fiction files redux discussion
Reading Our Own
>
Jonathan Evison - The Revised Fundamentals of Caregiving
JE ... You're coming to Milwaukee?? I'm there! (and it's on my birthday! :) )Hope the rest of the tour goes well!
I'll see how much of a crew I can drag up to the Bellingham event. I love Village Books, but having it at Chuckanut Brewery is a fine plan.
A surfeit of choice since I live in Seattle!
Mod
Mod
Mod
Love you buddy!
Mod
so, here we go.
for those not on facebook- our captain has had some pretty stellar reviews coming thru.
hello, janet maslin!! love this!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/boo...
and this is nice too:
http://www.startribune.com/entertainm...
but, apparently, jennifer weiner is the one who really wants to get this party started.
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/28/1599934...
ouch. but, it's all about the conversation, right, je?
i know, it will be easy for some of us, to jump on the weiner review, hackles raised and want to knock her down, but in all seriousness, aside from the somewhat puritanical snark, and clear grievance with "whiny white men" she seems, reluctantly, nearly won over by the end. my questions is what do others think, is Weiner missing the ball completely??
Mod
It's totally fine that she didn't care for it, however the crudeness is the primary thrust of her review but not Johnny's primary thrust. AM I RIGHT, BOYS?
I think it would be just as easy (and as not fair) to go through one of Weiner's books and pull out some sort of female trope or behavior and lambaste her for it.
Mod
message 12:
by
Ben, uneasy in a position of power; a yorkshire pudding
(last edited Aug 31, 2012 04:23PM)
(new)
Mod
I agree with Dan. The amount of time she gives to the issue is completely overblown, and misrepresents the novel.As far as her issue with the slang goes, she doesn't criticize it on mimetic grounds as she seems to recognize that real people do on occasion talk like this. She stops just short of a juvenile conflation of the author and the characters. Ultimately, she just thinks the slang is gross and would rather not read about it.
What ended up irking me quite a bit was this idea of "whiny Guy literature" that she referred to.
When discussing this review with others, I am tempted to say something snarky about her work, but the fact is I haven't read any of it and I have yet to see anything that makes me even remotely curious about it.
Mod
Mod
But I disagree that it fits neatly into any category, let alone the "stories about white guys who just can't seem to figure out why their lives aren't going better."
Ben very clearly knows exactly why his life isn't going better, and he really is doing something about it. If the Weiner is suggesting that this sort of troubled guy doesn't exist, or that we shouldn't celebrate when he figures some small portion of his troubles out, she's just very sheltered. And maybe that's it. Maybe she hasn't ever met anyone like this.
On the other hand, the endless euphemisms about body parts, bodily functions, etc. does get a little tiring for me. Not saying it isn't realistic, though.
Mod
Mod
i admit, the first time i read the book some of the more aggressively blue scenes or conversation, made me wince. not that i couldn't handle it or that I didn't find it funny (i grew up around my much older brothers & their friends- i've heard it all from day one) but I feared that the relentlessness of it would shut some readers down(i was specifically thinking of some of the women who i recommend or share books with at the library). and like Patty said, realistic or not, that type of talk can be tiring. and a distraction.
ultimately for me, my own initial whingey-ness aside, the novel is richer and more complicated than that. Her review hints at that richness, begrudgingly acknowledges it, but she still doesn't really want to go there.
- if I were to hazard a guess, and as Ben already suggested, saddled with a name like Weiner and then titling your books "Good in Bed" and "Then Came You", she probably fields her fair share of smirking juvenile snickering already. yeah, probably touchy.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
She was probably relentlessly tormented in high school.
Sour women with no sense of humor about sex... why do they seem to be EVERYwhere?!
Mod
You ought to read non fiction, "Cancerland." in where the patient with cancer questioned the hospital infantile treatment of the adult patients by providing them with teddy bears, crayons, and papers.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Oh and I'll be writing my review this weekend!
