Monday, October 21, 2024

William Melvin Kelley (1937-2017)

 
The Lost Giant of American Literature
 
A major black novelist made a remarkable début. How did he disappear?

by Kathryn Schulz
January 29, 2018 issue
The New Yorker


William Melvin Kelley wrote about white people thinking about black people. Photograph by Carl Van Vechten / Carl Van Vechten Trust / Beinecke Library, Yale

Audio: Listen to this story. To hear more feature stories, download the Audm app for your iPhone.

There were arrows, so we followed them. This was one afternoon last summer; my partner and I had spent the day at our local public library, working steadily through breakfast and lunch and what the British would call teatime, until suddenly hunger clobbered us both and we packed up and headed out to the car. Home was maybe four miles away. In my mind, I was already constructing enormous sandwiches. The arrows appeared two miles in, lining the side of the road where, that morning, there had been nothing but marsh grass. They were shin-high, wordless, red on a white background, pointing away from the sandwiches. My partner, who is usually more hungry than I am but always more curious, swung the car into the other lane and began to follow them.

The arrows led down a state highway, across an interchange, onto a smaller road, past a barn and some grain silos, then along one of the Chesapeake Bay’s countless tributaries. A sign warned us that we were in a flood zone. My partner, who grew up one county over, remembered the place from childhood—at seven or eight, she’d had a memorable encounter in the area with a trailer full of cockatiels—but she hadn’t been there since. The arrows ended at a large gray shed with a red roof. A spray-painted sign indicated that it was open twice a month, on Saturdays, in the summer only. We parked across the street, next to a boat, and headed for the door.

Inside: boxes of fishing tackle, cans of Rust-Oleum, a ceiling-high stack of interior/exterior paint. A half-dozen washboards, a cast-iron sewing machine, signs advertising fresh eggs and Guinness and speed limits in unknown locations. Doorframes, window frames, picture frames stripped of their pictures and stacked catawampus in a corner. A wall of old license plates, a box of old flashlights, Chock full o’Nuts cans chock-full of nails. Circular saws, gate weights, drill bits, jigging bait, oyster tongs, jumbles of other farming and fishing equipment that I, having grown up suburban and landlocked, could not identify. No cross-stitched pillows here; no clothes, unless you count waders; no discarded chinaware—not much, in short, of the usual junk-shop bric-a-brac. A few boxes of LPs. A few old sports pennants. And, near the cash register, a single bookshelf, with a handwritten sign taped to the top: “Paperbacks, 50¢. Hardbacks, $1.”

Books I can identify. I went to browse, and spotted, first thing, a slender volume that was shelved the wrong way round—binding in, pages out. I pulled it down, turned it over, and found myself holding a beautiful clothbound first edition of Langston Hughes’s “Ask Your Mama.” I flipped it open and there on the frontispiece it said:

Inscribed especially for William Kelley ~ on your first visit to my house ~ welcome!

Sincerely ~

Langston Hughes

New York

February 19, 1962

I gawped. Then I beckoned my partner over and we gawped together. After a short-lived and entirely silent moral crisis—resolved by remembering that half the point of visiting junk stores is the possibility of stumbling on unexpected treasures—I walked over to the cash register, handed the young man behind it a dollar, and bought the book. And then, because it, too, was an arrow, I followed it.

I didn’t know who William Kelley was when I found that book but, like millions of Americans, I knew a term he is credited with first committing to print. “If You’re Woke, You Dig It” read the headline of a 1962 Op-Ed that Kelley published in the New York Times, in which he pointed out that much of what passed for “beatnik” slang (“dig,” “chick,” “cool”) originated with African-Americans.

A fiction writer and occasional essayist, Kelley was, himself, notably woke. A half century before the poet Claudia Rankine used her MacArthur “genius” grant to establish an institute partly dedicated to the study of whiteness, Kelley turned his considerable intellect and imagination to the question of what it is like to be white in this country, and what it is like, for all Americans, to live under the conditions of white supremacy—not just the dramatic cross-burning, neo-Nazi manifestations of it common to his time and our own but also the everyday forms endemic to our national culture.

Kelley first addressed these issues at length in his début novel, “A Different Drummer.” Published three weeks after that Times Op-Ed, when he was twenty-four, it promptly earned him comparisons to an impressive range of literary greats, from William Faulkner to Isaac Bashevis Singer to James Baldwin. It also got him talked about, together with the likes of Alvin Ailey and James Earl Jones, as among the most talented African-American artists of his generation.

When I read “A Different Drummer,” I understood why. Geographically, the novel is set in a small town called Sutton, outside the city of New Marsails, in an imaginary Southern state wedged between Mississippi and Alabama. Temporally, it is set in June, 1957, when a young African-American farmer named Tucker Caliban salts his fields, slaughters his horse and cow, burns down his house, and departs the state—whereupon its entire African-American population follows.

It’s a brilliant setup. Our culture has produced countless fantasies about what would have happened if the Civil War had ended differently—chiefly, if the Confederacy had won and slavery had endured. (See, e.g., “The Guns of the South,” “If the South Had Won the Civil War,” and “Underground Airlines.”) But we have a paucity of art that chooses to imagine a different outcome for the civil-rights movement, or alternate universes where African-Americans, from any era, wield not less power but more.

Appropriately, that seizure of power—the sudden refusal of African-Americans to continue living under conditions of subordination—flummoxes the white citizens of Sutton. When “A Different Drummer” opens, one of them, seeking to make sense of the recent events, recounts a harrowing story. Half slave narrative, half tall tale, it concerns a behemoth of a man, known simply as the African, who arrives one day on a slave ship, cradling a baby boy in the crook of his arm. Bound by chains held by at least twenty men, the African is led into town and sold—whereupon he whips around and, with the chains, knocks over his captors and decapitates the auctioneer: “Some folks swear . . . that the head sailed like a cannon ball through the air a quarter mile, bounced another quarter mile, and still had enough steam to cripple a horse some fellow was riding into New Marsails.” Gathering up his chains “like a woman grabs up her skirts,” the African then flees to a nearby swamp and starts conducting raids to free other slaves. Eventually, his nominal owner, led to the hideout by a traitor, kills the African and claims as his own the baby boy: Tucker Caliban’s great-grandfather.

The man who tells this tale maintains that Caliban acted as he did because “the African’s blood” resurged within him. Not all his listeners agree, but they’re hard pressed to offer a better explanation for the recent exodus, or imagine its likely consequences. Some wonder whether wages will be better or worse with a third of the population gone. Others, professing not to care about Caliban and his followers, echo the governor’s statement: “We never needed them, never wanted them, and we’ll get along fine without them.” Still others feel betrayed, in ways they can’t articulate, by the violation of a social compact whose terms they’d never previously bothered to study too closely.

Although the plot of “A Different Drummer” depends on the autonomous actions of African-Americans, the story is told exclusively through the eyes of these white townspeople. This, too, is a smart idea—a kind of fictional affirmation of the historian Lerone Bennett, Jr.,’s claim that “there is no Negro problem in America. The problem of race in America . . . is a white problem.” Moreover, it is wonderfully executed. At twenty-four, Kelley was already a strikingly confident writer, with a sense of humor reminiscent of Flannery O’Connor in stories like “Revelation”: caustic, original, efficacious. He was also a keen observer, and although his story has the emotional proportions of a myth, his sentences reliably feel like real life. Tucker Caliban’s doomed cow is “the color of freshly cut lumber”; to the men watching from outside, the fire he set first appeared climbing a pair of curtains in the center of his home, then “moved on slowly to the other windows like someone inspecting the house to buy it.”

“A Different Drummer” ends in pessimism, less about the fate of black Americans than about the moral potential of white ones. Yet, thanks to it, Kelley’s career began in tremendous optimism. His was the rare first novel that makes future ones seem both inevitable and exciting—and, indeed, he went on to publish four more books in under a decade. But I wasn’t alone in being unfamiliar with them. After his early and fiery start, Kelley largely faded into obscurity—not just before our era but in his own prime. Obscurity, of course, is a common enough fate for authors. But what’s curious about Kelley is that he is seldom read today not just because of the weaknesses in his books but also because of their peculiar, discomfitting strengths.

