On Zadie Smith’s Intimations

At parties (remember those?) where I know only the host, I scan the room, looking for someone to stand near and possibly talk to. If no one seems right for the role, I scan the bookshelves instead, looking for something to read in a corner chair, while everyone else talks.

In the pandemic, I’m doing the same: searching for something to steady me. I’ve found it in movies and TV shows I’ve watched so many times that I know the words by heart, I’ve found it in Instagram videos of famous actors singing with their children, I’ve found it in Zoom calls with legendary photographers (and hundreds of other muted participants, like me), and I’ve found it in books.

Not many writers’ names compel me to stop whatever I’m doing and read, but Zadie Smith’s is one of them. Every time I open my mailbox and find a new issue of The New York Review of Books, I check the cover for her name, even though I find it only once, twice, maybe three times a year. I will read Zadie Smith on dancers I’ve never heard of, on movies I will never see, on books I will never read, on gallery shows that have long since closed. I will read her on libraries in her old neighborhood of London, on the parks of Rome, on billboards and popsicles and whatever she puts words to.

So, it was with great anticipation that I bought her latest book, Intimations, a brief collection of six essays written in and about these lockdown days. The book is less than a hundred pages—you can read the whole thing in an hour or two, and I’ve read it now twice. It doesn’t pretend to be a definitive analysis of life in 2020. As she says in the foreword, “What I’ve tried to do is organize some of the feelings and thoughts that events, so far, have provoked in me, in those scraps of time the year itself has allowed.”

In those scraps of time, she wrote on everything from the current president’s response to the pandemic to the murder of George Floyd. Some of the pieces are fully developed essays similar to the ones you can read in The New York Review or The New Yorker or collected in her books Changing My Mind and Feel Free. Others are more like sketches—I’m thinking here of the scenes from New York and London before the virus (“screengrabs,” she calls them). She ends the book with a list of the people in her life and what they’ve given her (“Debts and Lessons,” borrowing from Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations, which she found herself reading during the pandemic, “not as an academic exercise, nor in pursuit of pleasure,” but because she was “in need of practical assistance”).

In one piece, “Something to Do,” she writes about why she writes, and it comes down to the title: It’s something to do. She describes hearing other people using that same set of words in recent months to explain why they’ve baked banana bread or built a fort in the living room and concludes:

I can’t rid myself of the need to do “something,” to make “something,” to feel that this new expanse of time hasn’t been “wasted.” Still, it’s nice to have company. Watching this manic desire to make or grow or do “something,” that now seems to be consuming everybody, I do feel comforted to discover I’m not the only person on this earth who has no idea what life is for, nor what is to be done with all this time aside from filling it.

I had a similar feeling of comfort reading Intimations. As I sit in this one-bedroom, rent-controlled apartment in Hollywood, knitting a sweater, it’s nice to know Zadie’s back in London, writing. These essays are shards of light piercing a darkened warehouse through holes in the metal siding. They show me the mind of one my favorite writers at work, filling her pandemic time as we all are, one way or another.

On Murphy’s Romance

Going to the movies as a teenager in the ’80s and ’90s taught me that love involves a dramatic scene in which the boy realizes what we’ve known all along (she’s the one), chases after the girl, declares his love to her, and kisses her, with music swelling in the background. Think Richard Gere being chauffeured to Hollywood in a white limo, looking for Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman; Billy Crystal, running through Manhattan on New Year’s Eve, looking for Meg Ryan in When Harry Met Sally . . . ; or Hugh Grant, being driven through the streets of London, with a carful of his friends, looking for (again) Ms. Roberts in Notting Hill. Boys are always chasing; girls are always waiting to be found.

Recently, I’ve been watching a different kind of romantic comedy, Murphy’s Romance (1985), starring Sally Field and James Garner. The film is set in rural Arizona, and we start with Emma Moriarty (Field) driving a pickup truck down a country road, with her 13-year-old son, Jake (Corey Haim), asleep in the passenger seat and what we can assume is everything they own piled into the bed of the pickup. She looks small behind the wheel, and worried, but we know this about Field (because we’ve seen her in Norma Rae, directed by Martin Ritt, also the director of this film): She’s stronger than she looks.

