>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight, sean penn part two. >> it took to me the idea that if i just placed all judgment here and i just go and sit with this other human being, however the world judges him, however justifiably they judge him that way, just go and be in that place with him, maybe tell a joke, have a couple of sips of tequila, just let him come in, did i feel another human being there? i did. >> rose: we conclude with laure groff, the author of "fates and furies." >> intimacy is much more interesting when there is something held back a little bit. you can actually reach a different kind of intimacy when

you have your own aw autonomy. so i guess i was resisting that in order to truly love someone you have to truly know them completely. >> rose: sean penn and laure groff, when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with part two of my conversation with sean penn, the actor and writer. last night he described how he met kate del castillo, a popular mexican actress.

she had made contact through social media with joaquiín "el chapo" guzmaán, also known s el chapo. guzman's cartel is said to be the largest distributor of drugs to america. according to authorities, it made him a very rich man and drug lord responsible for thousands of deaths. guzman made a dramatic escape from a high security mexican prison on july 15. on october 2, 2015, penn and del castillo met with guzman in a safe house in mexico. it was to be the foundation for penn's 10,000 word story in rolling stone magazine. penn said he wanted to start a conversation with his readers about drugs in our society. on january 8, 2016, mexican marines captured el chapo again and he is now in the prison from which he escaped.

penn said he wanted to start a conversation with his readers about drugs in our society. on january 8, 2016, mexican marines recaptured el chapo and he is now in the prison from which he escaped. penn's story of the visit which him and del castillo appeared in rolling stone january 9, 2016. it created a sensation for many reasons starting with who el chapo was and is and the drama of his life, his crime operation and his escape and recapture. secondly, the fame of sean penn and kate del castillo and also penn's article in rolling stone. and finally the many questions it raised about the motivations and interests of the people involved. i had an exclusive interview with sean penn taped in los angeles january 14. it is obviously a compelling story. the "60 minutes" interview on cbs was the highest rated program on "60 minutes" in 2008 attracting more than 20 million

viewers. my thanks to sean penn for his time and candor and his story. tonight, part two of sean penn in his own words. >> rose: when he was recaptured, tell me what went through your head. here's a guy who had been recaptured, whom you had seen in october. what did you think? >> you know, in the questions that i sent that he recorded the answers to on video -- >> rose: yes, the 18 minutes that anybody can see -- >> 17. >> rose: 17. one of them, though they were paraphrased by the person asking them in spanish. it had been, in my conversations with -- after i returned, when i was in the middle of writing the piece, after the contact, i

bounced off some friends in washington who work in drug enforcement, and so on, what they thought would happen. one of the questions that i was curious about was whether or not the reward money would be raised. you know, the united states maxes out at 25 million as osama bin laden, and they had 5 million on him, i was asking that question. and i also asked -- i was asked did i think that he would let himself be taken alive. my impression was that he would not. that was my impression from the night i spent with him. i don't know mean i asked him that. i mean that was my impression of the vibe of the conversation. >> rose: you're a better man than i. i would have asked him. >> sometimes you ask people questions, they don't tell you the truth.

but also, they said they didn't feel the mexican government would ever take him alive, they didn't want him alive, that they would kill him. >> rose: turned out not to be true. >> not to be true. and i was shocked. >> rose: shocked? yeah, i was shocked. >> rose: you expected him to be killed? >> i didn't expect him to be captured this quickly, but i did expect one day i would hear about a big shootout. >> rose: and the reason you had that judgment was because you believe that the mexican government did not want to see him alive and they did not want to see him talk because he had information that you believe would do gate damage to rep -- do great damage to reputations at the highest levels of makes n society, yes? >> yes, i think that's part of it. i don't want to implicate the marines who executed the action.

>> rose: right. what i would say there is that, you know, you could consider that, had he stayed and fought it out in that apartment, that that would have been -- >> rose: but went into the tunnel. >> but he came into an area that also had exposure on the streets and gave them an opportunity to take him alive, and they did, and, you know, the similar situation, as it turns out not similar, in libya where it was clear that this was -- you know, that already having been taken prisoner alive, that a decision was made not to let gadhafi live. >> rose: but they did let him live. so what does that tell you? they captured him alive. in fact, he's back in the same jail he was. >> it probably means that, despite the incredible

corruption, despite the things that i have told you that i feel about the mexican government, that there is still more good people than bad. >> rose: when you look at where he fits now, what do you think's going to happen? you know his children. you know his two sons. you know the attitude of the cartel. you know what efforts they went through. >> i'm not going to speculate on what might happen. i will tell you i hope cooler heads prevail. >> rose: within the cartel? on all sides. >> rose: how well tune the cartel? >> not well. >> rose: but you know the sons. >> i've met them. >> rose: are they different from him?

