In Owl At Home, Arnold Lobel’s 1975 illustrated early reader, solitary Owl scolds winter for coming into his house. He is frightened by a creature under his covers, which turns out to be his feet. He makes himself cry in order to enjoy a pot of tear-water tea. He runs up and down the stairs in order to be in two places at once. He worries about the moon.
Throughout these five short episodes, Owl never encounters any other animate creatures. He talks to the weather, his legs, objects in the sky. He doesn’t seem perturbed by the fact that they never reply.
“If I am looking at you, moon, then you must be looking back at me. We must be very good friends,” Owl says.
Aha, the reader thinks, the moon isn’t a real friend—it just seems like it’s there for you. The moon begins to follow Owl and Owl shoos it away. He feels sad when he is home safe in bed and cannot see his friend—and relieved when it reappears from behind clouds to shine in his window. Poor, deluded Owl.
At another point, Owl tells himself vignettes of small things and objects, about wasted potential, and isolation, in order to make himself cry:
“Spoons that have fallen behind the stove and are never seen again,” said Owl…. “Books that cannot be read,” said Owl, because some of the pages have been torn out.” … “Mornings nobody saw because everybody was sleeping,” sobbed Owl.
“Soon,” Lobel writes, “the kettle was all filled up with tears.”
And yet, while the episode chronicles small moments of stunning loneliness, the chapter ends on a note of optimism. “Owl felt happy as he filled his cup. ‘It tastes a bit salty,’ he said, ‘but tear water-tea is always very good.’”
After his recitation, Owl’s decision is to be happy—to be nourished by his temporary sadness. He seems to be the master of these sad stories.
And yet…if Owl understands the illusory nature of these stories, does he know that his friendship with the moon is also not real? Does it matter, if it makes him happy? Is Owl in command of the narrative? Are we?
Arnold Lobel is perhaps best known for creating Frog and Toad, who make up one of the funniest, most poignant relationships in children’s literature.
The first book, Frog and Toad Are Friends, came out in 1970. The pair is a classic odd couple: Frog is sunny and energetic; Toad frets about buttons, swimsuits, and about not being able to think of stories. He has moments of deep and deeply real insecurity and melancholy that always find reassurance in Frog’s abiding friendship. Frog and Toad can also be seen as a portrait of male-male love. In total, Lobel wrote four Frog and Toad books. (Another two were discovered more recently and released by Lobel’s daughter, Adrianne.)
It is hard not to read some of Owl’s loneliness—the wasted potential that he cries about in the tear-water tea, the ignored history of objects and creatures—as being about Lobel’s personal, hidden tragedies.
When reading the Frog and Toad books, it is difficult not to draw parallels to Lobel’s life. In a May 2016 piece for The New Yorker, Colin Stokes traces Lobel’s origins as a children’s book author and illustrator—sometimes in collaboration with his wife Anita Kempler. Stokes also notes that Lobel was gay. Lobel was one of the early casualties of AIDS and died of complications from the disease in 1987. He had come out to his wife and children in 1974. Owl At Home was published in 1975. It is hard not to read some of Owl’s loneliness—the wasted potential that he cries about in the tear-water tea, the ignored history of objects and creatures—as being about Lobel’s personal, hidden tragedies.
But perhaps we don’t have the right to look at Lobel’s story—his stories—through that lens. Lobel’s books, after all, are ultimately happy. They affirm friendship. They show that people (or owls and amphibians) need and find joy in ties, even while acknowledging that relationships are as ephemeral as life.
My experience of Owl at Home has always been social. I likely first encountered the book during one of those important early kid’s events: story time.
Between kindergarten and third grade, my class went to the school library at least once a week for a reading with our librarian, Ms Wilkins, and to take out books.
To this day, the memory of Ms Wilkins—of sitting cross-legged on a low carpet of the library surrounded by other kids, of listening to her read in her low, scratchy voice—brings me immense comfort.
Ms Wilkins was tall and gray-haired. She wore a heavy man’s watch, which I sometimes stared at when she read. She introduced us to Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are. She read us Ezra Jack Keats’s The Snowy Day and paused to explain to us how the author used collage to make up his illustrations. I still remember the care she took to talk to us about each book that she selected, about how pictures and words were put together. She was teaching us how to see, what to look for in narrative—something that I don’t think anyone had ever really done for me before. I remember her as a reserved woman—not the kind of person whom one would peg as someone who wanted to work with kids. But as my reading advanced, she listened to me quietly when I told her I wanted books like Nancy Drew and the Bobbsey Twins. She didn’t grimace or laugh—and she steered me to Enid Blyton, P. L. Travers, and Dodie Smith.
To this day, the memory of Ms Wilkins—of sitting cross-legged on a low carpet of the library surrounded by other kids, of listening to her read in her low, scratchy voice—brings me immense comfort. It was this same feeling of intimacy and sharing that I tried to bring to my daughter when I read to her about Frog and Toad, and Owl.
In the wake of the US election, I have been thinking a lot about the uses of reading and writing. I dwell on how useless writing—my writing—seems to be. I consider this while taking refuge in stories that conclude happily and unhappily—in narratives that have the courtesy to end while our reality continues rudely and dangerously on.
I tell myself this when I write: that a book may be an inanimate object, but it is also contains the words of a person reaching out. I tell myself that empathy works even when results are not immediately visible. Or I tell myself nothing and just go on.
We do think of reading and writing as solitary pursuits—perhaps they’re even selfish. But reading can take the form of a parent reading to a child, a story time for a class of eager kids. Or it can be one person and a book.
I tell myself this when I write: that a book may be an inanimate object, but it is also contains the words of a person reaching out. I tell myself that empathy works even when results are not immediately visible. Or I tell myself nothing and just go on.
At the end of Owl at Home, Owl has fallen asleep. The moon is still shining on him. It is there if Owl needs it.
At the beginning of Robin McKinley’s 1982 young adult fantasy novel The Blue Sword, Harry Crewes has been living in a colonial desert outpost after the death of her parents. The Homeland, where Harry is from, is a thinly disguised Victorian England. The lone Homeland city of Istan shares uneasily a border with Damar, a mysterious, magical Afghanistan concealed in the mountains.
War is brewing between Damar and the North, and when King Corlath of Damar comes to negotiate with the Homelanders, his magic—the kelar—demands that he kidnap the young woman to aid his people.
Harry, it turns out, has plenty of kelar in her blood, too. As a result, she has visions of legendary Damarian queen Aerin, she learns the language at a prodigious rate, and she adapts quickly to bridleless horsemanship and battle training. After a brutal six weeks of swashbuckler boot camp, she wins the laprun trials (the Damarian cavalry Olympics), becomes one of the king’s elite Riders, and rides out to war against the demonic Northern army.
While I was re-reading the novel, I told my husband rather helplessly, “I love this book. I loved it when I was a teenager. I love it now.”
But Harry clashes with Corlath on a major point: she wants to warn the Homelanders—or as the Damarians call them, the Outlanders—about the Northern army and to ask them to defend a narrow gap in the mountains through which the Northerners could overrun Harry’s old home and ambush Corlath’s army. Corlath has exhausted his diplomacy with the pseudo-Victorians. “Let them take the Outlander city,” he says of the Northerners. “[I]t will keep them amused.”
Despite the fact that Harry loves Damar—and is falling for Corlath—she cares about the Outlander station: her brother still lives there, she has friends there. It was her world not long ago. She defies the king and risks betraying Damar—and Corlath—in order to go and warn her old countrymen and to guard the pass herself.
The Blue Sword won a Newbery Honor and an ALA Best Book for Young Adults. It was followed by The Hero and the Crown—a prequel, which tells the story of Lady Aerin. While I was re-reading the novel, I told my husband rather helplessly, “I love this book. I loved it when I was a teenager. I love it now.”
That does not mean it’s without problems:
Harry is a white savior. The Damarians are dark haired and dark skinned, and Harry is a towering blonde. Yes, it’s revealed eventually that she has a quarter Damarian blood, so maybe Emma Stone can play her in the movie.
It can be seen as colonial apologia. The authorities and military stationed at Istan seem to love the desert and respect the people. The colonizers are excised of brutality; they are bumbling and well-intentioned.
Then, there is also the fact that Corlath kidnaps Harry—or rather, his kelar forces him to do it. The abduction of women is a charged act—sexually and politically—and the characters know it. But the way McKinley rewrites kidnapping is interesting. First of all, Corlath feels pretty terrible about it:
She was smiling a little in her sleep, but it was a sad smile, and it made him unhappy… He knew only too well that by stealing her from her people he had done a thing to be ashamed of, even if he had no alternative.
McKinley takes pains to make sure that Corlath’s intention isn’t rape. Indeed, out of Corlath’s sympathy for her grows respect, and love.
On Harry’s end, instead of the abduction being an instrument of a sexual awakening that leaves her in thrall to love, she is bestowed with power. Corlath gives her swords, a horse—a means to leave. Her magic asserts itself. She has the kind of freedom she didn’t enjoy while trying to be a lady at the colonial outpost—and more. An early signal of her autonomy is her clarity and humor about the situation:
Corlath didn’t look at her the way a man looks at a woman he plans to share his bed… He looked at her rather as a man looks at a problem that he would very much prefer to do without. She supposed it was a distinction of a sort to be a harassment to a king.
