I didn’t write about the Jodi Picoult/Jennifer Weiner feud against Jonathan Franzen because it started from a false premise. Picoult claimed that she doesn’t get the attention that Franzen gets in the book press because she is a woman. Weiner quickly backed up Picoult’s claims. But I’ve read books by both Picoult and Weiner, and they are forgettable commercial fiction.
There’s nothing wrong with commercial fiction, but you should understand that when you’re writing formulaic novels, you’re not going to get the attention from the press that other, more ambitious authors get. Both authors produce work that is disposable but immensely comforting to a huge number of readers. Food reviewers don’t review McDonald’s because every McDonald’s is exactly the same; Picoult and Weiner are the McDonald’s of fiction. You can expect lovable characters, obvious moral dilemmas, Important Lessons Learned, and a happy ending every time. They are very good at writing commercial fiction, but they don’t stretch the boundaries of commercial fiction.
I think you can obviously make the case that the media is way too Franzen-friendly these days. And I do believe without a doubt that there is a gender bias in the book reviewing press. But if, say, Lorrie Moore was leveling these kinds of charges against the coverage of Jonathan Franzen, I’d be much more likely to care, because Lorrie Moore is writing novels that are roughly equivalent to Franzen’s novels in terms of aim, subject matter, and ambition. (For the record, I think Moore is a much better writer than Franzen.) But for Picoult and Weiner to make the claim that their brand of commercial fiction isn’t getting coverage because they are women seems really disingenuous to me.
I bring this all up because Usedbuyer 2.0 has just published a ridiculously clever imaginary interview with long-forgotten commercial author Ethel M. Dell, and it addresses all these points much more artfully than I can:
Why do you feel that commercial fiction, or more specifically popular fiction written by women, tends to be critically overlooked?
Ethel M. Dell: One has only to really look at the facts. One doesn’t feel one’s efforts to be overlooked in all venues. I do think the Times tends to overlook popular fiction, whether one is man, woman, white, black, or hottentot. Many of one’s dearest readers tell one how very much they should like to see one reviewed more respectfully in the popular press, but what can one do? The prejudice against lady novelists is not however, I’m very glad to say, universal among the reviewers. The Monkton Combe Post for example, back when they had their book review section, used to say the kindest things about one’s little books. Ah, but there’s the rub! When in today’s market one has only limited review space for books, one does wonder why the Times must review the same foreign sorts of books twice over, sometimes in the same week! That’s rather hard. I want to make it clear that I have absolutely nothing against this Proust fellow. One does still hope to read his little books, as I understand they are just lovely. I should like to make perfectly clear that none of this fuss in the more serious reviews that one seems to have inadvertently kicked up was motivated as a critique against him or his work, just that he is someone the Times has chosen to review twice in seven days — now really! One has to say something, doesn’t one?
You should read it all.
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………………
Agree completely. I think you can judge those “chick lit” books by how forgettable they are, or interchangeable, perhaps. There is a British author I read (Catherine Alliott) for pure escapism, and each one follows a formula, slightly ditzy girl vs. smooth perfect counterpart, adorable, hunky man in the middle, after much hand-wringing and confusion, ditzy girl eventually triumphs over polished perfect girl…etc, etc. It is the late-night snack of literature, and I can’t believe anyone would confuse it with Real Writing. People who write that kind of stuff should at least have enough honesty and introspection to see it for what it is.
That vintage excerpt would do P.G. Wodehouse proud. Rosie M. Banks, Lady Florence Craye, Cornelia Fothergill – Aunt Dahlia published them all in her always-failing magazine.
Have you read My Sister’s Keeper? I don’t remember it having a happy ending. Shocking. Disturbing. Thought-provoking, but not exactly happy.
Lorrie Moore’s writing is excellent.
So’s Weiner’s. She’d be the first to tell you she’s no James Joyce. That said, her “Little Earthquakes” and Tom Perrotta’s “Little Children” are remarkably interchangeable, so if he gets to be literary then so should she.
I’m writing a book called
101 Ways To Destroy Chihulhy Glass
I haven’t read a single Jody Picoult book that had a happy ending. Paul, did you actually read any of them all the way to the end?
@7, if this is another “meme” you’re going to flog six times in every goddamn thread, at least spell Chihuly right. There’s no third H.
Well, yes, but…
I seem to recall similar arguments surrounding the very commercial “women’s film’s” of the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, etc. Some of those weepies stand the test of time as major artworks, some don’t.
Paul is right, this is an argument about commercial vs. literary fiction, not gender. Some of the biggest commercial sellers are guys like Tom Clancy…
The line between commercial and literary can be fuzzy, depending on who’s doing the defining. I read “The Passage” this summer ( a commercial vampire novel that passes over into literary fiction by an author w/ literary street cred) and loved it.
There’s a lot of fantasy that wouldn’t make the literary fiction list. And a lot of “domestic” writers like Picoult and Weiner wouldn’t either. “Commercial” writers often don’t get reviewed. It doesn’t seem to affect their sales. But it bothered Jaqueline Susann. And I’m sure it bothers Weiner and Picoult. Everyone wants to be taken seriously. Historically it was easier to dismiss women writers and vestiges of that remain. But , like Paul, I haven’t paid too much attention to this particular fight because I think the comparisons are off.
But it’s still a worthwhile conversation to be had…
Wasn’t Jodi Picoult the first woman to take over Wonder Woman? I think she followed Greg Rucka. Anyway, Rucka’s work on that title was, I thought, was dynamic and brilliant. Picoult took it in a lousy direction. I think more recently Gale Simone was the writer–I thought her direction looked promising.
You’re totally right that Weiner and Picoult are in a different class from Franzen. But, even if Lorrie Moore won’t say it, she doesn’t get as much respect as Franzen. And as @6 says, Tom Perrotta is in the same class as Weiner and Picoult, writing about the same stuff even, but he gets to be “literary” even though Weiner is probably the better writer (I’ve never read Picoult). We can’t blame the media if the public’s more interested in a man’s take on domestic life than a woman’s, but we can call them out for what they take more and less seriously.
I went to school with Franzen, so I’m an old hand at being pissed at him. There is something about his personality that seems to invite these attacks. He has a sort of dour midwestern Lutheran-ish approach toward life, and he seems to be into all sorts of silly tricks regarding his art: sensory deprivation, pointless privation of all kinds to stimulate his creativity, in spite of the fact that he had the love and support of very wealthy benefactors from very early on.
And yet, the guy has what it takes. It’s not just that he is talented; many people are. His ex-wife for instance, also a classmate, seems the more gifted of the pair. What really stands out about him is his belief in himself AND his utter ruthlessness about making time for his work. He always said he would be an important novelist, and he has focussed his WHOLE LIFE around his writing and arranged his world to make that happen. That drive made him; you’ve got to admire that.
@13 I have a tangential connection to Franzen too, and I’m not saying I don’t like him: The Corrections is one of my favorite novels. But if you’re saying that his drive is what makes him great, I can’t agree. It takes more than ambition and discipline to make a great writer. Franzen has insight, no doubt, but it’s a cruel and as you say dour kind of ability to dissect his characters that ultimately is also his weakness.
Prettybetsy, then you know exactly what I’m talking about.
To be plain, I didn’t say that his drive made him great. I meant that his drive made him a success.
I had a serious distaste for the man before he ever published a word. Such self-absorption and superciliousness I have never come accross since. He and his ex used to live to for the sport of making fun of others. I think JF took this behavior for discernment and insight but in practice they were boorish and cruel.
But this is neither here nor there. He can write, and he believes in his talent enough to have invested the time developing it. I have to admit he’s done what he said he would.