>> i would describe their personalities as much different, yeah. >> rose: in what way? i think he's more traditional of the place where he grew up. i went there with the idea being that what i felt were the cards that i could play with this person who would be unlikely to grant an interview, had never done so before, it took him, however justifiably they judge him that way, just go and be in that place with him, maybe tell a joke, have a couple of

sips of tequila, just let him come in, did i feel another human being there? i did. >> rose: how did you leave it when you left him? see you again? >> we planned to see each other eight days later. >> rose: you did? yeah, the idea was to come down and can all those questions you were encouraging me to ask. >> rose: so you would have asked him eight days later? >> i asked to stay with him. my colleagues were going to leave. >> rose: kate and her friends? this is kate and giraldo. i asked to stay for two days, wherever they were going to continue the interview. he said, i just met you, can you do it in eight days? i said, i can. i went away. i had a business in south america. i went to south america. i came back eight days later and i sat in the airport, having had

someone send a message to the intermediary, and i waited for hours hoping to get the tap on the shoulder and say come with me so that i could go back. now, meanwhile, it was not a surprise to me that i wasn't going to get that tap on the shoulder because, by this time, the actions being taken by the military had been made public. so i knew they were very much on the run, as you say. >> rose: he no longer had time to see you? >> or didn't have access to communications or they were going dark because they assumed they were being traced. i don't know. >> rose: where are those comiewcommunications today? >> communications. >> rose: the people you were communicating. with if i were you, i would really want to know.

-- i would really want to know where their head was, what they thought, why they thought he was captured. >> i think it's a fair assumption that nobody down there wants to talk to me now because of all this advertising, that it had something to do with the capture. >> rose: you believe that what you did had nothing to do with the capture? you believe that or just don't know. >> well, i just don't know. i do believe it, yeah, but, of course, in the end, i don't know. >> rose: do you believe -- do i think we were being at various times surveilled? do i think communications? do i think the governments knew to some degree what was going on? absolutely, i do think that, and i said this in the article, in the article that, by the way, joaquin guzman approved. >> rose: approved the article. do you think he read it? >> did he really read it? i don't know. >> rose: he could have had somebody read it to him. >> he may have. i wasn't there.

>> rose: okay. whawhat have you learned by this experience? you came away criticizing the press. you come away saying that the mexican government -- >> i think the press -- >> rose: -- could have recaptured him but perhaps didn't want to take him alive because he has secrets. >> i think my biggest criticism of the press, so i can go on record with this, is a word that they would put on me. i think we have the most naive press corps that i can imagine. >> rose: what is the word they put on you, naive. but they're naive because, to give you a chance to express their naivetiy, because they don't see the future you see.

>> the future i see would be making a greater claim than the one i'm making. it is again in nuance where the world lives and to have had this kind of front row seat to the press covering a story that is, if not significant, sensationalized. >> rose: the hard facts of this story, the compelling story, for someone of your professional skills and intelligence and someone who's enormously prominent to get to see someone who has enormous power and wealth and does -- and engages in activities that are awful in terms of the consequences, selling drugs, that that's not a powerful narrative that you want to

understand. you want to understand why you wanted to do it, which you've explained. you want to understand what it's an unfinished story for you, which you've explained. you want to understand what it was like, which you wrote about. but you want to know more. even though it's 10,000 words, you saw, felt, saw, experienced a lot more. >> the journalism that i like to read -- >> rose: yes. -- like the movies i like to watch ask questions. >> rose: what am i doing? what i'm saying is, even if they don't have the answers to those questions, the way that i process this kind of work is to go in asking myself questions and to see how the experience works on me and the process of that and then reflect those

