A Quote by Kate Zambreno

With fiction, the works of women are often over-interpreted as autobiography, especially when the main character is a woman, especially if she is seen as privileged.
In my books, women often solve the problem. Even if the woman is not the hero, she's a strong character. She does change the plot. She'll often rescue the male character from some situation.
Take 'Ex Machina.' Everyone said it was one of the great feminist works of science fiction. But what I found disappointing is that everything about the main female character is defined by men.
But the thought arrived inside her like a train: Marya Morevna, all in black, here and now, was a point at which all the women she had been met—the Yaichkan and the Leningrader and the chyerti maiden; the girl who saw the birds, and the girl who never did—the woman she was and the woman she might have been and the woman she would always be, forever intersecting and colliding, a thousand birds falling from a thousand oaks, over and over.
Sometimes indirect style and varying chronology is great, but quite often I've seen it be just something that gets in the way. It turns out when I talk to the writer that she or he, and more often it's a woman, that she's worried.
I do feel privileged to play Elektra, because definitely she is a strong female character. She's a strong character. It would be nice if eventually we'd just say she's a strong character, not a strong female character.
You want, in a sense, to relate to the main character, so often, the main character POV is a bit more of a blank slate.
I would love to write a script where the main character is a woman. I know I can direct a film where the main character is a woman. I cannot write that film.
To be perfectly frank: I don't write women's fiction. I write intimate, gritty, realistic, character-driven fiction that happens to be thrown into the women's fiction category.
I write both fiction and nonfiction. I begin my fiction with the main character. The story comes later.
Oftentimes in films, the female character, if she's not the protagonist - and often, even if she is - feels like an imitation of what a woman is.
Once you're imagining being the main character, and you're having the conversations and actually being there, the magic in fiction writing takes over.
I write fiction and I'm told it's autobiography, I write autobiography and I'm told it's fiction, so since I'm so dim and they're so smart, let them decide what it is or it isn't.
Often men believe women are the same, and once they figure what works for one woman they apply that same method to all the other women they are intimate with, and that's one of the major problems.
Over and over again, stories in women's magazines insist that women can know fulfillment only at the moment of giving birth to a child. They deny the years when she can no longer look forward to giving birth, even if she repeats the act over and over again. In the feminine mystique, there is no other way for a woman to dream of creation or of the future. There is no other way she can even dream about herself, except as her children's mother, her husband's wife.
I'm working on something a little different. It's a technique I call, 'tantric abstinence.' Now, the way this works is I meet a woman, I charm the heck out of her, and then right as she's considering sleeping with me, I say something so awkward that she leaves and I have to start over again with another woman entirely.
It was strange to think that all the great women of fiction were, until Jane Austen's day, not only seen by the other sex, but seen only in relation to the other sex. And how small a part of woman's life is that.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!