PicoBlog

Much of Sam Pink’s writing is characterized by small day-to-day moments. His protagonists are regular guys: they work as dishwashers and barbacks, they unclog sinks and toilets and wrangle garbage, they hang out, they fight, they get wild, get pissed, they observe, listen, notice, feel. Like working-class versions of Nicholson Baker’s white-collar narrator in The Mezzanine, they find truth and beauty in the details, even when the details kind of suck. 

I was introduced to Pink’s work by my friend Jackie. She read his 2020 collection, The Ice Cream Man & Other Stories, while working at a sandwich shop where the menu items were puns based on the names of famous punk rockers. There’s a story in that book called “The Sandwich Maker” – “The sandwich maker hates you…” it opens  – and, Jackie said, “obviously I really related to the idea of making sandwiches for people who didn’t deserve them.” But more than that, she said, Pink “really ‘got’ something, the absurdity of work and coworkers and interactions with people in general, but not with a heavy-handed ‘leftist’ or political bent, which was refreshing to me.” 

That’s sort of the magic of Pink: it’s with lightness and clarity that he draws profundity from the grotesque and mundane. Even his most frustrated narrators leave me with the feeling that life is worth living.

In his new book, The Event: An Epic Joke, Pink attends to the details but widens the lens. A little boy named Gergens punches a girl when she cuts in front of him in the school lunch line. All kinds of events are happening everywhere, always, Pink’s narrator says, “playing out with zero progress, like God scrolling.” And this “event,” like others before it, becomes a rallying point for every faction of the culture war: Gergens becomes a hero of law-and-order conservatives for “holding the line,” while leftist groups villainize him as a symbol of patriarchy and oppression. But that’s just the beginning. As an Alex Jones stand-in puts it,

…this was merely the beginning to an unraveling of everything, the end of Western Civilization, a sinister plot to divide and institute marshal law and further techno-surveillance measures, global stranglehold nearly finalized. Yeah, the elites smiled as the line disappeared. The line was all the average citizen had. Joe Blow and his line. Sure it was a social construct, but also a tool for all issues. It said, ‘here is here, and there is there. And I am here and you are there. It said it all when you really thought about it.

The event, like so many events, comes to symbolize everything and everyone must take a stand. 

Pink, who lives in Michigan, answered some questions about The Event and about his work in general, via email. You can buy his books at whatever online retailer you prefer. The Event is also available as an audiobook from Zero Point Fiction. Follow Pink on Instagram.

A lot of your writing deals with the agony and ecstasy of small moments and day-to-day scenarios, but The Event is very ‘macro,’ drawing on basically every corner of American culture. Had you written anything like that before? Did you find any surprising challenges in taking a more wide-reaching narrative approach?

No, I hadn’t written about anything like that before. I sort of thought that kind of stuff both beyond my ability but also beyond anyone’s ability in general because the world seems to be reverting back to smaller parts again. In terms of surprising challenges, I was mostly surprised by how much easier it was than writing the way I normally write. The biggest challenge was organizing it all into a functioning plot because at first it was just all ideas and bits/notes. That’s normally the case but it generally takes much longer because instead of plot, it’s a mood or tone and that’s always harder to get right. With The Event, there was a clear idea and plot and I just had to put it all together. There was maybe a couple days of intense frustration trying to order stuff the right way, but it took less than a month from getting the idea, to having it be out in the world. The fastest I’ve done something.

How did The Event arrive to you as a concept, is there a real life Gergens who inspired you?

Yeah the concept was a real thing and then the idea to make it a controversial event seemed really funny, and then I kept thinking about it and at one point I was like, well, what would it look like to make into an entire thing. Also it was the middle of winter in the Midwest, with extreme cold and blizzards for like two weeks, so I had nothing to do.

