A Brontë Bibliomemoir: Miranda K. Pennington’s “A Girl Walks into a Book”

Branwell Bronte’s painting of Charlotte, Anne, and Emily.

A bibliomemoir can be a fan’s unforgettable romance with books.  A Brontë bibliomemoir is always a kitschy Vegas wedding.

This year I have read two Brontë bibliomemoirs, both written in a quasi-“pop” style. The writers share their insights, but their humor borders on kitsch, and I can’t figure out who the intended audience is.

Smantha Ellis’s Take Courage: Anne Bronte and the Art of Life, called “a selfie memoir” in the TLS, is jarringly uneven.   (I reflected on it in an earlier post.) Miranda K. Pennington’s new book, A Girl Walks into a Book: What the Brontës Taught Me about Life, Love, and Women’s Work, is a selfie celebration of lifelong Bronte fandom.  Of the two, I much prefer hers.

Pennington, a writer and teacher in New York,  boldly takes on all three Brontës in her first book. She especially loves Charlotte’s Jane Eyre; is almost equally fascinated by the  Sapphic elements in Shirley; and is more cheered than I am when Lucy Snowe in Villette settles for second-best boyfriend.

Pennington raves about the underrated Anne’s novel, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, which deals with alcoholism and domestic abuse.   Like Branwell, the Brontes’ ne-er-do-well brother, Pennington was an alcoholic in college. She appreciates Anne’s urge to write the then-shockingly candid novel about the heroine’s flight and hiding from her alcoholic husband.  The biggest shock?  Pennington is not an Emily fan.  Instead of meshing her own reflections with a synthesis of critical views of Wuthering Heights, she writes an ill-advised  parody of the masterpiece.

Pennington’s writing is laced with humor and snarkiness, as well as sincerity. She entertains and educates subtly.  The writing is occasionally awkward, in a style reminiscent of rapidfire internet posts, but that is par for common readers, unless they are Virginia Woolf.  (And, by the way, I learned from Pennington that Woolf wrote an essay after visiting Haworth about her distaste for visiting writers’ homes.)  Although Pennington is neither a critic nor a biographer, she has done extensive research on the Brontës.

She is earnest, if verbose, as she describes the Brontës’ effect on her life. She rereads Jane Eyre every year, and  is inspired by the  heroine’s courage and independence.

I needed the Brontës to help me figure out how to function in the world around me, and their work is always up to the task. Even though their characters live, think, and speak in outdated and occasionally unwieldy prose, it still startles me to be reminded that they aren’t real. It seems much more likely they exist in the ether somewhere, fully formed and waiting for a reader to bring them to life again.  Believing that my favorite characters live outside their pages may be why I hear new messages with every read.

The book is arranged chronologically, following  Pennington from her first reading of Jane Eyre to the present.  Her history with Jane Eyre goes way back.  Her father gave her Jane Eyre when she was 10 (and isn’t that Jane’s age when we first meet her?), and, after hurling the book across the room with frustration, she picked it up, kept reading, and was forever influenced by Jane’s independence and unshakable moral code.

She also describes the act of reading.  In the following passage, she captures  the experience of falling into Jane Eyre. 

When I looked back at the clock, it seemed time had gone faster while I read, the cost of living two lives at once. It was almost as good as time travel. Anything outside those pages vanished until, all too soon, I reached the last page, the adventure ended, and I was back on my bed where I started. Learning to speak Brontë gave me a secret power that nobody else had. And Jane Eyre was the key—it’s what put me on the path to living my life in sync with the Brontës’ work. It inspired a quest to discover as much about Charlotte Brontë as I could. Each Bronte has in turn provided exactly the right illumination for my life, but only when read at the right time.

Miranda K. Pennington

The chronological structure is her greatest problem.  I kept thinking she should have started in medias res.  Her voice becomes more authentic in later chapters, when she delineates her struggles with alcoholism, bisexuality,  and unsatisfying jobs. The Brontës’ novels really do fit her needs at different stages of life.  She rightly says that the Brontes address many of her issues:   the  cross-dressing and conversations about feminism in Charlotte’s books, alcoholism in Anne’s The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, and every level of dysfunction, albeit in a Gothic, poetic form antithetical to Pennington,  in Emily’s Wuthering Heights. 

