Speaker 1: What a force Roxanne Gay is. I was having a
Speaker 1: conversation with a friend the other day about the idea
Speaker 1: of a public intellectual. We were arguing that it feels
Speaker 1: like maybe the concepts passed its prime. It's a phrase,
Speaker 1: It conjures up an idea of a certain structural privilege.
Speaker 1: It's kind of intensely gendered. Self appointed public intellectuals, we
Speaker 1: decided were overwhelming their particular type of old white man.
Speaker 1: Most self respecting women would be anywhere between disdainful and
Speaker 1: actively mortified at being described that way. But the more
Speaker 1: we thought about it, the more we came up with
Speaker 1: exceptions to that idea, and one name that we agreed
Speaker 1: upon an indisputable public intellectual for our time, is Roxanne Gay.
Speaker 1: Her books are terrific. The novels and graphic novels, yes,
Speaker 1: but her non fiction is an absolute game changer. Her
Speaker 1: essay collection Bad Feminist is a modern classic. Her memoir
Speaker 1: Hunger makes you think about bodies and how we move
Speaker 1: through the world. But it's work outside those books that
Speaker 1: makes Roxane Gey such an invaluable contributor to the public sphere.
Speaker 1: Roxanne is someone whose endorsement on a book makes me
Speaker 1: pick it up back when X was Twitter and Twitter
Speaker 1: was good. She was one of those voices who enlivened
Speaker 1: the debate with her incisive contributions and ready wit. She teaches,
Speaker 1: she mentors. She has her own literary imprint, and when
Speaker 1: her byline appears in a publication, when there's a new
Speaker 1: opinion piece by Roxanne Gay, it's never less than essential.
Speaker 1: Reading Her latest book, Opinions, gathers together Roxanne's best non
Speaker 1: fiction pieces from the past ten years, and it's an
Speaker 1: exhilarating reminder of why she is such an inimitable talent.
Speaker 1: Ahead of Roxanne's visit to Australia this month, I wanted
Speaker 1: to find out what it means to look back on
Speaker 1: what she refers to so brilliantly in her subtitle as
Speaker 1: a decade of arguments, criticism and minding other people's business.
Speaker 1: I'm Michael Williams and this is Read This the show
Speaker 1: about the books we love and the stories behind them.
Speaker 1: Roxanne has written extensively about growing up in the world
Speaker 1: of books, about how becoming a writer seemed destined even
Speaker 1: from the younger stage, even though as the daughter of
Speaker 1: Haitian immigrants, she first aspired to be a doctor. You
Speaker 1: were a very keen reader from a very young age.
Speaker 1: I understand, to the point where your parents armed you
Speaker 1: with your own typewriter for your writing and taking you
Speaker 1: to the library every weekend. What are those earliest reading
Speaker 1: memories for you?
Speaker 2: You know, I read a lot growing up, and my
Speaker 2: earliest memories were just like the odd that I could
Speaker 2: go to this building where there were so many books
Speaker 2: and I could just take whatever I wanted and go back.
Speaker 2: I mean, it was amazing, it was just amazing. And
Speaker 2: my biggest memories of reading are that I was reading
Speaker 2: way above my pay grade. My parents just assumed that
Speaker 2: if it was in a book, it was good, so
Speaker 2: they didn't monitor my reading or censorate, and so I
Speaker 2: read a lot of very adult stuff at a very
Speaker 2: young age. And like one of the main books I
Speaker 2: remember reading was Clan of the Cave bear yep by
Speaker 2: gene Al, and it's this sort of epic prehistoric novel
Speaker 2: but also lots and lots of sex, And I had
Speaker 2: no idea what I was reading, but I did know
Speaker 2: that sex was something that happened on a bear pelt.
Speaker 1: And nothing in life has taught you otherwise. That's true.
Speaker 2: I mean, as far as I know that remains the case,
Speaker 2: and you know I keep my bare pelts with me
Speaker 2: at all times. But it was just amazing to be
Speaker 2: able to have such a rich imagination and a rich
Speaker 2: imaginary life because my parents fostered my love of reading
Speaker 2: and never tried to change that love.
Speaker 1: Now, as you're reading, as you're writing changed. Do you
Speaker 1: still push yourself to read stuff that is outside your
Speaker 1: comfort zone or have you reached a point where you
Speaker 1: lean into reading what you.
Speaker 2: Know you like to read both? Actually, I do push
Speaker 2: myself to read outside my comfort zone because I have
Speaker 2: found some of the most amazing books that way. I
Speaker 2: remember several years ago I read this book called The
Speaker 2: Water Knife by Paolo Bauchi Galoopi, and I loved it.
Speaker 2: It was completely out of my wheelhouse, and like to
Speaker 2: this day, I remember that book like with clarity, and
Speaker 2: I loved that I had taken the chance on the
Speaker 2: book even though I knew nothing about it, knew nothing
Speaker 2: about the author, and actually prefer to know nothing about
Speaker 2: the author or what the book is about. I just
Speaker 2: want to dive in and be surprised. So I do
Speaker 2: like to read outside my comfort zone. But there are
Speaker 2: also things that I love like I love to read
Speaker 2: a spy thrillers and like stories and conspiracies in Washington,
Speaker 2: d c. CIA type novels like give me that, and
Speaker 2: so when I need comfort, that's exactly the kind of
Speaker 2: thing that I read, and I just love it. It's like, yes,
Speaker 2: give me more of this. Tell me what's happening. If
Speaker 2: there's like a husband and wife and like one of them,
Speaker 2: like the wife is the head of the CIA and
Speaker 2: the husband's an operative and they're like estranged.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, perfect. I think it's good to now ask
Speaker 1: sweight spot the things.
Speaker 2: That absolutely and like. It's called comfort reading for a reason.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think it's important to challenge ourselves intellectually
Speaker 2: and to read different things. But I also think there's
Speaker 2: a time and place for comfort reading and for finding
Speaker 2: something that's reliable that you know is going to just
Speaker 2: like feel like home.
Speaker 1: You read for comfort? Do you write for comfort or
Speaker 1: do you write for challenge?
Speaker 2: I used to write for comfort, and I would like
Speaker 2: to get back to it. And right now it's not
Speaker 2: that I'm writing for child engines, that I'm writing to
Speaker 2: deadlines and to promise writing into solicited writing. So I
Speaker 2: enjoy writing still, but it's you know, it's just a
Speaker 2: little more challenging, and it feels like I'm doing all
Speaker 2: of this writing that I'm obligated to write. I'm very
Speaker 2: much interested in it, but it's not like just writing
Speaker 2: with no audience in mind, where there's nothing at stake.
Speaker 2: I'm just writing for myself and maybe something comes of it,
Speaker 2: but maybe nothing does, and that's okay either way. So
Speaker 2: I hopefully will be able to get back to that someday.
Speaker 1: One of the things thinking about the task of kind
Speaker 1: of gathering ten years of opinion writing that struck me
Speaker 1: was not just about whether the wider culture has changed
Speaker 1: in that time, but your position, Roxanne within it. People feel,
Speaker 1: and I'm amongst them, a very strong connection with you
Speaker 1: because of what you write. They have a strong idea
Speaker 1: of who Roxanne Gay is and your name means something
Speaker 1: to them. Has that changed what it is to write
Speaker 1: opinion that kind of rusted on readership.
Speaker 2: That's a great question. Yes it has, and I'm not
Speaker 2: thrilled about that. In that I tend to write primarily
Speaker 2: for myself, but more importantly, I want to write what
Speaker 2: I really want to write. I want to write what
Speaker 2: I think is true and what I genuinely believe, and
Speaker 2: I want to do so without sort of censoring myself,
Speaker 2: without anticipating criticism, without wondering what readers are going to think.
Speaker 2: And as you develop more of an audience, you know,
Speaker 2: and because we have so many ways of interacting with
Speaker 2: people who are putting their work into the public sphere,
Speaker 2: you tend to be exposed to quite a lot of criticism,
Speaker 2: and not all of it is well intended, not all
Speaker 2: of it is useful, and there comes a time where
Speaker 2: I just feel like I don't need any more feedback.
Speaker 2: And I have found that it has affected my writing
Speaker 2: process a great deal, and I'm trying to write my
Speaker 2: way out of it right now and to think less
Speaker 2: about what people might think, even when they like me,
Speaker 2: because I appreciate that, and I will always appreciate that.
