“Kitchen Curse: Stories” by Eka Kurniawan (translated by Annie Tucker)

This is a collection of short stories from the Indonesian writer, Eka Kurniawan. Some stories are propelled by the magical realism found in his novels, “Beauty is a Wound” and “Man Tiger.” There is a dog-like creature, who learns to walk on two legs and shoot a gun. There is a stone, who ponders morality and is consumed by thoughts of revenge. There is a talking elephant, who possibly ends up regretting what he wished for. Some of Kurniawan’s stories are personal, others have a political bent. Some have a moral tale that makes you think after it’s done. He often gives voice to the downtrodden—a prostitute, a slave-cook, and a kid who gets beat up in school. One reoccurring feature of his stories is at least a couple of lines that will make the reader chuckle. His first story, “Graffiti in the Toilet,” contains the basic truth, “But in this world everyone is condemned to pee.” In another, “Pigpen,” he states, “He was just like us: he liked to eat and then take a good crap.” Kurniawan’s politics show sympathy for communists. He usually does it with a wink and a grin. “There was only one person in the entire village who had voted for the People’s Democratic Party and everyone knew it was my younger brother, the chicken farmer, because he was the only person in the whole village who had put their campaign sign up in his front yard. “Another one of your sons is a cummunist!” Once again, father just laughed. I knew he would be more upset to see one of his children steal a fish from a neighbor’s pond than to see one of us wear a Lenin T-shirt and the other vote PDP.”

“The Topeka School” by Ben Lerner

Lerner’s novel is auto-fiction, written from the perspectives of multiple narrative voices, but also trying to comment on the larger societal forces that have shaped America today. It uses the microscopic lens of one boy’s coming of age to comment on macro political trends. Lerner’s “Self” is fictionalized as Adam Gordon, a senior at Topeka High, class of 1997. The novel shifts between being told in the third person from high school Adam’s vantage point to contemporary first person narratives by his father, Jonathan, and his mother, Jane. The novel also sometimes gets meta, with contemporary Adam, speaking as a novelist in 2019, interjecting with commentary. “Who is this unsmiling seventeen-year-old boy whose hair is drawn into a ponytail while the sides of his head are shaved, a disastrous tonsorial compromise between the lefty household of his parents and the red state in which he was raised?” The chapters flow seamlessly between these voices. The multiple perspectives allow the family history to gradually unfold through flashbacks, as the reader sees how the family unit has been shaped by each individual’s subjective processing of past events. Both of Adam’s parents are psychoanalysts, adding to the layers of disguised meaning. During the course of the narrative, sexual boundaries are explored, gender roles are questioned, alcohol and drugs are abused, race and socioeconomic hierarchy is churned over, multiple infidelities are exposed, repressed incest is recollected, and a thrown cueball breaks a young girl’s jaw. It is also a hilarious book. “Objecting to the diagnosis of penis envy was a sure sign of penis envy.”

The novel deals with the tensions of being the Gordons, an intellectual family stuck living in Kansas. “The problem for him in high school was that debate made you a nerd and poetry made you a pussy—even if both could help you get to the vaguely imagined East Coast city from which your experiences in Topeka would be recounted with great irony.” Lerner suggests that the process of growing up for an adolescent boy was all one big pose. It involved navigating the subtle images that one wanted to project to multiple audiences at once—your parents, your peers, your teachers. “The thin beige braided belt he wore to secure his sagging pants for instance somehow constituted less a single bad decision than a deep incomprehension of the language game in which he was attempting to feign fluency.” Even adult role models teach that your image of Self is a role one puts on. “You need to be winning hearts as much as minds. What you have in your favor is Kansas. You have Midland American English. I want quick swerves into the folksy. “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” That kind of thing. I want you saying, right after some hyper-eloquent riff about Yeltsin breaking a promise, “Now, in Kansas, we call that a lie.” After you go off about a treaty regulating drilling in the Arctic: “Now, in Kansas, we wouldn’t shake on that.” I don’t care if they’re tried-and-true. Say “tried-and-true.” Say “ain’t” if you want. You can go agrammatical so long as they know it’s a choice, that it’s in quotes. Interrupt your highbrow fluency with bland sound bites of regional decency. Why do you think they elect Texans who went to Yale, Arkansan Rhodes Scholars?” Lerner implies that there was a fine line, made up of tiny individual life decisions, that separated him, now a professor of English at Brooklyn College, from the boys who would grow up to be stuck in Topeka, now wearing red MAGA hats in 2019. “Instead of focusing on the fight, zoom in on the fascinating and absurd spectacle of the gang signs that precede it: Reynolds, the son of Realtors, working his fingers into the word “blood,” throwing up his set, miming the manual language of a Los Angeles street gang to which he could bear no coherent relation; see Nowak, who has a real if unloaded pistol tucked into the waist of his sagging jeans, respond with a rapid array of finger movements based on the signs of “Folks,” which originated in the projects of Chicago, which may or may not have been a presence in Topeka, but certainly not among these white kids mainly bound for college who had no volk beyond their common privilege.” Throughout Adam’s life, everything, in the end, comes down to power dynamics. “We were a couple of privileged crackers with divergent parenting strategies; we were two sovereignless men in a Hobbesian state of nature on the verge of primal confrontation.” Lerner’s novel questions how much of one’s Self is really up to the individual; how many of one’s actions are shaped by a past we might have no control over. “I was having my own experience of depersonalization, no drugs involved—an overwhelming sense of frames of reference giving way, of the past and present colliding in on one another.”