William Melvin Kelley was born on November 1, 1937, at Seaview Hospital, a tuberculosis sanatorium on Staten Island, where his mother, Narcissa Agatha Garcia Kelley, was a patient. His father, also named William Kelley, worked for many years as an editor at the Amsterdam News, one of the oldest and most influential African-American newspapers in the nation. The paper was based in Harlem, but the family lived in a working-class Italian-American community in the Bronx, together with Kelley’s maternal grandmother, a seamstress, who was the daughter of a slave and the granddaughter of a Confederate colonel.

By his own account, Kelley grew up at a time when “striving Negroes wanted to transcend” race rather than politicize it. Typifying that impulse, his father “worked hard to eradicate all vestiges of Negroness from his voice,” and kept Countee Cullen and Paul Laurence Dunbar on the main shelves of his library while banishing Marcus Garvey to its highest reaches. Kelley, whose own voice never lost its Bronx accent, internalized this ethos young. At home, he won over the neighborhood kids with his excellent Sinatra imitation, and with his willingness, when playing Cowboys and Indians, to take on the role of Tonto. At the Fieldston School, the nearly all-white prep school he attended from first through twelfth grades, he practiced the time-honored strategy of overachieving: by his senior year, he was student-council president, captain of the track team, all-around “golden boy,” and bound for Harvard. Once there, Kelley discovered writing—which, he later recalled, “made me so happy I wasn’t going to do anything else.” He found mentors in the experimental novelist John Hawkes and the modernist poet Archibald MacLeish, and in 1960 he won the Dana Reed Prize, for the best writing by a Harvard undergraduate.

It was a high honor, but more or less the only one Kelley earned in an otherwise troubled college career. His mother died during his sophomore year, his father when he was a senior. Kelley switched majors four times, failed almost every class but his fiction courses, and dropped out of school one semester shy of graduation. He went home to his grandmother and, with considerable trepidation, confessed that he’d abandoned all his illustrious career plans and wanted to be a writer instead. She heard him out, then told him that she could not have spent seventy years making dresses if she hadn’t loved it. Two years later, Kelley published “A Different Drummer.”

Two more books followed in quick succession: a short-story collection, “Dancers on the Shore,” in 1964, and a novel, “A Drop of Patience,” in 1965. The stories are uneven, but the best of them—including “The Only Man on Liberty Street,” in which racism ruptures a complicated family, and “Not Exactly Lena Horne,” in which two retired widowers get into a small, upsetting fight—are exemplars of the form: taut and self-contained yet seemingly pulled midstream from life. The novel, meanwhile, concerns a blind jazz musician who rises to national prominence, has a doomed romance with a white woman, and subsequently suffers a nervous breakdown. It let Kelley explore not only the destructiveness of racial categories but one of his other long-standing interests as well: the primacy of sound. As a child, Kelley spent hours sitting with his grandmother while she worked, and the stories that she told him merged in his mind with the clatter of her sewing machine. In Europe, he befriended the avant-garde saxophonist Marion Brown and became part of an ongoing conversation about sound and meaning. “If things had gone another way,” he told Gordon Lish in a 1968 interview, “I would’ve been a musician.”

In retrospect, though, the most notable aspect of Kelley’s early work is its dramatis personae. Wallace Bedlow, whom we first encounter making his way toward Caliban’s farm in “A Different Drummer,” reappears in “Dancers on the Shore” as a blues singer destined for a short but brilliant career in New York, under the guidance of his brother, Carlyle. Carlyle himself then plays starring roles in Kelley’s last two novels, during the course of which he encounters Chig Dunford, a Harvard-educated aspiring writer who also débuts in the story collection. Dozens of other characters likewise reappear from tale to tale; in his old age, Kelley once said, he hoped to look up at his shelves “and see that all of my books are really one big book.” Like Balzac and Faulkner, he was in the business of world-building—in his literature, but also, by then, in his life.

Kelley was seventeen when he met his future wife, Karen Gibson; she was fourteen and, she told me, distinctly unimpressed. Almost a decade later, the two crossed paths again, at the Penn Relays, a weekend-long integrated track meet that drew thousands of African-American participants and spectators. By then, Kelley was finishing “A Different Drummer,” while Gibson, who had studied art at Sarah Lawrence, was planning to become a painter. She was drawn to creative types and, this time, she was dazzled by him. In 1962, they got married.

The Kelleys’ early life together was peripatetic. Gibson, who later changed her name to Aiki Kelley, was, like her husband, a product of the black bourgeoisie and eager to escape it; also like him, she wanted to see more of the world before starting a family, so the couple soon decamped to Rome. A year later, they returned to the United States for the birth of their first child, Jessica, but it was a short-lived homecoming. Three days after she was born, Malcolm X was assassinated. Kelley, asked by The Saturday Evening Post to cover the subsequent murder trial, grew disgusted with the bias in the judicial system, and vowed to leave the country again: “I wouldn’t assign myself the task of announcing that our little rebellion had failed, that racism had won again for a while. Not with a young wife and a toddler depending on me and all this killing going on.”

In short order, he and Aiki packed up and moved with Jesi to Paris, where their second daughter, Cira, was born, in 1968. Initially, they planned to learn the language, then relocate somewhere in Francophone Africa to explore their roots. After a few years, though, they decided that they wanted to be closer to their relatives, and moved instead to Jamaica, where they lived for nearly a decade—William writing, Aiki making art, and both of them raising and homeschooling their daughters.

It was in Jamaica that Kelley and his family converted to Judaism. This came about because Kelley started smoking ganja with some locals behind a neighborhood chicken joint, and every day before they lit up they read aloud from the Bible. Kelley had been raised as a Christian, but his interest in Scripture surged in Jamaica, and he asked his wife to begin reading it with him. The two of them were searching for moral guidelines to help them raise their children, and they soon found what they wanted in the Pentateuch. One by one, they began shedding old traditions—bacon, Christmas, Sunday Sabbath—and adding new ones: Shabbat, Yom Kippur, a kosher kitchen.

It was always a self-directed faith; neither Kelley nor anyone in his family ever joined a synagogue, and they observed a religious calendar at odds with the conventional Jewish one. Kelley excelled at self-direction, in fact. He was meticulous in all his habits—the arrangement of his shoes, the order of his pens—and writing was no exception. He worked with punch-card regularity, in an office where his desk faced the wall, so that the only world he could see was the one he was creating. He set down his first drafts in pencil, made corrections in ink, then typed up the result on a manual typewriter, whose rhythm he loved. He did this every day, week after week, month after month, until he had published two more novels. Then he kept on doing it every day thereafter—even though, after the second of those novels came out, the world all but entirely ignored him.

The epigraph to Kelley’s third novel, “dem,” is written in the International Phonetic Alphabet—written, that is, to capture the way people actually speak, even though, in doing so, it thwarts the way people usually read. “Næʊ, ləmi təljə hæʊ dəm foks lıv”: those words mark a new willingness on Kelley’s part to make things difficult for his readers, linguistically and otherwise. Translated, they read, “Now, lemme tellya how dem folks live.”

The “folks” in question are white people, and, like “A Different Drummer,” the novel focusses on a white character: Mitchell Pierce, a middling employee at an advertising agency, who grows increasingly estranged from, among other things, his job, his pregnant wife, his sense of self-worth, and reality. As such, Mitchell is a classic mid-century white antihero, the kind that can be found, in works ranging from “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” to “Portnoy’s Complaint,” exuding professional mediocrity, evading responsibility, humiliating himself sexually, and cowering in the face of his supposed inferiors: women, children, household help, members of all kinds of the putative lower classes.

Aptly, for a book about an antihero, “dem” winds its plot not through action but through passivity. Early on, Mitchell tears a hamstring and finds himself bed-bound for several weeks, during which time he develops an embarrassing addiction to a soap opera and a powerful crush on its heroine. Kelley is setting us up to think about melodrama, which “dem” is not made of but is very much about: the substitution of feelings for ethics, cheap thrills for costly experience, and simulacrum for reality. Indeed, when Mitchell happens to encounter the actress who plays his crush, he fails to grasp that she isn’t actually the TV character he worships, and then further fails, when the opportunity arises, to sleep with her.

