Last week I read an article in which the writer ascribed the publication of James Joyce’s Ulysses to the fact that he was male. She writes:
“If Ulysses had been written by Jasmine Joyce do you think it would have reached such heights? Not in a million years. It wouldn’t have made it out the door. One peep at the manuscript, one audacious attempt to reveal it and Jasmine would have been carted off to Bedlam before she could say Molly Bloom was a badly constructed pastiche of what Joyce believed a woman to be. Jasmine Joyce would never have written it for two good reasons. One, she was too busy mopping the floor, and two, she had better things to say.”
I clicked on the ‘Like’ button for the article, and then commented as follows:
I feel I should explain why I 'liked' this post, because I disagree with almost everything Eleanor has said. The reasons are twofold: firstly, there isn't a button for "I have read this and acknowledge its existence"; secondly, I very much appreciated Eleanor's passion. There's nothing like starting the day with a good rant, even if a vicarious one.
The first thing I didn't like was, as Eleanor puts it, "playing the feminist card". This strikes me as intellectually lazy. Additionally, and related, Eleanor's proposition is such that (as I see it), if I agree with her about the so-called patriarchy then I'm admitting the existence and influence of the patriarchy, and if I disagree with her that's because I'm a bloke, and therefore a member of the patriarchy, and so, to borrow from Many Rice-Davies, I WOULD say that, wouldn't I? It's a bit like asking someone of they are still beating their wife.
I have an alternative explanation for the publication of Ulysses, which is that, despite what others such as @kate Waller and @ehud might say, it's a classic case of the emperor's new clothes. If someone produces something that is so 'outre' that nobody understands it, people will praise it in order to avoid looking like uneducated illiterate slobs. I intend to elaborate on this theme in my own newsletter, although you article has boiled my blood to the point that I may have to lie down in a darkened room first.
You say,
“To publicly state, This book is shit is to stand on a soap box at Speaker’s Corner and have a personal go at the artist...””
No it isn't! Some books objectively ARE shit. As for:
“If you’ve nothing nice to say, don’t say it, and a scathing review says more about the reviewer than the reviewed.”
No! If a book is rubbish, the reviewer has a duty -- I might even go so far as to say a SACRED duty -- to tell would-be purchasers not to waste their money or time. Otherwise one is merely shirking one's duty.
And now:
“I want to know how you feel, what drives you, where it hurts and who hurt you. I want you to speak of love and loss and all that you’re yet to learn. I want to hear you say what you don’t know yet, where the blurred edges are, how confused and lonely you get and then I want to see you doing something about it.”
Why? I don't see why I should bare my soul in public. Firstly, there are enough people already doing that and, frankly, like the feminist/patriarchy thing it just gets boring. Secondly, I already DO do that when I think it might be beneficial, either to myself or others. Thirdly, I actually LIKE the way we men don't emote all over the place (cf my seminal work on the subject: https://terryfreedman.substack.com/i/144557118/male-bonding-vulnerability-and-man-hugs-oh-puh-lease).
Finally, although this counter-rant may well be a reflection of me, it is NOT intended to be a personal attack, and I hope you won't have taken it as such. I actually enjoyed reading the article. And, for what it's worth, I've never read it either. Dubliners, yes, gold star. But this? No thanks, life's too short.