questions in the article. going back to all of the things that, you know, that you've challenged me on very fairly, i'm reminded it's all in my article. all of these observations are either there through -- they're not all kiss and tell. it's not -- you know, and then he used his right land to do this and his left to do that. >> rose: it's not all kiss and tell, but -- >> but it is about reflecting with certain behaviors the anchor, as i said. this is the narrative approach of the piece and it's very -- for me, it's a very honest approach because i'm saying, okay, i'm stuck with one thing. this is, whether i like it or not, a human being. very hospitable, the food's

good. >> rose: tequila's okay. the tequila's okay. i believe he loves his kids when he looks at them. now, you've got a lot of questions that come right out of that, connecting with the world that they're in. keep going over the beginning of a story. >> rose: i'm happy to talk about -- >> but you're talking about the question asker still at the beginning of his own questions and sharing in an article. >> rose: right. which i find a legitimate form. >> rose: you're saying -- so i don't think i have all the answers that you're asking for. they're good questions. i'm sure many of them i would have gotten further, had i been able to spend those two days with him. i would have gotten two days further. didn't happen. >> rose: you have said to the a.p., and i'm asking now, you have no regrets? >> i have terrible regrets. >> rose: what are the regrets?

i have a regret that the entire discussion about this article ignores its purpose, which was to try to contribute to this discussion about the policy on the war on drugs. i have a big regret about that one. >> rose: you regret -- and i failed that. >> rose: but you're really saying what i really regret is not anything i did, i regret people misunderstood what i did. >> that's what i'm saying. >> rose: i regret they misunderstood me, not any action that i took or anything i may have done. >> a lot of it comes from predisposition. let's face it, when movies, it's one thing, even a critic is separate from the practitioner in the movies, but when you get a story every journalist in the world wand, there is a lot of green-eyed monsters that want to come give you a kiss. >> rose: those are jealous journalists? >> yes. >> rose: every journalist in

the world wanted that story. you got that story. that's the reason you were there. >> no, i think any journalist would have had access to it, and i think there is no reason for them to be envious of something that wouldn't have existed. anybody who was known specifically as a journalist would not have had the opportunity. >> rose: and, so, why did you get access? >> because i'm perceived differently. >> rose: help me understand that. you got access nobody else could get. >> i got access through somebody with whom i share another field which is acting and movies. >> rose: with her? yeah, that we share that field. it's not hard to track it back to his awareness of her because she's quite a significant actress. >> rose: and according to the exchange of the messages, he didn't know who you were. >> no, i'm sure he didn't. but in her situation, she would

not have looked to bring a journalist into it. i don't think at the she would have had the trust in a journalist -- i don't think she would have had the trust in a journalist. i am speculating, but i don't think she would have had the trust. >> rose: she saw you as an actor. >> she didn't see me principally as a journalist, of course. so i think, you know, that rather than equating it to, you know, i'm out there to beat all my fellow journalists, it's not the way i think of it. what happened is i found out about this thing that's been untapped into. there was a "frontline" done that was exceptional. it was clear they got so close -- >> rose: to el chapo, to getting an interview. >> yes. and they have an excellent interview with his mother, which one has to assume would not have happened without his approval. >> rose: because he loved his mother. >> and in the middle of the process of making that

documentary, he was caught in ad arrested and they just missed. these were two guys really digging in the dirt to get there and risking quite a bit to do it for a long period of time. >> rose: and you got it easy because you were an actor and she trusted you as an actor. >> they were the ones that -- >> rose: but she trusted an actor. >> yeah. >> rose: how did you sell her on the idea? >> i didn't sell her on an idea. we talked. we met. i said what i hope to do and, you know, i said, do you think that he would respond and be willing to do this? and she, you know, explained who i was and who my other two colleagues were and asked if we could come down and talk about it.

we went down and talked about it. then he agreed to do it. >> rose: how much time lapsed? from when to when? >> rose: from the time you talked to her until october 2. >> well, i think this was from somewhere around mid august when this first came out, and i was in paris, and i flew back here to meet her. >> rose: in los angeles? in this hotel. >> rose: right here? in the restaurant of this hotel. >> rose: and what was the conversation? >> i said that i understood through espinoza that she had a way to -- you know, that she would be contacted by him h at times, and next time he contacted her would she present the request that i come down and do a piece. >> rose: and she got back to you later and said he'll do it. >> yeah. >> rose: he'll see you. yeah. >> rose: with me.

