Tuesday, June 11, 2013


The "Real Thing" of Women's Writing: A Note for Stephen Marche

No new novels I love more than those by women: Rachel Kushner’s The Flamethrowers; Micheline Aharonian Morcom’s A Brief History of Yes; Veronica Gonzalez Pena’s The Sad Passions; and Americaneh, by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. I also love a couple of  new(ly translated) novels by the same man (Karl Ove Knausgaard) in the same series (My Struggle), but not half as purely.  It was always like this for me, this natural selection bias. I have read and will always read plenty of great novels by men, but it’s writing by women I need.

Stephen Marche is not a woman. I do not say that to take anything away from him. The Esquire-ist, infamous for his ability to write a thousand-plus words in his own pre-cum, says so himself, twice, in a new excregesis of Marie Calloway’s new book, what purpose did i serve in your life: “…[O]f course I am a man,” ends one sentence. Then: “So you will have to take my comments in the context of the fact that I am a male critic, and hence one of history’s monsters.”

While I do wish Stephen Marche were one of history’s monsters, it seems impossible not to notice he’s still with us. And, he seeks desperately to prove, “with it.”

Easier intimated than done, it turns out. On the writer Tao Lin’s latest (best?) novel, Taipei, Marche has nothing a) good; b) at all to say, because Lydia Kiesling already wrote “the perfect review.” Which is probably true. Also probably true: Marche is lazy, didn’t read the novel, or both. On 23-year-old “alt lit” sensation Marie Calloway’s new collection of printed materials, however, a middle-aged ladmag writer is our very first authority.

“The Internet commenters and the New York Observer profiler missed something kind of important about Marie Calloway,” Marche writes, “which is, to put it simply, the work itself.”

If you missed not only that something but everything else about Marie Calloway—the putative Jean Rhys to Tao Lin’s Ford Madox Ford—then go catch up with Michelle Orange at Slate. As for Marche’s column, good luck reading past this: “Almost everyone who was educated in the nineties, in the middle of the triumphal march of identity politics, believes that the job of a critic is to fit an individual artist into a standardized martyrology and establish his or her precise victim status as a prelude to critical appreciation.”

Almost everyone who was educated where? The Stephen Marche Institute of Grandiosely Ersatz Claims? His ridiculous point is made altogether risible when he quotes from one of Calloway’s stories, which ends with, “I collapsed onto the floor and curled up into the fetal position and began to hyperventilate and sob.”

In other words, oddly like how a self-positioned victim-as-narrator might end a stultifying tale of sex work. 

Marche’s one point worth taking outside Calloway’s text concerns “purity.” See here:

What is so refreshing about what purpose did i serve in your life is what is most hidden from its stories of abject degradation: Its purity. When you see Calloway's pieces gathered together you recognize what this young woman has been doing, what her plan has been from the beginning, which she has executed, without error, right to the end. She has been submitting herself to horrific sexual experiences in order to write about them. That's how much she cares about writing. That's how deeply she is willing to sacrifice to be an artist. I must say that I find this, whatever its motives, profoundly worthy of respect.

"Purity"—ugh, it rankles beyond reason. It pretends to concern artistry while speaking from and of class (and within class, of gender). As an idea, “purity” is as stupid as it is insidious, conservative, and common.

Every writer in my world who’s done sex work is lucky enough, like Calloway, to have chosen it over other kinds of work, and so each of us have heard, over and over and from all the good liberals, "but you’re doing it for a story, right?" The tone says, “if you’re doing it for money, ew” and/or, “do it so I can do it vicariously.” Marche says so, too, when he burdens Calloway's choices with his respect. He is comfortable with her sex work, if not with the sexuality itself, because he sees it as performative—sacrificial, even!—or for reasons of art. That "art" is more important than "work" is often questionable, but never more so than when I'm reading sentences as artless and un-startling as Calloway's. Her documentation strikes fresh awe into this Romantic Dad not because it's original, but because—I will bet my entire gchat log—he's never used Tumblr, heard of Constantia Phillips, or read Mary MacLane.

