Welcome to The Librarian Is In, The New York Public Library's podcast about books, culture, and what to read next.

Listen on Apple Podcasts | Listen on Spotify | Listen on Google Play
 

This week, we join Frank and Rhonda as they discuss The Argonauts by Maggie Nelson.  Did you read along? (or listen, like Rhonda?) If so, don't forget to drop us a comment below with your thoughts or send us an email.
 

The Argonauts by Maggie Nelson

More things we talked about today:

• The audiobook verison of Train Dreams by Denis Johnson read by the author
• The practice of philately
• Harlem Renaissance stamps
   

---

Tell us what everybody's talking about in your world of books and libraries! Suggest Hot Topix(TM)! Send an email or voice memo to podcasts[at]nypl.org.

---

How to listen to The Librarian Is In

Subscribing to The Librarian Is In on your mobile device is the easiest way to make sure you never miss an episode. Episodes will automatically download to your device, and be ready for listening every other Thursday morning

On your iPhone or iPad:
Open the purple “Podcasts” app that’s preloaded on your phone. If you’re reading this on your device, tap this link to go straight to the show and click “Subscribe.” You can also tap the magnifying glass in the app and search for “The New York Public Library Podcast.”

On your Android phone or tablet:
Open the orange “Play Music” app that’s preloaded on your device. If you’re reading this on your device, click this link to go straight to the show and click “Subscribe.” You can also tap the magnifying glass icon and search for “The New York Public Library Podcast.” 

Or if you have another preferred podcast player, you can find “The New York Public Library Podcast” there. (Here’s the RSS feed.)

From a desktop or laptop:
Click the “play” button above to start the show. Make sure to keep that window open on your browser if you’re doing other things, or else the audio will stop. You can always find the latest episode at nypl.org/podcast.​​​​​​​

---

Transcript

[Music]

>> Hello, everybody, and welcome to "The Librarian Is In", the New York Public Library's podcast about books, culture, and what to read next. My name is Frank.

>> And this is Rhonda.

>> That is Rhonda, isn't it?

>> It is.

>> How are you, Rhonda?

>> I'm good. You know, I'm hanging in there. It gets a little harder to stay indoors when the weather gets so nice, but I'm doing my best. What about you Frank?

>> Do you ever get out at all?

>> I haven't really because I feel like I need a really good excuse to kind of expose myself I guess is what I'm-- but-- because I'm in such a-- I don't live like around a lot of green spaces, you know, so there isn't a lot of space where I can really distance.

>> Yeah.

>> So I haven't gotten out that much. Are you able to do that?

>> I do go out at least once a day, at least briefly.

>> Nice.

>> So, yeah, I'm not running miles to a park or anything. I notice the streets getting more and more crowded actually.

>> Yeah.

>> A least down in the village. But, you know, I don't know. It's just a day by day thing. I think we're actually-- You know, nothing's set in stone, but New York is gearing up for some version of reopening in the summer maybe?

>> I think so.

>> I don't know.

>> Yeah, sounds like little by little I slowly see things, like I'm starting to see construction starting up again in certain areas. And, yeah, like you said, I'm seeing more things opening up a little bit. So --

>> Yeah.

>> Slowly, slowly, slowly. This is not going to last forever. So that's the positive way to think about it, at some point.

>> Exactly.

>> We'll get -- I mean --

>> It's been 10 weeks or more, and whenever I get-- I think I've said this before, like I say everything twice or more, you know, 10or so weeks have passed. I-- Whenever I whenever I get upset about time, like, oh, I want to have it come back now, I realized it's 10 weeks has already passed so I can take it.

>> Yeah.

>> I can just pull myself together and take it. So, that's what we got to do. So anywho --

>> Right.

>> Anywho.

>> And New York is going in the right direction it looks like, so.

>> Right. I guess it's a natural curve that we're reaching. So --

>> Right.

>> -- anyway. So we read the same book this for today, and it's one of the books that's on the New York Public Library's 125 Books We Love List celebrating the 125th anniversary of the New York Public Library. Unfortunately, a lot of big events that we're going to happen this month are not happening because of the obvious.

>> Right.

>> And I'm glad at least we can keep this list alive and let people know how good some of the books on this list are. So I picked this book for us to read. I hadn't read it. I didn't know anything about it, which I sort of love going into a book and not really knowing. I mean, I knew it was a memoir type. I knew it had to do I thought with LGBTQIA issues. I just-- I didn't really know. But I thought, well, let's try it. I thought it might be interesting to read a memoir or something that at least is billed as a memoir because I'm not completely sure this is 100% a memoir, but anyway.

>> I don't think so.

>> What?

>> Yeah, I don't-- It's not 100% memoir.

>> Right.

>> For sure.

>> So --

>> Right.

>> -- we read "The Argonauts" by Maggie Nelson. So, I don't know where to begin.

>> You know-- Sorry, go ahead. You want to start?

>> No, you go ahead.

