Dear Rumpus People:
I hesitated to write this letter in response to Suzanne Rivecca’s essay “What Men Talk About When They Talk About Mary Gaitskill,” because I hate to appear ungrateful for Rivecca’s passionate wish to have my back when actually I’m both grateful and moved. But I’ve learned that people tend to assume that your fans speak for you unless you say otherwise, and in this case its not true: believe me, I understand Rivecca’s indignation at the three male super-bitches she harshes on but—the Wolcott review was written in 88 or 89, the others somewhere in between then and now; three high-profile bitch-fests in 25 years doesn’t add up to a trend, definitely not a trend about an entire gender.
Opinions about my work vary wildly, but I haven’t observed that it’s predictable along gender lines, and in truth some of my best support has come from men. George Garrett in the New York Times was the first man to speak on Bad Behavior, and he was more than generous. When Two Girls came out, it was Greil Marcus who gave it a great review in the L.A. Weekly, contrasted with a very nasty piece of work by Elizabeth Benedict in the L.A. Times and an ambivalent one in the New York Times by Ginger Danto. When Because They Wanted To came out I actually, for the first and last time, sat down and looked at the reviews in terms of gender and saw that most of the positive ones came from men (the most high-profile being David Gates in Newsweek); more of the negative or ambivalent pieces were written by women. I didn’t look so closely at Veronica or Don’t Cry but I know of two positive ones by men: Lorin Stein in the New York Review of Books and Wyatt Mason in Harper’s.
I don’t know why the three guys quoted by Rivecca got so bitched up about my writing, except that they’re critics and that means that sometimes they gotta bitch. But that’s got nothing to do with their being men, and regardless of my appreciation for Rivecca, I’d never hope that there be a “moratorium” on men speaking of my work or anything else.
Sincerely,
Mary Gaitskill
21 responses
Mary,
Well said. I read the article you referred to, and as a male and fan of your work I felt, and feel, that men benefit from reading literature written by women. Most men, I’d like to think, usually respond to it in positive ways. The ones that don’t, well, they exist, and reflect a troubling element of society. Greater sexism is a problem to be addressed. However, there are men and women who mutually respect and are curious and open to one another. Thanks for writing this.
Thank you for writing this. I found Suzanne’s piece funny at times and passionate and well written, but ultimately it felt like a screed about gender issues. As the risk of being patronizing (or–fuck it, I’ll just BE patronizing) her piece seems to come from a very narrow range of experience with men, men as critics, as writers, as people. (As lovers, maybe.)
I have only read a few of Mary’s stories, but this exchange has definitely made me interested in more!
I’m so relieved to hear you say this. I found the piece to be such an untimely, irrelevant and off the mark attack I couldn’t imagine that you would endorse it. I suspect it was written to shock. It’s so important these days to go viral.
Over the year years I have read all of Mary Gaitskill’s works. I admire it deeply and have learned from it.
I don’t read from the standpoint of my gender. Nor do I evaluate books based on the gender of the writer. Literature deserves more than such narrow bias.
I thoroughly enjoyed the passionate bashing of The Nation review–which I think had misogynistic leanings, anti-Christian stuff, and came from a place of deep sexual problems, and was just plain awful in so many ways I was seething after reading it and will never read a thing by that man again unless I feel like getting angry for some weird reason. And Rivecca’s love for Gaitskill was so wonderful, but I have to agree with Mary that “sometimes they gotta bitch” and this is pretty gender neutral. This doesn’t mean that sexism doesn’t exist in literature and in the world at large. But I do wish that journalism didn’t always have to have an “angle”” which unfortunately leads to hyperbole. Anyway, kudos to Rivecca for all the good stuff in her piece and of course, all my love for Gaitskill.
A true Woody Allen moment (the movie where Allen and date are standing on line to see a movie and someone in line in spouting off to show how smart they are about something they know nothing about, driving Allen into a rage until…). Thanks. Many many thanks.
Classy response. So rare. Now I’m going to go read her.
Thank you.
Even the Nation review is years old and forgotten at this point though.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mary, for this. It is a bit surreal to have the author weigh in on a discussion of her work (yes, like Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall, I think), but also exciting to know that you are paying attention, and obviously believe that such things matter.
Bravo, Mary. I thought Rivecca’s piece was strained and shallow, obviously meant to generate hype, which you saw right through.
Thank you for this!
Rivecca has posted several long “rebuttals” to this that seem to be aggressively missing the point. But I guess the culture now is to dig in and never admit any possible error and instead shift goal posts and change your argument.
Appreciate the letter though, MG
I’m curious as the where these rebuttals are, Reader. Even though as I said, feel Rivecca made some untrue generalizations, I still am now interested in her writing in general. I just read a great letter to Ann Lamott that she wrote.
Paula:
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/literary_sexism_still_pervasive_and_real/
is the only one I’ve seen.
“A lot of people also seemed to take at face value my mock-moratorium, issued in a tone of comically frustrated, high-toned hyperbole”- herein lies perhaps where Rivecca eluded me, despite my general love for her essay. I did take it at face value- everything she wrote, I took at face value. It’s not that easy to read- purposefully hyperbolic v. actually believes what one writes. Anyway, as I’ve commented a few times on this, I loved so much of what Rivecca wrote, minus the hyperbole. It’s just not my thing. And as I said, kudos to her for her passion and love and great analysis and maybe give Mary a break- maybe she also thought Rivecca was dead serious and not being comical. It’s not always easy to tell, because there are so many people out there who think all sorts of weird things about the world. Sexism in literature is a huge problem and Rivecca takes it wonderfully to task. But- in this comment I can’t totally get into it- it’s not that women internalize sexism as she states-women can be just as sexist as men, period. And that’s not a bad thing to discuss.
I like in the Salon article how she rounds on Gaitskill and accuses her of being a sell out, in so many words.
Paula: Yes, I meant the Salon piece and a similar one she posted on her facebook.
The subtitle of her Salon piece, implying Mary Giatskill “doesn’t agree” that there is still sexism in the literary world shows some serious disingenuousness. I wish writers would own up to flaws in their arguments and thinking instead of backpeddling or flinging new insults. What is really gained by Rivecca by essentially saying “I didn’t actually mean the things I said, so you can’t criticize me for saying them!”?
Dear Ms. Gaitskill,
I’m glad you wrote this response. I love your work. It is very hard for me to read criticism and reviews that attempt to discuss the nature of things like gender, race, and sex in literature (and what personal issues writers seem to have about these issues). But when authors address the intricacies of these weird psycho-spheres in fiction it is another thing. Keep doing what you’re doing.
Mary Gaitskill, may God have mercy on your lying, plagiarizing-spineless “sole”…
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.