Throughout 2024, biographies consistently stole the show. From renowned authors to heads of state, game-changing activists and cultural icons, these 12 illuminating profiles delighted and inspired us.
Throughout 2024, biographies consistently stole the show. From renowned authors to heads of state, game-changing activists and cultural icons, these 12 illuminating profiles delighted and inspired us.
Eliot Stein’s vivid Custodians of Wonder documents the last people maintaining some of the world’s ancient cultural traditions, and proves that comfort, community and beauty never get old.
Eliot Stein’s vivid Custodians of Wonder documents the last people maintaining some of the world’s ancient cultural traditions, and proves that comfort, community and beauty never get old.
Previous
Next

All Nonfiction Coverage

Filter by genre

Casey Cep discusses her new book, Furious Hours, which explores the true case of an Alabama serial killer who fascinated Harper Lee.

We’re all familiar with the concept of a reboot, whether it’s a finicky computer, a TV show that trades in nostalgia or a health-centric resolve  to start fresh. Heather B. Armstrong took the reboot concept many, many steps further in a bid to save her own life.

As Armstrong explains in The Valedictorian of Being Dead: The True Story of Dying Ten Times to Live, she recently took part in an experimental medical treatment in which doctors put her in a coma akin to brain death 10 times—a series of reboots meant to calm her brain activity and offer relief from severe depression.

We’ll go ahead and confirm that Armstrong is no longer in crisis. Rather, she’s in advocate mode. As she says during a call to her Utah home, “As much as I want [this book] to help people suffering from depression, I also really want to reach people who don’t understand it.” She adds, “If I can offer the slightest glimpse of where our brains go, that’s what I want this book to accomplish.”

Armstrong’s wildly popular blog, Dooce.com, celebrated its 18th anniversary in February. Around that time, Armstrong also recorded the audiobook of The Valedictorian of Being Dead. “It was such an emotional experience to read it out loud . . . and really brutal. Who wrote this?” she says with a laugh.

There is a sort of beautiful brutality in Armstrong’s memoir, to be sure. She writes movingly, and often with dark humor, about the 18 months of psychic pain that led her to the medical trial: “Even though I wanted to be dead, I needed to get my kids to piano practice the following night. If I died, they would be late.”

That determination to survive her illness while being present and strong for her kids was a struggle that routinely drained her and left her screaming and sobbing in countless phone calls to her ever-supportive mother. “My mother has given so much to all of us,” Armstrong says. “She always picks up the phone, is always empathetic and just so giving.”

But despite Armstrong’s loving relationship with her kids and family, nothing was working. She felt as if her body was “an upright corpse.” She also feared that her ex-husband, who “intended to take away my kids in 2014,” would do so again if she admitted she was suffering so badly.

Her psychiatrist insisted she get help despite these concerns and told her about the study that would change her life. In it, the patient is given IV anesthesia three times a week for 10 sessions. “The study is designed to determine if ‘burst suppression’—quieting the brain’s electrical activity—can alleviate the symptoms of depression,” Armstrong writes. 

She chronicles her journey in fascinating detail, from her eerie experiences after emerging from “the abyss” to an astonishing 10-day bout of constipation, an unfortunate side effect of the drugs. She also includes her parents’ and siblings’ perspectives, as well as the profound experience of the treatment itself. As on her blog, her writing  feels off the cuff, by turns moving and irreverent, always conveying gratitude for the help she received from her family and the medical team.

Such gratitude wasn’t new for Armstrong, but asking for help and allowing herself to receive it was. After all, the book’s title refers to her urge to be the valedictorian of every-thing since childhood, when she became a high achiever to feel some control over a tumultuous family life.

“I was going to be the best,” she says. “I show up and perform; you can always count on me to get the job done. In the process, part of my soul is really hurting.” And so, learning to accept help from her mother and stepfather (who drove her to and from every appointment) “did feel selfish—this time I took away from my parents. For me, needing anything is being super-selfish.”

Throughout The Valedictorian of Being Dead, Armstrong pays a visit to her past. She writes of the legacy of depression that has been passed down from her great-grandmother, who was institutionalized for her mental illness. And she casts fresh eyes on her triggers, from issues with food to toxic relationships to unresolved emotional pain.

“It’s something I’m very hyperaware of, getting into situations that will trigger anxiety and depression,” she says. “It’s surrounding myself with nontoxic relationships or being able to call my mother and say, I can’t drive the kids this week. I have to go against a lot of my personality—I don’t ask for help, I have to do it all myself—and go into uncomfortable places. But I didn’t realize how amazing it is to get help.”

Armstrong hopes to spread awareness about depression and the potential of this new treatment approach via The Valedictorian of Being Dead (which includes an afterword by study creator Dr. Brian Mickey) and her upcoming book tour. “[I wish] people could understand that depression is an illness,” she says. “It has really detrimental effects on how we process and see the world. I want this book to be successful in the sense of reaching as many people as I can. I really feel like it’s the most important thing I’ve done.”

 

Author photo by Angela Monson.

We’re all familiar with the concept of a reboot, whether it’s a finicky computer, a TV show that trades in nostalgia or a health-centric resolve  to start fresh. Heather B. Armstrong took the reboot concept many, many steps further in a bid to save her own life.

