Page 1 →Introduction

When writing about Percival Everett, it has become customary to begin with a caveat that the conspicuous variety within his body of work will inherently frustrate any attempts at definitive classification. For example, Joe Weixlmann opened his introduction to Conversations with Percival Everett (2013) by noting that Everett “remains as much the maverick as ever, producing risk-taking work that is so wide-ranging in tone, form, and subject matter that it is often described with such terms as ‘characteristically uncharacteristic,’ ‘uncategorizable,’ and ‘all over the map’” (xii). Similarly, Keith B. Mitchell and Robin G. Vander were barely three pages into the introduction of Perspectives on Percival Everett (2013) before musing that “perhaps what problematizes Percival Everett’s writing for readers and critics, even more than his formal narrative innovation, is his refusal as an African American writer to be categorized at all” (“Changing” xi–xii). Despite this refusal on Everett’s part, numerous critics have nevertheless attempted to situate his work under such umbrellas as African American literature, experimental writing, or postmodernism, while just as many have limited themselves to intentionally vague, if also defensible, claims such as “all of [his works] have in common the author’s preoccupation with language and representation” (Déon 1). Still another contingent flatly insisted that “so thoroughly do his books complicate identity and undermine logic—in terms of both content and form—that they elude critical categories” (Miller). Although at first glance it might seem that this last option is the one closest to his own point of view, Everett has addressed it with his typically mischievous derision, noting that “‘uncategorizable’ is a category. Which I resent” (Stewart, “Uncategorizable” 303).

Everett undoubtedly enjoys playing the role of curmudgeonly trickster—or tricksterish curmudgeon—during interviews; nevertheless, the peculiar and acute nature of his antagonism toward what he dismisses as “labels, schmabels” (“An Interview”) actually offers the would-be critic equal measures of metaphorical stick and carrot. After all, Everett rejects categorization even Page 2 →as he disavows either the desire or the ability to control his readers’ reactions to his work: “all meaning in any work is something I stay out of completely. That’s the reader’s job” (DeMarco-Barrett and Stone 152). He extends to readers the freedom to interpret his books as they will, provided that they do not presuppose their understanding of a given text: “If anybody takes anything they read, history or fiction, as some gospel, then … who cares? The point is, take it and then play with it” (Shavers, “Percival” 49). Everett insists that “all thinking is good…. It sure beats an absence of thought” (Reynolds 180); and he sees labels as ready-made excuses that impede the reader’s need to think rigorously about the worlds and ideas presented in his books. Given that many of his protagonists struggle with and/or suffer from mind-sets that are constrained by preconceived notions, taking Everett up on his conditional offer of interpretive freedom becomes a useful starting point for drawing conclusions about what the recurrent tendencies within his otherwise dauntingly variegated body of work might mean.

Over the course of more than three decades, Everett has published twenty novels—from Suder (1983) to So Much Blue (2017)—along with four collections of short stories, four volumes of poetry, an illustrated children’s book, and dozens of uncollected stories, poems, and essays. His general scorn for being pigeonholed makes sense, given that this prodigious literary output is marked throughout by a diversity of form and subject matter that few other writers can match. The Venn diagram of the twenty-nine—thirty if one includes his work as an illustrator—books he has published as of late 2017 is sprawling and complex, with few if any intersections common to the whole. Even where there are clusters of books within his oeuvre whose similarities to one another might suggest some meaningful categorical relationship, such similarities tend to be overwhelmed by the volume and nature of the corresponding differences.

For example, his novels Walk Me to the Distance (1985), God’s Country (1994), Watershed (1996), Grand Canyon, Inc. (2001), American Desert (2004), Wounded (2005), and Assumption (2011)—as well as dozens of his short stories—are all set in the high desert plateaus and mountain ranges of the American West. Despite the similarity of their geographic settings, Everett insists that there is little overlap in terms of plot or characterization among these books that would justify categorizing any of them except God’s Country as “Western fiction” in the manner that Daryl Jones, Loren D. Estleman, or Stephen McVeigh have used that terminology: “When I write about the contemporary West, those get called westerns, and I don’t know why. They’re not westerns. They’re set in the contemporary West. That’s where they happened to be…. The western, to me, is a very precise genre. Precisely defined. Being Page 3 →placed in the West—I mean, is a movie that’s set in Los Angeles in 1997 a western? The only thing that makes Assumption a western is that it’s set in the West. There’s none of the stuff of westerns in it. I don’t use the term. I’m always curious about terms” (Dischinger 260).

