logo
The Writer Who Knew The Cost of Freedom

The Writer Who Knew The Cost of Freedom

The Atlantic03-05-2025

In his introduction to Varieties of Exile, a collection of stories by Mavis Gallant, Russell Banks notes that, more than any other literary form, the short story 'speaks to and for every human being who thinks of him or herself as alone, cut off from God, and counted as unimportant and unworthy of attention except when considered en masse.'
Gallant indeed wrote almost exclusively about the marginals of the world: the orphaned and the exiled; the abandoned and the uprooted; the people who, like the protagonist of her story ' New Year's Eve,' feel that they are forever being deposited in a place 'where there was no one to talk to' and one 'was not loved.' The aloneness in Gallant's writing is often not so much stated as implied. It hovers in the air, creates an atmosphere whose absence of emotional connection is often experienced as existential—an isolation so penetrating, it seems inborn. This sense of things is central to her writing. It comes not through character or plot development so much as through a tone of voice difficult to analyze but distinctly present: moody, profoundly withholding, with a feeling that humanity in general is destined—yes, perhaps even before birth—to straddle an inner fault line that short-circuits whatever drive is necessary to make a life feel achieved.
Gallant died in 2014 at the age of 91. While her stories have repeatedly been gathered in a great number of collections, over the past 20 years, New York Review Books has assumed the task of publishing a uniform edition of her work: Paris Stories in 2002, Varieties of Exile in 2003, The Cost of Living in 2009, and now, this year, The Uncollected Stories, in all probability the last of the set.
She was born Mavis Young in 1922, in Montreal, to an American mother and a British father, both more than a bit indifferent to parenthood; they sent her to boarding school at the age of 4 and hardly ever had her in the house from then on. In later years, she said: 'I had a mother who should not have had children, and it's as simple as that.' When her father died—she was 10—her mother quickly remarried and moved to New York, leaving Mavis behind in Montreal with a guardian. Although in later years she periodically joined her mother and stepfather in New York, from that time on, she would feel ungrounded, never again at home anywhere, most especially not within herself.
At 18, she was entirely on her own; at 20, she embarked on a brief marriage with a man named John Gallant (whose name she kept); at 22, she went to work as a journalist at a Montreal newspaper (no mean feat for a woman in the 1940s); soon after that, she began writing stories. In 1950, she sent one of them to The New Yorker. It was rejected, but the second story she sent in was taken, and very soon, the magazine's fabled editor William Maxwell was instructing her to send him anything else she had on hand. Maxwell was quickly besotted with Gallant's writing and went on to publish almost every work she sent him over the next 45 years: 116 stories in all. He was the editor heaven had sent her; a melancholic midwesterner also saturated in a damaged childhood, he had a sensibility that more than matched her own.
No sooner had The New Yorker accepted that second story than Gallant swiftly decided three things: All she wanted to do was write, she'd risk making a living from her work, and she would leave Canada permanently, because in order to write, she said, she must feel perfectly free. 'Perfectly free' meant living as a foreigner; she had grown addicted to not feeling at home anywhere. So she settled in Paris, where she lived for the rest of her days among a people and a culture with whom she never felt at ease, much less intimate—and her writing flourished.
The three Gallant stories that most move me— 'Let It Pass,' 'In a War,' and ' The Concert Party '—appear in Varieties of Exile. To my mind, they make wonderfully metaphorical use of the ur-loneliness behind humdrum emotional remove: Gallant's signature preoccupation. I call them the Lily Quale stories. All three are set first in suburban Montreal just before World War II, and then in the south of France just after the war. Anchored in an inner rootlessness that never loosens its hold on the protagonists, they were written in the 1980s, when Gallant, then in her 60s, knew everything she needed to know and was at the top of her game.
Narrated in the first person by Steve Burnet, a low-level Canadian diplomat in his 40s or 50s, the stories relate the history of himself and Lily Quale, both born in the 1920s in the aforementioned Montreal suburb, he to upper-class English Protestants, she to working-class Irish Catholics. The cultural divisions between them are strong but prove, in fact, to be inconsequential; some shared yearning for the world beyond their backwater town draws them ineluctably to one another. Of course, what they long to experience is themselves, not the wider world—but this they do not yet know.
From the start, Lily is seen as a beautiful and alluring wild child driven by a hunger for excitement so extreme, it speaks to an inner need that no one can understand and nothing can dispel. Even though she is part of a functioning family, within herself, Lily is alone, entirely alone—not exactly a stray like other Gallant strays, but a stray nonetheless. She holds herself unaccountable, as women who make their way in the world sexually often do.
