spinofflive
Debut novelist Eamonn Marra. Another astonishingly great author image by VUP’s ‘secret weapon’, Ebony Lamb.
Debut novelist Eamonn Marra. Another astonishingly great author image by VUP’s ‘secret weapon’, Ebony Lamb.

BooksFebruary 13, 2020

Eamonn Marra is done mining his mental health for art. Here’s why

Debut novelist Eamonn Marra. Another astonishingly great author image by VUP’s ‘secret weapon’, Ebony Lamb.
Debut novelist Eamonn Marra. Another astonishingly great author image by VUP’s ‘secret weapon’, Ebony Lamb.

Writing about depression is panning out brilliantly for Eamonn Marra – his debut novel, 2000ft Above Worry Level, hit Unity’s top 10 list last week well before today’s official launch. Here, he explains why despite his success, he’s deciding to move on.

I wasn’t always a writer. Unlike a lot of my writer friends, I never won writing competitions when I was in my teens. I didn’t go to after-school writing programmes. I never got higher than Achieved in any creative writing exercises at school. I didn’t dream of being a writer. But then when I was 19 I fell into a really deep depression and did what every other depressed person did in 2009 – I started a blog. 

I followed this up when I was 20 with a series of poetry zines. When I was 22, I started doing stand-up comedy about my depression. When I was 24 I made two shows: one about being admitted to a mental health respite centre, and the other called ‘Man on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown’. When I was 27 I made a show about my struggle with my body. When I was 28 I made a show about not being depressed anymore, which I immediately followed up with a mental breakdown. Now I am nearly 30 and I am about to release 2000ft Above Worry Level, a book about a man between the ages of 19 and 29 who is depressed. It is fiction.

I’ve been writing about depression for over a decade now, and I’m still not really sure what I hope to achieve with it. 

I often see words like ‘important’ or ‘essential’ in the marketing materials for works about depression or other mental illness. But what is it about writing about depression that’s important or essential? Sometimes it feels like work about depression or mental health is a cynical ploy for the sad dollar, or the critical acclaim of being seen as sensitive and vulnerable.

People are constantly praising work about mental illness for raising awareness. And for good reason: for many years mental illness was not talked about, and those who faced mental health issues had no idea that their experiences were shared by many others. But I don’t think this is the case anymore. We are about as aware as we can ever be of mental health. But that awareness is never followed up with any substantial change to the systems that make us depressed.

The author calmly receives delivery of advance copies of his debut. Image: Freya Daly Sadgrove.

For years I claimed that I made this work for people like me, so I could have a connection with other depressed people. While it’s important to see ourselves in the media we consume, there’s hardly a shortage of media about depressed white men. There was a period in the late 2000s where every single indie film was about a white man with depression. 

Reading about depression and other mental illness has really helped me understand both myself and others, so I claimed by writing about depression I was hoping to do the same for others. But that was always a side effect. It’s always been predominantly for my own growth.

Until I got depressed, I’m not sure if I’d experienced an emotion in my life. I had, at the very least, never openly acknowledged I’d had one. I grew up in a family that didn’t know how to talk about emotions. I went to an all-boys school that actively suppressed emotions. My conversations with my friends were far more likely to involve trying to outdo each other over who held the most information about obscure indie bands, than in any way acknowledging our own humanity. But then suddenly I had a whole lot of emotions and no capacity to talk about them, or even allow myself to feel them. 

To try and work out why I write so much about depression I went back and read the first couple of years of my depression blog, which I had not looked at for at least five years. In the blog, there is a lot of sadness, a lot of angst, and a lot of anger. At times it’s incredibly cruel and offensive. But mostly it’s a young guy trying to understand his emotions for the first time in his life.

What really surprised me is that many of the topics that came up on that first year of my blog – loneliness, unrequited love, body anxiety, isolating myself from everyone around me, and some really problematic and harmful attitudes towards women – are ones shared by the narrator of my novel. I didn’t realise that I had been sitting on these exact same thoughts for so long.

My blog started out as raw emotion but over the years as people started reading it and talking to me about it, I became more interested in writing itself. The same thing happened when I started performing stand-up comedy. I would get on stage and talk about whatever feeling had been at the top of my mind that week. I was often told I was being brave and important, but I’m not convinced it was any good.

I used to think that being creative was purely about channelling emotion into your art. For years I thought that a raw emotional truth is what made my writing good. But that was just an excuse to not put the work in. The best way to express a feeling or idea is probably not the first one you come up with. It requires work. You need to edit, structure, rewrite. You have to test things out again and again until you find something that works better than anything else. This meant – because I was making work about depression – I would have to go back to old emotions and perform them again as if they were still current. This required me to continuously reflect and relive some of the worst times of my life, often in front of an audience. 

