If You Haven't Already, Trying Reading a Joe Meno Novel...Or Two...Or Maybe These Three

To celebrate its 10th anniversary, the Chicago Review of Books is running a series titled The New Chicago Renaissance. Here's how editor-in-chief Michael Welch describes the series: "The New Chicago Renaissance series revisits exemplary works of literature about Chicago from the last 10 years and explores their continued relevance. Join us all year long as 12 leading writers and artists explore books that they love and why they’re meaningful to our understanding of modern Chicago.

So far, the series has included essays by writers like Rebecca Makkai (on Toya Wolfe's Last Summer on State Street) and Nathan Hill (on Halle Butler's The New Me), just to name a few. 

This week, I got to add my own entry. I wrote about Joe Meno's trilogy of coming-of-age Chicago novels -- Hairstyles of the Damned, Office Girl, and Book of Extraordinary Tragedies.

If you've never read Joe Meno, please, stop what you're doing, and fix that. My recommendation is to start with Office Girl -- it's such a beautiful (and subtly funny) novel about art and love and figuring out how to fit into the world. It's a novel that literally changed my life; a book I deeply love. 

If you're so inclined, swing over to the Chicago Review of Books and check out the piece. Honestly, it's my favorite thing I've written this year, and it was such a privilege to get to contribute to this amazing series. 

Here's a brief excerpt:

Jack and Odile in Office Girl. Brian Oswald in Hairstyles. Aleks in Extraordinary Tragedies. All of these characters are searching for what’s real through art, just as Joe Meno himself is doing with these novels, just as I did as a new Chicagoan. These novels explore the fictional authentic—and if you’ll buy the idea that nothing is more real than fiction, then what these novels are really doing is mining the truth of what it’s like to be young and creating and being part of a grand Chicago tradition.

On "Performative" Reading and The Brothers Karamazov

Apparently, it's the Summer of Dostoyevsky! So, happy Hot Fyodor Summer, to all who celebrate. I don't claim to understand weird book trends, and because I'm not on TikTok (gasp! I know, I know.), when something like this happens, I just assume the kids are TikkyTokking about it and that's the explanation. (See the bizarre chicken caesar wrap trend from a few years ago. Except in this case, Dostoyevsky would be a VERY weird TikTok trend. So I'm flummoxed. But I digress...) 

Anyway, apparently everybody is reading The Brothers Karamazov. And so I did too. And I loved it! It's soapy and dramatic, and up until about the last 100 pages when we get a little bogged down with Dmitri's trial, there isn't a whole lot of drag.

Even the philosophical/theological bits -- most notably The Grand Inquisitor chapter, perhaps the most famous part of the novel -- are really interesting if you are caffeinated enough and give yourself the time to think through the arguments. 

If you're not familiar, The Grand Inquisitor chapter is basically a story one of the brothers (Ivan) concocts and tells another (Alyosha) about a bishop mansplaining to Jesus that he actually really fucked everything up, everything he did was wrong, and here are all the reason why. And to me that's hilarious! It reminds me of one of my favorite jokes (which I'm pretty sure I've relayed here before, so just bear with me if you've already heard it): It's 2021 and two MAGA dudes die and go to heaven (for some reason). St. Peter asks them if there is anything they'd like to know the truth about right away. One guy asks, "Yeah, who ACTUALLY won the 2020 election?" St. Peter says, "Joe Biden." The MAGA guy turns to his buddy says, "Oof, this conspiracy goes even higher than I thought."  

(Pause for laughter😎 )

Anyway, I'm glad I read this novel at a time when a lot of other people were too. It was fun to discuss online, and in one memorable case, in person.

Which brings me to what I really want to write about here. About a month into reading this book, I brought it with me to a coffee shop on a Sunday afternoon. This resulted in this Note on Substack that would end up going slightly-mini-viral.

I don't understand why this pithy snippet struck such a nerve (or how Substack's algorithm works), but it's still getting views and likes more than a month later. What's crazy about this, though, is not how many people saw it, but rather the several comments accusing me of "performative reading." Wait, what?!

Let me back up: What I assume they mean is that I either wasn't ACTUALY reading this novel, or if I was, I was just reading it to show off. (Neither of which are remotely true, of course.) Now, I know trolls gonna troll and when a lot of people see something on the internet, it just increases the odds more jerkass people are going to see it, too.

But, "performative" reading? What the hell, man?

I've heard mention of this so-called "performative reader," but I assume this is just internet people making noise -- conjuring a thing that doesn't actually exist in the real world. 

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm dwelling in a little bubble here and not fully understanding what's happening in the larger world. But my tiny GenX brain can't really grasp the notion of a performative reader in the first place. What's the fucking point? 

Two of my favorite pieces debunking the notion of the performative reader are by writer John Paul Bremmer here and Jason Diamond here. Both are essay-length eyerolls basically arguing that this whole idea is a made-up nonissue. (Quick note: Apparently there is a difference between a performative reader and a performative male, of which being a performative reader is just a small part. What a world.)

And now here's the rub: Accusing someone of performative reading says more about the accuser than it does about the reader. Like that person can't fathom that someone would actually enjoy reading a book they don't think they would. And therefore, it must be performative, not authentic. It must be an affectation, a show-off. This is dumb, or to quote David Foster Wallace (apparently the patron saint of the performative reader), "so stupid it practically drools." Indeed, accusing someone else of performative reading is itself performative!

Anyway, I'm not letting it bother me. I just think it's odd. Like I said, trolls gonna troll. But this whole thing was quite the eye-opening experience. 

The main point, as always, is this: Read what you want, when you want, and where you want. Read and let read. And when in doubt, don't be a jerk. It's really not that tough to not be a jerk.