on "women" writers (and more) part 2

New thread! Continue the great discussion here.

Yes, I just saw that today, re. The Toast shutting down. Sad, really. But, from what I've been reading, both Nicole Cliffe and Mallory Ortberg are moving onto bigger, better things. Cliffe is writing for The Guardian. Ortberg is a full-time columnist at Salon or Slate and she's working on her next book.

That they made a go of it for 3 years, with such popularity and being able to pay their contributors, says a lot, given that their content never pandered or tried to be populist. And, they had terrific diversity in both topics and contributors.

Their reason for shutting down, from their blog post, is that ad revenues are just not enough to keep growing. I totally get that. I ran an online lit mag (nowhere near their scale, of course) for 1.5 years and shut down for the same reasons -- couldn't afford to pay contributors or even just run the site well enough off ad revenue alone. Never mind that it was a full-time job for me and I wasn't getting even a dollar in my pocket.

This is the problem with all digital platforms. And, the more that we access articles from within Facebook, the less ad revenue the site gets. So, there's something to be said for how FB is "eating the world" (to use a phrase coined by another tech heavyweight, Marc Andreesen).

An account of the Diverse Editors panel at BEA:

http://www.shelf-awareness.com/issue.html?issue=2755#m32536

Alexander recalled asking an editor at a publishing house if there were any editors of color on staff or under consideration for a position. "Her response was, well we haven't been able to find any," he said. "Part of that may be a cop-out. But I think the other part of it is there is a responsibility to mentor--to make sure there are writers and professionals who represent the diversity of our country, to make sure they have access and opportunity and not just will."

Thought this resonated nicely with some of the things discussed (plus she was mentioned in the thread):

How Katherine Dunn's Geek Love Saved Me (Lithub; Helena Fitzgerald)

Dunn lived the kind of life expected of the Hemingwayesque male author. In her twenties, she ran around Europe, had a child, and published two books, although they attracted little notice. She eventually moved to Portland, where she raised her child while working as a bartender. She was 44 when Geek Love was published, almost 20 years after her first two books. Geek Love was a meteoric success. Dunn never published another novel, although there were always rumors that she was at work on the next one. She instead worked as a sports reporter, writing a column about boxing, and training as a boxer herself. Dunn’s life made the point, much like her most famous book does, that who we are is not beholden to our gender nor to our exterior. Genius is not a thing granted only to particular kinds of people, and the idea of “masculine” and “feminine” writing is a false one. Dunn disabused me of the idea that women are supposed to write polite books, or that only men can write swaggering ones. Both Dunn’s life and work sweep aside such assumptions, exposing their flimsiness.

(Underlining mine.)

"Swagger"--that's another divisive concept to explore--how men do, are allowed to, are encouraged to, "swagger"--and women the opposite. Come to think of it, it's something not a million miles away from "flaunting erudition".

"Women are supposed to write polite books"--yes, this, I mean this is my feeling too, this is the message I perceived (and perceive still).

>4 southernbooklady:: Interesting article. That mentoring thing is so tricky, though. Often, mentees want mentors who they feel they can look up to and learn from and that may not be a white person. That said, given the state of things, I imagine a young, aspiring writer/editor will jump at the chance of getting some mentoring from a more experienced person.

>5 LolaWalser:: Yes, "flaunting erudition" as a kind of swagger -- that sounds right. :)

Here's an interesting article that I'm still not able to get my head around. An editor at The Offing left because she felt that they do not get diversity. The final straw was a tweet (and I really did not get why that was a problem if you read the story of how the tweet happened). If anyone can help me see what I'm missing re. this particular incident, I'd really appreciate it.

The rest of the article... I'm actually feeling bad for the white editor more. But, again, maybe I'm missing something. I also don't think public apologies are wrong/bad as long as you've done a truly-meant personal one first.

And, it's great of The Offing to go ahead and publish this on their site too.

http://theoffingmag.com/insight/literary-juneteenth-or-why-i-left-the-offing/

>6 jennybhatt:

HMMMM... this required first some dictionary detection--for "ratchetness", not "praxis" ;)--I wonder whether this wasn't where hapless Darcy Cosper erred first (Rocheteau claims Cosper looked up "praxis"... she may have done better to look up "ratchetness"...)

Because, "ratchetness", Urban Dictionary tells me, is defined as: (dammit, it won't allow simple C & P)

The astronomical levels of HOEING and the displaying on extreme levels, of GHETTO.

One who is very random and acts in ways of being LOUD & OBNOXIOUS

One who is DIRTY, LOW CLASS, NO MORAL VALUES and place themselves in a situation of being known in NEGATIVE WAY.

The JEALOUS, LONELY & BUSSA of the group.

I think I can see the insult. Choosing to wear a shirt with that slogan is an ironic, subversive message--the wearer would hardly seriously advertise themselves as "dirty, low class, of no moral values" etc. More than mere irony, it can also be an aggressive challenge--"this is what you think of people like me", or, "the people you think about in those ways actually are like me". Think of Slut Walk campaigns--we are what "sluts" look like.

So that's one thing, and really needs to be understood in context. To have the slogan/that term plucked out and served with no explanation on Twitter--to say this woman is "the walking of embodiment" of "ratchetness"--is really extraordinarily insulting; in effect, I mean, the sender may have been genuinely that stupid not to understand what she did.

>7 LolaWalser: wow. Thanks. Yeah, I get it now. See, this is why I never use words I don't know. And even after I look it up, if I'm not sure of context, I shy away from using it. Wow again. That was a bad mess of a tweet.

Oh, yes, context, and nuances... (I once told someone laughingly "you see, I'm a tramp!", summing up my continent-hopping way of life, only to remember it didn't mean "vagabond" so much as something else in American English. :))

In general I think white people should steer clear of "ghetto" and minority idioms. These are products and medium of the historically disenfranchised and the oppressed; it's inherently condescending and insulting to assume we are allowed or "belong" in those channels of communication.

>9 LolaWalser: Also, we're bound to use them wrong or miss the nuance. I can't decide when Tina Fey uses them whether she's making fun of a certain kind of white person or not. I'm guessing she is?

>10 sturlington:

I've no TV so I miss a lot of whatever is going on in the media (feature, not bug!) I've seen some sketches but don't know much about her style...

So, still on this issue of white writers/editors and their awareness/understanding of race matters, here's another article. Wow, it's harsh. I mean, I'm not white but I would not feel this offended if a white writer came to me for help in understanding how to represent sensitive issues related to my ethnicity in their writing. I'd think -- good, they're making the effort. But, this article basically says -- stay in your lane. I don't know that I agree with that. How does that help us all get rid of the racial divides and friction?

https://medium.com/@nilegirl/dear-white-writers-if-youre-not-qualified-to-write-...

>12 jennybhatt: I have to say that piece annoyed me a bit because adverbs were being used as adjectives.

But... while I get the gist of what she's saying, and if I were a writer myself, I probably wouldn't tackle the issue of race at all, but I think it is possible to swing too far the other way. Would we say as women that we don't want male writers to write about us at all? No, we wouldn't want them to write about us cluelessly, but writing is a way to have a conversation, to build understanding, and this should be everyone's goal.

I am reminded of what Roxane Gay wrote about privilege:

When people wield accusations of privilege, more often than not, they want to he heard and seen. Their need is acute, if not desperate and that need rises out of the many historical and ongoing attempts to silence and render invisible marginalized groups. Must we satisfy our need to be heard and seen at the expense of not allowing anyone else to be heard and seen? Does privilege automatically negate any merits of what a privilege holder has to say?

http://therumpus.net/2012/05/peculiar-benefits/

>13 sturlington: Would we say as women that we don't want male writers to write about us at all?

More to the point, would we say as women that we aren't qualified to write about men? Is a woman writer incapable of creating an authentic male character? Of understanding a male point of view? If so, we're all sunk.

if I were a writer myself, I probably wouldn't tackle the issue of race at all

If you are a writer, and an issue is important to you, you should write about it. Your only "qualification" is that you be honest. You may discover that what you think and what you have to say is based on flawed or wrong assumptions. You may discover that you were completely wrong in what you wrote. But you get to make the attempt.

If we all just stay in our lanes, nothing will change.

>14 southernbooklady: If you are a writer, and an issue is important to you, you should write about it. Your only "qualification" is that you be honest. You made discover that what you think and what you have to say is based on flawed or wrong assumptions. You may discover that you were completely wrong in what you wrote. But you get to make the attempt.

Yes, this, thanks for saying it.

>13 sturlington:, >12 jennybhatt:

It's very poorly written... and, frankly, I see no argument there that doesn't fall apart at first look.

I judge it a cheap attempt at attention-grabbing.

Yes, I agree that it is rather badly-written. That said, the point of view is one I've read elsewhere too, just not quite so harshly.

I also fully agree with >14 southernbooklady: -- yes, write about what matters to you. Try to do it as well and as honestly as you can. The world will soon let you know if you've said something worth their while or not. As, I might say, we're all saying re. this particular article. :)

This concerns women in general, not writers as such, but I thought it was interesting in view of the results of that survey Jenny linked:

Women From Venus, Men Still From Mars on Facebook, Study Finds

(...)The most commonly cited topics by women included words such as “wonderful,” “happy,” “birthday,” “daughter,” “baby,” “excited” and “thankful.” Women were more likely to discuss family and social life, relying on words that described positive emotions, such as “love,” and intensive adverbs, such as “sooo,” “sooooo,” and “ridiculously,” the study said.

Men more frequently discussed topics related to money or work, and favored words tied to politics, sports, competition and activities, such as shooting guns or playing video games. Men commonly used words such as “freedom,” “liberty,” “win,” “lose,” “battle” and “enemy.” (...)

“The language we use, especially with our kids, that becomes a part of them,” she said. “Perhaps we do use language that encourages girls to be warmer and boys to be less warm.”

Clearly it would be well to look beyond language too, to behaviour encouraged (or discouraged), tasks etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if women talked more about families and men less because women still do most of the "family" work, but I also wouldn't be surprised if men kept quiet in that regard because childcare and housework are still seen as something manly men don't do.

Anyway, to try to bring it back OT, I guess it's not hard to see how these different preoccupations might translate into different preoccupations for writers too... although, of course, not helped by external pressures to adopt one or the other "field of interests", style etc.

>18 LolaWalser::

...I guess it's not hard to see how these different preoccupations might translate into different preoccupations for writers too... although, of course, not helped by external pressures to adopt one or the other "field of interests", style etc.

True.

That said, the questions that keep circling in my head are: how important is it, really, for women writers to break free from these particular preoccupations entirely? Because if they do, then who is going to document them properly? Should we be looking at themes related to domesticity and personal relationships as somehow inferior to themes of war, politics, work, etc.? Surely, they are all connected and what makes a good writer, male or female, in the end, is the ability to show us all these textures and hues woven together as intricately and messily as they are in life. I do want to read stories laid out on a larger canvas but I want to see how all the tiny details contribute to the overall, bigger picture.

Well, there's always the question of individual gift, style, approach... it's probably not just theme.

Yale students protest against the predominantly white, male literary canon. But, can a serious student of literature really avoid them?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/01/yale-english-students-call-for-end...

>21 jennybhatt: It is true that if you want to study English literature, you have to read white, male authors. There's no getting around that. I had to do an entire semester on Shakespeare and it wasn't enough time, tbh. Literature is not just creative writing, but it's also a reflection of our history and the development of our culture. Perhaps it would be better to include in the courses historical context to explain why there just weren't many female or non-white writers who were allowed to write or be published in that time. A world literature class would be instructive, as well, to look at literatures of non-Western civilizations such as China, Japan, and India. You could even include a course on folktales and mythology to incorporate the non-written literatures of Africa or indigenous peoples. All of this would be relevant and instructive, but if you're going to try to pretend that the dominant literary influence on our Western culture wasn't male and white from classical times through to the modern period, you're denying history, in truth.

Once you get to modern times, you'd better broaden your outlook, though. The 19th century should include female authors. The 20th century should include not only women but authors of color, non-English-speaking writers, gay and lesbian. In fact, this may be a terrific lens for viewing the progress of human history toward more inclusiveness.

>22 sturlington:: Totally agree with you that we can't ignore history. I liked, also, the comments of Katy Waldman, Slate writer/editor, at the end.

My first thought on the link at >21 jennybhatt: is that the reason there are mostly white male writers in "the canon" is because it was white men who created the canon in the first place. So it seems that the question here is do we expand the canon, (and if so, how?) or do we throw out the canon altogether, and think about literature in some different way? What way?

And, this is somewhat controversial too. John Steinbeck was given the notes or first 4 chapters of another Dust Bowl novel before he began The Grapes of Wrath. There is some evidence that he might have used them. They belonged to another writer who was unable to get her book to the editor before Steinbeck. And, so her book remained unpublished till the 2000s. This is not to say that Steinbeck's novel isn't amazing. But, it does make me wonder how often this kind of thing happened or happens.

I read a bit of Babb's book through the Amazon excerpt and it is rather well-written. I'm probably going to have to get it at some point because I'm interested to compare.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/forgotten-dust-bowl-novel-rivaled-gra...

>24 southernbooklady: Certainly it is all recursive. White male writers for the longest time were the only ones with the freedom to write and publish. White male scholars chose them for the canon. But how can you include works in the canon that don't exist? You can certainly incorporate extant works of women or non-white authors, but still they will be outnumbered by white and male. And you can't deny the overwhelming influence these writers had on the culture and those who followed them. Just because Shakespeare was white and male doesn't reduce his overwhelming literary importance.

I guess it depends on what the aim is. Different courses of study could be devised with different goals in mind. But if your goal is to study the huge area of English (language) literature or the canon of literature that shaped Western culture, then a lot of it is going to be white and male, at least until you get to modern times.

>26 sturlington: But how can you include works in the canon that don't exist?

That ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. Which invites the question asked in the article: Why are these works "canon"? and it's sister question -- what should "canon" mean?

It brings me back to that fateful day in my Feminism 101 class where Mary Daly asked us "What does Shakespeare really have to say to women?"

The truth is, he has tons to say, because he has so much to say to human beings and women are human beings. But the question is worth posing to every work of art -- what does this have to say to. . .anyone outside of the work's cultural reference point?

Perhaps if the outsider finds it meaningful, that is an indication of its right to be in this thing we call "the canon."

>27 southernbooklady: I do like that qualification. Does that mean we can finally take Hemingway out of the canon?

>27 southernbooklady:: That's a great way of looking at it. I like that qualification too.

Speaking of "canonical writers" and angry women writers.... Verso Publishers is having one of their periodic 50% off sales. In this case, it's 50% off feminist titles in their catalog, if you also buy a copy of the new edition of SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas.

Ta-Nehesi Coates had this piece on black writers in The Atlantic:

It’s almost as though writers should write for themselves, should hew to their own standards, and keep their own conscience instead of fretting over the feelings of those who they can not change, and who they do not control.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/black-journalist-and-the-rac...

Is there any way to get away from current ways of book categorization? Or, at least do it in ways that will encourage readers to reach for more diversity in their choices than sticking to what marketers choose to put under genre labels? I don't know but this article raises these questions.

http://www.ragnarokpub.com/#!The-Stakes-of-Genre-Categorization/c7a5/574b62c70cf...

(I posted this here because, in past discussions, this issue of genre and labels has come up.)

As much as I deplore Amazon's growing stranglehold on online bookselling, they do offer one thing that can counteract this--the "People who bought/looked at this book also bought/looked at". It crowdsources book categorization, in a way.

The "African American" shelves have always driven me crazy. I have an acquaintance who wrote a series of YA contemporary novels with African-American characters that got great reviews, but sank like a stone because they were shelved in African-American literature rather than in the YA section. It was sickening.

>32 jennybhatt:, >33 Marissa_Doyle: The "African American" shelves have always driven me crazy.

Human beings "categorize" by nature. I think we're sort of hard-wired that way. But when you get into issues of identity it becomes a double-edged sword, this question of "African American" sections or "Gay sections" in bookstores.

The real question in my mind is why are those sections avoided by everyone except the people they are ostensibly about? Why don't white people browse the African American sections? Why don't straight people peruse the gay sections? Especially when it comes to fiction?

Marketing may "pre-select the audience" but that audience lets itself be funneled into those categories. It's a two-way street. Ultimately publishing and bookselling is a business. And business is naturally going to spend marketing dollars in the most effective way -- to reach the largest number of people most likely to buy the book. But this does not say anything existential about the book itself. That is always between the book and the reader.

Awhile ago a writer friend of mine wrote an essay complaining about how she couldn't find a new novel because the store had shelved it in the gay section instead of in general fiction. Here's my response, since it seems apropos:

http://www.willreadforfood.net/2016/02/rainbow-days/

>34 southernbooklady: Why don't white people browse the African American sections? Why don't straight people peruse the gay sections?

Semi-relevant to the point: Several years ago, the municipal community services department approached me about teaching a con-ed course in modern literature in their seniors' program (someone, I don't know who, had suggested my name).

I wasn't interested in covering the usual suspects, to which they replied that it didn't have to be them. So, after some thought, I submitted a blurb that went something like:

In the past five or ten years, almost every major literary prize has been awarded to a gay or lesbian writer. As we read some of these outstanding works, let us discuss what insights these writers have into our society.

I had in mind reading list including people like Winterson, Waters, Cunningham, Tóibín.

The initial response was dead silence, followed a day or so later by a brief call saying that "they didn't think that would be compatible with their life style."

Which suited me fine — by confirming my suspicion that they really just wanted to be entertained by someone.

>34 southernbooklady::

Human beings "categorize" by nature. I think we're sort of hard-wired that way.

True.

The real question in my mind is why are those sections avoided by everyone except the people they are ostensibly about? Why don't white people browse the African American sections? Why don't straight people peruse the gay sections? Especially when it comes to fiction?

Good questions. I sat and thought about my book-browsing habits for a bit here -- online and offline. For me, it's been more about genre (e.g. literary vs sci-fi) than about protagonist/author gender or color or sexuality. I also find that I am more apt to find diverse books searching through online book sites than physical ones -- because, online, there are multiple tags/labels/categories. That said, I suppose physical shelving could also just duplicate books if they happen to sci-fi and African-American, I suppose.

That said, as your terrific article points out, I've never intentionally walked over to the 'Gay' section or 'African-American' section in a physical bookstore. I admit that. But, again, if I'm in the 'Literary Fiction' area, and there's a book about 'African-American' characters, I'll still pick it up and buy it if it's a well-told story.

>35 librorumamans::

In the past five or ten years, almost every major literary prize has been awarded to a gay or lesbian writer. As we read some of these outstanding works, let us discuss what insights these writers have into our society.

Now, that thought hadn't even occurred to me till I read this. And, I've read books by all these writers you've mentioned: Winterson, Waters, Cunningham, Toibin. I just never even stopped to think that they're gay and I'm not, so their stories/writing will not be interesting. In fact, I've enjoyed all their works.

Yet, as I think about the earlier point, I wonder if I would have read their works if they had not been also shelved under 'Literary Fiction'. Probably not. I'm not proud of this blinkered approach -- just sharing because I'm sure there are many readers like me out there too.

>36 jennybhatt: For me, it's been more about genre (e.g. literary vs sci-fi) than about protagonist/author gender or color or sexuality.

One of my very favorite book scenes in all of literature is Francie Nolan, coming home from the library with an armful of books to read on the fire escape outside her bedroom window in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. Francie is reading every book in the library, alphabetically by author (she's in the "Brownes" at that moment).

Even as a little girl, I totally got that. I was exactly that kind of reader -- oblivious to genre or category, but convinced on some level that if it was a book, it was worth reading. My tastes have since matured over the ages, but that instinctive idea that a book is worth opening? That seems to have stayed with me.

>38 southernbooklady:: I remember that scene. And, I remember thinking, when I read it, how, as a child, I didn't know any genre distinctions either. I would also pick up any book that sounded interesting to me. I went through a thriller phase, a sci-fi phase, a horror phase, historical phase, and so on. In fact, I didn't even know of these labels much at all. The 2-3 libraries we frequented, growing up in India, simply shelved books by author last names and nothing more (other than the British Council Library network, India has never had a library culture).

It's hard to pinpoint exactly when and why I decided that literary fiction and realism interested me the most and I started focusing my reading there. It might have been when I decided I wanted to be a writer and I wanted to write in those genres. That said, in the past decade or so, I've also learned that it's actually better for me to read all kinds of fiction to develop and improve my writing muscles. And, I do now venture out of that narrow box now and then. :) Every good book, regardless of genre classification, can be a master class in writing.

>34 southernbooklady:

Why don't white people browse the African American sections? Why don't straight people peruse the gay sections? Especially when it comes to fiction?

Yes, this sort of thing always puzzled me too, my head is wired so that whatever I perceive as most "not like me" is frequently at least in some ways the most interesting to me.

Whatever the psychology, perhaps there are some prosaic reasons for people avoiding sections they think are not "for" them, like fearing that browsing the gay shelf would make someone think they are gay?

But simply not being interested in every type of human or all things human, at least a little, that I don't get.

>40 LolaWalser: when it comes to genre fiction it's probably a matter of taste -- my dad loves science fiction, but won't read fantasy. "Magic" is just a no go for him. But when we start thinking about identity in the same way -- a group to be marketed to, a matter of taste -- it exposes our unquestioned prejudices.