mm-hmm. >> rose: what does she think of him? >> you will have to ask her that. >> rose: you'd do everything again? >> yes. i mean, i hope to talk to him again. you know, under whatever circumstances. >> rose: because? well, i think, now, it's another -- you know, while this article had its focus and its intention, i think now, over time, i will process what will -- you know, what clearly is a unique experience. and i'm interested in asking

more. >> rose: some of the questions i want you to ask. >> some of the questions that we all have and none could get the answers to in a matter of hours or days, but it would take understanding of a culture and a lot of history to really get there. >> rose: you believe they're going to let anybody get close to him other than a lawyer? >> i think he knows a lot of things about a lot of things. >> rose: did he tell you that, though? see, that's interesting to all of us. >> i imply it from the same information that anybody would have access to. >> rose: so you imply that not because he told you that. >> not because he told me that. >> rose: you assumed that. mm-hmm. >> rose: and because of that, things might be possible? >> well, i think that, you know, we do understand that, whether it's in the american prison system or the mexican prison

system, that cooperation allows for a better lifestyle within your circumstances. i'm not suggesting that he would in any way cooperate. i'm just saying who knows what's going to happen. who knows. >> rose: have you reached out to him? >> no. >> rose: why not? too soon? >> yeah, there is no -- there is no means by which i would be able to reach out to him. >> rose: well, you know his lawyer. >> i know -- >> rose: you've dealt with his lawyer. >> i dealt with one, but i never had anybody -- any of their numbers. i never communicated directly with any of them. there was a security specialist who was mocking me saying that i probably didn't know what mirroring was. well, mirroring is pretty simple, because i use the word "mirroring," and this is what i mean, these people who know so much, these expert testimonials in the news, i think he owns a

cybersecurity company, in fact. mirroring is very simple. i go in an elevator and there's a mirror on one side and outand you can see your own image forever into eternity. if you take five and flip it into five phones and i call one guy on an encrypted phone and he gives it to another guy who goes through another encrypted line and it takes place through that and gets to you and you answer back, that is mirroring, and a term any real security expert would know. but all that, you know, through others, i never had a device where i was talking directly to anybody involved in the organization. >> rose: are you worried about any legal action? >> am i worried about any legal action? >> rose: yes. no. >> rose: there is no one suggesting you gave material benefit to someone and,

therefore, by some definition it's harboring a fugitive? >> no. >> rose: have you heard from anybody from justice of that kind of authority? >> no. >> rose: one of the things throughout our conversation is this, the notion that, because of your own definition that you feel an accomplice and you're giving him a pass and people might think that's an easy way out? >> of course, i understand this question and, of course, your colleagues, your -- those -- anybody in your seat, anybody responsible in your seats has to ask this question. you're looking at someone who is so much more concerned with the result, where are we going to be in ten years in this war on drugs, in the addiction crisis that we have in our country, in the murders on the street, where are we going to be in ten years if the focus remains -- if there

is something i could pray for, it would be that people get so tired about talking about the bad guy that they start talking about the good change. how do we make the good change. this is not going to do it. >> rose: thank you for doing this. >> thank you. >> rose: laure groff is here. she is the author of "fates and furies." the two-part novel is a feat of storytelling. it resolves around a marriage that is not all that it seems. the "new york times" called it a novel of extraordinary and genuine complexity, an unabashedly vicious novel that delivers. president obama called it his favorite book of the year. i am pleased to have laure groff at this table for the first time, welcome. >> pleased to be here. >> rose: let's talk about you for a second. have you always wanted to be a writer? >> yes, but i thought i was a

poet. i thought from the beginning i was a poet, but i am a terrible, terrible poet. i should have never been a poet. the world told me i was not a good poet. >> rose: how? even at college where i went with 400 students, i couldn't get into the literary journal. it was terrible. >> rose: did anybody come to you and say "try novels"? >> no, nobody said that, but at that time people think you can be whatever you want to be, and they let me have the poetry phase and i took a prose class and the clouds parted and angels sang. >> rose: did you think it's not only my passion but also my skill? people have said to me, who've somehow gotten on stage either in high school or in college and said, ah, this is where i belong? >> i did feel like i belonged there because i knew the language of narrative, right,