As…

Kathleen Hale discusses mental health, the “toxic hellscape” of the internet and how to keep writing when your every word is being scrutinized.
Interview by

When the Charles Manson Family murdered five people in August 1969, it was the shocking climax of America’s most chaotic decade. Now, after 20 years of meticulous research, Tom O’Neill reveals that everything we thought we knew about this tragedy is really just the tip of the iceberg.


Tom O’Neill recently sold the movie rights to Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties, the strangely compelling account of his 20-year search for the truth about the horrific 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders committed by the Charles Manson Family in Los Angeles.

“My agent called me about [the movie] a week or so ago and said, ‘Tom, you have to understand. You’re the protagonist now.’”

O’Neill had long resisted becoming part of the story. He began to examine the Manson case in 1999, 30 years after the Tate-LaBianca murders, when he was hired by the now-defunct Premier magazine for an article on Manson’s connections to Hollywood. He began to find anomalies in the case presented to the jury by prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi and in Bugliosi’s bestselling book about the murders and trial, Helter Skelter.

Chasing leads, O’Neill missed his deadline—by a month and then a year. He got a book contract and researched up blind alleys, down rabbit holes and deep into the weeds. He also found incredible, tantalizing information. He blew past the book deadline. The publisher eventually sued him to retrieve the advance, which he had used to continue his reporting. “I do not want to glorify myself,” O’Neill says, “but I did not take vacations or buy nice things. I lived pretty frugally.” His investigation of the case went on for 20 abstemious years, until he was well into his late 50s. He was evicted from his apartment. He got loans from his family and had to join the gig economy and drive for Uber to support his continuing investigation.

A few years ago, his agent approached Little, Brown. His agent said, “The curse of Tom also pays off in the end because he won’t believe anything until he tries to disprove it. He’ll attack from every different [angle] that he can, and if he can’t disprove it then he’ll allow it.” 

By then O’Neill had reams and reams of notes, documents and photographs and a whiteboard with spiderlike webs of connections among the principals in the murder. (Many of these are cited in his extensive and illuminating endnotes.) Someone suggested he collaborate with Dan Piepenbring, a young writer whose work with Prince on a memoir had previously gone awry. Piepenbring brought a strategy and some order. Part of the strategy was to convince O’Neill to include his long, frustrating odyssey to discover the truth within the narrative. 

O’Neill interviewed major and minor characters in the Manson story, including Manson himself. People did not react kindly to this pursuit of the facts. Terry Melcher, the only son of Doris Day and a previous tenant in the house where Sharon Tate and others were murdered, was hostile when O’Neill presented evidence that he had lied on the stand during the Manson trial. O’Neill tracked down Manson’s brilliant, bombastic, obstructionist attorney, Irving Kanarek, who was by then indigent but still a man with stories to tell. And of course there was prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi.

In the book, O’Neill recounts an incredible six-hour interview with Bugliosi at his home, with dueling tape recorders and Bugliosi’s wife dragooned into being an often-bored witness. In O’Neill’s telling, Bugliosi is a strange, testy guy. Post-Manson fame, he ran for district attorney and attorney general, and in both cases his sordid past (unknown to most general readers but uncovered in detail by O’Neill) came to light. Mention of this enraged Bugliosi, as did O’Neill’s assertions that he had mishandled the case. Backed by interviews from other prosecutors and the police, O’Neill told Bugliosi that he thought the narrative that the Manson family had committed the crimes to start a race war—the “Helter Skelter” scenario Bugliosi put forward at the trial—was bogus. At the end of the interview, Bugliosi said he would hurt O’Neill like he had never been hurt before, and he would sue him “FOR ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!” Obsessed, Bugliosi then called O’Neill night after night. O’Neill has some of the tapes from these and other conversations and, as part of the book promotion, will make some of them available on social media.

Another line of investigation took O’Neill from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The Manson Family first formed in the city’s Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. Manson and “his girls” were frequent visitors to the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic. The doctors there received government funding to study the effects of psychedelics and mind control. In his assiduous research, O’Neill uncovered that one of the doctors there—“Jolly” West, a CIA contractor—did a jailhouse psychological profile of Jack Ruby, who shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

What could this all mean? O’Neill, a cautious investigator, expresses frustration. There are so many questions. “I perhaps naively thought that I was going to answer the big question, find out what really happened, but I can at least show that things happened dramatically differently than has ever been presented before.”

O’Neill believes Manson and the Family are guilty, but he thinks so much else is in question that the Manson trial was a disaster. And the odd connections to government activity intrigue him. “I think I can show that Bugliosi suborned perjury. I think I can show that Jolly West had a critical role in what we know about Jack Ruby and his memory of what happened when he killed and why he killed Lee Harvey Oswald. And all that information was known by Richard Helms, who was the liaison between the CIA and the Warren Commission.” He also presents information that Manson and his followers were involved in other killings, but ultimately his investigations were stonewalled by the authorities.

O’Neill believes “there’s a hell of a lot of connections that Manson had with Hollywood people that have been erased. . . . I believe there were other people involved in the murders that were erased.” His biggest hope, he says, “is that the book will spur other people to pick up where I’ve left off. There’s a hell of a lot more out there.”