And congrats on the movie option Johnny! Rob Burnett...pretty cool!
Mod
Great work Johnny. I really loved it.
Cannot comment on Revised Fundamentals, which I have not read as yet, but part of why she raises the question in her review is served by her earlier essay about differing treatments of Franzen's book about dysfunctional families and treatments by women which get marginalized as "chic lit". About which, she has point. But now she has reputation for that point, so even if she likes a book, she feels the need to assure the reader/listener that she knows she is known for that point.Another point is that when it comes to sexy/obscene humor, I think it really is hard to predict people's reactions. I find myself having at least two thoughts about Nicholson Baker's schtick, and I will never subject myself to American Pie, despite the fact that Allyson (I {Heart} Willow Forever) Hannigan was part of the shenanigans. But I love Portnoy. (Enjoy the liver!) So maybe she thought a warning was advisable given the demographics of NPR.
Mod
Again, have to read Revised Fundamentals before I am competent to speak on this, but I will say that I dislike reviews where, if positive, they start with a warning. You are right about the impression about Weiner gives, which if is a reservation should come at the end. But I think she is probably sincerely representing her tolerance by elevating it. If she liked it, she should have turned down the volume. Since someone made a chauvinist comment about her other issue, I will say I think when it comes to the slobbering over Franzen to the definite lack of attention to others many of whom are female, she is spot on, though. A different, less personalized discussion of the issue that Weiner had, is here http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archi... unfortunately not available to nonsubcribers to the NYRB, but probably can be found at a local library.
Mod
not that there's not truth to what she says in general about industry attitudes vis gender but it does bear noting that it was Jennifer Egan not Jonathan Franzen who was the most decorated author that year - which is a little inconvenient for her argument
and the ultimate villain in her scenario is not as she intimates the critical community but rather her own publisher who is responsible for casting her work as chick-lit (which btw again a)do we really want to look at the quality of her prose and 'treatment' of her subject matter? (because its not just the subject matter but how she approaches it) & b) she's done pretty ok by that marketing approach)
I will point to the the fact that you mentioned penises. And if her point was obscured by her self-promotion, well I have read essays by Franzen, Wolfe, etc. of which the case is the same. So maybe not chauvinist in intent, but in effect somewhat. Awards aren't the issue either, though Jennifer Egan award was well deserved, but the industry and and the journalism community. I do think that Weiner's work is meant comically and is not nearly as arch; personally, it doesn't resonate with me.But peace; we have strayed from the real topic of this thread.
Mod
and I wouldnt defend either Wolfe or Franzen on any points but there's more than a slight flaw in your logic if you're argument is 'well, they do it too'
and simply put Weiner's work wouldnt stand up to this kind of scrutiny - anyone want to review the depth of characterization she affords her male characters? any bets on whether they're simplified caricatures and cardboard thin placeholders? anyone? anyone?
Even if her own work is absolute shite, I don't think that makes a difference to the actual review she wrote about Revised Fundamentals. The question was whether the criticisms she had were valid. Unfortunately, I'm in the haven't-read-it-yet camp, so it's hard for me to say, but generally I agree with Patty's comments. My tolerance for American Pie potty talk is pretty low, but I've got six teenaged nephews so I'll be the first to agree that it's realistic.
Weiner's review does give the impression that this is the overall style of the book while The Skipper is saying that it's merely part of the characterization. Two very different things.
Sorry, have to disagree. She is unloading about critical preferences for masculine narrative. You are reducing her argument to one about penises. Cute but sexist. And while she invites comparisons to her work, her larger point remains true (for me). But again, peace, this is the wrong thread for this discussion. I'll start another thread for it sometime today.back to appreciations of JE's work which doesn't require deflating other writers.