Throughout the episode, Harry retains her ability to think. The book is full of these dry asides—the characters are aware that the situation is epic, but their reactions are not grandiose. They’re very funny and human, and I found that—still find it—appealing.
The Blue Sword combines feminist power and magic—and that is and was seductive. But the book’s flipping of one script does not make it perfect on all other issues—although the seductiveness remains in place.
Another thing I loved about the book when I was younger was the idea of a foreigner coming into another culture and, despite many struggles, thriving in it.
She was a figure in some story other than her own—an embroidered shape in a Hill tapestry, a representation of something that did not exist in her Homeland.
Harry feels that she has no history in the place she is living—but it is making history out of her. At another point, Harry tells the Oracle, Luthe:
Oh, I know—one never sees ahead of behind. But I see even less. It is like being blindfolded when everyone else in the room is not. No one can see outside the room—but everyone else can see the room. I would like to take my blindfold off.
It explicitly talks about being caught between two cultures. And it interweaves this all with mystical powers and Fate, leading young me to wonder if maybe there was a point to all of this terrible uncertainty. Maybe this alienation, this uncertainty, was exactly what would make me powerful.
In a way, the book captures the helplessness and the vitality of adolescence—the feeling of being perched on the cusp of something huge, but of not knowing what that will be. But more important to me when I first read it, it explicitly talks about being caught between two cultures. And it interweaves this all with mystical powers and Fate, leading young me to wonder if maybe there was a point to all of this terrible uncertainty. Maybe this alienation, this uncertainty, was exactly what would make me powerful.
As I said, it’s very seductive.
The Blue Sword informs who I am. I can see its fingerprints all over me. Here is where I learned what “bohemian” meant and that swords and sorcery could be interspersed with wit. Here is where I learned to mine a book for offpage sex. Here is where I learned about bridges.
Luthe, the mage whom Corlath consults before battle, tells Harry:
Friends you will have need of, for in you two worlds meet. There is no one on both sides with you, so you must learn to take your own counsel…It is not an enviable position, being a bridge, especially a bridge with visions.
I bought in wholeheartedly to the idea of being the bridge—even though it meant I bought into the idea that I would always be struggling.
I bought in wholeheartedly to the idea of being the bridge—even though it meant I bought into the idea that I would always be struggling. No—it meant I would always see myself as struggling and that that struggle was for a noble and perhaps magical cause.
But the truth is that I was never in a foreign land. I have always lived here in North America. And it isn’t always struggle. The idea of being this bridge has lost its luster. I think of my daughter who is biracial—a classic born of two worlds child—and I think that she should not have to follow that template unless she wants it. She was born here, too, and the dominant narrative of her life doesn’t have to be one of never feeling quite at home.
It is okay to feel out of place or foreign. But it doesn’t have to be the only way she can see herself in books.
I can also give my daughter other books and dreams and characters to follow and identify with—characters who are not necessarily white, people who inhabit their worlds fully.
I love The Blue Sword. It is a part of who I am. But I can also give my daughter other books and dreams and characters to follow and identify with—characters who are not necessarily white, people who inhabit their worlds fully. When she’s older, I can give her Zen Cho’s Sorceror to the Crown, or Saladin Ahmed’s stories. If she likes The Blue Sword, great—we’ll have plenty to talk about.
But my daughter doesn’t have to see herself as a bridge in order to reconcile her place. Because the thing about bridges is that people walk all over them to get to other, more fantastical lands.
In Ellen Conford’s 1976 young adult novel, Dear Lovey Hart, I Am Desperate, freshman Carrie Wasserman finds herself writing an anonymous advice column for her high school newspaper.
The column becomes wildly popular to the dismay of Carrie’s father, the school’s head guidance counselor. But Carrie finds her position difficult: she is falling for her intense and driven co-conspirator, the paper’s editor, Chip. Her advice to her friends ends up going against her alter-ego’s words. She’s trying to juggle homework and writing. Most of all, she is out of her depth fielding all-too-serious questions that come up. Her answers become more flippant—sometimes a little mean—and the tide of opinion turns against Lovey Hart.
And, oh, how worn out I was from trying to find new gimmicks for the Eternal Number One question: “How do I get him to notice me?” I began turning from sensible, cute suggestions, to downright sarcastic answers. “Drop an anvil on his foot.” “Put Jell-O down his shirt.” “Fall off his roof.”
