Six Questions — February 20, 2013, 9:00 am

This Is Running for Your Life: Essays

Michelle Orange on the art of the personal essay, navigating cultural overload, and the distance that separates two human heads

Michelle Orange. Photograph by TK

Michelle Orange.

As a film critic and a long-time contributor to The Rumpus, Michelle Orange has made a name for herself as a social and aesthetic observer who eschews bromides and empty sentiment. Droll, honest, and incisive, her writing glides effortlessly between artistic criticism and personal anecdote. In her new essay collection, This Is Running for Your Life: Essays, she covers subjects as varied as Ethan Hawke’s face in Before Sunset, her compulsive running habit, and the fragile peace in Lebanon, connecting a rapidly evolving cultural landscape to the small and limited world between our ears. I put six questions to her about the book.

1. Your background is in film criticism, so both movies and the act of watching them pop up as motifs in your essays. How does the consideration of film as an artistic medium shape your writing on broader issues?

Film criticism was a great accident for me. Although I studied film in school, professional criticism wasn’t an aspiration of mine. So I’d almost want to put it the other way — that my interest in the world shapes the way I watch and feel about movies. But there is definitely a tension there. I’m drawn to the space where energy is exchanged between a subject and a work of art. With movies, for me, that space and its magic seemed pronounced. It echoed or elaborated on the tensions that exist between people in a very basic, visceral way. I think I’m always looking for different versions of that space.

2. Your essay on traveling in Beirut soon after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 stands out against most of the others in the book, which show you sifting through North American cultural markers, as an attempt to come to terms with an unfamiliar cultural environment. How do you approach writing about a foreign culture, compared with writing about your own? And what was it about Beirut, specifically, that attracted your interest?

There are probably more overlaps than differences in trying to write about any culture, but different elements require different levels of vigilance. It’s a little easier to stay curious and fresh-eyed and awake, for instance, in an unfamiliar place. But then unfamiliar places require a writer to have an especially healthy sense of her own stupidity. Maintaining the necessary humility may be easier at home, strangely enough. There are parts of American culture that remain quite foreign to me; constantly confronting and grappling with them is one of the great and humbling pleasures of living here.

But you asked about Beirut. Since I was little Beirut had a very specific place in my imagination. Growing up white and Canadian in the Eighties there was a good chance Lebanon and specifically Beirut was your first or best idea of the Middle East. Something about the name, for a kid who liked words, had a menacing, faraway quality. 

The 2006 war had me thinking about the city again. At the time I was trying to work more on fiction, and I had this fantasy of going to Beirut to try and flesh out one of my ideas. It also seemed like a decent starting point for someone trying to gain a better understanding of the region. What moved me, having built it into this fire-breathing monster as a child, was finding just a city, a wounded city.

3. Your writing is striking for the ease with which you weave together experiences from your life and observations about your subjects. For example, in “War and Well-Being, 21° 19'N., 157° 52'W.,” you travel to Hawaii to attend a psychiatric conference on the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, with the ostensible aim of reporting on the changes being recommended to the book, but you finish up the essay on a very personal note, confronting the process of aging in a surfwear shop and then finally connecting with someone on the beach. Where do you start when you’re figuring out how much of yourself to put in an essay?

That’s a very good question, and I’m afraid I don’t have an answer to equal it. I can say that I felt that including my own experience of the subjects I wanted to deal with in the book might lend some dimension to the story that would also feel of the story. I hoped it might also help replace certain boundaries within and between the essays with something more intuitive. And I wanted to be free to do that across different stories and different ways of telling them.

Especially with “War and Well-Being,” figuring out what I had to bring to the story was the first imperative. Because I’m not an expert, I’m not a psychiatrist, and mine was certainly not going to be the comprehensive or credentialed account. (I’m glad we have Gary Greenberg’s forthcoming Book of Woe for that.) I was just interested in what was going on.

So it was always going to be a layperson’s experience of the situation and the issues involved. I figured it might as well be my experience. I wanted to present as useful a picture as I could of what was at stake on the ground, but I also wanted to stay attuned to the larger themes and the personal nature of the decisions being made.

In the writing, working under considerable time constraints probably had some effect; I had to commit to certain choices without second-guessing. Limits can be good! I also just had one of those extraordinary, clarifying moments on the beach in my last hours in Honolulu, desperately sorting through my notes on kappas and axes and other quirks of modern psychiatric diagnostics when a gentleman sat down and initiated one of the most memorable conversations I’ve ever had. As a writer you live for that kind of thing.