While Mitchell is conducting this ineffectual affair, his wife is having a considerably more successful one, with a black man. When the book opens, she is pregnant with twins; in an echo of the soap-opera plots Mitchell adores, one of these turns out to be fathered by her husband, the other by her lover. After the babies are born and the doctor breaks the news, Mitchell sets off to find his fellow-father and persuade him to take the dark-skinned baby.

Thus begins a kind of picaresque journey through black New York, and, in parallel, through the Bosch-like fantasy- and horror-scape of Mitchell’s racial imagination. Along the way, he encounters another desirable woman, this one black, whom he also fails to bed; an African-American maid he had unjustly fired some time before; her nephew, none other than Carlyle Bedlow, who pockets Mitchell’s money and serves as his poker-faced, Harlem-based guide; Carlyle’s militant younger brother Mance, who refers to Mitchell as “devil”; and, finally, Mitchell’s co-father, a man named Cooley, whom, it turns out, he has known all along.

The whole journey is a merciless satire on the themes of white fear, guilt, and hypocrisy, played out in the always charged language of miscegenation—only, this time, with the current of that charge reversed. One practical and emotional cornerstone of slavery was the inability of the enslaved to determine their own families. When Mitchell, cuckolded and left to raise a black man’s child as his own, realizes that his suffering is a kind of reprisal, his whiny “Why me?” is parried irrefutably by his fellow-father: Why Cooley’s great-granddaddy? Like the white characters in “A Different Drummer,” Mitchell experiences black retribution. Neither is violent—the first is a renunciation, the second a reckoning—but both are profoundly disconcerting, because they leave white characters and readers alike alone with past and present iniquities, and with the scales to measure them.

If “dem” is a strange book, it is strange in a familiar way. Part Roth, part Swift, part Twain, it is built of satire, farce, and hyperbole, all deployed in the name of moral seriousness. But Kelley’s next novel, “dunfords travels everywheres,” is strange in a strange way. When it opens, Chig Dunford is living in an imaginary European country that observes a bizarre sartorial segregation: every day, its citizens self-divide into those who wear blue clothes (Atzuoreursos) and those who wear yellow ones (Jualoreursos), groups that are strictly forbidden from mingling. While living there, Chig has a brief affair with an enigmatic fellow-expatriate named Wendy, then reunites with her on his way back to the United States, when the two find themselves sharing a steamer with a mysterious organization called The Family, and also with a cargo hold full of slaves. Meanwhile, Carlyle Bedlow is back from “dem” and up to a whole new set of tricks, including one involving a loan officer moonlighting as a limousine driver, who turns out to be—in a wonderful Bulgakov-like turn, by far the best in the book—the devil.

All this is funny, dark, smart, and extremely entertaining—except that, fifty pages in, the reader suddenly slams up against this sentence: “Witches oneWay tspike Mr. Chigyle’s Languish, n curryng him back tRealty, recoremince wi hUnmisereaducation. Maya we now go on wi yReconstruction, Mr. Chuggle? Awick now?”

Well, yes: we are now very Awick, although whether we will go on is a different question. Kelley conceived “dunfords travels everywheres” in conscious thrall to “Finnegans Wake,” and his own book is, for long stretches, similarly rough going. Kelley tells Chig’s and Carlyle’s separate stories mostly straight, but in between he grabs language by its edges and bends it as far as he can, in order to pull the bourgeois, Ivy-educated Chig and the impoverished, street-smart Carlyle into a single consciousness, made of their common national history.

Kelley had long been fascinated by the way one language can accommodate many different speakers. “Early on,” he wrote, “blessed with an ear for variations of spoken English, I realized that I lived in four linguistic worlds”: the Standard English he spoke at home; the working-class Italian-American English he learned in the Bronx; the heavily Latinate, slightly Yiddish English he heard at Fieldston; and black English, which he regarded, like jazz, as one of the great creative contributions of African-Americans. At the same time, he was fascinated by the relationship between language and power. Tucker Caliban is taciturn almost to the point of mute. Even his wife can barely eke speech out of him, and he rejects oration and persuasion, refusing to explain, or even articulate, the beliefs behind his scorched-earth exit from the state. With one exception—a militant Northern preacher, who is voluble, dislikable, and doomed—the other black characters are likewise silent. In “dunfords,” by contrast, the black characters have plenty to say, but their voices intermittently wax incomprehensible.

That is the same problem solved two different ways. Like many who are steeped in but structurally excluded from conventional English and its canon, Kelley had doubts about its capacity to adequately express African-American life. His epigraph for “dunfords,” borrowed from Joyce, is “My soul frets in the shadow of his language.” The language he creates in its place blends the black vernacular with puns, patois, and linguistic borrowings that most readers (this one included) will struggle to identify.

The result is best read out loud—and, in fact, is nearly impossible to read any other way. It’s sometimes rewarding, since Kelley is smart and funny no matter what language he uses, but it is never easy, and it slows down a book that, in its bones, wants to be headlong and exuberant—so much so that readers can be forgiven for wanting to skip the difficult bits to get back to the plot. (And also to sentences that offer more familiar pleasures. Here as everywhere, Kelley’s straightforward prose is both plain and shining, like sunlight catching the windows of an apartment building. When the devil drives away in his limousine, Carlyle watches it “designing the fresh snow with row after row of tiny interlaced hammers, its tail-end, finally, becoming part of the shadows.”)

But simply ignoring the tough parts won’t work, of course. Kelley’s private language is difficult to decode but essential to the book, and so a determined reader must soldier on, grateful that “dunfords” is, at least, short by comparison with “Finnegans Wake.” The result is like roaring down a roller coaster with the brakes on: thrilling, frustrating, dominated by sheer sound.

William Kelley was thirty-two when “dunfords travels everywheres” appeared. He wrote constantly for the next forty-seven years, never published another book, and died a year ago, at the age of seventy-nine.

By then, Kelley had been back in his native New York for decades. He loved Jamaica, but eventually the family’s visas expired, and their relatives began hounding them to come home. In 1977, the Kelleys returned to the United States and rented a sixth-floor walkup at 125th Street and Fifth Avenue. The gentrification of Harlem had not yet begun, and their new home had an absentee slumlord, an alcoholic super, no heat, no electricity, no gas, no phone, and no lock on the door. The Kelleys bought winter clothes for the first time in a decade, together with candles, a Coleman stove, and a padlock for the door.

It wasn’t ideal, but it was all they could afford. The book advances, the speaking gigs, the magazine requests, and the university appointments had dried up, and the family had hardly any money. This was fine by Kelley, who had long since read Thoreau (“A Different Drummer” takes its title from “Walden”) and embraced the idea of voluntary poverty. By day, he kept writing, at a desk crammed below a loft bed in their tiny apartment. After midnight, when the local stores put their unsold produce in the trash, he did the family grocery shopping. “Going through the garbage at the Korean grocers didn’t embarrass him,” his daughter Jesi said. “He was utterly unafraid to be poor.”

He was also unafraid to keep writing in the absence of public encouragement. When he died, he left behind a considerable quantity of prose, including two unpublished novels. One of these, “Daddy Peaceful,” is loosely based on his own family, whom he never previously wrote about though unabashedly adored. The other, “Dis/integration,” is a meta-fiction that concerns the further adventures of Chig Dunford, and, like “The Brothers Karamazov” and “Pale Fire,” contains within it an entirely separate work: a complete novel by a white Hemingwayesque writer. That embedded novel, “Death Fall,” features no black characters at all, and describes the unravelling of a small Kansas town after a new and highly addictive drug is introduced there.

Kelley tried to publish both of these novels during his lifetime, to no avail. Eventually, in 1989, he began teaching fiction at Sarah Lawrence, and liked it enough to continue doing so for nearly three decades. But, even then, he never stopped writing. “There are artistic people who have that moment of ‘Ugh, I suck,’ ” Jesi said. “He wasn’t like that. He never got depressed. He never thought he was bad. He never doubted himself. He just didn’t understand what happened.”

