Interview with Martin Riker of Dalkey Archive Press

Continuing our series of interviews with independent publishers, this week we have an interview with Martin Riker, associate director of Dalkey Archive Press. Like Open Letter Books, which was featured in our previous segment, Dalkey Archive is a non-profit publisher (affiliated with the University of Illinois) engaged in what founder John O'Brien calls a "quixotic venture" of publishing the best of contemporary and seminal world literature. As can be seen in the following interview, Dalkey Archive represents something of an anomaly in the publishing industry, being concerned less with sales than with making available engaging and challenging books.

We'd like to thank Martin for his time.

GA: Instead of a reductive mission statement, Dalkey Archive seems to take a broader view of publishing. John O’Brien, founder of the Press, adheres to a belief in literature's capacity to alter perceptions. Can you explain how this plays out practically? In other words, what is a "Dalkey Archive" book?

MR: It's a question of aesthetics, of what sorts of art we are most interested in. That might seem obvious, but it's the best place to start, since what that means is that we do not start from questions of marketability (sales potential) or "cultural relevance" (we don't publish translated books just because they're translated, for example), but simply ask ourselves, "is this a book we love?" Once the answer is "yes" and the decision is made to publish a book, then we immediately forget about aesthetics and art and focus on how best to sell the book, or how to get it to the widest audience in the most meaningful way. We're a nonprofit mission-based organization, but publishing books we think are important is only half of that mission; getting them read is the other.

GA: As a follow-up to the first questions: the Submissions Guidelines on the website states that Dalkey is looking for works of fiction belonging to the tradition of Sterne, Joyce, Rabelais, Flann O'Brien, Beckett, Gertrude Stein and Djuna Barnes. Do you see a unifying approach or theme in the work of these writers?

MR: I sort of didn't answer your first question because I thought I'd answer it here with your second. I could write a dissertation on this question (actually, I did write my dissertation on this question, or something quite like it) but the short answer that I like to give is that these are writers who take the long view of literature. People will talk about Dalkey Archive books as "experimental"---our publisher uses the term "subversive"---but in my mind it is fundamentally a question of perceiving literary art as a thing that is both of its time and part of a conversation that spans over many eras. A writer who views literature this way is not likely to be interested in what's currently popular, and therefore doesn't really care whether he/she is "avant-garde"; at the same time, such a writer is not going to see him/herself as being in conversation strictly with the dominant stylistic modes of the time. Many of the writers who look "experimental" to us today only look that way because the writers they are responding to (or stealing from) are not their immediate predecessors. Another way of saying that is that everything looks "experimental" to people who haven't read very many books. If all you've read are romance novels, the Yellow Pages will look experimental. Taking the long view of literature, on the other hand, means being interested in literature as an art form, with its own history and with various traditions that can be played with, reinvented, and subverted in order to make a compelling word-filled object that carries some real liveliness. Once you make the shift to caring about art, the innovation and experimentation is just standard.

GA: Besides the publishing books, Dalkey is also involved in producing the Review of Contemporary Fiction and Context. Can you give a brief description of these publications and their aims?

MR: Our origins are in literary criticism, in talking about books and in seeing critical discussion as a relevant part of the (literary) artistic experience. The Review was our first publication (in 1981) and is still publishing three issues per year today. We just published an updated version of our Georges Perec issue, which happens to be my favorite. Context is a free newsprint and web magazine that we started in 2000 as a way of reaching younger readers. Over the years we've had some incredible contributors and published some extraordinary pieces, which are all available free on our website.

GA: A question made especially pertinent now: How does a non-profit publisher survive in tough economic times?

MR: It would be nice to be able to answer that nonprofit publishers are immune to the economy because we can turn to grants and donations for support, but the truth is that the philanthropic community has been hurt as badly as anyone. We're fortunate to have the support of the University of Illinois, where our main office is located, and a broad range of funders in both the US and Europe. And of course we sell books. Having a lot of different sources of income, rather than relying on one source, is no doubt an advantage.

GA: What's up next for Dalkey Archive?