Emma and Jake pull into the dirt drive of what appears to be an abandoned house with a barn, and we get a montage of Emma dragging a mattress up the stairs, ridding the house of vermin, mucking the stalls, getting the hot walker working and the corral door swinging, and transforming, with some good old-fashioned elbow grease and a Carole King soundtrack, this ramshackle house into a home. There is nothing like a movie montage to make drudgery feel like fun.

Emma prints up a stack of yellow fliers advertising her business (HORSES BOARDED AND TRAINED), and she places them on the windshields of all the cars in a crowded parking lot in a shot that reminds me of a Stephen Shore photograph. She ends up on Main Street, leaving her flier on the windshield of a Studebaker parked in front of the drugstore. Out comes the pharmacist with a “Lady, you’re covering up my causes,” by which he means the NO NUKES and RE-FOREST AMERICA stickers on the windshield. And we see him, Murphy Jones (Garner), for the first time.

With Murphy’s consent (“I’m for free enterprise—put it up”), Emma places her flier in his store window, sits at the lunch counter, and orders a lemon Coke, which he makes for her at the old-fashioned soda fountain that pharmacies used to have. Murphy fills her in on the ways of her new home, the town where he’s lived all his life (“You can carry a gun, but you can’t get an abortion”), and right away we know this is a different kind of man.

It isn’t long before they meet again, this time in the evening, when Emma and Jake are walking down Main Street after dinner, licking soft-serve cones, and they come upon Murphy playing the fiddle as part of a foursome at a local dance. Later that night, while playing gin rummy with her kid, Emma’s still humming the song Murphy was playing, and you can see why. There’s just something about James Garner. You either get it or you don’t, and I definitely get it. (Field does, too, apparently: She’s said, more than once, that her best on-screen kiss was Jimmy Garner.) He has just enough self-confidence without spilling over into arrogance to make you sit up and take notice. He’s sure of who he is. And he’s pretty sure who she is, too, even when she’s not.

At several pivotal points in the film, it would be so easy for Murphy to rescue Emma—to loan her money, to sweep her off her feet—and to shift the power dynamic in the process. But he’s not looking to rescue anyone. He wants a partner, an equal, because he doesn’t need to rescue a woman to feel like a man.

Think about how rare that is in romantic comedy, or film in general. An obvious example is one of those movies I mentioned at the outset, Pretty Woman, in which Richard Gere climbs up a fire escape to rescue Julia Roberts. Sure, when he asks her what happens, in her dream, after the prince climbs up the tower and rescues the princess, she says, “She rescues him right back,” but who’s she kidding? He’s the one with all the power in that relationship, and that line is an easy appeasement of a modern audience who wouldn’t stand for a fairy-tale rescue (even though that’s exactly what it was).

All the way to the end of Murphy’s Romance, Murphy makes Emma own her thoughts and feelings, and work for what she wants. He doesn’t let her off easy. He tells her (and shows her, in that one, single kiss) how he feels, and he leaves the rest in her hands. It’s a meeting of equals. That’s how Murphy romances Emma: by offering support when she needs it, but respecting her enough not to rescue her, even when she’s asking to be.

In my twenties, I lived out my own scenes from those stereotypical romantic comedies, complete with a letter left on my doorstep, a declaration of love, the boy racing across town to find me, the door being thrown open, the dramatic kiss. . . . That relationship lasted a year. These days, I’m too old to be lied to, by movies, by presidents, by boys. I watch a movie like Murphy’s Romance, and I see what I know to be true. I’d choose Garner any day.

On Hamnet

When I was in college, studying literature, I visited Anne Hathaway’s Cottage in Stratford-upon-Avon and sat on a bench that, we were told, had been used by William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway when they were courting.