The last chapter, “Haworth,” is a great travel piece.  Here she lets loose and describes the excitement of her  trip to Haworth. (Why haven’t I gone there?)  Naturally, her husband gets sick. Doesn’t somebody always get sick on vacation?  But she is thrilled by her research at the Haworth library, gets to handle (wearing gloves) the Brontës’ hand-stitched juvenile books,  and her husband recovers in time to walk the moors and see the Bronte Waterfall.

Will Bronte fans enjoy this uneven but entertaining little book? There is a Brontë industry, so surely it will sell.    Think of A Girl Walks into a Book  as a hand-stitched little book by an amateur, or a trip  through the personal realm of a modern Brontëist.  It won’t suit the needs of scholars, but may inspire you to return to the Brontës.

The Zany Reader: How We Got Here & Where We’re Going

I’m trotting out this picture again of Mother reading to me.

I have always been fascinated by books.  I was not a toddler prodigy: I was dying to learn, but only pretended to read.   I preferred the narrative to the pictures:  my eyes were focused on the print even before I knew the letters. I memorized the stories and recited them to my dolls. I often quoted the hilarious fairy Flora in the Golden Book edition of Walt Disney’s Sleeping Beauty: “Silly fiddle-faddle!” I got in trouble for saying “Silly fiddle-faddle” at  Mass, in response to the priest’s intonation of Dominus vobiscum.  In my defense I was three.

My family was not bookish.  No one in my family “modeled” reading,  though my mother read to me:  she was a mother who neither chatted nor played with her kids, except an occasional board game,  and “No Monopoly, please, ever.” She knew books were important to me and saved money to finance my weekly jaunts to Iowa Book and Supply. My shelves were filled with Tolkien, Nancy Drew, E. Nesbit, The Chosen, Rosemary’s Baby, I Capture the Castle, The Complete Poems of D. H. Lawrence, Kurt Vonnegut, and Mary Stewart’s Gothic novels and Arthur books. While she indulged my reading, the Heavy Father used to bellow at me to put down that book and go out and play.

Did my parents read?  They had read.  They did not read while they were raising a family.  My mother’s favorite book was Gone with the Wind, but she’d read it years ago and we didn’t have a copy.  My father had a few paperbacks in the storage room, John O’Hara’s Butterfield 8, Updike’s Rabbit Run, and a few James Bonds.  I remember being surprised by the racy covers. Had he read them?.  My one literary conversation with him:  he told me Little Women was overrated. I burst into tears.  There was much bursting into tears when he was around.  My mother seemed to suffer a low-level depression when he was home, self-medicating with soap operas, movie magazines, and shopping the sales.  There was little conversation.  His goal seemed to be to cause as much chaos as was possible in the course of a single half-hour meal.

It was the era of newspapers and magazines. Yes, there were books, in other people’s houses, not ours.  Men hid behind newspapers when they didn’t want to talk. Occasionally my mother, grandmother, and I spent an afternoon reading McCall’s, Good Housekeeping, Life, Look, and Reader’s Digest. I skipped the housekeeping tips and recipes, but was fascinated by the fiction, the columns about marriage problems, and the letters to the editor. My mother was also very fond of movie magazines, but these were too trashy for my grandmother.  Our neighbors had a magazine hoarding system:  they filled their  double garage with stacks of Time  and National Geographic.   What we remember from National Geographic:  African women with long breasts and elongated necks. What we remember from Time:  gory pictures of the Vietnam War.

This is a typical story of a reader, I would imagine.  I had the reading gene.  And yet I seldom admitted to reading.  I can remember huddling over Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the d’Urbervilles in homeroom  and refusing to tell a “popular” girl if it was “good.” “It’s all right.”  Heresy!  It was my favorite book. But you never knew with this cheerleader, whether she wanted  a real conversation or an excuse to mock you in the hall.  I moved in a gentler clique of poetry-spouting girls who wore John Lennon glasses.    Later, I went to a university lab school, where everybody was bookish.  I sat in front of  my locker reading Thomas Mann, Herman Hesse, Doris Lessing, and The Diaries of Anais Nin.