Walk Me to the Distance is set in a fictional town in Wyoming with the unlikely, and unlovely, name Slut’s Hole. Its protagonist is David Larson, a Vietnam War veteran originally from Georgia who is looking for a fresh start and a new place to call home. God’s Country is a self-conscious, race-conscious, and bitingly satirical parody of the language, mentality, and conventions of the classic Western popularized by Zane Grey’s novels and John Ford’s films. Watershed tells the story of a hydrologist named Robert Hawks who comes to northern Colorado for the solitude of a fishing trip but instead becomes embroiled in a violent conflict between a local Native American tribe and the FBI that is reminiscent of the Wounded Knee incident of 1973. Grand Canyon, Inc. again unleashes Everett’s overtly satirical tenor but focuses this time on a sociopathic millionaire named Winchell Nathaniel “Rhino” Tanner, whose sole talent is being a “remarkably good rifle shot” (41) and who wants to transform the Grand Canyon into a massive amusement park. American Desert too works in the satirical realm, though it does so in a more abstractly metaphysical and philosophical sense than either Grand Canyon, Inc. or God’s Country does. The novel ponders the meaning of life and death through the story of Theodore Street, a professor of English at the University of Southern California (like Everett), who dies in a car accident while on the way to commit suicide but who also miraculously rises from the dead at his own funeral for reasons that are unclear to everyone, most of all to Street himself. Wounded returns to the laconic yet severe rural Wyoming depicted in Walk Me to the Distance. Its protagonist John Hunt is a widower drawn to the isolation and relative anonymity of the area for many of the same reasons that David Larson is. The tension of the novel, however, arises from the brutal murder of a gay college student nearby and the subsequent arrival of another young gay man named David, who also happens to be the estranged son of one of Hunt’s college friends. Assumption is an unexpectedly parodic triptych of offbeat detective-fiction stories set in the mountains of New Mexico and featuring a largely unremarkable deputy sheriff named Ogden Walker, who would rather be fly-fishing than investigating the spree of violent crimes that suddenly seems to be plaguing his hometown.

The tone of these seven works set in the West runs the gamut from stark psychological realism (Walk Me to the Distance, Watershed, and Wounded) to lampoonish absurdity (God’s Country, Grand Canyon, Inc.). Although they all engage to some extent with the culture and history of the United States in general and the American West in particular, the manner in which they do so is Page 4 →sometimes satirically abstracted (God’s Country, Grand Canyon, Inc., American Desert), sometimes marked by an emotionally distant character escaping or avoiding that culture/history (Walk Me to the Distance, Assumption), and sometimes inextricably tied to particular events and issues from the world outside the novel (Watershed, Wounded). There are overlaps among the characterizations of his protagonists as well: Larson, Hawks, Street, Hunt, and Walker all share an aloofness that verges on but never fully becomes misanthropy; Hawks and Walker both withdraw from the world through fly-fishing but are pulled into conflicts that do not necessarily concern them directly because of their fundamentally ethical sensibilities; Tanner, Street, and Curt Marder, the antihero of God’s Country, are all self-centered to the point of being wholly unsympathetic for most of their respective stories; Larson, Marder, Street, and Walker all have children—sometimes blood relations, sometimes not—in their lives who present them with obligations they are not always willing or prepared to meet; and race plays a significant role—even if only as a subject to be avoided—in the lives of Hunt, Hawks, Walker, Marder, and Bubba, the black tracker whose help Marder enlists in God’s Country. In short, a wealth of individual tropes, themes, plot devices, and genre conventions recur within Everett’s writing often enough to be called tendencies; however, these rarely agglomerate in ways that become interpretive patterns through which substantial portions of his body of work might be diagnosed.

Everett fervently refutes the validity of any formulaic presumptions about the meanings of his writing, whether they arise from his identity, his past works, academic schools of thought, or conventions related to literary genre: “If anybody thinks they’re actually going to delineate the necessary and sufficient conditions for any literary work of art, then they’re greatly mistaken and would probably be better served picking up some other line of work, like computer maintenance” (Shavers, “Percival” 48). The narrator of his unconventionally metafictional novel Percival Everett by Virgil Russell (2013) gives voice to thoughts that align well with Everett’s own views on “the nature of meaning. It is a force that hazards to subjugate other forces, other meanings, other languages. We understand that all too well and yet, and yet—well, it is like the infirmity, the defect at the base of a dam. It will hold and it will hold and then it will give up, the dam will give up. As will we all” (74). At the same time, Everett embraces and even welcomes the idiosyncrasies of his readers’ interpretations, as long as they originate in a jovial and genuine thought process: “Play with ideas and have some fun with them and admit that that’s what you’re doing…. That’s probably the most important question to me in the world. What can you do with thinking?” (Shavers, “Percival” 48). Weixlmann has summarized Everett’s intentions toward his readers: “[He] most definitely does not set out to Page 5 →proselytize in his writing. Rather, he seeks to engage readers sufficiently in his stories that they will spend time thinking about what they’ve read when they finish one of his texts. In contrast to Ishmael Reed’s formulation ‘writin’ is fightin’,’ Everett’s very different literary formulation—at least with respect to those he terms ‘serious’ readers—might be expressed this way: writing + reading = thinking. And he sees this thinking, in turn, serving as a prelude to readers’ producing ‘meaning’ and ‘truth’—or what more conventionally is termed insight” (Conversations xix). In essence, he aims to be literally thought-provoking and has little use for overly reductive reactions—even when they are sympathetic—as he asserted in an interview conducted not long after the publication of Erasure (2001): “There’s been a lot of people getting onboard and agreeing with me, and there’s nothing more boring than that” (Ehrenreich 26).

When faced with readers who are still hell-bent on classifying his work, Everett generally expresses a combination of bemused puzzlement and deference concerning an author’s role in the process of interpretation: “I don’t put myself in a camp. I want to write what works for the story at hand. I serve the story, basically. I don’t think that as the author I’m terribly important, and I don’t want to be. I want to disappear. If anybody’s thinking about me when they’re reading my work I’ve failed as a writer. The work is supposed to stand by itself” (Shavers, “Percival” 48). Everett’s desire to “disappear” from the reader’s consciousness recalls Roland Barthes’s influential essay “The Death of the Author,” the thesis of which is summed up in its final line: “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author” (148). Barthes’s assertion that to “give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing” (147) explains why the metaphorical death of the author appeals so strongly to Everett; he is profoundly opposed to limitations, finalities, and closures of meaning, particularly those that arise from an interpretive process in which the “explanation of a work is … sought in the man or woman who produced it, as if it were always in the end, through the more or less transparent allegory of the fiction, the voice of a single person, the author ‘confiding’ in us” (143). Everett does not “confide” in his reader or engage in overt didacticism because he ultimately believes that “the work is smarter than I am. Art is smarter than us … I have no desire to offer a political message in a novel. An artist cannot hide from her or his political beliefs; they will be in the work. But to presume that I am smart enough to preach a position runs counter to my artistic sense” (Goyal).

Barthes crops up frequently in Everett’s fiction: he appears as “a commedia dell’arte caricature” (Berben-Masi, “Jailhouse” 54) of his real-life self in Glyph (1999), and a parody of his lengthy essay S/Z features prominently in Erasure; but perhaps the most telling use of his ideas appears in Percival Everett by Virgil Page 6 →Russell. The form and structure of the latter novel are far too complicated to summarize at this point (see chapters 1 and 4 for additional commentary); it suffices for the moment to observe that it is a highly fragmentary work whose main narrative consists of what appears to be a kind of conversation between a father and a son, albeit one in which both characters at times inhabit the first-person perspectives of both author and narrator. For example, early on we read what seems to be the father telling his son, “This is the story you would be writing if you were a fiction writer” (6), but seven pages later the first-person voice of the son asks, “Is this supposed to be my story? The story I’m supposed to write or would write if I were a writer?” (13). By the middle of the book, the narrative voice articulates what by that stage may be the reader’s own exasperation: “Just who the fuck is telling this story? … Is it an old man or the old man’s son?” Prefacing his remarks with the quintessentially Everettian caveat that he is not “by nature disposed to behaving deferentially to any reader,” the narrator insists that he “will clear up the matter forthwith, directly, tout de suite” and then unhelpfully—if also accurately—reveals that “I am telling the story” (107).

