Friday 15 May 2015

THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA by Lauren Weisberger (2003)

 

"Oh, don't be silly - everyone wants this. Everyone wants to be us." - Lauren Weisberger, The Devil Wears Prada (2003)

DISCLAIMER: This review is, first and foremost, constructed upon my personal reaction to the book. I can’t forecast whether or not you, reading this, will like it yourself, not only because I’m quite terrible at recommendations because I always assume that people will like everything I like. If you are a big fan of this book and find yourself deeply and mortally wounded by my criticism, I humbly apologise. I think the book is quite bad, but that’s a matter of opinion. Lots of people love it. I would hate to be those people. (Side note: the film adaption is a modern classic. I wish I could say the same for its origin.)

I first watched the film adaption of The Devil Wears Prada when I was fourteen, and I’ve loved it ever since. There’s something so compelling about watching Anne Hathaway go through life-changing physical transformations and Meryl Streep curb-stomp people just for the good and pure fun of it, so naturally, when I discovered that The Devil Wears Prada was actually a book before it became a blockbuster, I was itching to get my hands on it and devour a great story in the form I love the most.

Here’s where it gets a little tragic: The Devil Wears Prada movie rocks. The Devil Wears Prada book does not.

Three pages in, and I was already disappointed by how utterly weak the book was; a sure sign that this was not going to be a promising reading experience. TDWP tells the story of the young and ambitious Andrea Sachs, twenty-three and qualified but totally unemployed.  Desperate for a buck or two to rub together, Andrea eventually gets a job as the junior assistant to Miranda Priestly, chief editor of the famous Runway magazine and, as it turns out, the eight-headed hydra from hell. If Andrea works a year for her, Miranda has the power to bump Andrea straight from zero to hero, inserting her into any position she wants within or without  Runway, and while Andrea, a budding writer with a thirst for the real world, would love to be inserted among the big-wigs at The New Yorker without having to painstakingly climb the social ladder, she first has to survive an entire year of service with the most finicky, unpredictable and maniacal nit-picker to ever walk the Earth – or the Underworld. Sounds like a great story, right?

Wrong.

Raving praise littered the back cover of Lauren Weisberger’s 2003 novel, calling it ‘deliciously witty and gossipy’ (Publisher’s Weekly) and ‘this season’s must-have accessory’ (Rocky Mountain News), but if there’s one thing I’ve learned from The Devil Wears Prada, it was that you can never, ever judge a book by its cover. Sure, the book is kind of sassy, and it gossips like a tenth grader with a chip on their shoulder, but there really is nothing ‘delicious’ about it at all. For one thing, the prose is thoroughly feeble and unrealistic. The dialogue is often staged as if Weisberger has never had a real life conversation with a human before, and there were several whole pages that I would have ripped out if it wasn’t my library’s copy that I was reading – for example, the entire paragraph where Andrea describes in graphic detail climbing the stairs at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I’m a seventeen-year-old with no experience in publishing whatsoever, but I would have fired Weisberger’s editor on the spot – so much unnecessary, boring and waffle-y nothingness made it into the final cut of the book that it was almost as if no one had edited it at all. As a writer, the weak phrase work really got under my skin. Weisberger tried many a time to make grand exclamations of disgust, relief, exhilaration and exhaustion, but more often than not, she failed quite miserably. Couple this with a storyline that sustained me only because I wanted to be informed when I tore it to shreds, and you’ve got a snooze fest – but TDWP, ever so smug and pleased with its ‘hip’ and ‘edgy’ attitude, seems to have no idea that hip and edgy don’t come in its size.