Lovey Hart was probably one of my favorite books from junior high and high school. The book was made into an Afterschool Special and spawned a sequel, We Interrupt This Semester for An Important Bulletin, in which Carrie contends with a Southern belle and imagines herself in scenes from a romance novel in which her sleeves keep getting ripped off, leaving her creamy shoulders exposed.
Conford, who died a year ago, was one of those authors whose books were always on the paperback carousel at both the school library and the city branch library. A few of her novels were recently reissued with Lizzie Skurnick’s imprint at Ig Publishing.
Re-reading, I realized that Conford’s wisecracking but empathetic voice was one I tried—and keep trying—to channel with varying degrees of success.
Lovey Hart was funny—Carrie was funny. That was important to me as a young woman, and it is maybe why I read the book over and over.
I needed to hear the wry voice of a girl who herself is allowed and encouraged to be funny, who explores how wit can sometimes be mean, or wise, or kind. For example, here are Carrie’s thoughts as she contemplates her crush, Chip:
But while a brooding, intense boy makes the heart beat faster, he also puts a simultaneous strain on the brain, because you are frantically trying to think of something to say to make him stop brooding, which is an outright contradiction, but true, nevertheless.
Carrie is self-aware enough to know she’s falling for Chip’s act, but she can see her own absurdity in trying to console him. There is a buoyancy to Carrie’s voice—to this book’s realism. It was such a relief to encounter it at an age when life often felt confusing and intense and hard to bear.
I suspect that my teachers mistrusted humor. Trying to corral a roomful of teens making boner jokes can maybe do that to a person.
There was a preponderance of Earnest Literature About Issues in our curriculum. Moreover, among the “realistic” contemporary young adult selections pushed by my teachers and librarians were cautionary tales about young women who got pregnant, who got lost in drugs, who fought the system and lost. The Chocolate War. The Language of the Goldfish. The Pigman. Go Ask Alice.
I am oversimplifying the novels I was recommended. But in my memory, so many of the characters in those books seemed so tragic and so—well—white. And if they were non-white, well, that alone was often written as a calamity. In the world of true-life, contemporary young adult books of the 80s and 90s, my mere non-white existence was an Issue.
My reality is not grim. I don’t think others should get to frame it that way either.
Don’t get me wrong, I gladly read—and still read—Issues books: I spend many an evening sitting in the dark, sobbing into my duvet, my tearstained face illuminated by the impassive light of my Kindle. It is one of the most luxurious things one can do.
But often so much of the narrative of these books is about giving an audience—giving other people, the culture—the opportunity for catharsis and absolution.
How nice for other people.
As an aside, maybe that’s why I consumed teen series featuring non-white protagonists who, you know, lived their lives.
Teen series were not considered good reading by my teachers. But, as I noted in a previous column, the novels sometimes featured characters who led rich and varied existences—characters such as Faith from The Girls of Canby Hall, or Claudia Kishi from The Babysitter’s Club. And avoiding that narrative of a life crystallized by tragedy is why I’ve given my young child funny middle-grade series like Lenore Look’s Alvin Ho books, or Andrea Cheng’s Anna Wang books.
“Sometimes—no, most of the time—popular and worthwhile are not synonymous at all,” Carrie’s guidance counselor father—an educator—tells her in a rant against Lovey Hart’s column.
Carrie answers, “But everything doesn’t have to be worthwhile . . . Some things can be just for fun.”
In a way, Lovey Hart is in conversation with those Issues books. Lovey Hart may be “for fun,” but it is also worthwhile.
Conford depicts people with problems—girls with problems—who are not tragic even though their lives could easily turn that way. Maybe that’s why I identified with Carrie, although her universe seemed pretty white. It’s maybe why I wanted, however imperfectly, to identify with her.
There are seeds of tragedy in Lovey Hart. Carrie receives letters from girls wanting the attention of boys, sure, but she also gets them from students who’ve lost all their friends after quitting drugs, kids whose parents are getting divorced—many of the scenarios of the Issues books are alluded to in Dear Lovey Hart, I Am Desperate. And then there is also Carrie’s buddy, Terry, who is in love with her French teacher:
“Lovey Hart says,” Terry began abruptly, her voice distant and dreamy, “that you should let someone know if you like them, because they might be liking you all the time, and if you’re too shy to ever tell each other, you’ll never know what Might Have Been.”
“Terry,” I said nervously, “I think she was talking about a sophomore and a junior, not a student and a teacher.”
Terry believes herself emotionally ripe enough to handle a love affair. One night, Terry impulsively shows up at Mr. Stokes’s apartment to declare her feelings.
