2025/09/30
Al Llorens (1952-2025)
2025/09/23
The Payback (Kashana Cauley, Atria Books, 2025)
The conventional wisdom of graduate school has it that a doctoral candidate’s dissertation needs to do one of two things to be considered successful in its field. It can either pose a thought-provoking question or it can use a unique methodology to approach an issue. There’s minimal chance it will do both. Kashana Cauley’s The Payback is a novel that also does two different things very well. It has a thoughtful premise and it is also well-written and really, really funny. This combination means that it is worth celebrating at length.
The premise sold me on the book immediately. What if a group of Black women in the middle of their careers still had endless amounts of student loan debt to pay back? What if they wanted to get payback on the predatory lenders instead? And, in doing so, what if they were able to eliminate student loan debt from all borrowers? You’d celebrate them as heroes if this were real life. Sadly, the United States is hellbent on making former college students as miserable as possible through these loans. Even when Biden could have fully canceled them, he didn’t. Trump has threatened to reinstate them, which is pure lunacy. We turn to fiction to live out the fantasies we can’t have in real life. It feels really good to read this book about three Black women willing to brave the waters with the federal student-loan sharks.
Maybe people living outside the U.S. won’t be able to relate to the idea of seeking vengeance on federal payment processors. Going to college for free means they can’t enjoy this book as deeply as I did. Their loss, I guess. Even so, there are plenty of ways that faceless organizations across the globe prevent people from living their lives because of bureaucratic stiff-arming. So there are likely ways it is relevant to a wider audience.
For those fortunate enough to not live with some kind of crippling debt, there are still plenty of cool parts in this book. Let’s think about the characters for a minute. Our narrator, Jada, had a glamorous past in costume design for a Hollywood studio. An event known for most of the book as only “the incident” changed her fortune and she now works in a clothing store in a tony mall near Los Angeles. Her two co-workers and eventual heist-mates are Audrey and Lanae. Like Jada, Audrey flamed out of a promising career under difficult circumstances. Lanae fronts a punk band known as The DONNER PARTY. Maybe it’s clear to you now that none of them have what you could call a comfortable standard of living, and that’s before you consider the turquoise-epauletted Debt Police who are there to make sure women like Jada, Lanae, and Audrey do not take advantage of their university educations. You’ll have to read the book to learn more about those fucks…
What’s fun about this group of colleagues turned something like friends is how Jada mercilessly rips on Audrey. Or, I should say, Cauley has her savage Audrey’s character throughout the early pages of the book. Audrey, in Jada’s telling, “never made hand gestures when she talked” (p. 51) and, when done ringing up customers at the register, “flip[s] back to her default dull self as neatly as a window blind snapping shut” (p. 72). There are plenty of other great descriptive phrases like those that give you the indication that Audrey suffers from the terminal affliction of being born without a personality. (I can relate.) Also clever are the explanations behind the movies and shows Jada used to work on in her earlier career—Appeal and Ride or Die being two highlights whose set-ups I won’t spoil. Each one had me dropping the book to the floor in laughter.
So you’ve got the intriguing premise from the start and plenty of interesting descriptions to carry you through the moments between the action. That’s good enough right there for me to recommend it and I haven’t even mentioned the way Cauley works in pop culture references such as PETER GABRIEL’s “Melt,” a few characters at a party who are “a pack of Lisa Bonets of different heights and weights but with the same telltale long, curly wig” (p. 47), and a reference to eating zucchini that would be “as smooth as a SADE album” (p. 121). Oh, that’s right. Jada takes on a job eating food on camera for the sake of the internet after her retail career ends. I don’t want to do any research into the descriptions of this type of money making, but Cauley again does an excellent job of making Jada’s eating episodes seem believably, uh, stimulating.
There are plenty more examples of enjoyable wordplay and exciting plot twists in the rest of the book, so I’ll just leave you with one moment that wasn’t just “good” in a literary sense, but made me rethink how I contextualize what I consume. Most of the first part of the book takes place in the mall where Jada et al. work. On her way into the clothing shop, Jada reflects on how “People say a good restaurant has terroir, and so does a mall. Its cinnamon rolls don’t taste the same in an airport, or at home. They taste right in the mall” (p. 60). Damn. Damn right, they do! A partygoer in college once remarked similarly that “Combos taste better when you’re rolling.” He meant in the car sense, not the inebriation sense, but the truth of the fact remains. Cauley makes a strong case here for the importance of context and all its tangibles and intangibles that make something as pleasant as a cinnamon roll taste just right only in a mall. As I’ve said repeatedly, this kind of close analysis and clear description of our shared reality is evidence of excellent writing. Enjoy The Payback for Cauley’s word choice and for the unique and thrilling ways that its characters engage in the most worthwhile heist possible.
YOU MAY ALSO ENJOY THESE REVIEWS:
℞oxy by Neal Shusterman and Jarrod Shusterman
2025/09/16
Response to Chicago Tribune's Charlie Kirk Editorial
September 11, 2025 at 9:42 PM
Dear Chicago Tribune Editorial Board:
The editorial regarding Charlie Kirk’s legacy paints too rosy a picture of a man whose main goal in life was relentless antagonism of undergraduates and their professors. His horrific murder was inexcusable. The issue with the editorial is that it frames his contribution to the cultural conversation as “debate.” This is a charitable interpretation of his campus visits.
There is no form of debate where keeping a running watchlist of allegedly left-wing professors would be an appropriate strategy. To claim that a discredited, racist conspiracy “is not a theory, it’s a reality” demonstrates an intellectual incuriosity that has nothing to do with finding a reasonable answer through discussion. Likewise, believing that the United States is “a Christian state” is a woefully uninformed position.
