An interview was drawn to my attention today with V.S Naipaul (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jun/02/vs-naipaul-jane-austen-women-writers), in which he basically writes-off women authors. Now why I may not agree with the generalisation that he makes, after careful deliberation, I actually find myself shocked to agree with him! Now before you stop reading this and write my own opinion off, just hear me out. On reading this article, I actually realised that I have very few books on my shelf which are written by women, something I found quite perplexing. It’s not that I don’t read books written by women, in fact I have read quite a few, but the books I often buy are books where I appreciate the authors writing. It just so happens, I like what men write more than women.
When one considers the wider world of reading, there is a vast plethora of male writers who show incredible craft, and very few female. In fact though some consider the works of Jane Austen to be fantastic, I myself find them a sentimental bore. I have read some of the stuff written by Naipaul, and I really enjoy his writing, he truly does have a gift and depth of craft that not many living authors have today. When I think about women authors that have actually challenged me to think while reading their novels, I can’t even dredge up a name—actually I lie, there is ONE book I have read, written by a female that has really got me thinking, and that is Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet Jacobs. But even then, I don’t think it’s the craft that challenged me, so much as the content, it is a raw depiction of one girls struggle in a society where slavery is the norm, and I think the reason why it is so harrowing is that it is autobiographical.
So let’s look at some female authors shall we. J.K Rowling is a female author I enjoy, but her level of craft is somewhat telling. She has improved vastly over the Harry Potter series, but she is still fairly sentimental (which doesn’t necessarily take away from the enjoyment). Stephanie Meyer is another female author who has risen to success lately, and don’t even get me started on the tripe she produces, if anything she helps Naipaul’s argument! Patricia Cornwall is another successful female author, but I find her books predictable, and she sticks rigidly to the tropes of crime fiction. There is perhaps only one female author I can think of who really stands out from all the others, one who continually surprises, innovated and shows incredible craft, Agatha Christie. I don’t really need to say much about her, as I’m sure most have read her books sometime in their lives, and if not, should.
So what does this all mean? Well perhaps female authors still have a ways to go to actually get an even footing with men. I think perhaps some of the reasons for this lies in the history of writing itself. For the longest time writing has very often been a males domain, especially when it comes to writers of literary fiction. If you look back to the end of the 19th century there was a wave of authors who wrote fiction for the intelligentsia, educated, sophisticated and complex, most of these authors would fall into the category of ‘literary fiction’, a highbrow, very complex, but extremely well written genre. Authors like T.S Elliot, Tolstoy, Henry James, Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, et al. are all well noted, and all male. Sure there were females, more noted for their poetry works than prose. I hear many people bemoan these authors as boring, hard to read, highbrow etc. And they aren’t all wrong, after all War and Peace though a fantastic read is often tiresome, and hardly what one would call a page turner.
What we have is a literary elite, for the educated elite, a category that Naipaul actually falls into himself. The notable part here is these writers often pre-dated the feminist and equality movements, which basically means that our perception of the literary elite as male, more often actually reflects the male dominated world in which they wrote: for male readers. Obviously the world has moved on from then, from the mass production of fiction at the turn of the 20th century to now, the literary elite have been in decline. What has come to be more important than ones craft with words is ones ability to create an entertaining story. No longer are audiences interested in how well ones sentence is constructed, and the breadth and depth of ones vocabulary. As an English teacher in training, I actually find this conflicting. Part of me is elitist you see, part of me values the English language and how it is used and crafted, but part of me loves to watch culture evolve and change, and in the post-modern era high culture is dead.
Naipaul is probably right therefore in his criticisms of female authors, and probably right in citing their lack of craft. But does it actually matter? Who are the authors that will be considered into the new literary elite in 100 years from now? No doubt it will be the authors who sold well (like Jane Austen did), wrote well, and were able to construct a sentence without the need of much of the new lingo developing in this digital age. What I can say, with confidence, is that the level of craft of female authors is defiantly on the rise, and with females now making up the majority of people who read, authors who write to this audience will emerge, and no doubt many of them will be female, and somewhere, there will be ones who show incredible craft and mastery of the English language. The hope is they move from more sentimental themes and start to challenge the way in which we think and view the society we live in.
The patriarchal nature of elitism has probably impacted more on this than any of us can understand. Out of curiosity, what do you think of Virginia Woolf?
ReplyDeleteAnd would you be interested in borrowing some of my books by female authors?
