Politics in the Private, Not in Novels. Interview with Katie Kitamura

The American literary renaissance of the end of the last century was characterized by the rejection of any ideology and by a reflection, almost always painful, on the fragility of feelings. The tone and language of Jonathan Franzen, Donna Tartt, Jeffrey Eugenides and Jennifer Egan are extremely different, as is that of David Foster Wallace, who was the most revolutionary of the group, but they share a conception of existence characterized by a sense of precariousness and fallacy, as well as the urgency to reflect on the relationship between identity and community, in the hope of finding some certainty within this dialogue. It is the same approach of Katie Kitamura , the most authoritative among the authors who have established themselves in the following generation. In her books, politics continues to be almost absent, as if it were an element of contamination, but on a private level, commitment and passion appear to be indispensable conditions. “We are living in a dangerous historical moment,” she tells me on a day off from the promotional tour of Audition, greeted by glowing reviews.

Born in Sacramento to a Japanese couple, Kitamura lives in Brooklyn with her husband, the Anglo-Indian writer Hari Kunzru, and their two children, and believes that the mixture of blood represents the richness of America. In her novel A Separation , the protagonist is a “foreign” woman whose origins are unknown, and in Japanese for Travellers: A Journey , she confronted her own origins. “You must not fall into the trap of identifying the characters with the author,” she tells me, and of course she is right, but it is also true that literary creations cannot be considered pure abstraction. I keep this consideration to myself, considering that she studied dance and practiced martial arts, then I ask her what she thinks of Trump's immigration policy.

It is innate and shortsighted,” he replies vehemently. “Ideologically, it is a betrayal of everything the United States stands for and of the story it has always told itself. It will only impoverish the country: we already see many talented people leaving the United States for places that welcome immigrants. This policy will have serious economic consequences, something that Republicans once cared about.

In my previous meetings I tried to understand why Trump was successful in attracting women's votes despite his violent misogynistic statements. The first answer that comes to mind is that it's internalized misogyny, but I don't think it can be just that. I have the impression that Trump's female voters think that he doesn't really mean what he says: for a long time there was a tendency not to take him seriously, but now we are seeing that he actually meant exactly what he said.

It's quite surprising that someone so far removed from religion is successful even among evangelicals. A friend pointed out to me that the left is having a harder time forming coalitions than the right. It seems to me that evangelicals are willing to overlook the fact that it is deeply irreligious, because it fulfills some of the desires and ambitions of the Christian right, such as overturning Roe vs. Wade, which allowed abortion.

Trump's detractors and admirers agree on one thing: he is extraordinarily skilled in communication: what did you think of his photo with Zelensky in St. Peter's? It's a mysterious image. It looks like they're posing: there's no doubt that they both knew they were being photographed, but everything else seems improvised and authentic. One can only hope that it was a productive meeting.

During his first term, Trump coined the term “alternative truth.” It seems like half the country is living in another reality and it looks more like an ideological difference or a political position: I don't see how the gap between these positions can be bridged. When I saw the photo he circulated dressed as a pope I thought that this administration fits perfectly with the flat, cheap and post-truth aesthetic of artificial intelligence. The Leni Riefenstahl of this regime is the Midjourney app: false, manipulative, horrible and sinister.

What do you think about the ongoing war between Trump and universities? It is part of the operating manual of all authoritarian regimes in every part of the world, now and in the past. With one aggravating factor: in the United States, a large portion of federal funding goes to science and medical research, and the cuts end up affecting areas like cancer research. And this is incredibly and painfully destructive. Even in Republican states, there are many communities where universities are the largest employer: people have lost their jobs and people will die because of this attack on research.

The fact that criminal convictions are completely irrelevant to Trump voters has led Margo Jefferson to describe him as a cult leader. Trump seems to genuinely believe that he was chosen by God, no matter what he does, and many of his followers believe this as well. I think the vocabulary he uses is indicative of the cult-like nature of the Republican Party today, while the fact that his supporters are indifferent to the convictions is due to the very effective way in which he has been able to undermine confidence in fundamental institutions such as the judiciary.

Do you think Trump represents something inevitable in American history? I don't think there is something inevitable, but I don't think it's an exception either: in the foundations of this country there are also principles of exclusion, violence and injustice.

Is there something in Trump's triumph that you hold responsible for the world that is now in opposition? Certainly, although I don’t think catastrophism is helpful. I remember that after his first victory there was a rush to “understand” the working-class voters who had voted for Trump. The publishing industry’s contribution to that rush was J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy, and now we’ve seen the results.

Do you mean it shouldn't have been published? I'm not saying that, I'm against any form of censorship. But I think the liberal world has fought its battle much less effectively than its opponents have. Look at what's happened in the media: the press has been largely critical of Trump, although less forcefully than one might have hoped. At the same time, new television companies like Fox have supported him after having, in some ways, created him. All this has happened while the shape of the media has changed: the right has cultivated podcast personalities who have proven to be very influential and have outclassed traditional communication: the left has completely failed to cultivate such personalities. Finally, it should be added that for those who are not part of his world, Trump's constant announcements on social media often make no sense and only generate confusion.

In the meantime, an American Pope has been elected. I am heartened and hopeful about the nomination of Leo XIV, and as one newspaper wrote: Trump is no longer the most important American in the world. The new Pontiff seems to have the potential to act as a counter-balance to Trump and his allies, and to continue the work of Pope Francis. This is a huge relief.

I'm asking everyone I meet if there's anything they appreciate about the president. Personally, I neither admire nor respect him. And I can't find a single positive thing about what he's accomplished. I'm told he's funny in person, and I can say that on TV he's more interesting than J. D. Vance or Marco Rubio, the two who have the best chance of succeeding him.

What is your opinion of JD Vance? The defining element is opportunism. There is no ideal position that he is not willing to give up in order to advance his career.

Speaking of opportunism, how do you judge the fact that billionaire industrialists and entrepreneurs who supported the left until the elections are now aligned with Trump? Along with opportunism there is a genuine and powerful convergence on right-wing ideas by the tech elite, just read some of Zuckerberg's recent statements. At the same time it seems that the majority of users also tend to lean mostly right.

American culture has always been fascinated by the character of the self-made man, to the point of putting into the background whether this person has a shady or even criminal past. But Trump is not a self-made man, he is just a criminal. He inherited a fortune from his father and created a narrative that he is a self-made billionaire. And a lot of people believe that is the case.

David Remnick says the United States is at risk of becoming an authoritarian country. Considering historical parameters, I believe that they have already become so.

Don't you think the United States has the antibodies to resist this situation? I am not optimistic. However, I think of the words of Rumeysa Ozturk, who was imprisoned for six weeks for writing an editorial in a student newspaper. When she was finally released, she said, “America is the greatest democracy in the world, and I have faith in the American justice system.” If she does not live in despair, who am I to be desperate?

How do you judge the relationship between Trump and Putin? Terrifying. It's hard to know exactly what power Putin has over Trump: is it material? Or does Trump simply admire him? It's hard to know which is more terrifying.

How would you explain Trump to a ten-year-old? I would tell my kids he is a bully and a small person. My husband and I have raised them to empathize with bullies, which means feeling sorry for Trump, which I think is better than just feeling afraid.

More on these topics: