Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.2 AVERAGE
3.2 AVERAGE
Reads like an essay written by a 20-something, maybe for a loosely organized graduate seminar. More stream-of-consciousness than essay, actually. Lots of uncomfortably sweeping generalizations. I understand that Bitch was fueled by Ritalin and cocaine. Might explain some things.
It's a weird experience to read this book: on one hand, it was published in the late 1990s when the worldwide web and 3rd wave feminism were still in their infancy. Society has changed quite a bit since the mid 1990s. I cringed at Wurtzel's attempt to downplay the crimes of Amy Fisher (teenage girls are naturally crazy and confused, and this particular girl--more crazy and confused than average due to previous abuse and parental neglect--was manipulated into attempting homicide) and Mary Kay LeTourneau (underage boys want to have sex with women so it isn't as big of a crime as when the victim is a girl). In those--and other--instances, Wurtzel crosses the line from explainer to apologist.
A lot of the pop culture references are old in a cringe-inducing way; they're not "classic" (as are the many films she refers to) but simply outdated. The world has continued since 1998, and Hillary Clinton did, indeed, have a political career, in spite of Wurtzel's prognostications to the contrary. It would be interesting to see what this book would be if it had been written in the past few years... hell, Wurtzel missed, by just a few years, the opportunity to discuss the millennial enfants terribles that dominated headlines in the late nineties and the aughts. (The stories of Paris and Lindsay and Britney and their ilk would have merited some discussion in this milieu, as distasteful as I would have found a reminder of these people.) On the other hand, the 1990s is the period when I was most aware of pop culture and it feels oddly gratifying to understand almost all of the contemporary references. I, too, can still rattle off the lyrics to *that* Alanis Morissette song and I wasn't even a fan. (The flipside of that knowledge is knowing when the author messes up some of the references-- e.g. a quote from Thelma and Louise.)
This book is seriously overlong... way past the point of self-indulgence. I neither expected nor desired such an exhaustive deconstruction of the Samson/Delilah myth. The author spits out numerous lengthy lists, lyrical prose (admittedly, some of it fun to read), at-times annoyingly fancy vocabulary, and discusses everything at such length that the reader forgets the points the author is trying to make. I'm not sure she was trying to make any point, which makes remembering specifics difficult. It didn't help that I continually had to stop reading to Google pictures of some of the before-my-time "beautiful disaster" types Wurtzel refers to, skim Courtney Love's Twitter (yep, still kind of pathetic), and get the definitions of several fancy-pants words that I've probably looked up multiple times before... and then fall down an internet rabbit hole. Wurtzel's editor seems to have dozed off from time to time in the quagmire, missing numerous malapropisms. For some reason, it irritates me that someone who uses the incorrect "reigning in" (meaning "reining in"--bringing under control, as with a horse) has the gall to toss around words like "manqué."
Bitch took me an unconscionably long time to slog through. One might wonder why I even bothered finishing this book. Aside from the sunk cost thing, occasionally the author expressed an idea that resonated with me, often in an uncomfortable way. Knowing that someone else agrees with your strange, unpopular ideas--even if is a bloviator like Wurtzel--is powerful.
It's a weird experience to read this book: on one hand, it was published in the late 1990s when the worldwide web and 3rd wave feminism were still in their infancy. Society has changed quite a bit since the mid 1990s. I cringed at Wurtzel's attempt to downplay the crimes of Amy Fisher (teenage girls are naturally crazy and confused, and this particular girl--more crazy and confused than average due to previous abuse and parental neglect--was manipulated into attempting homicide) and Mary Kay LeTourneau (underage boys want to have sex with women so it isn't as big of a crime as when the victim is a girl). In those--and other--instances, Wurtzel crosses the line from explainer to apologist.
A lot of the pop culture references are old in a cringe-inducing way; they're not "classic" (as are the many films she refers to) but simply outdated. The world has continued since 1998, and Hillary Clinton did, indeed, have a political career, in spite of Wurtzel's prognostications to the contrary. It would be interesting to see what this book would be if it had been written in the past few years... hell, Wurtzel missed, by just a few years, the opportunity to discuss the millennial enfants terribles that dominated headlines in the late nineties and the aughts. (The stories of Paris and Lindsay and Britney and their ilk would have merited some discussion in this milieu, as distasteful as I would have found a reminder of these people.) On the other hand, the 1990s is the period when I was most aware of pop culture and it feels oddly gratifying to understand almost all of the contemporary references. I, too, can still rattle off the lyrics to *that* Alanis Morissette song and I wasn't even a fan. (The flipside of that knowledge is knowing when the author messes up some of the references-- e.g. a quote from Thelma and Louise.)
