Elizabeth Gilbert < Cormac McCarthy (Stefanie Keenan/Getty Images for Airbnb)
This week has brought mixed news for beleaguered Ukrainians. Their army’s counteroffensive is taking a heavy toll on its own troops; there have been damaging missile strikes on the cities of Kryvyi Rih and Odesa; the breach in the Nova Khakova dam continues to cause chaos. In better news, however, the American author of Eat, Pray, Love has withdrawn her next book from publication.
The novel in question, The Snow Forest, is set in Siberia, and is now postponed indefinitely in the name of the Ukrainian people. In a video made by its author Elizabeth Gilbert to explain her decision, she explained she did “not want to add any harm to a group of people who have already experienced and who are continuing to experience grievous and extreme harm”.
Upon hearing this, my first thought was that surely this book can’t be that bad. A memoirist and compulsive advice-giver as well as a novelist, Gilbert writes chatty, candid prose with an emphasis on spiritual matters. She frequently extols the virtue of bravery and curiosity and is prone to aphorisms: “Perfectionism is just fear in fancy shoes and a mink coat”; “Stop wearing your wishbone where your backbone ought to be”. Though the peppy writing style tends to set my teeth on edge, thousands of female readers apparently adore her.
It turns out, though, that the supposed harm that Gilbert describes in her video refers to the act of simply creating any sympathetic Russian character in fiction whatsoever, at least while the war is still happening. Thanks to her decision, the poor souls huddling in bomb-blasted apartments in Kyiv or Odesa will at least be spared the additional trauma of exposure to the inspiring story of an “extraordinary family who managed to hide in the Siberian wilderness for half a century without any human contact”, including “an extraordinary girl born into that world, a girl of great spiritual and creative talent, raised far, far away from what we call normal”.
As methods of protest against the war go, this gesture of Gilbert’s is surely up there with the least effective of them. It arguably outdoes cancellations of Russian artists, the removal of Russian classical music from repertoires, the pouring of vodka down drains, and the boycotting of Russian Twists during workouts. In terms of inanity, it may even beat the proposed rebranding of the White Russian cocktail to the “White Ukrainian” — a suggestion made last year by a bar owner in Kansas City which, on further reflection, would seem to hinder things rather than help.
In reality, though, the most pressing harm the author had in mind when making her video was presumably to her own bank balance. Russia invaded Ukraine a year and a half ago. Gilbert has had ample time since then to reconsider her chosen theme. Yet it seems she noticed the supposedly devastating flaw only after the book’s public announcement, when readers’ websites such as Goodreads were being flooded with angry-sounding criticism.
Said one “Olga Rudnitska”: “Maybe, Elizabeth, you should’ve spent your pandemic time reading about all the Russian terror. Sad that after 15 months of invasion you still think that book about poor Russian family is a great choice.” Instead of laughing off such weirdly over-familiar snark as the product of people who have spent too long on the internet, Gilbert positively leapt into the unseemly role prescribed for her by these scolding voices — that of a repentant junior, gratefully receiving a lesson from her betters. Which is quite ironic, coming from the author of a book entitled Big Magic: How To Live A Creative Life, and Let Go Of Your Fear.
It’s perhaps not surprising when a self-help guru turns out not to follow her own lessons in practice. But it is genuinely sad to find a novelist as apparently accomplished as Gilbert misrepresenting fiction as governed by some strange guilt-by-association principle — acting as if, at any time, a work’s importance and value might be cancelled out by more pressing priorities in the real world.
This seems a culpable failure of nerve for a writer of stories. Fictions might be mostly made up, but they are still capable of conveying important truths obliquely — truths, moreover, that can easily be obscured from more everyday thinking, once jingoistic emotions and herd behaviours gain control. Call me a lily-livered literary humanist, but it seems to me that the waging of a bitter and costly war is a very good moment to start featuring complex characters from the regions concerned, represented in interesting and unexpected ways. Indeed, now seems exactly the right time to imaginatively open Russia up to readers, countering the profoundly stupid pressure from others to reduce an enormous country with millions of inhabitants into a single, distaste-filled, dehumanised thought.
Either way, in capitulating so easily, Gilbert has now set a precedent. She has signalled to internet critics that she is effectively their puppet, to be pushed around wherever their current source of negative affect takes her. And in doing so, she has made it even harder for the next author to stand up to those many online voices short on literary understanding, and long on venom and projection. Or more precisely, she has made it harder for the next female author to do so.
