Stumped

When Donald Trump summoned Chris Christie to the White House in 2018 to offer him a job as chief of staff, Trump’s most pressing question had to do not with background checks or political alignment, but with Christie’s new book, Let Me Finish. More specifically, Trump wanted to know: was it critical of him? “The book is honest about you,” Christie said, adding that the book disparaged people close to Trump. “How bad is it?” Trump asked. 

This anecdote — courtesy of yet another book from Christie, Republican Rescue (2021) — suggests that campaign books are important to the candidates themselves, obsessed as they are with their own reputations. But it’s fair to ask why the books should matter to anyone else, and why the tradition of writing and publishing them persists, even though they harken back to a bygone political era. The former president’s question — how bad is it? — might, in fact, be posed about each of the recent books authored by GOP presidential hopefuls, a list that includes Republican Rescue as well as Ron DeSantis’s The Courage to Be Free: Florida’s Blueprint for America’s Revival, Nikki Haley’s If You Want Something Done: Leadership Lessons from Bold Women, Vivek Ramaswamy’s Capitalist Punishment: How Wall Street Is Using Your Money to Create a Country You Didn’t Vote For, Tim Scott’s America, a Redemption Story: Choosing Hope, Creating Unity, and Mike Pence’s Go Home for Dinner: Advice on How Faith Makes a Family and Family Makes a Life

Unsurprisingly, these books are bad. Very. They are pompous and eye-roll-inducing, never surmounting the obvious central weakness of the genre: it’s riskier for an active politician to tell a good story than to slap some safe and boring words on a page. Before I get accused of partisan hackery, let me certify that Democratic campaign books are very bad, too. In 2020, we learned such riveting details as that former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro wanted to “help others in my neighborhood be able to reach their own dreams” and that Vice President Kamala Harris felt that her 2016 senate campaign team “was in it together every step of the way.” 

We are one nation united by thousands of pages of awful prose from the people who want to be in charge — and this year, it’s Republicans who are vying for the throne. Reading these hastily composed tomes, with their telling omissions and accidental truths, allows us to glimpse fuller pictures of the candidates than they themselves might mean to reveal. These texts can be mined for biographical details that few but the political-junkiest remember — like the fact that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis got married at Disney World (his wife’s idea, allegedly). And they tend to expose their authors’ weak spots. Nikki Haley’s bumbling December comments about the causes of the Civil War (she didn’t mention slavery) were greeted with shock and condemnation. But attentive readers of her work could have reported that, in If You Want Something Done (2022), she both-sidesedly notes that “there was a place for the Confederate flag,” and that growing up, she “knew people who viewed the flag as a matter of history and Southern heritage.” 

These are telling particularities, helpful in assembling an accounting of each candidate, particularly in an age when presidential contenders face fewer and fewer hard journalistic questions, protected by hordes of press secretaries and a media ecosystem committed to horse-race coverage. But well before these candidates started dropping out in rapid succession, it was clear that none was likely to be elected president. The real utility of these books is that they illustrate the grip Trump holds over his own haggard competitors, laboring as they do to tell their stories. That they bothered writing these books — or running at all — can shed light on the delusions of a Republican party still straining to make sense of Trump’s influence. Where does the GOP turn after Trump? None of the other candidates in the race had a clue. They were doomed even before they took pen to paper. So why did they?

 

A campaign book can serve as a sort of “exploratory committee,” as the political lifer Chuck Todd described the genre to The New York Times in 2007. They test whether a candidate has appeal from coast to coast. They also allow a candidate to get ready to run. All those bookstore readings and signings let you take the temperature of the electorate and establish national connections, while soft-focus TV interviews introduce you to a wide audience on what is essentially a mock campaign trail. While DeSantis’s first book, Dreams from Our Founding Fathers: First Principles in the Age of Obama (2011), was not a wild hit, it did allow the budding politician to speak before groups that sometimes numbered in the hundreds. These appearances, he writes in The Courage to Be Free (2023), let him hone his message and helped to “indirectly pave the way” for his Congressional run in 2012.

The act of publishing can also be a mark of seriousness. “You’re not a real candidate, Pinocchio, if you haven’t written your own book,” former ABC News political director Mark Halperin once said. Of course, there is usually little need for the candidates to actually write the books. As Ronald Reagan told reporters at a press conference in his publisher’s office in 1990, “I hear it’s a terrific book! One of these days I’m going to read it myself.” But the best-remembered books stand out from the pack because they take risks or play with form. John F. Kennedy’s often-mimicked Profiles in Courage (1956) gathered stories about a range of allegedly heroic politicians from Daniel Webster to Robert Taft, while connecting Kennedy and honor in the reading public’s mind. Barack Obama’s Dreams from My Father, influenced by Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, is an unavoidable touchstone for contemporary politicians, given the loving praise it received from critics for its honesty and lyricism — mostly as Obama rose to national prominence, years after the book was originally published in 1995.

Recent campaign books take fewer risks, and instead fall safely along the spectrum that includes what might be called the argument book, the stump speech book, and the advice book. The argument is like the opening statement at a televised debate: sound-bite evidence that a candidate has a vision for the country. The stump speech, by contrast, draws on all the elements of a state fair podium-pounder: biography, anecdote, folksy phrasing, and cohesive narrative. The advice book purports to offer its readers guidance based on lessons learned by its author. It is perhaps unsurprising that the moribund Republican primary candidates — who failed to excite much interest on the actual campaign trail — have similarly neglected to prove compelling on the page. 