4. You frequently touch on the interplay between having experiences and representing those experiences in art, for instance in your essay on the historical shift from the depiction of faces in literature to photographic portraiture. The title of the collection also seemed to me to evoke this tension, in that you present an action that’s about as visceral as it gets (“Run for your life!”) in an almost detached way. How do you tackle those almost metatextual ideas without becoming so self-conscious it becomes difficult to actually write?

Barthes is a good example of someone who mastered the problem you describe. When he describes, say, looking at a childhood photograph of his mother, there is a good possibility that the reader will recognize some part of the experience. His effort to close the various gaps of detachment involved in looking at a childhood picture of his mother extends to the reader as well.

My much humbler version of Barthes’ effort was to poke around some new gaps, or in new versions of old gaps. In one essay, for instance, I suggest that the internet is the ultimate realist medium — seemingly designed to promote “real” interaction, raw information, real-time exchange. You could also argue that it’s the ultimate postmodern medium — made of infinite, irreconcilable bits and pieces; it is what it’s about and it’s about what it is. But if we tend to experience it as a realist medium, then a gap opens up. And all this crazy, interesting stuff happens inside.

From “Do I Know You? and Other Impossible Questions”:

Something scrolled up behind my ribs in anticipation of what comes next: Wait, who do you remind me of? She reminds me of someone — who is it? I told them I hated this game and that it never ended well, but soon three others were pointing their noses in close to mine and shouting celebrity names like Scattergories clues. . . . But this guy was half-lit and wholly tenacious. Eventually he left the room to seek out a computer and google his mind to rest. He gathered his team around the monitor in the study, where they deliberated over the actress he had in mind. No one noticed when I pulled my coat from the closet behind them and walked out the door.

5. You grapple with identity throughout the book, perhaps most directly in your essay on the uncomfortable experience of being mistaken for a variety of (not altogether similar) movie stars. Do you think the preeminence of pop culture in our lives is making it more difficult to relate to each other as people? 

What can feel like cultural overload has certainly made human relations more interesting. I’m trying to remember where I read it, I want to say in Mary Karr, but there’s this line about how there’s no greater distance than that which separates two human heads. We’re adding rest stops and roadblocks and detours across an already insurmountable distance. And we’re relating in more formally elaborate and unexpected ways, and so ordinary problems — like how to connect — and attendant behaviors are presenting themselves in startling, sometimes alienating new forms.

It always comes back to those two human heads, though, doesn’t it? What feels a little newer is the effect of this stuff on a person’s ability to relate to herself. Taking in and putting out so much information, I would imagine especially for someone just developing a sense of herself, creates that many more opportunities for confusion or alienation. It’s just the way we become ourselves now. There’s more pinball involved, more to negotiate. And who knows, that may have the ultimate effect of creating stronger identities, because they’ve been forged by a kind of hellfire of possibility.

This Is Running for Your Life6. In your essay “The Dream (Girl) is Over,” you track representations of femininity from Marilyn Monroe through the Manic Pixie Dream Girl that currently dominates in Hollywood. Do you feel any sort of similar pressure as a woman writer to conform to the broader media narrative of femininity you perceive around you?

I’m not sure what that narrative is, so I’d have to say no. This is not gender-specific, necessarily, but I was conscious of the current emphasis on charm and likability in certain strains of nonfiction. I don’t know that I felt pressure but I was aware of it, and decided . . . not to care so much.

Share
Single Page

More from Kyle Paoletta:

Postcard April 19, 2018, 4:10 pm

The Bad and the Ugly

Acquiring works for the Museum of Bad Art

Six Questions June 26, 2013, 8:00 am

Savage Coast

Rowena Kennedy-Epstein on Muriel Rukeyser’s political and emotional vision

Weekly Review June 4, 2013, 8:00 am

Weekly Review

Tension in Turkey, storm-chasing tragedy in Oklahoma, and auf Wiedersehen to Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

May 2018

Drinking Problems

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Slingshot

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Walk Away

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

A Perfectly Respectable Lady

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Driven to Distraction

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dinner Party

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Exiled·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

