I have been trying for a week now to work out what I think about all the Franzen love and the reaction to the Franzen love, but I just can’t organize my thoughts. So I am going to make a listicle of random (or are they?) observations.
1) Middle-age women are the engine that drive fiction in this country. Ian McEwan told the New Yorker this year that he literally couldn’t give novels away to men.
2) Although women dominate fiction as consumers/readers, there is a genre known as “women’s fiction,” yet no correlating genre known as “men’s fiction.” True, there was an attempt to brand some books as “lad lit,” but that was about as successful as trying to make “fetch” happen.
3) In 2001, when THE CORRECTIONS was chosen for Oprah Winfrey’s book club, Franzen’s rather public hand-wringing over his winning lottery ticket did seem to center on the fact that his literary status would be tarnished by the embrace of her middlebrow fan base.
4) In 2001, Jennifer Weiner published her first novel, GOOD IN BED. It is a very good novel. Yes, it chooses to reward its heroine with a traditional happy ending, but it doesn’t choose to make its plus-size heroine slim down. The book made the extended New York Times bestseller list. Since then, Weiner has published seven more novels, some of which have reached #1 on the New York Times list. One of those was a sequel to GOOD IN BED, CERTAIN GIRLS, which is a much darker work that considers what happens after happily-ever-after.
5) After THE CORRECTIONS, Franzen did not publish another novel until this year’s FREEDOM, due next week, although he did publish a memoir and a book of essays.
6) In 2001, I published my sixth novel, which was a New York Times notable book. Since then, I have been profiled in the Times twice (the second time was probably because no one noticed the first time) and received primarily good reviews from its writers. But I write crime fiction, which is treated better than the other genres. A week ago, my fifteenth novel was published.
7) As Weiner’s and Jodi Picoult’s criticisms of the Times reverberated through the blogosphere/Twitterverse, the response was largely anecdotal — and often anonymous. However, Julianne Balmain, a member of the Sisters in Crime monitoring project, had some hard figures. In 2009, 66 percent of the crime novels reviewed by the Times were written by men — up from 61 percent in 2008. In the first six months of 2010, it’s 74 percent. Yet submissions to the Mystery Writers of America’s Edgar Awards indicate that men and women are published in almost equal numbers, 51 percent for men, compared to 49 percent for women. However, men write 56 percent of the hardcover originals.
8) Carl Hiaasen has been profiled in the New York Times. (And Vanity Fair.) Jennifer Weiner has not. Jodi Picoult has not been profiled, but her work was given a detailed critical overview, centering on the role of children in her novels.
9) Let me repeat, I was profiled in the New York Times twice. IIRC, both articles included information about my relationship status. I would guess the first article was about 800-1,000 words, the second perhaps 1,500.
10) This spring, the New York Times put Mr. Lippman on the cover of the New York Times magazine. The article was at least 5,000 words. Nowhere in it is there any mention of Mr. Lippman’s personal life. By the way, I was personally grateful for that. But do you think that Weiner or Picoult could ever be profiled without a reference to their children, partners, etc.?
Do popular writers make an either-or choice? Or is it that our culture, like a kindergarten teacher, feels that rewards must be divvied out — money for commercial fiction, praise for literary fiction? And what about writers like, well, me, who are lucky enough to support themselves AND get praise/attention, but aren’t a threat to the true commercial/critical powerhouses? What’s going on here? Is anything going on here?
One last thought: All fiction is women’s fiction. Women’s fiction is redundant. At the launch for my new book last week, I had an audience of 130 people and 120 of them were women. “Isn’t that weird?” someone asked. I said: “I think it’s wonderful.”
That’s all I have for now. More as it occurs to me.
Jennifer, the NYT reviews most books by Lee Child, Robert Crais, Stephen King, George Pelecanos, and others. I’m a big fan of some of those writers, but others might well see their novels as much “beach reads” (if that’s a perjorative) as anything Jennifer Weiner has written…just of a different kind.
I think the lines are a lot blurrier than you seem to think. And speaking for myself, I’d be glad to have my novel enjoyed on a beach!
I’m still trying to find a point, but I appreciate all corrections and clarifications.
Here’s one thing I have to admit. As a woman, when I read a profile of a successful woman, I absolutely want to know if she’s married and has kids. With men, it seems less central (to me). I’m not proud of this, but I figured I should cop to my bias. Perhaps I shouldn’t care. But if I read a story about a one-legged person, I want to know how he’s getting around and if anyone resents my suggestion that women are hobbled by their domestic responsibilities, I apologize. By the way, the New Yorker did include those details about Mr. Lippman, but then — it had 12,000 words.
But I think one thing I’m circling here is the idea that writers make hard-and-fast choices. “I’m going to be commercial and make lots of money!” “I am going to be literary and garner respect!” To be a novelist is remarkably hubristic/arrogant notion from jump. I think every writer I’ve known would be happy to have it all, money and respect and prestige and awards and — the big one — posterity. Almost none of us (NONE OF US) will have posterity. And we’ll never know what future readers will read. We just can’t.
