This past weekend, in a move very out of
character for me, I read the New York Times Sunday Book Review. As a romance
novel enthusiast, the Book Review always seems to me a little, well, elitist,
for lack of a better word, and certainly out of touch with the reading
preferences of the mainstream. For example, my most favorite authors, the sublime
Susan Elizabeth Phillips and Nora Roberts have more than 70 New York Times
bestsellers between them, and have won an astonishing array of awards over the
years, but in my research, have amazingly never had one of their books reviewed
by the Times.
What compelled me to read the Book Review last
weekend was Douglas Brinkley’s review of Jodi Cantor’s nonfiction bestseller,
The Obamas. Though I have not yet read the book myself, and am not particularly
political (on paper I should, in fact, belong to about 3 different political
parties, so diverse are my views), Michelle Obama has always fascinated me. The
reports on her as the backbone of her family, and the not-so-quiet force behind
her husband’s success have always likened her, in my mind, to the women in my
favorite romance novels; the strong, self-sufficient women who marry the men of
their dreams, are fun and interesting mothers raising beautiful and
well-adjusted children, run successful businesses, wear designer clothes, and
always - always - find time for a Monday morning manicure. Anna Spinelli from
Sea Swept is one of these women, as is Phoebe Sommerville from It Had to Be
You. I would like to be one of these women. But I digress.
In a review that managed to be, strangely
enough, both complementary and condescending,
Brinkley managed to summarily dismiss the book as a new, and inferior,
genre of literature enjoyed only by women, that he christened “chick
nonfiction.” The subtext of the review is that if a work of nonfiction centers
primarily on a marriage - on its highs and lows, joys and sorrows, and the
excitement and great adventure of sharing your life with another; particularly
in the fishbowl of the political arena - rather than strictly on policy
decisions and high-level meetings, surely, only a “chick” could possibly enjoy
it.
I can’t help but think that if the same book
had been written by a man, the New York Times Book Review would be praising his
brilliance, sensitivity, and his astute observations of a complicated marriage.
But I digress again.
This review both infuriated me and compelled
me to read the book as soon as possible because, in my romance novel-worshiping
world, there is nothing better than reading a book about relationships. Yes, I
do prefer reading about fictional couples to real-life couples - its far more
fun to read about the aforementioned wonder-woman than it is to read about a
real-life person and find out that she is not wonder woman after all - but I
have been known to indulge in some (gasp!) nonfiction from time-to-time.
Some might think that my opinion plays right
into the reviewer’s hand, as I am both a woman and someone who loves reading
about relationships, but to them I say, what exactly is wrong with that? Yes,
stories about relationships tend to be fodder for the fiction genre, but the
reason they are is because the idea of the “relationship” is so fundamental to
our non-fiction world. I doubt that
romance authors would be able to write such compelling novels without their own
life experiences with relationships, both personal and professional. In
planning for the series of books I hope to write, most of my ideas stem from my
real life as well. I think it is both short-sighted and narrow-minded to assume
that just because a book is about a “relationship” it is less worthy of a place
of honor in literature. Maybe Brinkley should travel back in time to let Jane
Austin, James Joyce and Marquez know that their books are merely “chick books”.
I’d love to be a fly on the wall for those conversations.
And to Brinkley’s subtext that only women can
possibly enjoy a story about the relationships that influence politics I ask,
how many men do you think enjoyed both 24 and The West Wing? Certainly the
decisions of memorable characters like Bartlet, Lyman, Bauer, and Palmer were all
influenced, both positively and negatively, by their relationships. Should we
call these shows “chick shows”? I think my husband and my dad, fans of both
shows, would answer with a resounding “no.”
My point is, in a world where interpersonal
relationships are the foundation of all of our actions - in business, in
politics, in our personal and professional lives - what could be more real than
a book about just such a relationship? Political leanings aside, The Obamas is
about a relationship between two people who have supported each other, raised 2
seemingly well-adjusted children, and all the while managed to keep their
marriage thriving while navigating the pressure cooker of American politics.
Sounds like the makings of a great romance novel to me. In fact, I’m pretty
sure I already read that one. Twice. Try Nora Roberts’ All The Possibilities or
Susan Elizabeth Phillips’ First Lady if you don’t believe me.
No comments:
Post a Comment