In the landscape of contemporary feminist studies, Jennifer C. Nash positions herself as a key feminist academic through her work, How We Write Now: Living with Black Feminist Theory. This work represents an epistemological and methodological intervention rooted in the convergence of personal narrative and theoretical analysis. The intellectual project is framed by Nash’s autobiographical experience of facing the gradual loss of her mother to Alzheimer’s, a condition she describes as “losing her in slow motion”. This experience serves not only as an affective point of departure but also as a fundamental analytical framework for examining the modus operandi of contemporary Black feminist theory. Thus, the book functions not merely as an analysis but also as a performance of the very mode of writing that is its object of study.

The central thesis articulated by Nash is that a distinctive mode of writing has crystallized within contemporary Black feminist theory, which she conceptualizes as “beautiful writing”. For Nash, this is not merely an aesthetic style but an ethical method: a deliberately intimate and affectively saturated voice deployed to make readers feel what Black loss is like from the inside. However, Nash’s project is ultimately a critical one, aimed at examining the limitations of this very mode. This mode, characterized by poetic prose, self-disclosure, and the creation of affective proximity with the reader, serves as the primary apparatus for navigating the field’s central preoccupation, loss.

Nash’s critique of this paradigm is twofold. First, a critique of its dominant focus: Nash argues that “beautiful writing”, though powerful, tends to reproduce and consolidate a dominant paradigm of loss—namely, the spectacular death caused by state violence. Consequently, other forms of loss—those that are gradual, durational, and non-spectacular, such as chronic illness or cognitive decline—tend to be marginalized or unread as legitimate “Black loss”. Second, a call for theoretical expansion: stemming from this critique, Nash issues a call to broaden the theoretical capacity of Black feminism. She questions how the tradition can be recalibrated to accommodate and provide theoretical articulation for losses that are “ordinary”, quiet, and often lacking a clear narrative resolution.

Nash’s methodological approach is hybrid and reflects a genre innovation in academic writing. Her methodology can be broken down into three main components: (1) Integration of autobiographical narrative, where Nash consciously positions her own experience as a theoretical site. Her personal story of losing her mother is not merely illustrative but functions as the epistemological foundation and methodological performance of her argument. (2) Textual and intertextual analysis, where Nash conducts a close reading of the contemporary canon of Black feminist theory, including works by Christina Sharpe, Saidiya Hartman, Elizabeth Alexander, and others. (3) Examination of literary forms, such as the letter and the photograph, which she analyzes as rhetorical devices used to build affective proximity.

This unique methodology allows Nash to draw a sharp contrast with the very tradition she analyzes. Whereas “beautiful writing” often focuses on narrating spectacular loss through affective proximity, Nash’s own hybrid approach uses personal narrative as an analytical tool to deconstruct that tradition and reveal its limitations. In doing so, her methodological innovation becomes inseparable from her substantive contribution: by creating a new way to write about theory, she simultaneously expands the theory’s capacity to understand a broader spectrum of loss. The book consists of four main chapters. Chapter 1, Beauty, or All about Black Feminist Theory’s Mothers, serves as an opening that lays out the theoretical and autobiographical foundations of the entire book. Nash begins with a personal narrative about her mother’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis, which functions as a starting point for examining the preoccupation of contemporary black feminist theory with “loss”. She introduces her central thesis: the emergence of a mode of writing she calls “beautiful writing”, characterized by poetic prose, disclosure, and the creation of affective proximity. Nash identifies that this mode often centers on the maternal figure—the grieving or lost mother—as the primary locus for narrating loss. The concept of “beauty”, borrowed from Christina Sharpe and Saidiya Hartman, is articulated not merely as an aesthetic but as a “method” for survival and creation amidst destructive conditions. The fundamental argument of this chapter is that contemporary Black feminist theory has crystallized a distinctive aesthetic-ethical mode—“beautiful writing”—to interact with its central theme, loss. This mode is not only stylistic but also ethical, as it aims to create proximity and move the reader affectively. Nash argues that the maternal figure has become a paradigmatic trope through which this narrative of loss is most often articulated and staged.

Although Nash operationally defines “beauty” as a method, the term is inherently subjective. Its use as a primary analytical category risks homogenizing the diverse aesthetic strategies employed by the authors she studies, potentially reducing different practices into a single framework. Furthermore, by centering her opening analysis on the centrality of the maternal figure in the narrative of loss, the chapter—albeit unintentionally—risks reinforcing the very paradigm it later critiques. While this is more of a structural tension than a fatal flaw, it does momentarily blunt the force of her later critique. In addition, the claim of a collective project (“we”) undertaking this mode of “beautiful writing”, though well-argued, can be critiqued for potentially downplaying the methodological and political divisions within Black feminism.

