Inconsistent. Would you say arbitrary?
Not arbitrary. How would I—? [Pause.] Provisional.
The provisional ethics of killing is a big subject in this book. Did you approach it from a background in any particular religious tradition?
No. When I began this book — I’d just turned thirty — I was existing in a very secular place, a sort of nexus of various incoherent nonbeliefs.
Midway on your life’s journey, you found yourself in a dark wood, the clear path lost?
Very funny, although the pedant in me insists on pointing out that the Dante of The Divine Comedy is thirty-five, not thirty.
[Laughter.] I stand corrected.
But — yeah — you’re not wrong. I was in kind of a dark wood, spiritually speaking, and part of the impetus behind the book is that I’m attempting, on the page, to develop a usable moral system without the benefit of any specific religious practice to fall back on.
And yet the centerpiece of the book looks extensively at the concept of “right action” in Hinduism.
Well, I had some help with that.
Yes. If I understand correctly, you’ve credited the author Anil Mallick with assisting you on that chapter.
That’s correct.
Mallick is known, of course, for his acclaimed collection of short stories King in Exile, published earlier this year. King in Exile features contemporized versions of stories from the Ramayana, is that correct?
And the Mahabharata, yes. It’s an excellent book; I would recommend it wholeheartedly.
Your book hints at something like a conversion experience. Do you consider yourself religious now?
[Pause.] It’s complicated.
I’m sure.
[Pause.]
Let’s shift gears. This book is a work of nonfiction, but prior to its publication you were mostly known as a fiction writer.
I’m not sure I would say known.
You’d published some short stories.
And I was working on a novel. But the novel — it proved to be on a topic I didn’t care about, wasn’t interested in, had nothing to say about.
And then the idea for this book came along?
Yes.
You decided your true topic of interest was killing?
[Pause.] Yes. [Pause.] The moral appropriateness of killing. Or lack thereof.
On Killing is published by Naginata Editions, an imprint dedicated to quote-unquote vicious works of fiction and nonfiction.
Correct.
And — full disclosure — Naginata Editions is helmed by Anton Cirrus, founder and former editor of Bladed Hyacinth.
Correct.
There’s a rumor that the two of you didn’t always get along.
[Laughter.] I’m not sure we get along now.
Is it true that he once published a piece on Bladed Hyacinth that panned your work? Only to take it down later?
If I understand correctly, it’s the only piece he’s ever withdrawn from the site.
What do you think was behind his change of heart?
I have no idea. You’d have to ask him. Maybe he’ll talk about it in his memoir.
Well, we’ll all look forward to that. You’ll forgive me if I ask after one more rumor?
Certainly.
You’ve been romantically linked with the emerging filmmaker Denver Norton.
I have. [Pause.] That’s not a question. [Laughter.]
There’s quite a buzz around her new film, Love Lives of the Hell-Wolves. It’s a departure from her earlier work.
That’s fair to say.
It features explicit scenes of violent animal sex that have raised the eyebrows of both animal rights activists and people in the visual effects community.
Well, according to the narrative, the hell-wolves aren’t animals, not in a strict sense. But I shouldn’t say more — I don’t want to spoil anything.
Can you discuss how those scenes were achieved?
Denver Norton is a very talented filmmaker. And she was fortunate to work with two talented nonprofessional actors: my good friend Jørgen Storløkken, and the poet Elisa Mastic, who also has a new book coming out this fall.
You appear in the film as well.
Briefly.
A nude scene.
[Laughter.] I’m not going to comment on that. If people want to find out they can go see the film.
And we’ll have an opportunity to see it when?
It’s debuting as one of the showcased shorts at Telluride next month. New York audiences will need to wait until April, when it’ll be one of the Shorts in Competition at Tribeca.
Fantastic.
We all feel good about it.
You’ve been listening to The Stolon, fifteen minutes of Q&A about books and the people who make them. I’m your host, Ethel Shira Wise. Our guest today has been W. H. Ridgeway, discussing his new book, On Killing. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us.
Thank you for having me. It’s been a pleasure.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
JEREMY P. BUSHNELL is the fiction editor for Longform.org, and is also the lead developer of Inevitable, a tabletop game released by Dystopian Holdings. He teaches writing at Northeastern University in Boston, and he lives in Dedham, Massachusetts. This is his first novel.
Reading Group Guide for The Weirdness
1. Where do the bananas in bodegas come from? Have you ever thought about something so long that it becomes strange, the way Billy thinks “people have pets”? What started to seem strange to you?
2. What did you think about the role of religion in The Weirdness? When you heard the line “What about God?” repeated, were you expecting God to make an appearance? Because Lucifer was the Judeo-Christian version of the Devil, were you expecting a Judeo-Christian God to appear?
3. Why do you think Elisa asks Billy, “What is the worst thing you ever did?” Do you think she wants to share her history with him because she realizes they have a connection? Or do you think she has other motives?
4. How did your perception of Lucifer change over the course of the story? If he had given you a convincing PowerPoint presentation, do you think you would have signed on to help him?
5. What do you think Bingxin Ying meant when she told Denver that she admired her “commitment to immanentization of the ephemeral”? How do you think this phrase affects Billy in the moment she says it and when, later in the book, he tries to get closer to Denver?
6. On this page, were you surprised to find out that Laurent hadn’t read Billy’s work? How did it change your perception of Laurent and his crew?