As for Steve (smart, passive, mild-mannered), for as long as he can remember, he has anguished over Lily. They've been making out since their teenage years, but he has always known that although she holds him in special regard, he is essentially one among many in a 'large pond' she has 'stocked with social possibilities, nearly all boys,' every one of whom wants her. Amazed by 'the scale of her nerve' and her bottomless 'use of gall'—her betrayals are routine—Steve nevertheless knows that whenever she calls, he'll be there. He has promised that he'll get her out of the provinces; the mistake he makes is thinking that this promise has created a bond between them, one that will induce in her a measure of loyalty.
In their early 20s, Steve and Lily decide to marry and leave for Europe. This is what Lily has been angling for, the thing she most wants—the thing dependable Steve is about to make possible. Yet, predictably, even then, she is driven to risk it all. Days before the wedding, on her lunch hour from atedious secretarial job in downtown Montreal, Lily sleeps with Ken Peel, a sporting-goods-store owner notorious for conducting sexual liaisons in the back of his shop. Happening to pass down the street at the exact moment Lily is emerging from Peel's store, Steve immediately intuits what has happened. In a flash of stunning inner clarity, he understands Lily anew: He sees, 'with a dream's narrowed focus, a black and white postcard image of Lily on the edge of Peel's couch, drawing on a stocking. For the first time I noticed how much she resembled the young Marlene, the Weimar Dietrich: the same half-shut eyes, the same dreamy and invulnerable gaze. She slid into the stocking, one perfect leg outstretched, the other bent and bare.' That 'invulnerable gaze' speaks volumes. Suddenly, Steve knows that their situation is static: He is as paralyzed as she is driven. She will never be faithful to him. He marries her anyway.
With a gift of family money, Steve buys a ramshackle house in the south of France that leaves them almost broke, and they settle in among a group of American and European itinerants, poseurs of one sort or another. Among these people is an English homosexual whose gardener is a 19-year-old blond rent boy. Lily, soon feeling as empty as she did at home, comes to see the boy as a kindred spirit. Her restlessness reawakens, is soon uncontainable, and she runs off with the rent boy. (Or, as Steve puts it, a day arrived when 'the two blond truants plodded up the hill to the railway station.') Before she's through, Lily will have two more husbands and end up, depleted, back in Montreal.
In the following two stories, Steve describes the depression he falls into after, as he puts it, 'my marriage had dropped from a height.' He never marries again, never even falls in love again. Throughout the years, he drifts in and out of his memories, obsessing over Lily's defection. He remembers his aunt, who was appalled by Lily, telling him that women can do without a great deal, but they cannot do without sex and money—maybe one or the other, but definitely not both. 'No,' he thinks, years after Lily is gone, 'what went wrong had nothing to do with either.' It flashes on him, why she really left him.
The important thing about Lily was the ambition behind her longings. He often thought that she should have married some European artist or thinker, or 'the billionaire grandson of some Methodist grocer,' not him. Now, decades later, he realizes, 'Lily must have seen me—my mind, my life, my future, my Europe—as a swindle.' This swollen necessity of hers, this gaping hunger, this abstract loneliness: It was this that Steve's own vacancy was so brilliantly doomed to fail.
The affable Steve—'one of the rare foreigners to whom the French have not taken immediate and weighty dislike'—is Gallant's ultimate marginal. Aside from Lily, no one and nothing has ever held his emotional attention for very long. Within him, there resides a great emptiness, which he shares with Lily; from it, each foolishly hoped to be rescued by the other. It is interesting to note that whereas Steve, in pursuit of what he thinks of as freedom, never breaks with the conventions of his class, Lily, in the same pursuit, becomes something of an outcast.
These are both people who spend their lives looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time, in the process making instrumental use of each other without ever understanding that no one and nothing can do for them what they cannot do for themselves. Yet I must admit that it is Lily, a fictional favorite of mine, with whom I nonetheless sympathize; I suspect that, as a contemporary reader, I understand her perhaps even better than Gallant did.
Let us not forget that Lily's was a time when no woman could imagine making her way alone in the world. Whatever the future held for her, she was bound to pursue it through a man in whom she aroused desire: the only card she ever had to play. Being loved could mean nothing to Lily, except for what being loved could get her: That was everything. In this, she was hardly alone.
I have known Lily Quale all my life. She was the transgressive among us. Mine was a generation of women characterized by a vivid split between girls like me who didn't act out and girls like Lily who did. Only they dared the unknown; the rest of us lived with one Steve Burnet or another for more years than we care to remember, longing to be rescued from the hungers we either stifled or endured, while the stray within us hardened.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A Chronicle of the Rich Getting Richer, Crasser and More Obscene
A Chronicle of the Rich Getting Richer, Crasser and More Obscene