This is an Issue.
In a different book, it could have easily taken a terrible turn. Even as I write this, I am reading a discussion which shows how very easily student-teacher relations take terrible turns.
Conford goes with what I think is the best-case scenario, which is also somehow a reasonable ending to Terry’s drama. Terry ends up spurned and alive—unharmed despite sustaining some embarrassment. And . . . well, that is probably the most optimistic-while-plausible scenario in life, isn’t it? Being alive and unharmed except for minor embarrassment is the best for which we can realistically hope.
Beverly Cleary, author of many funny, wise classics of children’s literature, turned one hundred years old on April 12. She is known for having created such characters as Ralph, the motorcycle mouse, Henry Huggins, and Ramona and Beatrice “Beezus” Quimby.
I went through piles of Cleary’s books as a kid, but Ramona and Her Mother, I only needed to read once.
Ramona and Her Mother opens with the Quimbys celebrating Mr. Quimby’s new job at the checkout counter of the Shop Rite. Mr. Quimby’s bout with unemployment has left the family with bills, though, and Mrs. Quimby stays at her job as a medical receptionist. The family has a disastrous brunch. Ramona dyes her legs with bluing when she and her friend Howie try to make an ocean. After a long, difficult day, Ramona’s parents fight and then make up. Beezus gets a terrible haircut. Ramona wears her comfortable new pajamas to school underneath her clothes and accidentally leaves them there and tries to hide it.
Throughout, we find Ramona trying to be good and dependable—although this also often means suppressing her curiosity and imagination. She wants to be seen as responsible, like Beezus. She overhears people saying that Beezus is her mother’s girl, and she wishes she could be the same.
One episode, in particular, I have always remembered.
The Quimbys have had a terrible day. When they come home, they discover that no one has plugged in the Crock Pot, and there is no dinner waiting. Mr. Quimby and Mrs. Quimby argue about who was responsible.
“I suppose you think turning on a Crock-Pot is woman’s work.”
The edge in her voice matched the edge in his.
“Not exactly,” said Mr. Quimby, “but now that you mention it—”
Even in just that short exchange, the book manages to touch on women’s changing roles in the household in that era and the tensions they sometimes brought. Cleary has been lauded for the groundbreaking realism of her work, and this sequence shows how beautifully and skillfully she does it. Ramona and Her Mother was published in 1979, and this entire episode—with the hungry kids, tired parents, the simmering tension over Mrs. Quimby going to work and the worries about money—it’s remarkable.
Ramona frets about Beezus, who is grating carrots—she’s worried that Beezus will scrape her fingers and bleed into the salad.But the blood is in the growing argument between the parents.
The parents continue to quietly pick at each other while putting together a dinner of pancakes from of the meager contents of their pantry. Meanwhile, Ramona frets about Beezus, who is grating carrots—she’s worried that Beezus will scrape her fingers and bleed into the salad.
But the blood is in the growing argument between the parents—and all the tensions about who was supposed to provide, who was supposed to work—not just in this moment but in life—slowly come to the surface until finally Mr. Quimby tells Mrs. Quimby the pancakes aren’t cooked through. When she disagrees, he reaches over and slashes them.
They ooze.
I never read Ramona and Her Mother after the first time—not until I was an adult. Not until I became a parent.
Mrs. Quimby swats Mr. Quimby with a spatula and stalks out of the room. The summaries I glanced at all seem to go with some variation of Mrs. Quimby hitting Ramona’s dad with a spatula, with no mention of the pancakes. But for me, the scene turns on Mr. Quimby’s almost comic aggression toward dinner—comic, but also somehow not funny.
Mr. Quimby finishes making the meal. Later, Ramona sneaks into Beezus’s room, and the two comfort each other.
I talk a lot in this column about how I read and re-read books.
I never read Ramona and Her Mother after the first time—not until I was an adult. Not until I became a parent.
Like Mr. Quimby, my dad was unemployed on and off. He had been a psychiatric social worker. He later worked as a freelance translator. We operated a diner for a while, and then he started selling and putting together computers.
After my father’s first bout with unemployment, my mother, who had been a nurse-midwife in Taiwan, went to work as a seamstress in a factory. She worked steadily from the time I was four or five. She didn’t try to certify for nursing in Canada because she never felt her English was good enough. She resented my father greatly for what she perceived as his failure to support the family. And, of course, they fought.
At some point, my mom started telling me things. She’d stop by my room before bedtime and launch into long monologues about how hard she had to work and how much she hated her life.