People were not as self-conscious about emotions then as now.  Parents had meltdowns.   They yelled and screamed and then forgot about it.  In general there was a lot of screaming on my street, at my house and around the corner. One of my favorite neighbors, Mrs. X, a professor’s wife and the mother of four children, had recently gone back to graduate school.  Now that was a very big thing:  she did not have a maid; she had a house, kids, and homework.  She needed time to study.  One day she lost it about the unmade  beds upstairs and  clothes that had been drop-kicked and were hanging from globes and bookcases:  a tie hung suggestively from a carved pineapple on a four poster bed.  Then there was the fact that she hadn’t seen her son W in days and it turned out he was in bed with his girlfriend.  “Get up and do some laundry, dammit.”  One of her kids said, “My retainer hurts like hell.”  “I don’t care–wear it!”  she would snap.  “And hurry up.  It’s time for your piano lesson.”  “I HATE PIANO!”

We were separate from the university, orthodontia, and piano lessons. We had a different life-style. My mother, it was true, had her bachelor’s, but she was not pushy about grades: she said  A’s and B’s, were fine, that she had gotten A’s and B’s. Then at my mother’s funeral, I was startled  when the  priest said she had been the valedictorian of her high school class. I can only think I would have known, and then I realized  my snobbish sib had made it up to raise his/her status, knowing no one was alive to challenge him/her.  This, yes, is the kind of thing that happens in our family.  If it does not happen in your family, you are lucky.

What I loved about my mother:  she thought I was beautiful, and in my later years even said I “looked good,” so I manage not quite to see what’s there, which is a blessing.  She also had the impression that I was a “born teacher,” when in reality I would take a nap after work because I was too exhausted after four preparations and five classes to do more than read a mystery and make dinner.  And then I’d be up at 5, correcting papers and making lesson plans, waiting for the weekend when I could get lost in a book.

When did I learn I was not the only intense reader in the world?  Honestly, I never quite believe others read with as much intensity as I do.  The evidence is there, but reading is solitary, and we do not have to concern ourselves with others’ readings.    Unfortunately in grad school, when I knew many readers, they wanted to keep up with classical scholarship, and, believe me, many academic articles are tedious and poorly written, so there was less time to read Golden Age mysteries, let alone Toni Morrison and Margaret Atwood.  Oh, and forget those BBC Shakespeare plays they used to have on Sunday afternoon.  My fellow student were having nervous breakdowns and dropping out of the program like flies. I myself developed a “sleeping disorder,” i.e., insomnia, and foolishly refused to take pills, so I had trouble concentrating with my grainy tired eyes, and though I loved translating Greek and Latin, I rarely did the extra reserve reading.  I said “FUCK reserve reading and fuck scholarship!”indiscreetly at Nick’s Pub.  I was a rebel.

Well into adulthood and past a certain age, my husband and I are both avid readers.  Our backgrounds are similar,  classics and comp lit.  I wave him off to the beach on vacation and stay in the cottage and read Arnold Bennett’s Clayhanger trilogy, while he runs, lolls, or flies a kite on the beach. I am happy if I get through one big book on vacation, usually a Victorian classic.  Oh, sure, some readers could read two huge Victorian classics.   Jo Walton the science fiction writer says in  What Makes This Book So Great that she reads six books a day. I can read six books in a week, if they are short books or if I’m skimming. But do I need to read more than one big book at the beach?

By the way, I just read Lidia Yuknavitch’s The Book of Joan, and it is the most stunning new novel of the year.  Does this mean the great writing is coming from the West not the East?  Now there’s a novel thought!

More later.

Jane Austen’s “Sense and Sensibility”

I love Jane Austen.  But Sense and Sensibility is my least favorite comedy of manners. Is it a comedy at all?  The satire is apparent, but S&S is the least humorous of her books. Yet she establishes her basic themes and tropes here: in later books, especially Pride and Prejudice, she refines and recycles her characters, plot elements, and themes: the devoted sisters and/or friends, the courtiers, cads, the preoccupation with (un)romantic love, and the almighty god of money.

By the way, I’ve been admiring these super-feminine covers of Sense and Sensibility.  I have a row of sedate Penguins, but rather like the pinks, greens, and yellows.   I was not the designers’ audience, but the covers have grown on me.   What do you think?

 On a recent rereading, I had a strange un-Jane-ish experience.  From the beginning I  felt a hair-raising angst.  The newly-widowed Mrs. Dashwood and her three daughters, sensible Elinor, romantic Marianne, and silly Margaret, must move to a cottage on Mrs. Dashwood’s cousin’s land.  How will they survive on their scant inheritance?   John Dashwood, the girls’ half-brother, has inherited the entailed estate.   In a sharply comic but horrific scene, John’s shrewish wife talks him out of giving them a gift of money that might have made a real difference.