These are just a few of Kirk’s beliefs. They are intentionally inflammatory. They do not stand up to scrutiny. Notably, the Tribune’s editorial does not directly quote nor hyperlink to any of the many public appearances where Kirk used these words. The use of paraphrase throughout the editorial elides the harm of Kirk’s words, as well as their consequences for minoritized populations.
Truly, that harm is the true legacy of Kirk. He thought a better argument was the result of snappy one-liners and a firm grasp of what he considered to be facts. Those strategies may win a debate and convince listeners that the speaker is correct for having won. The truth, let alone the most reasonable answer, remains elusive in such a setting. Kirk excelled not at debate or argumentation, but in disputational talk. His words were loud; his ideas, quiet.
My best,
Tall Rob (Yes, I used my real name and address in the actual letter; I know the rules!)
YOU MAY ALSO ENJOY THESE REVIEWS:
Response to Chicago Tribune's CPS Teacher Absenteeism Editorial
2025/09/09
DEVO (Chris Smith, Library Films / VICE Studios, 2024)
I lived in central Ohio for 15 years, so I should probably have a stronger take on DEVO than “I like them and they are cool.” Alas, I never took the deep dive into being a DEVOtee (that’s what their fans call themselves, right?). This documentary had me thinking I had the wrong idea the whole time and should have probably picked up their albums while flipping through the bins at Used Kids Records. Those radio station promo copies of AGNOSTIC FRONT’s “Cause for Alarm” and LEEWAY’s “Born to Expire” from WKCO for $2.50 apiece were more my speed at age 19, so “Q: Are We Not Men?” and “Duty Now for the Future” didn’t warrant a second look. Too bad for past me.
In my time in Ohio, I picked up a stray fact about DEVO here and there through breathing in the atmosphere. Their mascot is Booji Boy instead of Boogie Boy because they ran out of g in the font they were using. There’s a release called “Hardcore DEVO, Vol. 1” that has “the stuff you’ll like” if HC punk is more your speed. They did an Obama 2008 campaign event in Akron and made a version of his O logo wearing the flowerpot hat. I replied to each of these nuggets of information with a disaffected “oh, cool” and moved on with my life. Who cares what that one-hit wonder band did? So much for me being open-minded about music.
Even though I wrote them off as a novelty band for “Whip It,” at least I didn’t think that song was some kind of celebration of a certain kind of old-fashioned roughneck masculinity. That’s the apparent takeaway many people had from that song’s video on MTV. The “you’ve got the wrong idea” refrain comes up a lot during the documentary. (Just last month the Memories feature on my computer’s Photos app soundtracked a nice montage of my kid’s earliest years to “Beautiful World,” which is such a dreadful misreading of that song that I had to laugh.) They position themselves as, if not intellectuals or nerds, then people who know more than the average folks. Making a brand (or a band!) out of the idea of being “the smartest guys in the room” is dangerous territory. Worse still, positioning yourselves as the ones who decry the de-evolution of humanity means that you must have something special about yourself that makes you able to make that pronouncement, especially when you have a song titled “Mongoloid.” "Trust me, dude. We are the chosen ones and everyone else knows nothing..." (Or something like that.) The inherent disdain that comes along with thinking you’re so clever and above the fray of the general public’s tastes can result in a variety of outcomes. Thankfully, the members of DEVO are oddballs at heart and they channeled that disdain into a creative pursuit. The story of Mark Mothersbaugh and Jerry Casale meeting through mutual friends at Kent State bears this out. They were just weird guys that found each other moving in the same elliptical social orbits; they were not trying to start a band or “make it” or do anything like that.
The fact that they were university educated is just one part of what made them outliers in the music scene at the time. They leaned into their braininess, but their weirdness seems to have had a stronger pull on their collective vision of social critique. What I’m trying to say is that if they were any good at being public intellectuals, then they would have become pundits (ugh) or authors of general interest subject area books or even professors. As one of my professors further down I-71 once said, “if academics could write, then they’d have been novelists.” Just the same, it seems from this documentary that the members of DEVO did not have the constitution for punditry or other forms of public intellectualism. That’s a good thing, mind you! We’d rather have the music.
It’s clear they knew how to handle the limelight, if only from the many television appearances that are part of the documentary. They know how to play the media game. They’re media literate not because they are keeping up with the news (they were) but because they knew what was expected of bands on programs like American Bandstand or whatever. Dick Clark saying “Oh, now I know what kind of interview this is going to be” when they gave him an oblique response to a canned question is a perfect example of that. They were aware of their weirdness but it didn’t come off as a shtick; they are just how they are. They wanted you to feel as uncomfortable as they did about the whole spectacle.
One thing I really appreciated about the documentary was the lack of typical talking head features throughout its runtime. Yes, band members and managers and people in the DEVO universe do appear with their name and credit at the bottom of the screen. But, there are no critics, journalists, fans, or contemporaries in the mix. I’d imagine there is no shortage of people who fall into those categories who could talk about DEVO for days. Instead, what you get is just the people central to the project. Others’ views, such as those of Dick Clark, are present in archival format as part of an existing broadcast or media moment. Just as they did during their career, they presented themselves in this documentary fully on their own terms. Oh, and the early live footage is beyond belief. There are people who saw DEVO at a bar after their shift at Goodyear or Firestone in 1976. They likely wanted to hear someone covering “More Than a Feeling” or “Afternoon Delight” and instead they got “Jocko Homo” and “Mongoloid” played by the guys who were dedicated and desperate about spreading the message of de-evolution regardless of what anyone else wanted to hear.
YOU MAY ALSO ENJOY THESE REVIEWS: