Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

“My focus is less on the need for women to trumpet their own achievements than to shoot high and achieve a lot.”

I see absolutely nothing wrong with taken pride and being proud of accomplishments, regardless of what was accomplished. ( You should see me when I don’t burn the biscuits!)
I feel that she is saying that while we should secretly hope for these things, we shouldn’t express them but rather, let others do it for us. As her wining the Pulitzer, she now has ‘conformation’ that she’s written a good book. I say screw that. Who wants to read a book that the author doesn’t think it will be book of the century? I sure don’t.
I don’t even like to be around people who don’t show enjoyment out of their doings.

I say shout it from the rooftops if you do something you think rocks. The world needs to hear more good in it day.

Oh? What about us old broads who are ambitious writers? We may be wrinkled and gray-haired, but we bring a wealth of knowledge, living, and experience to the words we chose to share.

*shakes cane* Get offa my lawn, you whippersnappers!

Okay. In all seriousness? The one thing I have discovered about the romance community is that so many are so supportive. NYT best-selling authors cheer on debut writers. And vice versa. There is a teasing and friendly atmosphere and a real sense of wanting to help. Every time a romance book does well, the whole community wins and that’s very much the vibe I get when I hang out with the amazing authors who write this

Ms. Egan? YES! Those are my models and I admire them like damn and whoah. So there. *Pbthhhhh*

Ms. Egan’s comment reminds me of the recent BBC kerfuffle about their Night of Books. The perception is that the program was condescending to genre authors, so much so that eighty-five authors, mostly of crime and sci-fi presented a letter of protest to the General Director of the BBC.

great55: I could come up with a list of fifty-five great genre authors in no time at all.

The whole comment from Egan is troubling but it seriously bothers me that she appeared not to mind the act of plagiarism at all. Hmm. She just went on my do not buy list.

The question originally raised brings out the feminist in me. Men are not nearly so Modest. Men do not need to hide their accomplishments. It seems like a women thing. Women seem to have trouble talking about their achievements; particularly when they are huge. The bigger the achievement;
the harder it is to talk about.
I once saw a story on Havard Business School female students and graduates. These women had trouble telling people because it sounded intimidating. (Not to mention at least one told her dates; she was a stewardess!)
Women can brag about small acheivements. For example:
I bought a cute sheaf dress I can wear to job interviews and parties etc., and it was on clearance so I paid $20 bucks and I am so proud. Biggest accomplishment of my week.
On the other had, Jennifer Egan complaining about genre is so not cool. Her books do not seem to be realistic. Why is one fantasy better than another?

Ugh, I was so rooting for Egan to win, especially since I imagine it would have made Jonathan Franzen throw a hissy fit, but her genre snobbery and just snobbery in general bug me so much. Not every book aims to be a Pulitzer winner but that doesn’t make it somehow lesser. But at least she’s taught us all a valuable lesson - plagiarism is bad when you do it from something unworthy of Egan’s egotistical attention! To give Egan some credit, she did apologise to McCafferty for the comments so she nipped this one in the bud quickly. I’m still waiting on an apology from Martin Amis over his BS statements about children’s literature.

You know, the thing that bums me out most here is…I read THE TIGER’S WIFE and it’s not that great.  How sad that she says, “Aim high!” and then names a book I’d slot at a fairly low altitude.

That gives me a sad too. It was just so unnecessary in the context of the question and her answer. Why not be positive and encouraging of what women are accomplishing across the genres?

Accomplishments only count when the cool kids make them.

If the seemingly-uppity Ms. Egan were to someday say that *I* were as derivative and banal as a Cabot or a McCafferty, I would be kissing her right on the mouth for that flattery. Because those women are so talented and their characters so strong, vivid and relatable that what she intends as a belittling pejorative is, by far, a heady compliment in my eyes.

Of course I’m insufficiently erudite to appreciate her rarefied qualities.

I’ll take Cabot and McCafferty any day of the week and twice on Sundays please.

I’m for celebrating all types of creative venture among women and honoring the skill and talent that generate so much quality work across the genres. Boo to snobbery!

Ugh, I was so rooting for Egan to win, especially since I imagine it would have made Jonathan Franzen throw a hissy fit, but her genre snobbery and just snobbery in general bug me so much.

The thing is that Frazen is also a complete tool so if it’s between him and Egan I don’t think there’s really a rootable choice based on personality.

Egan’s statements really are an unfortunate festival of fail though. It’s so rare for a female writer to be taken seriously this way that I just hate to see her blow her moment in the spotlight by belittling others and by acting as if plagiarism is fine as long as one steals from the good stuff. Egan has definitely earned the combo heavy sigh + eye roll on this one.

I’m not sure Ms. Egan was making a blanket statement about chick lit—perhaps she was not a fan of those plagiarized. And I don’t know if she’s ‘trashing’ more than stating an opinion and/or making a point. What is the beauty of books/writing if not the discussion of them?

This is sadness. Not even a week of her win, and this has turned into an ugly scene of tearing Ms. Egan down. Wow. Instead of celebrating a female Pulitzer Prize winner, we have to bring her down a notch because she dared express her opinion that certain books are banal and derivative to her? I happen to agree with that stance, and I know I’m far from being alone. She has an opinion, big deal.  Before I get the snobbery accusations, I just do not like the chick-lit genre. I devour romances and paranormal genre, but I tend to find chick-lit tiresome.

I expected so much more from this blog.

But she didn’t say they were banal and derivative to her. She said they were banal and derivative, period. And what I am disappointed in is the fact that in the middle of her own victory and celebration, she has to tear someone else down, even if it’s only by implication. Why do that? Why not be positive? I’m not saying she stinks, or her books stink, or anything like that. But what she said about other women writers? That stinks.