Four women in a country house:  how will the Dashwood sisters ever find husbands?  Sir John Middleton, their mother’s cousin, is jolly and sociable, but perhaps not quite the thing, and his wife, Lady Middleton, is a dull stick.  The heroine, sensible Elinor, who has a long-distance beau, Edward Ferrars, doesn’t dwell much on love:  she is busy.  She must organize the move, plan the finances, advise  her impractical mother, and gently temper the impetuosity of her romantic  younger sister Marianne. While everyone else expresses  emotions, Elinor has to hold everything in.

Much of the book centers on Marianne, as filtered through Elinor’s sensibility. Naturally, seventeen-year-old Marianne falls in love.  Running down a hill in the rain, she sprains her ankle, and a handsome stranger, Willoughby, who is walking the hills with his gun and pointers, carries her home.  It’s a good thing she’s a sylph-like girl, or that might have been awkward.  He is charming, well-educated, literary, and musical:  he and Marianne spend the next weeks together gossiping, reading aloud, playing music,  and taking walks.  But then Willoughby suddenly leaves for London.  Why did he leave?  Why doesn’t he write?

The course of love does not run smooth for the Dashwood women.  Edward Ferrars pays a brief visit, but is gloomy and does not propose.  The manipulative Lucy Steele, a guest of the Middletons, informs Elinor that Edward is her secret fiance.  Marianne has another suitor, Sir John’s suitable friend,  Colonel Brand, but she thinks he’s an old man in his mid-thirties, “old enough to be my father.”   (And isn’t he for someone of her age?)

But there are many hilarious minor characters to temper sense and sensibility: Mrs. Jennings seems absurd to the Dashwoods at first, with her constant teasing about match-making and boyfriends, but turns out to be very kind and much less “common” than is their first impression.  And their visit to Mrs. Jennings in London,  which is disastrous from a romantic point of view, proves to them the worth of Mrs. Jenning’s friendship and support.

Mrs. Jennings, Lady Middleton’s mother, was  a good humoured, merry, fat, elderly woman, who talked a great deal, seemed very happy, and rather vulgar. She was full of jokes and laughter, and before dinner was over had said many witty things on the subjects of lovers and husbands; hoped they had not left their hearts behind them in Sussex, and pretended to see them blush whether they did or not. Marianne was vexed at it for her sister’s sake, and turned her eyes towards Elinor to see how she bore these attacks, with an earnestness which gave Elinor far more pain than could arise from such common-place raillery as Mrs. Jennings’s.

Of course, Austen’s books center on the marriage plot.  The ending is happy, or not happy, just as you like.   Happiness is not the top of the list.  Sense trumps sensibility. Elinor is sensible and rewarded.   Marianne is sensitive, and supposedly marries happily, but one wonders.  Certainly in my youth I was a Marianne, not an Elinor; and found Elinor’s perfect manners and middle-aged restraint irritating, even though she is always right.

But  I cannot quite imagine that either Elinor or Marianne will be very happy in this Comedy of Compromise.  Elinor gets her guy:  let’s hope for the best, as I don’t think he’s worthy of her.  Jane punishes Marianne, as she later punishes Emma–for what?  Being imperfect, being subversive, saying what they think, making mistakes?

But at least the sisters have each other.

Between Barton and Delaford, there was that constant communication which strong family affection would naturally dictate;—and among the merits and the happiness of Elinor and Marianne, let it not be ranked as the least considerable, that though sisters, and living almost within sight of each other, they could live without disagreement between themselves, or producing coolness between their husbands.

How to Get Sloppy: Ovid in Exile

This spring I read and very much enjoyed Ovid’s The Black Sea Letters, Book 1 (Epistulae ex Ponto), in Latin.  Written in exile in Tomis on the Black Sea, this little-read collection of epistolary verse is brilliant and fascinating.

Exiled from Rome in 8 A.D. by Augustus for carmen et error (a poem and an error), the poet Ovid  wretchedly describes his imitation of life in a land assailed by  fierce storms and extremes of temperature.  He lives among the smelly Tomitae barbarians and their bellicose neighbors, the Getae. In his elegiac letters home, he reminds his influential friends that he is the only Roman exile in this barbaric land so far from Rome, and he hopes they will plead his case and hustle him back closer to Rome, if not to Rome itself. He reminds them he was exiled for a fault, not a crime.