At some point, my mom started telling me things. She’d stop by my room before bedtime and launch into long monologues about how hard she had to work and how much she hated her life. She blamed my dad. She said he was irresponsible and that I had to help support the family by being good and quiet and never wanting things.
She also made me feel like there was no one else she could talk to—and maybe that was true. Her parents, who had come to live with us, didn’t like my dad and would blame her for marrying him. My mom’s limited English meant she didn’t feel comfortable with our Anglophone neighbors, and the friends who did speak her language were terrible gossips.
So she talked to me.
I defended my dad to her—he and I had always been close—but I also felt grown up to be trusted with family burdens. In a lot of ways, I wanted, as Ramona did, to be seen as a good helper to my mother. But sometimes that wish isn’t healthy, and now I see it cost me too much. I was ten or eleven, maybe. And I ended up worrying not about the welfare of our family—I ended up feeling responsible for my mother’s happiness and, worse, her deep, deep unhappiness.
When I told my dad that my mom sometimes unburdened herself to me—and that I defended him valiantly—he looked sad and angry. He told me I was a kid and that he was sorry that I had to deal with it. I was outraged at the time. I was mature. I was sure I could be helpful.
Near the end of the episode in Ramona and Her Mother, when Ramona sneaks into Beezus’s room and the two snuggle under the covers, Beezus says she’ll be there for Ramona if their parents divorce. She adds:
I read a book about girl who took care of her brothers and sisters when their father died, but that was off in the mountains someplace where they all picked herbs and things. It wouldn’t work in the city.
Beezus mulling over “herbs and things” is funny. But it occurs to me that that’s what I did with many of the books I read—then and now. I, like Beezus, was sifting through what I knew and what I’d learned from stories to come up with a way to solve my problems.
By day, I’m sure I was a plucky and cheerful kid. But through the long, anxious night of my childhood, Beezus and Ramona’s attempt to find answers about what to do and how to be mirrored mine in all its imperfections. Beezus didn’t find a perfect solution from reading a book. Neither did I. But I guess maybe I didn’t—couldn’t—recognize the issues I had.
I, like Beezus, was sifting through what I knew and what I’d learned from stories to come up with a way to solve my problems.
We read for different reasons. We read to educate ourselves, to explore. We read for comfort and escape and connection. Stories that do all of those things and more are the ones that I end up loving and remembering.
The pancake slashing and its aftermath have always stayed with me. I don’t know if I can say that I loved Ramona and Her Mother when I was a child. It may have overwhelmed me. At the time, I lacked the emotional maturity to dissect why I remembered Cleary’s words so perfectly while my feelings around the book stayed numb.
I do remember dwelling on the differences between us: Ramona and Beezus had each other. And overnight, their parents overcame their resentments, where mine couldn’t seem to. My parents weren’t white. English wasn’t their first language. My feelings and my world were different.
I do remember dwelling on the differences between us: Ramona and Beezus had each other. And overnight, their parents overcame their resentments, where mine couldn’t seem to.
There are people who expect perfect analogs to their lives in the books they read; they dismiss work with which they can’t identify. I couldn’t really afford to do that—and to a great extent, still can’t. A lot of this column has been about finding myself in books. But I know that I can still love a book if I don’t see me—and that sometimes, I can find something good where I think I won’t.
Yes, sometimes we will not recognize ourselves in what we read. But what we can gain is the breadth of experience and feeling and wisdom and, yes, diversity of viewpoints that books offer—the knowledge outside one’s experience. Those “herbs and things” that may have seemed irrelevant or extraneous at the time—the things that kept books from being a perfect fit—can sometimes fit in the future. And even if they don’t—well, that’s okay, too.
I see now that Ramona and Her Mother did connect to me and that, in a way, it waited for me while I grew.
I see now that Ramona and Her Mother did connect to me and that, in a way, it waited for me while I grew.
We read for different reasons, and maybe at that point in my life, I was reading to escape. Maybe I didn’t want to feel too much for what was happening on the page. I can embrace the feeling now. The book stayed with me all of these years. It stayed until I learned some sympathy for the child I was.
I read Margaret Atwood’s 1976 novel Lady Oracle first as a seventeen-year-old, then as an earnest literature undergraduate.
In this feminist satire, acclaimed Canadian poetess Joan Foster fakes her own death and flees to Italy in disguise when her multiple identities collide. Not only is Joan a sort of red-headed Enya of the literary world, she’s also the writer of numerous Gothic governess romances and (in her mind this is the worst crime) a former fat kid.