>> All right. Well, I'll start by being honest in the fact that, I struggled a little bit with the book. I just find it challenge-- and challenging is never I feel like a bad thing when I'm reading because I do love to be challenged in terms of what I'm going-- what I'm reading. And, you know, the book centers really around Maggie Nelson's relationship with her spouse who is a transgender man, Harry. And I guess one of the best ways I can put what I struggled with was not the topic, but the style of writing. And some of the kind of sources that she brought in, for example, you know, she talks a lot about how people when they encounter her and her spouse will like kind of have a fight with themselves intellectually because they cannot, you know, really concretely categorize Harry, right? They're like, they can't put him in a clear box. And with the same thing kind of with me the book, you know, reading it, as we'll discuss, there's definitely memoir, and that's the parts that I really was able to kind of grasp onto and really connect with, but she also brings in a lot of philosophy, a lot of poetry, a lot of art criticism, a lot of theory.

>> Yeah.

>> Other things, and those-- and even some stream of consciousness parts. And those, I really kind of had to really kind of change the way that I was kind of thinking and reading, and those where I was --

>> Yeah.

>> -- challenged. I don't know, how did you feel about it?

>> I totally-- You know, I actually had the same trajectory as you did. Like I said, I didn't-- I said, I didn't know a lot about it, but I think, you know, I sometimes look with one eye closed at the blurb in the back, I really don't want a lot of spoilage before I start something. But I think I saw the word funny. And so, I was like, oh, it's a memoir. It's funny. It has to do with trans issues, I think. I was like, all right, let's try it. So I went into it, which I hated, with a couple of ideas in my head. And then as I started reading it, I was very initially startled, frustrated, and not in the mood for-- What we have to say is an academic part of this book. I mean, she-- that's why we said it's not really pure memoir. There's a lot of literary theory. There's a lot of discussion of events in her life. And there's a lot of bringing in academic voices from the literature about art criticism, literary criticism, queer theory. And in this-- the margins of the book, she lists-- she names the thinker that she's quoting from. It's seamlessly integrated into her narrative, but it's definitely academic. And there's a-- this is something I like to talk about because like reading an academic, I was-- so I had to struggle with that and realized what was happening. And also academic language is very much a-- What's the word? Not-- I was going to say ivory tower. Very much a-- It's very much itself for-- and it's very much geared towards not the general reader.

>> Right.

>> So that language when you come upon it, like she could be talking about like her experience with her pregnancy, or the experience with her partner, Harry taking testosterone, or getting top surgery, his, her, or she calls him you. I mean, she doesn't actually-- She discusses how pronouns are so difficult actually and how Harry does not really subscribe to pronouns. That, we can get into that later. But --

>> Yeah.

>> And then you come upon her referencing very seamlessly and very artfully an academic's voice. And it's a language that stops me because it's-- I find it difficult, you know, like --

>> Right.

>> -- for example, like-- which is-- which also begs the question sometimes, like I was thinking, who was she writing for? Because by bringing in thinkers like Judith Butler, who is a gender theorist, and Eve Sedgwick, and Winnicott --

>> Right.

>> -- it's not a general reader. And she's not trying to, therefore I think, write a book to persuade a general reader that what her experiences are valid. She's not trying to persuade anyone, it seems, that her relationship, her queer identification, all of this, is not really geared to persuade someone to her, in quote, side. You know what I mean? Do you think that's true?

>> Absolutely. Yeah, I definitely agree with that. And I also kind of what you were saying with the different kind of theorists that she brings in, and in terms of writing it for a specific audience, I did feel kind of that it took me out of the book, because then I began to think about, you know, because there's usually just like, she'll be writing about her experience, and then she'll include just-- that's just this kind of quote that's isolated. And I feel like with theory, my thinking is like, well, I want to kind of understand how does this relate to the rest of, you know, what this person was actually talking about and what's written. And then I'm kind of thinking, you know, well, who-- I'm not familiar with this theorist so maybe I need to stop and look them up, or I'm not going to understand what she's talking about, and kind of just this single, you know, quote that she would put in for someone who, you know, maybe that she's not writing for who is not familiar with this audience, I did feel removed from it because I felt like, well, maybe I need to go and kind of educate myself on this a little bit more, and then come back to it. And then maybe I'll be able to see what's-- to understand more clearly what's happening.

>> Exactly. I think that's a great point. And what was frustrating, and when I-- along with what we just discussed about reading-- when I started reading it was a concept that came upon me which, as listeners know, I often say, when you don't like something or have feel challenge, I think it behooves one to investigate oneself about why you feel challenged and where you might be biased, or have a problem, or an issue, or just whatever, it's about you, the reader, not the book, I think. I think you have to say, well, why am I having a reaction this way? I feel like you owe it to the book and the author. And I think part of the queer theory and the theorists and the discussion she has, part of what she's-- that whole school of thinking, or way of thinking, or tool to think, is really not designed to answer a lot of questions. I think it's designed to bring up a lot of questions, to question patriarchy, to question authority, to question what are the social norms that we all follow without thinking? So there's a lot of questions. And I think I realized when I was having a trouble with it, like I'm looking at a book that has a binding and has a front page and a last page, I'm like, oh, great, I'm going to get some answers. I'm going to get-- This woman is going to sum up her life for me and tell me what it means. And I realized that wasn't going to happen I think. I think what it was going to do is bring up a lot of questions and a lot of thinkers relating to those questions, and give that to me, almost start giving language like I say all the time too to concepts that are difficult to grasp. And it's interesting because there's a quote I noted at one point where Maggie Nelson is discussing like what fiction is, and she says how she hates fiction, or at least bad fiction, she says, because it doesn't question, it it forces down your throat preconceived ideas, and like the author already has an idea of what they want to tell you and give you and --

>> Right.

