There's been a lot of talk over the years about the quality of critical thinking and reviewing in yer average book blog—concerns that I've shared at times. It's not so much the fangirl stuff that bothers me—overt expressions of enthusiasm are either irritating or delightful, I find—but more just plain bad reviewing. Like all of us, I have over the years read some outrageously uninformed reviews, where the blogger has revealed more about their own cultural ignorance than they've realised. I've read mean-spirited and nasty reviews, where the blogger has apparently taken great joy in demolishing a book and made it personal. I've made condescending reviews where all kinds of assumptions have been made about the writer and their motivations. And I've read plenty of just badly written, dull reviews that reveal nothing about the actual quality of the work.
I always put it down to the fact that yer average book blogger has never gone through any kind of editorial apprenticeship. They've never had to submit work to an editor in order to publish in the first place. They've never had their work edited even for house style, much less for content, tone, accuracy. And so they've never had any opportunity to learn from experienced reviewers the standards of critical writing: don't retell the plot; don't give away significant plot points (although to be fair, in the world of the intertubes, bloggers are pretty spoiler-savvy); "play the ball and not the man", ie, DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL.
There's nothing new in any of that—if anything, if this blog post were just about book-blogging, I'd be about five years out of date anyway, although I still think a lot of these points remain salient. But hopefully most of us now read book review blogs with a pinch of salt and an understanding that they're not professional reviews—and at least they're not as bad as your average Amazon customer review...
But if bad reviewing were the domain of the amateur blogger—what are we to make of this?
That link takes you to a review of Leslie Cannold's first novel, The Book of Rachael. The review is written by Theo Chapman. I don't know who he is; I don't recall seeing that byline before, but the trusty intertubes tells me (via LinkedIn) that he is a sub-editor, journalism lecturer and book reviewer for the Sun-Herald.
If you don't know anything about the book, it is a novel imagining the life of Jesus's sister, who Cannold calls Rachael. Cannold was inspired to write the novel after she found that while the names and other details of Jesus's brothers were recorded, there was absolutely no trace of any of his sisters—it was, as she explains in this interview, a shock for her to realise how completely they'd been forgotten. (I was surprised she was surprised, actually!) In the novel—and yes, this post will be full of spoilers, but honestly, if you don't know how the story of Jesus turns out...! Anyway, in the novel, Jesus, named Joshua, is in love with the woman known to history as Mary Magdalene—they are in fact lovers, although not married. Rachael, some years Joshua's younger, is rebellious, fractious and challenging from early childhood. At 15, she falls passionately in love with Joshua's best friend, the soldier Judah Iscariot, who has been away fighting to Roman occupation, and they are married soon after.
There is another sister, Shona, who is raped and then forced, under
Hebrew law, to marry her rapist, who takes her away from her family and
continues to misuse her for years. And then Maryam, Joshua's lover, disappears with her father, and it is when Joshua leaves Nazareth in search of her that his ministry begins.
There's no doubting Cannold's feminist impulse in writing this book, and a fury at the injustice served to the women of this society permeates the narrative—Shona's fate being at the extreme (but not uncommon) end of the lot of women, the novel also canvasses the more prosaic daily injustices suffered by women in that time and society. We also see the worship of the Goddess Queen of Heaven by women such as the healer and midwife Bindy, to whom Rachael is for a time apprenticed. In Joshua and his father Yosef we have potentially anachronistic men who value and reward Rachael's intelligence and passion for learning by teaching her to read. (I say anachronistic, but cannot it also be possible that there were and have been such men at all times and places in history—men who did not share the mores of the day regarding the place of women? And if that is possible, then it seems entirely plausible to me that the Jesus of the Bible as I read it would have been just such a man. And anyway, the main thing is, this is a novel and Cannold makes it work in the fictional version of the historical world she has created.)
So it's a politically-driven novel, and while Chapman makes it out to be more of a polemic than I think it is, there's no question that this is a novel written from an unequivocally feminist position. I do think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Cannold has Jesus dying for his "feminist beliefs", as Chapman offers in the first paragraph, but that's something you could argue the toss over. Personally, as a feminist, I enjoy reading a novel that overtly takes on one of the biggest stories in the history of the world and recasts it within a feminist framework. (I would say that, my thesis being on feminist retellings of fairy tales, and having been raised by a feminist Christian mother.) I can equally understand someone not caring for the book on the same grounds—and I also demand more than pure politics in my fiction—I want a good story with characters and attention to language, and I get that from Cannold's novel, even while I at times found the narrative style almost oddly elliptical.
No, what really really bothers me about this review is this:
The literary style of The Book of Rachael is pure chick lit and
at one level it's a story that can be enjoyed as a historical drama
set in the Middle East about 2000 years ago.