“Normal People” by Sally Rooney

Rooney’s second novel details the enduring relationship of a young man and woman, Connell and Marianne, as they age through their last year of high school and into their college years at Trinity in Dublin. Connell’s mother, Lorraine, also happens to be employed cleaning Marianne’s mother’s mansion. Lorraine had Connell when she was seventeen. Connell doesn’t care to know who his father is. An uncle or two has spent time in jail. Stark relationship imbalances are a recurring theme in Rooney’s work. 

In school, the two are the smartest kids. But, Connell is the popular star soccer player and Marianne is the weird loner with no friends. Even her mother and brother seem to think she is odd and resent her. “Marianne had the sense that her real life was happening somewhere very far away, happening without her, and she didn’t know if she would ever find out where it was and become part of it. She had that feeling in school often, but it wasn’t accompanied by any specific images of what the real life might look like or feel like. All she knew was that when it started, she wouldn’t need to imagine it anymore.”

Connell keeps his relationship with Marianne a secret from everyone at school, even though they start having sex regularly. “He has a life in Carricklea, he has friends. If he went to college in Galway he could stay with the same social group, really, and live the life he has always planned on, getting a good degree, having a nice girlfriend. People would say he had done well for himself. On the other hand, he could go to Trinity like Marianne. Life would be different then. He would start going to dinner parties and having conversations about the Greek bailout. He would fuck some weird-looking girls who turn out to be bisexual. I’ve read The Golden Notebook, he could tell them. It’s true, he has read it. After that he would never come back to Carricklea, he would go somewhere else, London, or Barcelona. People would not necessarily think he had done well; some people might think he had gone very bad, while others would forget him entirely.” By year’s end, the two have a dramatic falling out and Marianne stops attending school.

At Trinity, Connell is the fish out of water and Marianne blossoms into the sexy, popular girl on campus. She moves with a rich crowd, whose parents are all investment bankers and doctors, she begins to dress posh, and tries to hide her Sligo accent. Connell and Marianne meet at her boyfriend’s party and resume some sort of relationship, as they feel a strange bond no one else seems to understand. They sleep with each other on and off through college, but never identify as a couple. “Rich people look out for each other, and being Marianne’s best friend and suspected sexual partner has elevated Connell to the status of rich-adjacent: someone for whom surprise birthday parties are thrown and cushy jobs are procured out of nowhere.” Every time they seem on the verge of a conventional relationship, however, life keeps getting in the way. “I think we’re at that weird age where life can change a lot from small decisions.”