Speaker 2: It's incredible. As a writer, you never expect that you're
Speaker 2: going to find an audience, and so that I do
Speaker 2: have an audience is something I will never take for granted,
Speaker 2: and I'm grateful for it every single day. But I
Speaker 2: then start to think, I don't want to disappoint you.
Speaker 2: I don't want to challenge your understanding of me by
Speaker 2: showing you more of who I am, And unfortunately, people
Speaker 2: tend to think they know you because they read your
Speaker 2: work and you've shared some personal details and you know
Speaker 2: something of me, absolutely, but you know what I want
Speaker 2: you to know, and I'm actually a very private person,
Speaker 2: So you know, maintaining some of those boundaries is also challenging,
Speaker 2: so that people understand, like, yes, you know me, but
Speaker 2: you know a part of me that I've chosen to
Speaker 2: put on the page, and I've put it on the
Speaker 2: page because I feel like it's going to support the
Speaker 2: argument I'm making. No, there's no other reason for it.
Speaker 2: So you know, it's challenging to navigate all of that.
Speaker 1: That must be so hard, that kind of parasocial relationship
Speaker 1: that kicks in, you know, particularly amongst the many modes
Speaker 1: in which you write and have written, But it seems
Speaker 1: to me memoir in particular and a kind of Internet
Speaker 1: writing that you did for some time, and your presence
Speaker 1: on social media, those two things create the illusion of
Speaker 1: a kind of heightened transparency. They create an illusion of
Speaker 1: closeness between the reader and you. And because a lot
Speaker 1: of what you've written about in some of those spaces
Speaker 1: is about trauma and is about sharing ideas, around trauma.
Speaker 1: The things people project onto you must be pretty exhausting
Speaker 1: thing to navigate.
Speaker 2: It can be. Now I understand where that sort of
Speaker 2: parasocial connection comes from, especially when people have connected with Hunger,
Speaker 2: which is a memoir about my body and about living
Speaker 2: in this world in a fat body. And one of
Speaker 2: the things I've learned with touring this book for the
Speaker 2: past seven years is that everyone has some kind of
Speaker 2: struggle with their body, no matter what size, no matter
Speaker 2: what level of ability, and that has been very eye
Speaker 2: opening and humbling, and so I understand the connections that
Speaker 2: people feel. And also because the book engages with trauma,
Speaker 2: a lot of people are carrying around a lot of
Speaker 2: pain and a lot of trauma, and so I do
Speaker 2: try to create space for that as I interact with readers.
Speaker 2: But it's also challenging because you know, I wrote about
Speaker 2: my assault, but it was like thirty eight years ago now,
Speaker 2: and that doesn't mean like I'm completely over it, but
Speaker 2: I'm like, you know, this is something that I have
Speaker 2: processed in therapy for just about thirty eight years, and
Speaker 2: I you know, I don't know that I even at
Speaker 2: this point have anything more to say about it, and
Speaker 2: so it can be challenging when people offer so much empathy,
Speaker 2: which I totally receive and embrace and I'm grateful for,
Speaker 2: but at the same time, I often have to try
Speaker 2: and articulate that this happened a very long time ago,
Speaker 2: and you know, the book isn't just about that, It's
Speaker 2: about the aftermaths, and the aftermath, of course, has been
Speaker 2: much longer than one day. And the other challenge is
Speaker 2: that people love to share their own stories of trauma,
Speaker 2: which again I'm honored to receive. But there are certainly
Speaker 2: days where I think I can only carry my own
Speaker 2: trauma today because people have told me the most horrific things,
Speaker 2: like the amount of suffering in this world is staggering,
Speaker 2: the amount of abuse some people have suffered is just staggering.
Speaker 2: And my heart goes out to everyone who has to
Speaker 2: experience things like this, And thank God for books. Thank
Speaker 2: God that we have this way of sharing our stories,
Speaker 2: because for generations, people and mostly women, kept these stories
Speaker 2: to themselves and had nowhere to put that trauma except
Speaker 2: sort of back on themselves. And though change can be slow,
Speaker 2: that is changing, and I'm grateful for that.