because i was a french and english literature major. i'm very shy, read 18 hours a day. it was not where i belonged because i was terrible at first. you have to work up into your skill set and i had none to begin with. >> rose: it didn't deter you. my family is a family of very bullheaded people. >> rose: your mother and father are bullheaded? >> everyone. >> rose: you're certainly not the athlete in the family. >> not at all. >> rose: your sister. yes, she will be in the olympics this summer. >> rose: but you have no athletic ability? >> no, i'm a good athlete. >> rose: not as good as she is. >> no, and i didn't care. let's be honest, i would have never been an olympic athlete. >> rose: and she'll never write a great novel. >> she might. who knows. triathlon, it's the sport of young people. there is no great triathlon

novel yet. >> rose: this is not the first book you've written either. >> no, my fourth. actually, it's the seventh or eighth book i've written and fourth published. >> rose: will you go back to them? >> no. >> rose: do you have partially finished man you displipts. >> no, i finish things and then i realize they're hopeless and jepget jetsonned. i don't know if you've read mr. and mrs. bridge. these are amazing books. i had in mind to write a paired book like that. i thought it would come out at the same time and then whatever. then i realized about halfway into the process because of pi amazing agent that, no, in fact, i was writing a marriage in book form and they're autonomous

people within the marriage within this one unit. >> rose: how did you start. writing? >> rose: no, this book. did you start with an idea or a question? >> it started with other books and i think a lot of my work starts with other books and i sort of go from there. >> rose: you're a thief. we're all thieves. we're all nasty thieves. actually, i was writing my previous book "arcadia" at the time, and the experience of writing that was almost like ripping out my own heart and feeding it to myself every day, it was so painful. >> rose: you have a very good imagination. ripping out my heart and feeding it to myself. >> it was horrible. ke i had to write that book.lt at the same time, i needed to write something more lively with a greater range of voices in it and with perhaps more drama and

opera. i love opera and all of the things i have been so fascinated by over the course of the years, so i started that at the same time as writing "arcadia." >> rose: do you write in long hand? >> i do. >> rose: the first draft? many drafts. this one, probably ten to twelve drafts. >> rose: in total or in long hand. >> in long hand and then many after the long hand. >> rose: so what are you working on by the 11th draft? >> well, i do -- the first draft very quickly in order to sort of get a sense of the landscape that i'm working on. >> rose: but you go from a to z? >> i go from a to z but it has nothing to do with the final book at all. not even the names of the characters. nothing is the same between the first draft and the last. what that does is gives me a hand hold into the story and then i always find out there are major cracks in my foundations. i have to go back to the beginning and really think it

through again. what's really fun about this is i end up, over the course of many beginning quick drafts and progressively slower drafts, i build on a 3-d printer idea of almost a city of stories, then i can walk through the city, choose the way -- >> rose: create a reality. yeah, you're building a world. a lot of the stuff in the previous drafts is still in my head and i don't access it for the book but it's in my world. >> rose: who is your first reader? >> my husband is my first reader, absolutely. >> rose: at what stage does he start reading? >> after years. most of the time, he has no idea what i'm working on. >> rose: closer to the end? usually the middle. i have a good draft i feel not ashamed of and i give it to him and he usually -- he's very gentle. >> rose: does he know anything about writing? >> no, not at all. but he's a real person and he's really smart and he doesn't want

me to embarrass myself. >> rose: but how much is this a commentary on your own marriage? >> oh, massively. >> rose: so the dialogue is about marriage, and it would come from your heart about marriage. >> absolutely. >> rose: and your experience? no. >> rose: but i mean the conversations and thoughts you have had about marriage? >> well, absolutely. it's such a fraught space to live inside. even the best marriages are deeply intense and complicated, and it's just -- it's a -- i mean, most early novels are about marriage, right? middle march is my favorite book on the planet. >> rose: why? it has a whole world of empathy in it. george elliott is just the kindest, most sensitive -- you live in her wisdom over the course of 600 pages and like

marilyn who i think is george's counterpart today, you want to live inside their brains for a while. >> rose: you read a lot. all day long. i write in the morning and then i give up and read. >> rose: so, what, you get up in the morning, have breakfast and -- >> no, i get up at 5:00 and -- >> rose: is he up by then? my husband? sometimes. we have two children sleeping upstairs, so it's a really quiet time. then i work -- i don't even see the kids off to school. in fact, i ignore their very existence, which is really, really important to preserve that space. then i get them from school. but my writing day is from 5:00 to about -- >> rose: so he takes care of the kids, gets them to school. >> yes, he's generous. >> rose: you don't want to see them? >> no, i don't. >> rose: you stay home, look out from a table and a pen? is. >> no, like at a wall. >> rose: does it come flowing?

