Feeds
Thursday, June 2, 2005
Bloody Men (sorry)
So the story of the moment seems to be that old chestnut, the fact that men only read men. This has bothered me for a while – because it rings pretty true. I can count the books by women I’ve read on my own time – i.e. when I didn’t have to – on a very small hand. Sorry.
This is all news of course because of the forthcoming Orange Prize. I am ashamed to say that I haven’t read any of the books on the list. This is particularly poor as there are two from my favourite publisher, Serpent’s Tail: Billie Morgan by Jules Denby and We Need to Talk About Kevin by Lionel Shriver, and I hope one of them wins. I’ve heard excellent things about A Short History of Tractors in Ukranian too.
Now, Lisa Jardine and Anne Watkins of QMC have produced a survey that pretty much nails it: if 100 male critics and writers, those with a vested interest in reading around, can’t be bothered reading women, then what average joe will?
I know I don’t. Why? Well, the recent surge in women’s writing (Zadie Smith, Andrea Levy &c.), as well as those on this years Orange list, has largely passed me by, because I don’t read anything that hasn’t made it’s way down to the All Books £1 shelf. Even if I was to read exclusively the new releases, I think that books by women are, all too often, conciously marketed at women – and I don’t just mean the pastel cover, kiddie font, flowers, legs and high heels chicklits either. Kamila Shamsie is a fantastic writer, but look at the cover of new book, Broken Verses – pretty roses! Swirly writing! Am I shallow?
Yes – added to by the fact I only read women if they’re foreign. I am a sexist xenophile snob. Sorry.
It also reminds me of the big row that broke a while back over New Writing 13, when Tony Litt and Ali Smith got into a lot of hot water for saying in their introduction:
“On the whole the submissions from women were disappointingly domestic, the opposite of risk-taking – as if too many women writers have been injected with a special drug that keeps them dulled, good, saying the right thing, aping the right shape, and melancholy at doing it, depressed as hell.”
Most of the criticism seemed to be focussed on the fact that these two Bloody Men equated the domestic with the dull – a clear attack on a woman’s right to be a woman in a woman’s context. Or something. I didn’t think the comment in any way attacked the possibilities of the domestic, simply the way in which such potential was not being fully exploited. But what do I know. I’m a Bloody Man too.
Actually, I’ve just remembered what the last book I read by a woman was…
I’m exactly the same about female authors unless they write in the fantasy genre. I don’t tend to look at zadie smith et al; it’s all Ishiguro & Co. And probably to my detriment.
By sarah n on 06.24.05 1:22 pm
Thinking about it I have to agree, as a guy I tend to read (mainly) books by male authors. Likewise, most of the women I know (who read regularly) go for female authors.
Maybe it’s something to do with each knowing what they’re own sex wants, desires and fantasises about?
By Lee on 06.27.05 7:52 pm
would you dare to read a woman author who explores what women actually think, not what they think they are expected tothink by the patriarchail societies theylive in ?
By Kusum Choppra on 08.07.05 9:46 am
Not sure quite what you’re implying there Kusum… please elaborate. I think a quick perusal of posts on this blog will show I have little time for authors who don’t speak their minds, and even less for patri or any other archical society…
By J on 08.09.05 9:32 am
please try to understand that for centureis, the development of a patriarchial society has meant that women are conditioned from birth to think inthe manner that their menfolk want them to think.this is in order to maintain the hold over women who might otherwise break free, physically or mentally. and over the centureis, women have actually accepted and thought as men wanted them the thinkk and the process passed from mother to daughter over generations. hence the old admonition : think like a man. and the supposed greatest praise to margaret thatcher and to indira gandhi was that they were the only men in their respective cabinets.
in our times, it is autors like dan brown who are exploring old long buried theories of the worship of the mother goddess or ma, which predates the known existenet religions of our times.
itis also in our times that womean are again exploring their minds, the questions the rules and regulations laid down for them to examine them for logic and reason and otherwise discarding male dictat in order to think and feel as women, without the admonition that ; this is not how you should be thinking.
can you understand that ?
kusum
By kusum choppra on 07.01.06 7:11 am
Yes. I’m still unclear on why you think I can’t, or don’t. My comments above don’t seem, to me, to preclude any of the things that you’re saying – in fact, I would like to think they’re in support.
I’m well-read in notions of the divine feminine – although I don’t think Dan Brown’s done a thing to enlighten anyone on that score – and I’m conversant with feminist theory; not least because plenty of it has been taken up along similar lines in gay theory, to good effect.
I’m loath to ask for further clarification, but, as ever, if you have a specific point to make, preferably with reference to something I’ve actually written, please do come back…
By stml on 07.03.06 5:13 pm
Kusum,
Dont you think you need to refer a point and then comment upon?
Or do you think others need to make efforts to understand you.
By Nitin on 12.07.06 7:02 am