When I’m feeling good, and the performances go well, this is fine. It allows me to feel a connection with a group of people, to feel understood. But when I’m not feeling good, or if my work is not well received, it makes me feel like I’m forcing myself to use my pain for the enjoyment of others. Before I knew how to express my emotion in any other way, this was necessary. It was the only way I could get it out. But over the years it has moved on to an expectation that I constantly share extremely personal information about myself for the entertainment of others. I’m spending my life trying to keep my head above water only to willingly dive back under when I’m still short of breath. 

And because my work has generally been so personal, it’s been really hard to separate criticism of my work from criticism of me as a person. When someone doesn’t like something I’ve made it feel like a personal attack. The pure expression of emotion without editing that characterised my blog and early stand-up left me pretty vulnerable and easy to criticise, especially in the days of internet anonymity when anyone could leave a comment on your blog telling you to have a crywank or to kill yourself. 

The author in winter 2009; his debut novel; at the 2018 Comedy Fest, photographed by Essi Airisniemi

My novel is about depression. But it’s not about my depression. Or not exactly my depression. While I’m not going to lie and say that none of the book has been taken from my life experiences, I have no intention and no obligation of telling anyone what parts are mine or how close they are to my experiences. The narrator in the book goes through a lot of similar stuff that I wrote about on my blog a decade ago, but he is not me. 

Unlike most of my other work, the book has a wider scope. It’s not only about depression. It’s about precarious work and precarious relationships; unemployment, loneliness, isolation, and debt. It’s about the isolating, alienating situations which cause people to become depressed. I hope when people read the book they don’t just focus on the impact of depression, but the systems that make us feel this way in the first place. By writing this book, I’ve wrapped up the themes I’ve been exploring for 10 years.

Since I started writing about my depression, people have been validating my writing about depression, which has led to me to continue to mine my depression for more and more content. I’ve become known as someone who writes about mental health, and often that’s what people expect when they ask me to write something for them or to perform at an event. I’m tired of asking myself ‘what about me is interesting?’ and the only answer I have being ‘my sadness’. I feel trapped in a state where the thing that’s given me the most success has also been the thing that’s hurt me the most in my life. 

I don’t want people to stop making work about their mental health as long as it is beneficial for them. I like personal work about people’s mental health struggles and people have liked work about mine. I’m happy I made most of the work I did. It was either good work that appealed to people or helped me on the path to making good work later on. If made with care and respect, works about personal mental health struggles can be powerful and engaging stories for the audience. But if made without those things, they can be really harmful. I’ve left plays feeling destroyed because the creators cared more about getting their feelings out than caring about how it would be received, especially by the same people they are trying to support, which is something I have done a lot of and don’t want to do again.

In a strange way, I’m grateful for my depression. Writing about my own depression has taught me how to feel. How to communicate. It’s made me a better and more empathetic person. But now I have those skills, I’m hoping to be able to move on to finally writing about something else.

2000ft Above Worry Level, by Eamonn Marra (Victoria University Press, $30) is available from Unity Books. 


Where to get help

Need to talk? Free call or text 1737 any time for support from a trained counsellor.

Lifeline – 0800 543 354 or 09 5222 999 within Auckland.

Samaritans – 0800 726 666.

Suicide Crisis Helpline – 0508 828 865 (0508 TAUTOKO). Open 24/7

Depression Helpline  – 0800 111 757 or free text 4202. This service is staffed 24/7 by trained counsellors

Samaritans  – 0800 726 666

Keep going!
Margaret Atwood attends Noir In Festival on December 6, 2017 in Milan, Italy. (Photo by Rosdiana Ciaravolo/Getty Images)
Margaret Atwood attends Noir In Festival on December 6, 2017 in Milan, Italy. (Photo by Rosdiana Ciaravolo/Getty Images)

OPINIONBooksFebruary 12, 2020

An awkward, expensive, perplexing night with Margaret Atwood and Kim Hill

Margaret Atwood attends Noir In Festival on December 6, 2017 in Milan, Italy. (Photo by Rosdiana Ciaravolo/Getty Images)
Margaret Atwood attends Noir In Festival on December 6, 2017 in Milan, Italy. (Photo by Rosdiana Ciaravolo/Getty Images)

Holly Walker shelled out big bucks to see The Handmaid’s Tale author Margaret Atwood being interviewed by Kim Hill in Wellington on Monday. After a prickly 90 minutes of questioning, she left wondering what Atwood gets out of her seemingly endless live appearances.