New York Times

time2 days ago

  • New York Times

A Chronicle of the Rich Getting Richer, Crasser and More Obscene

THE HAVES AND HAVE-YACHTS: Dispatches on the Ultrarich, by Evan Osnos I kept thinking about the Weegee photograph 'The Critic' while reading 'The Haves and Have-Yachts,' Evan Osnos's collection of his 'revised and expanded' New Yorker articles about the 'ultrarich.' In the 1943 picture, two socialites, clad in furs, jewels and tight, dignified smiles, walk into the opening night of the Metropolitan Opera while, off to their left, a tipsy, bedraggled woman in a cloth coat gives them a withering stare. Osnos, a staff writer at The New Yorker, is urbanely critical of the rich who have gotten too rich, but is not Weegee's Critic. There are constant reminders that the various yacht owners, tech disrupters and hedge funders profiled lead a more lavish lifestyle than does the author — but it's clear to the reader that he can pass. Osnos is not a hater of success or even privilege; he's more an anthropologist of unseemly excess. In the acknowledgments, he thanks one of his sources and inspirations: 'a stranger, sitting next to me on a flight nearly a decade ago,' who happened to work in Silicon Valley. This person urged him to examine the 'changing conceptions of wealth, government and the future' then metastasizing among the elites of the ascendant tech sector. Presumably Osnos and this deep-pocketed Deep Throat were not flying coach. Osnos himself grew up in Greenwich, Conn., the son of a publishing executive. After Harvard, he made his way to China first as a student in the wake of the Tiananmen clampdown. By 2008, he was corresponding from Beijing for The New Yorker, at a time when many of America's business elites were making vast sums of money there. His excellent 2014 book 'Age of Ambition' won the National Book Award for its low-high depiction of a country coming of age — which, he writes, most reminded him of the Gilded Age United States. Back in America, Osnos was put on the plutocrat beat, just in time for a scheme-y new Gilded Age. There's plenty of excess to gawk at with him here, but the message is always that great wealth is in some way its own trap. Osnos gives us Anthony Scaramucci's few possible avenues for the rich: 'the art world, or private aircraft and yachting, charity-naming buildings and hospitals after themselves — or they can go into experiential.' Rod Stewart, Usher and Mariah Carey are hired to play at private parties. There's the guy selling 'experiential yachting' programs, which recreate the Battle of Midway to entertain 'bored billionaires,' complete with haptic guns. We meet estate planners who keep the rich from paying their fair share of taxes — if any. A good-looking, if mediocre, actor with an impressive social media presence runs a Ponzi scheme pretending to be a successful movie producer. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Your kid's temper tantrum doesn't mean you're failing as a parent: How I stay calm and connected in the chaos.
Your kid's temper tantrum doesn't mean you're failing as a parent: How I stay calm and connected in the chaos.

Yahoo

time3 days ago

  • Yahoo

Your kid's temper tantrum doesn't mean you're failing as a parent: How I stay calm and connected in the chaos.

