“Any Story I Would Ever Tell, I Would Certainly Never Write”: An Interview with Mary Lavin Theresa Wray and Mary Lavin (bio) from the Archives This article originally appeared in New Hibernia Review 19:2. on february 18, 2013, a ceremony held in the library of University College Dublin marked the receipt of a generous donation by Maureen Murphy of Hofstra University of materials relating to the celebrated short story writer Mary Lavin, originally held by Catherine Murphy of Merrimack College in North Andover, Massachusetts.1 Mary Lavin (1912–1996) and Catherine Murphy (1931–2001) had become friends while Murphy was completing her doctoral thesis, “Imaginative Vision and Story Art in Three Irish Writers: Sean O’Faolain, Mary Lavin, Frank O’Connor,” at Trinity College Dublin in the 1960s. Much of the material in the collection concerned Lavin’s visits and discussions with students at Merrimack.2 These meetings included an informal discussion on May 14, 1971.3 What follows is an edited version of that discussion. This is the first published interview with Lavin of this type to appear since 1979, when Murphy published a 1967 interview in a special edition of Irish University Review. That interview, too, was dramatically edited from Murphy’s original typed transcript of forty-six pages. The correspondence between Lavin and Murphy regarding the earlier interview makes clear that, despite generous encouragement from [End Page 79] Lavin, the author required close control of the transcribed 1967 interview. One of the reasons for such detailed editing was that Lavin herself felt that she had not been concise enough during the interview.4 This transcription takes into account Lavin’s own preference to edit her own work ruthlessly, alongside a desire—admittedly, not always achieved—to be as concise as possible when discussing her craft with others. It has been edited for flow and clarity, but I have always tried to maintain the voice and intent of the author. Lavin tended to reply to questions in long, discursive sentences. Such sentences indicate her thoughtful, careful reflection when asked a question, but at times they would make reading demanding when it need not be. In order to represent, as well as I might, the thrust of Lavin’s remarks, I often introduced punctuation into what was transcribed as a lengthy and too-complicated sentence. Other times, I have excised a coordinating conjunction such as “and” or “but” in order to render the remark in separate sentences. There are also a few occasions where I have thought it better not to represent some of the more awkward digressions in the recording. One aspect that I certainly hope has been retained is a sense of the pleasure and humor that Lavin found in discussing fiction and the craft of writing with student audiences. In those moments where Lavin is revisiting a moment to articulate a sincere representation of what was said or done, readers can also appreciate Lavin’s meticulous, industrious approach to her craft. In a 1968 letter to Murphy, Lavin recalled her unease at being taped. But she concludes that the experience was in the end a positive one, stating, “I realize that I have been incredibly silent on the nature of the craft to which I have given nearly a lifetime and I’m very glad to have broken it a little—so painlessly.”5 Tantalizingly, the tape of the interview below ends before the discussion ended, just as Lavin was sharing her thoughts on her relationship with her mother (not part of this edited version). This is an especially poignant ellipsis, in light of Lavin’s inability to offer a full portrait of her mother in her fiction, as she did for her father with the short story “Tom.”6 In a letter dated April 24, 1972, Lavin proposes that she and Murphy collaborate further on a long interview for publication.7 In that letter, Lavin seems to suggest that an interview might offer a structured forum in which she could speak in greater depth about the short story than she had previously. The [End Page 80] following discussion may offer some insight into where such an endeavor might have taken them both. ________ ML...
Read full abstract
Jan 1, 2021
Michael Wood 
Open Access
