fiction files redux discussion

31 views
Success, Gender and Literature

Comments Showing 1-49 of 49 (49 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Dan, deadpan man (new)

Dan | 640 comments Mod
I've mentioned previously that my reading is largely skewed towards male authors. And I can't seem to get out of that rut (at least not without a serious concentrated effort).

I came across this post today buy a female author who I've not previously heard of (surprise!), and thought it could stir up some decent conversation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-...

In the world of literature how is gender and success related? Are women generally not thought of as having the same ability?

And why is it that books by male authors usually fall into my hands way more frequently than those by female authors?


message 2: by Kerry, flame-haired janeite (last edited Feb 16, 2012 03:07PM) (new)

Kerry Dunn (kerryanndunn) | 886 comments Mod
Hi Dan! Well, you know I've chastised you in the past for not reading enough females. I think it was because of some topic somewhere we all named our ten favorite authors or something and you had NO women on yours! BUT, it's okay. For now, I'm not going to touch your first question but I will make an attempt to answer your second.

"And why is it that books by male authors usually fall into my hands way more frequently than those by female authors?"

I think the answer to this questions is BECAUSE YOU ARE A MAN.

BECAUSE I AM A WOMAN I am attracted to women writers. Because you are a man, you're not.

The last few books I've read: An Education by Lynn Barber, Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers, My Antonia by Willa Cather. Yep. All women. I'm not necessarily doing it on purpose. It's just what I'm attracted to. Like gets like and all that.

The only way you are going to add some women authors to your reading is to consciously seek them out.


message 3: by Shel, ad astra per aspera (new)

Shel (shelbybower) | 946 comments Mod
There must be something wrong with your hands. ;)

She has some really good points. And - curiously - she makes me want to write out of sheer proving my own ambitious storytelling desires. Many of the books she mentions simply fell flat for me not in their ambition to change the novel or tell a big story, but in how far into being human they were willing to go/avoid, which to me... lacks ambition.

And the women she mentions -- I could be totally wrong because this is anecdotal, I am not writing a thesis and I'm not "trained" to see these things --- it's like they're looking through a different camera. It's like the camera can't zoom out FAR enough, or at least, it's not zooming out as far as the camera the big swinging dick writers seem to be using. Maybe that can be labeled Ambition too.


message 4: by Gloria (new)

Gloria (thatholmgirl) | 79 comments Oooh, I couldn't resist chiming in on this topic. And probably stirring up a bit of a hornet's nest. Because, on the whole, I'd side with Dan.

I much prefer men writers over women (as my love for gritty, violent westerns can probably attest).
While I can't paint "women writers" with a broad brushstroke (there are some on my favorite authors list), they do seem to have a different style-- and often are more "wordy."

To be fair, I have read books by men who have struck me as being quite "feminine"-- as far as writing style. And I've not liked them at all.
There is one particular male author (no, I will not mention his name) a friend of mine tried to get me to read. I tried a couple of his titles and promptly emailed her and said he "wrote like a girl." (waiting for tomatoes to be thrown at me now... it is a joke.)

As far as why men perhaps garner more fame and success? I don't know, really. The last time I read anything on statistics in the reading realm, women outranked men as far as buying power in the book world. Are THEY buying more books by men too?

Or why authors like J.K. Rowling use their initials vs. their actual name (Joanne). More ambiguous as far as their sex when someone sees the cover?


message 5: by Gloria (new)

Gloria (thatholmgirl) | 79 comments Oh, and for the record: I'm not impressed with Franzen or Eugenides.


message 6: by Kerry, flame-haired janeite (new)

Kerry Dunn (kerryanndunn) | 886 comments Mod
I hated Freedom by Franzen SO MUCH. Oh, and as we speak of it I also hated Middlesex by Eugenides.

But I do read a lot of male authors too. And to be honest the female authors I do read tend to be from past generations. I haven't read a lot of modern female authors. But then, I don't read nearly enough modern literature in general.

Now Gloria, we are not a tomato throwing group so you MUST name the male author you say writes "like a girl" because I want to see if I know his work and if I agree with you!


message 7: by Gloria (new)

Gloria (thatholmgirl) | 79 comments Twist my arm.
*cough* Kent Haruf *cough*


message 8: by Patrick, photographic eye (last edited Feb 16, 2012 04:02PM) (new)

Patrick | 133 comments Mod
hi dan. I agree with kerry. i'd imagine, when you are interested (enough) you will consciously seek out other authors.

to be honest, something about that woman's article really irritated me. i'm not quite sure what to say about it yet. i just know i wanted to shout as i was reading it.

i'm going off to ponder (and maybe yell) & then i'll be back.


message 9: by Matt, e-monk (last edited Feb 16, 2012 04:33PM) (new)

Matt Comito | 386 comments Mod
Dan wrote: "I've mentioned previously that my reading is largely skewed towards male authors. And I can't seem to get out of that rut (at least not without a serious concentrated effort).