>> -- force you to take, but she doesn't like that. So I was like, well, that's exactly what I sometimes want from fiction.

>> Exactly.

>> I want someone's point of view and I want someone's decision on what something means. And then I can either take it or not. But I like-- So it gets, quote, frustrating as you're reading "The Argonauts" because you're getting a lot of questions and a lot of discussion, but you're not getting a summation. She's not summing it up for you and saying, here, here's what I've discovered what pregnancy means to me. Here's what I've discovered what being in a relationship with this person means to me.

>> Right, exactly. Yeah. So I definitely-- I think that was a part of what I struggled with too is just trying to figure out like, am I missing what he is trying to tell us, right? So maybe I wasn't thinking of it that way in terms of, well, maybe she's not really trying to give me a clear message or give the reader a clear message, but she's leaving me with the door open to kind of do more exploration. So, I definitely think that that's an excellent point because that's kind of where I was left was like maybe I need to go back and do some more rereading of these passages, maybe I need to kind of think about these questions that she's presenting a little bit more.

>> Right. Like I was saying before, to give an example, like early on in the book, she's talking and she refers to a philosopher, Jacques Lacan, or psychologist, I guess, um, and she writes-- You know, her-- the style of the book is that there's really not chapters, it's very short paragraphs. So, you have like eight or nine paragraphs, short paragraphs on two pages facing you. And that format allows her, I think, to go from one thought to another without necessarily or at least obviously relating the paragraph that came before. So what she says there, she says, starting on a new thought from the previous paragraph, to align oneself with the real while intimating that others are at play approximate or an imitation can feel good. But any fixed claim on realness, especially when it is tied to an identity, also has a finger in psychosis. And then she quotes Lacan, if a man who thinks he is a king is mad, a king who thinks he is a king is no less so. And then, she goes on to something else. And I'm like, like you said, I read that, I'm like, wait, what am I supposed to take from this? Like, wait, I don't --

>> Right.

>> -- even know what that said. And then I realized, she's basically saying-- or what's being said is that if you claim yourself to be real and others are not as real as you, that you're the real one and others really are not getting it, and along with that, if you say you are something in terms of identity, I am this, I am this fixed thing, then if someone else says-- I don't know what I'm doing. See, I don't know.

>> I was following you, Frank. But any --

>> But she goes, but any fixed claim on realness, especially when it is tied to an identity has a finger in psychosis. And then she gives the example of a man thinks he's a king-- Wait. If a man who thinks he's a king is crazy, then a king who thinks he is a king is no less crazy. So basically that --

>> Right.

>> That's all-- There's a lot there, I mean. And you --

>> There's a lot there.

>> Then that's tougher for a non-academic, I think, to grasp. I have to make that division in a way because there is an academic sense to this book. It's very much full of visceral experiences, especially related to childbirth and to sex. But when you get something like that, you're just like, wait, what does this mean exactly? Because it's a tough one. I mean, who thinks he's king?

>> And I feel like, and with me, you know, usually with academic writing, it requires a very close reading.

>> Right.

>> And, you know, not the, you know, we normally don't read things closely, but we don't normally read things that you are meant to read in academic text. So, as you were kind of saying earlier, not expecting this kind of writing. I wasn't really prepared to do that type of analysis on it, you know? So really kind of I really-- I had to stop myself from kind of just letting the words kind of just floating off the page.

>> Yeah.

>> You know, I really had to, like you're doing, like reread these passages over again, and really kind of read more like you said like someone who is reading in a clause in academic text, which in some-- and even in some situations, I still struggled a bit with that.

>> Yeah. I mean, it's-- I think when-- hearing you talk makes me think, in a way, to throw off-- to throw at you so many big ideas, like that's a big idea I just discussed. But that will happen every other page. That's throwing a lot at you without-- and then leaving it there, like give the example, and then it's sort of left there for you, and then moving on to something else that's all related but not directly. So you're getting a lot of big in quotes ideas, or that seemed big, and that feel like they need attention, but you can't mess it. Well, you know, I should say that last night when I was thinking about today, that I was rereading it and rereading parts for the second time were like 100% clearer to me than they were the first time because for that experience, just that experience we're talking about, we weren't expecting it, that kind of thing.

>> Right. Right, you know? And I was hoping actually thinking in my head, like I wish I had started the book earlier, because then I feel like I definitely need to go back. I would reread it --

>> Yeah.

>> -- if I had started it earlier, because I was like I feel like this is something that definitely, with the second reading, I would have-- I would come away with a different experience.

>> It's --

>> Yeah. And there's one part --

>> Yeah.

>> Sorry. Go-- Yeah, that there was one part --

>> That was just misleading because it's seemingly a short book, like 140 pages, but --

>> Right.

>> -- it's not a short read. Yeah. But please talk about this section.

>> Yeah, there was a section, and I don't have it in front of me because I actually listened to it, but I still, you know.

>> I just gave you a side eye.

>> Right. Don't side eye me, because I didn't want to-- Like you said you wanted to get a screen, so I was like, you know what, the screen or I listen to it, so.

>> Yeah.