We filled the lobby of the Michael Fowler Centre. We wore jumpsuits. We wore wedge heels. We wore tunic dresses with geometric prints. We lined up for plastic glasses of rosé and Kapiti ice-creams, but they ran out of rosé. We bought pinot gris instead and drank it perched on leather benches outside the Fay Richwhite VIP room while we waited for the doors to open, or our friends to arrive. Most of us were indeed rich (having forked out between $70 and $150 for a ticket) and white. Among us were poets, feminist economists, MPs, ex-cabinet ministers and RNZ presenters. One or two of us had brought men, but most of us were with our book clubs. We filed in and took our seats. The stage was lit in cool tones of blues and greens. Slightly sinister cello music pulsed in the background. The relief image of a handmaid’s headdress from the cover of The Testaments was projected onto the back curtain with the hashtag #askAtwood. It waved ever so gently. There were two large armchairs on the stage, and a small table with no less then three copies of The Testaments propped up precariously around two glasses of water. There was an air of anticipation.

The music faded out, and we fell instantly silent. After the briefest of pauses, Kim Hill sauntered – actually sauntered – onto the stage. Thank god it was Kim Hill. I did a little cheer. The last time I saw Hill on stage at the Michael Fowler Centre was at the opening night of the NZ Festival Writers Week in 2018. For once that night, she wasn’t presiding, but participating, and came on to read a wry and devastatingly funny and sad story about her mother. She was the best thing about the whole night.

Now here she was to introduce Margaret Atwood, double Booker-prize winning Canadian author of more than 40 books of fiction, nonfiction and poetry, most notably for our purposes The Handmaid’s Tale and its sequel The Testaments. Apparently, Atwood once said wanting to meet an author because you like their work is like wanting to meet a duck because you like paté. “So here, ladies and gentlemen,” said Hill, “is the duck you’ve been waiting for.” I’d like to say Atwood waddled on, or at the very least e-scootered, but she walked, carefully, with a black handbag strung over her arm, and took her seat. We would have 45 minutes of conversation, a 15 minute interval, and then 45 minutes of questions, which we could submit via the #askAtwood hashtag.

It was a bumpy start. “There is more than one kind of freedom,” quoted Hill, quoting Aunt Lydia. “Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from.” The question: “Are we living in the days of anarchy now, do you think?”

“Not exactly, but we’re not exactly in a totalitarian state either,” said Atwood.

Hill tried again. “Are we a society dying of too much choice?”

Atwood: “Don’t confuse me with my characters!”

Hill: “I would never do that! But do we have too much choice?”

Atwood: “I don’t know, you’d have to ask young people.”

A pause. Hill, thinking of The Testaments’ young and old narrators: “I’m interested in that juxtaposition of young and old.”

Atwood, withering: “Why?”

It was funny, but I didn’t understand why Atwood was so determined not to let Hill find a way into the conversation: conversation, after all, being the whole point. I think Atwood must at some point have made a policy decision never to do the work for her interviewers, always to answer only the question directly put, or if she didn’t like the question, to challenge it. I had to admire her for it, this refusal to display the very female trait of conversational generosity, to let the other person do the work and feel the discomfort. It’s something I wish I was better at. It was confronting though, seeing it deployed against Hill, whom I admire for a similar kind of take-no-prisoners stance in her interviewing style. It was like seeing two members of your favourite sports team suddenly facing off against each other. Who do you root for? I found myself loyal to Hill.

The stalemate broke when Hill tried the more banal entry point of whether Atwood always intended to write a sequel to The Handmaid’s Tale and some of the tension drained away as we settled in for a discussion centred almost exclusively on Gilead in its literary and televisual guises (and the fusion between the two achieved in The Testaments). This might have been disappointing for those hoping for a wide-ranging exposition of Atwood’s considerable back catalogue, but I suspect most of the audience were satisfied with this focus.

With terrifying prescience, Atwood predicted in 1982 the kinds of attacks on women’s rights, bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom that are now firmly on the agenda of the religious right in parts of the US, as well as the dangerous slippage towards totalitarianism that can take place given the right conditions. (Though don’t try to tell her she predicted the future: “This isn’t the future. If this were the future we wouldn’t be sitting on this stage because you wouldn’t have a job and I’d be dead.”). We’re looking to Gilead now to explain and interpret Trump’s America, and maybe to tell us how to reverse current horrifying trends.

Without giving away too many spoilers, The Testaments turns on the assumption that sunlight is the best disinfectant, an idea that seems quaint in the wake of Trump’s acquittal in his impeachment trial, and every other recent example of the truth mattering not a jot. In the words of New York Times columnist Michele Goldberg: “Imagine: a world where exposing the misdeeds of a regime could unravel it!”