I love how visceral The Event is, I felt myself being sort of swept up in the push and pull of the cultural fallout, my loyalties shifting depending on what radical group or figure happens to be in focus at any given moment, which might be a little bit how I respond to a lot of real life “events,” getting pushed and pulled by whoever I last heard from. The narrator is (ironically at least) an advocate of “holding the line,” but as the writer did you feel yourself getting swept up in the narrative, and/or did you feel your loyalties shifting as you put the story together?

No, I didn’t find that personally, though the main character is obviously based on me, or to be more clear, I used elements of my own life. And I know readers have a tendency to then view that as my statement, but the main character in The Event, I view as a ‘normie.’ ie, he’s used as a baseline type to help propel the action. He takes an ironic/amusing standpoint on an event, and then it spirals out of control. Which is how I see things going for people. They get pulled into taking a stand and then it becomes something they feel a part of. The main character even mirrors the earlier analysis of controversy being a convenient outlet for his baseline anger. He says word for word what is analyzed earlier, as a tendency to just filter these events through a mind that is desperate for meaning. And so it becomes funny because he was joking at first, then gets pulled in (by his own actions) and then resents it, and resorts to viewing the other side as his enemy, thereby justifying his bloodlust, which also serves as the reason for the other side’s bloodlust. So he’s a dramatic character to show a specific example of how this shit goes down. Then at the end, his motivation is revealed and it seems more or less in line with how I see the average person. Part of the book too, is that there will be an event, ie a thing that happens that generally has a clear right and wrong, and then that gets perverted into some extreme identity. For instance, in the case of Gergens, it’s not right to hit people for a nonviolent offense, that’s an easy case of right and wrong. But it becomes more of a symbol, and the simple right or wrong gets lost. Which is generally how that stuff happens in real life.

I’d say where I live now leans conservative slightly, but if any of these cartoon character online spokespeople were to come into the bar here, they would be considered freaks.

How would you say you tend to react to the sorts of ‘events’ that this story satirizes? Do you ever find yourself getting caught up in culture war shit? Or have you ever?

I think most of it doesn’t require my input. Things that are out of my control or responsibility feel like I’d only be adding to the problem. That’s the nature of the internet too, everyone feels like they’re a part of ‘the thing.’ That’s not to say I don’t have an opinion on things, but it’s basically that. I see a situation, think about it, discover what I think is right or wrong, based on personal opinion but also what would be best for society (this is a missing concept in a lot of these arguments, it mostly just becomes my opinion is right, and you’re wrong, not, what would be the best overall based on what everyone thinks, even if it’s not ideal for me.) I also always want to avoid becoming a ridiculous cartoon character on a ‘side.’ I was never raised to vote one way or the other, etc, and I think the sides thing becomes a self fortifying problem. And I get it, I’m not acting above that. But for stuff to not get severe, you have to avoid this necessary allegiance to someone just because they agree with you. Then it becomes like a gang thing and every bit of compromise you refuse the other side, inevitably becomes violence, which you feel is justified, for the same reason they do. And then its get to epic proportions and crazy shit happens. I have opinions that would align me with both sides, but ultimately, my opinion on it, is that you try to keep a balance and have to go beyond mere emotions and convenience, to find the common ground. And I think it’s partly a midwest thing. Like I’d say where I live now, leans conservative slightly, but if any of these cartoon character online spokespeople were to come into the bar here, they would be considered freaks. There is a large body of people somewhere in the middle, who view politics as a necessary thing but overall to be minimized in an effort to focus on life. And I don’t want to give away too much of the book, but it’s discovered at the end that the sides mostly work towards radicalizing people and creating these horrible situations which mostly only benefit a small group of people, who thrive on the chaos and use it to enforce authority. If you can divide an issue into two sides, that’s easy to control each group, instead of variable individuals. Furthermore, if you can make each side extreme, you’ll create the conditions for dismissing each side, then enslaving both sides. It disallows normal conversation and resolution.

