I think that there is a bias in the current literary climate, which is not only very Western but very male.

It's a matter of whether you see the self as fundamentally in relationship to other selves or not - whether you see the boundary between self and the world as relatively permeable, which makes you interdependent (collectivist) in outlook, or relatively impermeable, which makes you independent (individualistic).

Chinese language tends to be quick, economical. To know what people are saying, you always need to know what the context is.

That there should be a purpose to suffering, that a person should be chosen for it, special - these are houses of the mind, in which whole peoples have found shelter.

The independents are the ones who tend to commit suicide. I'm not against this way of being in the world. Individuals have brought us many treasures. You can't just say that's a bad way of being in the world - it's not. But it's not everyone's way of being in the world.

There's nothing about interdependence that would keep somebody from making art.

A man was the sum of his limits freedom only made him see how much so.

When I think about why I would be a writer, why I should continue to be a writer, it seems to me one of the few things you can dowhere you're never bored.

... there is ... a big aspect of play in writing novels, and making the story more and more elaborate is just more and more fun.

A man was the sum of his limits freedom only made him see how much so.

A white person was by definition somebody. Other people needed, across their hearts, one steel rib.

Many women tend toward the interdependent end of things, we tend to see ourselves in relationship to others to a far greater degree than men.

These are ideas that work for many, and that may well reflect your true understanding of life.

It's human to hear stories and to know how people live and to imagine how that is for them. It's very interdependent!