Showalter: “Chick lit is a very belittling label for a genre of women’s romantic realism, but the books themselves have to looked at individually. I think many of the best-selling writers in this genre are very talented.”
Rumpus: [It seems you and I got off the same page for a moment. You should know I didn’t coin the phrase “chick lit,” and I hate the person who did. Tone is difficult to decipher in writing, so please understand I was being totally ironic. I have to know: what do you think of Oprah’s Book Club?]
Showalter: “Oprah’s Book Club is wonderful. Also the book reviews in O.”
Rumpus: [But what about those glaring OPRAH’S BOOK CLUB stickers on classic books? It’s hard to remove those stickers if you’d like to (like mattress tags), and her name is so big that it looks there are two authors of each book. I don’t want to read a book by William Faulkner and Oprah.]
Showalter: [—]
Rumpus: [Anyway. Perhaps I’ve offended you and my gender by making assumptions about “chick lit” and “Oprah.” I failed in these questions. My simpering intolerance of that which lies outside the academic sphere is humiliating. Thank you for making me reconsider what I’ve refused to consider.]
Showalter: [No problem.]
Rumpus: [We’re cool?]
Showalter: [Sure. You and I are like “this” (crosses her index and middle finger).]
Rumpus: [Back to the interview.] Women as lovers and servants. Women as writers. Women as activists. Grace Paley “insisted that storytellers must first be story hearers, open to all narratives of suffering and survival,” including (but not limited to) women’s liberation, political upheavals, and protest movements. Can you speak about contemporary women as storytellers and story hearers? I’m thinking about such writers/listeners/recorders as Naomi Klein, Rachel Maddow, Terry Gross, and Ariel Levy (among countless others).
Showalter: [—]
Rumpus: [Was that not a very interesting question? Fine.] Margaret Fuller said, “‘If she followed her womanhood, her heart, she had to keep her feelings private. If she followed her intellect, her writing would seem stiff, artificial, and cold.’ As Fuller perceived it, the essential problem for women writers was finding, or inventing, a suitable form: not traditional poetry, not the romantic novel, not the philosophical essay, but some combination and transformation of them all.” What would Margaret Fuller have said about the Internet?
Showalter: [—]
Rumpus: [Still no good? You said we were cool. Perhaps you are bored? Perhaps I am stupid? Perhaps a combination of the two?]
Showalter: [Perhaps.]
Rumpus: [I wish I had the confidence to tell you now what Sylvia Plath told her mother years ago: “I have it in me [to be a] genius of a writer.” Plath received a fellowship to write. Similarly, one Christmas, Harper Lee’s friends invited her to open presents, and the “surprising and generous gift to her was a kind of private fellowship—a year off to write” (the one string attached was to write with a “19th Century regimen of discipline”). Beyond godsends and benefactors, do you have advice for women like me seeking the time and money to write for a living? (I’d like to add an important nota bene that Lee ran out of money during her many rewrites; let us be warned.)]
Showalter: [At what point in this interview did you stop being white and privileged with a hefty inheritance? Just kidding. I empathize. My advice is to be good. Have confidence. Write to connect.]
Rumpus: Five-part question. Women had to change language to be included in it, to allow it to carry their voices. Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814) was one of the first to rebel: “Warren was unable to express herself so vividly in iambic pentameter burdened with ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ and ‘ne’er’ and ‘o’er.’” You say, “language is a fundamental issue,” and wonder, “is the dominant language adequate to express the experience and reality of muted or marginal groups?” You asked this rhetorically in A Jury of Her Peers, but I’ll answer it earnestly now: no. Contemporary women expanding language include Lydia Davis, Miranda July, Kelly Link, Mary Karr, Kathy Acker, Michelle Tea, and artist/writer Maira Kalman (to name a few). These women, and more like them, explode literary genres with experimental plays on language and meaning. Beyond the interest of time and space, why leave them out? Have you been thinking about them? And further, similar to having a language of our own, many reviewers question the idea that women need a literature of our own. Can you suggest a short reading list of authors we need to read—I’m interested in those who make you think the most, the few who alter your internal life, and the ones who inspire you to write. Which books are the most influential to you in terms of style, content, and representing women as dynamic individuals?
Showalter: “I posted a list on Amazon.com of my ten recommended women’s novels—it’s still there.”