Vivek Ramaswamy’s latest book comes closest to being the exception. His offering is this cycle’s truest example of an argument book, and the only one that even begins to provide a reason for its author’s presence in the national spotlight. Viewers hypnotized by Ramaswamy’s unnerving eye contact and techno-confidence on the debate stage will find an even more potent dose of chutzpah in Capitalist Punishment (2023), a book about the dangers of corporate ethics. Ramaswamy’s latest comes on the heels of two other successful tomes on wokeness, Woke, Inc. (2021) and Nation of Victims (2022). In Capitalist Punishment, Ramaswamy, a much-hyped biotech financier, asserts that corporations focus too much on ESG — environmental, social, and governance issues that are unrelated to shareholder value. He believes, essentially, that Chevron should worry about drilling for oil rather than about putting women on its board or preparing for green energy transitions. This is the sole subject of the newbie politico’s 215-page book. Ramaswamy conjures up a fever dream of acronyms — AUM, CSR, SRI — that will be legible mostly to Fox News viewers and finance bros who think climate change won’t actually be that bad. It’s not exactly a populist screed designed to excite millions: among the book’s detours are intricate points about New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and the board of CalPERS, the California public employees’ retirement system. Ramaswamy recommends asking your financial advisor, “At any time in the last five years, have I invested in any funds that voted my shares in favor of racial equity audits?” He rarely leavens this relatable subject with biographical storytelling, or even memorable anecdotes. 

This cycle’s GOP books don’t do much to elevate the stump subgenre, either. Take South Carolina Senator Tim Scott’s America, a Redemption Story, which unspools long passages about his love of football and memories of watching wrestling with his grandfather, alongside a harrowing scene in which his soon-to-disappear father chain-smokes while driving a young, asthmatic Scott across Kincheloe Air Force Base. There are emotional moments here, but Scott is unable to do much more than sigh about them as he embraces the kind of bland hope and faith that the book suggests will cure, as if by magic, most of America’s ills, including racism. A section titled “What Can Bring Change?” skips over concrete suggestions before concluding, “There is hope. There is love. There is redemption.” Scott notes the twenty-plus times he has been pulled over for “driving while black,” which he says made him feel “humiliated, angry, belittled.” But policy interventions aimed at avoiding such instances of abuse are mostly absent. Instead, Scott draws on banal memories, like the time he won a student government election by shouting into the mic, “Who wants a free lunch for everyone!” Yet he does not seem to have assimilated this story’s potential lessons: that elections are popularity contests, and that people vote for candidates they think will materially improve their lives. Before he dropped out of the race in November, Scott mostly promised voters empty positivity, riding on support from big donors who are hardly in touch with the GOP base.

DeSantis’s The Courage to Be Free falls approximately halfway between an argument and a stump book, though he is not particularly revelatory in either register. The general tone is self-congratulatory, as when DeSantis claims that “after a couple years as governor, the number one thing people would say when they came up to me was, simply, ‘Thank you.’” He’s least wooden when he writes about his genuinely stellar baseball career, which took him from a Little League World Series to batting .100 higher than former President George H.W. Bush at Yale to playing so hard in the lead-up to a Congressional baseball game that he had to get shoulder surgery. The book includes a closer reading of the Revolutionary period — he quotes The Federalist Papers in five different chapters — than most of DeSantis’s 1776-pilled colleagues offer. But his basic impulse is to lean hard into the culture wars on everything from Covid to Disney to protecting “biological women in athletics,” contending that the state of Florida can serve as a model for the rest of the United States. “People throughout our country and across the globe looked to Florida as a citadel of freedom in a world gone mad,” he writes in his introduction. 

Sporting a bright teal cover without the usual promotional headshot and featuring the upbeat subtitle “Leadership Lessons from Bold Women,” former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Haley’s If You Want Something Done looks like it’s masquerading as self-help. Yet the reader may catch a little politicking between the platitudes. In a pale imitation of JFK’s famous book, Haley presents pocket profiles of ten great women. She opens each with two epigraphs, the first from the chapter’s subject and the second from herself, putting Haley on the same footing as her chosen icon. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s chapter begins with, “If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman” — the quote from which Haley not-so-subtly draws her title, and which she follows with her own sage words on why she wears high heels. “It’s not for a fashion statement,” she writes. “It’s because if I see something wrong, we’re going to kick ’em every single time.” The profiles — of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, aviator Amelia Earhart, etc. — tend to be of uncomplicatedly steely women who persevere through suffering. The writing all takes the same form, too, with a little historical information acting as the sugar to spoon us some Haley trivia. In her chapter on Jeane Kirkpatrick, the first woman to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Haley writes that the international body “reminded her of high school,” with “the cliques, the rumors, the popular kids and the loners, the bullies and the bullied.” Before reading about the Olympian sprinter Wilma Rudolph, we shuffle through an explanation of how Haley’s amateur running habit is indicative of her refusal to submit to difficulties: “Don’t let others — or yourself — limit what you are capable of.” Despite her calls for female empowerment (“don’t ever underestimate the power of your voice”), Haley takes pains to distance herself from contemporary feminists. “Somewhere along the way, feminism got twisted,” she writes. “It is now used as a political club to browbeat people into sticking to a preapproved script.” No preapproved scripts for Haley, who nevertheless tells us that the U.S. was right to move its embassy to Jerusalem and that America is beset by “woke madness.” 

