A Writer’s Insight: Nuraina Satpayeva and Slava Faybysh

Nuraina Satpayeva’s story, “Qará”, translated by Slava Faybysh, appears in the winter 2024 issue of The Southern Review. Here Satpayeva discusses Qazaq culture and the connection to land and the Ustyurt that influences her writing, and Faybysh speaks on the fun, if complicated, nuances that arise from translating Qazaq literature.


Emilie Rodriguez, Editorial Assistant: What inspired the military/ranger environment for this story?

Nuraina Satpayeva: As a child I lived in Aqtau, a small city on the Caspian coast. Every summer vacation, my class took a field trip to the Mangghystau Peninsula. We stayed in the Karagiye Depression, one of the lowest places in Asia, on Lake Karakol, where flamingos, swans, and endangered pelicans spend their winters. And of course, we visited the Bozzhira Canyon with its colossal mountain cliffs and steep precipices and gorgeous foothills, in the western Ustyurt Plateau. This was once the site of the ancient Tethys Ocean. Rare animals inhabit the Ustyurt Plateau, but unfortunately, many of them have been wiped out by poachers. For example, cheetahs and leopards have disappeared completely. A few years ago a leopard was discovered, but it was killed on the spot. Eduard Eversmann, a geographer, distinguished traveler, and the first to study the Ustyurt called it a “cruel land” because of its severe climate. I also call it that for another reason—the cruel people who kill animals and other people for profit. I’m not just talking about poachers, but also companies that build pipelines along the migration routes of saiga antelopes, hotels that release wastewater into lakes and kill birds, and corporations that allow oil spills to happen in the sea, causing thousands of seals to die off.

But there are also people like the ranger Yeraly, who love their land, no matter how severe and unattractive it may be. These are the types of people who can save the world, sometimes even at the cost of their own lives. It seems like they’re our only chance for survival, and I want to write about heroes like that.

ER: There’s a theme of displacement in this story; the caracals have to flee from poachers, Danik going on assignment to the Ustyurt, even Yeraly’s son at the end is forced to go to his father’s funeral where he doesn’t feel like he fits in with anyone there. How do you see displacement working in the story?

NS: Historically, Qazaqs lived an itinerant lifestyle. We were nomads. That changed only in the twentieth century, but something remained in our blood that makes modern-day Qazaqs want to go on journeys, for different purposes. We want to see the world, make friends, find work, and go to school in different countries. Eventually the time comes to return home.

In the story, Danik and Marat head to the Mangghystau Peninsula for work, the poachers go there for an easy buck, and Yeraly’s son goes to make amends with his father. There’s also the caracal Qará, who returns to her territory to reproduce, and Yeraly, who is always on the road and drives hundreds of kilometers across the Ustyurt every day. They’re effectively all nomads.

There’s also the theme of returning to your roots, and Yeraly acts as a defender of human values. They all come together in one location, the Ustyurt Plateau, a primordial place that forces everyone to show their true colors, and they are reborn.

ER: Throughout the piece, Yeraly is the one that holds everything together; he jumps to save Qará and her kittens, he stops Danik and Marat from fighting, and he genuinely fights for the land he’s working on. What does it mean for him to die, and for his legacy to be passed on to a son that doesn’t want it?

NS: Yeraly is the key character in the story. In fact, he is the shyrkashy, or guardian of his home, keeper of the flame, his native land, where a battle with criminals occurs in the blink of an eye. His son will most likely never return to his homeland, but there’s Danik, who sort of becomes the disciple Yeraly never had. Danik finds courage and confidence in himself. That gives hope that someone will be found to keep the flame alive.

ER: What other projects are you working on right now?

NS: I recently signed a contract with a Qazaq publisher called Meloman Publishing to publish a novel called The Sea Will Sing Me a Lullaby. This is the story of a young Qazaq woman named Dara, whose long-awaited path to motherhood begins with the events known as Bloody January in 2022. Protests and riots break out in the country, her fiancé disappears, and her brother goes out to protest. She ends up having to go through her difficult pregnancy alone. She loses her home and has to deal with her fiancé’s dreadfully unpleasant mother, who considers Dara to be no different than the protesters.

The only thing that keeps Dara alive is her memory of the Caspian Sea, which she adores in all its forms: whether warm or cold as ice; dark blue or the color of silver wormwood; calm or with gigantic waves that swallow up the inflatable rings of beachgoers. She hears her late mother’s voice in the sea, singing her a lullaby.