>> That was my choice. But-- And it was-- it actually helped a little bit because I was able to, with her reading it, I was kind of able to understand the rhythm of the book. So that did help me. But I just was-- One of the sections that I felt, you know, was really stream of consciousness, and I kind of was like, this is interesting. It was actually towards the end of the book, and you might remember where she talks about she's just had her baby, and then she kind of transitions into this one-- some more Winnicott, theory from Winnicott. And then she easily quickly and transitions into talking about poetry. And then she goes into this conversation about one of her colleagues who is very conservative, and then she moves into Michael Jackson and his pet bubbles. And then right from there, she moves into her mother preferring male weathermen, which she kind of comes back to a little bit, and then she kind of goes back into the theory. And those are the sections where your mind is really kind of like working so hard to follow where she's going with this. And then there was something-- another part that was closer towards the end where she talks about this story of a young boy who's building the ships, you know, in the bottles. And then she kind of says, I don't really know how this relates to what I'm talking about. And, you know, so it's those type of moments where you're working so hard to kind of just put all of this together. So, I felt like I did kind of-- a point that really did click for me, and then at points, I'm still thinking, I need to go back. I have to relisten, I need to reread. I don't know if you had those-- if you read those sections that kind of had those same experiences.

>> Yes, absolutely. And I think just that experience begs the question that she's clearly, like I said before, not trying to offer up a conclusive meaning about her life. She's not saying, here's what my life is and here's the words that I'm wrapping up to give it to you. In a way, it is a stream of consciousness, it is poetic. She is a poet as well. It is a lot of philosophy. There's a lot of critical theory. And it is personal experience. Like, you know, there's visceral personal experience. So it's its own-- I mean, it sounds done right away. And I feel like it's, by design, it's something that if you take out like one phrase, like you figure out one phrase or concept then and chew on that, you could chew on that for the rest of your life. I mean, you know what I mean? Like, just the concept I read about like, you know, if a king says he's a king-- I don't --

>> I understand what you're saying, yes.

>> I'm not going back to it. I thought-- I actually thought I-- But that's actually my point. Last night when I read that phrase-- that passage, I was like, oh, I'm going to bring that up tomorrow. I understood it. Now, I can't seem to find the language for it. Maybe because I'm on the spot a bit and I can't just stop for 20 minutes and think about it. But that's sort of what it gives you. This this book is just that. So-- And that maybe, you know, in some ways, there is a free-- by not wrapping it up in a bow or not giving you what identity is, for example, like here's what I think-- She's not saying, Maggie Nelson. Here's what I think identity is. She's saying, here's what I think. Here's what a lot of people think about identity and here's how I think about identity, and even more than that, my thought about identity changes. That's one of the key things I think of this book is that nothing is static. It changes. Like relationships change, her thoughts on identity change, her rumination on whether she's being fair or not to another person changes, like-- So it's changeable. And that actually leads into what you could say what the title is because the art-- As far as I understand, tell me if you do, "The Argonauts", what she means by that is the Greek myth, Jason and the Argonauts. The Argo is the ship. The Argonauts is Jason's team are on who pursue the Golden Fleece or pursue adventures. But through their many-- you know, as Greek myths do, their many, many years journey, the Argo, the ship, goes under lots of changes through the years by necessity, to fix it, to replace it, to give different parts. But the name Argos stays the same, but the ship itself is transformed over that period of time. So, I think she's saying that identity could have one-- like man, woman, you could have that name or some designation of that, but you really are changing constantly. There's a-- There's --

>> Right.

>> Your sexuality changes, your-- the way you identify yourself changes, yet you could still have that same label. Conversely, there's a part where she says that saying I love you to someone is sort of like being the Argo ship, that saying I love you in a relationship is a monolithic statement, but what it means changes constantly through a relationship. So, I don't know what your thoughts on that.

>> Yeah. That's kind of how I understood it kind of, you know, the-- and when she was describing the ship, I was-- I thought I was kind of under the impression that the like-- it was like the foundation or the framework was remained the same, but the pieces within the ship would constantly be changing. So even though after a long period of time, all of the different pieces and parts of the ship would be different, but the main-- the framework has remained intact. And kind of what you were saying about like saying I love you or being with-- in a marriage or something like that, you still have the framework that will always be there, but the pieces, the different parts are constantly moving, and changing --

>> Yeah.

>> -- you know?

>> Yeah.

>> Right.

>> What about-- So what about, what do you-- This relationship, I mean, Harry, her partner, is interesting. He-- I'm going to say he.

>> She does say he I believe. I think in the beginning, she talks about how, you know, her and her friend were trying to figure out the correct pronoun. But I believe towards the end, doesn't she refer to him as he?

>> I don't know, maybe. But --

>> I think so.

>> -- I know that at times in the book, she will say-- she will be addressing a you in the book.

>> Right.

>> Not a female she, but you while --

>> Right.

>> And I believe she's addressing Harry.

>> Yes.

>> But-- All right. So, you know, Harry, in some analysis is a trans man from a woman to a man. But-- And Harry weaves his way throughout the book. And I get the sense that Harry is a very private person and doesn't particularly either want or doesn't share a lot for her, Maggie Nelson, to tell us about. But you do get very interesting moments with him. And I like, in some ways, I mean, it illustrates what we're talking about where Harry says he is not trans because he's not going anywhere.

>> Right.

>> He's not in transition from one thing to another. He's not in transition from a woman to a man. He's perfectly happy as Maggie Nelson says in the book as a butch dyke, or butch, really a butch on testosterone.

>> Exactly.