Go Home for Dinner: Advice on How Faith Makes a Family and Family Makes a Life (2023) offers up a few real insights about Mike Pence. The former vice president’s allies have dismissed reporting that he calls his wife “mother,” but here we learn that he refers to her as “Hummingbird” when discussing matters of reproduction (specifically their struggles with infertility). The book underscores just how much Pence’s life is saturated by Christianity: a favorite Friday night game with his kids was “you need a cross to get across,” in which they traced a white cross on the floor with flour and tried to step on nothing but the white while navigating the space. “It was a helpful illustration of how we are separated from God because of our sins and we need the cross of Jesus Christ to reach Him,” Pence explains. This is the guiding social philosophy of a candidate for whom banning abortion even for nonviable pregnancies is merely an entry-level ideo-theological goal. His evangelical thinking is present even on vacation, as when Pence drives through a national park with his family calling things “glorious” instead of “beautiful”; his kids know that’s “because it’s not just beautiful, Dad. It’s because it gives glory to the one who made it.” And of course, faith guides work as much as leisure: “God called us into politics,” Pence writes. 

Pence’s previous book, So Help Me God (2022), had at least a few interested readers: it drew the attention of the special-counsel investigators looking into 2020 election interference. They grilled Pence about his comma choice in a passage in which he claims he told Trump, “You know, I don’t think I have the authority to change the outcome” of the election. According to ABC, Pence allegedly told the investigators that the comma was not supposed to be there. What he meant, he insisted, was the more forceful, “You know I don’t think I have the authority to change the outcome.” That alternate phrasing painted Pence in a better light and, crucially, suggested that Trump had known all along that Pence couldn’t throw him the race.

In Go Home for Dinner, Pence sidesteps the topic of January 6 by turning the pen over to his daughter, Charlotte Pence Bond, who was at the Capitol with him that day. As the chaos unfolded, she writes, she made “a comment about the president that I quickly regretted,” calling Trump’s actions “unforgivable.” Mother Pence immediately corrected her — because their faith commands forgiveness. Are we supposed to glean that Pence, too, forgives Donald Trump? Has he let go of any anger over the former president’s false claims that Pence could swing the election his way? Is he upset that, on January 6, Trump riled up a crowd that hanged Pence in effigy before breaking into his place of work? Such forgiveness would be Christian, and politically and morally fascinating, but instead of giving a definitive answer, Pence disappears from his own story. He refracts the election interference chaos through the safer terrain of family. Perhaps he didn’t want to risk provoking more vitriol as his own 2024 bid heated up. But he needn’t have worried — he was already out of the race by the time the book hit shelves in November.

 

Pence is not the only one of these candidate-authors to get squirmy about Trump. All write in his shadow; Trump is simultaneously the antagonist and the symbol of the party, the favorite of its base. With the exception of Ramaswamy, whose latest book is more concerned with the corporate than the electoral world, all of the Republican candidates walk a wary line between showing respect for and distancing themselves from Trump and his movement. They are careful to highlight moments in which they were praised by Trump or worked closely with him. DeSantis insists on his “good relationship with the president.” Haley recounts telling Trump that she wanted to keep speaking her mind as U.N. ambassador. (“To President Trump’s credit, he replied, ‘That’s exactly why I want you to do this.’”) 

Even when the candidates are critical of the former president, they are always sure to soften the blow. In one particularly knotted passage, Scott rehashes his disapproval of Trump’s line that there were “fine people on both sides” of the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Scott then spends pages recalling how “stunned” and “shocked” he was that Trump called him up to talk all this out, really listened to him — and perhaps borrowed his idea for opportunity zones, a tax benefit meant to help poor areas that incidentally also enriched developers and Trump’s family and friends. The verdict? “I know the man, and I can tell you firsthand how much he cares about this country.”

Christie, meanwhile, calls Trump his “friend,” writing that he was the first major officeholder to endorse Trump. He also jokes about Trump’s lack of seriousness, evinced when Trump offered him the ambassadorship to Italy because his mother was Italian. “I don’t think the analysis went any deeper than that,” Christie writes. Yet he can’t fully escape or exorcize Trump. In one of the strangest passages of Republican Rescue, he remembers that Trump teased him about bringing a briefcase to a meeting. “What’s with the briefcase,” Trump harumphs. “Are we going to take notes?” When Christie does later pull out a legal pad, Trump continues to rib him. “Here we go. We’re gonna do business now. Chris is taking his notes out.” Christie presents the episode as an illustration of Trump’s freewheeling and chaotic style. But the fact that he can’t forget the teasing — and repeats the story for his readers — shows just how deeply and accurately Trump is able to get into his rivals’ heads.

Inadvertently, these books also draw attention to what makes Trump so engaging, enraging, and unavoidable. DeSantis’s culture-war posturing falls flat because he’s nowhere near as entertaining as Trump. What use is DeSantis’s dull anti-masking take (“I was skeptical that masks would provide the protection that the public health establishment claimed, but I was adamant that a mask mandate was not an appropriate use of government power”) when Trump had already earned headlines with more memorably phrased lines on the same subject? “Sitting in the Oval Office behind that beautiful Resolute Desk, the great Resolute Desk,” Trump said in 2020, “wearing a face mask as I greet presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings, queens — I don’t know, somehow I don’t see it for myself.” A book of advice, like Haley’s or Pence’s? Trump did that already, on the only thing Americans really care about — “the art of the deal,” a title that, even decades later, has earned Trump tens of thousands of dollars in royalties a year. Ramaswamy tries to interest readers in finance, but Trump has written about business in much more digestible prose. 

Of course, Trump has produced campaign books, too. There’s a lot to learn about him in one of his early entries in the genre, The America We Deserve, composed when he was flirting with a Reform Party run for the presidency in 2000. With its dark warnings about terror and crime waves, and passages on abortion and single-payer health care, it previews the enduring obsessions and policy flip-flops to come. (At the time, he called himself pro-choice and noted that “Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans.”) 