What did happen? It’s difficult to say; both present-day fame and posthumous reputation are elusive, mercurial, and multifactorial. Some of the downturn in Kelley’s fortunes likely had to do with the changing political climate. “We always said, we made a revolution and we lost,” Aiki Kelley said, and she believes that her husband was one casualty of that defeat; as the momentum of the civil-rights movement ebbed, those with the power to make publishing decisions turned their attention elsewhere.

Still, Kelley was never a pat enough political writer to simply wash in and out with the ideological tides, and there were many other considerations, too. Chief among these was the strange chiasmus at the heart of his work: a black man writing about how white people think about black people. That perspective was smart and important—in effect, it transformed W. E. B. Du Bois’s double consciousness into a narrative device—but it radically diminished Kelley’s audience. Many white readers didn’t want a black writer telling them what they thought, especially when so much of it was withering, while many black readers, long starved for literary representation, didn’t want to read about more white characters. To make matters worse, very few people, white or black, wanted to subscribe to a vision of America that grew progressively more damning in the course of Kelley’s career. And, regardless of the topic of a book or the race of its author, almost no one wanted to contend with experimental prose.

Ultimately, though, Kelley may have suffered most from the relentless conveyor belt of life, which constantly carries new things into sight and propels older ones away. Time, too, is an arrow that all of us follow. Critics love the adjective “timeless,” but the truth is that most writers, even most exceptionally gifted ones, are of a time, even if not always of their own.

In 1962, when William Kelley met Langston Hughes, the two writers were at opposite ends of their careers. Hughes had dozens of books, plays, and poetry collections behind him, and only five years of life left ahead of him. But he loved championing up-and-coming writers of color, and he needed help packing away some material in his apartment for posterity. Kelley, meanwhile, admired Hughes, needed money, and agreed to do the job. The inscribed copy of “Ask Your Mama” was a kind of bonus pay, but, in those final months before “A Different Drummer” appeared, it must have also seemed like an affirmation. In its pages, Hughes, too, could be found imagining a counterfactual history:

Dreaming that the negroes

Of the South have taken over—

Voted all the Dixiecrats

right out of power—

Comes the colored hour:

Martin Luther King is Governor of Georgia . . .

Six years later, King was dead, and Hughes, too, and although Kelley didn’t know it at the time, his copy of “Ask Your Mama” had gone missing. Each time he and his family left the country, they shed whatever possessions they didn’t need and stashed anything of value with family and friends. Those things of value included the gift from Hughes, but somewhere between 1963, when the Kelleys first left the country, and 1977, when they returned for good, it vanished from a relative’s apartment in Manhattan.

How it got from there to rural Maryland forty years later, and where else it went along the way, is anybody’s guess. The beauty of a true junk shop is that it is a kind of island in the stream of time. Things wash up there and are granted temporary clemency from the all-devouring future; people stop by there and mingle, like time travellers at a rest stop, with fragments of the past. Mostly, you can’t expect to leave with much of value. But every once in a while you find what I did in that Langston Hughes book, and in the man to whom it was given: in both senses, a real deal. ♦

This article appears in the print edition of the January 29, 2018, issue, with the headline “Remainders.”



ABOUT THE AUTHOR:



Kathryn Schulz joined The New Yorker as a staff writer in 2015. In 2016, she won the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing and a National Magazine Award for “The Really Big One,” her story on the seismic risk in the Pacific Northwest. She is the author of “Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error.”


 
 
Lost literary masterpiece of 1960s black America comes to UK

William Melvin Kelley found acclaim, then faded from view. Now, as his debut is reissued in the UK, his family recalls that he always knew he was ‘sitting on a goldmine’


 
PHOTO: William Melvin Kelley and wife Aiki on a honeymoon trip to Switzerland in December 1963. Photograph: The Estate of William Melvin Kelley

by Sarah Hughes
October 27, 2018
The Guardian (UK)


 WILLIAM MELVIN KELLEY IN 1967

BOOKS BY WILLIAM MELVIN KELLEY (1937-2017):


No photo description available.




He was a rising star of the American literary scene whose debut novel, a dark satire on race and America, was acclaimed in 1962 when he was just 24. Now the all-but-forgotten William Melvin Kelley looks set to be a publishing sensation again, just over a year after he died aged 79. This week will see the reissue in Britain of A Different Drummer, Kelley’s critically lauded debut, which saw the ambitious young author compared to everyone from James Baldwin to William Faulkner. Kelley is credited with being the first person to use the term “woke” in a 1962 article for the New York Times headlined “If You’re Woke You Dig It”, and has been hailed by the New Yorker as the “lost giant of American literature”.Now his family hopes that there will be renewed enthusiasm for his back catalogue. Kelley published three further novels and a collection of short stories in the space of a decade before turning his back on the US literary scene and moving his family to Jamaica in pursuit of a different life.“Drummer is really the beginning of a whole world,” his widow, Aiki Kelley, told the Observer. “His later work is often called experimental and difficult but I would say that it’s funny and smart and interesting. He didn’t write like anyone else.”Jon Butler, the managing director of Quercus, which will publish A Different Drummer in the UK on 1 November, following a seven-way auction for the UK rights, agreed. “Reading Drummer is a bit like finding a bit of buried treasure,” he said. “It’s about the thrill of finding that you’re in on a secret early and being able to tell everyone else why it is that they should read it.”The hype around Kelley’s debut began after journalist Kathryn Schulz stumbled upon a first edition novel by African-American poet Langston Hughes with an inscription to Kelley written in it. Intrigued as to who Hughes was effusively praising, Schulz wrote an appraisal for the New Yorker earlier this year that praised Kelley’s “impressive range”, noting the comparisons in the 1960s to Isaac Bashevis Singer and James Joyce. Schulz concluded that the key to A Different Drummer’s power lay in the way it imagined “an alternate universe where African Americans wield not less power, but more”.PHOTO: Kelley celebrating his 38th Birthday in Bull Bay, Jamaica, with daughters Cira and Jesi and wife Aiki. Photograph: Estate of William Melvin KelleyWhat is most intriguing about Kelley’s work is the way he chooses to express that power. A Different Drummer, written at the height of the civil rights era when racist segregation laws were still in effect, tells the story of a young African-American farmer named Tucker Caliban who wakes up one morning, salts his fields, slaughters his horse and cows, burns down his house and leaves his unnamed southern state. The rest of the African-American population soon follow him. It is a wholesale rejection of a way of life made all the more powerful by the way in which Kelley’s tale unfolds.“Kelley’s genius was to write the whole book from the point of view of the white townsfolk left behind,” said Butler. “Their stunned attempts to grapple with this refusal to stick around under the yolk is a scorching indictment of the establishment’s inability to engage with inequality and that still speaks to us today, particularly in the age of Black Lives Matter.”So why then did this young author, who seemed set for literary fame and fortune, fade from the public eye? The answer, in part, is that it was a conscious decision, and one which has intriguing parallels with Kelley’s best-known novel. “We were followers of Malcolm X,” said Aiki. “The way he thought really impressed us, the construction of his ideas, the questions he asked. Then Malcolm was assassinated and everything fell apart.“Kelley covered the trial of Malcolm’s killer and in the court the judge made him stand up to illustrate a point. He came home that night and said: ‘I’m a black man with a beard. I’m marked. We’re out of here.” The family moved to Paris, “where we were living when we heard Dr King had been assassinated”, and spent time in Rome, “where we learned that [Robert] Kennedy had been shot. At that point we knew that we didn’t want to raise our family in America.”The young couple and their two daughters, Jesi and Cira, moved to Jamaica, where they would stay for the next nine years. Aiki said: “The only thing we knew how to be was artists, so we did that every day.“Kelley wrote and I made art and we taught the children. We always knew that the one thing we didn’t want to be was middle class – we had both grown up in that world and were reacting against it – so we always said we’d be very rich or very poor. As it turned out we were mostly very poor, but it was an adventure.”Returning to New York in the late 1970s after their visas had expired, they found a different world. “We had been away a long time and publishing had changed,” said Aiki. “It was more about money and sales. Kelley couldn’t get back in the rhythm.”Their existence remained precarious until 1989 when an old friend, who had long supported Kelley’s work, helped him land a job at Sarah Lawrence College, where he would teach until his death. “I think in some ways he was happy that things turned out that way because he liked his life and he had a great fear of money,” said Aiki. “He did ask me towards the very end if I felt he failed us, but my answer was absolutely not. We had a wonderful life.”As to what he would have made of the interest in his work, his daughter Jesi laughed. “He would have been very amused,” she said. “And then he would have said it’s been a long time coming. When things were really tight he would say to us: ‘Don’t worry, I‘m sitting on a goldmine.’“He always felt that public attention would eventually swing back round to him, so I really do feel that he’s up there now looking down and seeing all this attention and laughing, thinking, ‘Didn’t I say that would happen? I was right.’”