When the Charles Manson Family murdered five people in August 1969, it was the shocking climax of America’s most chaotic decade. Now, after 20 years of meticulous research, Tom O’Neill reveals that everything we thought we knew about this tragedy is really just the tip of the iceberg.
Lisa Taddeo, author of Three Women, tells a story of female pleasure and pain—of three women’s search for sexual fulfillment and the different ways society punished them for achieving it. She spent nearly a decade with these women, embedding herself in their lives to paint an intimate, breathtakingly reported portrait of desire.
Interview by

Christian megachurches. Scammers. Barre classes. Hashtag activism. Difficult women. Literary heroines. Frats. Weddings. A 2004 reality show that dropped eight teenagers in Puerto Rico and filmed what happened.

Jia Tolentino describes the essays in Trick Mirror as “nine terrible children.” It’s the first book for this Extremely Online (that is, extremely plugged into the internet) writer, who cut her teeth at women’s website The Hairpin before heading to Jezebel and finally The New Yorker

Trick Mirror coalesced in the winter of 2017. Tolentino sought subjects that were “not simplistic . . . not easy . . . sufficiently complicated and multidimensional in terms of possible research that it would be fun to work on for this long.” And each essay is long—longer than the meatiest New Yorker profile, even—weighing in at 30 to 40 pages. “I want to say they’re all a little too long,” Tolentino laughs. She says she wanted to “just see where it ended.”

This allowed her to follow her own “meandering” thoughts. “Some of the essays, I think, are very meandering,” she confesses. (That’s true—“Always Be Optimizing,” about the popularity of barre fitness classes, contains digressions on the salad chain Sweetgreen and on Donna Haraway’s essay “A Cyborg Manifesto.”) In that way, Tolentino wrote her book with the freedom of an online essay, where word counts are less constrained and form is less structured—which is the opposite of how many writers approach the print/digital divide. 

“One of the most fun things about writing is [that] you get to go down all of these various miscellaneous rabbit holes,” Tolentino explains. Driven by her own emotional and intellectual fascinations, she chose topics “where I could draw widely from other people’s expertise, kind of voraciously and promiscuously from other people.” (These deep dives were powered, she says, by being “a lifetime insomniac.”)

“One of the most fun things about writing is [that] you get to go down all of these various miscellaneous rabbit holes.”

A standout is “We Come from Old Virginia,” her essay about a 2014 article in Rolling Stone. The article told the story of a young woman named Jackie, who alleged she had been gang-raped by members of the University of Virginia’s Phi Kappa Psi frat. The journalist who wrote the piece and her editor later confirmed that they had not spoken with any of the alleged attackers; one character in the story may not have existed.

At the time of this exposé-that-wasn’t, Tolentino had graduated from UVA only a few years earlier and had just started at Jezebel. It would have been easy to write an essay that took a hard line, defending or bashing either Rolling Stone or the college. The emotional nuance she brings instead is, in a word, breathtaking. “I hate the dirty river I’m standing in, not the journalist and the college student who capsized in it,” Tolentino writes in the piece. The essay is not a treatise on journalistic ethics but a thoughtful analysis of the boozy pleasures of the school’s Greek culture, the entrapment of being female in a sexually violent world and the potential malfunctions where activism and journalism intersect. 

Tolentino is “always afraid of being unfair or ungenerous” in her writing, she says, and is intentional about “not getting too heavy about things where heaviness is only part of it.” A lot of writing by progressives can border on scolding, but not hers. “You have to understand what the pleasure is in those systems in order to understand why they persist,” she says. “You have to understand why frats feel so good.”

Tolentino’s background as a middle-class young woman of color who had a religious upbringing in the South informs her relationship to feminism, and to all of her writing in this book. A piece about scams, for instance, challenges the “feminist scammer,” which allows Tolentino to unpack her reluctant relationship to the “commercial viability of feminism.”


ALSO IN BOOKPAGE: Read our review of Trick Mirror.


As a writer who got her start in feminist blogs, she’s baldly honest that “market-friendly feminism,” as she calls it in the essay, is something “I’ve benefited from immensely and wouldn’t have a career if not for.” The struggle in a #GIRLBOSS world, she says, is that “I’m wary about anything that becomes about the performance of ideals. . . . I’m afraid of all of the incentives to [become] more of, like, a ‘personality.’ ” 

Conscious of her place in the digital media ecosystem and of her large platform, Tolentino chooses not to perform the role of prominent Twitter feminist, as some of her peers have. “I think there’s just so many systems, particularly for young women, for your persona or your ‘self’ to feel more important than the literal words that you’re writing,” she says. “We love to turn a young woman writer into just, like, a panel figurehead.” She’s uncomfortable with “the feeling of ‘come speak on an event sponsored by this skincare company,’ and all this cross-branding about feminism.”

Instead, she wants to focus on the writing. “If it’s in the realm of work, the work has to be the most important thing,” she says. “Trying to avoid persona-first spaces is how I do that.”

As for future books, Tolentino would love to put her MFA in fiction from the University of Michigan to work. “My secret dream is to write a really weird novel next,” she says.

No matter what happens, she says, “I find writing itself really pleasurable and really amazing and kind of a miracle that I can do it for a living.”

