets embedded in the food.
Mearsheimer argues that the long human childhood exposes individuals to an intense value infusion before their critical faculties can think for themselves. In Bender’s narrative, this process becomes physical. Rose does not construct an independent identity or a separate moral code through abstract reason; she literally consumes the emotional reality of her primary family unit. Her perspective on her environment is shaped by what her family passes down to her, showing that individuals are profoundly social beings from start to finish.
This pattern continues in The Butterfly Lampshade, where an eight-year-old girl named Francie witnesses her mother’s mental health crisis and begins to see objects from her environment move from the world into her physical possession. Francie spends her adult life trying to process these childhood occurrences. Under Mearsheimer’s logic, Francie’s later reasoning skills are entirely constrained by the intense, early socialization and the specific environment of her youth. She remains bound to the reality imposed by her primary group during her most vulnerable years.
If Mearsheimer is right, Bender’s fiction does not track quirky, isolated individuals navigating a whimsical world. Instead, it demonstrates the impossibility of existing as an atomistic actor. Her characters are permanently marked by the emotional and social structures of their families, showing that the self is always embedded in, and constructed by, the primary tribe.

‘A Big Misunderstanding’

If David Pinsof is right, the whimsical, surrealist fiction of Aimee Bender does not function as an exploration of emotional vulnerability or the hidden textures of human sensitivity. Her work represents a highly strategic navigation of the literary attention marketplace, using the guise of magical realism to secure elite status.

Consider The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake. In the novel, a young girl discovers she can taste the domestic unhappiness and hidden emotions of the people who prepare her food. A standard intellectual reading views this as a profound metaphor for empathy, highlighting how humans struggle to communicate their internal suffering.

A Pinsofian analysis strips away this high-status mission statement. Empathy and deep emotional sensitivity are often presented by the intellectual class as the solution to humanity’s friction, suggesting that if people felt more for others, society’s problems might disappear. If Pinsof is correct, this emphasis on hyper-empathy is a moralistic signal. By writing about characters who are literally consumed by the emotions of others, Bender provides her readers with a tool to signal their own refined capacity for empathy. The narrative functions as an instrument to outcompete cultural rivals for prestige, offering elite consumers a platform to feel uniquely attuned to the hidden griefs of the world.

This logic extends to her other works, such as The Girl in the Flammable Skirt and The Butterfly Lampshade. The surreal occurrences—characters with keys for fingers, or objects that alter reality—are not expressions of a broken world or a cognitive misunderstanding of reality. They are highly calculated literary devices. Natural selection shaped the human mind to compete for status and resources using whatever tools are effective in a given environment. In the contemporary literary marketplace, deploying eccentric, surreal narratives is a savvy strategy to claim originality and distinction. Bender uses these bizarre scenarios not to fix human confusion, but to establish a distinct, high-prestige position within the cultural hierarchy, proving that even the most whimsical art operates on a cold logic of social competition.

