We’re just kidding. Everyone knows that’s Kadida Jones.

Look: some jackass thought CREE SUMMER was Zadie Smith!

Posted by altehaggen in Lit-ish @ Wednesday, October 5, 2005 3:19 pm | | Comments (0)

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Ghetto Lit

For most African American writers, this section is the only way that they will connect with the browsers, the mostly African American readers who go out of their way to read books by black authors. I have read the arguments against these sections, usually by white readers who were looking for the work of some famous black author like Toni Morrison and were dismayed to be led to The Colored Section. Each time I read such an account, I am painfully aware that the reader has been browsing the bookstore for years before noticing that the “literature” section is all white.

Tayari Jones, author of The Untelling, is discussing The Colored Section of the bookstore over at Maud’s. This was a hot topic in our meta Af-Am lit class while we were in college — a discussion of how the shelf ghetto both serves and stigmatizes an author. (And one that led to many a parry beginning with, “Well, I know my maid Rita…”)

But we’re especially interested in the Shelf Question because it seems to point directly to the general separation of black from white literature, both physically and psychologically, and the questions it raises. For instance, every time we’ve reviewed a black author, we’ve gotten letters bitching us out. (Of course, every time we reviewed ANYONE negatively, we’ve gotten letters bitching us out.) But the “You don’t understand the black experience” is a peculiar nut to crack — not entirely dissimilar to the “You are an enemy of the Jewish faith!” treatment received by Philip Roth. Is it better to review authors as “black” authors? Is their any authentic “black” experience? (I’m stealing this from the guy with the maid named Rita.) And, most important, is it good for the Jews?

Through a funny coincidence, our early reviews were mostly of black authors, and we cannot say how many times someone asked us, “Do your editors know you’re black?” We were like, “I have no idea — not unless the email comes with a watermark.” After our third reviewing slam, our best friend joked, “Everyone will think you’re a Klansmen.” We would be lying if we didn’t say that we began wishing that someone would hit us with a white author, even an Asian, so that we could show that we were evil in general, not evil in particular.

The odd thing, though, is that the writers of the letters have a point — not about our case in particular (we are brilliant, unbiased, and faultless) but about the general critical reception to black literature. Our early days as a lit major with a concentration in Af-Am (we doubled with English, FYI) were filled with people smirking, then asking with the gentleness reserved for the slightly addled, “Is there…uh…African-American literature?” Our first boss in publishing took our list of black authors we could reissue, tossed it aside without looking, and said, “There’s just really a quality problem here.” This was circa 1995. Our last boss, circa last month, knew full well we were black, but told us three times — THREE FUCKING TIMES — “The problem is, there are just no good black writers in Baltimore,” then shook her head sadly. The first time, we could only come back with, “Um…where have you been looking?” (Freak.) The second time, we tried, “I think the problem is, all of our writers right now are kind of ass.” (True.) The third time, we simply engaged in a superhuman act of restraining ourselves from saying, “Well, there’s one black writer here, and she writes for the NYT — AND YOU MAKE THE ‘THAT’ OR ‘WHICH’ MISTAKE EVERY FUCKING TIME.”

The problem with the separation is that there’s an implied judgment. (This doesn’t mean the separation isn’t useful or fine — it’s just the problem with it.) It’s why no one objects to the “History” thing, but the “Gay” and “Sci-Fi” sections are dodgy. Gay writers were published because they were gay, sci-fi because readers like costumes. No gay writer like to think he or she’s been published just to appeal to a market, and no sci-fi writer likes to think his readers page through his works while wearing pointy rubber ears. The explosion of black chick lit has come hand-in-hand with massive reissues of black classics and imprints devoted to new black authors. People bitch about the quality of black chick lit and new literary authors as if general imprints did not publish a load of crap in both genres all the time. Here’s the thing: Black people have the right to crappy writers too.

But we have gone slightly off-topic. Which is to say, although we are a very, very old lady, and we are not shocked to get the “You don’t understand the black experience” letters, we are shocked that people are still literally writing letters to Tayari and others that begin, “I am white, but I wanted to write and tell you how much I enjoyed your book….” We would go so far as to say the former is a direct result of the latter. (We still can’t see anyone shooting off a note to William Langewische being like, “I am not a boat, but I did enjoy your recent…”)

Somewhat relatedly, over at Diane Rehm, Zadie Smith is discussing On Beauty, which effectively lays out the ways in which, when it comes to race, both black people and white people are irritating, but white people are more so. And back to Tayari. We do enjoy her “If it sells my book, it’s fine” philosphy. Shelf placement is fleeting, but earning out your advance is forever.

Posted by altehaggen in Lit-ish @ Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:20 am | | Comments (14)

14 Comments »

  1. I wear black pointy ears, but only for Octavia Butler and Samuel Delany. When I read Roth, I wear a prosthetic nose, natch.

