This is what happens when I join things

So I joined this writing group. [Wait for mocking] I’ve gone to one event and critiqued pages for two events, but I was sick so I couldn’t go the second time. We’ve only read pages from three authors, which was for four different sections. There is a lot of genre fiction, which isn’t my jam, but I enjoy once in a while too. For example, one of the women in the group is slamming out pages before her maternity leave, and her story is great. It is fast paced, and despite what might be an unnecessary rape scene (the villain was well established without traumatizing the protagonist, but the scene is a believable course of action) the author is hitting all the right notes in respect to survivors of trauma.

But that leads me to the novel pages we were warned about at the end of the first meeting, which is essentially, this is erotic fiction so ladies be warned. Well, as it turns out I’ve read erotic fiction, and real erotic fiction not Twilight fanfiction, which leads me off on a tangent. MEYERS’ REWROTE TWILIGHT GENDER SWAPPING THE MAIN CHARACTERS. And done. Though that gives me so much joy. C, get on this. I’m like well it has to be pretty substantial to warrant a warning since the graphic and frightening rape scene didn’t. Right?

Well that’s the thing it isn’t an erotic novel. It is a first person narrative that includes graphic sex—which is subject to interpretation too—, but it is a, well not really a coming of age tale, but more a coming to terms with who you are when who you are might not be who you want to be, of course I’ve only read 30 pages. Yes, there are two graphic sex scenes, but they aren’t frivolous by any means. All that said, it was hard to read because the narrator doesn’t like women. I’m in no way equating the author and the narrator, but the narrator just doesn’t have any respect for women. The first sex scene is between the narrator and the sister of the woman he is trying to sleep with because women are interchangeable. This is of course after dismissing all the sex partner’s thoughts, which are meant to be flattering to the narrator. Later on, the narrator tells a story about his friend’s involvement with a manipulative bitch. I was like wow, sure she’s cheating on her husband, but he’s ok with it, and he seems to be the one making this worse than it needs to be. Which is to say, that none of the women characters are afforded much by way of the narrator, they are all a little crazy, silly, stupid, slutty, etc. I suggested the author introduce a character to be a foil for his narrator, one beyond reproach to let the read know when the narrator is being unreliable. Just someone there to disagree with the narrator and be taken seriously.

Sometimes I think I go overboard. I did note through the entire thing I hadn’t read the story from the beginning because I got 30 pages in the middle somewhere.  How come men have such trouble writing women? Regardless, we’ll see how all this went over. Like I said I couldn’t go to the last meeting, but I did send my comments. I’d rather people be honest and direct than not and hope for the best. Still, I may have overstepped. This is literally what happens when I join things. 

I fell for clickbait, and now I want to talk about it

I’m going home next weekend to celebrate some birthdays and father’s day with the family. It promises to make me crazy. However, a shining light is C and I are going to see The Fault in Our Stars. This is a film based on the John Green novel of the same name. Green is important on the Interwebs with his brother Hank who have created a safe, respectful space for teenagers online. I’m not even kidding they do not tolerate bullying on their vlog or blogs. It is pretty incredible to know thousands of teenagers are listening to these two instead of the racist Canadian.

But that isn’t the point, the point is Green is ushering in a new era of young adult fiction. Post-Twilight my expectations of young adult literature is low. Really low. However, Green’s novels (and I’ve read several) value language in addition to storytelling. He is not alone. His books wrestle with complex themes that a lot of contemporary fiction just isn’t. I think he is working on a novel about two young men and privilege right now. Mind blow.

Let’s talk about fiction, novels, and young adult (YA). Fiction, like most art, can be a tool to critique and challenge those in power. Look no further than JM Coetzee, JK Rowling, or Jane Austen. (Come at me about Harry Potter, because it is about ethics of war and parliament.) Jane Austen is a great example that brings me to novels in general. The novel was considered a base level of literature. Specifically, novels were for women *side eye.* I’m serious though, novels weren’t considered worthy of real authors instead they were considered feminine because the pioneers of novels were women. They rose while poetry was still considered the premier form of literature.

