After last year’s The Storyteller, Jodi Picoult is coming back later this year (Oct. 14) with another novel centering on a young female character — only this time, elephants are involved. Read on as Picoult teases Leaving Time for us, and see the exclusive cover reveal below. READ FULL STORY
Tag: Jodi Picoult (1-3 of 3)
Jodi Picoult (My Sister’s Keeper) has taken to Twitter to confront what may be her hairiest — or, at least, her big-hairiest — topic yet: Snooki. In a series of tweets this week, Picoult ripped into the hard-partying star of MTV’s Jersey Shore for recently publishing her debut novel, A Shore Thing. “There are SO many good writers struggling to get 1st publishing contract,” Picoult wrote yesterday. “Breaks my heart to see Snooki’s book taking up space in a store.”After tackling hot-button subjects like school violence and the death penalty in her back-to-back-to-back best-sellers, author
The author seems particularly irked by all the attention lavished on Snooki (née Nicole Polizzi) by mainstream media outlets who routinely ignore more gifted writers. “The bk [sic] hasn’t been a commercial success,” she tweeted in reply to a follower’s comment. “So what’s the rationale of Today Show for having her on, but not Caldecott folks?”
Picoult certainly has a point about the lack of media hype around accomplished authors. But a few of her low-blow posts (e.g., comparing a potential book by Snooki’s castmate J-Wow to the end of the world) come off as just plain mean, especially since celebrity novels are hardly a new phenomenon. Plus, there’s a touch of irony in watching Picoult try to incite a little public outrage by stirring the pot and pressing buttons — moves straight out of the Snooki handbook.
Whose side are you on, Shelf Lifers? Is Picoult right that Snooki deserves a little flack for publishing a novel? Or is she making a mountain of a tan, perma-drunk molehill? Should these two gals just settle it with a Shore-style battle dance?
“Here’s an idea,” Linda Holmes says in an op-ed piece on NPR. “If you’re going to try to report on the fact that a couple of women who write books have tried to start a discussions of whether the mega-response to Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom is symptomatic of a too-narrow view of interesting fiction, it might be a good idea to stay away from the formless and dismissive term ‘chick lit’ in discussing them.” As she says, all too often womens’ books about family and relationship are dismissed as “chick lit.” But men who write novels about the same kinds of subjects are accorded much more respect.
The “chick lit” debate has been raging for some time now, of course. This time around it was stoked by Jodi Picoult, who — upon reading the New York Times‘ rave review of Freedom – tweeted, “NYT raved about Franzen’s new book. Is anyone shocked? Would love to see the NYT rave about authors who aren’t white male literary darlings.” Jennifer Weiner then joined the fray (tweeting under the hashtag “franzenfreude”); the Times responded snarkily that anyone who thought she was right “should meet in front of Jennifer’s TV during “Oprah.” (Why is that? Because women sit around in the afternoon and eat bonbons and watch Oprah?) Weiner told Huffpo, “Do I think I should be getting all of the attention that Jonathan ‘Genius’ Franzen gets? Nope. Would I like to be taken at least as seriously as a Jonathan Tropper or a Nick Hornby? Absolutely.”
There’s a couple of issues here. I’ve weighed in on most of them before. As far as the Times goes, Weiner and Picoult are correct: The newspaper absolutely does have a bias towards white male authors (if you doubt this, go do some counting yourself). Look and see how many men in the last year got both daily and Sunday reviews — and then compare how many women were accorded that honor. Check the number of mentions Gary Shteyngart has gotten in the last month, and then do the same for Mona Simpson, a novelist of equal literary acclaim. (Their most recent works came out at roughly the same time this summer.) Simpson did get a profile, it’s true. Of course, it ran in the Style section, not the Arts section.
The chick lit issue is equally bothersome. It’s never failed to irritate me that the smart, funny, achingly real Good in Bed should be dismissed as “chick lit,” with all its dismissive, derogatory implications. This isn’t a novel about sex and shopping. Would we demean brash, action-packed adventure novels by calling them “dick lit”? No, we would not. (Although if the “chick lit” tag persists, maybe we should.)
All right, everyone: Weigh in, please. Do you think there’s a bias — in the Times or elsewhere — against women writers? What do you think of the “chick lit” debate?
Latest Videos in Books
- 'Bachelorette' recap: STAHP in the name of love
- 'Simpsons'-'Family Guy' crossover: Watch 5 minutes
- 'Goldfinch' movie rights go to...
- Comic-Con 2014 star portraits: Day 3
- 'Hunger Games: Mockingjay': First teaser trailer
- 'Leftovers': The last straw
- Comic-Con 2014: All the stars at the EW Hideout
- 'Game of Thrones': Epic season 4 blooper reel
- DON'T PUBLISH See FIVE minutes of the 'Simpsons'-'Family Guy' crossover episode -- EXCLUSIVE VIDEO 565
- Enough, already: Why I'm quitting 'The Leftovers' 302
- The house (un)divided 321
- Video: 'Fifty Shades of Grey' trailer unlocks the key 288
- Box office report: 'Lucy' slays 'Hercules' with $44 million debut 270