[Pollyanna aside: I think they will read.]
Chauncey, over at Facebook, has asked — fairly, correctly — that if all fiction is women’s fiction, then whose fault is it that certain books get enshrined and others don’t? I’m still mulling that one.
Life demands my return. It’s going to be that kind of day.
P.S. I have found that the men who read fiction regularly are an open-minded lot.
If you read me tweets carefully — and take a look at a blog I’ll be posting soon — you will note that nowhere do I ever suggest that I should get as much of, or the same kind of, attention as J-Franz. I’m not delusional about what I do, about what critics cover, and about where I belong (back of the bus! back of the bus!)
But. If the Times reviews other genre fiction — even “just” in round-ups on Sundays — if it takes as its mission to consider mysteries and thrillers — than why not beach-books-chick-lit-insert-your-own-perjorative-here? Is that such a crazy thing to want?
Ah well. Now to weep into my mink hankie…
Why wouldn’t fiction be a primarily female driven field. Every job I’ve ever had has been female dominated and I believe it’s worked well for me. Unfortunately, I have not been able to successfully mesh by female molded sensibilities with my boyish love of thrilling fiction as well as someone like Michael Chabon.
And I’m sorry, if you can really read a book like GOOD IN BED and not think it’s a great representation of what kind of power literature can have in our society then you need to reevaluate your life lense.
Well, as much as female writers do not get the respect they deserve (we do still live in a sexist society), I think the bigger issue is that Frazen is the first living author on the cover of Time Magazine in over ten years and that royally sucks. Fiction is becoming a niche within American culture. Maybe the problem here is that with so little coverage as a whole being dedicated to fiction that when someone does get such attention we tend to over analyze why that person deserves it over someone else.
Bryon, I was hoping you would show up. I think GOOD IN BED is good enough to teach. Few first novels are as assured. Then CERTAIN GIRLS surprised me in a way that few novels do. I’ve read everything Jennifer has written.
I don’t blame Franzen for getting attention — good for him. But if he is shy and wants to be reclusive, that path is open to him. (Ask Thomas Pynchon.)
I wrote a piece for the Times of London recently about Patrick Dennis, which, alas, is behind a paywall. And I made the point of saying that the very things people praise about Dennis (the details about how people lived at a certain time) are often the hallmarks of so-called chick lit.
Sarah Weinman made an interesting point about Lorin Stein’s response, to which I will try to provide a link later. He cited Richard Price as an example of a literary writer who has flourished. My hunch is that when Price begins writing his crime fic under a “transparent pseudonym,” he will get as much attention as he got for LUSH LIFE. Just a hunch. Whether the attention will be positive or negative, I honestly can’t guess.
As I said, I can’t seem to find a point, just many things I want to discuss. And the Times Dining In/Out section does, in fact, sample a huge range of cuisines.
Laura,although he was/is foremost a writer, the article in the NYT magazine about Mr. Lippman is about an auteur. Critics have placed him on a pedestal far above the crowd where they wouldn’t deign to waste any of the 7,000 words on his personal life—or to classify him as a certain type of writer. He has come a long way since his goal of covering Annapolis for The Sun. I hope he is enjoying his glory as you bask in your own.
Jennifer Weiner asked: If the Times reviews other genre fiction — even “just” in round-ups on Sundays — if it takes as its mission to consider mysteries and thrillers — than why not beach-books-chick-lit-insert-your-own-perjorative-here? Is that such a crazy thing to want?
This other JW, who hasn’t written enough novels yet to earn his Mink Hankie merit badge, answers: No. It’s completely reasonable. There is unquestionably a double-standard here, part of the kind that leads certain publications to publish best-of lists that (oops!) are comprised entirely of male writers.
FWIW, I agree with Bryon and Laura about GOOD IN BED and other Jennifer Weiner novels. Meanwhile, my seventeen-year-old daughter is a huge fan as well. Books that can span that kind of readership deserve some respect…and reviews.
June, I must clarify: Mr. Lippman never wanted to cover the State House. He was a cop reporter his entire newspaper career and quite happy.
As for basking, we have an important saying in our house. “No one lives inside his success.” Our work doesn’t define us, it’s not who we are.
Our failures on the other hand . . . .
<i>"What’s going on here?"</i>
Perhaps the same male-centric attitude that our culture caused some guys to ask of the two women at an outing in 1965 for incoming engineering students at Pitt: <i>"How dare you take a place in school away from a man who will have to support a family some day?"</i> (The school didn’t allow women to join the marching band because they’d slow the guys down.) Back then women accounted for around 1% of freshmen engineering students, not the close to 20% of today. But, in general, it doesn’t appear that our culture’s internal attitude has changed all that much.