That book came out soon after one-time Republican presidential contender turned Reform Party hopeful Pat Buchanan’s own book A Republic, Not an Empire was criticized as soft on Nazis. (“Pat Buchanan insists controversial book not pro-Hitler,” reads a representative CNN headline.) Trump repeatedly reminds his reader of that story, zeroing in on and exploiting a politically devastating weakness, just as he did with his opponents in 2016. The book highlights Trump’s main political talent — his willingness to be confident, dumb, and also a little funny. Explaining his support for capital punishment, for instance, he writes, “To point out the extremely obvious, 100 percent of the people who are executed never commit another crime.” It is a perfect campaign book, combining the best of the argument and the stump to provide both a policy blueprint (being tough on crime, stopping terrorism, disarming North Korea) and an amusing, apolitical personal voice. Yet it got him nowhere at the time.

 

That kind of occupational hazard haunts the 2024 books. Running through most of them is an anxiety about their own production. “Why write a memoir now?” Tim Scott asks. The pages that follow never really answer the question or overcome the genre’s biggest obstacle. The establishment that once gave campaign books the nod of approval no longer really exists. Do any undecided voters really watch Meet the Press? Do the editors and reporters who used to scour these books and anoint candidates accordingly matter in a world of declining print circulation and gargantuan political spending? Campaigns now devote huge resources to social media, video ads, and a few big, clippable rallies. All of these are financed by big donor events, mass emails, and endless call time — all largely independent of the old, imperfect institutions that used to be part of the machine that inches individuals towards the presidency. 

It’s possible that all candidates really get out of their forays into literature is money. The Trump era has been good for political books, after all: consider the insatiable demand that helped Michael Wolff’s gossipy Trump White House portrait Fire and Fury sell over a million copies. Ahead of the 2020 primary, Democratic candidates like Harris and Elizabeth Warren received six-figure book advances and made best sellers lists. Scott’s slim book earned him more than his yearly senatorial salary; Pence signed a multimillion dollar two-book deal; Ramaswamy’s financial disclosures show him making hundreds of thousands of dollars from his books. 

Characteristically, Trump seems more aware than most that campaign books are, above all, a money game. His publication this cycle likely took even less work than a ghostwritten volume. It’s a coffee table book called Letters to Trump, and it begins with an approximately fifty-word note from Richard Nixon, in which he explains that his wife, Pat, had seen Trump on the Donahue Show and “predicts that whenever you decide to run for office you will be a winner!” The book goes on to include pro forma thank-yous from celebrities sent during the years before Trump’s presidential run, printed alongside captions in which he engages in some typical score-settling with old foes. The most important part of the whole endeavor seems to be the price tag: $99 for the 320-page book, $399 for a signed edition. The publisher, incidentally, is an outfit called Winning Team, of which Donald Trump Jr. is a cofounder. “You do a GREAT job!” the former president writes in the acknowledgements, finally offering some praise to the offspring who is always seeking it. This is actually Trump’s second post-White House coffee table book. The first, a collection of photographs of his time in office, reportedly hit twenty million dollars in sales in a matter of months. 

There is a certain shamelessness in the bid to make a buck through photocopying, but it’s not as if the rest of the GOP cohort offers much more value, even at lower price points. It is telling that none in this year’s cohort have come close to being as popular or lucrative as Trump’s books. How could they have? The books were written, in the hoary tradition of the genre, in search of a broad American public that, in our fractured moment, does not quite exist. In the future, increasingly stage-managed candidates — or those who are already entertainment professionals — may see less and less political benefit from the exercise. Voters already know the biographies of anyone who gets close to the presidency, and a candidate’s blunt, hacky stances can be more effectively parceled elsewhere. For any particularly important political messages, future candidates can always do what Trump is already doing, in yet another plot to stuff his pockets: put the junk on Truth Social.

Third Room

In November my landlord and her family left the city to celebrate the abrupt cessation of her husband’s paralysis. They planned to visit Durango, where she had grown up, and Quintana Roo, where their daughter’s godfather lived. The family was feeling hopeful. All of us were. Before leaving, the landlord had halved my rent and given me a spare key to the private terraza on the building’s top floor. I kissed their baby on the head, hugged the husband, and wished them luck.

In response to her husband’s paralysis, which began shortly before I moved into the apartment in July, the landlord had purged a number of habits from her life and replaced them with healthier alternatives. She encouraged me to do the same. To show my solidarity with her or with the sick man, or maybe with the two of them, I stopped listening to podcasts while making breakfast. I practiced yoga and taped my lips shut before bed. There were other changes: I cut masturbation out of my life entirely. I stopped reading novels with nameless protagonists. Instead of poking and counting the benign lipomas under my ribs, I plucked the outer edges of my eyebrows.

The night before they embarked on their trip, the landlord invited me to dinner. Her family lived in the apartment directly above mine. The husband was Honduran. She was Mexican. Their two-year-old daughter was, I supposed, Honduran-Mexican, or perhaps Mexican-Honduran, or simply Mexican, since Mexico was the country we lived in. She was white, like her parents. We ordered Italian food from the restaurant around the corner. The landlord’s husband now healthy, I judged it appropriate to at last bring to her attention certain features of the apartment in need of repair: low water pressure in the shower, a loose doorknob, flickering lights, and, naturally, the issue in the third bedroom. But out of respect for their solemn dinnertime recollections of the husband’s illness, and after witnessing their elation in describing the morning of his recovery, I again postponed broaching these issues. 