Aimee Bender and the Two Markets

Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) built a way to read a writer by decoding the field she stands in. The literary field, in his account, is a structured space of positions, and a position carries its value from where it sits relative to the others. The field splits along one axis. At one pole sits restricted production, art made for other producers, for the small set of people who confer prestige, art that disavows the market and earns its credit by the disavowal. At the other pole sits large-scale production, art made for the broad audience, art that takes its reward in sales and counts the sales as proof of nothing but sales. The two poles run on opposed economies. The restricted pole treats commercial success as a stain. The large pole treats critical esteem as decoration on a product that has already won. A writer’s career can be read as the management of her place between them.
Start with the restricted pole, where she made her name. The Girl in the Flammable Skirt arrived as a story collection, the form with the least commercial promise and the most prestige per page in the American literary economy. It became a New York Times Notable Book. The surreal premise, the refusal to explain it, the descent from Angela Carter and Donald Barthelme that the critics reached for at once, all of it placed her among the producers who make work for other producers. The consecration markers followed in the currency of that pole. A James Tiptree Jr. Award nomination for Willful Creatures (2005). A Frank O’Connor International Short Story Award shortlist for The Color Master. Two Pushcart Prizes. A Shirley Jackson Award nomination. None of these pays much. All of them confer the thing the restricted pole exists to confer, which is the recognition of peers and gatekeepers, the symbolic capital that cannot be bought and can only be granted by those who already hold it.
The credential sits underneath the awards and matters more. She holds an MFA from the University of California, Irvine, taken in 1997, and she took it studying with the novelist Judith Grossman and the writer Geoffrey Wolff. Bourdieu reads this as the inheritance of position. A writer does not enter the field from nowhere. She enters at a location prepared by who trained her, and the training transmits more than craft. It transmits the disposition, the feel for the game, the sense of what counts as serious and what counts as cheap that a player carries without having to think it. The Irvine pedigree and the descent from Grossman and Wolff place Bender inside the consecrated lineage before she has published a word the wider world will read. Her later teaching post, Distinguished Professor of English at the University of Southern California, completes the circuit. She holds the chair that confers the disposition she once received. She has moved from the consecrated to the consecrator.
Then comes The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake (2010), and the other pole opens under her feet. The novel reached the New York Times bestseller list. It carried her to an international readership and translation into more than sixteen languages. By the logic of the restricted pole, a bestseller is a problem, because the broad audience is the body whose approval the restricted pole is trained to distrust. Sales prove reach. The restricted pole does not trade in reach. It trades in the refusal of reach, and a writer who sells in those numbers has to account for the sales in a coin that does not devalue her standing among the people who granted her the standing in the first place.
Watch how she manages it. Lemon Cake has the same engine as the prize-winning stories. A single impossible premise, a girl who tastes the feelings of whoever cooked her food, set in a recognizable Los Angeles, never explained. The book sells in the large market while keeping the form that earns credit in the small one. The surreal premise is the hinge. It is strange enough to hold the prestige of the difficult and human enough to carry the broad reader through. She built a bridge that let the symbolic capital and the sales arrive on the same book without either canceling the other. Bourdieu’s rarest case is the writer who converts across the divide without loss, and Bender did it.
The interview from August 2006 shows the conversion problem live, in the writer’s own handling of the field’s central word. The interviewer asks how often “literary” is a code word for despair. She does not answer the question first. She handles the word.
“What interests me about your question,” she says, “is that ‘literary’ is such a charged word. It can feel snooty.”
That sentence is field theory spoken by a native. She knows the word carries a class position. She knows it can read as a claim of superiority, the restricted pole looking down at the large one, and she reaches to defuse the charge before she will use the word at all. Then she rehabilitates it on her own terms. “I hope that ‘literary’ means going into something with depth, and when you go into depth, you’re going to find despair.” She converts the status word into a labor word. Literary stops meaning above you and starts meaning down further, a measure of descent rather than rank. The move lets her keep the prestige of the term while disowning the snobbery the term carries. She wants the capital. She does not want the bill that comes with flaunting it.
She names the counterfeit. Some despair is honest, she says, the place a writer reaches when he pushes himself. And some is fake, performed “to join the club.” Bourdieu would mark that line as the field policing its own boundary. The club is the restricted pole. Membership is conferred by the display of the right suffering, the right difficulty, the right refusal of easy pleasure. A writer who fakes the despair is forging the credential, claiming the position without paying the price the position demands. Bender draws the boundary even as she stands inside it. The gesture is a bid for position. To name the counterfeits is to claim you are not one.
Two more passages from the interview show the field exacting its discounts.
The first is the discount for strangeness. “Some people don’t take my stuff seriously,” she says, “because they think it’s weird.” This is the tax the surreal pays at the boundary with the realist mainstream. Literary realism holds a large share of the field’s middle, the respectable center where seriousness is assumed, and a writer who works in the fantastic has to earn back the seriousness that the realist receives by default. The weird premise that buys her credit at the avant-garde pole costs her credit at the realist center. She pays at one register what she banks at the other.
The second is subtler and sits in the body. The interviewer tells her she is gorgeous, twice, and ties her looks to the work, and she pushes back on the tie. The field, in Bourdieu’s account, distributes its capital unevenly across kinds of bodies, and a woman writer who reads as cute draws a discount on her seriousness that a man does not draw. The prestige economy of the restricted pole presents as pure, a matter of the work and nothing else, and it is not pure. It reads the author’s body and prices it. Bender takes the compliment and resists the inference, because she knows the inference carries a cost, that to be received as cute is to be received as light, and light is the one thing the descent into depth cannot afford to be called.
Three coordinates close the reading. The first is the double position, the prize collections and the bestseller novel run on the same unexplained premise, the bridge across the divide that lets the symbolic capital and the sales sit on one shelf, the rare conversion that costs her nothing at either pole because the method that earns the credit is the method that wins the readers. The second is the inherited location, Irvine and Grossman and Wolff and now the USC chair, the disposition received and then transmitted, a player who entered the field at a consecrated address and has moved up to the desk that assigns the addresses. The third is the management of the charged word, “literary” defused and reclaimed and turned from a mark of rank into a measure of descent, the counterfeit despair named and shut out, the discounts for the weird and the cute absorbed and resisted, a writer who knows what every token in the game is worth and has spent a career spending them well.