There’s a line in the story about how all maps lead back to square one. Do you feel like culture has any hope of finding a map that leads away from square one? Is it something you care about – a “better world” or w/e–  or are you just kind of interested in observing and documenting?

I think at first I’m mostly interested in observing and documenting. To me, that’s what a writer does. Approach it with no charge and let something develop. This seems like a dying thing because everyone’s bias has become so ingrained and charged, it’s impossible to avoid. In this case, it’s clearly a book about politics and sides, and people want you to pick a side, but the premise of the book is literally a joke. It’s even in the title. The whole book was centered around serving the unfolding of the joke. And people will say that’s a cop out, but it’s not, to me writing should be entertaining. It just shows the degree to which peoples lives and schooling has fried their brains into wanting a direct statement from the work, and not simply enjoy it. Are there messages? Sure but they’re not that simple and it’s always people on one side or the other who want you to make a statement too. But I don’t have a statement here, much, it’s just a joke that I thought was really appealing to try and work on. And to my surprise, the overwhelming majority of people get it. There’s some people who want to analyze things and find ‘the answer’ but to me you’ve just fallen for the bit. I was talking to a friend about it, and it’s like those tests you’d take in school where if you read the instructions, it says to just write your name on it and hand it back in, but people don’t read it, and end up doing the whole test and failing by default. It’s also funny because people will value the book based on whether or not they see their side winning. And the whole time, you’ve already failed, because the book is centered on a completely ridiculous scenario, so by entering into ‘what’s right’ you’ve already made a cartoon of yourself. People want ‘the answer’ and it’s like, well, if the country ever degenerates to all out guerilla warfare over an incident of a kindergarten squabble, then we’ll have to cross that bridge when we get to it. As for the better world thing, yes of course I desire a better world. But I can only do what’s within my power. And I think that’s the real cop out. People want this sweeping change in the world, and until then, nothing matters! But the reality is, that’s a cop out, because you’re ignoring what’s within your power (but sucks to have to do because it requires faith and energy) and opting instead for the impossible, which will always appear impossible, and thusly remove any responsibility for real change. It’s easier to want some grand thing, as an excuse for not doing the smaller things which, in the long run, lead to grand things.

My friend and I developed a philosophy called The Cartoon, where, in the face of a silly reality, you go in such an extreme direction with it, that you can shock people back to reality.

There was a lot of talk in the early Trump years about how reality was beyond satirization. I personally think The Event is a really successful work, partly because it hovers so close to reality (the name Alex James, for just one example). But did you worry at all about hitting the satirical sweet spot? Do you even consider The Event “satire,” or would you call it something else?

Yes I actually had that concern, or not concern but thought. I too thought there was no way to satirize stuff because it’ll just end up being reality at some point. But what I did was basically what you said. I just slightly tweaked some stuff, ie changed it just slightly but it clearly refers to a real thing, and isn’t that far off. And then on the opposite end, tried to throw in stuff that was so extreme that it seems impossible. And when you mix the two (even down to most things having a different name, but in some cases, our real world elements are in there, ie Michelle Obama, etc, but twitter is called Blather) you create a tone that is slightly uncanny but also believable. The third element was making jokes that were almost totally low effort. Like not smart at all, and just kind of like a farting sound in terms of depth. And to me, using all three things, that was the sweet spot. I haven’t thought much about satire or even know much about the genre, but I think it’s something I naturally do. My friend and I developed a philosophy called The Cartoon, where, in the face of a silly reality, you go in such an extreme direction with it, that you can shock people back to reality. It’s actually pretty wild. And so that/s what I was hoping with, in this book. Believable, but so insane that it sorts of snaps you back to reality.

Something I found really interesting in The Event was the way that violence is constantly being offered as a means of healing, most clearly when President Marvin is declaring martial law, but of course action movie-style/vigilante violence is also advocated by every side, and then there’s the mass shooter’s attention-seeking apolitical violence. I’m not even sure what my question is here, I guess I’m just wondering if you can expand on this very American acceptance of and/or indifference to violence?  

