++These maps show how your state is doing. +
++America’s national Covid-19 epidemic continues, with the US’s daily new cases still higher than most developed nations and the country recently surpassing 287,000 deaths due to the disease. +
++At the state level, things can look even worse than the national picture. +
++Public health experts look at a few markers to determine how bad things are in each state: the number of daily new cases; the infection rate, which can show how likely the virus is to spread; and the percentage of tests that come back positive, which should be low in a state with sufficient testing. +
++A Vox analysis, updated weekly, indicates the vast majority of states report alarming trends across all three benchmarks for coronavirus outbreaks. Most states still report a high — sometimes very high — number of daily new Covid-19 cases. Most still have high infection rates. And most have test positive rates that are too high, indicating they don’t have enough tests to track and contain the scope of their outbreaks. +
++Across these benchmarks, zero states fare well on all three metrics, suggesting no state has its outbreak under control right now. In fact, only one state — Vermont — meets even two of the three benchmarks. +
+/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22157783/Covid_epidemics_states_map.png)
++One caveat: States are still catching up on backlogs as a result of Thanksgiving, which led to widespread underreporting of Covid-19 tests and cases. That could skew the numbers a bit this week — but likely not enough to alter the overall conclusions. +
++America’s outbreaks, reaching from California to Florida, are the result of the public and the country’s leaders never taking the virus seriously enough and, to the extent they did, letting their guard down prematurely. States, with the support of President Donald Trump, moved to reopen — often before they saw sizable drops in daily new Covid-19 cases, and at times so quickly they didn’t have time to see if each phase of their reopening was leading to too many more cases. +
++The public embraced the reopenings, going out and often not adhering to recommended precautions like physical distancing and wearing a mask. +
++Even as cases began to fall later in the summer, America’s overall caseload remained very high. And yet many states moved to reopen once again, with much of the public embracing the looser restrictions and subsequently going out. +
+ ++It’s this mix of government withdrawal and public complacency that experts have cited in explaining why states continue to struggle with getting the coronavirus under control. +
++“It’s a situation that didn’t have to be,” Jaime Slaughter-Acey, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, told me. “For almost three months, you had opportunities to be proactive with respect to mitigating the Covid-19 pandemic and to help normalize culture to adopt practices that would stem the tide of transmissions as well as the development of Covid-19 complications. … It was not prioritized over the economy.” +
++The effects are felt not just in terms of more infections, critical illnesses, new chronic conditions, and deaths, but in the long-term financial impact as the economy struggles, many people still refuse to go out, and businesses resist reopening during a pandemic. +
++“Dead people don’t shop. They don’t spend money. They don’t invest in things,” Jade Pagkas-Bather, an infectious diseases expert and doctor at the University of Chicago, told me. “When you fail to invest in the health of your population, then there are longitudinal downstream effects.” +
++The benchmarks tracked here by Vox don’t cover every important facet of the pandemic. Hospital capacity was previously included among Vox’s metrics, but it’s been removed due to inconsistent data reporting. The data for contact tracing, when “disease detectives” track down people who may have been infected and push them to quarantine, is also poor. Some measures that are helpful for gauging whether a state can safely start to reopen, like the total test count and whether cases have fallen in the previous two weeks, are excluded to focus more on the status of each state’s current Covid-19 outbreak. +
++But together, these three benchmarks help give an idea of how each state is doing in its fight against Covid-19. Nationwide, it’s pretty grim. +
+
+
+- All 50 states have too many daily new Covid-19 infections
+
+/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22157787/Covid_cases_states_map.png)
++What’s the goal? Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day, based on data from the New York Times and the Census Bureau. +
++Which states meet the goal? None. +
++Why is this important? The most straightforward way to measure whether any place is experiencing a big coronavirus outbreak is to look at the number of daily new Covid-19 cases. +
++There’s no widely accepted metric for how many cases, exactly, is too many. But experts told me that aiming for below four daily new cases per 100,000 is generally a good idea — a level low enough that a state can say it’s starting to get significant control over the virus. +