Like the middle-aged men who watch Hannah Horvath disenjoy herself on Girls, Marche has found a female writer he can love specifically because there’s fuck-all to fear. Calloway’s plain, stated vulnerability poses no threat to virile hope. Her willful naïveté won’t wilt his intellect. At one point in Adrien Brody, she writes, "I've never been able to figure out why I get off on being used as on object." To this, as a writer who cares about girls enough to want them to grow up, I would say: Try. Or else: Decide your sexuality is something visceral, pre-verbal. If old words don't suffice, make new. Try. The purest thing is really to work.

Calloway, I think, believes in writing and yet does not seem to believe in her own. It's easy to accept from her what is not, in form or in function, a challenge. Marche couldn’t keep up with a Kushner. He’d cower before Katherine Angel’s Unmastered. But Calloway, whom he images as a martyr-virgin with a “minor masterpiece,” the “success” of which he suspects—prays—she won’t spoil by attempting to repeat—yeah, she’s the one.  Why recognize your equals in women (or your superiors, for that matter) when you can flatter an unproven writer half your age?

If only Marche were alone in reading like he wishes he could date, but no. I’ve heard Marie Calloway explained by a few too many men who want to protect her from other men, and it seems to me that in the moment we’re really talking about female sexual want—a year also and not incidentally full of great, complicated, filthy-rich novels by women—it is a little bit obvious of such guys to be suddenly concerned with what’s “pure.” The “real thing” of women’s writing is not what’s desired, but which desires; which has conatus; which is not pure at all, but is good.


Photo via foresthistory/flickr.

Sarah Nicole Prickett is a contributing editor at The New Inquiry and a writer for The Globe & Mail, Hazlitt, Vice, BULLETT, The Aesthete, and more. She lives in Chinatown and tweets at @snpsnpsnp.

38 Comments / Post A Comment

Maura Johnston



oh, excuse me, but Tao Lin is nobody's Ford Madox Ford. or should I say better, HE IS FORD MADOX FORD TO NO ONE.

"she writes, "I've never been able to figure out why I get off on being used as on object." To this, as a writer who cares about girls enough to want them to grow up, I would say: Try."


I was going to say I really like this piece but fuck that. What I mean by that is, this is really good. Objectively!

shit, did I get to the edit window in time? I was going to say, is "excregesis" yours? I like it so much I might steal it sometime.

Choire Sicha@facebook

@queenofbithynia I got so mad about the Ford Madox Ford thing too! <3 <3 <3

Katie Heaney

this is brilllllllliant


I loveeee him!!!!!!♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥@a


There are lots of vrysrs things to be discussed, I'm sure but:

"infamous for his ability to write a thousand-plus words in his own pre-cum,"

Damn, that is beautiful. I want to glue this to the heads of many, many people.


@omie I save my heartiest high-five for that level of prose.


@omie EW, that word: it's everywhere I look these days! What is the fascination? Everyone shut up about the P-C, pleeeeeeez. P.S. I don't mean you, I mean the people who think this particular subcategory of bodily fluid is somehow notable enough to expound on. Especially when it's one's own: could anything, *anything* be more childishly narcissistic?

Lisa Frank

Ok, Ok. Stephen Marche is terrible in the way all old horndogs are terrible, but Tao Lin is terrible in the way that all young narcissists are terrible.


@Lisa Frank - Tao Lin makes me so happy the internet was expensive, slow, and billed by the minute until I was done with school.


Thanks so much for not only a great piece, but for highlighting a few new novels by women which you would recommend as well.


@leon s by women of color, no less!


Please publish more lit crit & crit crit!! This was great.

I'm Right on Top of that, Rose

I, for some reason, had to read this about six times to make sure I understood everything that was being said, and then I had to re-read "Adrien Brody" to make sure I knew what I thought was going on there was what other people thought was going on there......and the end result is I feel pretty confused and sad that my critical-thinking brain muscles seem to have atrophied now that my pleasure reading typically consists of science-fiction.