>> I mean, and then that's the-- he's happily identify as that. He's not-- And that's something that makes clear in the book going from a fixed identity of woman to a fixed identity of man. So, if the option for him is not like to go that way, I don't want to be that a man, I want to be this what I-- who I am. And that I guess is it is-- well, clearly, in the culture too, a tough thing to accept. We sort of want to be like, OK, this is how you identify, got it, I can move on. And clearly, the book is about not having a fixed identity like that.

>> Exactly. And kind of what I was saying in the very beginning, she talks about, you know, how Harry describes his own process and not wanting to identify to this one specific thing, but then struggling because outside-- he still has to live in this world where everyone else is really stuck on everyone having one very kind of specific identity. And she does bring, you know, brings in those moments when Harry has to use his credit card that still has --

>> Yes.

>> -- the female name on it, or when they go to buy, you know, go to eat at a restaurant, or different types of, and she says, you know, most of the times, people, you know, believe that he's, you know, they just see him as male. But in those instances when they don't, that's kind of when you-- how, you know, he-- how he identifies for himself clashes with what the rest of the world will force on someone, right? They want to put things into specific categories, which is where kind of the conflict comes in. And, you know, even with her writing, I said, that definitely is a challenge for a lot of people to kind of break free from having to have these very specific categories or identities. And I thought that part was, you know, I did connect with that and I thought that part was skillfully done.

>> Well, you know what, I-- you bring up the credit card scene, and I would actually love to know what you-- how you interpreted the story because you heard her tell it, where I read it. And I made in a circle note in my notes about this particular story, almost saying, why is she telling me the story? Because she doesn't, at least from my reading of it, does not tell you what it means. And let me read it for-- if you don't mind.

>> Sure.

>> Maybe it will come back to you about how you heard it because you did mention it, so clearly you remembered it. So she and Harry have a baby. We've-- I referred to before she was pregnant and had a baby. So she says, recently, we were buying pumpkins for Halloween. We've been given a little red wagon to put our pumpkins in as we traipsed around the field. We'd haggle over the price. We oh'd and ah'd at the life sized mechanical zombie removing his head. We've been given freebie mini pumpkins for our cute baby, then the credit card. The guy helping us paused for a long moment and said, this is her card, right? Pointing at me. I almost felt sorry for him. He was so desperate to normalize the moment. I should have said yes but I was worried I would open up a new avenue of trouble. Never the scofflaw, yet I know I have what it takes to put my body on the line if and when it comes down to it. This knowledge is a hot red shape inside me. So we just froze in the way we froze. So we just froze in the way we freeze, until Harry said, it's my card. Long pause, side long there, a shadow of violence usually drifts over the scene. It's complicated, Harry finally said, puncturing the silence. Eventually the man helping us spoke. No, actually, it's not, he said, handing back the card. Not complicated at all. And then she goes on to another story. And I remember thinking, well, what does that mean? I mean, Harry's clearly giving a credit card with his female-- previous female name on it. Instead, the guy helping them says, well, it's her card, meaning Maggie Nelson who is presenting more female. And then, you know, Harry, just being an affable sort says, it's complicated. And then the guy helping them says, no, it's not complicated at all. And I was like, what? What does this mean?

>> Were you expecting like a confrontation or?

>> Well, she's-- I mean, that's where her poetry comes in.

>> Static experiments.

>> Yes. She says her poetry comes in where she says, usually, a sense of violence walks through the scene when this happens. Like she-- There's a sense of aggression that might be building because the person helping them is confused and has their own emotions maybe feels bad that they even pointed it out, or wants an answer. You know, sometimes, I've gotten library cards in the library and in, quotes, the name doesn't match the person in front of me, so I think. And I usually don't say a thing. I don't say a thing, because it's not my affair to say anything.

>> Right.

>> And what-- So I have an interpretation in that moment, big deal. You sort of worked your way to the end result, which is like this person's giving me a card and accepting the card and going from there. So what do you think-- How did she read that story?

>> She read it, and I guess-- So she reads a lot of the book kind of in the same way, very this kind of the certain kind of poetic rhythm that she has. But when-- This part I kind of felt almost like a bit-- there was a bit of resignation there in the sense that this is something that was normal for them-- not normal. I would say something that they encountered, not infrequently. Like this is experience that they have gone through many times before and not really knowing what to expect. And sometimes, she said, there's this kind of like air of violence.

>> Yeah.

>> And then sometimes people kind of realize like, well, maybe this actually isn't such a big deal. And maybe he had-- he felt he need to ask it, because at that moment, again, trying to figure out like what's the best way I can kind of make sense of this? And then really seeing what's happening, like, OK, well, all right, now I kind of understand, I'm just going to move on. But I just kind of get the sense that this is something that happens a lot, and then sometimes it ends up like this, and sometimes --

>> Right.

>> -- you know, she has to say, like she said, kind of put her body on the line.

>> Right. I think that's, again, right because-- and it's an illustration of what I said before she doesn't like about fiction or not so great fiction is that there isn't an agenda with the story. And I think you just --

>> Right.

>> -- described that perfectly. Sometimes it works out this way, and sometimes it works out this way. And then it again, even going further, which she exhorts us to do, it's not always that binary in any way. Sometimes it happens this way, sometimes it ends up this way, and sometimes it ends up this way, and sometimes it ends up this way. It's not-- She's not offering you a story. I mean that's-- when the guy helping them says no, it's not complicated at all, I want to know exactly what that means. Like, is he an ally? Is-- Or is he being sarcastic I even thought, or he's just being indifferent, or he's almost bored with it? Like-- But she doesn't give you that and that's why I was asking you if she read it with like an interpretation because it is a quote, and you said she doesn't.