For the truth is that sensitivity readers, trigger warnings and censoring attempts are mostly directed towards publishing for women and children, rather than publishing for men. It’s chick-lit not prick-lit that tends to be treated as something to be morally perfected, and each week seems to throw up a new example. This week, it was also the turn of Nancy Mitford’s comic romance The Pursuit of Love, now published with the pious declaration that the text contains “prejudices” which were “wrong then” and which are also “wrong today”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeEat, Pray, Love was a nice read but nothing else Gilbert has done has interested me – not even remotely. I’ll take Kate Atkinson’s gritty northernness over Gilbert’s peppy therapy talk any day of the week, thank you.
Not sure about the argument brought here that women are more often the victims of the cancel mob. The criticism levelled at Peter Handke, for example, for daring to suggest that Serbia might also have been a victim of the Yugoslav wars instead of cleaving to the “accepted narrative” that Serbia and its people were bad, bad, bad and nothing else, was fairly savage. I don’t think he’s ever apologised. He just retreats back into his house and terminates interviews with journalists who “don’t know anything about literature”.
The point of literature is to reflect the entire human experience, not just the views that people find comfortable.
I remember my migration from Gilbert (cringe when I think how much I worshipped gets) to Atkinson (although she’s never matched Behind the Scenes). I felt like I had become a grown up!
Oh, Atkinson totally surpassed herself with “Life After Life”. That is an absolute ripper of a novel, one of my all time favourites.
Oh, Atkinson totally surpassed herself with “Life After Life”. That is an absolute ripper of a novel, one of my all time favourites.
I remember my migration from Gilbert (cringe when I think how much I worshipped gets) to Atkinson (although she’s never matched Behind the Scenes). I felt like I had become a grown up!
Eat, Pray, Love was a nice read but nothing else Gilbert has done has interested me – not even remotely. I’ll take Kate Atkinson’s gritty northernness over Gilbert’s peppy therapy talk any day of the week, thank you.
Not sure about the argument brought here that women are more often the victims of the cancel mob. The criticism levelled at Peter Handke, for example, for daring to suggest that Serbia might also have been a victim of the Yugoslav wars instead of cleaving to the “accepted narrative” that Serbia and its people were bad, bad, bad and nothing else, was fairly savage. I don’t think he’s ever apologised. He just retreats back into his house and terminates interviews with journalists who “don’t know anything about literature”.
The point of literature is to reflect the entire human experience, not just the views that people find comfortable.
This self-cancellation seems like the evolution of the “controversy-hype” that has supplemented traditional media marketing.
Is this just to generate buzz around it once she is forced to release the book due to some publisher agreement, or whatever excuse they make in a few months?
I’ve long been suspicious of the woke plugs in movies, that it’s just there to stoke rage and therefore publicity. I’m not sure it actually works, but it seems the industry is so painfully stagnated it will be a while before studios actually try to make good movies again.
It’s either this or the book was expected to do poorly and this is to save face. Either way I don’t believe it’s actually to protect the fragile psyches of Ukrainians…
I made the same point in commenting on the previous Unherd article on Gilbert (Tuesday). It’s about enhancing her profile, which may (she might hope) increase her marketing value in the future. I somehow doubt she’ll be remembered as a figure of much literary value.
On the other hand, Kathleen Stock’s articulation of these cultural skirmishes continues to enhance her reputation. Do i detect a note of disdain in this piece? I hope so!
A youtube channel called Midnight’s Edge, some of whom are script writers and former television executives, have been promoting this theory for a couple of years. Fan baiting generates a lot of clicks online. I think this strategy has exhausted what little momentum it ever had looking at the string of big budget failures coming out of Hollywood now.
This sounds cool I’ll check it out, thanks!
This sounds cool I’ll check it out, thanks!
I made the same point in commenting on the previous Unherd article on Gilbert (Tuesday). It’s about enhancing her profile, which may (she might hope) increase her marketing value in the future. I somehow doubt she’ll be remembered as a figure of much literary value.
On the other hand, Kathleen Stock’s articulation of these cultural skirmishes continues to enhance her reputation. Do i detect a note of disdain in this piece? I hope so!
A youtube channel called Midnight’s Edge, some of whom are script writers and former television executives, have been promoting this theory for a couple of years. Fan baiting generates a lot of clicks online. I think this strategy has exhausted what little momentum it ever had looking at the string of big budget failures coming out of Hollywood now.
This self-cancellation seems like the evolution of the “controversy-hype” that has supplemented traditional media marketing.