I sent a couple of courteous text messages the day after they left, which, because she was a relatively benignant landlord, received prompt responses in the form of animated stickers and GIFs. Her favorite animations tended to mirror the tone of my messages or the mood of the conversation: clips of conga lines and dancing racoons when my rent payments cleared, a meme of a terrified chihuahua the afternoon I locked myself out of the apartment. Rarely did she reply with words. That morning, frantic baby pandas spun beneath my list of grievances.

At the top of the list was the man who had been living in the third bedroom of the apartment since at least September. To explain both my delayed discovery of him and my tolerance for his extended presence, it is probably necessary that I describe the layout of the unit: the main apartment consisted of two bedrooms, a bathroom, a living/dining room, a balcony connected to the living/dining room, and a kitchen. Adjoining the kitchen was an exterior walkway that faced into the building shaft. This exterior walkway led to a third bedroom otherwise unconnected to the rest of the apartment. Its size and orientation relative to the main unit suggested that it had once functioned as a servant or maid’s quarters, or as the dwelling of a young boarder. The room sat at an oblique angle to the kitchen, which provided a view into its two windows. I recalled from my initial tour of the apartment a twin-size mattress on the bedroom floor. Opposite the mattress was a desk and a leather swivel chair, both partially visible from the kitchen. The third room was perfectly livable and functional, but extraneous to my own living purposes and to my purpose for being in Mexico. Thus I had ignored it since moving in. As a result of this neglect I can’t say for certain when the man arrived. One week the room was empty; the next he was seated at the desk, his hand moving from left to right, apparently writing.

My reaction upon spying him through the kitchen window was less fear and more akin to fatigue — yet another chore. I was in the middle of cooking breakfast, and I had an omelet to attend to. Then I had to clean the bathroom. And later that afternoon I had an appointment with the archivists at a rare book library. I’ll deal with him later, I thought. When I came home that evening, he was still in the room, still seated at the desk, and still writing. The only difference in the scene was that the bedroom’s overhead light had been turned on. The third room suffered from poor exposure to natural light; its solitary bulb had likely been emitting that dull, whitish glow since the early afternoon. These seemed like reasonable grounds for confronting the uninvited lodger — financial grounds, I mean — but I remembered that the landlord covered the utilities, and despite my close relationship with this landlord in particular, I was opposed, at least ideologically, to the existence of landlords in general, and for the man at the desk, who had never been invited to dinner or heard stories of the illness that had paralyzed her husband, my landlord would likely represent a general case of landlordship — i.e., a rent-seeking immorality that I did not want to appear allied with by suggesting that he was adding to the electrical bill. I closed the kitchen curtains and cooked my dinner: Chilean salmon marinated in homemade teriyaki sauce.

The following morning I walked into the kitchen and was surprised to see the third bedroom’s light already on and its new inhabitant seated in the same spot. Had he slept at all? Light didn’t reach the third room until almost noon, and by the early evening the room would begin to darken. One fluorescent bulb running nineteen hours per day represented a negligible contribution to the electrical bill, which, as I had already decided, was really none of my business. It was his devotion to his work that had begun to irk me. I couldn’t imagine him writing anything so important as to compel him to remain seated at all hours of the day.

I described this scene in a message to my landlord the day after her departure. My Spanish had become rigid after living outside of the country for several years; in casual conversation I could come across as stilted to the point that people struggled to understand me, and I reasoned that the landlord may have misinterpreted my initial messages. I emphasized that the man had been in the apartment — her apartment — for a month and showed no signs of leaving. Her reply: a GIF of an orangutan running in circles with its hands on its head. “I’ll get to it as soon as I’m back,” she added. She didn’t plan to return until February, at the earliest.

The only other person aware of the man’s presence was my girlfriend, who was living in Querétaro. From the beginning she had been of little help; after three years of dating, these kinds of stories simply didn’t interest her. “Don’t tell me about people trapped in apartments anymore, please,” she had said when I called to inform her of the man’s sudden appearance. “I don’t want to know about their broken hearts and their storied vanities.”

I had at the time assented while silently observing how she maintained an interest in novels about families across generations and literature vaguely to do with history — history as a process meant to induce sympathy and, in certain, directed cases, antipathy. In that regard my girlfriend wasn’t different from any of my friends. I didn’t bore her, and she didn’t bore me, exactly, but the relationship bored both of us — that was clear. It was something I had come to accept. I would never again be excited about love, but I wouldn’t be discontent, either, except in fleeting conversations in bars or in flirtatious gazes from across the room at parties — circumstances that induced not a feeling but rather memories of a feeling that had become inaccessible.

Instead of calling my girlfriend I met a writer for coffee. This writer was fifteen years older than me, spoke little Spanish, and had recently moved to Mexico for reasons that remained unclear. The writer was from New York and had written books about nameless protagonists who abandon their lives and flee to comfortably defamiliarized places. Their sites of refuge weren’t exotic in the traditional sense of the word — they were cities where everyone spoke English and that people from New York recognized at least in name, in the instances where names were provided. The idea was that the characters lost their identities upon entering these uncanny realities, or arrived at them with aspirations of nonexistence — meant to comment, I supposed, on a pervasive homogenization and disintegration of identity in our, the readers’, lives. But the settings of these stories were so plainly removed from the world of economic and political exigencies (and by no coincidence invariably devoid of non-white characters) that they became, paradoxically, comfortable and familiar to New York literary audiences, and thus I often fell asleep reading this writer’s books.