This is a book about the love of the sea, betrayal and friendship and people struggling for a better life.

ER: Were there any particular phrases or cultural nuances that you had a difficult or interesting time translating in this piece? 

Slava Faybysh: Qará was first written in Russian and interspersed with an array of Qazaq words and concepts, as well as things like unique Qazaq pieces of furniture, foods, clothing, etc. The original story was footnoted for Russian-speaking readers who are not familiar with some of these things. I wanted to take the footnotes out, and my ultimate goal was to challenge readers to learn new things, but without overwhelming them with too much new information. So I used various strategies to convey elements of Qazaq culture in as unobtrusive a way as possible. I also tried to give readers the option to look things up if they wanted to learn more about Qazaqstan, but to understand the basic gist of what was going on from context alone.

For example, I think it is meaningful in the story that things like how people address each other and curse words are in Qazaq, whereas most of the everyday conversation is in Russian. Occasionally, I tried to give readers extra help in understanding the Qazaq. When Danik and Marat first meet Yeraly, the Russian text simply has Marat saying, “Yeraly-aga,” and going straight into the rest of his speech. The “aga” ending means older brother or uncle, and it is a term of respect for any older man. But rather than explaining all that (the Russian text is footnoted) I added “After a quick, but respectful greeting in Qazaq…” I felt I needed to add that it was quick in addition to being respectful to communicate that it really only took two short syllables to satisfy the requirements of formality. I think Marat’s later speech sounds very informal, so I didn’t want readers to think he was being overly chummy in a disrespectful way. I think this is a style of speech that is peculiar to languages that use formal/informal grammatical markers or honorifics.

I did leave some things in Qazaq, such as “Malgundar!” This could have been translated as any run-of-the-mill curse, such as “Damn it!” but I instead left it in Qazaq and added that Yeraly “spit” this to drive home the point that this was an emotional outburst and that it was in Qazaq, not Russian.

Another example is where Marat says, “What are we, toqals? Sloppy seconds?” Readers can choose to look up toqal if they want to (it’s a second, unofficial wife of a married man) but I added “sloppy seconds” to give readers the basic idea. On the surface these two things are not the same, but the intention is to say, “What are we, an afterthought?”

One thing I love about this story is the wealth of detail that firmly sets it in a specific time and place. Readers can go down any number of rabbit holes and research new information about Central Asia. Or if they prefer they can just follow along and enjoy the story.

ER: What are some of the major differences you see when translating Spanish literature, other Russian literature, and Qazaq literature?

SF: This is sort of a personal question. My family immigrated to the US from Ukraine when I was less than two years old. I grew up in a bilingual Russian-English household, but because I never went to school in a Russian-speaking environment, I make tons of basic grammar mistakes in Russian (my mother frequently laughs at me). The hardest part about translating Russian is often understanding complex concepts, whereas simple day-to-day conversation seems to come more naturally.

My experience with Spanish is the polar opposite. I had no Spanish at home, obviously, but I started studying it in school at a relatively early age and continued through college and beyond. There’s also something about the relationship between Spanish and English. About sixty percent of English words ultimately come from Latin, either directly, or through French. But English is a Germanic language, and the vast majority of our most basic and important words are related to German. Therefore, generally speaking (but with exceptions) our big words are Latinate in origin and our basic words are Germanic. Counterintuitively, I would say that after getting through elementary Spanish—including grammar—complex concepts in Spanish are actually easier for English speakers than simple ones.

So the exact opposite of Russian. My strengths in Russian are my weaknesses in Spanish and vice versa.

 

As far as Qazaq literature, of the three Qazaq authors I’m currently working with, Nuraina seems to lean into showcasing the individuality of the Qazaq nation the most, using the most Qazaq words and firmly placing the story within its setting. I’m working with another author whose stories seem much more universal. Her stories could easily be set somewhere else, highlighting the fact that Qazaqs are no different than other peoples. The third author I’m working with is somewhere in between. I would say that the important thing for me is to let authors be wherever they want to be on that spectrum for any given story.


Nuraina Satpayeva is a systems engineer by profession, but she began writing prose and children’s stories at the Almaty Literature School. Her stories have been published in the Russian-language journals Neva, Sibirskie Ogni, and Litera Nova.

Slava Faybysh translates from Spanish and Russian. His first book-length translation is a historical thriller set in 1970s Argentina, called Rodolfo Walsh’s Last Case. His work has appeared in New England Review and The Common.