++A big caveat to this metric: It’s only as good as a state’s testing. Cases can only get picked up if states are actually testing people for the virus. So if a state doesn’t have enough tests, it’s probably going to miss a lot of cases, and the reported cases won’t tell the full story. That’s why it’s important not to use this benchmark by itself, but to use it alongside metrics like the test positive rate. +
++Along those lines, the number of daily new cases may give a delayed snapshot of a Covid-19 outbreak. If test results take a week to get reported to the state, then the count for daily new cases will really reflect the state of the outbreak for the previous week. +
++If testing is adequate in a state, though, the toll of daily new cases gives perhaps the best snapshot of how big a state’s Covid-19 outbreak is. +
+
+
+- The coronavirus is spreading too quickly in most states
+
+/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22157802/Covid_Rt_states_map.png)
++What’s the goal? An effective reproduction number, or Rt, below 1, based on data from Rt.live, a site created by two Instagram founders and a data analyst. +
++Which states meet the goal? Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — 11 states. +
++Why is this important? The Rt measures how many people are infected by each person with Covid-19. If the Rt is 1, then an infected person will, on average, spread the coronavirus to one other person. If it’s 2, then an infected person will spread it to two on average. And so on. +
++It’s an attempt, then, to gauge how quickly a virus is spreading. One way to think about it: Unlike the count for daily new cases, this gives you a snapshot not of a state’s Covid-19 outbreak today, but of where the outbreak is heading in the near future. +
++The goal is to get the Rt below 1. If each infection doesn’t lead to another, that would over time lead to zero new Covid-19 cases. +
++The estimated Rt can be very imprecise, with margins of error that make it hard to know for certain in any state if it’s really above or below 1. Different modelers can also come up with different estimates. That’s, unfortunately, just the reality of using limited data to come up with a rough estimate of a disease’s overall spread. +
++The Rt also reflects an average. If 10 people are infected with Covid-19, nine spread it to no one else, and one spreads it to 10, that adds up to an Rt of 1. But it masks the fact that individuals, for whatever reason, can still cause superspreading events — which seem of particular concern with the coronavirus. +
++And the Rt is only as good as the data that goes into calculating it. If a state’s data is poor quality or inconsistent, it might skew the picture. That can help explain why some states with bad and continuing outbreaks may fare better on this benchmark than others. +
++Still, the Rt is one of the better measures we have for tracking a pathogen’s spread across the whole population. When paired with the other metrics on this list, it can give us a sense of each state’s outbreak now and in the future. +
+
+
+- Most states’ positive rates for tests are too high
+
+/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22157811/Covid_positive_rates_map.png)
++What’s the goal? Less than 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week, based on data from the Covid Tracking Project. +
++Which states meet the goal? Hawaii, Maine, and Vermont — three states. Washington, DC, did as well. +
++Why is this important? To properly track and contain coronavirus outbreaks, states need to have enough testing. There are all sorts of proposals for how much testing is needed in the US, up to the tens of millions. +
++But one way to see if a state is testing enough to match its outbreak is the rate of tests that come back positive. An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people, many of whom don’t have the disease or don’t show severe symptoms. High positive rates indicate that only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested, so there’s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak. +
++The goal for the positive rate is, in an ideal world, zero percent, since that would suggest that Covid-19 is vanquished entirely. More realistically, in a world going through a pandemic, the positive rate should be below 5 percent. But even if a state reaches 5 percent, experts argue it should continue trying to push that number further down — to match nations like Germany, New Zealand, and South Korea that have gotten their positive rates below 3 percent and even 1 percent — in order to truly get ahold of their outbreaks. +
++As long as a state is above 5 percent, chances are it’s still missing a significant number of Covid-19 cases. And the higher that number is, the more cases that are very likely getting missed. +
++So even if your state is reporting a low number of daily new cases, a high positive rate should be a cause for alarm — a sign that there’s an outbreak that’s only hidden due to a lack of testing. And if your state is reporting a high number of daily new cases and a high positive rate, that’s all the more reason for concern, suggesting the epidemic is even worse than the total case count indicates. +
++
++
++
++
++This one idea may help you conquer the dread of pandemic winter. +