Topics

Sunday, October 20, 2024

Prominent Journalist, Scholar, Activist, Teacher, Public Intellectual, and Author Peter Beinart Interviews Ta-Nehisi Coates on Why He Wrote about Palestine and Israel in his new book 'The Message'

https://peterbeinart.substack.com/p/ta-nehisi-coates-on-why-he-wrote-517

The Beinart Notebook

The Beinart Notebook

A conversation about American foreign policy, Palestinian freedom and the Jewish people.

Our guest is the award-winning author and journalist, Ta-Nehisi Coates. His new book, The Message, chronicles his trip to Palestine and Israel (alongside trips to Senegal and South Carolina) and meditates on why some people’s stories are told and others are erased. We’ll talk about how he came to write about Israel-Palestine, about how victims become victimizers, about the backlash he’s experienced since the book came out, and about the forces that keep Black writers from shaping public debate about America’s role in the world.

The event was cosponsored by Jewish Currents and the Foundation for Middle East Peace,


The Beinart Notebook


Ta-Nehisi Coates on Why He Wrote about Palestine and Israel


October 20, 2024


AUDIO:  38:16


https://peterbeinart.substack.com/p/ta-nehisi-coates-on-why-he-wrote-517 


TRANSCRIPT: 
 
I wonder if you can take us back to the moment that you started telling people that your next book was going to have a big section on Palestine and Israel and what some of those conversations were like. I'm wondering if people close to you had real fears.
 
Yeah, I mean, I think it's only appropriate that I take this back to our conversations, which literally go back years and you telling me, wow, you have to go, you have to go. I feel like every time I saw you, you were like, you have to go. And did people have fears for me taking this on?
 
Yes, but I think also there was a sense that it was the right thing to do. Oddly enough, I think maybe the fears that a lot of people think of were not ones that were manifested really in my life or that people really cared about, i.e. people's perception of me.
 
In certain quarters, I have had the luxury of my private life being pretty separate from my public life. It's not that I don't have some work friends. I do, or some people from work that I care about very much, I do. But in my private life, I'm actually not that important.
 
My status as a writer is really kind of irrelevant. It doesn't get me much, you know, among my friends and family. You know, like I wasn't going to lose them. So what did it really matter? And it's quite clear, I think the past couple of weeks have demonstrated the reaction people have when you just tell them what you saw or what you've read. That, yes, there is a lot of pressure put on so that certain stories are not heard. But, you know, I don't know what was the point of getting this far in my career as a writer. Like if, you know, you're going to not touch the sensitive things.
 
Like, what's the point? You know, why are we doing this?
 
One of the things that I've always wondered about is, you know, if you look at the American media, you look at a panel on cable TV, you look at the op-ed page of the New York Times. At this point in 2024, when it comes to domestic politics and policy, if you're talking about mainstream liberal media, there is some Black representation, right? Then when you turn to foreign policy, when they switch to the foreign policy segment, not just Israel-Palestine, anything, that all disappears, right? Why do you think that is? And what is the cost of that to America's public conversation about America's role in the world?
 
Yeah. There are a few people, Howard French has made a career like this. I think Eugene Robinson back in the day before he became a columnist. There are a few of us, but I think the natural portion of this is as follows. We were all very deeply concerned about our ability to represent ourselves and our ability to have a voice in the conversation around race and racism in this country. And so that was the area that was prioritized. But I think getting that worldliness It's just different. Just on a basic class level, given the type of environments that most African-Americans come from, we tend to not be the most traveled people.
 
We just haven't. We just don't know the world. And I will say, well within my lifetime as an adult and as a working journalist, We're shocked to discover how Central America was. It's mind blowing, you know, like to go out in the world and actually see it. You know, it's like really, really mind blowing.
 
And I think in our minds, we're off in our little ghettos, in our little corners, doing our little writing. And we don't realize how tied we are to this bigger thing. We know there's a world out there. But the extent to which we're tied, we don't quite understand it.
 
You're a deep student of history. And I wonder when you were thinking about this move towards writing about the world outside the United States, but bringing your experience and your lens that you have as a student of Black history and as Black American, if there were precedents that you thought of. I mean, what I immediately thought of when I heard you were writing this book was King's speech on Vietnam. But also there's Du Bois, right? Or Paul Robeson, people who brought a larger critique of the Cold War about American imperialism while connected to a view on race. And were there precedents that you thought about when you thought about now extending your writing more abroad and especially on Palestine and Israel?
 
Yes and no. Yes, from an inspiration level. You know what I mean? Like, weirdly enough, what I thought back to is the long history of Black journalists in this country and how it was never a safe occupation. You know, the Ida B. Wells was never safe.
 
Walter White is going into the South, passing as a white man to investigate lynchings. He could have been killed at any moment. You know, I thought about that a lot. But the no part of it is, I think, what makes it difficult. Like you, I am a product of what you might call, I don't know, literary journalism, new journalism or whatever. Like that particular craft that, you know, is practiced at the New Republic, New York, Atlantic. I come out of that world. And on a craft level, I love the thing. You know what I mean? I love long form as a thing because that is a way of thinking too.
 
That's a way of analyzing the world. You know what I mean? Where you pull a little bit from the world of literature. You pull a little bit from the world of books. You pull a little bit from the world of reporting to create this thing. And I love that as a method. But the politics of that world...are so bad on this. And part of this is in that essay. There are precious few Black people who have had the space to pursue that, and even fewer who've had the space to pursue it internationally. And so that part was very lonely and very, very isolating. There are people who I learned from, people who I admire as craftspeople, who are so distant from my politics on this. And a lot of that essay is me working through that.
 
Yeah. One of the things that I wonder if you've thought about is there's a whole class of people, including many of the people of those kind of magazines that you mentioned that you and I worked at, that are willing to hear you say that America is a racist country, but they're not willing to hear you say Israel is a racist country. And America is our country. How do you explain the fact that, at least in those circles, you can say harsher things about the United States and oppression in terms of the United States than you can about a country where people aren't even living?
So I would say two things. There's this great book called Our American Israel by this woman, Amy Kaplan, who regrettably passed away from brain cancer. But it looks at the cultural, I guess, similarities between the two countries, how culture influenced it. And she points out that the story that America tells itself is a story that rhymes with the story Israel tells itself. This gets very dark in certain places, by the way, which we can talk about later. But As to your question, I think it's a couple of things. I think the fact that what you cite, the ability to say that, that was a fight. That was not always true.
 
You know what I mean? That is not a natural development. That was a fight that was every bit as vicious as the fight that's happening right now on behalf of Palestinians, empowering them to tell their own story and opening up the perspectives. It was like this.
 
I mean, I was watching a documentary on the Kerner Report a couple of nights ago. They had news footage and every single television journalist that they put, they were all white, all of them. And so what I stand on is the shoulders of a very, very long fight to get to this position where you could be on the cover of The Atlantic and make the case for reparations, right? It was not true 10 years before that. That was not true 20 years. And so I think we are just at the beginning of what I hope will be a successful struggle and a successful fight to change that and open some things up. I think that's the first thing. But Peter, I think there's something deeper to that. It is immensely troubling. And I wanted to sit in this tension and in this trouble to accept that a group of people can suffer from existential collective punishment, that can suffer from industrialized genocide. which itself is the climax of centuries of oppression, of pogroms, ethnic cleansing, mass murder, other genocidal violence, et cetera. And say that that legacy is now attached to a state that is pursuing similar violence against another group of people. That's not just dark because the state is Jewish.
 
