KICKIN' IT WITH THE BOOK BABES ...

Comrade Ed alerts us to this morning’s Book Babes column which addresses the petition I’ve started.

First off all, I’m terribly grateful that my paltry efforts – a mere 31 signatures at the time of this writing – have been sufficient to grab the notice of the Babes. We here at TEV are self-acknowledged publicity whores and welcome any mention, even those at our expense.

Unfortunately, the Babes have missed the real point of this petition – a Quixotic and slightly ironic outing, as we entertain no real hope of regime change – by focusing on the “Book Babe” construction.

Why can't a babe be bookish and a nerd be hip?

And, hey, why can't middle-aged women think of themselves as babes?

They certainly can. We never said they couldn’t. And if it makes you feel better, we do think Ellen is kinda cute (sorry Margo) but it’s really not the point. It’s not about the name, it’s about the content, which is routinely superficial at best.

Consider their most notorious recent outing, the infamous Bill Keller interview:

Well, if you write non-fiction, review non-fiction, or prefer to read non-fiction, break out the champagne. "The most compelling ideas tend to be in the non-fiction world," Keller says. "Because we are a newspaper, we should be more skewed toward non-fiction."

What's more, if you're perplexed or simply bored with what passes for smart fiction these days, the Times feels your pain. More attention will be paid to the potboilers, we're told. After all, says Keller, somebody's got to tell you what book to choose at the airport.

Now, if the Babes were serious about their work, we think the least they could have done was pressed Keller on the fact that – as the Literary Saloon has pointed out time and time again – that the Book Review has, in fact, been skewed to non-fiction for pretty much as long as anyone can remember. But pressing anybody on anything doesn't seem to be their style. And, for a team whose purpose is, as Margo states, to:

… act as a bridge between so-called high and low literature, between the more esoteric academic community and ordinary readers.

We have to ask, how much bridging did you do there? Fawning over Keller’s every word – to the point of taking it up in a subsequent column, where you offered this insightful gem:

Both are contemporaneous novels about the South, but one is entertainment, the other is Literature with a capital L.

… sounds to us like something aimed more to divide than to bridge. Margo goes on to assert:

I happen to agree with Keller that there IS more happening in non-fiction than fiction these days. But why? Is serious fiction becoming too precious?

Statements like this demonstrate how out of touch with the fiction world Margo is. As the hundreds of readers who now come to this site every day can attest, there is an enormous amount of worthy fiction out there. The problem is that folks like Margo and Ellen restrict themselves to the most mainstream and conventional outlets, so that’s their only view of the literary world. On a daily basis, Maud Newton provides a vastly more nuanced look at what’s going on out there. Check out their best of 2003 column – Lethem and Quixote; that’s taking some real risks, ladies. A word of unsolicited advice – so-called “low culture” doesn’t need your help. It’s trucking along pretty unstoppably. (Joe Eszterhas scarcely needed the column inches, ladies.) But spreading the word on the worthy efforts noted almost daily on the websites to the left – now that would be a public service indeed.

(It’s interesting to note that in their recent Mailer interview, they have this to say:

In a recent telephone call, however, he admitted he was worried about the future of fiction writing. "Novels are in trouble today. Some people think they're through -- like the five-act play. I'm doing it, so I have to hope my pessimism is ill-founded,'' he said, but also warned, "No great country can survive without a great literary art. Writers are tremendously important not just for the culture but for a country's sense of itself.''

And yet, one doesn’t see them advising Mailer to read more non-fiction or low culture airport books! The Mailer interview is another typical missed opportunity by the way. One of the great names in 20th century letters, and the best they can come up with is “Has the press been mean to you?” There’s no real engagement with Mailer or his considerable body of work.)

And then, of course, there’s a subject that’s dear to all of our hearts. As Margo says today:

The most exciting developments in books these days are happening at the margins, among people who never have had a crack at the market before.

My ultimate point – and the real point of this petition – is this: Yes, there are interesting things happening at the margins but they sure wouldn’t know about 'em. Where are the columns on online fiction, e-books, POD, graphic novels, books in translation and the dozens of other literary stories that are carried daily on numerous other literary weblogs besides to this one. I assume you do know what a weblog is? If not, please spend a few worthwhile minutes clicking on all the links to the left.

The real intent of the petition was to alert Ellen and Margo that are more things literary than are dreamt of in their philosophy. Perhaps this gentle prod might prompt them to cast their nets a bit wider. And a bit more skepticism and challenge would be welcome, too. It’s not about the name – for babes who have written about satire and irony, we thought you’d see that.

Comments

[Sam]

Mark, this is a terrific summary of all the reasons why I signed the petition. If I had to boil it down to a sentence, I think the Book Babes column should be informed, and informing. And it's really neither. Perfectly charming people who write perfectly well, but they don't fulfill the main criteria.

[Daniel Green]

An excellent post, Mark. Your critique of their handling of the Keller interview is exactly right. But, other than this rather high-profile failure of theirs, are the "Book Babes" really important enough to worry about?
(I speak as someone totally unfamiliar with them until the Keller furor.)

[TEV]

They're certainly not titanic voices in the literary fiction world, but Poynter is a respected media site, and I came to feel that the
problem was in those two being the only book view some media-types might get. I think it became about pushing out a bit past the book circles who
frequent our sites and bringing in a wider audience to these problems.

[Rose Lewis]

The other problem is that "babes" can be taken two ways. Yes, there is the "hot chick" connotation, but there's also the "newbie" connotation, which is what I sense when I read their work. Not women in love with books who may or may not be good looking, but women who really don't know that much about books.

[Jen]

I think it's worth mentioning that Book Babes is part of the Poynter Institute, the core audience of which is journalists. So it's sort of a biz journal. I've always thought Book Babes to be more about the publishing industry than about literature, and in that vein, I find it to be mildly informative. It's certainly no discussion of literature.

[Ron]

Actually, I don't find the column particularly informative about the industry, but that might just be me. As always, though, when Margo says things like, "Is serious fiction becoming too precious?" I have to ask whether she's from Bizarro World or unstuck in time. I mean, really, name a single "serious fiction" novel published by a major house that could both be described as unreadably precious and commercially and critically successful in the last five years. I'll even spot you Mark Danielewski's House of Leaves for the sake of argument.

[sara]

okay, bub. enough. It's rude to call them ladies -- no matter what you think of their intellects or their column. Disagree with them all you like, scorn their word choice, scoff. In the end it's just you disagreeing with them. You've got one definition of 'good literature' and they have another. Mine is different than both yours and theirs. You don't make the rules. Get over it.