Required Reading, Distaff Version, Part II: What Would Sarah Palin Read? - The Book Maven

The Book Maven

Blog

The Book Maven

« Required Reading, Distaff Vers... | Main | Book Maven Interview: Annette ... »

Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (2)

Bethanne Patrick

Required Reading, Distaff Version, Part II: What Would Sarah Palin Read?
September 24, 2008

Thanks to all who left comments on Monday's post in which I questioned the organizing principle of Jezebel's post that challenged Esquire's Top 75 Books Every Man Should Read list. As I said, keep those picks coming. Even if this blog doesn't get the traffic Jezebel does, I'd like to compile a list of reader recs for women and post in to their latest entry. I still maintain that that original list has more than a whiff of women's studies seminar about it, but full disclosure: I've read 74/75 titles on that list (I both praise and blame my alma mater), the exception remaining To Kill A Mockingbird. I really must remedy that lack soon.

Of course, several commenters over at Jezebel said something to the effect of "Please send this list to Sarah Palin. Thank you." Would that we could get Governor Palin to read Delta of Venus, or even Anna Karenina, or just Little Women, which contains more truth about women's hearts and needs between its covers than Bristol Palin will ever get from a mother who is pushing her into shotgun marriage. (Even if the blessed union of Bristol and Levi is "suddenly" called off in case of a lost election, lost pregnancy, or lost mind, I believe that forcing a young woman to stand up next to her reluctant baby daddy in front of millions of Americans as a political example is manipulative and wrong regardless of where one stands on the issues.)

What would Sarah Palin read, besides the Bible? I've lived among some of the reddest of red-state denizens (that's another story for another time, but trust me, I know them) and I've been in their living rooms. Just like blue-state residents, there might be no books, or there might be lots of books. And just like blue-state residents, the readers in the red states sometimes limit their reading choices according to their world views.

Red State Bookshelf (observed): The Left Behind series, Bible concordances, Tom Clancy novels, and biographies of major military and Republican figures.

Blue State Bookshelf (observed): A shelf of literary reference books, Anne Tyler novels, lots of narrative nonfiction, and biographies of Democratic presidents and artists.

I think my point is that regardless of literary merit, these bookshelves show that we're not all alike here in the United States. We're just not. We do have some deep differences in our perspectives, and that shows not just in our book selection but in our candidate selection.

The best way I know to understand someone else's perspective? Read a book. Even if Sarah Palin isn't reading much these days, that doesn't mean we can't. So I'm asking you today to recommend a book that taught you something about someone else's quite foreign perspective -- that might be one of the books you already recommended for the women's list, or it might be something new.

My choice? American Wife by Curtis Sittenfeld.

Posted by Bethanne Patrick on September 24, 2008 | Comments (2)

September 24, 2008
In response to: Required Reading, Distaff Version, Part II: What Would Sarah Palin Read?
Julie E. commented:

What's wrong with the list having a "whiff of women's studies seminar" about it? The vast majority of Americans have never experienced a women's studies seminar, and it certainly wouldn't hurt them to give it a try. It might teach them "something about someone else's foreign perspective," as you say.

September 24, 2008
In response to: Required Reading, Distaff Version, Part II: What Would Sarah Palin Read?
Bethanne commented:

Julie E., you're right -- I'm allowing my own ennui with all things Kate Chopin and Marge Piercy to overwhelm the message, here. It reminds me of something an old friend and lit PhD used to say: "Either women writers were oppressed, or they weren't. If they were oppressed, then they could not have produced the same amount and the same quality of material as the men did, and hopefully now that things have changed, they can and they will. If they were not oppressed, then they have no excuse for not having written material that can stand up to the best of the best in literature."