Parul Sehgal in the New Yorker magazine attacks Chump Nation and Tracy Schorn in her review of Sarah Manguso’s book Liars. The Universal Bullsh*t Translator is here for it.
***
It’s not every day that a book reviewer attacks an author’s online support group. This week I was called out in the New Yorker for putting crazy ideas into Sarah Manguso’s head that infidelity is abusive.
Manguso’s book Liars seems to have touched a nerve. She wrote a raw, compelling account of what it’s like to be chumped. And Manguso unapologetically left out the self-recriminations. Which one of Jane’s flaws compelled her husband to f*ck strange? Was it the way Jane silently corrected John’s grammar? Or how she resentfully mopped up vomit? Did her puss* fail to enchant? How could Manguso create a villain and not sympathetically examine his motivations? John’s just…. bad.
Parul Sehgal is not the first critic whose head has exploded because a woman suffered and did not also soothe. Manguso committed the unspeakable crime of describing abuse. Relentlessly detailed abuse. Without the respite of bothsidersism.
How could Manguso — a brilliant, celebrated writer! — have committed such a blunder? They have theories. It’s too soon. She wrote Liars right after her husband cheated and left. No, she MEANT for Jane to be an unreliable narrator! Or, Parul Sehgal’s theory on Liars: I put stupid ideas in her head.
An excerpt of Parul Sehgal’s review of Liars:
Signed and sealed, “Liars” is almost impenetrable in its self-conviction—but there is a clue to understanding it, embedded in the acknowledgments. Manguso thanks the cartoonist Tracy Schorn “and the life-saving community of Chump Nation,” an online network of people who follow Schorn’s writing on infidelity. Manguso became a daily visitor to their forums after her husband left her; it was, she said on Schorn’s podcast, her therapy. The group shares a particular vocabulary and framework for understanding infidelity. The betrayed party is “the chump,” the cheater is a “f*ckwit,” and the cheating partner is, incredibly, “the schmoopie.” A chump minimizing a f*ckwit’s harm is said to be engaged in “spackling.” For the chump to compete with the schmoopie for the f*ckwit’s attention is to do the “pick-me dance.” To try to understand the cheater’s motivation is to be entangled in “the skein of crazy.” Chump Nation has a mission to reframe cheating as abuse and to push back against “the reconciliation-industrial complex.” “Lose a cheater, gain a life” is the motto.
These steely certainties, swaddled in baby talk and baby thinking, are the unfortunate scaffolding of “Liars,” which employs language not of harm, hurt, or humiliation but of domestic abuse. “It’s the critical mass of details that makes John’s abuse impossible to deny,” Manguso said on the podcast. “We need to get specific when we talk about covert domestic abuses.” Heterosexual marriage itself is regarded as only questionably consensual. “We are impelled to make this bad choice,” Manguso added. “The entire civilization is screaming it at us . . . from the cradle.”
A little proportion, please. As the product of generations of arranged marriages, a number of them coerced, I find that such claims feel strange, if not obscene. It’s not merely that bandying around these neon words—abuse, coercion—dilutes their power; it’s that these words are being deployed to foreclose thought and impose silences of their own. Chump Nation cautions against posing too many questions about why someone cheats, about marital dynamics or psychology, to avoid revictimizing the chump. The finality of such diagnoses stunts Manguso’s account, keeps it from becoming a more persuasive story, where we would genuinely feel for and trust the protagonist, experience the full measure of her loss and exploitation. There are occasional glimpses of a more complex portrait. (Manguso is too interesting a writer to hew completely to the program.) “Being ignored—was that my trigger?” Jane wonders, considering an old pattern with John. “For rage and, somehow, also, for desire? It turns me on when you ignore me.” Later, when considering her own decisions, her orientation toward freedom or constraint, she admits to herself, “I was a logical person, and I chose restriction, over and over, because it felt good.”
Parul Sehgal on Liars
There’s only one thing to do here. Prepare the Lebkuchen.
Signed and sealed, “Liars” is almost impenetrable in its self-conviction
Horrors. Not a woman with self conviction!
—but there is a clue to understanding it, embedded in the acknowledgments.
This is totally normal. Frequently, I review the acknowledgment sections of books to understand why an author has completely taken leave of her senses.
Manguso thanks the cartoonist Tracy Schorn
I blame the subversive pen and ink drawings.
“and the life-saving community of Chump Nation,” an online network of people who follow Schorn’s writing on infidelity. Manguso became a daily visitor to their forums after her husband left her; it was, she said on Schorn’s podcast, her therapy.