    Comment by Jimmy Beck — 9/29/2005 @ 2:55 pm

  2. I just read in the nude. It simplifies things.

    Comment by Old Hag — 9/29/2005 @ 3:24 pm

  3. Interesting. Well, it would be more of an issue if most bookstores were not filled with 99% crap. How anyone categorizes and discriminates amongt crapski does not arouse my curiosity. It would be tragic if a gorgeous, extraordinary black writer could only get shelf real estate in the black lit section, but then again when you consider that the typical bookstore has Joseph Conrad sandwiched between Gigi The SnowClown and Amour de Menopause, it’s not so shocking.

    Comment by renata dumitrascu — 9/29/2005 @ 4:28 pm

  4. Yes, I agree. I am less interested in the actual bookstore shelving and more in shooting George Bush in the head.

    I have also noticed that B&N is putting the Chick Lit, Black Interest, and Jonathan Safran Foer Unlimited up at the front.

    Comment by Old Hag — 9/29/2005 @ 4:53 pm

  5. What does one wear for Colson Whitehead? A Cornell West black intellectual poofy fro wig? Or do you hang a TV dinner around your neck for Edward Jones?

    This is all fucking preposterous. When I pick up a book, I don’t think to myself, “Hey, it’s written by a black chick!” (Tayari Jones, incidentally, caught my attention not because she’s an attractive woman (she is), but because she was Richard Powers’ neighbor.) In fact, if at all possible, I try to know as little about the author or the book as possible. I don’t give a shit whether it’s 1,000 pages, a mystery or a speculative fiction title, an author of a particular cultural heritage or the like, although I do try and read as wide and as broadly as I can. A book is a book is a book. Just has to move me. An author is an author is an author. Just needs to know how to write.

    I say throw anything labeled fiction into the same fucking boat. Enough of this “it’s a mystery,” “it’s gay fic,” “it’s science fiction,” “it’s YA,” “it’s African-American lit.” If you’re ignoring a book because of genre distinctions, then, as far as I’m concerned, you’re the literary equivalent of Archie Bunker.

    Besides, the real distinctions need to be drawn between those who write novels and those who subscribe to the noxious McSweeney’s house style guide.

    Comment by ed — 9/29/2005 @ 5:01 pm

  6. Duh…of course for Colson Whitehead, one is also NUDE.

    He is hot.

    I sort of like the categories, if only because they reveal the various retardations of the relevant era.

    I am waiting with baited breath for the “SourceForge”, “Fan Fic”, “Jihad” and “My House Is Under Water and All I Got Was This Lousy Shelf” sections.

    Comment by Old Hag — 9/29/2005 @ 5:09 pm

  7. ….but I also have to say, Ed, I am the opposite of you. I like to know every little thing about the author, and then, if the book is bad, persecute appropriately. Which is to say, I gleefully piss on The Believer, but hide my head in shame from Chloe Does Yale. No, actually, I piss on that too. Sorry.

    Comment by Old Hag — 9/29/2005 @ 5:13 pm

  8. Haggis: Please note that I wrote “try to know.” Approaching an author in 2005 without learning of their personal life is a bit like trying to resist the temptation to look at the Weekly World News headlines in the supermarket line. I’m just as guilty as the rest. :)

    Comment by ed — 9/29/2005 @ 5:44 pm

  9. My favorite headline at the grocery store of the week: ANGELINA TO JEN: SHUT UP!

    Free copy of “The Untelling” to the first person to tell me where that’s from.

    Comment by Old Hag — 9/29/2005 @ 5:54 pm

  10. Just want you to know that I love your blog, even when you’re not talking about me.

    That bookshelf thing has been bugging me a long time. It gets really hairy in cities like Atlanta where they put the Af-Am books up front.. to prevent theft. Okay, so at first it was black folks don’t read, but now it black folks steal books. I guess that’s a sort of progress. But, I’m sort of getting off course here.

    I want to tweak your summary of my argument just a little bit. It’s not so much if it sells my book then it’s fine… My feeling is that I can’t argue for the dismantling of the colored section just to sell my particular books if I know it will cause all the other authors who are so shelved to be lost. But that said, the black section does help me connect with black readers, which means a lot to me, personally, and helps my bottom line. But like everybody, I have rock-star fantasies. At times, I have the nerve to dream my own little double-consciousness dreams…

    Comment by tayari — 9/29/2005 @ 10:46 pm

  11. Aiyeee! I had no idea that was the thinking. I’m in Baltimore, and I always thought that in a city that’s 60% black it makes sense to have that section up front.

    I was a little bit teasing about the selling of the book thing. Although I think practicality in an author reigns above all.