Aimee Bender and the Rhythm That Will Not Catch

Randall Collins (b. 1941) argues that the basic unit of social life is the encounter, and that an encounter succeeds or fails by a measurable physics. He calls the successful one an interaction ritual. It needs four things present at once. Two or more bodies in the same place. A barrier that marks who belongs and who does not. A single object of shared attention. And a shared mood that builds as the encounter runs. When the four lock together, the bodies fall into rhythm, gesture answering gesture, voice catching voice, and the rhythm pumps out the thing Collins puts at the center of everything, emotional energy. Emotional energy is confidence, warmth, the charge a person carries out of a good encounter and spends seeking the next one. People chain these encounters across a life, drawn toward the situations that fill the tank and away from the ones that drain it. A failed ritual leaves a person flatter than it found him.
The interview from August 2006 is a ritual caught partway to failure, and the failure is on the record because the interviewer says so while it happens.
She has called him on schedule. The first ingredient, bodily co-presence, arrives over a phone line, which is to say it arrives weakened, because Collins holds that the rhythm runs on bodies in a room, on the micro-signals of face and posture that a wire strips away. Two people on a call have to build entrainment with half the materials. Sometimes the call still catches. This one does not. He reaches for the shared mood and cannot find it. He names the problem out loud.
“You seem not animated,” he says.
“I feel animated,” she answers. “I’m pretty calm. I get that a lot.”
He pushes again, looking for the rhythm a good encounter throws off. “When you want to take charge of a room, what do you do? Do you speak louder?”
“Does it feel like I’m speaking quietly?”
The two of them are running different templates for the same ritual. He treats emotional energy as something a person performs upward, voice raised, room taken, the charge made visible so the other body can catch it. She treats the charge as something held low and steady, carried under the words rather than thrown across them. He reads her level voice as a tank near empty. She reads her level voice as a full tank held in reserve. Neither template is wrong by Collins’s lights. They simply do not entrain. The signals each one sends do not register as signals to the other, and the encounter never finds the rhythm that pumps the energy out.
Then the interviewer says the word, and the word is “flat,” and her resistance to it is the most charged moment in the call.
“Your voice seems flat,” he says.
She does not let it pass. “I’m feeling a little defensive of the word ‘flat,'” she says, “but that is my manner.” Later she sets the better word in its place. “I’m often called ‘calm,’ which I prefer over ‘flat.'”
Collins lets us see what the fight is about. “Flat” is the word for a drained ritual, the encounter that produced no energy, the body that gives nothing back. “Calm” is the word for energy held without display. She is fighting over the reading of her own emotional state, because the reading determines what kind of ritual partner she is taken to be. Accept “flat” and she becomes a sink, a person who pulls the energy down. Hold “calm” and she becomes a different kind of presence, charged but quiet, the energy real and merely undisplayed. The defensiveness rises right there, the only point in the call where her voice moves off its level, and it moves to defend the level.
Collins says emotional energy is not a private trait. It is a social product, made in the encounter or not made. So when the interviewer reads her as low and she reads herself as full, the question of who is right cannot be settled by looking inside her. It can only be settled by whether the encounter catches, and this encounter does not catch, which means the interviewer’s reading half-creates the flatness he reports. He brings less energy to her than her readers and her workshops bring, and so she gives less back, and the low rhythm he gets is partly the rhythm he made. The phone, the mismatched templates, the pressing on a sore word, all of it drains the encounter, and then the drainage gets recorded as a fact about her manner.