Chapter 2, Staying at the Bone, explores the ethical practice of “staying at the bone”, defined as a commitment to material specificity and a rejection of abstraction in narrating loss. Nash analyzes three memoirs: “Witness and Respair” by Jesmyn Ward; “The Light of the World” by Elizabeth Alexander; and “Memorial Drive” by Natasha Trethewey. The central argument of this chapter is that “staying at the bone” is a fundamental practice of “beautiful writing”. Nash demonstrates that this commitment to materiality is not monolithic; it can encompass physical detail, emotional testimony, official records, and even ethereal experiences like dreams. It is a method for living with loss by refusing distance and abstraction.

A question can be raised regarding the potential violence of proximity itself. As she indicates through Trethewey’s “keening”, this practice can be re-traumatizing. Is there a point where this ethical demand becomes an unsustainable burden for the writer and reader? This question points to a potentially significant limitation in the applicability of the method, suggesting that its ethical power may also be its practical constraint. Furthermore, the analysis of Alexander’s use of dreams and destiny as material evidence is a brilliant theoretical maneuver. However, it can be questioned whether this stretches the concept of “materiality” too far, risking the blurring of lines between material evidence and romanticization.

Chapter 3, An Invitation to Listen, focuses on the epistolary form as a prevalent device in contemporary Black feminist writing. Nash argues that this form strategically invites the reader to “eavesdrop” on seemingly private conversations, thus making Black maternal grief palpable to a wider audience. She discusses the work of Imani Perry and contrasts it with Samaria Rice’s critique of “hustling Black death”. As an alternative, she presents Julietta Singh’s, “The Breaks”, as a model that uses the letter to narrate a loss that is gradual, necessary, and even productive. This chapter argues that the letter has become a powerful device for staging intimacy and making the specific paradigm of maternal grief (over the imperiled son) publicly consumable.

However, the concept of “eavesdropping” implies a passive dynamic on the part of the reader. Is the reader merely an innocent listener, or does the act of “eavesdropping” on commodified grief make the reader a participant in the “hustling” criticized by Samaria Rice? This critique is significant as it challenges the presumed innocence of the reader, suggesting a deeper ethical complication in the reception of “beautiful writing”. Furthermore, the turn to Julietta Singh’s work, explicitly identified as that of a “brown mother”, is a crucial pivot. What exactly is at stake in using a non-Black feminist text as a primary model for expanding the Black feminist archive?

Chapter 4, Picturing Loss, analyzes the fundamental role of the photograph in the practice of “beautiful writing”. Nash discusses how photographs are used to create visual proximity to loss, referencing the work of Nicole Fleetwood and Tina Campt on the affective power of images. It then examines Saidiya Hartman’s “Wayward Lives”, as a “family album” that invites readers to feel a sense of kinship with historical subjects. The argument is that “beautiful writing” is fundamentally a visual-discursive practice. The photograph is not a supplement but an integral component that serves to make loss visible, invite affective connection, and perform the ethical work of “defending the dead”.

However, a question can be raised about the limits of this identification. Can a reader truly feel kinship with an archival subject through a curated image, or is this more of an “as-if” structure? Furthermore, the highlighting of the power of the image to evoke what words cannot could be seen as a contradiction to the book’s primary emphasis on “writing”. Is the turn to the image an admission of the ultimate failure of language? This tension is productive, but it raises a fundamental question about whether the book’s central object—“writing”—can fully contain the phenomena it describes, a challenge that could affect the coherence of the main thesis.

As for its weaknesses, the intense autobiographical involvement, while a primary source of strength, inherently creates a tension with the demands of critical distance in academic writing. Furthermore, the depiction of “we” as a collective project risks obscuring the significant heterogeneity and internal friction within Black feminist theory. The term “beautiful writing”, though operationally defined by Nash, retains an ambiguity that could be a point of further debate. Each of these points represents a substantive, though not insurmountable, challenge to Nash’s project, suggesting areas where her argument could be refined without invalidating its core contributions.

Despite these potential limitations, How We Write Now: Living with Black Feminist Theory is an essential work that transcends the boundaries of a conventional book review. Its ability to offer a new conceptual framework, conduct productive internal critique, and demonstrate an innovative and affectively potent mode of academic writing is its unique value. This book is fundamental reading for scholars and students in the disciplines of feminism, race studies, literary criticism, and cultural studies. Moreover, this work has profound relevance for anyone interested in the intersection of theory and life, as well as the politics of representing grief. Overall, How We Write Now is not just a study of Black feminist theory; it is a theoretical artifact in itself—a contribution that redefines how we understand, write, and live with theory.