I felt connected to him there, on that bench.

Just now, a quick visit to the website of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust revealed that the bench has, in fact, been dated to sometime between 1750 and 1800, well over a century after Shakespeare’s death.

We have enormous capacity to feel connection where we want it to be.

In 1596, an 11-year-old boy named Hamnet Shakespeare died. The cause of his death is not known, but the Black Death was ebbing and flowing in England at the time. (As an aside, in recent months, for obvious reasons, I was curious just how long the Black Death lasted. According to the History Channel, “The plague resurfaced roughly every 10 years from 1348 to 1665—40 outbreaks in just over 300 years. And with each new plague epidemic, 20 percent of the men, women, and children living in the British capital were killed.” Good times.) Despite living through the plague, and being directly affected by it (even if only in the periodic closures of the London theaters), Hamnet’s father never mentioned the “pestilence,” as it was known in the sixteenth century, in any of his writings. In the Author’s Note at the end of her new novel Hamnet, Maggie O’Farrell says, “I have always wondered about this absence and its possible significance; this novel is the result of my idle speculation.”

The novel begins with young Hamnet searching desperately for his mother, and then for any adult, because his twin sister, Judith, has fallen ill and is in need of help. His search is in vain, and Hamnet returns to the small apartment attached to his grandparents’ house, in which he lives with his mother and sisters (and father, when he’s in town), and sits next to Judith, waiting for their mother’s return.

Hamnet’s mother, known to most today as Anne, is known as Agnes in the novel, because it is the name written in her father’s will. It is, O’Farrell writes, “Said differently from how it might be written on a page, with that near-hidden, secret g. The tongue curls towards it yet barely touches it. Ann-yis. Agn-yez. One must lean into the first syllable, then skip over the next.”

Agnes is nowhere to be found because she is off at her childhood home, Hewlands, tending to her “witch garden,” as her stepmother calls it, and to her bees. She is, we learn, a diviner of sorts, a soothsayer, and she is able to heal her fellow townsfolk with potions she concocts from plants in her herb garden. She is a falconer, too, until she is married, tending to and communing with a kestrel.

When Hamnet’s father meets Agnes, he is 18 years old and she is 26, practically ancient, and she comes with the burden of a reputation:

She has a certain notoriety in these parts. It is said that she is strange, touched, peculiar, perhaps mad. He has heard that she wanders the back roads and forest at will, unaccompanied, collecting plants to make dubious potions. . . . Her father must have loved her, though, because he left her a sizeable dowry in his will. Not that anyone, of course, would want to wed her. She is said to be too wild for any man.

Agnes is lost in the natural world when Hamnet is running through the town looking for her. And she faults herself for not knowing something was amiss.

Back and forth we go, in the first part of the book, between this present moment (Hamnet and Judith and a dire illness) and a time 14 years before, when Shakespeare, a young Latin tutor, meets and falls in love with Agnes; their eldest child, Susanna, is conceived; and they marry and move into the apartment in which Judith now lies dying.

Shakespeare in love is, it turns out, everything we would hope. He is lovesick and thinks of nothing else and wants only to be with Agnes. But after their child is born and Agnes is pregnant a second time, he falls into a deep depression. She senses it first as an odor coming off him:

The sour, damp smell is back. It is stronger. It is right here before them. It drifts off him, like smoke, collecting above his head in a grey-green cloud. He pulls it with him, this odour, as if he is enveloped in its mist. It seems to exude from his skin. . . . His face, under his beard, is sallow, parchment pale. His eyes seem hooded and have purplish shadows under them. He stares out of the window, and yet doesn’t. He seems not to see anything before him. . . . He is like the picture of a man, canvas thin, with nothing behind it; he is like a person whose soul has been sucked out of him or stolen away in the night.