What the—?! CHICK LIT?! If this book is chick lit then the term OFFICIALLY no longer means a single damn thing. Maybe it never really did, but at least back when the term was first coined, as irritating as it may always have been, you at least knew what it referred to. Sex and shopping books. Romance and shoes. Handbags and gladrags, single girl's adventures in the city—a la Bridget Jones and Carrie and the girls. Some of them were better than others (like anything), most of them were firmly targeted at a female readership (although the movies of Bridget and Sex and the City probably attracted more straight men to the genre than they'd care to admit). You could argue that the classic chicklit novel is a more savvy, urban version of the mass market romance novel, with more than a passing nod to feminism but still with romance and the marriage ending firmly in place.
And it's a nonsense category anyway, made especially so as the term came quickly to be applied to pretty much any novel by a woman about women. And that's when it got REALLY irritating.
Women are not the other and their stories are not a "genre".
To call Leslie Cannold's novel "chick lit" is one of the poorest examples of critical writing I've ever come across. It's dismissive, marginalising, reductive and lazy. It's not merely technically wrong—how does the book fit the classic chick lit model in any way, shape or form—except for the fact that there's a romance? Or is it just that it's written by a woman—therefore—chick lit! Simple equation. And that's what annoys me the most.
Chapman goes on to acknowledge that it's a book "about ideas", arguing that characterisation is has been sacrificed to the narrative that explores those ideas. I don't agree with him, at least, not about all the characters—some are more fully drawn than others—but that's not really my point. I don't understand how a book can be tossed off as chick lit in one paragraph, and then criticised for perceived flaws because it's a book about ideas in another.
The truth is, a good, well-written review is kind of hard to come by anywhere. The space given to book reviews in mainstream media the world over is shrinking. Maybe that is partly because of the rise of the book blogger—maybe editors think people are getting their information about new books from bloggers and GoodReads and social media. I don't know. Perhaps we just collectively don't care about culture and the exchange of ideas as much any more.
What I do know is that if the space for paid/professional critical writing about books is shrinking, then the words in whatever space is left need to be thoughtful, informed and provocative in a meaningful way. And that means people being charged to write about books they have genuinely engaged with—whether or not they like them, at the least, say something about the quality of the writing, the intellectual content of the ideas, the research (where relevant), the beauty of the language. Don't just stick it in a convenient, if irrelevant box and hope no-one notices.
And by the way? I've made a call.
There's no such thing as chick lit. There are books by women, there are books about women, but a cohesive subset of literature they do not make, any more than books by and about men can be lumped together. So give it a rest. That's all.
Oh! Except—this is what the book looks like. Read it yourself, make your own mind up. Cheers.
EDITED TO NOTE: Theo Chapman is, apparently a woman (thanks, Angie)—which makes the chick lit comment even weirder, frankly!
Comments
Tue, 22.01.2013 19:21
Thanks for the book list! I th ink fiction books are one of t he best ways to understand cul ture. It helps us to und [...]
Tue, 18.09.2012 07:28
I swapped from Blogger to Word press and the Wordpress platfo rm picked up all my previous b logs and converted them. [...]
Fri, 31.08.2012 23:56
Hi Anna, I can get a messag e to Gaye on your behalf. C heers, Judith
Thu, 30.08.2012 12:03
Hi, i found this blog and was wondering is there any possibi lity to contact Gaye direct??? If there is one, please [...]
Tue, 20.03.2012 23:06
Unfortunately, Geraldine, I do n't do very much reviewing on the blog these days. However, if you send me the publi [...]
Sun, 18.03.2012 18:35
So, I came across this article whilst browsing Google. Anywa y, I attend this school and it is truly fantastic to s [...]
Sat, 17.03.2012 14:17
Thanks for this Judith ... gre at stuff. Would it be possibl e somehow for you to look at m y picture book:- "My Fea [...]
Fri, 10.02.2012 16:03
Dog in, Cat out is ridiculous. .try reading it at storytime l ol I'd prefer Animalia (Gra eme Base)and Looking for [...]
Thu, 15.12.2011 13:37
Hi, Judith, I;'m late in re ading this -- but I'm going to cut out the Steve Jobs quote from a prinout of your d [...]
Sat, 03.12.2011 09:43
What a terrific story. These s tate schools are doing terrifi c things. Through the dedicati on of the teachers and t [...]
Fri, 02.12.2011 21:01
"In the land of the talking tr ees" by Michael Noonan -a gorg eous fantasy about a soldier i n WW2 lost in PNG and sa [...]
Wed, 16.11.2011 08:18
Hey Judith I really enjoyed y our Apple journey. Our school had Apples, too. My wife, a de signer, banned me from P [...]
Sun, 13.11.2011 12:43
A very late comment, since I f ound your comments reproduced in the Sep. Bookseller and Pub lisher, Judith. I've bee [...]
Wed, 12.10.2011 04:50
I am a masters student of chil dren's literature at Makerere University in Uganda, East Afr ica. I must say the comm [...]
Sun, 02.10.2011 23:22
this sounds great--on my list it goes!