"de gustibus non disputandum est" - you like what you like

to me the question really drills down to 'what is reading for?'

should you read what appeals to you?

or

in your reading should you go out of your way to educate yourself and expand your horizons?

or

the question 'what is reading for?' is a bull shit nonsensical question rife with a bunch of high falutin and yet ridiculous assumptions (and also it ends with a preposition)

in the end unfortunately those remain essentially subjective questions so after all that youre still stuck with old Aristotle and his 'matters of taste'


message 10: by Matt, e-monk (last edited Feb 16, 2012 04:32PM) (new)

Matt Comito | 386 comments Mod
another thought

I totally dont want to sit here and go

well, Elizabeth Bishop is definitely in my top 3 poets and I have every Susan Sontag book ever published and Secret History is in my top 5 favs ever and those are all women folk and let me just sort out every book here on my book shelves and I'll stack them on a scale and we'll just see where I stand on this issue

because that seems kind of like a lot of bull shit too (some of my best friends are...)

I'm not sure how to get my head around this - maybe I should read the original link


message 11: by Matt, e-monk (last edited Feb 16, 2012 04:37PM) (new)

Matt Comito | 386 comments Mod
okay I just actually read the article

my response: Jennifer Egan


good night now!


message 12: by Gloria (new)

Gloria (thatholmgirl) | 79 comments Slowrabbit wrote: "hi dan. I agree with kerry. i'd imagine, when you are interested (enough) you will consciously seek out other authors.

to be honest, something about that woman's article really irritated me. i..."


Patrick,

I agree. There was certain almost whinyness to her tone. My take is this: if you want to be a writer, you write simply because you "must." Not for fame or fortune (because, statistically, precious few reach that level).
You don't aim for a genre, or a crowd, or what you think might sell ... you let out what's within you that will no longer be contained.


message 13: by Shel, ad astra per aspera (new)

Shel (shelbybower) | 946 comments Mod
I think there are actually quite enough responses here to conclude that gender is as much a construct in "literatuah" as it is anywhere else. Even though I can anecdotally note differences in what *I* read that's still anecdotal and there are plenty of exceptions, as we all just pointed out.

What she seemed to be talking about is discrimination, plain and simple.


message 14: by Patty, free birdeaucrat (last edited Feb 16, 2012 07:41PM) (new)

Patty | 896 comments Mod
A) You read mostly male authors because most of the novels written up to now, i'm gonna guess at least 80% of all novels written, were written by men

B) w/r/t "Are women generally not thought of as having the same ability?" the answer is, historically, the power to decide (publish) who has/hasn't ability has been in the hands of men, and they tended to come down on the side of women not being capable/able to do the same things men could do

C) you should read what you like, but you will probably like a wider variety of things if you sample outside your preferences


message 15: by Ben, uneasy in a position of power; a yorkshire pudding (new)

Ben Loory | 241 comments Mod
Slowrabbit wrote: "to be honest, something about that woman's article really irritated me..."

for me it was the whole "Big Swinging Dick" thing... wonder how she'd like it if people referred to her writing as "Big Bouncy Tit" stuff... she just sounds kinda gross.


message 16: by Gloria (new)

Gloria (thatholmgirl) | 79 comments Ben wrote:
for me it was the whole "Big Swinging Dick" thing... wonder how she'd like it if people referred to he..."


Thank you, Ben. I just about blew my tea out my nose on that one.


message 17: by Dan, deadpan man (last edited Feb 17, 2012 07:43AM) (new)

Dan | 640 comments Mod
Holy shit! Look at all these responses. So many people saying so many good things.

@Ben and Patrick: that "Big Swinging Dick" thing was off-putting because it's just pointlessly crude (or maybe envy). A point it is often made better when elegant, unless maybe you're the South Park guys (is that show still on?)

@Gloria: Or why authors like J.K. Rowling use their initials vs. their actual name (Joanne). More ambiguous as far as their sex when someone sees the cover?

This is a really interesting thought, and if true, pretty sad.

@Matt: Regarding Jennifer Egan, I dug A Visit From... and have The Keep sitting on a shelf at home. She seems to be one of the few female authors that the media (or whatever) lauds to the same degree as the MALES.

It seems pretty safe to say that Franzen, Eugenides and Chabon are the replacements for Roth, Updike and Mailer...

@Shel: Do it, prove everyone you've got the scope and ambition. Then let me read it!

@Kerry: I don't think it is as easily boiled down to being a man, at least not for me anyway. I think it has more to do with the literary establishment's preferences...Maybe I read too much book related news. Damn my librarianship!


message 18: by Dan, deadpan man (new)

Dan | 640 comments Mod
Taking e-monk's idea (that he didn't want to do) and since I am at work I figured I've got the time I examined my reading the last few years and this is what I've got for a female to male breakdown.

2009: 7 books of 56 total by female authors
2010: 7 books of 53 total by female authors
2011: 10 books of 55 total by female authors
2012: 0 books of 8 total by female authors

Not sure what that says, but maybe illustrates my point of my reading being heavily male. Regardless I believe that Patty is absolutely right in her historic take on things. Men have been the rulers and the decision makers for a very long time.


message 19: by Gloria (new)

Gloria (thatholmgirl) | 79 comments This makes me want to move Jennifer Egan up on my to-read list...


message 20: by Kerry, flame-haired janeite (new)

Kerry Dunn (kerryanndunn) | 886 comments Mod
Me too Gloria! I have that Goon Squad book somewhere....maybe I'll read it next!


message 21: by Kerry, flame-haired janeite (last edited Feb 17, 2012 12:39PM) (new)

Kerry Dunn (kerryanndunn) | 886 comments Mod
Dan wrote: "2009: 7 books of 56 total by female authors
2010: 7 books of 53 total by female authors
2011: 10 books of 55 total by female authors
2012: 0 books of 8 total by female authors
"


Wow Dan. I'm so impressed by your amount of reading! I'm such a lazy reader the past few years. But your list made me curious about my own so here it is:

2009 - 9 books of 17 total by female authors
2010 - 4 books of 9 total by female authors
2011 - 6 books of 13 total by female authors
2012 - 2 books of 2 total by female authors

So I'm at nearly fifty fifty between male and female authors, which surprised me because I figured I read more male authors just because, like it's been discussed here, more male authors get published and/or discussed by the media.

And you're right Dan that for you it probably isn't easily boiled down to you read more men because you are a man. But for me I truly think that it's because I'm a woman that I read as many women authors as I do. I'm definitely aware of it. By reading these women I do feel like I'm supporting my gender!


message 22: by Dan, deadpan man (new)

Dan | 640 comments Mod
Kerry wrote: "Me too Gloria! I have that Goon Squad book somewhere....maybe I'll read it next!"

There is a chapter in there that is done in powerpoint which initially had me screaming Gimmick!(metaphorically speaking as librarians aren't supposed to scream)

Turns out it was one of my favorite parts of the book.


message 23: by Gloria (new)

Gloria (thatholmgirl) | 79 comments Kerry wrote: "Dan wrote: "2009: 7 books of 56 total by female authors
2010: 7 books of 53 total by female authors
2011: 10 books of 55 total by female authors
2012: 0 books of 8 total by female authors
"

..."


So, that made me curious-- but only enough to look up last year's books.
Of the 88 I read, 29 were by women (although if we take ratings into account, some of them didn't do very well on my ratings scale).
I don't feel quite as misogynistic now though. :)


message 24: by Gloria (new)

Gloria (thatholmgirl) | 79 comments Dan wrote: "Kerry wrote: "Me too Gloria! I have that Goon Squad book somewhere....maybe I'll read it next!"

There is a chapter in there that is done in powerpoint which initially had me screaming Gimmick!(met..."


I've heard about that chapter already. Intrigued.
And, come on ... who wouldn't love to hear a librarian scream-- just once. :)


message 25: by Dan, deadpan man (new)

Dan | 640 comments Mod
Gloria wrote: "Dan wrote: "Kerry wrote: "Me too Gloria! I have that Goon Squad book somewhere....maybe I'll read it next!"

There is a chapter in there that is done in powerpoint which initially had me screaming ..."


If you're lucky, you will all have the opportunity at the Dork!


message 26: by Kerry, flame-haired janeite (new)

Kerry Dunn (kerryanndunn) | 886 comments Mod
Dan wrote: "If you're lucky, you will all have the opportunity at the Dork!"

