October 2013

Be Monstrous

A portable toy for two or more players, in Flaunt Magazine

February 2013

Conversation with Sheila Heti

On the subject of McSweeney’s Issue 42

September 2012

Stories by Augusto Monterroso

Three translations in The Believer

20 December 2011

(from) Outtakes from an Interview with Václav Havel

‘AT: There’s a moment in Disturbing the Peace where you say that every member of the audience must find a play out for themselves. You’ve always separated this writing from your political essays—but is there a way in which your theory of the audience is also a theory of a citizen in a democracy, of someone who interprets and takes part in a dialogue?

VH: In my opinion, theater shouldn’t give advice to citizens. Theater is there to search for questions. It doesn’t give you instructions. I always fought for a more humble position in life. For the small, the mysterious: something that can’t be summed up in four words. How each citizen takes on his citizenship is very individual. And I think that theater is there to create a certain atmosphere of togetherness. I think people are there to ask themselves questions, as a community.’

The Paris Review

October 2011

Conversation with Jeffrey Eugenides

On novels, truth, and many other things

‘I first met Jeffrey Eugenides in a hotel elevator in Sweden at a book festival. We shared a Swedish publisher, we were suitably lonely, and so we drank together for three days. This was 2004. The year before, I had published my first novel, Politics; two years earlier, he had published his second novel, Middlesex. So, from then on, I adopted him as a moral and intellectual guide. This summer, we both happened to be in Berlin for a while. Eugenides had just handed in the corrected galleys of his third novel, The Marriage Plot. In Berlin, therefore, in the Paris Bar on Kantstrasse and Lentz on Stuttgarter Platz, we began a conversation about his fiction which – when he was back in Princeton and I was back in London – we reworked on Skype.’

July 2010

Text Distributed In The Street In Milan At La Milanesiana

September 2005

(From) A Conversation at a Cricket Match with Tom Stoppard

‘AT: A comment I love about dialogue in the novel is a moment where Lampedusa is talking about Stendhal. He says that in Stendhal “the fault of so many novels has disappeared, this fault which consists in revealing the soul of the characters through their dialogue…” Whereas in Stendhal, “there is no famous dialogue.” It’s just, “How are you?—I’d like some scrambled eggs please.” And I was thinking this is impossible for a dramatist—if you didn’t reveal the soul of the characters through their dialogue in some way, the play’s going to be impossible.

TS: Yes, yes. But the power that a play has over its audience, I think, in the end is not in the dialogue. It’s the situation. I’ve always envied playwrights who are knockout situationists—Ayckbourn is, for example. Who probably would be delighted to be bracketed suddenly with Stendhal, but I say this equally as the same compliment: he doesn’t write memorable lines, but you’re absolutely gripped by the situation on stage.

I recognized this very early on, and I’ve become aware that plays of mine which worked better are the ones where the style element just becomes a bonus. But it’s good if you find that your wisecracking people are actually in a situation which has the audience agog, and not really feeding off the style of utterance at all.’

The Believer