Speaker 1: I think one of the things I so admire about
Speaker 1: your opinion writing is that it is never glib. You know,
Speaker 1: there's a thing that happens. I think it's the kind
Speaker 1: of tyranny of limited word counts in newspapers and the
Speaker 1: desire to kind of get that take just so that
Speaker 1: kind of rounds off the edges or decides, Okay, well
Speaker 1: we have to deliver this one thing and do it
Speaker 1: in a way that is self contained. And I feel
Speaker 1: like you write opinion pieces like a book writer, Like
Speaker 1: you write them in a way that opens up the
Speaker 1: idea rather than definitively closes it off one way or another.
Speaker 1: And I'm curious about whether there were surprises as you
Speaker 1: went back through that decade long archive. Were there things
Speaker 1: you'd written either that you'd forgotten or that you looked
Speaker 1: at and you're like, oh god, I would do that
Speaker 1: complet lately differently.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: It's a good question. You know, it's interesting. The word
Speaker 2: count thing is real. And I thank you for those
Speaker 2: very kind words, because it's one of the things I
Speaker 2: struggle the most with. I'm like, I have three thousand
Speaker 2: words of things to say, and you want me to
Speaker 2: distill it down to fifteen hundred or twelve hundred or
Speaker 2: God forbid, sometimes nine hundred and it can be really challenging.
Speaker 2: And that's one of the things that I find most
Speaker 2: jarring when I read a lot of opinion pieces, especially
Speaker 2: like op eds, you barely see any engagement with the
Speaker 2: subject matter at hand, because like you're in and out,
Speaker 2: and nine hundred words is not a lot. And I
Speaker 2: also believe like we need to trust people and their
Speaker 2: attention spans. I really believe we can go further and
Speaker 2: we can go deeper, but I do try to get
Speaker 2: as much breath and depth as I can, no matter
Speaker 2: what my word limit is. As I was going through
Speaker 2: the essays for this book, I you know, I don't
Speaker 2: think there's anything I would I do differently, not because
Speaker 2: I haven't grown or learned, or because I got everything right.
Speaker 2: But and I say this about bad feminists too, it's
Speaker 2: that I did the best I could with the information
Speaker 2: and resources I had available to me at the time
Speaker 2: I wrote those essays. I think the thing that surprised
Speaker 2: me was just how many like book reviews I had
Speaker 2: written over the years, and things like that I tend
Speaker 2: to forget, like, yes, I actually do cultural criticism and
Speaker 2: I'm not terrible at it. And also I noticed, like
Speaker 2: certain tropes that I fall into, certain like have like
Speaker 2: own thing, and it's a rhetorical technique. And my PhD
Speaker 2: is actually in rhetoric and technical communication, so I know
Speaker 2: where it comes from. But this like accumulation of listing
Speaker 2: all of the terrible things and then making a point
Speaker 2: and then saying like, here's what we need to do now,
Speaker 2: And when you see it in like ten essays, like
Speaker 2: in a condensed amount of time, it's just like, girl,
Speaker 2: let's try something else. And so it was again a
Speaker 2: lot of humilit happened as I put the collection together
Speaker 2: because I just realized some of the things you do
Speaker 2: are very good, but you have a couple little things
Speaker 2: you rely on a little too much. And so I've
Speaker 2: actually been trying to do different things in my essays
Speaker 2: since I opinions together and just like, let's grow a
Speaker 2: little here.
Speaker 1: It's definitely challenging. It's worse even than hearing your own
Speaker 1: voice back on type is saying your repeated ticks and retired.
Speaker 1: For once in my life, could I just list either
Speaker 1: two or four things rather than insist on doing three
Speaker 1: every single time?
Speaker 2: Absolutely? And I know you know, every time you read
Speaker 2: a book back you start to see tics like in
Speaker 2: my novel and Untamed State Mirie, who's the protagonist, she
Speaker 2: exhales cigarettes smoke so much, and I'm clearly using it
Speaker 2: as this device to show that she's sad or she's pensive.
Speaker 2: And when I read through the novel, I was like,
Speaker 2: my god, she exhales too much. Fortunately, I don't take
Speaker 2: myself so seriously that I can't laugh at like my
Speaker 2: texts and quirks, and you know, I just always think,
Speaker 2: oh man, that's imprint forever. But then I I'll tell
Speaker 2: myself I'm going to do better next time.
