I noticed yesterday that Jennifer Egan won the Pulitzer, and I thought, “Oh, a female author won this year? That’s rather awesome. ”
Then came this link to despairing Egan fan Jamie Beckman’s dismay at a Wall Street Journal interview with Egan in which she says:
Over the past year, there’s been a debate about female and male writers and how they come off in the press. Franzen made clear that “Freedom” was going to be important, while others say that Allegra Goodman was too quiet about “The Cookbook Collector.” Do you think female writers have to start proclaiming, “OK, my book is going to be the book of the century”?
Anyone can say anything, that’s easy. My focus is less on the need for women to trumpet their own achievements than to shoot high and achieve a lot. What I want to see is young, ambitious writers. And there are tons of them. Look at “The Tiger’s Wife.”There was that scandal with the Harvard student who was found to have plagiarized. But she had plagiarized very derivative, banal stuff. This is your big first move? These are your models?
I’m not saying you should say you’ve never done anything good, but I don’t go around saying I’ve written the book of the century. My advice for young female writers would be to shoot high and not cower.
(Emphasis mine)
To quote Beckman, When she says “the Harvard student,” she’s referring to Kaavya Viswanathan, a very young novelist whose first young-adult work of fiction, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life, plagiarized veteran chick lit authors Sophie Kinsella, Meg Cabot, and Megan McCafferty. The book was pulled from the shelves by publisher Little Brown and Company, and Viswanathan’s contract for a second book was canceled. It was ugly.
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.”
Cue an opportunity to yet again defend chick lit and YA literature, explain yet again that quality exists in every genre, including the ones for which Egan doesn’t seem to have much respect, and give examples of how the books dismissed by Egan as “banal” and “derivative” were written by the likes of Meg Cabot and Megan McCafferty, writers who, as Beckman pointed out so aptly, were pioneers of their genres.
We’ve done that here over and over – I do it regularly on behalf of romance in general. Hell, I even did it yesterday at the bank when the teller noted the “business name” on my account and asked what “Smart Bitches” do with “Trashy Books.” My answer: “We read them – can I recommend a book for you to read?” – because personalized recommendations for good books can almost always make a sizable dent in prejudice about the romance.
So yeah, Egan gave me a massive sad and a rampant desire to get her a ladder so she can get the hell over herself already (though with a Pulitzer backing up her dismissive comments, that might prove to be a challenge. Those things are heavy).
What’s most exhausting and frankly banal about Egan’s response is that the question itself was a good one: a woman’s statements about her own accomplishments can be a troublesome topic. Many people struggle with how to state their own achievements in social media alone. Hell, I have a hard time figuring out when and how to talk about how excited I am about the book I have coming out in October, and how proud I am of it. Yeah. I’m already wondering if I should edit that.
But therein lies a struggle for many women. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that you did something awesome – except Egan immediately frames any statement about accomplishment with an accompanying comparison to other writers who haven’t aimed as high and done as well in her opinion. Ambition is good, but be careful what kind of books you want to write with that ambition. It’s fine so long as you’re not plagiarizing books that aren’t banal tripe in the eyes of Egan. Egan elevates herself by denigrating someone else – in this case a whole host of other female writers of considerable accomplishment.
Also: plagiarism is an acceptable demonstration of ambition? REALLY?
Egan said, “What I want to see is young, ambitious writers.”
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.
ETA: Seems this is not the first time Egan has taken a slap at what Viswanathan plagiarized. Susanna Kearsley, who can type very fast, it seems, was researching this topic and provided me with a transcript of this interview from NPR in 2006 in which Egan says the following:
Interviewer: Why do people have to be focused or herded into a genre? What do you think about that?
JE: I think there’s something to that, I mean one thing that I found really disturbing about this whole scandal involving plagiarism for the novel by the very young novelist, Kaavya Viswanathan, How Opal [Mehta] Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life. There was a lot of debate about whether she had really plagiarized, whether it was intentional or unintentional, but what I took away from that story more than anything was, here’s a really smart, 17-year old girl who wants to write a novel, and what does she do? She reads a lot of other novels that I think anyone would agree are pretty derivative, I mean the material that she was plagiarizing did not, there was not a lot of originality there to begin with. She recycles all of this either knowingly or unknowingly, and then with a book packager, packages this novel. And that’s not really my ideal of what a young, smart woman who wants to write a novel goes and does, and that that’s what writing a book meant to her, I find a little disappointing.
Here’s the link to the entire interview (Egan shows up at around 12:30): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6160671
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.
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.
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 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…
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.
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
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.
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.
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.