This book is seriously overlong... way past the point of self-indulgence. I neither expected nor desired such an exhaustive deconstruction of the Samson/Delilah myth. The author spits out numerous lengthy lists, lyrical prose (admittedly, some of it fun to read), at-times annoyingly fancy vocabulary, and discusses everything at such length that the reader forgets the points the author is trying to make. I'm not sure she was trying to make any point, which makes remembering specifics difficult. It didn't help that I continually had to stop reading to Google pictures of some of the before-my-time "beautiful disaster" types Wurtzel refers to, skim Courtney Love's Twitter (yep, still kind of pathetic), and get the definitions of several fancy-pants words that I've probably looked up multiple times before... and then fall down an internet rabbit hole. Wurtzel's editor seems to have dozed off from time to time in the quagmire, missing numerous malapropisms. For some reason, it irritates me that someone who uses the incorrect "reigning in" (meaning "reining in"--bringing under control, as with a horse) has the gall to toss around words like "manqué."
Bitch took me an unconscionably long time to slog through. One might wonder why I even bothered finishing this book. Aside from the sunk cost thing, occasionally the author expressed an idea that resonated with me, often in an uncomfortable way. Knowing that someone else agrees with your strange, unpopular ideas--even if is a bloviator like Wurtzel--is powerful.
So okay, I need to tell you right now and upfront, I couldn't finish this and am giving it a one star rating based on one section of the book that lasts a page.
When I first started reading this book, I found Wurtzel's narrative voice to be a little confusing. She was all over the place, but then you get use to it. I have to say, that Wurtzel's look at the how Amy Fisher thing was very good. Not that I spend any time thinking about Amy Fisher, but Wurzel does really bring a good new light to it. Her reading of Sexton and Plath is pretty good.
So, you say, what's the problem and aren't you being awfully judgemental considering that you liked what you read before you got to the infamous place?
No, I'm not. So Wurtzel takes a look at Hillary Clinton, and considering that this book was written when Clinton was still the President, she can't take in Clinton's post White House Career. Every so, I think Wurztel's theory about why people didn't like Mrs Sec of State was interesting, and was wondering how Wurztel would change it if she could.
And then Wurtzel pulled out the Tudors. She mentioned Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots of examples of women in power because they had the power. Then she mentioned how neither one got beheaded.
Now this is NOT a small mistake. An accidently slip of date, it really isn't. And to be frank, I never really would think of Mary Queen of Scots as some type of pre-feminist movement role model. Okay, she had a more violent in-fighting to deal with than Elizabeth, but she did some awfully stupid things -think her marriages and her fleeing to Elizabeth. Why not mention Catherine de Medici? Then it occured to me that perhaps Wurtzel meant Mary Tudor (aka Bloody Mary). But even that doesn't work considering how Mary viewed herself in marriage and she wasn't a success.
And that's when the how book feel apart. I think I could get by a difference in a opinion of the characters of the two Marys, but to say that Mary Queen of Scots kept her head is a HUGE mistake. And this book was published long enough ago that the error could have been fixed. Take for instance the small error in [b:The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Countdown|13635923|The Fall of Anne Boleyn A Countdown|Claire Ridgway|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1336292927s/13635923.jpg|19224720], an error that the author acknowledges and corrected. Yes, I guess it is easier to do that with ebooks, but how many years ago was Wurtzel's book written?
When I first started reading this book, I found Wurtzel's narrative voice to be a little confusing. She was all over the place, but then you get use to it. I have to say, that Wurtzel's look at the how Amy Fisher thing was very good. Not that I spend any time thinking about Amy Fisher, but Wurzel does really bring a good new light to it. Her reading of Sexton and Plath is pretty good.
So, you say, what's the problem and aren't you being awfully judgemental considering that you liked what you read before you got to the infamous place?
No, I'm not. So Wurtzel takes a look at Hillary Clinton, and considering that this book was written when Clinton was still the President, she can't take in Clinton's post White House Career. Every so, I think Wurztel's theory about why people didn't like Mrs Sec of State was interesting, and was wondering how Wurztel would change it if she could.
And then Wurtzel pulled out the Tudors. She mentioned Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots of examples of women in power because they had the power. Then she mentioned how neither one got beheaded.
Now this is NOT a small mistake. An accidently slip of date, it really isn't. And to be frank, I never really would think of Mary Queen of Scots as some type of pre-feminist movement role model. Okay, she had a more violent in-fighting to deal with than Elizabeth, but she did some awfully stupid things -think her marriages and her fleeing to Elizabeth. Why not mention Catherine de Medici? Then it occured to me that perhaps Wurtzel meant Mary Tudor (aka Bloody Mary). But even that doesn't work considering how Mary viewed herself in marriage and she wasn't a success.
