An Interview with Siri Hustvedt
Siri Hustvedt’s work occupies a unique niche in the literary landscape. Her first novel, The Blindfold (1992) chronicles the unusual exploits of Iris Vegan, a young graduate student in New York City. The fractured narrative episodes are clearly representative of Iris’s identity issues. Siri’s second novel, The Enchantment of Lily Dahl (1996), is set in Hustvedt’s home state of Minnesota and traverses the physical and emotional territory unique to the almost-but-not quite adult heroine as well as exploring the mysteries that permeate the small town of Webster. While these two novels are accomplished in their own right, What I Loved (2003) is a powerful and complex saga that charts the quarter of a century relationship between two families inexorably intertwined by the binary fates of love and loss. She has also published two books of essays, Yonder (1998) and A Plea for Eros (2006); as well as a collection of poetry, Reading to You (1983) and a book about painting, The Mysteries of the Rectangle (2005).
The Sorrows of an American, published by Henry Holt, opens with a mysterious letter found by Inga and Erik Davidsen amongst their late father’s papers. This message is the beginning of “the year of secrets” which unfolds to reveal myriad mysteries that threaten to capsize the lives and subsume the identities of Erik, Inga and their loved ones. Hustvedt builds on the themes of her earlier work while crafting a unique story that gives equal weight to the living and the voices of the dead that echo and define them.
This interview was conducted via e-mail in the middle of April.
The Sorrows of an American is a very moving novel of loss, both personal and universal in scope. How do you adequately convey the complexity of this theme without it overwhelming the carefully constructed narrative arc?
Tags: art, clip, day, mothers
May 9th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Do not do:Pull down your pants, squat, take a shit in your hand, and then eat it.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Everything is subject to the law of supply and demand - even money itself.All the complexity you see is people trying to work around that law, and maybe succeeding - for a little while.
May 10th, 2008 at 1:24 am
You could accumulate $100 bills until you were sitting on a mountain of them. But what good does that do, if you don’t spend them on anything? So your demand isn’t infinite, at some point you have to jettison some money to get things you really want/need. That balance, between your ability to earn money and your need/desire to spend it, dictates your true demand for money, and it isn’t infinite. Your dreams don’t mean anything until you act on them - distinguish your hopes (for getting as much money as possible) from what you actually do to get money and you will understand my position better.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Here’s another interesting one - Joseph Stalin's daughter is still alive.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:05 am
If you do, make sure to eat a mint or chew some really strong gum afterwards.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:55 am
I guess that never made sense to me. I understand supply and demand, but how you make sense of supply and demand when talking about money itself? Of course there’s a demand for money…everyone wants as much money as possible, right? One could say there’s an infinite demand for money.
May 10th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Great interview. Thanks again, Escafane. Keep’em coming.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:37 am
I just read an article in Scientific American Mind that could apply to item number ten:“…the degree to which psychology students think of themselves as “scientific” or “artistic” has been shown to vary considerably depending on whether they compare themselves with drama students or with physical scientists. In comparison with physical scientists they are more inclined to stereotype themselves as artistic, but in comparison with people who work in the theater they are more inclined to stereotype themselves as scientific. Psychology students should experience stereotype threat if they are asked to perform a scientific task when compared with physicists or an artistic task when compared with artists, but they should experience stereotype lift if asked to perform an artistic task when compared with physicists or a scientific task when compared with artists.”I would say this could be a valid explanation as to why some of your candidates rate themselves higher to non-technical interviewers and lower to technical interviewers.the rest of the article can be found here:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-stereotyping-yourself-contributes-to-success
May 10th, 2008 at 6:27 am
I just don’t get economics. The more I try to learn about it, and the more I try to think it through, step-by-step, the more I give up and believe that it’s all just a big scam.50% of what was in that interview was gibberish to me. And that’s coming from someone that’s in a highly technical field overflowing with jargon.Most of it seems to be just luck, or the whim of big players and the Fed and government. They pretty much just make shit up as they go along. Seems like a massive good ol’ boys network mixed with kids’ make believe games.