I, Parul Sehgal, cannot conceive of what it’s like to be a celebrated author, or a victim of covert abuse. So instead of using my powers of imagination, I’ll weaponize Manguso’s brave vulnerability on a painful subject to make myself feel superior.
Schmoopie? WTF?
The group shares a particular vocabulary and framework for understanding infidelity. The betrayed party is “the chump,” the cheater is a “f*ckwit,” and the cheating partner is, incredibly, “the schmoopie.”
I am incredulous at Schmoopie. Why not willing orifice or f*ck puppet? Is it because Schmoopie is gender neutral unlike c*nt? I fail to understand Schmoopie. What is snark?
A chump minimizing a f*ckwit’s harm is said to be engaged in “spackling.” For the chump to compete with the schmoopie for the f*ckwit’s attention is to do the “pick-me dance.” To try to understand the cheater’s motivation is to be entangled in “the skein of crazy.” Chump Nation has a mission to reframe cheating as abuse and to push back against “the reconciliation-industrial complex.” “Lose a cheater, gain a life” is the motto.
Leave a cheater, gain a life. We don’t have editors or fact checkers at the New Yorker. I did, however, skim a podcast.
Baby say wha?
These steely certainties, swaddled in baby talk and baby thinking, are the unfortunate scaffolding of “Liars,”
Goo boo wuvy baa baa!
(I’m sorry, the UBT is malfunctioning.)
Snark and cartoons are baby thinking. I leave the sophistication to my turgid 2,000 word hit piece that could stupefy a co*ked-up hyena. Cable television is selling my reviews as sleep aids for seniors. I wouldn’t know a trenchant piece of commentary if it bit my left nipple.
Waah bah goo!
are the unfortunate scaffolding of “Liars,” which employs language not of harm, hurt, or humiliation but of domestic abuse. “It’s the critical mass of details that makes John’s abuse impossible to deny,” Manguso said on the podcast. “We need to get specific when we talk about covert domestic abuses.” Heterosexual marriage itself is regarded as only questionably consensual. “We are impelled to make this bad choice,” Manguso added. “The entire civilization is screaming it at us . . . from the cradle.”
Infidelity is just harm, hurt, and humiliation.
It’s never cervical cancer, suicidal ideation, or financial fraud. Double lives are an ouchy! So you were hurt paternity testing your children! Keep it in perspective. I once had a relative with an arranged marriage.
A little proportion, please. As the product of generations of arranged marriages, a number of them coerced, I find that such claims feel strange, if not obscene.
Jane CHOSE John. She had agency. Arranged marriages have no agency. Women are never abused in non-arranged marriages.
Watch me completely miss the point on the societal messages women get to stay in hetero-normative marriages. #obscene
It’s not merely that bandying around these neon words—abuse, coercion—dilutes their power; it’s that these words are being deployed to foreclose thought and impose silences of their own.
If Tracy Schorn challenges you to think of double lives as abusive you’ll never have another thought on the subject again.
Chump Nation cautions against posing too many questions about why someone cheats, about marital dynamics or psychology, to avoid revictimizing the chump.
On the basis of one podcast interview, I can authoritatively declare that in 12 solid years of Schorn’s writing on infidelity, she never addresses these topics. I also can tell you how many jelly beans are in that jar and what the stock market will do tomorrow.
Chumps should be stop being butt hurt and devote their energies to understanding WHY their partner cheats. I would give the same advice to anyone pistol whipped by a mugger. Vitamin B deficiencies? Lead poisoning? Was your skirt too short?
The finality of such diagnoses stunts Manguso’s account, keeps it from becoming a more persuasive story, where we would genuinely feel for and trust the protagonist, experience the full measure of her loss and exploitation.
I’m not sufficiently entertained by Jane’s loss and exploitation.
I need more understanding of the exploiter. The same can be said for Charles Dickens’ two-dimensional portrait of Bill Sykes. He had his reasons for murdering Nancy and trying to drown his dog. They remain unexplored!
There are occasional glimpses of a more complex portrait. (Manguso is too interesting a writer to hew completely to the program.)
Occasionally Manguso breaks free from Schorn’s indoctrination.
“Being ignored—was that my trigger?” Jane wonders, considering an old pattern with John. “For rage and, somehow, also, for desire? It turns me on when you ignore me.”
Jane is turned on by John’s sh*tty behavior! FINALLY an insight! Schorn would call this the “pick me dance,” but who takes the ravings of a lunatic cartoonist seriously?
Later, when considering her own decisions, her orientation toward freedom or constraint, she admits to herself, “I was a logical person, and I chose restriction, over and over, because it felt good.”
Jane chose captivity and poor treatment because it felt good. Therefore, she only has herself to blame.
