So, things are getting a little heated in the fiction world right now. In fact, as I think about explaining the situation, it's a bit like trying to explain what led to a fight in the cafeteria. The only difference is it's about far weightier matters than who's going to Homecoming with whom (at least, weightier if you're into books and/or perceptions of gender equality more than the Homecoming dance. If Homecoming is your prime concern, my apologies for trivializing. Please don't start a blog war with me. I can't even keep up with the one I'm trying to explain).
As you might have heard,
Johnathan Franzen's new novel,
Freedom, will be released on Tuesday (Aug. 31). If you're hip to the book world, you probably know that this book is being treated as
THE book to read, garnering praise from the
NY Times book review, putting Franzen on the cover of
Time Magazine, and even being called the "book of the century" (which makes the next 90 years seem pointless). And then, well...then people got a little worked up about the frenzy surrounding the press.
Author Jodi Picoult commented via Twitter that she'd love to see the NY Times rave about someone who wasn't a "white male literary darling." Jennifer Weiner tweeted, "Carl Hiaasan doesn't have to choose between getting a Times review and being a bestseller. Why should I? Oh right. #girlparts." Their comments have put them in the center of the controversy over whether there is an unreasonable bias toward literary fiction written by elite males and away from commercial/popular fiction, especially that written by women.
There are interesting summaries of the debate all over the internet right now. Lest you think I'm exaggerating my claim that this has generated a frenzy of activity try googling either Weiner's or Picoult's name in conjunction with Jonathan Franzen. (Fair warning: once you start clicking on links, you might get caught up into the web of discussion for hours.) For some good summaries and insights, check out
this NPR blog, or
Huffington Post interview with Weiner and Picoult, or this more
critical blog from the Florida Center for the Literary Arts.
As for me, I'm not sure what I think about all this. There are two issues wrapped up in it: the merit of commercial fiction, particularly by and for women; and, on what basis organizations such as the NY Times choose to review books. There is certainly an overgeneralization and oversimplification of women's fiction. I read a lot of literary fiction, but I also read a lot of "women's fiction," both chick lit and otherwise. Are these books any less worthy of my attention than the latest "must-read" from the esteemed NY Times? Every time a friend is about to become a mother for the first time, I recommend the Jennifer Weiner book
Little Earthquakes, which says far more about the realities of motherhood and being part of a family than any literary-with-a-capitol-L book I've ever read. Don't books that speak to our lives and the challenges we face deserve public attention, too? But, should we expect book reviewers and their organizations to base their selections on the democratic principles of majority vote? Isn't there some merit to promoting books that otherwise might not make it to the shelves of the masses because, unlike Dan Brown or Nora Roberts they don't already have a name brand? Is there something wrong with encouraging literary fiction and trying to focus on a niche that doesn't get a lot of press in other outlets?
The only thing I'm sure of in this mess is that it's nice to finally hear that there are other people besides me who think that Jonathan Franzen is overrated.