Nonetheless, given his experience in matters of people willfully disappeared, nameless, or otherwise effaced, I thought he might have suggestions for how best to rid myself of the man in the third room. I described the man’s arrival to the writer, who listened patiently and occasionally interjected to ask me to clarify certain sequences of events. After reaching the end of my story, I began silently questioning the fundamental nature of the problem. Could I reasonably argue that the man was doing any harm? His presence — at once discreet and obtrusive — unnerved me, that was clear, but part of the reason I was in Mexico was to investigate material conditions and social organizations that my peers had, so far as I could tell, ignored in their own art. In material terms, I didn’t use the third room. Wasn’t the real problem my willingness to allow a second and third room in my apartment to lie fallow? And in material terms, the man had no effect on my daily life. There was only one bathroom in the apartment, for example. That must be where he went to relieve himself. But even so, the man left the bathroom immaculate, and he must have only used it while I was out of the house or asleep so as not to disturb me. The same went for food. If he was eating my food, he replaced whatever he consumed, down to the crumbs at the bottom of the bread box. In this regard, he took (if I might hazard the rhetoric of plunder) far less than any previous guest had. A number of friends had visited me since I’d moved back to Mexico, and I had always refused their offers of payment or reimbursement, saying, “My house is your house. Any food, anything you need, don’t worry about it.” More than once I’d even hosted strangers — Central and South American migrants headed to the United States. Hadn’t I told all these people to stay as long as they needed?

The New York writer asked if I had tried confession. “Religious confession?” I asked. At the time very little weighed on my conscience. One or two deeds from childhood, nothing major.

“With the man in the room. Have you tried sitting him down and telling him about yourself.”

“Why would I need to make things about me?”

“In a way, you already have,” the writer replied. “The man in the third room could make for an interesting audience. I’ve been exploring monologue in my work lately.”

I admitted to the writer that I hadn’t entered the third room more than a handful of times, and not once since the man’s arrival. To be frank, it was an option I hadn’t considered. In fact, it wasn’t an option: to enter the room was as implausible as trapping oxygen with my hands. Why? Because the man was in the room and I wasn’t. It seemed obvious. If he had invited me in, then perhaps things would be different, but for the time being he was inside the room and I was outside.

“You’ve only seen the man from a distance, then?” the writer asked.

“Through the kitchen window.” I replied. “The window isn’t far from the third room,” I added at the sight of the writer’s furrowed brow, his mouth twisting into a smile. “Really, it’s just outside the window,” I repeated. In that instant I had trouble recalling the man’s features. I had seen him only from behind. I knew that his hair was short and black, and that he wore a green flannel shirt nearly every day. 

“How do you know it’s a man in there, or anyone at all? Maybe you left the light on,” the writer said, his smile now undisguised. These were possibilities I had already considered and discarded, I explained. But, no, if I was being honest, I hadn’t ventured a closer inspection.

I invited the writer to come see for himself. I had already decided not to see this writer again, and I had little desire to have him in my apartment, but his demure self-assurance had precluded any possibility of a courteous farewell. Better to prove him wrong than to shake his hand. It was a thirty minute walk from the café to my apartment. The writer spent most of that time outlining the plot of his latest book. He planned to return to New York the following month to attend a conference, or maybe to speak on a panel, or it was possibly the case that he was receiving an award. The details were unclear, because the writer had transitioned so abruptly into descriptions of his winter plans that for several minutes I thought he was describing deeds accomplished by the narrator of his novel. This new novel’s narrator would have a name — the writer’s name — and his deeds would unfold in familiar, fully-realized cities. Gone was the speculative wound across the material flesh; the warped mirror had been righted; the skyline openwork of tarpaulin and scaffolding would be overlaid with steel and history — so went the writer’s explanation of his book. 

We arrived at my apartment. I led the writer into the kitchen and pulled back the curtain to show him the man in the third room. For a fleeting instant I worried that the man wouldn’t be there. I had never shown him to anyone before. If he were gone, or if I saw him but the writer didn’t, it would mean I was at last losing my purchase on reality. All my life that had been a possibility, and indeed I considered it an inevitability. I had come close a number of times before returning to Mexico, and it was part of the reason I had moved back — to lose my mind alone, away from family and friends. I looked out the kitchen window, and into the windows of the third room. The man was seated at the desk, the fluorescent light glowing above his head.

“There,” I said to the writer, who was out the kitchen door before I could say more. I took a step after him, hesitated, and then came back inside. Through the kitchen window I watched the writer knock on the door to the third room, enter, and close the door behind him.

I waited. The writer was standing in a spot that obscured almost my entire view into the room. It was just possible to make out the seated man. He hadn’t stood to greet the writer or to expel him from the room. It appeared as though his hand was still moving across the desk. If I knew anything about the man after nearly six weeks living together, it was that his work ethic was unwavering. The writer could blabber for hours about defamiliarized cities and nameless characters, and the seated man’s hand would continue moving, filling the pages before him at a rate nearly equivalent to the rate of his breath or the beat of his heart. Was his project circumscribed by cadences as intrinsic, and as expansive, as these? Was I witness to an exhaustive transcription of the totality of a single life — each page a record of his thoughts at that exact instant, each paragraph a digression into the texture of each of those thoughts, and each sentence a description of the shadows cast by the texture of every variegated vanity and anxiety; and the next paragraph an account of the sensation in each limb, every finger, the simultaneous activity of every cell of his being? With the arrival of the writer in the room, the relative homeostasis of his work (which I caught myself referring to as a literary project) was likely to be disrupted. Now he would have to account for two bodies, or at the very least he would have to account for the influence exerted on his body by an additional, foreign body: the room had become a chaotic system, subject to distortions in time and space. Would his project survive such a cataclysmic event?