That evening, after the bed curtains are drawn, she asks him what’s wrong, and he says, “I don’t know. Nothing. A heaviness of spirit. A melancholy. It’s nothing.” As she falls asleep she hears, or thinks she hears, him say, “I am lost. I have lost my way.” And in the days that follow, she sees all the signs we would recognize as depression today: He cannot sleep, he drinks too much, he is easily frustrated, “sad and sullen.”

Agnes comes up with a plan to save her drowning husband, and goes to her brother, Bartholomew, to get his help in putting the plan in place: Bartholomew will suggest to Shakespeare’s father, John, that he expand his glove-making business to London and send his eldest son to the city to set it up. It doesn’t matter to Agnes whether Shakespeare succeeds in the business (she fully expects that he won’t). This move to London is about getting him out from under the thumb of his father and into the city, where he can write.

The plan succeeds, and Agnes is left alone, with a small child to tend to and a baby on the way. She gives birth to not one baby, but two, and raises the children largely on her own, with the help of her husband’s family.

Hamnet’s heartache for his dying twin is all-consuming. They have a deep connection, not just spiritually, but physically, in the form of their shared likeness. In fact, their appearance is so similar that they’ve often played tricks on their family, posing one as the other, always ending in surprise (they come by their love of mistaken identity naturally).

After Agnes returns, Judith is brought downstairs to be tended to. Hamnet wakes in the night and goes to Judith’s side, where he sees his sister’s condition has worsened:

He feels again the sensation he has had all his life: that she is the other side to him, that they fit together, him and her, like two halves of a walnut. That without her he is incomplete, lost. He will carry an open wound, down his side, for the rest of his life, where she had been ripped from him. How can he live without her? He cannot. It is like asking the heart to live without the lungs, like tearing the moon out of the sky and asking the stars to do its work, like expecting the barley to grow without rain. Tears are appearing on her cheeks now, like silver seeds, as if by magic. He knows they are his, falling from his eyes on to her face, but they could just as easily be hers. They are one and the same.

Hamnet senses that Death is in the room, waiting to take his sister, and he realizes that he can trick Death, that he can trade places with his sister one last time, and spare her, taking her place in death and allowing her to live.

Where the first part of the book is a mixing of past and present, the second part takes place entirely after Hamnet’s death. It is a portrait of grief, mainly Agnes’s, as her husband has returned to London. She is looking, always looking, for Hamnet, everywhere she goes, searching desperately for her son, and never finding him. And she resents her husband for leaving her again. How could he go back to London so soon after such a loss?

Nearly a year after Hamnet’s death, Shakespeare returns to Stratford, and Agnes senses he has been with other women. She awaits his apology, and instead, he talks to her about their son, asking how often she thinks of him. He says:

I find that I am constantly wondering where he is. Where he has gone. It is like a wheel ceaselessly turning at the back of my mind. Whatever I am doing, wherever I am, I am thinking: Where is he, where is he? He can’t have just vanished. He must be somewhere. All I have to do is find him. I look for him everywhere, in every street, in every crowd, in every audience. That’s what I am doing, when I look out at them all: I try to find him, or a version of him.

She takes his hand in hers and pinches the skin between his thumb and forefinger, because when she does, she can see everything there is to see in a person, and she wants to know the truth about her husband. What has he been doing, who has he been with, in London? She sees it all,

. . . and beneath all this, behind it all, she finds something, a gap, a vacancy, an abyss, which is dark and whistling with emptiness, and at the bottom of it she finds something she has never felt before: his heart, that great, scarlet muscle, banging away, frantic and urgent in its constancy, inside his chest. It feels so close, so present, it’s almost as if she could reach out and touch it.

He asks her what she has found, and she says, “Nothing. Your heart.” He teases her, “That’s nothing?” And then adds, “And it’s your heart, not mine.”

Several years later, Agnes learns that her husband’s newest play has their son’s name, Hamlet (the names Hamlet and Hamnet were interchangeable at the time), and she’s devastated. How could her husband use their son in this way? What could he have written about their child? Did their son mean nothing to him?