Exile also means he has lost the will to write elegantly.  Circumstances are far from ideal.  It’s not as though he has poetry readings, the theater,  or dinner parties to keep him up to snuff.    He has no incentive to polish his writing now.  He is homesick for Rome and the life of a celebrity poet of equestrian rank; he misses his wife and daughter; and may he just mention the horror of  daily deadly faceoffs with bellicose men waving spears.  He reminds his highly-placed friends of their obligation  to him, even though association with him may put them in danger.  He reminds them that his books are not banned:  they are still in libraries in Rome.  Alas, there are no libraries in rough Tomis.   There are no poetry readings, either.

Many writers know what it is to be in exile–and I don’t mean literally.  Many are in exile in the 21st century from the 20th century, when publishing throve, and thus lose the incentive to polish.  Of course Ovid’s apology for his work is merely rhetorical: Roman poets conventionally apologize or their lack of skill, while meaning the opposite.  But many of us do take it literally.  The provincial publications for which gentle housewives wrote book and movie reviews between loads of laundry have “folded.” We may not live in Tomis on the Black Sea–we may live where we have always lived–and because we have always written, we continue to write, but this is the scribble-and-post age.  We polish less.

Anyway, as I read Ovid, I kept putting asterisks and writing “BLOG!” beside passages.

Here is one of my favorites.  In the lines below, Ovid  is depressed.  My translation is slangy, and, sorry, it doesn’t capture the poetry or the literary devices or the tone or reflect the sophistication of rhetorical devices.  It’s all I’ve got. We all do our best, but it’s poetry. Go get the Peter Green if you want elegance.

Publius Ovidius Naso addresses Maximus here (and refers to himself as Naso):

Your old friend Naso—once not the least of your friends—
asks you to read his words, Maximus.
Don’t look for my former flair
lest you seem unaware of/insensitive to my exile.
You perceive how idleness corrupts a slothful body,
just as water, if it is not moving, acquires a taint.
The skill I used to have at spinning poetry
is failing and lessened by neglect.
These things also, which you read, if you believe me, Maximus,
I write forced out with an unwilling hand.


Ille tuos quondam non ultimus inter amicos,
ut sua verba legas. Maxime, Naso rogat,
in quibus ingenium desiste requirere nostrum,
5cernis ut ignavum corrumpant otia corpus,
ut capiant vitium, ni moveantur, aquae,
et mihi siquis erat ducendi carminis usus,
deficit estque minor factus inerte situ.
haec quoque, quae legitis, (siquid mihi. Maxime, credis),
scribimus invita vixque coacta manu.

Quotes of the Week from Alix Kates Shulman’s “Burning Questions”

Is Alix Kates Shulman’s Burning Questions the most underrated novel of the ’70s?

When we remember women’s fiction of the ’70s, we think of Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar (the American edition was not published until 1971), Erica Jong’s  Fear of Flying (now a Penguin classic), and Marilyn French’s best-seller, The Women’s Room. 

These books have their place in the feminist canon.  But Alix Kates Shulman’s sharp, funny second novel, Burning Questions, is their equal or perhaps a notch or two up.  If Philip Roth had written this tour de force, we’d be worshipping at the shrine.  This chronicle of a woman’s life, from Indiana girl to New York Beatnik to housewife to radical feminist, also delineates the growth of the Women’s Liberation movement in the ’60s and ’70s.

Open Road Media e-book

Shulman treats serious issues, but has a light touch. I am laughing over the antics and reflections of Zane, the bright, nerdy, Midwestern overachiever narrator.  And as I read I am underlining passages. Zane was a Hoosier of the ’50s, I was a Hawkeye of the ’70s, but we were both Midwestern women of different eras looking for meaning that would cost at the least a geographical change.

Zane was always different.  As a child in Babylon, Indiana, she tries to dig a hole to China.  She is tolerated by her peers but considered weird:  she skipped a grade in school, plays chess, and is on the debate team in high school.

Her parents dissuade her from moving to New York straight out of early graduation from high school, so she attends community college for two years first.  After earning her associate’s degree in the late ’50s, she moves to Greenwich Village, hoping to mingle with artists and writers. But after a week’s wandering around the city, she desperately realizes she will never meet anyone this way.  So she contacts the friend of a friend, who turns out to be a beatnik.  And  Zane, an excellent student, quickly perfects her role as Beatnik poet’s girlfriend.