Set against the failed call is the ritual that works for her, and it has only one body in the room. She writes about two hours each morning. She begins with an image or an odd sentence and finds the story in the writing. Collins allows the solitary ritual a place in the chain, though he treats it as the harder case. A person alone can still focus attention on a single object, still build a mood, still charge a symbol with significance, but the energy has to come from somewhere, because there is no second body to catch a rhythm with. Collins’s answer is that the lone ritualist runs on energy banked from earlier encounters, on an internalized membership that lets the solitary act feel like communion with an absent group. The morning desk is a private rite that draws on a public charge.
“I don’t believe in the muse,” she says. The muse is the old name for an external source, a spirit that visits, a transcendent supply of energy that arrives from outside the writer and outside the act. To deny the muse is to relocate the supply. The energy does not visit the desk. The desk makes it. The sitting, repeated every morning, is the ritual that generates the charge, and the charge is the reward that pulls her back the next morning and the morning after. Collins would say she has described the chain. The practice runs because the practice pays, and it pays in the only currency that keeps a solitary discipline alive across decades, the emotional energy of the rite performed again.
The third stretch of material is her re-entry into Jewish life, and it is a textbook chain of rituals doing repair work after a ritual collapsed. The marriage failed, and it failed around a charged object, a swastika her then-husband’s family displayed and defended as an ancient symbol. She asked them to reverse it. The dispute carried the full weight that Collins assigns to a sacred symbol under attack, because a sacred symbol is an object charged by ritual until a group treats it as non-negotiable, and a swastika in a Jewish woman’s married home is the sacred of her people turned upside down in the place she lives. The marriage ended. And then, she says, the divorce brought a resurgence of interest in valuing her Judaism.
Watch what the resurgence runs on. Not belief stated in the abstract. Participation. “Going to synagogue more,” she says, “and being more aware of what is going on in Jewish LA in my age group.” She names Reboot, the gatherings of younger Jews talking through their Judaism. She appeared twice at the San Francisco Jewish Book Festival. Every item on that list is a co-present ritual, bodies in a room, a barrier marking the members, a shared focus, a shared mood. A person rebuilds solidarity not by deciding to believe but by attending, by putting the body in the room where the energy is made, and letting the repeated encounters recharge the symbols that a failed encounter drained. She told the interviewer that being Jewish had moved up her list of priorities, from a spot a moderator once put near the bottom to something nearer the center. The list did not move because she reasoned her way up it. It moved because she kept showing up to the rituals, and the rituals did what rituals do.
The interviewer asks how she feels about being one of God’s chosen people, and she laughs and says she has some trouble with that. The trouble is consistent with everything else. She does not draw her charge from a transcendent grant, not the muse for the writing and not the election for the faith. She draws it from the practice, the morning desk and the synagogue floor, the rites a body performs until they pay.
Three coordinates locate her. The first is the failed call, the phone that thins the co-presence, the two templates for emotional energy that never entrain, the fight over “flat” against “calm” that is a fight over what the encounter produced, and the low rhythm the interviewer records as her nature when it is partly the product of his own thin charge. The second is the solitary rite, the two morning hours, the muse denied so that the energy has nowhere to come from but the sitting, a private discipline that runs on a public charge banked from every room she has written toward. The third is the repair chain, the marriage broken on an inverted sacred symbol and the slow recharge that followed, Reboot and synagogue and the book festival, the priority that climbed her list because she kept putting her body where the energy is made, a writer who trusts no visiting spirit and builds her significance the only way Collins says it can be built, in the encounter, by showing up.