It forces us to face some things about ourselves and maybe even some of the underlying linchpins and pillars of progressivism and the left. Like this idea that somehow like the oppressed are ennobled or oppression is ennobling, that there can be this broad alliance of oppressed people.
 
There's something dark here that is beyond Israel itself that I think is really, really hard to face.
 
Yes. And one of the things that I found most intriguing about the book and that some of the statements I've heard you made is that you seem particularly interested in what Black Americans should learn from this, from the way that the dominant political story that Jews ended up taking collectively from the Holocaust was, we need our own state, a state based on supremacy. And I was thinking, what is the danger that Ta-Nehisi is thinking about? Is he talking about Liberia? Could it connect to Black Panther? And Wakanda as a visual. And then I heard you say this thing in the Ben Rhodes interview, which was very powerful, where you basically said about Kamala Harris and the Democrats, you said it was a very black convention. And so in some sense, these are black bombs. Talk to me about this universal warning, but particularly the one that you're relating to black Americans here.
 
Yeah, so in the case of Israel, I would say, and this is, I have never said this out loud, really, but it's something that I've been marinating on, so I don't quite have this down. But I really think it's important to understand that this idea of a state as safety was rooted in a European, very, in fact, German, romantic idea, right? that states somehow verified peoples, that this was tied to land, that this was tied to language, that this was tied to culture. And those were particular things for particular people. Again, that's not a Zionist idea.
 
The age of nationalism.
 
Yes, yes, yes, yes. I mean, in fact, Nazism is very tied to that idea, for instance. And so what I saw the thinkers of that age doing was saying, OK, we are oppressed, not necessarily questioning the premises or the frame of the era, but actually accepting them and saying, you know, we need to go and do X, Y and Z and that will be our liberation. You know, again, I'm at pains to say this. That is not a Jewish era. You actually see it across African-American history also. Sometimes we question the frame, but sometimes we accept it and say, we just need to do X, Y, and Z.
 
And we don't ask deep questions about the models that we're actually doing. And so to fast forward that into today, you know, I'm out at the DNC. And again, it's a very Black convention. Blackest convention I've ever seen. I was in this group chat and a guy made the joke and he said, you know, this convention is so Black that the first white person to talk was Steve Kerr, basketball coach. You know? And you're seeing all this. And the models are Jesse Jackson's running 84 and 88. And the models are, you know, Fannie Lou Hamer and Shirley Chisholm. And they're Native Americans there, you know, who are making their cars.
 
And, you know, Latinos are there. That was very inclusive, which has always been at the core of the best of the black struggle. That this is not just us. This is all of us. Except it's not all of us. except it's not all of us.
 
And I look outside and I see a group of people who can't even speak on the floor, can't even make a speech, can't even be allowed to talk. And this is at a convention to nominate a Black woman who bears all of that legacy. That's dangerous.
 
It's dangerous because it means that did we really learn the lesson of Fannie Lou Hamer? Or was the lesson just that slavery is not wrong? Being the slave is what's wrong. And that is a dark prospect. That's a dark prospect. And when I was in Israel, on the West Bank, the saddest thing for me was that the Israeli state project does not question the frame, that it accepts the frame. And I guess for us to just accept The frame that Joe Biden has presented to us, that the Democratic Party has presented us, that the last, I don't know, umpteenth years and decades of politics have presented to us on Israel and towards Palestinians would be a grievous mistake and, in fact, a hijacking and a betrayal of the legacy that brought us here in the first place.
 
I'm curious whether you have had pushback from Black Americans on this question, because I would say, you know, I, like many Jews, have spent my entire life having this argument. I had it with my grandmother. I had it my whole life. And people like to kind of critify this story about Israel being a liberal democracy.
 
But as you rightly intuited, at the end of the day, the hard kernel of the argument is man is a wolf to man. And we are not going to be the people to take the risk of On a fundamentally different world, you know, Arthur Hertzberg, before he died, once said to me that he had been in a debate with Edward Said, and Said said, why would Jews want a state after all the brutality of states? Jews were so creative in diaspora. And Sir said, yes, these states, they're terrible, they're brutal. We'll give ours up fifth. You know, so when you make this argument and someone says to you, wait a second, you want Kamala Harris to endanger her chance of being the first black woman president on a basis of principle for Palestinians, given how precarious the situation for black and with Donald Trump there, you get that pushback.
 
Weirdly, no. But I think the difference is that the imaginative impulse has always been there, right? This idea that it was always supposed to be bigger than you is intrinsic in the struggle. Look, we started the tour at the Apollo Theater right in the heart of Harlem with Amen Mohedin.
 
You know, you can't get any more in the center of the Black community than right there. And people were very, very happy to have that conversation. I mean, I also think there is a sense that we already did the symbolic thing. We did that. We gave Obama all of the room and et cetera.
 
And so I don't think I am the only one who thinks this one has to mean something more than symbols if it's going to be real. It does not mean that you don't vote for Kamala. And I think people are clear on that.
 
Black people come up to me in the street and thank me for talking about this. I have not had the Black person come up to me yet to say, you're endangering this. Maybe if I was more resentful, like personally, of Kamala, which I'm not.
 
You know, I watched the debate like everybody else and was very happy to see her take apart Donald Trump. I was gratified like everybody else. And you can feel that, you know what I mean? And at the same time, this has to stand for something. I feel like I'm pulling from a very real tradition.
 
So it's not just really me talking when I say this.
 
Yeah. Just because you mentioned Obama, I can't help but ask it. You were obviously known for having conversations with him. Do you think if he was reading your book, the Palestinians will say, yeah, I knew all that, but he just couldn't do anything about it?
 
I know people who were close to him at a different point in his life. They say he knows. They say it's impossible for him to be at the University of Chicago and not know. To have gone to Columbia and not known. Given what those environments are. Like, Chicago is home to the largest Palestinian diaspora in the country.
 
It's actually hard to not know. I haven't talked to him. I wish I had known more at the time that I was in conversation and had done those interviews. I certainly would have pressed more. Looking back on his presidency, he kind of acted like somebody who knew.
 
But maybe, and now I'm getting into speculation, also felt that there was little he could actually do. Someone once told me, who, as I said, knew him at a different point in life. Not only did he know, but Bibi knew that he knew.
 
Yes.
 
Bibi hated him for it.
 
I think that's exactly right. And I think there were a lot of people in the organized American Jewish community and the Israeli government who suspected he knew or thought because he's Black, he's likely to know. And that makes him dangerous. Is that your sense of him?
 
My sense of him was that the story he told was about his connection to progressive and liberal Jews. He said he read David Grossman's book, Yellow Wind. He talked about his relationship with Arnold Jacob Wolf, who was progressive. And he talked about himself being a liberal Jew and all this thing.
 
And I'm sure there's some truth to that. But I also wonder whether that was an easier thing for him to say politically than to say, I actually also feel sometimes like a Palestinian or identify with like that would have been impossible. And so he could say this thing, which is to say, I'm with these group of Jews,
 
not with these group of Jews. But he couldn't say, I really identify with the Palestinians. And Kamala, do you have any sense of whether she knows anything?
 
I have heard from several people that they have had private conversations with her that indicates some sympathy, that indicates a position that is different than Biden. Now, look, what that will mean and how that will be manifested, I don't know. I will be honest with you.
 
I mean, this is probably the closest I've ever been to any sort of activism. in the sense that I feel that I have a certain position in American life and can yell things. What effect that has, I don't know, but I have a responsibility to yell and to point out the grievous problem and the great damage of being the first Black woman president and having 2,000-pound bombs with your name on them dropping on Gaza. That's a nightmare. Like we think about voting and politics in a very, just get past this one kind of way, like a very practical, tangible way.
 
But I do think should Kamala win this year and 2028 comes around, I think the moral problem will become a practical problem if nothing changes. Like at that point, like say we're in 2028, right? Okay, so this is 20 years of this election is the most important election in our lifetime.
 
Okay, so now I have to look at the content of those elections. And effectively what you are telling me is the price of protecting a woman's right to choose is support for apartheid and genocide. Like that is the rough math of what you are saying to me. There are women in Palestine too.
 
It's like the cost of the New Deal was sustaining Jim Crow.
 