It has become something of a commonplace to say that Mike Pence belongs to another era. He is a politician whom the New York Times has called a “throwback,” a “conservative proudly out of sync with his times,” and a “dangerous anachronism,” a man whose social policies and outspoken Christian faith are so redolent of the previous century’s culture wars that he appeared to have no future until, in the words of one journalist, he was plucked “off the political garbage heap” by Donald Trump and given new life. Pence’s rise to the vice presidency was not merely a personal advancement; it marked the return of religion and ideology to American politics at a time when the titles of political analyses were proclaiming the Twilight of Social Conservatism (2015) and the End of White Christian America (2016). It revealed the furious persistence of the religious right, an entity whose final demise was for so long considered imminent that even as white evangelicals came out in droves to support the Trump-Pence ticket, their enthusiasm was dismissed, in the Washington Post, as the movement’s “last spastic breath.”

Illustration by Andrew Zbihlyj
Article
Church and State·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Just after dawn in Lhamo, a small town on the northeastern corner of the Tibetan Plateau, horns summon the monks of Serti Monastery to prayer. Juniper incense smolders in the temple’s courtyard as monks begin arriving in huddled groups. Some walk the kora, a clockwise circumambulation around the building. Others hustle toward the main door, which sits just inside a porch decorated in bright thangka paintings. A pile of fur boots accumulates outside. When the last monks have arrived, the horn blowers leaning out of the second-floor windows retire indoors.

When I visited Lhamo in 2015, most monks at Serti attended the morning prayers, but not Ngawang Chötar, the vice president of the monastery’s management committee, or siguanhui. Instead, he could usually be found doing business somewhere on Lhamo’s main street. Like all Tibetan monks, he sports a buzz cut, and his gait, weighed down by dark crimson robes, resembles a penguin’s shuffle. When he forgets the password to his account on WeChat, China’s popular messaging service—a frequent occurrence—he waits for the town’s cell phone repairman at his favorite restaurant, piling the shells of sunflower seeds into a tidy mound.

Illustration by Simon Pemberton
Article
The Pictures·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

As he approached his death in 1987, the photographer Peter Hujar was all but unknown, with a murky reputation and a tiny, if elite, cult following. Slowly circling down what was then the hopeless spiral of ­AIDS, Peter had ceaselessly debated one decision, which he reached only with difficulty, and only when the end drew near. He was in a hospital bed when he made his will that summer, naming me the executor of his entire artistic estate—and also its sole owner.

The move transformed my life and induced a seething fury in lots of decent people. I can see why. Peter did not make me his heir for any of the usual reasons. I was a good and trusted friend, but he had scads of those. I was not the first person he considered for the job, nor was I the most qualified. In fact, I was a rank amateur, and my understanding of his art was limited. I knew his photographs were stunning, often upsetting, unpredictably beautiful, distinctively his. I also knew they were under­rated and neglected. But I did not then really grasp his achievement.

Photograph by Peter Hujar
Article
Drinking Problems·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The friendly waitress at the Pretty Prairie Steak House delivers tumblers of tap water as soon as diners take their seats. Across Main Street, the Wagon Wheel Café offers the same courtesy. Customers may also order coffee or iced tea, but it all starts at the same tap, and everyone is fine with that. This blasé attitude about drinking water surprised me: everyone in this little farm town in Reno County, Kansas, knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that the liquid flowing from the municipal water tower was highly contaminated with nitrate, a chemical compound derived from fertilizer and connected to thyroid problems and various cancers. At the time I visited Pretty Prairie, last fall, nitrate levels there were more than double the federal standard for safe drinking water.

Illustration by Jen Renninger.
Article
Nothing But·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The truth—that thing I thought I was telling.—John Ashbery To start with the facts: the chapter in my book White Sands called “Pilgrimage” is about a visit to the house where the philosopher Theodor Adorno lived in Los Angeles during the Second World War. It takes its title from the story of that name by Susan Sontag (recently republished in Debriefing: Collected Stories) about a visit she and her friend Merrill made to the house of Adorno’s fellow German exile Thomas Mann in the Pacific Palisades, in 1947, when she was fourteen. It seemed strange that the story was originally …
Photograph by Augusta Wood

Percentage of US college students who have a better opinion of conservatives after their first year:

50

Plastic surgeons warned that people misled by wide-angle distortion in selfies were seeking nose jobs.

Trump fires missiles at Syria, a former FBI director likens Trump to a Mafia boss, and New Yorkers mistake a racoon for a tiger.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today