Constant Reader discussion

Very interesting article in the New York Times about an author having her portrait taken for a book cover:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opi...

Interesting. Perhaps I should stop smiling and take off my earrings. Not that it would make much difference on my tiny book sales.

Wow, that's fascinating! Thanks so much for posting.

So interesting, so provocative. I thought immediately of Donna Tartt.

But the underlying question Ms. Filipacchi asks, from Hustvedt's research, "The works were identical, but the students liked them better if they thought a man had created them." I know that's true. But why? I can think of lots of canned answers, but what's the real underlying, true, bedrock answer to that? I guess there's not one. But there's an interesting discussion in one of the sections of the following Wiki link on the male fear of the feminine, Section 5, of the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculin...

Just interesting. Won't be fixed in my time. For example, I have very deep feelings about The Goldfinch (I even put a "prequel" on my review the other day, because I just can't get involved with these discussions) and I watch with no small amount of horror as the general public posts on this book rip the author to shreds. And women are no less vitriolic than men.

I don't know. You'd think by this time we'd be more concerned about posing as human beings, wouldn't you?

It's a difficult conundrum. Women currently need to display their power; we haven’t had it long enough to become secure with it. Eventually, when we can be judged equally with men and not feel threatened just because we are women, we can become "human beings."

I'm interested in why "feminine" traits are regarded as less than powerful. I think there is enormous power in empathy, compassion, love of family and ability to round up consensus. Men with those traits should be given much more respect than they usually are given. I'm reminded of a book I read a long time ago, You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation by Deborah Tannen. One of the differences she found in studying the linguistics of men and women was that men responded to hierarchy, while women tended to work things out by consensus. One example she gave was that men don't like to ask directions, because it would put them "beneath" the person he asked, whereas a woman just wanted to get there. This may be simplistic, but makes sense to me anecdotally. Could there be some connection, you think?

Sherry wrote: "I'm interested in why "feminine" traits are regarded as less than powerful. I think there is enormous power in empathy, compassion, love of family and ability to round up consensus. Men with those ..."

I agree, Sherry.

Bringing it back to photos again, I think this reflects the emphasis in the air that women need to be pretty. Even almost-80 women like me worry about being attractive in photos. I don't think most men do. And I'm going to stop.

Sherry, I think it's a perfect example of what I scanned through this morning -- men have to get their masculinity affirmed by other men, not women; they need to separate from The Great Mother, etc., etc. Remember millenia ago when we [women] were the magical great mothers? All that had to be suppressed, and was through political and religious maneuvers. One of my favorite books in the world is Gunter Grass's "The Flounder," a book of remarkable breadth, incredible humor, and it seems to ask "Who lost the Great Mother, and how do we get her back?" At one point (and I'm not a Jewish scholar, so I made this up in my own mind), I thought the Jews recognized women because Jewishness descends through the matrilineal line. Then I realized it had to descent that way because all the men (even boy infants) had been slaughtered so often that there was no other way to track it.

I can see the hierarchy v. consensus logic. But. Let me ask a question in return? Do you see women who rise to power becoming as hierarchical as the men they've replaced? And then being criticized for being "masculine"? Is the source of the problem not essentially one of gender but one of power?

Someone, here on Constant Reader, I think, posted a link to a recent Germaine Greer interview on the BBC, and she confirmed that she wasn't interested in equality, she was still looking for liberation. Liberation would entail what you mention, that men who participate in family, for instance, should be allowed to do so without, like women, endangering their future.

Ellen wrote: Do you see women who rise to power becoming as hierarchical as the men they've replaced? And then being criticized for being "masculine"? Is the source of the problem not essentially one of gender but one of power? etc..."

I'm not sure if they become as hierarchical (there really aren't that many examples!), but I do think they can't win for losing. If they display masculine traits, they are labeled the "b" word, and are called bossy and worse. If men show compassion and are not quick to make decisions, they are called the "p" word and made fun of.

I think women display heirarchical behaviour with other women just as much as men do with other men. We just do it in different ways and focused on different things. Women don't lose face by asking for directions, especially from men, because (a) they already have less status vs. men; and (b) knowing how to get there is not a status basis for women in general. But come on, we've all dealt with mean girls! And even not so mean girls jockey for position. One difference is that a woman's position is often tied to how she can manage to affiliate with a man or men, and a man's position is seldom or never tied to how he can affiliate with women. But it's certainly not all sweetness and collaboration on the female front!