As always, I was a quick and ardent student, purifying my line, learning in minute detail the dos and don’ts of beatnik life. ( Do: divest yourself of property. Get on welfare. Fuck. Learn a craft. Renounce your past. Don’t: read anything with a circulation of over five thousand. Be a joiner. Stay sober. Tolerate the word beatnik.) Others, with achievements or credentials above suspicion, might take the rules into their hands and display a weakness for frilly clothes or indulge a taste for restaurant life, disdain dope, eschew sex, express jealousy, read tabloids or crime fiction. But I did nothing even slightly suspect, afraid that a small mistake would show me up as an imposter

Shulman’s descriptions of Zane’s job as a temp secretary are also illuminating.  When Zane is assigned a broken typewriter , her savvy colleague Nina  guides her to an illicit storeroom that belongs to another department. They help themselves to a state-of-the-art typewriter and office supplies.  (Zane doesn’t really want anything, but Nina explains it’s their obligation to steal from the corporate publishing company that is exploiting them.)

Nina’s supply room turned out to be only the entranceway to a whole underground life she had created for herself outside and inside the office. The next day, as promised, she brought me several books, among them an illustrated volume of Shakespeare’s sonnets, a 1958 yearbook, Montaigne’s Essays , and a small novel by Colette.

“I didn’t know what you like, but these seemed safe. This company doesn’t have the greatest list. The pickings vary every season.”

“Did you … take these?”

“Does that worry you? Here—” she said, taking the books back and writing something in their flyleaves. “Now everyone will know they really belong to you.”

I opened the books. To Zone, for those old Paris days, Love, Colette. Second-best wishes from your friend Will . I put the books in my bottom drawer and thanked her.

Whether we were Beats, hippies, punks, yuppies, Gen-Xes, or whatever comes later, most of us have tried to fit in with  peers who pride themselves on having no rules, or worked in offices where rebels are sticking it to the man.  Like Zane, I never particularly needed extra paperclips or post-its, but it was fun hanging out with the Ninas anyway.

And now I must race through to the end.

Still Pertinent: Women’s Lit of the ’60s & ’70s

Women are marching for their rights. Wait, didn’t we do that decades ago?

And I wonder:  will Betty Friedan’s classic The Feminine Mystique (1963) EVER be out of date? Does it mean as much to women now as it did then?

I read it in my pink bedroom when I was 13 or 14.  I borrowed it from a friend’s mother, a  political activist. I had never read anything like it. “Far out,” as I occasionally said back then.  (No one ever said, “it blew my mind, ” except the Mod Squad.)   Friedan was inspired to do research  when her survey of Smith College classmates for their 15th anniversary reunion revealed they were unhappy housewives.  And so she wrote about history, the psychology, politics, the media, and the image of women in American society.  Although it may not have changed my life, it did change my ideas about possibilities.

It wasn’t just  sociological and political feminist books that influenced me then:  I was always a narrative person.  Popular literary fiction of the ’60s and ’70s had a great effect.  American women were writing literature about rebellious women experimenting with sex roles and sex.  Think Sue Kaufman’s The Diary of a Mad Housewife, Erica Jong’s Fear of Flying, and Marilyn French’s The Women’s Room.

Here is a list of some less well-known books of the time that have stood up surprisingly well.  And please let me know your own favorites!

1.  In Sheila Ballantyne’s brilliant out-of-print novel, Norma Jean the Termite Queen (1975), housework is driving the heroine, Norma Jean, crazy. Her husband, a professor, thinks her place is in the kitchen, and her three children are non-stop needy unless she parks them in front of cartoons.  She hasn’t been alone in six years, nor has she made any art.  Ballantyne’s bold style and attention-deficit shifting of Norma Jean’s consciousness make this immensely entertaining.

2.  Alix Kates Shulman is best known for Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen, but my favorite is her controversial novel, Burning Questions (1978), which inspired three fascinating letters to the New York Times defending the book after a reviewer trashed it.

Told in the form of a memoir, this bildungsroman is the story of a woman from Indiana who moves to New York in the  ’50s s, then  marries a lawyer and lives in square Washington Square in the ’60s,  and  then rebels and joins the Women’s Liberation movement. Some of it is serious, some of it is comical.  And since it has been a long time since I’ve read this, I will leave you with a quote from the opening chapter.