Violence is interesting to me because it’s like one of the oldest things, extremely natural, still present largely (maybe inevitable always) and yet people like to think they get further and further from it. It’s very real and it seems like it will always be around, and it’s essentially the last ditch solution to things. I think one the points I’m making with it in regard to The Event, is once you disallow conversation, like real heartfelt and genuine attempts to make things right, you force other people into violence. And once you choose violence, you necessitate the other side does as well. At that point, all moral attempts at reasoning or coexistence get throw out, because you did x, so I did y, but you view it as me doing x and you having to do y etc. it’s a thing to avoid obviously, but also probably always the underlying reality of things. And the truth is, if there is no option of violence, you can’t ensure the existence of your reality. Like if I can’t defend myself against violent people, then I don’t exist. Would it be cool if everyone was non violent? Yeah that would be awesome, but it’s maybe the most natural thing there is. And in The Event, a lot of it is portrayed as a catharsis. A thing that builds and becomes necessary (again, because of the cartoonish approach to stuff rather than earnest attempts at problem solving). It’s also wild the degree to which thinking you’re on the right side, makes violence appealing. Like people will bemoan violence done against their side, but then feel it’s totally just against the other side. Which yeah I understand, but like, that’s very unmanageable, and like I said above, most people wanna just be left alone and fulfill the destiny of their lives.

I really love the way you write about kids. I was rereading the story “The Ice Cream Man” and you really capture how children move and talk and just generally behave. Do you  have a lot of kids in your life?

Yeah I love kids. I have nephews and a niece and I hope to have children. I enjoy observing them because it’s a completely different world. It’s both entertaining, but also puts in to perspective things you’ve lost, or begun taking for granted. I also think with kids, a lot of political/social stuff becomes more obvious, because you have to protect them. It’s a form of promise where you will be held accountable for the world you leave to them. There’s also a good Nietzsche quote I think about a lot, which is something like his goal is to be as serious as a kid at play. That’s such a self looping idea and I think very profound. Basically the main goal.

You’ve said that what matters most to you is your connection to your reader/audience. I could be wrong but it seems like you probably have a lot of people reaching out to tell you how much your work means to them. I could say a lot about why your work really hits for me, but can you talk about what, from your perspective, people connect to the most? 

Yeah people have always reached out and it seems to be happening more and more. It was wild to me at first because way back in the day, I felt like nobody would understand, and I think that’s very common. You think you are a freak with thoughts and experiences like no one else. But then I’d just write them out, as some kind of self healing thing and was shocked at how many people were like thankful or relieved to see what they believed were their own thoughts, put on paper. To me that’s a powerful thing because it unifies you and also gets rid of fear. When I was younger, like in grade school, I was the one in class to say if something was bullshit, and then people would agree and thank me for speaking out. And you find that a lot of people have similar thoughts and ideas but just won’t say them, and if that’s true, if nobody says anything, the shit continues. Not a lot of stuff that happens in my work. Or statements, etc. it’s just how things are, and people are like yeah that’s a huge relief or you made me feel better about something etc. I think mostly it’s been a wild experience that is at both times exhilarating but also humbling, because it’s easy to feel negative emotions when you don’t feel connected. But then when there’s connection, you realize you have a greater responsibility. And the fear and anger go away. Ultimately, it’s about sharing, otherwise I’d never publish, or post paintings. But after making something, it’s very exciting to share, and sharing creates a positive energy. Which I think is the baseline of most art.

What has been inspiring you lately?

The most inspiring thing for me lately has been observing the universe as the perfect accountant, creating and interweaving destinies and lessons, whereby the more you observe and understand yourself as both a servant and a soldier of it, the more is seems to wink at you.  

ncG1vNJzZmilkae0or7Era6epKOde7TBwayrmpubY7CwuY6pZpploWKur7CMmmSwoaSderStzGanoqab