 

Author photo by © Elena Mudd

Christian megachurches. Scammers. Barre classes. Hashtag activism. Difficult women. Literary heroines. Frats. Weddings. A 2004 reality show that dropped eight teenagers in Puerto Rico and filmed what happened. Jia Tolentino describes the essays in Trick Mirror as “nine terrible children.” It’s the first book for this Extremely Online (that is, extremely plugged into the internet) writer, who cut her teeth at women’s website The Hairpin before heading to Jezebel and finally The New Yorker.
Haben Girma, the first deafblind graduate of Harvard Law School, answers some questions about her new memoir and about making education accessible for all people.

Billy Jensen is a former crime reporter who, after 15 years of telling people the facts, decided he needed to do something more than just report murders. He wanted to solve them. His new book, Chase Darkness with Me: How One True-Crime Writer Started Solving Murders, tells the gripping, twisted and heart-pounding story of his journey from journalist to cold-case investigator.


In the book, you talk about the shift that took place when you no longer wanted to write only about bad things that happened to people. Instead, you wanted to write stories that would help. Do you ever wish that you could go back to simply reporting what happened?
Absolutely not. Reporting what happened and after the fact telling the story is incredibly important, but when it comes to crime, and when it comes to what it was doing to my soul, I needed to move in a different direction. It was a bad decision to make from a professional standpoint because I couldn’t be a crime reporter anymore. I wouldn’t have been able to pick my own stories and say, “I just want to do unsolved crimes.” But I really like being part of the solution. And now I’m sort of a hybrid of a journalist, victims advocate and investigator as opposed to just a storyteller.

What skill that you learned as a journalist was most valuable to you when you began to solve the crimes you’d previously only reported?
One of the best skills you learn as a journalist is accuracy—and that has also served me well as an investigator because it’s so important to be accurate when you’re conducting investigations, especially in this day and age when information comes so fast. Everybody is trying to get things up fast, and you have to take a step back and make sure you’ve crossed all your t’s and dotted your i’s. And as a reporter, the most important thing you have to do is make sure the story is accurate. I learned that at the Times; accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. But the persistence and tenacity I have as an investigator came from my father. My father instilled those things in me, as well as never taking no for an answer. So accuracy and the willingness to keep moving forward—those skills are very important in what I do.

You describe the power of uncomfortable silences during interviews—leaving them wide open so that the interviewee will instinctively fill them with chatter. Besides criminals, do you ever use this technique on family and friends? (And similarly, what do they think of having a crime-solving expert in their lives?)
As humans, we are uncomfortable with silence. And if you’re trying to get information from someone who isn’t telling you anything, you just leave that silence out there and hopefully the truth will hit that silence. I don’t consider it a trick to be silent. I’m telling someone’s story in any interview, so I shouldn’t be talking over them anyways. Now with family and friends, I just keep talking—much to the detriment of my relationships.

How does my family feel about having a crime-solving expert in their lives? I think they like it because they, particularly my wife, saw how much frustration I had for 15 years working on these stories that had no ending. So now that I’m able to solve some of them—and believe me, there are far more that I don’t solve than I do solve—I’m losing a hell of a lot more than I’m winning. But to be able to solve one here and there is satisfying to me, and they’re happy for that.

You write, “The American media diet has gone from a fixed menu to an all-you-can-eat buffet.” It seems that our insatiable appetite for true crime is perpetuated by today’s constant stream of media. Has the never-ending news cycle been a boon to solving crimes?
You know what’s interesting? Take, for example, back in the 1970s—this is before cable and the internet—we had radio, TV news and the newspaper, so you didn’t have a lot of different places to get your news. So, if the media decided to run with a story, it was going to be everywhere. And there were so many murders that fell through the cracks because we had a lot fewer voices reporting the news. Now we have unlimited sources, and we’re seeing a lot more information about criminals and crimes that we never would have heard of before because they weren’t necessarily going to get ratings or gain listeners or readers. So the internet and podcasters are really the ones telling compelling narratives and telling stories that have never been heard before. So, yes, absolutely the internet has been a great boon for solving crimes.

You point out the danger of crowdsourcing. For example, internet sleuths on Reddit attempted to help law enforcement during the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing by collectively gathering evidence and potential leads. However, they ended up targeting and exposing the wrong person as the suspect. Is there a role for armchair sleuths who just want to help, and how can they do so without overstepping boundaries that could lead to the ruining of an innocent person? How can internet sleuths and law enforcement work together safely and effectively?
When I wrote this book I knew that some people were going to just read it and some people were actually going to try it. So we created an addendum in the back of the book about how to solve crimes yourself using social media. The first thing I go over are the rules—because all it takes is one person to mess things up, and it drops citizen crime investigation down a peg or two when that happens. So, number one, you don’t name names in public. Second, when you do get information, it has to go to law enforcement—every piece of the information you collect should go straight to law enforcement—I can’t say this enough. Third, no contacting family members. We have to trust law enforcement and let them do their job, and letting them contact family members with relevant information is important. You also can’t put yourself in harm’s way. A lot of things can go sideways there.