Really terrible news today, folks. Michelle Cliff has died

Here's the NYT Obit

Sad to say I'd never heard of her before.

RIP.

I had not heard of her before either. Though, of course, I know of and have read some Adrienne Rich.

I keep thinking how 2016 has been a brutal year for creatives of all stripes. Sad indeed.

“One of the effects of indoctrination, of passing into the anglo-centrism of British West Indian culture, is that you believe absolutely in the hegemony of the King's English and in the proper forms of expression. Or else your writing is not literature; it is folklore, or worse. And folklore can never be art. Read some poetry by West Indian writers--some, not all--and you will see what I mean. The reader has to dissect anglican stanza after anglican stanza for Caribbean truth, and may never find it. The anglican ideal -- Milton, Wordsworth, Keats -- was held before us with an assurance that we were unable, and would never be able, to achieve such excellence. We crouched outside the cave.”

― Michelle Cliff, If I Could Write This in Fire

On the issue of diversity in literature:

The Library of Congress has a new exhibition called "America Reads" -- 65 books, by American authors, that have had a profound effect on American life from founding to present. All were selected by the public from an LOC-curated list of 88 titles. 25 titles are repeats from a similar exercise in 2012, while 40 are new.

I scanned the "new" list and was a bit disappointed to see the usual suspects (i.e. higher % of white male authors). I suppose it's hard to pick just 65 books to span such a long time period.

At least I can say that I've read more than 50% of them, for what it's worth. :)

http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2016/16-088.html

That list isn't of books that have "had a profound effect on American life." It's a list of books that have had a profound effect on white American life.

Lol, "The giving tree" and Ayn Rand on the same list... talk about schizoid...

Was it an online survey? Because I see a LOT of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. Reminds me of those polls that always showed Ron Paul won the Republican debate (then Bernie, this go-around, though with less vigor).

>50 sparemethecensor: The original list wasn't -- it was a survey of librarians:

"Books That Shaped America" was a popular exhibition that featured 88 books chosen by Library curators as being representative of the breadth and influence of books by American writers, from the country’s founding to the present. The titles were not intended to be a list of the "best" American books. Rather, the Library curators selected 88 books by American authors that they believed had a profound effect on American life.

Wow. This shocks me, then. You'd think librarians would be more aware of homogeneity in book picks. (Perhaps I am spoiled, belonging to the New York Public Library.)

>52 sparemethecensor:: Yes, that's what bothered me too. That's why I mentioned that the original list of 88 titles was LOC-curated (see >47 jennybhatt:). I scoured that article for any good explanation re. what criteria the LOC used for those 88 but there really wasn't any.

I've been wondering about Ayn Rand, though. Though I haven't read her books, I've read about them and about her philosophy re. capitalism, etc. From that perspective, I can see why people think that she has been a big influence on American capitalism -- we only have to look at Wall Street, right?

What I wish is that we had an anti-Ayn Rand. Is there one? Is there a fiction writer who writes or wrote just as prolifically with an opposing philosophy, which has also had a similar impact? I really would like to learn more about this.

>53 jennybhatt: Toni Morrison, perhaps?? I don't know about a similar impact, though. A few decades ago, I would have suggested Steinbeck.

>54 librorumamans::

Toni Morrison -- I'm not sure as her predominant themes are more to do with race, gender, identity, right? Not that I'm any expert on Morrison's work.

John Steinbeck -- yes, I suppose he focused more on underdogs and the socio-economic conditions that create them or beat them down. But, was his work anti-capitalist or anti-Rand? Don't know enough to say.

You'd think that, among contemporary American writers, after the 2008 financial crisis, there would be an anti-capitalist sort of writer. Recently, I've been looking at Lionel Shriver's work. Her latest, The Mandibles, is set in a near-future America after the world economy implodes. It sounds quite interesting -- the US defaults on its sovereign debt, Mexico builds a wall to keep US citizens out as they're trying to escape the country with their savings, people don’t read anymore, journalism is dead, internet piracy is the norm, political coups are regular, the “Chelsea Clinton administration” has come and gone, and language has evolved to a place where a word like “bullshit” has been replaced by “treasury” (as in “You’re talking treasury, man”). It's getting mixed reviews, I think, but it sounds like just the thing, doesn't it? She's also written about obesity and mass shootings in her fiction. I'm thinking, if there's an anti-Ayn Rand in fiction, it might be her. Agree/disagree? Any other candidates?

Maybe, the problem is that, even if there's an anti-Ayn Rand out there, he/she is not going to be as popular because the worldview will necessarily be more bleak and pessimistic. Rand offered a kind of optimism, didn't she?

(Sorry, don't mean to digress. If there's a more appropriate thread to discuss this, please point me to it. Thanks.)

I don't think there is anyone who could be called an anti-Rand. Not only was she tremendously influential, but her books engendered a system of belief that I think is cultlike. She still exerts influence today. Paul Ryan follows her principles.

I wouldn't necessarily call her optimistic. For her, the individual was all. It's really elevating selfishness to a moral imperative. Her ideas appeal to many people when they are adolescents. Most of them get over it.

Her books are terrible, by the way, and extremely sexist.

To my mind, she's most like L Ron Hubbard, a terrible science fiction writer who ended up inventing Scientology.

Here's a link to the original 2012 list of 88 books chosen by librarians:

https://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2012/12-123.html

It's more comprehensive. It's basically a list of books that brought certain ideas or perspectives into the mainstream -- that seems to be what's meant by "profound impact."

The list in the link above are the 25 "favorites" from the original list and thus I think the question of who takes these online surveys is warranted, because in terms of impact I would think The Autobiography of Malcolm X would be more significant than Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

One book not on the list that I would have expected is The Things They Carried. Rubyfruit Jungle is also missing.

I am not opposed to Ayn Rand appearing on the list, because as noted, she created a whole movement predominantly in America. She was critical to the formation of the ultra-capitalist movement within the Republican party. Even many of my progressive friends went through a Rand phase in college. (I liked Anthem when I read it in high school, even.) But twice? Why list two of her books? They're all essentially identical.

Similarly, The Book of Mormon appears, which was critical to a part of American history and current American life. No complaints. But I would certainly complain if all the other works appeared (Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine & Covenants, I think there's another?).

edit - missing word

Maybe Dos Passos in addition to Steinbeck? Though I very rarely meet anyone who's read him.

Michael Lewis has done quite a bit of writing about the financial crisis (and the culture that led to it.) Joan Didion's Where We Were From examines the mythos of self-sufficiency, especially as applied to California.

None of them have the influence of Rand, though.

The closest I can think of for that would be someone like Zinn or Chomsky (Naomi Wolff to a lesser extent?)

>58 sparemethecensor: Like Hubbard fans, Rand fans always get out in numbers and flood such lists with votes, which is probably why two of them got on there. I'm guessing they excised the Hubbard votes. This may also happen with the Book of Mormon, not sure.

I think one of her books is enough to represent her ideas. If there's anyone there who stands in opposition to her ideas, its Steinbeck, who has three books there, but alas, we don't have members of Congress making decisions based on The Grapes of Wrath.

All of Black America is represented by two books. Not one Native American, gay or lesbian, or non-white immigrant novel. It's a short list, with all the usual suspects, but jeez.

My favorite anti-libertarian book is Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress.

>60 sturlington: All of Black America is represented by two books. Not one Native American, gay or lesbian, or non-white immigrant novel. It's a short list, with all the usual suspects, but jeez

Some books from the original list of 88. What's interesting is looking at the span of time between each book. On the original list, the late 50s and early 60s are well represented, which suggests something about the upheaval in American society at the time:

Frederick Douglass, "The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass" (1845)
Frederick Douglass’s first autobiography is one of the best-written and most widely read slave narratives. It was boldly published less than seven years after Douglass had escaped and before his freedom was purchased. Prefaced by statements of support from his abolitionist friends, William Garrison and Wendell Phillips, Douglass’s book relates his experiences growing up a slave in Maryland and describes the strategies he used to learn to read and write. More than just a personal story of courage, Douglass’s account became a strong testament for the need to abolish slavery.

W.E.B. Du Bois, "The Souls of Black Folk" (1903)
"Few books make history and fewer still become foundational texts for the movements and struggles of an entire people. The ‘Souls of Black Folk’ occupies this rare position," said Du Bois biographer Manning Marable. Du Bois’s work was so influential that it is impossible to consider the civil rights movement’s roots without first looking to this groundbreaking work.

Zora Neale Hurston, "Their Eyes Were Watching God" (1937)
Although it was published in 1937, it was not until the 1970s that "Their Eyes Were Watching God" became regarded as a masterwork. It had initially been rejected by African American critics as facile and simplistic, in part because its characters spoke in dialect. Alice Walker’s 1975 Ms. magazine essay, "Looking for Zora," led to a critical reevaluation of the book, which is now considered to have paved the way for younger black writers such as Alice Walker and Toni Morrison.

Richard Wright, "Native Son" (1940)
Among the first widely successful novels by an African American, "Native Son" boldly described a racist society that was unfamiliar to most Americans. As literary critic Irving Howe said in his 1963 essay "Black Boys and Native Sons," "The day ‘Native Son’ appeared, American culture was changed forever. No matter how much qualifying the book might later need, it made impossible a repetition of the old lies."

Gwendolyn Brooks, "A Street in Bronzeville" (1945)
"A Street in Bronzeville" was Brooks’s first book of poetry. It details, in stark terms, the oppression of blacks in a Chicago neighborhood. Critics hailed the book, and in 1950 Brooks became the first African American to win the Pulitzer Prize for poetry. She was also appointed as U.S. Poet Laureate by the Librarian of Congress in 1985.

Ezra Jack Keats, "The Snowy Day" (1962)
Ezra Jack Keats’s "The Snowy Day" was the first full-color picture book with an African-American as the main character. The book changed the field of children’s literature forever, and Keats was recognized by winning the 1963 Caldecott Medal (the most prestigious American award for children’s books) for his landmark effort.

James Baldwin, "The Fire Next Time" (1963)
One of the most important books ever published on race relations, Baldwin’s two-essay work comprises a letter written to his nephew on the role of race in United States history and a discussion of how religion and race influence each other. Baldwin’s angry prose is balanced by his overall belief that love and understanding can overcome strife.

Betty Friedan, "The Feminine Mystique" (1963)
By debunking the "feminine mystique" that middle-class women were happy and fulfilled as housewives and mothers, Betty Friedan inspired the second-wave feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Friedan advocates that women need meaningful work and encourages them to avoid the trap of the "feminine mystique" by pursuing education and careers. By 2000 this touchstone of the women’s movement had sold 3 million copies and was translated into several languages.

