“I Trust Almost Anyone More Than Myself” | Better in Person

Freakonomics Radio

In this bonus episode of Freakonomics Radio, Stephen Dubner interviews Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Jennifer Egan about her writing proce

Key takeaways

• Egan believes that once a writer has done something, they should strive to do the opposite next—creating intentional contrast between books.
• She finds that storytelling often rejects experimental techniques when the subject matter demands straightforward narrative truth.

Main topics

• The creative process behind writing novels
• Narrative experimentation vs. narrative truth

Notable quotes

"I don't know if I would say they're disorienting to write. One of the aesthetic principles that I find myself using is that once I've done something, I want to work against it."

"The only reason I went into the future then or ever is that I want to follow someone whose age has been established into a later part of their life. That's it. It's purely practical."

Conclusion

Jennifer Egan's writing reflects a deep commitment to exploring life's mysteries through

Transcript preview

Speaker 2 (0:00) This episode of Better in Person is presented by ChatGPT. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Download the new ChatGPT desktop app today. Speaker 1 (0:13) Hey there, it's Stephen Dubner, Speaker 2 (0:14) and this is a bonus episode from our new TV talk show, Better in Person. My guest is the Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Jennifer Egan, and as good as a writer as she is, she is just as good at explaining her writing process. Better in Person is meant to be watched, so check it out on the Freakonomics YouTube channel or look for Better in Person on Apple Podcasts. But we're also putting out this audio version for anyone who prefers to just listen. As always, thanks. Speaker 1 (0:50) I think it's so easy to think, you know, everyone thinks the way I do. They're just doing all the wrong things. No, they don't think the way you do. They're doing things the way they think is right. Speaker 2 (1:04) This is Better Speaker 1 (1:05) in Person with Stephen Dubner and Jennifer Egan. Speaker 2 (1:08) I love to recommend great books to friends, but some great books are hard to recommend because they're hard to describe. And that's because they are the product of an original mind like Jennifer Egan. She is a novelist who has received many awards, including the Pulitzer Prize for A Visit from the Goon Squad, a kaleidoscope of a book about music and ambition and the nature of time and memory. Jennifer describes her brain as having one little corner that's always following her imagination. On the subway, she wears headphones that play nothing. And she writes characters that are nothing like her, so that their consciousness is completely their own. Her work is admired by readers as well as other serious writers. All right, so I think of you, and a lot of people think of you as a, quote, writer's writer. Does that drive you crazy or do you like it? Speaker 1 (1:58) I mean, if writers like my stuff, that's a pretty high compliment. So I'm happy to please anyone. That's my basic disposition. Speaker 2 (2:06) So, okay, so Speaker 1 (2:07) I'm just going to say I love your writing, Speaker 2 (2:09) which is why I wanted you to be here. I think you do a lot of things, a lot of hard things really well. And the experience of reading your books leaves me very, like, full and also questioning for... weeks after, which I love. That's great. So I just want to know if you feel your books are as rich and disorienting to write as they are to read. That's what I really want to know. I Speaker 1 (2:38) don't know if I would say they're disorienting to write. One of the aesthetic principles that I find myself... using, is that once I've done something, I want to work against it. And so that happens book by book. You know, having just written, for example, Goon Squad, which is very, it has a lot of lateral movement. It's fragmentary storytelling. A lot of the action is offstage. It feels very contemporary and there's technology in it. And it's funny because with Manhattan Beach, I initially thought, oh, I'm going to use some tricky narrative strategies. I'm going to try to do something that isn't just straight up historical fiction. And I think I think it was that trap of having been rewarded for being, you know, experimental that I thought, well, I'm going to be experimental now. But I found that the story, the work, the narrative utterly rejected those attempts. You Speaker 2 (3:27) tried with that book, right? I did Speaker 1 (3:29) try, but I gave it up quick. And what I found was that, you know, in writing about things like a shipwreck, you know, a gangland murder, you know, survival at sea. irony and fragmentation had nothing to offer me. Just do it. Just Speaker 2 (3:45) tell Speaker 1 (3:45) the story. Speaker 2 (3:46) Reading Goon Squad again recently, I was just shocked at how your descriptions of what are called handsets and right handsets circle. Yeah, they're smartphones. They're doing everything then. But you must have written that in like 2000. It was published in 2010. So you're writing that in 2005, six, seven, eight. iPhone was around 2007. Is that right? I want to say. Speaker 1 (4:09) eight. I never had one till 11. Speaker 2 (4:12) But it's not just the factuality of the hardware and the software. It's the way people are using it in the book that felt to me extraordinarily prescient. Were you, I mean, do you feel it was prescient? Were you trying to be predictive at all? Speaker 1 (4:26) I think it's just that it takes much less time to write something than it does to actually invent it and create a product. So I end up like a couple of years ahead, but I don't think I'm really very far ahead. But anyway, so the only reason I went into the future then or ever is that I want to follow someone whose age has been established