NPR Disses Jodi Picoult And Calls Her Books “Lurid”
Posted by: Jessica Wakeman
Filed in:
news
1:10PM, Wednesday July 1st 2009
I love reading. I might love it more than orgasms, sleeping or eating. And I will read anything, high or low, because I’ve enjoyed “smart books” like Katharine Graham’s autobiography as much as “trashy books” like The Other Boleyn Sister. I just can’t stand people who get on their high horse and sniff that a 10th grader could have written Twilight. It was a good read—who cares?
I’ve read two novels by Jodi Picoult—My Sister’s Keeper and Nineteen Minutes—which were both three-hanky reads about suburban families with troubled kids (cancer in one, a school shooting in another). But NPR has a different perspective on the Picoult oeuvre.
“[Picoult] lives large off lurid tales of family strife — most all of them, curiously, garnished heavily with medical jargon, legalese and a punitive finger pointed at a mother who, by any definition, has her back against a wall high enough to defeat the most Job-like of temperaments.
Lurid tales of family strife? Wouldn’t that be, like, Little Women or Beloved or Middlesex or hundreds of other great books? Nevermind that Jodi Picoult is an extremely talented writer. Her books just aren’t classy!
NPR wrote about Picoult when it reviewed a new movie based on her book “My Sister’s Keeper,” which stars Cameron Diaz, Abigail Breslin, and Alec Baldwin. Breslin plays Diaz’s daughter, whom she conceived as a genetic match for an elder child, who suffers from leukemia. Fed up with donating bodily fluids and organs for her sick sister, Breslin’s 11-year-old character hires Baldwin as a lawyer who fight for ‘medical emancipation.’
Ella Taylor’s criticisms of the flick are all legit enough—she says none of the characters are relatable and she mocks Diaz, in “no makeup,” who is “clearly seeking [an] Oscar nomination.” Cancer flicks, she exorciates, are “hauled out by lazy filmmakers to summon easy sympathy and pander to our reflexive need to blame someone for no-fault tragedies.” (Yikes! Do not get this woman angry, people.) But I get testy when she criticizes Picoult herself and basically implies she writes trash.
In all fairness, though, both of the Picoult novels I’ve read follow a similar plot line: emotionally distant relationship keeps mother and daughter apart, tragedy strikes daughter, mother mends her ways. If the author guilty of anything, it’s originality. But why should she be"guilty” of anything? She writes books people—mostly women— enjoy. I see her novels frequently on the shelves at suburban grocery stores and pharmacies. Frankly, it’s great that busy moms are finding time to read anything.
As with the criticism of Twilight for supposedly glorifying a ‘controlling’ teen relationship, the criticism of Picoult and her “lurid” novels is just annoying. What does Ella Taylor really want the author to do? Write all the novels differently for the good of all women?
I suppose all famous writers stomach this criticism, though—Philip Roth has certainly fielded his share of criticism for depicting men as sex-crazed perverts. Still, it’s annoying for this kind of sniffing to come from such an otherwise book-loving media outlet as NPR.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
cadyms
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 01:32 pm: [report]
I started Jodi Picoult’s novel Plain Truth and found it really boring and simplistic - I finally gave up on it. I think the author of this article pegged it when she said Picoult’s novels are in supermarkets - yep, they are, right alongside the newest diet books and Harlequin romances. Yes, it’s great that anyone reads period, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the right of a person to have an opinion about a book.
All that being said, that’s just my opinion, and her sales indicate that many people clearly disagree with me!!
Shasta
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 01:56 pm: [report]
@Jessica. NYtimes Mag recently did a lengthy piece on Picoult that focused more on her readers and the culture of fear that permeates parenting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/magazine/21picoult-t.html
Her books don’t hold my interest; however, they certainly hold the interest of quite a few others. I like NPR but the bigger question isn’t doesn’t she write trash? It’s why do all these mothers love it?
Picoult seems to have earned her success. She’s Harvard-educated, watched her own child go through a lengthy illness and supposedly has three great kids headed, a devoted husband and a million dollar publishing career.
She appears more genuine than most authors who simply churn out formulaic crap in hopes one will be made into a movie.
Shasta
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 01:58 pm: [report]
Correction:
“....three great kids headed to Ivy-League schools,..”
sam04
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 02:03 pm: [report]
I’ve only read My Sister’s Keeper and Nineteen Minutes, also. I liked them well enough, though they wouldn’t be books I would read over and over again. What I liked most was that she presented her readers with such strong moral dilemmas and she never really states what she thinks is right or wrong, she just paints every side of the story and lets us decide.