Malcolm X and Alex Haley, "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" (1965)
When "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" (born Malcolm Little) was published, The New York Times called it a "brilliant, painful, important book," and it has become a classic American autobiography. Written in collaboration with Alex Haley (author of "Roots"), the book expressed for many African-Americans what the mainstream civil rights movement did not: their anger and frustration with the intractability of racial injustice.

Dee Brown, "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" (1970)
Until librarian Dee Brown wrote his history of Native Americans in the West, few Americans knew the details of the unjust treatment of Indians. Brown scoured both well-known and little-known sources for his documentary on the massacres, broken promises and other atrocities suffered by Indians. The book has never gone out of print and has sold more than 4 million copies.

Boston Women’s Health Book Collective, "Our Bodies, Ourselves" (1971)
In the early 1970s a dozen Boston feminists collaborated in this groundbreaking publication that presented accurate information on women’s health and sexuality based on their own experiences. Advocating improved doctor-patient communication and shared decision-making, "Our Bodies, Ourselves" explored ways for women to take charge of their own health issues and to work for political and cultural change that would ameliorate women’s lives.

Toni Morrison, "Beloved" (1987)
Toni Morrison won the 1988 Pulitzer Prize for fiction for her post-Civil War novel based on the true story of an escaped slave and the tragic consequences when a posse comes to reclaim her. The author won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1993, and in 2006 The New York Times named "Beloved" "the best work of American fiction of the past 25 years."

Randy Shilts, "And the Band Played On" (1987)
"And the Band Played On" is the story of how the AIDS epidemic spread and how the government’s initial indifference to the disease allowed its spread and gave urgency to devoting government resources to fighting the virus. Shilts’s investigation has been compared to other works that led to increased efforts toward public safety, such as Upton Sinclair’s "The Jungle."

César Chávez, "The Words of César Chávez" (2002)
César Chávez, founder of the United Farm Workers, was as impassioned as he was undeterred in his quest for better working conditions for farm workers. He was a natural communicator whose speeches and writings led to many improvements in wages and working conditions.

>62 southernbooklady: I guess the public list are books that people actually read? Or claim that they have read? Many of the ones you list here I encountered last in college. Although Their Eyes Were Watching God is one of my favorite all-time books. The writing just knocks me out. I have yet to read Beloved. It is sitting on my bedside table.

It's interesting that nobody outside the US knows or cares about Ayn Rand. How such a terrible writer and laughably bad thinker became popular there is anyone's guess--I'd say the coincidence of her "prime" with anti-Red hysteria has lots to do with it. Her (lasting) appeal certainly shows American libertarianism for what it is.

>55 jennybhatt:

You'd think that, among contemporary American writers, after the 2008 financial crisis, there would be an anti-capitalist sort of writer.

American writers, at least those in the "mainstream", are notoriously apolitical--this has been the theme of at least one article suggesting that this is why the Nobel doesn't seem to pick Americans much. That their outlook tends to be provincial and navel-gazingly narcissistic. If this is so (I'm not in a position to judge), at least it wasn't always so. Just as a few examples, Dreiser, Dos Passos, Upton Sinclair were engaged AND popular.

Of current ones, I know Franzen is strongly anti-neoliberal in his writing.

>64 LolaWalser: It's interesting that nobody outside the US knows or cares about Ayn Rand

An interesting insight. I had never heard of her, but someone gave me Atlas Shrugged twenty years or so ago because they know I am interested in railways. I started reading it on the assumption that it was a novel about a railroad empire. As I got further into it I realised how turgid and tedious the prose was, with long philosophical speeches and not nearly enough railway interest, and it finally dawned on me that it was actually a rather unpleasant political manifesto. I finished it just to find out how it ended ("Who is John Galt?", as they say) but was not impressed. It came as an even greater surprise many years later to learn (actually from discussions on LT) that it was considered an influential book and had a political following.

>65 John5918:

Was the person who gave you the book American or had some US connection? I'd never heard of her until I came to the US. Even now, post-Internet and all, she seems to be utterly obscure in the world at large. If anything, I get the sense that a few economists might know of her as Milton Friedman* (sorry, I think this may be wrong and I'm thinking of someone else but can't right now look up who)'s "muse" but that it's perceived as some weird, more or less embarrassing factoid that rather diminishes him than glorifies her.

*Alan Greenspan, ex-chairman of the US Federal Reserve

>66 LolaWalser: She deserves all the obscurity she can get. It is embarrassing that anyone over the age of 18 would take her seriously as a thinker. Which says a lot about our Congress.

Here's an interesting piece on Rand's influence: http://www.alternet.org/ayn-rands-continued-influence-adds-bizarre-twist-conserv...

>66 LolaWalser:

Yes, it was an American, and I was in the USA at the time.

>67 sturlington: two novels bearing both the weight and prose style of a cement brick

What an apt description!

>62 southernbooklady:: I love many of the books you've listed from the original 2012 list. It would have been good to have more of them on the 2016 list instead of repeating authors.

>64 LolaWalser:: Rand was quite popular in India when I was growing up in the 80s. Not sure about now. Re. American writers of today being more apolitical -- now that you mention it, I do recall seeing a few articles on this a while ago. That's why the Lionel Shriver book interests me -- she doesn't seem to shy away from political themes in this latest or in her previous work. Franzen, yes, I'd read somewhere about his politics, though I haven't read his fiction yet.

>60 sturlington:: "All of Black America is represented by two books. Not one Native American, gay or lesbian, or non-white immigrant novel. It's a short list, with all the usual suspects, but jeez."

You said it.

I'm wondering... should there be or is there a thread on LibraryThing where we can do an annual list of 50 most impactful/influential books by, say, decade? It's not that there aren't many such lists out there. The Guardian has a weekly series going on right now for the 100 best non-fiction books in English and they'd done a similar list for fiction last year. It's just such a hugely fascinating discussion.

Mind you, I realize it might take a lot of work to coordinate such lists and get LT members to cast votes and all that. The parameters and logistics would have to be worked out first. Still... it might be an interesting exercise and generate some interesting debate.

RIP Benoîte Groult, French writer and feminist. I didn't know of her work till this obituary and now I must look into it.

Ms. Groult published more than 20 novels as well as many essays on feminism. She also helped found a short-lived feminist monthly, F magazine. She was made an officer of the French Légion d’Honneur, the highest French order for military and civil excellence, this year.

Ms. Groult attributed her belated awakening to feminism to her “bluestocking” Roman Catholic upbringing, which she said had given her few female role models.

“I discovered that freedom isn’t just picked up naturally,” she wrote in her autobiography. “It’s something you have to learn, day after day, and very often painfully.” For that “apprenticeship,” she added, “I needed other women, those models who had been carefully hidden from me during the course of my education.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/books/benoite-groult-french-feminist-and-write...

>70 jennybhatt:

Rand was quite popular in India when I was growing up in the 80s.

That doesn't surprise me, well-to-do Indians are IME frequently US-orientated and tend to be conservative and rather right-wing. The eighties were also the time of the neoliberal crushing of leftist parties globally, with US pro-capitalist propaganda spreading everywhere.

In Eastern Europe (news from) I don't recall seeing Rand in particular mentioned or in bookstores, just tons of American-produced "business" self-help type books, as well as (even more) fundamentalist religious, creationist, anti-evolutionist, antisemitic, white supremacist garbage.

>71 jennybhatt:

Yes, I posted some links http://www.librarything.com/topic/219897#5625303 and http://www.librarything.com/topic/219897#5626605

And, ha!--we quoted the same bit. :)

>71 jennybhatt:

If you're interested, I discussed briefly a book of Groult's, Ainsi soit-elle (not translated into English) here (different group, Reading Books by Women): http://www.librarything.com/topic/210823#5454779

and mentioned her in connection with the Beauvoir group read in here:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/222170#5565320

>74 LolaWalser:: Thanks for those links. I had not seen the 'In Memoriam' thread within this group -- should have checked. :)

No problem, the interface is such that new threads fall under the radar unless you look at the Group page or All Talk occasionally.

>64 LolaWalser: Growing up in Toronto, I knew about Ayn Rand because she was such a big deal in the early '60's and my older sister had one of the books, Atlas Shrugged I think. Because of the buzz, I started it when she was done/gave up, but ditched it as utter crap after a couple of chapters.

>70 jennybhatt: It's just my sensitive spot, I know, but could we perhaps ban the word "impactful"?

>77 librorumamans:

Ah, look at me, forgetting all about Canada! :) OK, "outside of North America..." That said, I've yet to meet a Canadian fan of Rand's, but I acknowledge my sampling here is very biased.

>61 sturlington: I've not read Ayn Rand, but I might describe myself as has having libertarian sympathies and remember enjoying the Beggars in Spain trilogy and premise, perhaps I'm missing something. Can you expand on why you thought it was anti-libertarian? Four people have tagged it as libertarian, and a couple others as Ayn Rand/Ayn Randish. Maybe the person who tagged it "seriously you jerks maybe conceiving of all human interactions in terms of trade and contracts is a mistake" agrees it's anti-libertarian.

>79 wifilibrarian: Many people regard it as a libertarian book because several characters advocate for a libertarian society, but the main character ultimately rejects this. Please remember this is in the context of discussing Ayn Rand, which could be considered extreme libertarianism. This is the quote that I return to again and again, and I may have to cross stitch on something:

To Kenzo Yagai she said, Trade isn't always linear. You missed that. If Stewart gives me something, and I give Stella something , and ten years from now Stella is a different person because of that and gives something to someone else as yet unknown—it's an ecology. An ecology of trade, yes, each niche needed, even if they're not contractually bound. Does a horse need a fish? Yes.

To Tony she said, Yes, there are beggars in Spain who trade nothing, give nothing, do nothing. But there are more than beggars in Spain. Withdraw from the beggars, you withdraw from the whole damn country. And you withdraw from the possibility of the ecology of help.

By the way, I'm not saying that everything libertarians advocate for is bad, just that I think it's delusional to believe that the individual achieves everything alone on his own merits or that you can just opt out of the social contract.

PS I have not read the subsequent books in the trilogy.

PPS here's my full review,which expands my thoughts on this considerably: http://www.librarything.com/work/48156/reviews/105901953

>80 sturlington:

I can't help but think that your comment in >60 sturlington: (one can get by reading any one of Rand's books) is somewhat telling. There's something of an overly reductive (bordering on hermetic tautology) quality about Rand's work. In a sense, she reminds one of Adichie's comments about the "dangers of a single story." Rand only has the one story, with one protagonist (the completely self-interested ego) and one theme (selfishness is the ultimate good, and the world sorts justly and completely according to that measure. If one has, one has earned. If one lacks, one is not worthy (simply try harder!)).