Rumpus: [Yeah, I’ll check that out. I’m sure it’s great. So, Simone de Beauvoir and Sartre shared the same lovers. This isn’t a question; I just can’t believe it.] Here’s a question: in her memoir, One Writer’s Beginnings, “[Eudora] Welty acknowledged that she had had a sheltered life, but ‘a daring life as well. For all serious daring starts from within.’” As someone who enjoys writing, I find it’s a luxury and necessity to remain confined in my house. I relate to the madness of the attic, a popular place in women’s literature, because of what my thoughts do to me when I’m alone. In this way, I’ve come full circle and agree, beyond hesitation, that women need to get out of the house, if only to avoid depression, consumptive dipsomania, and schizophrenia.
Showalter: [Think about how you’d describe the smell of winter, capturing the colors and ecology and small things making the big things go right. Can you explain how it made you feel? How it quieted your mind? How it touched the standing hairs on your body? Can you remember the air, smelling not unlike smoked bacon, settling in your nose? No. You cannot if you remain inside your apartment. Get out of the goddamn house.]
Rumpus: Do you believe there could be a section in Jury for funny women writers? This is not to say any of the women you highlight aren’t often witty, wry, and hilarious. But some say women aren’t funny. How much do you disagree with that wrong sentiment? For a more appropriate question: what do you think of the connection between humor and women’s writing?
13 responses
My imaginary response to this is that it’s [totally fucking brilliant].
Great piece. Will be going to the Joyce Carol Oates/Elaine Showalter talk/brunch at 92Y this weekend in NY. Interested to hear more on her thoughts about the fight for use of a full range of language.
Do you mean women’s studies in the fourth paragraph?
“because she is the leading feminist literary critic of our time and introduced women’s students into college curriculums”
Thanks for being my editor, Michelle! I’ll fix it now. Can you read all my stuff?
Nice piece. I don’t remember ever reading Elaine Showalter, and I call myself a Women’s Studies major. Will have to check out her book, although lit crit makes me itch.
A few things that come to mind:
Didn’t women invent the novel as literary form?
As a writer the term chick lit annoys me, but really, I don’t care. Who cares if the book gets published with a pink cover if it gets read? I come from a women’s magazine background where the Taliban articles were wedged between makeover stories and pieces about the hot new eyeshadow of the season, and it worked—the message was still received. I followed this model when writing my novels. I sandwich the serious lessons in between optimism, feminism, fashion and beauty. The serious stuff is very dark though and I have yet to find a publisher.
90% of the time I’m incapable of writing in my apartment—I have to get out.
Is feminism still a dirty word? Most women I know won’t admit to being one (never been my problem). I mean, look at all the women who voted for the man in last election…
I do read some of what you write, Elissa, and most of it is pretty damn good. Great spin on Showalter not showing up for most of your interview questions.
Elissa, this is brilliant and hilarious! Your questions and imaginary answers contain even more insight than the brief and tangentially related points in Showalter’s actual responses. But, also, your passion for her work makes me want to check out some of her books immediately (or, rather, whenever the library opens tomorrow).
And, of course, I can’t wait to read more of your work. I completely agree when you-as-imaginary-Elaine encourage yourself to please, please keep writing!
One more tiny editing comment: did you mean Kathy Acker, not Kathy Acher?
Thank you so much. Attending a school without any sort of Women’s Studies department (or emphasis in Women’s Studies via history classes,grrr) this was especially refreshing/wonderful/hilarious/helpful.
I tried to go to sleep after reading Michelle’s comment (the second one) and just couldn’t. It made me think of this quotation from Lorrie Moore in “How to Become a Writer”:
“The only happiness you have is writing something new, in the middle of the night, armpits damp, heart pounding, something no one has seen yet. You have only those brief, fragile, untested moments of exhilaration when you know: you are a genius.â€
It’s the middle of the night, armpits damp, heart pounding. Not so brief or fragile, but a real sense of exhilaration. Michelle, good god, woman, let’s get a drink.
I had a similar feeling when I wrote this piece. At the time, alone in my apartment, I said aloud, loudly, “WRITING-GASM!” Nothing feels better–except that one thing.