@KG if it had merely been that she expressed her own personal dislike for that genre, I might have understood, but to imply those authors are good enough to serve as role models for up and coming writers and worse to imply that they aren’t even good enough to be plagiarized but the plagiarism might have been otherwise acceptable makes her seem small minded at best.

She made the comment, so unless I’m mistaken, her opinion is hers alone. I won’t be so bold as to assume she’s egotistical enough to believe her word is the universal truth. When someone interviews you, it’s for your opinion. I find it ridiculous people are already focusing on her voicing an unpopular opinion rather than her merits in winning the award.

Harsh world for woman writers. You make an opinion, and you get raked over coals for it. So solidarity only exists if you make positive opinions.

@jocelynnesimone

The fact is, she’s expressing her opinion. It’s like saying she can’t and shouldn’t say she thinks some authors are rank higher in her personal scale than others when there is a difference even as we readers discuss books within our circle. Yes, I see a difference between A.S. Byatt and for argument’s sake, Meg Cabot. And yes, I’d rather see more people emulating Sylvia Plath than Sophie Kinsella. Do not tell me there aren’t people tearing down books even within this site, within the genre. Not all authors are loved equally by everyone.

She gave her opinion, maybe unpopular, but hers nonetheless.

Two things first:

And yes, I’d rather see more people emulating Sylvia Plath than Sophie Kinsella.

Sylvia Plath killed herself.  Thats a problem for me. I would rather people not follow in her footsteps.I understand when it comes to Sshopaholic.But I might rather be a romace writer than serious fiction. They seem to be happier.
In general it still demeaning and plagarism is not ambitious.
Still Egan says she was inspired by the Sopranos. I Love television, but does anyone else think its ironic (to say the least) to make quips about pedigree while basing a book off a tv show.
Also how is Egan like Sylvia Plath. The Bell jar is a story about something close to life. Goon Squad is fantasy inspired by tv. I’ll say it again. What makes one fantasy (literature ) better than another (romance)?

The dissing of chick lit just seems like an unnecessary non-sequitur here.  Why did she go there? 

The irony of this comment is that Kaavya Viswanathan was nothing if not ambitious.

@Emily

First off, by emulating, I obviously do not mean her life choices, but her writing style. Sylvia Plath is but one of the many well-known writers who committed suicide - Hemmingway comes to mind - but that is neither here nor there. The entire discussion was impersonal, it’s not a ‘diss’ on writers - the separation of work and the person. If there’s no delineation, this discussion becomes pointless and redundant.  Notice the insertion of authors was first mentioned by the blog and us, the readers? Where in the interview did Egan specifically mention authors?

Secondly, to me, there’s a difference between literary works (hi brow) and popular fiction (low brow), but forgive me, I am not qualified or erudite enough to expound on the topic. I don’t recall much beyond Holoquist.

As somebody who was looking forward to reading A Visit from the Goon Squad, and is STILL looking forward to it because I think Jennifer Egan is a fantastic writer, I am disappointed that she denigrated the work of other writers whose books I have enjoyed, whose work I do not consider “derivative” or “banal.” It doesn’t cause me to appreciate Jennifer Egan’s fiction any less than I did before; it just makes me sad in the same way it’s sad when two friends both of whom you really like just don’t get along with each other.

Look, obviously it’s naive to suggest that creative writing isn’t a competition, at least once we’re talking about the publication phase, but Sarah has it exactly right: It’s hard enough for (women) writers to be out and proud about their accomplishments without other writers jumping in to declare that what they’ve accomplished isn’t worth talking about.

I think we should get Ms. Egan together in a room with Ms. Bellafonte, the TV reviewer at the NYTimes who recently managed to insult all female fans of the Epic Fantasy genre. Those two would probably have a grand time together.

It seems to me that it’s actually a bit condescending to Cabot, Kinsella et al to decree that their talent isn’t up to a bit of dismissive criticism.  Literary history is FULL of writers mis-judging each others’ talents.  Virginia Woolf thought James Joyce and Henry James were both rubbish, for example.  Nabokov dismissed Woolf’s work, and that of Katherine Mansfield.  (In both cases the critiques were MUCH more pointed and scathing than Egan’s.)  None of this means that Woolf, Mansfield, Joyce or James haven’t stood the test of time or are less beloved by readers. 

I get that women are less reviewed, less read, less published—and that all of this requires combating in some way.  But if books are important to talk about, it’s equally important to give one’s honest opinion, and be okay with disagreement.  Egan apparently thinks the particular work plagiarized by Viswanathan is banal and derivative.  Isn’t that opinion her prerogative?  The idea that all women writers should remain positive about the work of all other female writers is disquieting to me (a woman), and contradicts my desire to take all writers, of any gender, equally seriously—including criticisms of banality where appropriate.

We did some user testing at Yahoo once with resumes for the tech field. We found that most of the women who sent in resumes were just as qualified or even MORE qualified than the men who sent in resumes and you just couldn’t tell because women have the tendency to downplay their achievements. Ever since that day I absolutely have not done that. My resume is online in all it’s glory and given the chance I will wax poetic about my awesomeness or the lack there of I know what I am good at and what I need to improve on. Not once has anyone looked at me funny or thought I was an opportunistic bitch. We need to learn to sing our praises,and women need to stop being so hard on other women.

The greatest compliment I have had in my life as a writer (hell, my life, period,) was a contest judge that wrote in the comments, “Move over, Jennifer Weiner!” Any comparison to the work of an author whose books I have loved is beyond wonderful to me.