MR: We've joined up with Norton, who will be distributing our books as of Fall. We're launching an annual anthology of European fiction (Best European Fiction 2010) starting in January. Aleksandar Hemon is the series editor, and Zadie Smith's agreed to write a preface. We're publishing about 50 titles this year---more than in past years---including a lot of my favorite writers (Jean-Philippe Toussaint, Gert Jonke) as well as writers new to our list (Andrej Stasiuk, Goncalo Tavares). Our London office is about to become one of the originating members of a exciting project called the Free Word Centre, which will be officially opening in September, and will serve as an international center for advocacy on behalf of free speech (PEN is another member), literature, and culture. We're working with the Center for Translation Studies here at the University of Illinois; they've put together a number of translation studies programs that involve students with working at Dalkey Archive . . . I could go on. There's a lot.

GA: Finally, if you were given the opportunity to choose a book for Green Apple's "Staff Picks" display, what would you choose?

MR: Only one? Probably Jacques Roubaud's The Loop, which I think is one of the greatest books we've ever published---although there are a lot of great books on the current (spring) list. Maybe also Ignacio de Loyola Brandao's Anonymous Celebrity, which is at the printers right now. A sort of Swiftean send up of the international cult of celebrity, by one of my favorite Brazilian writers. That comes out in August.

(As a postscript: my favorite Dalkey Archive book is Stanley Crawford's criminally neglected masterpiece The Log of the S.S. the Mrs. Unguentine. It's safe to say this is a book unlike any other.)

Interview with Chad Post of Open Letter Books

Open Letter Books is a new non-profit publisher of literature in translation affiliated with the University of Rochester. Headed by the seemingly indefatigable Chad Post, Open Letter publishes a modest, well-selected 12 books a year; each title is available in finer bookstores (ahem) as well as through Open Letter's subscription service.

In addition to the Press, Chad is the driving force behind the excellent literary blog, Three Percent, which focuses on works in translation, provides reviews, and hosts a "Translation Database" which aims to offer a complete inventory of all translated books published in the U.S. Finally, Open Letter hosts the "Best Translated Book Awards".

Chad was gracious enough to answer a few questions via email for the blog. We'd like to thank him for his time and insight into the nature of non-profit publishing.

Green Apple: First, can you explain what Open Letter is, how it came about and what your role with the press is?

Chad Post: Open Letter is a relatively new publishing house at the University of Rochester connected to the university’s literary translation programs. I was hired by the university (along with two other guys: E.J. Van Lanen and Nathan Furl) shortly after quitting Dalkey Archive Press to put together a publishing house that would focus on literature in translation. We took a few months to plan out what the Press would look like and all its different components, and then officially launched it in July of 2007 with the first title—Dubravka Ugresic’s NOBODY’S HOME—coming out in September of last year.

Over the past three years, the Press and UR programs have expanded and evolved in some very interesting, and somewhat unexpected, ways. The Press’s books are at the core of what we do, but Three Percent (which launched at the same time), has come to play an equally important role. The blog and reviews are the main attraction of the site, but the Translation Database (the only database of its sort, which explicitly demonstrates just how few works of fiction and poetry are published in translation every year) has become more and more important, and the Best Translated Book Award got a lot more attention last year than anyone could’ve predicted.

With the undergrad certificate & Masters program in literary translation, the Press, our Reading the World Reading and Conversation series, the website, the database, and the award, I think we’ve finally reached our first level of maturity as an organization—I can’t think of anything else we need to start . . . And most importantly, I feel like we’re accomplishing what I always dreamed of—publishing great books, and creating interesting outreach programs that help cultivate an audience for international literature.

GA: Can you explain the rationale behind releasing a single book every month?

CP: It sort of just felt right . . . And it fits nicely with our subscription series. Most importantly, this pace gives us enough time to do as much promotion as possible for each of our books. Nothing worse as a publisher than churning out a ton of books and watching each one pass by unnoticed . . .

GA: Why should we read literature in translation?

CP: Short answer: for the same reason that you read literature in general. That sounds a bit facetious, but what I mean is that there are reasons, pleasures one gets from reading literature. For me, the best reason is that novels (and stories) can do something no other art form is capable of, and that writers can present the world in very unique ways that are beautiful, and possibly can change the way you look at things. Any author could do that, but in America—maybe because of the proliferation of MFA programs, or the damaging impact of corporations on publishing—most writers (but definitely not all) aren’t that daring. There are a lot more authors being published in translation who are doing unique, boundary-pushing things. And that’s exciting! Why read the same old story presented in a way that feels familiar?

GA: It appears you are heavily involved in not only running the press, but in maintaining the Three Percent website and blog as well. How would you hook a reader into reading your daily blog?