Theresa

Very good points, Theresa. I certainly have come across mean girls. This makes me think of a question; do you think women who have success in the professions do so because they emulate men? Is there only one way to success in today's professional climate?

Here is an article in the Huffington Post that says women legislators get more done than their male counterparts. This could just be a glitch in our congressional history (I hope so). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02...

I never dealt with the mean girls or with hierarchy among women, perhaps because I tended to have friendships in an individual rather than a group context. Although when I did have friendships based on a group of women in my twenties, it was definitely not based on hierarchy. (We were all feminists and most of us were lesbians, and this was in the heyday of the second wave of the feminist movement, don't know if that made a difference.) That doesn't mean there were no "outsider" feelings, but that's not quite the same, I think.

Certainly I had complex relationships with other girls/women that included competitiveness. I think Elena Ferrante does a superb job in My Brilliant Friendof showing one such relationship between girls, which in later novels turns to a relationship between women. So complex! A bond, yes, but by no means sweetness and light.

But do you think we've strayed from Sherry's original posting?

Let me ask, because I'm ignorant about this. Are their women critics (other than women authors invited to review a book ad hoc, so to speak) who hold regular posts in the newspapers, who regularly review books? I always seem to hear about men critics. Are their any academics? I know of Elaine Showalter, for instance, who wrote: "In contrast to [an] angry or loving fixation on male literature, the program of gynocritics is to construct a female framework for the analysis of women’s literature, to develop new models based on the study of female experience, rather than to adapt male models and theories. Gynocritics begins at the point when we free ourselves from the linear absolutes of male literary history, stop trying to fit women between the lines of the male tradition, and focus instead on the newly visible world of female culture." But she's not a critic tied to a recognized source of literary reviews. Are there any women in that role?

Kat wrote: "I never dealt with the mean girls or with hierarchy among women, perhaps because I tended to have friendships in an individual rather than a group context. Although when I did have friendships base..."

Kat, yes, I'm reading My Brilliant Friend now. It's sort of a female Tom and Huck, but with much greater implications; but I'm too early in the book to really know. Interesting question, isn't it: that a girl has to be seen as "bad" to break free? How does that feed into the old saw that [some] men see all women as either whores or mothers? Nothing in between.

Sherry wrote: "I'm interested in why "feminine" traits are regarded as less than powerful. I think there is enormous power in empathy, compassion, love of family and ability to round up consensus. Men with those ..."

Tannen's book changed my relationship with my husband. Once I learned to explaine that I just wanted him to listen, not fix it, things improved between us. He's excellent with what Tannen calls providing the Marshall Plan for something that is bothering me. I, on the other hand, just want to vent.

Ellen wrote: "So interesting, so provocative. I thought immediately of Donna Tartt.

But the underlying question Ms. Filipacchi asks, from Hustvedt's research, "The works were identical, but the students like..."

You make a good point, Ellen. I counter with The Luminaries, which, from what I've seen, has nearly been enshrined by both sexes. Full disclosure, I read it but did not like it.

Sherry wrote: "Very good points, Theresa. I certainly have come across mean girls. This makes me think of a question; do you think women who have success in the professions do so because they emulate men? Is ther..."

My first corporate female boss back in the 1980s horrified me. She acted more like a man than men did. I remember the women med students I met in grad school. I suppose the positive thing I could say was they were developing the professional distance medical types need to keep themselves objective.

Portia wrote: "Ellen wrote: "So interesting, so provocative. I thought immediately of Donna Tartt.

But the underlying question Ms. Filipacchi asks, from Hustvedt's research, "The works were identical, but the..."

Portia, I haven't gotten to The Luminaries yet. We only have one copy in the library here, I managed to get it, and then ran out of time to read it, so it's still in my future. OH MY GOODNESS, just checked my hold list and I'm NEXT for Anne Tyler. I was 39th when I asked for it. Huzzah! Anne Tyler is one of those writers who makes me want to take another breath when I just don't have the interest anymore. ("Breathing Lessons," subconsciously? How funny.)

I just scanned a few of Catton's reviews. They talk about technical and structural achievement, the handling of a multitude of characters, but no one seems to love it. One says it doesn't have the character depth that The Rehearsal had. So I don't know, not having read either. It was interesting, though. I don't read book reviews often. So your "full disclosure" might be right on the money. But is a review that recognizes technical achievement, brilliance in handling a long and complex story, etc., is that a bad review? I don't think so. Kristen Gunn in The Guardian calls it exciting and says it perfectly constructed, and proceeds to immediately say, "But it is also a massive shaggy dog story; a great empty bag; an enormous, wicked, gleeful cheat."