Now, we’re talking about YA the way people had referred to novels, and then consumer fiction, and I’m sure some I’ve missed. It is all very dismissive of literature and new innovations. After all, one of my favorite books To Kill a Mockingbird would most certainly be YA. Don’t get me wrong some YA blows, but so does some general fiction, and some classic cannon. I’m looking at you Hemingway. End rant.

Oh fiction, you slay me, or is this a rescue?

Let me begin with two statements: I love fiction, and I don’t care for romance novels. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve read them, but largely they just aren’t my thing. I mention this to divert complaints of elitism.

To me reading is reading is reading with a few notable exceptions. The first Twilight book is so poorly written it is hard to read and may actually result in people becoming poorer writers. But mostly my loathing is saved for books that promote bigotry in general…though that argument can be made for Twilight.

Palash Ghosh tells a tale of a woman reading and was thrust into a world of romance, left to ponder , why? Why would women be interested in romance novels where the plots are often archaic “hero saves woman” tropes? The only logical conclusion, all women want to be saved. Ghosh does note the importance and prevalence of guilty pleasures like genre fiction, but for some reason romance novels are different, probably because they are big sellers, huge actually. This might have something to do with women just read more fiction than men, actually, I think women read more books than men period, but men may consume other written media at a higher rate…I can’t remember that source.

Ghosh has trouble with successful, young, and generally attractive  women reading these books. Because only hags read romance or maybe the issue is women reading. I jest of course. Romance novels are big money makers for publishers, and this is really important in an industry that is dying. Ghosh discusses who reads these books, women between the ages of 30 and 54 in the middle and upper classes. Then Ghosh continues to discuss the industry specifically the publishing houses.

Ghosh then talks about the plots of these novels. Before I get into Ghosh’s perspective, a few notes: romance novels are genre fiction, and most genre fiction follows tropes of its genre. Romance novels play up the virtue of the woman protagonist, conflict, masculine hero who saves the day, and then there are some risqué scenes for our protagonist and hero, because love leads to happiness. More modern versions of these stories, usually called chick lit, will focus on virtues outside of purity, but like hard working, mothering, etc. Ghosh asks,

“But I must wonder why so many women—forty years after the women’s liberation movement, Roe vs. Wade and the pill have transformed the lives of women in the most dramatic of ways—continue to indulge in the fanciful tales of females so unlike them who live in fantasy worlds light years removed from their reality?

“I’m not sure if the immense popularity of romance novels represents a kind of ‘repudiation’ of the women’s lib movement, but clearly something is missing in the lives and experiences of tens of millions (maybe even hundreds of millions) of contemporary ladies.”

Of course, you don’t mean to imply women are rejecting women’s lib, which is exactly why you wrote it. Ghosh continues to cite a contemporary romance author who says women love masculine men as defined by the patriarchy…false. Also, please, tell me more about what is missing from my life? Because at the moment I think it is fair pay, wage equity, and comprehensive access to health care, but I could be wrong. But of course, to reinforce Ghosh’s not saying women are rejecting feminism asks, are women rejecting feminism:

“[T]hat is, in the early 21^st century, have women grown tired of the burdens and expectations that the ‘freedoms’ they have gained imparted upon them? Is this a rejection of modern feminism? An expression of distaste of the hippie culture which essentially destroyed all traditional forms or behavior in the western world? Do women long for days of old when men were masculine gentlemen and women were feminine and protected as precious treasures and regarded as possessions?

“Perhaps most women (even the ones who get lost in romance novels) do not want to go all the way back—but it is obvious, they are unhappy with how the world has turned out in the contemporary era.

“Still, I would suggest that is someone is enamored with romantic novels, one should perhaps eschew the contemporary books and read the beautiful, deep and moving works of 19^th century women authors like Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters—they combine romanticism with cold hard reality and profound insights in humanity.””

Wow. No. No. and No. Ghosh is drawing a lot of conclusions from the purchasing habits of people. Also, Ghosh knows shit about literature, which is demonstrated by his references to Austin and Bronte. So, women aren’t rejecting feminism and equality, some are, but as a movement we’ve been successful at changing the minds of a lot of women…men not so much. To imply reading a book about a woman protagonist with a shitty plot means you want to emulate said shitty plot is stupid. That is all. End scene.