Jessica Wakeman
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 02:04 pm: [report]
@Shasta Cool! I was out of town this weekend so I didn’t read my NYTimes magazine, but I will have to check it out. It was in this week’s issue, right?
I wonder if “the culture of fear that permeates parenting,” as you put it, is at all similar to the way people love the catharsis that comes from horror movies. I personally don’t have a kid. But I do love watching horror movies about horrible things that could happen to me if I got locked in a house with zombies, or got lost hiking, or fell down a hole spelunking. There is something really enjoyable about the “safe” thrills from a scary flick.
I don’t have any kids, but I wonder if maybe it’s the same with these books about kids with cancer & suicide pacts that Jodi Picoult writes? You can fear the intensity of being really afraid, but it’s not “real,” so it’s cathartic when it is released.
AgentBeryllium
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 02:17 pm: [report]
I can’t read Picoult because medical dramas freak me out. But that’s my opinion. However it is disappoint to hear there are critics out there that live for ripping aspiring writers because they are miserable in their own lives. I really feel that everyone has a great story to tell. If you have the courage to stand up and tell it be wary of critics who will do nothing but say bad things about you. Fact of life. Personally I agree with Jessica. The critic is a snob.
writergirl
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 02:22 pm: [report]
I don’t know that Piccoult appeals to all us mom’s out here. I am an avid reader and read just about anything and eveyrthing.
I’ve read two books by her. Plain Truth and My Sister’s Keeper. Her writing is good, but there is an element to it that I find unsettling. She takes a mother’s ultimate fear—a dead child, a sick child—and lays it out for all to see. And what is worse, is she (at least in the two I read) doesn’t give you insight to the mother’s mind when the ultimate tragedy happens. She leaves the mothers in her books almost appearing inhumane.
I know I’ve picked her books up at the store and put them down again because I just don’t want to read about teenagers dying. Am I ignoring my own base fears? Maybe. Her books seem to be very anti-mother and I don’t like that. We aren’t ALL evil and horrible ALL the time.
I have a lot of friends (also mothers) who read like I do and if we were all to list our favorite authors, she wouldn’t even factor on the list to be honest.
bumbler
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 02:30 pm: [report]
I’ve only read My Sister’s Keeper and while I did not particularly enjoy the book I did not find anything offensive about it. If anything the character I found most troublesome was Anna the younger daughter. I would give anything to keep my own sister safe so I found her hard to relate to. Not immoral or wrong just hard to relate to.
Shasta
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 02:39 pm: [report]
@Jessica - 6/21 NYTs. The catharsis angle is an interesting one that I hadn’t thought of. Is the need for catharsis the same as the need for drama? I think in this case it is similar.
Taste in books, like food is a personal thing.
How true that “Every Body’s a Critic.”
Sonic
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 03:24 pm: [report]
I only read My Sister’s Keeper and hated it. Picoult’s writing really IS bad, not in an enjoyable way, but in a headachey way. Her style is cliched and boring. Her plot ideas are sort of good, but ridden with melodrama and unbelievable characters. I agreed with the NPR article.
Milla
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 03:29 pm: [report]
As a writer and avid reader, I think it’s great that people read anything—Jodi Picoult, Twilight, Harry Potter. . . but a lot of the time, this is all people read. I find it troubling that there are so many excellent, thoughtful books written (full disclaimer: I read My Sister’s Keeper and thought it was formulaic and weak) that just aren’t being read. So many people I know have written fantastic things that sell only a few copies. I think what NPR is trying to point out that Picoult is the junk food of the literary world: fun but not ultimately nourishing. And in this literary climate, I think that’s really okay.
Sonic
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 03:34 pm: [report]
@ Milla: YES! I completely agree with your assessment. I’ve heard a lot of people say “Twilight, HP, [insert whatever else here] got me reading again!” It certainly does get them reading again…but reading only the same kinds of books! They never really delve into other things. I don’t know if reading a hundred and one books with the same poor writing, contrived plot, and hokey characters is any better than not reading at all.
Jessica Wakeman
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 03:40 pm: [report]
I don’t think Jodi Picoult is THAT bad a writer. I mean, really, did you read Twilight?!?!
snap
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 05:22 pm: [report]
I read My Sister’s Keeper; it was the only Jodi Piccoult book I read, and it was TERRIBLE. Poorly written, flat characters, overly simplistic and predictable: in short, boring. It was a great idea that landed in the mind of a writer lacking the talent to pull it off. Not one of the characters felt authentic, and I thought the male characters in particular were embarrassingly inauthentic.
kw1223
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 06:24 pm: [report]
Wow. I like Jodi Picoult. I’ve read almost all of her books. But then when I read I just want the story to play in my head like a movie. I don’t want to have to think about it a whole lot.