++I’m going to go out on a limb and say you’re probably dreading this winter. It’s becoming harder to socialize outdoors as the weather gets colder, and another Covid-19 surge has arrived. Many of us are feeling anxious about how we’re going to make it through the lonely, bleak months ahead. +
++I see a lot of people trying to cope with this anxiety by drumming up one-off solutions. Buy a fire pit! Better yet, buy a whole house! Those may be perfectly fine ideas, as far as they go — but I’d like to suggest a more effective way to think about reducing your suffering and increasing your happiness this winter. +
++Instead of thinking about the myriad negative feelings you want to avoid and the myriad things you can buy or do in service of that, think about a single organizing principle that is highly effective at generating positive feelings across the board: Shift your focus outward. +
++“Studies show that anything we can do to direct our attention off of ourselves and onto other people or other things is usually productive and makes us happier,” said Sonja Lyubomirsky, a psychology professor at the University of California Riverside and author of The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want. “A lot of life’s problems are caused by too much self-focus and self-absorption, and we often focus too much on the negatives about ourselves.” +
++Rather than fixating on our inner worlds and woes, we can strive to promote what some psychologists call “small self.” Virginia Sturm, who directs the Clinical Affective Neuroscience lab at the University of California San Francisco, defines this as “a healthy sense of proportion between your own self and the bigger picture of the world around you.” +
++This easy-to-remember principle is like an emotional Swiss Army knife: Open it up and you’ll find a bunch of different practices that research shows can cut through mental distress. They’re useful anytime, and might be especially helpful during the difficult winter ahead (though they’re certainly no panacea for broader problems like mass unemployment or a failed national pandemic response). +
++The practices involve cultivating different states — social connectedness, a clear purpose, inspiration — but all have one thing in common: They get you to focus on something outside yourself. +
++A sense of social connectedness +
++Some of the practices are about cultivating a sense of social connectedness. Decades of psychology research have taught us that this is a key to happiness. +
++In fact, Lyubomirsky said, “I think it is the key to happiness.” +
++That’s what Harvard’s Study of Adult Development discovered by following the lives of hundreds of people over 80 years, from the time they were teenagers all the way into their 90s. The massive longitudinal study revealed that the people who ended up happiest were the ones who really leaned into good relationships with family, friends, and community. Close relationships were better predictors of long and pleasant lives than money, IQ, or fame. +
++Psychiatrist George Vaillant, who led the study from 1972 to 2004, summed it up like so: “The key to healthy aging is relationships, relationships, relationships.” +
++Other studies have found evidence that social connections boost not only our mental health but also our physical health, helping to combat everything from memory loss to fatal heart attacks. +
+ ++During our pandemic winter, you can socialize in person by, yes, gathering around a fire pit or maybe doubling your bubble. But there are other ways to make you feel you’re connected to others in a wider web. A great option is to perform an act of kindness — like donating to charity, or volunteering to read to a child or an older person online. +
++“I do a lot of research on kindness, and it turns out people who help others end up feeling more connected and become happier,” Lyubomirsky told me. +
++Lyubomirsky’s research shows that committing any type of kind act can make you happier, though you should choose something that fits your personality (for example, if you don’t like kids, then reading to them might not be for you). You may also want to vary what you do, because once you get used to doing something, you start taking it for granted and don’t get as much of a boost from it. By contrast, people who vary their kind acts show an increase in happiness immediately afterward and up to one month later. So you might call to check up on a lonely friend one day, deliver groceries to an older neighbor the next day, and make a donation the day after that. +
++A sense of purpose +
++Other practices are about cultivating a sense of purpose. Psychologists have found that having a clear purpose is one of the most effective ways to cope with isolation. +
++Steve Cole, a researcher at the University of California Los Angeles, studies interventions designed to help people cope with loneliness. He’s found that the ones that work tend to focus not on decreasing loneliness, but on increasing people’s sense of purpose. Recalling one pilot program that paired isolated older people with elementary school kids whom they’re asked to tutor and look out for, Cole told Vox, “Secretly, this is an intervention for the older people.” +