Emilie Rodriguez is a Latinx writer from San Diego and holds an MFA from Louisiana State University. She is the editorial assistant for The Southern Review and the former editor-in-chief of the New Delta Review. Her work has been supported by the Sundress Academy of the Arts Residency. Rodriguez won the 2023 Patty Friedman Writing Competition in the short story category. Her work is forthcoming in the Peauxdunque Review.

Posted in Web Interviews | Comments Off on A Writer’s Insight: Nuraina Satpayeva and Slava Faybysh

A Writer’s Insight: Shraya Singh

Shraya Singh’s story, “The Chicken Shop”, appears in the winter 2024 issue of The Southern Review. Here she discusses how Hindu-Muslim conflict impacts childhood, especially in the early 2000s, the realities of cleaning chicken, and deep, platonic childhood love.


Emilie Rodriguez, Editorial Assistant: The religious turmoil between Hindu and Muslim communities in this piece is always at the forefront, constantly influencing the narrator and Rahim’s relationship. Why choose two young boys to focus on for this story?

Shraya Singh: As a child, I had never truly considered what it meant to be from a non-dominant religion in a country like India, where religion is so culturally ingrained in the day-to-day and is something you have to experience whether you truly believe in it or not. Because of this, I knew of the differences between myself and those from other religions growing up, but it had never truly been at the forefront of our interactions or our relationships until we got older. This was why I thought that exploring such a relationship through the lens of two young boys would be a good way to explore how the views I’ve had, and those of others around me, have changed as we have grown up and developed a deeper understanding of our religions and how they interact or conflict with each other. Of course, I know that it is different now, since Hindu-Muslim conflict is at the forefront of a lot of people’s lives and younger children are more aware of the rising conflict over the past decade. That also dates this piece as happening around the time when I grew up, when it was easier for a Hindu-Muslim friendship to form without the constraints of other societal pressures and when it was easier to ignore all the differences between the two.

ER: There’s so much love that the narrator has for Rahim; getting Rahim books he doesn’t have access to, having dinner with Rahim’s family despite his own not approving, etc. When he no longer expresses it as openly as he did before due to the rising conflict, there’s still so much compassion for the narrator that I feel in your writing that goes hand and hand with the guilt he feels. How did you find that balance in writing him?

SS: I don’t think I was actively trying to seek that balance while writing him. I knew that I wanted him to be a character that people could sympathize with but could also hold accountable for misdeeds or mistakes [that he has made] and perhaps that is what led me to make sure that he was more complex than a boy who lost access to a close relationship. I think the retrospective narration definitely helped me achieve that balance, and in truth, I feel that it was the only way the balance could have been obtained because of the characters’ ages during the bulk of the story: it is easy to not realize the importance of even a tiny action in the moment, and it often only becomes clear in retrospect.

ER: One of the threads that I find so beautiful in your story is this idea of what it means to be brave. As Rahim gets braver, our narrator assimilates more and even dreams of leaving completely. Do you think that would have saved their friendship, if the narrator had been braver, or did they need to understand each other’s point of view more?

SS: I’m not sure that being braver would have saved the narrator’s friendship with Rahim. I think the narrator needed to go through the growth, introspection, and reflection that he did in order to reach where he is now, and without the slow disintegration of his friendship with Rahim, it never would have taken place.

ER: One of my favorite scenes in this story is when we see the narrator cleaning the chicken. It’s visceral and grotesque and a perfect cumulation of all of his feelings about his declining friendship with Rahim and the political turmoil. How did this scene come to you?

SS: When I was back at my parents’ home in Gwalior (in India) before moving to the states two years ago, I really wanted to make some chicken for me and my brother but my mom is a strict vegetarian, so she practically refused to even touch anything I planned on using to make it. I’m not sure if this is widely known, but it’s very hard to get frozen chicken in India (unless you live in a metro area) and so I ended up having to go to the vendor on the street and choosing one of the chickens in his giant cage and bringing the fresh meat back home. Even though I wore gloves while washing it and pulling apart the weird white stuff (the skin? the cartilage?) and rubbing all the blood off, it was slow-going and took me over an hour (with multiple breaks for gagging because the meat was still warm) and felt very uncomfortable. That scene in the story is the first thing that made it to the page and is pretty much how I felt during that whole experience. I don’t think I ever plan on making chicken again unless it’s cold and frozen and long, long dead.