Fantastic points, Laura. I particularly like, “Do popular writers make an either-or choice? Or is it that our culture, like a kindergarten teacher, feels that rewards must be divvied out — money for commercial fiction, praise for literary fiction?”
Thanks for adding your candor to the discussion.
I’ll be more candid: I think I did make a choice. I chose a popular genre because if I had to achieve one thing, it was to be a full-time novelist. Now perhaps my imagination was simply limited, but I didn’t see myself as a likely literary sensation. I still don’t. I am proud of my work and trying to get better with every book. But supporting myself was much more important to me than anything else I might achieve.
But, again — I have the advantage of working in a genre that gets a lot of respect, relatively. And I have benefitted enormously from that.
Agree there are choices to be made, especially fiscal ones. For example, if you teach, you may have a steadier paycheck but you have less time to write. To build a fan base, you must produce and promote. I applaud you for setting achievable career goals and then persevering. That’s what I’m trying to do. The accolades are out of our hands. But staying in the game by writing well-crafted novels is not.
By the way, in a twist that some might call ironic, but I think is really just a hilarious coincidence, I have heard that my book is #16 on the New York Times list that will be published Sept. 5, but included on the printed list because it’s in a statistical tie with the book at #15. And that book is Jennifer Weiner’s FLY AWAY HOME.
I think that we answered this question in the prior post and the comments thereto with the phrase “invisible middle-aged woman.”
Of course, I still have a few miscellaneous comments. Maybe the meaning of the word “literature” is what needs to be explored? If everyone’s box labeled Literature is shaped differently, no wonder we can’t fit the same things into it. But Jennifer Weiner’s stuff fits perfectly into my literature box.
The phrase sometimes used to describe good crime fiction that infuriates me beyond all others is “transcends the genre.” There, I want to scream just typing it. A recent review of I’d Know You Anywhere (can’t remember where I saw the review) put it rather nicely by describing your work as “literary crime fiction.” Literature and crime fiction are not mutually exclusive (Edgar Allen Poe anyone?) and the genre does not need to be transcended.
Congrats on the NYT list!!!
FYI. The bright blue background of your site makes for extreme eye strain while trying to read what you post. You might want to review and choose colours easier on the eye if you want to keep readers reading.
Well, allow me to speak as a representative of the herds of male oafs who hardly EVER read fiction. Rather than reading outright fiction (where you cannot really argue with the author’s point of view, or point of departure) I very much prefer to read non-fiction – most especially US history and biographies (where you most certainly can!)
I suppose that if a person really really really enjoys Laura Lippman’s books (as I certainly do), than he might well enjoy any number of other fiction books, too; but that’s just the point about why I steadfastly REFUSE to swerve down that dark, mysterious, and endless road. I probably only read 12 books a year (give or take), and given that small number, my (admittedly absolutely arbitrary) value judgment is that I’d rather read books like Assassin’s Gate or Abraham Lincoln; A Life, than about vampires or what-have-you.
And anyway – reading political reportage these days gives me a pretty full quota of unhinged fantasy/fiction and allegory.
“As for basking, we have an important saying in our house. “No one lives inside his success.” Our work doesn’t define us, it’s not who we are.”
This remark reminded me of a time Steve Allen was guest hosting the Tonight Show (I think), and a similar point was made about “basking”, and he said that he was always known as “a basker” (not to say an inglorious one!)
Laurel — I’ll play around with it. I admit, it never occurred to me, but I also don’t have any particular allegiance to this color scheme.
!. Congratulations, Laura. I am thrilled that we’re tied on the list…sort of ties a bow on the day.
2. The more I think about it, the more I am bridling at the McDonald’s comparison. I think I’m at least Chick-Fil-A. But if I must be McDonald’s, shouldn’t I rightly be compared to Burger King and Wendy’s? If I’m Us Weekly, shouldn’t people know how I stack up against People and Life & Style? And wouldn’t a smart paper hire a critic who could do that?
There is no “correlating genre” known as men’s fiction? Sorry, I guess I just assumed that Roth, Updike, Mailer, Bellow, et al all comprised that genre (aka “literature”).
The Atlantic Monthly had a cover story on the “end of men” and 90% of it was written by men.
Of course there is something going on here.
As a reader, as a middle-aged woman, and a pretty middlebrow one at that, I just assume I’m invisible in American Culture.
Thank you for this, Laura. I agree with every word and every point, explicitly made or implied.
It amazes me that the years come and go, and nothing changes when it comes to this kind of gender disparity in respect.
Ach, Franzen. I’d love to deck that bitch.
And brava for this, dear Laura.
(I have just acquired your new book. Life is good! Bounty reigns!)
So am I a girly man because I love your books?
I’m confuse-inated
So beautifully said. But then again, that’s what I love about your writing in general.
So insightful and so full of home truths, Laura
It’s been a struggle for women….throughout history, including my own. I remember the thrill whn I read FEMININE MYSTIQUE. It articulated how I felt during my youth.
