The Guardian: Rivka Galchen gets lost in her own mind
Literary Criticisms: Characters
In the article, American Innovations review – Rivka Galchen gets lost in her own mind, the author, David Wolf, employs a common theme found in many works by Rivka Galchen. According to Wolf, in Galchen’s works “minds and bodies often come apart.” (referring to characters) The perfect example of this being the book American Innovators, in which the entire story from an outside perspective appears as one big trip, similar to what became of The Beatles songs in 1965 after John Lennon and George Harrison got into LSD.
According to the author of Once an Empire, “I felt as if the real me were out there somewhere, waiting for my return". This was in response to reading Galchen’s work. Wolf claims that the characters in the stories don’t really know themselves and are never confident in what they have to say, instead adding things in hesitation like, “maybe” or “I think”. Wolf predicts that this is a reflection of Galchen herself, creating her stories as “self-indulgent”.
Put simply, Galchen can produce funny and enjoyable stories. However, the characters in these stories are not at all complex and add very little to the ability to make the reader feel something and to the lore of the story. In Wolf’s words, “Galchen withholds so much information about her characters that the stories have little emotional weight, and while the prose is always expertly controlled, there are few memorable sentences.” Galchen’s characters are lost in the maze of their own minds, so much so that Wolf believes “that the author had fallen into the same trap as her characters.”
Tablet: Rivka Galchen is not your Mommy
Literary Criticisms: Characters, Structure, & Gender Roles
In the article, Rivka Galchen Is Not Your Mommy by Adam Kirsch, the author dives into a deeper understanding of the characters, structure, and gender roles of Galchen’s works. According to Kirsch, the characters in Galchen’s stories are not motivated “by psychological drives” but “more bluntly and directly by outright neurological damage”. This simple change from ordinary stories helps to diversify the characters, overall structure, and even gender roles within the story.
Galchen’s “neuronovel”, American Innovations, “was a tribute to the increasing prestige of brain science as an explanation of human behavior”, according to Marco Roth. Galchen differentiates her writing by instead of designating behaviors with the explanation of superego and id, she makes it clear that her characters’ behaviors have to do with damage to the cortex and neurons of the brain, including conditions like capgras, tourettes, and amnesia. Aside from this, she also tries to make her characters relatable by incorporating their actions with her actual life. For example, “the accidental loss of a wedding ring, an encounter with some UPS drivers.”
Consequently, Galchen also manages to tie in structure with psychology. Kirsch states, “These 10 stories are not linked—they don’t take up a single plot or fictional world—yet they are united in a profound way by their protagonists, who are recognizably versions of the same person.” With this it can be seen how without having stitches between stories, Galchen psychologically unites her main characters by displaying them as a variety of the same or similar characters.
To incorporate gender roles, almost every protagonist in Galchen’s works are women in their 30’s who are married and have children. This also ties into how she tries to incorporate actions and events of her everyday life. As explained by Kirsch, “What they are resisting is maturity, and in particular the gender roles that adulthood seems to impose.” In two different stories the protagonist goes through a break-up. Each time she explains that she is the man of the relationship, and doesn’t necessarily feel like the woman. This shows how the psychology and gender-roles, as a consequence of events, namely a break-up, can impact how the protagonists are tied together from story to story.
Cited From: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/kirsch-galchen
The times of israel: Motherhood has been a day ‘3,000 hours
Literary Criticisms: Writing & Structure in Relation to Motherhood
In the article Motherhood has been a day ‘3,000 hours long,’ writes ‘Little Labors’ author, the author, Jen Maidenberg, compares Rivka Galchen’s works, especially Little Labors, to those of other writing mothers. Galchen’s work is looked at to be similar to those of Maggie Nelson, Sarah Manguso, and Heidi Julavits, looking into what happens to the creative part of a woman’s life when she becomes a mother.
According to Maidenberg, “Reviews of “Little Labors” are comparing the book’s format to other recent memoirs written by women who are also mothers”. These are works “that investigate the emotions and conflicts that arise at the intersection of parenting and the creative life.” Galchen claims that the concept of being a mother and having young children around in itself affects how a piece is structured.
Because of patterns that can be found in the works of new mothers, it can be assumed that this newfound role will have an impact on their writing style and structure. In some cases it can be in a helpful and creative way, while others may not be so lucky. Referring to an essay in her book Little Labors, Galchen admits, “I completely failed to put that essay together. When I turned in a draft to my editor — past deadline — it was halfway between being that essay and the book it is now. But my editor’s kindness and flexibility allowed it to become what it is.”
Cited From: https://www.timesofisrael.com/motherhood-has-been-a-day-3000-hours-long-says-little-labors-author/
LA RB: Careful Liberties: On Rivka Galchen’s “Everyone Knows
Literary Criticisms: Engagement & Reconstruction
In the article, Careful Liberties: On Rivka Galchen’s “Everyone Knows Your Mother Is a Witch”, written by Eric Farwell, the author observes and records how Rivka Galchen carefully reconstructed a 17th century witch hunt into her book Everyone Knows Your Mother Is a Witch in order to keep readers engaged and making it her own while still staying true to the real story of Kepler’s life.
According to Farwell, “Galchen neatly splits the difference between respecting the record of Kepler’s life and taking careful liberties to build out the world around her.” It can be taken away that Galchen wanted to preserve the original, true story but also wanted to add things to make the story more her style in order to take a sad, non-fiction story and turn it into a comedic, fictional (but based on true events) one.
Furthermore, the way Galchen reconstructs the story gives the reader a stronger insight into it, ultimately making the story more understandable and fun to read. Farwell states, “Galchen launches into a choral narrative, blending different voices, perspectives, and forms. This approach highlights the contradictory testimonies…” In addition to this technique the way she structures the story as a whole keeps readers engaged. She does this by alternating chapters about “interior observation” and “ townsfolk’s testimony” with the aim of “keeping an otherwise straightforward story engaging.”