Is this just to generate buzz around it once she is forced to release the book due to some publisher agreement, or whatever excuse they make in a few months?
I’ve long been suspicious of the woke plugs in movies, that it’s just there to stoke rage and therefore publicity. I’m not sure it actually works, but it seems the industry is so painfully stagnated it will be a while before studios actually try to make good movies again.
It’s either this or the book was expected to do poorly and this is to save face. Either way I don’t believe it’s actually to protect the fragile psyches of Ukrainians…
It would be great if no one needed to retract or apologise for their work. The ultimate censor would be the public. Anything that is beyond the pale would attract very little attention as it should.
While is is unfortunate that female authors and creatives face more scrutiny that males, it is actually their own doing. The “sisterhood” is only strong as long as every sister agrees to the official sisterhood line.
As a male, I am grateful for women like Kathleen standing up, being herself. Keep it up please.
Is this the same woman who quit her distinguished post as a professor due to backlash?
Show me a methodologically sound study that actually demonstrates the complaint, than “female authors are “more carefully scrutinized” than male authors are–which would run counter to the more general pattern of men per se being more carefully scrutinized than women are per se–and then I’ll take it seriously. Whether this complaint is demonstrable or not, however, I see no evidence that the cause of female authors censoring themselves has anything to do with men. Stock herself does not blame men, which commands my respect, because she realizes that the problem here is a combination of woke virtue-signaling and feminist glorification of emotion among women’s “other ways of knowing.” But I suspect (perhaps unfairly) that many readers (whether men or women) will somehow read a misandric scenario into her words. I find it necessary to say this, because feminist complaints are, almost by definition, about the efforts of men to oppress women. Why do I say something so cynical? Because I’ve observed and documented that pattern over five or six decades.
Nice Freudian slip at the end. Thought they were a thing of the past.
Thanks, Alphonse! I’ve corrected it (“sex decades”). Far from being a thing of the past, the typo is probably more common now than it ever was. That’s partly because digital spell-check mechanisms don’t always catch homonyms, words that would be correct in other contexts or words that are simply absent. But it’s also because so many publications either can’t or won’t invest money in professional proofreaders in addition to editors. I’ve come across some very funny typos, which I collected, notably one (from Princeton University Press) that referred to the “yolk” of slavery.
Thanks, Alphonse! I’ve corrected it (“sex decades”). Far from being a thing of the past, the typo is probably more common now than it ever was. That’s partly because digital spell-check mechanisms don’t always catch homonyms, words that would be correct in other contexts or words that are simply absent. But it’s also because so many publications either can’t or won’t invest money in professional proofreaders in addition to editors. I’ve come across some very funny typos, which I collected, notably one (from Princeton University Press) that referred to the “yolk” of slavery.
Nice Freudian slip at the end. Thought they were a thing of the past.
“unfortunate that female authors and creatives face more scrutiny that males”
There was a senior female employee who, en route to a meeting, was complaining about how women have to wear high heels, face more scrutiny about their dress, etc.
The two male colleagues ( me + another) in the cab simply looked at each other and shrugged
We couldn’t care less. Nor did her other male co workers. Or the client, other than expecting her to be broadly presentable.
The ones policing the dress code for those women?
Other women in the office.
And of course, the one thing they would all agree on was that it’s all the men’s fault.
A man saying that women are responsible for our oppression by men. Charming.
Not quite. Samir Iker was saying that in his office, it is the women who oppress other women byt enforcing dress codes that the men don’t care about.
Not quite. Samir Iker was saying that in his office, it is the women who oppress other women byt enforcing dress codes that the men don’t care about.
Is this the same woman who quit her distinguished post as a professor due to backlash?
Show me a methodologically sound study that actually demonstrates the complaint, than “female authors are “more carefully scrutinized” than male authors are–which would run counter to the more general pattern of men per se being more carefully scrutinized than women are per se–and then I’ll take it seriously. Whether this complaint is demonstrable or not, however, I see no evidence that the cause of female authors censoring themselves has anything to do with men. Stock herself does not blame men, which commands my respect, because she realizes that the problem here is a combination of woke virtue-signaling and feminist glorification of emotion among women’s “other ways of knowing.” But I suspect (perhaps unfairly) that many readers (whether men or women) will somehow read a misandric scenario into her words. I find it necessary to say this, because feminist complaints are, almost by definition, about the efforts of men to oppress women. Why do I say something so cynical? Because I’ve observed and documented that pattern over five or six decades.