Before her death, your friend and colleague Michelle McNamara predicted the importance of online genealogy sites like 23 and Me in playing a key role linking relatives of killers to unsolved murders. How much do you already think is out there that just hasn't been discovered yet? How many more crimes will we see get solved in the coming years because of this technology?
Thousands! Thousands of crimes. And it’s not really 23 and Me and Ancestry.com though. Let me clarify: You cannot use those two databases. They’re private. But what we’re asking people to do is take the information 23 and Me and Ancestry.com send back to you and enter it into public databases like GEDmatch.com, which is how the Golden State Killer was caught. Since the Golden State Killer was caught using this technology, over 50 murders have been solved using this same technology. The more people that enter their information into these databases, the more crimes we’ll solve. Now it’s just a matter of getting the police departments to do it and follow that trail—as well as follow that trail for all cold cases. What I would love to do is create a team that just goes to every police department and collects the DNA they have and then enters that information into these public databases. That would enable them to put that information into the hands of amateur genealogists, who could create a list of suspects, which they could then hand over to police departments. The answers are all out there—not just murders but sexual assaults as well.

What is your favorite unsolved crime and why? Do you think it will ever be solved?
You never want a favorite crime, but living in Los Angeles, the Black Dahlia case is the biggest mystery here. When it comes to unsolved crimes in all of history, you’re looking at Zodiac, Jack the Ripper, JonBenét Ramsey, Jimmy Hoffa—but Black Dahlia fascinates me the most. Just the time period it happened (1947), when all of these servicemen had just come back from war, and there was a lot of crime in LA—it was the heyday of the noir period for films, and you have this very methodical murder that happens to a woman who recently relocated to Hollywood. The murder follows you around in LA because the victim visited a lot of very high-profile places around town before she died.

Once published, your book will be sitting on shelves alongside the classics of the true crime genre—books by Ann Rule, Truman Capote and Michelle McNamara. What do you hope it adds to those shelves? That is, what does your book offer readers that complements what’s already out there?
I think we need to add Vincent Bugliosi’s Helter Skelter. Those truly are the four true-crime classics.

What does Chase Darkness with Me add to those shelves? I think it’s a couple of things. The first thing is, it’s a story about how I got fed up with just writing stories about murders and said, “I’m going to solve them myself.” It’s a story about a guy who takes the next step—a guy who has gotten knocked down and hit so many brick walls in writing stories and conducting investigations for so many years that he finally came up with a system of how to solve them—and then went out and solved them.

Second, it’s a story about a kid who grew up around crime. It’s a story about how I grew up, where I grew up and how my relationship with my father painted how I would see crime in the future. My father was a voracious reader of the newspaper and was constantly telling me stories of crimes that were happening in that moment. That really molded me into a crime writer and, a step further, someone who actually went out and solved crimes.

It’s an honor to be alongside Michelle, Truman, and Ann . . . and Bugliosi. Thank you.

 

What’s next for you?
My podcast “Jensen and Holes: The Murder Squad” is a natural extension of the book. Writing the book, I knew there were only so many cases I could cover, and being able to talk about a different crime each week is something that is important to me. And then having the listeners to help move the case forward and hopefully solve it is great. Continuing to do the podcast is big to me, and doing big cases, small cases, fugitive cases and missing person cases are all directions we’re headed in.

I’m also doing a podcast called “The First Degree,” which is a little bit more victim-centric in a sense, because it’s about being one degree away from a crime—either the victim or the perpetrator. It’s about being that person who knows someone who has been killed or knows someone who has killed someone, and it tells the story through their eyes.

I’m also working on the next book. It’s about serial killers—serial killers who you have no idea about who are active in America right now. That’s all I’ll say about that right now.

And we’re filming the HBO docuseries for I’ll Be Gone in the Dark. We’re actively filming that now, and it should be out in spring or summer of 2020.

 

This interview was conducted by BookPage and sponsored by Sourcebooks. All editorial views are those of BookPage alone and reflect our policy of editorial independence and impartiality.

Author photo by Robyn Von Swank.

Billy Jensen's new true crime book, Chase Darkness with Me, tells the gripping, twisted and heart-pounding story of his journey from journalist to cold-case investigator.
Interview by

What happens when two adults and their two daughters ditch their suburban Washington, D.C., life and spend a year living in four spots around the world? Writer Dan Kois and his family spent 2017 in New Zealand, the Netherlands, Costa Rica and Kansas. We had some questions about his entertaining account of this year, How to Be a Family: The Year I Dragged My Kids Around the World to Find a New Way to Be Together.


Was it hard picking the four destinations of your journey? Did you seriously consider any other options?

We considered scores of other options! Just off the top of my head I remember Argentina, France, Scotland, Japan, Senegal, Tahiti, Iceland, Sweden, Italy, China, India and of course Canada (both Québec and British Columbia). It was extremely difficult! We spent a lot of time researching countries, talking to friends with connections to those countries and thinking about what would be best not only for our family but also for the book I hoped to write. We wanted to find places we actually wanted to go but that also had real, tangible differences from our East Coast suburban lives—places that had things to teach us.

 

You write that practically everyone asks, “Why Kansas?” Did you decide early on that one leg of your journey would be in the United States?

No, it was up in the air until the very end. But it did seem to me that I had to seriously consider the idea that it would be pretty facile to write a book about trying to look beyond our American parenting without acknowledging that there are plenty of American parents whose lives don’t resemble ours at all. In the end, I was convinced by our friend Catherine’s declaration that if we moved to Kansas, “we’d be so bored, but we’d be so happy.” I called her bluff and moved two blocks away from her.