The Set

Aimee Bender belongs to the American literary fabulists, the writers who keep one foot in realism and one in the fairy tale and decline to be filed under either. The set has no membership roll, but its members recognize one another on the page. George Saunders (b. 1958), Kelly Link (b. 1969), Karen Russell (b. 1981), Kevin Brockmeier (b. 1972), Judy Budnitz (b. 1973), Steven Millhauser (b. 1943), Miranda July (b. 1974), and, among the younger arrivals, Carmen Maria Machado (b. 1986) and Samanta Schweblin (b. 1978) in translation. They claim a line of ancestors and cite them often, because citation is how the set marks its borders: Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986), Italo Calvino (1923-1985), Gabriel García Márquez (1927-2014), Angela Carter (1940-1992), Donald Barthelme (1931-1989), Flannery O’Connor (1925-1964), Anne Sexton (1928-1974), Hans Christian Andersen (1805-1875), the Brothers Grimm, Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), and Haruki Murakami (b. 1949). At the speculative edge they keep a careful, admiring distance from Ursula K. Le Guin (1929-2018), Margaret Atwood (b. 1939), and Octavia Butler (1947-2006), figures they honor without quite claiming, because those names carry the genre charge the set works to hold off.

What they value is invention. Not plot invention and not world-building in the genre sense, but the single strange image that opens an emotion sideways. A boy with keys for fingers. A girl who tastes the feelings of whoever cooked her food. A man who reverses through evolution while his lover watches. The image is the unit of worth. Bender names the source without disguise. Her mother took her to modern dance and to theater of the absurd and gave her, in Bender’s word, permission to be weird, and her psychoanalyst father gave her the conviction that the unconscious is a real place worth following. She calls herself the combo platter and says her best work comes when she lets the unconscious rule the page. The set shares the creed. The dream is truer than the argument, the image truer than the statement, and the writer who trusts the strange access reaches a feeling the realist cannot reach head on.

Their hero is the original, the writer who founds no school and joins none yet whom everyone reads to learn from. The set prizes the sui generis above the skilled, and its highest token names the value out loud. Saunders, Link, and Russell each hold the MacArthur Fellowship, the grant the public calls the genius award, and the word is the set’s word for what it most admires. To be a hero here is to make a thing no one has made and to be claimed for it by the consecrating institutions while keeping the aura of the uncategorizable. The career runs on staying legible to the prestige world without being captured by it, and on staying cool to the indie world without being demoted to it.

The status games follow from that double bind, and the first of them is boundary policing. The line between literary fiction with fantastical elements and genre fantasy is the set’s most guarded frontier. To be called a magical realist flatters. To be shelved as fantasy demotes. This is why the citations run to Borges and Carter and never to the science-fiction shelf, except for the few names the set has lifted across the line. Atwood’s own long refusal of the science-fiction label is the move in its pure form, and the set understands the move from the inside. The adjacent world has its own vocabulary, slipstream, coined by Bruce Sterling (b. 1954), and interstitial, the banner of the foundation Delia Sherman and Ellen Kushner helped start, and the fabulists tend to keep both words at arm’s length, since accepting them might pull the work toward the genre pole.

The second game is pedigree. Program lineage marks rank, and Bender carries a strong one. She took her degree at the University of California, Irvine, under Judith Grossman (1937-2018) and Geoffrey Wolff (b. 1937), in the cohort that produced Michael Chabon (b. 1963), Alice Sebold (b. 1962), and Glen David Gold (b. 1964). Sebold is her close friend, and the friendship is capital, a tie to the cohort that came up together and rose together. She teaches at the University of Southern California and directed its doctoral program in creative writing, which converts her own consecration into the power to consecrate others.

The third game is placement, and it has a strict order. The New Yorker sits at the top, then Granta, The Paris Review, Harper’s, Tin House, and the McSweeney’s orbit around Dave Eggers (b. 1970), whose magazine The Believer named one of Bender’s collections a book of the year. Conjunctions, the journal Bradford Morrow (b. 1951) has run for decades, is the set’s clubhouse, the place where the innovative and the fabulist publish among their own. Broadcast confers its own rank. Bender has been read on Ira Glass‘s This American Life and on the Selected Shorts program at Symphony Space, and a story carried on the air reaches past the small reviews into the larger room.