That's right. That's right. That's what it'll be. So now like we're not questioning systems anymore. We just need power. That's all we're saying. The systems are no longer the problem. And that's at that point, I wonder where I will be and who I will be as a political person, because that would be deeply problematic for me.
 
So because the book is so interested in this question of why victimization doesn't necessarily ennoble, it requires you to tell a story and that there are various stories. And some of those stories are very, very dark. I was wondering whether you thought about that vis-a-vis Palestinians who are in the midst of it now, of this unimaginable slaughter.
 
Is it fair to have that question about Palestinians now, about how Palestinians narrate their own excruciating ongoing dismemberment? Because one could say that Hamas, which has something of an Islamist supremacist vision, is its own dark version of that story. Right. And that it's not really within an equality framework, the story that it's telling about what's happened to Palestinians. Right. Or is it not fair to ask that of people while they're going through it? And you ask that question after it's stopped.
 
You know what? Not only do I think it's fair, I think if Palestinians weren't pushed out of the frame, you would see that conversation. I think they would have it because I've had it privately with many of the people that influenced this book. I mean, they are not unthinking people.
 
I take them to be human beings like any other thinking group of intelligent human beings with differences and thoughts and visions and ideas. But there's no room. Like you can't name a Palestinian bureau chief. There's just no room. You know what I mean?
 
Part of sucking the oxygen out and keeping them out is like that kind of nuance that you just got at. There's just no room for it. You know what I mean? Because then you're lucky if you get like one Palestinian in discussion and then they have to speak to the whole of it. Right.
 
Which is an impossible position to be in. You know, like entry is, will you denounce Hamas? You know what I mean? Like maybe if you had three or four up there, the conversation would be different and you would get something a little bit more textured and nuanced.
 
Some of your writing that I have found most powerful has been involved in dissecting arguments made to defend power. I'm thinking of particularly like the first white president. You go through George Packer, Nick Kristof, Bernie Sanders, right? And you basically dismantle the claims that they're making about Trump's ascendancy not being about racism and white supremacy.
 
You have done a lot of that, but you decided not to do that same project when it came to the kind of exoneration of Israel, of Israeli Jews. A lot of people have come at you a little bit on this question of why you didn't engage with the pro-Israel arguments.
 
So I would say two things. I would say it actually is there. I would say, like, that's the point of Jabotinsky. That's the point of Herzl. That's the point of Benny Morris. That's the point of Moses Hess. You know what I mean? It is there. But I'm dealing with a group of people who don't have the microphone.
 
It's very different. I'm living in a world where the Black Panther is a movie. You know what I mean? You can't imagine an analog for Palestinians at all. And so I guess in some ways, my work was kind of a corrective because I probably centered their frame a little more than maybe I felt like I had to.
 
But I think if I took that critique at its highest, what it says is I did not go and interview settlers, for instance. which I didn't do. Maybe I would have done if that was the entirety of the book. Maybe I would have done that.
 
But the urgent thing for me felt that I wrote the case for reparations. And in using reparations from West Germany to the state of Israel, I felt that I had erased the people. That essay is about correcting that. And I guess I would just say over and over again, the Zionist argument is not hard to access.
 
It's everywhere. You know, it is the air around us. And I guess the last thing I'll say about that is how often do we ask the question of authors who are sympathetic to Israel? How often do we say, hey, how many Palestinians have you interviewed? How often do we interrogate the very structures?
 
Who is looking at our magazines and our newspapers to say, how many Palestinian authors are you publishing? Like, where are Palestinians in this narrative? So I find it interesting that I am being subject to a level of critique, which I will happily answer for, but a critique that is not actually made of the structures that actually have the most power.
 
Right. I've heard a lot of people say, you know, Ta-Nehisi Coates only spent 10 days in the West Bank. And my response to people has been, OK, I know you've been to Israel 25 times and I know which hotels you've stayed at in Tel Aviv.
 
I bet those 10 days he spent in the West Bank is significantly more than the number of days that you spent with Palestinians in the West Bank. You've been going there since you were 13. So it's all about what you see when you're there, as opposed to the number of days that you're there. Yeah.
 
You are known for not being an optimist about the course of history. And the book, in some ways, is about the way in which violence begets violence. Victimization begets victimization. You're a student of the Civil War, which was not a nonviolent end to slavery.
 
I know you've thought a lot about the Haitian Revolution, which was not a nonviolent end to oppression. We do have the example of the Civil Rights Movement or South Africa. Help me think about how you think about potentially different models. And is it possible to avoid that tragedy in which all of this violence that is heaped upon Palestinians just ends in a bloodbath for everybody? I mean, we're in the midst of it now, but in which it just basically engulfs all the people between the river and the sea.
 
So I'll say the dark part of this first. Even our nonviolent revolutions have the specter of violence behind them. I don't know that you can divorce the civil rights movement from World War II. I don't know that you can divorce South Africa and apartheid from the end of the Cold War. Absolutely. I think that, you know, even if the revolutionaries themselves are not violent, the specter of it is really always there. Having said that, there is something that is very, very powerful in this struggle that is at hand. And that is that the truth is blatantly obvious and the lie is critically important to the project.
 
You know, a lot of people who say, well, Americans don't want to know. I'm not sure that's true because there's a ton of energy put into the project of them not knowing. Like there was a lot of effort. You know what I mean? And so I always have to ask, well, if that were true, why is so much effort put into crafting a narrative? I actually am of the mind that it is very hard for human beings to perpetrate horrific violence on other human beings with their eyes wide open. You know, and that's one of the theories in the book. I actually think that's actually hard to do.
 
So I think knowing does matter. And the telling of what it is is not hard. Like what is happening on the West Bank. The fact that Israel is not a democracy. You can explain this in about two sentences. And that was like the biggest surprise. People said it was complex. And that's what I thought.
 
I thought I was going to go over and see some really morally complex. But I didn't. I mean, it was so obviously immoral. It is blatantly immoral. And I think the argument that it's not is extremely hard to make.
 
And the shadow of that to me is that when you make it, people don't say this is not happening. They say, yes, but what did they do to deserve it? That is effectively the counter argument.
 
Yes, that Israel had no choice.
 
Right. Israel had no choice but to perpetrate apartheid.
 
Right. So this most famously came up in that CBS interview where it's basically like, why aren't you acknowledging all the ways in which the Palestinians brought this on themselves or in which Israel had no choice but to do all of that?
 
Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it? Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it? Why not detail anything of the first and the second intifada, the cafe bombings, the bus bombings, the little kids blown to bits?
 
And is it because you just don't believe that Israel in any condition has a right to exist? And I'm curious, you have made a very conscious decision in these interviews to basically say, I'm not going to engage with that set of questions. I'm not going to talk about why there were suicide bombings or what Iran wants to do. I'm basically going to say none of it justifies this from my perspective.
 
Help me understand the decision to respond in that way.
 
There's always good reasons to perpetrate a system of apartheid, of segregation, of plunder, or whatever. There are always good arguments. Always. Always. I suspect that if you read the documents justifying apartheid, the argument was not, we are evil and we want to perpetrate apartheid.
 
I know a lot of them were very similar to the arguments we hear now. Yes. You know, Africa is a tough neighborhood. How many times? Right, right, right. And hey, it was they do hate you.
 
And it's true for black Americans, too. There were arguments in favor. Like I was telling somebody this the other day. They said, well, we think the slavery, anti-slavery debate was not complex. It was. And from their perspective, it was. It was an entire cast of what they call pro-slavery intellectuals who made the case for why you needed slavery, why it was, as Calhoun called, a positive good. They believed that an underpinning of democracy in a free country required a kind of elevation to which people of African descent had not attained. Right. John Calhoun was not a dumb guy. No, no, no. These are not dumb people. You know what I mean?
 
Like, so this was a very real argument. Segregation, you know what I mean? Within the lifetime of my parents, the argument was integration is dangerous. Look at the crime rates in these black neighborhoods. And the crime rates were high. They were. And I think what most people will say is none of that justified the upholding of an immoral system, period. And so if that is the argument, then why am I talking about suicide bombers? Why am I talking about the violence of Palestinians? Either this is right or wrong, period. If you want to make the argument, I need to inflict apartheid and a violent system of segregation on this group of people because I am endangered, you should honestly and forthrightly make that argument. I disagree with it because my moral underpinnings are different.
 