>> No.

>> It's not giving you a predetermined meaning.

>> And I think the way she reads it is the way that you would probably read it on the page, because you don't get a lot of-- she doesn't really give you hints, you know? And it's some memoir that where people-- most people read their own memoirs in audiobooks. They do kind of tell you or give you hints in the voice of which way something's going, like you could hear their voice if the person was being sarcastic or if the person was actually an ally, but she doesn't do that. She reads it-- She doesn't read a monotone, but she doesn't-- she also doesn't give away those type of things in her voice, like you do get sometimes in other audio memoirs.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> I mean, like another quote, which just like sums it up and it's like, well, see, again, I'm seeking to sum it up. And maybe my impulse to sum it up should stop and just let it be. She says-- Let's see. Actually when I referred to before how Harry says he's not in transition because he's not you know, going anywhere, I'm not on my way anywhere he says. He's happy to be a butch on T. And like, then the quote from another thinker says, I do not want the female gender that has been assigned to me at birth, neither do I want the male gender that transexual medicine can furnish and that the state will reward me if I behave in the right way. I don't want any of it. And then Maggie Nelson, in her-- goes back to her voice, how to explain that for some, or for some at some times this irresolution is OK, desirable even, whereas for others, or for others at some times, it stays a source of conflict or grief. How does one get across the fact that the best way to find out about people, how people feel about their gender, or their sexuality, or anything else really, is to listen to what they tell you, and to try to treat them accordingly without shellacking over their version of reality with yours. That's it. It's like --

>> Yeah.

>> -- chillax and don't shellack. I mean, it's like, let people be people.

>> Exactly.

>> It's true. It really is true. It's like I said before, you know, I get a library card that doesn't appear to have a name that matches what I perceived the person in front of me is, so what?

>> And I agree with you, 100%. And I think also kind of the part of that-- what that section what you were saying is that it's human nature for people to really, really try to make sense of what they don't understand. And so, you know, I could see how that could be something that they face a lot because people, even when they're open to different things, they really do try to-- their hardest to kind of manipulate something into something that's feasible for their brain.

>> Right.

>> It is --

>> Shellacking, you know?

>> Yeah, exactly. What she's saying, you know, that is-- that's not always going to be the case. We're not always going to be able to fit something so neatly in a box that we can understand it and we can digest it easily and going without our day. Sometimes we just have to let it be, and let people just be who they are, as you were saying.

>> Right. I mean, it could be an interesting feeling and a very positive one in a way, or just an interesting feeling to actually let confusion and nondefinition wash over you. You know, like that example of someone giving you a card, that library card or credit card that doesn't seem to match the identity of the person in front of you, and let it-- let all those emotions just go through. Because when I said about working it to the final conclusion, the final conclusion in that transaction is just take the card --

>> Right.

>> -- as a respect to the human being giving it you. Assume that person is that person. But then of course, we're like, well, they could be-- have stolen it or they could be something nefarious here. Like that-- those emotions are in the mix. So rather than go there, go to the what basically choosing what the person's telling you, which is like, in good faith, here's my card, take it in such good faith without questioning them, because it's not-- in a way, it doesn't matter what your perception is. Or it matters, but it's not the end of the discussion.

>> Right, right.

>> You know, it doesn't end the discussion, like I'm not taking this because you're not a Denise. You're clearly Dennis, you know? What does that mean? It's very interesting.

>> Very.

>> Very interesting.

>> It's very interesting.

>> I had a lot of-- Oh, about page, I have two pages of like notes about what pages to go back to, but I thought it was also interesting the one time she gets really mad. It seems like the most angry she gets in this book is when she's reading an article about a mom who's writing about her transitioning child. And --

>> Yes.

>> -- how basically the mother is saying, you know, I'm in grief because, you know, the pretty young-- pretty little girl I thought I knew is now, you know, has a deep voice and facial hair. And, you know, where does this fall in the-- She-- It's actually two stories about people discussing relations who are transitioning, and questioning where does this fall in the taxonomy of grief? Meaning, you know, they're changing, but what about my grief, like my grief as they're transitioning? And Maggie Nelson basically says, your grief is the least of anyone's worries, you know, in this --

>> Right.

>> -- area because it's not about you. She gets a little mad about that. She's like-- She's almost like a little sarcastic about like, you know, where does-- you know, your grief fall pretty down-- pretty low on the list of grieves in the world, which I thought was an interesting stand. That was one of the times I noticed she got really sort of infuriated.

>> Yeah. She's kind of saying, you know, well, what's more important, your grief, or this person being able to freely be --

>> Yeah.

>> -- who the-- the person who they were born to be? Like, should that person live a miserable life --

>> Yeah.

>> -- and in a situation that they are not happy with so that you can have your little girl, you know? So she's kind of saying like, well, what is more important, this person's free and happy life or, you know, your sadness? Like the person isn't gone, you know? They're just being who they have always meant to be. So, I-- Yeah, I noticed that anger there. In that sense, I definitely agree with it.

>> You what?

>> I said I noticed her anger there and in that sense, I definitely agreed with it. I could kind of --

>> Yeah.