@I'm Right on Top of that, Rose Oh thank G-d, I thought I was the only one. I had been fairly certain my critical reading skills are atrophying by the minute, and this article confirmed my suspicions.


@I'm Right on Top of that, Rose Yeah. I don't know that it's the content even, just something about her sentences and construction really does not flow well to me. I think there are very interesting points in here, but they sort of come out of nowhere.

Bus Driver Stu Benedict

Either every other commenter is lying about this piece... or they're dead

Heat Signature

@I'm Right on Top of that, Rose I'm trying to read this right now while feeling like an extra on the Walking Dead (an extra zombie, I should point out, if that's not immediately clear) and I think my brain fell out onto the carpet.


@I'm Right on Top of that, Rose I have never been able to get through a piece by this writer without having a similar experience and it drives me crazy because I hear/read people saying great things about her work and yet it is somehow not for me to read because I can't seem to understand the sentences. Wah.
(/end wacky run-on sentence.)


@I'm Right on Top of that, Rose Fuck, good, I was sitting here just being totally ashamed of myself thinking "jesus, this shouldn't seem *THAT* heady."


@I'm Right on Top of that, Rose the only reason I didn't feel that was that I spend the whole time thinking about how insufferable Writer are (SNP excepted of course), which is neither generous nor curious. I don't want to be that cynical!

Better to Eat You With

@YoungLeafedJune I read Serious Criticism pretty frequently, and had to re-read a handful of sentences. I love the ideas here, but there's at least one sentence in there that I still haven't quite parsed. (Also, how do I indicate that I'm being snarky about Serious Criticism, so that you all won't think I'm a dreadful snob?)


@YoungLeafedJune It's almost like she thought out a well-argued essay in her head, with points which lead directly to other points and an overall direction of argumentation, and then she wrote down only the bits she thought were the most interesting, leaving out all of the connective tissue.

I liked it on the second reading, but she's making the reader work hard for the wrong reasons.


@I'm Right on Top of that, Rose Jesus! Me too! I started reading this at 5:00pm, continued reading and rereading until about 5:45, took a break for dinner, and now I'm back. I *think* I'm learning a lot, but I'm about to give up and finish reading Star Trek Enterprise: The Good That Men Do (the one where they bring Trip Tucker back to life!).


I love this article more than most things.


I know nothing about any of the people or works mentioned in this article and yet I find myself agreeing with all of it? THE POWER OF WORDS. (Also that business about unexamined sexuality? D-DAMN. Pls to put on many billboards.)


@par_parenthese Seconded, though I do know who most of the people are; I just hit my glass ceiling of stupidness in understanding the critical references and concepts.


"She has been submitting herself to horrific sexual experiences in order to write about them." Wasn't this a storyline on Girls? Uggggggh ENOUGH.


loved this, but just as an fyi, Micheline's surname is "Marcom" with an "a"! Additionally, she is a force of pinche nature.


Marche makes up for all transgressions many times over by creating and producing Breaking Bad.


Yes, yes, yes. So many spot-on sentences in this piece, especially the last one. Marie Calloway and her lack of writing ability don't interest me in the least, but the issue of men praising women (writers) as sexual objects while dismissing/belittling/ignoring women (writers) as subjects, sexual or otherwise, is omnipresent and crucial. This piece is an excellent nudge to that conversation; thank you so much for it.


"As an idea, “purity” is as stupid as it is insidious, conservative, and common" A- to the fucking -men, SNP


Hi, I am helen
how are you,hope you are fine and in perfect condition of health. I went through your profile and I read it and took interest in it,please if you don't mind I will like you to write me on this ID(jonathan_helen@ymail.com)hope to hear from you soon,and I will be waiting for your mail because I have something VERY important to tell you. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever believe this would ever happen. I never expected to fall so deeply in love so fast. It all started after reading profile first. Lots of love helen


The information you have posted is very useful. The sites you have referred was good. Thanks for sharing... sbothai


I've recently started a web site vigrx results


Wonderful goods from you vigrx coupon code

Post a Comment

You must be logged-in to post a comment.

Login To Your Account