“unfortunate that female authors and creatives face more scrutiny that males”
There was a senior female employee who, en route to a meeting, was complaining about how women have to wear high heels, face more scrutiny about their dress, etc.
The two male colleagues ( me + another) in the cab simply looked at each other and shrugged
We couldn’t care less. Nor did her other male co workers. Or the client, other than expecting her to be broadly presentable.
The ones policing the dress code for those women?
Other women in the office.
And of course, the one thing they would all agree on was that it’s all the men’s fault.
A man saying that women are responsible for our oppression by men. Charming.
It would be great if no one needed to retract or apologise for their work. The ultimate censor would be the public. Anything that is beyond the pale would attract very little attention as it should.
While is is unfortunate that female authors and creatives face more scrutiny that males, it is actually their own doing. The “sisterhood” is only strong as long as every sister agrees to the official sisterhood line.
As a male, I am grateful for women like Kathleen standing up, being herself. Keep it up please.
Imagine if lraqis and Afghans had kicked off a fuss about Gilbert’s Eat, Pray, Love back in 2006 in the grounds of showing an American in a sympathetic light at a time when the US was occupying these countries. If you think Gilbert would have cancelled that book, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
One of the several fascinating aspects about the Ukrainian war is the assumption that those who, without cause, attacked countries that posed no threat, destroyed civilian infrastructure and killed hundreds of thousands…..
Have the moral authority to lecture Russia about not attacking just because a strategic neighbouring country is joining an enemy alliance, or wag fingers at countries near Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya about how they should condemn “aggression”.
So no westerner can cricise Russia for invading Ukraine?
So no westerner can cricise Russia for invading Ukraine?
One of the several fascinating aspects about the Ukrainian war is the assumption that those who, without cause, attacked countries that posed no threat, destroyed civilian infrastructure and killed hundreds of thousands…..
Have the moral authority to lecture Russia about not attacking just because a strategic neighbouring country is joining an enemy alliance, or wag fingers at countries near Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya about how they should condemn “aggression”.
Imagine if lraqis and Afghans had kicked off a fuss about Gilbert’s Eat, Pray, Love back in 2006 in the grounds of showing an American in a sympathetic light at a time when the US was occupying these countries. If you think Gilbert would have cancelled that book, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Another excellent article from Kathleen Stock. I have two thoughts.
1. Is this providing undeserved oxygen of publicity to a second rate author? Would I (or you) have heard of her if not for this article?
2. I watched a performance of Tosca last night. No trigger warnings beforehand , no offers of counselling afterwards and yet here was torture ( physical and mental) attempted rape and murder all graphically and very emotionally displayed. You could argue opera is not real world – but I would contend it very much is – and in the real world truth and lies both continually confront us and neither are apologetic. So, yes, can we please all stop apologising all the time. This only confuses matters – and in particular I fear, can disguise the truth.
Another excellent article from Kathleen Stock. I have two thoughts.
1. Is this providing undeserved oxygen of publicity to a second rate author? Would I (or you) have heard of her if not for this article?
2. I watched a performance of Tosca last night. No trigger warnings beforehand , no offers of counselling afterwards and yet here was torture ( physical and mental) attempted rape and murder all graphically and very emotionally displayed. You could argue opera is not real world – but I would contend it very much is – and in the real world truth and lies both continually confront us and neither are apologetic. So, yes, can we please all stop apologising all the time. This only confuses matters – and in particular I fear, can disguise the truth.
Kathleen Stock is usually low on what might be regarded as feminist nonsense. Nancy Mitford is subject to idiotic warnings to her work because she is dead and can’t protest just like P G Wodehouse and Roald Dahl not because she is a woman. Apart from that it is as usual an entertaining and perceptive article by one of my favourite Unherd authors.
Kathleen Stock is usually low on what might be regarded as feminist nonsense. Nancy Mitford is subject to idiotic warnings to her work because she is dead and can’t protest just like P G Wodehouse and Roald Dahl not because she is a woman. Apart from that it is as usual an entertaining and perceptive article by one of my favourite Unherd authors.
Many thanks for this piece, and for reminding us of the shocking treatment of Rachel Rooney and Kate Clanchy. As you say, “if we collectively stopped giving internet bullies the power, they wouldn’t have any”;. But unfortunately there is a woke cadre working in publishing that punches above its weight, causing the industry descision-makers to cave in to their demands.
Many thanks for this piece, and for reminding us of the shocking treatment of Rachel Rooney and Kate Clanchy. As you say, “if we collectively stopped giving internet bullies the power, they wouldn’t have any”;. But unfortunately there is a woke cadre working in publishing that punches above its weight, causing the industry descision-makers to cave in to their demands.
I don’t know for sure why sensitivity readers seem to be set on female authors so often, (though I’m sure we all have a theory), but ripping on McCarthy seems an odd excursion from the main point of the piece. I would suggest (just my theory) that they left his work alone because he didn’t give a tinker’s what they thought and nor did his readership (some of whom, I personally know to be female, incidentally). So, maybe just tell the censors where to get off. That seems to be working out for Prof. Stock as well, and good on her for it.
I just considered that fighting against one bit of the “culture war” by amping up another bit may not be the best way forward here. Write what you please, though: I wouldn’t ever try to stop you.
Yes a little Bindelesque of the prof, I thought.
They pick on women because, like all bullies, they find the weaker targets. Many women have a tendency to internalise criticism. Men are more likely to rebut it.
When these bullies find a woman who actually stands up to them (Stock, Bindel, Rowling for instance) it drives them demented. That’s one reason why it’s always such a pleasure to read what they write.
Exactly.
As individuals, women might be more likely than men to internalize criticism in some ways (on personal grounds). As a group, however, women are probably more likely than men to criticize outsiders in other ways (on ideological grounds) and having been doing so for decades. I’ve documented this phenomenon extensively.
The other reason could simply be that women authors account for the majority of published fiction these days. Try a children’s section at a bookstore, or light fiction literature, and see how many male authors you can spot.
And, in an amusing aside, that’s absolutely fine in a world where any case of men being > 50% of an attractive job sector must always be sexism and because of the dreaded patriarchy.
J.k. has a new Strike book coming out soon. I have on order.
Exactly.
As individuals, women might be more likely than men to internalize criticism in some ways (on personal grounds). As a group, however, women are probably more likely than men to criticize outsiders in other ways (on ideological grounds) and having been doing so for decades. I’ve documented this phenomenon extensively.
The other reason could simply be that women authors account for the majority of published fiction these days. Try a children’s section at a bookstore, or light fiction literature, and see how many male authors you can spot.
And, in an amusing aside, that’s absolutely fine in a world where any case of men being > 50% of an attractive job sector must always be sexism and because of the dreaded patriarchy.
J.k. has a new Strike book coming out soon. I have on order.
Yes a little Bindelesque of the prof, I thought.
They pick on women because, like all bullies, they find the weaker targets. Many women have a tendency to internalise criticism. Men are more likely to rebut it.
When these bullies find a woman who actually stands up to them (Stock, Bindel, Rowling for instance) it drives them demented. That’s one reason why it’s always such a pleasure to read what they write.
I don’t know for sure why sensitivity readers seem to be set on female authors so often, (though I’m sure we all have a theory), but ripping on McCarthy seems an odd excursion from the main point of the piece. I would suggest (just my theory) that they left his work alone because he didn’t give a tinker’s what they thought and nor did his readership (some of whom, I personally know to be female, incidentally). So, maybe just tell the censors where to get off. That seems to be working out for Prof. Stock as well, and good on her for it.
I just considered that fighting against one bit of the “culture war” by amping up another bit may not be the best way forward here. Write what you please, though: I wouldn’t ever try to stop you.
I will shed no tears for a novelist who lacks the backbone to even get cancelled but opts to pre-emptively cancel herself instead. Perfect metaphor for modern, feminist dominated spaces.
I have heard rumors that the book is just really bad, and she’s using this as a pretext to scuttle it.
I will shed no tears for a novelist who lacks the backbone to even get cancelled but opts to pre-emptively cancel herself instead. Perfect metaphor for modern, feminist dominated spaces.
I have heard rumors that the book is just really bad, and she’s using this as a pretext to scuttle it.
“Either way, in capitulating so easily”
Capitulation supposes that she resisted at all. I suspect she was most happy from the beginning to perform the ultimate act of virtue — self-cancelling and actually planned it in advance.
“Either way, in capitulating so easily”
Capitulation supposes that she resisted at all. I suspect she was most happy from the beginning to perform the ultimate act of virtue — self-cancelling and actually planned it in advance.
Maybe this whole self-cancellation was cynically cooked up to actually generate more book sales. The author is now benefitting from a wave of media attention that will no doubt increase sales of current books as the virtue signalling mob rushes out to support her piety. Then in a year or two when the war is over, the book will be re-launched – again with much more publicity than it otherwise deserves. Maybe even slightly modified with some sympathetic Ukrainian characters thrown in and thinly veiled references to the inherent evil of all things Russian. No need to feel sorry for this author – her business managers are firmly in charge and found the ultimate marketing strategy.