Speaker 1: Self awareness is a curse. I mean, really, there really
Speaker 1: is the un self aware that you can say many
Speaker 1: things about them, but they're happy.
Speaker 2: I think they really are. I mean they just walk
Speaker 2: around like life is great.
Speaker 1: After the break. Rot Sand shares the changes in her
Speaker 1: opinion writing over the years and reveals the people she
Speaker 1: refuses to debate with. See that was a list of
Speaker 1: two things, not three. We'll be right back. So opinions
Speaker 1: gathers a decade's worth of your writing, and I want
Speaker 1: to know, as you were putting it together, how much
Speaker 1: the business of opinion and writing opinion you think has
Speaker 1: changed over those ten years.
Speaker 2: You know, in some ways the business has not changed,
Speaker 2: but in other ways it has, in that the media
Speaker 2: sphere continues to get smaller and smaller, and pay rates
Speaker 2: are stagnant. People are still being paid today what they
Speaker 2: were paid ten years ago, if not less, And that's
Speaker 2: incredibly disheartening. And if you don't already have a portfolio,
Speaker 2: a career, a name for yourself, it's even more difficult
Speaker 2: to break in. And even though there are fewer legitimate
Speaker 2: media outlets, there are an ever increasing number of ways
Speaker 2: that people can express their opinions, and so the importance
Speaker 2: of opinion in some ways is diluted by social media
Speaker 2: and all of these ways that people can speak into
Speaker 2: the void.
Speaker 1: It's hard not to feel a bit like the ubiquity
Speaker 1: of opinion has had a corrosive effect on other forms
Speaker 1: of journalism. Well, the opinion kind of at this point
Speaker 1: does rules separate.
Speaker 2: Yes, and it has contributed to assuming that opinions are facts,
Speaker 2: but you know, as to saying, ohs, feelings are not facts.
Speaker 2: Opinions are important. I think we need to be exposed
Speaker 2: to a range of opinions. But we also need journalism,
Speaker 2: we need fact checking, We need people to function in reality.
Speaker 2: And when we legitimize only opinion over factual, researched and
Speaker 2: rigorous information, you know, we're really saying that we're just
Speaker 2: going to trust any old thing. And the reason people
Speaker 2: prefer that is because it's easier. Few people really want
Speaker 2: to contend with difficult subject matters and difficult things. They'd
Speaker 2: rather just go along with someone's opinion. Now, most opinions
Speaker 2: are fine, they're reasonably good. But when you bring in
Speaker 2: toxic opinions from toxic people who want to do more
Speaker 2: harm than good, and people are easily swayed by those voices,
Speaker 2: you really start to have a problem.
Speaker 1: I couldn't write more. And there's also an element of
Speaker 1: bad faith in it. It seems to me as well.
Speaker 1: The people who express opinion not because of any kind
Speaker 1: of authenticity or strength of feeling, but because they know
Speaker 1: it's going to get a response. They know that it's
Speaker 1: grist to the mill of entertainment and conflict.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and that's one of the things that frustrates me most. Like,
Speaker 2: believe what you want to believe, I can well not respect,
Speaker 2: but I can understand a true believer. We may be
Speaker 2: diametrically opposed, but if you genuinely believe, at least you
Speaker 2: believe something. What really gets under my skin are the
Speaker 2: people who are only seeking attention by any means necessary,
Speaker 2: who are seeking power and other forms of cultural validation,
Speaker 2: because they're going to say the most provocative thing or
Speaker 2: the most ridiculous thing, and they don't even really believe it,
Speaker 2: like a Donald Trump or a JD. Vance. Now do
Speaker 2: I believe they have noxious ideologies, absolutely, but are they
Speaker 2: true believers of their conservative, supposedly values.
Speaker 1: No, they're not.
Speaker 2: Trump will talk about God, and I doubt that man
Speaker 2: has ever stepped foot in a church, and I just
Speaker 2: can't respect anything along those lines, nor do I take
Speaker 2: it seriously, even though you can't ignore it, because these
Speaker 2: are people who are running for president and vice president
Speaker 2: in the United States.