This book tries so hard to be fun and carefree, but here's what I picked up: it’s Gillian Flynn’s ‘Cool Girl’-type fun. “Cool Girl is hot. Cool Girl is game. Cool Girl is fun,” may as well be the novel’s motto, because when I read it, I didn’t see the bright sophisticated, high-brow young woman in Andrea that Weisberger wants you to see; I saw a pretentious, condescending brat, convinced that the sun shines out of her ass and that every person she ever meets is a planet revolving around her. Andrea thinks that she’s better than everyone else due to the fact that she loves to write (because authors are so great, right?), yet she literally writes nothing at all until the very end of the book. Seriously. She doesn’t write at all, despite how dreadfully she claims to adore it, which makes me think that her writing career was merely a plot device used to make Andrea look better than her colleagues, rather than an actual facet of her character. Weisberger has clearly channelled herself into every fibre of Andrea’s being, so much so that it was desperately evident from the off-set that our protagonist was the World’s Biggest Mary-Sue. Andrea believes that an interest in fashion makes you inferior to the high-and-mighty minds of intellectuals and scholars, and given that this worldview is brattish and precocious and would be more at home in a spoiler toddler rather than a twenty-three-year-old woman, you’d think that Andrea would eventually have some life-changing epiphany in which she realises that her sneering attitude makes her the vapid and shallow one rather than her Vogue-loving, Prada­-toting co-workers, but she doesn’t. She remains patronizing, arrogant and impudent throughout the entire story, convincing me that Weisberger actually believes in Andrea’s ideals and has essentially written her in the image of herself – a terrible trick for a Paid and Professional Writer to play.

Then, of course, there’s the aspect of the book that caused me the most pain (due to the amount of times I physically slapped my own forehead at the idiocy): the themes of subtle, but hideously ugly homophobia. There are Lena-Dunham levels of stereotyping and appropriation in this novel, and while that may have been the In Thing in 2003, when the world was still gingerly prodding at the idea of homosexual representation in the media, it certainly doesn’t fly now. Weisberger has gone, in wholly unoriginal fashion, down the You Have To Be Gay If You Are A Male Who Loves Fashion route, but far from this being racy and exciting, it’s all a bit dull and dank. She often describes Andrea’s male colleagues as being flamboyantly/aggressively gay (those aren’t her exact words, but I don’t really want to trawl back through the book to find the offending instances), which is something I used to say when I was twelve; it’s childish, it assumes that you have to swing a certain way to be interested in fashion, and above all, it’s boring. I would be more outraged by this conduct if it was in any way interesting, but it’s not. It’s old, it’s overdone, but worst of all, it’s not the only archaic allegory Weisberger puts into play. So many of the tropes in this book are just as out-dated and dust-covered as her limited understanding of homosexuality, like the gross stereotype of people of colour being lesser than white people (the POCs are all cabbies, newspaper stand attendants and doormen) and the candid fat- and slut-shaming that I would have relished in as a pre-teen, but am repulsed by now (for example, the fact that Andrea, a size six or eight, is considered ‘fat’ by her size zero and two associates). I suppose there’s a little bit of salvation for this hurtful, cheap naivety in there somewhere: TDWP was published in 2003, and so is quite hilariously out-dated in the context of the modern world. However, I believe that there is a stark difference between the reason and the excuse, and like a racist white grandparent, while the age of the book is the reason for its conservative attitude, it certainly isn’t an excuse.

Maybe I’m missing the point. Maybe The Devil Wears Prada is a crafty, clever satire, buried beneath layers of average story-telling and skimpy wit and intellect, and I’m just a bitchy seventeen-year-old hoodlum who doesn’t understand the art of political comedy. If this is the case, it’s buried far, far deeper than I can be bothered digging. With that in mind, I offer up the following advice: if you’re one of those girls who thinks that staying at home on a Friday night to read books, drink tea, browse Tumblr and watch Supernatural/Doctor Who/Sherlock  makes you better than the girls who spend their weekends partying, drinking and socialising, you’ll love this book. The main character is just like you. 

TL;DR: I'll give The Devil Wears Prada a little bit of credit: it is set in a New York of over a decade ago, and as I was six years old in 2003 and lived in suburban New Zealand, I have to interpret the book in the context of the time of its publication, something I can't accurately gauge as it happened across the world twelve years ago. Of course, this doesn't make up for the boring storyline, the less-than-engaging characterisation and the hopeless character development, but it's a tiny bit of consolation: maybe if I was seventeen in 2003, I might have actually enjoyed this book. As it is, sorry, Lauren Weisberger: better luck next time.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
 
Copyright © Life's Library
Blogger Theme by BloggerThemes Design by Diovo.com