Night fell and the writer hadn’t returned. No sound escaped the third room — the writer wasn’t screaming for help, nor was he arguing with the man at the desk. This wasn’t a hostage situation. It was a case of two adult men in a room, plain and simple. Better to let them be, I thought. The writer could show himself out when the time came, and maybe by then he and the man at the desk would be on such good terms that they would exit my life together. 

That night I dreamt of the third bedroom. I dreamt that I had followed the writer’s advice and entered the room to tell the man about myself, but the man sat there without responding. His face was simple and familiar. It was the face of any person in a crowd, anonymous and inoffensive. He blinked and breathed, turned away from me and continued writing. I looked over his shoulder to read the text, surreptitiously at first, and then blatantly after I saw that he made no effort to hide it. The papers were covered in Oulipo nonsense: words continuously reorganized in adherence to the dream’s fickle logic. Next I tried narrativizing a bit. I hung a rope from the piping and told the man how inevitable this moment was. “This rope reminds you of your uncle,” I said tearfully. “Remember, the one who used to hide under the bed and scare you as a joke, and who later hung himself in his shed?” The man at the desk continued writing. “All ropes remind you of that uncle,” I shouted, “and now that you have tied this rope, this is the closest you will come to imitating your uncle’s act.” If I let him be, he continued writing like a robot on a circuit, but when I lifted his hand or turned his head, his body yielded without any resistance. It wasn’t difficult to remove his clothing. I cupped his penis and testicles, I took photos of him nude and threatened to ruin his reputation if he didn’t leave my apartment. At the last second I refrained from placing his testicles in my mouth. I dressed him in a rush, ashamed. I apologized and told him to stay as long as he needed.

The doorbell cut my dream short. My phone was also ringing. I looked at its screen and saw several missed calls from my girlfriend. In my concern for the man in the third room, I had forgotten that her boss had granted her a few days’ vacation. I ran downstairs to let her in. On the walk up I explained the latest developments with the man — now men — in the room, to the extent that she was interested in hearing about them. I pulled back the curtain in the kitchen and pointed to the broad back of the writer from New York. He was standing in exactly the same position as the night before. Through the gap between his midsection and arm, I spied the man at the desk, writing away.

One man, I explained to her, was manageable. But the addition of the writer complicated my responsibilities to the third room. I wasn’t sure what he would need, materially. For example, should I bring him meals and toilet paper? The man at the desk had shown himself to be self-sufficient; he attended to his bodily functions without disturbing anyone. The writer, by contrast, was only a writer — a New York writer at that, meaning he was accustomed to a certain style of praise and luxury. Luxury behind a facade of working-class grit. I wasn’t sure how much grit I had to offer. It had been several years since I’d been truly poor, and over the last decade I had come to accept the conspicuous luxury of my labor: sitting at home all day, reading, annotating, doing “work” not much different than that of the man in the third room; in that way I was similar to him, albeit far less productive. I was Mexican, that’s true, and on the tanner side, which lends itself to interpretations of impoverished grit. Maybe that would suffice.

“When will you stop worrying about this?” my girlfriend said, turning from the window and continuing down the hall to my bedroom. I followed her into the room and apologized. She sat on the bed and undressed. I lifted my shirt over my head and then unbuttoned my pants. She watched me, shrugged, and left the room wrapped in a towel. It was her ritual to take long showers after the three-hour bus ride into the city. I lingered outside the bathroom to advise her in her battle against the low pressure and unpredictable water temperature, secretly hoping for an invitation to enter. But today she was in a rush to meet friends for lunch.

“You’ve been so busy with research lately, I didn’t think you’d want to come,” she said. It’s true she hadn’t arrived at the most opportune moment, the men in the third bedroom aside. The Mexican government was funding my work. The selection committee had called the research “very promising,” and its members expected a stellar mid-year report. That was the condition of my return to the country: a report of merit on peculiar industrial patterns I had identified at the city’s outskirts — what I had argued in my proposal were critical to understanding the country’s “narratological imperatives.” But I was having trouble finding the information I needed. I worried about the months to come. I worried they would make me leave Mexico again.

My girlfriend dressed and rushed downstairs. From the balcony I watched her cross the street and hail a cab. She waved up to me before getting in. I returned to the kitchen to watch the man in the third room. I sent another message to my landlord. In it I explained that my girlfriend — whom the landlord adored — was visiting, and that it would infinitely improve her stay if we could resolve the issue of the man in the third room. In less than a minute the landlord replied with a GIF of two hearts spinning spirals around one another. She followed this with a clip of an audience applauding and another of a news reporter slipping on a mound of loose dirt.

I drafted a long response accusing her of breaking the terms of the lease, and then I deleted it. The apartment was too good to lose. It was fully furnished, in an enviable location near major transit lines, far but not too far from the hip areas populated by tourists and rich Mexicans — and I paid half of what anyone in the neighborhood paid. I also couldn’t deny that there were pleasant memories between us, the landlord and me. The German vacuum cleaner, the king-sized bed — both gifts from her. Her daughter’s godfather was a software developer-turned-shaman based in Quintana Roo, and in the fall they had involved me in a ceremony in their apartment meant to bring good fortune on the landlord’s then-paralyzed husband. It would be childish to abandon so much comfort on a whim, I told myself.

