so the common ills did a book list of people's favorites and i weighed in. check it yourself at http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2005/01/books-that-spoke-to-you.html and you'll find me weighing in with valley of the dolls.
i got e-mail on that. it usually went along the lines of 'rebecca, i love that book but would never have the guts to admit it publicly!' yeah well i did and i do. this wasn't a list of great literature -- obviously since it included non-fiction books (my picks: amy goodman's exception to the rulers and mama michelle philips' california dreamin' about the history of the mamas and the papas).
the list was 'favorites' and those are my favorites.
i'm right above someone reeling off a mammoth list of books that read less like favorites and more like diane chambers trying to impress the gang at cheers. they may be great books (and i assume the person enjoyed them) but i wouldn't take one of those books to the beach.
the point was to name 3 books fiction and 3 books nonfiction that were your favorite. i'm not embarrassed or ashamed to say what i enjoy. (even if it might be "abridged.")
1 book i forgot to mention that i should have is kitty kelley's the family where she probes the bush family with the same keen eye towards popular interests (sex, drugs, back stabbing) that she brought to bear on elizabeth taylor and frank sinatra among others.
i really wish i had named the book.
in case you haven't heard, some woman is having a hissy fit and is either suing kelley or threatening to sue her.
see the woman wrote about the bully boy's alleged cocaine and a few other things in an article.
and goodness me, it's in kelley's book!
bitter woman screams 'i have been ripped off!'
but if you check the sources at the back of the book, the woman and her story are credited.
sorry to break it to bitter, but that's how it goes in the kind of book kelley writes.
there aren't footnotes. she does interviews and uses the public record to flesh out her portraits. there's nothing new about that.
but a few people want to treat the family as though it just rolled off the university of chicago press.
get a grip, bitter.
let's do a history lesson.
in kelley's day you didn't have a maureen dowd. you didn't have most women who now write books about politics. if they did write, they tended to write academic books. women were largely left to write fiction (literature or not), diet books, celeb exposes, etc. the only exceptions were the women writing scholarly tomes for academic presses.
times have changed and thank god for that.
it's not that women couldn't write the books, it's that no one was interested in opening the gates to the boys club.
kelley's a scrapper. she came up in the hard knocks school and made it her own way, tromping onto the best seller list where she's remained for decades.
and she didn't do that via footnoted books.
with her ususal zeal, she charges after the bush family. now some bitter journalist is upset that the text doesn't come to a grinding halt to say 'and now let's deal with what bitter journalist wrote.'
kelley's success is built upon the fact that she mixes in various sources, blending it all together to make it sound like some whispered secret you heard about wanda while waiting to get your hair done.
she's enlarged what women can make the best seller list with.
is she scholarly? no and she never will be.
good or bad, she is what she is: a woman who made it onto the bestseller nonfiction list without writing about poodles, diets or beauty. and over the years, she's wandered beyond the hollywood scene to comment directly on the people in power. (they usually popped up in earlier books as supporting characters.)
so cut her some slack.
no, you won't feel like you've just learned darwin when you emerge from one of kelley's books but you won't feel bored either. kitty kelley writes in a chatty, breezy way.
and at a time when cbs buckles under pressure from the administration and the mainstream press shakes in their booties over covering any hint of scandal in the bush family, kelley just barges through the door and onto the best seller lists.
don't underestimate kelley's power. she's an author for people who won't pick up paul krugman or maureen dowd or michael walzer or any number of more 'respectable' writers.
and guess who'll make more difference?
when the family comes out in paperback, look around you, see who's reading it.
back in october, in chicago, i went to get a pedicure at a place elaine swears by. scanning the room as i waited, i saw women of various ages (okay, no one elderly) scanning through the family.
i asked this 1 peroxide blond, tanning bedded tanned, crest stripped teeth gal, who we'll call skipper, if she read a lot of books.
'oh yeah, i read tons. at least 1 romance novel a month,' skipper chirped brightly.
'do you read a lot of books in hard covers?' i asked.