ER: Have you wondered what would happen if they ever did meet again as adults?

SS: I have wondered but I don’t think I’ve ever been able to truly imagine what it would be like if they did. Of course, I want them to meet again, but maybe having them interacting directly isn’t the right move for the story (or any future extrapolation).

ER: What was the revision process like for this story? Were there other endings considered for it?

SS: In an earlier version of the story, it was not told from a retrospective perspective, and I feel like that version didn’t allow for the narrator to truly realize his guilt and understand the impact that his actions (or lack thereof) had on his friendship with Rahim. Apart from that, the revision process has been pretty straightforward, the story somehow shaped itself around the chicken shop and the meat washing scene and, in a way, the shop was as grounding for me during the writing and revision process as I feel it is for the characters (and readers!) within the story.

ER: Do you think romantic tension played a role in the strife between the narrator and Rahim?

SS: This is a touchy subject for me because at times I feel like literature places a greater emphasis on romantic love over platonic love and I dislike how, despite their being two different types of love, they somehow always end up in a hierarchy where romantic love is considered the deeper and stronger of the two. In my life, because of where and how I’ve grown up, I have always placed a greater emphasis on friendship when it comes to relationships and I think that is what I wanted to bring forward in this piece: how friendship and platonic love can be as intimate and important and beautiful as romantic love and how, for many people, it is more necessary. I do, however, think that there is a possibility of romantic tension between the narrator and Rahim, and I think their relationship could have evolved into something else had they been allowed to grow older together in their friendship, but as it is now, I was focusing more on the external pressures and internal conflict between them. I find that deep love in friendships when it comes to Hindu-Muslim relationships is underrepresented in the media that I have come across in comparison with Hindu-Muslim romance (which is a popular trope in Bollywood movies). If readers pick up on something more then maybe they’re onto something that I wasn’t putting in there, but still managed to slip in through the cracks!

ER: What was it like to write the narrator’s family, a family that pushed the narrator to ignore Rahim?

SS: It was easier to write than I thought it would be, primarily because I went to a Hindu-majority private school where kids would talk about things their parents said about other castes, religions, and economical classes all the time. Even though I heard the word “Muslim” or “Musalmaan” mentioned often, I didn’t quite truly understand what it meant to be a Muslim in an area that was Hindu-dominated, yet the comments were mean enough that they stuck with me all these years. I guess it’s something that many go through, not realizing how unjust the words spoken around them are until you’ve grown as a person yourself and understood more of where those comments are coming from and what beliefs they are rooted in.

ER: Are there other writers or pieces of fiction that influenced this story?

SS: I think the primary thing that influenced this story was The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini and how intimate the protagonist, Amir, is with Hassan despite the huge class imbalance between them. That was one of the few books that I had been recommended to read as a child that was not by a white author and the friendship portrayed is so deep and beautiful and remorseful, which was something I hadn’t seen done so well in literature before.

ER: What projects are you working on now?

SS: I’m working on my MFA thesis! I recently finished up with a novel workshop class and I plan on polishing the first 100 pages of my novel and adding as many more as I can by the time that I graduate in the spring. This way, I can get my advisor, Greg, to read them before he’s no longer obligated to or paid by the university to do so.


Shraya Singh is currently an MFA candidate at Eastern Washington University where she is also the Fiction Editor for Willow Springs magazine and a fledgling writer. She is from a small town in Uttar Pradesh in India and her work is often set in rural India and discusses themes around religion, religious intolerance, class and caste-based discrimination, as well as relationships that stretch across the intersections of these themes.

Emilie Rodriguez is a Latinx writer, originally from San Diego. She is the editorial assistant for The Southern Review, an MFA candidate in Fiction at Louisiana State University, and the former editor-in-chief of the New Delta Review. Her work has been supported by the Sundress Academy of the Arts Residency. Rodriguez won the 2023 Patty Friedman Writing Competition in the short story category. Her work is forthcoming in the Peauxdunque Review.

Posted in News | Comments Off on A Writer’s Insight: Shraya Singh

A Writer’s Insight: Molly Gott

Molly Gott’s story, “Napa Valley Inn and Spa”, appears in the autumn 2023 issue of The Southern Review. Here she discusses how the story evolved to its current state and how tragedy makes the bitterest of friends.