The founders of the popular parenting platform Big Little Feelings — moms and real-life best friends Kristin Gallant, a parenting coach with a background in maternal and child education, and Deena Margolin, a child therapist specializing in interpersonal neurobiology — are back with more parenting wisdom in Yahoo's new column called , a companion to their podcast, After Bedtime With Big Little Feelings. In the second episode of their show, Gallant and Margolin dive into toddler tantrums — those challenging (and, let's be honest, mortifying) moments that can really test your patience and leave you feeling frustrated and judged by everyone around you. Here, Gallant shares five tips on how to calmly navigate a tantrum. It always seems to happen at the worst possible time. You're at Target. Or at the park. Or boarding a plane. And just as you're trying to get out the door, check out with your cart full of stuff or line up at the gate, you feel it coming. The whining and the screaming, followed by the full-body flop to the ground. Your toddler is officially having a moment. And you're officially dying inside. For me, that's the moment the shame voice kicks in: You're doing it wrong. No one else's kid acts like this. Look around — everyone's staring. They're judging you. Good moms don't have kids who scream in public. That voice? It's a liar. Here's what's actually true: Your child's tantrum is not a reflection of your failure. It's a reflection of their developing brain doing exactly what it's wired to do. Let's break that down, along with tips on how to handle a toddler meltdown. Toddlers live in what's called the 'emotional brain,' aka the limbic system. The rational, logical part of the brain that helps regulate big feelings (the prefrontal cortex) is still in development. Like, years away from being online. That means toddlers physically cannot handle overwhelming emotions in a calm, measured way because the part of the brain that would help them do that isn't built yet. So when your child loses it over a broken granola bar or the wrong color cup, it's not them being 'bad.' It's their brain being immature and developing exactly on track. You're not just dealing with a dysregulated kid, you're also dealing with every set of eyes in the grocery store or at the playground on you. The shame. The heat on your face. The desperate urge to make it stop. Let me say this as clearly as possible: You are not a bad parent because your child is struggling. You are not a failure because your child is having a hard time in public. It's actually the most human parenting moment there is. Here's a quick survival-mode guide to get through it: Regulate yourself first: Your child's brain is on fire. If yours catches fire too, it's just two brains in a blaze. Instead, take a deep breath. Literally. Ground yourself in the moment. You're not in danger, you're just in aisle 7. Forget the audience: The people staring? They've either a) never had a toddler or b) have had one and have just forgotten. Your job is not to manage their discomfort, it's to support your child through theirs. Get low and stay calm: Kneel down to your child's level. Speak softly. Your calm is contagious, even if it takes time for it to spread. Skip the lecture: This isn't a teachable moment; it's a survival one. Let the storm pass. You can talk later when everyone has calmed down and is back in their body. Have a go-to phrase: Something like: 'You're having a hard time. I'm right here with you.' It grounds both of you in connection, and that's what helps tantrums pass faster. Public tantrums feel like the worst moment of parenting. But they're actually one of the most important ones. Because when we stay present, calm and connected, even in the chaos, we teach our kids that big feelings aren't dangerous and that they're not alone in their hardest moments. And that their emotions are safe with us. That's not a parenting failure. That's parenting at its finest.

PM reveals ousting of top officials to advance controversial haredi military service bill
PM reveals ousting of top officials to advance controversial haredi military service bill

Yahoo

time4 days ago

  • Yahoo

PM reveals ousting of top officials to advance controversial haredi military service bill

"Everyone must serve: Secular, religious, and haredim," Gallant said in response. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted former defense minister Yoav Gallant and former IDF chief-of-staff Herzi Halevi were "obstacles" to reaching a bill to grant ultra-Orthodox Jews exemption from military service, leaked recordings of the prime minister published by Channel 13 on Wednesday revealed. In a recording of an English-language conversation with an unnamed senior rabbi, the prime minister appeared to admit his firing of Gallant in November of last year, and Halevi's resignation earlier this year, amounted to "enormous obstacles that we advance" a draft bill acceptable to the haredi factions in the coalition. "You know, when the defense minister's against you, and the chief-of-staff is against you, you cannot move - now we can move," Netanyahu is heard saying in the recording. "I have also talked personally about 20 times [with] Yuli Edelstein, who runs the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and I said: 'Look, I'm personally taking charge of this.'" In a later statement, the Prime Minister's Office asserted that it stood by its decision to remove Halevi and Gallant. "As is clearly heard in the recordings — without the distorted interpretation of Channel 13's 'analysts' — the Prime Minister notes that it was the previous Chief of Staff and Defense Minister who prevented the establishment of the dedicated units for Haredi service," the Wednesday statement reads. "In contrast, the current Defense Minister and Chief of Staff are advancing the issue rapidly and professionally — and we are proud of that." In the recording, Netanyahu further implied that Gallant and Halevi interfered in the IDF's ability to acceptharedi men into military service. "Look, there are people who are trying to undermine us. I came from the army now. The army is doing exactly what we asked them to do now, they're creating the ability to receive haredim and hold a haredi lifestyle in the army." Gallant commented on Channel 13's report on Wednesday evening, stressing that he is "proud to have stood by the principle by which everyone must take part in the mission of defending our nation. The need to enlist every young man of military age is essential to maintaining Israel's security," he wrote on X/Twitter. "Everyone must serve: Secular, religious, and haredim," Gallant added. Opposition leader Yair Lapid slammed Netanyahu and said that the prime minister was willing to sacrifice the country for his political gain. "A question that should trouble the sleep of every Israeli tonight: What else is Netanyahu willing to do for the sake of evasion and politics while the State of Israel is fighting for its life?"

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store