Battle of the Book Readers, Round ∞

Ah, here we are again, enjoying yet another round in the great Jennifer Weiner/Jonathan Franzen cage match.

We have, in Franzen’s corner, Jesse Barron, writing for Harper’s. He wants to explore the way romance novelists succeed in their genre despite a lack of establishment attention, but while he’s at it, he has a few things to say about our friend Jennifer. Few writers appear more “covetous” of New York literary establishment success than Weiner, but, generously, he’s willing to admit she “has a few things straight.”

How kind! What are “a few” of these things that might be right? Let’s see, that she’s a commercial rather than a “literary” writer (Ouch! The thing you have right, Jennifer, is that your books aren’t very good) and that female writers of commercial fiction are “perhaps the least-respected writers in America.” Well, you’re certainly proving that point. He also calls her an agitator for the inclusion of commercial fiction in the New York Times Book Review, rather pointedly listing all the places she’s argued for that. Because when you want to say something about the systemic exclusion of female writers (all female writers, not just the ones who write icky commercial books) from prestige papers, you should mention it once, maybe in a tweet, and then shut up about it.

Undoubtedly, Weiner would love to have her books reviewed by the Times. Who wouldn’t? But what she’s also up in arms about is the straight-up number of women authors versus male authors represented in that book review section. In the link to her website that Barron includes, she does mention that she’d like to see commercial fiction reviewed there (since, after all, the Times manages to cover a few mysteries, thrillers, and horror novels). But that’s her final point, a throwaway near the end of a lengthy post about the numbers game the Times plays, wherein she’s arguing, primarily, that the Times ignores women writers and gives all the glamorous double reviews, featured interviews, and profiles to male writers.

The broader point here is that the Times badly under-covers female writers. And yes, it wouldn’t kill them to review commercial women writers. If they can handle those thrillers, if their movie section can review all three Hangover movies, if their TV critics can stomach watching something called Billy Bob’s Gags to Riches, there really is no reason why they can’t pick up a few more commercial titles written by women.

Maybe I’m being unfair to Barron. After all, his larger point is actually about how commercial writers don’t need “New York,” a slightly mythical entity that he considers the prestige literary world. His focus is on the fast-growing romance novel genre, much of which is popularized through Goodreads and heavy author/fan interaction. These romance novelists make an embarrassing amount of money. Near $84,000 a year, if they write two books a year! They don’t need your stinkin’ reviews, New York Times. As one of them says to Barron after he asks her if she’d like to be accepted in the “literary establishment,” “Fuck them.”

Now, I might be wrong about this, but these feelings don’t exist in a vacuum. Angela Knight, a bestselling author of erotic fiction, would not be saying “Fuck them” if the literary establishment had not been saying to her, for years and years, “Fuck YOU.” The fact that she’s learned to work around them does not make it okay to treat her as though both her and her industry are wildly unworthy of notice.

Let’s see how the debate is going elsewhere and check in with another dude, bestselling author of commercial fiction Carl Hiaasen. Hiaasen, lucky him, got name-checked in a New Yorker profile of Jennifer Weiner’s windmill tilting. She flagged him as a commercial author who still managed to get all of his books reviewed by the Times. What does he say?

I have to say, I get The New Yorker, but I’ve been out of town, so I didn’t see it.

Uh oh. You didn’t read it. You’re not still going to express an opinion about it, are you? Well, Weiner has been banging this drum for a while now, so you can’t be too oblivious about the debate. Let’s read on:

[SALON]: An author, Jennifer Weiner, was quoted remarking that she didn’t get the same level of critical-attention marketing as you do, and it was implied it’s because your books are marketed toward men . . .

[HIAASEN]: You know, I have to say, it’s kind of ironic because when I go to book signings I would say 75 percent of the people there are
women . . .

[ . . . ]

I see the point she is trying to make, but the empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

Your books appeal primarily to women, as you point out, but you’re still receiving miles more critical attention. I think the empirical evidence (or anecdotal evidence, since you’re talking about your personal experience) would suggest she’s right.

I will admit, I’ve read maybe ten Carl Hiaasen books and definitely zero Jennifer Weiner books, but I hate what this debate has become. I don’t want to read more puffing up of the New York literary establishment, or ignoring the actual data Jennifer Weiner generates to point out inequality. This conversation is supposed to be about what we can do to create equity for female writers of all stripes, not to restructure her whole point in order to maintain the status quo, or explain from a position of privilege that you just don’t care enough to learn about what she’s arguing. “New York” needs to get over itself, and the rest of the world needs to remove their mysterious “Well, it’s Jennifer Weiner saying it” filter and listen to her.