It takes just as much blood, sweat, tears and craft to come up with a book shelved in the “romance” section of the bookstore as it did for those shelved in “literature”. Those who denigrate what any other author does because it’s not what they consider “art” suck, no matter how many awards they might get. It’s doubly bad when it’s a female discounting another female’s work, IMHO.

Sarah, I am thrilled about your new book, and very much looking forward to reading it. Brag on. You should be!

@KG one is always welcome to provide a personal opinion.  The thing about having the right to express an opinion, however, is that the right does not make one exempt from criticism. I am, after all, merely expressing my opinion.  Just as she may criticize Chick-lit for being banal in her esitimation, I may express my criticism in return. Her newly acquired award does not exempt her from scrutiny.

I make it a practice not to buy novels from people who even tacitly support plagiarism. More, given her opinion, I have a strong feeling that I wouldn’t enjoy her world view in her novels.  There are so many good books in the world to buy and read that I need not give my money to someone who turns me off so thoroughly in an interview.

KG, I respectfully disagree with this need to defend Egan at the cost of the other commenters on this blog. Once you become public (be in work, career, internet, whatever) you will face criticism for things said, especially cavalierly. This is why it’s very important in a highlighted time to be careful of words spoken. I’ve never heard of the author and now won’t ever attempt to read her books. And it’s not because she targeted “chick lit” or “romance.” It’s because she took down other authors at a time that she should have been celebrating her reward at a job well done. You can state a personal opinion without degrading someone’s else accomplishments. Just because it’s not in your range of wants doesn’t mean theirs is any less important.  That is why I will not buy her work, or read it. Then used a known plagiarist as another dig at something she doesn’t particularly like to nail another comment.

@KG:  The sad feeling has nothing at all to do with whether or not one appreciates the ‘chick lit’ authors she disparages.  I agree with her in that I, personally, find chick lit banal. 

The sad feeling comes from the fact that the general perception in the (male centric) media is that women will never amount to anything because they’re a bunch of back-stabbing bitches who will take the first opportunity to shit on each other’s successes. 

So what’s the first move of this year’s (rare) female Pulitzer Prize winner?  To back-stab other successful female authors and shit on their work.  Ms Egan gets to take home her token ‘one to shut up the women’ Pulitzer while at the same time reinforcing every sexist stereotype that misogynists wheel out when they justify why we can’t take women writers seriously.

I’m genuinely happy for Ms Egan that she’s taking home the Pulitzer.  I’m genuinely sad for Ms Egan that she feels the price for a woman winning the Pulitzer is to belittle other female authors who write women-centric novels. 

At the risk of sounding like a misogynist myself, why couldn’t she just win it like a man and say, “Thanks, I always knew I was awesome.”?

i’m just struck (over and over, with a heavy, blunt instrument) that the question that was posed to her was, “Do women need to be more up front about how awesome their work is?” and whatever her words, her actions said, “No. Crush the women around you, so that you stand out and above them. Then you don’t have to tout how awesome you are in an unfeminine way.”

Grr.

There was that scandal with the Harvard student who was found to have plagiarized. But she had plagiarized very derivative, banal stuff.

...

Also: plagiarism is an acceptable demonstration of ambition? REALLY?

This. This right here. Forget the opinion vs. snobbery thing. Plagiarism IS NOT okay. Ever. WTF?

De-lurking to say, yeah, I’m with StarOpal.  Plagiarism is not even okay.  Definitely WTF.

It’s so sad. Why was this necessary? Do you see male authors taking each other down like this? Hardly ever. This spoils what should have been a bright spot for female authors. Regardless of personal opinion about our genres (I even think the label “chick lit” is insulting…why don’t we all get together and call it “humorous women’s fiction” or something?”) And by the way, I think Sophie Kinsella, Meg Cabot, and many other writers in the genre Ms. Egan disdains, are fabulous writers and storytellers. We are all writers, we all struggle for attention. Why make it worse?

@KG:
On having an opinion, I agree insofar that Egan does have a right to it, but it seems to me that people are mostly unhappy about her literary snobbery. I might not feel so strongly about it since I’m not a fan of chic lit myself, but I imagine I would be just as disapproving had she been dissing a genre I did love. So really, it seems to me that people should have a prerogative to judge her for her opinion just as she has a prerogative to have one.

The other criticism that’s being leveled against her, in my opinion, is her choice of timing with those comments. I think it’s just…tacky, putting others down right when you’ve just gotten into the limelight at the top. It might’ve been different had she said those things in other circumstances, but that she said them now right after winning was just another mark against her I guess.

@KG: If the problem is women tearing other women down then it seems to me you should be most bothered by Ms. Egan’s comments, not the ones on this blog. Not to sound like I’m on the elementary school playground, but she started it.

She won a fabulous award and was asked a question about women in writing. She wasn’t ask about Chick Lit or plagiarism. She brought those topics into the conversation on her own. Instead of simply answering the question she asked about women touting their own accomplishments or perhaps even taking the opportunity to highlight the work of other female writers whose work she admires, Egan used her moment in the spotlight to denigrate other women.

The fact that you agree with Egan’s opinion of Chick Lit doesn’t make what she said any less unnecessary and disappointing. I really, really don’t enjoy Chick Lit either, but if I were being interviewed after winning a Pulitzer I think I could manage to keep that information to myself.

Yes, it’s a harsh world for women writers, and Ms Egan is clearly part of that. I think your defense of her comments, especially on grounds of women needing to support other women, is completely misplaced.