The fourth game is the award taxonomy, and the set runs a double ledger. The literary prizes, the National Book Award, the Pulitzer, the National Book Critics Circle, sit at the top of the internal hierarchy. The crossover prizes confer cool rather than rank: the Shirley Jackson Award, the James Tiptree Jr. Award, renamed the Otherwise Award in 2019, the World Fantasy Award, the Alex Award for adult books that reach teenagers. Bender has touched both ledgers. She drew a Tiptree nomination for Willful Creatures, a Shirley Jackson finalist place for the story “Faces,” and an Alex Award for The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake, alongside the New York Times Notable designations and the Los Angeles Times bestseller weeks that mark the literary side. Holding both ledgers at once is the flex the set most respects, because it proves the writer can be strange enough for the cool world and serious enough for the high one.

Their normative claims fall out of the values. Follow the image. Trust the unconscious. Do not explain the strange thing, because explaining condescends to the reader and kills the feeling. Strangeness is a legitimate route to emotional truth, and the realist claim to a monopoly on seriousness is unjust. Teach by permission, not by rule, which is how Bender describes her own classroom and how the set describes its ideal of mentorship, a freeing rather than a drilling.

Underneath the norms run two essentialist convictions the set rarely states but everywhere assumes. The first holds that there are real writers, born strange, who need only permission to find the voice that was always theirs, as against those who force the weird from outside and produce the counterfeit. Bender tells the origin story in this key. In graduate school she handed in two stories per assignment, the one she thought she should write and the strange one she preferred, and when her peers and teachers chose the strange one she stopped pretending. The true voice was discovered, not built. The second conviction holds that the unconscious is a real wellspring and that metaphor is the native tongue of certain emotions, not a decoration laid over them. On this view the surreal is not a style a writer selects. It is the only honest language.

The moral grammar distributes praise and blame along the same axis. Virtue is originality, the courage to be strange, fidelity to the image, generosity toward the reader, and the refusal of cliché and of the market. Sin is the derivative, the over-explained, the cynical, and what Bender calls the tricked-up realistic fiction that readers, she found, liked less than her stranger work. The cardinal sin is to be genre in the low sense, to write the fantastic without aspiring to the literary, and the twin sin facing it is to be the realist who mistakes his mode for the seriousness. The set keeps one demand above the rest. Whimsy must be redeemed by weight. The strange image has to pay off in feeling, or it stands convicted of mere cleverness, which in this company is the thing closest to shame. Grace exists, and it takes one form. The community absolves the formerly timid writer who finds the nerve to write weird, and the permission narrative, told and retold, is its rite of welcome.

I Interviewed Novelist Aimee Bender

I got to tell her: "You're freakin' gorgeous."

It was a great moment in literary history and a turning point in relations between the sexes.

If I had been blogging in 1992, there would never have been the L.A. Riots.

Let's go to the audiotape.

Noon. Aug 29, 2006. Aimee Bender phones me as scheduled.

Luke: "What are the qualities of the best and worst interview experiences you've had?"

Aimee: "In the best ones, I go with the flow as it happens and it deepens as it goes. It can be easy to have a quick answer and then jump to something else."

Luke: "Your writing is so surreal, you're a bit more of a challenge."

Aimee: "It's a challenge for me to know how to talk about it in a way that can connect to someone. Often I'll end up talking about my writing routine and how I sit down to write in the morning. The process of how stuff happens on the page is hard to pin down."

Luke: "How much do you have to do with your website www.flammableskirt.com?"

Aimee: "I set it up with my boyfriend of the time."

Luke: "I remember the moderator of your panel [on the Jewish Guilt book at the People of the Book Festival 2006] said that to Aimee being Jewish may be number ten on your list of priorities."

Aimee: "And I said, maybe it's number five.

"If I'm the only Jew in the room, I'm aware. That's a form of identity."

Luke: "When you were a kid, what did you want to be when you grew up?"

Aimee: "A writer at times, but I also wanted to be a singer and an actress."

Luke: "Are you a good singer and actress?"

Aimee: "I'm a bad actress and I'm not a good singer but I really like it."

Luke: "I've seen you on a few different panels and there's a vulnerability to you that wouldn't be there if you had become a lawyer."

Aimee: "I don't think I could've been a lawyer. A lawyer is a protector. What interests me in writing is vulnerability and pushing for something underneath the surface, exposing something."

Bender went to Pacific Palisades High School. "I was with the nerdy honors crowd. Then the drama group was the counterpoint. I was enamored with their enthusiasm for performance."

