BOOK REVIEW: American Wife by Curtis Sittenfeld

I was so clueless when I bought this book that I actually thought it was based on the life of Jackie Kennedy, which I thought would be fascinating. Wrong First Lady. It's actually based on the life of Laura Bush, which is perhaps even more interesting as much less is known about her, despite her spending much longer in the White House than Jackie. Although Sittenfeld has claimed the book is only very loosely based on Laura's life and that she invented most of the finer details, her eponymous character does share a lot of similarities with the most recent former First Lady. 

Like Laura, Alice Lindgren grows up in a small town and accidentally kills a classmate in a driving accident when she is 17. She trains as a teacher and librarian, marries in her early thirties (late for the era) and her husband, who is more conservative than she, becomes President after quitting booze and being "born again". Where Sittenfeld has to speculate (and where the reader has fun speculating with her) is those finer points: what brought two such disparate personalities together? How hard would it be to integrate into the upper middle classes? And how do you cope when your husband becomes leader of the free world and some of his policies might be at odds with your personal values? 

We don't know that Laura Bush experienced exactly all of these conflicts of course, but Alice certainly does, and her journey from Michigan schoolgirl to President's wife is conflicted, compelling and very moving. While I enjoyed Sittenfeld's first novel, Prep (bad reviews put me off her second) American Wife is in a different league and has a much broader scope. Even though I knew how the book was going to end (more or less) I was never bored on the way to the finale (which is quite a feat for 500+ pages). 

I ended up empathising with Alice - and with Laura Bush, a little bit - even if I would have liked her to be more self-critical or analytical at times. But like all the characters here, she is imperfect, she is real, and she is interesting to read about. 

Comments

[alison]

I loved this book. Loved it. It made me rediscover the joy of reading at a time when I was despairing of every finding a book truly engrossing again. Central to that enjoyment was the compelling portrait of Alice, particularly her inner landscape, as a quietly intelligent woman, the sort I don't think I have seen that many of in books.

The prose is gorgeous. Some sentences took my breath away. I think I knew I would love it a couple of pages in, at the end of the prologue when Alice states that she has lived 'a life in opposition to itself.'

[Keris]

I'm going to have to read this now. Even though I don't want to because I haven't forgive Sittenfeld for *that* review of The Wonder Spot (even though I can't for the life of me remember who wrote The Wond-- oh, yes, Melissa Bank! See, I hold a grudge even when I can't remember who I'm holding it *for*!).

[Diane]

Ha, I knew there was some reason I should be mad at her, but couldn't remember what it was... Jennifer Weiner has forgiven her though, so maybe Melissa Bank has too? (I did like The Wonder Spot.)

I think you'll like this one, Keris - just pretend someone else wrote it if it helps! ;) x

[alison]

What review? What did she say? *googles*

[Keris]

I liked The Wonder Spot too (more than Hunting & Fishing in fact).

Did you find it, Alison. In case you didn't (or for anyone else), original review here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/books/review/05SITT01.html

And Jennifer Weiner's brilliant response here:

http://jenniferweiner.blogspot.com/2005/06/in-between-unloading-my-galleys-and.html

[Diane]

God, re-reading that Sittenfeld comes across SO badly (& Weiner takes her to pieces in style) but I do like her books.

[alison]

Ouch. But I think she's right. JW has long had a bee in her bonnet about chicklit being an insulting term. It's feels like when women get offended about being called ladies.

I liked Prep, and Man of her Dreams, though not nearly as much as Hunting and Wonder Spot - which lives in my nappy bag as on-the-go rereading. But I think with American Wife Sittenfeld has challenged herself and succeeded. I would love to see what Melissa Bank could do with a book on a similar scale.

Incidentally, Melissa Bank wrote one of my favourite lines of all time, which I quote far too much -

Jane: The reason I get angry is because you're so patronising.
Man: (raises eyebrow) The reason is because?

[Diane]

"JW has long had a bee in her bonnet about chicklit being an insulting term. It's feels like when women get offended about being called ladies."

Haha, I hate both those terms! But I don't think Weiner is upset about chicklit being a derogatory term (which it is, it's designed to put women down) but that books which are given that label are seen as crap - even (perhaps especially) by people who haven't read them. Like Sittenfeld with her nasty review.

I'd like to see Melissa Bank do a more cohesive novel, not necessarily on a larger scale, just a more chronological narrative, but I think her work (and the ability to write a book which is relate-able and simply GOOD) is often overlooked and seen as not important. That people who write "difficult" (aka: boring and hard to follow) books are more worthy somehow. And it makes me maaaad!

[alison]

I simply don't agree that chick-lit is a term 'designed to put women down' nor that books given that label are seen as crap.

I wish I could expand but my chick brain isn't up to the task.

[Diane]

"I wish I could expand but my chick brain isn't up to the task."

I was in no way denigrating you for not being offended by the term chick lit, just saying that I agreed with Jennifer Weiner. Which I do. I sincerely would have liked to have read your opinion.