The book is told in first person, interspersing flashbacks to an unhappy youth and marriage with excerpts of the “Costume Gothics” that Joan writes. Joan grows up with an angrily controlling mother who tries to get her obese teenage daughter to lose weight. A legacy from a beloved aunt allows her to flee to London, where she first meets a Polish count who churns out Betty Neels-type nurse-doctor romances and introduces her to a career as a romance novelist. She has a chance meeting with Arthur, a drippy young Socialist, who becomes her husband. The pair end up back in Canada, where Arthur adjuncts, agitates, and doles out contempt for his wife while she supports him with her secret writing.
The Royal Porcupine wears spats and a cape and hooks Joan by negging her.
Then, while hashing out a paranormal storyline, Joan tries Automatic Writing. (This involves staring into a candle and letting the spirit take her pen.) After several sessions, she finds that she has written a strange manuscript which Joan’s new literary publishers gleefully sell. Correction: they sell Joan as a tragic-feminist-spiritualist-redheaded poetess.
Joan’s husband becomes unhappy with her success (and the fact that the book seems to be about a stifling marriage). She stumbles into an affair with a performance artist who styles himself as “The Royal Porcupine.” The Royal Porcupine wears spats and a cape and hooks Joan by negging her. (The dystopian fantasy A Handmaid’s Tale is regarded as Atwood’s most prescient novel, but props to Lady Oracle for identifying proto-pickup artists.) But the pressure from juggling her secret lives comes to a head when a hanger-on of the arts scene threatens to blackmail her, threatening to spill about her affair, her secret life as a romance novelist, and her former heft.
It didn’t have anything to do with my life, I thought. And yet, shortly after reading Lady Oracle as a seventeen-year-old, I sent a self-addressed stamped envelope to Harlequin for their guidelines on writing romance novels.
I am having a hard time piecing together what I felt about Lady Oracle as a youth under the weight of what I think of it now.
I should note that, like Joan, I have at least two names: I’ve had one literary novel and two romance novels published, but I’m open about my identities (and—erm—am not successful under either of them). There is no danger that I’ll flee North America only to turn up at an Italian pensione with my luxuriant tresses chopped off.
When I was younger, though, and still struggling with one identity, I think I found Lady Oracle funny? Zany? I especially enjoyed the parody of Joan’s so-called Costume Gothics. It didn’t have anything to do with my life, I thought. And yet, shortly after reading Lady Oracle as a seventeen-year-old, I sent a self-addressed stamped envelope to Harlequin for their guidelines on writing romance novels.
I told people that I was writing a romance novel for money, although why I told people anything at all, I don’t know. Like Joan, I was secretive.
My working title was “Worlds Apart.” The heroine, Lancie, was a food critic who was planning to attend cooking school in Italy. The hero—I don’t remember his name, so we’ll call him Jim—was an architect who was moving to China. They met, in the first chapter, at the travel agency run by Lancie’s sister.
Lancie had black hair and brown eyes. I never said explicitly that she was of Asian descent—probably because I didn’t admit it in my mind, either. The novel ended with Jim rushing to Tuscany, having sacrificed his plans to create a Beijing subdivision—having sacrificed for love. I suppose this was my version of a feminist ending.
I told people that I was writing a romance novel for money, although why I told people anything at all, I don’t know. Like Joan, I was secretive. I got maybe 20,000 words in before my dad sold our secondhand Mac (honestly, the real love story was between me and that cheery little computer) and switched us to PC.
“Worlds Apart” wasn’t the first book I’d tried to write. The idea of money attracted me, but that wasn’t really why I needed to do it. But it was the first attempt where my real motives for writing seemed hidden even from me.
At every turn, Joan thinks she’s a fraud. But that’s also partly because at every turn there is someone dismissing her accomplishments, telling her she doesn’t deserve love, thoughts, success, her life.
Lady Oracle is not kind. It is not kind to people, to genre fiction. Nor is it kind to high literary work.
It skewers romance, of course, trotting out the usual stuff: the audience is made up of sexually unsatisfied (white) women. Joan reads romance novels but calls them “trashy books.” The writers and publishers feel contempt for their readers. Joan says, “I made the necessary revisions and received my first hundred pounds, with a request for more material. Material, they called it, as if it came by the yard.”
In Joan’s (or Atwood’s) vision, writers of romance novels are prized for the quantity of work they can produce rather than the quality. (There has been speculation that Atwood herself has written romance novels.) At the same time, however, the quality of literary publishing seems to be a myth. When Joan meets with her imprint, Colin Harper, a beleaguered editor, seems less than impressed with the book. Doug Sturgess, the publisher, has dollar signs in his eyes.
“We thought it was—ah—reminiscent—of a mixture of Kahlil Gibran and Rod McKuen,” said Colin Harper unhappily.