What makes a rebel?

If you had seen the flags waving in front of each frame house set on its neat carpet of lawn on Endicott Road or any of the surrounding streets in Babylon, Indiana, on a Flag Day, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, V-J Day, or even a particularly fine Sunday after the War (World War II), you would never have guessed it possible that a fanatical radical was incubating there.

There is much humor, as well as an insightful description of the inspiration and confusion of the feminist movement.

3. Gail Godwin The Odd Woman (1974).  This small masterpiece explores a Southern woman’s personal and academic life in a time of unstable  jobs. Godwin’s sympathetic portrayal of a bookish heroine, Jane Clifford, a visiting English professor whose teaching contract  is soon to expire, is utterly realistic (Godwin herself has a Ph.D. and taught at the University of Iowa). But what can Jane do? Hers is the plight of thousands of instructors with Ph.Ds.  She  is an odd woman at the midwestern college, single and in her thirties, reading George Gissing’s The Odd Women. Her married friend Sonia, a tenured professor, is in her corner, but there are no openings at the college. And the rest of her close relationships are long-distance.

Such a great book, one of Godwin’s best.

4.  Lois Gould’s novel, A Sea Change (1976), is edgy, shocking, radical, and anti-male, and would never be published today.  This allegory about violence against women captures the  anger of radical Second Wave feminists (which, believe me, never translates well).  But I found it fascinating.

The protagonist, Jessie Waterman, a former model, lives in a brownstone in a dangerous neighborhood in New York with her sexist husband, Roy, who frequently refers to her as a “crazy cunt.” When a black man robs the apartment and rapes her with his gun, she decides ironically that they are intimate enough for her to refer to him as B.G.   Traumatized by violence, she moves with her daughter and stepmother to a summer home on Andrea Island, where Roy visits on weekends by helicopter. And when he goes away to Europe, Jessie is relieved to be free of him, and she and her best friend, Kate, become lovers.  How will they survive a hurricane and a male intruder?  Jessie plays (becomes?) the man.

You can read the entire post I wrote about this strange book at my old blog here.)

5.  The Collected Stories of Jean Stafford won the Pulitzer in 1970.  The masterly stories in this collection were published between 1944 and 1969. It was the era of the polymath, of a love of arcane multi-syllabic words. These perfectly-wrought stories, set in Europe, New England, and the West, are both subtle and shocking; her descriptions and dialogue are precise and pellucid. Does she go too far for our pseudo-sensitive smiley-face sensibilities? Are her New England spinsters too rich, mean, and snobbish for the modern reader? Is the shocking culture clash between Americans and Germans after Nuremberg too graphic? (It is a horrifying story.) Are the pretentious teachers with new master’s degrees too condescending? (Yes, they are, but that’s so realistic!) Is the obese philology student in Heidelberg too monstrous: she eats whole cakes, uses a sucker as a bookmark, and ominously talks about a dead thin twin. ( I’m fat, and not at all offended!) What about the cruise captain who exaggerates his racial prejudice (or does he?) to tease a liberal young woman described as “a natural victim”? (At the end, she is far from a victim.) These characters are vividly portrayed, realistic, and are sometimes as obnoxious as people we know in “real life.  You can read the rest of my blog here.

Underrated: Monica Dickens’s Flowers on the Grass

Monica Dickens

One day, a decade or so ago,  I  discovered a scruffy paperback of Monica Dickens’s  The Heart of London at Half Price Books.  I was heartened by the discovery, because I’d had trouble finding a simpatico used bookstore, and this chain store stocked Mrs. Oliphant and other interesting middlebrow English novels (they disappeared when the store relocated).  The eccentric owner of the other used bookstore had whimsically refused to sell me Abdel Rahman Munif’s The Trench, the second book in the Cities of Salt trilogy.

“You won’t like it.”  “No, I will like it.”  “The first one is charming; this one isn’t.”  “No, it wasn’t charming, and I do want this book.” Was it because I was black?  (No, I’m white.)  Was it because I was a woman?  (Well, I am a woman.)  “Is he allowed not to sell you something in the store?”  a friend asked. He went out of business, which is a pity, because he had a good collection.