Oh and I also dislike Jane Austen. But I just read the article and... he isn't very convincing.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read much of Woolf, but what I have read is quite good. Dickinson is another female writer I like, but she mostly wrote poetry. I think Woolf shows that women can actually break into the literary elite, and I also think she was very much a woman of her time. She also shows the emergence of women authors who write with superior craft.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I will borrow some of your books, just have another 10 of my own list to read before then! So much to read!
I haven't read Naipaul's argument and I doubt I will - I find his writing largely self-important and unconvincing. However, I do take issue with your argument for the following reasons.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the "literary elite" that you put forth is that which has emerged from a largely masculine-defined view of literature from nineteenth-century Britain. This poses a problem for any analysis of women writers (or a lackof). As women in nineteenth-century Britain were not encouraged to write - or, if they were to write, had to do so in a "feminine" and therefore less "intellectual" manner - is it not conceivable that it is the fault of the patriarchy if there is indeed such a drought in "elite" writings by women of this time?
Having said that, I do believe that there were women who were in a position to make a literary stand (Charlotte Bronte for example) but none could do so without a male pseudonym or they would be hammered by society. Another example, Felicia Hemans, wrote early on under a male pseudonym in what was deemed at the time the intellectual style of a man (her work was thought Byronic). Yet however favourably her early works were considered, once she was revealed to be a woman, the criticism was spiteful and her sales tumbled. She was forced to cultivate a respectable feminine image and write "sentimental" poems for the rest of her literary career because it was her sole source of income.
The patriarchal nature of society would be the key reason for your so-called drought in "good" writing by women.
Having said that, I think there is a wealth of well-written and intelligent prose by women, a large portion of which you have slammed as "sentimental". This is ridiculous. If we are speaking of prose, we are speaking of novels, stories, the subject matter need not be 'high' and 'noble' but can be anything. And what could women of the past write of more thoughtfully or with more knowledge than that of domesticity, home life and sciety. Just because it does not interest you does not mean it is not thought-provoking and interesting to others. I, for instance, find the works of Jane Austen, Mrs Henry Wood and Mrs Radcliffe to be great literary works, with subtle remarks upon the societies they lived in and often deep well-hidden criticism of the patriarchy and their much-restricted lives. Elizabeth Gaskell wrote novels of romance, but interweaved her deep interest in workers rights and politics within this to very good effect. Reading her novels is like reading two books at one time - the romance (the story her society would have approved of) and the political discourse (one her society very much would not).
I also want to point out one more issue with your argument - you cite writers like JK Rowling and Stephanie Meyer as being those who cater to a popular audience and that these are somehow less worthy for that. I don't think you can make that call without also pointing out that there are a bunch of male authors who are popular and may not be so brilliant when it comes to the trade - Dan Brown, anyone?
Also, I'm very glad Amy noted Virginia Woolf - her work is amazing, as is the work of Nancy Mitford and others. And as to modern writers, I think my reading is an even 50/50 split male and female. Maybe the subject matter they cover are different - perhaps I have more sci-fi and fantasy by men, and more life stories by women, but I do not believe that subject matter should in any way impact on the ability to tell a good story.
Also, sorry for the rant :D
ReplyDeleteGood points Kate, and you do hit the nail on the head, the idea of a "literary elite" is indeed a construct by the masculine world view of the time.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the female writers of yore, I do think audience plays a big part in who they interest, even now with current writers. What actually is incredible about the Bronte's for instance is they managed to be successful commercially in an era where women tended not to read so much.
What I perhaps didn't make quite clear enough is my views on the old literary elite, I think it was defiantly male-dominated, and women had little to no hope of being successful, and that being said, much of our "appreciation" for classic literature is defined by the old elite or reactionary feminist writers, with not much opinion somewhere in the middle.
So just to sum my thoughts up, while I do consider Naipaul to have a point, I think that it is wrong to assume that women can and never will have the same mastery of the craft. I also think that writing prose has changed so much this last century that it is very difficult to find authors who we might consider equals to those of old, despite there being arguably more talented authors. Where once authors were valued for pushing the intellect of their readers (and showing off their own intellect), now it is about story telling, and as a reader, I love the good old page turner as well as some of that highbrow crap.
And yes, Dan Brown, Stephen King, Tom Clancy et al. would all be considers poor by the old elitist standards too. Success commercially often tends to be inverse these days to showing off how clever you are, and making a living from writing... well that's what authors all strive to achieve
Look! I'm now your "fan".
ReplyDeleteI've realised I have a lot more to say about this, but should be working right now...
ReplyDelete