I'm not really up to date on 21st century literary criticism, probably because I’m about 70 years behind on my reading. That is why I had to look up the word “autofiction” recently. It turns out that it’s just a new word for a pretty old literary genre, the roman a clef written in the first person. Although I guess it’s somewhat different because in some autofiction, the reader isn’t quite sure if she’s reading a novel based on the writer’s life, or a memoir sprinkled with fictional details. The question arose when I read Lauren Oyler’s essay collection, No Judgment.
*****
Before I started on the book, I did some very quick and cursory research on Lauren Oyler. My research stopped with a Reddit thread about a Goodreads controversy. Needless to say, I didn’t actually read the thread so I don’t even know what the controversy was, although I suspect that it has something to do with review bombing and author pushback on review bombing, which seems to be what happens on Goodreads. Engaging with Goodreads reviewers doesn’t seem any wiser than trolling the comments on Elon’s latest Twitter post (note once again that I wrote most of this a year ago - and I still refuse to call it X - suck it, Elon). Not a good use of time. Anyone, no one review bombs mid 20th century literature, and dead authors don’t push back on bad-faith 2-star reviews, so Goodreads has really never been a factor in my what-to-read decisions. I’d have read this book no matter what the Goodreads community had to say about it or the author, but I’ll never know because at least for now, I’m smart enough to stay out of that internet neighborhood. “Very online” people are always ready to ruin everything for everyone, and I’m not going to let them influence my TBR list.
*****
Do you remember Gawker? Do you remember the lawsuit that put an end to Gawker? I’m not going to write about it here and if you decide to look it up you might see some things that you don’t want to see. Hulk Hogan figures prominently. Fair warning. Anyway, Gawker was one of many self-important full-of-themselves gossip and snark sites of the early 21st century, but it was sort of uniquely important to the mid 10s information and misinformation and gossip ecosystem that Oyler writes about in “Embarrassment, Panic, Job Loss, Opprobrium, Etc.”
Oyler makes interesting and thoughtful points about gossip power structures. Regarding the “whisper networks” that were always in the news during the 2017 - 2018 sexual harassment reckoning, she correctly points out that such networks only benefit those whose friendships and connections earn them an invitation to the network. If you’re not an insider, you won’t only not know what the network is talking about; you won’t even know it exists.
Word gets out, though, as the person who created and shared the infamous “Shitty Media Men” Google Doc learned. She claimed that her list of creepy and predatory men was meant to be private, just a shared resource among friends. But of course she published it on the internet, and there is no such thing as privacy on the internet. You can make your accounts private, you can make posts visible only to friends or friends of friends, you can disable comments or sharing - you can lock everything down as much as it can be locked down and if just one careless or vindictive person takes a screenshot and shares it, your “private” content is visible to pretty much the entire world. The only way to keep anything private on the internet is to just not put anything on the internet. After three decades of the World Wide Web and two decades of social media, people still don’t understand this - still!
*****
Every time I read a book written by an author born after 1980 or so, I have to look up at least one or two words. Autofiction, I inferred from context, but looked it up to confirm. And now I know what a polycule is. This is knowledge that I don’t necessarily mind having but could also have done equally well without.
*****
In “My Perfect Opinions,” Oyler tackles the ubiquitous star rating system, tracing it back to its roots in the Guide Michelin. She points out the utter meaninglessness of a system that is supposed to be incremental but that in reality punishes any product or service or service provider rated less than perfect. Four out of five stars should be a solid rating, but it’s a kiss of death for an Instacart shopper, an Uber driver, or a writer whose work falls into the hands of the “Goodreads community.”
Oyler’s larger question about Goodreads, and about the internet in general, is whether it’s good or bad that “normal” people, non-famous people who aren’t artists or academics or professional critics now have a great deal of influence on platforms such as Goodreads? Oyler, a Harvard graduate and acclaimed author still in her thirties, comes across as unapologetically elite, and she makes her disdain for Goodreads quite clear, though not for the reason you might think. She doesn’t seem to have any objection to the idea of an everyday reader commenting on a book, but she does object to the algorithm-driven influence economy that allows certain Goodreads reviewers and social media personalities to amass huge followings, simply because they’re good at stirring up controversy. She is not wrong.
*****
I don’t like a lot of things that white women in their 50s are supposed to like and because I am the way I am, I always second guess myself. Why don’t I like gardening, I think to myself - I SHOULD like gardening because I certainly like to look at pretty flowers and eat tomatoes right off the vine. But I hate digging in dirt, and so my husband does the gardening. I don’t like to talk about diet and exercise. I don’t like most romantic comedies and I really don’t like serial dramas about “powerful women” unless the powerful women are hard-bitten British DCIs solving murders in the Midlands or the Yorkshire Dales or something. I don’t like Lululemon (mostly because none of it fits me but I also just don’t like it) or Tory Burch (except for my beloved black TB tote bag). People keep telling me that I have to read Lessons in Chemistry, making me that much more certain that I’d hate it and that much more determined not to read it. My hatred of pumpkin fucking spice and its autumnal works and pomps is well documented. And I really have never liked or trusted Brene Brown.
Still, I felt bad about not liking her, and I wondered if it was just me. I’m too cynical, I would think when I’d hear other women talking about how great Brene Brown is, and how everyone should read her books and listen to her TED talks and follow her advice. I tried to keep an open mind, but something was off, and my Brene antipathy persisted, though I kept it to myself because openly declaring that you hate Brene Brown is a good way to get yourself canceled if you’re a 59-year old white woman from the suburbs.
So thanks, Lauren Oyler. Now I have critical - even scholarly - support for my anti-Brene position. To paraphrase Oyler, “vulnerable” and “vulnerability” have entered the realm of meaninglessness, having been overused and misused to the point of absurdity. And the idea of “wholeheartedness” as a state to which we should all aspire is shallow at best and kind of mean and shitty at worst - mean and shitty because it feeds into the woman-hating internet culture that encourages women to be “healthy” (thin), “happy” (never ever angry or anxious or sad), and “balanced” (rich). I’m tired of it, and I’m tired of the smart and powerful people who enable it, knowingly or unknowingly.
*****
I enjoyed this book very much, even though I didn’t know what Lauren Oyler was talking about half the time. And that is fine because she’s just smarter than me. I like to listen to smart people.
Sometimes reading should be easy and enjoyable; no thinking required. But not always. Sometimes, it’s good to have to reread a sentence or a paragraph; to ask yourself “wait, what? What is she saying here?” You can’t spend all your time reading the madcap adventures of zany British aristocrats and their servants in the idyllic Years Between the Wars. I do love a good essay collection, and this one is very good. Not Zadie Smith good, of course, but that would be an unreasonably high bar for a first essay collection. But very good. 9/10. Would recommend.