'no, they're too expensive but i wasn't going to wait for this to come out in paperback. can you believe what a bitch barbara bush is?'
kelley reached skipper.
kitty kelley made the bestseller list in hard cover. her real power will be demonstrated when the book comes out in paperback and most of her readers snap it up.
and they will. this book will reach people that various books on bush never stood a chance of reaching.
robert parry has an article online at consortium news, http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/011705.html, about the blowback that faces people who actually look into the reality of the bush family.
it doesn't list kitty kelley. it shouldn't. she bush-proof. 'she's writing about scandals!' yeah, so what else is new?
the most they could do to kitty kelley, which they did do, was make sure that she wasn't on larry king -- kelley whose been a fixture on that show. a new book and she can't even get on.
didn't hurt her book sales.
she did get booked on al franken's show. and the surprise there was that, after the interview (when kelley wasn't around to respond), katherine lanpher had to indicate her distaste for kelley's career choices. lanpher is usually stuck playing mommy to al's naughty boy and it can be irritating. but here she was objecting to kelley being on the show.
sorry katherine, i know she's not serious enough for you, not respectable enough. but it's women like kitty kelley who enlarge the scope for all women.
when she started, how many women could have a successful career writing nonfiction that made the bestseller list? again, i'm not talking about a diet book and then three follow ups to how to perfect that diet book is. or make up book or or a book on your poodle or whatever.
yeah, kelley's books are loud and tawdry celeb exposes but exactly who else has made a successful career out of that?
kitty kelley, if nothing else, could go on a talk show and be introduced as "the best selling nonfiction writer." it's not so uncommon now. it was when she busted down the door to the boys club.
so maybe instead of making it a point to draw a line between yourself and kitty kelley, you should realize that even if she isn't your style, she helped women.
i'm not trying to make her out into a feminist hero. i have no idea if she is or isn't a feminist.
and i seriously doubt she was focused on much more than herself for the bulk of her career.
but her success did help, in some way, other women.
the common ills rightly pointed out the new york times desire to 'air kiss' the adminstration today in a must read post, http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2005/01/democratic-leadership-and-times-appear.html.
when the times continues to offer ridiculous "society" pieces on the upcoming inauguration as "hard news" it only underscores how important the work of a "frivilous" writer like kitty kelley is. the paper of record had four years to examine the administration's record, had time in 1999 and 2000 to examine the bully boy. and yet they're still writing pieces that lack perspective and are historically ignorant.
who's the embarrassment? kitty kelley who doesn't present herself as a journalist or the new york times? who probed the record of the bush family more? kitty kelley in one book or the new york times in their day to day coverage? if you guessed kelley you're right. and that goes to the problem with the media today. (another point the common ills addresses.)
i don't give a flying fuck about framing and think far too much time has been spent discussing this issue. i don't care about looking serious. or about whether or not my book list impresses someone. i'm going to speak plain and in my own voice.
there's something very undemocratic about insisting we all get on the same page and all speak in the same voice. it wasn't the universal voices that brought attention to the bully boys missteps.
it was the kitty kelleys, the michael moores, and others.
we don't need one voice all chanting the same message. we need as many voices possible speaking out in as many ways as possible.
1 person e-mailed me: "you're drooling over men is adolescent and completely boring. i don't know who you think you're reaching."
that man, and yes, it was a man, wants me to buy lakoff's book and work on framing.
guess what mister man, i have visitors. i have readers. i have women sharing with me about guys that they think are hot, i have gay men sharing with me about guys that they think are hot, i have straight men asking me to explain their wives (here's a hint for all husbands, try talkling to her instead of writing me).
i'm not going to please the framing audience. big deal. i'm not trying to reach them.
at the end of a fantasy of what she'd do to john turek (the huskiest of all the corn husks), my new best friend sherry writes: "i was all gung hu this week on graner being punished. now i'm starting to wonder if his trial wasn't a show trial to detract from the crimes of the people above him."
those are my people. and we're communicating just fine, thank you very much.
i'm a woman who enjoys sex and really enjoys sexy men. that's what i'll talk about and go on about and, in the midst of that, we'll take a moment or two to address other things that are going on.
the people e-mailing me? you aren't reaching them. your lakoff strategies won't reach them. that's because the population is a diverse one. so instead of urging me to change my ways and march lock step with you (is this the communist party?) just stop coming by my web site and realize that others enjoy what's being discussed here.
and i'll add that there's sexist mentality involved if you think you can e-mail this woman and tell her what to talk about and what not to talk about. if you, mister big man, think you know how to better communicate with women than i do because you read some book (by a man) on framing, you've led a very sheltered life.
like kitty kelley, i'm not footnoting here. i'm not interested in exploring the deeper meanings of policy. i'm not a wonk or a wonkette. i'm talking about issues that matter to me and yes, that might include my date friday night. or it might include having sex. or a fantasy of antonio sabato junior that i had as a child.
is it really the "off message" that's offending you or the fact that i'm engaging in conversations that you've apparently never heard before in your life?
mister big britches writes: "i would never let my wife go to your site."
