Magazine article The Christian Century

Notions of Purity: An Interview with Mary Gordon

Magazine article The Christian Century

Notions of Purity: An Interview with Mary Gordon

Article excerpt

ONE OF AMERICA'S most admired writers, Mary Gordon writes about women's choices and about moral and spiritual struggles in the context of strong family connections. She has a deeply Catholic perspective, though not exactly an orthodox one. Her novels include Final Payments (1978), The Company of Women (1981), Men and Angels (1985) and Spending (1998). She has also written a memoir of her father, The Shadow Man (1996), and a biography, Joan of Arc (2000). I talked to her about her latest novel, Pearl, and about her connection to the church.

Is your use of the biblical names Maria and Joseph for characters in Pearl a signal that this novel has religious resonances?

I think I wanted to turn our idea of the holy family on its head. In the novel Maria certainly isn't the passive, maternal, holy or silent Virgin Mary. She's not virginal at all. And she really butts her head against the world. Joseph is Pearl's foster father, as the biblical Joseph is the foster father of Jesus. He's like the biblical Joseph in that he's a good provider. But then he crashes and burns at the end, in a way that the biblical Joseph doesn't--at least as far as we know.

The novel contrasts Maria's life as a student in the 1960s with her daughter's life in the 1990s. It seems that the younger generation feels more helpless, less confident that it can change the world.

That is one of the things that most marks the difference between the generations. On one level, the 1960s were a darker time--think of the assassinations, the race riots, and the terrible Vietnam war stretching on. Yet somehow we believed that things would get better, that we could change them. Now there's a general feeling of hopelessness. That's why I end the book with hopefulness, with the final line "We will hope for the best." Hope is a very fragile virtue.

The theme of purity seems to be important to you, even as you know that the search for purity can take dangerous forms.

I wanted to tease out what can be valuable in the idea and what is pernicious. Since it doesn't go away, it must have some sort of power, some sort of resonance. We on the left thought that the dangerous parts of the idea would just disappear, but somehow they don't. People on the right have grabbed hold of notions of purity, taken them into their teeth and poisoned them. If we don't examine such powerful ideas carefully, they become deeply perverted. But nothing that powerful is without merit. We must take the idea apart and disinfect it.

The idea of purity seems to be integral to us. Nothing in life gives us the basis for it--life is impure, mixed, never single--yet there is still this dream of purity, of being one pure thing, of a certainty unto death, that comes from somewhere. At its worst, the idea is death-dealing, and is very connected to death. But if you simply say, "Let's get rid of it," then large acts, acts beyond the self, are impossible.

For example, an artist strives for a kind of purity that's impossible. The lover and the beloved also strive for a pure love that's impossible. If we don't have that image of purity, we don't become our best selves.

I like to reconfigure the notion of purity to mean giving one's utmost, not having a narcissistic interest in what we do, but doing whatever we do for the thing itself. The trouble is that the notion of purity has been used--as in nay Catholic background--as a sort of tool for punishing women. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.