This is definitely a thing. This is what happened with Roald Dahl’s children’s books a few months ago too. It’s called fan-baiting: Amazon did this with JRR Tolkien’s Middle-Earth. They excited fans by releasing a series set in the Second Age (Rings of Power) only to have it play to woke stereotypes, thus causing furor among purists who believe contemporary versions of Tolkien’s works should stay as true as possible to the original versus those who believe if Tolkien was still around he would have been woke himself and ‘diversified’ Middle-Earth. The purists were of course labelled racist bigots for not liking the series.
The same is happening in computer games, particularly MMOs where developers host LGBQT events in-game. Again, this divides the player-base between those who support such initiatives and those who hate seeing ‘politics’ in their games. Wolfshead Online discusses this at great lengths on his website (a lot of it worth reading, although it does err on the side of hyperbole sometimes).
I tried watching Rings of Power myself, but switched off after five minutes, not because it was woke per se, but because it was pure cringe. Admittedly woke and cringe often go hand in hand.
This is definitely a thing. This is what happened with Roald Dahl’s children’s books a few months ago too. It’s called fan-baiting: Amazon did this with JRR Tolkien’s Middle-Earth. They excited fans by releasing a series set in the Second Age (Rings of Power) only to have it play to woke stereotypes, thus causing furor among purists who believe contemporary versions of Tolkien’s works should stay as true as possible to the original versus those who believe if Tolkien was still around he would have been woke himself and ‘diversified’ Middle-Earth. The purists were of course labelled racist bigots for not liking the series.
The same is happening in computer games, particularly MMOs where developers host LGBQT events in-game. Again, this divides the player-base between those who support such initiatives and those who hate seeing ‘politics’ in their games. Wolfshead Online discusses this at great lengths on his website (a lot of it worth reading, although it does err on the side of hyperbole sometimes).
I tried watching Rings of Power myself, but switched off after five minutes, not because it was woke per se, but because it was pure cringe. Admittedly woke and cringe often go hand in hand.
Maybe this whole self-cancellation was cynically cooked up to actually generate more book sales. The author is now benefitting from a wave of media attention that will no doubt increase sales of current books as the virtue signalling mob rushes out to support her piety. Then in a year or two when the war is over, the book will be re-launched – again with much more publicity than it otherwise deserves. Maybe even slightly modified with some sympathetic Ukrainian characters thrown in and thinly veiled references to the inherent evil of all things Russian. No need to feel sorry for this author – her business managers are firmly in charge and found the ultimate marketing strategy.
I can’t help but see the common denominator in all of this as being anything other feminisation. Even the author briefly touches upon this. Women just seem to adore censorship.
I can’t help but see the common denominator in all of this as being anything other feminisation. Even the author briefly touches upon this. Women just seem to adore censorship.
There is no mention of why Gilbert set the book in Siberia. Does she know Siberia and Siberians? Or did she have a story and set it in an evocative place of which she is completely ignorant? Probably the latter in which case it is the Russians to whom she should apologise.
If the former, she would have had the guts to say that Siberians are also colonised by the Russians and equally deserving of our sympathy.
There is no mention of why Gilbert set the book in Siberia. Does she know Siberia and Siberians? Or did she have a story and set it in an evocative place of which she is completely ignorant? Probably the latter in which case it is the Russians to whom she should apologise.
If the former, she would have had the guts to say that Siberians are also colonised by the Russians and equally deserving of our sympathy.
Never heard of Gilbert before the last few days and after reading this I doubt I’ll looke her up.
On the other hand, Nancy Mitford has piqued my curiosity.
Anyway Clancy is not a poet, is she. She is a teacher. I enjoyed her book, and being unfeeling myself, I would have never thought in a million years it was offensive to anyone. However, hers is a fine example of what Kathleen describes here, some kind of not so subtle misogynism. However, in that case the most interesting part was Clancy’s palpable incredulity at being cancelled after saying and doing all the “right” things.
Apologies for the spelling mistakes and repetitions, but I cannot edit my earlier comment for some reason.
Nancy Mitford is a hoot, well worth a trip to the library.
Her non-fiction on la Pompadour and the Sun King are also worth a read.
Her non-fiction on la Pompadour and the Sun King are also worth a read.
Kate Clanchy is an excellent poet, twice winner of the Forward Prize. Having been dropped by her publisher after tantrums by their woke staff, she has been scooped up by George Owers of Swift Press, a small publisher committed to freedom of expression who deserves support.