Barthes becomes directly relevant to Everett’s play with authorial-narrative perspective when the son states, “Dad, you realize that I’m dead,” to which the father replies, “Yes, son, I do. But I wasn’t aware you knew it” (14). This exchange is repeated almost verbatim, albeit with the roles reversed, on the novel’s final page (227), thereby suggesting that both of the nominal “authors” within the text are somehow “dead,” a state which the narrator earlier extols: “The author takes such shit. Probably better to be dead” (39). Everett repeatedly lures the reader toward an interpretation based on presumptive knowledge about the novel’s details and then figuratively enacts the death of each of its multiple possible internal authors in order to make such interpretations impossible. Barthes’s theory is therefore valuable to Everett not because it creates meanings of its own but rather because it causes the defective “dam” of author-centered explanations to “give up” (74).

Everett’s allusion to one of the most famous authorial duos in Western literature helps to cloud the narrative perspective further. The one-page chapter entitled “So Wide a River of Speech” begins with an overt parody of the opening stanzas of the first canto of Dante Alighieri’s Inferno, in which the despairing Dante encounters the Latin poet Virgil, who will eventually lead him through Hell and Purgatory: “Deep, well past halfway, into the journey of my so-called life, I found myself in darkness, without you and you and you and you, a whole list of you.” The “son” eventually interrupts the parody, and the ensuing exchange ends with a narratively important question that remains unanswered:

Page 7 →and I yelled to him in that barren place to help me and he said that he was a poet and

Dad.

Yes?

Okay, okay.

You will be my Virgil?

Everett’s technique throughout the book insures that whoever turns out to be the guiding “Virgil” of this text will not lead the corresponding “Dante”—whether figured as the reader or the text’s coauthor—out of the “darkness, rough and stern” in which the narrator finds himself. As Sylvie Bauer has observed, “‘Percival Everett’ is immediately included in the circle of ‘Virgil,’ ‘Dante,’ or ‘Bertrand Russell,’ whose real referents can only haunt the fictitious personae [«Percival Everett» est d’emblée inclus dans le cercle de «Virgile», «Dante» ou «Bertrand Russell» dont les référents réels ne peuvent que hanter les personae fictifs],” a simultaneously associative and dissociative process that results in “the effacement of an author who has become a composite creation of his text, itself announced from the outset as a living memory of important parts of Western culture [l’effacement d’un auteur devenu création composite de son texte lui-même annoncé d’emblée comme mémoire vive de pans importants de la culture occidentale].” The “effacement” to which Bauer referred results in a situation in which the novel’s actual author—Everett himself—is rendered figuratively “dead” but in which other “narrative voices seem to return from the land of the dead, thus putting language in relation to its own limit in order better to confront the chaos by flying over it [dans lequel les voix narratives semblent revenir du pays des morts, mettant ainsi le langage en rapport avec sa propre limite pour mieux affronter le chaos en le survolant]” (“A good place” 2–3). In essence, the author’s death revives the voices and the language of the text itself, precisely the effect that Everett repeatedly has asserted he desires as an artist.

As his repurposing of the person and the ideas of Barthes illustrates, Everett’s attitude toward literary theory exemplifies the mindfully iconoclastic perspective that he brings to his subject matter and to the interrelated acts of creating and reacting to art: “I like theory, I actually do. But it’s bullshit. It’s ridiculous but it’s wonderful. I like thinking about it. I love that somebody has thought it, and I get excited about it. I get excited about Lacan. But it’s all supposed to be fun. And that’s how I teach it” (Allen, “Interview” 108). For Everett, theory is interesting or valuable not because of its ostensible capacity to explicate a text but rather for the possibilities it presents as the raw material for Page 8 →further creativity: “Anytime anybody goes through that much trouble to come up with something nonsensical you have to have fun with it. It’s hilarious stuff. It’s not important that it means anything that takes us somewhere, because it’s not going to. But the fact that anybody wants to think it is, that’s fascinating” (Shavers, “Percival” 48). He has elaborated on this elsewhere in noting that he believes satirical mockery to be part of meaningful and respectful discourse, rather than contemptuous dismissal: “One of the most ironic things about my satire is that I’m fairly earnest about it. There’s a lot of irony in the fact that I take the things I’m talking about seriously. I actually like literary theory, for example, so to write my novel Glyph, I had to believe I understood enough of it to write about it, and to make fun of it. I found that I had to respect it. It doesn’t mean I agree with it. I just think that it’s funny” (Bolonik 98). From a writer who performs his due diligence in trying to understand the topics about which he writes—he claims, tongue only partly in cheek, “I only write books because it allows me to study” (Medlin and Gore 157)—Everett’s books compel a similar degree of “seriousness” from their readers, even when their style is comic or absurdist.