 

Now that some time has passed, do you have a favorite moment from this grand adventure? Or a least favorite moment, for that matter?

I think the goodbye party our friends and neighbors threw in Island Bay, New Zealand, is right up there. It was kind of a perfect night that had the added joy of being so obviously the perfect final scene for that section of the book that I felt through the entire evening great personal and professional fulfillment.

The least favorite moment I wrote about was Lyra’s awful experience in her Dutch school, which was basically my fault. That sucked. The least favorite moment I didn’t write about was, after a 17-hour flight, having an armed guard at the Dubai airport pull me aside, open my gigantic suitcase, remove every single thing from it and finally pull from inside a shoe the weed grinder I’d bought in Wellington on Cuba Street (which I hadn’t even ground any weed in yet!!!!) and sternly tell me, “We don’t do this here.”

 

You and your wife did an enormous amount of planning before you left. What were the most unexpected difficulties you ran into? Did you have any truly unforeseen surprises?

It was so difficult working out schools for our kids! We knew we didn’t want to homeschool or send our kids to private schools. We wanted to experience the public schools in each country. In New Zealand, it required applying for a very specific kind of visa, for which my publisher had to write me a letter of recommendation promising I was not taking any New Zealand jobs while we lived there. In the Netherlands, I spoke to a solid half-dozen people up the bureaucratic chain until I was actually talking to, like, the deputy minister of education, who told me all about an exciting pilot program in Dutch/English bilingual schooling happening at a school in Delft, and then it turned out he was totally wrong and our kids ended up at a school where no one spoke English to them at all. I sure didn’t foresee that.

Also, there were no Airbnbs in Hays, Kansas.

 

Biking in the Netherlands seemed treacherous at first, but you and your family ended up loving it. Surprisingly, the Dutch don’t wear bike helmets. Are you still biking without a helmet back in the U.S.?

I sure am! I try to ride big, with the self-confidence of a tall, handsome Dutchman. I take up a lot of space on the road and ignore impatient drivers as they pile up behind me. Eventually, one of them will run me over, teaching me a valuable lesson about cultural differences.

 

Two of the biggest joys of your book are your humor and honesty. Did your family have any editing power over what you included? Your oldest daughter, after all, noted, “I do not entirely dislike my father’s portrayal of me but think that it’s inaccurate in some ways.”

Lyra, my eldest, did indeed insist upon reading the book and giving notes. I resisted this quite a bit and then, much to my surprise, took pretty much all her notes. My wife also read the book and offered many great suggestions but made only one heartfelt plea: “Please do not include your salary in this book.” So I didn’t.

 

Were you often taking notes? Did your family ever peer over your shoulder or deem anything strictly off limits?

My kids were really aware, throughout the trip, that reporting—the work of interviewing and note-taking—was happening, and that this was a book in the making. They made many recommendations about moments that should or should not go into the book, people I should talk to, stories I should tell. I found that really rewarding, honestly, for them to be intimately involved in this thing that’s always been important to me. I don’t think they exactly understood my job before, but after a year spent seeing me do it in all kinds of different ways (not only for this book but for The World Only Spins Forward, which Isaac and I were writing as I traveled), they really get it now.

 

If you were to make such a trip again, what things might you change?

We’d incorporate our children much more into the planning. One real lesson of our sometimes-disastrous Dutch sojourn was how much more buy-in we’d have had from them if they’d had the chance to participate in the initial discussions. It took them a long time to view the trip as something all four of us were doing together, not something we were doing to them.

Also, we would be rich, so we could afford to go to Costa Rica during the dry season.

 

You really loved certain brands of crackers in New Zealand and Costa Rica. What other treats did you discover? Any new recipes you continue to make?

I cook a mean arroz con pollo, and my rice-and-beans game is very on point. And thanks to World Market, we always have hagelslag—Dutch chocolate sprinkles—in the cabinet for special breakfast occasions.

 

What advice do you have for other families considering such an adventure?

My advice is to do it! It doesn’t have to be this exact adventure, it doesn’t have to be a whole year long, it doesn’t have to skip around the globe. But if you’ve long wanted to take an adventure, take it. Your kids will be fine (I mean, they will be bad sometimes, but that’s OK). The experience of being together through something real, difficult and astonishing will absolutely make up for whatever math classes they miss.

 

What did each of you miss most about home?

Alia: “Our Diet Coke machine. And our friends.”

Harper: “Our house and the things in our house.”

Lyra: “The stability. Knowing everyone, knowing our school, knowing that everything would be manageable.”

Dan: “Our friends and Washington Nationals games on local TV.”

 

Do you see life in Arlington, Virginia, in a different light now that you’ve had this experience?

I think so. I think all of us have a much better sense of the place we all have in the world, the infinite other ways of life out there. That’s really gratifying. It helps me obsess a lot less about our neighbors’ intense Sports Parenting, or enormous McMansions, or status comparisons in general. Not that I’m immune to obsessing, of course. But I think I have dialed it down.

 

ALSO IN BOOKPAGE: Read our review of How to Be a Family.

