Interesting response to part of my take on
Nancy Jane Moore's Conscientious Inconsistencies (PS Showcase #2) that I reviewed at
The Fix a few months back.
My opening paragraph was this:
Conscientious Inconsistencies by
Nancy Jane Moore is the second volume in PS Publishing’s series of “mini-collections of brand new short stories by some of the best and brightest new writers on the genre fiction scene.” And I have to say I was impressed. Although touted in the introduction as a sampling of stories influenced by Moore’s feminism, I found, rather, the four pieces of fiction (and a list of “Thirty-One Rules for Fulfilling Your Destiny”) as examples of great writing featuring fully characterized protagonists who just happen to be women. Moore’s style rises above a particular perspective and stands on its own as quality short fiction. To classify this collection as feminist literature, in my opinion, might unnecessarily marginalize these stories away from the very genre fiction scene it seeks to represent.
In recent years, I've been exploring gender issues in a lot of my fiction, and I've never made any secret of the fact that I'm a feminist. I hadn't thought I was violating any taboos by doing that, but a comment in a positive review of my collection,
Conscientious Inconsistencies, has given me some food for thought. On
The Fix, Lyndon Perry wrote, "To classify this collection as feminist literature, in my opinion, might unnecessarily marginalize these stories away from the very genre fiction scene it seeks to represent."
His observation, which was based on the fact that the introduction and the jacket cover both discuss feminism, has made me wonder if some of the rejections I receive have to do with the fact that many of my stories do touch on gender issues, or if - as Perry suggests - my reputation as a feminist makes some editors (and readers) dismiss my work without paying close attention.
I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that a taboo exists against feminist material - or political material generally. Frankly, I hope Perry's wrong, much as I appreciate the nice things he said about my stories. But it does seem as if fiction that goes farther than simply writing a woman character into a role once reserved solely for male ones is not common in mass market fiction. It's nice to see the kick-ass heroines, but I am hungry for meatier material.
Thinking about this hasn't driven me to self-censorship, though. The truth is, I just find gender issues too interesting to stop writing about them. And I've been told "girls can't do that" too many times to let any criticism stop me from being a feminist.
Actually, I think Moore and I are on the same page with regard to what makes good writing and I hope I'm wrong as well when it comes to the criteria that people use to filter what they read. But we might just be operating from two different perspectives on what entails feminism in literature. I admit my ignorance regarding this issue and probably speak from a broadly masculine perspective when I state that my impression of feminist lit is that it seems to be more about proving points than exploring issues. I've never liked chip-on-the-shoulder writing, whether it be gender related, political, social commentary, anti-religious or religious based, or anything else that can cause strong reactions on either side. But as I said in the intro to her collection of stories, I didn't sense that Moore had an axe to grind, I simply enjoyed the ride she took me on. So for those of us (preaching to myself here) that are quick to judge a book by its cover (or perceived agenda), slow down, take a breath, and start reading.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7ba97b64-2bb6-496c-9149-f4c4ac40bd40)