I’m awfully tired of the highbrow/lowbrow labels. If a book has a happy ending does that make it lowbrow?  If it’s a guaranteed happy ending (romance novel), is it superduper lowbrow?  Is it highbrow if it teaches me something, or if the characters are complex or sophisticated or if I have a profound emotional experience while reading it?  If so, then the romance, sci-fi, and fantasy novels I read must be highbrow.

This whole argument of “this book is worthy, that book is not, this genre is awesome, that genre isn’t”, it’s so old. When I hear these arguments, I always imagine this map of the world, but instead of countries, there are genres, and the country of literature has a great deal to offer, but have to be dealt with diplomatically, because they are so prickly and isolationist, and they have a xenophobic policy towards the other countries. They would be much happier if they traveled, but the warm weather of romanceland unsettles them.

Btw, I liked the Goon Squad very much. It’s worth a read. If we stopped reading books based on asshat comments that authors made, we would miss out on some great books.

Erin Cox said on Twitter, “do you think James Patterson gives a shit what Phillip Roth says about his writing? No. This drama proves exactly Egan’s point.”

I disagree with Erin Cox for the same reason that I disagree with KG. The relevant question is not whether James Patterson cares what Phillip Roth thinks of his work. The question is, did Phillip Roth feel the need to trash James Patterson when giving interviews about his Pulitzer? The answer is no and that’s pretty much the exact opposite of Egan’s “point”.

Egan is a perpetrator of the drama, not a victim of it.

my capture is try84—-Egan and her supports can try 84 ways to paint her as the victim, but I’m not buying it.

Someone above mentioned that we shouldn’t hate on her for offering up an unpopular opinion and I just wanted to come back with a “umm…. what?” Aside from this blog, (of course that opinion is unpopular here) I would say that the disparaging of chick-lit or romance is about as popular an opinion as you can get outside the actual romance community. It’s like she’s trying to distance herself “Yes, I’m a female author, but I’m not like THOSE” authors. I write GOOD stuff.”

And, you know, that’s not ALWAYS the worst kind of thing in the world to say. If I were to write a romance novel, I would be likely to say “yes, I write romance novels, but I don’t write trite, rape-tastic, old-skool romance. I aspire to be among the likes of Jenny Crusie, Julia Quinn, (yadda yadda). I write GOOD romance”

The problem with *her* statement is that she lumped a whole lot of good work in with her dismissive statement, likely with the sole purpose of distancing herself from other female authors (because THOSE kind of female authors might get mocked because of their genre) which I think is detrimental to the growth of women in the publishing industry, and certainly the ability for them to be taken seriously. And it’s certainly a blow to the credibility of the romance genre if accomplished writers refuse to associate with us. 

Also: plagiarism is never okay. WTF?!

I admit I get frustrated with the writing in some romance novels and have voiced that here and on my blog. I realize what I dislike, someone else may like.
The real issue here is not just that she ignores the plagiarism, but as women, we have very confined behaviors ingrained in us from birth.
Always talk nice, be selfless, worry what others think, do not be too bold, support all women, etc. Good, but sort of bad things to follow. We are not going to like everyone. We are not going to like bestselling authors work, for me that is Nora Roberts and I doubt she gives a shit. When a woman does show a bit of selfishness or bragging about their awesomeness, we are bitches, skanks, whores, etc. Even when we are humble we get shot down. Men never have to worry because since the beginning of time, they were expected to be ruthless and not give a rats ass what anyone thinks.
I think it would have served Ms. Egan better if she had said, “I worked hard, I kicked ass and I won. Period.” No reason to take others out, no matter how much you want to. Fake a nice smile and direct conversations away from other writers and become the selfish award winner you want for an interview or two.

We all shit the same way.  Whether it comes out coated in goal or chunky corn or a swift wet burn… it’s still shit.  In essence we could boil down ALL literary works (aka anything written) to being mental masturbation or diarrhea.  But that is going over the top and being ridiculous.

de gustibus non disputandum est

There is no arguing with taste.

Apparently Pulitzer prize winners forget that factor.

I haven’t read A Visit from the Goon Squad and was feeling a tad guilty about that,since it’s been praised to the skies even before the book won the Pulitzer. Now,with Egan’s pointlessly snotty statement,I have the perfect excuse not to do so at all!

Thank you,Jennifer Egan,for giving me a guilt-free reason to avoid your book like the plague:)

@Eggs - Right on.  Loved what you had to say.  Describes my feelings perfectly.

You know, I’ve read enough ‘award’ winners to know that sometimes they can be complete drivel.  Harold Bloom dissed JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series.  Stephen King said that Stephenie Meyer couldn’t write.  People have their opinions.  I’ve never read Meg Cabot.  She’s just not my cup of tea.  I was a literary snob for such a long time.  Would only read AS Byatt, EM Forster, Sylvia Plath, books that I considered literary masterpieces.

I am 99% sure the commenters on this blog would be just as perturbed by the PP winner’s comments if that PP winner had been male or female. The comments themselves, and the tacit approval of plagiarism as long as the plagiarist doesn’t stoop to copy GRODY GENRE FIC, are the issue, not the gender of the commenter. Though it is ironic that the commenter is a female, talking about how females should roar their happiness at their accomplishments and aim high, while potshotting some very accomplished female authors.

I read a magazine called Mslexia aimed at UK women writers, and in this month’s issue there were some disturbing factoids about how many novels by women are reviewed compared to men…they did a survey of the back issues of hot review sites (e.g. the big newspapers and literary magazines) for the past 4-5 years and male writers were reviewed 2:1 over female writers. And in some cases, more like 80% of reviews were for books written by men.

