This blog post is included in:

No Time to Spare
Thinking About What Matters

by Ursula K. Le Guin
Introduction by Karen Joy Fowler

December 5, 2017
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt











Ursula K. Le Guin, photo by Marian Wood KolischTGAN

by Ursula K. Le Guin

A question from New Bookends: “Where is the great American novel by a woman?” got an interesting answer from the Pakistani novelist Mohsin Hamid.

Click here for New York Times article

I like a lot of what Mr Hamid says. But there’s something coy and coercive about the question itself that made me want to charge into the bullring, head down and horns forward.* I’d answer it with a question: Where is the great American novel by anybody?

And I’d answer that: Who cares?

I think this is pretty much what Mr Hamid says more politely, when he says that art

is bigger than notions of black or white, male or female, American or non. Human beings don’t necessarily exist inside of (or correspond to) the neat racial, gendered or national boxes into which we often unthinkingly place them. It’s a mistake to ask literature to reinforce such structures. Literature tends to crack them. Literature is where we free ourselves.

Three cheers and Amen to that.

But I want to add this note: To me, the keystone of the phrase “the great American novel” is not the word “American,” but the word “great.”

Greatness, in the sense of outstanding or unique accomplishment, is a cryptogendered word. In ordinary usage and common understanding, “a great American” means a great American man, “a great writer” means a great male writer. To re-gender the word, it must modify a feminine noun (“a great American woman,” “a great woman writer”). To de-gender it, it must be used in a locution such as “great Americans/writers, both men and women…” Greatness in the abstract, in general, is still thought of as the province of men.

The writer who sets out to write the great American novel must see himself as a free citizen of that province, competing on equal ground with other writers, living and dead, for a glittering prize, a unique honor. His career is a contest, a battle, with victory over other men as its goal. (He is unlikely to think much about women as competitors.) Only in this view of the writer as a fully privileged male, a warrior, literature as a tournament, greatness as the defeat of others, can the idea of “the” great American novel exist.

That’s a good deal to swallow, these days, for most writers over fourteen. I’ll bet the whole notion of “the great American novel” is nothing like as common and meaningful an idea among authors as it is among readers, fans, PR people, reviewers, those who don’t read but know authors by name as celebrities, and people who need something to blog about.


Now this may get me told off by women who value competitiveness and feel the problem with women is that they think they shouldn’t or can’t compete, but I’ll say it all the same. It makes perfect sense to me that I’ve never heard a woman writer say she intended, or wanted, to write the great American novel.

Tell you true, I’ve never heard a woman writer say the phrase “the great American novel” without a sort of snort.

Whatever the virtues of competitiveness, women are still deeply trained by society to be cautious about laying claim to greatness greater than the greatness of men. As you know, Jim, a woman who competes successfully with men in a field men consider theirs by right risks being punished for it. Literature is a field a great many men consider theirs by right. Virginia Woolf committed successful competition in that field. She barely escaped the first and most effective punishment — omission from the literary canon after her death. Yet eighty or ninety years later charges of snobbery and invalidism are still used to discredit and diminish her. Marcel Proust’s limitations and his neuroticism were at least as notable as hers. But that Proust needed not only a room of his own, but a corklined one, is taken as proof he was a genius. That Woolf heard the birds singing in Greek shows only that she was a sick woman.

So, as long as men need to “be reflected at twice their natural size,” a woman writer knows that open competition with them is dangerous. Even if she wants to write the, or a, great American novel, she’s unlikely to announce (as male writers do from time to time) that she plans to or has written it. And if she feels she deserves a Pulitzer or Booker or Nobel, or anyhow wouldn’t mind having one, she knows most literary awards are weighted so heavily in favor of men that the social efforts involved in most major awards, the networking and careful self-presentation, are a great expense for an unlikely return.

But risk avoidance isn’t all there is to it. Because competition for primacy, for literary supremacy, doesn’t seem as glamorously possible for women as it does for men, the whole idea of singular greatness — of there being one great anything — may not have the hold on a woman’s imagination that it has on a man’s. The knights in the lists have to believe the prize can be won and is worth winning. Those relegated to the preliminary jousts and the sidelines can see more clearly how arbitrary the judgment of championship is, and can question the value of the glittering prize.

Who wants “The” Great American Novel, anyhow? PR people. People who believe that bestsellers are better than other books because they sell better than other books and that the prize-winning book is the best book because it won the prize. Tired teachers, timid teachers, lazy students who’d like one text to read instead of the many, many great and greatly complex books that make up literature.

Art is not a horse race. Literature is not the Olympics. The hell with The Great American Novel. We have all the great novels we need right now — and right now some man or woman is writing a new one we won’t know we needed till we read it.

25 November 2013

* In the 1920’s, on a great Peruvian hacienda with a private bullring, my parents watched matadors-in-training fight cows. The full ritual was performed, except that injury to the animal was avoided, and it did not end in a kill. It was the best training, my parents were told: after las vacas bravas, bulls were easy. An angry bull goes for the matador’s cape, an angry cow goes for the matador.



TGAN — 6 Comments

  1. Ursula, this isn’t apropos of this particular piece, but something that has come to my mind several times after reading various of your books and blogs: I wish you were my grandmother.

    I could try to explain and expand, but really there’s no point.

  2. Ursula, I agree with you that the “Great American Novel” is a bankrupt category that needs retiring. But I thought the value of the comment thread on the Times article lay in the very strong cases that people made for books by female authors that easily met all the requirements of the so-called “Great American Novel”; my candidate (only one of a great many) was Willa Cather’s My Ántonia, a book with a powerful sense of history and nation that nonetheless manages to succeed at the level of domestic action as well. I don’t think any of us making such suggestions were really supporting the idea of a “Great American Novel”–we were just pointing out that it’s ridiculous to pretend that Melville and Twain possess something that female writers don’t have, that there are a great many books by women that meet the requirements of this ridiculous category. It’s just that a powerful group of male intellectuals and authors refuse to acknowledge the power of these books.

  3. Thanks to commentor Chase Gunderud for the correction of the spelling of the name of the novelist Mohsin Hamid.

    –News Editor

  4. Dear Ursula, As far as I am concerned YOU have written a number of Great American Novels, some of which I have read many times, and some great short stories, and some great poetry too. Thank You, ..again and again. Every time I read one of the Earthsea books, or the ‘Hainish’ books, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.