The Solitary Male Genius Is A Work Of Fiction

Illustration for article titled The Solitary Male Genius Is A Work Of Fiction

The kerfuffle over Jonathan Franzen's Freedom prompts one critic to ask, "Can a Woman Be a 'Great American Novelist?'" But maybe it's time to change how we think of greatness.

In a wise and slightly rueful essay for Slate, Meghan O'Rourke writes,

The issue is not merely about numbers of reviews of women's and men's books. It has to do with the ways those books are reviewed; the language used; the prizes given; the fellowships received. Any man who doubts that there remains a gender gap-if largely an unconscious one-is living in a man's world.


Her piece also includes this telling passage:

It's really, really hard to write a book. It takes a lot of time and solitude. In my experience, women are not as good at insisting they need that time and solitude. (I wonder how many female writers have, like me, sometimes wished they were a man so everyone-family, friends, partners-would understand a little better when they go in the room and shut the door for weeks on end.)

O'Rourke isn't the first to posit that women's greater social and familial obligations sometimes stand in the way of literary achievement, and the argument certainly has merit. But it's interesting that it takes as a premise the assumption that writing has to be solitary. Does it?


Writing a book definitely takes a lot of time, and as many a working mom knows, time is often harder to carve out if you're not of the gender whose work has traditionally been considered Important. But while freedom from interruptions can be a necessity for a writer, freedom from influences is extremely unusual. As Joshua Wolf Shenk points out, also on Slate,

Book editors don't put their names on covers. Their reputation largely depends on authors-who can be notoriously ungrateful and committed to the idea of their solitary genius. Jack Kerouac's On the Road sat on slush piles all around Manhattan until Malcolm Cowley, then an editor at Viking, undertook the laborious effort (literary, political, emotional) of shaping it for publication.


And it's not just editors — many writers nowadays come from graduate programs where they get lots of feedback on their work. Even those who don't have MFAs usually show their writing to trusted friends, and many agents now do a lot of editing before a book ever lands on an editor's desk. And that's not counting all the more informal and intangible contributions made by all the people, central and tangential, in a writer's life. Obviously I wouldn't want my book jacket to read, "by Anna North and everyone she's ever met" — but maybe if we saw books less as the magical products of isolated brains, and more as outgrowths of lives lived in society, we might be more open to different types of greatness.

Again, this is not to suggest that individual writers don't deserve credit for what they do. Nor is it to say that women should just embrace all the demands of other people and not take time for their own work. What Shenk proposes is that the solitary theory of writing — in which somebody tells everyone else to shove it while he (or very occasionally she, as in the case of Emily Dickinson) goes off and makes awesome art — has actually never been true. And if we can accept this, a whole lot of good things might follow. We might acknowledge, for instance, the women who collaborated with famous men (Shenk mentions Erik Erikson's wife Joan). We might realize that lots of smart and creative people — men as well as women — might like to spend time with their families as well as doing Important work, and might put policies into place to help them do that. We might learn to value fiction that deals with human social relationships without having to categorize into either Serious Literature (by men) or Chick Lit (by, duh, chicks).


And, perhaps most difficult of all, we might change our idea of the kind of person who can be a great novelist. This change would be hard to measure — as O'Rourke points out, the biases that mean "our models of literary greatness remain primarily male (and white)" are largely unconscious. But perhaps if we could see greatness as more of a team effort, we'd be less likely to expect it to come to us in a certain form — and that form the one most stereotypically associated with solitary heroism. Maybe if we accepted that, to paraphrase one female writer, it takes a village to write a book, we'd be more likely to give each villager her due.

Can A Woman Be A "Great American Novelist"? [Slate]
Two Is The Magic Number [Slate]


Earlier: Susan Orlean Asks, Is Writing Harder For Women?
Why Books By Women Aren't "Serious"

Share This Story

Get our newsletter



I understand the gender gap but I am deeply troubled by the underlying assertion that the great writing being done by males is not actually that great because females don't get equal recognition or the use of such "serious" language.

"Freedom" is an incredible book. I was blown away and wasn't expecting to be (I wasn't as blown away by The Corrections as my friends, so I guess I went into this one with slightly lower expectations). It took 8 years to write, so it's not like he just pulled something out of his butt and was praised up and down for it because he's a he. The book shimmers because of the work put into it, and the exceptional talent of the writer.

This whole kerfluffle, to borrow Jez's term, started with a nasty tweet by Jodi Picoult, a tweet that has reeked from the beginning, at least to me, of professional jealousy reshaped into a gender equality issue because otherwise she looks like a whiner, chastising the New York Times Book Review for not liking her enough. And she would have, too, because Jodi Picoult's books aren't that fucking great. I find them middling, at best. You want a good, inventive, modern female writer who doesn't get enough recognition? Try Tana French. Her work is terrifying, intricate, fully fleshed out and not even in the mode of traditional literature — she writes mysteries. She also writes circles around Picoult.

Picoult started this not because her gender keeps her out of the upper echelons of the literary set, but because her writing's not up to par with someone like Franzen and can't garner that kind of praise. It's not like truly wonderful female writers are ignored — 3 of the last 10 Pulitzer winners for long fiction have been women, and at least 10 of the finalists over the last decade have been women. Women are recognized as great literary writers. But the most important thing, over gender or age or nationality or anything, is that the writing has to stand up. Rarely does anyone, male or female, garner the effusive praise of the NYTBR without actually writing something good. And if some garner it better than others — like Franzen or Michael Chabon — then perhaps it's best to look at their previous works before pointing the finger directly to gender, eh?