    What’s interesting, although sort of unrelated, is how our Google-ized, Wiki-fied new world will render these corporeal distinctions irrelevant. Everything will be cross-referenced and concordanced beyond recognition, and it will be impossible to find anything, and people will have to resort to the old “It was behind the coke can on the shelf” used bookstore way of life.

    Which is the best organizational system, in my view.

    Comment by Old Hag — 9/30/2005 @ 12:01 am

  12. Our dad has chimed in with his view. For interested parties, we got the opinionated thing from him, the puncuated thing from mom.

    Liz,

    I read your two sections in Old Hag on hiring minority writers and black/minority/ethnic book sections. A few comments:

    1) hiring black journalists/salespersons etc – I think it is a good idea. I would not look for a great journalist born and raised in Peru and a graduate of Harvard to give me an insight into the Israeli settler movement in Gaza and i would not look for a jewish writer born in the bronx to help me understand what is going on in sudan. There can be exceptions but they are rare. I want a black journalist who may have more black sources in Harlem to tell me who is behind Al Sharpton. Same goes for sports writers. A black writer/interviewer will get more info from a black athlete and therefore write more interesting articles even if he didn’t go to harvard. Companies regularly hire Black salespersons to address the black market place. The real problem is that white people do not hire Black people for jobs that are color blind like construction/police/fire/waiters etc.

    2)Minority/ethnic book sections – I like book sections that deal with a subject or area or racial/ethnic group.. If a black or white writer writes about the black experience it should be in one section. Black- oriented children’s books and Spanish oriented children’s books should be in separate sections and highlighted. Obviously books that address general subjects like cooking but written by a black author should be in the cooking section. Similarly if i want books on the war in vietnam or african history and they are written by black authors like Randall Robinson,they should be in the History section not the “colored section “.

    love

    dad

    Comment by Old Hag — 9/30/2005 @ 12:50 pm

  13. Good rant, Ed.

    Great post and commentary.

    And Lizzie? Your dad’s cool.

    Comment by Elizabeth — 9/30/2005 @ 2:48 pm

  14. Way late and many dollars short here, in a reverie about that meta-fic class from college (“but race is immutable because you can SEE IT!”), I gotta give some props here because

    OMG this is gene’s finest work:

    “hiring black journalists/salespersons etc – I think it is a good idea.”

    Comment by Casey — 10/1/2005 @ 7:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Don’t get us started on the revival of the tragic mulatto

We just plopped down after a long day of work, lamenting the brilliant blog post we’d lost somewhere around 8:30 this morning and would now NEVER REMEMBER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH NEW JOB, when damned if MAUD DIDN’T HAVE THE SAME THOUGHTS WE HAD complete with a Grace Paley mention and all. Which is to say, we can take Grace Paley or leave her, but the more Irish and soda bread-eating our friends, the more they like Grace Paley. Whereas mandelbrot-us is like Paddy Clark Ha Ha Ha, pass some Alice Munro so we can read about the great Canadian Wilderness, the one so not-very-important to any of our myriad people!

We don’t mind the previous generation doing whatever they needed to do, but when we see someone writing about their old Jewish grandparents we’re like GOD, CAN’T YOU LET YOUR FREAKING RELATIVES LIE IN THEIR GRAVES UNDISTURBED, and then we think about how if we wrote about our late Grandma Dora it would be an offense to her masterful chopped liver, which is better than anything we could say about it.

One summer at the Sewanee Writers Conference, our desperate choppedliveritude was smacked in our face when we sat enjoying a story about a certain Roy the Palm-Reading Chicken that pecked by the side of a very southern road. Around us, writers were fidgeting and coughing as we laughed, and, afterwards, when we told a deep-fried friend we’d thought it was funny, he sighed and said, “You wouldn’t, if you lived down here.”

Anyway, just go listen to Nicole Krauss read those poems. See if you can. Seriously.* **

* We know we’ll pay for this when our terrible book of poetry comes out, but we’re getting the jump on it and sending advance copies to certain Amazon reviewers.

** And, since we’re going Shiksa to Sabra with Maud today, we’ll take her “Bless your heart” and raise her one “He should live and be well.”

Posted by altehaggen in Lit-ish @ Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:04 pm | | Comments (7)

7 Comments »

  1. OK, tell me how to stop the bleeding from the ears, please.

    Comment by cinetrix — 5/12/2005 @ 11:04 pm

  2. its a sad state of affairs that she gets to live in a 6 million dollar brownstone complete with “conservatory” and talented people ( dont mind if i say so, but myself included) live in shith8le rentals with mice and no water pressure.

    Comment by kowgurl — 5/13/2005 @ 11:32 am

  3. oh god. I tried. can’t. hurts.