"I viewed writing as a hobby until graduate school when I began writing every day."

Aimee got her BA in Literature (with an emphasis on Creative Writing) in 1991 and her MFA from U.C. Irvine in 1997.

"In general, I'm an optimistic person. I'm friendly. I like people. The people who didn't know me well were surprised by the dark stuff in my writing. I have people who've known me since highschool who don't know where that stuff comes from."

Luke: "What do you do with your nervous energy?"

Aimee: "I don't smoke but I get the appeal. Walking is good. I can over-think things. I'll structure things. Make lists. On a good day, I can talk myself through it and see what's under it. Usually there's something complicated."

Luke: "Are you at peace with yourself?"

Aimee laughs. "No. There's tons of conflict."

Luke: "Where is being Jewish in your list of priorities?"

Aimee: "It's become more important. There are ways that I deal with my nervous energy that feel Jewish. The ways that I'm attracted to Hebrew."

Luke: "When did Aimee Bender become cool? You're on a good trajectory."

Aimee laughs. "In graduate school, I typed up that I want to be in a bookstore and I want loyal fans."

Luke: "When do you get the most animated? You seem not animated."

Aimee: "I feel animated. I'm pretty calm. I get that a lot. Interviews are a particular form where you try to articulate things that are often hard to articulate. My style in general is low-key."

Luke: "When you want to take charge of a room, what do you do? Do you speak louder?"

Aimee: "Does it feel like I'm speaking quietly?"

Luke: "I'm just curious."

Aimee: "I can't tell if you mean…"

Luke: "Your voice seems flat. I don't know if you are tired or if this is just your interview voice…"

Aimee: "It's hard for me to know.

"To command attention, it's not usually a problem."

"I don't usually dominate a discussion or a room."

Luke: "Do you enjoy performing at a reading?"

Aimee: "Yes, but it's not like I am going to take on a character's voice. What you may experience as flat, I think something else is going on. I want the words to convey it and to read it in a way that goes under the words."

Luke: "Can you do voices?"

Aimee: "Not really."

"This American Life reads things that can seem like a deadpan but I really like it.

"I'm feeling a little defensive of the word 'flat' but that is my manner."

Luke: "You've never done phone sex as a profession."

Aimee: "No, but even if I had, I wouldn't tell you."

"I'm often called 'calm,' which I prefer over 'flat.'"

Luke: "You're freakin' gorgeous. How has your body affected your writing?"

Aimee laughs. "I get a little insult. Now I get a little compliment.

"Thank you."

Luke: "It'd be hard to write your librarian story without the confidence that beauty brings."

Aimee: "It's about inhabiting that feeling of being attractive."

Luke: "Have you experienced not being taken seriously as a writer because you are cute?"

Aimee: "Some people don't take my stuff seriously because they think it's weird."

Aimee's published three essays.

Luke: "How do you like writing under the constraints of being factually true?"

Aimee: "I find it really hard."

Luke: "Do you fear that your muse will leave you?"

Aimee: "No, because I don't believe in the muse."

Luke: "Is Halloween still your favorite holiday?"

Aimee: "Yes, because it's about imagination and fantasy and going to an unconscious expression of something."

Luke: "That essay you read at the Heeb reading [in June 2005]…"

Aimee: "Have we met?"

Luke: "Yes. There. It was brief."

Aimee: "It hasn't shown up yet in Heeb. They haven't done something with those talks. I'm not sure I want to push it."

Luke: "You wrote about…"

Aimee: "A failed marriage."

Luke: "Anti-Semitism. Your husband defended the swastika."

Aimee laughs. "I like how that's boiled down."

Luke: "He said it was an ancient pagan symbol."

Aimee: "The reverse swastika was the Native American symbol at his family's house. I just wanted them to turn it around. It was about Jewishness and the end of the marriage and that's why being Jewish has felt more important to me over the past few years. I felt like it was going to drift away and then I got divorced and there was a resurgence of interest in me about valuing it."

Luke: "What does that mean behaviorally?"

Aimee: "Going to synagogue more..and being more aware of what is going on in Jewish LA in my age group. I went to this thing called Reboot, a bunch of Jews getting together and talking about their Judaism. I did the San Francisco Jewish Book Festival twice."