And that's when the how book feel apart. I think I could get by a difference in a opinion of the characters of the two Marys, but to say that Mary Queen of Scots kept her head is a HUGE mistake. And this book was published long enough ago that the error could have been fixed. Take for instance the small error in [b:The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Countdown|13635923|The Fall of Anne Boleyn A Countdown|Claire Ridgway|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1336292927s/13635923.jpg|19224720], an error that the author acknowledges and corrected. Yes, I guess it is easier to do that with ebooks, but how many years ago was Wurtzel's book written?
funny
informative
lighthearted
medium-paced
Look, she may have written this in the throes of an addiction to ADHD medications & cocaine — and that may be pretty clearly felt in the manic, giant-paragraph style of the writing — but this book is more than good, more than insightful and wildly entertaining (all of which it is!)… This book is important: long before websites like Jezebel and Pitchfork, Wurtzel's style of merging the first person personal voice with the lofty tone and gaze of cultural criticism betokens the rise of the Internet Think-piece / "Personal Essay" form. Although few critics and reviewers appreciated Wurtzel's approach at the time, criticism and reviews themselves would align more and more with her style with every passing year — until, eventually, we all learned how to read and write like a BITCH.
(Check out Wurtzel's memoir "MORE NOW AGAIN," which chronicles her experience writing "BITCH" while suffering from addiction.)
(Check out Wurtzel's memoir "MORE NOW AGAIN," which chronicles her experience writing "BITCH" while suffering from addiction.)
An utterly engaging and entertaining read. I actually knew very little about the book or its author before I picked it up, so it wasn't at all what I expected. Wurtzel makes a lot of brash, overgeneralized and (in many cases) simply untrue assumptions to make her points, and I had some trouble with her rambling, manic tone in certain sections. But overall, she makes some valid points about the way our society objectifies or tears down women who fit the "bad girl" image.
I abandoned this book on page 19 after Wurtzel described Natalie Wood's dead body as "bobbing like a cork" or similar. That's not being bitchy, that's just crass.
This wasn't the first time she had written something in those short 19 pages that I was like "that was a choice". But that was the one that made me stop reading.
This book was published in 1998 so I knew the content would not be contemporary. There is value in learning about the pulse of feminism at that time. But, Wurtzel kept dropping names and late 90s incidences like we were all knew, remembered, and cared about said incidences.
In an attempt to discover Wurtzel's credibility to write this book, I read she passed away. I will not speak ill of the dead even if she did.
If you want to read something along these lines but not this, I recommend "Too Fat, Too Slutty, Too Loud" by Anne Helen Peterson. That book honored the unruly female without knocking them down.
This wasn't the first time she had written something in those short 19 pages that I was like "that was a choice". But that was the one that made me stop reading.
This book was published in 1998 so I knew the content would not be contemporary. There is value in learning about the pulse of feminism at that time. But, Wurtzel kept dropping names and late 90s incidences like we were all knew, remembered, and cared about said incidences.
In an attempt to discover Wurtzel's credibility to write this book, I read she passed away. I will not speak ill of the dead even if she did.
If you want to read something along these lines but not this, I recommend "Too Fat, Too Slutty, Too Loud" by Anne Helen Peterson. That book honored the unruly female without knocking them down.
i'm not a huge fan of this book. it was very scattered and had no real direction. this book made me feel like i was bi-polar. this is also the last book i read by wurtzel.
this was alright. a common criticism is its incoherent and rambling. its not cohesive, but its lucid. my gripe is the authority on which she makes so many insane statements—what she said about maya angelou was downright blasphemous, in fact many times she invoked black men just read as Weird to me. this is a book for white women, i think, but i did still get some enjoyment from it. its so steeped in gen x culture that a lot of name drops went over my head but the points still resonated. overall it was compelling and at times it was brilliant, just not nearly as often as wurtzel seemed to deem it such. loved the epilogue
I read Bitch when I was in school and it was probably the first 'feminist' text I ever read. I doesn't hold a special place in my heart for that so much as the passionate, somewhat unhinged tone of the book. That said it was a good, if lightweight, intro to feminist ideas. Yhe focus is on social and celebrity issues rather than the political but at least that makes it accessible.
Wurtzel revealed in her second autobiography [b:More, Now, Again: A Memoir of Addiction|137918|More, Now, Again A Memoir of Addiction|Elizabeth Wurtzel|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1172091537s/137918.jpg|132940] that she was taking a lot of speed when she wrote this. It shows, the prose is uneven and the ideas jump around a lot.
Wurtzel revealed in her second autobiography [b:More, Now, Again: A Memoir of Addiction|137918|More, Now, Again A Memoir of Addiction|Elizabeth Wurtzel|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1172091537s/137918.jpg|132940] that she was taking a lot of speed when she wrote this. It shows, the prose is uneven and the ideas jump around a lot.
This book did not deliver on what the summary promised. It aged badly, if it was ever good, and the few passages that made actual sense are glossed over without going more in depth about sexism and its effects. Disappointing.