“Conversations with Friends” by Sally Rooney

Rooney has written a novel for the age. Set in contemporary Dublin, it is narrated by a twenty-one year old lesbian communist poet, just finishing up at university. Her direct narration is sparingly interspersed with chunks of email, texts, and instant message chains. Tinder plays a cameo-role. The plot revolves around the narrator, Francis, her ex-girlfriend/still best-friend, Bobbi, and their new friends, Melissa and Nick, a married couple in their thirties, one a photographer/writer, the other a B-movie/theatre actor. The casual flirting, biting sarcasm, hidden jealousies, intellectual one up-man-ship, and sexual tensions quickly flow between and across the couples. “Bobbi wanted me to know that she had been in touch with Melissa when I hadn’t. It did impress me, which she wanted it to, but I also felt bad. I knew Melissa like Bobbi more than she liked me, and I didn’t know how to join in their new friendship without debasing myself for their attention…. Bobbi did come over that night, though she didn’t mention Melissa at all. I knew that she was being strategic, and that she wanted me to ask, so I didn’t. This sounds more passive-aggressive than it really was.” Much of the interplay in all these relationships revolve around the idea of status and power, often unspoken. “I noticed that Nick had dropped my name into conversation, as if to show that he remembered me from last time we talked. Of course, I remembered his name too, but he was older and somewhat famous, so I found his attention very flattering.” Much of the action also seems much like a giant pose. Everyone is trying so hard, while playing that their lives are lived so effortlessly. “I wrote a sample message, and then deleted the draft in case I might accidentally hit send. Then I wrote the same thing over again.” Every detail of technological protocol could be misinterpreted and, therefore, was fraught with unsaid meaning. “I read his e-mail again several times. I was relieved he had put the whole thing in lower case like he always did. It would have been dramatic to introduce capitalization at such a moment of tension.” Rooney is at her best when getting into the mind of the post-modern student, playing at being a communist, feminist intellectual. “Bobbi and I walked along underused paths kicking leaves and talking about things like the idea of landscape painting. Bobbi thought the fetishization of “untouched nature” was intrinsically patriarchal and nationalistic.” Relationships with friends are always hard. They are even harder when trying to wear a mask of a constantly put-together adult. “It made me want to step on her foot very hard and then look in her face and deny that I had done it. No, I would say. I don’t know what you’re talking about. And she would look at me and know that I was evil and insane.” The plot of the novel is almost besides the point. It is the interaction between the characters which is so powerful. Each person wants to be smart, witty, and sexy. But more importantly, they want to be though of as smart, witty, and sexy to all the others in their social circle. “I felt sorry for all of us, like we were just little children pretending to be adults.”

“Either/Or (Part II)” by Soren Kierkegaard (translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong)

The “Or” section of Kierkegaard’s commentary on the values of aesthetics versus ethics is written by the fictional B, a married judge counseling his friend A on the errors of his licentious ways. B begins, “Just consider, your life is passing; for you, too, the time will eventually come even to you when your life is at an end, when you are no longer shown any further possibilities in life, when recollection alone is left, recollection, but not in the sense in which you love it so much, this mixture of fiction and truth, but the earnest and faithful recollection of conscience.” B is trying to convince his friend that a faithful marriage is, in fact, aesthetically valid. He continues, “Romantic love manifests itself as immediate by exclusively resting in natural necessity…. Although this love is based essentially on the sensuous, it nevertheless is noble by virtue of the consciousness of the eternal that it assimilates, for it is this that distinguishes all love [Kjaerlighed] from lust [Vellyst]: that it bears a stamp of eternity. The lovers are deeply convinced that in itself their relationship is a complete whole that will never be changed.” But to B marriage brings about a kind of love even more profound than this type of love as well. “The defect in earthly love [Kjaerlighed] is the same as its merit—that it is preference [Forkjaerlighed]. Spiritual love has no preference and moves in the opposite direction, continually sheds all relativities. Earthly love, when it is true, goes the opposite way and at its highest is love only for a single human being in the whole world. This is the truth of loving only one and only once…. Thus marriage is sensuous but also spiritual, free and also necessary, absolute in itself and also within itself points beyond itself…. What I want to stress, however, is the beauty in the marriages that have as little “why” as possible. The less “why,” the more love…. A person who marries for this and that etc. is taking a step that is just as unesthetic as it is irreligious. The goodness of his objective is of no use, for the mistake is precisely that he has an objective.” 

B then compares the love within a faithful marriage to that of first love. “Thus it is not true that marriage is an exceedingly respectable but tiresomely moral role and that erotic love [Elskov] is poetry; no, marriage is really the poetic. And if the world has often witnessed with pain that a first love cannot be sustained, I shall grieve along with the world but shall also bring to mind that the defect was not so much in what happened later as in its not beginning rightly. What the first love lacks, then, is the second esthetic ideal, the historical. It does not have the law of motion in itself.” B then recites a litany of his ideals for marriage. “Honesty, frankness, openness, understanding—this is the life principle in marriage. Without this understanding, marriage is unbeautiful and actually immoral, for then the sensuous and the spiritual, which love unites, are separated. Only when the being with whom I live in the most tender union in earthly life is just as close to me in the spiritual sense, only then is my marriage moral and therefore also esthetically beautiful…. It takes courage to appear as one really is.”

