The headline over a surprisingly long article in Saturday’s Guardian read:
The postwar literary landscape has been dominated by the male giants of
American letters. So where are all the women?
That was enough to get me going, which I suppose is the point of a headline. But as I read the article, written by Elaine Showalter, I realized she actually was arguing for the fact that many of America’s great novelists have been women, and they still are. From Harriet Beecher Stowe to Tony Morrison, women have always staked their claim in America’s literary world, usually using their own names and daring the mainly male-dominated publishing world to to ignore them. Their work has always been popular and often long-lasting — think Louisa May Alcott. Think of Harper Lee.
The problem seems to arise with the discussion of the “holy grail” of American fiction, the so-called “Great American Novel (GAN).” Showalter quotes John Walsh as saying that,
this is the big one…a single work of perfect fiction that would encapsulate the
heart of the US, interpret its history through the light of a single, outstanding
conciousness, unite the private lives of the characters with the public drama of its politics.”
Generally speaking, the literary establishment assumes that the GAN has and will lie firmly in the grasp of an American male writer. Moby Dick is the work most often cited. Others name The Great Gatsby. But for my money, the work that most closely fits Walsh’s definition is Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. And as I already said, Lee was a woman.
None of this is surprising. Women do not necessarily write about subjects that their male counterparts in the “estabishment” regard as large or important, though many do. Woman often use depictions of family, homes and communities to express their vision of the world and the imperfect species that rules it. Many woman find more meaning in the details of human life than in the grand sweeping gestures. But again, not all. And I suppose it is this inexplicable need to generalize that has annoyed me the most. It’s not the article that angered me. It’s the fact that it needed to be written that I find infuriating.
Normally, I wouldn’t feel the need to respond. If I read something that upsets me, I tend to complain about it to whichever family member is nearby and leave it at that. But I felt I had to say something. And for obvious reasons. I’m a writer. I’m a woman. I’m an American. And the fact that I live my life at a distance from America gives me a different sense of perspective. So what do I think? I think there’s no such thing as “The Great American Novel,” nor should there be. The GAN is just one more act of arrogance, another way for writers to make themelves look important, or even tortured. Dividing writers between male and female camps ultimately does their work and their readers a disservice. It simplifies something that does not need simplification. It sows dissent irresponsibly. And it is shortsighted. Writers write what they need to express when they need to express it, and how. The subject matter they choose today is not necessarily what they will choose tomorrow. Anyone who knows the work of Joyce Carol Oates or Jane Smiley would understand that.
I, for one, do not want to be compared to another writer unless the comparison is about something having to do with writing, ie style or theme or genre. My country, my sex, my religion has nothing to do with it, except as factors that have contributed to who I am, not as a woman, nor as an American, but as a person. I believe it is important to my craft that I have a fairly good grasp of the tradition I work within, ie the tradition of literature written in the English language. I do believe in the old adage about standing on the shoulders of giants. But my ego is not so large, nor are the egos of the women I know who write, that it needs to thrust me towards a goal of becoming an historic landmark. Producing the best work that I can, and then actually getting it published, is a lofty enough goal for this writer, as well it should be for any writer.
I was asked once in a survey whether I thought there should be a literary prize for women only. I said no. I think it is a form of prejudice and an insult to say that women aren’t good enough to compete against men for this type of prize. Great writers; who cares whether they are women or men.I certainly don’t. I read books by anyone as long as it is well written and I find it a worthwhile read.
(If the Orange Prize had existed during George Eliot’s life time he would have had to pretended to be a woman)
Glyn
I couldn’t agree with you more!!!
Here’s to writers….in all their shapes, sizes and fonts *raises glass*
C x
Well said! I’ve always thought that the Great __ Novel (whichever one it is) completely misses the point of what story should be about.
Stands and applauds.
When I visited America I met someone who had known Harper Lee years before when she was a child. I was so thrilled. And yes, it’s a truly great novel.
How fitting that today the quote that appeared on my blog was from Charlotte Bronte- ‘I am neither a man nor a woman but an author.’
I think you’re absolutely right, Sue. The ‘GAN’ I always thought, was a literary marketing device so that publishers could compare their current flavour of the month with Fitzgerald, Mailer, Schulberg, etc. and sell more books. And I’ve picked those names deliberately, because those they compare to are, ridiculously, mainly men. There is, I would guess, a style of writing that has grown up in the States that fits that mould, describing the ‘American Way’, whatever that is in a country so diverse, or more likely, whatever it is perceived to be, or desired to be, by a small minority of critics, columnists, or publishing houses. There is also what is referred to as the ‘quintessential English novel’, the ‘Gallic’ novel, the ‘Russian epic’, and so on.
Maybe in order to take itself seriously, the national identity has to create an image of its own literary aspirations. The problem, of course, is who gets to set those aspirations.
Hopefully, writers can ignore the template and write what they feel is worthwhile.
Glyn: Yep, and it’s nice to see a male writer agree!
Carol: I’ve got my glass raised 🙂
AbVan: I do think it’s a form of arrogance, you know — we’re so huge and special we never an especially important kind og book. Ugh.
Graeme: Thanks. That means a lot to me!
Helen: Yes, and she got so overshadowed by her childhood friend, Truman Capote. And why?….
Lauri: Yes, I love that quote!
Joe: And sometimes I think that the aspirations are set by people who aren’t comfortable working in a field that is not intrinsically powerful, ie finance or government. And so they have to puff themselves up, yes?
‘Yep, and it’s nice to see a male writer agree!’
Thanks for that Sue – but I’ve never considered myself a ‘male writer’ just a writer.
Glyn
Of course as well Sue it can work in reverse. There is a book club in this English community in France. Women only! When I complained I was basically told to get on your bike. I do feel very irritated. The men here talk about their rotovators and go to the bar to watch football matches and I’m asked ‘Did you see the Grand Prix Glyn?’ No- but I am reading…
I genuinely don’t want to belong to the Book Club as I don’t like being told what to read. But there is an elderly woman there who was a lecturer in Lit. I know we’d have a lot to speak about. Still their loss…