Speaker 1: And there is that element with both of those examples
Speaker 1: opinion or political position as vaudeville. It's like, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: this is going to this is one hundred percent going
Speaker 1: to energize our base, or this is going to make
Speaker 1: the people we despise angry, and therefore that's where our
Speaker 1: victory lies.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I mean, it's politics is entertainment, and that's just
Speaker 2: incredibly frustrating because politics isn't about entertainment. It shouldn't be
Speaker 2: about entertainment. It should be about introducing Canada to the
Speaker 2: people and allowing people to have choices, to be able
Speaker 2: to decide which candidates will best suit what they want
Speaker 2: for themselves, their families, their communities, and in many ways,
Speaker 2: politics has always been a bit of a circus, especially
Speaker 2: in the United States, but it has become more and
Speaker 2: more and more ridiculous, and right now it's just incredibly
Speaker 2: frustrating that this is what we're left with and that
Speaker 2: this is seemingly the best that we can do. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and I just wish that we could do better. And
Speaker 2: I mean that for people of all political persuasions, for candidates,
Speaker 2: you know, on both sides of the proverbial aisle, like
Speaker 2: let's do better.
Speaker 1: Part of the kind of narrative around the twenty sixteen election,
Speaker 1: and part of the kind of collective memory of that,
Speaker 1: was that one of the things that history seems to
Speaker 1: remember that Clinton failed at in that election was talking
Speaker 1: to people who weren't her base, talking to talking to
Speaker 1: people who were disenfranchised for different reasons, and kind of
Speaker 1: taking their grievances seriously. It's what JD. Evance made his
Speaker 1: name on rising up on those grievances. And I'm interested
Speaker 1: in that question of talking to people with whom you
Speaker 1: don't agree. It's something that I know you've put a
Speaker 1: lot of thought into.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I have no problem talking to people I don't
Speaker 2: agree with. I am always interested in other perspectives and
Speaker 2: hopefully learning from people with different points of view. Like
Speaker 2: how else, I mean, nobody should be in an intellectual
Speaker 2: vacuum or a silo. That said, there are certain viewpoints
Speaker 2: that I don't need to entertain that I don't have
Speaker 2: to legitimize, and those are any viewpoints that are grounded
Speaker 2: in bigotry and that prioritize isolationism, as xenophobia, misogyny, transphobia.
Speaker 2: Like I'm not going to sit talk to the racist nextdoor.
Speaker 2: I don't need to do that. I already know what
Speaker 2: they think, so nothing is going to be gained. And
Speaker 2: oftentimes what we do is we ask marginalized people to
Speaker 2: humanize themselves to people who don't see them as human
Speaker 2: in the hopes that that will work. If you don't
Speaker 2: see me as human, there's nothing I can say or
Speaker 2: do that's going to change your mind, and I shouldn't
Speaker 2: have to do that work regardless, like that's work you
Speaker 2: need to do on your own. And so I'm always
Speaker 2: interested in debate and discussion and learning, and I do
Speaker 2: learn quite a lot from talking to people of different
Speaker 2: intellectual persuasions, but there are also people I find unreachable.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about opinion and the ways in which it's
Speaker 1: shifted over the past ten years. One of the things
Speaker 1: that really strikes me is you rate all these things
Speaker 1: about the kind of diminishment of trust in media and
Speaker 1: the diminishment of trust in mass hits that once upon
Speaker 1: a time, you know, a particular publication would carry such
Speaker 1: authority that everything that they did would be kind of
Speaker 1: regarded as worthwhile. And I think the biggest shift is
Speaker 1: a shift to trust in individuals rather than trust in
Speaker 1: companies or master heads anymore. How do you feel about
Speaker 1: the authority you carry now you're no longer an opinion
Speaker 1: writer as activist from the margins. Now you're opinion writer
Speaker 1: as establishment. How does that feel?
Speaker 2: It feels weird. And I don't think of myself that way.
Speaker 2: I still feel like I'm writing them from the margins.
Speaker 2: But I also recognize that I do have an audience
Speaker 2: and that the audience tends to look to me, not
Speaker 2: necessarily for guidance, but just you know, where do you stand?