B continues by relating his conception of the true nature of the aesthetic. “Most people seek esthetic satisfaction, which the soul needs, in reading, in viewing works of art, etc.; whereas there are relatively few who themselves see the esthetic as it is in existence, who themselves see existence in an esthetic light and do not enjoy only the poetic reproduction…. An esthetic representation always requires a concentration in the moment [Moment], and the richer this concentration is, the greater the esthetic effect…. Either this is a predestined moment, as it were, that sends a shudder through the consciousness by awakening the idea of the divineness of existence, or the moment presupposes a history…. How, then, can the esthetic, which is incommensurable even for portrayal in poetry be represented? Answer: by being lived…. He who in the most profound sense feels himself creating and created, who in the moment he feels himself creating has the original pathos of the lines, and in the moment he feels himself created has the erotic ear that picks up every sound—he and he alone has brought into actual existence the highest in esthetics…. We are not to read about or listen to or look at what is the highest and the most beautiful in life, but are, if you please, to live it.”

B’s second essay, in the form of a long letter to A, is on “The Balance Between the Esthetic and the Ethical in the Development of the Personality.” He begins, “Wherever in the stricter sense there is a question of an Either/Or, one can always be sure that the ethical has something to do with it. The only absolute Either/Or is the choice between good and evil, but this is also absolutely ethical…. The person who wants to decide his life task ethically does not ordinarily have such a wide range; the act of choosing, however, is much more meaningful to him…. The is an Either/Or that makes a human being greater than the angels…. What takes precedence in my Either/Or is, then, the ethical. Therefore, the point is still not that of choosing something; the point is not the reality of that which is chosen but the reality of choosing…. The esthetic in a person is that by which he spontaneously and immediately is what he is; the ethical is that by which he becomes what he becomes.”

B now and then specifically addresses A and tries to rebut his particular aesthetic stance of resigned despair to exterior worldly life. “It is manifest that every esthetic view of life is despair, and that everyone who lives esthetically is in despair, whether he knows it or not. But when one knows this, and you certainly know it, then a higher form of existence is an imperative requirement…. It is not despair involving something actual but despair in thought. Your thought has rushed ahead; you have seen through the vanity of everything, but you have not gone further. Occasionally you dive into it, and when for a single moment you abandon yourself to enjoyment, you are also aware that it is vanity. Thus you are continually beyond yourself—that is, in despair. Therefore, your life lies between two enormous contradictions: at times you have colossal energy, at times an equally great indolence.” B continues lecturing A on his particular aesthetic personality, which finds contentment in despair. “As far as enjoyment goes, you have an absolutely aristocratic pride. This is entirely appropriate, for, after all, you are finished with the finite altogether. And yet you cannot give it up. Compared with those who are chasing after satisfaction, you are satisfied, but that in which you find your satisfaction is absolute dissatisfaction…. In a certain sense you are right, for nothing that is finite, not even the whole world, can satisfy the soul of a person who feels the need for the eternal.”

B goes on by describing ethics as intwined with the universal. “The person who views life ethically sees the universal, and the person who lives ethically expresses the universal in his life. He makes himself the universal human being, not by taking off [affore] his concretion, for then he becomes a complete non-entity, but by putting it on [ifore] and interpenetrating it with the universal. The universal human being is not a phantom, but every human being is the universal human being…. The person who lives esthetically is an accidental human being; he believes he is the perfect human being by being the one and only human being. The person who lives ethically works toward becoming the universal human being.” The ethical also has a unique way of viewing the nature of the Self. “The self the individual knows is simultaneously the actual self and the ideal self, which the individual has outside himself as the image in whose likeness he is to form himself, and which on the other hand he has within himself, since it is he himself…. That is why the ethical life has this duplexity, in which the individual has himself outside himself within himself…. If he does not hold firmly to the truth that the individual has the ideal self within himself, all of his aspiring and striving becomes abstract.”

B concludes by again confronting the rare aesthetic life-view held by A, directly. He explains to A what happens to the person who cannot accept the universal, but must stand apart, as the exception. “If it so happens that the universal he is unable to actualize is the very thing he desired, then in one sense he will, if he is high-minded, rejoice in this circumstance…. He will then be convinced that there is something of the universal that he cannot actualize. But he is not finished with this conviction, for it will generate a profound sorrow in his soul…. He himself will grieve, not cravenly and dejectedly, but deeply and openly, for he will say: Nevertheless, I do love the universal. If it is the happy fate of others to testify to the universally human by actualizing it, well, then I testify to it by my grief…. I have placed myself outside the universal; I have deprived myself of all the guidance, the security, and the reassurance that the universal gives; I stand alone, without fellow-feeling, for I am an exception. But he will not become craven and disconsolate; he will confidently go his solitary way; indeed, he has demonstrated the correctness of what he did—he has his pain.”