Apologies for the spelling mistakes and repetitions, but I cannot edit my earlier comment for some reason.
Nancy Mitford is a hoot, well worth a trip to the library.
Kate Clanchy is an excellent poet, twice winner of the Forward Prize. Having been dropped by her publisher after tantrums by their woke staff, she has been scooped up by George Owers of Swift Press, a small publisher committed to freedom of expression who deserves support.
Never heard of Gilbert before the last few days and after reading this I doubt I’ll looke her up.
On the other hand, Nancy Mitford has piqued my curiosity.
Anyway Clancy is not a poet, is she. She is a teacher. I enjoyed her book, and being unfeeling myself, I would have never thought in a million years it was offensive to anyone. However, hers is a fine example of what Kathleen describes here, some kind of not so subtle misogynism. However, in that case the most interesting part was Clancy’s palpable incredulity at being cancelled after saying and doing all the “right” things.
I would be dishonest not to admit I have admired Ms. Gilbert’s writing even if what she actually has said made me consider plunging needles in my eyes. Ms. Stock, on the other hand, with each new contribution, somehow makes it possible to face the day.
I would be dishonest not to admit I have admired Ms. Gilbert’s writing even if what she actually has said made me consider plunging needles in my eyes. Ms. Stock, on the other hand, with each new contribution, somehow makes it possible to face the day.
Excellent as usual
Excellent as usual
This woman can write some cracking prose, no doubt at all. Some of the best expressed arguments I’ve ever read.
This woman can write some cracking prose, no doubt at all. Some of the best expressed arguments I’ve ever read.
My favourite contemporary fiction writer is a woman: Olga Tokarczuk. I can’t imagine her being subject to a sensitivity reader’s censorship or internet cancellation. She lives and works on a different planet altogether.
My favourite contemporary fiction writer is a woman: Olga Tokarczuk. I can’t imagine her being subject to a sensitivity reader’s censorship or internet cancellation. She lives and works on a different planet altogether.
This is a good example of a cultural critic making too much of a mundane and silly controversy. Stock gets it all wrong. Elizabeth Gilbert cares about her book sales. Better to release her book when it will sell the most. Controversy can increase sales but not when the silly people generating it are the people who read your silly books.
The thing Stock should by upset about is Gilbert’s hypocrisy. She simply masks here greed with woke virtue signaling which is what all greedy neo-liberal so-called progressives do these days.
This is a good example of a cultural critic making too much of a mundane and silly controversy. Stock gets it all wrong. Elizabeth Gilbert cares about her book sales. Better to release her book when it will sell the most. Controversy can increase sales but not when the silly people generating it are the people who read your silly books.
The thing Stock should by upset about is Gilbert’s hypocrisy. She simply masks here greed with woke virtue signaling which is what all greedy neo-liberal so-called progressives do these days.
“…death is always something of an emasculation.” – brilliant!! I may yet become a fan of this columnist!
“…death is always something of an emasculation.” – brilliant!! I may yet become a fan of this columnist!
Couldn’t care less about Gilbert and what sounds like insipid fiction. And as far as canceling any and everything Russian to show “solidarity” with Ukraine that ranks down there with renaming Sauerkraut “Victory Cabbage” and other jingoistic nonsense from past wars. I’ll continue to read Dostoyevsky, and listen to Rachmaninov, while enjoying some (Polish) vodka.
The whole theater of Ukrainian flags next to the LGBTQ+ banner and “In This House We Believe…” yard signs here in the more woke enclaves around me is more than cringey.
Couldn’t care less about Gilbert and what sounds like insipid fiction. And as far as canceling any and everything Russian to show “solidarity” with Ukraine that ranks down there with renaming Sauerkraut “Victory Cabbage” and other jingoistic nonsense from past wars. I’ll continue to read Dostoyevsky, and listen to Rachmaninov, while enjoying some (Polish) vodka.
The whole theater of Ukrainian flags next to the LGBTQ+ banner and “In This House We Believe…” yard signs here in the more woke enclaves around me is more than cringey.
“It’s chick lit not p***k lit” … there is no p***k lit. If you men writing lit fiction for men, this has more or less been expunged from the market.
chic clit?!!
chic clit?!!
“It’s chick lit not p***k lit” … there is no p***k lit. If you men writing lit fiction for men, this has more or less been expunged from the market.
