"Best Author in Austin? Living in the same town as Tim O'Brien, Dagoberto Gilb, Larry Wright (who won a Pulitzer this year), Spike Gillespie, Ric Williams and so many other brilliant writers and getting awarded Best Author in Austin makes me think either I'm a damn good writer... or people aren't doing enough reading," said Owen. "I'd put money on the latter, but I plan on believing the former. I urge all of you to do the same."
Friday, October 12, 2007
"How To Best" Nods
Owen Egerton got a "Best of Austin" nod, reports Austinist, which included a great quote from Owen:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
That's realy good for Owen.
It's strange that he's comfortable being openly sexist though. Or maybe he's just openly ignorant and doesn't care who knows.
It's unclear to me what's openly sexist or ignorant about that quote, or are you referring to something else?
The courtesy nod doesn't suffice.
But yeah, it's not necessarily Owen's words. It's the larger issue behind it, the male writer who doesn't read women, know women writers exist. I'm just tired of it, the whole she-bang, reading the interview with a male writer, or hearing one read and the inevitable question comes up--"who are your favorite writers?"--always the same answer--"man, man, man, man, man, man." Pause. "And oh yeah, Flannery O'Connor."
It's true that sometimes the predictability of it makes me laugh. But today, I'm not. Wait, was that yesterday I wrote that? Whatever. Sometimes I like imagining that all publicists for male writers carry around a flashcard that says "Woman," the reminder, you know, so the writer can hurry up and add a vagina. But then I look at my calendar and remember that it's 2007, nearly 08, and I'm just sad.
But what do any of you think? It's true that I'm extra sensitive right now, swallowed up with papers to grade, an entire comp II class where only 3 students are passing , etc. blah, blah, blah. I would love, love, love to be pointed to a man that reads women avidly, by choice, and respects their writing.
i'm extra sensitive, too, so i can happily point out that spike gillespie is a woman, and an openly feminist one. her recent anthology "pissed off" is about why women everywhere are so fucking mad about shit like this.
i completely feel your pain. i always look for that, too. always. and i notice it everywhere. five minutes ago, i was reading Q, and they had a top ten songs most beautiful songs ever ever ever. and only one was by a woman - billie holiday, strange fruit. no joni mitchell, carole king, aretha franklin.
one out of nine? one? out of nine? and sure, it's a stupid rock mag, but it's everywhere. it's pervasive.
Women Write!
i've been wanting to respond to this, but struggling with what to say. And since I've talked about this with all of you, and since I teach a class that sits there and tells me sexism is so old school--I figured I'd better try.
First of all, you aren't being sensitive, I see it too. I see it from the mouths of women also. And, if I am honest, from my own mouth. My own favorite writers are overwhelmingly male and more than half are white. Is it weird that I even did the math on that? Does that make me honest or openly sexist/racist/hetero-centric (yes I did the math on that too)?
But when I really realized this (when I was working on my comps it sort of blew me away), I did start to make an effort to read more women. Because I think that is part of the problem--they aren't part of the conversation. I can't think of many contemporary women who are part of the conversation in the way that men writers are. you don't get looks if you haven't read that doris lessing lady because she's not part of the conversation, but cormac mccarthy, don delillo, richard ford, denis? Man you are shit out of luck if you haven't read them. But maybe I'm wrong. Because Zadie Smith, she's part of the conversation, right?
This brings up a question that I think we could all talk about--who are the contemporary women you love to read? Who is (and who should be but isn't yet) part of the conversation?
But the other problem --the one that I think about more--is the women's issue of tin house. What do we do with that? Because I hate that. I don't want my own issue. I don't want my own category. I don't want to think about what that means about the rest of the year.
Also, who is Miranda July and why is she suddenly everywhere?
Joyce Carol Oates
Carol Emschwiller
Ann Patchett
Ann Beattie
Deborah Eisenberg
Joy Williams
Louise Erdrich
Kim Adonnozio
Kate Braverman
Joan Didion
I like all of them a lot. They are all white except for Louise Erdrich. I like a few of Toni Morrison's books, too. I feel like some of this is on both sides of an argument - at once we want more visibility, readership, acknowledgment, affirmation, acceptance, etc. for women, but we want it to come naturally, or covertly, without a big hullabaloo? I think a women's issue serves a purpose, still, and I know I'm a minority in this argument. How else do you whack a stupid public over the head but deliberately and very very hard?
also, asside from ms. gray and hall (and now spike gillespie) what women writers from Austin should I be reading. Austin writers were what Owen was referencing, right?