One of the things that literary editors said was that men blew their own trumpets. There would be an email and then a letter announcing the arrival of the novel with a CV showing the male writer’s past achievements and accolades, then an advance copy and then a follow up of some sort. Scarcely any women did this…Lessons to learn about pushiness here, girls.

So that explains why I’m not getting reviewed. ;)

What disturbs me the most about Ms. Egan’s opinions regarding plagiarism and women writers is that what she stops just short of saying is “if you’re going to plagiarize another writer, at least pick someone good.” And while I doubt that she meant that literally, the waters are muddy enough that I have to question whether she’s worthy of winning a literary prize as prestigious as the Pulitzer. I was actually interested in reading her book until she opened her mouth.

@ Silver James - I left a comment making just this point.  Why should all new talent have to come from ‘young’ authors?  I’ve no idea if the comment showed up, I can’t log back in, but I thought it was a point worth making.  Not just ‘young people’ write books worth thinking about!

Ok.  If I was being interviewed after winning some prestigious award, I would probably say something totally ridiculous that would have people up in arms in some way.  However, I am not a professional writer.  I would expect a wordsmith to choose words wisely.  Isn’t that kind of the point?

When I watch an actor give an acceptance speech, I’m not surprised if they are unable to make their point in a clear concise manner.  After all, they are used to performing someone else’s script.  What makes them brilliant is their ability to deliver a professional writer’s words.

This is my first exposure to Jennifer Egan.  What I take away from this interview is that not only does she think plagiarism is OK, but also other forms of writing are unworthy of her respect.

Having never published, written a book, or even a chapter of a book, I am, of course, an expert.  Getting published seems like a monumental and difficult task.  Even if you don’t enjoy a particular genre, the authors deserve respect. 

I find that I have a lot more respect for authors who say “That writer is great” or “I enjoy reading XYZ” or even “My book is great” rather than “My book is great, but their book (or entire genre) sucks.”

@ChrisZ: For not having written a book, you’re pretty darned articulate. Well put.

Umm I love that your DBA is Smart Bitches, Trashy Books. I hope when I grow up (which may be never) I get to have Smart Bitches on my checks. That is so cool.

I too despise the “high brow” versus “low brow” labels. To me personally, “high brow” has come to mean “supercilios” and “pretentious.” It also seems to have become a definition of lit fic that it must be horribly dark and end in tragedy. Even if it doesn’t make sense for the characters to end that way (it’s probably not even considered lit fic but I thought the ending of the Horse Whisperer was just ludicrous, no WAY would the male character do what the author had him do in the book.)

I know there are some excellent lit-fic novels out there and I’ve read quite a few of them. But for sheer immersion and pleasure, for me personally it’s genre. I’m of an age where I refuse to apologize for that and yeah, I get a bit ticked at people for being such smug snobs about lit fic.

I think there’s room for everyone in the literary tent. And @robinjn, I was so ticked about the ending to The Horse Whisperer, I threw it against a wall.

Jennifer visited one of my undergrad literature courses in the mid-90s, just after her first book, The Invisible Circus, was published. I remember not being a big fan of the story, which was a downer, but we got extra credit for going to see her later that same night do a reading at Quail Ridge Books & Music in Raleigh NC. She, like her book, was a bit of a downer ... but I think it must hav just been her personality. Considentially, I have never bought another of her books.

But I do like how you stated:
“Yeah? What I want to see is young, ambitious writers in any venue who can comment upon their own accomplishments without establishing a pecking order of status and quality. “I did something great” does not need to be followed by “and it’s better than hers.”

You don’t need “better than” to create your awesomesauce. What a waste and an insult to answer what was actually a very thought provoking question.”

How very true.

But Egan’s disgust isn’t about the plagiarism — it’s that Viswanathan wanted to write chick lit. Judging by the quote, Egan thinks chick lit is “derivative,” “banal,” and not shooting “high.”

I read Egan’s comments quite differently from either you, Sarah, or Beckman.

First, I see *no* defense of plagiarism there. Not even a brushing over or an excusing or a hierarchy of sins. I see an acknowledgment of KV’s plagiarism. Now, I will forever personally measure defenses of plagiarism by what I now refer to as the “did someone run over your dog” standard, but even at levels far below that standard I see nothing like a defense or a “no big deal” sensibility in Egan’s comment.

In fact, Egan is one of those authors who is obsessive about refusing to do the same thing twice in her books. She seems to have a lot of anxiety about repetition in her own work and a conscious refusal to write to whatever the market or her readers might want. An author with that ethic seems really unlikely to be ‘no big deal’ about plagiarism to me.

As for the reference to KV’s “models,” I don’t really understand how they would be a slap at chick lit, since Egan did not mention chick lit and isn’t Cabot, at least, YA? As for whether or not the comment was generally dismissive, I’m not ready to jump to that conclusion based on this statement. If anything, I read Egan’s comment there in the context of her own obsession with originality for herself (that is, she is trying to do things different from what she did before, not what hasn’t ever been done in fiction).

Also, since Egan claims that The Sopranos was one of her inspirations for the Pulitzer winning book, I don’t see her as exclusively high brow. In fact, I was watching a discussion on Salon.com at the NYPL between Egan and Laura Miller in which Egan expressed her concern that her books would become “arty and dull” from too much deliberation and focus on whether they will sell, etc.

Listening to her talk about writing and about her own anxieties and concerns, Egan did not strike me as a snob, even though she ascribes to a sort of ascetic notion of writing without a computer or typewriter. She does strike me as someone who truly loves to write, though, and she does so as both an author of fiction and a journalist, so she’s clearly no stranger to commercial writing.