I think that plays into her "popularity" and "influence," because it's a very simple (and status quo affirming) message. And there's a part of that speaks to why it might be hard to come up with a single "anti-Rand", because the opposite of Rand is any diversity of thought or perspective.

>81 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Well said.

>81 Jesse_wiedinmyer: -- yes, well-said.

>77 librorumamans:: "It's just my sensitive spot, I know, but could we perhaps ban the word "impactful"?"

Ha. No worries. I don't use that word much myself. I simply used it here because one of the descriptions of the LOC list was how the books have had a profound impact on America.

There is a really fascinating and sobering account of a woman journalist's experience when her book is classified as memoir -- and reviewed as such -- by the book industry:

The reluctant memoirist

There's a lot going on in the piece: our preconceptions of women journalists, of Asian women journalists, the way we respond to books that are "memoirs" (personal) versus "journalism" (serious, objective), the still underlying assumption that investigative journalism remains a male, and even a white male, pursuit. It's ironic that I came across this at a time when Michael Herr has just died, and is "Dispatches" is once again in the public eye.

>84 southernbooklady:: I just read that too. Yes, a lot to unpack there. I kept wondering if the label would have changed whether I'd pick the book up or not. And, I don't think it would have--for me. But, I can see many people would not touch a "memoir", where they would pick up a book under the "journalism" category. I'm glad the issue is getting attention, though. More such articles will, hopefully, make the publishing industry decision-makers reconsider their attitudes. And certain groups of readers too, hopefully.

>85 jennybhatt: I want to read it to compare to a book by a friend of mine, The House on Dream Street -- which is definitely a memoir, but is also about a woman alone in a supposedly hostile culture, in Dana's case, Vietnam.

>86 southernbooklady:: That Vietnam book looks rather interesting too. :)

YAY, my state! Another stellar example of North Carolina's commitment to literacy:

Isabel Allende defends House of Spirits to NC School Board

Last week, several of Watauga County’s commissioners even stepped into the fray. Commissioner David Blust, called for a book rating system and argued that the book offered no life lessons. “It’s filth…. Honestly, what normal family is like this book? The Manson family, maybe, Ted Bundy? I think this is just so wrong,” he told the local Watauga Democrat.

Another, Chairman Nathan Miller, said the book’s inclusion in the curriculum was such an “egregious violation” that he recommended the district dispense with its usual book review policy. And Commissioner Perry Yates called the book “despicable.”

ETA: I should update this, to say that the reason this story is making the rounds now (it's several years old) is that one of the people calling for the ban was just appointed to our state school board by our governor:

https://dianeravitch.net/2016/06/29/nc-gov-mccrory-appoints-advocate-of-censorsh...

>88 southernbooklady: Wow, I really have to read House of Spirits now. I read Daughter of Fortune earlier this year and loved it.

I am taken aback that The House of Spirits is considered banworthy. I read it years ago but I don't recall it being that incendiary. I do remember thinking, as I read, how much it seemed like a thinly-disguised version of or a tribute to One Hundred Years of Solitude. Still, it was a lovely read and there are bits that I have gone back to reread from time to time.

Book-banning in today's world, when social media and the internet both provide so much more incendiary material, just does not make sense to me. Not that I'v eever been "for" that kind of censorship -- even before the internet.

This is another article about how women writers and their works are perceived differently from men writers. But, a few more nuances presented.

You know, I would love to see a bookstore -- physical or online -- categorize books as "dick lit" or "white guy shelf". I was telling someone the other day, when he dismissed a movie as a "chick flick" that, fine, then allow me to call some of the movies you favor "dick flick". He laughed it off but it bothered me a bit.

"Yet it is difficult to say what makes a book masculine and even harder to categorize what masculine writing actually is. In any given library catalogue there are hundreds of books and articles with titles that mention “women” and “writing,” or “women’s writing,” but none that feature the phrase “men’s writing.” Bookshop visits will reveal shelves titled “chick lit,” but none called “dick lit” or, as Linda Z, a book editor turned agent, puts it, a “white-guy shelf.” I’d posit that masculine writing and good writing are actually the same things because we are told, time and time again, what isn’t good writing. According to Anthony Burgess, Jane Austen’s novels fail because her writing “lacks a strong male thrust.” Nobel Laureate V.S. Naipaul categorized women’s writing as unequal to men’s because of women’s “sentimentality” and “narrow view of the world.” William Gass declared that women “lack that blood congested genital drives which energizes every great style” (italics mine). These comments indicate that men’s writing is just writing and everything else is a sub-classification."

"I think that what lies at the heart of our current literary culture is not a matter of writing but one of reading—specifically, who we read and how. So how do we fix this? Maybe we need to introduce quotas on school and university text lists. Or as Kamila Shamsie suggested, devote 2018 to publishing only books by women. I’d personally like to see a policy created in academia for those of us who referee scholarly articles to reject, outright and without question, any work that does not include women in their reference lists. I spoke at an event recently where an audience member suggested that all manuscripts be reviewed blind—an idea that makes more and more sense to me. In a culture where sexism—and racism, classism and homophobia—continues to thrive, we need to ensure that the books deemed to be the very best in our culture act as a buffer against these issues, and that the definition of great literature is widened to include creativity not only at the line, sentence or structural sense, but in its ability to show us what the world really looks like."

http://lithub.com/on-sexism-in-literary-prize-culture/

>91 jennybhatt: Jeez, based on those quotes by Burgess and Gass, "dick lit" is an apt name.

Well, I would much rather read Jane Austen than Anthony Burgess. And I have read a lot of books that lack a strong female base. I am less and less willing to waste mt time on them. But take a moment to compare their numbers on LT. Apparently a lot of LT members agree with me.

I think we ought to at least not take seriously any awards whose judges are mostly male. There is no reason to perpetuate the idea that books that appeal mostly to men are more valuable than books that appeal more to women.

The same thing goes for films. I have no desire to watch violence. I sometimes put up with a little bit if it is important to the story, but most of the recent movie ads I have seen seem to replace story with violence.

I've read a few Anthony Burgess books I liked. And I think books like A Clockwork Orange have value for the questions they make us ask about ourselves.

I tend to doubt calls for "quotas" in the arts, though, because I feel like they miss the point. The question of fixing "who we read and how," as the writer puts it, is not going to be answered by conforming to some statistically determined ratio of women to men, white people to black people to native american people, ad infinitum. It will be answered by asking ourselves, constantly, "does this truly reflect our world?" It is a question of letting ourselves be open to every different kind of voice.

But that wouldn't mean "reading every manuscript blind," as though every text could be reduced to the same standard of what is or isn't "good writing." It would mean reading as many different kinds of manuscripts as possible. It would mean reaching for difference, instead of sameness, if that makes any sense. And letting those many different voices sink into us, affect us, finding what is true in each of them rather than constantly uneasily and uselessly wondering, "is this voice as good as John Irving?"

Ultimately, I think as readers we have to want to listen to what the writer wants to say, rather than what we want to hear. I realize that I'm really just talking about a shift in emphasis, but if we read like that -- for what is true rather than according to some weird census in our heads -- then men's writing no longer equals good writing, just one kind of good writing, and juried panels of all men judging books mostly by men look flawed to us, instinctively, because we have a rich sense of the many voices out there.

It's dangerous to fall into any sort of stereotyping. There's Austen, with her (superficial) cosiness, but there's also Kathy Acker, human bomb. One isn't less of "woman's writing"--if we agree that that is anything written by a woman--than the other.

By the same token, while it's probably easy to discern dick-worship in the works and lives of most male writers--after all, it dominates culture in so many ways, and these people consider themselves special by the mere fact of their maleness--pronounced "dick litterateurs" would, in my view, be a large group, but still only one group, one kind of male writers.

Even while it's probable most men in history thought as Burgess, Naipaul, Gass above, this doesn't necessarily obnoxiously intrude in everyone's work.

Considerations of gender to me serve as warnings to adjust our lenses, to think of our cultural biases and prejudice, but do not, ever, constitute grounds for deciding a book is good or bad.

A call for a "Geniuses With Penises" classification for books. ;)

http://blog.pshares.org/index.php/some-call-it-dick-lit/

An interesting essay on the literature of pregnancy and new motherhood and how it's finally evolving and gaining more traction.

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/stranger-guest-literature-pregnancy-new-moth...

9 New female authors who are breaking new nonfiction territory

Some I know, some I don't. What I'd like to know, though, is in what way are they each "groundbreaking"? The article doesn't really say, with the exception of some hints about Maggie Nelson.

"Groundbreaking" here seems to be shorthand for "will change the way you think." But those two concepts aren't synonymous to me.

>98 southernbooklady:: I read this earlier too. I think "groundbreaking" is meant to mean this (under their blurb for Roxane Gay):

"Sometimes breaking new territory means becoming widely read. Sometimes breaking new territory means becoming the voice of a generation of women. Sometimes break new territory means writing about everything from The Bachelor to Scrabble to rape culture to racism in America."

I don't necessarily agree with that definition but, in that light, the authors presented do make sense. I haven't read all of them either, though.

>99 jennybhatt: Sometimes breaking new territory means becoming widely read.

I don't think I agree with that. If "popularizing" was equivalent to "breaking new ground" then Bill O'Reilly has broken new ground in the field of American History.
The word "new" is in there for a reason.

>100 southernbooklady:: Yeah, I didn't agree with that entire definition of "groundbreaking" either. Just that, based on it, the selected authors do make sense.

Laurie Garrison, an academic, writer, and researcher, kicked off a new hashtag for women writers: #women_writers. It's meant for the aspiring women writers who don't yet have publishing deals. Here's what she said:

Garrison says that the low proportion of women with book deals is not always the fault of the publishers. Based on anecdotal evidence, she believes women are less likely to send their manuscripts in the first place. “I’ve heard anecdotal accounts of publishers getting more submissions by men from agents, and women being much less likely to send in second submissions even if encouraged to do so when the first hasn’t been accepted – and, even more bizarrely, when the first has,” Garrison says.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2016/aug/17/womenwriters-manifesto-a...

I have not followed the Twitter activity, so don't know how it's doing. But, the article seems to suggest it's going well. Also, her blog is filled with resources, from my quick 5-minute browsing.

Garrison has also released a manifesto, which I have yet to buy and read.

Garrison has now released a manifesto for the #women_writers hashtag, laying out the need for community-building among female writers, for rejecting traditional models of publishing and for building confidence in the face of rejection. A veritable call to arms for would-be women writers, the manifesto also addresses how both men and women are conditioned to emulate masculinized practices in the workplace and how this is not necessary for success in pitching or writing.

>102 jennybhatt:

masculinized practices

What does this mean? There's that essentialism again...

>103 LolaWalser:: Yeah, I'm not sure about that either as this article was my first introduction to the whole thing and I have yet to read that manifesto.