Dan, I've been to Dorks with you before and I don't ever recall any screaming from you. Is this something new???

:P


message 27: by Patrick, photographic eye (new)

Patrick | 133 comments Mod
after rereading the article it still rankles. and I agree with both Gloria and Ben that the tone of the piece was both whiny and crass. more than that, it felt like it rested on outdated, troubling and faulty assertions of what "successful" even means.

i'll spare everyone my ranting. i'm feeling inarticulate about it all & a little cranky.

but just a few things that jumped out-
even though she was being facetious, referring to Franzen and Eugenides earlier work as "macho stories" was the first alarm bell. maybe it's my own prejudice. just seeing Franzen and macho in the same sentence feels silly to me.

"more baldly ambitious"- i'm all for ambition, but in some cases i fear there is a conflation(or mistaking?) as ambitious what simply might be the handiwork of an ego inflated.

"more authentic novels"- really?? seriously??

"funny and serious at the same time"- love or hate her, Lorrie Moore is both. Aimee Bender and Zadie Smith. and i'll take Mary Guterson's We're all fine here over anything i've read (thus far) by Franzen or Perotta.


message 28: by Patrick, photographic eye (new)

Patrick | 133 comments Mod
and just to add to the (gender?) discussion. some have probably read this already- Percival Everett responding to Franze's Freedom and "the Great American Novel"-

http://vidaweb.org/freedom%E2%80%99s-...

and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/...

and, Dan, to go back to one of your original questions i agree with Patty's letter c) - read what you like.

but i think the fact that you have opened up the question for yourself (and us) signals a willingness to seek(sneak) outside your normal comfort zone. i like that.


message 29: by Matt, e-monk (new)

Matt Comito | 386 comments Mod
Freedom sucked


message 30: by Mary (new)

Mary Guterson | 15 comments Patrick Gulke, will you marry me?


message 31: by Mary (new)

Mary Guterson | 15 comments well, shit. I'd have to say that, in general, women tend to write more quiet, thoughtful novels and men tend to write warring novels. This is true whether their subject is love or world peace. Men get all the attention in all walks of life because it's still a man's world. And why is it still a man's world? Because women are stupid enough to shave off their pubic hair and show their boobs on television.


message 32: by Pavel (new)

Pavel Kravchenko (pavelk) | 96 comments Yes, the article's tone is unpleasant. The device of the sarcastic "I love these 3 writers (but really they aint shit)" is made more annoying by the references to the author's own works. The BSD stuff doesn't help either. Would a male employee of any media outlet be able to stay employed after grouping a few prominent female writers into something he could refer to as BGC literature?

I think there are plenty of people who prefer books written by people of the same gender. I know there are people who prefer books by people who are dead (me). I'm pretty sure there are people who will read anything that has the word "wife" or "daughter" in the title.

It's the same for the "world of literature" and the people who...you know... make the calls or whatever.


message 33: by Dan, deadpan man (new)

Dan | 640 comments Mod
Here's a article on Franzen being, well, a douche (as it relates to gender): http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/page...

And here's another article on the male to female ratio of writers appearing in literary journals:
http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/...


message 34: by Gloria (new)

Gloria (thatholmgirl) | 79 comments Dan,

Well, the latter article was interesting. So, it is true: women are just outnumbered in the published writing field.

The former article: "douche" would be the kindest term I could use for Franzen.
I already had little reason to compel me to pick up any of his other books after Freedom-- this sealed the deal.


message 35: by Matt, e-monk (last edited Mar 04, 2012 11:08AM) (new)

Matt Comito | 386 comments Mod
Franzen being a douche is not news

also just in case any of you missed it Freedom sucked - the epistolary strategy is no excuse for poor writing and if he has nothing but disdain for his characters why the hell should I be investing 600+ pages of my attention to them?


message 36: by Matt, e-monk (new)

Matt Comito | 386 comments Mod
and this merits posting:

http://lareviewofbooks.org/post/18276...


Victoria Patterson’s work has often been compared, for good reason, to Edith Wharton’s. This Vacant Paradise, Patterson’s first novel, is a contemporary retelling, quite consciously and intelligently, of The House of Mirth, transferred 100-plus years and 3000 miles from Wharton’s Old New York to Patterson’s Newport Beach. For all the cultural and historical distance, the two write of emotionally identical, muscular family struggles involving inheritance and strategic marriage; they chart matching dramas of cash-nexus beauty, analyze the power of sex and their characters’ debilitating combination of over-consciousness and under-consciousness of that power; and they pay the same attention to the way people find themselves, no matter their intentions or ethics, divided almost randomly into the blithe, oblivious, cruel winners and the flotsam- and jetsam-like losers strewn about as wealth patrols its waters. When Jonathan Franzen wrote about Wharton’s 150th birthday in The New Yorker (“A Rooting Interest: Edith Wharton and the Problem of Sympathy,” February 13, 2012), he harped on her looks and read the biographical record in ways that prompted Patterson to respond.

— Tom Lutz


VICTORIA PATTERSON
Not Pretty


After reading Jonathan Franzen’s essay in the New Yorker about Edith Wharton, I couldn’t sleep. I admire Franzen’s work and usually appreciate his commentary about social media, eBooks, etc., but his depiction of Edith Wharton was so mean-spirited and off-key that I tossed and turned. Why would he link her husband’s mental illness with her success? Why claim that she was only interested in male friendships? And worst of all: Why would he focus on her physical appearance, claiming that she was unattractive? He’d taken a literary hero and written about her as if ranking a Maxim photo spread.

I reread the piece the following morning. Franzen’s essay is a tribute to Wharton and her work. Yet there’s a strange negative slanting of Wharton’s biography and a peculiarly misplaced concentration on her physical appearance. There are other problems with his essay as well: It is either disingenuous, or uninformed, for instance, for Franzen to reflect on Wharton’s disagreeable politics without also noting that throughout the war, she worked tirelessly in charitable efforts for refugees (mainly women and children) and, in 1916, that she received the Chevalier de la Legion d’Honneur in recognition of her commitment to the displaced. But it is her facial features that structure Franzen’s response, and it is his constant return to them that bothers me the most.

Of Wharton’s mentally ill husband Teddy Wharton, or “cerebrally compromised Teddy,” as Henry James famously called him in private, Franzen writes: “That their ensuing twenty-eight years of marriage were almost entirely sexless was perhaps less a function of her looks than of her sexual ignorance…” It’s good to know that she wasn’t too ugly for sex, but does Teddy have no responsibility in the sexual knowledge department? Later, he notes that Teddy responded to her literary success by “spiraling into mental illness.” Had Wharton not been successful, would she have saved him from being mentally ill?

At 46, Wharton had a sexual relationship with Morton Fuller, and while Franzen notes that she seems to have been embarrassed by her affair, this must be a matter of interpretation. From the biographies that both Franzen and I no doubt read, my takeaway was that while, yes, there were complex emotions, the greatest was a deep gratitude for the experience of a passionate sexual awakening. She might’ve missed out!

Franzen writes of the “half-affectionate, half-terrified” nicknames that Henry James and his circle gave Wharton because of her “masculine” pursuits. Wharton and James discussed fiction extensively, and had an intense and complicated artistic friendship that Franzen barely touches on; but in repeating the nicknames, he gives them legitimacy without addressing the reasons James and his circle would feel the need to use them — including, for instance, James’s well-known envy of Wharton’s popular success. Franzen writes that Wharton was alternately or even simultaneously indifferent to and jealous of the wives of her male friends. What about Mary Berenson, or Mary Hunter, or her former sister in law, Minnie Jones, whom she supported financially until Jones’s death? She forged “close and lasting friendships” with both men and women. Her literary circle did consist of men, and she wanted, as Franzen emphasizes, “to be with men and talk about the things men talked about.” Not because Wharton didn’t like women, but because, as she herself noted with no small amount of bitterness, women were “made for pleasure and procreation.”

Franzen, though, has another point to make. “Edith Newbold Jones did have one potentially redeeming disadvantage,” he writes. “She wasn’t pretty.” And later, “Edith Wharton might well be more congenial to us now, if alongside her other advantages, she’d looked like Grace Kelly or Jacqueline Kennedy.”

Do we even have to say that physical beauty is beside the point when discussing the work of a major author? Was Tolstoy pretty? Is Franzen? Wharton’s appearance has no relevance to her work. Franzen perpetuates the typically patriarchal standard of ranking a woman’s beauty before discussing her merits, whether she is an intellectual, artist, politician, activist, or musician.

Franzen writes of The House of Mirth, “The novel can be read … as a sadistically slow and thorough punishment of the pretty girl she couldn’t be.” Wharton wasn’t, in fact, preoccupied with her own looks. Her looks were not the driving force behind The House of Mirth. Her appearance wasn’t problematic, even in her New York society upbringing. The “problem” (that which made her less marriageable) was that she was “too shy and intellectual.” Wharton used Lily Bart’s beauty as a fictional tool to emphasize women’s ornamental role in American society. In the end, Lily refuses to barter her diminishing beauty for status or money, or even love, and her downfall forces readers to confront the fact that her story cannot have a happy ending because, in this society, she has no other power.