no, sometimes you ride that wave and it's beautiful and it's, you know -- >> rose: but in the afternoon, you're reading? >> most of the time, yeah. or doing, you know, book reviews. >> rose: and that informs you in what way? >> oh, it feeds you, yeah. every book -- i think every book comes out of not only lived experience but also all the books that came before that you've read. >> rose: this has gotten such enormous praise that somehow i got this right. >> no. no, you're only as good as the work that you're doing, right? the work that you're doing at the moment, right? at the moment, i'm sitting here talking to you, right? i'm not actually working, right? >> rose: no. so i'm delighted, right. i'm overjoyed. >> rose: you should be. but that was my past, and whatever i'm working on now isn't working out all that well, and, so, that's what -- >> rose: you're writing another one, already?

>> yes. >> rose: you don't read critics? >> no, not until years later. >> rose: this is 2016. you will read this in maybe 2020? >> i'll only read the ones my husband has pulled for me and kept for me. >> rose: he hides those for you? >> yeah, he's my filter. >> rose: but he doesn't say, my god, they say these wonderful things about you. >> no, he forgets easily the wonderful things they say about me. >> rose: mywhy gainesville, florida? >> well -- >> rose: you could have lived in iowa. >> it's cold. it's really good for a writer to feel like an outsider, first of all, and really excellent for a writer to be socially isolated. >> rose: how are you socially isolated? >> i don't really teach. i teach a residency program which doesn't involve actually

seeing human beings. >> rose: so you love publicity, you love going out and talking to people and being interviewed about your book now? >> well, i put on the scooby suit, you know, and i like my scooby suit, it fits really nicely, but i long for the day when i can take it off again and just be a hermit. >> rose: this book is about a woman with secrets. >> yes. >> rose: where does that come from? your own ideas? >> my own ideas. >> rose: your own secrets? no, i don't have secrets. i'm an open book. just the idea that, in a healthy marriage everyone knows everything about the other person. it's not healthy. it's not good. one needs mystery within one's self in order to be a functional human being, i believe. things you don't tell other

people. ouse.se: including your and, in fact, i think intimacy is much more interesting when there is something held back a little bit. you can actually reach a different kind of intimacy when you have your own autonomy. so i guess i was resisting the idea that, in order to truly love someone, you have to truly know them completely. i don't like that. a lot of this -- a lot of this book was resisting -- >> rose: you're resisting the idea that in order to truly love someone, you have to know them. >> absolutely. >> rose: you can love someone you hardly know. >> every time i read charles dickens, i love that man. >> rose: and love william shakespeare. >> i love shakespeare, who doesn't. >> rose: have you studied dickens and shakespeare as to where is the magic. >> i'm an enthusiastic imager, absolutely. >> rose: and you're still reading the classics and everything else? >> no, actually part of this

book came out of a close read of the iliad, which is the best work of writing anyone has ever written. i would put that out on the table and just put my foot down. there is everything in the iliad. it contains everything, and you could spend your entire life reading that one book. >> rose: you have been able to transfer this love of reading to your kids. >> yes! absolutely. my 4-year-old is still 4 -- >> rose: but a very curious 4. yes, he is. but my 7-year-old, all he does is read. >> rose: is that right? he has certificates, he's the best reader in his class. >> rose: sports, too? yes, he's a very good athlete. >> rose: some call this a realist novel. how do you see that? does that fit for you? >> no, i was reading today and i don't look for my name, i'm actually allergic to my own name in articles, and i saw someone

called me a fabulous writer which kind of shocked me. it's sort of a magical realism, and i use certain tools at certain times, but i'm not -- i don't ascribe to anything, i try use what is right for the book at the time. i would like to write books that cannot necessarily be categorized other than under the large umbrella of literary fiction which is enormous. >> rose: how long did it take you to write this? >> five years. >> rose: five years. but i was writing something else at the same time. >> rose: you were influenced by shakespeare. >> yes. >> rose: and greek tragedies. yes. like i said -- >> rose: these are all good inspirations. you know these good inspirations. >> i know. but they're thrilling and exciting. if you're alone all the time, you need to find your excitement somewhere. >> rose: how are lotto and mathilde different? >> lotto, for a long time, i