Emilie Rodriguez, Editorial Assistant: I was fascinated by how you pit Elissa’s many selves against each other; who she was with Maya, with Sam, before death and after death. How did this help you explore the tension between Maya and Sam and the Elissa they each thought they knew?

Molly Gott: One of the first parts of the story that I wrote was the paragraph about Maya and Sam doing the receiving line at Elissa’s funeral together. That paragraph helped me begin to understand their relationship and I came back to it while drafting the story. I had the image of the two of them uncomfortably side-by-side in a church in mind—they’re left behind together. The person through whom they related is gone and now they have to figure out who they are to one another without her. But her presence is still felt because why else would they be together? That dynamic felt interesting to me and so the story became a way for me to play it out.

ER: Wealth and class and privilege simmer amidst Maya and Sam’s stay in the Inn; what compelled you to write the story with this background?

MG: The setting was the first thing I figured out about this story. The Inn is partially based on a hotel I stayed at with some friends right before the pandemic. In real life, we all got sick and spent three days throwing up in the most beautiful hotel room I have ever seen. But we had gone to the salt room before that and it stuck in my head. When I initially started writing this story, it was about two couples at the hotel and I think I was writing towards this image of the four of them stuck inside their cottage, looking out at this beautiful winery, but then I became more interested in the relationship between one of the women and her best friend’s husband. To get them alone together in the story, I got rid of both of their wives.

ER: Maya and Sam have a unique tension with each other, where they don’t always like each other, but they do need each other to survive Elissa’s death. How did you balance the antagonizing line that they keep crossing back and forth?

MG: I really struggled with this when revising the story, so I’m glad that you felt it was balanced (and agonizing)! At one point I was literally trying to make a chart of all the different micro-emotional moments between the two of them but trying to apply some fixed logic to their relationship didn’t work and just annoyed me. So I ended up writing a lot more history about each of them that I eventually cut from the story. Once I did that, I felt like I better understood how they would act with one another and I was less tortured about making a perfectly cohesive portrayal of their relationship. They could act in paradoxical/illogical/conflicting ways with one another! We do it all the time!

ER: There’s something so tender about doing your friend’s makeup, and as Maya does Sam’s, there’s an interesting inversion of that feeling. Why choose applying makeup for this scene?

MG: At some point while writing I came to an image of Maya standing over Sam in a kind of threatening way. I wanted her to be towering over him while his eyes were closed and then worked backwards to figure out what activity could get her into that position with him. Part of what interested me about their relationship is that they have known each other for a long time and know a lot about one another but Maya doesn’t necessarily think of Sam as her friend. I was drawn to the idea of them doing something that they had done together when they were younger to try to capture/re-capture their connection but it not really working or feeling more fraught than they remembered, in part because Elissa isn’t there to complete their dynamic.

ER: What inspired the giveaway ritual?

MG: My thesis advisor read an earlier draft of this story that didn’t have that scene. They gave me some feedback that the setting was compelling but could be put to even more use in the story. I think they actually directly suggested that Sam and Maya do some kind of hotel activity together. That idea was exciting to me, so then I googled “grief rituals” and picked the one that seemed the most interesting to me! I like the idea that the giveaway scene has some resonance with the last scene in the water ritual room—the giveaway gets truncated by Maya walking out, but in that last scene they go through with the water ritual and work through something they couldn’t quite work out earlier in front of an audience.

ER: Maya makes a big concession at the end of the story when she tells Sam that Elissa “could be mean sometimes.” What pushes her to admit this?

MG: Concession is a great word for that moment. Maya is offering up a criticism of Elissa as a way to feel connected to or closer to Sam. I think it does feel partially true to her that Elissa could be mean sometimes, but she is also using that admission strategically. She is coming to the understanding that Elissa is gone, Sam is who she is left with, and so she has to figure out how to relate to him. But she is still relating to him through Elissa. She just can’t quite figure out if it’s possible for them to have a dynamic independent of her.

ER: Elissa inserted herself a lot into Maya’s life: she acted as an art agent, made her shed into an art studio for Maya. Does Maya resent this economic power imbalance, or does she ignore it?

MG: I think Maya is resentful and also a little baffled by (what feels to her like) Elissa and Sam’s more legible success. It feels so inaccessible to her, but she has witnessed it closely. I wrote the first draft of this story a couple of years ago, at a time when I very much felt I didn’t have enough of a lot of things, and I think that feeling leaked into this story in a way that I feel a little horrified by now! When I was writing it, I didn’t think of Maya as resentful, but I see her that way now.

ER: Do you think Maya and Sam will continue to be in each other’s lives after this?

MG: When I first wrote this story, I imagined they absolutely would continue to be in each other’s lives after this, but now I am not so sure. They’ve had a temporary coming together, but I don’t know if it can be sustained.

ER: What projects do you have coming up?

MG: I’m working on the first draft of a novel that is about a relationship between a thirty-year-old woman and a seventy-year-old woman (and hopefully some other things! We shall see!).


Molly Gott is a writer living in Ann Arbor, Michigan. She is a graduate of the MFA program at the University of Michigan, where she won the Frederick Busch Prize in Fiction. “Napa Valley Inn and Spa” was her first publication.

Emilie Rodriguez is a Latinx writer, originally from San Diego. She is the editorial assistant for The Southern Review, an MFA candidate in Fiction at Louisiana State University, and the former editor-in-chief of the New Delta Review. Her work has been supported by the Sundress Academy of the Arts Residency. Rodriguez won the 2023 Patty Friedman Writing Competition in the short story category. Her work is forthcoming in the Peauxdunque Review.

Posted in Web Interviews | Comments Off on A Writer’s Insight: Molly Gott

Announcing the Winners of our 2023 Awards

The Southern Review is pleased to announce this year’s recipients of the Oran Robert Perry Burke Awards for Fiction, Nonfiction, Poetry, and Literary Translation, as well as the James Olney Award. These annual awards, established and funded by the generous support of donors, are presented to contributors in recognition of an exceptional work that appears in the previous volume year. Our congratulations to the winners!


 

The recipient of the Oran Robert Perry Burke Award for Fiction is

Karin Lin-Greenberg

for the story, “Escapees,” from our winter 2023 issue

 

The recipient of the Oran Robert Perry Burke Award for Nonfiction is

Michael Downs

for the essay, “Answer When You Can,” from our winter 2023 issue

 

The recipient of the Oran Robert Perry Burke Award for Poetry is

Julia B. Levine

for the poem, “Loose Sonnet on Whidbey Island,” from our summer 2023 issue

 

The recipient of the Oran Robert Perry Burke Award for Literary Translation is

Karen Kovacik

for the translation from Polish of Krystyna Dabrowska’s poem, “Cycling,” from our summer 2023 issue

 

The recipient of the James Olney Award is

Bruce Cohen

for the poem, “Know What I Mean,” from our autumn 2023 issue


Support great writing by subscribing to The Southern Review.

Posted in News | Comments Off on Announcing the Winners of our 2023 Awards

A Writer’s Insight: Pallavi Wakharkar

Pallavi Wakharkar’s story, “On Live” appears in the autumn 2023 issue of The Southern Review. Here she discusses creating the nostalgic setting of her story, the evolution of childhood friendships, and the process of revising the piece.


Emilie Rodriguez, Editorial Assistant: In this story, TJ and PJ are brought back to their child and teen selves in the physical space of the basement, and later Amber’s home. Why bring them back to these spaces to have this encounter with Amber?

Pallavi Wakharkar: In writing “On Live,” I was thinking about these characters’ past selves that have been paved over time and time again, and wanting to create a situation in which those past selves can arise, organically and uninvited. When we encounter them at age twenty-five, the boys have been growing apart from years, but I wanted to explore their older, sedimented selves; I felt as though the only way I could do so was by placing them in these important sites from their childhood and adolescence. I was interested in how their grown selves might fit, or not fit, back into these sites, which I wanted to imbue with a strange, nostalgic sanctity. The basement felt like a stale, familiar location in which the boys have convened in the past and continue to convene in the present when they visit home, if halfheartedly or out of habit alone—a kind of untouched shrine to their adolescence, an unused room that TJ’s family might never visit or redecorate. Whereas their bedrooms might be repurposed for guests or somehow sanitized in their absence, the basement, I imagined, would stay the same.

As for Amber’s home, I was thinking about my own childhood friends and their homes, which I remember with such clarity. I haven’t spoken to certain figures from my childhood and adolescence for years, and their families have since moved on from those homes (or even that city), but I can remember such vivid details about those living spaces (the painting of a horse’s eye, for example, was directly snatched from a memory I keep). I imagined Amber’s home as the site of many teenage parties and gatherings, a place without parental surveillance and therefore a place of great adolescent possibility. Bringing the boys back to this house, where they had some of their first coming-of-age experiences, felt like a way to enhance the uncanny, suspenseful aspects of the story I envisioned. Just like how, on those nights of past, Amber’s home was a territory of the unexpected, on this night, the night of Amber’s Facebook livestream, it is a place where the unexpected—and even the magical—might occur.