I agree with Lionel Shriver when she said in an interview, “For feminists, there is no better reading than Edith Wharton.” Shriver also wrote:
I was born after the heavy spade work of female emancipation was done. But 100 years ago, Edith Wharton’s drive, independence, willfulness, and autodidactic mastery of the English language were extraordinary, and I bashfully claim her as a kindred spirit.
And I’d like to add: I don’t give a shit what she looks like.


message 37: by Shel, ad astra per aspera (new)

Shel (shelbybower) | 946 comments Mod
I gotta agree with Victoria, here.

I read his piece and thought meh. Way too enmeshed in current ideas of psychology, too much navel gazing. But I think that of him in general and can't figure out why he's such a big deal. But then, Wharton is one of my favorite writers ever and House of Mirth is my favorite of hers. We did a group read of it a few years ago.

After more consideration, he does FAR too subjective a take on her. I find those interpretations of writer's lives (and really anyone) to be far more of a reflection on the person doing the interpreting than the person whose lives they see fit to interpret.

Maybe Franzen doesn't think HE'S pretty enough.


message 38: by Patty, free birdeaucrat (new)

Patty | 896 comments Mod
So why is Franzen such a big deal? Is it because he writes bathetic domestic novels and also happens to be male?


message 39: by Patty, free birdeaucrat (new)

Patty | 896 comments Mod
P.S. I finally got around to reading the patterson review of the franzen review. I have to say, I like him less and less with every single thing I read by or about him.


message 40: by Maureen, mo-nemclature (new)

Maureen (modusa) | 683 comments Mod
i am guessing franzen was writing about wharton in preparation for the introduction he wrote to this new collected edition of three of her novels, age of innocence, house of mirth, and the custom of the country: http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/Bo...
do you suppose that they're simply reprinting his new yorker piece as the introduction? poor edith wharton.


message 41: by Matt, e-monk (new)

Matt Comito | 386 comments Mod
Patty wrote: "So why is Franzen such a big deal? Is it because he writes bathetic domestic novels and also happens to be male?"

blame Oprah? good chance he's still laboring away in respected semi-anonymity if it werent for her


message 42: by Elizabeth, bubbles (new)

Elizabeth (RedBrick) | 221 comments Mod
In case you haven't had enough, some more Franzen doucherie I saw recently...

"...he told The Paris Review that he considered his relationship with (DF) Wallace to have been “haunted by a competition between the writer who was pursuing art for art’s sake and the writer who was trying to be out in the world.” Then, in a highly anticipated piece for the April 18th, 2011 New Yorker....Franzen proposed a brand new distinction, the simplest yet. The real difference between the two writers, he argued, was that whereas Franzen cares about other people, Wallace had always been a narcissistic jerk."

That is how he rolls...all over his friends, after they have committed suicide.


message 43: by Patty, free birdeaucrat (new)

Patty | 896 comments Mod
Holy wow. The cake has been taken. Why is there anyone left on earth who likes this guy?


message 44: by Patrick, photographic eye (new)

Patrick | 133 comments Mod
someone, clearly, is not getting invited to the dorkapalooza.


message 45: by Dan, deadpan man (new)

Dan | 640 comments Mod
I like how this thread has become a Franzen bashing thread. That being said, someone convinced douchebag and world class grump to sign his Kindle.

http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/...


message 46: by Patrick, The Special School Bus Rider (new)

Patrick (horrorshow) | 269 comments Mod
Hey, I did check out Wharton's photo. I think she's cute!


message 47: by Kerry, flame-haired janeite (new)

Kerry Dunn (kerryanndunn) | 886 comments Mod
Patrick wrote: "Hey, I did check out Wharton's photo. I think she's cute!"

Damn straight!


message 48: by Patty, free birdeaucrat (new)

Patty | 896 comments Mod
I love you Patrick!


message 49: by Maureen, mo-nemclature (new)

Maureen (modusa) | 683 comments Mod
karen's review of a book called instant love has sparked some interesting discussion about this topic. you can find it here: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

there's another article that we haven't referenced that was posted by ceridwen that also goes back to the original topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/boo...

(thought i'd cross-pollinate, and take it back to the original topic. :)


back to top