 

Author photo credit: Alia Smith

Dan Kois reveals what happens when two adults and their two daughters ditch their suburban Washington, DC, life and spend a year living in four spots around the world.
Interview by

What comes to mind when you picture a mother? For many people, the concept of motherhood, and by extension of a family, is associated with whiteness. We spoke with Nefertiti Austin about her memoir, Motherhood So White: A Memoir of Race, Gender, and Parenting in America, the reality of Black women looking to publicly adopt and how she settled into her identity as a Black mother without appeasing societal or cultural expectations.


Your book discusses not only your personal experience of becoming a single parent but the absence of positive representation of Black motherhood. How can Black motherhood be a radical act?

The fact that Black women continue to pursue motherhood despite our history in America is definitely a radical act. Brought here in chains, we were property and so were our children, but we persevered. Even when we were denied access to our kids or forced to nurse and nurture white children, we created a village of grandparents, elders, siblings, neighbors and friends who became family to keep our kids safe. At every juncture, we have laid claim to our offspring, whether or not we gave birth to them, knowing that slavery, segregation, discrimination, criminalization, sexism, homophobia, racism and erasure are no match for a Black mom’s love. 

 

What is the most surprising thing you learned about yourself while on the journey to adopt your son, August? How was this self-revelation different from your experience adopting your daughter, Cherish?

Before becoming a mother, I never considered giving up my free-spirited ways. I was accustomed to coming and going as I pleased, but once the decision to adopt took hold, I realized that I was ready for a more routine-driven existence. Overnight, my life expanded to include carpool, sports and family time; and I was good with that. When my daughter came along, she easily blended into the mix.

 

One of Toni Morrison’s many nuggets of wisdom includes the quote, “The very serious function of racism . . . is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work.” How do racism and, by extension, the white gaze prevent Black mothers from simply being mothers?

Though Black motherhood has often been diminished, we are still mothers. Racism makes our jobs harder because it adds another layer of stress and worry about the emotional and physical safety of our children, but it doesn’t stop us from teaching our kids to tie their shoes. We are primarily focused on loving and caring for our families and less concerned with the white gaze, unless it interferes with their welfare. Then, you will hear from us.

 

What was the most challenging part of writing your memoir? Did having a blog make it easier to assemble and write a full-length book?

The most challenging part of writing my memoir was being vulnerable. In order to share my story and convey the sensitivity that I feel as a Black mother raising Black children in America, I had to shed layers. I had to remove my academic hat and be open to divulge how I felt different from my peers as a child, to discuss my father’s persistent incarceration and accept that I didn’t know my mother in an intimate sense.

I definitely thought my now-defunct blog, Mommiejonesing, would make writing my memoir a breeze. I had assembled a lot of articles written by others and myself on the subject of race, motherhood and adoption. I was armed with information but no feelings beyond outrage and disgust. Plus, I was writing from a distance, and that would have kept the reader from understanding the problem of erasing Black mothers from the parenting canon. In the end, much of what I blogged about did not make it into the book.

 

Your book opens with you taking 5-year-old August to a Black Lives Matter rally. You discuss the very real mixture of fear and anxiety that comes with being a mother to a young Black boy in America. How does white privilege contribute to and sustain the accelerated loss of innocence for Black children?

White privilege gifts white children with a shield that blots out the ugliness of the world. They get to be kids, where mistakes are encouraged and then forgiven. They get to live moment to moment without fear that someone hates/fears/despises them because of their race. This is the power of white privilege.

Simultaneously, Black parents do not have the luxury of not teaching our children about the perniciousness of racism and how, despite best efforts, microagressions and random acts of discrimination will come their way. Our children learn to code switch (act one way with us and another way with whites) and what to do if detained by the police or surveilled by merchants—early. These lessons—i.e., innocence-snatchers—occur as early as 5 years old, because white privilege perpetuates a system with the deck stacked against us. These are our gifts to Black children to keep them safe.

 

In the chapter “Building My Village,” you write, “It had never occurred to me that there was an expectation for little boys to adhere to a specific masculine salutation.” How does the myth of Black hypermasculinity work in conjunction with toxic masculinity? And how can it finally become obsolete?

Personal and emotional safety is a huge issue in our community. Showing fear can be death in some spaces, so emotion or affection between men is not promoted. However, expecting boys to remain in a man box, where not showing emotion or admitting to hurt and acting like nothing touches them, is heralded as masculine and is extremely problematic. It is toxic and a recipe for a shortened life, troubled relationships and mental illness. Plus, it plays into the stereotype of the hypermasculine Black man who needs to be put down by force. We saw this in the case of Rodney King.

As long as systemic racism, mass incarceration, gangs, drugs, poverty, homelessness, unemployment, poor health, undiagnosed PTSD and undereducation prevail where the opposite is true for their white counterparts, Black toxic masculinity isn’t going anywhere.

 

One of the most pervasive stereotypes about Black women is the “Strong Black Woman.” In the chapter “Got My Sea Legs,” you say, “More than one friend commented that I made parenting look easy, but part of the reason I was exploring on my blog how Black women were faring as mothers was because I was feeling the weight of trying to do everything myself.” For Black mothers, especially single Black mothers, how is there power in the decision to be vulnerable?