That said, I don't want dismiss the entire initiative based on the odd phrasing I don't necessarily agree with. That would be a logical fallacy of a certain kind (the exact name of which escapes me just now). :)

>104 jennybhatt:

Seems to me "phrasing" is directly pertinent to meaning here.

I'm curious, what are "masculinized practices", concretely? Maybe I missed it or maybe she doesn't specify?

Any ideas?

>105 LolaWalser:: Apparently, she does go into these practices in her manifesto. But, you have to buy it to read it. And, I haven't done so yet.

Maybe, part of what these practices include is this (from the Guardian article):

Could the “confidence gap” and “imposter syndrome” perhaps account for this? The confidence gap is a theory that a disparity of self-assurance between women and men is devastating in creative industries, where self-belief can be as important as competence. But Garrison is reluctant to use these terms. “I think it’s become a bit of a sweeping explanation for why women don’t experience as much success as men in a lot of areas,” she says. “It seems to suggest that if we’d all just act as confident as men, the problem would be solved. In other words, it’s the women that need to change their behavior, not the external world of publishing, education, working environment.”

I can relate from my corporate career, where we women were often told that, to get ahead, we needed to show supreme confidence, be very competitive, and so on. And, this does two things: 1) devalues the less "traditionally masculine" traits/behaviors that women bring to the table. 2) still doesn't work because women who act or try to act like their male counterparts are seen as threatening. (http://thecooperreview.com/non-threatening-leadership-strategies-for-women/).

I imagine it's much the same in the publishing industry.

Thanks, still sounds pretty much like the traditional hijacking of fundamentally neutral features such as intelligence, assertiveness, confidence etc. as "male" to me... but then I'm hyper-sensitive to that crap. Paranoid, even! ;)

No doubt women suffer from the double standard, but essentialism won't get us rid of it.

>106 jennybhatt: 1) devalues the less "traditionally masculine" traits/behaviors that women bring to the table. 2) still doesn't work because women who act or try to act like their male counterparts are seen as threatening.

I'm also suspicious of those "traditionally masculine" and feminine designations. Apparently I'm deficient in the latter in that I have been told I don't dispense enough validation.

I sometimes think that the clash in the workplace isn't really about men vs women, but about people who are focused on power, and people who are focused on "the work." There are men and women to be found in both groups, though.

>108 southernbooklady:

I'd agree with that. Let's remember men have ruled over fields such as diplomacy too--all about communication, negotiation, compromise--but I've never seen anyone postulate career diplomats exhibit "feminine" traits.

>108 southernbooklady: and >109 LolaWalser:: I agree with both of you. I'm also not comfortable with labeling attributes and behaviors as more male vs more female. That said, there are certain rather longstanding expectations out there for how men and women ought to behave and when someone from one group behaves unexpectedly, it is not always received very well -- in my personal experience.

On a related note, I found this essay on the challenges with portraying powerful women in fiction rather interesting.

There are plenty of novels about women, and even novels in which women work. But not too many in which power is held by a woman, and she is the character with whom we identify. Mostly, the powerful woman is the boss, who’s a type. The nuanced, evolving character from whose viewpoint we see what’s happening is the underling. And indeed, when I’ve tried, as a novelist, to remedy this lack—when I’ve tried writing books in which a woman’s work is more than background—some impulse keeps making me return to her personal life.

...

It’s not that powerful women’s stories aren’t being told. Women in charge appear in films, TV shows, and genre fiction—in detective stories, fantasy, and science fiction. But women in those stories are usually not flawed and complex, capable of growth. And they are in stories with happy endings: you know from the start that everything will work out.

There’s a good chance that a book about a complex woman who exerts power, with whom we identify, will end badly. Yet a writer undertaking a novel about a woman who makes a mistake and brings about harm, may appear to be sexist. Is the author introducing a powerful woman only to humiliate her? Not if the book is written with care and skill, not if the woman isn’t just a victim of forces more powerful than she is—but it doesn’t feel great to give one’s powerful female protagonist a lot of trouble.

http://www.tinhouse.com/blog/43695/women-taking-charge.html

>110 jennybhatt:

Is the author introducing a powerful woman only to humiliate her?

Watching archival TV made me aware of this trope even more than reading. Of course, every representation of women is complicated by their relative paucity--probably we can think of many examples of powerful men, bosses etc. getting humiliated or ridiculed but that's offset by numbers of other types of male representation.

>110 jennybhatt:, >111 LolaWalser:

One of my favorite things about the movie Shakespeare in Love was Judi Dench's relatively small but pithy role as Queen Elizabeth.

>111 LolaWalser: I would say that this is a major problem with underrepresentation in general. Every example is taken to stand for the whole. A powerful female character must represent Powerful Women in General as a type, rather than be an individual character. This weakens storytelling IMO because stories are not allowed to be about individuals.

As the default, male characters can play across a range of types. And there will be many male characters in the story so there is no mistaking that the author thinks all men are like so (unless the writing is not very good and all the men are essentially the same--I have read books like this). But if there is only one major female character or minority character, then that character suddenly has to represent and speak for an entire gender or an entire ethnicity. It's not really fair to the character, but of course this is also done to real-life women and minorities all the time.

So if writers shy away from telling stories about flawed women or minorities for fear of appearing sexist or racist, doesn't that just perpetuate the problem by still not representing the characters as normal humans, who are in fact flawed? It's a bit of a vicious cycle.

>113 sturlington:

Oh, yes.

Recently I read three books by Denise Mina, stuff that goes totally against my grain--deeply depressing crime stories filled with hopeless characters who get beat up and killed and drink and vomit and are generally disgusting in stomach-churning, gory detail.

Thing is, every character she writes--and she writes a lot of women--is so winningly, reassuringly, really real, that I read on simply in gratitude at a book in which women, raped, beaten, humiliated and murdered as they may be, are written as persons.

>111 LolaWalser:, >112 southernbooklady:, >113 sturlington:: Not ignoring the conversation. I'm still chewing over this because it pertains directly to some work-in-progress for me and I'm rather conflicted about how to portray the women for the very issues you all have raised. I'll "listen in" on this conversation and jump in at some point if you guys do continue (and I really hope you do :))

>115 jennybhatt:

I think we discussed this quite a bit, actually... maybe in the "representation" thread? Mina would be a good case to study, if you can stand the misery, how she manages so many diverse female characters who ring so true. There are no Mary Sues in her world.

>116 LolaWalser:: Thanks. I haven't read any of Mina's work yet. But, I'm interested and will do so.

I might have to go back to that earlier thread then -- thanks for the reminder.

I know I groused about the lack of small female "villains", among other types. ("Villains" in quotes because it's mostly ironic...) The lack of "grey" roles. In cinematic terms, most male-dominated (in any sense) narratives tend to cast "leading lady" female types, whether the roles are big or (more often) small, but few "character actors".

It's easier to see what I mean by pointing out what kind of male characters don't get female counterparts--the little man, the middling incompetent, the semi-failure, the petty criminal--unimportant, insignificant mousy schlubs who are yet somehow nice or lovable or generally easy to identify with or root for... Books about women like that are somehow unthinkable.

>118 LolaWalser:: Yes, it's your last point there that I've been thinking a lot about too in my own writing. Need to mull it over some more before I have something worth saying.

---------------

On a related note re. strong women characters, here's a rather well-written article comparing two adaptations of Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew. As we know, the story, overall, has a strong theme of patriarchal misogyny despite being so well-written with quick banter and so on.

Anne Tyler adapted it as a novel and Phyllida Lloyd adapted it as a play. Both took different approaches. Makes me want to see the play now.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12131772/taming-shrew-phyllida-lloyd-anne-tyler-vin...

Vinegar Girl is afraid of the violence running through Shakespeare’s original, so it removes it entirely: The characters are all defanged. Any nefarious intentions are easily forgiven, any cruel words are the product of thoughtlessness, not malice. And systemic and institutionalized sexism, it turns out, really hurts men, not women. It’s a well-crafted book — Tyler could write a light dysfunctional family comedy with her hands tied behind her back — but as an adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew, it’s cowardly.

But Lloyd’s production understood that the face of the patriarchy can be violent and funny and attractive all at once. It embraced nuance. It understood what is appealing about Shakespeare’s original play while unveiling and denouncing the misogyny embedded within it.

Women write better fiction than men-- http://www.wbur.org/artery/2016/09/14/fagan-atwood-tyler

This is pretty flippant, but i like the observations about women not having to insert themselves in the story. Also some book recs...

I love Shirley Jackson...what a great appreciation of her...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/the-possessed/497513/

>121 sturlington:: Loved that Atlantic essay re. Shirley Jackson. Makes me want to read the biography too. And to revisit some of Jackson's work. That husband was something, eh?

I don't know where to post this about the entire debate around Lionel Shriver's keynote speech at the Brisbane Festival. But, she's a woman writer and she's talking about cultural appropriation, which we've discussed in this thread before, so I hope here is OK.

A quick synopsis: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/jia-tolentino/lionel-shriver-puts-on-a-sombrero

Transcript of Lionel Shriver's Speech: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/13/lionel-shrivers-full-speec...

Responses (top ones I've read so far):

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/10/as-lionel-shriver-made-lig...

https://newrepublic.com/article/136815/happened-brisbane

https://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2016/09/13/identity-narrative-a-response-to-lio...

I've actually liked the two books by Shriver I've read. And, her essays/articles. Also enjoyed the few podcast interviews I've heard. One of my writer friends on FB said this might just be a PR stunt, but I don't think so. I think she really believes what she said. And does not see, at all, how tone-deaf and privileged that is. Sigh.

Hm. Stifling creative voice. I wonder where they got that idea?

I didn't have time to read everything but I think the problem, what Shriver did, is this (briefly):

(From Foz Meadows' post): "various strawmen: the information purposely elided here, the conflation of the trivial and the serious there, the overall privileged rudeness of taking a valuable platform given you for a stated purpose and turning it to another."

That bit I bolded is the essence of it (imo). Shriver was invited to give a speech on "community and belonging", and then on the platform 'declared that she would not, in fact, be exploring the theme of “community and belonging,” but would instead discuss the issue of “fiction and identity politics.”' (From Suki Kim's article.)

Then she went on (as I gather from the quotations--do I have to read the whole transcript? ;)) to exhibit truly stunning arrogance, ignorance, tone-deafness etc.

Frankly, just mentioning that sombrero gag is enough. Whether some drunk frat boys were engaging in "cultural appropriation" when they wore sombreros to their drunk frat party is open to debate; what's telling is that Lionel Shriver decided THAT is an example she could conflate with literary characterisation and call it "cultural exchange".

An able-bodied straight white American woman told everyone: “Being Asian is not an identity. Being gay is not an identity. Being deaf, blind, or wheelchair-bound is not an identity, nor is being economically deprived.” (From Suki Kim's article.)