She decides she must go to London to see the play herself. So, Agnes and her brother head off on the three-day trip. They arrive in the city and make their way across London Bridge, complete with heads on stakes, and to the Globe, where Agnes goes in alone to witness the atrocity.

At first, she’s confused. She sees her husband, in the form of a ghost of an old man, a dead king named Hamlet. But then she sees a blond boy, like their son, also named Hamlet, a prince, young and breathing and very much alive. She realizes, in that moment, that in this play, her husband has given life to their dead son, and taken his place in death:

Hamlet, here, on this stage, is two people, the young man, alive, and the father, dead. He is both alive and dead. Her husband has brought him back to life, in the only way he can. As the ghost talks, she sees that her husband, in writing this, in taking the role of the ghost, has changed places with his son. He has taken his son’s death and made it his own. . . . He has, Agnes sees, done what any father would wish to do, to exchange his child’s suffering for his own, to take his place, to offer himself up in his child’s stead so that the boy might live.

She knows now, finally, the true nature of her husband’s heart, and why he must spend so much time away in London, writing.

I haven’t cried while reading a novel in many, many years, but I cried more than once while reading Hamnet. For a family’s devastating loss, for the ways in which we are misunderstood by even those closest to us, for the chance to see up close—as close as I’ll ever get—the mythic man behind some of the most powerful and lasting words in the English language, and to understand that he was, after all, just a man.

On the Convention

In the middle of August, the Democrats gathered as we’ve all been gathering these past five months—virtually, on screens, at a distance, with awkward pauses and stops and starts—to nominate their candidate, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., for president of the United States. He may not have been many people’s first choice, back when the primaries and caucuses started, in that other lifetime known as February 2020, but in the end, he was the least objectionable to the greatest number of people, and after three and a half years of vulgarity, contemplating a president with common decency felt anything but common.

Each of the four nights of the convention was hosted by a different actor—Eva Longoria, Tracee Ellis Ross, Kerry Washington, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus—alone on a sound stage in Los Angeles that felt more like the set of The Situation Room on CNN than a place of celebration. It was a serious event. There were none of the usual trappings of a political rally—no thumping music, no balloons or streamers, no signs. Instead, a large monitor filled the background, in front of which the actors played the parts of news anchors, interviewing people and tossing to remote shots or prerecorded speeches.

Grief and loss were twin threads woven through the week. You can’t tell the story of Joe Biden without talking about the profound losses he has suffered—the death of his wife and baby daughter when he was a 30-year-old senator-elect, and the death of his 46-year-old son Beau, from brain cancer, in 2015. And you can’t tell the story of the United States in 2020 without talking about the pandemic and the ever-rising death toll, not to mention the extreme economic hardship so many Americans have suffered and continue to suffer.

But the story of Joe Biden isn’t just about grief and loss; it’s also about the empathy born of that grief, and the resilience to get back up. The Democrats made the case that no one knows better than Joe Biden how to lead the country out of the darkness that Donald Trump has wrought. The convention felt like a pep talk for the nation—a reminder of who we are as Americans, and a rallying cry that we not lose faith, not give up, not allow the darkness to defeat us.

The candidate himself played a minor role in the convention. His narrative was woven by a diverse mix of everyday Americans (students, farmers, restaurant owners, healthcare workers) and prominent Democrats (the Obamas, the Clintons, the Carters, Biden’s primary opponents, and on down the line). Biden appeared in video clips throughout the event and talked remotely with small groups of voters, but his presence was felt most significantly in the stories told about him by everyone from a New York Times security guard to an Amtrak conductor. As Gregg Weaver, the Amtrak conductor, said, “The average guy is important to him. The average guy is important to him.”

And it was “average” Americans who had their moment in this convention, most prominently in the traditional roll call, in which the votes for Biden (and his opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders) were tallied. Because there was no hall full of delegates, the roll call took us to all the states and territories—from Maine to the Mariana Islands. For the first time in history, the roll call was captivating, because it reflected the people and landscapes of the United States and reminded us, through example, that our diversity is our strength.