I’d never heard of Elizabeth Gilbert until this UnHerd piece rustled up a flock of her admirers and (predictably) even more of Kathleen Stock’s fans.
The woman is a self-help guru and ‘a frequent resident on Oprah’s couch’. She is then a member of that most tiresome female-based American elite for whom ostentatious displays of sensitivity are an indispensable part of the public image.
I’d never heard of Elizabeth Gilbert until this UnHerd piece rustled up a flock of her admirers and (predictably) even more of Kathleen Stock’s fans.
The woman is a self-help guru and ‘a frequent resident on Oprah’s couch’. She is then a member of that most tiresome female-based American elite for whom ostentatious displays of sensitivity are an indispensable part of the public image.
RE: it may even beat the proposed rebranding of the White Russian cocktail to the “White Ukrainian” — a suggestion made last year by a bar owner in Kansas City which, on further reflection, would seem to hinder things rather than help.
AND
“It’s true that now he is dead, the sensitivity readers just might come for McCarthy anyway, but only because death is always something of an emasculation.”
Spectacular writing from Ms. Stock.
RE: it may even beat the proposed rebranding of the White Russian cocktail to the “White Ukrainian” — a suggestion made last year by a bar owner in Kansas City which, on further reflection, would seem to hinder things rather than help.
AND
“It’s true that now he is dead, the sensitivity readers just might come for McCarthy anyway, but only because death is always something of an emasculation.”
Spectacular writing from Ms. Stock.
Wait …. People are pouring vodka down drains?
Another insightful, intelligent and enjoyable commentary. Thank you!
Elizabeth who?.. should I have heard of her?
Elizabeth who?.. should I have heard of her?
My testosterone fueled ‘White Rage’ just cannot seem to give a F**k what all the lefty – stupid – sheep think. Pity more do not have that quality.
If this silly woman needs to strike out at someone; the poor Russians are hardly a legit target. This War is not the fault of the Russians – it is the Western Neo-Cons using Ukraine as their chessboard for their insane warmongering that has caused this horrific tragedy of the Ukrainians and Ukraine being destroyed.
It was none of our business, yet we have been stoking this war since 2008, and now they got it they find it is way over their head. Not that they care, after the usual million deaths, the $Trillion spent on corruption and waste – when they lose this war as they do every one, they will just say ‘Oh, Well…’ and walk away leaving the vultures of Blackrock and Vanguard to gnaw the carcass, as they do….
Stupid Bi *ch.
Agree completely with your rant. But alas, you had to fling the B-word at the end, causing your overall comment to be degraded and down voted by several. Hopefully you can work through your testosterone-fueled rage long enough to find the edit button ….
They don’t see it as war-mongering. They are supremely solipsistic with their halt the climate, save nature, new world order. And if that leads to warfare by those who don’t see it that way, “that’s on them”.
It isn’t the swearing, it’s the idiotic content.
They don’t see it as war-mongering. They are supremely solipsistic with their halt the climate, save nature, new world order. And if that leads to warfare by those who don’t see it that way, “that’s on them”.
It isn’t the swearing, it’s the idiotic content.
I see. Putin/Russia bear no responsibility whatsoever for the invasion of Ukraine 16 months ago and the death and destruction inflicted by Putin/Russia. It’s all the fault of the dastardly west. But perhaps you should tell that to the President and PM of Finland.
Agree completely with your rant. But alas, you had to fling the B-word at the end, causing your overall comment to be degraded and down voted by several. Hopefully you can work through your testosterone-fueled rage long enough to find the edit button ….
I see. Putin/Russia bear no responsibility whatsoever for the invasion of Ukraine 16 months ago and the death and destruction inflicted by Putin/Russia. It’s all the fault of the dastardly west. But perhaps you should tell that to the President and PM of Finland.
My testosterone fueled ‘White Rage’ just cannot seem to give a F**k what all the lefty – stupid – sheep think. Pity more do not have that quality.
If this silly woman needs to strike out at someone; the poor Russians are hardly a legit target. This War is not the fault of the Russians – it is the Western Neo-Cons using Ukraine as their chessboard for their insane warmongering that has caused this horrific tragedy of the Ukrainians and Ukraine being destroyed.
It was none of our business, yet we have been stoking this war since 2008, and now they got it they find it is way over their head. Not that they care, after the usual million deaths, the $Trillion spent on corruption and waste – when they lose this war as they do every one, they will just say ‘Oh, Well…’ and walk away leaving the vultures of Blackrock and Vanguard to gnaw the carcass, as they do….
Stupid Bi *ch.