CP: There are a lot of good book blogs and online magazines out there—Literary Saloon, Conversational Reading, Words Without Borders, Salonica, etc.—and I think the thing that Three Percent adds to the conversation is a behind-the-scenes look at the publishing industry. Most of the posts are about interesting books that may have falled through the mainstream media cracks (or gaping holes), but there are also a lot of posts about what e-books will do to stores and publishers, about ways in which indie presses try to connect with readers, about how/why a book is acquired, etc. We’re concerned with the literature first, but in my mind, that can’t be entirely separated from the business side of things.

GA: Finally, what are you reading now?

CP: Two of my favorite books of the year are THE ZAFARANI FILES by Gamal al-Ghitani (translated from the Arabic by Farouk Abdel Wahab and published by American University of Cairo Press) and REX by Jose Manuel Prieto. Both are brilliant, strange books. ZAFARANI is unlike any book I’ve read from that part of the world. Starts off with hints of Robbe-Grillet, but then develops into something much different—a weaving of stories that are funny, well textured, and very compelling, all centered around an alley where all the men suddenly become impotent . . . And REX is a very Nabokovian novel about fake diamonds and Proust—how can that go wrong? Well, yeah, it could, but in this case it totally doesn’t. Prieto is incredibly talented, and this is the sort of book you’ll feel like you have to read twice . . .

Rivka Galchen interview

Rivka Galchen's debut novel, Atmospheric Disturbances, relates the bleakly hilarious story of Dr. Leo Lebenstein, a man convinced from the first page (the first sentence!) that his wife has been replaced by a very convincing double. His troubled certainty leads him on a quixotic adventure to the literal ends of the earth for the truth behind his wife's disappearance.

Atmospheric Disturbances has been critically acclaimed, even by such luminaries James Wood (in the New Yorker), who called the work "an original and sometimes affecting novel, one that knows how to move from the comic to the painful, as the antic twilight of Leo’s insanity gives way to the darkest night."

In addition to being a New York Times "Notable Book" of 2008 and earning its author a nomination for the New York Public Library's "Young Lions Award," Atmospheric Disturbances undoubtedly pulled off its greatest laudatory coup by being selected as the Green Apple "Book of the Month" (and the focus of our 2nd Youtube commercial) last July.

Well, okay...

Our selection of the book as our guaranteed book of the month falls slightly below the praise heaped upon it by the higher literary powers, but we're proud of to have helped introduce our customers to the gracious and extremely good-natured Rivka Galchen. We'd like to thank her for taking the time to answer a few questions for the blog!

Green Apple: How do thinking like a novelist and thinking like a scientist differ?

Rivka Galchen: I think novelists perform a kind of dream-work on reality, and scientists a kind of reality-work on dreams. Or maybe the other way around. Depending.

GA: Does thinking scientifically demand that one view the world in an unusual way?

RG: I like to think of all the dilations of scale that happen in science: like geologists seeing ten thousand years as an itty-bitty spot of time, and physicists seeing an atom as a great big enormous thing. It’s like that enormous cherry in the spoon sculpture in Minneapolis by Claes Oldenburg, or those creepy miniature dollhouse works they have at the museum in, is it Philadelphia? Kansas City? Both probably. My husband has long claimed a desire to be a xenobiologist. He’s quite an overachiever in terms of not seeing the world from a traditionally anthropomorphic point of view. He also sometimes wishes he were a machine.

GA: I’m kind of an idiot, so I feel it’s permissible for me to use the parallel worlds theory as an excuse for being late to work. Can you briefly explain the theory in a way that will allow me to sleep in for ten more minutes? In other words, is it possible that my excuse might hold water – in any universe?

RG: Let’s say you have a cat in a box, who either will or will not die of radiation poisoning, depending on whether a certain piece of Radium, say, did or did not decay…and until you open the box to ‘check’, the cat is both alive and dead, each of those outcomes is true, each in their own branching of spacetime, and what’s more important--caring for that cat, or getting to work on time? I think a nice excuse is as good as Basho.

But if someone really wanted to learn something about parallel worlds, and just read something very beautiful, my favorite essay that thinks it through is the late philosopher David Lewis’s “How many lives has Schrödinger’s Cat?” It’s one of the last lecture Lewis ever gave, he knew he was dying of renal failure, and he basically makes this argument for why the immortality seemingly promised by the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics would in fact be, if you follow his logic, tantamount to eternal suffering of unimaginable magnitude. Thus he makes this argument, hoping against immortality. And in this witty, wild, imaginative way. It’s kind of an amazing work.