“Oh, I said. “It’s that bad, is it?”
“Bad?” said Sturgess. “Is she saying bad? You know how many copies those guys sell?”
Harper thinks the book is cheesy. Sturgess, with book covers and TV appearances in mind, wants to know if Joan plays the guitar. To her romance publishers, words are material. To her literary publishers, Joan is the material.
Throughout the book, it’s clear that the products of women aren’t valued.
“I have read your [poetry] book,” Count Paul, failed literary writer/author of nurse-doctor romances, tells Joan. “It is promising, I think, for a first book, by a woman.”
The qualifications Count Paul appends to his compliment water down any admiration he might have professed. At every turn, Joan thinks she’s a fraud. But that’s also partly because at every turn there is someone dismissing her accomplishments, telling her she doesn’t deserve love, thoughts, success, her life.
By twenty-two, the second time I read Lady Oracle, I’d told myself I didn’t want to write at all. This was my version of managing expectations—by getting rid of them. I’m not going to say that Lady Oracle made me despair. Life did that—it keeps doing that.
I said I wasn’t honest with myself or with others about why I wanted to write a romance novel at seventeen. By twenty-two, the second time I read Lady Oracle, I’d told myself I didn’t want to write at all.
This was my version of managing expectations—by getting rid of them. I’m not going to say that Lady Oracle made me despair. Life did that—it keeps doing that. Besides, I still apparently wanted to try something new after having read it. And well, obviously, I still write.
But the prevailing feeling I’ve had reading it this time around has been one of recognition. I’ll be honest: rereading Lady Oracle was a mind-fuck, partly because I saw myself in it and partly because I wasn’t even in it at all. If the message for women is that their work can be discounted because it is done by women, then what do we say to women who are not white?
In 2016, forty years after the publication of Lady Oracle, there is a lot more talk—in the world, in publishing—about the need for writers, editors, agents, reviewers, who are not heterosexual cis white men.
I’ll be honest: rereading Lady Oracle was a mind-fuck, partly because I saw myself in it and partly because I wasn’t even in it at all.
I am grateful for the work I’m getting this year. (Seriously BMP, thank you!) But while I am delighted that I get to write, there is always someone—from within, from without—trying to keep me in a confined space.
Writing about diversity—God, how I’ve come to hate this term!—in Kirkus last month, romance reviewer Bobbi Dumas exhorted, “I hope you’ll consider reading outside of your own comfort zone.”
Your own comfort zone.
A lot has already been made across the Internet about this piece and Tweets by a prominent white literary agent about getting that diversity in—as if it’s an onerous duty, as if all audiences are white, as if diverse stories are bitter, medicinal, and fundamentally unappealing to white sensibilities. (For one rebuttal, check Courtney Milan’s response in the comments to Ms. Dumas’s piece.)
I prefer not to think that my writing—or the writing of any WOC—is a pill for anyone to choke on. But so often the writing of WOC is framed this way. Even the praise is qualified. It’s as if Count Paul is there saying,You are promising, I think, for a new writer, who’s a minority hire.
Women’s writing is already seen as insubstantial because it’s by women—but work by POC will also taste bad going down? I don’t want to be a nonwhite writer who is given a berth so that white audiences may absolve their guilt and then move on to the “real” reading. I prefer not to think that my writing—or the writing of any WOC—is a pill for anyone to choke on. But so often the writing of WOC is framed this way. Even the praise is qualified. It’s as if Count Paul is there saying, You are promising, I think, for a new writer, who’s a minority hire.
Enough.
Rather than wallow, this is how finally I have chosen to see Lady Oracle, a satire that veers close to and diverges from my life in many ways.
The thing she’s most eager to hide is the fact that she was once big. She still has heft—she is substantial. The thing she wants to hide is that she is bigger than all who surround her.
Joan thinks she’s a fraud. But while Joan says she’s an impostor, she’s an unreliable narrator in another completely different way: while she’s busy telling us that she deserves nothing—that she is so buffeted by circumstance that her own poetry book was penned by invisible spirits—she discounts what she has accomplished. Despite her apparent powerlessness, she’s a woman who escapes her terrible family, invents and reinvents herself, writes seventeen books, supports her husband and his hangers-on, and—even after life starts falling down around her—harbors hope for the future.
What does it say that in the end, the thing that she’s most frantic to hide is not that she’s a successful writer of Costume Gothics? She’s not most intent on preserving her literary reputation or her marriage. The thing she’s most eager to hide is the fact that she was once big. She still has heft—she is substantial. The thing she wants to hide is that she is bigger than all who surround her.
Recent Comments