Why can't we support each other y'all?
This is not something I enjoyed reading first thing this morning (link courtesy of 50books.blogspot.com).
I hate generalizations, especially negative ones, and what I hate most is this is an assertion by a woman who should know better. You just can't say that about all (or most) women writers. 1. Because it's not true, and 2. Because the same thing can be said about men writers. Off the top of my head I can probably name 10 women writers who do not fit her profile. And even some who at first glance do, but through the power of their writing, they make the personal epic and sweeping. The Time Travellers Wife is a book about a love relationship, and was one of the most beautifully epic books I've ever read.
I mean in the end aren't all books about relationships or the lack of them?
"There were lots of books we rejected - about personal female issues, the loss of a child, the break-up of a marriage, thinly veiled autobiographical things of no consequence - because they weren't expansive enough," she said. "They are writing small personal takes on what it's like to be a woman. They don't seem to be dreaming big dreams."
...I guess the loss of a child could be of no consequence. Wait. The hell?
All books- stories- are technically about *conflict*. But as we are social creatures, that conflict tends to be relational in some way. The books with non-human antagonists tend to be fairly unsophisticated. A story about a complex relationship is much more challenging then a story about a meteor that's going to hit the planet, for instance.
Also, male writers notoriously write all kinds of naval-gazing crap about the minutiae of 'the male experience' and 'manhood' and various stuff with their wives, girlfriends, affairs and fathers. Updike comes to mind, for some reason. As does Hemingway.
This lady does appear to be hating on women writers for being women. And if she thinks that Rowling is a great literary talent- ugh.