A THEME that has always INTERESTED me is how women express anger, how women express VIOLENCE. That is very much PART of who women are, and it's so unaddressed. A vast AMOUNT of literature deals with cycles of violence about men, antiheroes. Women lack that vocabulary.

I am an anarchist in politics and an impressionist in ART as well as a symbolist in LITERATURE. Not that I understand what these terms mean, but I TAKE them to be all MERELY synonyms of pessimist.

What is not in the OPEN STREET is FALSE, derived, that is to SAY, LITERATURE.

I do not SEE a necessary connection between proletarian literature and some set PERCENTAGE of WORDS which bring the blushes to a maiden's cheek.

The CINEMA, as literature, as all the plastic ARTS, do not exist OUTSIDE of a critical SYSTEM that allows us to study them.

There are only three THINGS to be DONE with a WOMAN. You can love her, suffer for her, or turn her into literature.

My brother and I were both good at science, and we were both good at English literature. Either one of US could have GONE either WAY.

I hadn't PLANNED on going to LAW school. I wanted to STUDY 19th-century RUSSIAN literature.

The atmosphere of ORTHODOXY is always damaging to PROSE, and above all it is completely ruinous to the NOVEL, the most anarchical of all FORMS of LITERATURE.

I studied Shakespeare in college, but not theatrically, more in terms of literature, and then I kind of TOOK a BREAK from it. Now there's resurgence in my appreciation for him. It's amazing: there are so many BOOK titles and song titles that come just from LINES that he wrote.