Mod
there's a little ribald interplay early when the two protagonists are on their own but it's a distant memory for about two thirds of the book as the major female characters take stage
in fact if you want to get critical the female characters to a woman are all depicted in a positive light and most of the male characters are depicted as varying shades of flawed and bumbling
also telling is that the interplay in question is between ben and trev (a teen) but not present in the exchanges between Ben and his buddy (who is a more mature family guy)
Mod
nothing to apologize for but she's the one fixating on gender not me
and there's a difference between defending a position that's being attacked and forwarding an agenda - she's the one with the agenda and in fact if you've read her original comments re Franzen she spends a lot of time talking about her own work and how it is recieved out in the world and almost none at all on the merits of his work
and again in the matter of 'critical preferences', Egan and Donoghue were the big winners that year but more to the point let's get down to particulars, who was overlooked and by whom?
the makeup of the nation's readership skews female, the major reviewers are increasingling female (the NYT boasts not only Maslen but also Michiko Kakutani as their primary reviewers), and anecdotally the publishing industry at the editorial and executive levels (people who I work with every day) is one in which power is pretty equitably distributed (It may even skew female)
so who is being given short shrift? and by whom?
Mod
The first and most important thing you need to know about Jonathan Evison's heartbreaking, maddening novel The Revised Fundamentals of Caregiving is that one of its two main characters is a paralyzed teenage boy, named Trevor. The other is a grown man, Ben, who frequently acts like a teenage boy. Your enjoyment of the book — the follow-up to Evison's well-regarded West of Here — !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!will be largely predicated on how much you like listening in on can-you-top-this, gross-out sex talk, and ruefully self-demeaning descriptions of the female of the species.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"From our preferred vantage opposite Cinnabon, we objectify, demystify, belittle, and generally marginalize the fair sex, as though we weren't both completely terrified of them," says Ben, the book's sad-sack narrator.
"Look at the turd-cutter on her," Trevor says, of a poodle-haired blonde in tight jeans. 'Would you tap that?'
"In a heartbeat," Ben says.
Lolling his head to the side, he looks me in the eye. "I'd give her a Gorilla Mask."
"I'd give her a Bulgarian Gas Mask," I counter.
"I'd give her a German Knuckle Cake."
A little of this goes a long, long way. Evison can be a skillful, compassionate writer who effortlessly evokes a range of characters, from Trevor's no-nonsense mother to Ben's terminally furious ex.
But his compulsive return to Trevor's fascination with women and what he'd like to do to them — or on them — suggests a kind of authorial paralysis that makes this book less Portnoy's Complaint, more American Pie. !!!!!(compulsive? he's a teen age boy!!! and despite this her contention of the ubiquity of this kind of exchange is vastly overblown and hyperbolized here and later in the review)
It's a work that fits neatly into the category Washington Post critic Ron Charles recently identified as !!!!!!! "whiny man" books — "stories about white guys who just can't seem to figure out why their lives aren't going better."!!!!!!!!!!!
When we meet Ben, he's a former aspiring poet and stay-at-home dad, laid low by an unimaginable tragedy, desperate to get a $9-an-hour job as a caregiver. !!!!!!!!!!!!Poor Ben Benjamin — yes, he's such a loser he's been saddled with the same name twice!!!!!!!!!! — lives in a soulless shoebox of an apartment, where he spends his time Facebook-stalking his ex-wife's new beau. ("He looks like an NPR listener," Ben snarks. Ouch.)
For the first hundred pages, not much happens. Trevor's long-gone biological father reappears, bearing fast-food chicken and belated apologies. Ben has a one-night stand with a trapeze artist from a local Indian casino (it ends badly). Finally, Trevor and Ben load up a specially equipped minivan with "flares, cook stove, cooler, flashlights, baby wipes, straws, moisturizers, Enalapril, Digitek, Protandim, respirator, memory foam, deodorant, Advil, jock-itch cream, Q-tips, acne pads, electric razors, wool socks, aqua socks ... insurance cards [and] medical files," and go on the inevitable Male Bonding Road Trip. Secrets are revealed. Junk food is consumed. ("Blue tacos? Uh, how did that happen?") Closure occurs.
