Comments on: Best books of 2009: No girl writers allowed!

By: fannie

fannie — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:19:09 +0000

In general, I find it to be inappropriate and meaningless for the creators of “best of” lists to presume to tell the rest of us what does and does not count as the “best” fiction, as though something as subjective as literature can or should be made “objective.” Who died and made them the arbiter of all that does and does not count as qualitatively good?

By: Indyanna

Indyanna — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:14:54 +0000

Dawson is William Dawson (Sr. and Jr.); some dood I’m tracking in 18th C. Windsor Forest.

By: Kathleen Lowrey

Kathleen Lowrey — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:53:50 +0000

CPP — hee hee. that’s a funny image.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:03:09 +0000

Ooops! Sorry. Dawkins, Dawson, Darwin. . . they all blur together. (I don’t know who the hell Dawson is!)

By: Comrade PhysioProf

Comrade PhysioProf — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:54:34 +0000

Dawson alone was taken to task for his rather narrow view of authors in his anthology.

Dawkins.

That’s what’s amazing to me. The idea that a little conversation in cyberspace with which one doesn’t agree is going to shake the foundations of one’s entire professional life.

My theory is that a major contributor to this scenario is that the only “professional life” the vast majority of these rational skeptic d00ds have is rushing around in packs on the Internet vesting their egos in the defense of their celebrity heroes.

By: perpetua

perpetua — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:15:01 +0000

Just thought ya’ll might like a refreshingly different list:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/best_of_2009/index.html?story=/books/laura_miller/2009/12/08/best_fiction

(five fiction and five non fiction, women liberally represented.)

By: Historiann

Historiann — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:13:08 +0000

Paul’s analysis is good, but the amazing thing (in CPP’s words) about the exchange over the Dawson book is that the D00dz weren’t being accused of anything–Dawson alone was taken to task for his rather narrow view of authors in his anthology. The responding d00dz in the conversation inserted themselves into it by taking *one specific critique* of *one specific book* by *one specific man* and getting all offended by it on his behalf. Touching, sorta, but totally beside the point. They singled out the woman writer on this science blog, which is co-written by a man and a woman, and told her to STFU, lectured her about better uses of her time, etc. IOW, all of the classic techniques of shutting down conversations on femininst blogs.

That’s what’s amazing to me. The idea that a little conversation in cyberspace with which one doesn’t agree is going to shake the foundations of one’s entire professional life. Dissent will not be tolerated! They must be silenced!!!11!!!! Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain1111!!!!!1!!!!

By: Women writers – then and NOW « Politics & Imagination

Women writers – then and NOW « Politics & Imagination — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:02:23 +0000

[...] Historiann [...]

By: Comrade PhysioProf

Comrade PhysioProf — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:04:20 +0000

I don’t think that it’s surprising at all.

Oh, I absolutely agree that it is not surprising. But it is certainly amazing, which is what I said.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:50:47 +0000

@Indyanna – Shop Class as Soulcraft isn’t much of a re-do of ZatAoMM, so much of a manifesto that trade work – everything from drywalling to auto repair – can be intellectually gratifying and spiritually satisfying in ways that many current chic ‘knowledge worker’ careers are not.