ER: Why did you choose to have TJ and PJ meet Amber and not just keep her on Facebook Live?

PW: As I was writing, I was thinking about how the story could escalate—how I could use the dwindling Facebook viewers to ratchet up tension, and what might happen when Amber notices the boys watching her. I wanted the boys to experience a flood of memory and emotion about Amber, but also wanted Amber to experience a similar remembrance for them. It felt almost inevitable as I was writing to create a situation in which the boys are the sole viewers of Amber’s livestream, and to have her notice them, acknowledge them. And once she had acknowledged them, I thought to myself, what next? How can I escalate further? To have her invite them over to her house was an intriguing idea that kept me writing. I wanted to know what would happen next, so I created a situation I was interested in plumbing. I didn’t quite know how it would end when I started out. So, in having Amber invite the boys to her house, I was enhancing the story’s mystery to myself as its writer, almost incentivizing myself to finish writing it.

The idea for this story came from a friend sharing an anecdote with me; they’d had a similar experience of sitting around at home with friends when someone stumbled upon a former roommate’s breakdown on Facebook Live. My friend described the oddness of it all, and I found it such an intriguing concept for a story. In “On Live,” I was interested in voyeurism and complicity. I wanted to create a situation in which characters feel conflicting emotions in watching the livestream—interested, yes, and unable to look away, but also sickened and confused over how to react. Did they have a responsibility as viewers to act, to help? It made sense to me to move PJ and TJ from the passive status of bystanders to the more active realm of showing up at Amber’s house, both from a story perspective, but also a human perspective.

ER: What I found especially interesting in your story is the resentment between TJ and PJ that’s also mixed with this incredible tenderness. For the most part, it goes unacknowledged between the two until the end. Why focus on this aspect of their friendship?

PW: Yes, there is definitely a mix of resentment and tenderness between the boys. I was interested in the mismatch between TJ and PJ—how they might not gravitate towards one another and form a friendship if they met as they are now, but how their deep history binds them together. At twenty-five, they’ve each gone to college separately and begun their various careers in different cities, exploring and solidifying who they are without one another, but when they return home, they collide. This collision requires that they confront not only each other, but also their own past selves, the versions of themselves that the other remembers and expects. This collision is strange and perhaps unpleasant, as they’re unable to be who they are now fully, always shadowed by the person they used to be, and always reverting to old dynamics and old habits—TJ being the dominant friend, and PJ the faithful follower. They aren’t who they used to be, but they also can’t escape who they used to be—not if they keep hanging out in TJ’s basement.

Beginning with this initial mismatch and unacknowledged discomfort with one another, I wanted the story to unfold each character and create complexity. I wanted to emphasize how being the only two boys of color in their school during early childhood created a bond between them, and how their familiarity with one another can be a comforting, grounding thing, too. The ending of the story creates an opportunity for them to remember their intimacy and what binds them (and create a new intimacy, too), despite all that has changed and will continue to change.

ER: There’s a conversation about consent and power in your story that’s really compelling, especially when we see PJ guiding his drunk date back to her dorm and he considers how he could do something horrible to her. Why include this?

PW: This brief moment of reflection from PJ about the drunk date was a much later addition to the story that felt like a crucial piece once added. My teacher in graduate school, the writer Tony Earley, read an earlier draft and commented on how the gentleness of the ending is shadowed by the fact that two stoned boys carrying a sleeping girl back to her room is an image full of ominous possibility. In a separate workshop, another early reader of the story, the writer Chris Bachelder, pointed out the “persistent threat of masculine violence” that the story engages.

This was a really interesting example of my readers being able to articulate an element of the story that I was surely cognizant of on a deeper level, but that I hadn’t yet articulated to myself. Writing the ending, I had such a strong knowledge that the boys would not, and never would, harm Amber, but certainly the threat is there. The anecdote about PJ’s drunk date years ago parallels the situation that the boys find themselves in by the end of the piece. I wanted to address this “threat of masculine violence” head-on, and for the character himself to address it—a sickening acknowledgment of the potential to harm, and the refusal to act on this potential.