One more interesting thing, though; the reviews I saw only came out after it hit the Booker list. Was it ignored prior to that?

But no one's said a book written by a woman has to be good, the question was why Ms. Fillipachi wanted to "pose like a man." So I'm off-point.

Back on point. I remember looking at Alice Munro's photograph on Dear Life, and thinking how lovely she was, what an incisive and observant mind lived behind that delicate bone structure. Should a woman strive to be like a man? Yes, per Henry Higgins. No, I don't think so. I think it's a mistake. I happen to believe, and it's completely groundless, that when we finally know everything about brain structure and cognition, and the workings of electricity and chemicals and hormones in the body (some millenia from now), we will understand that gender is deeper than a button down shirt and Buddy Holley glasses. I think gender is something to mine, something rich to make full use of, physically and intellectually. I think Ms. Fillipachi's making a mistake. I don't really know how many genders there are now -- we've gone far beyond XX and XY into LGBT -- but whatever one's gender, however one's intellect functions in tandem with it, you have to cultivate both to the limit if you're going to achieve something. So men critics don't notice? Who cares? Maybe it's up to us as readers. I can't remember the last time I wrote to a writer to thank him or her; it's difficult to do without sounding fatuous or presumptuous or whatever. But maybe I should take it up again. I mean a note, c/o the publisher, handwritten, saying, "Thank you, you taught me... or moved me... or made me remember... or brought me closer to my lover..." Just something simple. Cut out the middleman, and let the reader speak to the writer, and readers to each other, as we do here.

I am bombastic. I apologize. But apparently not with any sincerity, since I'm going to hit "Post."

Ellen wrote: "Thank you, you taught me... or moved me... or made me remember... or brought me closer to my lover..." Just something simple. Cut out the middleman, and let the reader speak to the writer, and readers to each other, as we do here. "

I think that is a very good idea, Ellen. (And you don't seem bombastic to me.)

I think most reviewers whose reviews appear in print publications, whether male or female, are these days authors who review books by other authors. This is of course problematic, since they want to get good reviews for their own books and don't want to alienate the authors who may one day be reviewing them. However, since not all reviews are raves, at least some authors manage to be at least somewhat honest. And some authors are very well read and have good critical skills.

I think there may be a few dinosaurs allied with magazines, all male, who are genuine critics and not authors. Fewer and fewer. But there are some recognized female online reviewers who aren't authors (as far as I know), such as bookslut and Laura Miller at Salon. (If she's still there, I could be out of date.) And Maud New-something. Hmm.

In the Tournament of Books last year one of the (female) judges said all the major characters in The Luminaries are dead white men. Of course in any historical novel the characters will be dead (in some sense).

I think a lot of women authors write about male characters because men are supposed (I suspect at least somewhat accurately) not to be willing to read about women. But I find myself less and less willing to read novels whose main characters are all men (or boys), however well written they are.

Sherry, so glad you mentioned the Tannen book! After I read that book, I understood so much more about men, and so wished I had read it as a teenager or young adult.

What I remember best about it is that all human beings need connection (a sense of belonging) and power (a sense of being respected, being comfortable with one's place in the social hierarchy) -- but that in general girls put communication and connection first when they relate to each other, and boys put establishing a comfortable hierarchy first.

And the deal about venting/talking it over (generally a more female style) versus solving the problem (more male generally) is a big key. I know that Tannen's insights are just generalities with exceptions, but they sure helped me see and appreciate the men around me with less misunderstanding.

I saw women of my generation (I'm 60) who blasted through to career success mostly adopt the hierarchical style while doing so, but I think things are changing, and that this is good. A melding of the different styles will be so much better in working out society's problems.

Check out the reviews of Ferrante's books here on Goodreads. I've not seen a single review by a man. Granted more women use this site, but the extreme imbalance for these books, which deal in great detail and depth with women's lives and psyches says something. Compare to Updike's Rabbit books, which deal in similar detail and depth with a male psyche. Based on GR reviews plenty of women are interested in that topic. Not sure what this means, just an observation. I did not check out every review of Ferrante's books, there are a lot of them, but did specifically look for men's reviews as I was quite interested in how men might react to these books. My interest in that might say something itself - I wonder if any men have trolled reviews of Rabbit is Rich looking for female reactions?

Theresa wrote: "Check out the reviews of Ferrante's books here on Goodreads. I've not seen a single review by a man. Granted more women use this site, but the extreme imbalance for these books, which deal in gre..."

