Let's Face It
At first, there seemed many ways to rationalize chick-lit. For instance, we could blame male readers for not showing up at readings or joining book groups.Then Erica Jong questioned why women writers chose to wallow in the chick-lit ghetto.
That led us to revisit this landmark article. Not to mention its first rebuttal. And second rebuttal. Of course, we were more than charmed by Ms. Prose's acerbic deadpan.
Finally, a bit of statistical analysis to cleanse the palate.
Hmm, I see now that I may have inadvertently programed an entire women's studies course. Damn. I hate it when I do that.
posted by Pants at 9:17 AM|
permalink|
|
3 Comments:
What I find interesting about these articles (I'm going to ignore the palate-cleansing stats) is differences between the group that was written almost ten years ago (1998)--Francine Prose's article and the two rebuttals--and the two relatively recent articles.
The first group calls literature written by women women's literature, while the more recent group talks about chick-lit. In my head, these two are have always been different camps, but it sounds like, to the writers of the newer articles, they are one and the same.
Does this mean things have gone terribly down hill over the last decade? Or does it mean that the chick-lit genre has gained in size?
I also find it interesting that Jong notes that this doesn't seem to be an issue in Canada. I agree. We don't have chick-lit books and our women writers are taken as seriously as male writers. (I guess it helps when we've got Atwood and Munroe.)
Another difference between the two sets of articles that bears noting is the older set seems to have had a lot more critical thinking go into them. The recent two sort of sound like whining to me.
I don't know. Thanks for getting me thinking on Saturday morning, Pants.
Wow, so many things coming to mind...
First, this idea of women being interested in both men's and women's stories, but men not being interested in "women's" stories... I don't know what to make of this. If a woman were the hero of an airport-paperback-thriller, I doubt a male reader would balk... and yet, the issue is more whether or not that is a "woman's story" or simply features a woman in the place of a man, in a man's story. But chick-lit seems to me to be almost exclusively about women negotiating relationships. I feel icky saying it, but... why would we expect men to pick these up?
(I'm also very aware that many men don't read primarily paperback thrillers, but in terms of huge numbers... it's an easy comparison. It's like the stores at the airport are divided up in the toystore model: blue for boys, pink for girls.)
It is so disturbing to think that men have no interest in women's stories... and yet, is chick-lit women's stories? Or are they one very tiny slice in a very large pie? As Nicole Kidman said when she won her "Hours" Oscar: "Women are actually very interesting."
And... maybe these chick-lit books are good, and interesting, and maybe I'm judging them by their covers? I will fully confess that when I see that row of pink (like the description of the Jennifer Weiner books... all those smooth, clip-arty legs) my mind goes fuzzy and I just keep walking. I'm painfully affected by covers, I've noticed. For instance, Pants, having just read The Secret History... I was very conscious of its lurid-paperback-size, to the point where I had to at times imagine I were reading the same story out of the large hardcover edition. Because I felt like I was reading such a guilty pleasure or something, when really, it was just a good, well-written book (and by a woman, though with a male protagonist... hmm...).
M, I think we do have something approaching chick-lit, don't we? I'm thinking of Ms. McLaren, and Rebecca Eckler (she who's suing Judd Apatow for "stealing" the concept of her book, Knocked Up). The interesting thing is, I don't know anyone reading these Canadian versions of chick-lit. I wonder why chick-lit itself would be ghettoized here? Do Canadians fancy themselves above it, or do we simply have good taste?! Or (gakk!) are we just a decade behind, and in a few years the Can-lit shelves will be pink and perky?
Sorry the above is so all-over-the-place. My brain exploded for a second, there.
Wow is right! Those are some very thought-provoking comments, m & jennica. There's clearly enough material here for a symposium.
Are chick-lit books "women's stories" -- I've wondered that for a long time. The stories (okay, I've never actually read one, so I'm going by synopsis here) don't seem to be about anything I'm interested in -- and last time I checked, I'm still a woman. But clearly, they reach and affect a huge audience of women.
What I'm curious about is how much overlap there is between reading chick-lit and reading literary fiction? Is chick-lit officially a genre all on it's own -- separate from literary fiction by women writers? Is it the new Danielle Steele or the new Ann Beattie? I'm thoroughly confused!
Post a Comment
<< Home