The best place to start this circle off is with the ongoing discussion around the media about "franzenfreude" (h/t Jennifer Weiner) and so-called "chick lit." Here's author Jennifer Weiner's summary of the situation: "Meanwhile! Maybe you’ve heard that Jonathan Franzen has a new book out? Franzen, you’ll recall, is the author of the 2001 critically beloved blockbuster THE CORRECTIONS. Around my house, he’s perhaps even better known for being the Man Who Turned Down Oprah, and pissed off a great many other writers with his public hand-wringing over what her imprimatur and down-market, daytime-TV watching (largely female) audience would mean for his reputation. Well, he’s back! On the cover of Time! In the pages of Vogue! Reviewed, glowingly, not once but twice in the New York Times! Which has also devoted a news story and an inside-the-list column to FREEDOM, even though it won’t come out ‘til next week! Jodi Picoult, number-one bestseller of quote-unquote commercial fiction (full disclosure: she and I attended the same college and are published by the same house), has a problem with that. Last week, she tweeted about all of the attention the Times gives to its white male literary darlings, at the expense of the hundreds of thousands of other writers – some of them literary, some of them quote-unquote genre writers – who get no love at all. If you know me, you know that I’ve long taken issue with who the Times chooses to endorse and how its coverage unfolds and why, for example, formerly hot women who write memoirs get consigned to the Style section where totally un-hot men who write about their addictions get respectful full-length reviews. I’ve been tweeting up a storm under the hashtag #franzenfreude, and have, it seems, stirred up a bit of a tempest." Read more at: http://jenniferweiner.blogspot.com/ More to read about this topic: 1. Picoult and Weiner interviewed about this at HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-pinter/jodi-picoult-jennifer-weiner-franzen_b_693143.html 2. Jodi Picoult attacks favouritism towards 'white male literary darlings' Bestselling author attacks New York Times for narrow focus of its review coverage http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/20/jodi-picoult-white-male-literary-darlings 3. Women Are Not Marshmallow Peeps, And Other Reasons There's No 'Chick Lit' http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/08/25/129423107/women-who-read-are-not-marshmallow-peeps-and-other-humble-suggestions I 100% agree with Weiner and Picoult. I've given up reading mainstream reviews such as NYT because they do not tend to cover books in my genre or areas of interest, all of which I consider literature. In other words, in general, I find reviews totally irrelevant because they are so marginalized...away from me and my preferences. I do, however, find this area covered nicely by tools such as Goodreads, where friends suggest I read works such as The Help, and book review blogs (mainly written by women) that often suggest marvelous books that I enjoy greatly, such as The Art of Racing in the Rain. I also enjoy Laura Lippman (mightily) and consider her one of the great writers of our time, and am a big fan of Jennifer Weiner and Jodi Picoult, who I think nail character development and dialogue in a way so-called literary darlings ought to envy. I never hesitate to seize any opportunity to praise and recommend Donna Leon, who ought to be the premiere mystery writer of our time, and, well, any time since Conan Doyle and Christie. Book reviewers should sit on tenterhooks waiting for her books, like I do. I found Mary Doria Russell and Sharon Kay Penman via a review on NPR by a pop fiction professor. I don't understand this devoted marriage to distinguishing among genres for reviews, other than as a category for readers' sake, and I don't buy into this distinction between commercial fiction and literature in many cases. A really, really good writer...genre is irrelevant to me, which means subject matter is to some degree, and many really great writers are commercial successes because people enjoy their work that much. Or, as Picoult and Weiner explained in the HuffPo interview: "Picoult: Because historically the books that have persevered in our culture and in our memories and our hearts were not the literary fiction of the day, but the popular fiction of the day. Think about Jane Austen. Think about Charles Dickens. Think about Shakespeare. They were popular authors. They were writing for the masses. Weiner: Because, honestly, I think if the NYT cares about its darlings finding a wider audience, the smartest thing it can do is be a little more respectful toward the books readers are actually reading." Weiner also said, "Nick Hornby, Jonathan Tropper, Carl Hiaasen, David Nicholls...all of these guys write what I'd call commercial books, even beach books, books about relationships and romance and families. All of them would be considered chick lit writers if they were girls. But they're not, so they get reviewed (not always positively, but still), and they sell. If Nick and Jon and Carl don't have to choose between a slot on the review page and a space on the bestseller list, why should Jen and Sophie and Emily?" Why should they? Do you think popular female writers who focus on stories about women get short shrift? Where do you get your literary recs?

And this circle launched today, on Women's Equality Day!

The Politics of...Underwear? Yes! Of underwear and how it shaped women, historically. So to speak. really interesting! http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/aug/29/womens-rights-talk-undresses-issues-historical-mus/ "aturday, historian Rebecca Morrison-Peck gave a nearly two-hour talk at the Clark County Historical Museum on the “Politics of Underwear” and how undergarments have evolved and were influenced by American culture between 1750 and 1950. The Yacolt costume designer told the packed crowd of mostly women, young and old, that she’s talked before about woman’s underwear, but never delved into the politics. As she explained, however, underwear is a good insight into how women were viewed during a certain time period and what was expected of them. “Women dressed to suit what men were interested in at the time,” Morrison-Peck said. “They relied on men to support them and take care of them,” so it would follow that they would wear undergarments that reflect men’s view of beauty. Her appearance was the first public event in conjunction with the museum’s new exhibit, “Road to Equality: The Struggle for Women’s Rights in the Northwest.” The exhibit runs through December 2011. There was a lot to talk about over 200 years, but the historian covered a lot of ground and showed off a lot of props on her mannequin, “Victoria.” Beginning in the late 1700s and into the 1800s, underwear was a “torture device,” Morrison-Peck said, with lots of layers and constricting pieces. First, there was the corset, which had steel plates sewn into the bodice to keep women’s posture straight."