I have been reading and re-reading this quote again and again

“Whatever the suffering is, it’s not to be endured, for God’s sake, not felt and never, ever accepted. It’s to be triumphed over. And because some things cannot be triumphed over unless they are first accepted and endured (indeed, some things cannot be triumphed over at all), the “story” must be told again and again in an endless pursuit of a happy ending. To be human is finally to be a loser, for we are all fated to lose our carefully constructed sense of self, our physical strength, our health, our precious dignity, and finally our lives. A refusal to tolerate this reality is a refusal to tolerate life, and art based on the empowering message and the positive image is part of this juvenile condition.”

–Mary Gaitskill

2 thoughts on “I have been reading and re-reading this quote again and again

    1. oop p.s.
      Have you seen this interview snippet with her? I love it. SMACKDOWN, etc. =)
      Q: Realism is a mode of writing based on 19th century models. Post-Joycean experimentation has been an interesting activity over the past 25 years. What is your impression of the term “post-modernism?” Your writing seems to be free of theoretical implications.
      MG I’m not interested in that discussion. I don’t usually look at things in terms of whether they’re experimental or not. It’s more like, does the form suit what they’re going after. I see form as being a by-product. I say that even though style and form is very important to me. What I mean is that the style will be the inevitable result of what the writer is pursuing and how she’s pursuing it. Some people use non-realistic forms very well, but I don’t have an allegiance one way or another. And as far as theory goes: I’m not that conversant in it. I’m not a very theoretical person.
      Q I ask those questions because your two books were written in the 1980s in the midst of what in the art world we generally call “post-modernism.” I was suggesting that it was a theoretical period. You have any interest in that?
      MG It’s funny, in writing I really don’t. I realize I don’t have anything against it in principle because I’ve seen it done in film, in music, and in artwork where I’ve liked it. So it’s not like I have a statement against it, but I’ve never been tempted to do it. I suppose that you can argue that I’ve done it by the suggestion of the name Justine, because it evokes things–other people’s work– even though I don’t literally use it. I’m not interested in doing it myself.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.