But my flight to the chain was indirectly responsible for my discovering Monica Dickens (1915-1992), so it was a good thing. Monica was Charles Dickens’s great-granddaughter and the author of many brilliant, entertaining, touching novels and memoirs, among them  Mariana (Persephone) and The Winds of Heaven (Persephone). Her memoir, One Pair of Hands, is a comic masterpiece about her experiences as a cook-general after she was kicked out of drama school.  Most of her books have been reissued as paperbacks and e-books by Bloomsbury Reader.

Recently I read her 1950 novel, Flowers on the Grass, in a battered red hardback, which says on the title page (and I’m not sure if it’s a stamp or printed):


I love this cover, though it is not the edition I have!

Does anyone know about this Book Club?

I absolutely love this novel. Dickens’s prose is witty, her characters vivid, the plot is deftly drawn, and I was moved by the events of the story. Each chapter is told from a different character’s point of view but linked by the presence of Daniel, a charming, restless, capricious artist who never stays in one place long.  In eleven chapters we meet a landlady, a maid, a manipulative man with epilepsy, an unhappy student at a progressive school, nurses, and others. The bold Daniel, even when drunk, swearing, or obnoxious, has a good sense of humor.   And, yes, he has an interesting, if not always positive, effect on the other characters.

The first chapter, “Jane,” sets the tone and the chain of events in motion.  Jane, Daniel’s wife, pregnant with their first child, has persuaded  Daniel to settle down in a cottage in the country near London.  She has known Daniel since childhood–they are cousins–but he has had an itinerant, unstable life, expelled from Eton, exiled to the home of a great-aunt in Capri, and then going from one job to another in England.  During the war, he was a prisoner, and afterwards Jane soothes him and persuades him to marry her.  But they drift around London at first.

Dickens describes Daniel’s peripatetic tendencies  with compassion and perception.

In the self-contained university which grew up in the camp Daniel had discovered that he was a better teacher than he would ever be an artist.  Long ago in Naples he had suspected that he would never paint or design well enough to make a living, or even to please himself.  He admitted this now and found a job teaching architectural drawing and lecturing on Italian art at a technical college in Chelsea.  He and Jane lived up and down the King’s Road, hopping from room to horrid room, into a leaky flat and out again, like birds not knowing where to build their nest.

Jane unobtrusively stabilizes Daniel after she inherits enough money to buy the cottage. And he is very happy with the garden.  But a tragedy occurs: Jane is electrocuted by an electric kettle.  (A similar horrifying electrocution via a refrigerator happens to the character Stephanie in A. S. Byatt’s Still Life.  And, come to think of it, Stephanie’s husband is named Daniel, too.)  The loss of Jane sends Daniel drifting from place to place and job to job. He doesn’t fall apart on the surface, but he drinks and womanizes.

In the chapter called “Ossie,” a librarian named Ossie  is concerned about the effect of Jane’s death on Daniel. Daniel seems reckless, indifferent, and never talks about it; he  lives in a dirty boarding house.  Ossie, who was a buffoon both at school and Oxford and now collects bad jokes, suddenly organizes himself to move to the cottage to look after Daniel, but falls in loves with the countryside, finds a girlfriend,  and a new lease on life.  He learns he doesn’t have to play the buffoon.  But nothing lasts forever.  Daniel decides to move on, and Ossie, too, must start a new life.

In “Doris,”  the maid at a small hotel, Doris, finds Daniel charming, if eccentric, and helps him keep a dog illicitly in his room.  She also smuggles out his liquor bottles and undresses him when he passes out.   It’s only a matter of time till the hotel owner finds out.  Always a friend of the underdog, he helps Doris get her job back.

In “Valerie,” Daniel is working for an advertising firm. He enjoys the company of his sexy landlady, Valerie, a widow who humorously poses for his drawings for roles required by the products like laxatives and pep pills:  the sketches have titles like  the wife of The Man Who Lost His Job. But Daniel resents her domesticity,  especially her friendship with the repulsive, obsequious lodger, Mr. Piggott, because he wants all the attention himself..  There is a point where they talk of marriage, but somehow Valerie cannot.

I very much enjoyed this book.  Monica is such a skillful writer, somehow interspersing charm and humor with the real sorrow many of these characters experience.

And, just so you’ll know: Two  of Monica Dickens’ novels are  free at  the Internet Archive, The Winds of Heaven (which I wrote about at my blog in 2014) and The Nightingales Are Singing.