Yeah. No, this is one of the things that gets me about the Jewish community in some ways the most deeply is I encounter and listen to so many brilliant, brilliant people. I listen to them talk about Talmud, Jewish texts, and I think There is so much brilliance and talent, and I'm so awed and dazzled.
 
And then they switched to this issue. And it reminds me, all of their brilliance is not getting us anywhere. Because when it comes to this, as you say, it's a simple moral question. We have a couple of questions from the audience, one of which is about, you know, Black nationalism really well.
 
I know it was even part of your upbringing. And I wonder if you can talk about the ways in which Black nationalism and Zionism are similar and the ways in which they're different.
 
Well, in fact, there's a long history of many Black nationalists actually being Zionists themselves, you know, and having great admiration for Zionism. And I think what the impulse is, is you have a group of people suffering from, as I said, centuries of horrific oppression. And you see them go and build a nation of their own. I mean, this is what it looks like, a nation of their own, where they can feel safe and they can feel good about themselves and they can feel worthwhile. And certainly from the outside, There's a kind of affinity, but actually the impulse is older. It goes back to where we started this conversation and that root in romantic nationalism, because there's a whole series of 19th century black nationalists who look to Africa in much the same way, who very much believe that a state should be crafted in Africa. You know, Liberia obviously being the example of a state that comes out of that.
 
But the dialogue about Africans from those black American black nationalists was very, very similar. to the dialogue that Zionists had about Palestinians to the extent that they saw them, which is to say that we will go there and we will be a kind of fortress of civilization in darkest Africa. Very similar. Very, very similar. The treatment, the degradation of Black people in Africa, of Native Africans themselves, by Black Americans, very, very similar. And so... That's the first thing. I don't want to overly simplify this because weirdly enough, there also is a strain of black nationalism that is obviously very critical of Israel. Malcolm X, for instance, you know, towards the end of his life, when he takes his travel and he actually goes to Gaza. And I haven't explored this enough to really know about this, but a lot of people point to Nasser. as an influential figure and his attempt to craft a kind of pan-African, pan-Arab, you know, however you want to put it, and the appeal that had to Black Americans.
 
The thing is, the oldest Muslim communities in this country are Black communities. There were enslaved people who were literate in the Quran who were brought over here. So Islam has a particular root and influence in the black community that goes all the way back to Africa.
 
And so I think that's part of it, too, you know, in terms of the complexity. But for me, what I saw and the thing that I really wanted to think about is this temptation to not question systems, to just accept the priors of even of the people that oppress you.
 
This question of Black nationalism, it's different variations. You created a Black country in Africa. I mean, you adapted it, right? Wakanda in Black Panther.
 
You think at all about Israel and Zionism? I was more thinking about nationalism. But yeah, you can see it as a critique of the idea of nation states and the idea of ethnostates. Yes, that is in that work. But I probably was more gaming out what a real nationalism would be. I mean, in the fictive space,
 
I mean, one of the things that you then have the ability to do is say, OK, so now I'm going to take all these questions of race off the table and like look at you as actual people who are perpetrating a system. So, yes, questions of nationalism were there. I did not know enough about Zionism at that point to kind of go that far.
 
You think it's possible that you might go back to fiction or comics or movies and take this subject into a different medium?
 
Probably. I hope so. I still enjoy that world. I mean, I had to obviously come back and do this, but yeah, I could see that. Yes.
 
Since the book came out, is there one particular interaction about it with somebody in public or in private or message or something that has really stuck with you?
Yes. The messages I have gotten from my Muslim friends, from my Arab friends and my Palestinian friends. And what I have been told is they are very, very happy to see this perspective out in the world. And the second part of that message has always been because we can't do it. And that makes me really, really sad. And so, yes, that very much sticks with me.
 
You have this very powerful part of the book where you talk about being in the Chicago area in a group of Palestinian Americans, just Palestinian Americans, and the way they're talking to one another when there's nobody else around. You compare it to the way Black Americans may talk when it's just them.
 
And I'm just wondering if you can talk a little bit about what that's like to witness and what we should learn from that kind of intimate grammar that people have when they have the comfort to not feel like they're worried about the external glare. 
 
Yeah.
 
I'm hesitating because I feel like I don't want to betray them. I mean this in the sense that these are people that don't really have a public voice. So I feel a little awkward about rendering their private conversation public because they don't have an opportunity to be public.
 
I will say that getting to see them think through October 7th, which they did, these are people who in their hearts are deeply committed to nonviolence. These are not Hamas is great, you know what I mean, sort of people. There was a woman whose husband was born and raised in Gaza. She had been to Gaza.
 
They were having a kind of conversation that you simply cannot have in public. You know, thoughts about this, thoughts about that. And it's sad that there just is not room. We lose because they can't talk in public.
 
Absolutely. Yeah, no. And I would just call out for people who don't follow it, the Makdisi podcast. Every time I listen to that Congress, I think I don't necessarily agree with every single thing that people say in that package. I think if more of this showed up in the mainstream media, we would be having such a more sophisticated, smarter, more valuable conversation. And so then our policies are affected by that, by the way. Absolutely. Absolutely. So just because you mentioned October 7th, you have mentioned the parallel with Nat Turner. And I'd just like to hear you think about what is the right way and the wrong way for people to think about an analogy like that, or for that matter, analogies with Native Americans who slaughtered indiscriminately white settlers in the United States in the 19th century. What is the value of that analogy and what are the dangers of that analogy? 
 
Absolutely.
 
So I think like from my basic politics, I am not built in such a way that I can look at something like October 7th and not be horrified. I just can't. You know what I mean? Political arguments aside, I am telling you in my soul, in my bones, I don't have the constitution for that. I just don't.
 
Nat Turner, who took as his cause and his ideology that everyone, all white people involved in the system of enslavement were guilty. Women, children, whatever. The children had to be killed because they were going to grow up to be enslaved. His analysis was not wrong. The logic of it is not incorrect. In fact, the logic of sin war, there's an argument that the logic is not wrong, but the morality of it, again, I always struggled with that term. I didn't have the vocabulary to explain why, but I always struggled with that idea. I think two things. First, if you take as your belief, which for instance, animates my anti-death penalty stance, that human life really is sacred. I heard this, I was on Democracy Now!, and they were interviewing this young lady who's a student leader, and she had this motto, which she said, every life a universe.
 
Yes, yes. And I really believe that. Tradition, yeah.
 
I thought that was a wonderful way of saying it. So I would say that the minute you start looking coldly upon the lives of people who are entrenched in systems, I wonder what the vision of your liberation is. And I think it's really important to think like five steps ahead. Like, should you win?
 
Who are you going to be? Yes. Do I really want to live in a state run by you? Do I want to live like I want to be part of a society in which you have power? I'm not sure I do. So like, where are we going here?
 
You know, and I understand it's very, very difficult work for oppressed people to do. But I think it's important. I think how you fight actually is important. I'm uncomfortable making those kinds of declarations because, again, I really think the people that need to be hashing this out in public are not me. You know what I mean?
 
The people that can speak to this in a direct kind of way are not me. But if you ask me, Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's how I feel. Those are my politics.
 
Yeah. Well, Ta-Nehisi, the reason that I kept badgering you all those years was because I just had this sense that even though Palestinians were working heroically against incredible odds to change this conversation and that there were a few of us lunatic, self-hating Jews who were trying to do something that we wouldn't be able to do it and that we needed the cavalry and that you are a big part of that cavalry.
Did you think I would actually go or did you think I'd never go?
 
You know, I didn't know you well enough to know. And I just have to say to me, what's so beautiful about it is I really believe that as much as being Jewish is at the center of my being and I care about people, this is not a struggle of tribe against tribe.
 
It has to be the opposite of that. Right. And it has to be a movement like the great movements that bring together people from every possible background. bringing their own traditions of humanity to bear and their own experience. And that's what you did in the book. And I'm super, super grateful for it.
 
And for this hour, we got to talk.
 
Thanks so much, Peter. Thank you.
 
Thank you. Thanks to everyone for being here. Thanks, everybody.