(Hill pressed gently on this difference in tone and optimism between The Handmaid’s Tale and The Testaments, hinting, I think, at her own view of the book, which I share – did Atwood think her readers might be disappointed at this change in tone? “I don’t know what people think,” said Atwood. “They mostly say nice things because if they don’t say nice things I put the evil eye curse on them.”)

Given this job of interpreting the present for us, Atwood presents a curious mix of hope and nihilism. Alongside her insistence that we remain hopeful “or the other side wins”, she can drop casual truth bombs like “climate change causes famine, famine causes war, and wars are shit for women”.

There was an interval, in which some of us used the men’s bathroom, there being no men to use it themselves. In the second half, Hill scrolled through the #askAtwood hashtag and Atwood parlayed questions such as “what is your favourite time in history?”, “how have your feminist themes changed over time?”, and “what would you say to New Zealand politicians ahead of the 2020 election?”.

I found myself wondering exactly why Atwood is doing this tour, especially when her spiky answers to Hill made it seem like she’d rather not be being interviewed at all. Surely by now, she has answered any possible combination of questions a million times and is bored out of her brain. Yet it’s not like we forced her: her tour is a standalone thing, not even part of a book festival to which she was invited.

She could just be taking us all for a ride. No matter how brilliant she is, $150 for an author talk is hard to swallow. (Yes, as Michele A’Court said on the On the Rag podcast, you’d pay that for Elton John, and Margaret Atwood is just as much of a legend. But Elton has a band, and quite an impressive stage show, and Atwood’s choreography was limited to swapping seats with Hill at half time.)

Surely there has never been a book publicity machine like that rolled out to promote The Testaments. Its London launch in September saw simultaneous events over several hours including a panel of Elif Shafak, Neil Gaiman, A.M. Homes, Temi Oh, and Jeanette Winterson discussing Atwood’s work, a live recording of the Guilty Feminist podcast, speed mentoring for women, ‘soapbox moments’ from renowned activists and poets, an appearance by actress Romola Garai, a cinema screening of season one of the TV series, and a crafting and placard-making cocktail zone, culminating in a midnight appearance and reading by Atwood herself. I mean, just, what? Soon after, an author talk with Atwood was held at Britain’s National Theatre, filmed, and broadcast simultaneously in cinemas around the world.

Joint 2019 Man Booker Prize winners Margaret Atwood and Bernardine Evaristo on October 14, 2019 in London. (Photo by Jeff Spicer/Getty Images)

The Testaments, of course, went on to win (jointly with Bernadine Evaristo’s Girl, Woman, Other) last year’s Man Booker prize, so depending on how you look at it you could either say the hype was justified, or that the hype worked. That joint award proved controversial, with many decrying that the impact of the historic first win by a British woman of colour (Evaristo) was both diluted by the decision to award it jointly with Atwood, and upstaged by the ensuing controversy. Neither Atwood nor Everisto could have been satisfied with the result, though both have been gracious in their public comments.

Atwood is so dry, so sharp, with such an eye for skewering the ridiculous. Why is she participating in this circus? Is she herself, being taken for a ride by publishers and production companies looking to turn our need for help to interpret our dystopian present into a fat bottom line? Or is she laughing merrily (as she did at her own jokes, several times) at the centre of all this?

Maybe I’m just being churlish. The Handmaid’s Tale is a near perfect thing. The TV adaptation is one of the best pieces of culture I think I’ve ever consumed. I gobbled up The Testaments with that satisfying feeling of wanting to tear through it, even if the neatly wrapped up conclusion felt a little hollow. And Atwood’s other works are brilliant, incisive, funny, challenging, beautiful. She’s been at this for more than 50 years, and frankly, she’s earned the right to do whatever she wants. Whether or not The Testaments deserved the Booker, she’s one of the great writers of our time, who will be read for the next 50 years and more. Maybe she sees such excessive publicity as an opportunity to get our faces and tell us “climate change causes famines, famines cause wars, and wars are shit for women. Don’t give up hope. Watch out for Extinction Rebellion.” Maybe she just wants to visit some new cities and try out an e-scooter.

Hill finished by asking Atwood, “do you still write to find out what you think?” Surely by now, she knows what she thinks about everything. But “yes, absolutely,” said Atwood. “I start with a question, and I write until I see where it goes.”

“Well I’m very grateful that you do, and that you’re here,” said Hill, placing her hand in the vicinity of her heart. Atwood made a little noise like “ohhh.” We applauded them both, the near-full auditorium, some on our feet. As they turned to leave, Atwood reached her arm around Hill’s shoulder, and squeezed, and kept it there until they had left the stage.