BOOK REVIEW: Lopsided by Meredith Norton

I first heard of this breast cancer memoir a while ago and thought it sounded interesting, but I didn't *have* to read it until I spotted a different cover, featuring what was presumably its original title on another site. Once I'd seen that, I couldn't read it fast enough. (Check it out over the cut.) 

Meredith Norton is an American woman living in Paris with her French husband and baby son when she finds that what she though - and what a number of French doctors had told her - was an infected milk duct is actually breast cancer. She flies home to California for treatment and to be closer to her own family and friends. 

And, you know, that's it, really. She has treatment, she reconnects with people, she thinks about what she's done with her life so far and what she hopes to do if she's lucky enough to survive. But she's honest and down-to-earth and hilarious. And hardly ever self-pitying. In fact, I almost said "never" self-pitying, but she must be, surely, somewhere in the book. I can't think of any examples though. 

Norton is a wonderful writer and I flew through Lopsided in a matter of hours. It made me laugh a lot and it also made me determined to check my own breasts more often. You can't ask for much more than that. Although I would have liked the original cover... 

[Original cover by Alison Carmichael]

Comments

[Diane]

After we talked about this on Twitter (before you'd read it) I ordered myself a copy and it was a quick read and I did like her sense of humour. I also LOVE the original title!

But... I found her kind of abrasive and really disliked her (or her writing persona at least) by the end of the book. I felt she had no time or compassion for anyone who didn't feel or react the way she did to chemo and I think she spent too much time trying to make other people look bad (which didn't exactly make her look good). Plus, she meandered off on irrelevant topics for long chapters and skimmed over other stuff that was actually relevant to the book's topic, which I found frustrating.

[Keris]

How funny. Her abrasiveness was one of the things I liked the most. I liked that she was selfish about her cancer and her treatment (I mean, why shouldn't she be?).

I also didn't think she tried to make people look bad, I just thought she was honest. No, she didn't show everyone in their best light, but she didn't show herself in her best light either. And people aren't often at their best when dealing with something like this (the people around her as well, I mean).

As for irrelevant topics - it's a memoir, I think it's up to the author to decide what is and isn't relevant. It wasn't *just* about cancer, it was about her life too.

[Diane]

Well, her frequent use of "retarded" I found spectacularly offensive.

Plus, the bit where she criticises another woman (a woman she has never spoken to) for her "self-indulgent hopelessness" saying "nothing is less tolerable" - I found really obnoxious. She hasn't even spoken to this woman and judges her for smoking and for crying despite having stage 1 cancer. She doesn't know what else is going on in this woman's life and yet it's like she wants a medal for being stoical in comparison.

Maybe this woman has depression - not a character flaw despite what Norton seems to think ("perhaps it was the people around them who made melancholy possible but I had a small child...") OK, make yourself a medal.

I didn't have a problem with her showing how badly some of her friends reacted. That I identified with - I think we've all had bad situations (if we're lucky, not a potentially terminal illness) and told someone we thought would care who has reacted horribly.

What I mean is that when she describes people she doesn't agree with (former employers etc) she describes their appearance in v unflattering terms, which seems unkind. When it comes to herself she's keen for us to hear how "beddable" men think she is. I once heard a memoirist say that you shouldn't try to make other people look worse than you, even if they were in the wrong - it's bad form considering that the author is the one with the power.

Re. what's relevant, I get your point, but I'd still argue that the details of the last year of her treatment are very skimmed over compared to a detour about a family reunion which I wasn't that interested in. I know the best memoirists sometimes go off on tangents, but always for a reason they weave into the story. Norton just meanders on some topics and avoids others and I found it frustrating. It's not an autobiography - a good memoir has a story structure.

Finally (!), what's the dedication about? It seems incredibly passive-aggressive.

[Diane]

PS: Sorry to go on!

[Keris]

Oh no, that's really interesting. Funnily enough, now that you mention it I did wonder about the dedication, but, you know, that's between her and her husband. And it did end a bit abruptly too.

I don't even remember the uses of "retarded", tbh, but again, like "spaz" that's used much more freely in the US than it is here, so it doesn't bother me as much as I know it does you.

I thought the bit with the "self-indulgent hopelessness" was interesting. I thought that reflected on Norton, in that I felt like she could do with a bit of self-indulgence, i.e. she was very angry and hard on herself. Different people approach illness in different ways and you don't have to be tolerant of it. You can try, of course, but you don't have to try either. If she did actually know the woman she would probably have reacted differently, I think. (Or the woman would have known what to expect from her.)

I didn't notice her descriptions of other people being negative either. And I didn't even notice her describing herself as "beddable". She did point out that men tended to think she was a prostitute, which isn't exactly flattering.

It's interesting how we can have such opposite responses, isn't it? (Although since most of the time I haven't noticed the stuff you didn't like, it's possible that I just don't read properly!)

[Diane]

"It's interesting how we can have such opposite responses, isn't it?"

It really is!

I know "retarded" is much more common in the US but I still think many people there understand it is an ableist term.

I'm not saying it makes someone a bad person if they use it, but it does make them ignorant and it's really not something authors should perpetuate.

(This differs from "spaz", because I looked that up and its use as a shortened form of spastic isn't generally known in America, so although I'm uncomfortable with it, I realise it's because I've grown up with the British meaning.)

"I thought the bit with the "self-indulgent hopelessness" was interesting. I thought that reflected on Norton, in that I felt like she could do with a bit of self-indulgence, i.e. she was very angry and hard on herself."

Yes, I agree! Maybe that's why she was hard on other people - she was envious of the fact that they had allowed themselves to feel bad, to wallow.

"Different people approach illness in different ways and you don't have to be tolerant of it."

But what was the point in highlighting the other woman's situation except to say "haha, I'm better than her"? That's how I read it (and that's how I think it was meant). It seemed cruel and unnecessary. She can say what she wants of course, but it didn't make me warm to her. (She is self-knowing enough to admit at one point that she's always had a superiority complex!)

"now that you mention it I did wonder about the dedication, but, you know, that's between her and her husband."

Exactly - so why air your grievances in public? I think he might be her ex-husband now, anyway...

"And it did end a bit abruptly too."

Yes, I would have liked a bit more (sorry to use this word but there's no alternative...) closure.

"(Although since most of the time I haven't noticed the stuff you didn't like, it's possible that I just don't read properly!)"

Ha! More likely you tend to focus on the positive... Me, not so much ;)

[Keris]

"I'm not saying it makes someone a bad person if they use it, but it does make them ignorant and it's really not something authors should perpetuate."

I agree. But the fact that it made it through the editing suggests that it's not as offensive in the US, no? Or that everyone in the publishers is equally ignorant..

"But what was the point in highlighting the other woman's situation except to say "haha, I'm better than her"? That's how I read it (and that's how I think it was meant)."

Hm. I don't know. That's not how I read it. I think she knew it would make her sound like a bitch and she was okay with that. She was highlighting her own intolerance.

"Exactly - so why air your grievances in public? I think he might be her ex-husband now, anyway..."

Well why not? Why air any of it? (The entire book, I mean.) At first I thought, but that's the dedication, that's not part of the book. But of course, it is. Which is interesting when you think about it. (Or maybe not...)

The cover was interesting too (thinking about the whole package). White figure on blue background (with one brown boob) in the UK. Black figure on white background in the US. And then I noticed there's another UK cover with a brown figure...

[Diane]

I think it's more likely that the publishers were ignorant, tbh. It's a pretty privileged world, publishing. OR it might have been a conscious decision, like let's play up the caustic, un-PC nature of the author (she also admits to slagging off Asian drivers... just 'cos you're black it doesn't make it OK).

"I think she knew it would make her sound like a bitch and she was okay with that. She was highlighting her own intolerance."

Hmmm. Maybe she was - she's not here to ask so I can't say she wasn't. But I felt it came across as though she thought she was handling things better and that her feelings of superiority were justifiable.

"Well why not? Why air any of it? (The entire book, I mean.)"

I was just responding to what you said originally, that it was between her and her husband. But of course it's between them and the world now. Seemed more like something you'd inscribe on a personal copy and mail to him, no?

"The cover was interesting too (thinking about the whole package). White figure on blue background (with one brown boob) in the UK. Black figure on white background in the US. And then I noticed there's another UK cover with a brown figure..."

Yes, it is interesting, because when I started reading I assumed she was white. Then I thought, why did I assume that? It's ignorant of me to assume every narrator is white but I tend to do so.

But then again, there is the white figure on the cover and no picture of the (young, attractive) author anywhere so maybe they thought that made it more attractive to shoppers in the UK? Was the other UK cover an earlier or later edition, I wonder? (I'd say her boobs are pink and grey on the blue cover, btw).

[Keris]

"she also admits to slagging off Asian drivers... just 'cos you're black it doesn't make it OK" Now I DID notice that! And I agree. (With you, I mean. LOL)

""Well why not? Why air any of it? (The entire book, I mean.)" I was just responding to what you said originally, that it was between her and her husband. But of course it's between them and the world now."

Yeah, I know. I just meant how does a writer decide what to share and what to keep private? She obviously thought it was important to write that dedication and that's her prerogative. But...->

"Seemed more like something you'd inscribe on a personal copy and mail to him, no?"

I read that and thought, "Pretty mean thing to write on a personal copy!" When in fact it's on all of them, LOL. And yikes.

"Yes, it is interesting, because when I started reading I assumed she was white. Then I thought, why did I assume that? It's ignorant of me to assume every narrator is white but I tend to do so."

Of course you do because you're white. It's natural to read from your own experience/perspective/whatever. What made me laugh was that even when she said, "White folks are weird." and "You'd never hear this in a black family" I was still thinking she was white and thinking "What a weird thing to say..." Very slow on the uptake, me.

Just had another look at the blue cover and you're right, it is grey. Interesting...

[Diane]

"Of course you do because you're white. It's natural to read from your own experience/perspective/whatever."

But I'm not sure that's all it is. I think the feminist concept of privilege might apply. (i.e. White, straight, able-bodied people tend to assume other people have had the same experience of life as they have and also assume other people are the same as them unless they learn otherwise. I'm not sure black and asian people assume all narrators are the same race as them - because many aren't.) It's understandable, but something worth being aware of and trying to avoid, IMO.

"What made me laugh was that even when she said, "White folks are weird." and "You'd never hear this in a black family" I was still thinking she was white and thinking "What a weird thing to say..." Very slow on the uptake, me."

LOL!

[Keris]

I don't think it's anything to do with privilege.

"White, straight, able-bodied people tend to assume other people have had the same experience of life as they have and also assume other people are the same as them unless they learn otherwise. I'm not sure black and asian people assume all narrators are the same race as them - because many aren't."

Yes. So it's just realistic, isn't it? I mean, you assume the narrator is white, straight, able-bodied because most of them are. What's wrong with that? And what's the alternative? You start to read a book assuming the narrator is black/asian/disabled/gay/lesbian until you learn otherwise?

[Diane]

"I mean, you assume the narrator is white, straight, able-bodied because most of them are. What's wrong with that?"

But most of them are.... because of privilege. Look at the number of people worldwide who haven't had the opportunities we have, including to become published. Most of them are non-white.

"And what's the alternative? You start to read a book assuming the narrator is black/asian/disabled/gay/lesbian until you learn otherwise?"

I just don't think it's right that white, straight and able-bodied is the default in our minds.

The alternative is having an open mind until we know one way or another. And I think it can be practiced. Just because we automatically assume something because that's our experience doesn't mean it's right. It's really the definition of privilege.

On a wider scale for example, as someone who would describe herself as disabled, it pisses me off that there are times when people say ignorant stuff which is born out of privilege. (Eg. I read a book recently where someone was complaining about 2-storey buildings having lifts, cos it was lazy. Not even thinking about disabled people.) The alternative would be for them to think "maybe not everyone's the same as me" on a regular basis.

[Keris]

"But most of them are.... because of privilege. Look at the number of people worldwide who haven't had the opportunities we have, including to become published. Most of them are non-white."

Yeah, I get that.

"I just don't think it's right that white, straight and able-bodied is the default in our minds. The alternative is having an open mind until we know one way or another."

I think that's impossible - you literally begin to read a book thinking of - what? - every possible alternative for the narrator? Nationality, physicality, sexuality? And then whittle it down? You'd need a spreadsheet!

And I don't think it's necessary. Having an open mind is a good thing, of course it is, but that comes with, for example in this book, when Norton mentioned that she was black, thinking "Oh right, she's black, ok" and adjusting my mental picture of the author accordingly. Against an alternative of putting the book down because it wasn't written by - or featuring the experiences of - someone just like me.

"Just because we automatically assume something because that's our experience doesn't mean it's right."

I didn't say it was, but we ALWAYS read from our own experience. You approached and reacted to this book differently from me because of your own experience (which is different from mine). A woman with breast cancer will experience it differently. A black woman will experience it differently. A black MAN will experience it differently. And that's good. That's part of the beauty of literature.

[Diane]

"I think that's impossible - you literally begin to read a book thinking of - what? - every possible alternative for the narrator? Nationality, physicality, sexuality? And then whittle it down? You'd need a spreadsheet!"

That would be crazy ;)

And it's really not what I'm saying... I'm saying, maybe don't assume anything.

At least have it in the back of your mind that this person might be different from you. I'm not sure I do that, but I think it's worth aiming for (because it's too important not to).

"when Norton mentioned that she was black, thinking "Oh right, she's black, ok" and adjusting my mental picture of the author accordingly."

Yes, I did too. Because I am white, I assumed she was white. Because I have a privileged worldview where I asssume everyone is white until I know otherwise.

It's not by choice and it may not be my fault, but I really became aware of it with this book and it's something I'm going to work on because I think it's important not just in reading but in the world at large to not assume people are white and straight and able-bodied because a LOT of people aren't.

"we ALWAYS read from our own experience. You approached and reacted to this book differently from me because of your own experience (which is different from mine)."

Of course. And there's nothing wrong with that. I'm talking purely about the assumptions we make - not just in books, but in the world in general too. I think that's a different thing to the experiences we bring to books and the interpretations we make as a result of our experiences.

[Diane]

Ps: Just wanted to clarify that I think it's a GOOD thing that it highlighted how ingrained my assumptions about race are and I consider it a positive challenge to not always assume everyone is white, a way of eschewing the ingrained racism of our society which we don't always even notice.

Um, the end ;)

[Keris]

And age! Also I've read more than one book narrated by a dog...

No, I'll stop now. I agree, of course.

I do love our discussions. I hope you do too and you don't think I'm yelling at you through the computer!