And to some people the greatest compliment some can come up with is, “She thinks (or writes) like a man.”
Writers like Laura (and Cornelia) speak and write as themselves and brilliantly.
Thanks for the brilliant analysis Laura
Not to mention I’D KNOW YOU ANYWHERE is superb. Take that Franzen.
I agree with all you said except for number 3. Franzen didn’t say that. What he said and what happened can be found in the TIME article.
And why would Cornelia like to deck him? He’s a good writer and a shy one. I believe he has been misrepresented by journalists.
There is always going to be one or two writers who are sprinkled with the good witch’s fairy dust.
Sorry, Laura, that they picked Franzen for the Time cover instead of you. I would have preferred seeing you there.
Actually, Steve Allen was the first host of the Tonight Show. And the Allan in Edgar Allan Poe is spelled with an A. Isn’t it funny how some people just know this useless trivia?
Thanks for the memory check, Sandra. I want to check the profile from 2001, which IIRC had some details that made Franzen sound insufferable. I also was not a fan of his Harpers essay.
Of course, I was tongue-in-cheek about the Time cover, but I would like to see Elizabeth Strout there and feel she is as worthy as Franzen. Plus, I think popular writers are interesting, mirrors to our culture. The NYT mag did Patterson — and on the cover, yet.
My day is lost to me now, but I hope to back later and not typing one-handed!
I agree with most of your points, but Jennifer Weiner whining about Franzen’s coverage is like McDonald’s whining about not being included in the Times’ fine dining section — ridiculous. I’ve read a couple of her novels, and they’re like fast food: entertaining-enough-but-utterly forgettable beach reads. Yeah, she sells a lot, but so does US Weekly, and I bet its editors are not delusional enough to think they are in the same category as The New Yorker.
I think the NYTimes mag piece on Patterson explored more how he’s branded himself and designed a business plan around his writing rather than merely a profile of a writer, and that’s what made it so fascinating.
Weiner and Piccolt have had a lot of press, how else could they be so successful? And why just look at the NYTimes? The reviewing field has expanded tremendously with the advent of the internet.
I think a big problem in the mystery genre is that a lot of women are writing cozies, which don’t get a whole lot of respect across the board. I’ve always said that no book with a pun in its title will be nominated for a best PBO Edgar, regardless of how good it is.
Very well thought out list. I was drawn to the point about how articles always discuss a female author’s family, but not necessarily a male author’s (or not more than an afterthought)–with the notable exception of Michael Chabon’s wife who made a controversial statement a few years back.
I noted once in my blog that it seemed when I speak at conferences or presented a workshop, I am always asked how I “find the time to write” when I have five kids. Male authors, on the other hand, may be asked how they find the time to write if they have a second career, but never because of their family obligations.
OK, I seem to have bought myself a little time.
Franzen said he “cringed” when he was selected by Oprah and called some of her previous selections “schmaltzy, but did not cite gender. (Source: Bitch magazine.) It’s an article worth reading, overall:
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/franzen
I think Jennifer Weiner is a good writer. And the thing about the Times food section is that it does write about places that aren’t Le Bernadin. In fact, part of Reichl’s legacy was that she reviewed noodle places.
More later. Seriously must go now!
All very interesting. Yes, I noticed lack of Mr. Lippman’s personal life in coverage! As to NYT reviews and best-seller lists, I found when I was a working book editor that many readers don’t distinguish between the two. They assumed “best” meant “the best,” not just the most hyped to popularity. In the “best” of all worlds, of course, praise and popularity go hand-in-hand.
As a writer whose royalty checks are divided by 3, I’m just grateful Caroline Cousins still getting checks when the last book pubbed in 2007. And I know 99 per cent of our readers have girl parts.
You make an interesting point about referencing a female writers children / family. It seems like no matter how many strides we make toward equality there’s a pocket of resistence that pops up like kudzu.
Excellent post.
1. Bear in mind that “The Corrections” did win the National Book Award, so Franzen does merit coverage for a new novel. “The Corrections” was also an excellent book.
2. Having said that: Before “The Corrections” came out, Franzen had a major article in the NY Times Magazine section, in which he complained that his first book, “The Twenty-Seventh City,” was reviewed in the Crime section of the Book Review instead of as a literary novel. I guess he only wants the right kind of publicity.
3. I have had eight mystery novels published. Good reviews from the trades, four stars on the last one in Ellery Queen, but: None of them have been reviewed in the NY Times Crime section. I believe this is because Marilyn Stasio is biased against historicals, which had been my genre. But she does have limited space, and there are many mysteries to review.
4. I agree that there are biases in the publishing industry. But I don’t think Franzen is responsible. And if he did have enough juice to manipulate the media coverage in his favor, then maybe we should find out how he did it and learn from that.
thanks so much for this discussion. that cover made me pause and stayed with me for quite some time. i’m still working out how i feel about the whole thing, but i’ll make one huge, sweeping generalization: whining and being petulant as mr. franzen did when he got the oprah nod, is the domain of men, not women, in my circle of acquaintances.