thought he would be the embodiment of florida. he's funny, charming, kind of sexy, there is something weird going on on the inside. >> rose: you said kind of sexy. >> sometimes he is and other times he's not. he has some darkness that is not immediately apparent to everyone. he's an actor, becomes a playwright and he's a lover of other people whose love comes out of keeply embedded narcissism, and this is not as abnormal as one thinks it is. one can see examples of this everywhere. >> rose: narcissism? such incredible charismatic narcissism that makes that into the most popular person in the room. >> rose: did you have a face or anything in mind when you're writing? >> i take the fifth. (laughter) i cannot tell you this. sort of, yes.

>> rose: was ate real person? i don't know. >> rose: you do know. charlie... >> rose: i'm not going to ask you a name. but did you have some fantasy figure in mind? a charming, dashing, charismatic, tall, handsome -- or was the word "sexy," i can't remember. >> uh, next question. >> rose: so contrast to mathilde in the beginning. >> she's quiet. everybody wonders why she's with him. she tees mover behind the scenes and sets up the parties where he shines and gleams and becomes the person who deals with the business side because he can't, he's too narcissistic. she's really, really quiet. >> rose: and she needs security. >> and she desperately needs security, yes. yes. >> rose: but you also think she's cool.

>> i love her. well, actually, i started this book thinking, you know, i was going to write my own narcissism into lotto, and mathilde would be -- >> rose: let's talk about your own narcissism. >> we all have it. >> rose: it's your greatness. no, i have no greatness. but then mathilde would be some character that i didn't know, and what happened was i started seeing elements of myself in mathilde that frightened me, frankly. she had so much rage, and i see this in myself and my friends. >> rose: what do you have rage about? one thing you have rage about. >> well with,et, it's not so muh i'm unusual in my rage, it's that women are not necessarily allowed open access to our fury. >> rose: wait, stop. women are not necessarily allowed open access to their

fury? >> right. >> rose: tell me what that means. >> i will tell you ine in -- i l tell you in an anecdote. i was sitting at a table with my friends, we were out having drinks. >> rose: what do you drink? i had wine. i thought, you know what? all of you, you are all just boiling under with rage, so much rage, and as i said this, they all turn on me and they said, that's so not true! so they got furious i even mentioned their fury. >> rose: you knew you struck gold. >> i knew i'd struck gold. because i think we get boxed into the perceptions of femininity. if you scream at someone, you become -- i can't say the word, but -- >> rose: yes, you can. can i? >> rose: yes. you get called names. there is so much shaming for

female rage, and we are human beings like men are, but men can yell at other people. >> rose: what was the rage about with these women sitting around the table? about them and their place, their relationships, their children? >> no, feeling pressure from society. feeling pressure to raise children in a certain way, to do also fulfilling work outside the house. i mean, it's all so small when someone says it aloud like this but it can build up and, if there are no outlets, it becomes really dangerous. the thing that i also see is because i've seen in books it's a different language that i love and that i know, i see that the model of the female rage in literature are self-harming, all right?

one jumps in front of a train, other eats poison and a terrible death. going back to the greeks, all of the women for example possibly aantigony hurts themselves -- n, she does, too, she hangs herself. >> rose:. >> rose: is it driven by a powerful idea? >> a very powerful narrative about women. >> rose: it completel clearly in all the fictional characters you mentioned, was there death driven by one idea? unrequieted love, of a world that was not made for them? loss of love is at the core of it? >> i think a loss of freedom or the inability to be free is at the core, a feeling of being caged in these invisible cages. >> rose: or restrained. estrained, absolutely.

>> rose: freedom is the absence of not having -- >> right. >> rose: so how did you access all that? >> the rage? >> rose: yeah. i live. >> rose: you live. so what rage do you have? >> what rage do i have? >> rose: yes, you. here you are, young -- >> i'm 37. >> rose: you are young, hugely successful. shall i read you the reviews of this? wonderful family. >> yes. >> rose: great life. what am i missing that you don't have that causes rage within you? i want you to think about this because i desperately want to know.