What to do with it all is the stumper for me too. And my own contributions. And if I contribute nothing else good to any aspect of the world ever again, there's one thing I know I have contributed, and that is awareness for my students of their privilege, whether it be white privilege or male privilege, hetero, or dominating religion. (here, I have to add that b/c Baptists are something like 80% of the population and any time a student brings up religion, it's almost always with a bend towards the Baptist doctine. The few Catholic students, I feel, can be left out in the cold if I don't really watch it.)
But how do you "watch" it? I mean, I know how to do it in a classroom, because let's face it, discourse is at a much lower level there.) But for us? How do we "watch" it? I'm not going to pretend to know the answer.
Tin House is watching it by making women a category. Okay. That feels a little like vaseline to me too, because it's tricky. I really do believe that that editorial decision must have had nothing but good intentions behind it. But it's a little gross too, because at the same time, it's an acknowledgment that:
a)not enough women are submitting to their magazine, and they want to raise awareness
or
b)they've been male writer-heavy and want to even out the score
Both are great, right? Well, I see what you're saying Abby, because it can also feel like acknowledgment that women aren't part of the "main" conversation. Or the regular issues of the mag that don't require policing. And again, to me, on bad days, that just feels like another fucking courtesy nod.
It's just troubling to me that male writers are often mentioned instinctually and women are too often an afterthought.
Abby: You've hit on some things I feel very strongly about, including that women's issue of Tin House. I remember the library poetry reading you gave a few Aprils ago, when the idea came up that the fact that April is Poetry Month is actually a loss for poets, as there are eleven other months in the year. This is a similar idea.
I came to writing through the genre work of Shirley Jackson and Joyce Carol Oates. Reading more, I found myself getting very close to writing mostly by white men, and rejecting a number of women on Wolfe's list above (though I'm not familiar with them all).
I don't think any of us would argue at representing 50/50 male/female split at the expense of quality. My personal problem with a number of contemporary anthologies (including the Ben Marcus-edited Anchor Book of New American Short Stories) is that the writing by women is often weak, and my concern is that some of those stories are included because they're written by women.
(Of course, "weak" is fully based on my aesthetic and is absolutely not limited to women. I'd use a less female-centric word if there was one. Watery? Milquetoastish?)
And I can't help but get excited when I discover (or am pushed towards) great female writers like Kelly Link or Miranda July. I can accept that my excitement is a little sexist. However, the fact that 80% of my reading list has boyparts is not sexist.
I can think of only four women writers in Austin: Gillespie, Sarah Bird, Dao Strom, and "journalist-turned-punk-rocker-Texas-Rollergirl Melissa 'Melicious' Joulwan." Judgment status: reserved.
2 Austinite musts:
1) Beverly Lowry
2) Laura Furman
Though I must admit that my deep, deep affection for Lowry is biased, personal. When I made it in one of her visiting writer's workshops in AR, she encouraged me to attend George Mason's program instead of the places I got accepted.
God damn, she's great.
And Furman's good too, but I don't have such a strong or a personal agenda attached to her.
I don't know, does Nelly count?
I think plugs matter. My plugs for Austin would be Gillespie, Lowry, and Furman. (i didn't know and haven't read Bird, Amelia, though i love having a new name to add to the list.)
It's weired because as I'm writing, new posts are showing up and I no longer know what I'm trying to add to.
some other austin women writers:
sharon bridgforth
claudia smith - really, check her out. her flash is all over the place, and we just bought her chapbook. it's worth every penny.
claudiaweb.net
molly ivins
terry galloway
Flash! What a happy discovery in Claudia Smith. Thanks.
I know this thread is dead, but I went to this lecture last night on masculinity by Jackson Katz, and he was talking about the problem with classifying anything as a women's issue. He said when that happens it is like a tripwire to the brain that gives people permission to ignore it. I guess that's my fear. I don't want women writers to be classified that way, because I fear that that particular classification gives people permission to set them aside.
I'm with you amelia, on the what about the rest of the year conundrum.
I agree wolfe, that I'm floating two sides of an argument. I do want more visibility for women, and I do want it to happen more naturally. I just don't think a women's issue is visibility. I guess I feel like the very idea that women could be considered a theme should be laughable by now. I know we aren't there yet and that perhaps this is a way of getting there. It just scares me.
On the dead thread: I tried posting but nothing came out right. So I'll just keep writing and reading my way and leave it at that for now. But on the Tin House thing: The Fantastic Women thing is strictly fantasy writing (get it?), so at least it's not just a woman thing...it's got the genre element thrown in which makes it quirkier, at least. Just wanted to bring that up.
THANK YOU!!! I feel so silly, but also better. Because I didn't know that, I was thinking are women writers just leaning more towards the absurd right now???
I get it, but I needed some help.
Post a Comment