I’m not sayin my women friends and i don’t bitch about the more egregious imbalances (coverage of romance given its % of sales is a big one) – - but then we get our asses back to work.
I’d be very disappointed if I had to listen to my nearly-grown kids whining that “it’s hard” and “people pay more attention to the other kids” and “I should get more of the cookies” – they left that kind of thinking on the playground. Hey, gents? Step up, for God’s sake.
i write fiction that i think will sell so that i can pay my bills – and i’m grateful every day, no every damn SECOND, that I get to be a writer. I’ve been writing genre but I reserve the right to write “literary” down the line. Thank you, Laura, for reminding folks about the “either-or” thing – we can’t obliterate that kind of unhelpful thinking without giving it a serious look.
A few fact corrections (that don’t diminish your overall point):
Jodi Picoult was profiled in the NYT Magazine here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/magazine/21picoult-t.html?scp=1&sq=jodi%20picoult&st=cse. Is that the piece you say was “a detailed critical overview”? I would argue it is a very substantive profile. Nope, it wasnt the cover, but it was (like every profile) about 4500 words.
Mr. Lippman’s cover (like every cover) was more like 7000-8000 words.
And yes, women writers are not given enough attention by the Times.
Lisa
What an interesting discussion! I have an offbeat perspective on it, as a man whose first novel this year was written entirely from the perspective of a teenage girl (though in third person). In fact, most of the most important characters in the book are female.
1) A few women, without reading the book, have said that they don’t believe it’s possible that I created a compelling, believable female protagonist. That, in fact, a man is not capable of doing this.
2) Some men have decided the book isn’t worth reading because it is, after all, just about a girl.
3) Among those who HAVE read it, the book’s most enthusiastic supporters–and reviewers–have mostly been women. They seem to understand my characters’ struggles more instinctively than most (not all) men do.
It’s hard to know what to make of all this, except that there’s still a lot for me to learn when it comes to gender discrimination in this field.
“And the thing about the Times food section is that it does write about places that aren’t Le Bernadin. In fact, part of Reichl’s legacy was that she reviewed noodle places.”
True. But the Books section has made the decision to cover only serious fiction — and they absolutely have the right to make that choice. On one hand, Weiner says she’s proud to write “beach reads” and then whines and whines about not getting the same attention as Franzen. That’s just ridiculous.
Anyway, that’s it. I don’t feel like wasting any more time on a third-rate writer with delusions of grandeur like Whiner.
Franzen did cite gender (i.e., sex), though. He said Oprah’s books were for women and he wanted to reach men.
http://www.planetpeschel.com/index?/site/comments/jonathan_franzen_too_cool_for_oprah_2001/
My third novel comes out in spring. Good luck to us all.
how about isaac asimov’s books…aren’t they written for men (as well as women)? and the “dune” books? and then there’s “the hardy boys” books…for boys, true, but they do become men…sometimes.;-)
Something I haven’t mentioned: the Huffington Post recently ran a piece about the 15 over-rated writers. I think most lists mean to be provocative and it’s not worth responding to them. But the entry about Sharon Olds made me gasp. It was titled “Tampons and Lactation.” I was like “Really? We’re still having this discussion? We’re still trying to tell female writers that certain topics simply aren’t worthy?” Nicholson Baker wrote a (very good) novella about a man going to buy shoelaces. (And, bless him, also wrote a novel about what goes on in the head of a happy, normal girl.)
(Not to digress, but there’s probably a great American novel about lactation. There’s a war on out there!)
So when I see girls lining up to buy Mockingjay, I want to see the culture affirm that as interesting and important and promising. Whatever we think about Franzen as a writer, his success has been primarily a top-down experience, with others telling us that he’s good, he matters — from Franzen himself (with his manifesto in Harper’s) to the New York Times magazine to Oprah to the National Book Award to Time magazine. I don’t have a problem with critics highlighting books about which they feel passionate. (See Sarah’s example of David Mitchell.) Years ago, I helped a beautiful book, The Black Flower, find a slightly wider audience by writing about it.
There.Are.So.Many.Books. So little review space. So much Internet and endless shelves in the virtual stores that “house” digital titles. There are plenty of people who think I’ve gotten way more than my share of attention, reviews, etc. And they’re not wrong. I have received a disproportionate amount of attention. (It helps to work with one of the best publicists in the business.)
One final thought: One thread that has emerged from this discussion is that successful writers shouldn’t complain. Then who should? If less successful writers complain, it will sound petulant, too. Do we leave it to James Wood? Cormac McCarthy? Whatever we’ve achieved here, it’s a healthy discussion. And I want to thank the participants here for using their names and not indulging in personal attacks. I value the civility of my little corner of the Internet. Thanks for respecting that.