into a later part of their life. That's it. It's purely practical. And I don't have a choice. In fact, I so much didn't want to go into the future in Goon Squad that when I thought about how else I could revisit the future life of Sasha's one-night stand from Chapter 1, I briefly considered moving the timeline of the entire book back 10 years. But then I realized, oh, my God, I lose. Punk rock. No, no, no. I'm back to Elvis practically. So I had to do it, but it was not a particular wish to go into the future. However, I found that it was a lot of fun because I wasn't limited by present day technology. Did you think you were Speaker 2 (5:31) being slightly hyperbolic? Speaker 1 (5:33) I thought I was being satirical, which is a very difficult thing to pull Speaker 2 (5:37) off. Speaker 1 (5:37) It was definitely Speaker 2 (5:38) satirical when you're reading it in 2010. When you're reading it in 2026, it's verisimilitude. I Speaker 1 (5:43) know. Even the water wall. Even the water wall. Speaker 2 (5:45) Because Sandy Speaker 1 (5:45) hadn't happened. I know. And they're building one now. I Speaker 2 (5:48) feel like you also had more interesting jobs than a lot of people had by the time they become a young fiction writer. Like a model for a little while. Speaker 1 (5:57) Well, that was before I was even in college. So that doesn't count. But Speaker 2 (6:00) what about the way it was put by your friend Barbara Mundy, who I happen to know also. Something that you were just full of adventure in high school, but didn't necessarily know boundaries or limits yet. Does that feel right? Speaker 1 (6:14) Yeah, I mean, I definitely sought out adventure, but in a kind of quavering way. I was also very fearful, so it was kind of a strange combination. I sought out extreme situations, but I myself didn't really take extreme chances. What Speaker 2 (6:33) do you mean by that? Well, Speaker 1 (6:34) like, for example, you know, I... Hung around, or I like to go to punk rock clubs, and I had a friend from high school who actually became a heroin addict, and her whole world was people who were addicted to heroin, sharing needles. This is right before AIDS was named, and many of those people died. And I was in the company of her and her friends. And I like that because I... It was so far from anything that I knew already. Did you Speaker 2 (7:05) like it because it made you feel more in control than them or superior to them in any way? No, Speaker 1 (7:10) no. I felt Speaker 2 (7:10) like Speaker 1 (7:10) I was a wallflower and they were Speaker 2 (7:12) cool. You liked being around the electricity. It's funny. I think of you as much braver than you're describing yourself as. I think of you as having the heart of an explorer when I read you in fiction. Speaker 1 (7:23) Well, it's easy when you're writing in a room with, you know, but no, I mean, I did, you know, for example, I had a lot of phobias. I was terrified of flying. And yet, you know, I went to the former Soviet Union. I took propeller planes to Tashkent and Samarkand. So I was traveling alone with a backpack in China. It's summer of 86. So that was really difficult. And did Speaker 2 (7:51) you do that for the thrill and curiosity or did you do it because you wanted to put your quavering self in a circumstance where you'd have to rise to the occasion? Speaker 1 (8:00) I was curious. It was extreme and extraordinary, but very uncomfortable. I guess what I'm saying is early on I made a bargain, which was I'm not going to not do something just because it's scary. And that has... That has dictated a lot of the decisions that I've made in my life. Like, I don't want to do anything. It's all scary. But again and again, I find myself thinking, why am I not wanting to do this? Sometimes there are really good reasons, one of which is that I'm afraid. But if really the only reason is that I'm afraid, then the answer is I have to do it. Speaker 2 (8:37) I feel you just gave a different and very good answer to the question of how much Jenny Egan is there in... Jenny Egan's characters because they're often deeply unafraid. Speaker 1 (8:47) Yes, that's a big difference between them and me. Speaker 2 (8:51) I Speaker 1 (8:51) like writing about people who are unafraid. I Speaker 2 (8:54) heard that, so you have a writer's group. Speaker 1 (8:57) Yes. Speaker 2 (8:57) Which I think most people would be surprised to learn about you, that a novelist is good and accomplished and experiences you still. meets regularly with the writers group and you give them feedback, presumably, and you get it on yours. Yeah. I Speaker 1 (9:10) dedicated the candy house to them. I mean, I couldn't do what I do without feedback. I really need it. I really have to find out early, does this even feel alive? And what I found out early when I asked that question about the narrative voice of Manhattan Beach, which had a lot of tricky asides that called attention to the artificiality of, you know, telling a story set in the past. they loathed it. I mean, it made them angry. It seemed like I was talking down to them as if I thought the reader was going to go into a fugue state and not know that it was actually the 21st century. So I gave it all up. And I often find that if I make a good aesthetic choice, and an aesthetic choice is right, it's a relief. It's a relief to get rid of the thing I was trying so hard to save. So the idea of working against what I've just done, I find very satisfying. And the perfect example of that is how can something be crazy, like really ridiculous, and also plausible, like actually logical? Give a for Speaker 2 (10:11) instance from your books. Speaker 1 (10:13) So, for example, in The Candy House, there's a guy who is obsessed with authenticity and what he perceives as the artificiality of everyday interaction. And this starts to really drive him crazy. So he looks for ways to prompt genuine reactions from people without actually hurting them.