The trip, by far, is the strongest section of the book, as the relationship between Trevor and Ben blossoms into a thing of strange beauty — and when Evison's not trotting out his Urban Dictionary-level expertise about increasingly absurd sex acts, the writing can be lovely. Here's Ben, recalling his daughter: "I can see Piper, as though in a photograph, on the south rim of the Grand Canyon, the bright red halo of a cherry Slushy ringing her mouth."
But too often, these passages are like smooth-edged bits of sea glass in a nasty morass of deliberately puerile potty-talk. When you have the misfortune of encountering a pack of teenage boys, online or IRL, you can block them, or leave. Fundamentals offers no such respite. There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
she definitely had her sensibility bent out of joint (pun intended) but the emphasis is all hers
Matt, I think your grievance about the review is better registered on NPR then here. The consensus here is she misses the point. And let her feelings about wacky obscenity stand in for review. I will remain unconvinced that publishing is not tilted towards guys and their big books as are reviews in major venues. Michiko Kakutani is a prime example, which it is a relief to read Janet Maslin or Dwight Garner in the same pages. It's not a point of view that limited to gender. Again, another thread would be a better place for this discussion.
Mod
as for the current state of the publishing industry I probably have greater insight into that than you do and while I dont disagree that there are inequities I maintain that Weiner has an axe to grind all her own and if you've read any of her other commentary on this subject this is all too obvious
I suppose offering a dissent to an aspect of a comment here and following up with civil response is worthy of getting abuse. I'll keep my comments to those who know constructive disagreement.
Robert wrote: "I will remain unconvinced that publishing is not tilted towards guys and their big books as are reviews in major venues. "I'm a little unclear on your syntax: Unconvinced about publishing being tilted towards men, but not about reviews being tilted towards men? Or unconvinced about both?
At any rate, the numbers from the major reviewing publications indicate that both reviewers and authors reviewed swing heavily male: http://www.vidaweb.org/the-count-2010
Mod
what is worthy of abuse would be your officiousness and pedantry in advising me on what has occurred in this thread (I can read, and it's you who seems to be missing the point in any event) and what might be a more appropriate forum for my posts (seriously? I dont deserve to tell you to go get stuffed for that? what a lovely narcissism you must enjoy)
and even so I think I could have been much more harsh and have no regrets
Mod
Mod
Thanks, Patty. I checked out all about lulu, so I am turning to the book, if not the current one. my delay is because i read too many books already and am trying to rid myself of many that i have.
Mod
Mod
Forgetting all about Jennifer Weiner due to her status as a Happy Meal McWriter....
Let's talk about Ben. I can't get enough of his Sherlock Holmes style observations. I love the idea of making this a movie, but they'd have to preserve what goes on in Ben's head. A favorite passage:
"Maybe Bob's most brilliant tactic of all - if indeed it's a tactic - is the general tone he employs in these briefs, the dry postmodern distance from which he delivers his summations. From the languid to the downright bored, his tone seems to suggest that Trev's not really missing anything by sequestering himself in the living room all day long. What better way to arouse Trev's curiosity than by withholding one's own? What better way to entice his imagination than by forcing him to lean heavily upon it? What better measure to counter Trev's resistance to the extraordinary than by embracing the cause oneself?
Bob, on Bryce Canyon: Six bucks for two triple-A batteries in the gift shop. Amazing."
Loved the novel, Johnny!
http://jonathanevison.net/
An offsoot of this main site is the really nifty Revised Fundamentals site:
http://www.revisedfundamentals.com/
There is a touching author's essay and a quite funny "About Jonathan Evison" as well as tour dates. Our JE may be coming to YOUR town!
Anyway, this will be the place to discuss the new work by our very own Jonathan Evison AKA The Skipper AKA JE AKA Johnny. Those of you who were lucky enough to score advanced reader's copies, get to discussing!