Yesterday I received a small sample of the proof pages of the book so that I could see the layout, and I’m thrilled with how it looks. They’ve done some text formatting that is exactly what I like and that echoes my typing/handwriting in ways that are really groovy.
It’s an exciting thing to see, the first time the bookness of the book is really apparent to me, when it doesn’t look like a Word document anymore, but like the book it will become.
Regarding Transgender Tapestry #110
I received my copy of Transgender Tapestry #110 the other day, and so turned immediately to the Book Review section, as I’d been asked to write a review of Richard/Alice Novic’s Alice in Genderland
I had also been told, by Richard Novic and by then-editor Dallas Denny, that Richard Novic didn’t like my review, and had requested TT run a more favorable review instead. Ms. Denny opted to run both reviews, side by side, and told me as much. I was okay with her decision, even though I found Novic’s request somewhat odd, as I wrote what was at worst a mixed review, but by no means a bad one. (I even used the phrase, “highly recommended†which is generally not found in a bad review.)
That was as much as I knew until I received my copy in the mail the other day. It was quite a surprise to see, in addition to my review and the requested 2nd review, a note by Richard Novic effectively rebutting my own review and plainly stating “I was hoping that as a reviewer, she might rise above the way my book affected her personally. . .†In addition, she mentioned how “surprised†she was that TT had chosen me to review her “life story.â€
For the record, then, a few corrections.
(1) Richard Novic specifically requested, by email, that I review Alice in Genderland for TT. Suffice it to say the new editor of TT, Denise LeClair, and the old editor of TT, Dallas Denny, both have a copy of said email.
(2) The review I did submit had been re-written several times after I let Richard Novic read it and before I sent it to TT. She was not happy with my original draft(s), so I softened a good deal of my criticism of it.
(3) I sent Richard Novic my review of her book beforehand only as a personal favor, and in fact re-wrote the piece some only because we had become somewhat friendly over time. He had written to me on previous occasions, having read my book, to ask advice about publishing houses & the like, and I gave her what information I could about the advantage of publishing with a house as opposed to independently. I do not and did not harbor any personal animosity toward Richard Novic, but I have learned my lesson: I will not let someone read a review I’ve written before submitting it for publication again.
(4) Dallas Denny was not responsible for the inclusion of Alice Novic’s “note†about my review, having resigned her post as editor between the time she submitted the two reviews and the actual publication of TT #110. She has said she found the publication of such a rebuttal in TT an embarrassment both to Richard Novic and to TT.
(5) Generally speaking, authors do not rebut their reviews. It’s considered bad form. They may occasionally factually correct a reviewer, if anything.
(6) The announcement in the same issue of TT that Richard Novic is to be one of TT’s regular columnists makes the publication of that note even more unprofessional and smacks of favoritism.
Finally, I want to state that I stand by my review. The idea that my “personal feelings†overwhelmed my professional considerations is laughable; after all, half of what I do professionally is advocate for partners! More than anything, however, I wanted people – crossdressers especially – to understand how rare and highly individual Dr. Novic’s situation is, so that they would not make the tragic mistake of expecting their own wives to accept their having boyfriends on the side. As it is, so many wives are already stretched to the limit in terms of accepting and honoring their husbands’ crossdressing. I will also reiterate that I found Richard Novic’s honesty about his own bisexualism and his journey toward self-acceptance laudable and useful.
If people would like to read more reviews of the book – including some of my more personal feelings about it – do check the thread on our message boards where some of our regular posters chimed in as to their own feelings about the book, too.
Maybe They Should Call It a Guy-line, Instead
Wow, this is depressing news. I’m especially embarassed because Harper’s is my favorite magazine, and has been for many, many years now. So much for my life-long dream of getting published in it.
Women writers continue to be underrepresented at five of the top “thought leader” magazines. An update of a report in last winter’s Ms. magazine reflects that the number of women writers has not increased since last year.
In The Atlantic Monthly, Harper’s, The New York Times Magazine, The New Yorker, and Vanity Fair, women earned just 447 of the 1,446 bylines—about 31 percent. Harper’s had the most glaring disparity of men to women writers, with a ratio of seven to one. Moreover, women are often relegated to “hearth and home” stories, rather than to “hard-news” stories.
Ruth Davis Konigsberg, a deputy editor at Glamour and the author of the reports, points out that the number of women writers does not reflect the readership of these magazines. The New Yorker (with a byline ratio of four men to one woman) has a fairly gender-balanced audience of 1,799,000 women and 1,710,000 men. Vanity Fair, with a byline ratio of three men to one woman, has an opposite ratio in terms of readership: three women to one man.
Interview with Kate B. (Pt. 2)
The other half of my interview with Kate Bornstein is now up at beatrice.com. This one is more about writing (as opposed to the Five Questions With… half which I posted here, which is more about gender/trans stuff).
Blond?
I’m currently going over the copyedits of my next book, where the astute copyeditor tells me in her notes that “blonde” is only used for female people, but that the “regular” form is “blond.” Likewise with brunette/brunet.
I had no idea.
I asked Betty if she found the spelling blond and brunet odd, too, and she did as well, which leaves me with only one conclusion: we just don’t refer to men as their hair color. Double standard, anyone?
Literary Menstrual Hut
This recent article by Michelle Tea in the SF Bay Guardian made me laugh, since I’m being published by Seal Press as well – and I can’t say the words “menstrual hut” ever crossed my mind.
But “literary” did. As did “trans friendly.” My experience with Seal so far has been stellar, to be honest, and I feel much as I did when I decided not to work for most straight male clients when I do my freelance bookkeeping (which I should write more about one of these days): it’s just such a pleasure to work with a bunch of kick-ass women.
Moreso, I just wanted to point out how hip Seal has been about publishing interesting trans books, like The Testosterone Files, Nobody Passes (edited by Mattilda), She’s Such a Geek (edited by Charlie Anders & her partner), Julia Serano‘s upcoming manifesto, and my book. In a nutshell, Seal’s trans titles are becoming a Who’s Who of the 30-something trans generation, no? And you’ll notice, too, that these feminists include both FTM and MTF narratives in their trans collection, just as they should.
Meme of Fours
A) Four jobs I have had in my life:
baker’s assistant, writing tutor, NYPIRG canvasser, professional assistant
B) 4 movies I would watch over and over:
Raiders of the Lost Ark, A Room With a View, Sherlock Jr., and the last one I’m leaving blank because I really don’t like movies very much.
C) Three places I have lived:
Brooklyn, NY – Manhattan, NY – San Francisco, CA
D) Four TV shows I love to watch:
The Twilight Zone, House, Gilmore Girls, Frasier
E) Four places I have been on vacation
Paris & London, Singapore, Burma, New Orleans
F) Favorite foods:
stuffed cabbage, chocolate cake, spaghetti (in nearly any form, but especially in white clam sauce, cinnamon toast
G) Four websites you visit daily
wiki, amazon, the animal rescue site, myfooddiary.com
H) Four places I would like to be right now:
Mandalay, the house we went to this past Labor Day weekend, in bed, Hawaii
Wondering What They'll Think
It’s been one weird (long) month for me. I handed in the manuscript of the next book way at the beginning of the month, recently found out it’s already listed at amazon.com, and my publisher tells me that the initial copies have gone out to “early readers” – which is code for “people who might say nice things about it that we can put on the cover.”
So, my first readers. Well actually my 5th – 12th, or thereabouts, since a few people read the whole of it, or nearly so, while I was writing it. But still, nerve-wracking. I just hope if they hate it they don’t tell me that. But they have until late this fall to send in a blurb so I may not know for quite a while. It’s this waiting bit that really is the hard part.
(I hope they don’t hate it. Betty keeps telling me they won’t, but I think Betty’s biased.)
Not Chick Lit
It’s come up a couple of times in a few short days, so I thought instead of simmering until I boil over this time, I might address an issue sooner rather than later this time.
Women’s writing is not, en masse, to be called chick lit. Chick lit is a term used for a certain kind of fluffier, upwardly-mobile, sexually titillating kind of fiction or non-fiction about women’s lives.
Examples: Sex and the City, A Girl’s Guide to Hunting and Fishing.
Please do not refer to any book about women as chick lit, or to any book by a woman writer as chick lit.
Examples: Margaret Atwood is not chick lit.
For further clarification, you can check out the new(ish) anthology This is Not Chick Lit: Original Stories by America’s Best Women Writers.
Had a Little Party
I threw myself a tiny little party this past Saturday night – actually my sister hosted it, at her house – just to celebrate having finished the book. I had realized earlier in the week that there will be ongoing things to do concerning the book – copyediting to check, proofreading changes to accept or reject, blurbs to get, etc – and that if I didn’t mark the occasion, I’d hang around in a kind of limbo not getting onto other projects and finding new clients and the like.
So I threw a little party to thank the small cadre of folks who 1) helped with the book or who have generally been supportive of my writing, and 2) live around these parts. Like my sister and brother in law, for starters, and Betty (whose past couple of weeks living with a writer under deadline have *not* been the most fun she’s ever had), and others like our friend Angela, who is known to speechify about the importance of art & particularly mine; but also my friend Guy, who really is terrifically bored with how much I talk about gender but lets me prattle on anyway; Johanna, who read a chapter & whose “the girl one” story provided me with such a hugely useful way of thinking about gender in queer realtionships; my friend Doug who read the whole of the book and provided enthusiasm and good questions; Caprice, who is just nice *all the time* & of course helps with the boards; but most especially I wanted to thank Donna, who all this time has been reading my manuscript for me & providing me with an incredibly thought-provoking editing job, lawyerly re-writes, research data, objections, questions, and insights.
I had a really lovely time. I remember looking up at some point & realizing that all of my guests were people who I’d have long conversations in kitchens with at other people’s parties and events! Quite brilliant conversationalists, all of them. I overheard snatches of conversation about everything from the Pet Shop Boys to Margaret Atwood novels, from Divine’s movies to New Testament theology. I’ve been in a good mood since then, and feeling quite content with my lot in life just now.
So: thank you.
More thank yous tomorrow, to a ton of other people who were helpful but who either 1) couldn’t make it, or 2) don’t live ’round here.