I devoured the Twilight series. My daughter and I actually read them one right after the other.
I read “junk food lit” instead of watching trash TV. I guess they’re pretty much the same thing.
writergirl
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 06:54 pm: [report]
@um no—that’s what I say about Twilight.
fallonthecity
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 08:19 pm: [report]
@kw1223: I’m exactly the same way. I read for enjoyment, and I hate reading anything painful or tedious.
I’ve only read one book (My Sister’s Keeper) as far as Picoult goes, and it was fairly compelling but I wouldn’t read it again (SO DEPRESSING).
veda6
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 09:46 pm: [report]
I’ve read the two books mentions, plus The Pact and Perfect Match. I agree she’s found a formula and pretty much sticks to it, and perhaps her work isn’t high brow enough for some literati, but I think her huge popularity speaks volumes. What’s with the cultural snobbery?
I don’t think that she portrays all mothers as cold and distant. I think what she is very good at doing is portraying a sense of helplessness in horrible situations, and how people might react if faced with unimaginably cruel circumstances- doing awful things out of defence of their families, avoiding conflict to the point that it makes a situation worse, lashing out at those who disrupt the order of their perfect world.
She may not go down in history as one of its greatest writers, but her books are great page turners for lazy Sunday afternoons or by the pool, and for a great number of readers, that’s what they want- so good on her.
Jessica Wakeman
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 06:56 am: [report]
I’m curious now — if Jodi Picoult is “junk food lit,” what books do you all read for “fruits and veggies lit”?
sam04
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 07:16 am: [report]
Who decides what the benefits of reading are? If someone only reads romance novel trash or chick lit or fantasy books, how is that nearly as bad as not reading at all? Reading is a pleasure that a LOT of people enjoy in lots of different ways. Not everyone is looking to get the same thing out of a book or interested in all available genres. It really irritates me when people are such snobs about reading. If you don’t like a particular author, if you think they’re weak writers… don’t read it. Don’t recommend it to your friends. State your opinion all you want. But don’t make a statement that it’s not worthy to be read by anyone because if even one person finds enjoyment, it has value.
joyy
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 07:48 am: [report]
@veda6: “What’s with the cultural snobbery?” Um, hello! Cultural snobbery is everywhere - look at the posts making fun of what celebrities are wearing or different clothing and shoes that get trashed.
Hell, I bet most of the Frisky staff wouldn’t spend a full week in my wardrobe. And that’s fine, because I probably wouldn’t spend a week in most people’s diets. Some people are into lit, some are into fashion, some are into food, etc. Whatever you’re into, you’re probably a snob about it, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Milla
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 08:53 am: [report]
@Jessica—I read a lot of different things, but the “fruit and veggies lit” I’d define as literary fiction, experimental fiction, classics, short story collections, etc. Things that maybe are a little “harder” to read . . . require more concentration or thought, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. And I read junk food lit—I love Harry Potter, and I’d be the first to tell you it’s not brilliant writing.
-shrugs- I don’t think it’s so much cultural snobbery as it is trying to encourage people to branch out. If I came in and said that maybe people shouldn’t only eat at McDonald’s and should try local, fresh food sometimes, is that food snobbery? If so, I confess.
writergirl
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 09:18 am: [report]
@Milla, but you’re making an assumption that a person who reads and LOVES HP, Twilight, Jodi Picoult *doesn’t* branch out and read other more “heavy” reads. And that isn’t necessarily the case. Is what you consider junk food lit the genres that mostly fill my bookshelf? Yes. But that doesn’t undermine the intelligence and creativity that went into writing the book.
I’m a writer as well. I know the sheer amount of frustration that goes into making a book work. It makes me appreciate an author’s work even more.
I know a few paranormal writers—just the sheer amount of imagination that goes into their stories is unfathomable. Charlaine Harris is a perfect example. (Not that I know her) But her books while considered “junk food lit” probably have an innordinate amount of creativty in them.
Twilight is a good story. Is it well crafted? No. But Breaking Dawn, her fourth book is. Her writing style evolved over time.
Harry Potter is brilliantly written and there are several college professors I know who would disagree with your assessment of J.K. Rowlings writing.
Heavy, more “intelligent” books aren’t necessarily better—their just more intelligent.
writergirl
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 09:19 am: [report]
*they’re
Sonic
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 09:50 am: [report]
@ writergirl: I don’t doubt that a lot of hard work went into books like HP, Twilight, and Picoult’s, but I don’t find that effort makes up for cliched, boring writing, predictable plots, and unbelievable characters.