Of course she still could be dismissing the whole ethic of genre fiction, which does rely to some extent on mimesis and on the comfort of repetition and familiarity. Or she just might not like the books or authors KV leaned on in her own book. But I don’t really think it’s possible to tell which it is (or something else, entirely) from that lean paragraph. Although this whole thing has certainly given Jennifer Weiner another soapbox moment. How fascinating that they’ve both written books that were made into Cameron Diaz films (is it rude to volunteer that I liked Invisible Circus much much better than In Her Shoes?).

As for the whole ambition thing, frankly I’m glad Egan said that. Yeah, I know to those of us tired of defending commercial fiction against charges of crap and selling out and the like can hear a whole lot of ugly subtext in Egan’s words. But I think what Egan is really advocating there is a pushing beyond what’s expected of women writers (and she is a writer who says she approaches every project with the conviction that it will fail). I think “cower” is a fascinating word there, because to me it does not suggest a choice between writing “art’ and “crap,” but rather a choice between pushing oneself and being afraid. And I agree with her on that. I’m so very ambivalent myself about how the market seems to generate panic, and I wonder whether the constant changes in subgenres and voices you see in some authors is about feeling the need to sell or about following the call of the work. So Egan’s comments there resonated with me in a way that went right to my own confusion about how the market and the pressure to sell may be affecting how authors write.

Okay, Meg Cabot wrote a blog post years ago that operates very well as a response to this.
http://www.megcabot.com/2008/04/more-chick-litnew-contest/

Lois McMaster Bujold said in an interview that most books are in genres as a marketing and sorting technique. She went on to mention that, once there are enough of the same types of books exploring the same types of themes—once they’d reached a critical mass—, then those books become a genre because they are books in close conversation with each other.

I thought that was an accurate description of genre, and didn’t end up being dismissive, falsely self-denigrating, etc.

One of the things she also said, which stuck with me was that all genre writing is a “fantasy” of some kind: “Romance is a fantasy of love; mystery is a fantasy of justice; and SF is a fantasy of political agency. The different psychology of genre readers gives different results to similar themes.”

I thought that was applicable to ALL writing, frankly. All writing is genre—especially that genre called “Contemporary Literature” (which thinks so very well of itself that it thinks it has no genre). They are a collection of books in conversation with each other, that are, essentially, fantasies. Contemporary Literature is a Fantasy of Relevance—that, no matter how small or obscure or whitebread a life, it is Relevant and It Matters and It’s Deep.

I read a lot of Contemporary Literature in college, as part of my English major and, frankly? Most of it is self-referential crap with characters who don’t even try to be real in books that don’t even try to attain a plot. The real crowning moment was when I realized that perhaps 2 of the 50-odd protagonists I’d read were having lives more interesting than my parents’ lives.

Seriously? If you can’t be more interesting than my *mother*? Don’t call yourself “literature.”

surface44: 44 characters were little more than surface characterization.

One of the things she also said, which stuck with me was that all genre writing is a “fantasy” of some kind: “Romance is a fantasy of love; mystery is a fantasy of justice; and SF is a fantasy of political agency. The different psychology of genre readers gives different results to similar themes.”

This reminds me of something Egan said in her conversation with Laura Miller, namely that she writes for a “fantastical escape” from her daily life.

I read a lot of Contemporary Literature in college, as part of my English major and, frankly? Most of it is self-referential crap with characters who don’t even try to be real in books that don’t even try to attain a plot.

I can’t fully discern your position on Egan’s comments, but I see Romance and chick lit readers say something akin to this quite frequently. Why is it okay for us to say about lit fic but not okay for a lit ficcer to say the same about Romance or SFF or chick lit, etc.?

Has anyone yet coined the term “dick lit” (ahem, Brett Easton Ellis, anyone)? I’m thinking this would be a useful counter to “chick lit” as a slur…

I can’t fully discern your position on Egan’s comments, but I see Romance and chick lit readers say something akin to this quite frequently. Why is it okay for us to say about lit fic but not okay for a lit ficcer to say the same about Romance or SFF or chick lit, etc.?

Because we aren’t in the spotlight. We are not promoting our work while degrading another person’s. That is why. It would be like SB Sarah sayingt o a book publication that while she’s happy to win Best Blogger Ever, the competition wasn’t worth enough to really call it a true victory. It’s called being a poor winner.

Good etiquette is never out of style.

@ Robin: 
I don’t know how to do those nifty quote boxes, but re your comment, “Why is it okay for us to say about lit fic but not okay for a lit ficcer to say the same about Romance or SFF or chick lit, etc.?”  I’m with you.  Actually, it bugs me when people bash the entire category of literary fiction just as much as it bugs me when people bash romance or sci fi or mystery or YA.  I am so sick and tired of genre labels being used to dismiss incredibly diverse authors and books.  I’d rather see an acceptance of the vast variety of styles, quality of writing and storytelling, themes, etc that exists within every genre.  I shop by genre according to mood, but I don’t think I’ve ever stumbled across an entire genre, be it chick lit or lit fic or classic or romance, where I couldn’t find something well-written, insightful, moving, and entertaining.  I have wasted too many years of my life being a genre snob and now I just want to read, dammit, and I don’t think any one in any genre (including Egan) does the the literary world any service by bashing another genre in it’s entirety. 

@Ampage:  LOVE the “dick lit” term.  am planning to use it all the time (and yes, I’ve been known to enjoy some dick lit in my time - I’m on the outs with Hemingway but I used to like him tons, and I think he qualifies).