I have no problem with books that are classed as chick lit - I co-edited a chick lit website for over a year and read a ton of them. (Perhaps literally.) But over that time, I did see how the genre is treated and I started to see that books perceived as chick lit (even when they're not) are denigrated in the press (even when they haven't been read) and that "chick lit" had become a term associated with bad writing, hackneyed plots and small concerns. (True in some cases, but not the majority.) It had become a stigma for many writers to be marketed in this way, and most women writers seem to at least have mixed feelings about it.

It once was an empowering term meaning something fresh and new, but now is more often meant as an insult.

Interestingly, men's writing isn't ghettoised in this way - it is given much more respect, more review space, and more prizes. I think it's time to stop ghettoising women's writing and just call it all "fiction" (or whatever).

[alison]

I was being flip. Of course my chick lit brian is up to the task, I just had to run.

I have had the pleasure of seeing the game from both sides. Speaking as a writer's agent, any writer who thinks there is a stigma attached to being marketed as chick lit would be doing themselves an enormous favour by getting over it, JW included. Chick lit is an advantageous marketing term and being marketed as such allows you access to the most sought after bookshelf for any publisher - the one in Tesco's. It's a genre - like thriller, horror, teen, sci-fi (and come to think of it I am sure there are fussy writer's in all those genres and more who dislike being pigeon-holed too) and marketing shorthand is the best way to make sure the book reaches the maximum potential audience. But you know this.

As a writer, I feel that whenever JW draws attention to her perceived maligning of the genre she does a disservice to her fellow chick lit authors and to fans of the genre (her readers, the readers that have made her a multi-millionaire) by fueling the misconceptions that are associated with the term.

If Alice Lindgren hadn't married the President, would this book have been marketed as chicklit? And did Sittenfeld know that when she chose her angle?

(I just don't get what's wrong with being called a lady. Isn't it, like, a compliment?)

[Diane]

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I know marketers find chick lit useful, but I still think it's enormously looked down upon by many readers. Maybe I just resent being told my book choices are stupid but I think the term has had its day. I've certainly said I'm reading chick lit and been sneered at manymany times - I doubt that happens as often with thrillers.

I actually know a writer whose books aren't chick lit, who doesn't want to be marketed as chick lit, but has had to get over it 'cos that's what sells. Although her book hasn't sold buckets cos it's not actually chick lit and is missing both the CL market and its intended audience.

I don't think anything Sittenfeld has written has been chick lit, either.

"(I just don't get what's wrong with being called a lady. Isn't it, like, a compliment?)"

It's meant as one - it's used to mean someone is well-behaved and inoffensive, conforming to a traditional female role. Bleurgh. I'd rather be an interesting woman.

[Keris]

I agree with Diane, Alison. I think the usefulness of being marketed as chick lit and the term being pejorative are two different things. Chick lit is popular, which is why the term works from a marketing point of view (as you know!). But it is also widely looked down-upon (even by its own readers).

Same goes for romance. Romance is the biggest-selling genre by miles, but people (and by "people", I mean "women", of course) are still, more often than not, embarrassed to admit they read it.

(And if you don't agree there's still a chick lit stigma, I can send you links. Lots of links.)

I don't like the word "lady" either. It is, like Diane said, a "polite" term. I've tried to teach Harry to say "woman" (you know, the way he automatically learned to say "man" and not "gentleman"), but I find it hard saying it myself. "Mind that lady" sounds much more polite than "Mind that woman", but I persevere (usually by saying "Mind that lady. I mean woman.").

[alison]

I don't think I was disputing that there is a stigma attached to the term chicklit, by writer and readers alike. I was simply saying that there needn't be. The term wasn't designed to put women down, it was a brand, a new exciting brand, designed to big them up. Marketers, booksellers and publishers love it. The readers and the writers you offer to link me to have taken against the very word itself. Many haven't. Some of us don't mind and wish the others would just take it as a compliment. I loved how Trashionista championed the genre (The site was a comfort when writing my first and finding out all sorts of things about myself as a writer).

Where do you stand on Young Adult versus Teen?

*ducks*

[Keris]

Oh well then, Alison, I misunderstood. Or maybe I didn't because I'm still confused! No matter what it started out as, it's now used as a stick to beat women's fiction with.

And, no, the people I was offering to link aren't all taking against the word. If you look on GoodReads, often in readers' bios they say things like, "I know I shouldn't, but I like chick lit" or "I know it's rubbish really, but I do love chick lit". The reason they feel the need to qualify their enjoyment of it is because it is so widely criticised irrespective of quality.

Yes, Trashionista championed the genre and I love the genre (and write in it) and didn't used to have a problem with the term either. I was proud to be a chick lit reader and writer. I still am to a certain extent. But there's no getting away from the fact that many people hear "chick lit" as "chick shit", i.e. rubbish books that only women would want to read. How can that be seen as a compliment? (I have the same problem with the term "chick flick", btw.)

As for Teen versus YA - no need to duck. I couldn't care less. I don't think there are any value judgements attached to either, are there? If there are, I'm certainly not aware of them.