>> -- relate to her anger in that situation.

>> I mean, yeah, it's a very-- I mean, the whole book is a stance that does not so called satisfy, which is the point like the usual binary as people say that, you know, good, bad or acceptable, unacceptable is there's a lot of, you know-- I mean, it's one of the few times it gets very-- or seemingly gets specific, in terms of like, this is what this is. A lot of times, it's questioning, it's questioning-- bringing questions up, and then through literary criticism and poetry, sort of answering them, or responding to them, or adding to the continuing conversation. But the ultimate thing is sort of like really the delineation of your boundaries in a way. It's like your identity is your identity, someone else's identity is their identity. And the two do not have to tussle for dominance.

>> Exactly.

>> Yeah.

>> And there are a few sections of the book, I know, as I said, I struggled a lot with the academic part of it. But then there were two sections that I did really kind of, I don't know, really kind of get into or really relate to. And that was when she was talking about kind of two different ideas of transformation or transitioning. And the first one was when she was talking about her body changing as she was going through pregnancy, and Harry's body changing as he was taking testosterone and preparing for top surgery. And even though she's kind of talks a lot in the book about kind of stripping these ideas of having like one certain identity or have not wanting to specifically be male, she kind of describes herself, her body as becoming more female and her-- and him becoming more male. And then, there was a section where she had a baby when she was giving birth, and she talks about that experience along the experience of watching her mother transition as she was passing away, you know, the idea of bringing this life into the world and then watching, like literally watching her mother's last breath, watching this person leave the world. And those two sections, those were ones that was really-- I felt, you know, she didn't include kind of the academic, the quotes and the theorists in there. She was just kind of telling her story. I don't know what you thought about those sections, Frank.

>> Well, yeah, I think you're right again, like that it brought up the issue of like who is she writing this book for? Like, who is she telling her story to? Because for someone who's as dummy like me, you know, that the story is about her experiences are very straightforward seeming and very narratively engaging because, oh, I can get descriptions of a pregnant, like this really --

>> Right.

>> -- descriptions of her body, and then relating it to the mother dying and those experiences being at a bedside negotiating illness and hospitals, then hospice eventually. I mean, those stories feel very straightforward. And then you get language that as we've illustrated, I hope-- We can go back to that quote that I can't seem to get about the king who's crazy who's also crazy. I mean, you get language that's more academic that I-- that is not as easy to understand and-- Wait a minute. What did you ask me? You asked me what I thought about this. Yeah, because --

>> Yeah. And as what you-- And you're answering it. You're saying, you know, in a way, those are --

>> OK.

>> -- I guess, like easier because we're getting this kind of straightforward narrative that is --

>> Right.

>> -- more easily relatable.

>> Right. There are memoirs out there that are like, you know, a woman tells her story about pregnancy and her own parent dying, or in-law dying, and you're like, oh, I know what I'm going to get. And then you get that here, but then obviously part of this is also that poetic academic voice that is clearly very important to her, or very much a part of the way she thinks, but doesn't offer you solutions. It really --

>> Right.

>> -- was an exhortation just to back away from someone else's identity, and just back away in a way from human beings and their sexuality, their identities, they're-- almost everything that's personal expression. It's not-- It's for you to comprehend and understand and relate to, and that's it, and not to attack, not to hurt. You know, I feel it's simplistic but I guess, you know, that's really what it is, it's all about.

>> Yeah.

>> And that's very radical to a lot of people. Oh, go she does talk a lot about too about what it means to be a radical too. Oh my god, there was that whole section about where she's talking about what it means to be a radical, like related to what you said about when she was pregnant and feeling more female, about this normalization of queerness or outlaw sexuality that gay and lesbian had back in the day, and still in some ways do. And she talks about some writers who this one guy who basically is like, you know, I don't want to get married. I don't like the fact that gay marriage is legal. You know, being gay was about being like was hot, was like --

>> Yeah.

>> -- hiding because I was not only getting pleasure, but I was breaking laws at the same time. If I can't have it that way, I might as well be straight.

>> Yeah, I remember. And there was a good quote. Is this the quote I was thinking of? Oh, yeah, I believe she said something kind of in relation to that. She goes when she was-- when they went to get married right before Prop 8 passed --

>> Yeah.

>> -- and she goes, poor marriage, off we went to kill it, unforgiveable-- or reinforce it, unforgiveable.

>> Right.

>> Yeah. So it was kind of either way --

>> Exactly.

>> -- it's wrong.

>> Try to kill the idea of marriage, which is unforgivable, or to actually reinforce the idea of marriage which is also forgivable. And that's very Maggie Nelson in this book. Like, she's not giving you a side on the binary to land on. It's like they both have the same qualities. They both have the same unforgiveable qualities. It's like to reify the concept of marriage or to destroy the concept of marriage, and both are not acceptable. It's like-- And that's why you you're left with a lot to chew on.

>> A lot to chew on for sure.

>> It's-- I'm a little like --

>> Yeah. And I always said it's a lot. It definitely, like I said, I kind of wish I had a chance to have read-- We read it before we discuss.

>> Yeah. I mean, I --

>> Yeah.

>> Like I said, last night, I was rereading some parts and they were coming to me very much more clearly. And I did read some notes I had pinned down last night, and I was like, huh? Like in the morning I had lost it again. I was like, I don't get it. Because language, again, which I love and fascinated with, but language is tough. The words we use to describe experience are tough --

>> Yeah.

>> -- to translate for another person to apprehend. It's interesting. But it's valiant. The book is valiant.

>> Yes.

>> Let's --

>> And I enjoy being challenged sometimes. Yeah, it was, you know?

>> You what?

>> It's good to have that thrown into the mix.

>> What?

>> Just something that challenges you, you know?

>> Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

>> I wasn't prepared for it, but it is good to kind of have that mix, you know, that add it into your normal course of literature.

>> Yeah. "The Argonauts" by Maggie Nelson.

>> Yeah.

>> Anything else, my darling?

>> No, I think that-- I mean, again, I hope our listeners decided to read with us and got a lot from the discussion, because like you said, there's just so much to talk about.

>> For sure. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean I could keep going on and on until the coffee runs off, then I'm done. But anything else in your landscape of culture that you're preoccupied with or enjoying these days?

>> Actually, there was something that kind of, you know, if we're just talking generally --

>> Yeah.

>> -- and this is definitely like not related at all to anything with "The Argonauts", but something kind of exciting happened last week for, I guess, NYPL. The United States Postal Service issued four stamps for the Harlem Renaissance, which features two near Public Library related people, Arturo Schomburg, which of course the Schomburg Center is named after. And then who else? It was one other person. Let me just look it up.

>> I don't know.

>> But she was a librarian at the New York Public Library. I'm going to look it up now.

>> Related to the Harlem Renaissance.

>> Exactly, yes.

>> Who?

>> Nella Larsen. She was a -- Oh, yeah, she was a writer during the Harlem Renaissance, but she also was a librarian at the 135th Street branch.

>> Really?

>> And they did a whole-- Usually, they do kind of an opening for these events. They-- You know, people will have speakers, but they decided to do it virtually. So I went-- I attended the Zoom. And it was actually really fascinating. They had the stamp artist on there who had done these original drawings with pastels and paints, and he talked about the whole process of drawing and researching these Harlem Renaissance figures, and they talked about-- they had speakers from the Postal Service come. And I had to look up the word philatelic. I did not even know what that meant. Do you know what that --

>> That's a like --

>> Philatelic, yeah.

>> It's like stamp-- I'm not collecting but stamp related.

>> Yeah, like stamp collecting, postal matter. And it was a whole group of people who are, you know, really into stamp collecting. It was just really fascinating and really interesting experience. And, you know, I went mostly to see these stamps for the Harlem Renaissance and, you know, Schomburg and Nella Larsen, but it kind of opened a whole new world to me of stamp collecting that I was not familiar with. So that was actually pretty exciting. Oh, I see. I'm looking --

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah, like Schomburg, Alain Locke, Nella Larsen, and Anne Spencer are featured on these Harlem Renaissance stamp. That is so cool.

>> It was pretty fun.

>> You know, I just paid, well, monthly bills. God bless the fact that I could do it yesterday, and also taxes, even though taxes have extended to July 15th. And, you know, there was just-- I'm shutting up with my tactile pleasures. Like there was a pleasure in just putting a stamp on an envelope.

>> Yeah.

>> I'm fetishizing like all these so-called old school ways of things, but you know, I remember when I was doing it, like the whole gesture of sealing an envelope and putting a stamp on it was sort of pleasurable.

>> I agree with that one. I still-- You know, maybe that's why I was so excited about this event --

>> Yeah.

>> -- because I was like, oh, wow, look at all these people who still love stamps and appreciate the artwork and appreciate, you know? And then they said it's great way for like geography because you're like sending this to someone. Yeah, it was definitely very cool. Did you have --

>> What?

>> So sorry, go ahead, Frank.

>> No. Maybe you're a budding philatelist.

>> I just might me. I just might be, Frank.

>> Rhonda is like, next time she'll be like, I'm a stamp collector.

>> Like, you know, I have to admit, I did watch some YouTube videos over the weekend --

>> You were obsessed.

>> -- of stamp colliding. So I want to be.

>> About stamp collection, you watched?

>>. I watched a couple YouTube videos, so.

>> Well, all right babe. That's very adorable. It really is. Actually, I think that's wonderful. I'm glad you told that story. I think it's actually there's --

>> I appreciate it.

>> -- so much in there.

>> Maybe we have some listeners who are I guess philatelists out there.

>> Philatelist.

>> Is that how you say it?

>> I don't know. It sounds-- It's like --

>> Somebody will correct.

>> It sounds like an interesting practice for Maggie Nelson's book actually.

>> It does, right?

>> Well, I practice philately. Oh, do you? I know, it's a little bit-- I don't know, anyway. Maybe this is a good place to stop.

>> OK. All right.

>> I know I could go on forever. But God knows nobody wants us to, or me too at least. But thank you everybody for listening in, and hope you read and enjoy "The Argonauts" by Maggie Nelson, and take a look at our, you know, 125 Books We Love List celebrating the New York Public Library's 125th anniversary. I'm Frank saying see you next time.

>> See you next time.

>> Thanks for listening to "The librarian Is In", a podcast by the New York Public Library. Don't forget to subscribe and leave a review on Apple podcast or Google Play, or send us an email at podcasts@nypl.org. For more information about the New York Public Library and our 125th anniversary, please visit nypl.org/125. We are produced by Christine Farrell. Your hosts are Frank Collerius and Rhonda Evans.