>> charlie... >> rose: yes. i'll have to write you another book. >> rose: do you know? i don't know. >> rose: you do know, you don't want to tell me. >> well, genetic. >> rose: you don't know. i don't know. >> rose: does he know? who? >> rose: your husband. oh, yeah. (laughter) you know, i make myself sound like a monster... >> rose: well, you're married. yeah. >> rose: do you sit around and talk about the themes of the book with him? >> we certainly did. >> rose: or did you do this with what you already know? >> no, we don't talk about themes, you know. i hanled him this book with -- i handed him this book with a lot of fear because there was a mirror of main book characters and there is a mirror of him in book characters, and that was a really tricky situation, and any other person. >> rose: what's the mirror of you and lotto? >> the creative narcissism, the ability to step away from the family at 5:00 in the morning till 2:00 and not feel

miserable. >> rose: mathilde wanted him to be quiet? >> no, the shame. i'm from a pennsylvania dutch family and we operate on a lot of shame. it's to keep us doing the right thing. yeah. >> rose: did anything surprise you about response to this book? >> i haven't paid much attention to the response of the book, to be honest. i mean, i'm delighted, right? what things do get to me. my publicist don't send me anything, they all send it to clay, my husband. so i try really hard to put blinders on and just work on the next thing. but the thing is, charlie, no, i'm not surprised because i don't pay attention but also because i work really hard, right? and i'm not -- i don't think that i deserve any of this, but

i'm also -- i get a lot of the pleasure of these books out of the work, right. >> rose: the doing of the thing. >> the doing of the thing. that's where the pleasure comes from. absolutely. >> rose: what part of the doing of the thing is most appealing to you? the beginning, middle or the end? >> nothing, it's just being deep inside it. when you're really, really into a novel, everything conspires to you to talk to the novel. so you're in the grocery store and you see a pregnant woman trying to reach the peas on the top shelf -- >> rose: there's a scene. there's a scene. you take everything. you take conversation people have, you take little tiny moments that accrete and build into this thing, this work that reflects your reality and changes it in a very real way. so there is nothing, nothing better, and i'm always seeking

that deep emersion and, when it comes, i'm happy. and when it doesn't come, i'm anxious until it comes again. >> rose: where do you put this? his wife posting atop him like a prize equestrian. where do you put that? >> i think it's funny. >> rose: i read where it got bad sex and fiction award from the literary review in london. >> in context, it makes a lot of sense. but sex out of context is always bad in real life and in fiction. honestly, there aren't that many sex scenes in my fiction. everybody's afraid of it because of being nominated for the bad sex award. people don't want to be ashamed. >> rose: you said there are not many great sex scenes in great novels. >> the only person i can think of who does it really, really

well is james walter, right? he did it beautifully, but who else writes sex scenes? >> : try. just try. >> rose: what are you going to do next? are you going to tell me about it at all? >> no, i would have to -- >> rose: oh, no. sorry. >> rose: you have said i'm working simultaneously on two unpublishable books. >> right. >> rose: you write books that are unpublishable. >> absolutely. >> rose: you said, i just thought "fates and furies" was not going to be published either, but what i'm working on now, and i can't talk about it -- you told this to oyster review -- too much because it's like sticking little pins in it and letting all the air out. but this one is just avanty project. this is for my drawer. >> that's right. >> rose: a vanity project? oh, yeah. but i think, you know -- >> rose: autobiographical? well, maybe, i don't know. you want to take risks, right? you want to try something that's really, really scary. so if you have to tell yourself

that it's not going to be published, then you take those risks. it's all trickery for -- >> rose: you're playing with your own head? not going to work so may as well let it happen. >> let it happen. >> rose: clay gets the inscription, too. >> yes. >> rose: lucky man, for clay, of course. >> i'm a lucky laity. >> rose: "fates and furies," barack obama called it his favorite novel of 2015. thank you for coming. >> my pleasure. thank you for having me. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes,, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: tomorrow on the pbs "newshour", the flint, michigan water crisis and the risk it poses to its citizens.

the following production was produced in high definition. ♪ and their buns are something i have yet to find anywhere else. >> 'cause i'm not inviting you to my house for dinner. >> breaded and fried and gooey and lovely. >> in the words of arnold schwarzenegger, i'll be back! >> you've heard of connoisseur. i'm a common-sewer! >> they knew i had to ward off some vampires or something. >> let's talk desserts, gentlemen, 'cause i see you