The convention touched on issues from climate change to racism to healthcare to immigration, but more than anything, it was about the failure of Donald Trump. And nowhere was that more explicit—or memorable—than in Kristin Urquiza’s story about her father, who died of COVID-19 earlier this year. As Urquiza said:

He had faith in Donald Trump. He voted for him, listened to him, believed him and his mouthpieces when they said that coronavirus was under control and going to disappear, that it was okay to end social distancing rules before it was safe, that if you had no underlying health conditions, you’d probably be fine. So, in late May, after the stay-at-home order was lifted in Arizona, my dad went to a karaoke bar with his friends. A few weeks later, he was put on a ventilator. And after five agonizing days, he died alone in the ICU with a nurse holding his hand. My dad was a healthy 65-year-old. His only preexisting condition was trusting Donald Trump, and for that, he paid with his life.

The politicians spoke of Trump’s lack of empathy, lack of focus, lack of respect for others, lack of every trait necessary to perform effectively in the office he holds. Bernie Sanders compared Trump to Nero (“Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Trump golfs.”). And the Obamas, in their speeches, reminded anyone who needed a reminder what intelligence and leadership look like. Former First Lady Michelle Obama put it bluntly: “Donald Trump is the wrong president for our country. He has had more than enough time to prove that he can do the job, but he is clearly in over his head. He cannot meet this moment. He simply cannot be who we need him to be, for us. It is what it is.” President Obama’s speech, from Philadelphia, where the Constitution of the United States was written and signed by enslavers, felt like a presidential address from the Oval Office. It was, as others have said, like a break-the-glass moment. Everything he cares about is on the line.

There were moments of grace, as when 13-year-old Brayden Harrington spoke. A stutterer like Joe Biden, Harrington told the story of how he met Biden at a campaign event in New Hampshire. Biden told the boy how he read a book of poems by Yeats to overcome his stutter, how he marked his speeches to make them easier to say out loud. And Harrington proudly showed his own speech, marked just the way Biden marked his. He said, “Joe Biden cared. Imagine what he could do for all of us.”

Imagination was called for over and over again. Even Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who brought levity to her role as the host of night four, got serious at the end:

Elections can break your heart, but sometimes they can make you sing from the mountaintops, and this year, we’re going to sing. This year, we’re going to elect a president who’s honest, experienced, and intelligent; a president who actually believes in the rule of law, who will restore dignity and normalcy to the White House and the soul of this nation. And, boy, won’t that be something.

Her voice broke in that last line, and she fought back tears.

When it came time for the convention to end, with Biden’s own speech, the Democrats held their breath. The candidate, prone to verbal slipups, has never been the great orator that Barack Obama is. Would he be able to follow these inspiring moments and galvanize a nation, or at least a party?

The answer, it turns out, was yes. In the end, he didn’t need to be Obama or Clinton or anyone other than himself.

Biden spoke of the civil rights activist Ella Baker, who said, “Give people light, and they will find the way.” He spoke of the darkness of Donald Trump and promised, “If you entrust me with the presidency, I will draw on the best of us, not the worst. I’ll be an ally of the light, not the darkness.” In these words, we heard the echoes of Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, in which Lincoln referred to the “the better angels of our nature.”

Biden closed with words from the Irish poet Seamus Heaney who wrote, “History says, Don’t hope / On this side of the grave. / But then, once in a lifetime / The longed-for tidal wave / Of justice can rise up / And hope and history rhyme.” And for the first time in a decades-long career in government, it seemed that Biden had found his moment. He is everything that Donald Trump is not. And his empathy and common decency seemed likely to be the antidote to the hatred and animosity of the incumbent.

Biden’s closing words: “May history be able to say that the end of this chapter of American darkness began here, tonight, as love and hope and life joined in the battle for the soul of the nation. And this is a battle we will win, and we’ll do it together. I promise you.”

“We’ll do it together.”

“I alone can fix it.”

The distinction could not have been more clear.