Anyway, the point is, a few things come to mind re: your things (and thank you for your contribution):
I personally haven’t read anywhere that women invented the novel as literary form. If it’s true, it’s not well attributed. A Jury of Her Peers is very much about this, the idea that women contributed in ways that have been concealed, misunderstood, and confused. I managed to confuse a few things myself…
When I was in high school, I subscribed to Marie Claire. Doing so made me feel sophisticated, worldly, prepared for sex, etc. (NB: magazines don’t prepare well for sex). In one issue, I read an article about women being sold into sex slavery. It scared the shit out of me. What scared me more was that the article was between ads for perfume and bras and diet pills. Lightbulb moment. Something is fucking wrong here. I was close with my European history teacher, one of my first female role models (she is a goddess), and just baffled, I showed it to her. I needed her to tell me why. She looked at me in a way that I interpreted as, “Yeah, this is the world, cupcake. I’m sorry you just figured it out. But deal with it.” Your comment turns it all around for me. “The message was still received.” Yes, you are right. Elaine made me rethink a few things, particularly my immature and thoughtless hatred of “chick lit,” for example.
In the uncut original interview questions, I asked Elaine if she was a feminist. She didn’t respond. Fair enough. And I can’t imagine what she could have said to that question. I, Elissa Bassist, would say this: That same history teacher taught the evils of “isms,” and I can understand why not everyone is into the label. But I know, secretly, that if you are a person who cares about equality for all people, you’re a feminist. If you’re a woman who’s in school or working or being a good mom, you’re a feminist. I know a ton of people, men and women, who are feminists and just refuse to use the term. Lots of my boyfriends have refused to use the term “boyfriend” or “relationship,” but that didn’t fool me. Words schmurds.
Want to send me your serious dark stuff? That’s my favorite kind. I think you’re right that you have to put it between optimism, humor, etc. I think that’s how Lorrie Moore gets away with it…balance, dimension, honesty. That woman is a black pit of despair, but she’s hilarious and smart as hell about it.
And, I have to say, even though E. Showalter didn’t respond to all my questions/insanity, she’s still my reason to get up in the morning.
Also, Michelle, most of what I write? Not all? Was it the Ayn Rand piece?
Thanks, Danni! Where’s The Rumpus proofreading department?
Will have to check out the Ayn Rand piece – she’s one of my favorites.
The Tale of Genji written by female courtesan Murasaki Shikibu in the eleventh century is considered to be the world’s first novel. We learned in my 1993 (gasp!) Women Novelists class that women, especially in the 1700-1800s invented the novel.
Wild, I worked for MC when that issue with the sex slavery article came out. Have a lot to say about the magazine business (and new media) but must get back to work writing headlines like ‘unwanted hair is gone—forever!’ If it will let me take a few months off later this year to rework my novel, it’s all worth it.
Looking forward to reading more of your stuff – Michelle
Nice, on Ayn Rand. You know the model for her supermen was a serial killer, right? http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-followers-are-scarier-than-the-manson-family-and-the-gruesome-story-of-the-serial-killer-who-stole-ayn-rands-heart/
You can Google around, there’s lots of stuff out there on this.
Showalter’s a little whacked on a few things, too. Like stating that certain illnesses are hysterical when you’re not qualified to assess. That’s kinda arrogant…when you don’t know what you don’t know. Plus, she totally misrepresented Tillie Olsen’s claim about Silences, at least as I recall it. And then she rebutted the wrong claim. I’m about to blog on this myself. Grrr.
I understand that Elaine Showalter has contributed to the field of feminist literary criticism, but in my eyes the damage she has done in the field of women’s health far outweighs any of her positive work. How could anyone outside the medical field presume to offer an “expert” opinion that serious, debilitating diseases like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are “hysteria?” Not only did she ignore countless articles in medical journals, the CDC, and the up to 4 million American patients, she also ignored the history of her own field. Multiple Sclerosis and polio were also once labeled as “hysteria?”. Most CFS patients are women, although many are men. Although she implies that it is a disease of white, rich women, like most diseases, poor people and people of color are at a greater risk. I truly don’t understand why she would use her power as a well-known feminist academic to undermine the efforts of millions of people to get their illness taken seriously. The medical establishment has a long history of ignoring and psychologizing diseases that affect mostly women; why would Elaine Showalter buy into that?
Ms. Showalter deserves public censure for what she’s done, not adoring praise. She’s the most anti-feminist feminist I’ve ever known.
Lee Davis
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.