Men can't afford to take her books seriously.

It seems like one of the points made by Filipacchi is that she had precious little control over any part of the book cover, that the photo just had to be where she stood her ground. Perhaps there are some who would look at the photo, in combination with the cover art, and dismiss the book as chick lit - a phrase that I abhor. I can't say that I've noticed any overly feminine photos, but then, I'm not the problem.

On a quick digression, I noticed something on the Some Luck cover recently that said that Ms. Smiley was available for select reading engagements. What? Aren't all authors available for such engagements? To me, the notion that they had to put that on the cover really backfired.

Kat,
Good point about so many of the reviewers being other authors nowadays. I see women reviewers in the New York Times, but it seems like almost all the reviewers there are also authors. That could lead to some sticky situations, but maybe they are better able to appreciate the craft than a traditional critic.

Weeelll, yes, Ann, but theater critics are not actors or directors, etc., nor are sports commentators currently playing (some never have). Just because an actor admires a performance by Bradley Cooper doesn't mean he/she can convey the important points in limited space.

Well said, Portia. Why do you think the NY Times has switched to mostly authors? Cheaper?

That's a good question, Ann. The person to ask, I think, would be Larry. If I remember correctly, he is quite familiar with the Washington Post Book World Critic Emeritus, Michael Dirda, and may be able to get Dirda's input. The Post shut down it's Book World a few years ago, but Dirda still has a weekly review. Carolyn See, whose regular Friday review I really miss, has retired. Patrick Anderson does mysteries/crime on Mondays.

Maybe The Times thinks it is being "timely" with writers as critics. Or it sells, which cynical me always expects. I admit that if I see a "name," I'll check the review out.

Ann wrote: "Well said, Portia. Why do you think the NY Times has switched to mostly authors? Cheaper?"

This just crossed my mind. I don't know what you'll all think. Is it possible that the range of literature is now so broad, and not just as divided by the publishing industry (frankly, I think literary agents get their clients gigs reviewing books to bring attention to their own books!) into demographic groups of readers with little or nothing to do with quality. I think it's hugely divided into "schools" of writing. Certainly the critics we all recognize, Dirda, Wood, etc., are familiar with the range of writing styles and remain deeply respected. But do you think they try to get a person from the same (or different) school of writing to review? Not that this is new. Updike was a wonderful reviewer, and frankly, I'm of an age where I love his prose (on any topic) more than his fiction, which I've always loved. There was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, I think, an interview of Renata Adler, lately, and I don't know if she's reviewed books, but I'd love to read her thoughts if she had done so. I'll have to look.

Hmm. A little cynical voice inside of me is saying "Newspapers are trying to cut costs; literary agents are looking for every gig they can get for their clients, need meets greed." Am I awful?

No more than I am. Ref last para Msg 30 :-/

Portia wrote: "No more than I am. Ref last para Msg 30 :-/"

Aha. Well, I'm glad I'll have well-read company in my particular circle of hell.

;-)

I think there's rather a reviewing crisis going on. Newspapers are struggling to stay afloat and have cut their book sections to save money. Publishers used to be able to predict a book's success because reviews were such a key component of that success, but now what is said on Amazon and GR, which is unpredictable, often determines how a book will do. So reviewing has become in some ways less important.

I love GR but have to admit I still find great value in reviews written by those able minds trained in literary tradition.

Kat wrote: "I think there's rather a reviewing crisis going on. Newspapers are struggling to stay afloat and have cut their book sections to save money. Publishers used to be able to predict a book's success b..."

Oh, Kat, I couldn't agree more. Every now and then I look at my book list and almost everything's either 4 or 5 stars because I'm too old to finish a book that doesn't grab me by page 100 (it used to be 50, but I'm trying to be less crotchety); so my reviews are worthless, and my taste is mine alone. And I wouldn't write a review of a book I didn't finish, that seems unfair. I don't usually think badly of a book I don't finish, I just assume I'm not its target reader.

I love to read erudite book reviews, especially of non-fiction, because I learn so much and I'm not much of a non-fiction reader. Fiction reviews I tend to read after-the-fact, if I have questions about the author's intent, or if I really disliked a book I expected to enjoy. I never thought about the effect of ratings from people like me on an author's success. I'm devastated; too much responsibility.

"I love to read erudite book reviews, especially of non-fiction, because I learn so much and I'm not much of a non-fiction reader. "

I do this too! I rarely read nf but I do read reviews of nf.