Checking In

I’ve been a bit unwell these past few weeks, and unfortunately one of the first things to go down the drain were all my writing plans, particularly for the two days off I had last week. But I do have a half-finished post about The Wire, and I’ve been reading a lot of excellent books I really want to tell you about — namely Uprooted, Lumberjanes and Gone Crazy in Alabama. I don’t know when that will happen now, but I’m trying not to worry too much and just trust that I’ll get back on track and catch up eventually.

On a brighter note, work has been going well. Last week I got to attend a picture book award ceremony; watching hundreds of children huddle around writers and illustrators to have their books signed definitely cheered me up.


Ella Bailey, author of one of my favourite picture books of last year.
Also, Orange is the New Black, Orphan Black and Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries are all back, and the mere thought of their existence is getting me through the days.

Things on my mind this week:

• Katherine Cross on balancing respect for individual choices with a systemic level of analysis in our attempts to make sense of how sexism affects our lives:
  

  But if we are all stuck in that system, then surely picking on women making a very particular set of mediated choices therein begins to look suspect. Even the most radically minded feminist is making choices about her body, her adornment, her life that are socially mediated and not entirely her own. Even if she recognizes this — as she surely must — she also doubtlessly acts and comports in a way incompatible with an imaginary feminist utopia, or the ideal typical form of true feminism. Why punish other women for trying to make the compromises their own? Or for finding ways to be joyous in the midst of these narrowed choices even as we fight?
  (…)
  I am certainly not fond of the idea that we should consider every choice a woman makes “feminist” — it puts us well on the road to completely devaluing any affirmative meaning feminism may have. But the real problem with “choice feminism” is its fixation on individual choices, and so the answer to this is not feminist criticism that tries to assign those same choices a negative political value. That’s merely buying into the same binarist, neoliberal logic you criticize.
  
  This fetish for individualism uber alles is indeed a problem, but it is not best explained — or combated — by attacking women who, say, get married or really enjoy wearing makeup.
  
  The real death of a collective feminist politics lies there, surely, fiddling the same piddling few notes while our society burns.

  Corset. Dutiful wearer. Things I’ll apparently never shut up about.
  
  
• “I remain irate that the world does not give women a language for prioritizing their relationships with each other.” I liked this essay a lot.
  
  
• Hat tip to Cass for bringing Lindsay Ellis’ series of tweets about how the question “Is this feminist?” isn’t all that helpful to my attention:
  

  Feminist critical theory is about the reading of texts as it applies to society, not if it gets a gold star pass/fail grade.
  So asking me if a thing is feminist or to give examples of feminist things - they're bad questions, but I understand why people ask them.
  In MY day crit theory was applying feminist or Marxist or race crit theory readings, NOT labeling media as one or the other! *shakes walker*

  One of the clearest articulations of this idea I’ve come across was Lorna Jowett’s in Sex and the Slaywer, a book of Buffy studies. As I said at the time,
  

  I knew right from the introduction that I was going to love Sex and the Slayer, because Jowett approaches criticism in much the same way I do. There seems to be a certain level of misunderstanding about this, but I’ve always felt that the goal of good criticism is not to declare something either “progressive” and therefore safe for consumption, or “problematic” and thus to be avoided at all costs. It’s not about praise versus condemnation; it’s about asking interesting questions about a piece of media and how it’s in dialogue with the real world. It’s also about acknowledging ambivalence and contradiction and getting to the bottom of the mix of ideas a book or movie or TV series presents, because to do so often makes our experiences with it more interesting and rewarding.

  It’s been useful for me to keep this in mind over the past few years.
  
  
• Lastly, I’m thrilled to announce that I’m helping Simon and Jenny host Shirley Jackson Reading Week in July. It’s taking place the week of the 13th, and the idea is to read and blog about one of Jackson’s stories, novels or non-fiction titles and join the collective gushing (or, you know, be a voice of dissent. Less than enthusiastic posts are absolutely welcome too, even if we have to agree to disagree).
  I second Jenny’s words:
  

  Lucky for you, the good folks at Penguin have put all of Jackson’s books back into print, so you’ll have the pick of the litter. If this is your first time out, let me recommend We Have Always Lived in the Castle, a story about the two sisters who survived attempted murder and the life they live in a village that fears them. Otherwise, pick your poison! We’ll be waiting.

  Yes, we will.