In the evening I left to join my girlfriend and her friends for dinner. On the bus ride to the restaurant, I read a short essay on my phone written by the writer who now inhabited the third room. The essay, published that very week, discussed the writer’s relationship to Mexico and the country’s influence on his upcoming novel. Prior to his arrival in Mexico, the work had been a disordered mess of shapeless characters and ideas. Now it had direction. He all but repudiated his previous four novels as amateurish drivel. The essay’s publication had been timed to the release of his book, which was receiving advance praise from critics and peers alike. The only voice missing was his. No one had heard from the writer for a couple of days, although this wasn’t yet cause for alarm; he had a reputation for entering into periods of monkish solitude after finishing his novels.

We returned from dinner just past midnight. I showered, then spent some time spying on the third room through the window in the kitchen. Everything appeared as before — the man seated at the desk and the writer standing above him, rocking just so on his feet, from ball to heel and back. Perhaps the writer and the seated man had become each other’s most trustworthy collaborators and confidants. Maybe they needed each other now. For the first time since the man’s arrival I felt happy for him. Had this been what he’d sought all along? I didn’t believe that my girlfriend, or anyone I knew, would ever offer me that kind of companionship. She praised and supported me, but I was certain that she couldn’t be counted on to fight to her last breath to preserve my work if I were to disappear suddenly and forever from the Earth. I had posed this question to myself a thousand times: would she rescue my papers from the fire and smuggle them onto the last train out of Prague? The answer was no. Before falling asleep I asked her if I should alert anyone to the writer’s whereabouts. My girlfriend said there was no point drawing so much attention to myself. We were lying in bed with the lights off. I wasn’t sure what she meant by that statement. She rolled to her side with her back to me. I touched the nape of her neck and waited.

“Remember when we used to tell secrets before bed?” I asked.

“We were younger then,” she replied. She was facing the mirrored closet. At the last second I suppressed the impulse to reach over her and turn on the lamp, to see her face, to gaze upon the expression that carried those words. The next morning she was gone.

 

I’ve written here exactly what I told those who came looking.

Her bags and clothing were exactly where she’d left them. There was still a small depression in the pillow where she’d rested her head, and scattered around that depression like trampled foliage were little tangles of her hair. I went straight to the window in the kitchen. The man at the desk was no longer visible. I saw her, my girlfriend, standing next to the writer. Her shoulders rounded forward and a braid unraveled down the line of her neck. The rest of her body was hidden from sight. Like the writer, she faced the seated man. They fully obscured my sight of him, but I knew.

In the days that followed I asked myself what could have compelled her to enter the third room. My initial guess was uncreative, reductive, and debased. An inventory of her clothing left in the bedroom led me to conclude that she had entered the third room with what little she’d worn to bed — a thong and a loose tank top. The three-hour bus rides between cities were becoming exhausting, and for several months we had been in an open relationship. I suspected she had waited for me to fall asleep and then crept into the third room to seek the affections of the two men, her apparent disinterest in the room a ruse all along. “Fine, you can have her,” I shouted into the building shaft. I abandoned my plan to race into the room to save her, a plan that I must admit was only a delusion of bravery. That very day I fell back into old habits. I didn’t leave my apartment for a week. Each morning I undertook a head-to-toe inventory of my body’s asymmetries. Along the right thigh had arisen two new ingrown hairs, and on the left shoulder a small lipoma. I prodded the lipoma until the skin bruised.

Twice a day I looked out the window to check on the third room. Initially I left small plates of food in the exterior walkway outside the kitchen door. A week had passed, and it appeared through the window that my girlfriend was losing weight. Maybe that wasn’t the case. Maybe I wanted a reason to believe that she was suffering and that I could end that suffering.

Given the security situation in the country, her disappearance soon caused a minor media sensation: another young woman missing after decades of so many others lost — and a foreign, upper-middle class woman at that. One day her phone rang nonstop, as did mine. The calls were so insistent that the phone batteries eventually drained. The writer’s book, meanwhile, was being discussed as a major contender for several literary awards.

I asked myself who would arrive first, my girlfriend’s parents or the police. As it happened, they arrived together. When the doorbell rang I was lying in bed prodding a small mole on my scalp. My girlfriend’s mother was in tears. She and my girlfriend’s father were just off a twelve-hour flight. I was determined to remain civil; I answered everyone’s questions and gestured toward the third room. One police officer stayed with me while two others escorted the parents into the room. When he saw that they weren’t coming back, he unholstered his gun and charged out the kitchen door. I remember thinking that he looked like a hero in an action movie.

Since that day the number of people in the third room has increased far past a point permissible by the physical bounds of the space. First more police arrived, and eventually government officials and members of the military. This attracted protesters and counter-protesters, whose disappearances hastened the arrival of volunteer organizations devoted to searching for Mexico’s missing. The ranks of the vanished grew, but I couldn’t stop counting my lipomas. Within a month journalists arrived to interview the writer. I’m not sure how they found out he was here. Later a friend of his came to present him a medal awarded for his novel. Then his ex-wife showed up with his twin sons, followed by a string of old lovers.

Despite increasing disruptions to civil services as more people in the country disappear, the committee funding my work still expects a progress report in March. It is now January. Every so often I return to the kitchen window and gaze out at the third room. I assume the light is still on and the man continues writing, although within a week of the police’s arrival the room had become so full that the windows went completely dark. This hasn’t brought me the relief I would have expected. The man has disappeared from sight, but I can never be certain of his definitive departure. His writing task has become gargantuan, perhaps impossible. For the time being I’ve holed up in this, the apartment’s second room, to focus on drafting my report for the committee. 

I’ve kept the landlord abreast of the situation. Earlier today I informed her that a Cuban reggaeton star had entered the third room to shoot a music video. She replied with a GIF of a man in purple pants gyrating beneath a disco ball. Then my rent payment cleared and she sent another video of rosy, joyous people linked in a conga line.