@Madeleine Conway - that relates to a talk I heard last week by Sara Laschever, co-author of Women Don’t Ask - about studies that show women (at least American women) tend not to ask for things in their work life that most men do - women are less likely to negotiate their salary, ask for a promotion, or let reviewers know about their new book, etc.  It was quite eye opening.

@Ampage (and Carrie S) - I love the term dick lit - it definitely describes a whole genre of manly, penis focused writing, from Hemingway to Henry Miller to the beat generation to Phillip Roth (whom I’ve never read, despite all the awards, because I just don’t care for dick lit).

There is, of course, lad lit but it’s not much of a genre.

Since this entire website was based, at least in part, on the prejudice given to people who read romance, I think it’s okay if we do a bit of critique of lit fic.

Let’s face it. In a good part of our society, lit fic, literature, and non-fiction are the only “acceptable” reading materials. All genre is looked down upon. Romance is at the very bottom of the pile.

Here’s the issue I have. I know too many people who read a certain type of book because they are expected to, because they think it polishes their social standing. They aren’t actually reading the books for enjoyment. I can’t tell you how many of my friends have said they are struggling through XX popular book and find it very heavy going but are determined to finish because it’s “the important book of the year.” And yet they would never think of reading genre because it must all be schlock, or it wouldn’t be genre.

I also think some lit fic authors are writing more to show off their erudite writing skills than to tell a story. It’s as if some of these book are “hey, aren’t I the coolest author ever.” They want to stand out in front of their work instead of fading behind it and letting the story speak for itself.

I don’t care what books people read, but to me it’s just insane to read something you hate simply because it comes from a different shelf at the book store.

They want to stand out in front of their work instead of fading behind it and letting the story speak for itself.

I think that’s part of the Contemporary Literature Genre Definition: the authorial presence is part of the story. I think in genres such as mystery, sf/f and romance—even biography—the author is supposed to be behind the book, shaping it. Authorial presence is implicit, instead of explicit.

@Hell Cat

It would be like SB Sarah sayingt o a book publication that while she’s happy to win Best Blogger Ever, the competition wasn’t worth enough to really call it a true victory. It’s called being a poor winner.

I don’t think this is a comparable situation at all. Egan didn’t criticize the Pulitzer or other finalists for the award. Nor, IMO, did she say in any way that her book was at the top of any hierarchy of quality. She’s been pretty clear about saying that she tries hard not to imitate herself in her own books, she is sure she is always going to fail, and she knows that others will likely see “gimmicks” in her writing that she does not see as such, so she strikes me as very aware of differences in perception and reading tastes.

But even more generally, the comment she made was in response to a question about the different way male and female writers tend to talk about their work. Egan was advocating for boldness, originality, and confidence. IMO KV was a great example in that context, because her admission that she was basically imitating other authors goes flat against what Egan is calling for in her response. Should she have stopped there and not called the books KV drew from “banal”? Probably.

And the reason I say “probably” rather than “absolutely” is that when Franzen’s Freedom came out, people were criticizing him left and right, making fun of his alleged snobbery, his writing style, his refusal to let Oprah book club The Corrections, etc. And I never saw people getting up and saying, ‘hey, don’t pick on Franzen—you’re bashing a whole genre of fiction!’ or even ‘hey, that’s unfair to pick on a specific writer!’

Some of this, I realize, goes back to how people see differentials of power, and while I have no doubt that Egan hardly sees herself as a powerful person in terms of literature or art or books in general, her winning of the Pulitzer is likely to generate that perception on the part of some others, and it will now seem totally fine to criticize her (as a writer or person) without being perceived as out of line.

Still, I do not think readers of so-called commercial fiction or genre fiction or whatever the labels are hold any moral high ground when we bash X genre(s) and then complain about others bashing Y genre(s). And, as I said earlier, I’m not at all convinced Egan was bashing an entire genre (or genres) in her comment.

@Ampage:

I’ve been using the term “dick lit” for a few years now.

I started using the term to refer to the works of male authors that write action/adventure/mysteries, such as Lee Child’s Jack Reacher series and the Joe Pike books by Robert Crais. Because really? If a chick lit book has its conventions of story and plot, you really should read a few dick lit books to see how very unrealistic and mannered the stories are. Strong and silent hero (usually ex-military), a loner who is self-sufficient but fights for what’s right no matter the odds. And he always scores with a hot babe (or two).

IMHO, “dick lit” is escapist fantasy for men that serves the same purpose as romance novels do for women.

This whole argument of “this book is worthy, that book is not, this genre is awesome, that genre isn’t”, it’s so old. When I hear these arguments, I always imagine this map of the world, but instead of countries, there are genres, and the country of literature has a great deal to offer, but have to be dealt with diplomatically, because they are so prickly and isolationist, and they have a xenophobic policy towards the other countries. They would be much happier if they traveled, but the warm weather of romanceland unsettles them.

I’ve been doing a lot of genre defending lately because I have gotten involved with Protest ABC Across America, a group that has organized to stop ABC from canceling All My Children and One Life to Live.  People jump up and yell, “How can you watch such crap?  Soaps are trash; get over it and move on.”  They denigrate soaps and their fans because they deal mainly with positive emotions.  It is the same thing with romance novels.  One of my college professors equated romance novels with the Utopian ideal because the things that happen in romance novels, particularly the HEA, rarely happen in the real world.  While there may be some things in romance novels that never actually happen, I do not doubt that HEA’s ever happen.  This professor thought that Americans in general are low-brow because they prefer happy endings to sad endings.  He complained that Americans feel the need to change the ending of movies imported from other countries if that ending doesn’t neatly tie up everything in a little bow or make you smile when you leave the theater.  He considered himself more European because he preferred things to be “real” and “gritty” rather than “sparkly” and “shiny”.