let your wife? let? maybe you should put down the book on framing and grab 1 on relationships in the last century because we're living in the 21st century, mister know it all, and you're going on like it's the 1800s.
mister big britches has a web site which he shared with me. i went to it.
i didn't see anything all that deep. true, he's addressing social security. but he's also talking about basketball games. (no hot photos or talks about the bouncing pouches of the nebraska cornhuskers, so i won't bore you with his site.)
so it's okay for you to go on and on about some big ten team and that's being "politically serious" (as you claim you are but I'm not)? yet if i comment on michael phelp's butt crack i've "lost sight of the reason you should be blogging?"
get it through your sexist brain, my interests do not have to reflect your interests. and i really feel sorry for your wife if she's only able to go where you "let" her go online. maybe you think you're doing her a favor because, as a man, you just know so much better than she does what is "important."
but if you think talking about how a game on saturday reminded you of a game you played on jv in high school is "important" or "politically serious" maybe you shouldn't be tossing stones?
that's the problem with any craze. it starts out as something valuable for a few and then it becomes something we're all being forced to do and practice. and why is it always a book by a man, or men, that we're being told we have to follow?
you're view of "universal" is a limited one, mister bossy, if you're idea of "universal" is to bother me with your harrasing e-mails (ten since Saturday) telling me that "ladies shouldn't speak that way" and that "this focus on sex destroys the frame we're all working so hard to show america that we have morals."
newsflash, mister prude, most people in america are having sex or wanting to. it's a basic desire.
i'll keep focusing on sex as much as i want and you go preach to your group and i'll keep talking to the women (straight and gay) and the men (gay and straight) who enjoy this kind of talk.
mister universal closes one e-mail by informing me: "liberation isn't about sex. most women don't care about sex and you're propagating a myth of feminists as sex obsessed."
oh, are we sex obsessed this year? is that this year's myth? i missed the issue of time (or was it newsweek's turn this year?) on "the death of feminism" so i didn't realize we were back to being called sex obsessed as opposed to prudes.
but get it through your pea brain, some women do care about the sex. probably the same number as men who care about sex. (your wife may not be one of them. but then she's had to put up with a lot if she's married to you.) and i've already stated that i'm not trying to speak for all women. i'm speaking my truth in a plain spoken manner. i'm not hiding behind any device (framing or otherwise) to make myself or my words more appealing.
as a feminist, i recognize that women believe in a variety of things and discuss a vareity of things and i know that some women will have no interest in the topics i discuss. i don't dash off angry e-mails to them telling them what women should do or talk about.
i respect their choices and their options and their interests and only ask that they do the same with mine. that's what feminism is about (and maybe you should try reading up on that!). the women's movement in the last century was built not by one voice but by many. and we respect the diversity in the population. gloria steinem's not faxing us talking points and slapping us on the wrists if we go "off message." now isn't spaming us with e-mails to tell us that we're betraying the cause. so i don't know where you get off sending me ten e-mails demanding that i write on the topics you listed, that i stop talking about sex, that i use the "frames that will further the cause" and that i "buy a bar of soap for your filthy mouth."
your advice was not useful to me so i was ignoring you. your attitude was insulting. in your house you may be able to 'lay down the law' on how things will be done and how people will speak (i really feel sorry for your wife) but this isn't your house and i don't take orders from you.
go back to waxing over your j.v. years (never made varsity, huh?) and quit bothering me with your e-mails.
and to tie this back to kitty kelley, for the readers of this site who come here because they enjoy my thoughts -- half-baked, sex obsessed and otherwise -- i'm sure this is the sort of crap kelley's had to put up with. men coming along and telling her: "you shouldn't write that!" or "you can't talk about that!"
the next time someone tells you what you can or cannot say, i don't care if you are a woman or a man, look them in the eye and say, "it's called free speech. now get out of my face."
there's always going to be some self-important blow hard who thinks he can control the conversation (and my apologies to my male readers -- gay, bisexual, bicurious and straight -- but it's generally a man who wants to come along and "lay down the law"). that's not free speech. that's not democracy. it's nice that you enjoyed a book (by a male author of course),
but don't try to convert me to your religion.
my advice to the people who come to this site, whom i'm sure all our beautiful and kind souls,
don't let anyone try to browbeat you. read kitty kelley if you want. read valley of the dolls.
read whatever you want. including george lakoff if that's what you want to read.
but speak in your own voice. you may not "get out the message" but people will understand what you're saying and realize you're trying to be genuine. that's why some people respond to kitty kelley's writing -- she's "keeping it real."
