The Penguin book of women's humor Book

This book includes quotes and excerpts from over two hundred women; of these, perhaps thirty of the selections caught my interest, probably less (I'm trying to be generous). Sure, there are selections worth reading, but the overall decisions and editing suck the enjoyment out of the experience as a whole; thus, the one-star rating of "I didn't like it."

The selections are alphabetized by authors, and although the editor attempts to justify this in her prologue, it amounts to laziness and causes extreme inconsistency from one passage to the next, one idea to the next, one style to the next, and so on. Contemporary writers sandwiched in between excerpts from the sixteenth century? I don't mind classic literature. In fact, Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters were one of the few highlights of this book; however, I won't tolerate Isabella Whitney's "wylling minde" nor Eliza Haywood's penchant for random capitalization of words within sentences.

Another poor editing decision is the placement of the author biographies at the end of the book. With such brief biographies (typically two or three sentences), wouldn't it be far more convenient to the reader for those few sentences to appear along with the selected quotations--as opposed to flipping back to page 600-something should an author actually catch the reader's attention?

The biographies themselves are not very informative. Margaret Cho, for example, receives a one-line bio that states her comedy routine often includes material about being Asian-American. The relevance of this is somewhat questionable considering the single quote of hers that appears has nothing to do with her race.

"Men look at me and think I'm going to walk on their backs or something. I tell them, 'The only time I'll walk on your back is if there's something on the other side of you that I want.'" - Margaret Cho.

The majority of her material is superior to this. I've watched quite a few of Cho's stand-up performances, and I was sad to see someone who I know is funny being so under-utilized. Why choose this one statement and neglect much more amusing ones? To make room for Fran Lebowitz? Oh, geez, I'll get back to that one shortly.

Another of my major complaints: the length of many excerpts are ridiculous. I often found myself reading five or more pages from a book, only to be left unsatisfied and uninterested when finishing such long, drawn out passages, which are perhaps amusing within the context of their respective sources, but which as excerpts fall flat. Seven pages are dedicated to an essay about cats, which perhaps could have been amusing had the editor been motivated to actually edit and abridge it.

The book lacks unity, which is rather sad to admit, considering the unifying theme should obviously be humor, but it isn't. I realize humor is subjective, but where is the humor in the following quote?

"In fact, a major theme of women's humor is precisely the difference between women's and men's lives and value." - Judy Little.

Perhaps it is a misprint, but my copy of the book is titled The Penguin Book Of Women's Humor--not About; and so, I was misled to believe the purpose of these quotes was to be... funny.

I'm nitpicking though, because that quote is only mildly bothersome in comparison to a great deal of passages. (After all, at least there is relevance.)

Far more offensive is Fran Lebowitz's essay on why people shouldn't have house plants--an essay which provides neither amusement nor logic. In her argument, she defines a plant and proceeds to attack the various individual components of the definition, forgetting, perhaps, that when Webster defines plants, it does so not with the intention of convincing anyone to adopt plants into their homes. Since the definition is simply not an argument in favor of houseplants, Lebowitz's rant hardly serves as a counterargument, but instead as a reminder that just because a woman has the right to be a writer doesn't always mean she has the talent as well.

With that said, my only exposure at this time to Fran Lebowitz is courtesy of the quotations chosen by editor Regina Barreca; therefore, if by some off-chance Lebowitz is actually capable of being amusing, then please assign blame to the poorly chosen quotes, which include:

"A loaf of bread that is more comfortable than a sofa cannot help but be unpalatable."

"Civilized adults do not take apple juice with dinner."

"The servant problem being what it is, one would think it apparent that a society that provides a Helper for tuna but compels a writer to pack her own suitcases desperately needs to reorder its priorities."

"White grapes are very attractive but when it comes to dessert people generally like cake with icing."

"A salad is not a meal. It is a style."

"Water chestnuts are supposed to go in a thing, not to be the thing itself."

"Vegetables are interesting but lack a sense of purpose when unaccompanied by a good cut of meat."

I suffered through pages of this! Who is the editor's intended audience, and why does she hate them so?

If this is considered some of the best humor that women have to offer, then frankly, I am ashamed of my gender.

Nicole Hollander... Cathy Guisewite... Seriously? If the editor couldn't have found women cartoonists with more wit, then couldn't she have settled on someone with artistic ability at least?

Mimi Pond? Shoes Never Lie? GTFO. After so many unfunny, whining essays on feminism*, I was more than surprised to read the following:

"If she's a real friend, a shoe-buddy, she'll take a hint and guide you through this therapy for the Heartbroken.

RULE #1: Don't be afraid to spend money. You deserve a treat after what you went through with that louse.

RULE #2: Don't be afraid to buy more than one pair. Buy as many as it takes to forget."

Yes, I was more than surprised: I was downright disgusted. How many decades does such ditsy, consumerist, superficial BS set women back?

*Nothing annoys me like whining about the equal intelligence of women, instead of simply proving it by example. There are so many passages included that say the exact same thing--most often in poem form. It is nauseating. A few get it right: Alice Duer Miller's concise "Why We Don't Want Men to Vote," for example. Satire is far more humorous than whining, or being overly defensive and insulting to men. It hardly requires putting the male gender down in order to showcase the intelligence of women, but that's the method to which more than a few included authors reduce themselves.

Dorothy L. Sayers got it right in her essay "Are Women Human?"

"What is unreasonable and irritating is to assume that all one's tastes and preferences have to be conditioned by the class to which it belongs. That has been the very common error into which men have frequently fallen about women--and it is the error into which feminist women are, perhaps, a little inclined to fall into about themselves." - Dorothy L. Sayers.

That isn't to say that there aren't some authors included who didn't turn my stomach, but had I been less stubborn in my resolve to finish it, I would've thrown this book in a corner and forgotten it before I even got through a third of it.