Self-care is empowering, and we have to give ourselves permission to ask for help. We are so used to doing everything ourselves that we don’t know how to ask for help or we think that being vulnerable is a sign of weakness or admission that single motherhood was a mistake. So we put pressure on ourselves to just handle things and succumb to the societal pressure of being all things to everybody. Most women, regardless of race, take care of the children, elders and work. It’s too much, and the reality is that Black women’s mental and physical health are taking a nosedive. Heart attacks, autoimmune diseases, cancer, obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes are taking their toll on us in a big way. We suffer when we don’t take care of ourselves or each other.

 

How can a sense of community benefit adoptive parents? How does it shape the identity of a foster or adopted child?

Adoption communities offer a safe space for families and children. Here, we do not need to prepare an explanation for why we chose adoption. It is understood that we wanted to become parents and viewed adoption as a natural path to achieve that goal.

Kids who spend time with other kids who are adopted see their experience as normal. Among kindred spirits, they can safely share how it feels to be the only adopted child in their class, or how they met their first parents and it went well or didn’t go well. In these spaces, they do not carry the burden of explaining why they don’t look like their (adoptive) parents or why they do look like their parents but are adopted. It frees them to enjoy life as part of a special club.

 

How do you think the definition of a family has changed in recent years? How has the idea of a “traditional” family excluded marginalized people, especially single Black mothers?

Modern American women are free to define and create family on their terms. We have moved away from believing that a nuclear family—father, mother, 2.5 kids and a dog—is the only way to be a family. Women are less likely to be shamed for having a job or wanting to stay at home with their children. The definition of family has even expanded to include single moms, adoptive families, LGBTQIA family configurations, kinship family dynamics and mixed-raced couples.

Depending on the socioeconomics of a community, sometimes the traditional paradigm of a family was not modeled or available due to poverty, racism, incarceration, unemployment, homelessness, etc. Also, many Black families are multigenerational, with grandparents or other relatives on hand to support the entire household. Our nontraditional familial configurations deem us marginal by mainstream standards, even when we do not.

In the case of white women willing to go it alone and bring a child into the world without a partner, she is often described as badass in mainstream culture. This nod to the independence of white women does not always extend to poor women or women of color. The reason is simple. Black mothers exist at the bottom of the racialized motherhood totem pole, as we are still saddled with negative stereotypes if we’re thought of at all. There are obvious exceptions—Michelle Obama and Serena Williams come to mind—but these ladies are married and have the means to provide stable homes for their families. Single Black women who pursue nontraditional paths to parenthood receive a side-eye from Blacks and whites. It is assumed that homes headed by single Black mothers are poorer, less intellectually stimulating and a breeding ground for children who are prone to delinquency. This racist characterization of single Black mothers suggests that our kids don’t stand a chance.   

 

What has been your favorite Mother’s Day to date?

Mother’s Day 2014 was my hands down favorite because it was the first Mother’s Day I had with both kids. Their godfather and a close friend made brunch: salmon croquettes and waffles, two things I don’t normally eat. No one bothered to ask if I liked either dish, but the effort let me know that I was appreciated.

 

What has been the best piece of advice you’ve received? On the flip side, what has been the worst, and if applicable, how has it revealed the conscious and/or unconscious racial bias of the speaker?

The best advice I have received is to put my oxygen mask on first. Self-care is critical to my being the best mother possible, and every day I strive to make myself a priority.

The worst advice was that my future baby from the foster care system would be a “crack” baby. The speaker believed the 1990s media frenzy about how the first parents who used crack cocaine would produce babies who would not thrive, would be sickly, would have physical and developmental delays and grow up to be criminals. Of course, this was nonsense, and research later confirmed that foster children who were drug exposed and then placed in stable homes showed no academic or developmental differences by third grade. It all came down to children having a safe, loving and stable home environment. Sadly, this bad advice was not a function of racist unconscious basis but media-sponsored fear and misinformation run amok.

 

If you could go back and do one thing differently during your adoption journey, would you? And if so, what would it be and why?

My adoption journey had peaks and valleys, but the outcome was two healthy, sweet children. I wouldn’t change a thing.

 

How do you think the foster and adoptive system can be improved in the U.S.?

One way to improve the foster and adoptive system is to hire additional social workers and reduce their caseloads. Smaller caseloads would serve three purposes: (1) individualized support for first parents, who often unconsciously repeat their own cycles of abuse and neglect and lose custody of their children; (2) better screenings for prospective foster/adoptive parents when family reunification is no longer feasible; and (3) the ability for social workers to really bond with children on their caseload, in order to find the best matches for them.

 

Do you envision August and/or Cherish reading your memoir when they’re older? What is the most important thing you hope they take away from the book?

Absolutely. August has already tried to read it, but I keep taking it from him. LOL

I hope they know how much I love and admire them. I did my best to make their journeys easier and hope they remember to pay it forward.

 

ALSO IN BOOKPAGE: Read our review of Motherhood So White.

Author photo by Bobby Quillard

We spoke with Nefertiti Austin about her memoir, Motherhood So White, and how she settled into her identity as a Black mother without appeasing societal expectations.
Authors who turn themselves inside out for their stories, who are the most vulnerable and giving in their writing, often matter to us the most. Saeed Jones discusses the nature of vulnerability while on a book tour.

Trending Nonfiction

Author Interviews

Recent Features