This statement in particular sticks in my craw. The idea that the act of writing bad reviews (or good ones!) is not “creating something” smacks of either sour grapes or deliberate obfuscation. Criticism of art, written or otherwise, can extend our understanding of a piece and often expands conversation about message(s) put forth by an artist/writer and the criticized work. Which is why I presume Ms. Gould included her rectified book review in her essay; She was “creating something” in her review that required more effort than a mere plot summary of the book.

Anyway, there are two major points being addressed in the original post: women-on-women dislike, and the lack of representation of all women in all lifestyles. There was also an added element, briefly alluded to, of sexism in the publishing industry. These elements are highly personalized, and so I really feel the author’s privilege did need to be addressed in the piece. If the only hardship you’ve come up against is being jealous of another female writer, you don’t have much hardship.

I have to say that the article really did feel like a backwardly formed way to get back at Traister’s non-criticism. It’s good that Emily has an audience with which she can act out her personal slights. I guess the rest of us will just have to go get a book published to get “our stories” (scare quotes!) out there.

I can’t say you’ve much reassured me that you weren’t overpersonalizing the issue!

I’m not interested in having a comment war. I just wanted to set the record straight about this one thing and got tempted to preach on about some other pet peeves, like anonymity and pointless — as opposed to pointed — snideness. This was a mistake on my part! I’ll leave you guys to dissecting the ideas around this priveleged, expensively educated, “snarky” construct you’ve imagined, and take my real self out of this conversation.

But there’s a big difference between the definitive last word and directly addressing the main point of an essay with which you take issue. As PS has already pointed out, you have yet to address Traister’s main point, and instead mischaracterize it as a function of female pettiness.

And FWIW, I find it deeply ironic that your snarky dismissal of the economic reality behind blogging anonymously is a more perfect reflection of your privilege than anyone could ask for.

I’ll happily share my real name with you; I just can’t do it publicly on the internet right now because I have to keep my day job since, as you note, I have no current income from my subpar writing in this forum.

In any event, you wrote a blog post that tried to make systemic claims about women. I, again, take you at your word that it was not meant to be a “definitive last word.” But I don’t agree with your claims. So it’s not just a matter of investigating areas you don’t explore.

For example: I don’t agree that we are drifting towards the greater inclusion of female voices in most mainstream print. I don’t agree that criticisms like Traister’s are best described as critiques of you. I can’t help but feel you’ve personalized something that wasn’t personal. I get that you don’t agree, and hell, you certainly don’t have to.

I don’t know you, Emily, as I say in the above. But I think you’ve misdiagnosed the problem, and though I think you write beautifully, I think that caused you to miss the point. Are you seriously contending that the factors you list have nothing to do with why your work is recognized? Understand that I am not saying that you can’t write very well – you can. What I am saying is that you lack an account of how you came to be published when others did not. I assume you’d say you were published on your own merits, and fair enough, but again: the content of “merit” doesn’t strike me as politically neutral.

As to your idea of what distinguishes me from other the bloggers who you say are my equals, but who haven’t yet been rewarded by “the powers that be” — my conventional attractiveness, my whiteness, my education, the city I live in — please add to the list that I write under my own name. Your anonymity — got it, you have a convenient excuse! — shields you from your writing’s consequences, and consequences can be good or bad. I can’t help but think you’d write differently if you had to stand behind what you’ve written.

Your quoted retraction seemed to me quite qualified. I see a lot of male bylines in n+1, for example, which is hardly written by “dinosaurs.” I think we just disagree on how much structure is against this gradual drift towards equality. Nevermind that merely incorporating a voice like yours (and I should say, mine – my background is not dissimilar to what I know of yours) wouldn’t quite get us there.

I also quote the portion you say I’ve missed. I’m not going to claim the above is a masterpiece; but as I point out above (and you don’t respond to) your criticism of Traister was pretty dismissive too. It seemed to me your piece didn’t address the larger questions it ought to have because you were focussed on your view of her piece, which, I think, you mischaracterize not just a little bit.

As for the scare quotes ’round my name, I have to blog anonymously for reasons related to my day job. But thanks for “asking”?

Another part of the essay that you might have missed: “Creating something takes a lot more effort than writing a bad review or a dismissive blog post.” Good luck eventually doing so; you certainly haven’t here.