The references to Suzanne Collins confused me but I have now finally actually seen the Time piece. Yes, if the piece was to be about “one of contemporary fiction’s great populists,” well, Franzen would be pretty far down my list and Collins would be a better choice.
And what’s with “Franzen believes you can’t write serious fiction on a computer that’s connected to the Internet…”? I could buy that he can’t and he prefers to remove the distraction but it can’t be done? No one who writes on a computer connected to the Internet writes serious fiction?? I didn’t intend to do any bashing here but such pretension boggles my mind.
And I can’t even remember whether I read Corrections or not.
@ Don: very good points. Add to those the culture that exists within most MFA programs for creative writing. “Literary” is good, right, valued; “commercial” is its diametrical opposite and to be avoided at all costs. I don’t know whether Franzen has an MFA, but he’s certainly a victim of that ideology. I was fortunate to be in a program that didn’t browbeat too much–but I can report that my subsequent commercial success (writing so-called women’s fiction) is not trumpeted loudly there.
As to the matter of “chick-lit” and romance, they are very different animals in terms of story theme/emphasis–though “chick-lit” often includes a romantic subplot. Bring in the label “women’s fiction” and things start to get really murky.
Not to belabor the point (or get too far off-topic), a concrete example of what I said in my earlier post is the set of “Common Core Standards” for middle school and high school English currently being adopted by most states. Here are the titles they list as “illustrative” of the kinds of fiction, poetry, and drama that should be taught.
For Grades 9-10: Macbeth (Shakespeare); �Ozymandias� (Shelley); �The Raven� (Poe); “The Gift of the Magi� (O. Henry); The Grapes of Wrath (Steinbeck); Fahrenheit 451 (Bradbury); The Killer Angels (Shaara).
That’s the whole list. Now, schools and teachers may make additions or substitutions, but I would submit that the list is characteristic of a certain view of literature and of becoming a reader. Kids who have lots of books at home may stumble upon Laura Lippman and Jennifer Weiner and Jonathan Franzen and Suzanne Collins without much difficulty. Kids whose parents take them to the library will as well. And some few who have little access to books may even find Jennifer Weiner in spite of being dragged through Ozymandias. But most won’t. This list has more to say about the future of fiction in America than any cover of Time Magazine.
I make my weekly trip to the bookstore tomorrow and I’ve got both Jennifer Weiner and Suzanne Collins on my list. Both are unknown to me. I’m always on the lookout for good books.
Don Z…that’s a depressing list! There is commercial and there is shlock and they aren’t the same thing. Give me a well written, tightly plotted story with believable characters any day. There is “literature” that does not meet that criteria, if award winners are any indication.
I vote for re-reading, too. It’s so much fun to discover tidbits you missed the first time through.
Most of the next generation that I know simply don’t read. And if they do read, it’s vampire stuff. Maybe we should be celebrating the fact that a writer – any writer – is on the cover of Time and that an actual book is being talked about. It’s devolution time, after all.
While I agree with the above comment about a good novel transcending gender, I do believe that at an unconscious level, some will not pick up an unknown book by an unknown woman, and I include both genders in that statement.
I have an MFA in creative writing and write so-called “upmarket women’s fiction.” My debut novel’s ARCs went out with an included interview in which I called myself a “literary populist.” I suspect (though I’ll never be able to prove it) that the evisceration PW gave it was related to that position.
Its other trade reviews (not to mention reader response in the UK, where it was out already) were excellent–a starred review from LJ right on the heels of the PW smackdown. The book was an Indie Notable. B&N chose it for their book club. It sold in nine foreign territories. Objectively speaking, it simply could not suck as badly as PW claimed–so something else had to be at work there.
That “something” is likely the same thing that keeps the NYT from reviewing books like mine, “even ‘just’ in round-ups on Sundays.” I think it isn’t only that the books focus on supposedly unworthy concerns; I think there’s tacit disapproval of smart, talented writers electing to write about such topics–as if to say we would all strive to be Sue Millers or Meg Wolitzers if we knew what was good for us.
I have always held that “literary” and “genre” are not mutually exclusive, and will continue to fight the good fight, as Laura and Jodi and many others are doing. If I have to choose, I choose to satisfy my readers and make a good living doing it.
Steve, I’m not sure I used the word “rare” — I cited Ian McEwan’s highly anecdotal experience — but men are definitely in the minority among regular readers of fiction. (It’s long been my postulate that huge bestsellers are created by non-readers, a theory that The Economist recently expounded upon.) I did some number-crunching once and I think you’ll find more female NFL fans, percentage-wise, than male fiction buffs.
Personal taste is personal taste and I doubt I can argue Jennifer (not Weiner) to agree with my assessment of GOOD IN BED. I dislike lots of books that are held up as exemplars of great literature. I will quibble with McDonald’s because that implies a recipe that can be duplicated by others (franchises). I know people who have written Harlequin romances, novelizations of television shows, Sweet Valley High books and it’s hard work with few short cuts.