You can find many, MANY college professors who would also agree with Milla’s assessment of J.K. Rowling’s writing.
You’re right, heavy, “intelligent” books aren’t necessarily better, but they’re executed better. Sometimes, it’s more annoying when someone has good ideas, but lacks the talent to make the ideas work. It’s a waste.
I’ve always thought of junk food lit like reality TV - it’s got no lasting substance and it’s easily distinguished from books/shows which successfully combine great execution, creativity, and intelligence. There’s nothing wrong with it if it’s not the only thing in your diet, and I don’t assume everyone who reads junk lit only reads junk lit, but a lot of them do.
writergirl
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 10:04 am: [report]
@Sonic—People read for different reasons. I read not only for research, but also for entertainment. I don’t want to be “preached to” in every book I pick up, but at the same time, I often want to be challenged. And lets face it, if you can finish a 300 plus page book in a few hours you are not being challenged, no matter how good the story is. Janet Evanovich comes to mind. LOVE her work, think it is incredibly funny. But definately an easy read. On the other hand—the fact that it is that appealing, that light, and still captivates your attention speaks to her talent as a writer.
I think it is unfair to judge “junk food lit” as not having lasting substance. The romance genre falls into that category, gets scathing reviews by just about everybody, and yet the genre comprises 50% of book sales. So to say it doesn’t have lasting substance is just wrong. Now, while there are some very trite romance writers, there are some very good ones as well. But because of the genre, they get pushed to the side and ignored by most everyone NOT in that genre.
I agree—junk food lit shouldn’t comprise the majority of your diet. But if you read to escape and to have fun, it isn’t necessarily a bad diet to exist on.
Sonic
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 01:03 pm: [report]
@ writergirl: I didn’t categorize any one genre as having no substance. Within any genre, there are books that ARE junk lit with no real substance. I DO read romances and never once mentioned them specifically as junk lit because I am aware authors such as Georgette Heyer are categorized as romance and I don’t consider her writing to be junk literature. I am specifically referring to books, of ANY genre, which I have read in which the story is poorly executed, boring, cringingly cliched, with unbelievable characters, as junk lit.
I think if it IS fun and creative, and very importantly, well-written for the story it’s trying to tell, then it’s not necessarily junk lit. For example, I don’t necessarily agree with you that Janet Evanovich is a junk lit writer because I find her writing style appealing, her stories are creative and well-executed (pacing works for me, the style isn’t trying to be better than itself, a trait I find in Picoult’s works), regardless of whether or not it’s an easy read. I find Hemingway VERY easy to read - does that make it junk lit to me? Not necessarily because the other components hold up well. Picoult’s work does not, for ME, hold up well.
Once again, I also do agree with you that it isn’t necessarily BAD in and of itself, but only when it is the sole choice that is concerning, a trend I see very often.
Milla
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 02:08 pm: [report]
@writergirl It seems like we’re trying to say variations on the same theme: reading junk food lit doesn’t make you a bad person. I would be lying if I didn’t admit that I’m a sucker for Sophia Kinsella’s Shopaholic series. But it’s troubling to me that 50% of the book sales are romance novels (I’m going to assume most of those are the Harlequins I see at Target). It doesn’t seem that people who read romance novels and other supermarket books are reading other things. Otherwise the numbers would be different and we would see writers of literary fiction able to support themselves through their writing.
Also, I agree with Sonic that reading speed or genre does not dictate quality. There are brilliant short, well-paced novels or genre pieces.
I’m not saying we should all go read Gravity’s Rainbow or Infinite Jest or we’re terrible human beings. But I am saying that Alice Munro should be as available and popular as Jodi Picoult, and it’s a shame she’s not.
writergirl
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 02:25 pm: [report]
@Milla—
Well I read romance novels;the sub-genres that fall into that heading. I do read other things. Most people I know who read romance novels read a wide variety of genres, with maybe one or two exceptions. There are very few avid readers I know who don’t read a variety of genres. Are they the most challenging reads? No, I’d be lying if I said they were. But there good entertainment value and a happy ending. Somtimes, that is all the human mind can sustain.
Whether or not the fact that people buy their books at Target or the pharmacy impacts the type of book people, I have no idea. But it is a plausible argument. I generally go to the book store and browse the shelves. Doing that has prompted me reading some incredibly good books I wouldn’t normally have picked up. I think *not* doing that is limiting yourself which is never good.
Thank you for the new author to check out. When my shelves are clear of the “to be read pile” and my manuscript is solidified, I will take a look. Her stories look like something I would enjoy.