The occasionally self-deprecating and jocular resistance to categorization that Everett has demonstrated in interviews has become an increasingly more intrinsic aspect of his writing over time, with his novels more frequently featuring plots and characters that metafictionally explore various answers to what Everett calls “the most important question … in the world.” He not only uses his writing to show what can be done with thinking but often also shows—explicitly or implicitly—the consequences of a life without thinking, especially in the context of the interrelated acts of reading and writing. Although he describes his writing process more often than not using words such as “play” and “fun,” he also has insisted, “I would love people to talk about my work with Sterne and Twain. Cervantes.” He produces books that resemble Cervantes’s Don Quixote, Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Sterne’s The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy—the latter of which Everett has singled out as “probably the best novel ever written” because it “takes every form of literary discourse of its time and exploits it” (Shavers, “Percival” 48)—in using comic forms to achieve serious ends. Everett has explained why he values such an approach in two complementary ways: “If you can get someone’s attention and confidence by having them laugh, you can pretty much do with them what you will” (Toal 164); and “If you can get someone laughing, then you can make them feel like shit a lot more easily” (Shavers, “Percival” 48). A hybrid of these two impulses pervades nearly everything Everett has published.

There are countless obstacles that make encapsulating Everett’s writing a difficult task; nevertheless, the remainder of Jesting in Earnest strives to achieve Page 9 →a pair of parallel goals in the hope of offering some meaningful insights into Everett’s work while also heeding his admonitions against putting either him or his work into overly tidy boxes. This book lays out the case for an interpretive framework—and perhaps, pace Percival, a “label, shmabel”—that creates opportunities for insight into his work without concurrently precluding or subjugating others. It is viable to interpret Everett’s authorial output between 1983 and 2017 as a thirty-volume megawork of the literary mode known as Menippean satire. Essentially the contention here is that Everett has always approached the creation of literary art from the vantage point of a Menippean satirist, even if the individual works he has created vary substantially in the degree to which they fit the already somewhat nebulous definition of Menippean satire. The intention is not to suggest that Menippean satire is the sole or even the best key with which to unlock meaning in any one of Everett’s works, but it is an analytical strategy that offers interpretive insights across his entire career while also willingly accepting and even explaining his deliberate ambiguity.

In light of Everett’s stated regard for such Menippean satirists as Cervantes, Sterne, Twain, Robert Coover, Ralph Ellison, Thomas Pynchon, and Samuel Butler (Stewart, “Uncategorizable” 306–7; Kincaid “Interview” 378; Shavers, “Percival” 48), it makes sense to take up a task originally suggested as a footnoted aside in an article by Michel Feith, one of the foremost Everett scholars: “There would be much to say about the formal connection between several of Everett’s more ‘philosophical’ novels and Menippean satire” (“Hire-a-Glyph” 318). A handful of other Everett scholars—Françoise Sammarcelli, Marguerite Déon, and Sebastian Fett—have briefly engaged with Menippean satire in discussing his work, but no one has yet used it as the focal point for interpretation. Such an approach provides pathways into Everett’s work without conversely pinning it in place, giving guidance to the reader without foreclosing his or her ability—or, as Everett would insist, responsibility—to think further about a particular work’s meaning. Everett’s candid and complete reassignment of the meaning-making process to his reader is both obligating and liberating, and the remainder of Jesting in Earnest accepts the former enthusiastically while gratefully acknowledging the latter.