GA: I read in an interview that you have two enormous photographs of Samuel Beckett in your apartment. Do you often consult with him? If so, what’s the best advice he’s offered?

RG: His hair is so great, and so are his wrinkles, and I know I’ll never be able to pull either off with the same kind of grace. On the cheesy side though: I’m a sucker for his: "Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail Again. Fail better."

GA: You seem to express delight in the aesthetic possibilities of certain scientific theories, and in the beauty or weirdness of their elaboration. (As opposed to the actual “truth value” contained within them.) Would you share some of your favorite theories that might not hold scientific weight but that are nonetheless wonderful?

RG: Yes, I’m a fan of the strong misreadings--of interpreting something maybe incorrectly, but in a way that’s interesting all on its own. Like St. Augustine having decided that children chatting a little nursery rhyme—take and read, take and read—were somehow sending him a message to finally accept the bible and become a Christian. As to scientific theories: for cuteness, I’ve never gotten over the theory of phlogiston, nor the plum pudding model of the atom. I’m also a big fan of 1970s quantum mechanics experiments that tried to figure out if the gaze of a dog, or a mouse, had the same effect on an electron as the gaze of a human. But maybe best and most beautiful of all is the paper that the great and persecuted Alan Turing wrote on Artificial Intelligence. He proceeds along forcefully dismissing all known arguments against assuming computers could one day basically have the same intelligence as ‘man.’ (And part of what’s central in his thought experiment is a weird and superfluously gender-bender-y game of pretending to be someone you’re not…it’s a super great paper to read, and can be found here:

http://archive.computerhistory.org/projects/chess/related_materials/text/2-0%20and%202-1.Computing_machinery_and_intelligence.turing/2-0%20and%202-1.Computing_machinery_and_intelligence.turing-alan.mind-59.1950.062303001.pdf

So he dismisses pretty much any counterargument you can think of, but then ends by saying: Except for this phenomenon of ESP, which appears to be valid, and which, if it is, might topple all of our assumptions.

GA: I apologize for this sounding like it needs a punchline, but how are love and the weather alike?

RG: Sublime disasters? Also ordinariness? Incredibly predictable in a general way, and hopelessly uncertain in any given situation? I feel somehow embarrassed now, having said any of this!

GA: Were you consciously led to Leo Liebenstein or did he just appear, demanding a starring role?

RG: He came to me talking like turn of the century german Romantic. I told his agent I saw real potential in him, but also that he’d have to learn to ham it up, be nice to the midgets, and that also he’d need to put on a good twenty pounds. Also Nicholas Cage backed out of the contract. The midgets—we ended up cutting, it was seen as too Willow-y a move. Leo and I came to really respect one another, but it never became social.

GA: What is the best thing about having written a novel?

RG: Mailing it to my incredibly great high school English teacher. I’m such a nerd. I’m sure she has plenty of other stuff to read.

GA: And now some seemingly easy questions that promise to provide a glimpse into Who You Are, but really don’t reveal very much at all. Dostoevsky or Tolstoy?

RG: Maybe if Tolstoy had had a tremendous gambling debt, he could have been as good.

GA: Hardcover or paperback?

RG: Definitely paperback. But even better: tiny little paperbacks, like those pocket book sized books they make in Japan for taking on the train. Tiny, tiny, and with a cardstock little cover.

GA: Susskind or Hawking?

RG: It’s hard not to love best a physicist from the South Bronx.

GA: Late night or early morning?

RG: Early is like heaven. No one talks.

GA: Do you have a favorite rainy day book?

RG: Anatomy of Melancholy by Robert Burton and Edwin B. Mullhouse; The Life and Death of an American Writer (1943-1954) by Jeffrey Cartwright by Steven Milhauser.

GA: What are you currently reading?

RG: James Tiptree, Jr: the Double Life of Alice B. Sheldon by Julie Phillips and Raymond Chandler’s The Long Goodbye.

GA: What is a book that you feel not enough people know about?

RG: Anything by Jane Bowles. Especially Two Serious Ladies, A Better Angel by Chris Adrian, and The Horned Man by James Lasdun.

GA: I want to conclude the interview with a nod (ahem!) to Green Apple Books: Suppose you were forced to pick a favorite bookstore you’d never been to. Which bookstore might that be?

RG: The one that hides in a labyrinth of unnamed Chinese shops.