I think that people like Ms. Egan, who feel the need to put down the accomplishments of others, must have low self-worth.  They cannot feel good about themselves unless they are putting someone else down in the process.  I also wonder if she would be flattered if someone plagiarized one of her books.  It seems like she is saying that plagiarism should only occur if a novel meets her definition of good.  Based on that logic, plagiarism is a form of flattery.  “How nice, you liked my book so much that you put your name on it!”  Somehow, I doubt that she will feel the same way about it if it ever happens to her.

It didn’t read to me like Egan was trashing the entire chick-lit genre at all; it seemed like she was criticising the books which were plagiarised which is perfectly okay. You’re allowed to not like, for instance, Sophie Kinsella’s work, for goodness’ sake.

I’ve read a few of her books (the Shopaholic ones to see why they were so popular) and Becky Bloomwood is a character who never learns or changes from one book to the next. She doesn’t do anything to get herself out of trouble. She leaves it up to chance, fate, or the man in her life and as a character, is stagnant. Does that make me a snob? Perhaps in some people’s eyes it does.

But that’s beginning to veer off topic. When it comes to Egan, she expressed an opinion. Something fewer and fewer writers have the balls to do these days, for fear of offending this person or that. I might not agree with everything she says, but good on her for saying it.

And I’m speaking as a writer of a much-maligned genre…who also enjoys reading literary fiction. Yes, through choice.

Stars along the lines of Jessica Simpson have made Louis Vuitton as well-liked as actually as Ms. Simpson is recognized like a staunch lover of every little chanel lederwaren thing Louis Vuitton. As youthful girls see their favored singer carrying
chanel j12 superleggera these purses they will inevitably want them, but most moms and dads see the price tag tag and swiftly veto the idea. that is recognized like a time chanel première when replica Louis Vuitton purses appear in really handy. lots of youthful girls may nicely be granted a replica of the favored Louis Vuitton purse and never recognize that it is not the true thing. afterwards chanel j12 mariene on in existence once the youthful girls develop for getting ladies plus kopie chanel holland they even now possess a fascination using the designer’s purses, an genuine Louis Vuitton purse tends to create a marvelous treat as well as just one which they will treasure always.

Stars along the lines of Jessica Simpson have made Louis Vuitton as well-liked as actually as Ms. Simpson is recognized like a staunch lover of every little chanel lederwaren thing Louis Vuitton. As youthful girls see their favored singer carrying
chanel j12 superleggera these purses they will inevitably want them, but most moms and dads see the price tag tag and swiftly veto the idea. that is recognized like a time chanel première when replica Louis Vuitton purses appear in really handy. lots of youthful girls may nicely be granted a replica of the favored Louis Vuitton purse and never recognize that it is not the true thing. afterwards chanel j12 mariene on in existence once the youthful girls develop for getting ladies plus kopie chanel holland they even now possess a fascination using the designer’s purses, an genuine Louis Vuitton purse tends to create a marvelous treat as well as just one which they will treasure always.

Spam filters on the fritz?

But especially where are you currently able to discover Louis Vuitton replica handbags? There are truly lots of spots to discover them if you realize chanel j12 superleggera especially where to look. Greenspun is just one area that provides a broad choice of Louis Vuitton replica handbags. besides Greenspun, basic Replica can be an extra superb supply of Louis Vuitton replica handbags. In addition, basic Replica manufactures their inspired counterparts with remarkable exceptional quality assurance.

It sounds to me just like what Stephanie said - “Yes, I’m a female author, but I’m not like THOSE” authors. I write GOOD stuff.”

Which is a pretty common thing for women to say, when they’ve succeeded in a male-dominated field like literary fiction.

p.s. Sadie at Tiger Beatdown calls the more respectable parts of Dick Lit “Fond Memories of Vagina” http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/07/01/fond-memories-of-vagina-martin-amis-the-pregnant-widow/

I think that often times it comes down to audience.  Romance is a very specific genre in that it is, for the most part, written by women and for women.  Literature, or this high brow stuff, generally is geared toward all people.  Even SF/F is directed at a general audience with similar taste rather than if the reader has ovaries and a heaving bosom.  Or, rather, it is directed towards a male reader that women can get swept along with, too.

So what Egan is saying is that if you are writing very genred work like romance that is essentially by and for women, then it is undervalued, if valued at all, because women just simply aren’t important.  And we can just blame the damn Bloomsbury group for that because they valued the androgynous mind (the one flaw in Room of One’s Own).  There was always high and low brow.  Hawthorne hated “that damned mob of scribbling women”...but he read them.  Everyone read everything in the 19th century and it isn’t until Harvard et all begin swinging their literary testicles just before the turn of the century that we see women and their books completely undervalued (even though Moby Dick was essentially a domestic novel set on a ship).

My only real response to Egan is Jane Motherfucking Austen.

Government officials in Saudi Arabia 5, Yi Wei, said President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen the day in the Saudi capital Riyadh, a military hospital received two successful surgery after two weeks he recovered to return home. Saudi Arabia’s Arab satellite television quoted the official as saying that the two operations the same day in the chest and neck, respectively, removed from shrapnel. Saleh will be the next step cosmetic surgery doctors. Yemeni anti-government tribal militants shelled the presidential palace, was being part of worship and other senior government officials Saleh injured. 4 night, Saleh flew to the Saudi capital Riyadh for treatment.