The reading experience is, in part, what the reader makes of it. I think the ideal book works on every level. It’s a page-turner that makes you slow down. I read a lot of books too swiftly, but the fault is not in the books, but in me. I am impatient. I want to find out what happens. That’s another reason I became a re-reader. I taught one of George Pelecanos’s books for several years in my writing seminar, primarily as an example of how pop culture can be used to great effect. But every time I re-read RIGHT AS RAIN, I found more to admire in it.
Linda, I’ve long been on the record as rah-rah, go writers, we must love one another or die. That said, I think Suzanne Collins is the writer who should be on the cover of Time right now.
You all might be interested in this website:
http://www.vidaweb.org/thecount.shtml
THE COUNT
“Just the numbers, please.” Each month, Amy King digs up the hard data so we may be allowed an objective view of the reception of women’s writing in major literary venues.
Since 1923 there have only been 4 women writers on the cover of Time Magazine.
This is a great discussion. I’d would just add that questions of taste and audience are more tangled up with issues of class, economics, and social structure than is sometimes acknowledged. There’s been quite a lot of academic research on the subject–Janice Radway’s Reading the Romance and A Feeling for Books (about the Book of the Month Club and literary taste), Herbert Gans’ Popular Culture and High Culture, Pierre Bourdieu’s seminal work on taste and class, and others. I think some of them would say that the NY Times and Time Magazine position themselves in relation to a certain audience (middle and upper middle class professionals) who define themselves in a certain way. This process of definition starts back in early childhood. Certain books and art forms get spoken about in certain ways in families and institutions. If you want to see the formation of literary taste in action, sit in a high school English class. Or sit in on a discussion about what books should or should not be taught in Advanced Placement classes. Upper middle class students learn to set themselves apart from working class students by looking down on particular cultural artifacts and events. Working class students resist this process by making fun of what upper middle class students are taught to like (and by choosing other things to like). Of course some rebel against the attitudes they’re being taught, but I think it’s useful to consider how the status of romance, of chicklit (how and when and why did chicklit become different from romance?), of literary fiction, etc. is embedded in this larger context.
It may be true that the majority of fiction readers are women, but it’s not true that it’s rare to find a man who reads fiction. I read a lot of fiction and enjoy reading fiction, though I don’t generally read “chick lit.” A truly good novel transcends the sexes and will capture both men and women readers.
Two quick things: one, I also think Suzanne Collins should have been the writer on the cover of TIME.
And two, if this conversation were about someone – oh, I don’t know, David Mitchell – who genuinely gets almost all and sundry truly excited about books (his and others!), and who truly comes across as someone who *loves to write* instead of having written, and who had published a memoir celebrating life instead of wallowing in all manner of self-loathing and misanthropy, I don’t think the discussion would be nearly as vociferous and heated and protracted.
Or put another way: Jonathan Franzen doesn’t need to be on the Internet. He *is* the Internet.
As the author of a HuffPo piece about this whole “feud” thing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-solod-warren/when-is-a-literary-feud-n_b_695386.html), I’ve made my position clear. I do not think this is a fight about women vs. men but about quality vs lesser quality. The fight was and is off topic. Franzen takes nothing away from more popular fiction. If women readers are smart and well read they will read novels by men AND women,and not just stuff that is supposedly written “for” them.
As for Ms. Laura Lippman, (all of whose books I have read, and whose latest is, I hope, winging its way to me even as I speak) you is a favorite. You transcend any kind of genre and I think the critics are starting to see that. On the other hand, Ms. Lippman, you have also gotten better and better with each book.
I’m a feminist and I read lots of women (and men) writers. I prefer stuff that is really beautifully written. Franzen is just heads and tales above a lot of stuff being written today. He’s not the only one, but a case can certainly be made that he deserves all the reviews and acclaim he gets. Picoult? She rips off headslines…. She is neither in your league nor in Franzen’s. Quality is the criteria. Some stuff is just simply much better than others.
Wow. Have your cake and eat it too ladies. Let me try to understand this;
Fiction is dominated by women yet when a male writer gets some attention, all of a sudden the world of fiction gives unfair advantages to men? The proof that things are unfair to women is that fiction is dominated by women, therefore, men shouldn’t get any attention because women dominate fiction. Confused? So am I.
On another note, I finally started IKYA and am thoroughly engrossed (to the point of almost being late to work yesterday). I was a little reluctant to pick it up because something, I’m not sure what, in all the prepub info about the storyline made me thing that it might be too dark for me. But being a diehard Lippman fan of course I was going to read it anyway and of course it is very well written and quite unputdownable!
As the author of crime novels described as “chick lit in a crusty man package” and “emotional noir” I’d love to jump in here but my wife just handed me the grocery list and I’m off to the store.