As Foz Meadows writes, there are strawmen here--probably no one understands their identity in terms of a single facet of their being--but mainly, holy guacamole, the fucking unspeakable arrogance of it--the DUMB arrogance.

>125 LolaWalser: And am I to take "holy guacamole" as parodic cultural appropriation? Just asking! ;)

>126 librorumamans:

Oh I'm sure I'm guilty of SOMETHING... :)

Reading more on this, Shriver comes off looking worse and worse. Meadows gives a good if short analysis of the contradictions in her speech.

Frankly it's appalling that a successful novelist, in this day and age, can be so blinkered to her biases.

Yassmin Abdel-Magied's article poses, in my view, lots of problems. I sympathise with her very evident distress and as I say above, agree that Shriver deserves stringent rebuke, but I can't agree with this paragraph (for brevity's sake I'll reserve my criticism):

It’s not always OK if a white guy writes the story of a Nigerian woman because the actual Nigerian woman can’t get published or reviewed to begin with. It’s not always OK if a straight white woman writes the story of a queer Indigenous man, because when was the last time you heard a queer Indigenous man tell his own story? How is it that said straight white woman will profit from an experience that is not hers, and those with the actual experience never be provided the opportunity? It’s not always OK for a person with the privilege of education and wealth to write the story of a young Indigenous man, filtering the experience of the latter through their own skewed and biased lens, telling a story that likely reinforces an existing narrative which only serves to entrench a disadvantage they need never experience.

I can’t speak for the LGBTQI community, those who are neuro-different or people with disabilities, but that’s also the point. I don’t speak for them, and should allow for their voices and experiences to be heard and legitimised.

It should be noted Abdel-Magied walked out of Shriver's speech AND wrote her response immediately after, in the heat of the moment--which I think glaringly shows, to the detriment of her argument, in both content and form. Perhaps the quoted paragraph would have been qualified or nuanced differently if she had taken more time, I don't know. As it stands, this paragraph reads pretty much like what Shriver is accusing people of doing--curtailing creative freedom.

And yet I really don't think that is what Abdel-Magied wanted to convey, just the injustice of the fact that the privileged--like Shriver--can get their cross-cultural forays, no matter how "touristy", successfully published, while the non-privileged struggle to have their own voices heard.

But, predictably, this paragraph was jumped on and Abdel-Magied torn to pieces in the comments.

I admit that I don't fully understand all the ins and outs of the whole cultural appropriation argument. But something about it fundamentally bothers me. It threatens to put us all in boxes from which we are not allowed to escape. Culture seems to be fluid by its very nature and sometimes what i see called cultural appropriation is an essential form of human connection.

The power of fiction is that it enables us, both writers and readers, to play at getting out of our box and try being someone else for a while. Storytelling is essentially play, and play is probably how we humans learn best.

If the argument is that we need to allow space for more diversity of voices, I certainly agree. But I don't think we accomplish that by telling others they need to shut up. I often see muddled reactions like this in arguments around this issue, and I have to wonder if those writing the reactions have fully worked out themselves what they are advocating for exactly.

Shriver is quite possibly muddled too--I didn't read the whole speech. But it appears to me that everyone in this particular conversation is talking past one another, rather than with one another.

After posting the above, I found this piece on Flavorwire, which I think does a good job of presenting a nuanced take on things--

http://flavorwire.com/589393/fiction-cultural-appropriation-and-the-lionel-shriv...

>129 sturlington:

Not sure what conversation is meant; Shriver imposed an agenda on an unsuspecting audience and the ensuing "conversation"--if by that we mean her speech and the responses to it that Jenny linked--is littered with her straw men.

I'd say she's definitely muddled. There may be some case to criticise PC "hypersensitivity"--I won't go into that because every time on closer inspection much of hoopla about PC-gone-mad is manufactured and manipulated and it's difficult to get a clear picture of what really happened and why. For example, the very instance Shriver chose to identify with and re-enact in public, the "sombrero-and-tequila" party, turns out to have a more serious and complicated context of ongoing complaints about racism on that campus. Certainly, Shriver made that incident sound idiotic and it may very well have been that. But, ironically, her speech and the attitudes revealed make me now MORE, not less, inclined to suspect something actually reprehensible happened.

In short, I wouldn't trust a person with her opinions--at least as revealed by her speech--to give a meaningful analysis of something like that.

There's a conversation to be had on what "cultural appropriation" means, or means to different people at least (I'm as ignorant about this as anyone can be), but the incident Shriver precipitated in Brisbane can (and ought to?) be discussed separately as a matter of (her) white privilege in itself.

>130 sturlington:

Meadows and Kim between them make the same points.

Instead of pondering solutions, Shriver’s speech pushes the conversation backwards.

Right.

Sorry, busy weekend, so could not get into this wonderful discussion.

Yes, "cultural appropriation" is confusing to me also. While I do want more diverse works from writers of all stripes, I do not want to suggest to any writer that they cannot or should not write about a race/ethnicity/gender/sexuality that is "other" than their own. That, I think most agree, is not right.

Yes, Shriver could have made her point about creative freedom with more sensitivity and less hubris. I agree with Laila Lalami's tweet in that Flavorwire article too: "The problem with Lionel Shriver isn't that she wants to write from other perspectives, but that she wants to do it and be free of criticism."

I am thrilled, though, that every such speech/tweet/essay opens the dialogue up further with so many thought-provoking, nuanced insights coming forward. Certainly educational for me.

For the last week I've been in Savannah, Georgia helping to run the annual trade show for the Southern Independent Booksellers Alliance, so I've been a little out of touch. This is the show where publishers and authors present the forthcoming fall books and bookstores place orders, etc. So apropos to this conversation, there were several different authors -- white authors -- whose books dealt with race and who talked about how they came to write their book about something that "was not my story to tell" -- that's a direct quote. Several of the writers used that phrase all independently of each other. How to write the book you want to write when you are conscious that it is not your experience you are writing about. The two fiction writers talked about their research, the people they talked to, the people who vetted their manuscripts as they were writing draft after draft. David Arnold, a young adult writer, found Congolese refugees and people who have Moebius syndrome (two entirely different kinds of outsiderness that are important in his novel) and ran everything he was writing through them, resulting in long conversations about how "real" his characters were, how true to the experiences of people who have Moebius syndrome, who are African refugees.

Jodi Picoult described a personal journey to confront her own complicit racism that resulted in a fifteen-minute exhortation of what white people in America can do to confront their own unquestioned privilege. That didn't impress me all that much, to be honest ("Don't say you have friends who are African American," she says to the room). But I was interested in how she talked herself into writing the story she wanted to write -- about an African-American nurse who defies an order to stay away from a white mother giving birth, because the father is a white supremacist and doesn't want a black person touching his kid. The nurse defies the order to perform life-saving emergency care for the infant, and ends up going to trial. The story is based on an incident that happened in a hospital in Flint, Michigan, I think.

Like David Arnold, Picoult did research. Found people to vet her manuscript. Talked to former white supremacists. Etc, etc. I can see why the writer in her was driven by the story, but was more interested in the hurdles she overcame in herself to write it.

The last author was Beth Macy, and her book, Truevine, is nonfiction, about Iko and Eko -- which is a local story where she is from in Roanoke, VA. Macy is a journalist first and foremost, so she never had any issues about whether it was "her story to tell" but a big part of her book is how she gained access to the people who knew what had happened. Macy's account of getting people to trust her with the story, how she had to win them over, or when she had to respect their boundaries and their silence on a subject. reminded me very much of Rebecca Skloot and her account of writing The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Of all the three books, it's Macy's I'm most interested in, because she's the one who has tasked herself with telling someone else's story, not creating a new story of her own.

>134 southernbooklady:: Thanks for sharing those anecdotes.

Francine Prose, whose work I love, has now weighed in on the Shriver issue: "...contains a kernel of truth encased by a husk of cultural and historical blindness."

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/09/19/the-trouble-with-sombreros-shriver-cultu...

“Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else’s culture without permission” is the definition of cultural appropriation that Shriver quotes from a book by Susan Scafidi, a law professor at Fordham University. The topic is a complicated and sensitive one, and Shriver’s first mistake, I think, was to ignore that complexity and sensitivity by adopting a tone that ranged from jauntiness to mockery and contempt. I can think of only a few situations in which humor is entirely out of line, but a white woman (even one who describes herself as a “renowned iconoclast”) speaking to an ethnically diverse audience might have considered the ramifications of playing the touchy subjects of race and identity for easy laughs.

....

Choosing to ignore the real inequities that exist, Shriver takes a familiar tack often used on Fox News: trivializing valid concerns by ridiculing their most absurd manifestations and extreme proponents.

....

If we accept the idea that art in general (and fiction in particular) can tell us something about what it means to be human, are we saying that art should only tell us what it means to be a certain sort of human—one who thinks and looks like us? Why would we read the classics, populated by characters in circumstances so unlike our own? If we insist that literary characters mirror our appearance, problems and habits, we feed into a culture of narcissism in which everything is (and must be) about us. The only beauty that matters is the resolution of our image in the mirror.

....

Misdirecting our indignation, we let powerful individuals and institutions get away with murder while we fight enemies (academics and novelists) whose power is marginal at best, who may reflect prevailing prejudices but whose work, like it or not, hardly affects the larger society. Surely, corporate greed and the governments that have allowed our schools and health care systems to degenerate are more accountable than the authors of short stories. Though we all share the responsibility for the society in which we live, poets and painters are hardly to blame for the fact that we live in a racist country—or for having gotten us into the economic and political mess we are in.

Lionel Shriver is a nasty piece of work:

Will the Left Survive the Millennials?

Where to begin... "empathy", maybe?

I defended fiction as a vital vehicle for empathy.

lol

Shriver did finally respond to the criticism. But, oh dear. As before, I see her point about majority writers being allowed to write about everything they might choose to. But she doesn't seem to see the reality of what minority writers are subjected to.

http://time.com/4495523/lionel-shriver-cultural-appropriation-interview/

The thought is: By majority members being able to write about these other cultures, the space for minority members writing about their own experiences in fiction are being pushed out —

Well that’s just not the nature of publishing. There’s nothing stopping people from telling their own stories. And that’s switching the issue around. First of all: It’s not a zero-sum game. There’s not a law that says, There are only a hundred books a year that are going to be published, and we’re going to publish white people first, and—oops!—we ran out of slots, we’re not going to publish you because you’re from the wrong group. It doesn’t work that way. There are all kinds of publishers.