Speaker 2: And so it feels that there's a lot of responsibility there.
Speaker 2: And I don't mind responsibility and I don't mind accountability,
Speaker 2: but it is challenging in that I know that people
Speaker 2: tend to often be disappointed when I don't articulate their
Speaker 2: exact opinion, or when they think I'm being too compromising
Speaker 2: or too middle of the road, which I don't think
Speaker 2: of as my writing at all. But you know, like,
Speaker 2: for example, I do think that Harris is the right
Speaker 2: candidate right now, and I also think that we need
Speaker 2: to hear her policies, like really, what do you stand for?
Speaker 2: I mean, I know that the team is working on this,
Speaker 2: and so hopefully soon they will actually put some policy
Speaker 2: positions on the candidate's website so that we can have
Speaker 2: a substantive conversation about her as president and not just
Speaker 2: not Donald Trump. And yeah, you know, I would like
Speaker 2: to know more about what she intends to do about
Speaker 2: the war in Gaza and the extraordinary loss of life
Speaker 2: and the extraordinary suffering that's happening there. But I feel
Speaker 2: like we can have those conversations, and I can also say, yes,
Speaker 2: I'm very enthusiastic about this candidate, and so I know
Speaker 2: that that's not going to sit well with every But
Speaker 2: I also know that my job as a writer is
Speaker 2: not to make people happy. It's to share my point
Speaker 2: of view and hopefully do so with as much rigor
Speaker 2: and integrity as possible. And it's not that I'm always right,
Speaker 2: but it is that I do put care into.
Speaker 1: My work as a reader, as a global citizen, as
Speaker 1: a human being. I'm very grateful for the care that
Speaker 1: you take, Roxane Gay, and I'm grateful for your time today.
Speaker 2: I appreciate it, Michael, Truly, these are great questions.
Speaker 1: Roxanne Gay's latest collection of essays, Opinions, is out now.
Speaker 1: Roxanne is in Australia this month. She'll be appearing at
Speaker 1: Carriageworks in Sydney as part of the Festival of Dangerous
Speaker 1: Ideas on the twenty fourth and twenty fifth of August,
Speaker 1: and she's going to be in Melbourne at Melbourne Town
Speaker 1: Hall on the twenty seventh of August at an event
Speaker 1: presented by the Wheeler Center and Now Will Never Festival.
Speaker 1: You can go to either of their websites to get
Speaker 1: tickets before we go a reading recommendation, and it will
Speaker 1: come as no surprise that episodes have read this are
Speaker 1: edited to within an inch of their lives. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff that falls by the wayside that we
Speaker 1: adore but we just don't have time for. And in
Speaker 1: this week's chat with Roxanne Gay, we did ask her
Speaker 1: about her life sentence. We didn't have time to include
Speaker 1: it in the episode, but her choice came from Tony
Speaker 1: Morrison's wonderful novel Jazz. It's a beautiful line, she says,
Speaker 1: I didn't fall in love, I rose in it, which
Speaker 1: I think is just exquisite and reminded me once again
Speaker 1: that there's no one quite like Tony Morrison. If you're
Speaker 1: looking for a Morrison book to pick up, I'd like
Speaker 1: to recommend her Selected Essays and Speeches, which is called
Speaker 1: The Source of Self Regard. It's an absolute beauty. That's
Speaker 1: it for this week, So if you enjoyed it, don't
Speaker 1: forget to tell your friends and rate and review us.
Speaker 1: It helps a lot. Next week, I'm going to be
Speaker 1: joined by two times Miles Franklin winner Rodney Hall talking
Speaker 1: about his latest book, Vortex.
Speaker 3: I've always had a suspicion of stories. I think the
Speaker 3: problem with stories is that they're enchanting things that strip
Speaker 3: away all the knotty realities and presume of our lives
Speaker 3: in any way, our sensible successions will cause and effect.
Speaker 3: My life's being chaotic. It's not like that at all.
Speaker 3: It's not like a story at all. If I try
Speaker 3: to find a story in it, it always rings false.
Speaker 1: Read This is produced and edited by Clarenes. Original compositions
Speaker 1: by Salton Fetcho with mixing by Travis Evans. Thanks for listening,
Speaker 1: See you next week.