I found this discussion via a Tess Gerritsen repost I read on Amazon. I’d like to revisit a question Julijana (#20) made about Asimov or the Dune books (by Frank Herbert) being books for men. I figured that science fiction, especially hard science or military science fiction were books for men. That may explain why if you go to the science fiction and fantasy section of the book store most of the books are now fantasy. I guess I would be curious if science fiction writers like Charles Stross (high tech) or David Drake (military) are aware of the demographics of their readers. For that matter, I wonder if most readers of Tess Gerritsen’s book “Gravity” were men like me. Personally, I read mysteries, fantasy, and science fiction but I love hard science fiction the most. As a black man, I can guess what a blip that makes me in the stats. I think I was the only member of my demographic at a Laura Lippman book signing in Northern VA a few years ago! Anyway, it’s what Ms Gerritsen said something about in her post. If I read reviews of the literature I like at all, it will be in publications about what I like to read. I might as well ask a plumber about neurosurgery than take the advice of a literary critic about a good mystery.
First, to Daniel: “When a male writer gets attention” suggests that it is anomalous for male writers to get attention. In certain media outlets, they get much more attention, possibly a disproportionate amount. Recent stats on the books reviewed by the NYTBR bears this out. If you followed Weiner’s Twitter feed, you’ll see that she is asking to be treated not like Franzen, but like Hiaasen, a popular writer who sells very well, but also gets a lot of review coverage and even so-called off-the-book-page coverage. (Features, profiles). I don’t think anyone said “men shouldn’t get any attention.” In my follow-up to this, I concluded that I thought the Times should treat romance and chick lit the way it treats other genres.
Lisa, I’m not a Franzen fan. My taste in fiction is so idiosyncratic that I tend not to attempt critique/defense and I recognize that I often break with very smart, well-read people. (I had the opportunity one time to tell Lionel Shriver, whom I admire extravagantly, about one writer I just can’t stand. She’s a pretty fearless iconoclast and she said to me in this case: “Yes, I think you’ll find yourself quite alone on that.”) At any rate, I read THE CORRECTIONS, couldn’t get past chapter one in THE 27th CITY and I was still open to thinking about FREEDOM. Interestingly, the cover review in the NYTBR quite talked me out of it — and that was a rave. There’s a character in the film Diner who says of color television “it’s just not for me.” At this point in my reading life, Franzen is just not for me. Again, I don’t think any of the writers were arguing against Franzen, just wondering why the anointed writers tend to be male.
If the New York Times wants to be the bastion of high art, so be it. But the messages are somewhat mixed. And in a world where newspapers worry about their relevance, it’s fair to suggest that they could benefit by not dismissing an entire genre.
First, to Laura: So when women writers, like Weiner, get attention via popular sales then it’s legit, because they deserve it. Yet when they get no attention from critics (who don’t like it), it’s not legit anymore because things are unfair for them (just not the sales part). What if most critics simply have ended up preferring male writers because of what they write? Oh, the chauvinism! (The long list of female critical darlings will be left out just for your sake) Yet when female readers simply have ended up preferring female writers because of what they write then it’s completely fair. That’s absolutely their perogative. Male critics aren’t allowed that freewill. Women like you just pull out your feminist hammer anytime you want, anytime things aren’t perfectly ideal and it’s bogus. It’s played out. Try logic next time and get over your eighties version of feminism that’s just female chauvinism on steroids. Get over yourself in general. To claim that a buttoned down white male writer like Franzen had an advantage in fiction is the joke of the millenium. Maybe to get noticed as a white male, Franzen had to be extraordinarily talented, thus the critical acclaim? But that’s logic, clearly not your thing. Just run back to your tired, auto-pilot feminist indignation.
Daniel,
You keep making sweeping, absolute statements that don’t seem to track the discussion here. In this post, I make no single, central argument. I collected a lot of things that I found interesting and possibly connected. And maybe not. I threw it open for discussion. I have cheerfully acknowledged different opinions, such as those made by Chauncey Mabe, who disagrees with me. I have owned up to any errors I made in my original post.
I’m sorry that you think “feminism” is a bad thing. I am a feminist. I’m not sure how you define that, but to me it means women should received equal pay for equal work and have the same opportunities as men.
Are you suggesting that Franzen had to be more talented than female writers in order to be noticed? He wrote an essay for Harper’s, essentially arguing that his way of writing was the future of fiction. But he became successful because he was embraced by a woman who brought him tens of thousands of women readers, whom he then denigrated as not being the kind of readers he wanted.
Based on what you’ve written here, I don’t think you get to preach the value of logic, but you’re very good at ad hominem attacks.
Bill, I was called “chick lit with guns.” The reviewer intended it as an insult, but I saw it as a way to increase my audience!
Thanks for this post.
Ditto, and thanks for mentioning Howard Bahr’s “The Black Flower.”