Given that no extensive biography of Everett currently exists and that he remains—partly by choice—far from a household name among contemporary authors, chapter 1 is a partial attempt to provide some real-life scaffolding for his literary output. However, my aim is decidedly not to establish any one-to-one correlations between Everett’s life and his writing; some critics have gone down that road in the past, only to have Everett deliberately confound their efforts with a series of misleadingly self-referential characters—including three named Percival Everett—in his recent fiction, a subject addressed directly in Page 10 →chapters 3 and 4. The purpose of this biographical overview is mostly to give experienced Everett scholars and those new to him and his work a bird’s-eye view of his lengthy and complicated career in order to contextualize more clearly my eventual critical hopscotching amid his sprawling output. A secondary intent, though, is to provide some initial observations regarding the origins and development of Everett’s resistance to categorization that can serve as part of the rhetorical foundation for my subsequent hermeneutic.

It is my contention that Everett’s biography provides little, if any, direct insight into his characters’ thoughts and motivations; moreover, it seems abundantly clear that even if a critic were somehow to discern a parallel between Everett’s life and the biography of one of his fictional characters, Everett has no intention of commenting on or otherwise validating such an observation, thereby drastically limiting its potential value. What an overview of Everett’s life does offer, though, is possibilities of indirect insights into some aspects of how and why he constructs the narratives through which his characters’ stories are told. For example, Everett’s graduate-level study of ordinary language philosophy shows up throughout much of his writing in various ways, both subtle (The Water Cure) and overt (Glyph). It seems defensible to assert that Everett’s life experiences have occasionally proved useful to him as a form of research—intentional as well as serendipitous—that he transforms into fiction; he even allowed as much when he told Justin Taylor that “the research is ongoing. Take Wounded, for example. First, I’d been researching it my entire adult life, working with horses—research that doesn’t always find its way into the work—then suddenly I was going into caves everywhere. I was going into undeveloped caves, developed caves, any hole I could find, until a friend said, You’re working on a novel. I didn’t realize it” (“Art” 67). Such a framing is, however, still a far cry from contending that his fiction is autobiographical, and I explicitly deny making any such claims from the outset.

Following a brief historical overview of Menippean satire and its development, chapter 2 presents a taxonomy of the mode’s contemporary usage that is derived from several of its most prominent champions. Each of this study’s final three chapters then surveys works from Everett’s oeuvre that collectively employ motifs, character types, or techniques that shed some light on the protean, yet pervasive, Menippean tendencies of his writerly craft. Chapter 3 looks at the five novels of Everett’s that most explicitly correspond to the critical definition of Menippean satire: God’s Country; Glyph; Grand Canyon, Inc.; Erasure; and A History of the African-American People (Proposed) by Strom Thurmond, as Told to Percival Everett and James Kincaid. Chapter 4 turns to a second five-book cluster—Cutting Lisa, American Desert, Suder, I Am Not Sidney Poitier, and The Water Cure—whose Menippean qualities are Page 11 →less overt than those of the first cluster, but whose intentional destabilization of reality and language still fulfills the primary functions of the Menippean satirical mode. Chapter 5 engages something of a critical experiment by using Menippean satire as an alternative method of critically binding together four of Everett’s books—Walk Me to the Distance, Watershed, Wounded, and Assumption—that, as noted above, seem more immediately associable by their common setting in the American West.

This selection of texts spans nearly the full length of Everett’s career as a writer and includes his most popular works as well as some of his more obscure ones. It is intended as a sampling of the whole, not a ranked list; one should not infer from the emphasis on these fourteen works that Everett’s remaining sixteen books are necessarily of lesser significance or lesser quality. In the interest of coherence and brevity, it is simply not feasible to give equal attention in this volume to all of Everett’s publications. I also do not intend my emphasis on his fiction as a slight to his talents as a poet, though I would argue that his published poetry thus far has generally extended themes and even specific concepts that are initially—and, for my purposes, more effectively—raised in his fiction.

Wherever relevant, an attempt has been made to suggest connections to his texts that were not selected for extended discussion. Fortunately, the rapidly expanding body of scholarly work on Everett helps to fill in some of the gaps created by the somewhat arbitrary yet wholly necessary selective focus here. The extensive bibliography at the end of this book and the indispensable online bibliography (https://percivaleverettsociety.com/bibliography/) created and fastidiously updated by Joe Weixlmann of Saint Louis University provide additional resources to any Everett scholar looking for still more critical material.