An avid reader, my dad was a thoughtful, liberal sort. He opposed the war in Vietnam before I did, and he supported the Civil Rights Movement ahead of most white people I knew. Despite his enlightened ways, though, he was teensy bit sexist. Not largely and heinously. He admired the intelligence and insights of his wife, sisters, and mother, and encouraged his three daughters in all their pursuits, intellectual as well as athletic. But, born in 1911, he necessarily carried a burden of the attitudes with which heâ€™d grown up.
My mother mentioned more than once that my dad didnâ€™t read or like women writers, and I recall his sheepishly acknowledging this was so. Iâ€™m pretty sure he regarded them as lady authors who lacked the gravitas of the great ones. I trust that if he had lived longer (he died in 1971) his outlook on womenâ€™s books would have broadened.
Since his death, much has changed, and things are better for women and for women’s books. It seems clear to me, however, that women writers, as a class, rest on a lower tier than men. This summer Iâ€™ve reread the fictional output of Marilynne Robinson, one of our best, to prepare to review her new book Lila, due in October, and itâ€™s reminded me we havenâ€™t achieved equality yet.
Robinsonâ€™s first book Housekeeping (1980) is a Great American Novel. Itâ€™s a strange and haunting story about three womenâ€”an aunt and her two niecesâ€”living in a small town out West. The auntâ€™s idea of housekeeping is to wash tin cans and stack them carefully against the walls of the living room. Sheâ€™s a vagabond and a mystic, almost, who marches to a different drummer. The book consciously addresses themes raised by the greatest 19th century American writers: Emerson, Thoreau, Dickinson, Melville, Twain. Robinsonâ€™s gripping story deals with the most profound questions of existence (one of her favorite words) in lyrical prose.
This novel enjoys a stellar reputation among many, including the critics, all male, linked in this post, but is not widely known. Robinson should rank with Updike, Cheever, Roth, Bellow, Franzen, and the rest, but who ever mentions her? I watched a Charlie Rose conversation a while back with the New Yorkerâ€™s Adam Gopnik about modern American literature, and not one American woman was named. Not Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison. Not Ann Patchett. Not Anne Tyler. Not Eudora Welty. Not Flannery Oâ€™Connor. Not Marilynne Robinson.
Her newest book Lila completes an astonishing trilogy, after Gilead (2004) and Home (2008). As I was reading all three, I kept thinking of John Updikeâ€™s prodigious Rabbit series (4Â½ books, really), cited by the English novelist and critic Julian Barnes as â€œthe greatest postwar American novel.â€ Updikeâ€™s mammoth accomplishment gets its due. Iâ€™d assert that Marilynne Robinson’s trilogy deserves comparable accolades.
Robinsonâ€™s books deal with injustice, poverty, race, religion, love and relationships, hypocrisy, and American history. I donâ€™t mean to whine, and I don’t blame men. Deep down, I find myself sometimes categorizing women writers as “women writers.”Â Robinson wins awards and gets stellar reviewsâ€”but consider this question honestly. Do you agree men and women writers are judged differently? Are women writers, great though they may be, resting one step below male writers in your own mental pantheon?
Would take a little investigating to get it to her. If you’d like to, let me know what she says…
Wondering if those readers who don’t know Housekeeping would have heard of Phillip Roth and John Updike. Assuming they would. That’s what I’m saying.
Enjoyed your commentsâ€¦. I’m not sure I agree that women writers are a step below menâ€¦.but I’m glad you opened my eyes to Housekeeping. I’ve been hand selling it at the bookstore, and I’m amazed at the number of literary readers who don’t know it.
I’m sure Gopnik’s head (or heart…not sure which) is in the right place. I just think this hierarchy is ingrained in us. We’re not even aware of it. One time I heard Charlie Rose blithely admit when he thought of great acting he automatically thought of men–DeNiro, Brando, etc.–and not women.
If you have access to the NYer archives, Adam G. does talk about how the Anita hill trial really opened his eyes and helped him understand what feminism is all about.. Otherwise, I’ll try to dredge it up. I don’t know whether it predates the Charlie R. Conversation.