++Philosophers have long noted the fortifying effects of a clear sense of purpose. “Nietzsche said if you find purpose in your suffering, you can tolerate all the pain that comes with it,” Jack Fong, a sociologist who researches solitude at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, told me. “It’s when people don’t see a purpose in their suffering that they freak out.” +
++Experienced solitaries confirm this. Billy Barr, who’s been living alone in an abandoned mining shack high up in the Rocky Mountains for almost 50 years, says we should all keep track of something. In his case, it’s the environment. How high is the snow today? What animals appeared this month? For decades, he’s been tracking the answers to these questions, and his records have actually influenced climate change science. +
++Now, he suggests that people get through the pandemic by participating in a citizen science project such as CoCoRaHS, which tracks rainfall. +
++“I would definitely recommend people doing that,” he told WAMU. “You get a little rain gauge, put it outside, and you’re part of a network where there’s thousands of other people doing the same thing as you, the same time of the day as you’re doing it.” (Notice, again, that this is really about sensing you’re part of the larger world around you.) +
++Other citizen science projects are looking for laypeople to classify wild animals caught on camera or predict the spread of Covid-19. +
++If citizen science isn’t your jam, find something else that gives you a sense of purpose, whether it’s writing that novel you’ve been kicking around for years, signing up to volunteer with a mutual aid group, or whatever else. +
++A sense of inspiration +
++Finally, some practices are about cultivating a sense of inspiration — which can take the form of gratitude, curiosity, or awe. +
++Regularly feeling gratitude helps protect us from stress and depression. +
++“When you feel grateful, your mind turns its attention to what is perhaps the greatest source of resilience for most humans: other humans,” David DeSteno, a psychology professor at Northeastern University and the author of Emotional Success, told me. “By reminding you that you’re not alone — that others have contributed to your well-being — it reduces stress.” +
++So one thing you can do this winter is try gratitude journaling. This simple practice — jotting down things you’re grateful for once or twice a week — has gained popularity over the past few years. But studies show there are more and less effective ways to do it. Researchers say it’s better to write in detail about one particular thing, really savoring it, than to dash off a superficial list of things. They recommend that you try to focus on people you’re grateful to, because that’s more impactful than focusing on things, and that you focus on events that surprised you, because they generally elicit stronger feelings of thankfulness. +
++Another practice is to write a letter of gratitude to someone. Research shows it significantly increases your levels of gratitude, even if you never actually send the letter. And the effects on the brain can last for months. In one study, subjects who participated in gratitude letter writing expressed more thankfulness and showed more activity in their pregenual anterior cingulate cortex — an area involved in predicting the outcomes of our actions — three months later. +
+ ++Feeling a sense of curiosity or awe about the world around you is likewise shown to boost emotional well-being. +
++“Awe makes us feel like our problems are very trivial in the big scheme of things,” Lyubomirsky said. “The idea that you are this tiny speck in the universe gives you this bigger-picture perspective, which is really helpful when you’re too self-focused over your problems.” +
++For example, a study recently published in the journal Emotion investigated the effects of “awe walks.” Over a period of eight weeks, 60 participants took weekly 15-minute walks outdoors. Those who were encouraged to seek out moments of awe during their walks ended up showing more of the “small self” mindset, greater increases in daily positive emotions, and greater decreases in daily distress over time, compared to a control group who walked without being primed to seek out awe. +
++“What we show here is that a very simple intervention — essentially a reminder to occasionally shift our energy and attention outward instead of inward — can lead to significant improvements in emotional wellbeing,” said Sturm, the lead author. +
++So, bottom line: When the world between your two ears is as bleak as the howling winter outside, shifting your attention outward can be powerfully beneficial for your mental health. And hey, even in the dead of winter, a 15-minute awe walk outdoors is probably something you can do. +
++If you or anyone you know is anxious, depressed, upset, or needs to talk, there are people who want to help. Text CRISIS to 741741 for free, confidential crisis counseling. +
++Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good. +
++
++
++
++
++
++The author isn’t sure how much she believes her own unreliable narrator. +
++The Vox Book Club is linking to Bookshop.org to support local and independent booksellers. +
++The Vox Book Club spent this very nerve-wracking November leaning into a spirit of uncertainty with Susan Choi’s twisty, vexing, knife-sharp novel, Trust Exercise. And at the end of the month, as is tradition, we met up with her on Zoom to get the scoop. Over the course of our conversation, Choi walked us through her writing process, what’s so confusing about teenagers as a category, and even a little about how to approach Trust Exercise’s infamously tricky ending. +
++Check out the video above to watch our full conversation. I’ve also collected a few highlights, lightly edited for length and clarity, below. +
++If you are still in the mood for reading after all this, the Vox Book Club will be spending December on Tamsyn Muir’s Gideon the Ninth. Sign up for our newsletter to make sure you don’t miss anything in the meantime. +
++Now let’s talk about trust. +
++You’ve said you started working on Trust Exercise as a break from other projects. So when you began doing that work, did you know the way the structure would develop? Or were you more straightforwardly telling this high school romance story? +
++I didn’t have any idea how the structure would develop. I didn’t even really think of it as a structure that would need to develop because I just was trying to do some writing of any kind to get through the day. The project that I was working on just wasn’t going well. And so I think I initially thought, “Maybe this will be a short story.” +
++I started putting stuff into a file that I called Trust Exercise from the very beginning. But I didn’t think of it as a book or anything, just a space where I could write some stuff. That wasn’t the stuff that I wasn’t succeeding with, at the time. +
+ ++And so when did that transform into this very structured, very intense project? +
++There were two kind of critical moments where [the project] started changing. One was in the fall of 2016, when I was, again, actively working on something else. These pages had been lying untouched for the better part of the year, maybe a whole year, actually. And a train of angry thoughts that I’ve described elsewhere, having to do with the election, ended with me thinking, “I wonder if there’s anybody in that story of mine who’s as angry as I am right now.” It was this idle thought. But I think that there must have been something else going on at a deeper level. +
++A lot of the time with me, writing is happening when I’m not aware of it. I’m sure it’s true of all writers. There’s that active time that you’re sitting at your keyboard or your desk or whatever and actually trying to put words together. And then there’s all this passive time that you’re walking around, seemingly doing other things, as far as you can tell. But I think that our minds are at work. +
++So that day, I think I must have had this material on my mind without realizing it. Because as soon as I had that thought, my immediate answer was, “I know who it is in the world, that story, who’s angry.” I just knew. +
++She was this very minor character, who I paid almost no attention to. And the fact that I paid almost no attention to her was part of why I understood that she was angry. I suddenly thought, “That’s exactly why she’s angry.” Because you’ve paid almost no attention to her, and how do you know she’s not worthy of being at the center of this book, instead of being a footnote on the edge? +
++That was the big moment where the book took that turn that you see it taking now as you read it. +
++I know you’ve gone back a few times to the academy in your fiction and to the idea of exploring the power disparities between student and teacher. What draws you to exploring that relationship in your fiction? +
++Part of it is that learning and teaching are at the center of my life and always have been. I’m the daughter of a professor, and I have spent a lot of time in school. I’m a teacher now, and I’m really incredibly attached to my role as a teacher. I don’t think that I’d be a very happy writer if I didn’t also teach writing because it’s very solitary, writing, and it really helps me a lot to be connected with students. So in the same way that I’m attached to that educational setting, I’m alert all the time to the ways in which it goes wrong. +
++Stories like that are always catching my attention: stories of teachers who have been accused of abuse, ways in which students are exploited or just let down. All of us are probably interested in the stories because we’ve all been a student at some point, if we’re lucky, but I just paid particular attention to them. And there’s so many stories that have been accumulating, even before Me Too really shed a harsh light on this. There were so many stories that were coming up constantly about alleged cases of abuse on the part of teachers of their students. And so all of that was going into this file in the back of my brain. +
++One of the things that I think the book captures so well is this experience, as you said, of how we’ve all been a student. The structure allows you to experience both feeling yourself to be really adult and mature when you’re 15, when you’re like, “Yes, I know what I’m doing.” And then you slip into Karen’s point of view, and it’s like, “Oh, no, those are children.” So how do you think about capturing that disparity and the dual sense of having been a kid and feeling like you know everything and, in retrospect, just not knowing anything at all? +
++We have these very layered selves, right? We evolve. I’ve just been reading Ted Chiang, and in one of his great stories, the narrator speaks of not being the same man as he was in the past, but of being continuous with him. I love that phrase, “continuous with him.” Like, yeah, I’m not the same girl I was when I was 15. But I’m continuous with her. We’re still in close communication. +
++What was interesting to me was these situations in which a former student came forward, years or even decades later, to speak out about something that had happened to them when they were young. And often, it was not until they were in middle age, like me, that they were able to articulate what they felt had happened. I was really fascinated by that because I thought, “There are all these different selves that are at work at the same time.” There’s that youthful self that might have felt that it was choosing that situation, or might have felt that it was in control. And then there’s this older self that is horrified by what happened. And then there’s that youthful self that was actually really injured and that the other youthful self didn’t maybe want to acknowledge. +
++It was really interesting to me to think about all of the different ways in which we might feel ourselves affected by those situations. And I wasn’t consciously thinking, like, “Is there a way that I can capture this in the structure of the story?” But I did want to capture that change that I felt even just generationally, between the ways in which we thought about these things when I was younger and the ways in which we think about them now. +
++I have teenage children now. And the things that I assume about what’s happening to them in school are very different from the things that I thought were okay when I was a student their same age. +
++There’s such a nice contrast with the kids in this book. Because on the one hand, they’re so much more isolated than the teens of today are. They don’t have the internet, they hardly ever leave their town. But on the other hand, they just are assumed to be independent and basically adults in so many ways. It’s a very interesting look at how quickly that little slice of life has changed. +
++And also they very much want to be treated like that. I think that’s part of the conundrum that I’m still always so compelled by. Not in terms of this book, which is for me part of the past, but in terms of the issues of, what are people at this age? They’re not children. They’re not adults. They have this enormous intelligence, and often powers of discernment that outstrip those of the adults around them, and at the same time, vastly less life experience. They want to be treated with respect, and we have to treat them with respect. And at the same time, there’s a certain amount of sheltering that is required. +
++It is really freaking confusing, I have to say, as a parent and just as a human being. And I often wonder if we’re striking the balance correctly now. +
++I had so much independence when I was a teenager, and I think teenagers today have vastly less. I don’t know if that’s better. And at the same time, I think that I was open to certain situations that I really wasn’t ready for. And happily, unlike so many, I’ve been really lucky to have emerged unscathed from my teenage years. +
++It’s a give and take. We need to protect more, and at the same time, not smother and hover and let them become adults. +
++There’s such a jolt when Karen takes over the book and electrifies everything. One of the things that I was surprised worked as well as it did was the way she slips back and forth from first to third person, in the same sentence. That sort of unstable identity and sense of what she wants to tell us. How did you think about that slippage in her voice while you were writing? +
++The most honest answer would be that I didn’t think about it a lot. Initially, it was part of the voice that came to me. And it’s weird, but narrative voices, for me, always have to be tuned into. It’s really hard for me to make one. It’s more like I think about a character for a while, and then I sort of start to hear how they sound. I heard Karen sounding like that pretty early on. +
++In fact, the very first line that occurred to me was the very first line in that section. It’s something like, “Karen stood outside Skylight Books waiting for her old friend, the author.” And when I heard that, because I did hear it before I wrote it down, I knew that it was Karen narrating herself, in that kind of tongue in cheek, but also kind of bitter, badass way that you might narrate your own day, if you were being sarcastic. +
++I knew that Karen was narrating herself, and that she was doing it both to be kind of funny and because she was really angry. And it wasn’t until I’d written much of that section that I had the sense that Karen objects to the way her story has been told to this point, so now she’s telling her story. Which includes narrating her story as if she were an omniscient narrator, observing herself, but also then breaking in and being like, “It’s me, Karen. Don’t forget, it’s me, Karen talking about Karen.” So that sense of what it meant that she would switch back and forth between those registers came later. And it was really the sound of it that I heard first. +
++Since this book came out, the name Karen has picked up a lot of different associations. Do you think that will change how a reader will approach that part of the book now? +
++I think it really depends on how deeply that reader is already imprinted by the kind of cultural “Karen” idea. You know, Karen who calls the police if you’re barbecuing in the park and you happen to be a Black person. Or Karen who goes straight for the manager if she doesn’t get the refund that she wants. If you have a lot of those Karens knocking around in your mind already, then it’s going to be hard not to see this Karen in that light. +
+ ++Which, interestingly, almost fits with this Karen’s character. Because her name isn’t Karen. She bears it like a cross. She basically says, “My name never was Karen, but fine. I know that you named me Karen because you wanted to denigrate me.” That’s part of her complaint. +
++It’s so funny, because I have nothing against the name Karen. In fact, I know lovely wonderful Karens who are understandably aggrieved by this way in which their name has come to mean now. But I did think it was the kind of name that someone might resent. +
++I want to talk a little bit about David, too. In the Sarah section, he’s a point-of-view character, and he’s very sympathetic and easy to understand. And then by the time we get to Karen, he’s kind of calcified into this much darker and less likable character, and you don’t get inside his head in the same way. Karen has what seems like a pretty good idea of what he’s thinking, but we’re not in there the way we were with Sarah. So how did you think about that character arc as it developed? +
++I’m not sure I’m willing to say that Karen has a pretty good idea of what David’s thinking. If I had to choose favorites in the book, which I’m glad I don’t have to do, I really love Karen. I really love that character. And I find her to be the most believable character emotionally. But I also think that she’s very suspect in many of her observations, if not maybe all of them. +
++Karen is an interesting problem for me as a reader. Like, I made Karen, and then I was like, “Wow, what a conundrum. I don’t know whether to believe a word you say, Karen.” +
++I find her to be emotionally incredibly honest. But that doesn’t mean that the way in which she reports on the world is all to be trusted because her emotions are so strong. And one of the things that she hates and resents is the David-Sarah love affair, by which she feels incredibly — not just excluded, but just kind of shown up for the rest of her life. Karen can’t get over the fact that when they were young, young people, David and Sarah had this romance that is kind of beyond any romantic experience Karen has ever had. She still resents that. +
++There’s this moment when David and Sarah are reunited, and Karen kind of doesn’t want to see it. You end up seeing it through the corner of Karen’s eye. She’s almost not really wanting to acknowledge that something emotionally consequential is happening. So I do think that Karen delivers a highly exaggerated David and Sarah. +
++And then that’s one of the things that I wanted the book to sort of trouble the reader with: Are the David and Sarah that we meet through Karen at all fair depictions of David and Sarah? Or are they distorted in the same way that Karen feels Sarah the author distorted Karen the minor character in part one? +
++I think it’s interesting that David is both incredibly, I hope, for readers, compelling, and for me, the author, almost the only redeemable male character in the entire book. David is the character who loves and doesn’t prey on anyone. And in a way, if he does become calcified, it’s because love didn’t work out for him. It’s not for a darker reason. +
++But the other thing that I like is that Karen and David actually do have this bond. Karen doesn’t really want to admit it, but David gives her a chance. And that was something that was really important to me too, is that David is the person who gives Karen, knowingly, the chance to be a star on the stage finally, and unknowingly gives her this opportunity to carry out this act of revenge. +
++So much of what gives this book its power is how elliptically it talks around the trauma at the center, so you have trouble seeing what it is. Do you think that writing around the traumatic experience creates something more emotionally truthful than just sort of straightforwardly being like, “Well, this happened and it was terrible”? +
++I think that there’s definitely a lot to be said for the “this happened and it was terrible” school of writing. And I don’t know if there’s necessarily any way to decide which is more effective. I don’t think either is more effective. +
++In the case of what was going on in this book, I did want to explore going back again to what I keep sort of returning to, which is these real life stories that I was intrigued by, and the delay, always this extremely long delay between the moment at which something happened and the moment at which whoever it was felt able to speak. And I was really interested in that delay. I kept kind of trying to get in there and think like, “Well, what’s in that delay?” In large part, this book was about that problem, the problem with what happens when you can’t say, “Well, this happened and it was terrible.” And often it is possible to immediately say, “This happened and it was terrible.” But what if you can’t? +