ER: There’s a reversal of this suspenseful, dare I say spooky, atmosphere you create in your story at the end. Rather than being afraid of the maybe witch and Amber, PJ and TJ are more afraid of their base wants. What compelled you to use this method of telling this story?

PW: It’s interesting, I recently read from the beginning of this story at an event and a member of the audience similarly described the story as “scary.” I experience the story as more absurd and even darkly humorous than scary, and at places in which I expected the audience to laugh, they didn’t (and instead just stared at me in suspense). So maybe the story is far spookier than I had originally realized!

When I was writing and imagining the ending, I wanted to create a space for the boys to finally be truthful and emotionally intimate with one another. The witch’s demand that those who seek her be truthful about or “submit to” their desires becomes a possibility for the boys to do exactly that: to admit to each other what they might never otherwise. Whether the witch is truly there or not is something I wanted to remain ambiguous, but I wanted Amber’s conviction and belief in the witch to be clear—and I wanted her belief to lead the boys to the edge of their own belief. So I saw them less as being afraid of their admissions to one another, and more as being relieved by those admissions. As for what compelled me to end the story this way, I wanted Amber’s breakdown and the potential witch to act as a tool that brought the boys briefly closer to each other. Though whether this intimacy is lasting, I’m not sure.

ER: With two main characters, what was the process of revision like for this story?

PW: I had a difficult time deciding how I wanted to handle these characters, especially when it came to the story’s point of view. When I first began to write with the idea of the Facebook livestream in mind, I thought it would be humorous to explore a large group of overgrown manchildren as the viewers; I wrote in third-person and referred to them in a collective as “the boys,” which is consistent to how the story exists now. But I quickly realized as I was writing that I wanted to complicate these characters, to unfold them and draw them out of their hardened, simplistic exteriors, and this was difficult to do with a large group of “the boys.” So I pared it down to two boys. This choice made it easier to explore the particular terrain of their friendship with one another (and the power dynamics within it), as well as their relationship(s) to their current and past selves.

The story, in revision, has moved between third-person to first-person (from the point of view of PJ) back to third-person, as it exists now in The Southern Review. As I was writing, I found myself naturally more drawn to PJ as a character, and wondered how the story might grow or change if the story was told in his voice. (Indeed, this first-person version of the piece was the iteration originally accepted for publication by The Southern Review!) But in the first-person, though I could explore PJ further, I didn’t have access to the particularities of TJ’s experience, which felt crucial to the story, too. In the third-person, I was able to move between the two characters, collapsing them into a collective when it felt right to me, but also distinguishing them from one another, giving them their own histories and motivations and relationships to Amber. I settled upon the third-person as I enjoyed its expansiveness—the way I could poke fun at the boys with greater ease, but also, the way I could flesh out each of their inner experiences, moving back and forth between them (though I still privilege PJ a little bit).

ER: What projects do you have coming up?

PW: Thanks for asking! I’m steadily revising my short story collection, though most of my writing energy currently is funneled into the third draft of my novel. It’s tentatively titled Housesitting and follows a young Indian American woman through a series of back-to-back housesitting gigs in New York City. The novel is structured around the varied homes she occupies in a year’s time. In this project, as my narrator is an immigrant, I’m interested in drawing parallels between immigration and housesitting, two acts of making a home inside a place that is by definition not one’s own. I also explore my narrator’s attempts to find a sense of belonging, both within herself and within a community.


Pallavi Wakharkar is a writer from Phoenix. Her short fiction has been published in The Southern Review, swamp pink, The Iowa Review, Joyland Magazine, and elsewhere. In 2021, she received The Iowa Review Award in fiction for her short story “Simple Animal.” She earned a BA from the University of Pennsylvania and an MFA from Vanderbilt University. Before arriving at Oberlin, she taught at Colgate University, where she was the Olive B. O’Connor Fellow in Fiction.

Emilie Rodriguez is a Latinx writer, originally from San Diego. She is the editorial assistant for The Southern Review, an MFA candidate in Fiction at Louisiana State University, and the former editor-in-chief of the New Delta Review. Rodriguez won the 2023 Patty Friedman Writing Competition in the short story category. She is also a 2023 Sundress Academy of the Arts Resident. Her work is forthcoming in the Peauxdunque Review. 

Support great writing by subscribing to The Southern Review.
Posted in News | Comments Off on A Writer’s Insight: Pallavi Wakharkar
×