Luke: "What do you find inspiring and depressing about Jewish life?"

Aimee: "I find the questioning and depth of thought inspiring. I've always liked the symbols.

"Any religion can get depressing when things are taken in a closed way."

"Figuring out the relationship of American Jews to Israel is complicated. People shut down around that topic. That's a big problem because it should be a lively and engaging debate."

"I've never been to Israel."

Luke: "How do you feel about being a part of God's Chosen People?"

Aimee laughs. "I have some trouble with that."

Luke: "How would you like to be tattooed?"

Aimee: "I would not like it, but I like it when other people are tattooed. I like seeing what people pick."

Luke: "Why would you not want to be tattooed?"

Aimee: "I do feel a little thing about the Jewish cemetery thing [the myth that a Jew who has a tattoo can not be buried in a Jewish cemetery as Jewish law forbids getting a tattoo]. It would bother me if I couldn't be buried in a Jewish cemetery. But it's more about you make a choice and you having to stick with that choice and it feels too concrete a choice."

Luke: "How often is 'literary' writing just a code word for despair?"

Aimee: "What interests me about your question is that 'literary' is such a charged word. It can feel snooty. I hope that 'literary' means going into something with depth, and when you go into depth, you're going to find despair."

Luke: "Is there some force that pushes 'literary' people to write despair?"

Aimee: "Sometimes it is the honest place people go when they push themselves. When it is fake despair to join the club, that is even more despairing."

"One of the reasons people like Charles Bukowski is that he puts voice to these [despairing] feelings and it gives release and freedom."

Related Links:

Pearl Abraham Elisa Albert Steve Almond Jonathan Ames Shalom Auslander Aimee Bender Karen Bender Amy Bloom Danit Brown Melvin Jules Bukiet Tamar Fox Naama Goldstein Rebecca Goldstein Yael Goldstein Laurie Graff Lauren Grodstein Ehud Havazelet Joanna Hershon Dara Horn Molly Jong-Fast Mitchell James Kaplan Binnie Kirshenbaum Sana Krasikov Adam Mansbach Tova Mirvis Gurumurthy Neelakantan Alana Newhouse Jon Papernick Rachel Resnick Thane Rosenbaum Elizabeth Rosner Wendy Shalit Ilana Stanger-Ross Laurie Gwen Shapiro Rochelle Shapiro Andrea Seigel Robert Siegel Terrie Silverman Margot Singer Leora Skolkin-Smith Yuri Slezkine Diana Spechler Steve Stern Ayelet Waldman Katharine Weber Tamar Yellin People of the Book Festival 2006

Yosef Abramowitz Edward Alexander Michael Berenbaum Sally Berkovic James Besser Reuven Blau Stephen Bloom Andrew Silow-Carroll Shmuley Boteach Benyamin Cohen Debra Nussbaum Cohen Robert Cohn Ami Eden Rob Eshman Larry Cohler-Esses Frances Dinkelspiel Matt Dorf Ami Eden Charles Fenyvesi Eric Fingerhut Amnon Finkelstein Sue Fishkoff Samuel Freedman Stephen Fried Robert I. Friedman Heshy Fried Jonathan Friendly Neal Gabler Evan Gahr J.J. Goldberg Ari Goldman Yossi Klein Halevi Malcolm Hoenlein Wayne Hoffman Hollywood Jews Mickey Kaus Eve Kessler Michael Kinsley Amy Klein Marc S. Klein Lisa S. Lenkiewicz Gene Lichtenstein Jason Maoz Jonathan Mark Deborah Dash Moore Alana Newhouse Gustav Niebuhr Ori Nir Steve Rabinowitz Gary Rosenblatt Jennie Rothenberg Debra Rubin Neil Rubin Walter Ruby Douglas Rushkoff Jonathan Sarna Cathy Seipp Rabbi Avi Shafran Mark Silk Sheldon Teitelbaum Jonathan Tobin Tom Tugend David Twersky Teresa Watanabe Steven I. Weiss Leon Wieseltier Paul Wilkes Lauren Winner Yori Yanover Larry Yudelson