++So now we’re going to open it up to audience Q&A. We have a couple questions about the setting of this book. Jenna asks, “It’s in the south and it seems suburban. Is the location intentionally not disclosed?” And then Anonymous says, “As a Houstonian, it seems obvious Houston is the setting.” But they’re curious as to why you hinted so much without wanting to go so far as to name the city. +
++Houston’s my city, and I love Houston. But I’m really, really particular about the role of the place in a story. I’m really preoccupied by places, and I like writing about places. And I also like writing about settings. +
++When I say “place,” I mean, like, Chicago. Versus a setting, and by “setting” I mean a kind of place that has a certain kind of influence on its inhabitants. And I want Trust Exercise to happen in a setting, not a place, if that makes sense. +
++It is very much like Houston, but I didn’t want it to be a Houston story, in part because I wanted to broaden that context and explore the things that made me want to write about Houston. Which weren’t just Houston, but other aspects of Houston that it shares with similar places. Primarily for me, the dichotomy between, say, a Houston and in New York, where I live now — growing up in Houston, there was no mass transit, and the car was the currency. And if you didn’t have a car, you didn’t have a life until you had a car. I wanted those realities to feel really urgent to the reader, and for Houston not to distract from the fact that that’s the way life is in so many places for young people, if there’s no mass transit. +
++I love Houston dearly, but I wanted the things that I was exploring about Houston to also connect the reader to other places. This story could be happening in so many places where there’s no mass transit, and where it’s not a cultural capital, yet. It’s not LA, it’s not New York. And so those young people think, “I have to get out of here to be who I want to be.” And the answer to that feeling is a feeling that’s shared by people in a lot of different places. +
++We have a few different questions, of course, about the ending. John says, “I’m guessing you don’t want to explain every detail, but I’d like to hear as much as you’re willing to divulge/discuss about the final section. What do you feel we should pay closer attention to about this book? What do you feel most readers miss and might benefit from rereading?” +
++I don’t know if I can say there’s something most readers miss. I’ve been awed by the way most readers read this book. I’ve felt in the end that I missed things. +
++I have very specific ideas about what happens in the end. I didn’t write this book to go, “Who knows! Anything could have happened!” For me, something very specific happened. And there were specific motivations on the parts of various characters to alter or change details to conceal certain aspects of their experiences. +
++Readers have argued in favor of other things having happened in this book than what I intended, and their arguments are so convincing and so well grounded that I’ve ended up feeling like I missed certain ways in which this book can operate. +
+ ++But I will say, about the ending: Part two unleashes uncertainty about part one. Karen says, “That was all this book that my friend Sarah — who isn’t even named that — wrote about us, and she lied.” So then you’re like, “What’s true?” But then you spend time with Karen, and Karen challenges her own credibility. As I said, I believe every word that Karen says, but I also believe that Karen is really unreliable. Which is a conundrum. +
++With part three, I’ve thought a lot about how to signal to the reader that part three is solid. Part three is on the bedrock of fictional realism as we understand it from novel-reading. When we read novels, we know that they’re made up because they’re novels. But they operate under these conventions that we’ve all internalized. And one of them is the conventions of realism, in which we conclude that what we’re reading in the novel is true to the world of that story. I wanted part three to be that in this book, to be the true, conventional realism of the book. Where the reader would arrive there and go, “Oh, for the world of this story and these characters, this is the truth. It’s not all of it, but what we’re seeing is the truth.” +
++Claire doesn’t know that she’s a character in a story. Claire’s the first person you encounter who is not identified by Karen as being just a bunch of characters in Sarah’s book, in part one. Nor are they someone knowingly narrating and trying to set the record straight. That’s Karen in part two. But Claire doesn’t know that she’s in a story. Just like any movie that you see, where you’re like, “Oh, these characters, we’re supposed to think that this is their life.” +
++That’s what I wanted the reader to conclude from part three. I don’t know if I succeeded, but that would be my pact about the book. That was what I meant: for the reader to feel in part three that they are peeking through that fourth wall and into a real fictional world. +
++Join us in December to discuss Gideon the Ninth, and subscribe to the Vox Book Club newsletter to be sure not to miss anything. +