Asserting women have grown tired of the expectations set for them is out of line. I get tired of people telling me what to do because I’m a woman so clearly I can’t make decisions for myself. My favorite is when all my men friends warn me about living somewhere, it has happened with every large move I’ve made. Cleveland, Baltimore, DC. Because you know there are bad neighborhood somewhere in those cities, and I’m the perpetual victim. Now I know they don’t mean it this way or in a negative way at all, but that is what they are saying. So unless, you have a different reason for not wanting me to move, save it. This is made all the more ironic when you consider the neighborhood I grew up in.

Also, hippies destroyed everything in the western world? Patriarchy did fine. Which we know because women were excluded from leadership in almost all the major movements (anti-war and civil rights). It was even noted in Occupy that women had less of a vocal presences than men. The “protected as treasures” line. Christ. I know I don’t want to go back to being property, which Ghosh doesn’t say, instead possessions. It is a nicer way to say it. Women were property and used as a commodity. Personally, I would love for us to chuck all the notions of purity and property from women because rape was a property crime and often is still treated as one, for example, people really believe that if a woman has had sex in the past she can’t be raped. Take a minute.

Then Ghosh concludes by telling women to read classic women’s literature. Except there isn’t that much of it, which Ghosh seems obvious to. Women were/are actively excluded from the cannon. Austin is a great example of this. However, Ghosh has a very limited and frustrating understanding of Austin. Austin is a class writer. Her books are often considered romance now, but those story lines are the means to talk about class, manipulation, and social expectations. Don’t believe me? Read Pride and Prejudice again, but this time note all the times marriage is referenced as a tool to mark class and social standing. Austin shows us the changing is society with the rise of the bourgeois and merchant class.

Finally, and my real point here, maybe women just want to read books about women, told from their perspectives. See literature has a man problem. Even J.K. Rowling was told Harry had to center around a boy. Men protagonists outnumber women except in romance novels. There are more women protagonists now than ever before, but still most children’s books center around white boys, and when a novel features a women protagonist it is assumed that the novel is romance or chick lit. Remember the scandal with Wikipedia about “American women authors” and who was listed there, who wasn’t, and how the women listed there weren’t listed on the “American authors”’s page? So my counter argument to Ghosh’s is that women want to read more stories about women, and since we read more fiction than men it shouldn’t be a problem. Also, we want more women authors, because authors still have a better chance of being published by using a male or sexually ambiguous name (see J.K. Rowling).

So literature industrial complex my demands:

More stories about women and women’s lives

More stories by women

More interesting and fully development women characters at large

More stories by and about marginalized women including women of color, women in poverty, and the oppressed

See there is a discussion around whether men can write women. We hear about it all the time when we talk about film. The female characters aren’t developed, and it is just assumed men can’t write them. Well, hire women to write them. I solve so many problems, you guys. However, this criticism is rarely applied to female authors, and that is because so many stories are men’s stories that everyone knows how to write relatable men. After all men are considered the default example of the human condition.

Book Review: White Teeth by Zadie Smith

Last week, I really wanted to write about White Teeth by Zadie Smith, but I wanted to wait until I finished it and now that I have finished, I have writer's block and I've started this entry several times to no avail. I couldn't even come up with a clever title for this post, but I am going to try this anyway!

When I started White Teeth I was really enjoying it but upon finishing the book, I feel like it maybe could have been about 200 pages shorter than it was. The middle really just lagged for me, and though I liked the beginning and the end very much, I feel sort of lukewarm about the book as a whole. It reminded me in some ways of Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie. The plot was not quite as fantastical as Rushdie's, however, I did still get the feeling that Smith could not tell you about our main character's lives without first telling us of their parents, grandparents, etc. I appreciated the throwback to Rushdie, but I started to feel like it was so obvious that she was almost forcing me to make the connection.

There is also the constant reminder of the title of the book within the book itself. She names chapters after molars and root canals and the white teeth themselves are an indicator of all things "west".

Despite the minor complaints, I did like this novel and I'd give it a 3/5.