The issue is not whether people from minority groups should be able to tell their own stories. That’s great. If people are inclined toward writing literature and happen to be coming from a group whose experience seems to be underrepresented in literature, go to town. Hit the word processor. But that’s not really up for grabs. What’s up for grabs is whether I am allowed to have black characters in my fiction. Would Johnny Got His Gun be acceptable today because the author was not actually disabled? That’s the question. And do we really want writers to constrain the cast of their characters to all white, when that’s not representative of the real world? And yet if you do that, you get criticized for it. So you can’t win. So which is going to be?

Thoughts about the outing of Elena Ferrante?

Who Is Elena Ferrante? Supporters Say NOYB http://nyti.ms/2dzSQBf

My fall project is to read all of Elena Ferrente's books, and then to attempt them in the original Italian. I've been waiting for some clear time in my schedule and I finally have it.

As for outing who she may be, I think it will eventually happen. Curiosity is an impossible force to resist.

Gloria Naylor has died.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/entertainment/gloria-naylor-dies/index.html

>138 sturlington:: I think the way it all went down kinda stinks. I have no ambivalence about this one.

Simply on principle, a writer's works should be enough. Why should they not be allowed to write in privacy if they should choose? Maybe that is what she needed to be able to write freely. So, in a way, it is encroaching on a writer's freedom of speech. It's hardly as if she was revealing state secrets or doing something so subversive that revealing her identity was so necessary.

>138 sturlington: He reminds me of the other 'serious reporter'. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37539359

I've been hoping & hoping for a new Naylor novel. I'm so sad, not just for me, but for her, too. Her life got weird in the last few decades. It's unclear if she descended into full-blown paranoia or if the government was spying on her. I was hoping for a new book, not just for my readerly pleasure, but as a sign that she'd overcome whatever bad stuff she was living through. She's given the world so much. I hate that she was silenced.

>138 sturlington:

I shared my thoughts here:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/231258#5748573

Good essay by Marlon James on diversity: http://lithub.com/marlon-james-why-im-done-talking-about-diversity/

This just slipped by me -- Sheri S. Tepper has died.

>145 southernbooklady: She has a very interesting bio. I didn't realize that she didn't start publishing until she was in her 50s. She also wrote mysteries under pseudonyms. I believe her work with Planned Parenthood definitely influenced her writing.

I have one of her books on my TBR, so I will probably read that in her honor. I have previously read and enjoyed Grass, Beauty, The Family Tree, and The Gate to Women's Country. I would consider them all feminist writing.

I love the list of articles by her on Wiki:

So Your Happily Ever After Isn't, 1977
The Great Orgasm Robbery, 1977
So You Don't Want To Be A Sex Object, 1978

I wonder how to track those down.

Wow! I thought I knew who Sherri Tepper was, but looking into her, I see I was completely wrong. Thanks so much, all, for introducing me to a new writer!

I read the Fem Theory forums at least once a day. Thank you to all of you who keep these amazing conversations going.

So here's a funny little piece about publishing fads and all those books with "girl" in the title:

The Gone Girl with the Dragon Tattoo on the Train

Who are these girls? Why are there so many of them? Books with “girl” in the titles make up a tiny fraction of all the books published in a given year, but they appear again and again on the bestseller lists. Other people have written about this trend, often with great eloquence, but none of them were backed by a data set. Using the database at Goodreads, the popular social networking website for readers, we set out to change that. A number of patterns emerged in our analysis: The “girl” in the title is much more likely to be a woman than an actual girl, and the author of the book is more likely to be a woman. But if a book with “girl” in the title was written by a man, the girl is significantly more likely to end up dead.

and also, this little gem:

Generally speaking, titles are like book covers; the author is invited to be a part of the selection process, but neither is ultimately the writer’s decision. (The photographer and writer Deborah Copaken wrote a fairly chilling essay about this for The Nation a few years back. Her memoir of her career as a war photographer was titled “Shutterbabe” against her wishes.)

World Literature Today has dedicated their latest issue entirely to women writers in translation. This article/essay goes through some of the usual concerns about the canon, male writers favored because they "sell", and so on. But, also about a few more things. I'm still processing a response in my head but wanted to share for now.

http://www.worldliteraturetoday.org/2016/november/gatekeepers-and-bedtime-storie...

But it’s not just about parity. And enforcing parity can lead readers and publishers alike to a moment of resistance or backlash: aren’t we there yet, haven’t we heard this refrain enough? We must be careful not to overemphasize the numbers at the expense of the very reason why women must be better represented in the literary world. And that is to make their voices heard. Their experience known. This may seem obvious, but as long as men’s voices and lives are the default mode for literary expression, as long as women continue to emulate the male discourse or privilege it over their own, something is being lost, buried in the publishers’ slush piles, in the unsold books at the bookstore, or the unread books in the library stacks—neither reviewed nor advertised, overlooked, forgotten, ignored.

Until some sort of psychological, emotional parity can be achieved, creating a space where women’s sensibility is equally valued and promoted, it is conscious, practical efforts to raise readers’ and gatekeepers’ awareness that will have to do, to give women writers the place they deserve. This may take generations, alas, and nothing seems to indicate that the planet is moving in a direction that is terribly favorable toward women’s rights, other than in small pockets in developed countries (and even then, media treatment of female participants in the recent Olympic Games testifies to ongoing sexism on many levels). Attaining parity will mean quotas, women-only prizes, repeated years of women-only reading or publishing or issues of magazines, more courageous whistleblowers like Catherine Nichols, and above all, more books by women and about girls at children’s bedtime, on school reading lists, more classroom discussion with boys about the worlds portrayed in women’s novels. Mentalities must change, however slowly and incrementally; the world is shrinking, and empathy and understanding offer space where territory does not.

When will shit like this stop?

Publisher apologises for 'sexist' wording on cover of Elena Garro book

Mujer de Octavio Paz, amante de Bioy Casares, inspiradora de García Márquez y admirada por Borges... (“Octavio Paz’s wife, the lover of (Argentinian writer Adolfo) Bioy Casares, an inspiration to (Gabriel) García Márquez and was admired by (Jorge Luis) Borges”.)

Compare and contrast to the blurb I saw recently on a book by Simenon--"author of hundreds of novels, seducer of thousands of women".

Garro, a woman and therefore fundamentally anonymous, gets "defined" through relationships to specific "great" men, without which she is nothing. Simenon, a man and therefore someone by default, has his authority confirmed and enhanced by the information that he seduced a huge anonymous mass of women, women who are nothing in themselves. Their names don't matter a whit. It's just a mass of cunts.

Can anyone think of an example of a male author introduced by the coordinates of whose husband, lover and muse he was? Or of a female author whose thousands of seductions would be blared about as some kind of crowning glory? Outside pornography, of course.

>151 LolaWalser: Can anyone think of an example of a male author introduced by the coordinates of whose husband, lover and muse he was?

It only proves your point, but Ted Hughes is probably known best to the general public as "that guy that made Sylvia Plath kill herself"

Whatever. The question is how the publishers introduce and sell someone. I've never seen Hughes sold simply as "Plath's husband" and doubt I ever will.

P.S. Also, Hughes was the better-known-to-famous one the entire time they were together. Plath's reputation is practically wholly posthumous.

Another one that comes to mind is John Bayley. But his best known book was primarily about Iris Murdoch, so it was inevitable. All his other lit crit stuff, though, does not see fit to mention his relationship. In fact, here's the publisher description of his own "life in lit" memoir, The Power of Delight:

Beginning his career at Oxford in the 1950s, the ever-incisive John Bayley has been one of the great bulwarks--in the tradition of William Hazlitt and Edmund Wilson--of twentieth-century world literature. His distinctive sensibility has transformed tastes and theories. Here, in The Power of Delight, a volume that has been assembled with the assistance of New Yorker editor Leo Carey, we see at last the full range of Bayley's life and work, divided into eight sections that include 'English Literature, ' 'Russian Novels, ' and 'American Poetry.' A wide-ranging guide to essential reading, The Power of Delight examines classics, neglected gems and masterpieces of our time--from Jane Austen to Milan Kundera, Leo Tolstoy to John Ashbery, and from Robert Lowell's messy persona to George Orwell's self-canonization.

I'm not talking about men with wives more famous than they are. I'm talking about the fact that male writers don't get presentations like this:



even when they are a hundred times less important than Elena Garro--who was a great and pioneering writer and a prominent political activist. Note they did this for a celebration of her centenary!!--and they still made her sound as nothing more than this and that guy's lay.

Happy New Year, all.

Interesting article about women writers of the Beat Generation. We hear mostly of the male writers -- Burroughs, Kerouac, et al. So, this was news to me. Of course, it makes sense there were women writing then. They just did not get the attention that their male counterparts did.

http://www.huckmagazine.com/art-and-culture/unsung-female-heroes-beat-generation...

In 1994, Gregory Corso, in response to a question essentially asking, ‘Where the hell are the women of the Beat Generation?’ responded thus: “There were women, they were there, I knew them, their families put them in institutions, they were given electric shock. … There were cases, I knew them, someday someone will write about them.”

And, slowly, lesser-known Beat women are finding champions in the publishing world.

Crap. How is it I've never gone looking for Beat generation women writers? I've never even heard of Elise Cowan or Bonnie Bremser Frazier.

Joyce Johnson wrote two memoirs about the Beat period that are so good: depressingly revealing about how awful it was to be Kerouac's partner, how hard to be taken seriously as a woman writer, just how lousy being a woman in general must have been then.

>157 southernbooklady:: Me neither. Rather depressing that there's been so little about them out there. But I'm glad to see that might change.

>158 susanbooks:: Thanks for that tip. I was not aware of Johnson's memoirs. Will look into them too.

definitely check out Raw by Hana Malik for issues pertaining to this, it is wonderfully written. I would love to start a conversation about this girl's writing and what it means to everyone.

Per >161 Asifs786: , I've posted a note to the user about LT's terms of service and tips for authors who want to use LibraryThing.

Since we don't seem to have a place for a "women's history" or women's hall of fame, I thought I'd post this here:

Mountain Feminist: Helen Matthews

Roxane Gay has pulled her book from Simon and Schuster to protest their publishing alt-right celebrity and noted misogynist Milo Yiannopoulous.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jarrylee/roxane-gay-pulls-book-from-simon-schuster-in-r...

I bet another publisher snatches it up.

So Roxane Gay spoke at the "Winter Institute" -- an event for american independent bookstores -- and oh, she doesn't pull any punches.

When I received the invitation to speak at Winter Institute, I knew, even before I got the details, that I would be asked to talk about diversity in some form or fashion. This is the state of most industries, and particularly contemporary publishing. People of color are not asked about our areas of expertise as if the only thing we are allowed to be experts on is our marginalization. We are asked about how white people can do better and feel better about diversity or the lack thereof. We are asked to offer “good” white people who “mean well,” absolution from the ills of racism.

Full speech here and well worth reading.

Give me anger over make-nice bromides any time.

Roxane Gay is a national treasure.