    Comment by wp — 5/13/2005 @ 12:13 pm

  4. Wow, Cameron Diaz sounds really bummed out.

    Comment by Wendy — 5/13/2005 @ 12:19 pm

  5. I feel a little bad, because I am actually against the reading of poetry in general, unless you are going to get drunk and recite “Leda and the Swan” at a dinner party with a vein pulsing out of your forehead.

    Comment by Old Hag — 5/13/2005 @ 1:16 pm

  6. Nicole Krauss: Now even blind people can know she’s pretentious!

    Comment by lindsay — 5/13/2005 @ 1:31 pm

  7. Tune in for the next exciting episode of “Sitting Shiva at the KGB Bar”

    Comment by Jimmy Beck — 5/13/2005 @ 1:33 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Living Out of my Mind

We haven’t weighed in — and, btw, fellow lit-bloggers, we would like to issue a moratorium on saying ‘weigh in’ or ‘weighed in’, as it makes us sound like a bunch of pudgy pedants around a fake-oak table on a 70′s political talk show — on the Ayelet Waldman brouhaha ( do you want us to STEAL ALL OF MAUD’S LINKS or just link to them, like an honest blogger?) yet, but, in true Ayelettian fashion, we feel like it and we’re going to, fuckers. We weren’t big fans of Ayelet’s blog, and we’re probably not going to be big readers of her Salon column. But we’re going to go ahead and take issue with — yes, co-litbloggers, we are nominating “take issue with” as the replacement for “weighed in on,” at least for the foreseeable future — her general vilification.


A) You can write whatever you want, as long as you get paid. Any writer who does not accept any opportunities for payment is going to be one skinny fool. B) What’s wrong with writing about your children? It’s a step up from beating them*; and C) We hate when people go on and on about how people should show “fortitude” in the face of their depression and whatnot, as if all anyone needed was a dose of courage or a firm slap in the face to get out of a particularly vicious bad mood. People have all of the wrong analogies for depression, we’ve decided. Think about showing really strong fortitude in the face of a bout of projectile vomiting. Think of showing fortitude in the face of a prolonged yeast infection. Think of showing fortitude in the face of a cockroach that’s crawled into your ear. YOU COULDN’T. YOU TOTALLY COULDN’T, WE DON’T CARE HOW MANY SUN SALUTATIONS YOU DO, YOU ZEN-SCENTED FREAK. If we could teach one person what depression is–not the moody rain at the windowpane, but the itchy yeast infection of the mind–we will have done our duty on this earth. So, if Ayelet sounds more Wurtzel than worse-for-the-wear, fault her writing skills (totally faultlable), not her handling of her illness, plueeeze.

* Naming your child “Zeke”, however, is unforgivable.

Posted by altehaggen in Lit-ish @ Wednesday, March 23, 2005 3:45 pm | | Comments (7)

7 Comments »

  1. Old Hag, you are The Old Hag.

    reader

    Comment by Anonymous — 3/23/2005 @ 9:03 pm

  2. You’re a classy girl Old Hag (short for theoldhag.com).

    You can read, you can talk, that means you can write; plus you’re cute too. * seeing as this is the internet: see footnote below (unlike modern text the footnote is on the screen before you)

    *Statesboro Blues

    Comment by Anonymous — 3/23/2005 @ 9:23 pm

  3. One thing that I’ve wondered about — how all the vilification is affecting Waldman’s depression. Even though her blog was plenty blabby, and she’s probably used to getting, ahem, mail, I’ll bet she never expected this latest confession to generate such a frenzy of hatred.

    Comment by Karen — 3/23/2005 @ 10:17 pm

  4. So do I have carte blanche to write about Ayelet and Michael’s children? I’m thinking I might I have something to say about Anne Lamott’s son, too.

    Comment by Jimmy Beck — 3/24/2005 @ 2:09 pm

  5. I’ve been wanting to comment on this post since you wrote it, but I can’t think of anything smarter than “thank you” to write here. Still, thank you. I couldn’t, wouldn’t, be able to, either.

    Comment by Nathalie — 3/29/2005 @ 10:55 pm

  6. I think her depression is phony. She’s just self-absorbed, and determined to make it pay. She’s never had a manic epsidoe so how can she be bi-polar? Having a charge card habit and being fashionably moody don’t equal truly bi-polar.

    Comment by Rachel Cohen — 3/29/2005 @ 11:52 pm

  7. Somehow I was stuck in old, Old Hag world and haven’t had an update since Zadie Smith’s toenails (also Ayelet-related). So, does being bipolar make one prone to oversharing? And are Ayelet and Michael still having hot, ummm, relations, when she’s depressed? And, finally, why do we all care?

    Comment by AF — 4/8/2005 @ 8:26 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment